Talk of the Town

Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy was here today. He spoke at our Friday Convocation, on the topic of race betrayal and being a sellout. He also attended discussions held at the Black Students interest house, and the Alumni Guest House.

It was very illuminating, all in all. Unfortunately, two negative events marred the day. Kennedy's convocation address, as previously mentioned, was on race betrayal. And when the floor was opened for questions, that was what the questioners inquired upon. The last questioner, however, felt compelled to ask the ever-so-tiring "isn't affirmative action just reverse racism?"

Now first of all, I was annoyed because I'm quite tired of hearing that question generally. But more importantly, I was pissed off because Professor Kennedy's speech had little to nothing to do with affirmative action. It was scarcely mentioned. And I am sick of Black racial progressives being called to the mat to defend Affirmative Action every time they make a public appearance. It's not as if Professor Kennedy is the public face of affirmative action defenders, either--certainly, he supports it, but it is not like he's made a career based upon it's advocacy. Fortunately, Professor Kennedy's response was beautifully brutal (I've heard the questioner was angry about it, but serves him right), laying out at least four different reasons affirmative action is not racism, and making a wonderful historical anecdote about how the same "reverse racism" claim was made by President Andrew Johnson in vetoing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Even then, the first response to any measure trying to remove the shackles placed upon African Americans and foster their empowerment was that it would give them "special rights." If that argument could be trotted out with a straight face just a year after slavery's demise, why should we trust its good intentions now?

So that one had a (more or less) happy ending. Unfortunately, the other altercation went less smoothly. At the Alumni Guest House, one of the questioners inquired as to whether Black men of means and influence, like Professor Kennedy, should do more to work in lower-income communities, rather than elite institutions such as Carleton. He recounted how at his poor Houston school, the only speakers who came were men from prison. Just having a Black man show up and say "I'm Black, and I'm a professor at Harvard" could do so much for these students.

Professor Kennedy answered with what was, to my mind, maddening vagueness and refused to endorse even the idea that ideally, folks like him should do more (or much at all) to assist inner-city communities. At this, several other Black students (not the original questioner) took exception. They accused him of showing insufficient commitment to his community, that his presence here was a paean to complacency, and insinuated that his motivation for attending here was that we could pay more money. Things rapidly escalated, with an attending faculty member admonishing the students that they were "guests" here--at which point at least three walked out of the room in disgust, with them and Kennedy trading attacks on the way out.

I've never seen a meeting with an outside speaker at Carleton result in such bitter animosity. And it's really demoralizing. I didn't even really realize how affected I was right away--I was chatting with one of my friends who also attended, and we pretty much had the conversation that could have happened had the discussion not broken down. But once I got back to my dorm room, I immediately was awashed in a wave of depression. You attend these sessions so desperately wanting to make progress--not agreement, just progress. Gaps bridged, if not closed; ideas developed, if not adopted. It is so rare that these conversations begin in the first place, and to watch one die in such a spectacular burst of flames is crushing.

So what do you do? I guess you pick yourself up, and try again. And again, and again, and again.

The Price is Wrong

A complaint filed by the National Association of Muslim-American Women alleges that the "Jewish lobby"

have provided misleading and highly politicized information, and testimonies to US law enforcement agencies, and also the US Congress that was, and is aimed at creating a political, legal, social, and financial environment that is hostile to Muslims and Arab Americans, and that causes Muslim and Arab-Americans to suffer discrimination, persecution, and the deprivation and denial of Constitutional rights, and equal protection under the law.

To be clear, the "Jewish lobby" is not my addition, the complaint specifically refers to its targets by that moniker.

It's not a very professional complaint (at the bottom, it wrongly misspells Rep. Deborah Pryce's name as "Price"), and as Eugene Volokh notes, with the exception of one fleeting reference to perjury, there is nothing in the complaint that would be within the Justice Department's jurisdiction to investigate anyway. I'm doubtful that the Jewish community really has a formal "enemies list", for example, and even if certain organizations have people they deem to be hostile to their interests, that's perfectly in their rights. Furthermore, while I think certain neo-conservatives come off as anti-Islamic, citing a column attacking Islamists doesn't prove the case.

The entire thing would be worth but a fleeting mention if not for the fact that it's author is also on the board of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, one of the largest and most influential Islamic organizations in the US. This doesn't really say anything about CAIR or its official positions, any more than Dennis Prager's bloviations are representative of the US Holocaust Memorial Council. Still, it would be nice if the CAIR disassociated itself from this move, which is yet another manifestation of the classic "Jews control the media" slander whose revival act is getting very tiresome.

