Bill de Blasio

Only Sirens Puncture New York City’s Grudging Silence

As we watch the number of deaths rise, we can only bring ourselves to ask one question: why has this city been so badly impacted by the outbreak?

Washington Heights in Northern Manhattan has been our home for more than a decade now.

Friends had said that this neighbourhood never sleeps as there are music and gatherings till late at night. While bars or clubs don’t define this part of Manhattan, this neighbourhood is the perfect example of families sprawling into the sidewalk as an extension of their small apartments to reclaim the city.

Sometimes, the residents in our previous apartment building would bring their chairs downstairs or sit on the massive staircase and catch up or occasionally play cards. Our parents, visiting from India, would do their yoga in the park and sit and read books on the bench. Barbecues would be set up on the sidewalk across the street and sometimes there even were TV screenings of a basketball game by a group of young men congregated on the next block.

Spanish music blared through the speakers at times as people danced in the square in the summer. Even when we never fully experience all that the city has to offer, the vibrancy, the subway, the parks and a feeling of being at home always keep us going. In the time of COVID-19, when social distancing is at its peak and the city labours under the constant rise in the number of infections and deaths, and we stepped out just once briefly in the last fortnight (as we teach remotely), we wonder if our city and neighbourhood will be transformed forever.

As we watch the staggering numbers of deaths and infections in New York City, and friends ask us if we can feel the virus inching closer, we can only bring ourselves to ask one question: why has this city been so badly impacted by the outbreak? The failure to deal with the outbreak will undoubtedly draw much scrutiny and hopefully multiple commissions of inquiry. But as residents of the city who have closely watched the unfolding of the government’s response, we can only share our initial impressions.

The political leadership both in New York City – Mayor Bill De Blasio – and New York State – Governor Andrew Cuomo – were caught completely unprepared as the virus ravaged the city and the adjoining areas like wildfire. Undoubtedly, the epic failure of the federal agencies and the Trump administration to roll out COVID-19 diagnostic tests when they were critically needed crippled the ability of all cities and states to identify and isolate the infected individuals – which was perhaps the best way to contain the virus.

Also read: Coronavirus and Anti-Asian Racism: How the Language of Disease Produces Hate and Violence

But NYC, one of the most densely populated cities struggled to decide when to shut down – the only tool available to contain the spread of the virus in the absence of widespread testing. By the second week of March, there were hundreds of novel coronavirus infections right outside NYC in New Rochelle but the mayor insisted on keeping the largest school district with 1.1 million students open, claiming that young people were not vulnerable to the virus.

The mayor also said that closing down schools would deprive students of low-income families of free food. However, the mayor ignored the fact that even if young people were asymptomatic or only showed mild symptoms, they could spread the virus in the larger population. It was only after several days of intense debate about the closure of schools that the mayor made the decision.

There were similar delays when it came to shutting down restaurants and bars in the city and ordering a statewide stay-at-home order that the governor preferred to call a “pause” lest it sounded too harsh. Looking back now at the first two weeks of March, it is very clear that political leadership in New York City and the state failed in responding to the pandemic in a timely manner that could have softened some of the serious blows that the city received.

While NYC leadership struggled to shut down the city, President Trump, for a while, assured Americans that the coronavirus was more like the seasonal flu that killed thousands of people every year. The New York City mayor and the state governor have now pooled all their energies and resources in to lead the effort in coordinate with the federal government.

Mukul Kesavan recently mentioned the inability of the US to pick one coherent policy from the experiences of the East Asian countries thanks to its narcissistic exceptionalism. Indeed Governor Cuomo in early March said, “I am not going to imprison anyone in the State of New York,” Cuomo said. “I am not going to do martial law in state of New York. That’s not going to happen.”

It was striking to hear such statements about NYC. The city has a history of extremely invasive policing practices. But of course, in those contexts, it is always people of colour who face the brunt of stop-and-frisk policies, fines for subway fare evasion and this is without even considering one of the most ill reputed prisons in Rikers Island, where coronavirus continues to spread amongst those incarcerated for minor offences.

Also read: Rethinking Education in the Age of the Coronavirus

The oft-repeated claim that democracies don’t police or track cell phone data belies the history of surveillance and targeting. Yet, even as we write this, New York Police Department officers are among the first responders impacted by this virus – seven officers have died and almost 2,000 have tested positive – as the state has failed to protect not only its citizens but also its first responders including paramedics, firefighters, and Metropolitan Transit Authority workers.

A person with a walker crosses 42nd Street in a mostly deserted Times Square following the outbreak of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York, US, March 23, 2020. Photo: Reuters/Carlo Allegri

The pandemic above all points to the fragility of the US health care system not only in terms of access but also its lack of emergency infrastructure to deal with an outbreak of this scale. The most severely impacted are of course the health care workers, including doctors and nurses, who lack the basic personal protective equipment (PPE) and the support they need to continue their relentless fight against the virus even as they live with the constant fear of getting infected themselves and further infecting their families.

As the time of writing, the death toll in NYC stood at 2,470 with 72,000 cases of infection. However, it is hard to measure the actual spread given the limited numbers of tests and many people staying asymptomatic or showing mild symptoms. The virus has ravaged the city: the blaring of ambulance sirens, no matter which part of the city you live in, has become a constant reminder of the outbreak.

A pandemic could be a great equaliser in terms of the danger it poses to the entire population but NYC has seen low income and immigrant neighbourhoods facing devastation at a much greater scale. The ‘epicentre of the epicentre’ of the COVID-19 outbreak is Elmhurst in Queens borough, the immigrant hub of NYC. Parts of Queens such as Astoria, Jackson Heights, Corona, and East Elmhurst have been most impacted.

These areas have a large population of low income, non-white immigrants that are employed in the service industries such as construction, domestic work, restaurant, and taxi. They are more likely to go out for work even while the city has put on pause given their economic precarity and the nature of their work.

The pandemic has shed a light on the deep inequality that defines this city. According to a report by the Economic Policy Institute, only one in five African American workers and roughly one in six Hispanic workers are able to work from home. Many of them work as grocery, home delivery, and restaurant delivery workers and are considered essential during the period of the shutdown reminding one of the privilege linked to social distancing.

Also read: Defoe’s Account of the Great Plague of 1665 Has Startling Parallels With Today

Even as ambulance sirens continue to be the only vehicles we hear on the eerily calm roads of our city, we remind ourselves of a very New York moment that was shared more recently about our neighbourhood. When a couple – Reilly Jennings and Amanda Wheeler – not wanting to wait until after the pandemic decided to get married to each other on the street while their friend officiated the wedding from a window much above and Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel Garcia Marquez was aptly mentioned.

Jinee Lokaneeta and Sangay Mishra teach Political Science at Drew University, New Jersey.

Bill de Blasio’s Bagel Gaffe and the Fraught Politics of Food

Food might seem like an easy way to appeal to the masses. But when politicians wade into local food customs, they do so at their own risk.

If New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio hadn’t already dropped out of the 2020 presidential race, #bagelgate might have been the nail in the coffin.

