Seriously, y'all need to stop giving me these cases, if only to check my terrible puns. Anyway, the Supreme Court of South Carolina has ruled 3-2 that an attorney striking a juror on account of his dreadlocks constituted an impermissible race-based challenge and is unconstitutional. Courts have been rather resistant to protecting so-called "performative" aspects of one's racial identity, which is a problem, because race-linked cultural tags provide an easy way to circumvent anti-discrimination protections while still claiming to be following the letter of the law.
Even if one is not consciously trying to game the system, in an environment where it is "wrong" to hold negative opinions of people by virtue of the race, those sort of sentiments will be shifted towards "acceptable" prejudices that serve much the same function. "I don't dislike the juror because he's Black, I dislike him because he has dreadlocks" serves as psychological rationale that lets one maintain their status as a good person. If the man didn't wear dreadlocks, it would be something else (baggy clothes, afros, rap music). And for those African-American folks who have nothing tagging themselves as Black to the outside world -- well, sometimes they'll make it through (proof that we're fair after all), and sometimes we'll simply fall back on flimsier abstracts ("he just didn't feel right to me").
There's an extent to which this is all unavoidable. But there's also an extent to which we can clearly say "the law doesn't have to help". If people are going to use proxies to actualize their prejudices, at the very least we can make them be more creative about it.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
The Racialization of False Accusations
As the echo of Ashley Todd's false claim of being assaulted by a Black Obama supporter fades into the political background, I found in interesting to observe how the incident was racialized. There did not seem to be any doubt amongst the commentariat that this was an effort to spark a racial response in the electorate. But Ms. Todd's actions were not seen as a signifier or example of White character as a whole. Her accusation was not something "they" (White people) do. It was a "callback" to a bygone era, or it was an aberration from general White practice.
Contrast that to how, for example, the fictive claims in the Duke Lacrosse case, or Tawana Brawley, were treated. They were racialized as well, but unlike Ms. Todd they were used to make broad, sweeping statements about what "they" (Black people) do with regards to putative racism -- namely, just make stuff up. It was not seen as exceptional, or aberrational. It was a valid measuring stick from which to look at all claims of racialized White-on-Black violence.
The instinct, I feel, in Ms. Todd's case was the proper one. Take note of how race is being used by the perpetrator of the fraud to create a certain reaction, and condemn those who exploit that sentiment without proper verification. But don't impute the event wholesale onto the entire race. White folks do not want Ms. Todd's frame-up to become the standard by which we are measured. But fair is fair -- if we want the benefit of the doubt, we have to give it when faced with parallel situations on the other side of the racial divide.
Contrast that to how, for example, the fictive claims in the Duke Lacrosse case, or Tawana Brawley, were treated. They were racialized as well, but unlike Ms. Todd they were used to make broad, sweeping statements about what "they" (Black people) do with regards to putative racism -- namely, just make stuff up. It was not seen as exceptional, or aberrational. It was a valid measuring stick from which to look at all claims of racialized White-on-Black violence.
The instinct, I feel, in Ms. Todd's case was the proper one. Take note of how race is being used by the perpetrator of the fraud to create a certain reaction, and condemn those who exploit that sentiment without proper verification. But don't impute the event wholesale onto the entire race. White folks do not want Ms. Todd's frame-up to become the standard by which we are measured. But fair is fair -- if we want the benefit of the doubt, we have to give it when faced with parallel situations on the other side of the racial divide.
Stevens Guilty On All Counts
The prosecution did its level best to botch the case, but nonetheless a jury has found Alaska Senator Ted Stevens guilty on all seven counts of his federal corruption trial.
Sen. Stevens indicated that he will seek a new trial. My guess is that the amount of screw-ups in the prosecution's handling of the case will, at the very least, keep them tied up in appeals for years. Even still, this is hardly good news for his re-election chances.
Sen. Stevens indicated that he will seek a new trial. My guess is that the amount of screw-ups in the prosecution's handling of the case will, at the very least, keep them tied up in appeals for years. Even still, this is hardly good news for his re-election chances.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Backyard Brawl
The Anchorage Daily News endorses Obama -- a development that is utterly meaningless but for the deliciousness of it all.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Second Verse, Same as the First
One of the few serious disagreements I had with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was about the infamous Durban anti-racism conference held in 2001. The LCCR was an integral player in getting it set up, and pushed quite hard for the US to participate, while at the same time working from the other end to tamp down on the rampant anti-Semitism and make it into an event worth working with. In the end, they achieved neither goal -- the US bailed and the conference was rife with vicious anti-Semitic activity. But I found out this summer that a sequel to Durban is on the horizon. My opinion was that the event was damaged beyond repair and it would be better to let the thing die. But the word I got was that the LCCR appears willing to jump once more into the breach and try and save the conference from itself.
Unfortunately, early indicators look like I had the right instincts. A variety of NGOs are already raising alarms that the conference's tenor is, once again, going to focus solely on Israel as the supreme global purveyor of evil and darkness, and resurrect long abandoned notions that the Israeli state is facially illegitimate and primarily (if not solely) at fault for the conflict with the Palestinians. The worrisome motions are being pushed by the Asia region states, as well as the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
The NGOs are fighting to derail these motions, but I doubt they will succeed. Not only do the two groups in question comprise a lot of states, but they also are nations which wield disproportionate influence upon the various non-aligned states, making it a difficult alliance to counter. Jews, whose global influence tends to come more in the non-existent mysterious cabal form, once again stand ready to learn a lesson about how much easier international power politics is when you represent hundreds of millions of people and huge swaths of the world's land mass and resources.
Leaflet circulated at the Durban I NGO conference. By contrast, even mild messages in support of Israel were expelled by conference organizers.
Unfortunately, early indicators look like I had the right instincts. A variety of NGOs are already raising alarms that the conference's tenor is, once again, going to focus solely on Israel as the supreme global purveyor of evil and darkness, and resurrect long abandoned notions that the Israeli state is facially illegitimate and primarily (if not solely) at fault for the conflict with the Palestinians. The worrisome motions are being pushed by the Asia region states, as well as the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
The NGOs are fighting to derail these motions, but I doubt they will succeed. Not only do the two groups in question comprise a lot of states, but they also are nations which wield disproportionate influence upon the various non-aligned states, making it a difficult alliance to counter. Jews, whose global influence tends to come more in the non-existent mysterious cabal form, once again stand ready to learn a lesson about how much easier international power politics is when you represent hundreds of millions of people and huge swaths of the world's land mass and resources.
Leaflet circulated at the Durban I NGO conference. By contrast, even mild messages in support of Israel were expelled by conference organizers.
Wilson Execution Stayed
The 11th Circuit has stayed the execution of Troy Wilson. I grappled with some of the issues surrounding Mr. Wilson's potential innocence here. Recall that the U.S. Supreme Court gave a stay to Mr. Wilson earlier, only to later reject his appeal. So don't get your hopes up.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Those LAPD Profiling Stats
I flagged this study by Yale law professor Ian Ayres in the civil rights roundup [The link in which I've now fixed -- DS], but I just wanted to block quote some of the findings:
The LAPD, of course, isusing the study as an impetus for much needed reform hotly contesting the validity of the numbers. Some of their objections are methodological, ones I think Prof. Ayres dispatches quite handily. But several betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what this sort of finding means, and demonstrates how the "are you calling me a racist!?!!?" reaction acts to stifle really important and necessary discussions.
The police representatives say, basically, that the study is flawed because a) it does not account for the race of the stopping officer and b) data cannot tell us what individual officers are thinking when they make any given decision to stop or frisk a suspect. Both of these objections operate from the same basic thought, which is basically that the purported conclusion of this report is that the LAPD is racist, that racism is purely a function of the state of mind of a particular actor, and that raw data can't provide that information and in any event it is patently absurd to think that, say, Black officers have racist views towards other Blacks.
Now, Prof. Ayres said that he did, actually, find that the racial disparities in rates of arrest did fall somewhat when at least one of the arresting officers was of the same race as the suspect. This, he points out, is bad news, because it indicates that the disparities may be attributable to racial bias. But, he goes further, that really isn't the point of the study -- it makes no claim as to the state of mind of any or all of the arresting officers. The point is to demonstrate that, whatever is driving the policing policies in Los Angeles, they are falling on Black and Latino persons far more than can be at all justified by legitimate policing goals. That's a problem regardless of what is in brains of the officers when they are making the decisions, and regardless of what race the arresting officer is.
What Prof. Ayres research shows, if anything, is that intention is not a necessary component to demonstrating a racially unjust distribution of effects. Responding to this type of data with flailing assertions about it's all meaningless because intent is missing prevents these really rather simple insights from getting into the public consciousness. I might say that intent or foreseeability is a component of moral culpability, and without knowing the state of mind of any individual LAPD officer I cannot justly label them bad persons. But showing that the systematic distribution of effects is improperly skewed so as to unfairly burden certain racial groups is sufficient to show that an injustice is present, and impel upon society a duty to rectify it.
