Justice for all

In a Legal Studies class I’m currently taking, I recently learned about an important problem relating to juvenile justice: the school-to-prison pipeline. While I was lucky enough to be living in an excellent school district, many other children in the U.S. simply don’t have that luxury. Today, the crisis of educational inequity in the U.S. has resulted in a school-to-prison pipeline that criminalizes, rather than educates, our kids. The school-to-prison pipeline consists of a set of harsh educational and school safety policies that push kids out of school and into the juvenile justice system.

Students are increasingly suspended and sanctioned for disciplinary reasons, and schools are involving the police in even relatively minor incidents that lead to juvenile detention, arrests, and even criminal charges. School rules are often strictly enforced through security measures like metal detectors, pat-downs, and referrals to the juvenile justice system. Students who commit minor infractions like smoking or skipping class are sometimes suspended, expelled, or even arrested. Students have even been expelled for bringing scissors to art class, giving Midol to classmates, or bringing in household items (including a knife) to be donated to Goodwill. Even children in elementary school have been arrested for acting out or displaying anger in class. One-size-fits-all solutions like these zero-tolerance policies completely ignore the individual circumstances of each case and criminalize students who don’t deserve it.

While many of these students could be easily disciplined through detention, warnings, or a visit to the principal’s office, they are unnecessarily ending up in the justice system. The pipeline also operates indirectly; some schools push low-performing students into GED programs and the juvenile justice system in order to artificially improve their graduation and testing numbers. Moreover, the school-to-prison pipeline disproportionately targets youth of color and those with disabilities. Black students with learning disabilities are four times more likely to be sent to correctional facilities than white students with learning disabilities. I find this statistic absolutely horrifying.

Once suspended or expelled, youth are more likely to get lower grades, repeat a grade, or drop out of high school. This increases their chance of joining gangs, committing crimes, or becoming incarcerated down the road. Disciplinary and criminal records make it very difficult for students to apply to colleges, scholarships, and jobs. In some cases, criminal records prevent students and their families from accessing public housing. Ultimately, harsh penalties for kids don’t deter crime; instead, they drive kids into becoming career criminals.

What are the solutions? We must invest in education rather than the correctional system. Schools are spending money on security measures when they should be paying for books, libraries, counselors, and well-trained teachers instead. We must also improve non-punitive options such as counseling, mentoring, mediation, and increased teacher and parental support for students. While the recent Supreme Court ruling that outlawed life without parole for minors convicted of non-murder crimes moves in the right direction, we need more than a change in the laws. We must look for rehabilitative solutions that address the roots of the problem – such as socioeconomic disparities and educational inequities. By providing a supportive school atmosphere for at-risk students, it is possible to dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline and prevent kids from entering the juvenile justice system in the first place.

Recently, through a particularly enlightening conversation with a friend, I realized that there are, essentially, two pathways or methods of thinking about social change and development approaches. There is the “capitalistic” mode of thinking, and the “social justice” mode of thinking. While this is, essentially, the split that so starkly separates the Democrats from the Republicans, the same two viewpoints shape the actions of humanitarians, altruists, philanthropists, entrepreneurs, and everyone else involved in the aid and social change business.

The first, the “capitalistic” mode, fixates on the idea that by harnessing capitalism and economic growth, we can made progress in the developing world. More importantly, this viewpoint emphasizes the belief that people are motivated by profit – and so, by trying to make “doing good” seem profitable, it becomes possible to “exploit” people’s inherent motivations (to better themselves and maximize profit or utility) for the greater good. Here is where the entire idea of social entrepreneurship comes in. Social enterprise and social business centers around the idea that you can make money and do good at the same time, and that in fact, you don’t have to give up making money or financial sustainability to contribute positively to the world. Corporate social responsibility comes with the same idea; that by being environmentally sustainable and by contributing to development projects, a company can improve its own image (and profits) by presenting itself as more socially responsible. Additionally, there is the ideology propounded by many aid critics such as Dambisa Moyo, the author of “Dead Aid” — the idea that we need capitalism to cause economic growth, and that we need to harness foreign direct investment and international trade to help low-income countries hop onto the train of development. Finally, and most importantly (I think), at the more micro- and individualized level of development and NGO approaches to poverty eradication, there are approaches focusing on income generation; these approaches include micro-finance, helping individuals start and grow their own small businesses, helping farmers increase their yields through low-cost and innovative agricultural technologies. Basically, the idea here is that by increasing their income, people will be able to pull themselves out of poverty. Icons like Muhammad Yunus and Paul Polak have emphasized that the best way for individuals to get out of poverty fast is by increasing their incomes. This is a more “capitalistic” method of thinking because it emphasizes the individual and what they can do to get ahead in life. And for the donors/the well-off classes in society, the emphasis is on proving to them that they don’t have to give up their lifestyle if they want to make a positive difference. There’s usually not as much talk of personal sacrifice, or what we have to give up for social change. For instance, by buying books from Better World Books, we can not only get the books we want, but also contribute to literacy projects! This perspective caters to the benefits that social business provides to both the donors/contributors & the beneficiaries.

