Non-Killing Geographies

 

This column is written with a very heavy heart, coming just several days after the deadly mass shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The massacre ended the lives of 17 students and staff, injured dozens, and left behind many traumatized survivors, as well grieving friends, families, and community members. Counted among the murdered was Scott Beigel, a geography teacher and cross country coach at the high school, who heroically lost his life providing students with shelter from the gunman’s bullets.

This tragedy, which sadly has become just the latest in now a long and growing line of school shootings in the United States, drew significant expressions of sadness and anger from AAG members, our governing Council, and the wider geography community. On behalf of the Association, I express heartfelt sympathy to the victims of the Parkland school shooting. I also demand in the strongest possible terms that U.S. federal, state, and local government officials be tireless and unflinching in examining what can be done to eliminate the pervasiveness of violence not only in schools but across the nation’s communities. Thankfully the news industry has cast a significant spotlight on the massacre in Parkland, but there are scores of neighborhoods, workplaces, campuses, and other spaces and lives marked by this and other forms of violence, much of it going under-reported and under-analyzed.

Disciplinary response to the Florida murders remains very fluid as many of us in the AAG consider the most appropriate way to memorialize Scott Beigel and all the victims and survivors of the shooting. No doubt, this will be the subject of conversations at the AAG Council’s upcoming spring meeting in New Orleans. There is also considerable ongoing discussion among geographers about the impact that this tragedy will have on broader social discussions and debates about gun reform, school safety, mental health, and the responsiveness (or lack thereof) of some government authorities to the precarity of human life. The outrage and political activism recently demonstrated by the surviving students of Stoneman Douglas High School suggest these debates will remain highly charged for some time and rightly so.

While these aforementioned issues cannot be settled overnight, I do feel responsible as AAG President to reflect upon what these recent horrific events might mean for our discipline and our Association. In particular, I would like to use this column to suggest that while a growing number of geographers are engaged in a critical study of violence, it should become an even more central theme within geographic research, teaching, community engagement, and other disciplinary initiatives.

Throughout my tenure as AAG President, I have forwarded efforts to make Geography REAL, that is, responsive, engaged, advocating, and life-improving. As we work to further enhance our discipline’s responsiveness to critical issues and its commitment to the welfare of people and their social and natural environments, geographers can and should play an important role in better understanding the place of violence—and its many forms, causes, and consequences—within contemporary society and space.

In writing monthly columns, I frequently reach out to colleagues with expertise that I don’t have. In the wake of the Parkland massacre, I reached out to newly selected AAG Fellow, James “Jim” Tyner, who has written several books and important articles on the relationship between space, society, and violence. The position of AAG Fellow is meant not only to honor distinguished scholars but to create a cohort of experts and mentors who can advise on AAG strategic directions and assist in responding to grand challenges. Jim and I are united in believing that violence represents one of those grand challenges.

For the remainder of this column, Jim and I shift, perhaps awkwardly but by necessity, to joining voices in a collaborative way. In particular, we wish to offer some initial ideas of what the discipline can offer or contribute, and then what specific role the AAG and its members might play in the study and prevention of “killing geographies” and the advocacy of “non-killing geographies.”

Myriad Geographies and Victims of Violence

Simon Springer recently argued that violence sits in places—a phrase that effectively captures the myriad geographies of violence. The tragedy in Parkland, Florida has called attention both to gun violence and to school shootings. Sadly, there are innumerable other killing geographies that remain off the radar and thus fail to garner political attention. Existing proposals, however well intentioned, to provide additional security to schools will do nothing to prevent the next ‘Aurora’ or ‘Las Vegas’ massacre. The (impractical) proposal to arm teachers not only will not keep students safe at school; it will in no way afford protection to children from violence that happens when they go to the movies, eat at the mall, ride their bicycles to the park, or simply drive and walk through their policed communities. Nor will any of these measures address the now-routine litany of shooting deaths that take place, by accident or intention, in the home. Domestic violence, as Rachel Pain has argued, is a form of “everyday terrorism” that like global terrorism is related to “attempts to exert political control through fear.”

We must acknowledge also that it is not only our children at risk to ever-increasing forms of direct violence. Our mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, friends and co-workers remain vulnerable to premature death. Journalists, politicians, and environmental activists are targets of assassination and forms of violent intimidation. Alt-right attacks on scholars, including some of our colleagues in geography, have resulted in not only criticism and defamation of their research but also in social media trolling, harassment, and even death threats. It prompts a sober discussion, one that has yet to happen among AAG leaders, about what professional societies, universities, and programs can do to safeguard and support faculty and students in the face of this aggression.

Mass shootings, whether at schools, shopping malls, theaters, or open-air concerts, constitute spectacular forms of direct violence. As a discipline, Geography would be remiss to concentrate solely on these moments to the neglect of other forms of structural violence that come from the harm and neglect inflicted by social institutions and governmental policies and spaces. Ruth Wilson Gilmore, for example, has encouraged us to see the role that ever increasing rates of mass incarceration play in inflicting a wider organized, legalized violence and abandonment upon people of color, who are disproportionately represented in America’s prisons. Congressional in-action in the promotion of gun control is matched by a concomitant in-action toward the provision of health-care and welfare. Budget cuts aimed at reductions in food stamps and health insurance prove no less deadly to the human body than a bullet from an AR-15. To date, many geographers have made considerable contributions; but more can and should be done.

A beginning point in the promotion of non-killing geographies is to confront directly the socio-spatial organization of violence: the spaces where violence takes place and those affected. Violence has important geographic consequences; it reshapes people’s perceptions of and interactions with places as well as their survivability and sense of belonging within those places. Violence is produced through social relations and interactions, some very intimate and others more distant. But violence is always social and always coded by dominant ideas and vulnerabilities related to ‘race,’ gender, class, nationality, and so on. To this end, solutions to violence must necessarily address the social milieu of prejudice, hatred, and xenophobia, but also the more banal indifference toward others.

Studying and Preventing Violence as an AAG Initiative

What role can, and should, the AAG perform in studying violence and advocating for non-killing geographies? An obvious call is to promote research. Drawing on a multitude of quantitative and qualitative methodologies, including GIS, participatory mapping, and ethnographies, geographers are well-trained to provide theoretical insight and empirical documentation of wide ranging forms of violence. Recent evidence suggest great potential for such analysis. Geographers at the University of Utah recently mapped and conducted a spatial analysis of hate groups in the U.S., while Kent State’s GIS / Health and Hazards Lab teamed up with officials in Akron, Ohio to study the impact of violence on children in the city.

Geographers can provide a much-needed spatial awareness to violence, namely the scalar connections of violence ranging from the body to the global political economy. The spatiality of violence demands analysis from any number of sub-fields within the discipline, including environmental geographers who could shed significant light on what Rob Nixon calls the “slow,” gradual violence “wrought by climate change, toxic drift, deforestation, oil spills, and the environmental aftermath of war.” Devoting one of the featured themes of an upcoming AAG meeting to violence and non-killing geographies would be an ideal place to start building such a focused initiative, organizing networks of collaboration among academics and advocacy organizations, and drafting traditional publications as well as white papers to inform public policy.

