Crazy in the Best Way Possible

Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) is genuinely crazy. I mean that in the best possible way.

For better or for worse, the Republican Party has a great many crazy people. They support ludicrous policies. They have an insane persecution complex about the "liberal media" which is always out to get them. They attack 12-year olds because they dare rely on the SCHIP program. This is nothing new.

What is distinctive about many of these crazy folk, though, is how hackish they are. It's not like they're just beholden to some extreme ideology which pushes them to weird and outlandish positions all the time. For if that were the case, everyone once in awhile you'd see them deviated from the electoral interests of the GOP. Yet, for many of the most passionate nut-cases in the Republican Party -- be they Christian Conservatives or supply-side voodooists, this never happens. Their craziness is not genuine. It is a mere facade for Republican Party politics.

Brownback, by contrast, is if nothing else genuine. This doesn't mean that he doesn't do crazy things. Holding up a judicial nomination because the candidate attended the commitment ceremony of a lesbian friend definitely qualifies. But at other times, he does surprisingly nice things, because he is truly committed to a belief structure beyond "Republicans winning." One example is his human rights advocacy in North Korea. Another is his recently announced resolution apologizing for slavery and segregation.

It is beyond obvious that such a statement is long overdue. An apology, which exacts no cost on any "innocent" party, is the least we could do to atone for our centuries long enactment of state-sponsored terror, discrimination, violence, and hate. Most scholars who examine the aftermath of mass atrocity (which is the best descriptor of America's racial caste system) agree that some level of reckoning by the majority culture for its deeds is crucial to reconstituting the victims. This is why truth commissions are so important -- even more so, often, than legally punishing perpetrators (this ties in nicely with my general belief that justice for the victims is more important than punishing wrongdoers). But America never went through this period of self-reflection. Indeed, as Kimberle Crenshaw noted, we shifted seamlessly into "post-racist", often without even changing the officials in charge (can you say Jessie Helms?). People victimized by mass atrocities are hurt all over again when they find that nobody cares, or that those who committed the violent acts don't even recognize their wrongdoing. The wounds of oppression live on in this situation -- a continued legacy fostered by silence.

The mass resistance too many White politicians have to simple official acknowledgment the grave moral wrongs our nation has inflicted upon people of color is untenable. I agree with Brownback, incidentally, that these aspects of racism are a national problem -- let's not let the north get off scot-free. Brownback concedes that this is an uphill fight. Indeed, in a political sense such a resolution is crazy -- it's not going to win him any votes, it's not going to restart his stalled presidential campaign, and it likely won't even succeed. But it is someone like him -- a Nixon-goes-to-China figure -- who can get the ball rolling. Has the time for this resolution passed? Not while those victimized by America's racist heritage still demand it. Even if his resolution doesn't pass, even the effort is worth something. And I applaud Brownback for his leadership in this regard.

So, while I still think Brownback is crazy, in the words of today's youth, I also want to say: "Brownback, you craaazy!" And I salute him for that.

Library Flashback

This brings me back to my WC days:

Quick note to lawyers: Please remove the pocket part "Article I" from the Constitution, and discard.

Law library geek jokes. Excellent.

God and the Media

Ezra Klein:

The media's treated in rather the opposite way that God is in sports. A player, at the end of a successful game, will turn to the camera, lift his eyes, and thanks the heavenly father for helping his team put more balls in baskets than their opponents were able to manage. You'll never hear his opponents turn and say, "well, I guess Jesus really had it in for us today."

Conversely, no winning candidate mounts the stage on election night and says, "I'd like to thank the media, whose affection for my candidacy proved so crucial in turning public opinion against my opponent." But they should!

I'm getting eerie memories of the incessant "I'd like to have a beer with W" narrative from 2000....

The Trouble with Anti-Semitism

The comments in this Alas, a Blog post have hosted a roaring discussion about whether Jews ought to be considered a subordinated people for the purpose of left-wing critical theory. I staked out the original "yes" position, the hosts of the blog (Amp, joined by Mandolin and Maia) seem to disagree. It's going better than I had hoped -- I've garnered some support from other commenters, and it's generating a very lively debate. I certainly think I've gained ground as the discussion has progressed.

Yet, at the same time, it is very tiring. One of my allies in the comment section analogized the issue to "feminism 101" problems, wherein feminist bloggers are constantly forced to rehash the basic precepts of feminism because "well-meaning" outsiders simply don't know the first principles. My friend remarked that, to a large extent, we seem to be stuck at "anti-Semitism 001". At least with regards to feminism or racism, there is usually an admission (at least from, to quote Feminist Law Profs, "supposedly liberal doods") that misogyny or racism is a problem, and a preface of "I'm not a racist, but...." or its topical equivalent. With anti-Semitism, by contrast, we still seem to be stuck on whether or not the problem exists at all -- the post in this case was an unfortunately unremarkable essay deriding those who see anti-Semitism as anything but the most marginal part of anti-Israel discourse. Apparently, we're too quick to play the anti-Semitism card. For people whom, in other contexts, would be the first to demand that victims be allowed to define their own oppression, this is particularly frustrating. And all the other typical reactionary arguments were deployed as well, from the "I've got Jewish relatives, I can't be anti-Semitic", to "you're essentializing Jews and excluding those who disagree with you." When I noted that Jews face barriers in society when, for example, lobster is served at a state dinner, I stood accused of excluding non-Kosher Jews. Speaking as a Jew who keeps only a nominal version of Kosher (albeit one that doesn't eat lobster), I can assure my interlocutor that not keeping Kosher isn't the problem for me as a Jew. It's when I do engage in differential practices from the secular/Christian norm that I run into trouble. This is 101 material -- and it's particularly frustrating to have to run through it with people who I know know better.

In the wake of such conversations, my mood tends to follow a predictable pattern. At first, I want to fight fire with fire -- write the post-of-all-posts that will lay the issue to rest forever. A Critical Jewish Manifesto (in this case)! But very quickly, that mood dissipates, and I'm instead left tired and wanting. I don't know how to write a manifesto. I don't even know if one can write a manifesto by oneself (it feels so presumptuous to write "we demand" while being a single author). The problem is that I feel very, very alone in this endeavor. For every discovery of Albert Memmi (thanks Phoebe!), there are twenty more reminders that my cause is not well-represented among the people I want to call my compatriots.

For example, The Blog and the Bullet linked approvingly to my post on Martin Luther King, Why is the Only Good Civil Rights Leader a Dead One? Much obliged, and thank you. The Blog and the Bullet styles itself an aggregator of blog posts on a variety of critical anti-subordination issues. And if you look at their sidebar, they range quite the gamut of topics, everything from "Arab Issues" to "Caste" to "Anti-Feminism" to "Pacific Islander Issues" to "Transphobia." 88 categories in all, by my quick count. On religion alone, they have "Islam", "Hindu", "Sikh", even "Christianity." But do they have a topic on "Jews" or "Judaism"? Nope. "Anti-Semitism"? Nope. ("Occupation"? Of course). Is there really no critical blogging out there on anti-Semitism that is worthy of their time? Are we really that marginal to the overall struggle? A site search for anti-Semitism turns up nothing. Ditto, Jew, ditto Judaism. It is a complete, utter, and total annihilation. And I'm sick of it.

I was tempted to write a comment about it. But I don't want to be drawn in to yet another discussion about how my oppression isn't real, about how I'm just over-sensitive, how my quest for liberation is just so much Euro-American colonialism. Enough is enough. I shouldn't have to hold your hand -- it's time for the left to step up to the plate. Stop trying to silence our voices by accusing us of playing the anti-Semitism card. Stop running us together with White, European Christianity. Stop forgetting the unique issues, burdens, history, and violence that Jews have face and continue to face in an anti-Semitic world. Stop ignoring the presence of anti-Semitism as a structural, institutional phenomenon that shapes the very fabric of our society and infects the vision of all people at all levels of society. And most of all, stop acting shocked when Jews demand a vision of liberation that incorporates our needs and experiences too.

The Trouble with Anti-Semitism

The comments in this Alas, a Blog post have hosted a roaring discussion about whether Jews ought to be considered a subordinated people for the purpose of left-wing critical theory. I staked out the original "yes" position, the hosts of the blog (Amp, joined by Mandolin and Maia) seem to disagree. It's going better than I had hoped -- I've garnered some support from other commenters, and it's generating a very lively debate. I certainly think I've gained ground as the discussion has progressed.

