Hide Your Children! (89th Texas Legislative Session)

The Texas Legislature will convene on January 14 and end on June 2.  Our elected representatives have already begun filing bills, and, if you want to keep up with them, you're already behind.  Well, I am behind.  I decided a few weeks ago that it was time (well past time, I'm sure) to start paying attention to what the Texas Legislature is doing.  Now that my fellow Americans have decided to send an <authoritarian> to the White House, I can't rely on wiser heads to counter the <voting choices> of my fellow Texans, who keep sending <practitioners of non-social behaviors> and/or <persons with narrow points of view> back to Austin.  Whether I can keep up with all the <ill will> and <contradictory value systems> remains to be seen.  This, however, is my beginning.

To begin, I have created a tracking list of bills that I think either proactively support or violate human rights.  I am using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as my measuring stick either way.  I started my review of the bills filed in the Texas House (I haven't gotten to the Senate yet), and I have selected an initial 18 for tracking. (More will be selected as I have time to continue reading.)

• HB 156 - Water quality protection, disaster preparedness
• HB 157 - Water quality report
• *HB 160 - Requires federal authorization for residence to receive in-state tuition
• HB 164 - Regulations for migrant labor housing
• *HB 167 - Prohibits DEI considerations in contracts with government entities
• *HB 168 - Minimum age to marry
• *HB 174 - Childcare services, disabilities, discrimination
• *HB 178 - Requires ethnic studies public schools
• *HB 179 - Statute of limitations for child abuse claims
• HB 180 - International border control
• HB 182 - Rest breaks for contractors with public entities
• *HB 183 - Library book review and criteria for acceptance
• *HB 186 - Prohibition of social media accounts under age 18
• *HB 190 - Eligibility for reduced/free tuition for pre-K
• HB 193 - Increase minimum wage to $15
• *HB 194 - Standards for faith-based child care
• *HB 196 - Add instruction to public schools about life at conception
• *HB 197 - Conditional expansion of Medicaid

Several of these bills--marked with an asterisk--deal with schools, children, and youth.  The UDHR is particularly concerned with protecting children from exploitation for adult purposes and guaranteeing access to education.  Regardless of how "simple" or "benign" they may seem, each bill can lead to further implications for the future welfare of the children and youth of this state.

Consider HB 160, filed by Terri Leo-Wilson, from Galveston, which removes certain criteria for establishing residency in order to qualify for "in-state" tuition at Texas institutions of higher education and adds the prohibition that "a person who is not authorized under federal statute to be present in the United States may not be considered a resident of this state for purposes of this title."  The bill seems fair on its surface, the implication being that "in-state" tuition is substantially cheaper than "out-of-state" tuition and that the difference in those rates is subsidized by the taxpayers of Texas.  The catch is that, if you live in Texas (or even just pass through it), you pay Texas taxes.  Renters (and hotel customers) contribute to property taxes.  Drivers pay fuel taxes.  Shoppers--for food, for clothes, for toothpaste, etc.--pay sales taxes.

If the bill is not about fairness in funding, then it could be about the legalities of immigration.  The basic requirement (unchanged) is one-year of continuous residence in Texas by the student--or a parent of the student--prior to the "census date of the academic term."  The bills adds a new layer of regulation to the basic residence requirement by requiring that the student (without reference to their parents) be "authorized under federal statute" to reside somewhere in the United States.  Presumably all students who claim to be Texas residents would have to prove their citizenship or federally recognized status as legal residents of the US as an additional condition of accepting their qualification for "in-state" tuition.  Is it ironic to see a Republican legislator want to add more government regulations?

Perhaps the bill is really about what it takes away--the current provision that, if a student graduates from a Texas high school and that student's parents have been resident in Texas for the previous three years, then the student will be eligible for "in-state" tuition.   Those students will likely have been brought to the US by their parents while they were still minors.  Those students would likely not have made their own decision to become undocumented residents of the US.  They would have crossed the border under their parents' supervision--or overstayed their parents' visas in the same circumstances--too young to understand the law or to control their own movements.  