His January 15 tweet praising a toasted bagel on National Bagel Day instantly set off hardline bagel devotees-cum-voters. De Blasio quickly amended his tweet to delete the word “toasted”. But the damage was already done. Purists scorned the very idea of toasting a bagel, calling into question his bona fides as a New Yorker.

The outrage over bagel protocol may seem silly. But few acts are as personal as eating, and food is closely intertwined with place and culture.

For a politician, food might seem like a low-hanging fruit. Is there an easier way to appeal to the masses? Everyone, after all, eats.

But when politicians wade into local food customs, they do so at their own risk. My research on presidents and first ladies suggests that uninformed assumptions about food often get candidates and elected officials in trouble.

Bill de Blasio isn’t the first politician to run afoul of food norms and face the wrath of voters. And he certainly won’t be the last.

Culinary campaign calamities

Most political wannabes try hard to bridge the gap between their wealthy backgrounds and the rest of us. It rarely works.

During the 1976 presidential campaign, incumbent president Gerald Ford, before the eyes of bewildered Texans, peeled back the aluminum foil – but not the corn husk – and took a giant bite out of a tamale. Ford never lived it down.

According to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, “The Great Tamale Incident” sealed Ford’s loss to Jimmy Carter in the Lone Star State.

In 2003, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry unwittingly broke food norms when he ordered Swiss cheese for his Philly cheese steak instead of Cheese Whiz. Nine years later, Republican Mitt Romney asked for a “sub” in Pennsylvania, where, as locals will tell you, they call them hoagies. And Romney again made himself an easy target for mockery in 2019, when the millionaire businessman claimed his favourite type of meat was a hot dog.

Also read: ‘War on Hindus’: Rightwing Reacts to Kerala Tourism’s Beef Delicacy Tweet

Pizza is treacherous terrain: Republicans Donald Trump, Sarah Palin and John Kasich have all faced withering criticism for eating pizza with a fork. Bill de Blasio made the same mistake, too, in what was dubbed “forkgate.”

But no food has a greater potential for campaign catastrophe than the corn dog. The optics of state fair corn dog consumption are never good. The web is full of wince-worthy photos of Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Bernie Sanders all struggling to maintain their dignity while biting into a battered, oversized wiener popsicle.

Better to be a vegan like Cory Booker – and avoid them altogether – than be seen on the wrong side of the corn dog. That may be one rule that a majority of voters can agree on.

You’re out of touch…

Other politicians are either unaware – or don’t care – about their elitism.

In 1972, the beer-swilling, working-class regulars in a Youngstown, Ohio bar cringed when Democratic vice presidential candidate Sargent Shriver hollered, “Make mine a Courvoisier!”

In 1988, Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis suggested to debt-ridden Iowa farmers that they grow Belgian endive, a bitter, leafy green seldom found outside of gourmet restaurants. Almost 20 years later, fellow Democrat Barack Obama told those same farmers that arugula might bring in more profits than corn and soybeans.

Obama also made the mistake of asking for Dijon mustard – and no ketchup – for his cheeseburger. Fox News host Sean Hannity let him have it, calling him “President Poupon.”

The producers of an infamous 2004 attack ad damned Democratic presidential aspirant Howard Dean for his elitism. Not surprisingly, food played a role.

Dean, the ad sneered, was a “latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show.”

These gastronomic tales show how the semiotics of what and how we eat matter profoundly to millions of people.

On the one hand, to transgress is to risk looking inauthentic, disrespectful or foolish – none of which is sound politics.

On the other hand, unabashedly embracing the latest health food trends can get a politician ridiculed as elitist and out of touch.

Also read: Wealthy Indians Must Eat Differently from Those Whose Rights They Defend

Perhaps the best outcome is simply to win. A president can indulge in guilty gastronomic pleasures. Ronald Reagan loved his jelly beans, George H.W. Bush couldn’t put down his pork rinds and Bill Clinton, until his heart surgeries, was irresistibly drawn to McDonald’s.

For political candidates, however, a shrewd understanding of American eating habits is the recommended minimum daily requirement on the campaign trail.

Stacy A. Cordery, Professor of History, Iowa State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

In New York, Crime Falls Along With Police Stops

Police have radically cut back their use of stop-and-frisk policies. To the surprise of some, crime didn’t spike, but tumbled yet again.

An unidentified man is stopped by undercover police officers on Third Avenue between 41st and 42nd Street near the scene of an explosion in New York in July 2007. Credit:Reuters/Shannon Stapleton/Files

If you grew up in New York City in the 1970s, the number can be hard to get your head around: 291. If you were a reporter in New York City in the early 1990s, the number can almost make your head explode: 291 murders in 2017, the lowest total since the 1950s.

But the number is perhaps most striking when set not against the numbers of murders in other years, but against this figure: the roughly 10,000 police stops conducted in 2017.

The longstanding rationale for the New York Police Department’s widespread use of what came to be known as stop-and-frisk – encounters between officers and people they suspected of suspicious behaviour – had been that it was an essential crime-fighting tool. Such stops got guns off the street, the theory went, and low-level enforcement helped sweep up criminals destined to commit more serious crimes.

The rationale was employed as the numbers of stops skyrocketed during the 12 years of Michael Bloomberg’s mayoralty. Such stops, endorsed and aggressively enforced by then Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, rose from roughly 100,000 in 2002 to nearly 700,000 in 2011. The rationale was critiqued, by the New York Civil Liberties Union among others, but Bloomberg and Kelly pushed back, armed with year upon year of falling murder totals and other broad reductions in serious crime.

Ultimately, a federal judge, Shira Scheindlin, found the NYPD’s enforcement of stop-and-frisk racially unfair and unconstitutional. A new mayor, Bill de Blasio, and the judge’s orders for reform, prompted a radical scaling back of stop-and-frisk. Critics predicted a disastrous return to, depending on one’s age and experience, the 1970s or the 1990s.

The disaster never happened. Instead, what many scholars and police officials thought nearly unthinkable – further reductions in crime after two decades of plummeting numbers – did.

Holding murders under 300 was just the headline of 2017 statistics that saw considerable reductions in almost every category of major crime.

“Like many conservatives, I had grave concerns about curtailing the New York City police department’s controversial tactic of stopping and frisking potential suspects for weapons,” Kyle Smith wrote this month for the National Review.

“Restricting the tactic, I thought, would cause an uptick, maybe even a spike, in crime rates,” he added. “I and others argued that crime would rise. Instead, it fell. We were wrong.”

The achievement – curtailing both murders and stops – forced me to revisit my own decisions. I had the fun and privilege of serving as the metro editor of New York Times for five years, but along with the occasional satisfactions came plenty of regrets. For me, none greater than my wish that I’d done a better job directing coverage of stop-and-frisk. My years as metro editor, 2006 to 2011, corresponded directly with the surge in stop-and-frisk.

Let me be clear. The New York Times was blessed with the city’s elite law enforcement reporters, and they did lots of fine and enterprising work.