Yet, at the same time, it is very tiring. One of my allies in the comment section analogized the issue to "feminism 101" problems, wherein feminist bloggers are constantly forced to rehash the basic precepts of feminism because "well-meaning" outsiders simply don't know the first principles. My friend remarked that, to a large extent, we seem to be stuck at "anti-Semitism 001". At least with regards to feminism or racism, there is usually an admission (at least from, to quote Feminist Law Profs, "supposedly liberal doods") that misogyny or racism is a problem, and a preface of "I'm not a racist, but...." or its topical equivalent. With anti-Semitism, by contrast, we still seem to be stuck on whether or not the problem exists at all -- the post in this case was an unfortunately unremarkable essay deriding those who see anti-Semitism as anything but the most marginal part of anti-Israel discourse. Apparently, we're too quick to play the anti-Semitism card. For people whom, in other contexts, would be the first to demand that victims be allowed to define their own oppression, this is particularly frustrating. And all the other typical reactionary arguments were deployed as well, from the "I've got Jewish relatives, I can't be anti-Semitic", to "you're essentializing Jews and excluding those who disagree with you." When I noted that Jews face barriers in society when, for example, lobster is served at a state dinner, I stood accused of excluding non-Kosher Jews. Speaking as a Jew who keeps only a nominal version of Kosher (albeit one that doesn't eat lobster), I can assure my interlocutor that not keeping Kosher isn't the problem for me as a Jew. It's when I do engage in differential practices from the secular/Christian norm that I run into trouble. This is 101 material -- and it's particularly frustrating to have to run through it with people who I know know better.

In the wake of such conversations, my mood tends to follow a predictable pattern. At first, I want to fight fire with fire -- write the post-of-all-posts that will lay the issue to rest forever. A Critical Jewish Manifesto (in this case)! But very quickly, that mood dissipates, and I'm instead left tired and wanting. I don't know how to write a manifesto. I don't even know if one can write a manifesto by oneself (it feels so presumptuous to write "we demand" while being a single author). The problem is that I feel very, very alone in this endeavor. For every discovery of Albert Memmi (thanks Phoebe!), there are twenty more reminders that my cause is not well-represented among the people I want to call my compatriots.

For example, The Blog and the Bullet linked approvingly to my post on Martin Luther King, Why is the Only Good Civil Rights Leader a Dead One? Much obliged, and thank you. The Blog and the Bullet styles itself an aggregator of blog posts on a variety of critical anti-subordination issues. And if you look at your sidebar, they range quite the gamut of topics, everything from "Arab Issues" to "Caste" to "Anti-Feminism" to "Pacific Islander Issues" to "Transphobia." 88 categories in all, by my quick count. On religion alone, they have "Islam", "Hindu", "Sikh", even "Christianity." But do they have a topic on "Jews" or "Judaism"? Nope. "Anti-Semitism"? Nope.

Caption This Photo

The man on the right is Robert Haines, the first candidate to officially register for the New Hampshire state primary. The guy on the left is New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner.

From the Political Ticker.

Return to Convention

The Virginia Republican State Central Committee has just voted
to hold a nominating convention instead of a primary to determine who will be their 2008 Senate candidate against wildly popular former Gov. Mark Warner in the race to succeed retiring Republican Senator John Warner (no relation). The move is seen as benefited former Gov. Jim Gilmore, the more conservative candidate, over Northern Virginia Rep. Tom Davis, Warner's preferred successor and a moderate. Though I thought Gilmore would still have the advantage in a primary, a convention merely enhances the benefit he gets from being the bona fide conservative in the race. Which I'm perfectly content with, as Warner will thrash Gilmore in the general. Davis, at least, would have put up a live fight. (Of course, the real question on everybody's mind is how this impacts Peter Pace.)

But, being too young to have really lived in the days of contested floor fights (outside The West Wing), I'm just excited to see one in my own backyard. It's like a political junkie's dream come true!

I Don't Hate Mid-Term Mondays!

It's mid-term break here, which means I have the day off today. Carleton doesn't believe in holidays, so this is the one day off we get all term. It sounds abusive, but given four years of "Columbus Day? What's that?", and we start getting downright teary-eyed over one freebie. Actually, at first I thought that maybe we wouldn't celebrate the holidays of the oppressors -- like Columbus Day or President's Day -- but surely a liberal commie school like Carleton would throw us a bone on MLK day? Alas, no such luck. We're hardcore here.

From a blogging perspective, however, the drawback of it being mid-term break is that I still feel like it's a weekend. I haven't really wrapped my head around the fact that it's Monday, and I should be blogging.

Anyway, this NYT column by Verlyn Klinkenborg (only in Minnesota....) about Gustavus Adolphus College (go Gusties!) rang a bit close to home. Gustavus is Carleton's athletic conference, and one of the many schools in these parts that are very Scandanavian (Q: How does Gustavus differ from St. Olaf's college (in Northfield)? A: "They're Norwegian. We’re Swedish."). Klinkenborg explores the kind of polite hesitation one inevitably comes across in Minnesotan classrooms -- a desire not to stand out, not to be flashy, and for the love of God not to be a gunner. It's probably not as bad at Carleton as it is elsewhere, as we draw proportionally fewer students from the ten thousand lake state as do our peers, but I can definitely still sense it here (I think that even us outsiders acclimate to Minnesotan norms pretty quickly). In any event, if you want a window into the strange and mysterious land I currently inhabit, it's a fun article to check out.

All That Jazz

We Real Cool
-Gwendolyn Brooks-

We real cool. We
Left school. We

Lurk late. We
Strike straight. We

Sing sin. We
Thin gin. We

Jazz June. We
Die soon.

I don't generally like poetry (with notable exceptions), but this one has always stuck with me. It was in an anthology textbook I had in high school AP English. This poem wasn't assigned, but I stumbled across it since it was on the page after the one that was assigned (which I don't remember at all).

Girls Prep

Sooooo adorable!



I particularly like the girl who wants to be a vampire when she grows up.

Single-sex education is a difficult topic. But without a doubt (as has been noted elsewhere), there are right ways to do it and wrong ways to do it. And it looks like this school is doing it right.

Via Feministing

Attracting the Wrong Sort

Reports The Denver Post:

State Rep. Debbie Stafford, a longtime Republican known for her passionate arguments on behalf of abused animals and foster kids, ditched her party Thursday to join majority Democrats.

The Aurora lawmaker's surprise move - announced as she stood with a dozen cheering Democrats - was the first time in 20 years that a state lawmaker switched parties.

Republican reaction ranged from flippant to seething, as the Democrats' House majority climbed to 40-25 and Republicans were left with just five female lawmakers in the state Capitol.

"I am not leaving the Republican Party as much as the Republican Party left me," Stafford said. "I decided it was time to place myself, and my self-respect, ... with the Democratic Party."

DKos uses the defection as a jumping off point to note just how many Republicans have recently become converts to our cause. It's a signal of the way politics is changing, he said, and proves that our party is on the way up, while the GOP brand is on the decline.

Perhaps. But reading the Post story, a vague flash of memory went off in my head. "Debbie Stafford," I thought, "that sounds really familiar. But why would I have heard of a random Colorado State Representative?"

Oh yeah. This is why:

But Rep. Debbie Stafford, R-Aurora, said at the caucus that she was upset that the bill exempted children under 18.

"We're helping create the next generation of terrorists," she said.

The bill Rep. Stafford was referring to was one that sought to deprive illegal immigrants of all non-critical governmental services. Stafford was pissed that we weren't sufficiently tough on nine-year olds, and had the gall to say that treating them like human beings was akin to a terrorist training camp.

I understand that politics is a numbers game and it's good to have more folks on our team. But let's not forget who this person is, just because she's on our side now. It's not that she's "tough on illegal immigration" -- I recognize my party is split on this. But Stafford's "we're helping create the next generation of terrorists" comment was one of the paradigmatic displays of the extremist anti-immigration hysteria that has gripped too many people in this country. It was ugly, it was hateful, and it displayed a near inhuman attitude towards children.

As much as I'm pleased to see many Republicans coming to their senses and recognizing that their movement has left them, I cannot welcome folks like Stafford to my party.

Interesting Figure

James Russell, a top authority on Armenia at Harvard University, is an interesting fellow.

On the Armenia Resolution

The House Foreign Relations Committee just passed a resolution labeling as "genocide" the WWI Turkish killing of Armenians. The vote was 27-21 (if anyone has the vote breakdown, I'd be obliged). Such resolutions have passed House committees before, but never made it to the full body for a vote. That looks to change this time, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has a large Armenian-American constituency and is thus strongly committed to getting it passed.

Publius offers the standard, mature view (taken by every living Secretary of State, incidentally), that this is not the right time. Turkey is one of our closet Muslim allies. Moreover, unlike quotation mark "allies" like Saudi Arabia, it is a bona fide liberal, democratic Islamic state. It also is one of the few Muslim states to recognize and have diplomatic relations with Israel -- a relationship it has been issuing veiled threats against in the event that this resolution passes. And it happens to border Iraq, where it could if it so desired cause all manner of trouble under the pretext of dealing with its "Kurdish problem." This event happened a long time ago, Publius argues, so why stir up the fuss?

My first response, I admit, is emotional. Turkey's absolutely childish reaction to simply acknowledging historical fact is unbelievably grating to me, and at this point the inevitable temper tantrum they've threatened to throw is a perk, not a disadvantage, to me. As I wrote back in August when Turkey wanted to "send a message" to American Jews about the implications of this vote, my own message back to them is "grow up". It's long since time. And if they want to enter societal adulthood kicking and screaming, well, so much the worse for them.

