The Politics of FIRST

FIRST General Forum
1

Let me preface this post by saying I know that politics has been discussed on Chief Delphi in the past. I know that this has sometimes led to less-than-civil discussions. I have no intention of making this a politically polarizing post. As is such, I have provided some guidelines at the end of the post for what I think will make for a productive political discussion.

Introduction
FIRST is an inherently political organization. Whether you think FIRST should or should not be political, the reality is that, to a certain extent, the organization is political. This does not make it partisan (support for a specific party) inherently, though. The points of discussion are:

  • How political is FIRST?
  • How political can FIRST be legally?
  • Should FIRST be political?
  • Is it possible to have a politics-free educational robotics program?

How political is FIRST?
As a point of clarity, being political means relating to a government or governments and governmental policies (Merriam-Webster). Types of political groups include advocacy groups and special interest groups, among many others. Advocacy groups (aka lobbying groups or interest groups) attempt to shape public opinion or public policy (Wikipedia).

  1. FIRST lobbies (advocates) for a few areas:
  2. Equity, diversity, and inclusion within STEM (FIRST website)
  3. Increasing public valuation of STEM and recognition of STEM and FIRST programs (National Advocacy Conference website)
  4. Making FIRST a varsity letter sport (FIRST website)
  5. And more. What else do you think?

FIRST specifically does not take any partisan stances in terms of specific candidates. They do, however, push for legislation to be created in support of STEM (see: NAC link above). FIRST has five strategic pillars, one of which is “Expand Participation” another which is “Increase Diversity” and a third which is “Achieve Broad Recognition” (FRC Blog). Those three out of the five pillars encompass political activities.

How political can FIRST be legally?
I will start by saying I am not a tax expert; however, I am a student of political science.
For anyone who does not know, a non-profit or not-for-profit organization (also called a non-governmental-organization or NGO, especially abroad) must invest any revenue they receive, after paying expenses back in to the programs of the organization. There are different types of non-profits with more specific regulations.
FIRST is a 501©(3) not-for-profit organization. A 501©(3) is what you probably think of as a “charity.” Donations made to a 501©(3) are tax deductible within the United States. 501©(3) organizations need to disclose any donations over $5,000 in their 990 form—though, the IRS keeps this donor information private. FIRST may not, under their current legal status, do any of the following:

  • Give money to candidates or other campaigns
  • Publicly announce support or opposition for a candidate
  • Partisan voter registration or voter education

FIRST may, under their current legal status, do any of the following:

  • Publish educational materials for voters
  • Nonpartisan voter registration
  • Get out the Vote campaigns

(Ballotpedia)

A 501©(4) organization, on the other hand, is not required to disclose any donors. However, no donations made to these organizations are tax deductible (meaning it is virtually impossible that FIRST would ever become a 501©(4)). Donor disclosure is never required except for donations from private foundations.

A 501©(4) needs to have a mission that promotes “social welfare” but they may participate in as much lobbying as they deem necessary to achieve that social welfare goal (Ballotpedia). 501©(4) organizations are commonly used to funnel money to political candidates in unlimited amounts—there are a ton of loopholes and specifics to go in to, but this is not the place for it (Washington Post).

Should FIRST be political?
This is where I expect to see the most discussion in this thread. Do you think that FIRST should be political (within the legal requirements)? Why or why not? To what extent?

Is it possible to have a politics-free robotics educational program?
Again, discuss.

Guidelines
Here are some suggestions for making this dialog a productive one. If you don’t like them, maybe this is not the thread for you.

  1. When making claims about politics, cite your sources. No need if it is common knowledge – think if you would need to cite this in a research paper. A simple link will suffice. Example: An Afghan robotics team was denied visas trying to compete in the U.S. (Washington Post)
  2. When citing a FIRST policy, link to their webpage or a relevant blog post or video. Example: FIRST is making it a priority to include underrepresented and underserved youth in their programs (Website)
  3. Reputation is not for people you agree or disagree with. Positive reputation is for people adding to the conversation and providing insight. Negative rep is for people detracting from the conversation.
  4. Criticize ideas, not people.
  5. If you don’t know about a topic, research it or don’t intervene. At the very least, make it clear what your qualifications are, if any, to answer a question.
  6. And, of course:your = something belongs to you, you’re = you are and apostrophes never make anything plural.

