Manage updates with the Download App
According to a March 2005 survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 67 percent of American adults and 87 percent of American teenagers now use the Internet. A September 2004 report by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation found that 96 percent of all children between ages 8 and 18 have been online at least once, and that number varies by only a few percentage points when broken down by ethnicity and family income.
It appears that we no longer need to worry about building a bridge between technology haves and have-nots.
But even these income-based figures are not extremely useful. They only represent a one-dimensional view of the situation. Trying to determine whether qualitative inequities exist by just looking at the quantity of people using the Internet and technology tools is problematic. It's like trying to determine how many people can drive a car by just asking if they have ever sat in one.
The real issue that needs to be examined is whether technology is actually increasing inequalities between different groups of people. For example, is the speed at which elites are adopting new technologies creating a growing "knowledge gap" between them and the people who are unaware of, don't know how to use, or can't afford the latest technologies?
If, in fact, technology change is increasing at an ever-more-rapid pace, doesn't it stand to reason that the better-educated, the wealthier and those already fluent in the language of technology will not only get ahead, but also get further and further ahead as time moves on?
How can we quantify this difference to make it real? That's the problem--we can't. But we don't need a research study to point out the real difference in quality of life between an individual who has 24-7 broadband access and a person who has no Internet access at all or who has to wait in line at the public library to get it.
We don't need a Ph.D. to see how difficult it is, in the Information Age, for someone who lacks technology literacy or skills to compete with someone who can pull or push information out anywhere in the world from anywhere, anytime. We don't have to wait for a Department of Commerce report on the next-generation jobs, because by the time those new jobs have been created, the connected elite will already be there.
Let's start by gathering better information on the quality of technology access and use, not just the quantity. Only then can we begin to address the knowledge gap and what this means in terms of equality. A report out this week from the Children's Partnership, called "Measuring Digital Opportunity for America's Children," is a step in the right direction.
Second, let's put this information to use to develop a technology road map that connects all Americans to technology in a healthy, equitable and sustainable way. A group of individuals with the Community Technology Foundation of California is in the process of creating just such a road map for the state of California.
Third, let's make sure the technology industry itself is a full participant in broadening the scope and usage of technology in socially beneficial ways. California state law, for instance, will require that 50 percent of the benefits from the proposed merger between SBC Communications and AT&T be given back to the public. If the merger is approved, why not take these savings and turn them into real programs addressing the digital divide as identified in a technology road map?
Finally, let's acknowledge that even though it is difficult to quantify, the new face of the digital divide is not new at all. In fact, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke eloquently about it nearly 37 years ago when he said: "Through our scientific and technological genius, we have made of this world a neighborhood, and yet we have not had the ethical commitment to make of it a brotherhood. But somehow, and in some way, we have got to do this."
Biography
Technology activist Paul Lamb is the principal of
8 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
Can we please get over this already? In every society, in every culture, there are the haves and the have nots. As terrible a concept as that is, the existence of the haves lets the have nots know that they too can be in that group (unless some mullah somewhere says it's America's fault and it will never happen until they kill us all) and that provides incentive to achieve. It's been that way since Og first discovered fire, it works, and these oft repeated whines to re-engineer society are counter productive in the long run. Just look at what it's done to the French...
Back to my experiences, so the university had *several* big community projects, and they were all consistently underused. There is no excuse for that, unless of course poor people (1) don't have time to use computers, (2) don't want to, (3) don't have to. Now in my case the people were never too busy, they just didn't have interest. So now all we have to do is force the poor to learn these things, but it's hard to show them what's the point, since if you don't have a GED nobody's going to hire you even if you're a computer expert, and of course for every high tech job there are actual college graduates who will take it rather than some community center educated person.
