In my Global Health course a few weeks ago we had a very engaging Panel Discussion on “Ethics in Global Health.” Although all of the discussions that ensured were interesting there was one in particular that really resonated with me. A particularly inspiring colleague of mine asked a question that sparked some debate about the topic of global development in general. One of the speakers asked this provocative question: “Why do you feel the need to go abroad to work on development? Couldn’t you volunteer in an inner-city neighborhood here?”. What a good question! What are our goals for pursuing a career in global health and development?  Of course we want to help people but what stops us from starting here where we live, in the richest country in the world that also has some of the most striking inequality and disparity in the world?

I am not sure what the answer to the question is but I can share my perspective. Firstly, I was not born in this country so I have always felt a strong need to give back to the impoverished country I was born in. Secondly, like most people, I actually really like going abroad, experiencing life in another context and meeting the people who live there. Thirdly, quite honestly, sometimes I really do forget how much disparity our country really does have.

But personally, I do have to share that I have become so much more attuned to the nation’s inequalities after coming to this university. For some reason, being in this microcosm  of elitism and privelege has really opened my eyes about myself and those around me. For the first time in my life I began to think about how inequal and injust our society can be from racial issues to socioeconomic issues to even immigration. And I think the elections have also shed some light on some issues that had before escaped my radar. I just hope that we do not become so farsighted on the global inequalities and infections that we forget those plaguing our own nation.

Sadly, I do realize how trendy the field of global development and especially global health can get. When you have names like Bono, Angelia Jolie and Brad Pitt advocating for the world’s poor you can begin to understand how “cool” this work is becoming. I mean after all, people our age always strive to be different and unique, not to mention to touch of exoticism that comes  with travelling and working in countries most people can not even locate on a map much yet dream of visiting. But I think we should not let these distractions keep us away from the real object at hand - if we are really in this for helping people we should be willing to do that regardless of locale.

This is why I have felt quite moved lately to try to push for engagement in local issues through our club. There are so many examples of people in this country who live worst than some people in developed countries. I hope we can start to think about some ideas whereby we can reach out to people in our own country  and help them help themselves out of poverty. So this is not a discouragement to think globally but I think sometimes it can be useful to at least think of that old acitivist truism: “Think Global, Act Local”.

In the United States, public education is hailed as both an objective spreader of knowledge and as the glue that binds our immigrant society together through the creation of common culture and values. But in reality, it seems that one purpose dominates the other.

In the perceptive article, “What Kind of Citizen?” Joel Westheimer and Joseph Kahne question the goals of our educational system. What kind of citizen does our system develop, and what kind of citizen is most desirable? Their research concludes that the classroom-oriented public school system biases towards “personally responsible citizens” who are obedient and moral followers of the system. More applied educational pedagogies create proactive “participatory citizens” or “justice-oriented citizens” by linking academic education with experiential learning and applied skills.

These educational ideologies lead to real differences in students’ approach to civic engagement and social justice. In Kahne and Westheimer’s example, personally responsible citizens might donate to a food drive, participatory citizens might organize a food drive, and justice-oriented citizens might ask why people are hungry in the first place. In a way, the current system protects and perpetuates itself by encouraging personally responsible citizenship instead of nurturing young citizens with hands-on attitudes towards government and systemic change. Where in this spectrum should the university situate itself?

Universities, too, decide how to engage (or not to engage) with social justice issues based on their underlying educational pedagogy. Higher education is often idealized as objective and rational, not imbued with a social justice ideology. Yet Kahne and Westheimer reveal that every educational approach is part of a political ideology. Furthermore, it would be naïve to view universities simply as educators. Their economic power in their neighborhoods has ranged from that of slumlord to real estate and employment competitor to business partner. Because colleges’ large sunk investments in their campuses root them to the spot, self-interest should compel them to engage in the community. There are real opportunities for mutually beneficial engagement, and examining the places where universities’ business interests intersect with community interests is a powerful starting point. Universities are not ivory towers, and nor should they strive to be.

At the simplest level, universities can impact their communities (and, in an increasingly integrated world, the global community) by providing technical assistance and promoting small-scale local initiatives that empower community members. For example, universities are perfectly positioned to provide targeted research, good employment opportunities, resources for public school teachers and enrollment of local students, consumption of supplies from local producers, commitments to fair business competition, constructive real estate, and contributions to local tax revenues. These initiatives enrich both the university and the community, reflecting common interests born of shared space and increasingly shared constituencies.

