Report: I Dream Detroit

Report coming soon.

As Detroit’s resurgence continues to garner local, regional and national attention, a new ground- breaking report and project seek to amplify the voices of those most absent from the public discourse on the city’s future—women of color.

The I Dream Detroit project works to bring the experience and ideas of women of color from all walks of life more fully to bear in shaping Detroit’s development plans. In Detroit, women make up 53 percent of the city’s population. Among all women, 91 percent are women of color (Black, Asian and Latina) and a substantial portion of them live below the poverty line (56 percent of Latinas, 55 percent of Asians, and 40 percent of African Americans). Despite these odds and others, families led by women of color are self-employed and employ others as business owners, run nonprofits, hold public office, pick themselves up after incarceration and help those in need. Detroit-based social activist Grace Lee Boggs called these everyday waymakers “solutionairies.”

I Dream Detroit launched in spring 2016 with a series of meetings with direct service providers, small business owners, community activists, union leaders and elected officials from across the city. These leaders now serve as ongoing advisors and partners. Last summer, I Dream Detroit held six focus groups with partner organizations in different neighborhoods that attracted more than 100 women. Additionally, nearly 500 women offered their opinions through a citywide survey.

The project is grounded in the belief that amplifying the voices of women of color—both those most affected by poverty and those implementing effective strategies for change—is essential to Detroit’s long-term progress. “How is it that the images I see about Detroit’s revival don’t often include these women?” asks I Dream Detroit report author Kimberly Freeman Brown, a Washington, D.C.-based expert on gender and racial equity and inclusion issues. “Imagining and building a new Detroit without their meaningful participation will prevent Detroit from fully coming into its potential and promise.”

We also believe that focusing on the economic well-being of women is a way of securing the well-being of children. Toward this end, the overarching goal of the project is to reimagine Detroit’s approach to addressing economic development by putting women of color and their children at the center. Ideally, doing so will demonstrate the need for a more balanced economic change in Detroit and what it will take to achieve economic security for more of its citizens.

I Dream Detroit, funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies’ Black Worker Initiative, a national think tank based in Washington, D.C. “The eyes of our nation are watching what happens in Detroit,” says Black Worker Initiative Director and I Dream Detroit Project Director Marc Bayard. “As cities begin to climb out of the hole created by the Great Recession, emerging opportunities to prosper can’t be for a select few. We must innovate and build economies that allow everyone to thrive. And that requires surfacing fresh ideas from new voices.”

I Dream Detroit will culminate with the October 2017 release of a photojournalistic report featuring the results of the survey and focus groups. Additionally, the report will document the struggles and successes of 15 women whose lives reflect the travails and triumphs of women of color in Detroit.

“We believe the report will greatly inform Detroit’s ongoing economic development planning,” says Brown. “And we’ll introduce to some, or re-introduce to others, new partners that economic development leaders should be working with more closely.”

For more information on I Dream Detroit, contact: Delora Hall Tyler, First Media Group (248) 354-8705 or


For Black Americans, MLK’s Dream Still Isn’t Reality


Kenneth Worles / Institute for Policy Studies

Not long ago, I saw a comment on an online article about the rise in protests for black civil rights. “We gave you a president,” wrote the commenter. “We gave you your damn Oscar. What more do you want?”

Never mind the White House. What many black people still long for is any house at all.

In 1966 at Chicago’s Soldier Field, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. expounded on this dream. “We are tired of living in rat-infested slums,” he said. “Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God’s children.”

That door to opportunity is home ownership — which, for most Americans, is their single most valuable asset.

Yet more than half of African Americans don’t own homes. A recent report by the Institute for Policy Studies highlights that only 41 percent of black families are homeowners, compared to 71 percent of white families.

White people don’t own homes at greater rates because they picked themselves up by their bootstraps while black people sat around. After the Great Depression, the federal government started subsidizing housing for white folks to help them get back on their feet.

Wealth inequality expert Chuck Collins, a coauthor of the IPS report, explained on NPR’s Marketplace: “In the decade following World War II, our nation made unprecedented public investments to subsidize debt-free college education and low-cost mortgages. These wealth-building measures benefited millions of mostly white households.”

But if you weren’t white, you missed the boat. In fact, the report notes, just 2 percent of Federal Housing Administration loans went to non-white households in the years following World War II.