But more substantively, contra Publius I think recognizing past human rights atrocities -- particularly those in which the perpetrators have tried desperately to deny their crimes -- has significant contemporary import. I'm reminded of this excerpt from Charles Briggs:

[D]ebates about genocide are themselves political events that bear powerfully on creating, legitimating, and challenging violence.... Actions generally come to be referred to as genocides -- and as 'events' -- post facto. The labeling shapes how they are perceived and remembered and their implications for the future. Constructing an event as genocide places it in relationship to other acts and creates conduits for the circulation of accusations. The architects of genocide are often as concerned with suppressing discourse about the event as with the killing itself. [Charles Briggs, "Genocide," in A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, David Theo Goldberg & John Solomos, eds., (Oxford: Blackwell 2002), 38]

The people who contemplate genocide pay attention to how society has reacted to similar events in the past. Hitler, we recall, was encouraged in his own Final Solution because "who remembers the Armenians?" When genocidal regimes perceive that they can infinitely stave off the day of reckoning for their actions via a variety of diplomatic shuffles, threats, and bluster, we lose one of the few non-military deterrents we have to the violence. Particularly in this age, where it has become clear that the world community either doesn't have the heart or stomach to physically intervene to stop genocide, it becomes all the more important to utilize whatever resources we have in our arsenal to stave them off before they occur. In this fight, moral suasion is a surprisingly effective weapon -- but only if it is known that it will be deployed.

And what of the opposition of all the Secretaries of State? I think it's important to understand where they're coming from. Certainly, passing this resolution would make their jobs harder. Turkey undoubtedly will retaliate as best it can, and this will harm many vital US interests across the board. I concede that. But guess what? Our diplomats aren't supposed to have easy jobs. They're supposed to do their jobs. And their job is to negotiate American interests and morals within an ethical framework we set up that, on occasion, obliges us to do things that make our life harder. It might be easier for us to crush the insurgency in Iraq if we were willing to carpet-bomb the nation. But we recognize that "ease of victory" is not the only consideration. Basic ethical guarantees -- such as that genocide should be recognized and its perpetrators should not get a free pass -- should not be seen as chess pieces to be manipulated to our greatest advantage. They should be built into the playing field as part of the reality our diplomats have to deal with. It's tougher terrain than if we simply jettisoned ethics all together. But you know what? Sometimes, that's what it means to be the good guy in the world.

Nebraska Senate Ad

The DSCC hits the Republican front-runner, former Governor and Agricultural Secretary Mike Johanns.



Kos likes it and thinks the "quitter" narrative is effective. I kind of think it's a cheap shot. Politicians of all stripes resign from their current post while running for the next one. This isn't aberrant behavior. It's typical -- even expected. When Joe Lieberman didn't resign from the Senate to run for Vice President, folks were really annoyed at him. A lot of the time, the argument is made that a Senator or Representative whose running for higher office can't concentrate on representing her district, and so should resign to focus on her campaign. This ad is the epitome of taking a neutral or beneficent act, saying it in a nasty voice, and hoping uninformed voters will take it badly.

It's not quite at the "I hear his sister is a thespian" level, but it's in that family.

Backhanded Compliment

Michelle Cottle on Fred Thompson's debate performance:

I tend to agree with the post-game analysis that Big Fred looked considerably less senile in the last half of last night's proceedings than in the first.

Unfortunately, Cottle proceeds, the debate was so dull few people probably even lasted into the second half.

Oh well. At least Thompson can still charm the ladies.

The Guilty Ones

In my post on dead civil rights leaders, I noted that even the scion of light, Dr. Martin Luther King, was the subject of vigorous and vicious attacks from the mainstream right at the time of his activism. These attacks take very similar forms to the contemporary assaults the right regularly lobs at modern-day civil rights activists, which should be grounds for suspicion. Apropos of that, I happened to be assigned an old National Review article written in the aftermath of the Los Angeles race riots, by (I regret to say) Jewish theologian Will Herberg. Here's an excerpt:

It did not come easy for us in this country, under the weight of the vast influx of immigrants and the residual effects of the frontier tradition, to consolidate a secure internal order based on custom and respect for constituted authority; but finally we managed. This internal order is now in jeopardy; and it is in jeopardy because of the doings of such high-minded, self-righteous "children of light" as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and his associates in the leadership of the "civil rights" movement. If you are looking for those ultimately responsible for the murder, arson, and looting in Los Angeles, look to them: they are the guilty ones, these apostles of "non-violence."

For years now, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and his associates have been deliberately undermining the foundations of internal order in this country. With their rabble-rousing demagoguery, they have been cracking the "cake of custom" that holds us together. With their doctrine of "civil disobedience," they have been teaching hundreds of thousands of Negroes -- particularly the adolescents and the children -- that it is perfectly alright to break the law and defy constituted authority if you are a Negro-with-a-grievance; in protest against injustice. And they have done more than talk. They have on occasion after occasion, in almost every part of the country, called out their mobs on the streets, promoted "school strikes," sit-ins, lie-ins, in explicit violation of the law and in explicit defiance of the public authority. They have taught anarchy and chaos by word and deed -- and, no doubt, with the best of intentions -- and they have found apt pupils everywhere, with intentions not of the best. Sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind. But it is not they alone who reap it, but we as well; the entire nation.

It is worth noting that the worst victims of these high-minded rabble-rousers are not so much the hated whites, but the great mass of the Negro people themselves. The great mass of the Negro people cannot be blamed for the lawlessness and violence in Harlem, Chicago, Los Angeles, or elsewhere. All they want to do is what decent people everywhere want to do: make a living, raise a family, bring up their children as good citizens, with better advantages than they themselves ever had. The "civil rights" movement and the consequent lawlessness has well nigh shattered these hopes; not only because of the physical violence and insecurity, but above all because of the corruption and demoralization of the children, who have been lured away from the steady path of decency and self-government to the more exhilarating road of 'demonstration' -- and rioting. An old friend of mine from Harlem put it to me after the riots last year: "For more than fifteen years we've worked our heads off to make something out of these boys. Now look at them--they're turning into punks and hoodlums roaming the streets.

Will Herberg, "'Civil Rights' and Violence: Who Are the Guilty Ones?", The National Review Sept. 7th, 1965, pp. 769-770.

If you read carefully, nearly all the familiar tropes are there. Casting civil rights leaders are the real villains in America's racial drama? Check. Calling them demagogues, rabble-rousers, or race-baiters? Check. Pinning the blame for racial tensions on Black cultural institutions? Check. Refusing outright to engage in the substance of the Black claims? Check. Claiming that they're the ones really looking out for Black interests? Check. Hell, they even played the "my Black friend" card with the citation to his "old friend from Harlem." It's all there. The same arguments, thrown out just as easily against Dr. King as they are against any Black leader with the temerity to speak up against White racism.

Gentrification Story

This post by Racialicious on the complexities of gentrification is excellent in its own right, and particularly so for me since it focuses on my home land of Montgomery County, Maryland. Though not immune to gentrification by any means, MC has attempted to maintain some level of economic integration by aggressively demanding mixed-income housing from any new developers -- a requirement they can swing because of the red-hot real estate market in the area. The results haven't exactly stymied the exiling of working and lower-middle class people to far-flung exurbs, but it has slowed the tide to a much greater extent than one would expect for a region with our socio-economic profile.

Another interesting factoid (to me, anyway). Here is the racial breakdown of Montgomery County, according to the most recent census:

64.78% White
15.14% African American
0.29% Native American
11.3% Asian
0.05% Pacific Islander
5.0% from other races
3.45% from two or more races.
In addition, 11.52% of the population was Hispanic or Latino, of any race

Relatively speaking, that isn't horribly segregated, but still no race other than White breaks 16% of the population.

But Montgomery County currently has a Black County Executive (the top elected position in the local government), Ike Leggett. He won in a 2006 landslide (after winning a tightly contested primary). But I'm curious how many governmental entities the size of Montgomery County (or higher) are represented by a Black public official when the size of their African-American population is around 15% (or less). My casual observation is that it is quite rare for Black public officials to be elected out of regions that are less than, say, 35-40% Black -- i.e., places where Blacks are a significant voting bloc. Montgomery County may be an interesting exception to this rule -- and one that I, for one, am proud of.

Black People Don't Grow Old

...they just fade away.

Via Steve Benen comes the story of how Georgia's "voter ID" law -- a thinly disguised attempt at disenfranchising Democratic voters that was rightfully struck down by a federal judge -- managed to get past the DOJ's voting rights section. You may remember this law as the one justified by its sponsor on the grounds that if Black people "are not paid to vote, they don't go to the polls."

Anyway, Paul Kiel reports that the head of the voting rights section, John Tanner, overruled career DOJ employees who argued that the law would facilitate racial discrimination in Georgia. Tanner argued that those most burdened by Voter ID laws are not Blacks but the elderly. Now, the more perceptive among us could note a flaw in this logic: aside from the fact that the law could burden both, the bigger problem is that, in theory, one can be Black and old at the same time. Well, that's what I thought anyway. Tanner begs to differ, arguing that "minorities don't become elderly the way white people do: They die first."