UPDATE: Volokh issues a correction. The writer is not currently on the board of the CAIR, although she used to be. So the CAIR really doesn't have to do any distancing at all.

Boomerang the Ricochet

The latest attempt to slow the Barack Obama train comes courtesy of Insight Magazine, a conservative publication:

Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?

Barack Hussein Osama Obama educated in a Madrassa!

Insight, for its part, blames folks from Hillary Clinton's network for the revelation. As Jason Zengerle points out, that may be true in a technical sense, but the information is appearing in right-wing rags, not the liberal press. Don't let them ricochet their smears and blame it on the left.

An Abstract Question

My blog-soulmate The Belle has a post up on abstracts, as does Mike Madison (these are from a while back). I wrote an abstract (sort of) for an article today. I got an email from the Political Science departmental assistant about a journal with an upcoming deadline for article submissions. By "upcoming" I mean "less than a week's notice." So I quickly recomposed one of my seminar papers, added an epilogue, and sent it in.

Back to the pseudo-abstract I wrote for the submission email. The abstract (and, to be honest, the epilogue) was not just a summary (though it did that) but also a veiled (how thinly, I don't know) argument for why it should be accepted for publication. Why it's important, why the topic is underappreciated, etc.. Is this a good thing to do in the abstract?

Not The Charming Kind Either

You got to give them credit for boldness. John Judis explicitly asks in The New Republic: "Is America a Rogue State?"

What exactly are we doing in the Horn of Africa, where we have encouraged the Christian government of Ethiopia to invade Somalia and replace its Islamic government? As far as I can tell, we have violated international law, committed war crimes, helped Al Qaeda recruit new members, and involved ourselves in a guerrilla war that could last decades. It's Iraq writ small. And it can't be blamed on Donald Rumsfeld.

The accusation of war-crimes isn't hyperbole either--Judis claims that we used an AC-130 to target a town suspected of harboring al-Qaeda operatives, indiscriminately gunning down civilians in the process. If true, that is a massacre.

James Kirchik has a response which legitimizes the legality of the action, but Brad Plumer's rejoinder is rather compelling:

Maybe this is all perfectly "legal" in some sense. And maybe you can argue that backing Ethiopia's invasion was a good idea on the merits (here's reason to think otherwise). But it's difficult to see how it doesn't undermine the international order in some way when the United Nations is pushing for a diplomatic resolution and suddenly the United States and its ally decide to "solve" the matter through military force. Am I missing something?

Regardless of the merits, it used to be that would not find such questions outside the farthest fringe of the left-wing wastelands. Now, some of the more prestigious journals of the mainstream feel compelled to deal with it. What hell have we wrought on ourselves (much less the world)?

Not The Charming Kind Either

You got to give them credit for boldness. John Judis explicitly asks in The New Republic: "Is America a Rogue State?"

What exactly are we doing in the Horn of Africa, where we have encouraged the Christian government of Ethiopia to invade Somalia and replace its Islamic government? As far as I can tell, we have violated international law, committed war crimes, helped Al Qaeda recruit new members, and involved ourselves in a guerrilla war that could last decades. It's Iraq writ small. And it can't be blamed on Donald Rumsfeld.

The accusation of war-crimes isn't hyperbole either--Judis claims that we used an AC-130 to target a town suspected of harboring al-Qaeda operatives, indiscriminately gunning down civilians in the process. If true, that is a massacre.

It used to be that would not find such questions outside the farthest fringe of the left-wing wastelands. Now, some of the more prestigious journals of the mainstream feel compelled to deal with it. What hell have we wrought on ourselves (much less the world)?

My One Prejudice

I've often remarked to my friends that my one prejudice in life is against Virginia. It's not against the south generally--I used to vacation in South Carolina, I have close friends from North Carolina, and my grandparents live (or in one case, lived) in Florida. It isn't even really against all of Virginia--Northern Virginia is fine (NoVA is to the rest of Virginia as Austin is to the rest of Texas), as is UVA. But the state generally I am not a fan of, not just because it has a habit of doing remarkably stupid things, but because it is close enough to Maryland to know better.

Anyway, check out this story coming out of the VA House of Delegates:

There were furious denunciations in the General Assembly after a Virginia legislator stated that black people "should get over" slavery.

Hanover Delegate Frank Hargrove made the comment about slavery in an interview published Tuesday in The Daily Progress of Charlottesville.

In the same interview about whether the state should apologize to the descendants of slaves, Hargrove wondered aloud whether Jews should "apologize for killing Christ."