Bills like HB 160 have been introduced in previous sessions, so this legislative proposal is not new.  The language to be removed became law following the 79th legislative session, when Senator Judith Zaffirini's SB 1528 was passed.  Since then, at least two attempts have been made to delete the section allowing undocumented children who graduate from a Texas high school to qualify for in-state tuition and substitute the federal documentation requirement:  84R HB 2912 and 87R HB 1486.  I have no idea how much of an effort Leo-Wilson will make in order to pass this bill.  It may simply be an intimidation tactic by her party--or performance for the conservative voting base.

However, the effect of this bill, while ostensibly affecting all Texas residents--federally documented or otherwise--making them subject to the same requirements (one year of residence, federally approved presence in the US), does not comply with the UDHR requirement that "higher education shall be equally accessible on the basis of merit."  This bill would require higher tuition from students who may have lived most of their lives in Texas, who came to the state as minor children without the power to decide where they lived, whose parents paid taxes with every purchase made in Texas. As a nation, we seem to have accepted that there can be different costs associated with different levels of commitment or participation--we are very much a no-free-lunch society in our attitudes--but creating an additional barrier to education for children--even college-age children--goes against the notion of "equal access on the basis of merit."  For me, this bill is unethical.  It seeks to financially penalize and diminish the dignity of young humans on the basis of circumstances beyond their control.

For more information about the policy affected by this bill, see Higher Ed Immigration Portal's page on Texas.

Letting Go

 A recent colloquy discussion at the Ethical Society of Austin asked us to discuss "What would you save?" in the context of disaster or emergency.  Aside from needing a Go Bag, I hadn't given it much thought.  My thinking these days is more centered on Letting Go, not merely "decluttering," but detaching myself from the things that, yes, clutter up my space, but also take up needed space in my heart and mind.  

One thing I plan to let go of is a plate.  It's a pink plate with a rose on it.  When I received it as a gift, it was part of a set of four pink plates with various flowers in the center of each.  I'm not really a pink person.  Rarely is there anything pink in my wardrobe, and I am not drawn to pink objects when fighting my urge to collect knickknacks.  I'm not much of a plate person.  True, there are several plates around on various book shelves.  My mother was a plate person, so I saved a few from her collection(s) that interested me for one reason or another, but no plates hang on my walls nor have I, that I recall, actually purchased a decorative plate for my own pleasure.  The thing about this plate is that it holds painful memories.  The person who gave it to me has done some damage in my life.  I let go of three of the four plates in the set when I moved, realizing that I had no room to display them and little room to store them.  The remaining plate sits on a shelf in a display rack.  Every time I look at it, I think of how angry the giver would be that the other three plates are not also displayed--if by some remote chance she ever set foot in this house again.  I love her.  I carry her in my heart.  But I think that this object is making me hold onto negative thoughts that won't allow me to heal--or allow for any healing in a broken relationship.  I will let go of the plate today.

Another object that I am thinking about letting go of is an ebony carving.  This one holds memories of a time in my life when I--pretty much unconsciously--accumulated symbols of motherly love.  The carving is a representation of a mother holding an infant, vaguely "Madonna and child."  I believe that I bought it to give to my mother, but I don't think that I did.  Instead, I kept the "message" ("please love me?") to myself.  Now Mama did the best she good.  She was significantly handicapped.  I have no idea how she managed to carry me to term, but her determination in the things that she really wanted to do was phenomenal.  She had suffered so much in her youth that it is unimaginable that she would subject herself to a pregnancy that would lead to a cesarean birth--in the forties.  And yet she did.  As much as that might have told me about my mother's love, there were a lot of years when she was ill and understandably (to adults) cranky.  More directly affecting me was her critical insistence on high standards of behavior, appearance, and achievement.  I often felt that I was "no good," certain not "good enough."  In the last years of her life, when she had dementia, she often didn't know who I was.  Sometimes she thought I was one of her sisters, other times I was an inadequate maid who could be curtly dismissed:  "You're dismissed," as she said when some family friends were visiting.  

In the ten years since my mother passed away, I have had plenty of time to revisit these moments of pain and doubt.  I have also looked through masses of greeting cards and journal entries and letters.  Over time, the pain has lessened enough for the joy and delight to come through.  Mama was fun.  She was brave.  She was compassionate.  She was beautiful.  That may sound vain, when I point out that I glanced in the mirror one day not too long ago, pleased about something or other, and saw my mother smiling back at me.  I might have a little too much of my father's nose (bless the Parkers), but I have Mama's smile, which came to me as part of the healing that these past years have brought.  Mama did love me; she did the best she could.