Al Baker and Ray Rivera, for instance, did a breathtaking report on a handful of blocks in one section of Brooklyn where over four years police had conducted 52,000 stops. Numerically, it amounted to one stop a year for every one of the 14,000 people living on the four blocks looked at. In the more than 50,000 stops from 2006 to 2010, the police recovered 25 guns.

That said, I still wish we’d had the series of stop-and-frisk stories Graham Rayman, then of the Village Voice, produced. An officer in a Brooklyn precinct had recorded his commanders as they sent their men and women into the streets to conduct random stops. The reporting, among other things, brought to light the potential that quotas had been set for officers.

I sent an email Tuesday morning to Kelly, the former commissioner, to see if he had thoughts looking back. I also emailed an invitation to the spokesperson for current Police Commissioner James O’Neill to talk about his department’s dual accomplishments.

“No one could possibly believe there could be 685,000 legitimate stops in a year,” the spokesperson, Stephen Davis, said. “We just focused more on learning how crime works. There are a small number of people responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime.”

O’Neill has taken some heat from the monitor charged with overseeing the department’s reform of stop-and-frisk. A report from the monitor late in 2017 said there was credible reason to believe a large number of police stops were not being counted. Still, the true total could be twice the roughly 10,000 claimed and remain a small fraction of the nearly 700,000 recorded in 2011.

Regrets have an upside. They can provoke personal reform. And so when reporters for ProPublica and the Florida Times-Union set out to report on the enforcement of pedestrian tickets by the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office, we were sure to ask some hard questions. The sheriff’s office has said they viewed pedestrian violations as probable cause to stop and question suspicious people. It was a sensible crime-fighting tactic.

We asked what might form the basis for considering someone suspicious, but the office was not able to say much beyond it could be “tips” about possible drug dealing or the like. We asked about how well the pedestrian tickets were tracked – who was receiving them and where. The office said pedestrian stops were captured incidentally with call logs and other reports, but were not specifically tracked. Officials said it would be “too burdensome” to capture the full scope of every pedestrian encounter and associated demographics.

The reporting, which showed pedestrian tickets were issued disproportionately to blacks in Jacksonville and that hundreds of tickets had been issued in error in recent years, has prompted several local legislators to call for reforms to the state pedestrian statutes and the issuing of tickets by the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office.

Joe Sexton is a senior editor at ProPublica. Before coming to ProPublica in 2013, he had worked for 25 years as a reporter and editor at The New York Times.

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.

A Case for Admiring the ‘Fearless Girl’ – and Resenting It

Without Arturo Di Modica’s Charging Bull, the Fearless Girl has nothing to be fearless to. Or about.

The ‘Fearless Girl’ statue in Manhattan’s Financial District. Credit: Shannon Stapleton / Reuters

I got metaphorically spanked a couple of days ago. Folks have been talking about the ‘Fearless Girl’ statue ever since it was dropped in Manhattan’s Financial District some five weeks ago. I have occasionally added a comment or two to some of the online discussions about the statue.

Recently, most of the discussions around the Fearless Girl have focused on the complaints by Arturo Di Modica, the sculptor who created the ‘Charging Bull’. He wants Fearless Girl removed, and he has received a lot of criticism for saying that. Here’s what I said that got me spanked:

The guy has a point.

This happened in maybe three different discussions over the last week or so. In each case, I explained briefly why I believe Di Modica has a point (and I’ll explain it again in a bit), and for the most part folks either accepted my comments or ignored them. Which is pretty common for online discussions. But in one discussion, my comment sparked this:

Men who don’t like women taking up space are exactly why we need the Fearless Girl.

Which – and this doesn’t need to be said, but I’m okay with saying the obvious – is a perfectly valid response. It’s also one I agree with. As far as that goes, it’s one that NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio agrees with, since he said it first (although, to be fair, probably one of his public relations people first said it first).

But here’s the thing – you can completely agree with the woman who responded to my comment AND you can still acknowledge that Di Modica has a point. Those aren’t mutually exclusive or contradictory points of view.

Let me apologise here, because I have to go into some history – and for reasons I’ve never understood, some folks actively dislike history. It’s necessary though. So here we go. Back in 1987 there was a global stock market crash. Doesn’t matter why (at least not for this discussion), but stock markets everywhere – everywhere – tanked. Di Modica, a Sicilian immigrant who became a naturalised citizen of the US, responded by creating the Charging Bull – a bronze sculpture of a… well, a charging bull. It took him two years to make it. The thing weighs more than 7,000 pounds, and cost Di Modica some $350,000 of his own money. He said he wanted the bull to represent “the strength and power of the American people”. He had it trucked into the Financial District and set it up, completely without permission. It’s maybe the only significant work of guerrilla capitalist art in existence.

People loved it. Those who ran the New York Stock Exchange, for some reason, didn’t. They called the police, and pretty soon the statue was removed and impounded. A fuss was raised, the city agreed to temporarily install it, and the public was pleased. It’s been almost 30 years, and Charging Bull is still owned by Di Modica, still on temporary loan to the city, still one of the most recognisable symbols of New York City.

And that brings us to March 7 of this year, the day before International Women’s Day. Fearless Girl appeared, standing in front of the Charging Bull. On the surface, it appears to be another work of guerrilla art – but it’s not. Unlike Di Modica’s work, Fearless Girl was commissioned. Commissioned not by an individual, but by an investment fund called State Street Global Advisors, which has assets in excess of $2.4 trillion. That’s serious money. It was commissioned as part of an advertising campaign developed by McCann, a global advertising corporation. And it was commissioned to be presented on the first anniversary of State Street Global’s Gender Diversity Index fund, which has the following NASDAQ ticker symbol: SHE. And finally, along with Fearless Girl, is a bronze plaque that reads:

Know the power of women in leadership. SHE makes a difference.

Note that it’s not She makes a difference, it’s SHE makes a difference. It’s not referring to the girl, it’s referring to the NASDAQ symbol. It’s not a work of guerrilla art, it’s an extremely clever advertising scheme. This is what makes it clever: Fearless Girl derives its power almost entirely from Di Modica’s statue. The sculptor, Kristen Visbal, sort of acknowledges this. She’s said this about her statue:

“She’s not angry at the bull – she’s confident, she knows what she’s capable of, and she’s wanting the bull to take note.”

It’s all about the bull. If it were placed anywhere else, Fearless Girl would still be a very fine statue – but without facing Charging Bull, the Fearless Girl has nothing to be fearless to. Or about. Whatever. Fearless Girl, without Di Modica’s bull, without the context provided by the bull, becomes ‘Really Confident Girl’.

Fearless Girl also changes the meaning of Charging Bull. Instead of being a symbol of “the strength and power of the American people” as Di Modica intended, it’s now seen as an aggressive threat to women and girls – a symbol of patriarchal oppression.