Alexandria Delegate David Englin, whose Jewish ancestors immigrated from Nazi-occupied Poland, criticized Hargrove's comments in the House of Delegates.

Hargrove then told Englin that his skin is a "little too thin." Other lawmakers gasped and groaned in disbelief.

Black lawmakers in the House denounced Hargrove's comments.

Delegate Dwight Jones, head of the Legislative Black Caucus, said that he is "absolutely appalled" that someone would tell him to "get over" slavery.

Maryland: Last bastion of intelligence before the wastelands of idiocy.

Apology Accepted...Wait, Come Again?

In a certain episode of Futurama ("A Taste of Freedom," for those of you who whose fandom has not yet approached obsession like mine has), the character Dr. Zoidberg is convicted of desecrating the flag (by eating it). After "the Court orders an apology," Zoidberg's immediate response is "apology accepted. Just don't let it happen again."

Keep that in mind when you read this excerpt from a recent interview with President Bush:

PELLEY: Do you think you owe the Iraqi people an apology for not doing a better job?

BUSH: That we didn't do a better job or they didn't do a better job?

PELLEY: Well, that the United States did not do a better job in providing security after the invasion.

BUSH: Not at all. I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we've endured great sacrifice to help them. That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq.

The "blame the Iraqis" movement is in full swing. Whose first reflex, after a catastrophic war which plunged their entire nation into chaos, is to wonder if the its the Iraqis fault for not doing a better job?

To be fair, President Bush thinks that "most Iraqis" express that "huge debt of gratitude" we're owed. The problem Americans have is that we don't know it (presumably, because the liberal media keeps shoving images of their country alight down our patriotic throats).

What's Next in Colorado?

With Republican Senator Wayne Allard's announced retirement at the end of this term, Colorado immediately shoots to the top of Democratic pick-up targets come 2008. Democrats already hold the other seat in one of 2004's rare bright spots, and are coming off a wave of House pickups, as well as a surprisingly dominant win in the gubernatorial race in the 2006.

While it may be too early to start calling this seat for the Democrats, it is true that the Colorado GOP is in dire straits (and do not have a clear candidate for this race). The big question on my mind is, with the DNC being held in Denver, will the Rocky Mountain state be in play in the Presidential election?

Lord, My Roommates Are Half-Wits

I'm locked in my room right now, as three of my roommates are watching R. Kelly's "Trapped in the Closet" music video (with Kelly's audio commentary) in the suite.

Happy MLK weekend.

China Turns

One of the less-developed pieces in the Darfur puzzle is China's role. In the past, I've noted that China has sought to use the Darfur conflict as a tool to enhance its own stature and influence across Africa. China has used its security council veto, diplomatic influence, and economic heft to protect its client states from hostile foreign interference. Since China has been perfectly willing to trade with even the most vicious human rights abusers, the message sent to Africa is that going under the Chinese umbrella is a sure-shot way to insure that your political oppression won't result in nasty diplomatic or economic sanctions (or worse yet, military intervention). Sudan was to be the ultimate test case: if China could forestall meaningful intervention even while Khartoum was in the midst of genocide, it would be a powerful signal that it could be an effective ward for nearly any other tin-pot dictatorship in the region.

Without getting too optimistic, it may well be that China has changed its tune. The Washington Post reports that China was instrumental in pressuring Sudan to accept a cease-fire and perhaps further foreign intervention:

The U.S. special envoy to Sudan said Friday that China has pushed the Sudanese government recently to help resolve the bloody Darfur conflict and ease the plight of the region's nearly 3 million refugees.

The Chinese intervention marked a shift from past policy under which Beijing seemed reluctant to use its influence in Sudan, according to the envoy, Andrew S. Natsios. "I think they're engaging much more aggressively," Natsios said at a news briefing after four days of talks here with Chinese officials.

There are reasons to be skeptical. China has engaged in bait-and-switches regarding Darfur before, simultaneously pledging and undermining efforts for peace in the region. And of course, it would be quite fair to say too little, too late. But assuming this act is genuine and lasting, what is the upshot?

Well, obviously I'd be pleased that China is using its considerable influence for good instead of evil, for once. But why the shift? It's possible that China thinks that America's weakening hold on the mantle of human rights (in the wake of Abu Gharib, Guantanamo Bay, and other quasi-police-state moves of the Bush administration), offers an opportunity for them to gobble up legitimacy in the respect. The world is probably better off if China begins to consider human rights implications in its foreign policy. But it's probably worse off if China supplants the US as the go-to state on human rights concerns. It would be unforgivable if the US ceded that position on President Bush's watch.