Research does not occur in a vacuum, but is positioned within and actively shaped by the social and political conditions that can either facilitate or hinder certain avenues of research. Indeed, detailed understandings of gun violence—to take but one example—have been hamstrung by a lack of sufficient federal support. As The Washington Post and criminal justice professor Lacey Wallace reported in the immediate aftermath of the Las Vegas mass shooting, large scale gun violence research has been largely stymied since 1996, when the National Rifle Association (NRA) pressured congressional leaders to place restrictions on the ability of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to fund scholarship that would “advocate or promote gun control.” The measure had a “chilling ripple effect” across other federal agencies and private foundations, leaving scholars not to mention lawmakers with “little up-to-date data about what causes gun violence or how it can be prevented or reduced.” As geographers ramp up their research on violence, it is quite likely that AAG’s growing strides in monitoring, analyzing, and making interventions in public policy on Capitol Hill will be important in calling on national leaders to permit and facilitate research on gun control, gun violence, and other violence-related topics, such as intimate partner violence and hate-crimes.

The Association, with its growing support of outreach and communication, is in a key position to help geographers speak with wider audiences about the spatiality of violence and move toward the training of geography faculty and students as “scientists-advocates.” As explained in a recent presidential column, “advancing ‘awareness’ is too passive of an idea to capture the kind of broader and deeper public investment in geography that needs to occur.” It is necessary, following the Past President Glen MacDonald, for the AAG to initiate and support efforts of a “transformative” nature, that is, the promotion of non-killing geographies. This is a tall order—one that entails a sustained commitment to advocacy on behalf of victims of violence and toward the prevention of violence. Specific proposals include the advocacy of non-violence and non-killing geographies during Geography Awareness Week, the greater development of college geography courses on violence, the hosting of workshops and teach-ins not only on campuses, but beyond, to include K-12 institutions, places of worship, and other public forums.

AAG might consider supporting the compilation and dissemination of data and research on violence; such materials, in line with existing efforts by the Association, would include a variety of outreach-related publications, brochures, handouts, and multimedia tools. And we can think bigger: The AAG could establish a clearinghouse on geographies of violence, a repository for journalists, politicians, academics, and activists to learn about the study and prevention of violence as well as what a geographic perspective can lend to such work. From our perspective, the resource would appear to have a natural connection with the Association’s long-time focus on human rights.

Efforts are already underway within the AAG to develop a “culture of mentorship,” including for example the establishment of the Susan Hardwick Excellence in Mentoring Award, the AAG Department Leadership Workshop, the AAG-ESRI ConnectED GeoMentors Program, the Women’s Mentoring Network, and the AAG Fellows Program. There is a rich opportunity for geographers to expand our understandings of mentorship in light of a greater sensitivity to violence and victims, such as partnering with the Scholars at Risk (SAR) program. Scholar At Risk is an advocacy network that provides institutional support to those scholars “suffering grave threats to their lives, liberty and well-being by arranging temporary research and teaching positions at institutions in [the SAR] network as well as by providing advisory and referral services.”

In closing, geographers are encouraged to consider the promotion of non-killing geographies as one of the discipline’s and society’s grand challenges and to reflect on what role they and the AAG might play in studying, preventing, and speaking out against violence. Cultivation of non-violence feels like an insurmountable issue, especially in light of the loss of life and the political debates surrounding Parkland massacre, but there is arguably no more important task confronting Geography. And there can be no greater way to remember the sacrifice of Scott Beigel, a fellow geography educator who gave his life to save his students from violence.

No doubt, there are some readers of this column already making important contributions in scholarly and public understanding of geographies of violence and non-killing. Share these contributions and any other ideas and opinions by email or on Twitter using #PresidentAAG.

— Derek Alderman, AAG President
University of Tennessee
Twitter: @MLKStreet
Email: dalderma [at] utk [dot] edu

— James Tyner, AAG Fellow
Kent State University
Twitter: @Tynergeography
Email: jtyner [at] kent [dot] edu

DOI: 10.14433/2017.0028

    Share

Waldo Tobler

Waldo R. Tobler, professor emeritus of Geography at the University of California Santa Barbara, died on February 20, 2018. He was 88.

Tobler spent the first 16 years of his career at the University of Michigan before joining UC Santa Barbara in 1977. He held the positions of Professor of Geography and Professor of Statistics at UCSB until his retirement.

A famed cartographer, Tobler is best known in the discipline as the founder of the first law of geography, “Everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things,” which he formulated while producing a computer movie. In fact, he has used computers in geographic research for over forty years, with emphasis on mathematical modeling and graphic interpretations. Tobler also was one of the principal investigators and a Senior Scientist in the National Science Foundation sponsored National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis.

Tobler has earned many honors for his work and contributions to geography. He was named Member of the National Academy of Sciences and Honorary Fellow of the American Geographical Society. He received the Osborn Maitland Miller Medal of the American Geographical Society (Outstanding contributions in Cartography or Geodesy), Meritorious Contributor Medallion of the Association of American Geographers, and the ESRI Lifetime Achievement in GIS Award among others.

Tobler earned a Ph.D. in Geography in 1961 from the University of Washington where he also received his master’s (1957) and bachelor’s (1955) degrees. The University of Zurich, Switzerland, awarded him an honorary doctorate in 1988.

    Share

New Geography Books: January 2018

Every month the AAG compiles a list of newly-published books in geography and related fields. Some are selected for review in the AAG Review of Books. Anyone interested in reviewing these or other titles should contact the Editor-in-Chief, Kent Mathewson (kentm [at] lsu [dot] edu). Listed below are the books received from publishers in the last month.

January 2018

Aerial Aftermaths: Wartime from Above by Caren Kaplan (Duke University Press 2018)

Cycle of Segregation: Social Processes and Residential Stratification by Maria Krysan and Kyle Crowder (Russell Sage Foundation 2017)

Ethics in Everyday Places: Mapping Moral Stress, Distress, and Injury by Tom Koch (The MIT Press 2017)

Food & Place: A Critical Exploration by Pascale Joassart-Marcelli, and Fernando J. Bosco (eds.) (Rowman and Littlefield 2018)

Handbook on the Geographies of Energy by Barry D. Solomon, and Kirby E. Calvert (eds.) (Edward Elgar Publishing 2017)

Historical Population Atlas of the Czech Lands by Martin Ouředníček, Jana Jíchová, and Lucie Pospíšilová (eds.) (Karolinum Press 2017)

The Inconvenient Indian: A Curious Account of Native People in North America by Thomas King (University of Minnesota Press 2018)

The Making of America’s Culture Regions by Richard L. Nostrand (Rowman and Littlefield 2018)

Mass Starvation: The History and Future of Famine by Alex de Waal (Polity Press 2018)

New Lines: Critical GIS and the Trouble of the Map by Matthew W. Wilson (University of Minnesota Press 2017)

P’ungsu: A Study of Geomancy in Korea by Hong-Key Yoon (ed.) (State University of New York Press 2017)

    Share

Nora Newcombe and David Lambert to Keynote Geography Education Research Track at 2018 AAG Annual Meeting

The National Center for Research in Geography Education (NCRGE) is pleased to announce keynotes by Nora Newcombe and David Lambert for a special track of geography education sessions during the 2018 AAG Annual Meeting in New Orleans.

The keynotes by Professors Newcombe and Lambert are respectively scheduled for 1:20 – 3:00 PM and 3:20 – 5:00 PM on Thursday, April 12 in Room Galerie 2 in the Marriott French Quarter Hotel. Both exemplify the type of work and thinking that is driving current innovative approaches to researching geographic and spatial learning.