Like Bill O'Reilly at a Harlem restaurant, Tanner might be shocked to know that a great many Black people do manage to survive their gang-banger lifestyle and live to the ripe old age where they might be called "elderly." Perhaps he could be introduced to some of these brave survivors, so that his horizons might be widened, and he'd stop making idiotic arguments like this.

Secrets Are No Fun

This is the tale of Khaled El-Masri, a German national taken into custody by we-who-do-not-torture:

El-Masri, a car salesman and a father of four, says his ordeal began on New Year's Eve 2003 when he was pulled off a bus after it crossed the Serbian border into Macedonia. His passport was taken, and he was questioned for days by agents who said he was a terrorist. They refused his request to contact German authorities.

After 23 days, he was blindfolded, taken to the airport and turned over to U.S. authorities. In an interview in 2005 with the Los Angeles Times in Berlin, he described what had happened then:

"I was led into a room. The door closed behind me and I was beaten from all sides for about one minute. They bent my arms to my back and cut off my clothes. . . . I saw seven to eight men all dressed in black and wearing masks. . . . They put me in diapers and a dark blue sweatsuit with the legs and sleeves cut out."

His appeal to the court says he was then put in a plane, "chained spread-eagle to the floor," injected with drugs and flown to Baghdad and then on to Kabul, Afghanistan. He spent the next four months in a CIA-run prison, the appeal says.

In late May 2004, U.S. officials had apparently concluded they had the wrong man. El-Masri was loaded onto a plane, blindfolded, put into the back of truck and dropped off on a hillside in what turned out to be Albania. From there, he made it back to Germany, where an investigation was launched.

Lest we think this is he-said/she-said about El-Masri being a terrorist, according to German officials we have already admitted we got "the wrong guy." And Germany actually went so far as to issue arrest warrants for 13 CIA agents involved in his abduction (they have since dropped the effort).

El-Masri sued the US, but the Supreme Court just denied cert, upholding rulings by lower courts that allowing the case to proceed would violate the "state secrets" doctrine -- a doctrine that even conservative law professor Douglas Kmiec, who has emerged as one of the Bush administration's most prominent academic defenders, said was "not sustainable" in its current breadth.

Also, fun fact: the LA Times dug up the case which originally established the "state secrets" doctrine:

The case tests the outer reaches of the so-called state- secrets privilege, a rule established during the Cold War to block a lawsuit after the crash of a B-29 bomber. Three widows of crewmen sued and sought the official accident reports. The Air Force said the reports could not be revealed because the bomber was on a top-secret mission to test new equipment.

The Supreme Court ruled for the government in the 1953 case, U.S. vs. Reynolds, saying the reports must be suppressed because they could reveal military secrets.

(When the accident reports were declassified in 2000, they revealed only that the aircraft was in poor condition, evidence that might have helped the widows win their suit.)

I suspect that hearing this case would reveal similarly valuable information that would put American lives at risk.

In any event, just remember: This Country Does Not Torture People (tm). But occasionally, it does pluck random folk off the street, hold them incommunicado, beat them up for several months, them drop them off blindfolded on an Albanian hillside.

Some other blogs:

Captain Ed says to El-Masri: "Tough luck." Ed's commenters to him: "I hope this happens to you in the near future, then." I do give him a little credit for admitting in updates that he was too glib. But only a little, since I don't really accept that we can call ours a legal system and have no remedy for torturing innocent people for several months.

The Plank: "You'd think if it really were a case of mistaken identity, the Bush administration would want to just pay him whatever damages he's asking for and dispose of the whole thing, rather than going through the trouble (and bad publicity) of fighting him in the courts, even if they've ended up winning. But apparently not."

Michael Dorf tries to read some tea-leaves behind the cert denial. But whatever small comforts can be drawn, they won't "do El-Masri any good."

Prison State

Junior Virginia Senator Jim Webb is talking about prison reform. Good for him. Prison reform is one of those issues that's really pressing, but never gets talked about, because what politician wants to stand up for prisoners rights? But when you read the stories about what happens in our nation's prison cells, up to and including officially-sanction rape, and it becomes evident that somebody needs to take a stand. Because when you can't tell Abu Gharib and Texas apart, something has gone horribly wrong.

Boxing Blogging: "I Didn't See Nuthin'" Weekend

Hey y'all. Being at Carleton, I don't get HBO (much less PPV), so this is the time of year I don't really get to see many of the big fights going down. Which is a shame, because there are some great ones (Pavlik/Taylor, especially, was one I'd have loved to see). But I still follow the news, and I figure I'll give some quick takes on some of the boxing tales that have been washing up these past few weeks, starting with the fights last night.

Though Barrera/Pacquiao was the main event, the person who seemed to impress most last night was Librado Andrade (26-1, 20 KOs). Coming off his first career loss to Super Middleweight Champion Mikkel Kessler (who will attempt to unify the division against Joe Calzaghe in a monster fight later this year), Andrade was put down on the mat for the first time against Yusaf Mack (23-2-2, 14 KOs), whose only loss prior to last night was against current titlist Alejandro Berrio. Andrade, apparently, is built like a mack truck -- the shot that put him down was one that many observers said would have been a 10 count for most other fighters, and throughout the fight he was simply walking through huge punches by Mack. Finally, in round seven, Andrade's sustained, relentless attack wore down Mack, who went down three times before the fight was called off.

Also on the undercard of Barrera/Pacquiao was Steven Luevano (34-1, 15 KOs), who convincingly out-boxed a game Antonio Davis (24-4, 12 KOs) to retain his share of the featherweight title. Finally, contender alum and former titlist Steve Forbes (33-5, 9 KOs) scored a mild upset over prospect Francisco Bojado (18-3, 12 KOs) in a tightly fought split-decision win. This was a bounce-back fight for both men -- Bojado in only his third fight after a three year layoff after losing to Jesse James Leija, and Forbes after being absolutely robbed in a match he dominated against Demetrius Hopkins. Forbes fought this bout three weight classes higher than his title days as a super featherweight champion, and even in that division he wasn't known as a power puncher. But he's a very, very slick boxer, and got the better of a decision tonight that could have gone either way.

Meanwhile, in New York, Kali Meehan (33-3, 27 K0s) pounded DaVarryl "Touch of Sleep" Williamson (24-5, 20 K0s) into submission, the latter losing when he didn't come out for round seven. Andrew Golata (40-6-1, 33 KOs) knocked out Kevin McBride (34-6-1, 29 KOs), apparently without ever straying below the belt. Good for him. But the real fight of the night was the "Nigerian Nightmare", Samuel Peter (29-1, 22 KOs) surviving a major scare against Jameel "Big Time" McCline (38-8-3, 23 KOs). People tend to deride McCline, who is now 0-4 in title shots, but I don't think that's fair. He has wins against some quality people (future champ Shannon Briggs, Lance Whitaker, Michael Grant, plus pumped-up cruiserweights Terry Smith and Rob Calloway), and some early career losses make his record look worse than it is. What is true is that McCline tends not to be able to finish people off. He lost to Calvin Brock in a fight he knocked him down solidly in the seventh. In his best title performance, he lost a split decision to Chris Byrd after putting him down in the second. He also has had his share of bad luck -- blowing out his knee in the third round of his title fight against Nikolay Valuev in a fight he started off strong in. And so, tonight, McCline continued his habit of hurting people and then letting them come back to win. He had Peter down three times in the fight, all prior to the fourth round, and had the champ badly hurt. But he didn't press the action, and faded badly as the bout went on. Peter ended up winning the fight unanimously, and even McCline couldn't protest, which shows how lopsided rounds 4-12 were. Fun historical fact: Peter's only loss was in his first title shot against Wladimir Klitschko, in a fight where he, too, put his opponent down three times only to lose the fight in a unanimous decision (by not winning any second of the fight where he wasn't knocking the champ down).

***
Over at ESPN, the Contender, Season Three is starting. It's an interesting batch of fighters -- definitely some of the strongest resumes we've seen thus far on the show. However, it's also somewhat unbalanced -- some of the fighters are significantly more accomplished than others. Sakio Bika (22-3-2, 14 KOs) and Sam Soliman (33-9, 13 KOs) would appear to be in a class of their own in this field. Also of interest: not one, but two of the fighters on the show are known primarily for being knocked out by Allan Green. Jaidon Codrington (16-1, 12 KOs) was drilled by Green in 18 seconds in the 2005 knockout of the year. While this made him a YouTube phenomenon for awhile (and not in a good way), I wouldn't make too much out of it. Anybody can get clipped, and even though I think he's mildly overrated, Green is still a fantastic fighter who is dangerous to anyone. Codrington has a strong amateur background and has won eight straight since then, including his first Contender fight against previously "undefeated" Brian Vera. The second fighter to be put down by Green is Donny McCrary (23-6-2, 13 KOs), who almost became known for scoring one of the biggest upsets in ESPN boxing history when he caught Green and had him out on his feet. Green went down, but managed to steady himself and rally for a 6th round knockout. Despite coming significantly closer to beating Green than Codrington, McCrary is without a doubt the inferior fighter -- unlike Codrington, he was brought in as a record padder for Green (he did show that there is no such thing as a guarantee in boxing), and unlike Codrington, he's really been regarded as a journeyman for the bulk of his career. Also unlike Codrington, he lost his opening bout in the Contender, getting picked apart by a far superior Sakio Bika.