Onward! I’ll chime in later with some opinions of my own.

2

Just want to remind everyone that FIRST is a international program based in the US. As everyone already knows there are tons of teams in Canada, China, Israel, Australia and a number of other countries each with their own norms, culture and politics, many of which do and don’t align with the US.

Politicians from all across the world were in attendance at world champs (including one who had also been to space :)). The idea that a international educational robotics program could also be politically neutral is laughable at best and ignorant at worst. Just involving international teams at all is a political stance in itself.

3

I dont know about you but i feel like we are all connected as a FIRST family. Try telling me you dont memorize certain team numbers/members on them.

4

I don’t see that any of the points mentioned are inherently appealing or off putting to any particular political point of view. You won’t be able to completely avoid politics now or in the future educational or work worlds.

The trick is to present difficult matters competently. Don’t use these situations as a political cudgel. If - hypothetically here - a group of refugee kids trying to get into the US form a FLL team…great! Pitch it to the conservative elements who might harrumph as a great example of exactly the kinds of immigrants we should be welcoming in!

I could go on a bit further but I know this is a touchy sort of subject. No offense intended, just sharing ideas.

TW

5

It seems to me like you started out by answering your own question.

in·her·ent·ly
/inˈhirəntlē,inˈherəntlē/
adverb
in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way.

Politicians control vast amounts of money, educational directives and guidelines… I think it’s impossible to work in the educational arena, as FIRST does, without getting involved with politics at some level. It’s in FIRST’s best interest to get political funding for teams - just look at the growth in Michigan if you question that. It’s in FIRST’s best interest to get educational direction from governmental departments to encourage the pursuit of STEM - that naturally meshes with FIRST’s goals, and makes it easier for FIRST to grow. If FIRST were to ignore the government completely, it would be leaving a huge opportunity for program growth.

Also, one of the items you point out - “Making FIRST a varsity letter sport (FIRST website)” isn’t exactly political, at least not here in Minnesota. The state government doesn’t care about varsity letters. The Minnesota State High School League, which oversees all high school sports and activities, does - and they’re a non-profit. Our partnership with them really helped drive growth within the state, and it had nothing to do with politics or the government.

I’m not really sure what the intention of this thread is, to be honest. Was there something specific that triggered it, like the last significant political discussion on CD (that I remember)? In that case, there was a real discussion to be had, centered around a specific topic. This seems more like shooting in the dark.

6

Based on a series of discussions I have had with people involved in various ways in FIRST, it has recently come to my attention that there is a division: people who think FIRST should be political and people who think it shouldn’t be. There’s also a division as to whether people think FIRST is political or not.

I disagree with your point that this is shooting in the dark and refute that there isn’t a real discussion to be had, here. Let me explain. When there is a specific political thread, the discussions we have are centered around one decisive issue. Say some people think that there shouldn’t be a discussion about a certain political topic, they might suggest that we shouldn’t talk about politics at all.

There has been some discussion about if we should or should not discuss political issues, but there has been minimal discussion on if FIRST is indeed a political organization.

If anyone does not think this is a topic worth discussing, I have no problem with that at all. Would seem that if you don’t want to talk about a topic, there’s no need to comment on that thread.

7

Something else to keep in mind:

Political =! Partisan =! Liberal/Conservative (or any other general category of beliefs that isn’t a specific party). All 3 are completely different things but often get equated in discussions.

That said my qualifications are 10+ years in FRC and having done well in gov’t classes in HS/college. And in my opinion (speaking from a USA point of view):

Is FIRST Political? I’d say it is. FIRST has commended (not recommended for election) several US politicians for doing/promoting things that fall in line with the values of FIRST. Some are more innocent (such as President Bush Sr.); others were more controversial, such as Rick Snyder, who helped create the grants that have made FRC growth in Michigan thrive but also has been criticized for his role in the Flint Water Crisis. The latter, like it or not, makes FIRST political.

Is FIRST partisan? No, as they are not directly supported by any political party (which is an aforementioned requirement to be a 503c).