Related Posts:
The Profile, 8/18/07
"Fit the Description", 12/14/06
We found persistent and statistically significant racial disparities in policing that raise grave concerns that African Americans and Latinos in Los Angeles are, as we put it in the report, "over-stopped, over-frisked, over-searched and over-arrested." After controlling for violent crime rates and property crime rates in specific neighborhoods, as well as a host of other variables, we found the following:
For every 10,000 residents, about 3,400 more black people are stopped than whites, and 360 more Latinos are stopped than whites. Stopped blacks are 127% more likely to be frisked -- and stopped Latinos are 43% more likely to be frisked -- than stopped whites.
Stopped blacks are 76% more likely to be searched, and stopped Latinos are 16% more likely to be searched than stopped whites.
Stopped blacks are 29% more likely to be arrested, and stopped Latinos are 32% more likely to be arrested than stopped whites.
Now consider this: Although stopped blacks were 127% more likely to be frisked than stopped whites, they were 42.3% less likely to be found with a weapon after they were frisked, 25% less likely to be found with drugs and 33% less likely to be found with other contraband. We found similar patterns for Latinos.
Not only did we find that African Americans and Latinos were subjected to more stops, frisks, searches and arrests than whites, we also found that these additional police actions aren't because of the fact that people of color live in higher-crime areas or because they more often carry drugs or weapons, or any other legitimate reason that we can discern from the rich set of data we examined.
The LAPD, of course, is
The police representatives say, basically, that the study is flawed because a) it does not account for the race of the stopping officer and b) data cannot tell us what individual officers are thinking when they make any given decision to stop or frisk a suspect. Both of these objections operate from the same basic thought, which is basically that the purported conclusion of this report is that the LAPD is racist, that racism is purely a function of the state of mind of a particular actor, and that raw data can't provide that information and in any event it is patently absurd to think that, say, Black officers have racist views towards other Blacks.
Now, Prof. Ayres said that he did, actually, find that the racial disparities in rates of arrest did fall somewhat when at least one of the arresting officers was of the same race as the suspect. This, he points out, is bad news, because it indicates that the disparities may be attributable to racial bias. But, he goes further, that really isn't the point of the study -- it makes no claim as to the state of mind of any or all of the arresting officers. The point is to demonstrate that, whatever is driving the policing policies in Los Angeles, they are falling on Black and Latino persons far more than can be at all justified by legitimate policing goals. That's a problem regardless of what is in brains of the officers when they are making the decisions, and regardless of what race the arresting officer is.
What Prof. Ayres research shows, if anything, is that intention is not a necessary component to demonstrating a racially unjust distribution of effects. Responding to this type of data with flailing assertions about it's all meaningless because intent is missing prevents these really rather simple insights from getting into the public consciousness. I might say that intent or foreseeability is a component of moral culpability, and without knowing the state of mind of any individual LAPD officer I cannot justly label them bad persons. But showing that the systematic distribution of effects is improperly skewed so as to unfairly burden certain racial groups is sufficient to show that an injustice is present, and impel upon society a duty to rectify it.
Related Posts:
The Profile, 8/18/07
"Fit the Description", 12/14/06
Civil Rights Roundup: 10/23/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
Breath-taking results from a study by Ian Ayres on racial profiling by the LAPD. I'm probably going to write a separate post on this one -- the data is jaw-dropping.
The polls on Proposition 8 have been narrowing, and it looks like the right to gay marriage will go down to the wire.
Three Jews, Four Opinions has a good perspective on how Jews concerned about Halakah should approach issues like same-sex marriage.
ACORN is fighting back against smears that it is (among other things) destroying the fabric of democracy.
America wastes the talents of immigrants with college and professional degrees. One in five college educated immigrants are either unemployed or in unskilled professions, and the problem persists even when the field is restricted to those here legally. Unsurprising note: Highly educated African and Latino immigrants fare worse than their Asian and European peers.
The number of low-income families in America has risen by 350,000.
The EU parliament has given a prestigious human rights award to a Chinese democracy proponent, in direct rebuke to the ruling Communist regime.
The Senate is trying to get the number of foreclosures under control in exchange for the massive bailout money the banks are getting from the federal government.
A federal court is preparing to rule on the propriety of citizenship tests for voters.
In Wisconsin, the forces who care about voter suppression (Democrats) gear up to do battle against those who care more about voter fraud (Republicans).
Though it has been trying to make some reforms, the system for re-enfranchising ex-felons in Florida remains seriously broken.
The Government Accountability Office blasted the civil rights record of the USDA, saying it was unresponsive to reports of discrimination and suggesting it be brought under external oversight.
The British High Court wants to see documents which might verify whether a British Guantanamo detainee was tortured.
Breath-taking results from a study by Ian Ayres on racial profiling by the LAPD. I'm probably going to write a separate post on this one -- the data is jaw-dropping.
The polls on Proposition 8 have been narrowing, and it looks like the right to gay marriage will go down to the wire.
Three Jews, Four Opinions has a good perspective on how Jews concerned about Halakah should approach issues like same-sex marriage.
ACORN is fighting back against smears that it is (among other things) destroying the fabric of democracy.
America wastes the talents of immigrants with college and professional degrees. One in five college educated immigrants are either unemployed or in unskilled professions, and the problem persists even when the field is restricted to those here legally. Unsurprising note: Highly educated African and Latino immigrants fare worse than their Asian and European peers.
The number of low-income families in America has risen by 350,000.
The EU parliament has given a prestigious human rights award to a Chinese democracy proponent, in direct rebuke to the ruling Communist regime.
The Senate is trying to get the number of foreclosures under control in exchange for the massive bailout money the banks are getting from the federal government.
A federal court is preparing to rule on the propriety of citizenship tests for voters.
In Wisconsin, the forces who care about voter suppression (Democrats) gear up to do battle against those who care more about voter fraud (Republicans).
Though it has been trying to make some reforms, the system for re-enfranchising ex-felons in Florida remains seriously broken.
The Government Accountability Office blasted the civil rights record of the USDA, saying it was unresponsive to reports of discrimination and suggesting it be brought under external oversight.
The British High Court wants to see documents which might verify whether a British Guantanamo detainee was tortured.
Cotton Eye Joe
The correspondence of a certain confused LGM reader, who goes off on a rant about how horrifying socialism is and how the country is divided between hard working Americans and lazy moochers of the public dole, would be funny enough in its own right. But tack on the fact that her example of her membership in the ranks of the independent, don't need no government, work for a living crowd is her successful cotton farming operation, just adds a whole new level of hilarity.
For those curious, the amount America spends on (illegal, under international trade agreements) cotton subsidies is $3 billion yearly.
In related confusion about what socialism is, Mark Olson explains that while Barack Obama is not, technically, a socialist, under a more "casual" usage of the term he is, in fact, socialist, because on the continuum of government regulation he is somewhat closer to actual socialism than the speakers making the allegation. There is, of course, incongruity of labeling tax cuts for most Americans (but hiking top income rates from 36% to 39%) socialism, but identifying massive government buyouts and bailouts of entire industries and nationalizing the means of production as, well, something else. But even casting that aside, if Barack Obama is socialist under a definition by which we could call the Cato Institute "socialist" because it is more interventionist than Murray Rothbard, or the Bush administration is legitimately "fascist" because it is more relaxed about civil liberties than the Democratic Party, then it's hard for me to get all worked up about it.
For those curious, the amount America spends on (illegal, under international trade agreements) cotton subsidies is $3 billion yearly.
In related confusion about what socialism is, Mark Olson explains that while Barack Obama is not, technically, a socialist, under a more "casual" usage of the term he is, in fact, socialist, because on the continuum of government regulation he is somewhat closer to actual socialism than the speakers making the allegation. There is, of course, incongruity of labeling tax cuts for most Americans (but hiking top income rates from 36% to 39%) socialism, but identifying massive government buyouts and bailouts of entire industries and nationalizing the means of production as, well, something else. But even casting that aside, if Barack Obama is socialist under a definition by which we could call the Cato Institute "socialist" because it is more interventionist than Murray Rothbard, or the Bush administration is legitimately "fascist" because it is more relaxed about civil liberties than the Democratic Party, then it's hard for me to get all worked up about it.
Pat Buchanan and Tom Tancredo's Steamy Love Affair!
Not really. But Austria appears to have its equivalent going down:
Via LGM
The successor of the Austrian far-right leader Jörg Haider was dismissed yesterday after he revealed a “special” relationship “far beyond” friendship with his former mentor.