A camera man films a statue of a girl facing the Wall St. Bull. Credit: Brendan McDermid/Reuters

A camera man films the statue of a girl facing the Wall St. Bull. Credit: Brendan McDermid/Reuters

In effect, Fearless Girl has appropriated the strength and power of the Charging Bull. Of course Di Modica is outraged by that. A global investment firm has used a global advertising firm to create a faux work of guerrilla art to subvert and change the meaning of his actual work of guerrilla art. That would anger any artist.

See? It’s not as simple as it seems on the surface. It’s especially complicated for somebody (like me, for example) who appreciates the notion of appropriation in art. I’ve engaged in a wee bit of appropriation my ownself. Appropriation art is, almost by definition, subversive – and subversion is (also almost by definition) usually the province of marginalised populations attempting to undermine the social order maintained by tradition and the establishments of power. In the case of Fearless Girl, however, the subversion is being done by global corporatists as part of a marketing campaign. That makes it hard to cheer them on. There’s some serious irony here.

And yet, there she is, the Fearless Girl. I love the little statue of the girl in the Peter Pan pose. And I resent that she’s a marketing tool. I love that she actually IS inspiring to young women and girls. And I resent that she’s a fraud. I love that she exists. And I resent the reasons she was created.

I love the Fearless Girl and I resent her. She’s an example of how commercialisation can take something important and meaningful – something about which everybody should agree – and ruin it by turning it into a commodity. Fearless Girl is beautiful, but she is selling SHE; that’s why she’s there.

Should Fearless Girl be removed as Di Modica wants? I don’t know. It would be sad if she was. Should Di Modica simply take his Charging Bull and go home? I mean, it’s his statue. He can do what he wants with it. I couldn’t blame him if he did that, since the Fearless Girl has basically hijacked the meaning of his work. But that would be a shame. I’m not a fan of capitalism, but that’s a damned fine work of art.

I don’t know what should be done here. But I know this: Di Modica has a point. And I know a lot of folks aren’t willing to acknowledge that.

This piece first appeared on gregfallis.com. It has been edited to meet style guidelines.

Gender Beat: Indian Women Earn 25% Less Than Men; US Supreme Court Scraps Transgender Bathroom Case

A round-up of what’s happening in the worlds of gender and sexuality.

Seven year old twins Shahana (R) and Shahala (L) walk to their school in Kodinji village in the southern Indian city of Kerala July 28, 2009. REUTERS/Arko Datta/Files

Two girls walk to their school in Kodinji village in Kerala. Credit: Reuters/Arko Datta/Files

Campaign launched to provide underprivileged girls with reusable, anti-bacterial sanitary protection

While some countries around the world are considering an official ‘period policy’ to allow female employees to avail time off during their period, millions of girls and women across India are being forced to sit out because of it.

What for many is a necessity (access to tampons or sanitary pads during their period), remains a luxury for 88% of girls and women in India due to a lack of affordability, claims a study conducted by AC Nielsen.

In poor households, a mere 5% of the girls use pads. The rest, for about five days every month, resort to unsanitary alternatives like old fabric, rags or even husk sand.

Even if affordability is not the issue, and they manage to gain access to pads, the lack of a functioning toilet in 40% of government schools, where adolescent girls can change their pad, forces them to skip school.

Thus, 40 million girls miss school for five days each month and eventually, one in five girls ends up dropping out. According to a Forbes Marshall survey, which looked at sanitation as a whole, almost 23% of girls in India drop out of school when they start menstruating.

In India, 1 in 5 girls are forced to drop out of school because of their periods. You can change this. #GiveHer5 https://t.co/cN251nIOGZ pic.twitter.com/fy2FWRb6Wh

— Biswatosh Sinha (@biswatosh) March 5, 2017

A new campaign by the Ammada Trust – #GiveHer5 – has a straightforward but hard hitting aim – to give millions of girls those five days back. How it plans to do that is by allowing them access to an easier and cheaper alternative to sanitary pads – a 12-hour reusable sanitary protection. Dubbed as Saafkin, these ‘pads’ are bacteria and yeast killing, are washable and, hence, reusable.

The sanitary protection can be used for up to one year and costs Rs 150, which the campaign, which hit the ground on March 6, has called for people to donate in order to “change a life.”

In exchange for that donation, the campaign will ensure two of these reusable Saafkins to a girl through a network of NGOs.

According to their website, nearly 300 people have donated to the campaign till now.

Transgender Pakistani women beaten to death in Saudi Arabia

Two transgender women were reportedly beaten to death by police last week in Saudi Arabia after being arrested along with several other members of the community. According to Farzana Riaz of Trans Action Pakistan, the two women were packed in sacks before being beaten to death with sticks by the police, Reuters reported.

“We are deeply saddened by the deaths of these two innocent trans persons in Saudi Arabia,” Riaz said. “We request the Saudi government to release the information of the 35 transgender persons arrested; we want to know their details, under what charges were they arrested, what is their medical condition?”

According to Independent, a statement from the Saudi interior ministry, however, claimed that reports of the incident were “totally wrong and nobody was tortured”. However, it has been acknowledged that one Pakistani had died in custody following the arrest due to a heart attack.

Saudi Arabia does not have a law against transgender people, but according to Reuters, the Middle Eastern country has arrested people for cross-dressing. According to Human Rights Watch, the country has also ordered the flogging and imprisonment of men accused of behaving like women.

US Supreme Court scraps landmark transgender bathroom case

The Supreme Court on Monday did away with its initial plan to hear a major transgender rights case. It further threw out a lower court’s ruling in favour of a transgender Virginia student after the US president overturned an Obama-era policy protecting transgender youths under federal law.

According to a BBC report, Gavin Grimm, who was born female but now identifies as male, had filed a lawsuit against his school board over its policy preventing him from using the male bathroom.

The Supreme Court had scheduled a hearing for the case for March 28, however, the apex court has now reverted the case back to a lower court after the Trump administration issued new policy guidance concerning the case.

In late February, Donald Trump withdrew a federal guideline requiring transgender students to have access to bathrooms and locker rooms matching their gender identity. The guidelines were issued last May by the Obama administration to address the increasing concerns regarding the treatment of transgender students.

A sign is seen in the bathroom stalls at the 21C Museum Hotel in Durham, North Carolina in this May 3, 2016 file photo. REUTERS/Jonathan Drake/File photo

A sign is seen in the bathroom stalls at the 21C Museum Hotel in Durham, North Carolina in this May 3, 2016 file photo. Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Drake/File photo

“This is a mean-spirited attack on hundreds of thousands of students who simply want to be their true selves and be treated with dignity while attending school,” Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, told The Guardian. “These young people already face incredible hurdles in their pursuit of education and acceptance. With a pen stroke, the Trump administration effectively sanctions the bullying, ostracising and isolation of these children, putting their very lives in danger.”

“These young people already face incredible hurdles in their pursuit of education and acceptance. With a pen stroke, the Trump administration effectively sanctions the bullying, ostracising and isolation of these children, putting their very lives in danger.”

The appeals court had originally ruled in Grimm’s favour last April.

In a setback for transgender rights in the country, Trump’s new guidance now allows individual states to decide what bathroom facilities students may or may not use.