Nora Newcombe’s lecture, “GPS in Our Heads: What Do Behavioral and Neural Data on Navigation Offer to Geography Educators?”, engages the long and controversial proposal that humans can develop cognitive maps of their environment. This talk will give a high-level overview of recent advances in understanding how people navigate at the behavioral and neural levels of analysis, from a wide variety of human as well as non-human species, studied from infancy through aging. Newcombe will also examine development and individual differences. For example, children of three to eight years show progressive increases in their proficiency at combining sources of information. By around 12 years, they show adult-level performance on cognitive mapping tasks requiring the integration of vista views of space into environmental space but also show large individual differences in accuracy. Finally, Newcombe will discuss the relevance of this body of knowledge for geography educators, and present data on the effect of GIS experience on spatial thinking.

Following Newcombe’s lecture, David Lambert will deliver a lecture entitled “Nurturing the ‘Garden of Peace’: Powerful Geographical Knowledge and the Pursuit of Real Education.” The work on which Lambert’s talk is based was in part stimulated by a paper by David Wadley that appeared in the Annals of the AAG some ten years ago. A retort to neoliberal orthodoxies, Wadley’s paper “The Garden of Peace” made a special case for the role of education in helping us resist the famous Thatcher line that ‘there is no alternative’. This democratic sentiment was not dissimilar to the thinking that fueled the Geographical Association’s 2009 ‘manifesto’ entitled A Different View, which was an explicit endorsement of the western liberal traditions in education – essentially, that to be educated means that you can think in a reasoned manner, and for yourself. Lambert’s talk explores what has followed from these beginnings, especially in the context of Michael Young’s concept of ‘powerful knowledge’ and its influence on curriculum thinking. One aspect of Young’s recent work is the distinction he now makes about power: that is, between the power over someone/something and the power to be able to do something. Lambert will explore whether geographical knowledge, such as that which is taught in schools and colleges, can be considered ‘powerful’ – and if so in what way? In terms of the capabilities it affords those who possess it, powerful knowledge must be considered a pedagogic right to all – not just the ‘academically gifted’ or the elite. Lambert will conclude by discussing the ambition and potential of powerful knowledge in geography education, as well as its major challenges and difficulties.

About the National Center for Research in Geography Education

NCRGE is a research consortium with headquarters at the American Association of Geographers and Texas State University. Funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, private foundations and other agencies, NCRGE works to build capacity for transformative research in geography education.

Each year at the AAG Annual Meeting, NCRGE organizes a track of research-oriented geography education sessions and workshops to highlight contemporary work in the field and advance the development of a research coordination network. The sessions planned for the 2018 meeting in New Orleans will illustrate the dynamism and breadth of research, theory, and practice in geography education and how geographers and educational researchers are engaged in collaborative work to address contemporary challenges affecting the discipline.

AAG members and others interested in geography education research are encouraged to join the NCRGE research coordination network by completing an application at www.ncrge.org/rcn.

About the Speakers

Nora S. Newcombe is Laura H. Carnell Professor of Psychology at Temple University. She received her B.A. in 1972 from Antioch College and her Ph.D. in 1976 from Harvard University. Her research focuses on spatial cognition and development, and the development of episodic memory. She is currently Principal Investigator of the NSF-funded Spatial Intelligence and Learning Center (SILC) whose purpose is to develop the science of spatial learning and to use this knowledge to support children and adults in acquiring scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) skills. Dr. Newcombe is the author of numerous publications including Making Space with Janellen Huttenlocher (MIT Press, 2000). She has received numerous awards, including the Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award from SRCD (2015), the William James Award from APS (2014), the George A. Miller Award for an Outstanding Recent Article in General Psychology (twice, 2004 and 2014) and the G. Stanley Hall Award for Distinguished Contribution to Developmental Psychology (2007). She was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2006) and to the Society of Experimental Psychologists (2008). She has served as Editor of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General and Associate Editor of Psychological Bulletin, has been a Visiting Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton, and the Wissenschaftskolleg in Berlin. She is currently the Past Chair of the Governing Board of the Cognitive Science Society, Chair of Section J (Psychology) of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and President-Elect of the Federation of Associations of Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

David Lambert is Professor of Geography Education at University College London Institute of Education (UCL – IOE). Obtaining his BA from the University of Newcastle in 1973 he went on to his post graduate professional training at the University of Cambridge. He was a secondary school teacher for twelve years, becoming a deputy principal of a comprehensive school. He became a university teacher-educator from 1986, developing research interests in curriculum, pedagogy and assessment in geography education. His school textbook series Jigsaw Pieces published by Cambridge University Press won the TES school book of the year award in 1991. Receiving his doctorate in 1995 from the University of London, he rose to become Assistant Dean for teacher education in 1999. He left temporarily the academy in 2002 when he was appointed full-time chief executive of the Geographical Association (GA) (www.geography.org.uk). He returned to the IOE as professor in 2007 and was awarded the Royal Geographical Society Taylor Francis Award for leadership in geography education in 2015. Recent books include Knowledge and the Future School (2014), Learning to Teach Geography (3rd Edition, 2015), and Debates in Geography Education (2nd Edition, 2017). He chairs the Editorial Collective of Geography and serves as Associate Editor of International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education. He led the European Union funded GeoCapabilities project from 2013-17 (www.geocapabilities.org).

    Share

Confessions of a Conference Thief

The views and opinions expressed in op-eds published in the AAG Newsletter are those of the author(s) and do not imply endorsement by the American Association of Geographers. The AAG accepts submissions of op-eds for AAG news content consideration. Authors must be current AAG members. The decision to publish op-eds is at the discretion of the AAG with consideration of how the topic contributes to relevant and important discussions among and interests of the AAG membership community. Questions or submissions can be sent to efekete [at] aag [dot] org.

I was a thief. A mild thief, but a thief nonetheless. In 1996, the Binghamton Geomorphology Symposium held a series of talks on the topic of “The Scientific Nature of Geomorphology.” As a young 23-year old graduate student, I registered and then covertly audio-recorded the talks from a cassette recorder hidden in my jacket pocket. Even though it wasn’t stated explicitly, I guessed that doing this would probably constitute theft of intellectual property. But I did it anyway.

I did it because I had no intention of using the recordings other than for my own private education, which I felt I had paid for when I paid my registration fee. I wasn’t going to scoop the speakers on some published content, and I wasn’t going to give out the recordings to friends. I knew that the content of the talks would be new to me, complex, and that I wouldn’t understand everything the first time I listened, and that it was material I wanted to master as I worked towards a “Doctor of Philosophy.”

The recordings were horrible quality, but they were adequate. I could hear to the degree necessary to be able to listen over and over and gradually understand what was being communicated. I had purchased the symposium special issue, so I had many of the figures to go with the talks. I also had the luxury of being a very fast note-taker and figure-drawer, a luxury many lack. Like many presentations, the talks were far more informal as compared with the written articles. It was the audio tapes I understood far more readily. Today, I am often asked to teach classes and address groups on philosophical issues subjects raised in that symposium. My theft was worth it.