***

Finally, I admit the whole reason I wrote this post was to have an excuse to embed this YouTube video, which, as BadLeftHook puts it, is the best fight promo ever.



The dolphin'll have to wait!

Game on, Ibragimov.

2007 Weblog Awards Nominations

The nominations are open! Anybody can nominate anybody, so if you feel like my site should be considered, please give it a holler at their site. Last year, I was runner-up in my category, and I'm back for some vengeance! Or just good plain fun, as it may be -- I'm too mellow to be really have any vendettas.

The two categories I seem to fit best in are Best Education Blog (blogs by educators, students, or on educational issues)

and

Best of the TTLB 5,001 - 6,750

But the full list of categories is here, so put me (or any other blog you want) wherever you think is just.

Thanks!

Men, Women, and Rape

Eugene Volokh experimented by having his class anonymously render their opinions as to whether a person in a specific rape case should be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He found that:

* Among women: 10 voted for rape proven beyond a reasonable doubt, 15 not proven.

* Among men: 17 voted for rape proven, 18 not proven.

He concluded:

I stressed to students, of course, that this was not a large sample, and most certainly not one representative of the country as a whole. But I think it ended up being a useful perspective for the students, in highlighting to everyone both (1) how close the division was, and (2) how little gender gap there was (with men actually being a little more likely than women to find rape proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but I'm not sure not to any statistically significant degree). My sense is that this was an important pedagogical tool, chiefly because it helped show people how people of their own age, sex, and social class can disagree on such matters (whether or not they conclude that such disagreement is indeed warranted).

The gender split is something I've noticed too when one of my own classes did a similar experiment -- albeit, not in our case, anonymously. In that case, the gender divide was even more pronounced -- I observed near unanimity among the men that the defendant should be found guilty of rape, while the women were approximately 50/50. Volokh's point still remains true, that people of one's own social position can nevertheless have widely divergent views on politically charged matters -- but I also think that this somewhat counter-intuitive gender division remains worthy of further examination as well.

Or How About Persia?

In a sense, its ridiculous to even respond to the anti-Semitic babblings of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who today reiterated his call to exile the Jewish state to Europe or Alaska. Both the places are rather nonsensical locations for a Jewish state -- the former because that's the location Jews were fleeing from (should we put our new capital in Dachau?), and the latter because there is absolutely no link between Jews and Alaska (why wouldn't that be every bit as colonial?).

But the Jewish historical and communal links to Persia and Babylonia, on the other hand, are centuries old. And given President Ahmadinejad's ever-so-sincere concern for the well-being of Jews and Palestinians, and his absolute serious commitment to ending the conflict, I'm sure he wouldn't mind sacrificing a nice little chunk of his own fiefdom to donate to the now-homeless Jews. Certainly, it's much fairer than forcing the Inuit to do it. And it would be such a great gesture of good faith, too!

Any day now.

Name Game, Part II

While I am largely uninformed about the inner-circle of foreign policy wonks and thus have to resort to simply making fun of people named "Slaughter", Fletcher School professor Daniel Drezner does not share my shortcomings and thus is able to offer some half-baked predictions matching foreign policy advisers to their respective positions in their chosen candidate's cabinet.

New Mexico Senate Development

Senator Pete Domenici's (R-NM) announced retirement is another thorn in the side of Senate Republicans, but so far the candidate recruitment race is working their favor. Rep. Heather Wilson (R), a moderate veteran of several hard fought campaigns, has announced that she is in the race. I don't know enough about New Mexico GOP dynamics, but my gut tells me that even as a moderate, she'll be a strong front-runner for the nomination, if for no other reason than the NM Republicans don't have a huge bench that I know of. As to the general election, in addition to her battle-tested reputation and moderate persona, Wilson has a very marketable resume -- an Air Force veteran, Rhodes Scholar, and former member of the National Security Council. On the other hand, she has ties to the US Attorneys scandal and is looking at a potential investigation by the House Ethics committee. Also, with Wilson vacating her House seat to run, it immediately becomes a strong pick-up opportunity for the Democrats.

Meanwhile, the Democrat's top two choices both appear to be out. Governor Bill Richardson is still continuing his quixotic campaingn for the presidency, and, in a slightly more surprising announcement, Rep. Mark Tom Udall (D) has decided to forgo the race as well [Mark Udall is a Democratic Representative running for Senate in Colorado. Who'd have thought there'd be two "Udalls" in Congress?]. Still, it's a state that is trending blue, in a blue trend year, and Democrats have to remain optimistic -- assuming they can find a viable candidate. New Mexico is a pretty small state, so there just aren't that many other big name figures who could jump at this point. Attorney General Patricia Madrid may try to reprise her 2006 fight against Wilson statewide (she lost a House race to her by less than 900 votes). But while Madrid is a strong candidate on paper, she is not all that popular in the state (a swing voter friend of mine from Wilson's district said that, while she'd be open to voting out Wilson, Madrid was simply "the sleaziest politician I've ever seen").

So even though I can't think the GOP is thrilled to have yet another vulnerable open seat to defend, so far this one has at least some pieces falling into place for the reeling conservative party.

Fantasies

Ann Coulter:

"If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen."

Admittedly, I have the related fantasy of taking away Coulter's right to vote, but I don't think that's going to happen either.

Early Morning Quote: "Working Through" Racism

As you may have guessed, these are taken from whatever random academic book I've picked up off my desk at the moment. This one is from a volume giving psychoanalytic responses to Black/Jewish tensions.

Educational programs against white racism, including Jewish racism, have usually been based on the assumption among pedagogues and social engineers that the most effective way to combat racism and prejudice is to expose students to information and values that contradict their racist attitudes. So, for instance, students are encouraged [*6] to learn about other marginalized and negative stereotyped groups and the importance of respecting others who are different from themselves. While these programs have been successful to some degree, from a psychoanalytic viewpoint they don't go "deep" enough into the motives that usually sustain racist attitudes and drive individuals to racist behavior. As Bracher further points out, "the more profound and intractable causes of intolerance includes the presence of a rigid but threatened sense of identity and the use of primitive defense mechanisms, such as projection, to maintain this sense of identity by refusing to recognize elements of one's own being that contradict this idealized self-image.' From a psychoanalytic viewpoint then, an effective intervention emanating from this way of conceptualizing racism would focus on increasing the student's self-acceptance of his unacceptable tendencies, in contrast to the received view, that aims to increase the student's self-esteem by stressing attributes and achievements that they take pride in. That is, to reduce racist and bigoted attitudes and vehavior, it is precisely those unacceptable feelings, attitudes, and attributes that students are ashamed of and have disavowed, repressed, and projected that need to be "worked through."

[Alan Helmreich & Paul Marcus, "Introduction: Black-Jewish Conflict," in Blacks and Jews on the Couch: Psychoanalytic Reflections on Black-Jewish Conflict, Alan Helmreich & Paul Marcus, eds. (Westport: Praeger, 1998), pp. 1-13, 5-6]

The last sentence is the important one -- the rest I added for context. One of the reasons I try and keep "racism" at the fore of my analysis I that I think it is impossible to "work through" its problems when it is constantly shunted off into the darkest, most remote corners of discourse. We are ashamed of racism, we don't want to admit to elements of our personhood that conflict with our idealized self, so we push it away and repress it -- better than openly celebrating it, to be sure, but also not the sort of thing that will ultimately eliminate its effects. Racism that is repressed, rather than addressed and ultimately redressed, will always find ways to burble up to the surface, and will be infinitely more difficult to identify and remedy when it does.

The corollary to this outlook, of course, is that by asking that we take the tough step of admitting our racist behaviors and mindsets, the interlocutor cannot then turn around and condemn, shame, or otherwise malign the people who hold them (simply for holding them). This is rightfully seen as an ambush, and is not conducive to the type of "working through" that Helmreich and Marcus say (and I agree) we need to do. Recognizing that racism is a moral wrong, and that it hurts people, does not automatically mean condemning its perpetrators -- particularly when so much of the problem is psychological and unwillful. A bargain must be struck between the anti-racism activists and those they seek to "reform", in which both agree to work through the issues and problems of racist mentalities without judgment on the part of the former, and without defensiveness on the part of the latter. This does not mean we do not aggressively respond to racism when we see it. It only means that, in the educational context of folks genuinely seeking to overcome the racism they admit they have, we announce a truce -- a cease-fire.