I am more or less cleaning and clearing these days (mostly "less" on the cleaning bit), so I picked up the ebony carving to dust and polish it.  At that moment, I realized that I had already let go of all of those feelings of insecurity about my relationship with my mother.  Then I thought I might let go of the carving.  I have a friend who lost her daughter and is going through some hard grief.  Could this carving of motherly love help her?  I will think about it some more, but I don't think I need the carving any more.  I can just smile at the mirror and see Mama smiling back.

One more thing for me to think about is the memorial webpage that honors my late husband.  Every year I am asked to pay a fee to renew that webpage.  Every year I think about letting it go and decide that I can't do it.  I have a link to his memorial site on the address-bar-thingie of my web browser.  I often glance at his name there and am comforted by his presence.  Now and then I click the link and visit the site.  Nothing has changed in all these years, but sometimes I just feel the need to visit.  I did that a few weeks ago, rereading the statement that I had written for the site.  I was actually surprised to realize that I was reading about an Ethical man.  Of course he was!  Even though we had never heard of Ethical Culture before, I should have realized that he was exactly the kind of person that we are all striving to be in EC.  Not that I'm saying he was perfect, but he certainly practiced the compassionate service that we often attempt in EC.  It pleased me to read that statement and come to that realization.

Imagine my shock, checking the site a few days ago, to find it gone.  The tenth anniversary of his passing is coming up in November.  I expected to be asked to renew the site, and I was thinking that, while it serves no one else, it comforts me.  I clicked the link, thinking that I would renew early, just in case my travel plans might make me miss a deadline.  The link, instead of taking me to his crinkly smile, goes to a search page for obituaries.  I was devastated.  Panicked.  

Eventually, I found him again.  Legacy.com has restructured their website.  They apparently did try to notify me with a message that went to the Promotions folder (which I mostly ignore).  The information is still available--after much clicking--but it is broken up into multiple parcels rather than all together.  Will I be forced to let go of this comfort?  The link is still on my address bar with the other important bookmarks--it just doesn't take me to my husband.  

I guess we don't have eternal life on the internet either.    

The Power of Words

Sticks and Stones (Wikimedia Commons)

Words have power.  For all that we learned as children to chant--"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me!'--words can hurt.  They can uplift as well.  The power of words comes not only from what they mean, but how they are used and how they are understood.  We learn, also as children, to seek the denotative meaning of words.  It is only through experience that we learn the connotative meanings and, sometimes, how those connotative meanings send additional messages by how and by whom they are used.

A denotative meaning for "bitch" is the female dog (or wolf, fox, or otter).  How it morphed into an epithet for women, I have no idea, nor do I want to ponder too closely how a woman and dog became somehow similar in the male mind.  These days the word is hate speech--when used as a noun by a male (human) and directed at a female (human).  There are still contexts in which "bitch" can be used as a verb (express displeasure, grumble or complain) without any gender (denotative or connotative) attached to it--except that we have to acknowledge that the behavior being labeled by the verb is understood--if we think about it--to derive from the behavior of the female human who can be called a "bitch" by those males still brave enough to utter the word.

On the other hand, there are contexts in which the word can be used as a positive statement.  Women may choose to label themselves as a "bitch" as a statement of self-empowerment.  Tee shirts, buttons, bumper stickers--whatever medium can be used to assert that power--may read "Super Bitch," "Certified Bitch," and, a favorite, "That's Queen Bitch to you!"  And so on.

I'm thinking now about metaphors and how they shape our attitudes.  "Bitch" does not fit our formal concept of a metaphor, but it is a word used to identify a female animal extended to a new context:  a woman.  We often take words from events and experiences and stretch them to apply to some other thing or action or situation.  In this case, we are seeing a label for a particular animal anthropomorphized (correlating animal behavior to human behavior) to apply to a human with the effect, not only of equating the behaviors (animal and human), but also, and more importantly, to equate the human with the animal.  Once such an equivalence is made, we are thereby permitted to act toward the human as we would act toward the animal.  All too often that behavior is negative, abusive, demeaning.