In emotional interviews with the national broadcaster and a tabloid newspaper Stefan Petzner spoke openly about his affair with Haider, who died at the age of 58 in a high-speed car crash after heavy drinking session at a gay club this month. Haider’s party, the Alliance for the Future of Austria, captured 11 per cent of the vote in national elections last month .
“He was the man of my life. Our relationship went far beyond friendship,” Mr Petzner, 27, said after only a week in the job, adding that Haider’s wife, Claudia, 52, “did not object” to their relationship.
Via LGM
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Wardrobe Malfunction
One of the hot button issues of the day is Sarah Palin's $150,000 wardrobe, and whether she has to pay income taxes on it. To my ears, the real question is whether it is a just state of affairs where female politicians have to spend so much more on their personal appearance than their male counterparts. One tactful columnist had the following to say:
To my mind, the burden being put on Gov. Palin is just an extreme version of the Jespersen dilemma. Jespersen was a female bartender working for Harrah's who was forced, under new grooming regulations, to wear makeup to her job. This imposed an additional hurdle to her entering the workforce: though men also had grooming requirements, they were generally less expensive to maintain than those given to women. In such a case, women are being penalized upon entering the workforce solely for being women: that second X chromosome means that they can be required to shell out more as a threshold requirement before they are allowed to compete for the same job men are going after. Likewise, Gov. Palin, because she's a woman, has to spend a lot more time and resources on her attire and appearance before she can compete as an equal in the political arena.
From a feminist perspective (which wants Gov. Palin to lose, but not because she is hobbled from competing as a woman), there are two angles of attack on this. On the one hand, you could indict the norms of appearance that require so much more out of women than men. Alternatively, one could (perhaps provisionally) accept those norms, and demand offsets so that the costs of their enforcement do not fall on women but on some other party. For example, if Harrah's Casino wants to demand women alter their appearance above and beyond their requirements for men, it could be forced to pay for the difference in value (I imagine if that requirement did exist, the gender-differential would be eliminated quite rapidly).
How it works in cases like this, where nobody is "forcing" Gov. Palin to spend so much on her clothes, but there is a generalized knowledge that if she didn't pay that extra attention, she'd be political toast, is more complicated. But the income tax question gives a hint. Regardless of whether Gov. Palin is correct in asserting that she does not have to pay taxes on her "borrowed" wardrobe is right as a matter of current law, one could argue that creating such an exception, by mitigating the cost of additional clothing (at least on the candidate) would help alleviate some of the burdens our gendered appearance norms currently place on female politicians. It wouldn't eliminate it entirely, as it still would cost more for Parties to run these candidates, but it would at least make a dent. A purist might also feel feminists advocating for such a rule would be capitulating to the legitimacy of the underlying gendered-appearance sentiment, which is what really has to be taken apart for gender equality to be obtained (that was the first approach I outlined). But advocates for this plan might respond that we can't wait for a revolution that might never arrive, and in the meantime provisionally accepting the realities of ingrained sexism, and working to mitigate their impact, is the best that can be hoped for (a Derrick Bell style argument).
All of which goes to show how deeply entrenched patriarchal norms continue to have an impact today, even against the most elite and accomplished female figures.
Today’s big So What: It cost $150,000 to dress Republican Sarah Palin. It is all about image in politics.
A killer presidential candidate needs killer clothes. Democrat Hillary Clinton wore cheesy polyester pantsuits. If she shelled out a few bucks on something you couldn’t get at Kmart, she might be president...
Women are supposed to look good and smell nice. The reason that Democrat John Edwards was mocked for his $400 haircuts was it was a girlish vanity. The “I Feel Pretty” video aims at his masculinity. The song is sung by a girl.
A double standard? You betcha.
To my mind, the burden being put on Gov. Palin is just an extreme version of the Jespersen dilemma. Jespersen was a female bartender working for Harrah's who was forced, under new grooming regulations, to wear makeup to her job. This imposed an additional hurdle to her entering the workforce: though men also had grooming requirements, they were generally less expensive to maintain than those given to women. In such a case, women are being penalized upon entering the workforce solely for being women: that second X chromosome means that they can be required to shell out more as a threshold requirement before they are allowed to compete for the same job men are going after. Likewise, Gov. Palin, because she's a woman, has to spend a lot more time and resources on her attire and appearance before she can compete as an equal in the political arena.
From a feminist perspective (which wants Gov. Palin to lose, but not because she is hobbled from competing as a woman), there are two angles of attack on this. On the one hand, you could indict the norms of appearance that require so much more out of women than men. Alternatively, one could (perhaps provisionally) accept those norms, and demand offsets so that the costs of their enforcement do not fall on women but on some other party. For example, if Harrah's Casino wants to demand women alter their appearance above and beyond their requirements for men, it could be forced to pay for the difference in value (I imagine if that requirement did exist, the gender-differential would be eliminated quite rapidly).
How it works in cases like this, where nobody is "forcing" Gov. Palin to spend so much on her clothes, but there is a generalized knowledge that if she didn't pay that extra attention, she'd be political toast, is more complicated. But the income tax question gives a hint. Regardless of whether Gov. Palin is correct in asserting that she does not have to pay taxes on her "borrowed" wardrobe is right as a matter of current law, one could argue that creating such an exception, by mitigating the cost of additional clothing (at least on the candidate) would help alleviate some of the burdens our gendered appearance norms currently place on female politicians. It wouldn't eliminate it entirely, as it still would cost more for Parties to run these candidates, but it would at least make a dent. A purist might also feel feminists advocating for such a rule would be capitulating to the legitimacy of the underlying gendered-appearance sentiment, which is what really has to be taken apart for gender equality to be obtained (that was the first approach I outlined). But advocates for this plan might respond that we can't wait for a revolution that might never arrive, and in the meantime provisionally accepting the realities of ingrained sexism, and working to mitigate their impact, is the best that can be hoped for (a Derrick Bell style argument).
All of which goes to show how deeply entrenched patriarchal norms continue to have an impact today, even against the most elite and accomplished female figures.
Bureau of Prisons Bans Shackling Pregnant Women
The Bureau of Prisons has barred the shackling of pregnant inmates during transportation, labor, and delivery. Recall that a recent case out of Arkansas held that such acts did not violate the 8th amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. That was a state law, and this is a federal rule, so it wouldn't have applied in the particular case (unless it changed the calculus behind the ever-shifting "cruel and unusual" standard), but it does give human dignity advocates some desperately needed legal momentum.
Up and Down at UM
After the first year of barring race-conscious programs at public universities in Michigan, the local press has begun to examine the fall-out. Basically, the stats are mixed, but the upshot is that minority enrollment shifted to lower-ranked schools, and higher ranked programs are having trouble attracting even qualified minority applicants because their scholarship programs also had to be discontinued. One interesting outcome (though it might be statistical noise) is that minority enrollment dropped even at schools that did not previously use race conscious admissions procedures.
Also, interesting article given the topic: Richard Lempert, David Chambers, & Terry Adams, Michigan's Minority Graduates in Practice: The River Runs Through Law School, 25 L. & Soc. Inquiry 395 (2000). Basically, it surveyed the history of minority Michigan law students admitted under affirmative action programs, in terms of their success after graduation. The results? Under every metric measured, these students performed equal to their White peers.
But remember, they weren't qualified to be there.
Also, interesting article given the topic: Richard Lempert, David Chambers, & Terry Adams, Michigan's Minority Graduates in Practice: The River Runs Through Law School, 25 L. & Soc. Inquiry 395 (2000). Basically, it surveyed the history of minority Michigan law students admitted under affirmative action programs, in terms of their success after graduation. The results? Under every metric measured, these students performed equal to their White peers.
But remember, they weren't qualified to be there.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
FYI: It Still Won't Have Been Tried
Actual socialists know: Barack Obama ain't no socialist.
Via Ta-Nehisi Coates.
I remember reading that the head of the American Communist Party was asked by a reporter if "FDR's New Deal carried out the communist platform?"
The man responded: "Yeah, on a stretcher."
These are hard times to be a socialist in America. And not just because there's a bourgeois-bloated Starbucks on every other corner, thumbing its capitalist nose at the proletariat.
No, it's tough these days because you've got politicians on the right, the same guys who just helped nationalize the banking system, derisively and inaccurately calling the presidential candidate on the left a socialist. That's enough to make Karl Marx harumph in his grave.
Local communists, rarely tapped as campaign pundits, say Sen. Barack Obama and his policies stand far afield from any form of socialism they know.
John Bachtell, the Illinois organizer for Communist Party USA, sees attempts by Sen. John McCain's campaign to label Obama a socialist as both offensive to socialists and a desperate ploy to tap into fears of voters who haven't forgotten their Cold War rhetoric.
Via Ta-Nehisi Coates.