Is FIRST liberal or conservative? I’d say that they are not explicitly either as in the current political spectrum, they have traits of both. The idea of companies and non-gov’t individuals mentoring students in potentially (and often) public school sanctioned activities is generally a conservative leaning concept (most liberal stances would argue private interests do not belong in pubic schools). However, the promotion of equality and acceptance is generally a liberal ideal and has been for a very, very long time, long before the current identities/ideologies of the Democratic and Republican parties came to be and arguably since American Revolution. Bottom line, both schools of thought have something to like about FIRST, but also something to potentially disagree with too.

That’s my $0.02.

8

Political power swings back and forth. Being partisian political is a bad idea for an organization that depends in part on government good will. Think NASA for one. Lots to advocate for without going into the partisian divide.

9

Maybe you should think harder.

For an extreme example:

There is FLL in Pakistan: https://www.starfll.org/
And there is the Taliban: Pakistani Taliban - Wikipedia

One of these groups is in favor of the education of girls and the other is not.

And I very much doubt that however nicely worded an argument may be it will make these two groups agree.

10

One interesting thing to consider is the origin of FIRST and how it has changed over time. From what I remember and have the time to dredge up* Dean’s vision for FIRST originally was targeted directly to counter act American culture and be an alternative to those who idealized sports. (source)

I agree with Marcus and think that FIRST opening its self up to international teams is an inherently political move. I have always understood the Dean’s initial goal to be: change the culture of America so that America does not fall behind in innovation. I admit that I could be wrong on that point. That said assuming that was their initial goal the act of opening FIRST to the world and not just one country is IMHO a shift from a national-centric view to a global view. With those assumptions in mind (again tell me if I am wrong) I think that FIRST is inherently a political organization and has over time shifted its stance on what some could consider globalism.

*(its finals week of college)

I would also like to take a stab at this question. I believe that the field of automation and by extension robotics is at the core of many political issues. One core component of politics is the economy, jobs, and employment. As technology and automation progresses jobs that used to be done by humans are being replaced by automated systems, this is happening every where. Factories which used to have assembly line works are now filled with machine doing the same work for a fraction of the cost. Grocery stores are having cashiers replaced with self checkout machines.

Every place that we introduce automation there are jobs being lost. I know that at the same time there are jobs being created to maintain these systems but the skills required to do so are often more technical than the job that its replacing. It is for this reason that I believe that engineering plays a major role in job market and association politics. So for that reason an organization that promotes technology and engineering will always have a political slant.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official stance of his team or any of its members.

11

I am of the persuasion that FIRST should be apolitical in general. Obviously there are places were dealing with the government on one level or another is required for such an organization to function, but as a whole, I would argue that it would best suit its members and students by not picking sides. Students have the rest of their lives to be involved in politics, whether they want to or not. Its great that some will choose to, and great that some will not. That is what irritated me most about the kneeling controversy last year; taking things we all used to come across the isle on and turning them political. I’m not endorsing one side or another, I am more frustrated that divisiveness even crept in to begin with.

When mentoring students, I try and not let my own political leaning leach in. I would be most content if a FIRST member who I had only seen in the shop not know my world view at all. If someone brings up a question on aforementioned topic, sure, Ill answer it. I feel its not my place to persuade young minds one way or another, as I prefer to show students how to think, not what to think.

12

Dismissing other people’s opinions in a derogatory and tribalistic way is not how to conduct a reasonable conversation. This is one of the items we specifically address during our robot design phase. We try to base decisions on requirements, data, and facts rather than emotion and who can talk the longest or the loudest.

13

I’m not really sure I’m following you here. FIRST is an organization that relies on a large amount of government funding to exist (both directly and indirectly) and is spread across a wide spectrum of political norms and ideologies. Is the idea the FIRST could be a non-political organization in it’s current form a reasonable opinion? Like others have said above, political =/= partisan. How would FIRST get to the point of being apolitical, what would FIRST be apolitical relative to?

FIRST is inherently has a self interest toward advancing its programs and that in itself is clearly political.

14

Not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with you but could you expand upon what you mean that FIRST’s advancement of their own programs is “clearly” political? As in, what characteristics of FIRST wanting to grow FIRST are political?