Today, every major association that my students and I frequent has banned recordings of any kind at their meetings – the AAG, AGU, EGU, and others. These bans exist for many reasons – to protect presenters’ intellectual property, to foster a “safe” environment where researchers can present new ideas, to encourage people to come to (and pay registration to) meetings, and others. These are noble and justifiable reasons, and I am not surprised by them.

But these bans are problematic. First, they seem to be becoming increasingly futile. Technology that nearly every attendee carries in their pocket can record hours of audio and video. Many people, in spite of the bans, are involved in some aspect of recording – taking pictures of slides or posters, videorecording talks, or whatever. Not one or two people here and there, but a huge number of people. For every person asked to stop a recording, ten seem to spring up. Sometimes the price of being caught is to be publicly told to stop. Rarely, it is to be cast out of the conference.

Second, a generation is entering the profession that have been required to take fewer notes, and instead have been given pre-made educational materials to a larger degree. They are asking to be able to record lectures on campus, thus they wonder: why shouldn’t they be able to do so at a conference? Some are able to process and record presentations much better than others (especially those for whom English is not a first language), why should they not get further opportunities to understand what is being presented?

Third, there appear to be partially conflicting ideas of the purposes of a conference. Rather than simply being a safe forum for trying out new ideas, associations are making increasingly vocal calls for these conferences to be visible public forums. Major lectures are publicized in the press. Science journalists report findings from the conferences. The development of e-posters, live tweeting, and other alternative modes of delivery seem to be reaching towards maximum visibility of the presentations. Anyone can pay to enter and hear any presentation they wish. If ten people tweet reactions to parts of a particular talk, how much intellectual property has been “given away”? Moreover, these presentations (or, at least their abstracts) are citable. On a related note, I can’t guess how many times I have heard in conversation from junior and senior researchers alike: “I really wish we had a recording of Professor M giving that pivotal talk from way back when.” If that is really what we want, why do we ban doing so?

Fourth, a revolution of open access, data, and publication is underway. The incoming generation of scholars perhaps is more knowledgeable and comfortable with the idea that results from publicly-funded projects are not completely “their own,” and that sharing of data and ideas is a basic expectation. Interim reports are still shared, usually with the proviso that they should be treated as draft reports. Are not conference presentations a type of draft report?

The argument of intellectual property protection as the basis of these recording bans is important, and I do not advocate wholesale recording and distribution of every conference talk. But I’d like to offer an alternative to these total bans. I think that it should be up to each individual presenter to decide whether they would like to allow recording of their talks, posters, and other modes of communication. It seems reasonable to me that at the beginning of a talk a speaker might say “these results are too preliminary for me to feel comfortable with their being recorded,” or “the research is to the point where you may record for your own personal use.” In the cases where presenters are comfortable with the audience-made recordings, it might be with the proviso that this privilege comes from a mutual understanding that the recordings or materials derived from them would not be shared or circulated.

I welcome discussion on this topic. Whether the bans stay or are modified, one thing is for sure – there will be those audience members who decide that the benefits of recording will outweigh the risks of being caught doing so.

Mark A. Fonstad
Associate Professor
University of Oregon
fonstad [dot] uoregon [dot] edu

DOI: 10.14433/2017.0027

For information about current AAG Annual Meeting policies, including the use of video or recording technology, please visit the Annual Meeting Guidelines web page.

    Share

Teaching Modern GIS

As educators, we are always faced with challenges on how we structure our curriculum activities to ensure that we are in line with modern industry practices. This is easier said than done—for one, there is likely no consensus on what a “modern geographic information system (GIS)” means; and two, it takes a tremendous amount of time to do curricula updates. As an instructor of a variety of courses on Web GIS, programming, and spatial analytics at Johns Hopkins University, I am relentlessly faced with course updates. However, my being a Solutions Engineer at Esri as well provides me with a unique perspective into the technology and helps me stay focused on what is important in the geospatial industry.

What will the next generation GIS curriculum look like? We may call it Web GIS or something else, but we will have to address the need for this forward-looking curriculum and embrace it as educators. GIS graduates are telling us this, as seen in this Esri Young Professionals Network (YPN) survey.

Below is an attempt to outline a few important topics amid the massive digital transformation we have experienced. For now, these topics are meant to serve as points of discussion—a means for self-assessment and reflection—to make us think about what we teach today and what tomorrow will bring. Yes, it is a bit IT heavy, but in today’s GIS environment, IT is much needed. These topics come from feedback we received from students and graduates, who pointed out that we may not be placing a strong enough emphasis on the software and application development competency of the Geospatial Technology Competency Model (GTCM).

  • GIS Today—GIS is not just a desktop technology anymore. We need to think about the trends that have influenced GIS evolution, such as cloud computing, mobile devices, big data, the Internet of Things (IoT), and machine learning. An important point to discuss here is the use of the technology to solve problems as well as facilitate access to information—anywhere, anytime, on any device.
  • GIS as a Service—The industry is shifting rapidly from specific software implementations to services in which the underlying technology is less visible–and probably less important—to the user of this technology. While the enterprise deployments providing some of these services will be important to understand, we probably need not focus on that in these early stages. Information products are fueled by services—ready-to-use services or those we can create—and there are different protocols and capabilities we can expose through these services, which would be important concepts to discuss. Understanding the notion of hosting, whether through the cloud or on-premises infrastructure, and demonstrating how GIS is web-oriented architecture (without necessarily calling it that) are key.
  • GIS in Your Apps—People use simple, focused apps to access information at home, and this same trend is now in the workplace. The industry is moving away from long development cycles to the use of apps that are easily configured, which allows organizations to stay current with technology. How people experience GIS through apps that are ready to use, configurable, native, web based, etc., also emphasizes the notion that information can be made available in many possible ways to those who need it. These apps are fueled by underlying maps, layers, and services provided by server technology, to which access is facilitated through a portal. Access, of course, could be dictated by identity and credentials.
  • GIS APIs and SDKs—GIS, as an information system, is built with SDKs and APIs. As GIS has become embedded into all aspects of business, the need for developers has grown. Understanding that GIS capabilities can be extended and having knowledge and experience with software libraries, APIs, and SDKs will afford students opportunities to grow into their careers. Graduates have expressed a strong desire and employers have expressed a strong need for this programming knowledge, whether it is Python, JavaScript, or any other language that emerges in the future.
  • GIS in Your IT—This also falls under the “software and application development” competency of the GTCM, specifically, to design a geospatial system architecture that responds to user needs, including desktop, server, and mobile applications. Understanding what it means to architect and manage a GIS, using an organization’s infrastructure, whether in the cloud or on-premises, is a must. The focus is on the management of the networks, portals, map servers, web servers, databases, and data stores and on the understanding of how these components work together. Graduates entering today’s workforce will be needing these skills.
  • GIS in the Field—Organizations are employing field GIS workflows, whether through crowdsourcing, citizen science, secure data collection, or maintenance. Content can be delivered in many ways in the field, such as via a public-facing, highly available app or by supporting an internal-facing, intermittently connected, field collection app. Teaching a variety of approaches is important.
  • More Types of Services—Other services provide additional capabilities—whether through client- and server-rendered services or by simply enabling users to access specific functionality, such as real-time GIS capabilities, to solve a problem.
  • GIS as Geospatial Data Science—Careers that include data science are expanding. Geospatial technology curricula ought to better mesh with data science/analytics curricula, infusing traditional geospatial technology topics with data science methods. This should include big data analytics platforms/databases, machine learning, Python and R data scientific libraries, business intelligence (BI) technologies, NoSQL databases, and mapping APIs. A program might promote these as data analytics, data engineering, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or in other ways.
  • And, of course, one should not neglect traditional topics, such as mapping and visualization, spatial analytics, and data management, being infused with the above.