It is important, too, to remember that even while recognizing the facet of ourselves which is still tied into the racist under- and overtones of our society, this part does not define us. Just as there is a segment of ourselves which is hateful and prejudiced and biased and cruel, we can similarly draw on other aspects of our identity which value justice and ethics and dignity and solidarity. Following Bracher's lead, a crucial step in formulating a healthy self-image is one that can recognize both elements of self, while enlisting the latter to battle and eventually overcome the former (if you have tolerance for another academic quote, Slant Truth's Kevin Andre Elliott has a wonderful excerpt on "tolerating ambiguity" from Gloria Anzalda). The only way one can truly count oneself as being a follower of the light is to recognize that there is (and likely always will be) dark spots inside you as well. Being a bystander is not an option.

This isn't to say that the endeavor is easy. No matter how understanding our fellows are, it is still difficult to openly work through issues of racism without going into that reflexive "shell" mode that seeks to deflect or deny that there is a problem. Nonetheless, it is a necessary part of the anti-racism project. Deep problems, such as racism, are rarely solved without some sort of deep, often painful, commitment, from the society from which it emerges. This one is no different. But fixing it will open the doors to a brighter, more just, more egalitarian, and ultimately more prosperous existence for all of us.

Fire at Will

While I'm sure there are good reasons to support the At Will employment doctrine, reading about cases like this, where a female employee was hired, then immediately fired because she was "overweight and had large breasts", makes me want to rewrite policy to explicitly prohibit employers from terminating their employees for no (or exceedingly dumb) reasons. Under current law, this woman does not appear to be protected, because her firing was not due to race, sex, disability, or any other protected category. Yet it strikes me as every bit as insane as many of the other ridiculous firings employers try to swing that are covered under these categories.

Name Game

The Washington Post has a list of which foreign policy bigwigs are supporting the major candidates. I don't know enough about these folks to make any informed comments. So instead, I'll just point out names that interest me. "Interest", as you will see, has very little to do with substantive policy concerns, and everything to do with what weird associations I can make with the last names.

Obama starts off with not one, but two Brzezinskis: Mark, and Zbigniew. The former was a specialist in Southeast Europe in Clinton's NSC, and the latter was President Carter's National Security Adviser. Copy editors everywhere hope that they remain low profile and in the background. Also with Obama is the ever-awesome Samantha Power, which we knew. Though she is unaffiliated with any candidate and thus not listed, another name which has popped up in discussions of possible high players in a Democratic administration is Woodrow Wilson School Dean Anne-Marie Slaughter. This is worth noting not just because they are both highly regarded and indisputably brilliant (though they both are), but because it could possibly give us "Secretaries Power and Slaughter," which tickles me. The only competition on the best/worst names front comes from the Giuliani campaign, which could give us a diplomat by the name of "Conquest," Robert Conquest to be precise. The name matches Giuliani's temperament far better than "Power" and "Slaughter" do Obama's.

McCain doesn't have anybody with as scary-sounding names as Obama or Giuliani, but he makes up for it by being just gosh-darn folksy: two alphabetically-sequential advisers of his are both nicknamed "Bud": Reagan National Security Adviser Robert "Bud" McFarlane, and Brig. Gen. Warren "Bud" Nelson. Also on McCain's ledger: Maj. Gen. Evan "Curly" Hultman. But it's Mitt Romney whose affiliate wins the award for best nickname, in the form of Lt. Gen. John H. "Soup" Campbell.

And finally, just for kicks, a pure count of all the military figures (mostly generals and admirals) listed for each candidate:

Clinton -- 6 (a solid figure, I think)
Obama -- 2 (lower than I'd have expected)
Edwards -- 7 (out of 11 names total)
Giuliani -- 0 (am I the only one whose surprised he couldn't find one?)
McCain -- 17 (wowzers)
Romney -- 1 (well, at least you beat Giuliani)

Missing Women in Science

Carleton has a nearly legendary reputation for the relative gender-balance in our math and science programs. Our active, tenure or tenure-track Chemistry department is more than half female (five to four men), which is virtually unheard of. The Geology department is three men and two women. Physics is five/three, Biology is seven/three, and Math is six/four.

Most places are not like Carleton in this respect. Indeed, normally in professional math, science, and engineering settings, women are outnumbered by men by a 3:1 ratio. And studies cited in a recent Scientific Daily article show how this imbalance can seriously effect the performance of women who are so marginalized in these environments.

Murphy and colleagues showed a group of advanced MSE undergraduates a gender balanced or unbalanced video depicting a potential MSE summer leadership conference. To assess identity threat, the researchers measured the participant’s physiological arousal during the video, cognitive vigilance, sense of belonging and desire to participate in the conference.

The results are telling. The women who watched the gender unbalanced video- where women were outnumbered by men in a 3 to 1 ratio- experienced faster heart rates, higher skin conductance (sweating), and reported a lower sense of belonging and less desire to participate in the conference.

They also found that women were more vigilant to their physical environment when they watched the video in which women were outnumbered. Throughout the testing room, Murphy planted cues related to Math, Science, and Engineering such as magazines like Science, Scientific American, and Nature on the coffee table and a portrait of Einstein and the periodic table on the walls. Women were able to recall more details about the video and the test room, indicating that they paid more attention to the identity-relevant items in order to assess the likelihood of encountering identity threat. “It would not be surprising if the general cognitive functioning of women in the threatening setting was inhibited because of this allocation of attention toward MSE-related cues,” write the authors. Thus, it is likely that this kind of attention allocation would interfere with performance and might help explain the performance gap between men and women in these fields.

While men, in either condition, showed no significant difference in physiological arousal, cognitive vigilance, or sense of belonging, both men and women expressed more desire to attend the conference when the ratio of men to women was balanced. Murphy says that while it’s interesting that both men and women want to be where the women are, the motivations of men and women for wanting to be there are probably quite different. “Women probably feel more identity-safe in the environment where there are more women- they feel that they really could belong there- while men might simply be attracted by the unusual number of women in these settings. Men just aren’t used to seeing that many women in these settings, because the numbers in real Math, Science, and Engineering settings are so unbalanced.”

I think it's a little too cheap to say the only reason men prefer gender-balanced conferences is because of the novelty of it (this seems to play more than a little on "geek guys can't get girls" stereotypes), though I don't think it's wrong to discount it either. But regardless, the point is that everybody seems to be happier, and a significant chunk of the population more comfortable (and thus presumably more productive) when there isn't a notable, gaping imbalance among the genders at these conferences. Carleton is a great pipeline for female science graduates in part simply because women here are very visible in these departments. It isn't weird, it isn't out of the ordinary, there's very little sense that one is "trailblazing" or entering a terrain dominated by men (though I hasten to add that I imagine female math and science majors are certainly aware of those tropes in broader society, and will still have to deal with them there). This indicates that simply having a few familiar and friendly faces can do wonders for expanding the pool of qualified, competent, and comfortable science graduates, and provides yet more reason for colleges and universities across the country to try and adjust their departments accordingly.

Hat tip to the lovely Kawaii Kid, whose scientific exploits (Physics, I believe?) I have not been particularly supportive of (but only because I believe it's a waste of her debating talent!).

The Clarence Thomas Roundup

The release of Clarence Thomas' new book has led to a spurt of interesting blogging on the quietest and most conservative Supreme Court Justice. No comments from me, just a round-up of the variety of posts out there.

Sherilynn Ifill, a law professor at UMD blogging at BlackProf, takes issue with Thomas' lynching metaphor ("an insult to the nearly 5,000 black and men and women who were lynched in the last century") and urges Thomas to "get a grip."

Scott Moss of the University of Colorado notes the intense bitterness Thomas appears to still nurse -- and his lack of either honesty or self-awareness in acknowledging it.

Ilya Somin of George Mason notes the ideological slant of the folks who believe Thomas and those who believe Hill regarding her sexual harassment allegations, and suggests this is purely a function of partisanship. However, as someone noted in comments, it is generally true that liberals are more likely than conservatives to believe allegations of sexual harassment. The real outlier, as Somin indicates, is the Paula Jones case.

Also at Volokh, David Bernstein hypothesizes that the scorched-earth campaign the left waged against Clarence Thomas' nomination may have backfired, by permanently entrenching him on the Supreme Court's far right branch. By solidifying Thomas' perception of liberals as his enemies, they precluded him from ever evolving his views or reaching "across the aisle" while growing as a Justice.

Richard Stern argues that Thomas' book is a "inverse confession", as he is unable to forget the "scene of the crime" against Ms. Hill, and compelled to revisit it even as he protests his innocence.

Powerline provides its summary of Thomas' speech to the Heritage Foundation.

Michael Dorf of Columbia analogizes the two cases of "harassment by people named Thomas" (Isiah and Clarence). He notes that, even if Thomas was guilty of harassment, he still might have had a legitimate beef against many of the questioning (White) Senators who likely engaged in similar behavior but faced no similar scrutiny.

Feministe comments on Anita Hill's defense of her character against Thomas' renewed attack, contextualizing it within the broader procedures used to silence folks complaining about sexual harassment.

And, though I wrote it several months ago, I'll abuse my blogger privileges to link back to one of my older (but, if I do say so myself, better) posts on Clarence Thomas, Taking Thomas Seriously.