The second mode is focused more on “social justice” and equality. The idea here is that we (here I’m talking about us — the well off, the privileged) should not simply have capitalistic, profit maximizing motives. Instead, this mode of thinking strives to change and shape the incentives that motivate people in the first place. Those who share this view believe that we have to actually CHANGE people’s minds to focus less on themselves and to focus more on the community and the world they live in. The idea is to emphasize equality, fairness, and to make people feel they have an obligation to give back. This viewpoint leads to an emphasis on higher taxes, increased social services and programs, more government spending, and international aid. By emphasizing that we, the privileged echelons of society, have an obligation to give back, contribute positively to the world, and help those who are worse off than us, this way of thinking emphasizes providing free services to the poor. Instead of trying to focus on increasing a person’s income as the primary way of getting them out of poverty, people and organizations with this perspective might try to provide free health services, free legal services, free infrastructure like wells, free access to education including building schools and providing scholarships to children, and much more. International donors fund many such projects because of the obligation to give back, but the ultimate goal is to have each country’s government providing such services to its own people. The emphasis here is on improving the quality of living through, primarily, the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor — whether this is domestically or internationally. This is very different from the previous “capitalistic” mode, in which each person is encouraged to maximize their own wealth and well-being.

Of course, in reality, many aid programs mix the two — they might provide microfinance and skills training along with health services or educational scholarships. But ultimately, there are definitely two divergent “modes of thinking” or perspectives at play when it comes to social change and international development.

What do you think? Is there one better way of going about social change & development, or are the two approaches best combined? Should we try to cater to people’s “innate” incentive to maximize their own profit & well-being, or should we try to change people’s minds to make them feel an obligation to sacrifice for the greater good?

We’re overeducated and underexperienced, when really it should be the other way around.

It’s a pity - and a case of misallocated resources - considering higher education is getting more and more expensive while salaries are not really keeping up in these economic times.

I keep hearing advice from people: get this Master’s degree, or that Ph.D. Recently, I spoke with an incredible lawyer who told me to get not just a law degree, but a MPP (Master’s in Public Policy) as well. I said, “That is so expensive! I’d rather get as few degrees as possible.” She said, “It’s only a year more, and it’ll be incredibly valuable if you ever want to work on international issues or policy.”

Needless to say, I was skeptical. True, I agree that an MPP would be helpful, but it is by no means necessary. The idea of doing multiple graduate degrees frightens the hell out of me. I’ve enjoyed my undergraduate education here at Northwestern, but I’m ready to get out and get into the real world. I’ve had enough of theory, and I want to put whatever I’ve learned into practice. And I think that I’ll stick to what I told the attorney — I’ll save the money and mental energy, and probably take the law degree alone in three years, thank you very much. Even three years for law school seems a bit much, in my opinion. The majority of our country’s politicians and policymakers don’t have law degrees and MPP’s — I think I’ll take my chances.

In my opinion, much of what you learn in many Master’s degrees isn’t necessary for career success or progress. Only the few professional degrees, such as law, medicine, or business, equip you with skill sets - things you can’t learn on your own. Master’s degrees in most other areas strike me as unnecessary as most of what you need to know can be picked up on the job in the majority of fields other than law, medicine, pharmacy, engineering, college-level teaching, or computer science (I am sure I’ve forgotten other careers that require graduate study - enlighten me if I have).

The vast majority of my friends are going to graduate school immediately after finishing their degree at Northwestern. My friends are doing medical degrees along with Master’s degrees; J.D.s along with M.B.A.’s; Ph.D.s along with public policy degrees. It seems to me that the days of having just one graduate degree are long gone.

I was surprised to realize that only a small percentage of my friends are planning to work prior to graduate school. I’m also surprised at how many students I know - many of them juniors or seniors - have never actually held a full-time internship. As a result, many students don’t know what they like, what type of work they want to do, or what is needed to succeed in the professional world. Because they have no idea what to do or how to go about entering the workforce, they decide to go back to school. “I’m good at writing, so I should go to law school… and then I’ll be guaranteed a high paying job, right?” they say. The short answer: ….no!

We have become dependent on higher education to boost our lacking self esteems. We feel we need to go back to school because we lack the confidence to enter the “real world.” Well, I have news for you. We don’t need people with 10 degrees to run this world and make it a better, more efficient place. More importantly, having 10 degrees doesn’t qualify you to do anything but study.

We need to stop our culture of higher education dependency and go back to the basics. Going back to school won’t solve your sense of inadequacy; jumping into the real world, getting a job, and doing tons of internships will.  The only way to become an expert in your field is to start working and to begin actually doing things, not hiding behind the banner of prestige that you gain from your graduate degree(s).

If you want to get places in your career, get your nose out of the books and get into the “real world.” Now.

In the past decade, as we all know, social enterprise and business has become incredibly popular. The idea is incredibly compelling: utilize business practices while also bettering the world. Unleash the power of the market to solve social problems. We can make money and do good.