The proverbial glass ceilings still in place as women in India earn 25% less than men

A study conducted by Monster India on gender pay gap has revealed that Indian women earn 25% less than men. The gap has, however, declined by two percentage points from 27.2% in 2015, the study revealed.

In both 2014 and 2015, the average wage for male employees stood at Rs 288.7 per hour even as the wages of female employees fell by 4.2% in 2015 to Rs 210.2 per hour.

In 2016, waged for men shot up by Rs 57.1 – or 19.8% – to 345.8 per hour and for women by Rs 49.6 – or 17.9% – to Rs 259.8 per hour.

Representative image. Credit: Reuters

However, despite the nearly 18% increase, according to the study, on average women earn Rs 63.5 less than their male counterparts.

The survey of over 2,000 working women further claims that not only are women at a disadvantage when it comes to filling supervisory positions, but they are also underpaid by 30% when they hold these positions.

In the education and research sector, the gender wage gap stands at 15%, while the figure for the healthcare sector is 22.6%.

Among the challenges that working women in the country face are the inadequacy of safe transport facilities, lack of child care facilities and not being given responsibilities as per their calibre.

The women who were survey also listed the kind of discrimination that they faced in the workplace, including stereotypes that female employees are “unpredictable” (6.8%), not being considered for senior positions (14.7%), being titled “unnecessarily aggressive” if they are assertive (11.4%) and dealing with the stereotype that women are “too emotional” (13.6%).

Even as a majority of the women felt that the management of their companies stressed gender parity, they often failed to “walk the talk,” hence indicating the urgent need for implementation of pragmatic policies in order to bridge the gender pay gap.

Schools in New York City now required to address students by their preferred pronouns

A directive issued last week now requires the staff of New York City public schools to address students by their preferred pronouns. According to New York Daily News, the directive is one of several issued as part of a ten-page memo by the education department on transgender kids for use by school staff, students and families.

The guidelines also direct the staff on how to use non-binary pronouns like “they” or “ze” as well as how to support transgender students who might be experiencing bullying at school.

The rules further state that, “It is important for school staff, students and parents to be aware that transgender and gender-nonconforming students may be at a higher risk for peer ostracism, victimisation and bullying because of bias and/or the possibility of misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about their lives.”

According to Mic, the guidelines concerning transgender students are the latest that the city’s mayor, Bill De Blasio, has issued in support of transgender people and students. The city had previously started a subway campaign in June aimed at educating people about the rights of transgenders when it comes to access to public restrooms.

The guidelines issued by De Blasio, according to New York Daily News, also includes a list of terms that are appropriate for use in schools, such as cisgender – an adjective describing a person whose gender identity corresponds to their assigned sex at birth.

That’s it for this week! If you liked what you read, please consider subscribing to this weekly newsletter.

If you have any comments or suggestions on what could be carried in this column, write to me at amanat@cms.thewire.in.

‘Sanctuary Cities’ Undaunted by Trump’s Move to Cut Federal Funding

Many ‘sanctuary cities’ which shelter illegal immigrants vowed legal action, arguing that the threatened punishment would be unconstitutional.

Protesters hold signs as they listen to speakers at a rally outside of City Hall in San Francisco, Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2017. President Donald Trump moved aggressively to tighten the nation's immigration controls Wednesday, signing executive actions to jumpstart construction of his promised U.S.-Mexico border wall and cut federal grants for immigrant-protecting "sanctuary cities." (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

Protesters hold signs as they listen to speakers at a rally outside of City Hall in San Francisco. Credit: AP Photo/Jeff Chiu

Seattle: Politicians in New York, Seattle and other “sanctuary cities” that protect immigrants who are in the US illegally declared Wednesday they won’t be intimidated by a move by President Donald Trump to cut off millions in federal funding to such communities.

Many cities vowed legal action, arguing that the threatened punishment would be unconstitutional. Boston Mayor Marty Walsh promised to let immigrants who feel threatened by the administration’s actions take shelter in city hall if necessary.

“This city will not be bullied by this administration,” Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said, adding that he instructed city departments to rework their budgets to prepare for the possibility that federal dollars could be lost. “We believe we have the rule of law and the courts on our side.”

Washington Governor Jay Inslee called Trump’s executive orders on immigration mean-spirited and unnecessary. California senate president Kevin de Leon, a Los Angeles Democrat, tweeted: “See you in court.”

In New York, Trump’s hometown, city officials said the administration’s action could take away over $150 million in law enforcement funding mainly for counter terrorism efforts, protecting international missions and dignitaries and arguably, safeguarding Trump Tower, city officials said.

“Here in New York City and in cities across this nation, this order could in fact undermine public safety,” Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio said at a news conference Wednesday evening, a concern echoed by district of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser.

While there is no formal definition of the term “sanctuary city,” it generally refers to jurisdictions that do not cooperate with federal immigration officials.

In some cases, these cities tell police not to inquire about the immigration status of those they encounter, or they decline requests from immigration officials to keep defendants in custody while they await deportation.

Others say they do cooperate with such “detainer” requests as long as they’re backed by court-issued warrants, but won’t allow local officers to enforce federal immigration law.

Advocates say such noncooperation policies protect people who may not have exhausted their rights to apply for US residency. They also say that crime victims and witnesses are more likely to cooperate with police if they are not afraid of being deported.

“We’re not going to sacrifice any of our folks here in Providence,” said Jorge Elorza, the mayor of Providence, Rhode Island. “My job is to represent every single resident in the city of Providence, and we will continue to do that.”

Supporters of a crackdown on sanctuary cities point to cases like the fatal shooting of Kate Steinle in 2015 on a San Francisco pier. A man who had been previously deported and had been released by local law enforcement was charged in her death.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said the Trump administration is going to “strip federal grant money from the sanctuary states and cities that harbor illegal immigrants.”

Trump signed an executive order that appeared more limited than that. It referred to withholding justice department and homeland security funds from only those jurisdictions that bar local officials from communicating with federal authorities about someone’s immigration status.

Peter L. Markowitz, a professor at Cardozo Law School in New York, said such an attempt to cut off funding would face strong legal challenges.

“The constitution prohibits the president from defunding jurisdictions that won’t do his bidding,” Markowitz said. “There’s nothing in federal law that requires localities or states to participate in federal immigration enforcement. Second, the constitution grants Congress, not the president, the power to determine how federal dollars are spent.”

In California, local law enforcement officials are barred from holding immigrants arrested on lesser crimes for deportation purposes.

More than 100 immigration rights advocates crowded on the steps of San Francisco City Hall, holding signs that said “Undocumented & Unafraid” and “Don’t let hate Trump our values.”

“When we know that there is a violation of human rights here, this is where we excel,” San Francisco supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer said to cheers. “This is where we lead the nation and we say, ‘We will not back down and we will stand up for what we believe is right.'”

(AP)

US Prepares for a Confrontation With the UN

After President-elect Trump criticised the working of the United Nations, tensions are set to boil over

United Nations Secretariat Building. Courtesy of IPS.