15

Sure,
Let’s look at Champs last year. Both champs prominently featured a presentation by a member of the US military not only including a speech but also a flashy presentation of that member shooting t-shirts into the crowd with Dean. The US military got at least if not more screen time than other key sponsors like Qualcomm.

Why does FIRST feel the need to promote the US military to it’s participants? Is promotion of the US military part of FIRST’s mission statement? I’ll say personally as a Canadian it was quite odd to watch.

Promotion of the US military may be seen as a fairly apolitical in the USA and while Canada shares the same respect for it’s service members and the American service members it often fights alongside of we don’t really share the same views on promoting the military to youth. We don’t have public military high schools, you don’t really see many recruitment posters and it’s very unlikely you’d have a presentation by a member of the Canadian military at your school outside of remembrance day.

I’m pretty confident that if the Canadian military put on a similar flashy presentation at Ontario district championships there would be a significant amount of people who would find it upsetting. I’ve met a number of parents who are concerned that their child’s career in robotics could end up contributing to military advancements.

And this is just Canada! A US military ally! There were teams from many other countries including China, Israel, Turkey and Afghanistan who probably have much stronger feelings.

So again, why did FIRST decide to allow the US military to present at champs even though it’s not in their direct mission statement and probably against the interest of some participants? $$$$ and influence. FIRST has a self interest in advancing it’s programs and hosting the US military helped them do that. That’s politics.

Why do you think the FIRST championships ended up in Michigan? Why do you think there are so many teams in Michigan compared to the the rest of the US? It’s politics. It’s the political game we’re all a part of to advance a program we believe in.

16

In terms of military at the Championship from a US citizen perspective, it is not what I would be most comfortable with either. However, the way that I see it, FIRST is trying to bring employers interested in talent from FIRST students to their events. At the Championship, many major tech and engineering companies have similar sized displays. The military in the US is a massive employer and they too are looking for talent from FIRST students.

So perhaps that is the answer to the question I posed to you, Marcus. If FIRST has a goal of getting students to have careers in STEM, maybe having the Department of Defense at the Championship is just another way of having the “best” employers there.

This is also true for scholarships. At the Dean’s List luncheon a few years ago, there were representatives from ultra-elite colleges who spoke as well as from a military academy.

I’m not sure that any of these things are political decisions on behalf of FIRST. Maybe they are political realities or something entirley different.

As to location of the Championship, saying that it is a political decisions is absolutely correct. Though, it is a far too generalized usage of the term. Factors include geography, infrastructure, pricing, and more. While those are all political factors, this is not some kind of political calculus intended to score points with politicians. I do suspect (but cannot fully backup) that there are some incentives involved (see: Amazon HQ2) which would be undeniably politically charged.

17

I don’t really want to get into the weeds on the ethics but FIRST has had the US army, DOD, CIA, FBI etc in attendance at Champs for years. Like other employers they’d have a booth with a display or sponsor a field and sometimes a brief speech during ceremonies to recognize them. What made the last champs different was the grandiose show they put on. It’s pretty clear there was some sort of transaction involved, especially when you consider that the US miltary spends billions annually on recruitment. In thepast they’ve paid millions of dollars to major league sport organizations in order to do similar recruitment presentations during sports games.

Personally I’m pretty much ok with it all. FIRST has to decided what’s best for it’s programs. However It would be naive to ignore the political calculations going on behind the scenes and again I’m trying to outline how a move that many may see as apolitical can also be seen as a political move for some.

18

I think it is very possible that there is a transaction involved but I also wouldn’t want to assume it is fact until I see definitive proof (which I think we may never get).

That’s a fair opinion. I do think, though, that if the military really is a sponsor, we should see that better disclosed before they are given as much air time as the major sponsors.

To be clear, I don’t think this is anything like the (Washington DC’s role behind the scenes in Hollywood goes deeper than you think | The Independent | The Independent), but I do think that if FIRST is payed to display the military at events, we ought to know.

19
20

Another piece of evidence in case you still think FIRST is a apolitical organization.

FIRST spent $80,000 in 2016 lobbying the government.

Again a very clear political calculation by FIRST to spend money for the net political benefit of the program.