Along with its increasing popularity, the demand for learning about social enterprise has shot up. Many top universities are beginning to teach social enterprise, either through individual classes or even through majors and concentrations. Here are some examples:

• Duke’s Fuqua School of Business actually has an MBA Concentration in Social Entrepreneurship!
• Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management has an MBA Social Enterprise (SEEK) Major, a very comprehensive program
• NYU’s Wagner School has a Social Entrepreneurship undergraduate minor
• Stanford’s School of Business has an Executive Program in Social Entrepreneurship
• Yale’s School of Management also has a Program on Social Enterprise

And there are many, many more examples of cutting edge social enterprise programs.

But here’s where I question this approach: can we actually teach social enterprise? A while ago, I read the excellent book “How to Change the World” by David Bornstein, and the book discusses Ashoka’s original methodology of discovering social entrepreneurs. The social entrepreneurs they found were people who understood a gap in their society or community, and then found some way - often an innovative way - of addressing that gap and ultimately benefiting society and individuals. These social entrepeneurs are incredibly hard working, often laboring in obscurity and with low pay to solve social issues. They are driven by their unwavering passion and grand vision of how the world should be. From the website:

Perhaps our most important criterion, entrepreneurial quality is the defining characteristic of first class entrepreneurs. It defines leaders who see opportunities for change and innovation and devote themselves entirely to making that change happen. These leaders often have little interest in anything beyond their mission, and they are willing to spend the next ten to fifteen years making a historical development take place.

It seems to me that social entrepreneurs are people who are incredibly passionate about a new or better way of solving a social problem.

It also seems to me that many of the highly successful Ashoka fellows don’t have MBA’s or advanced degrees that teach them about social enterprise. Instead, they succeed because of their deep understanding of a social issue and of the needs of their beneficiaries, or those they ultimately hope to help. This strong understanding does not come about through an MBA, but is the result of being part of the society or communities you are aiming to help or reach. It comes from going into the field and speaking extensively with rural farmers, women lacking access to credit, or refugees trying to make a living in IDP camps. It comes from immersing yourself into these communities and learning so much about the needs of those you want to help that the solution crystallizes before your very eyes. Read Paul Polak’s book, “Out of Poverty” to understand how simple and powerful solutions can be found by simply going into the field and understanding local needs.

The most important thing for a social entrepreneur’s success is a vision of how precisely to solve a problem. If you have a strong vision and a good method of achieving that vision, success is possible. Second is resilience, determination, passion. Social entrepreneurs have to be highly driven to follow their vision above all else, despite innumerable obstacles in their way.

Surely an MBA in social enterprise can teach you about the workings of the market, or how to write a business plan, but aren’t these things you can pick up eventually? On the contrary, you can’t teach someone through school how to gain a vision, or how to be relentless and passionate.

Wouldn’t it be more worth it for aspiring social entrepreneurs to pursue graduate studies in the specific field they want to affect change in, to understand the needs of their clients or beneficiaries better?

Do those who study social entrepreneurship in the classroom eventually become social entrepreneurs? Or are social entrepreneurs those who have a vision and the passion to see it through, regardless of educational background?

Ultimately, there are certain business principles that can be taught to make the lives of social entrepreneurs easier and more efficient. However, social entrepreneurship itself cannot be taught; such success ultimately depends on qualities gained outside the classroom - vision, issue understanding, and passion.

Everything begins in the education of the mind.
Improve the mind, and that person will improve other people’s minds. Good causes will arise, hope will exist and change will come.
Most minds are already powerful, but fear stops that power from unleashing. Remove fear and things will happen.
The thing about fearless people is that they are happy. And happy people care about things. Eventually, happy people make other people happy.
So, the solution, is to make more people fearless.

My dream is to build a university that does that. I don’t want to educate people, they can do that on their own (usually better than most institutions).
I want to encourage them. I want to build a place for those that have the ideals, the passion and the brains to make our society better.
A place where curiosity is sought and leadership desired.
A place where no thoughts are ridiculed and no goal is crazy enough to pursue.
A place where rebels, weirdos and remarkables would come looking for support for their impossible dreams.
My team of lunatics and I would pick them individually, without giving a crap about their CVs, their GPAs and majors. You wouldn’t leave the place with any technichal knowledge or any prestige.
You’d take home only three things:
Peace of mind, purpose and confidence. All that you need to change the world.

That’s my utopia.

I don’t care when and I don’t know how. All I know is that I want it to become real.

Working as the dean of that institute, recruiting those students and conversing with them about every topic necessary to push them to beat mediocrity, is the only thing that I’d be willing to work in until the day I die that would prevent me from retiring to a small house with a farm when I reach 80, where I would live alone with my dog, laptop and philosophy books.

Having a front row seat in the parade of misfits is definitely, my dream.

A dream that I’m convinced it can change the world.

The Changemaker

Carlos is a young Argentinian still living in Buenos Aires. Next year, he’s moving to Perth, Australia. He considers himself “a questioner of things,” and he blogs at OwlSparks.

You can also catch him on Twitter @CarlosMic!