United Nations Secretariat Building. The election of Donald Trump has led to escalating tensions with the UN. Courtesy: IPS.

United Nations: The US has had a longstanding love-hate relationship with the UN ever since 1952 when the world body began operations in New York city on an 18-acre piece of land which housed an abattoir where cattle was being trucked daily for slaughter.

The late Republican senator Jesse Helms, a full-time chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a part-time UN basher, once said “providing funds to the UN was like pouring money into a rat hole.”

Former New York city mayor, Ed Koch used a five-letter word to describe the UN: a “sewer”. And one of his successors, Rudolph Giuliani, said he will not miss the UN if it decides to pack up and leave New York.

When the 193-member UN General Assembly voted some of the world’s “repressive regimes” as members of the Human Rights Commission (now the Human Rights Council), congressman Dana Rohrabacher (Republican of California) hollered: “The inmates have taken over the asylum. And I don’t plan to give the lunatics any more American tax dollars to play with.”

And now, US president-elect Donald Trump, peeved over a Security Council resolution last week chastising Israel over its continued settlements in the occupied territories, has signalled an implicit warning he will review his relationship with the UN.

Having been rebuffed by outgoing President Barack Obama who refused to accede to Trump’s appeal to veto the resolution, the incoming president, who will take office on January 20, challenged the effectiveness of the world body and dismissed it as “a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time.”

Immediately after the resolution was adopted by a vote of 14–nil, with the US abstaining, he held out a warning: “As to the UN, things will be different after January 20.”

Currently, the US is the biggest single contributor accounting for 22% of the UN’s regular biennium budget, followed by Japan (9.7%), China (7.9%), Germany (6.7%) and France (4.8%) – all based on a country’s ‘capacity to pay’.

The UN’s 2016-2017 regular biennium budget amounts to about $5.4 billion, excluding its peacekeeping budget and voluntary contributions to UN Funds and Programmes.

Following the Security Council vote on Friday, senator Lindsey Graham (Republican-South Carolina) said he plans to form a bipartisan coalition to either suspend or reduce US funding for the UN.

And senator Tom Cotton (Republican-Arkansas) warned that the UN and “nations supporting the resolution (against Israel) have now imperiled all forms of US assistance.”

While the US withheld its veto and abstained on the vote, the other four veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council, namely, the UK, France, China and Russia, voted for the resolution, along with the 10 non-permanent members, namely, Angola, Egypt, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal, Spain, Ukraine, Uruguay and Venezuela.

A defiant Israel was livid, and in retaliation, threatened to build another 5,600 settlements in occupied Jerusalem thereby isolating itself further from the international community.

Jim Paul, former executive director of the New York-based Global Policy Forum, and who closely monitored the politics of the world body for over 19 years, told IPS the US threat of withholding its dues to the UN has been around for a long time – since the 1980s when it was first proposed by the Washington-based Heritage Foundation.

“This threat is effective only if it is believed and acted on by frightened UN officials or member states, who rush to adopt the latest requirements by the bully-state,” he noted.

“It actually might be healthy if the US dues were reduced and the UN were not so dependent on US financing,” he added.

Paul pointed out that Swedish prime minister, the late Olaf Palme once suggested that the UN’s dues structure should be changed so that no single country would pay more than 10% of the total budget(s).

“The cost to other states would not be very burdensome and the change might produce some real policy benefits,” said Paul, a well-known speaker and writer on the UN and global policy issues.

Over the years, successive US administrations have manipulated the UN to its own advantage as an extension of US foreign policy.

Paul pointed out that some delegates from governments who are out-of-favour in Washington are constrained to live within a specified distance from the city and some cannot travel beyond that distance in the US without special permission.

Every once in a while, he said, a head of state or other high official will be denied entry and thus an opportunity to speak at the UN.

“How important is this harassment and what does it tell us?”, he asked. It is short of horrendous and well past acceptable.

“We can conclude that Washington likes to remind the other states – and the UN as an institution – that it can do what it pleases and impose its will whether others like it or not.”

In Washington, they like to call this behaviour “leadership” but “bully” might be the most appropriate term, said Paul, who frequently served as chair or vice chair of the NGO Working Group on the Security Council.

Despite the 1947 Headquarters Agreement between the US and the UN, which calls on Washington to facilitate the functioning of the UN, the US has denied visas to several heads of governments planning to visit the UN to address the general assembly or accredited as diplomats.

Palitha Kohona, a former chief of the UN treaty section, told IPS the US was a key player in the creation of the UN and the organisation has served US interests well over the years.

“One might even say that the US has manipulated the UN to serve its global interests,” he argued.

Against this background, to return to the confrontational attitudes of the early 1990s, when the US withheld its dues, would be self-defeating, said Kohona, a former permanent representative of Sri Lanka to the UN.

He said the US is no longer the only country with overwhelming financial clout.

“To threaten the UN with financial sanctions would only result in the further waning of US influence in the UN and globally. All countries, especially countries like the US, must continue to work together to make the world a better place,” he declared.

Although complaints against the UN have been never ending – including unpaid parking tickets and tax-free and duty-free privileges for high-ranking UN-based diplomats – US politicians have rarely admitted the political and economic advantages of the presence of the UN on US soil.

And a new report released recently by the office of the New York city mayor points out that the UN generates $3.69 billion in total economic output to New York city’s economy.

The 15,890 individuals directly employed by the UN community took home household earnings of approximately $1.64 billion. These household earnings and the operating expenses of the UN community helped create and sustain 7,940 jobs for New Yorkers.

Titled ‘The United Nations Impact Report 2016’, it was released by the commissioner of the mayor’s office for international affairs Penny Abeywardena.

In 1946, New York City competed with cities from London to San Francisco to host the official headquarters of the UN.

Unlike past mayors, the current mayor of New York city, Bill de Blasio has been a strong supporter of the UN. “New York City is not only an economic and cultural capital, but a diplomatic one. We are proud to be the host city to the United Nations headquarters and the largest diplomatic community in the world,” he said following the release of the new report.

“The impact of the United Nations stretches far beyond New York City and this study reflects the city’s enduring commitment to supporting this critical institution,” he added

Still the political benefits of the UN to the US have not been as clearly highlighted.

Kohona told IPS the US, with its vast economic and political influence, has without reluctance, manipulated the UN to justify its actions, including military interventions.

One recalls (former US secretary of state) Colin Powell’s efforts, with videos and photographs, to convince the security council of the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq or the intense phone calls to diplomats whose countries were members of the Human Rights Council when a US sponsored resolution on Sri Lanka was being taken up for vote at the Council.

He said evidence is also now emerging of the blatant US manipulation of the global media, including with manufactured news, with the objective of influencing diplomatic outcomes.

The current secretary-general, whose interventions, have generally been on the side of the US, also tends to be influenced by the US and the New York media.

His home being in New York is a factor in this outcome. Perhaps the secretary-general should rotate his residence around the capitals of the P-5, including in the UK, France, China and Russia.