Meanwhile, discriminatory housing practices have held African Americans back.

Throughout the 20th century, realty associations and discriminatory financial institutions conspired to disenfranchise would-be black homeowners. Real estate agents, explains Morehouse professor Marc Lamont Hill, “followed an unwritten edict: Sell homes in white neighborhoods to black buyers and you will lose your license.”

Even when some blacks were beginning to successfully build wealth, it was taken away. Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, “slum clearance” measures spread rapidly throughout the country, leading to widespread demolitions of black middle-class homes. In the name of expanding public housing, many black families literally lost the roof over their heads.

More recently, subprime lending has emerged as the most dangerous attack on African-American homeowners. Thanks to predatory mortgage practices, black families lost three to four times as much wealth during the Great Recession as white families.

This may have been no accident. Federal investigations after the crash revealed that Wells Fargo loan officers referred to black customers as “mud people” and called black mortgages “ghetto loans.”

To reverse these trends, we need to create a housing boom for low-income and first-time minority homeowners, invest in financial literacy and career readiness programs, and bring middle-class and high-wage jobs into newly developed black neighborhoods.

“A society has a moral obligation to make a large, aggressive investment,” President Obama said recently, “in order to close those gaps” between black and white Americans.

A truly “aggressive investment” would ensure not only equity for African Americans in this country, but would also expand middle-class America, reduce crime in America’s major cities, and improve schools in urban communities.

Without that, Dr. King’s dream is still deferred.

The post For Black Americans, MLK’s Dream Still Isn’t Reality appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.

Kenneth Worles is the Newman Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.


When States Dream, Is Syria Their Nightmare?

National Catholic Reporter Interviews Phyllis Bennis

Photo by Goran Tomasevic.

The war in Syria is a nightmare. It’s a nightmare for all the civilians who suffer from constant aerial bombardment, who are trapped without food and medical assistance inside crumbling cities, who experience the retribution of either the Islamic State or the regime in Damascus. It’s a nightmare for those who try to escape and face the prospect of death in transit or limbo in refugee camps.

Syria is a nightmare for individuals, millions of them. But it’s not just that. If states could dream, then Syria would be their nightmare as well.

Syria was once a sovereign state like any other. It had a central government and fixed boundaries. The Syrian state enjoyed a monopoly on violence and, on several occasions, deployed that violence against its citizenry to devastating effect. The economy functioned, more or less, with considerable revenue coming from the oil sector. In 2009, tourism accounted for 12 percent of the economy. Not that long ago and despite its many problems, Syria attracted a large number of eager travelers.

In perhaps the most ironic twist, the Syrian state once had delusions of grandeur. It wanted to abolish the old colonial boundaries and unify the entire Arab world. Under Hafez al-Assad, its authoritarian ruler from 1970 until 2000, Syria attempted to absorb Lebanon, unite with Egypt and Libya in a short-lived Federation of Arab Republics, displace Iraq as the undisputed ideological leader in the region, and even take charge of the Palestinian cause.

How quickly dreams can segue into nightmares. Syria has fallen in upon itself, fracturing into four distinct pieces. The government in Damascus controls a gerrymandered slice of territory around the capital and the coast. The Kurds have carved out an autonomous region along the Turkish border in the northeast. The Islamic State still claims a large expanse in the heart of the country. And various rebel factions have secured a patchwork of land in all four corners of what had once been a unified Syria.

The government in Damascus, needless to say, no longer enjoys its monopoly on violence. It can’t control the borders of the country. The economy shrank by 19 percent in 2015 and will probably contract another 8 percent this year. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians have died in the current conflict. Out of a pre-war population of 23 million, nearly half have fled their homes 4.8 million leaving the country and 6.6 million displaced internally. The war, according to one estimate, has cost over $ 250 billion.

Much like the Balkans before it, Syria is emerging as a metaphor for the fragmentation and chaos that the modern world barely contains. Many states are held together by little more than surface tension, like the meniscus of liquid that rises above the sides of a glass. Nationalism has reached a boiling point in many places, as has religious extremism. Armaments are everywhere, militias are proliferating, and violence has become pervasive. After scoring a number of impressive victories  in Northern Ireland, in East Timor, most recently in Colombia international diplomats are stymied by the breakdown of order in places like Syria, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia.