Of all the inequities integrated into the capitalist system, lack of "newest technology" adoption by the poor is not the first priority. The basics: education, public safety in poor areas, actual healthcare MUST take priority to someone learning macro programming in word, or how to post your resume online. Perhaps not all of this is just the system's fault: what excuse is there nowadays for someone not to graduate from high school? I mean computer or no computer, you should be able to finish it. Especially if you come from a poor area, all of your peers in school are similarly disadvantaged. Yet the predominant culture present in some poor areas does not exactly encourage academic excellence. In fact, it's outright belittled.
So keep getting federal grants to build more community computing centers, maybe it will do something, but it won't be that much.
The executive that thinks it's "women's work" to use a keyboard.
Account execs who won't use email and insist on phone calls.
The small retailer addicted to the FAX machine.
University Professors who insist on their Apple because it makes them 'feel' more in control.
Townships, all over North America, refusing to upgrade their regulations on a host of issues necessary for improving computing access.
Nope, the message is the message of reluctance, stubborness, pride, privilige, obliviousness, ...
And don't forget the "I'm a people person." crap.
People in North America earn their 'digital divide' and I won't listen to a word, otherwise.
But society has interfered in the natural selection process and Lamb wants to rescue the weak at the expense of the strong. It is as though Park Rangers were forcing wolves to attack the strongest of the herd, instead of culling the weak and diseased.
Now, if we view this from a marketplace perspective, that teaching the skills that Lamb feels are important is also aiding the marketplace and making America more competitive, why, I think many would respect that approach.
So, what we are talking about here is promoting the right rationale for equalizing the playing field.
And in the case of education, I am all for making us the best; I an not, however, for "rescuing" those who won't make the attempt because they don't have the motivation to succeed.
Finally, I find it very hard to offer my tax dollars or resources to those who offer nothing in return; no respect for law, no dedication to citizenship.
We can't "buy in to" the thinking that says poverty and equality are created by society; it is the surest way to a society that can't succeed.
Economic equality deserves the suport of the marketplace; human capital is the most rewarding and productive capital. Making "Human Capital" our top priority make economic sense. But to approach this "captial development" problem from Lamb's perspective does us all a disservicve.
Also you seem to be one that believes those who live in poverty do so by their own choices or lack of motivation, however you seem to have fallen for a common misconception about the nature of capitalist economics. You see wealth is not an unlimited resource, it is a closed system. Every bit of wealth accumulated must come at someone elses expense, making them poorer. Wealth isnt created, its accumulated by taking from others (hence why the US is hated in most parts of the world.. theyre forced to live in poverty so we can have luxury).
Even here in the US, one in 3 children live below the poverty line. Is it their fault? No. Is it their parents fault? Usually not. Do they have a chance at the american lie (oops I mean dream)? Only if they're really really shrewd and lucky since in order for them to be wealthy they will have to compete on a field with those already wealthy and powerful, reducing the status quos profits from their exploitation of the american peasantry (oops I mean working class) which they will not give up without a fight.
In your response you state that "We can't "buy in to" the thinking that says poverty and equality are created by society" but its plainly evident that greed, selfishness and immorality are traits taught to us and reinforced through society. How can you change one without the other? Market forces dont care who lives or dies and are mostly random. By saying the market should determine who survives and who doesnt is "buying in" to another philosophy.. one that states that a childs worth to society cannot exceed the worth of their parents.
Which gets to the crux of the matter. In todays society that is actually very true. If a childs parents are poor, they will not get the education they need or have ready access to the resources (internet, social contacts, etc) necessary to rise above the place they were unlucky enough to be born into.
Are these conditions fair, right or morally acceptable?
I have done work with various organizations over the last 10 years looking at this issue and given a few talks on the subject. The digital divide problem has always been multidimensional, but most well meaning people are still only looking at the bottom (and easiest to fix) layer of it.
If I am a parent with more than one child - taking the brood down to the library or CTC where they will be restless, bored, and annoying to other around me is difficult. How is a person supposed to concentrate on learning or applying for a job under those conditions?
Being real about the situation means that we must appreciate the great worth of the libraries and CTCs, but we must not even begin to think that they are an adequate solution for digital inclusion.