I remember reading that the head of the American Communist Party was asked by a reporter if "FDR's New Deal carried out the communist platform?"
The man responded: "Yeah, on a stretcher."
Monday, October 20, 2008
Democrats Love Superior Firepower
If Barack Obama advertised in video games. I particularly like the huge-ass tank with "HOPE" emblazoned on the side.
Also, McCain's video game ads.
Also, McCain's video game ads.
Prosecutor Speaks in the Troy Davis Case
Former federal judge, now law professor Paul Cassell links to the prosecutor's account of what happened in the Troy Davis case. You may know about his case: After being convicted of murdering a police officer, Davis has been pursuing a new trial ever since seven of nine non-police witnesses against him recanted their testimony, basically saying they were coerced into giving their statements by the cops.
There's a lot of hand waving going on here, but basically the reliability of the recantations comes down to whether or not you think it is more likely that witnesses are subject to intimidation by police investigators, or by groups like Amnesty International investigating potential wrongful convictions. My default stance is to be suspicious of unrecorded police questioning in Black on White crimes in Georgia. The affadavits Amnesty provides are compelling to me because of their consistency -- they all give very similar accounts of police harassment, and come back to a consistent theme that the police wouldn't let the witnesses leave until they said what the police wanted to hear.
For his part, the prosecutor, Spencer Lawton, actually uses the 80% recantation rate as evidence in favor of collusion and manipulation. He raises the specter of anti-death penalty forces coming in, long after the event in question, and basically guilting the witnesses with the specter that their testimony may be putting an innocent man in prison. Is it possible you don't remember clearly? Are you sure that Davis is the shooter?
The problem with this defense is that it doesn't match up with the affidavits Amnesty actually obtained. They're not, by and large, based off fuzzy memories or unclear recollection of the events in question. They, nearly without exception, are premised off police intimidation to get certain testimony -- something unlikely to be that fuzzy and not premised off any difficulty in remembering the events of the murder. Lawton notes that the witnesses were questioned about this at trial and did not say anything about intimidation. But at trial the police threats (if they so happened) were likely to be fresh in the witnesses mind, and going against one's sworn statement raises the prospect of a perjury investigation (something which, if I were a sleazy cop, would be sure to remind my cowed witnesses of after they signed the document).
The other part of Lawton's argument, which is a bit more subtextual, is that the affidavits were acquired by groups with an anti-law and order agenda in general, who are motivated simply by blanket opposition to the death penalty. The problem is that Amnesty appears to have worked quite hard to acquire statements implicating another man in the crime. Opposition to the death penalty hardly seems consistent with trying to get another person convicted of capital murder (although they could hope that the new suspect would not get a death sentence).
All of this really just points back to my current, long-standing intuition about the death penalty. Our system is so badly broken that there is really no way that it can imposed in a fair and just manner, where we can be sufficiently assured of the defendant's guilt. When, for example, there isn't that essential trust that the police won't try and coerce testimony -- particularly when the victim was another officer -- it is simply impossible to evaluate the reliability of trial testimony in the face of future recantations. In such an environment, the death penalty cannot be justly put into practice.
There's a lot of hand waving going on here, but basically the reliability of the recantations comes down to whether or not you think it is more likely that witnesses are subject to intimidation by police investigators, or by groups like Amnesty International investigating potential wrongful convictions. My default stance is to be suspicious of unrecorded police questioning in Black on White crimes in Georgia. The affadavits Amnesty provides are compelling to me because of their consistency -- they all give very similar accounts of police harassment, and come back to a consistent theme that the police wouldn't let the witnesses leave until they said what the police wanted to hear.
For his part, the prosecutor, Spencer Lawton, actually uses the 80% recantation rate as evidence in favor of collusion and manipulation. He raises the specter of anti-death penalty forces coming in, long after the event in question, and basically guilting the witnesses with the specter that their testimony may be putting an innocent man in prison. Is it possible you don't remember clearly? Are you sure that Davis is the shooter?
The problem with this defense is that it doesn't match up with the affidavits Amnesty actually obtained. They're not, by and large, based off fuzzy memories or unclear recollection of the events in question. They, nearly without exception, are premised off police intimidation to get certain testimony -- something unlikely to be that fuzzy and not premised off any difficulty in remembering the events of the murder. Lawton notes that the witnesses were questioned about this at trial and did not say anything about intimidation. But at trial the police threats (if they so happened) were likely to be fresh in the witnesses mind, and going against one's sworn statement raises the prospect of a perjury investigation (something which, if I were a sleazy cop, would be sure to remind my cowed witnesses of after they signed the document).
The other part of Lawton's argument, which is a bit more subtextual, is that the affidavits were acquired by groups with an anti-law and order agenda in general, who are motivated simply by blanket opposition to the death penalty. The problem is that Amnesty appears to have worked quite hard to acquire statements implicating another man in the crime. Opposition to the death penalty hardly seems consistent with trying to get another person convicted of capital murder (although they could hope that the new suspect would not get a death sentence).
All of this really just points back to my current, long-standing intuition about the death penalty. Our system is so badly broken that there is really no way that it can imposed in a fair and just manner, where we can be sufficiently assured of the defendant's guilt. When, for example, there isn't that essential trust that the police won't try and coerce testimony -- particularly when the victim was another officer -- it is simply impossible to evaluate the reliability of trial testimony in the face of future recantations. In such an environment, the death penalty cannot be justly put into practice.
Civil Rights Roundup: 10/20/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
The US Supreme Court will resolve a circuit split on identity theft by illegal immigrants. The question is whether aggravated identity theft requires knowledge by the user that the documents he obtains are those of a real person, as opposed to fabrications.
Immigrants with family members on both sides of the US/Mexico border are dreading increases in border fortifications, as they may interfere with simple visits to the border to share pictures, food, or just conversation together across the line.
Meanwhile, the dance between border patrol agents, and those who are waiting for their chance to make it back over, continues along the edge of the fence.
In spite of all this, immigration has been a surprisingly quiet topic on the campaign trail. The Bishop of Orlando reminds the candidates, however, that it is not an issue they'll be able to ignore once in office.
DC is switching strategies on homelessness, trying to get the homeless permanent housing first before proceeding to crack the underlying causes of their plight.
More former DOJ officials are coming out with the obvious: the Bush administration's investigations into "voter fraud" are entirely politically motivated.
Unsurprisingly, the Wall Street Journal comes out in full support of the efforts to ban affirmative action, which they describe as "the same kinds of discrimination they were designed to prevent" (right down to the lynching, no doubt). Moral relativism, anyone?
Dog bites man in Cleveland, and Black defendants in low-level drug cases are treated substantially worse than their White counterparts.
Nebraska is changing the rules on its "safe haven" law, to allow only infants up to three days old to be dropped off without penalty.
Several luminaries, including Desmund Tutu and Sandra Day O'Connor, showed up at Harvard to speak at a conference on race relations.
Steve Chapman writes for Reason Magazine that "the people", not the courts, should decide when gay people are equal human beings.
The US Supreme Court will resolve a circuit split on identity theft by illegal immigrants. The question is whether aggravated identity theft requires knowledge by the user that the documents he obtains are those of a real person, as opposed to fabrications.
Immigrants with family members on both sides of the US/Mexico border are dreading increases in border fortifications, as they may interfere with simple visits to the border to share pictures, food, or just conversation together across the line.
Meanwhile, the dance between border patrol agents, and those who are waiting for their chance to make it back over, continues along the edge of the fence.
In spite of all this, immigration has been a surprisingly quiet topic on the campaign trail. The Bishop of Orlando reminds the candidates, however, that it is not an issue they'll be able to ignore once in office.
DC is switching strategies on homelessness, trying to get the homeless permanent housing first before proceeding to crack the underlying causes of their plight.
More former DOJ officials are coming out with the obvious: the Bush administration's investigations into "voter fraud" are entirely politically motivated.
Unsurprisingly, the Wall Street Journal comes out in full support of the efforts to ban affirmative action, which they describe as "the same kinds of discrimination they were designed to prevent" (right down to the lynching, no doubt). Moral relativism, anyone?
Dog bites man in Cleveland, and Black defendants in low-level drug cases are treated substantially worse than their White counterparts.
Nebraska is changing the rules on its "safe haven" law, to allow only infants up to three days old to be dropped off without penalty.
Several luminaries, including Desmund Tutu and Sandra Day O'Connor, showed up at Harvard to speak at a conference on race relations.
Steve Chapman writes for Reason Magazine that "the people", not the courts, should decide when gay people are equal human beings.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Dueling Profs
Professor Strauss (in Elements of the Law), after assigning us a passage from Holmes' The Path of the Law: "Holmes originally became famous for his study on the Common Law, which I personally find unreadable...."
Professor Fennell's Torts assignment for Monday: Read pages 77-84 and 88-96 of Holmes' The Common Law.
