11/23/2006
I went to the restroom the day before Thanksgiving-an otherwise unremarkable endeavor and one that I would not ordinarily catalog for the public, were it not for the fact that I ran across something that I found quite alarming. Indeed, I was not the first to see it, it was brought to my attention by two incensed students, duly piqued by what they saw. What they saw was a metaphor for a broken window: it was, in fact, graffiti. And the reason I say it was a metaphor for a broken window, I'll explain now.
"Broken windows" is an expression borrowed from real broken windows and used to describe the process in which the material elements of a society break down through mayhem and neglect-a kind of social entropy. More simply put, an unattended broken window becomes a beacon for people to break even more. Or, possibly, people will outdo the broken window and break something else, further degrading the material condition of the area. A pattern of neglect emerges and then a "what's the use" mentality takes over and the situation reaches a point where terms such as "urban decay" gain currency. You have probably seen the phenomena.
Still, you may say that in this instance it is all mere speculation. But I would correct you and state that this has been studied, and by no less than psychologist Philip Zimbardo http://www.zimbardo.com/ (of the famous Stanford prison experiment <http://www.prisonexp.org/>) who conducted two experiments on the concept. (See the following excerpt and link for a more detailed description of the Zimbardo experiments.) This inspired political scientist (and consultant to numerous administrations) James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling to pursue the idea and write a policy-influencing article that appears in the 'Atlantic Monthlys http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/198203/broken-windows online archives.
Yet, is one example of graffiti the same as a "broken" window? Maybe. Maybe not. It happens, however, that on the same day I in which I saw the graffiti in the student union building, I later found another sample in one of the bathrooms of the performing arts center.
It may be that what is remarkable is that we have had so little graffiti at Hartnell, being in such an economically disparate community where there is a great deal to complain about by a large sector of that same community, to say nothing of the presence of gangs. And it is these conditions that lead to the destruction of one's own property, if indeed the college can be considered an academic commons, available to everyone in the community. Be that as it may, it would appear that by far the majority of participants of Hartnell College-students, faculty, and staff-respect it to the point that it is basically kept clean and free of distracting and degrading scrawls. That is why the graffiti was so surprising, and seemed to veritably shock the other students. And being shocked is what we should be.
In fact the school feels rather tired right now. It would be hoped that after the strike and the ensuing reconciliation that a revitalization might occur. I strongly feel that only a perpetual state of revitalization will manage to keep the broken windows phenomena from taking hold. It will take the effort of the faculty and the administration as well as the students to make this happen. And while I could make some suggestions regarding what the faculty and the administration should or should not do, my greatest interest is in what the students might do. What that is, is to have a major student run media outlet. As newspapers are expensive and tend to quickly become embroiled in issues of ad placement and awards while running up debt and reducing forests, I would suggest a web site. It should be student run, student built (with faculty support but not faculty oversight) and be for the students and the community at large. Should issues come up there is an instant means of communication, comment and criticism. While there are other "shoulds" I can think of, I will stop here and let the previously mention "should," that it be student run, simply speak for itself.
Follows is a brief description of Philip Zimbardo's broken window experiment. I got it from the Better Schools Australia http://www.users.bigpond.com/ivan.webb/quality/schools/broken_windows.htm web site. I suggest that both my soc 1 students and my soc 5 students look at this and perhaps get some more data and bring it to class for discussion. (We might look at why Zimbardo feels it is important to comment on the fact that most of the vandals were white.) We should discuss whether you agree that the local graffiti work is a case of broken windows or not.:
Philip Zimbardo, a Stanford psychologist, reported in 1969 on some experiments testing the broken-window theory. He arranged to have an automobile without license plates parked with its hood up on a street in the Bronx. He also placed a comparable automobile vehicle, locked and properly parked, on a street in Palo Alto, California.
The car in the Bronx was attacked by "vandals" within ten minutes of its "abandonment." The first to arrive were a family -- father, mother, and young son -- who removed the radiator and battery. Within twenty-four hours, virtually everything of value had been removed. Then random destruction began -- windows were smashed, parts torn off, the upholstery ripped. Children began to use the car as a playground. Most of the adult "vandals" were well-dressed, apparently clean-cut whites.
The car in Palo Alto sat untouched for more than a week. Then Zimbardo smashed part of it with a sledgehammer. Soon, passers-by were joining in. Within a few hours, the car had been turned upside down and utterly destroyed. Again, the "vandals" appeared to be primarily respectable whites.
