Technology and The Congressional Black Caucus

Technology and The Congressional Black Caucus
Gregory Fossedal
East St. Louis Monitor
March 9, 2000

If some hightech corporate CEOs are to be believed, digital and internet technologies will soon solve all human problems, from a cure to AIDS to wars to the racial gaps and tensions that still remain in America. African Americans and their leaders, however, while certainly hopeful, aren't betting on the idea that computers alone will bring about social equality or the end of racism. In many ways, in fact, they are thinking much more practically than many in the private sector.

Recently, the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution interviewed members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and their staff to see just what they think the explosion of computer and internet technologies will mean for African Americans. What we found was diversity on a number of policy issues, and even some sharp disagreements about fairly straightforward questions such as, "Are private companies doing a good job of reaching out in the Black community?" Even so, some common threads emerged‑ threads that may cut against much conventional opinion about the Black Caucus specifically and the thinking in the African‑American community in general.

CBC members, as one might expect, would like to see programs that address the digital divide. But they're not insistent that such efforts be dominated by government, either on the funding or management side. "We're not putting all our eggs in that basket," as Congressman John Conyers confided to a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee last fall. Maxine Waters, who sponsored the nation's first extensive effort at building training bridges across the digital divide, shares that emphasis. "Training has to hook up to jobs," she comments. "The companies are the ones that hire people. Therefore they have to be major partners, and, in fact, I'd like to see more of them, not less."

Recently at Ballou High School in Washington, D.C., President Clinton congratulated Congresswoman Waters for championing the creation of Community Technology Centers and technology training for workers. At that event, the President announced a $100 million increase in funding for the creation of 1000 new community technology centers. However, these numbers all pale against what private companies are doing. For whatever reason‑ generosity, self‑interest, or some mix‑ private industry has stepped up to the plate.

When we asked Donald Payne about digital divide issues, for instance, his first words were, "Just don't ask me to say anything against Bill Gates." After donating $1 billion to Black college scholarships, and more recently $300 million for teacher training software, "he's stepped up to the plate." Payne, one of the CBC's senior and most respected members, was one of the first to issue a statement acknowledging Gates' generosity. "The companies have been pretty good, too," Waters adds‑ and ticks off the names executives at, Cisco, Novell, Microsoft, America Online and others.

There is a general interest in seeing more tangible data on how "technology's ease of use" has helped minorities move across the divide. An aide to Representative Charles Rangel commented, '"We would like to see more studies and information looking at the digital divide from different angles." A similar reserve predominates when it comes to regulatory issues related to technology, such as the anti‑trust suit against Microsoft, the arm‑wrestling between America Online and AT&T over cable access, or the merger of AOL with Time Warner. "Those are big boy battles," Waters comments. "To me, it doesn't matter whether AOL has to pay, and then bill me, or whether I have to go through AT&T, and they bill me directly. I think that's just one special interest versus another. Of course, they all come to us and try to convince us that our voters will live or die by whether they win or not. They have all sorts of reasons why their special interest is critical to us. But it's not very persuasive."

Opinions about the Microsoft case were interesting. "Windows has made it easy for everyone," argues Representative Carolyn Kilpatrick. "There may be another product that will come along and be even better," she adds, but if so, it should "be allowed to prevail in the marketplace." A strong tone of free‑market thinking prevails when talking to such members about the various regulatory and legal struggles. "You can't have a law that applies only to Bill Gates," comments Congressman Danny Davis. "You can't single people out and say Mike Tyson hits too hard and you need to take the sting out of his lick, or that Wilt Chamberlain is too tall, so cut his legs off." Davis demurs on the particulars of the case, but is an example of the general suspicion that companies are often singled out with little attention to the CBC institutionally and, more important, to the interests of minorities generally.

Internet Taxation "They'll use us to get the tax passed, and take the blame, then the programs will never amount to anything more than a small fraction of what we bring in," Jesse Jackson Jr. reportedly responded when a pro‑internet‑tax advocate tried to corner him. Jackson hasn't stated flat‑out opposition to the tax, but he hasn't supported it either. Other CBC members seem equally non‑committal: Only two of the six we spoke to support the idea, and others on record are lukewarm at best. "Any internet tax we did vote for," Payne commented at a Democratic fund‑raiser last fall, "should and will be looked at carefully." You clearly see that there is no clamor among the caucus for an internet tax. The opinion is in fact very broad. Indeed, the most interesting play coming out of the CBC on Internet and technology issues isn't about economics, taxation or spending, but political reform. Jackson is pushing for digital democracy ‑ including Internet voting. Elitists of both parties have qualms about the idea, but true "small D democrats" of both parties, as Jack Kemp calls them, will find the measure intriguing.

In taking digital divide issues into the political realm, Jackson has adopted both a principled idea and a shrewd political strategy. Whether you like online voting or not, it's hard to argue against the idea without expressing a frank, elitist, anti‑democratic opinion about the people who would be voting that way, or the way they would be voting. It's one reason why Jackson, along with Waters, is seen as a leading (and rising) voice among CBC members on technology issues. "I look to her [Waters], as others do, on these matters, because quite frankly she's had the guts to take some positions and fight for some progress," says a Democratic member of Congress who asked not to be identified. "Some of the others have not had the guts." Conyers and others seem to take the sensible view that technology isn't going to solve racial gaps nor is it going to make them inevitably worse. It's not a force for evil or a force for good. It's just a force that is determined by the good or evil human beings who use it.

