A section from 'Sex, Lies, and Organic Produce'

As a result of their unchallenged privilege, built into the culture of the board was tacit ageism, racism, and classism. The board does not reflect, or, indeed, have any ties to the populations and communities we serve. This is incredibly problematic. To attempt to advocate for underserved and at risk populations, largely of color, without representing them in a non-token fashion positioned **** as an extremely racist saviour. As long as this is the case and remains unrecognized and challenged, the organization is impotent as an anti-racist organization (obviously, impotence is a problematic metaphor). Although the board often expressed patronizing admiration for the youth in the program, they demonstrated disdain for and distrust of the youth. Youth were not involved in decision making and their voices were unheard by the administration. The board was largely uninvolved with the actual garden and program. Several board members professed to be bored and unexcited by the program. To be honest, I am unsure why some board members were even there; perhaps their participation was to alleviate white liberal guilt. I feel that for many of the board members, **** functioned as a lifestyle accessory, a Seattlite merit badge.

Ultimately, by redesigning **** as a job skills training program, **** does at risk and homeless youth a disservice. **** was at its core a social services provider, not an advocacy organization. Because of its internal and ideological flaws, **** did little to nothing to combat the oppressive structures in place that produce the social problems **** supposedly addressed. While a job skills training program may help youth navigate the harsh terrain of late capitalism that much better, it does little to change that terrain in the first place. Essentially, the board sought to recreate themselves from the raw materials of the populations we served: a mechanism of preservation of a certain way of life that the board has a necessary investment in.