Professor Fennell's Torts assignment for Monday: Read pages 77-84 and 88-96 of Holmes' The Common Law.
Powell Endorses Obama
Former Secretary of State and Republican Party luminary General Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama for Presidency. Percentage of Republicans who thought he'd be a great Presidential candidate himself in the 1990s, who now will view him as a traitorous wench, at 80% and rising.
It was an interesting endorsement video to watch. It is clear that Powell thinks the modern Republican Party has stretched way beyond where he's willing to go in terms of its race rightward. The concerns he laid out about the current GOP extend from the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as VP, to the prospect of two more conservative judges on the Supreme Court, to the steady increase of Islamophobic fear-mongering that has characterized the Party since 9/11. Now, it is fair to say that Powell -- himself always a rather moderate Republican -- may have simply been pushed off the edge as the party lines shift direction. And the Republican base will not take his defection as a repudiation, because Powell is precisely the type of fellow that they want out of the Party anyway. The inquisitorial process may soon give the GOP the purity of a political graveyard, but God help them if they aren't redoubling their efforts to excommunicate the insufficiently zealous.
But some of Powell's complaints should, in an ideal world, resonate with Republicans and Democrats alike. His anecdote about the Muslim-American soldier who died in Iraq for our country was quite moving, as was his rhetorical question about the seven year old Muslim kid who wonders if he can be President in America. The answer should be yes, but every signal we've received over the past few years indicates no. And that should trouble us, as it clearly does General Powell.
The other thing I wanted to mention is that it is clear this was a difficult endorsement for General Powell to make. Many Democrats had vague positive feelings towards McCain for awhile, but found them quite easy to discard once we witnessed the campaign 2008 version rear its ugly head. But to many independents and moderate Republicans, John McCain was something of a hero. He was their leading man -- a politician who they thought had integrity and unimpeachable character. General Powell stresses that his endorsement in no way represents a repudiation of Senator McCain. But it is clear he is deeply depressed by the direction Senator McCain has taken his campaign -- lots of clarity on Bill Ayers, very little on the economy. And I have to think that for many moderates, who saw in John McCain the very model of the right kind of politician, this election cycle must have been a painful experience indeed.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Hope Happened To Me
Y'all might think I'm the most cynical White person on race relations alive in America today. But that isn't true. Take this post from Too Sense. It's entitled "Obama Campaign Bus Stopped In Mississippi", and links to an Onion article in which Barack Obama's bus is stopped under false pretenses by a racist Mississippi cop. Noting it's satire, the author nevertheless asks, "But, before you read this, ask yourself one question: when you saw the title of the post, didn't part of you think it might actually have happened?"
To which I responded, I thought the title of the post was telling me that the Obama bus made a campaign stop in Mississippi, not that it was stopped by the police. So I was elated: "Hurray, Obama thinks Mississippi is in play!"
Hope. It happened to me, and it can happen to you.
In somewhat related news, I'm not sure what to think of the opening anecdote to this post (below the Kerouac quote).
To which I responded, I thought the title of the post was telling me that the Obama bus made a campaign stop in Mississippi, not that it was stopped by the police. So I was elated: "Hurray, Obama thinks Mississippi is in play!"
Hope. It happened to me, and it can happen to you.
In somewhat related news, I'm not sure what to think of the opening anecdote to this post (below the Kerouac quote).
Choose Your Own Proposition 4 Adventure!
On the ballot in California is a proposal (Prop. 4) which would require teenagers seeking abortions to notify their parents. It doesn't require their consent, and it has exceptions for abusive parents and a judicial bypass option.
Sound okay to you? Well then play Modern Mitzvot's Choose Your Own Adventure: Prop. 4 Saga! Fun for the whole family (except the pregnant teenage daughter, of course)!
Sound okay to you? Well then play Modern Mitzvot's Choose Your Own Adventure: Prop. 4 Saga! Fun for the whole family (except the pregnant teenage daughter, of course)!
Obama Calls the ACORN Bluff
So John McCain has been crying wolf over ACORN registration fraud? Fine, says Obama, let's appoint a special prosecutor to take a look at it, along with all other allegations of voter fraud or voter suppression. The McCain campaign's response? Strident opposition, of course. It's an "absurd" attempt to "criminalize political discourse". But, the spokesman continued,
Yes -- having qualified professionals actually take a look at your allegations would be a threat when your claims are completely bogus.
Meanwhile, it is worth stressing again what this ACORN business is all about. ACORN's objective is to register as many new voters as possibly (or, depending on your level of cynicism, as many new liberal voters as possible -- it actually doesn't matter for purpose of our analysis). It pays some of its employees by the amount of registrations they collect, and some of those employees collected fraudulent registrations -- either by registering the same person multiple times, or by simply putting down false names. ACORN is legally bound, however, to turn in every registration card that it receives -- a good thing if you think they're just a left-wing front group, as it means they can't sort through the cards and chuck out all the Republicans.
But if ACORN's goal is get new (liberal) voters out there, registration fraud doesn't help them. Federal ID is required for first time voters, so even if Micky Mouse is on the rolls, he's not going to show up at the polling place, ID in hand, and cast a ballot. There is, in fact, virtually no evidence that registration fraud spills over to voter fraud. The fraud here is being committed on ACORN, who has to pay its employees for bogus registrations that don't actually help their cause.
Rest assured that, despite these threats, the McCain-Palin campaign will continue to address the serious issue of voter registration fraud by ACORN and other partisan groups, and compliance by states with the Help America Vote Act's requirement of matching new voter registrations with state data bases to prevent voter fraud.
Yes -- having qualified professionals actually take a look at your allegations would be a threat when your claims are completely bogus.
Meanwhile, it is worth stressing again what this ACORN business is all about. ACORN's objective is to register as many new voters as possibly (or, depending on your level of cynicism, as many new liberal voters as possible -- it actually doesn't matter for purpose of our analysis). It pays some of its employees by the amount of registrations they collect, and some of those employees collected fraudulent registrations -- either by registering the same person multiple times, or by simply putting down false names. ACORN is legally bound, however, to turn in every registration card that it receives -- a good thing if you think they're just a left-wing front group, as it means they can't sort through the cards and chuck out all the Republicans.
But if ACORN's goal is get new (liberal) voters out there, registration fraud doesn't help them. Federal ID is required for first time voters, so even if Micky Mouse is on the rolls, he's not going to show up at the polling place, ID in hand, and cast a ballot. There is, in fact, virtually no evidence that registration fraud spills over to voter fraud. The fraud here is being committed on ACORN, who has to pay its employees for bogus registrations that don't actually help their cause.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Anything Can Be Not Racist
On the now infamous Obama food stamp, where he is surrounded by fried chicken, watermelons, ribs, and kool-aid, there is very little to say. The only thing noteworthy is that the creator of the piece and her family are denying it's racist. That's unsurprising -- anything that's accused of being racist is always denied to be such. The American South was adamant that it did not treat it's Black residents the least bit unfairly.
Maybe this case will impress upon us that racism can always be denied. Always. The denial, on its own, doesn't establish jack. And if anything, the justifications offered here (the author is married to a Mexican-American, the author also eats fried chicken) go to show that these typical defenses are not in the slightest way inconsistent with racism. We are watching living proof that you can do something racist and be married to someone non-White. You can do something racist and still support Alan Keyes for President. They're not mutually exclusive.
Maybe this case will impress upon us that racism can always be denied. Always. The denial, on its own, doesn't establish jack. And if anything, the justifications offered here (the author is married to a Mexican-American, the author also eats fried chicken) go to show that these typical defenses are not in the slightest way inconsistent with racism. We are watching living proof that you can do something racist and be married to someone non-White. You can do something racist and still support Alan Keyes for President. They're not mutually exclusive.
Palin Away
Concurring with Ezra Klein and Kevin Drum, I'm reasonably confident that Sarah Palin will cease to be a player in national politics after the McCain/Palin ticket goes down in ignoble defeat. Sure, the base loves her. But, as Klein notes, Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) inspires the same sort of love while still managing to be coherent (indeed, quite articulate) on matters of national policy. Republicans are not utterly insane -- they know that Palin has become synonymous with all that the American center (much less the left) finds detestable in the current GOP. There is simply no way any reasonable Republican will decide to double down on the biggest failed bet of the 2008 cycle.
I'll just add that in the first set of 2012 Presidential GOP primary polls, we'll inevitably see Gov. Palin's name high on the list. This is solely a function of name recognition -- remember how well Joe Lieberman was doing early in the 2004 cycle? Let the primary season swing into full bloom, with some genuine solid Republican candidates running against her, and she'll be taken down right quick.