The countries jockeying for influence in Syria today face many of the same divisive forces that have torn apart that benighted country. The dream of these intervening powers: to turn the current war to their advantage. Their nightmare: that whatever is tearing apart Syria is contagious.

The Illusion of Totalitarianism

There is no such thing as a totalitarian state.

Some dictators, of course, imagine that they can create just such a state, in which the government is a mere extension of the leader’s will and no significant opposition challenges this central authority. Such a society is a pyramid with one person at the top, every block serving to support that uppermost platform. Mere authoritarian societies tolerate potential rival sources of power, such as an intelligentsia or a business sector. In the ideal totalitarian system, all is for one and one is for all.

Even North Korea under the Kim dynasty Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Kim Jong Eun fails to achieve this kind of totalitarian control. True, the government has managed to suppress virtually every sign of political dissent, indigenous NGOs are practically non-existent, and all culture is subordinate to the state. However, private markets have sprung up beyond the state’s compete control (though, as a sign of grudging acceptance, the state taxes the sellers). Citizens watch contraband movies and listen to taboo music thanks to flash drives smuggled in from China. There have even been signs of disagreement at the highest levels of governance (or so the execution of Kim Jong Eun’s uncle Jang Song Thaek suggests).

Once upon a time, the leader of Syria also hoped to create a totalitarian dynasty in the heart of the Middle East. Hafez al-Assad embraced a version of Baathism, the anti-colonial, nationalist, pan-Arabist, and nominally socialist hybrid that emerged from the ideological tumult of the 1940s. As in North Korea, Assad created a one-party state with an extensive secret police, the Mukhabarat. He ruthlessly eliminated opposition, as in 1982 when the state brutally suppressed an uprising by the Muslim Brotherhood. After a brief excursion into reform, the designated successor, Assad’s son Bashar, followed in his father’s footsteps. He attempted to extinguish the Arab Spring uprising just as his father had dealt with the Islamists. The current war is the result of Bashar al-Assad’s failure to perceive the declining power of his unitary state.

As much as the younger Assad would have liked to maintain a firm grip on power, Syria 2012 was a much different place from Syria 1982. During those 30 years, the bonds that had kept the country together had weakened. Popular organizations had begun to demand democracy. Groups defined by their ethnicity saw the potential for greater autonomy. Religious organizations sensed an opportunity to dislodge what had once been a distinctly secular regime. Other centers of power had appeared in Syrian society, and the Baathist regime was ill equipped to deal with this kind of pluralism.

This scenario might seem unique. It isn’t. Disharmonious pluralism has become the new global standard. Other countries Turkey, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the EU, even the United States gaze upon the Syrian example and tremble.

It Can Happen Here

Stripped of its magic sovereignty, Syria has been turned into a piñata whose hidden treasures are now available for all to see and seize. Even as they continue to wield their bats, the intervening powers can’t help but perceive how quickly sovereignty can disappear and how little prevents them from becoming piñatas in turn.

Turkish leaders, for instance, must be quite aware of the structural features their country shares with Syria. The glue that has traditionally held together modern Turkey Kemalism, named for the father of Turkey, Kemal Ataturk has a somewhat Baathist flavor. It, too, is anti-colonial, nationalist, and secular. Kemalism, like Baathism, has unified an extraordinarily diverse country. Where ideology has proven insufficient, the central government, as in Syria, has used considerable firepower to suppress any movement but particularly the Kurds in the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) – that challenges the territorial integrity of the country.

Turkey’s current leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, wants to consolidate power internally and project Turkish influence throughout the Middle East (and beyond). Syria has long been integral to this dual project. The two countries mended fences in the early 2000s when Syria figured prominently in Turkey’s “zero problems with neighbors” policy. Once Assad’s position became tenuous during the Arab Spring, however, Erdogan saw an opportunity to switch horses. As the conflict deepened, and no horse emerged as a clear winner, Erdogan decided to use the cover of war to bomb the PKK and their supporters over the border. He hoped to identify a “responsible” Kurdish faction with which to do business – as Ankara has done with Kurdistan in Iraq. More recently, by creating a “safe zone” in northern Syria, Turkey plans to resettle Syrian refugees now in Turkish camps and use that as a base of operations for promoting Turkish business in post-war reconstruction.