Muslim Cleric And Aide Shot Dead After Leaving Mosque in New York

The motive for the shooting was not immediately known and no evidence has been uncovered that the two men were targeted because of their faith, says police.

Members of the New York City police department establish a crime scene at the spot where Imam Alala Uddin Akongi was killed in the Queens borough of New York City, August 13, 2016. Credit: Reuters/Stephanie Keith.

New York: A Muslim cleric and an associate were fatally shot by a lone gunman on Saturday while walking together following afternoon prayers at a mosque in the New York City borough of Queens, authorities said.

The gunman approached the men from behind and shot both in the head at close range at about 1:50 pm on a blistering hot afternoon in the Ozone Park neighbourhood, police said in a statement, adding that no arrests had been made.

The motive for the shooting was not immediately known and no evidence has been uncovered that the two men were targeted because of their faith, said Tiffany Phillips, a spokeswoman for the New York City police department. Even so, police were not ruling out any possibility, she added.

The victims, identified as Imam Maulama Akonjee, 55, and Thara Uddin, 64, were both wearing religious garb at the time of shooting, police said. Police had initially identified Uddin as Tharam.

The men were transported to Jamaica Hospital Medical Centre where they died, hospital spokesman Andrew Rubin said.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil rights and advocacy group known by the acronym CAIR, said Uddin was an associate of the imam.

“These were two very beloved people,” Afaf Nasher, executive director of the New York chapter of CAIR, told Reuters. “These were community leaders.”

“There is a deep sense of mourning and an overwhelming cry for justice to be served,” Nasher said. “There is a very loud cry, too, for the NYPD to investigate fully, with the total amount of their resources, the incident that happened today.”

The organisation held a news conference on Saturday evening in front of the mosque, the Al-Furqan Jame Masjid, where the two men had prayed.

“We are calling for all people, of all faiths, to rally with compassion and with a sense of vigilance so that justice can be served,” Nasher said. ““You can’t go up to a person and shoot them in the head and not be motivated by hatred.”

The suspect was seen by witnesses fleeing the scene with a gun in his hand, police said.

“We are currently conducting an extensive canvass of the area for video and additional witnesses,” deputy inspector Henry Sautner said in a statement.

Eric Phillips, a press secretary for New York City mayor Bill de Blasio, said the mayor was closely monitoring the police investigation into the shootings.

“While it is too early to tell what led to these murders, it is certain that the NYPD will stop at nothing to ensure justice is served,” Phillips said in a statement.

Akonjee was described as a peaceful man who was beloved within Ozone Park’s large Muslim community.

“He would not hurt a fly,” his nephew Rahi Majid, 26, told the New York Daily News. “You would watch him come down the street and watch the peace he brings.”

Video footage posted on YouTube showed dozens of men gathered near the site of the shooting, with one of them telling the crowd that it appeared to be a hate crime, even as police said the motive was still unknown.

“We feel really insecure and unsafe in a moment like this,” Millat Uddin, an Ozone Park resident told CBS television in New York. “It’s really threatening to us, threatening to our future, threatening to our mobility in our neighbourhood, and we’re looking for the justice.”

In June, CAIR issued a statement calling for Muslim community leaders to consider increasing security after the Orlando massacre and incidents that it said had targeted Muslims and Islamic houses of worship.

A gunman who called himself an ‘Islamic soldier’ killed 49 people in an Orlando, Florida, nightclub on June 12.

(Reuters)

The Digital Desi

Sreenath Sreenivasan has just been appointed chief digital officer of New York City by Mayor Bill de Blasio. Tunku Varadarajan interviewed him – over WhatsApp – on what the job entails.

Sreenath Sreenivasan in Times Square. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Sreenath ‘Sree’ Sreenivasan, the former chief digital officer (CDO) of, first, Columbia University and, next, New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, has just been appointed the CDO of New York City by Mayor Bill de Blasio. Tunku Varadarajan, a research fellow in journalism at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, interviewed Sree recently – by WhatsApp. Owing to differences in their respective time-zones – Sree is travelling in India and Tunku is in New York – the interview was conducted over two days.

Here is the transcript of their WhatsApp thread.

Tunku Varadarajan: Sree, delighted we can do your first ever WhatsApp interview! I’d suggested doing this by email, but you responded that this was “way cooler.” Why?

Sree Sreenivasan: See, now you make me sound like the dork I really am! ?

In addition to being nominally cooler, there are some practical considerations.

WhatsApp isn’t just mobile-first, it’s mobile-only, and that’s the way I’m trying to work these days. Since I left The Met on June 30, I barely touched my laptop. I used it a mere 18 minutes the first couple of weeks of my new life (I ran a stopwatch). I try to do everything on my phone, including short bursts of writing (haven’t needed to write long form yet).

I ended up having to use my laptop extensively only when I started the vetting process for the City, which requires a lot of detailed documentation and accessing corporate services.

Now, it’s back to mobile-only, as much as possible.

Why my obsession with mobile? That’s where our audience and our consumers live, work and play. We need to think and access technology the way they do. Major sites are finding that 70-90% of their traffic is coming via mobile, but they continue to create content only via desktop and laptop. The more we create content in the way consumers consume it, the more we will learn. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be writing longer pieces on laptops (the way you do), just that we should think more mobile-ly than we are now.

Another advantage is that WhatsApp notifications will alert me when you write to me, which may mean faster response time.

Here’s one major drawback of this kind of interview: No chance to edit/fact-check what I write once I hit SEND!

Tunku: Now I see why you are going to be New York city’s first Chief Digital Officer! But tell me, how the devil am I going to get this Whatsapp thread into my laptop??

Sree: Took me a moment, but figured it out.

Click on a single message and choose FORWARD from pop-up menu.

Select the various messages you wish to forward.

Then select the share menu item on the lower left of the app.

Select email/Gmail and forward the whole thing to your email – or your editor’s.

Tunku: Thank you…This interview is turning into a workshop! But let me get back on track. You were the first Chief Digital Officer at Columbia…New York’s best university (with all respect to NYU). Then CDO at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, America’s finest museum. And now of New York City, the greatest city in the world. That’s quite an ascent in the space of three years or so. How is this latest challenge different from the others? You’ve gone from dealing with students and pesky professors, to curators and aesthetes, to handling a famously demanding public…a very demanding citizenry…

Sree: Thanks for the kind words about my previous employers! It’s been an immense privilege to work at Columbia and The Met.

Now I’m getting to put to work all I’ve learned working inside four major NYC industries: education, media, nonprofits and arts & culture.

Having worked in two institutions with some amount of politics and bureaucracy should be good prep to work in the world of actual politics and public service and for becoming a bureaucrat myself.

I have a lot to learn – a lot – and will spend the next two months going to school on municipal governance, City agencies, etc. And memorizing the NYC Digital Playbook: http://playbook.cityofnewyork.us

I know I now have 300,000 colleagues and 8.5 million bosses, in addition to my two bosses in City Hall. Mayor de Blasio and deputy mayor, Alicia Glen. Wish me luck!