I am not arguing against animal metaphors or similes, calling for a ban on their use.  Our language is enriched by our creative use of imagery from the world around us.  I am, however, suggesting that we might productively spend some time thinking about our casual use of animal epithets in relation to our fellow humans.  Why did we use that language?  Does this language reflect a tendency toward dehumanizing our fellow human?  Does this language reduce our commitment to respecting the inherent worth of the individual?  In this, I am only thinking in terms of our Ethical commitment to treat each other with integrity.  What are we saying when we use these words--dog, cat, horse, ass, pig, ox, cow, sheep, deer, fox, ape, baboon, rat, weasel, skunk, etc.--to describe another human being?  Is someone who "speaks (too) loudly" the same as someone who "brays like an ass"?  

One word, Ben: Plastics!

Where too much plastic waste ends up!

Or words to that effect, as I recall that moment in The Graduate when someone leans over to give the new graduate some advice for the future.  That phrase has continued as, I suppose, a meme ever since that remarkable scene.  I think the audience was as taken aback as Dustin Hoffman's character, Ben, was, and that reaction may have contributed to making the scene so memorable.  The advice of that encounter in a 1967 movie turned out to be prescient.  Plastics now dominate our lives on this planet.  Many consumable products are packaged in plastic.  Many products are themselves made of plastic.  Our homes are filled with plastic, and now our bodies seem also to be filled with microplastics.  What this bodes for the future of humans is not good.  The United Nations Development Program advises that the plastics that leach into our bodies from containers and other products:

are linked to serious health issues such as endocrine disruption, weight gain, insulin resistance, decreased reproductive health, and cancer.

In discussing what to do to observe Earth Month in April, members of the Ethical Society of Austin were challenged to "make one change" in use or consumption of plastics.  That change needed to be something that we are not already doing.  That caveat gave me pause.

I have already been "woke" to the dangers of plastics.  I certainly have not done enough to remove plastics from my life and my home.  I do, however, faithfully recycle the single-use plastics that come into my home.  I have two blue plastic recycling bins in which I place the items to be recycled (metal, paper, plastic, glass, etc.).  Whatever goes into those bins is placed in the larger plastic bin that is rolled to the curb every two weeks and picked up for recycling by a contractor with my local government.  I wash the contaminants from whatever goes in those bins to make sure that the items I am recycling are ready for recycling.  

One problem in this process is that so much single-use plastic still comes into my home.  That's why I end up saving a lot of plastic containers for other uses on the theory that repurposing items is also a way to extend the life of the material used to make the plastic.  One container, reused once, reduces the impact of the blob of plastic that made it by 50%--or so the calculation goes.  Multiple reuses of the same container would presumably continue to reduce its impact more and more over time.  In the meantime, if I am buying more of the same product in the same kind of container, I will, at some point, have too many to reuse.  I have, in fact, reached that point with several types of containers.

For the challenge to "make one change," I did make the change to stop buying beverages in plastic containers and switch to glass or metal containers.   Since my beverage of choice is sparkling water, I have plenty of choice in brand and type while sticking to my favorite unflavored drink.  

I do, however, have to be more careful now with the remaining plastic bottles that previously contained said sparkling water.  I have two Pellegrino brand bottles that I saved from a train trip last year, two Topo Chico bottles that showed up from a couple of trips around Texas, and two half-pint bottles that I got for free somewhere.  I like these bottles for their shapes and sizes, and I keep them filled with "still water" in my fridge.  I have sometimes carried them with me on errands, losing a bottle here and there.  These remaining bottles, I have now pledged, will be continuously reused unless I decide to stop using them and send them for recycling.  No new ones allowed.  

I don't know how significant an effect my "one change" will make for the planet, but it does make me aware--every day--that Ethics, to be central, requires making the same choice over and over again.  It has been a challenge to go into the grocery store and not pick up a bottle of water (in plastic) to sip while I shop.  Yesterday, I put a can of sparkling water in my purse, carried it into a big box store, showed it to the greeter, who waved me through.  It's more awkward to keep a can balanced than a bottle with a lid that prevents spills, but at least I'm learning to support my choices with a little advance planning.