I'll just add that in the first set of 2012 Presidential GOP primary polls, we'll inevitably see Gov. Palin's name high on the list. This is solely a function of name recognition -- remember how well Joe Lieberman was doing early in the 2004 cycle? Let the primary season swing into full bloom, with some genuine solid Republican candidates running against her, and she'll be taken down right quick.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
W to M
The SEIU has a clever new ad up:
Via Too Sense. The irony is that, to the extent that it's misleading, it's because it's being too nice to President Bush. Tough for Republicans to go out and remind everybody that President Bush spent most of his tenure as an avowed opponent of increasing the minimum wage.
Via Too Sense. The irony is that, to the extent that it's misleading, it's because it's being too nice to President Bush. Tough for Republicans to go out and remind everybody that President Bush spent most of his tenure as an avowed opponent of increasing the minimum wage.
Cue Up Barry White
Phoebe Maltz wins at debate live-blogging:
Drill, baby, drill.
Obama just told parents to "turn off the television." Is this a sign that the X-rated portion of the debate is about to commence?
Drill, baby, drill.
Subtle
The latest GOP mailer, heading out to Virginia:
The mailer proceeds to give out standard Republican fare on how Obama "thinks terrorists just need a good talking to," before concluding with:
Even McClatchy flatly says that the mailer is making "a play on the fears, expressed by some Democrats in the primaries and some Republicans this fall, that Obama is a sort of Manchurian Candidate fronting for an anti-American identity or agenda." I think we've moved beyond "palling around with terrorists" now, haven't we?
"Terrorists don't care who they hurt," says the cover the brochure, arriving in mailboxes Wednesday in the battleground state of Virginia.
The words appear over a picture of someone in shadow eyeing or photograhing the front of an airplane, an apparent reference to the fact that terrorists used hijacked airplanes to kill Americans in 2001.
Flip open the brochure, and the photo is of Obama.
The mailer proceeds to give out standard Republican fare on how Obama "thinks terrorists just need a good talking to," before concluding with:
Barack Obama: Not who you think he is.
Even McClatchy flatly says that the mailer is making "a play on the fears, expressed by some Democrats in the primaries and some Republicans this fall, that Obama is a sort of Manchurian Candidate fronting for an anti-American identity or agenda." I think we've moved beyond "palling around with terrorists" now, haven't we?
Great Leader
The "Group of 77", comprised of 130 (it has expanded from it's original membership) "non-aligned", mostly developing countries in the United Nations, has selected it's chair for the upcoming year. The winner? Sudan.
And I thought my cynicism couldn't go deeper.
Since it was the African countries' turn to pick the chair of the organization, and since the selection of Sudan was supported by China, the outcome--however outrageous--is hardly surprising. Strong support from the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference helped ensured Khartoum's diplomatic victory. The selection of the National Islamic Front regime as chair is no mere symbolic exercise, though the symbolism of the choice is intensely dispiriting. For it comes at a time when the head of the regime faces a likely arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court---for crimes against humanity and for genocide in Darfur.
And I thought my cynicism couldn't go deeper.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
$100 to the First To Kill Joe the Plumber
I'm kidding, of course -- it's not Joe's fault. But I like how he managed to incorporate whatever characteristic McCain or Obama wanted.
I had the debate on, but wasn't watching closely -- in fact, I was playing solitaire while listening with an ear to it. The bottom line is that Obama is like a Winky Wright -- you simply can't hurt him. He's too good defensively. A fellow chessmaster might be able to out-box him, but McCain is no debate whiz. McCain needed a knockout, and he wasn't going to get it. And in striving for it, he sounded far more conservative and doctrinaire than he has at any point in the last few weeks. His derision at protecting the "health of the mother" in abortion -- though undoubtedly thrilling to the conservative base -- is going to kill him with independent women.
I had the debate on, but wasn't watching closely -- in fact, I was playing solitaire while listening with an ear to it. The bottom line is that Obama is like a Winky Wright -- you simply can't hurt him. He's too good defensively. A fellow chessmaster might be able to out-box him, but McCain is no debate whiz. McCain needed a knockout, and he wasn't going to get it. And in striving for it, he sounded far more conservative and doctrinaire than he has at any point in the last few weeks. His derision at protecting the "health of the mother" in abortion -- though undoubtedly thrilling to the conservative base -- is going to kill him with independent women.
Of Blood and Country
Harry's Place reports that the new Macmillan Encyclopedia on Race & Racism has an entry on Zionism, unsurprisingly calling it racist. I say unsurprisingly, because my unfortunate experience is that whenever Zionism gets singled out for focus amongst various nationalist ideologies (which it was here -- indeed, "nationalism" itself didn't even warrant an entry), it's not going to be in a manner that is precisely equitable or fair-minded to the Jews.
The author of the section on Zionism is a Noel Ignatiev, who, though having done interesting work on the normative status of Whiteness, does not have any particular expertise on Zionism or Jews that I know of (he was born to Jewish parents, but I'm pretty sure he does not practice or identify at all). He has on occasion written on the topic, such as in this lovely essay where he alleges that Zionism served as a Nazi collaboration project and claims that "Osama Bin-Laden was telling no more than the truth when he said that the Muslim world is facing an alliance of Zionists and Crusaders." So, you know, a neutral figure to construct an encyclopedia entry.
Anyway. Insofar as Dr. Ignatiev has an academic specialty, it is on race, and particularly Whiteness, which he wishes to "abolish". This is a polemical claim, and though I find myself disagreeing with it, it is easily misunderstood. But I fear that in this case, Dr. Ignatiev's lens of Whiteness as the paradigm by which he views race leads him to significant misunderstanding of how "race", Judaism, and Israel intersect.
Ignatiev's justification for labeling Zionism as a fundamentally racial endeavor is the following:
Now, there a couple things to be said about this. First, strictly speaking, this is inaccurate, as one can convert to Judaism and persons duly converted as considered to be full members of the Jewish community. There are, of course, disputes about who is eligible to oversee a conversion and thus which conversions are legitimate, but the principle is well established that, both religiously and as far as the state of Israel is concerned, one can be Jewish without having Jewish descent.
Second, the subtext to Ignatiev's claim here is that the "descent" definition is exclusionary, hence why it is problematic. This comes out of his dominant framework for understanding race, Whiteness, by which using "White" as a defining characteristic (as opposed to other potential identification axes) was done specifically to point at a given class of Other people and say "not for you". But the descent framework for Jews has the opposite effect -- it is considerably more inclusive than alternative frameworks, such as place of birth or degree of observance. Ignatiev could argue that Whiteness served the same effect by uniting disparate European nationals with little else in common under a single banner for the purpose of exploitation. But that "little else in common" is the kicker here, which moves me to my next point....
Third, the definition is remarkably ahistorical. As noted by some critics of Ignatiev's entry, his encyclopedia article makes no mention of the Holocaust. This, of course, is problematic, because it, and the broader currents of anti-Semitism from which it stemmed, were instrumental in making the definition of Jew what it was. Jew was defined broadly because it was intended to capture all those who would be targeted for death by anti-Semitic violence. It is asinine to assert that the broad definition was created for purposes of domination and control. It rather clearly was done so as to protect the maximum number of people possible. The broadly defined "class" of Jew does share something in common, and that something is anti-Semitism. It is little consolation to religious Jews if violence is being directed at their less observant brothers if that violence is occurring due to their Jewishness -- it is still equally threatening. And Israel has practiced what it preaches in this respect: when Jewish-identified persons whose Jewish descent is subject of question and debate by Israeli authorities (such as the Ethiopian Jewish community) seek to emigrate, they are welcomed in regardless of whether it is ultimately determined that they are Jewish-by-descent (indeed, the Ethiopian Jewish community was encouraged to convert, indicating that the relevant authorities did not think they were "actually" Jewish through descent).
Fourth and finally, I think that Jews as a community show an interesting malleability to such concepts as "race", "religion", "nation", and "culture". I've often heard it demanded that Jews "pick one", for example, that Judaism is "properly" a religion and thus should not be able to claim rights rightfully restricted to nations. For those of us who think those concepts should be destabilized, or at least shaken up a bit, the way which Judaism blends these categories should be exciting and laudable, as we seem to reject the notion that Jews as a "race" or "nation" or "religion" has to be calcified and eternal across all time. But Ignatiev is insistent upon keeping Jews in one box: if we're acting like races typically do, then that is the root of any national policies we promote, regardless of whether we ourselves see religious, cultural, communal, or historical influences as being as much or more important to the behavior.
Ignatiev, in short, doesn't see Jews as Jews. He sees them through eyeglasses tinted by other experiences, and expresses no interest in hearing our own tale as we express it. In doing so, he inevitably misses the reality of our situation, and will find it impossible figure out a solution that promises the flourishing of Jews qua Jews as one of its characteristics.