Tunku: In a sense, you approach the world of bureaucracy…if we can call it that…with an inherent advantage. Your father was a distinguished Indian civil servant. What would you say you’ve learnt from him that would help you in your new job?

Sree: I know one of the reasons my parents and aunts and uncles are thrilled about the job is that I am finally the civil servant most of them wanted to be! (Which Indian parent says, “I want my kid to grow up to be a journalist,” anyway?)

It may not be the prestigious Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Service or Indian Foreign Service, but it will have to do.

As for what I’ve learned from a lifetime of watching civil servants from the inside and out is that at their best, they are helping their fellow citizens live their best possible lives and there is no higher calling. Plus, I learned from watching my dad that diplomacy isn’t just what’s practiced by foreign ministers. Diplomacy is using your skills of persuasion to win over people to your side and it’s something I’ll need to do a lot of as we think about innovation in NYC.

BTW, considering this is a WhatsApp chat, I feel like we should be using a lot more emojis. Here are some random ones: ???????????✏?

Tunku: I’m Emoji-challenged…I’m not even sure if the word is upper case or lower…Tell me, playing if your own experience and success…What is it with Indians and things digital, things tech? Is there a special affinity, a special ability??

Tunku: Sorry, typo…playing off…

Sree: Just copy and paste the same question and edit the typo and repost. I’ll delete the one with the typo. 🙂

Sree: I’ll answer question after you do the above.

Tunku: I’m Emoji-challenged…I’m not even sure if the word is upper case or lower…Tell me, playing off your own experience and success…What is it with Indians and all things digital, all things tech? Is there a special affinity, a special ability??

Sree: Actually, that?is one of my fave emojis, so well played.

While many Indians have deserved their success in Silicon Valley and elsewhere because of their engineering prowess, there are some of us – especially me – who benefit from the presumption that we know a lot about technology just because we’re Indian. I like to say I’m not an engineer, but I play one on TV. ?

Tunku: But IRL you’re a CDO. And I’m relieved that fewer people think that stands for Collateralized Debt Obligation today than did in 2009! So tell me, what does a CDO actually do, especially the CDO of a massive and head-spinningly diverse metropolis?

Sree: My kind of CDO is a newish role in business and nonprofits. And no two roles are alike, even in the same industry. My CDO mentor, Perry Hewitt (@perryhewitt on Twitter – follow her!) was at Harvard when I was at Columbia, and we had divergent responsibilities and portfolios.

The main thing a CDO does is help a CEO and the institution with the heavy work of digital transformation – making the organization more relevant to customers, employees and other stakeholders. In the City’s case, it’s transformation of services for residents and well as transformation of how employees are trained and how they work.

No matter what age your org, or what its field, some amount of transformation is going to be required. I’d argue the reason Yahoo is in the sorry state it’s in today is because the most innovative digital company in 1995 was in need of transformation that it didn’t undergo fully. My friend NYT correspondent Vindu Goel (@VinduGoel) had a wonderfully evocative line in what was, essentially his autopsy of Yahoo: “The Internet is an unforgiving place for yesterday’s great ideas.”

So a CDO has to help a CEO find today and tomorrow’s great ideas. That’s why I like to say my job is Chief Listening Officer.

As for what my work for the City will entail, @BilldeBlasio gave me marching orders by tweeting three goals: “Welcome, @sree, as NYC’s new CDO! And onward to becoming the most tech-friendly, transparent, digitally equitable city in the world.”

Can’t be clearer than that. Now comes the hard part. The good news City Hall has already built a strong tech team and so many remarkable things are already happening. And I have the full support and encouragement of @DMAliciaGlen, who I work directly for.

Sreenath Sreenivasan. Credit: Deidre Schoo/www.sree.net

Tunku: Chief Listening Officer…I like that. You have a gift for the catchy phrase! So who will you be listening to, apart from Bosses Bill and Alicia? And how will you do your listening?

Sree: Sorry I’ve been offline, Tunku, the consequence of being home with my parents (and doing six TV interviews today, including one Facebook Live).

I want and need to listen to New Yorkers in all five boroughs, as well as those who work and play in NYC. I will also be listening for new ideas from around the world. From entrepreneurs who come to size us up for their future home to those who decide that NYC isn’t for them.

I won’t just rely on tech to do this listening. I plan to hold events in each borough and be available in a variety of ways. Why wait? If any of your readers has an idea: sree@sree.net.

Tunku: So would you call your field “digital civics”? Or governance? Or civic entrepreneurship?

Sree: How about all of the above. I’ve gotten a lot of questions here in Kerala about how services can be improved and they have a strong parallel to NYC.

Tunku: You preempted my next question…How much of what you’ll do should be done in India? Do Delhi and Mumbai and Bangalore have CDOs?

Sree: Several journos asked me about this today. I don’t know the answer, about global CDOs – but will ask around.

In the meantime, today an interviewer said that age is a factor in the digital divide. We talked about it at length. And I just saw this tweet from the fab folks at @PewInternet: 86% of Americans ages 18-29 own a smartphone, compared to 30% of those 65 & older pewrsr.ch/1Mjb9R2

Tackling all kind of aspects of the digital divide is critical: economic, racial, age, geographic, even attitudinal. And it would be the same in India, only more pronounced.

Tunku: So what do you see as your biggest challenge…something that might keep you up at night? (I know you’re unflappable, so treat that question as rhetorical!).”

Sree: Au contraire! Very flappable person here.

All day I’ve been thinking about the Mayor’s welcome tweet, so let’s go back to it for a moment.

>>>. Welcome, @sree, as NYC’s new CDO! And onward to becoming the most tech-friendly, transparent, digitally equitable city in the world. <<<

It’s so clear, simple and elegant. But it’s one of the hardest job descriptions I can think of. I’ll stay up at night worrying about making all this a reality. We are already en route, but there’s work to the done.

Of the three goals, it’s the third one, on digital equitability, that will be the toughest and the most heartbreaking to fall short on.

Tunku: Ok, my last question…After a decent innings as CDO of NYC, what next for Sree? Politics? Would you ever run for office? God knows we need tech-literate legislators…right?

Sree: Ha! I’m very honored to have this role now and am looking forward to going all in to do the best that I can for the city I love. I never look that far ahead!

Thanks for this unusual interview opportunity.

I encourage your readers to connect with me on Twitter (@sree); Facebook (/sreenet); Instagram (@sreenet) and Snapchat (sreedotnet – though I’ve no snaps to my name yet. I hear it’s what all the cool kids are using!) And join my “Sree’s Advanced Social” group on FB: FB.com/groups/sreeadvanced

And if anyone in Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore or Chennai is interested, those are the remaining stops on my social media speaking tour through Aug 13: http://SreeTwitterTour.com

Sree: (I’ll send you the transcript now). Will be in mutual emails you’ll have to cut-n-paste. Can only forward 10 msgs at a time.

Tunku: Ok. Great. Enjoyed this. Thanks