Now how do we learn and how do we teach GIS? GIS is a changing field, and change is accelerating. Transformation is occurring not just in the curriculum but also in how we learn, the resources we use to teach, and pedagogic approaches. The way one learns GIS in class should probably equate with how one learns it in the workplace. We ought to be considering a shift in the traditional resources we’ve used so far in our classrooms; a single book that covers a whole class may not be enough anymore. Also, a book that was written six months ago may likely be outdated.

Modernized Curriculum → Shift in Resources Used and Pedagogy

Classes need to be agile, which means that writing and following cookbook exercises are not sustainable ways to teach rapidly changing technology. The Internet and the wealth of information available provide ways for users to find answers fast. Relying on recently updated online documentation, blogs, and other freely available web-based resources and channels is key.

An important concern persists, though—how do we know what information is good to include (i.e., truly current and worthy material)? There is a lot of information to weed out. “Less is more” is a generally appropriate approach; when in doubt, leave it out. A less desirable approach is a disclaimer of “keep in mind that . . . ” or “use at your own discretion.” In the workplace, students will also come across a staggering amount of information, so it is important to learn how to discern what is quality content (with guidance, if need be) and applicable to solving a problem.

At Johns Hopkins, we follow some of the above approaches to keep content current and foster a culture of collaboration and peer-to-peer interaction among students, which, in turn, encourages community building; this is particularly important for fully online courses. As an instructor, standing back, observing, and providing guidance before things go off track, and challenging students to take more responsibility for their learning when solving a problem, has worked well.

There certainly are many other approaches to handling some of the challenges in teaching modern GIS. The AAG Annual Meeting and the Education Summit @ Esri User Conference (Esri UC) sessions on “Modern GIS Practices in Your Curriculum,” along with various other online tools such as GeoNet or Esri’s HIGHERED-L LISTSERV, could be great venues for continuing this discussion.

    Share

Louisiana’s Turn to Mass Incarceration: The Building of a Carceral State

Louisiana’s prison and jail incarceration rates from 1978 to 2015 showing the number of people incarcerated in state prisons and local jails per 100,000 people; https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/jailsovertime.html#methodology

The history of the Louisiana penal system is marked through crisis. For the majority of the 20th century such crises revolved around the state’s singular prison, the Louisiana State Penitentiary, commonly referred to as Angola. Having long been known as the “bloodiest prison in the nation,” the prison entered into an unmatched crisis of legitimacy in the 1970s. Conditions were wretched and stabbings and escapes were monthly affairs.[1] Within this climate, scores of incarcerated people filed lawsuits against the penitentiary. In 1975, U.S. Magistrate Frank Polozola found in favor of four Black prisoners at Angola, Arthur Mitchell Jr., Hayes Williams, Lee E. Stevenson, and Lazarus D. Joseph, who had filed a lawsuit against Angola in 1971 for numerous constitutional issues including medical neglect, unsafe facilities, religious discrimination, racial segregation, and overcrowding. Polozola declared the penitentiary to be in a state of “extreme public emergency.”[2] Massive changes were ordered in the name of restoring incarcerated people’s constitutional rights.[3] For the next several years, the Louisiana penal system, including parish jails, were under the jurisdiction of federal court orders.

Map of Louisiana State Penitentiary-Angola, Creative Commons

While many issues were brought to the forefront through this legal ruling, overcrowding became the central issue for the Department of Corrections (DOC) and the broader state. The federal courts ordered that Angola’s prison population be reduced from over 4,000 prisoners to 2,641 prisoners within a few months time.[4] In response, the DOC advocated for the “decentralization” of Angola through creating small rehabilitation focused prisons and the potential for shuttering Angola altogether. With time at a premium, the DOC scrambled to find and convert a wide range of surplus state property from schools, to hospitals, to even a decommissioned navy ship into new prisons.[5] Recent infusions of federal funds in the form of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) grants and the exponential increase in state revenues do to the global jump in oil prices following the 1973 OPEC price hike meant that funding such conversions was of little concern to the state. However, the DOC had extreme difficulty in attaining the support of local residents who routinely protested new prison plans.[6] Mobilized via fears of “dangerous criminals” that they believed would not only make their communities unsafe but would also lower their property taxes, communities from Caddo Parish to Bossier City to New Orleans East were successful in keeping out new satellite prisons.[7] At the same time, parish jails throughout Louisiana entered into their own state of emergency as they were forced to accommodate the hundreds of prisoners prohibited from being transferred to Angola inciting anger in local sheriffs statewide.[8] In response to these challenges, DOC Secretary Elayn Hunt and Angola Warden C. Paul Phelps, who had long been concerned with the rise of “lifers” at Angola, joined the call led by Angola’s incarcerated activists for a different solution to the overcrowding crisis: the early release of prisoners.[9]

Harry Connick Campaign Ad 1973, The Times-Picayune

However, the New Orleans D.A. Harry Connick was adamantly against such proposals. At the time, Connick was in the process of building his career upon the racialized tough on crime politics sweeping the nation. He routinely attacked DOC officials in the press for advocating early release and alternatives to incarceration.[10] In fact, in the same months the federal court orders were coming down, he successfully pushed for more punitive policies and practices through working with the NOPD to attain LEAA grants to expand policing powers.[11] In addition, he personally drafted dozens of draconian crime bills that instituted mandatory sentencing and reduced good time and parole eligibility, which the increasingly law and order state legislature was more than happy to pass.[12] With arrest rates going up,[13] sentencing becoming harsher and the number of people being paroled steadily dropping, overcrowding pressure intensified across the state.[14] Thus, Louisiana was confronted with a range of different pushes and pulls, from federal court rulings, to parish level politics, to active disagreement among state and city officials, to global political economic realignments and new federal monies, as state leaders attempted to figure out the future direction of the penal system.

By the decade’s end, it was clear that Louisiana’s politicians were attempting to build their way out of the overcrowding crisis. Three new prisons had been built with more on the way and thousands of new beds were added to Angola more than doubling the state’s prison population from 3,550 people in 1975 to 8,661 people in 1980.[15] This unprecedented carceral state building project was emboldened and buttressed by the 1980 election of David Treen to governor who had explicitly campaigned on a tough on crime platform and by Polozola, now a federal judge, who began to mandate that Louisiana deal with its continual overcrowding crisis through expanding the prison system.[16] Yet, as incarcerated activists with The Angolite and the Lifers Association as well as free world prison reformers argued at the time, growing the state’s carceral apparatus did not solve the crisis but propelled further overcrowding.[17] The ongoing overcrowding at the prisons further increased pressure on dozens of parish jails as they were yet again, relied on to house thousands of state prisoners, leading to overflowing jails from New Orleans to Lafayette.[18]  In the case of New Orleans, the situation became so dire that in the summer of 1983 then Sheriff Foti erected a tent jail in the face of overcrowding at the city jail, Orleans Parish Prison (OPP).[19]