Legal Perils

A few months ago, I blogged on the distressing case of Yaderlin Hiraldo, whose husband, Alex Jimenez, is currently missing in Iraq. Despite the fact that her husband either died, or is being currently tortured by Iraqi insurgents, while fighting for his country, the US government initiated deportation proceedings against Ms. Hiraldo. It was, I said at the time, one of the more tone-deaf moments in US immigration history. What's worse, the only reason the government even knew about Hiraldo's undocumented status was because her husband tried to legalize her status by having her apply for a green card. Had they not tried to go the legal way, the problem would have never manifested itself in the first place.

Today, CNN has a related story of Navy sailor Eduardo Gonzalez, about to be deployed to Iraq for his third tour. His wife is also under the threat of deportation, so Gonzalez is going to war literally not knowing if his wife will be around when he comes back.

What's particularly tragic is that Mrs. Gonzalez did not originally come here illegally. She was a war refugee from Columbia who came with her mother at age five. Now, I'm of the opinion that it is meaningless, absurdist, and malicious to label anyone who comes to the country as a five-year old a "law-breaker" as a result of it (as if kindergarteners have the state of mind necessary to comprehend immigration laws), but Gonzalez was actually given political asylum, so her entrance wasn't illegal after all (as far as I understand the law here). Her mother applied for permanent legalization for herself and her daughter in 2000, which was granted four years later in 2004. However, by that time Gonzalez had married her husband, meaning that her mother's application no longer applied to her own status, and she was left in limbo. A judge recently granted her a one-year extension, but if her legal status is not resolved by June of 2008, she faces deportation.

I mention all this to contextualize the next passage in CNN's article:

That's just fine, according to Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which lobbies for tougher laws on illegal immigration.

"What you're talking about is amnesty for illegal immigrants who have a relative in the armed forces, and that's just outrageous," he said. "What we're talking about here is letting lawbreakers get away with their actions just because they have a relative in the military. ... There's no justification for that kind of policy."

Now, I think in general there is a lot more outrageous about disrespecting our men and women in uniform by deporting their wives than there is in the horror of letting some more brown people in the country. And, to reiterate, I think it is particularly callous and hateful to refer to people who came into this country as five-year olds in this manner. But Krikorian's statement is particularly revealing here because Mrs. Gonzalez isn't a law breaker. She entered this country legally, as a refugee. The only reason her status isn't secured is because of a breakdown in our bureaucracy. If it hadn't taken four years to process her mother's application, she'd be legal. If we didn't penalize her for getting married, she'd also be legal (can I hear a shout out for "family values" anyone?). Only things on our end distinguish her from the perfectly legal and documented immigrants Krikorian claims to have no problem with. You want to know why immigration advocates like myself don't trust folks like Krikorian when they say their only problem is with "illegal" immigrants? Because they don't take their own distinction seriously. And when faced with situations like Gonzalez's, their true colors become clear. It's not about legal versus illegal. It's about less versus more people named "Gonzalez". Xenophobia, pure and simple.

An Inconvenient Truth

The FRC, looking at new polling data on the political affiliations of young White evangelicals, notes that while this generation of evangelicals is less likely to identify as Republican, they are in some ways more conservative than their older peers (I imagine they are less so in other ways--the war in Iraq, I suspect, has soured a great many on the GOP foreign policy ideology). But the FRC seems peeved about the way one question on abortion was phrased:

For example, 70% of young evangelicals favor "making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion" (by the way, this is a particularly noxious phrasing of the issue as it frames a pro-life position as creating difficulty for women), whereas only 55% of older white evangelicals have the same view.

Umm...the "pro-life" position does create a "difficulty for women" -- it makes it more difficult for them to get abortions. To be sure, this is a burden that the FRC wants to impose on women, but that doesn't make it any less accurate. There is simply no way to characterize this phraseology as "noxious" without a hyper-developed victim complex (which, to be fair, is something we already knew the FRC possessed in abundance).

This Is Not Law

Minnesota Law Professor and Interim Dean Guy-Uriel Charles drills the recently decided Seattle and Louisville desegregation cases:

As a result of the Roberts opinion, when I teach my next class of constitutional law at the University of Minnesota Law School, I will have to do something I have never done before: “out” a case.

I will clarify for students why the decision is not “law” in any meaningful sense of the word but, rather, the imposition of unlawful policy preferences of four Supreme Court Justices on the rest of the population. I will explain that I cannot in good conscience, as either a black man or a constitutional law professor, teach this case in a constitutional law class, though I would be willing to teach it in a public policy class.

Yikes.

Lucky Number Seven

Matt Yglesias, citing to Lords of the Land author and Ha'aretz columnist Akiva Eldar: "[T]he Balfour Declaration came in 1917, the UN plan for a Jewish state came in 1947, Sadat's visit to Israel came in 1977, so we're due for good news in 2007, possibly out of the peace conference scheduled to be held in November in Annapolis."

Pace for Senate?

The National Review wants to draft former Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Peter Pace to run for Senate in Virginia. There's no indication Pace is interested in politics (my gut tells me he isn't, but that's a totally uninformed statement), but what if he did run?

Well, my first two reactions are 1) he'd be a very strong candidate and 2) he'd still get whipped by Mark Warner, who is the perfect Democratic candidate in Virginia. I'd also note that he'd have an extremely difficult route through the GOP primary, with two well-established Virginia political figures already in the race (Rep. Tom Davis, representing the more moderate wing and John Warner's implied successor, and former Gov. Jim Gilchrist Gilmore, the more radical politician). It's unclear how he'd get the traction to really make headway.

The other thing I'd say about Pace is that it would be wrong, if he does enter the race, to try and tar him as some sort of evil force of regression. True, I find his views on homosexuality to be absolutely abhorrent. And he unavoidably will be taggeed with his role in promoting President Bush's failed Iraq war. But that doesn't mean I've forgotten his stirring testimony on immigration, or his strong stand against human rights abuses (contradicting Donald Rumsfeld to his face). Indeed, it was precisely his memorable stances on these issues that made his statements on homosexuality feel like such a betrayal. We shouldn't treat those statements with kid gloves, but we shouldn't allow them to entirely subsume the rest of his character either. That goes for if he decides to go into to politics, or remains a private citizen.

Insensitive

While we're on the subject of employment discrimination developments guaranteed to raise your blood pressure, I think Paul Secunda is right to describe this as "one of the most insensitive employer acts in quite a while." (to say the least!)

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says a Grasonville marina and bar located on the Chesapeake Bay violated federal law when it refused to offer an accommodation to an employee who had undergone breast cancer treatment and fired her when she requested to be excused from its dress code policy.

According to the EEOC's suit, Mears Marina Associated Limited Partnership, doing business as the Red Eye's Dock Bar, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it discriminated against Margaret Finley, who had undergone treatment for breast cancer.

Finley had requested to be excused from the bar's dress code policy which required that she wear a scanty "tankini" top. Her request to be excused from the "tankini" requirement resulted in her termination, the EEOC charges.

Wow. And, to keep quoting Secunda, "it just goes to show how many employment discrimination cases could be avoided with a little less employer intransigence and little more compromise." Which, in a nutshell, is how I see employment discrimination. So often, it's merely a case of employers being not just obnoxiously stubborn, but unnecessarily so. Not only does this create the distinct feeling that they're acting out of pure malice, but it doesn't actually benefit anyone. It's just ridiculous.

Letter to Van Hollen

I wrote another letter to my Congressman urging preemption of the upcoming Humphries case. Here it is:

****

Congressman Van Hollen,

Last May, in the wake of the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision, I wrote a letter urging you to reform the law that failed to protect Ms. Ledbetter. In addition, I also requested that you work to strengthen the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII, so that injustices such as that accorded to Robert Jordan, right here in Montgomery County, are also rendered a thing of the past. Mr. Jordan, as you may recall, was fired after complaining to his supervisor about a White employee, who upon seeing two Black fugitives arrested on TV, exclaimed that "they should put those two Black monkeys in a cage and let the Black apes fuck them." Unfortunately, the 4th Circuit ruled in Jordan v. Alternative Resources Corporation (458 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2006)) that Mr. Jordan could not have even "reasonably believed" that such comments were in violation of Title VII, and thus the company's retaliation was permissible.

I congratulate you on passing the reform for Ms. Ledbetter, but I am troubled that you did not address strengthening the anti-retaliation provisions of our civil rights laws. Now, the Supreme Court has granted cert to hear CBOCS West Inc. v. Humphries, No. 06-1431, which many commentators believe they will use as a vehicle to completely excise the anti-retaliation aspect of Section 1981. No lower court has taken this view, for good reason: eliminating the anti-retaliation provision doesn't just create a loophole in the law, it effectively means we don't have a law at all. Congress should preempt this ruling by immediately giving explicit and strong protection to employers who are retaliated against for complaining about discriminatory, racist, sexist, or otherwise prejudiced treatment. The Roberts Court's rollback of our civil rights laws needs to be checked.

As a lifelong resident of your district (and a volunteer on your original 2002 primary campaign), I would appreciate your response and efforts on this issue.

No No NO!