That’s the dream, anyway. The nightmare is not far away. The failed coup in July was a rather inept demonstration of the latent anxiety in certain sectors about Erdogan’s consolidation of domestic power. The rekindled war with the Kurds in the southeast reveals the continued ethnic divide in the country. So far, Erdogan has cleverly combined the secularist Kemalism and the soft-pedaled Islamism of his Justice and Development Party into a Turkey-first nationalism. But blowback from Syria from Kurds, from Islamic State supporters, from a disgruntled Turkish army could open up a rift in Erdogan’s coalition, and Turkey would then be on the verge of turning into a Syria.

Even though it follows a very different operating system, Iran, too, looks on Syria as a cautionary example. The government in Tehran is currently split between reformers under President Hassan Rouhani and the religious hardliners who constantly fret over theological deviations. The Green Movement that emerged around the 2009 elections revealed strong opposition to the theocrats within the urban middle class. If Rouhani and his cohort are not able to take full advantage of the nuclear deal and Iran’s reentry into the global economy, Iran could slide backward economically and then, after the next elections, politically to the days of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Disenchanted with formal politics, the next iteration of the Green Movement might give up on peaceful demonstrations and plunge Iran into its own civil war.

Saudi Arabia seems like a solid enough entity at the moment. But it too faces a religious challenge from its Wahhabist fringes and a potential territorial challenge from minority Shia in the Eastern Province. The House of Saud rules with an iron fist, and its Committee for the Protection of Virtue and Prevention of Vice intrudes into the private lives of the citizens. The collapse of oil prices has put a squeeze on the kingdom’s finances, which will inevitably open up cleavages within Saudi society. In the absence of a strong national identity, Saudi Arabia could fracture along tribal lines, much like Somalia.

These challenges are not limited to the Middle East. The European Union faces multiple centrifugal forces Brexit, defaulting economies, a restive Russia. Euroskeptics decry the undemocratic power wielded by political institutions in Brussels. The crisis in Syria is by no means abstract for European countries. The influx of Syrian refugees has driven a huge wedge between countries that want nothing to do with them (particularly Eastern Europe) and countries that want to share the burden equally. The disintegration of Syria is now integrally linked to the disintegration of Europe, which might seem fitting to those who believe in the vengeful ghosts of colonialism.

The United States is far away from the Syrian conflict, and so far the Obama administration has limited the number of incoming refugees to 10,000 (compared to more than a million that Europe has accepted). The issue of immigrants has certainly divided the two major presidential candidates, and there is no consensus at the top on Syria policy the recent ceasefire agreement exposed a serious fault line between the State Department (let’s work with the Russians) and the Pentagon (really, the Russians?!). But Syria won’t set Americans against Americans as it has pitted Europeans against themselves. Moreover, despite considerable disagreement in the highest reaches of American power on a range of other issues between Congress and the president, within the Supreme Court, between states and the federal authority these conflicts have been paralyzing rather than fissiparous.

The more serious concern is the sheer number of guns in the United States over 300 million and their greater public visibility. You can now carry around your gun openly in 45 states, and more than 14 million people have permits to do so. The number of anti-government militia groups has been rising steadily since the election of Barack Obama in 2008. Trust in the federal government has fallen to record lows. Approximately one in four Americans want their states to secede from the union. Divisions between rich and poor, white and black, native born and immigrants, have widened.

Ordinarily, all this roiling discontent could be contained by a well-functioning economy or by a set of foreign enemies to focus American enmity. But the election of a much-disliked president next year take your pick may well prove to be a tipping point. It doesn’t take much to turn a well-armed population into a mob.

And that, of course, is the ultimate nightmare for Turkey and Iran and Saudi Arabia and the United States when Syria ceases to be a gloomy metaphor for what is happening outside its borders and becomes instead a grim reality.

The post When States Dream, Is Syria Their Nightmare? appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.

John Feffer directs Foreign Policy in Focus, a project at the Institute for Policy Studies.


The American Dream Moved to Canada


(Photo: Shutterstock)

Does your family aspire to the American Dream of a decent paying job, a few weeks of paid vacation, a home of your own, and the hope of retiring before you die?

Maybe try Canada.

Our country has historically prided itself on being a socially mobile society, where your ability is more important than the race or class you’re born into. Indeed, during the three decades after World War II, social mobility increased — particularly for the white working class.