Editorial cartoon; Sept. 24, 1989, from the Times-Picayune

While sheriffs everywhere were frustrated by this situation, their response to such overcrowding was markedly different in the early 1980s than it had been in the mid-1970s. When parish jails had filled to capacity in response to the 1975 court orders, sheriffs lobbied to get state prisoners out of their jails.[20] But only a few years later, while sheriffs collectively petitioned the state to get so-called “violent offenders” out of their jails they also pushed for funds to renovate and expand the parish jails to make space for both folks awaiting trial as well as state prisoners.[21] We can understand this shift from a number of vantage points. While in 1975 the overcrowding crisis appeared to be temporary, by the early 1980s there was no sign of incarceration rates letting up as Governor Treen and the state legislature continued to press for the passage punitive crime bills. In addition, when parish officials had been compelled to release people to stay within the population limits set by Judge Polozola, the media attacked them for letting “criminals” loose into the streets.[22] With both politicians and the media employing such fear-mongering tactics, political will was on the side of jail expansion versus early release or alternatives to incarceration as a solution to the overcrowding. In fact, Governor Treen’s decision to prioritize jail construction over education, healthcare, and levees in the state budget was “not out of a desire to make life easier for these convicts but to make sure that no judge feels compelled to release somebody back into society who should not be there just because prisons are overcrowded.”[23] And indeed, as the Louisiana Coalition on Jails and Prisons would highlight in their decarceration campaigns throughout the 1980s, the atrocious conditions within jails persisted alongside their shiny new renovations.[24]

Sheriffs’ desires to build up their parish jails aligned not only with the dominant law and order politics of racial neoliberal governance, but also with the economic conditions confronted by the state. When sheriffs were first required to take in state prisoners in 1975 it was a financial burden since the DOC was paying sheriff departments a per diem rate of only $4.50/day per prisoner.[25] But as the overcrowding crisis wore on, local parish officials, including sheriffs, successfully petitioned the state to increase the per diem to $18.25 by 1980.[26] The higher per diem rate made sheriffs much more amenable to housing state prisoners as they were able to use the funds to build out their departments’ carceral infrastructure. Sheriffs throughout the state leveraged such jail growth to expand their political power both within their own parishes and through the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Association.

What’s more is this per diem system met the financial needs of the broader state as well. Since the Jim Crow regime, the state had been loathe to finance the penal system.[27] To meet mandates of the federal courts, the state was required to increase funding to the Department of Corrections on an unmatched scale. The DOC budget during this time shot up from $20 million in 1974 to $135 million by 1982 with tens of millions of dollars spent on new prison construction which, as previously mentioned, was easily funded for the first several years through unexpected oil revenues.[28] Yet as oil dependent economies are notoriously precarious, Louisiana entered into a fiscal crisis in the early 1980s in response to the global oil slump.[29] With the state’s fiscal crisis and accompanied economic recession deepening throughout the 1980s, state officials sought new solutions for maintaining carceral growth. While state officials turned to debt-financing for new carceral construction, the state’s inability to cover prison operating costs with such debt schemes put the state in a conundrum. Although prisoners and decarceration activists offered the solution of the state curtailing law and order politics and instituting mass parole as other states had in similar situations, Louisiana turned to upping its reliance on the parish jail system as a more politically and financially viable option. [30]  As the per diem rate was much lower than the costs of keeping prisoners incarcerated in state prisons, the state forged ahead with creating multi-decade cooperation endeavor agreements between the Department of Corrections and a slew of primarily rural parishes to house the lion’s share of state prisoners. What had started out as a temporary spatial fix had become the long-term geographic solution to prison overcrowding.

By the time Louisiana gained the title of having the highest incarceration rate in the nation in the late 1990s, almost half of the state’s prisoners were behind bars in parish jails with New Orleans’ OPP at 7,000 plus beds, the largest carceral facility in the state.[31] Although when the jail was first enlarged to this mammoth size, its jail population had stabilized to around 5,000. Yet only five years later, the jail was at capacity. Three thousand of those locked away were state prisoners while a combination of people awaiting trial who could not afford to pay exorbitant bail bonds, individuals serving municipal offenses, a growing number of juveniles, and INS immigrant prisoners held through federal contracts filled the remaining 4,000 beds. Many of those held behind OPP’s walls at Tulane and Broad avenues were targets of intensified policing crackdowns during the 1990s. Although officially most crime was in decline during the 1990s in New Orleans, the escalation of fear-based, racially-coded news media made controlling the city’s supposed lawlessness a priority for city leaders who were concerned about the negative impacts of such reporting on the tourist economy.[32] Under the administration of Mayor Marc Morial and his Police Superintendent Richard Pennington, the NOPD implemented a form of “community policing” to saturate the city’s housing projects, the French Quarter, and Downtown Development District with law enforcement.[33] This spatial strategy for law enforcement illuminated the interlaced primacy of “sanitizing” the city’s tourist epicenters of the homeless, youth, queer and trans people, and sex workers as well as containing and controlling Black working class spaces. Such policing tactics served to fill OPP to the brim by the time Hurricane Katrina made landfall in the Crescent City on August 29, 2005 and prisoners were abandoned by the state to flooded cells.[34]

In the dozen years since the levee breaks, attention has finally begun to be given to the crisis of mass incarceration in Louisiana. The sustained community organizing of the Orleans Parish Prison Reform Coalition (OPPRC) successfully campaigned for OPP to be rebuilt on the much smaller scale of 1438 beds in 2010 while the creation of the Independent Police Monitor’s Office and the Department of Justice’s implementation of a consent decree on the NOPD has tempered police misconduct.[35] This past summer organizations such as VOTE (Voice of the Experienced) were successful in getting the state legislature to pass ban the box legislation and raising the age that juveniles can be tried as adults.[36]

French Quarter Security Task Force vehicle; photo by Lydia Pelot-Hobbs, 2017

However, these local gains have never been final victories. Public defenders in Louisiana continue to be woefully underfunded. The current New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu has been pushing a law and order surveillance plan for the city while the New Orleans city council is bending towards the will of Sheriff Marlin Gusman that the city needs to raise the jail cap for a “Phase Three” of construction at OPP.[37] Several front-runners in the upcoming mayoral and city council elections are following old tough on crime scripts in making expanding the NOPD the number one piece of their political platform. The current Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry recently sent his own rogue band of state troopers to police New Orleans and has been working with AG Jeff Sessions to repeal the consent decree governing the NOPD.[38] AAG attendees are likely to catch a glimpse of the French Quarter Management District’s private security vehicles that work in alliance with the NOPD and state troopers. Their explicit mandate from the French Quarter business leaders is to crack down on perceived sex workers, transgender individuals, street musicians, and others they deem “undesirable” to the imperatives of racial capital.

While the future of the Louisiana carceral state remains uncertain, it is clear that understanding the multiscalar factors that have produced the current crisis of mass incarceration is a critical starting point to undoing this systematic violence and striving towards the still unrealized project of abolition democracy.

DOI: 10.14433/2017.0025


[1] “State Prison Inmate Slain in Stabbing,” State Times (Baton Rouge, LA), July 18, 1974, 9-A.

[2] Williams v. McKeithan C.A 71-98 (M.D.La, 1975), US Magistrate Special Report; Gibbs Adams, “Federal Court Orders State Prison Changes,” The Advocate (Baton Rouge, LA), April 29, 1975. Judge West backed up Polozola in ordering sweeping changes. However, it is worth noting that Polozola had nothing to say about one of the plaintiffs main complaints: solitary confinement. “4 Inmates Ask Changes in Pen Safety Reform Plan,” State Times (Baton Rouge, LA), May 6, 1975.