The author of the section on Zionism is a Noel Ignatiev, who, though having done interesting work on the normative status of Whiteness, does not have any particular expertise on Zionism or Jews that I know of (he was born to Jewish parents, but I'm pretty sure he does not practice or identify at all). He has on occasion written on the topic, such as in this lovely essay where he alleges that Zionism served as a Nazi collaboration project and claims that "Osama Bin-Laden was telling no more than the truth when he said that the Muslim world is facing an alliance of Zionists and Crusaders." So, you know, a neutral figure to construct an encyclopedia entry.
Anyway. Insofar as Dr. Ignatiev has an academic specialty, it is on race, and particularly Whiteness, which he wishes to "abolish". This is a polemical claim, and though I find myself disagreeing with it, it is easily misunderstood. But I fear that in this case, Dr. Ignatiev's lens of Whiteness as the paradigm by which he views race leads him to significant misunderstanding of how "race", Judaism, and Israel intersect.
Ignatiev's justification for labeling Zionism as a fundamentally racial endeavor is the following:
Because it defines 'Jew' not by religious observance, language, place of birth, or culture, but by descent, Zionism is an ideology of race.
Now, there a couple things to be said about this. First, strictly speaking, this is inaccurate, as one can convert to Judaism and persons duly converted as considered to be full members of the Jewish community. There are, of course, disputes about who is eligible to oversee a conversion and thus which conversions are legitimate, but the principle is well established that, both religiously and as far as the state of Israel is concerned, one can be Jewish without having Jewish descent.
Second, the subtext to Ignatiev's claim here is that the "descent" definition is exclusionary, hence why it is problematic. This comes out of his dominant framework for understanding race, Whiteness, by which using "White" as a defining characteristic (as opposed to other potential identification axes) was done specifically to point at a given class of Other people and say "not for you". But the descent framework for Jews has the opposite effect -- it is considerably more inclusive than alternative frameworks, such as place of birth or degree of observance. Ignatiev could argue that Whiteness served the same effect by uniting disparate European nationals with little else in common under a single banner for the purpose of exploitation. But that "little else in common" is the kicker here, which moves me to my next point....
Third, the definition is remarkably ahistorical. As noted by some critics of Ignatiev's entry, his encyclopedia article makes no mention of the Holocaust. This, of course, is problematic, because it, and the broader currents of anti-Semitism from which it stemmed, were instrumental in making the definition of Jew what it was. Jew was defined broadly because it was intended to capture all those who would be targeted for death by anti-Semitic violence. It is asinine to assert that the broad definition was created for purposes of domination and control. It rather clearly was done so as to protect the maximum number of people possible. The broadly defined "class" of Jew does share something in common, and that something is anti-Semitism. It is little consolation to religious Jews if violence is being directed at their less observant brothers if that violence is occurring due to their Jewishness -- it is still equally threatening. And Israel has practiced what it preaches in this respect: when Jewish-identified persons whose Jewish descent is subject of question and debate by Israeli authorities (such as the Ethiopian Jewish community) seek to emigrate, they are welcomed in regardless of whether it is ultimately determined that they are Jewish-by-descent (indeed, the Ethiopian Jewish community was encouraged to convert, indicating that the relevant authorities did not think they were "actually" Jewish through descent).
Fourth and finally, I think that Jews as a community show an interesting malleability to such concepts as "race", "religion", "nation", and "culture". I've often heard it demanded that Jews "pick one", for example, that Judaism is "properly" a religion and thus should not be able to claim rights rightfully restricted to nations. For those of us who think those concepts should be destabilized, or at least shaken up a bit, the way which Judaism blends these categories should be exciting and laudable, as we seem to reject the notion that Jews as a "race" or "nation" or "religion" has to be calcified and eternal across all time. But Ignatiev is insistent upon keeping Jews in one box: if we're acting like races typically do, then that is the root of any national policies we promote, regardless of whether we ourselves see religious, cultural, communal, or historical influences as being as much or more important to the behavior.
Ignatiev, in short, doesn't see Jews as Jews. He sees them through eyeglasses tinted by other experiences, and expresses no interest in hearing our own tale as we express it. In doing so, he inevitably misses the reality of our situation, and will find it impossible figure out a solution that promises the flourishing of Jews qua Jews as one of its characteristics.
View From Her Window
Apparently Sarah Palin's windows fogged up, as she was unaware that Russian officials traveled to Alaska to meet with state employees and oil companies about expanding energy projects.
Okay, cheap shot, but I couldn't resist.
Okay, cheap shot, but I couldn't resist.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
We Really Are Just All The Same
On the persistence of certain right-wingers -- quite respectable members of the conservative establishment, mind you -- pushing the Ayers-ghost-wrote-Obama's-book hypothesis, Ta-Nehisi Coates nails it:
Every community has its crazies. Ours appear to reside at The American Thinker (among other places).
I'm going to say this one last time--actually I'm going to say it until they put me under: I don't ever want to hear anyone complaining about black people and their conspiracy theories.
Every community has its crazies. Ours appear to reside at The American Thinker (among other places).
Dissent Blocked in DeLay Case?
Can anything be done in Texas without the imposition of massive political drama? The latest twist in the Tom DeLay legal saga is an appeals court judge alleging that the chief judge of her court refused to file her dissenting opinion as to whether one of her colleagues should recuse himself. She's asking the state supreme court to intervene. The chief judge, a Republican, is running for re-election and refused comment. The dissenting judge, naturally, is a Democrat (this is Texas).
Indeed, the story is ripe with accusations that the judges are acting politically in trying to hamstring the DeLay case and investigation. Given that a significant part of the Texas governmental structure was an apparatus of the DeLay machine, this does not surprise me in the slightest.
According to her filing, Patterson said she twice requested responses from the defendants regarding the recusal motion and Law refused to obtain a response and instructed the clerk not to seek one.
Patterson then informed her colleagues that she would file a dissent to the ruling on Waldrop's staying in the case. She wrote that Law instructed the court clerk not to file her dissent.
Indeed, the story is ripe with accusations that the judges are acting politically in trying to hamstring the DeLay case and investigation. Given that a significant part of the Texas governmental structure was an apparatus of the DeLay machine, this does not surprise me in the slightest.
Civil Rights Roundup: 10/14/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
Among other problems, the language interpretation at Guantanamo Bay trials is awful.
Wyoming remains one of the few states without a hate crimes law.
The Tulsa World: Many Native Americans don't celebrate Columbus Day.
Civil rights leaders are worrying that a new agreement between Las Vegas officials and ICE will increase racial profiling and decrease the reporting of violent crime.
Working from the ground up: Increased success by local Black politicians is getting White voters used to Black leadership. See, e.g., my home of Montgomery County, which recently elected African-American Ike Leggett as our County Executive. Montgomery County is 65% White and only 15% Black.
The Supreme Court has cleared the way for Troy Wilson to be executed. Wilson, convicted of capital murder, became a cause for many death penalty opponents (or supporters who care about justice) because the vast majority of the witnesses against him have since recanted their testimony.
Gay couples in California worry it's now or never. What a sad position to be put in.
Are Georgia election officials illegally purging voters?
The war over Amendment 46 continues to rage in Colorado.
Among other problems, the language interpretation at Guantanamo Bay trials is awful.
Wyoming remains one of the few states without a hate crimes law.
The Tulsa World: Many Native Americans don't celebrate Columbus Day.
Civil rights leaders are worrying that a new agreement between Las Vegas officials and ICE will increase racial profiling and decrease the reporting of violent crime.
Working from the ground up: Increased success by local Black politicians is getting White voters used to Black leadership. See, e.g., my home of Montgomery County, which recently elected African-American Ike Leggett as our County Executive. Montgomery County is 65% White and only 15% Black.
The Supreme Court has cleared the way for Troy Wilson to be executed. Wilson, convicted of capital murder, became a cause for many death penalty opponents (or supporters who care about justice) because the vast majority of the witnesses against him have since recanted their testimony.
Gay couples in California worry it's now or never. What a sad position to be put in.
Are Georgia election officials illegally purging voters?
The war over Amendment 46 continues to rage in Colorado.
Monday, October 13, 2008
I Guess You Could Say They're Improving
Florida Democratic Rep. Tim Mahoney paid his former mistress $121,000 after she threatened to sue. The women, who was on Mahoney's staff and began the affair with him during his 2006 Congressional election campaign, tried to break off the relationship after she learned that Mahoney was also involved in yet other extra-marital affairs.
Mahoney, of course, was elected to the seat formerly held by Rep. Mark Foley (R), who resigned due to his own sex scandal involving male teenage Congressional Pages. So I guess you could say that the district is improving -- at least this scandal involved adults.
UPDATE: Mahoney has asked the House Ethics Committee to investigate his conduct. That's interesting.