That mobility became part of our self-identity, especially when juxtaposed with the old “caste societies” of Europe and their static class systems. Today, however, that story has been turned on its head.

If you forgot to be born into a wealthy family, you’re better off today living in Northern Europe or Canada, where social safety nets and investments in early childhood education have paid big dividends for ordinary citizens. In fact, Canada now has three times the social mobility of the U.S.

Young people in the U.S. face huge inequalities of opportunity, in large part based on the wealth — or lack of wealth — of their parents. Researchers call this the “intergenerational transmission of advantage,” referring to the dozens of ways that affluent families boost their children’s prospects starting at birth.

Affluent families make investments that give their kids a leg up through childhood enrichment activities, including travel, music lessons, museum visits, and summer camp.

As they grow older, wealthier kids have better access to college guidance, test preparation, financial literacy skills, and debt-free or low-debt educations.

Then, as they enter the workforce, wealthy young adults have access to their parents’ social networks and are able to take unpaid internships to help them develop job skills. Meanwhile, children in families unable to make these investments fall further behind.

Combined with the 2008 economic meltdown and budget cuts in public programs that foster opportunity for middle and low-income families, we’re witnessing accelerating advantages for the affluent and compounding disadvantages for everyone else. And once inequalities open up, research says, they rarely decrease over time.

The U.S. could rise to this challenge, as we did in the years after World War II and in the early 1960s, by resolving to make robust public investments in policies that include everyone.

But in our increasingly plutocratic political system, the very wealthy — who have oversized political influence along with oversized bank accounts — have less stake in expanding opportunities for the rest of us, as their own children and grandchildren advance through privatized systems.

We can’t stop well-off families from passing advantages to their children, but we can give everyone else a fair shot.

High-quality early childhood education, universal access to health care and nutrition, resources for those with learning disabilities and special needs, and tuition-free higher education for first-generation college students are key initiatives that would help level the playing field.

We could make this possible by taxing wealth. Revenue from a steeply progressive estate or inheritance tax could capitalize an education opportunity trust fund.

If we don’t take action, the United States will further drift toward a caste society fractured along class lines, where opportunity, occupation, and social status are determined by inherited advantage.

By then, our presidential race won’t be the only thing tempting people to move to Canada. 

The post The American Dream Moved to Canada appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.

Chuck Collins directs the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies.


An American Dream Deferred

Man holding sign at an immigration rally reading "I love this country, I just want to stay"

(American Spirit / Shutterstock)

One of the most important lessons I learned growing up was that if I played by the rules and worked hard, I could accomplish anything.

This was — and still is — an American value taught to all children who grow up in this country and attend our public education system.

But what happens when some of those kids who are working hard to fulfill the American dream are undocumented immigrants?

Approximately 1 million undocumented children aspire to go to college in the United States. They want to serve and protect this country they call home as doctors, teachers, or engineers.

Doesn’t this fundamental American value apply to them?

I’ve been thinking about this since I saw the movie Spare Parts.

A dramatic film rooted in a true story, Spare Parts epitomizes the triumphs and struggles of our nation’s hardworking undocumented students.

On the surface, Spare Parts is a classic underdog story. It chronicles four undocumented Arizona high school students who rocked the geek world when they beat a team from MIT in an underwater robotics contest.

But the movie digs deeper into this unlikely victory. It depicts the immigration struggles these young people endured as they tried to beat the other odds systematically stacked against them.

Oscar, the group’s charismatic leader, aspires to serve in the Army. His dream gets deferred when he can’t supply the required documentation.

Cristian, the group’s biggest braniac, gets bullied at school. He’s being raised by a single mother and sleeps in a converted shed.

Competing in the robotics competition gives them a chance to overcome these struggles. They want nothing more than to chart their own future.

Although the movie ends with the group winning first place in the competition, there’s much more to their story that viewers didn’t get to see.

Oscar graduated with an engineering degree from Arizona State University. He got married and had a daughter, but immigration authorities forced him to leave the country when he sought to normalize his status.

He wound up working in the fields in Mexico before Senator Dick Durbin intervened to get him documented. He subsequently joined the Army and served a tour in Afghanistan.

Cristian attended the same university but had to drop out after the state doubled tuition costs for undocumented students.