**Technology and The Congressional Black Caucus**
**Gregory Fossedal**
East St. Louis Monitor
March 9, 2000
If some hightech corporate CEOs are to be believed, digital and internet technologies will soon solve all human problems, from a cure to AIDS to wars to the racial gaps and tensions that still remain in America. African Americans and their leaders, however, while certainly hopeful, aren't betting on the idea that computers alone will bring about social equality or the end of racism. In many ways, in fact, they are thinking much more practically than many in the private sector. Recently, the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution interviewed members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and their staff to see just what they think the explosion of computer and internet technologies will mean for African Americans. What we found was diversity on a number of policy issues, and even some sharp disagreements about fairly straightforward questions such as, "Are private companies doing a good job of reaching out in the Black community?" Even so, some common threads emerged‑ threads that may cut against much conventional opinion about the Black Caucus specifically and the thinking in the African‑American community in general. CBC members, as one might expect, would like to see programs that address the digital divide. But they're not insistent that such efforts be dominated by government, either on the funding or management side. "We're not putting all our eggs in that basket," as Congressman John Conyers confided to a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee last fall. Maxine Waters, who sponsored the nation's first extensive effort at building training bridges across the digital divide, shares that emphasis. "Training has to hook up to jobs," she comments. "The companies are the ones that hire people. Therefore they have to be major partners, and, in fact, I'd like to see more of them, not less." Recently at Ballou High School in Washington, D.C., President Clinton congratulated Congresswoman Waters for championing the creation of Community Technology Centers and technology training for workers. At that event, the President announced a $100 million increase in funding for the creation of 1000 new community technology centers. However, these numbers all pale against what private companies are doing. For whatever reason‑ generosity, self‑interest, or some mix‑ private industry has stepped up to the plate. When we asked Donald Payne about digital divide issues, for instance, his first words were, "Just don't ask me to say anything against Bill Gates." After donating $1 billion to Black college scholarships, and more recently $300 million for teacher training software, "he's stepped up to the plate." Payne, one of the CBC's senior and most respected members, was one of the first to issue a statement acknowledging Gates' generosity. "The companies have been pretty good, too," Waters adds‑ and ticks off the names executives at, Cisco, Novell, Microsoft, America Online and others. There is a general interest in seeing more tangible data on how "technology's ease of use" has helped minorities move across the divide. An aide to Representative Charles Rangel commented, '"We would like to see more studies and information looking at the digital divide from different angles." A similar reserve predominates when it comes to regulatory issues related to technology, such as the anti‑trust suit against Microsoft, the arm‑wrestling between America Online and AT&T over cable access, or the merger of AOL with Time Warner. "Those are big boy battles," Waters comments. "To me, it doesn't matter whether AOL has to pay, and then bill me, or whether I have to go through AT&T, and they bill me directly. I think that's just one special interest versus another. Of course, they all come to us and try to convince us that our voters will live or die by whether they win or not. They have all sorts of reasons why their special interest is critical to us. But it's not very persuasive." Opinions about the Microsoft case were interesting. "Windows has made it easy for everyone," argues Representative Carolyn Kilpatrick. "There may be another product that will come along and be even better," she adds, but if so, it should "be allowed to prevail in the marketplace." A strong tone of free‑market thinking prevails when talking to such members about the various regulatory and legal struggles. "You can't have a law that applies only to Bill Gates," comments Congressman Danny Davis. "You can't single people out and say Mike Tyson hits too hard and you need to take the sting out of his lick, or that Wilt Chamberlain is too tall, so cut his legs off." Davis demurs on the particulars of the case, but is an example of the general suspicion that companies are often singled out with little attention to the CBC institutionally and, more important, to the interests of minorities generally. Internet Taxation "They'll use us to get the tax passed, and take the blame, then the programs will never amount to anything more than a small fraction of what we bring in," Jesse Jackson Jr. reportedly responded when a pro‑internet‑tax advocate tried to corner him. Jackson hasn't stated flat‑out opposition to the tax, but he hasn't supported it either. Other CBC members seem equally non‑committal: Only two of the six we spoke to support the idea, and others on record are lukewarm at best. "Any internet tax we did vote for," Payne commented at a Democratic fund‑raiser last fall, "should and will be looked at carefully." You clearly see that there is no clamor among the caucus for an internet tax. The opinion is in fact very broad. Indeed, the most interesting play coming out of the CBC on Internet and technology issues isn't about economics, taxation or spending, but political reform. Jackson is pushing for digital democracy ‑ including Internet voting. Elitists of both parties have qualms about the idea, but true "small D democrats" of both parties, as Jack Kemp calls them, will find the measure intriguing. In taking digital divide issues into the political realm, Jackson has adopted both a principled idea and a shrewd political strategy. Whether you like online voting or not, it's hard to argue against the idea without expressing a frank, elitist, anti‑democratic opinion about the people who would be voting that way, or the way they would be voting. It's one reason why Jackson, along with Waters, is seen as a leading (and rising) voice among CBC members on technology issues. "I look to her [Waters], as others do, on these matters, because quite frankly she's had the guts to take some positions and fight for some progress," says a Democratic member of Congress who asked not to be identified. "Some of the others have not had the guts." Conyers and others seem to take the sensible view that technology isn't going to solve racial gaps nor is it going to make them inevitably worse. It's not a force for evil or a force for good. It's just a force that is determined by the good or evil human beings who use it.