The Hamline University School of Law held a symposium discussing public engagement (Symposium) on October 23–24, 2015. As a member of the Symposium’s panel, “Setting the Context,” I agreed to write the current article. At the time, I was the executive director of the Minnesota Council on Latino Affairs, a position I retired from in December 2015, after six years of service. I believe that my diverse professional background in government, international finance, nonprofits, media, and entrepreneurship, as well as my personal background of being a Mexican immigrant and naturalized U.S. citizen, gives me unique insights on public engagement. I hope that my perspective can contribute to this urgent and vital discussion. I believe that the underlying goal we should pursue in this effort is to build a better future for all of our children.
One of the working definitions of “Civic Engagement” distributed by Hamline University School of Law during the Symposium is particularly pertinent to this article:
In American history, the citizen has been not only a voter or a rights-bearing member of the nation or a consumer of services. The citizen has also been a producer, a public- spirited agent in problem solving and common work. . . . Addressing the tough challenges we face today will require people to reconceive of themselves as citizens. . . . With restored citizenship, we act as co- creators of history, reclaiming our birthright as democratic citizens to be full participants in shaping our common life.
Most minorities, American Indians, and the poor, experience chronic and seemingly intractable disparities in education, employment, business development, health, housing, and incarceration. In spite of numerous laws, billions in appropriations, and grants directed over several decades towards the solution of this dilemma, progress has not been significant. The large demographic growth among African, Asian and Latino communities has forced government, nonprofits, foundations, and the private sector to focus more intentionally on finding a solution.
One of the defining obstacles in finding effective solutions to these disparities is derived from deficient public engagement. The title of the Symposium pointed to the essence of that deficiency: dysfunction and polarization in the dialogue between government and citizens.
The disparities suffered by minorities were not a priority for many years because of our proportions among the total Minnesotan population. Due to our small numbers, we did not have a major impact on the achievements and quality of life within the state of Minnesota. Concurrently, the majority population’s influence on the general status remained strong because it had not yet been affected by the current aging and retirement of the Baby- Boomer generation. The latter phenomenon and the huge increase in minority numbers came together recently as a major threat to the state’s economy. This has created the formerly absent sense of urgency in addressing the dire consequences of disparities across all sectors.
Prior to said convergence of trends, Minnesota had successfully maintained the danger at bay and minorities in peace through its generous philanthropy and social services. One of the singular aspects of the Minnesota situation was the complacency among stakeholders; all seemed well because of the abundant funding and goodwill to solve a problem. Furthermore, the problem was affecting only a small proportion of the population and not detracting from the state’s big picture. Both of these are, in principle, praiseworthy. Nevertheless, Minnesota formalized an interaction between government, nonprofits, foundations, and minorities that was designed more towards sustaining the system than to eradicating the root of the problem.