In an Oct. 30 panel discussion, four Colgate University faculty members responded to a lecture by Princeton University Professor of Sociology Matthew Desmond that took place earlier this month. Desmond’s Oct. 1 lecture covered his book “Poverty, by America,” the Colgate Community Reads selection for 2024.
Associate Professor of History Xan Karn hosted the feedback panel in Lathrop Hall. Faculty participants included Assistant Professor of Geography Madeleine Hamlin, Assistant Professor of Economics Mike Levere, Professor of International Economics and Chair of the Department of Economics Nicole Simpson and Chair in Regional Studies in the Department of Economics Michael Fitzgerald. Each professor delivered 10-minute critiques and explanations of Desmond’s lecture. Afterward, attendees enjoyed a Q&A session and a pizza dinner.
Fitzgerald delivered the first set of remarks, providing local context for some of the anti-poverty programs that Desmond discussed in his lecture. Fitzgerald, who worked in the Madison County Department of Social Services for three decades, explained that New York State’s implementation of poverty programs is not uniform and may therefore be handled by different levels of government depending on the county. He added that only a very small percentage of people in Madison County receive direct cash assistance.
The second response to Desmond was a set of critiques offered by Hamlin. Hamlin used a Marxist perspective to argue that Desmond’s book and lecture failed to address certain systemic issues that she believed to be at the root of poverty. Hamlin felt that Desmond’s book and presentation inadequately targeted capitalism, which she believes sustains poverty by definition. She criticized what she saw from Desmond as intentional distancing from anti-capitalist solutions.
“If we don’t see [poverty] as an inevitable symptom of capitalism, then we’re never going to make meaningful change,” Hamlin said.
Following Hamlin’s remarks, Levere leveled a critique of Desmond’s presentation from a different angle. In his presentation, Levere argued that, despite Desmond’s concerns, government policy does have the power to meaningfully ameliorate poverty.
Levere used examples of policies initiated during the COVID-19 pandemic that were later discontinued, pointing out that poverty decreased when those programs were active and increased when they were removed. Levere also took issue with Desmond’s metric for measuring poverty and his disregard for the politicization of certain anti-poverty programs, as in the case of the expansion of the 2021 Child Tax Credit.
The final response, delivered by Simpson, summarized and echoed many of the earlier critiques. Simpson also emphasized that, despite disagreement, the arguments and responses to poverty are at least raising awareness about the issue. The fact that everyone had shown up for the panel, she noted, was proof that this injustice was receiving necessary attention. According to Simpson, conversations about poverty in the classroom have revealed the importance of reflecting on the stigmas and assumptions surrounding poverty and the issue itself.
“We need more thinking about not only how we solve the problem, but how we think about poverty — how we talk about poverty,” Simpson said.
Finally, Karn solicited questions from the audience. The first few questions were for Hamlin, asking her to elaborate on some of her positions. Other questions concerned tax policy, the tax contributions of wealthy Americans and the possibility of abolishing poverty.
First-year Jack Bretl said that the presentation and Q&A discussion helped him to see Desmond’s original presentation in a new light.
“During the discussion, I began to appreciate where Desmond fell short and why certain perspectives have difficulty agreeing with each of Desmond’s points,” Bretl said.
Sophomore Ammar Haider agreed that the panel gave him the inspiration and context necessary for tackling poverty.
“Different policy perspectives have different implications for poverty levels, and policies targeted towards increasing income levels in lower income percentiles can reduce income inequality and poverty levels,” Haider said. “This perspective provides us with the necessary encouragement to think about frameworks to reduce poverty, rather than accepting poverty as inevitable in the current economic system.”