The Supreme Court may be taking aim at the anti-retaliation aspect of employment discrimination law:

The discrimination case the justices granted on Tuesday, which has attracted almost no notice, could nonetheless produce an important shift in the court’s approach to interpreting statutes. The question is whether a law that bars racial discrimination in business dealings, including employment, also prohibits retaliation against those who complain about discrimination.

Ordinarily, the court grants cases only to resolve conflicting interpretations in the lower courts. But in this instance, every federal appeals court to consider the issue has agreed that the statute does apply to retaliation. For the court to grant a case in the absence of a lower-court conflict — as it did in the case decided in June that invalidated voluntary integration plans in two public school systems — is often an indication that the case has been added to the docket as a vehicle for advancing a particular agenda.

The federal law at issue in the new case was originally part of the Reconstruction-era Civil Rights Act of 1866. Known now as Section 1981, it does not mention “retaliation.” Neither do most other anti-discrimination laws. In the past, that has been no barrier to the court in finding that protection against retaliation is inherently part of protection against discrimination.

But support on the court for an approach that goes beyond the margins of the constitutional text has been shrinking. Two years ago, the court ruled 5 to 4 that Title IX, a law that bars sex discrimination in schools, also covers retaliation. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion. It is likely that her successor, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., would have been among the dissenters.

Given that the new case, CBOCS West Inc. v. Humphries, No. 06-1431, does not meet the court’s most important criterion for review, it is likely that a new majority granted it in order to cut off the retaliation claim and perhaps also to issue a broader ruling against finding rights that are not spelled out in statutes.

Retaliation is not explicitly written into the statute, but lower courts (and the Supreme Court in analogous cases) have all agreed that not reading in an anti-retaliation provision doesn't just create a loophole -- it means you don't have a law anymore. In addition to being wildly unjust on its own terms (firing someone for making a non-frivolous complaint of discrimination is one of the more sadistic employment actions I can think of), if employers can simply terminate anyone who complains of discrimination, then it will be essentially impossible to ever breach the law. In my prior writings on retaliation provisions (this time in Title VII), I complained that they were too narrow--and anyone who thinks that statutory protection shouldn't extend to Robert Jordan in this case is severely lacking in the soul department. But here, the Court isn't looking at limiting the retaliation provision -- it's gearing up to eliminate it entirely.

I agree with Kos: "Congress should pre-empt this case and provide explicit language in the legislation preventing retaliation for discrimination claims." I've been beating the drums for awhile now to get Congress to beef up the retaliation provisions of its civil rights laws for awhile now, and this offers a key opportunity to do so. Discrimination hurts companies too, and by eliminating the incentive for corporations to simply terminate "troublemakers", we don't encourage more litigation -- rather, we encourage employers and employees to develop procedures to resolve these complaints in a just manner without resort to litigation at all. There are no worse incentives in law than those that deliberately and unnaturally pit the interests of employees and employers against each other. In this case, simply restoring the incentive to talk to each other would represent a huge gain for civil rights, as well as the employer's bottom line.

Yay Limbaugh

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) has introduced a resolution to commend Rush Limbaugh for his support of the troops. This, less than a week after his "phony soldiers" remark. By all means, Speaker Pelosi, bring this baby to a vote. Either Republicans will break en masse against Limbaugh, insuring some nice fratricidal remarks from the base, or they'll vote to honor him, making them laughing stocks and providing a stark contrast to their "support the troops" mantra (not to mention pushing "General Betray Us" permanently from the political conversation).

Why is the Only "Good" Civil Rights Leader a Dead One?

The Thin Black Duke lays down "Elliott's Law":

As an online discussion concerning race grows longer, the probability of a person referencing Martin Luther King, Jr. as a means to justify their racist and/or ignorant attitudes approaches one.

Many contemporary anti-racism activists have expressed frustration in the way MLK--and indeed, the entire 60s civil rights movement--has been "neutered" so as to mask just how radical and revolutionary its agenda was (and, by extension, how far short we fell from achieving it). I've noticed, along with this, a meme that floats around the conservative right that tries to split the "good" civil rights activists of the 60s, whose cause was laudable and just (though not, it's worth noting, during the 60s themselves, as anyone who has read National Review articles from that time knows) from the next generation of Black leaders, who are charlatans and "race-baiters." Dr. King is the emblem of the former group, and perhaps its only political member; virtually no other civil rights pioneer of that era gets similar treatment. Dr. King serves as an apt model because he is quite conveniently dead, and thus unable to take positions that might be inopportune for his more conservative supporters. Had he not been assassinated, I firmly believe that White America would not have accorded King his current valorized status, for the precise reason that it would have been that much more difficult to mythologize his legacy if he was alive to contest it. Hence we have the title of the post: The only "good" civil rights leader is, quite literally, a dead one.

This splitting of the past (or "past", see my third point) and present civil rights leadership is entirely unjustified. First, there is very little division in the controversial elements of the political agenda of the 1960s Black community and the current Black community. "Color-conscious" remedies were always on the table. Black leaders were not hesitant to indict White America for their racism. Barbara Ransby notes the position of Ella Baker (a top SCLC and SNCC organizer) that "previously oppressive practices had to be radically reversed, not simply halted...and corrective measures had to be put into place" [Barbara Ransby, Ella Baker and the Black Freedom Movement: A Radical Democratic Vision (Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 2003), 369]. Dr. King, too, was neither particularly accommodating towards the hurt feelings of White moderates, nor opposed to remedial racial preferences. To the former, he suggested in his Letters from a Birmingham Jail that they were possibly more damaging to the prospects of Black liberation than the Klan, "more devoted to 'order' than to justice" and perpetually urging Black activists to "wait" for the time to be ripe for civil rights reform (a time that would never come). To the latter, King wrote in Why We Can't Wait:

Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but he should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up.

If one reads the actual writings of 1960s civil rights activists -- from Martin Luther King, Ella Baker and Thurgood Marshall to Stokely Carmichael, Harold Cruse, and Malcolm X -- it is nearly impossible to place any of them as color-blind assimilationists, or moderate accommodationists. They wanted change, they wanted it now, and they wanted it to come with the explicit awareness that Blacks were the victims of an intense and systematic campaign of White supremacy that affected and infected all levels of society, far beyond laws that said "Black" and "White". Placing them in any other historical or political framework is naked historical revisionism, pure and simple.

Second, the characteristics associated with the latter group of civil rights activists are rhetorically and substantively identical to those ascribed by White racists in the 60s to the first group. At that time, too, vocal Black leaders were invariably called "agitators" (the contemporary analogue to "race-baiter"), or folks concerned more with their own personal publicity than the needs of ordinary Black people. The "special rights" charge has a long pedigree, dating back to President Andrew Johnson's veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 on the grounds it gave special rights to Blacks. Similarly, the White press often focused on personal scandals and salacious details of activists' personal lives as an excuse for ignoring the substance of their critiques. Along all these axes, the purported nostalgia for the last generation of civil rights leaders is nothing but a facade. It masks the importation of the same racist tropes used against King and his cohorts to the current crop of civil rights leaders. We should be suspicious of these echoes.

Third, and most importantly, the split between the 60s activists and the current ones is ridiculous because often we're talking about the same people. Jesse Jackson was one of Dr. King's top associates later in his career. Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), deacon of the Congressional Black Caucus, was beaten as a freedom rider in Alabama in 1961. Thurgood Marshall articulated much of the progressive Black legal agenda while a litigator for the NAACP, and then while serving on the Supreme Court bench up through the early 90s. Maya Angelou was a close friend of Malcolm X, as well as a coordinator for King's SCLC at Dr. King's request. Julian Bond helped found SNCC. Andrew Young was Executive Director of the SCLC and one of King's key lieutenants. By and large, the folks currently represented among the Black leaders were the same folks leading the charge in the 60s civil rights movement. It's schizophrenic to the extreme to simultaneously praise and condemn the same people for the same advocacies in the same words.

Again, Martin Luther King is a useful tool for justifying racism because he died so young. Being dead, he can't contest or contextualize the actual content of his beliefs. Being dead, he can't remind audiences of the criticisms and abuse he was subjected to during his campaigns, and how it is eerily reminiscent of the charges foisted upon contemporary Black leaders. And being dead, he is no longer a political threat, and thus is a safe person to prop up upon an altar and praise. Were he alive, we might be faced with the uncomfortable prospect that this great hero of American history might demand we actually fulfill our covenant with Black citizens, and that would require actual change and reform and sacrifice. Dead people tell no such tales.

Hobbes

I've always been somewhat of a Thomas Hobbes fan. Not because I agree with the need for a Leviathan state, but because I think his description of the State of Nature is pretty accurate (certainly more so than John Locke's rose-tinted glasses). In fact, my vague recollection upon reading Leviathan is that I agreed with nearly everything he wrote, save the policy implications (which, of course, is what everybody remembers).

Hobbes just rose another notch in my book when I learned today that, in his book, he questioned whether the Bible Torah was authored by Moses. This, of course, is old hat to modern Biblical scholars, who don't even think the Bible was authored by one person, but in 1651 it was pretty baller, I'd imagine.