These real-life struggles are commonplace. Every year, around 65,000 undocumented high school graduates face this roadblock. They have dreams of attending college, but aren’t able to because of their undocumented status.

And here’s one of the biggest tragedies: A large portion of the few who do make it through college aren’t able to work in their professions after they graduate.

Can you imagine having an engineering diploma gathering dust in your closet?

Thousands of undocumented students have worked hard and played by the rules, yet they’re denied the fruits of their labor. This isn’t just their loss. Our economy, society, and country also lose out.

When Birdman director Alejandro González Iñárritu won the Academy Award for best picture this year, he made sure that Hollywood knew this is going on by dedicating his Oscar to his “fellow Mexicans” on both sides of the border.

“I just pray they can be treated with the same dignity and respect as the ones who came before and built this incredible immigrant nation,” he said.

I hope that people everywhere heard his message loud and clear.

The post An American Dream Deferred appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.

Cecilia Velasco is a New Mexico fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.


Racial Wealth Inequality and the Dream Deferred

Ferguson Eric Garner protest

(Photo: scottlum / Flickr)

The marches in the streets may have been provoked by police conduct in Ferguson and Staten Island.  But there is a deeper dream that has been deferred.

The gap between white wealth and Black wealth has grown since the end of the Great Recession of 2007-2009.

According to a new Pew Research Center analysis, the 2013 median wealth of white households is 13 times greater than the median wealth of Black households, up from 8 times greater in 2010.  White households have 10 times more wealth than Hispanic households, up from 9 times greater in 2007.

Median wealth for Black households in 2013 was $ 11,000, down from $ 16,600, a staggering decline of 33.7 percent.  For white households, the median wealth was $ 141,900, up from $ 138,600 in 2010, an increase of 2.4 percent.

Between 2010 and 2013, the median wealth of white households declined 14.3 percent, from $ 16,000 to $ 13,700.

There is a high correlation between wealth — what you own minus what you owe — and security.  Wealth provides a cushion, reserves to fall back on in the face of hardship.  Homeownership has been a foundational asset, something to pass on to one’s children.

While people of all races saw their net worth implode during the recession, white wealth has slightly recovered. This is because whites own more financial assets, such as stocks and bonds, which have rebounded since 2009.  Meanwhile home values, which represent the largest share of assets for households of color, have not rebounded at the same rate.

This study does not pull out the richest 1 percent of white households, which have captured a huge percentage of wealth growth in the last decade.

Politicians are quick to point to the good news of declining unemployment and foreclosure rates, but there are other signs of deeper distress in the economy.

The U.S. homeownership rate has been steadying declining, from 69 percent in 2004 to 64.4 percent in the third quarter of 2014.  For Blacks, the homeownership rate fell from 45.6 percent in 2010 to 42.9 percent in the third quarter of 2014. Over 40 million people have student debt averaging $ 33,000.  And over 43 million households are holding medical debt.

The post Racial Wealth Inequality and the Dream Deferred appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.

Chuck Collins is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies where he directs the Program on Inequality and the Common Good.


The future of Fairtrade: let’s not be afraid to dream big – The Guardian

The Guardian
The future of Fairtrade: let's not be afraid to dream big
The Guardian
We are moving from simply certifying products to collaborating on development programmes that run alongside – from labelling to enabling – so we can increase impact in areas such as child labour, climate change and trade in conflict zones. We are also


The future of Fairtrade: let’s not be afraid to dream big – The Guardian

The Guardian
The future of Fairtrade: let's not be afraid to dream big
The Guardian
We are moving from simply certifying products to collaborating on development programmes that run alongside – from labelling to enabling – so we can increase impact in areas such as child labour, climate change and trade in conflict zones. We are also


Living the Dream – Barron’s

Living the Dream
He also invested $ 150 million in Oriental DreamWorks, a joint partnership with Chinese investors that grants DreamWorks access to the Chinese film market. Katzenberg expects the Chinese production company to go public within five years, offering more 

and more »


Harvesting Justice 13: We Have a Dream – Farm Workers Organize for Justice – Sustainablog (blog)

Harvesting Justice 13: We Have a Dream – Farm Workers Organize for Justice
Sustainablog (blog)
Despite these significant advances, farm workers are still afforded inadequate rights, both on the books and in practice. They perform strenuous physical labor without the protections of sick leave, overtime pay, or health insurance. They are exempt