[3] Williams v. McKeithan C.A 71-98 (M.D.La, 1975), Judgement and Order.

[4] Louisiana Prison System Study, 29, Governor’s Office Long Range Prison Study Files, 1972-1980, Box 1, Louisiana State Archives.

[5] C.M. Hargroder, “7 Prison Sites Proposed,” The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA), September 16, 1975; “World War II Troopship May Be Used As Floating Louisiana Prison,” Monroe Morning World (Monroe, LA), October 26, 1975.

[6]“Executive Budget 1974-1975, Vol. 1,” Box 1: Executive Budget 1975-1980, State Budget Reports 1970-1989, Louisiana State Archives (LSA); “State of Louisiana Budget Fiscal Year 1974-1975,” Box 3, State Budget Reports 1970-1989, LSA; “State of Louisiana Budget Fiscal Year 1975-1976,” Box 3, State Budget Reports 1970-1989, LSA.

[7] Bonnie Davis, “Residents Will Protest Use of Carver School as Prison,” Shreveport Times (Shreveport, LA), July 24, 1975; Lynn Stewart, “State May Seize Site in Caddo for Prison,” Shreveport Times (Shreveport, LA), August 19, 1975; “Bossier Prison Site Reported Ruled Out,” Morning Advocate (Baton Rouge, LA), March 19, 1976; Richard Boyd, “Council Vows to Fight East N.O. Prison Facility” States Item (New Orleans, LA), April 23, 1976; Patricia Gorman, “Homes Closed to Inmates”  States Item (New Orleans, LA), April 30, 1976.

[8] Roy Reed, “Louisiana’s Jails Are Being Packed,” New York Times (New York, New York), September 18, 1975; Pierre V. DeGruy, “ ‘State of Emergency’ at Parish Jail—Foti, “The Times Picayune (New Orleans, LA), October 16, 1975.

[9] “Two Year Time Limit Termed Impossible for Angola Changes,” State Times (Baton Rouge, LA), June 17, 1975; Tommy Mason, “Lifer’s,” The Angolite, August 1975, 23; John McCormick, “Legal Action: Our Goodtime Law May Be Changed,” The Angolite, September 1975, 1-2.

[10] Associated Press, “Inmate Release Policy Blasted,” Morning Advocate (Baton Rouge, LA), June 9, 197; Ed Anderson, “Connick Attacks Parole Board Plan,” The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA), October 28, 1975.

[11] “ ‘Career Criminal’ Bureau for N.O.” The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA), March 19, 1975.

[12] Jack Wardlaw, “Connick Wins Anti-‘Good Time’ Battle in House,” State Item (Baton Rouge, LA), July 2, 1975; 12-a; Pierre V. DeGruy, “Connick Endeavors in Legislature Pay Off: Entire Package is Passed” The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA), July 31, 1975.

[13] “Jail Overload Credited to Police Work,” The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA), April 17, 1980.

[14] “Criminals Face Harsher Penalties as New Law Takes Effect,” State Item (Baton Rouge, LA), September 17, 1975.

[15] Louisiana Prison System Study, 4, Governor’s Office Long Range Prison Study Files, 1972-1980, Box 1, LSA; Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement, “The Data: Prison Crowding in Louisiana, 1988,” Folder 9: Prison Reform Reports, Remarks, Statements 1987-1988, Box 3, Rev. James Stovall Papers, Louisiana State University.

[16] Treen: ‘Going to Be Touch to Get a Pardon From Me’ “ Alexandria Town Talk (Alexandria, LA), March 9, 1980; Gibbs Adams, “State Prisons Must Expand,” Morning Advocate (Baton Rouge, LA), May 19, 1983.

[17] “Remarks by Jack D. Foster, Project Director Law and Justice Section, The Council of Staet Governments Before The Governor’s Pardon, Parole, and Rehabilitation Commission,” May 9, 1977, Folder 2: Governors Pardon, Parole, and Rehabilitation Commission Remarks and Reports, Box 3, Rev. James Stovall Papers, Louisiana State University; “The Crowded Cage,” The Angolite, November/December 1983, 35-60.

[18] “Orleans Prison Above Inmate Ceiling for 3 Months,” State Times (Baton Rouge, LA), May 17, 1983; Nanette Russell, “District Attorney Angry State Prisoners in Jails,” Lafayette Advertiser (Lafayette, LA), June 28, 1983.

[19] “Foti Gets OK to Put Inmates in Tents,” The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA), June 14, 1983.

[20] Pierre V. Degruy, “Packed Prison Feared,” The Times Picayune (New Orleans, LA), September 12, 1975.

[21] Memo from Carey J. Roussel to Donald G. Bollinger, March 17, 1981, Folder 1: Public Safety 1981, Box 815: P 1981, David Treen Papers, Louisiana Research Collection, Tulane University; “Sheriff Layrisson Angry Over Jail Fund Postponement,” Vindicator (Hammond, LA), May 25, 1983.

[22] Monte Williams, “Crowded Jails Let Criminals Free,” Daily Iberian (New Iberia, LA), June 12, 1983.

[23] “Comments on Governor David C. Treen’s Criminal Justice Package for Possible Use by President Reagan in his September 28 Speech to the International Association of Chiefs of Police,” Folder 4: Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice 1981, Box 796: L 1981, David Treen Papers, Tulane University.

[24] Louisiana Coalition on Jails & Prisons, “Jail Project Update” pamphlet, 1981, Folder: Louisiana Coalition, Box 2, Southern Coalition on Jails and Prisons Records, 1974-1980, The Southern Historical Collection, Louis Round Wilson Special Collections Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Louisiana Coalition on Jails & Prisons, “Louisiana Jails” pamphlet, n.d., Folder: Louisiana Coalition, Box 2, Southern Coalition on Jails and Prisons Records, 1974-1980, The Southern Historical Collection, Louis Round Wilson Special Collections Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

[25] “Legislative Digest,” The Angolite, September/October 1978, 9.

[26] Memo from C. Paul Phelps to William A. Nungesser, October 3, 1980, Folder 8: Corrections 1980, Box 666: C 1980, David Treen Papers, Tulane University.

[27] Mark T. Carleton, Politics and Punishment; the History of the Louisiana State Penal System (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1971).

[28] “Executive Budget 1974-1975, Vol. 1,” 9, Box 1, State Budget Reports 1970-1989, Louisiana State Archives; “Louisiana State Budget 1982-1983,” 39, Box 4, State Budget Reports 1970-1989, Louisiana State Archives;

[29] “Executive Budget Program 1982-1983 Vol 1,” A11, Box 2: Executive Budgets 1980-1985, Louisiana State Archives. For more on the precarity of oil economies at this time see Petter Nore and Terisa Turner, Oil and Class Struggle (London: Zed Press, 1980).

[30] “The Moment of Truth” The Angolite, May/June 1982, 12.

[31] Southern Legislative Conference, Louisiana Legislative Fiscal Office, Adult Corrections Systems 1998, by Christopher A. Keaton, (Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1999),  7-8.