Universities also have the unique opportunity to directly combine community development and education through service learning programs. Service learning programs double as innovative approaches to education and the creation of participatory and justice-oriented citizens, and as close-to-the-ground community development initiatives. They provide an ideal platform for dialogue and exchange between the university and the surrounding community.

Intense interaction with community members allows students to learn in more than just the academic dimension. In identifying closely with a radically different perspective, students reject their old frames of reference and are freed to critically evaluate their old points of view (if you’ve studied abroad, you know what I’m talking about). Service learning is also a powerful means for imparting the practical skills of research and public scholarship, providing a hands-on opportunity for students to apply academic learning. Many university programs that engage with communities have met with great success, both in fighting social injustice and in enriching students’ education. Service learning combines the university’s mission to educate with a mission to serve, which, after all, is exactly what public education–and notably, a land-grant institution like Cornell–is meant to do.

By engaging with the community, universities take a stance not on what constitutes social justice or injustice, but on what constitutes good education and good citizenship. As independent educational institutions, universities can choose to transform society in the future and their own communities in the present by critically assessing their approach to education and civic engagement.

Education is necessary for the development of a nation as well as for the continuous growth of any society. Those at MIT, who pioneered the One Laptop Per Child program, approached the challenge to expand education access to children in developing countries by integrating communication, technology, and creativity in a $100 laptop (ok, really between $188 and $399 depending on where you live, but the idea is still nice; see the official site).

Running on an OX system, the durable laptop is waterproof, can withstand drops of up to 4 feet, and is powered by sunlight, foot-pump or pull string (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6994957.stm). The operating system itself entertains and educates with activities such as a web browser, music-making programs, a camera for photos and movies, e-books, journal, newsreader, drawing programs, a data collecting and analyzing device, and more. (http://www.laptop.org/en/laptop/start/activities.shtml)

In addition to the importance placed on creative and observational input from the children using these machines, I am very impressed by Pippy, an introduction to the programming language Python (anyone that took biochem 331 will remember this as the basis for our beloved PyMol assignments).

On the freedom-to-tinker blog, a 12 year old wrote rave reviews about the laptop distributed to school age children around the world. (http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1187). SG, an amazingly articulate 6th grader, offered these closing comments:

“All in all, this laptop is great for its price, its job, and its value. It is almost perfect. Just speed it up, give it a little more battery charge hold, and you have yourself the perfect laptop. I’m sure kids around the world will really love, enjoy, and cherish these laptops. They will be so useful. This program is truly amazing.”

I agree with SG and others that Nicholas Negroponte, founder of the One Laptop Per Child program, has made an important attempt to share technological advances that many developed countries enjoy with children in developing nations. Information about health could perhaps increase productivity in a community that primarily generates income through labor. Interaction with ideas, beyond the unidirectional presentation of news on television, could invigorate change. I believe the spread of knowledge is crucial in any community, but there are some downfalls to this program that I think should be considered.

To begin with, these laptops are easily stolen or sold to provide much needed income to many families in the developing world. A small budget for training may leave teachers ill-equipped; students may be able to operate the system with ease, but potentially learning little. Technical support is limited in many areas, as is Internet access. A lack of books and websites in student’s native tongue or concerning their culture could undermine cultural identity and collectiveness. Of course, there is always the question of power as demonstrated by who has the laptops and who gets them. Some Americans argue that it is unfair to charge a greater amount for the computers in America when there are millions of children in the US who are also in need of information access and creative entertainment. Finally, as a nutrition major, I have to point out that increased computer use is associated with a decrease in physical activity, setting the stage for rising BMIs (though this is probably not an immediate concerns, although obesity is rapidly rising in developing countries- that’s a whole other topic to blog about).

In contrast, this program facilitates new ways that children can learn, therefore broadening the possibilities life offers them. For example, limited tech support causes laptop owners to take problem solving into their own hands. “What you want is for the kids to do the repairs,” said Negroponte, who believes such tinkering is itself a valuable lesson. “I think the kids can repair 95 percent of the laptops.” (http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/12/25/onelaptop.onevillage.ap/index.html).

Overall, I like the idea of sharing technology that increases access and exchange of knowledge. I am curious to know where this program works, when it does not, and ways that such a program could improve. Factors at the ground level, such as gender issues, power structures in the households, theft frequency, and many more could influence how such a program could succeed in diverse regions in our own country and around the world.

What do you think?