[32] Chris Adams, “Tragedy Marks a Night of Crime,” The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA), August 5, 1990; Walt Philbin, “Shooting Sets Murder Record,” The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA), October 23, 1990; Michael Perlstein, “Beyond the Bullet – Murder in New Orleans,” The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA), July 1, 1993; Sheila Grissett, “Murder Rate in N.O. Exceeds One a Day,” The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA), July 17, 1993; Sheila Stroup, “When Will It All End?” The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA), July 26, 1994. International Association of Police Chiefs, The New Orleans Police Department Revisited, June 29, 1993, 2-8, Marc H. Morial Papers. Box 33, Folder 1: Morial Transition The New Orleans Police Department, Revisited 1993, Amistad Research Center.

[33] Building New Orleans Together: City of New Orleans 1997 Annual Report, 1997, 7, Box 43, Folder 7: Mayoral City of New Orleans Annual Reports, Marc H. Morial Papers 1994-2002, Amistad Research Center.

[34] ACLU National Prison Project, Abandoned and Abused: Orleans Parish Prisoners in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina, report (2006).

[35] https://www.nola.gov/nopd/nopd-consent-decree/

[36] This is not to be confused with the widely lauded bipartisan package of prison reform bills that passed the Louisiana legislature last summer, which has served to primarily tinker with the penal system rather than make meaningful reforms. “Louisiana’s Parole Reform Law Continues a Positive Trend in Criminal Justice Reform,” Voice of the Experienced, accessed September 26, 2017, https://www.vote-nola.org/archive/louisianas-parole-reform-law-continues-a-positive-trend-in-criminal-justice-reform.

[37] Emily Lane, “At Orleans Jail, Monitor and Judge See ‘light at the End of the Tunnel‘,” NOLA.com, June 08, 2017, accessed September 26, 2017, .

[38] Jim Mustain, “Attorney General Jeff Landry Slams Mitch Landrieu, Says New Orleans ‘more Dangerous than Chicago’,” The Advocate, January 07, 2017, accessed September 26, 2017; Richard Rainey, “AG Landry Met with Trump, Sessions; Discussed Law Enforcement,” NOLA.com, March 01, 2017, accessed September 26, 2017.

    Share

AAG Welcomes Two Spring Interns

The AAG is excited to have two new interns join our staff for the Spring 2018 semester. Welcome aboard Laura and Hannah!

Laura Akindo recently graduated from Frostburg State University with a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Earth Science with a Concentration in Environmental Science. She also majored in Geography. Laura is in the process of applying to Graduate Programs and hopes to begin working on her Masters of Science in the Fall in GIS and Environmental Management and Policy. In her spare time, Laura likes to read, visit new exciting outdoor parks, and watch soccer.

 

 

Hannah Ellingson is a sophomore at The George Washington University, pursuing a B.A. in geography and a minor in geographic information systems. Hannah previously interned for the City of Norfolk’s city planning department, where she used GIS to create a map of street-end water access points in Norfolk, VA, in order to support an initiative to increase public water access throughout the city. After graduation, she intends to pursue a M.A. in geography. She attributes her passion for geography to her mother, who instilled an appreciation for geography in Hannah at a young age. In her spare time, she enjoys exploring D.C.’s art museums and restaurants, traveling with her family, and playing with her black lab puppy, Hank.

    Share

Katelyn Suranovic Interns at AAG for Spring Semester

Katelyn Suranovic is currently pursuing her master’s degree in geography at George Washington University. Her focus is climate change and weather-related phenomena in response to climatic changes. Previously, Katelyn earned her bachelor of science degree from James Madison University (JMU), where she majored in geographic science with a concentration in environmental conservation, sustainability and development.

In 2015, Katelyn became a co-author for a journal article titled “Lightning Characteristics of Derecho Producing Mesoscale Convective Systems.” The article was written under the direction of Dr. Mace Bentley of JMU, along with a group of other students and was published by the international journal, Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics.

As an intern this semester, she will be working on the AP GIS&T project and will also assist with media and member outreach.

In her free time, Katelyn enjoys playing soccer, being outdoors and hanging out with her family.

    Share

AAG Snapshot: AAG Journals

The AAG publishes four scholarly journals – Annals of the AAGThe Professional GeographerThe AAG Review of Books, and GeoHumanities. Each year a total of 16 issues spread among the four journals is produced with the help of AAG Publications Director Jennifer Cassidento. The AAG scholarly journals range from long-standing and distinguished titles to new and innovative publications. All are published by Taylor and Francis. Each journal has a page on the AAG website with an overview of the journal, the names of the editors, and their contact information, plus submission information for authors. The journals are similar, in that their focus is on geography, but there are a some differences to highlight for each one.

Annals of the AAG has been published for over a hundred years, since 1911, and it’s the AAG’s flagship journal. With a 2016 Impact Factor of 2.799 (8th out of 79 titles in geography), Annals is a general geography journal that publishes articles aimed at a broad audience in the discipline. It’s published six times a year, including one themed special issue. For example, in 2017 the special issue was on the topic of mountains.

The AAG began publishing The Professional Geographer in 1949 when the AAG merged with the American Society for Professional Geographers. The Professional Geographer focuses on short articles of academic or applied geography, emphasizing empirical studies and methodologies. It’s published four times a year and was ranked 41st out of 79 titles in geography with an Impact Factor of 1.276 in 2016.

The AAG Review of Books was launched in 2013, when the AAG decided to publish the book reviews formerly in Annals and the Professional Geographer in a separate journal. The journal is published online only, four times a year. There’s also a database with over 300 books that have been reviewed in the journal over the past four years. Anyone can search the database by title, author, reviewer, or theme, and access to the database is through the journals page on the AAG website.

GeoHumanities is the AAG’s newest journal, launched in 2015. The journal brings together the disciplines of geography and humanities. It features full length scholarly articles, and shorter creative pieces in the Practices and Curations section. It’s published twice a year.

Anyone can submit a paper to three of the four journals – AnnalsThe Professional Geographer, or GeoHumanities. The submission process is very easy – it’s done online through a self-guided manuscript submission site. Articles are evaluated by the journals’ editors, then they’re usually sent out to at least two external reviewers. The review process normally takes about 2-4 months, and then the editor will respond to the author with a decision on the paper, including comments from the reviewers, and the editor’s own assessment of the paper.

Submission to the fourth journal, the AAG Review of Books, is handled a little differently. The book reviews for this journal are commissioned by the editor, Debbie Hopkins, so if you’re interested in writing a book review, you would need to contact Debbie at debbie.hopkins[at]ouce.ox.ac.uk.

As an AAG member, you can receive free print or online access to all current and past issues of the journals. The AAG also offers members a complimentary online-only subscription to one additional Taylor and Francis journal from the following six options: Geopolitics; Gender, Place, and Culture; International Journal of GIS; International Journal of Remote SensingJournal of Geography in Higher Education; or Social & Cultural Geography. Members can subscribe as part of the membership renewal process.

Do you have any questions about any of the journals or submitting to the journals? Contact the AAG Publications Director, Jennifer Cassidento at jcassidento [at] aag [dot] org.

The AAG Snapshots series, first launched at the 2017 Annual Meeting, provides insight on and information about different aspects of the projects, programs, and resources of the association. Do you have suggestions for future Snapshots content from AAG staff? Email cluebbering [at] aag [dot] org.

    Share