Mahoney, of course, was elected to the seat formerly held by Rep. Mark Foley (R), who resigned due to his own sex scandal involving male teenage Congressional Pages. So I guess you could say that the district is improving -- at least this scandal involved adults.
UPDATE: Mahoney has asked the House Ethics Committee to investigate his conduct. That's interesting.
The Godfathers
Sometimes, history is quite timely:
But it isn't the bombing that interests me. It was the response given by Atlanta Mayor William Hartsfield, during a synagogue visit after the attack:
Words to keep in mind, no?
The bombing of a prominent Atlanta synagogue in 1958 claimed no lives, but the community outrage that it prompted helped galvanize the city's nervous Jewish community to embrace the civil rights movement.
Members of The Temple gathered Sunday for the blast's 50th anniversary, recalling its terrifying aftermath and the way it changed their congregation's mission to promote racial equality.
But it isn't the bombing that interests me. It was the response given by Atlanta Mayor William Hartsfield, during a synagogue visit after the attack:
Atlanta Mayor William Hartsfield visited the Temple and quickly went on television to condemn the bombers and the politicians who he said should share the blame.
"Whether they like it or not, every political rabble-rouser is the godfather of these cross burners and dynamiters who sneak about in the dark and give a bad name to the South," he said. "It is high time the decent people of the South rise and take charge."
Words to keep in mind, no?
Civil Rights Roundup: 10/13/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
The Virginia GOP chair compared Obama to Osama, and then refused to back down after critique from the McCain campaign ("While Barack Obama is associated with domestic terrorist William Ayers, the McCain campaign disagrees with the comparison that Jeff Frederick made."). It's a civil rights issue because I'm coming around on my earlier views as to whether the Obama-as-terrorist charges are racially tinged or not.
See also this NYT story.
On the other hand, McCain's resistence to bringing up Rev. Jeremiah Wright is heartening, if frustrating to many of his supporters (including, unsurprisingly, Gov. Palin).
Frederick County, Maryland, is weighing the consequences of its recent immigration crackdown. According to the article, since an agreement was reached with ICE, "9 percent of all people arrested and taken to the county detention center have proven to be illegal immigrants," a number the local sheriff considers a success.
The Austin American-Statesman takes a look at how Latinos are responding to immigration and other issues.
A Fresno Catholic priest came out as gay and gave a sermon urging his parishioners to reject Proposition 8. He was immediately stripped of his post by the local bishop.
In the face of surging US prison populations, policymakers are looking at alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders.
The Michigan Department of Civil Rights is trying to assuage a wave of voter fears that they will be targeted by suppression and disenfranchise efforts. One of the "myths" they're trying to dispel is that you can't vote if your home was foreclosed. Well, glad to hear it, but if so it won't be for a lack of trying.
Finally, the dean of the University of Nebraska law school is defending affirmative action, and questioned the results of a Center for Equal Opportunity (gag) study which purported to show the school "discriminated" against White applicants. The law school has six African-Americans in its entering class of 146 this year. CEO chief Roger Clegg (remember him?), who has been leading the charge against race-conscious admissions across the country, flatly said he'd rather the school turn "lily white" than preserve affirmative action.
The Virginia GOP chair compared Obama to Osama, and then refused to back down after critique from the McCain campaign ("While Barack Obama is associated with domestic terrorist William Ayers, the McCain campaign disagrees with the comparison that Jeff Frederick made."). It's a civil rights issue because I'm coming around on my earlier views as to whether the Obama-as-terrorist charges are racially tinged or not.
See also this NYT story.
On the other hand, McCain's resistence to bringing up Rev. Jeremiah Wright is heartening, if frustrating to many of his supporters (including, unsurprisingly, Gov. Palin).
Frederick County, Maryland, is weighing the consequences of its recent immigration crackdown. According to the article, since an agreement was reached with ICE, "9 percent of all people arrested and taken to the county detention center have proven to be illegal immigrants," a number the local sheriff considers a success.
The Austin American-Statesman takes a look at how Latinos are responding to immigration and other issues.
A Fresno Catholic priest came out as gay and gave a sermon urging his parishioners to reject Proposition 8. He was immediately stripped of his post by the local bishop.
In the face of surging US prison populations, policymakers are looking at alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders.
The Michigan Department of Civil Rights is trying to assuage a wave of voter fears that they will be targeted by suppression and disenfranchise efforts. One of the "myths" they're trying to dispel is that you can't vote if your home was foreclosed. Well, glad to hear it, but if so it won't be for a lack of trying.
Finally, the dean of the University of Nebraska law school is defending affirmative action, and questioned the results of a Center for Equal Opportunity (gag) study which purported to show the school "discriminated" against White applicants. The law school has six African-Americans in its entering class of 146 this year. CEO chief Roger Clegg (remember him?), who has been leading the charge against race-conscious admissions across the country, flatly said he'd rather the school turn "lily white" than preserve affirmative action.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Biggie Smalls
So Vitali Klitschko stopped Samuel Peter tonight. Big deal. All it does is make clear what boxing fans have tried to deny for the past several years -- the Klitschko brothers are the only truly elite heavyweight boxers in the business right now.
No, what's really cool that happened tonight was the result from the headliner fight in Masan City, South Korea. Big Yoo (12-0, 8 KOs) knocked out Little Roseman (19-7-2, 8 KOs) in three rounds to capture the interim WBO Asia Pacific super flyweight title.
Congratulations, Big, and better luck next time, Little.
No, what's really cool that happened tonight was the result from the headliner fight in Masan City, South Korea. Big Yoo (12-0, 8 KOs) knocked out Little Roseman (19-7-2, 8 KOs) in three rounds to capture the interim WBO Asia Pacific super flyweight title.
Congratulations, Big, and better luck next time, Little.
Another Win for the Protocol Assassins
Austrian far-right leader Joerg Haider, controversial for alleged Nazi sympathies and anti-Semitic beliefs (both of which he always denied) died in a car crash today.
Accusations of a Jewish conspiracy to commence in 3...2...1...
Accusations of a Jewish conspiracy to commence in 3...2...1...
Friday, October 10, 2008
Magic on the Radio
A pair of conservative radio show hosts remarked off-hand that they believed Magic Johnson had "faked AIDS", triggering an apology from the station and a promise to post public service announcements about HIV/AIDS. Johnson himself expressed disappointment at the remarks, but said he did not want the men to lose their jobs, instead saying that they should use this opportunity to educate their audience. Johnson also noted that he has HIV, not AIDS.
I post this not to highlight unbelievably ass-holishness of these men (though believe me, it's quite apparent), but because Magic Johnson was my personal hero when I was a little kid. When it came out he had HIV, I was crushed and terrified. I never would have believed then that he would even be alive today, much less that he would be in such good health and be doing such great things for the American community. I've found other heroes, but he remains an inspiration to me and to us all.
I post this not to highlight unbelievably ass-holishness of these men (though believe me, it's quite apparent), but because Magic Johnson was my personal hero when I was a little kid. When it came out he had HIV, I was crushed and terrified. I never would have believed then that he would even be alive today, much less that he would be in such good health and be doing such great things for the American community. I've found other heroes, but he remains an inspiration to me and to us all.
Rage Overcoming
It's amazing to me that the element of conservative rage -- and the McCain campaign's efforts to stoke it -- has begin to creep into mainstream media coverage. Obviously, bloggers have been mentioning it, and the issue of McCain's temper has simmered amongst the liberal set, but it is always rare for mainstream media sources to really get in touch with conservative rage. The left is angry, the right is stupid; that's the usual negative meme the media trots out.
I think the McCain campaign, and particularly Sarah Palin, have stepped a little closer towards direct appeals to the conservative id than is normal for national level Republican politicians. That, mixed with the fact that Barack Obama's race makes everyone at least a little more sensitive to the prospect of fostering extremist violence, means that even the "see no [right-wing] anger" media is taking note.
UPDATE: Ezra Klein is right that we should give John McCain credit for stepping in at one of his rallies to start stamping some of this crazy out. But Klein is also right that our credit ought to be tempered if McCain keeps fanning the flames by running ads basically calling Obama an un-American terrorist sympathizer. You can't give with one hand and take away with the other.
I think the McCain campaign, and particularly Sarah Palin, have stepped a little closer towards direct appeals to the conservative id than is normal for national level Republican politicians. That, mixed with the fact that Barack Obama's race makes everyone at least a little more sensitive to the prospect of fostering extremist violence, means that even the "see no [right-wing] anger" media is taking note.
UPDATE: Ezra Klein is right that we should give John McCain credit for stepping in at one of his rallies to start stamping some of this crazy out. But Klein is also right that our credit ought to be tempered if McCain keeps fanning the flames by running ads basically calling Obama an un-American terrorist sympathizer. You can't give with one hand and take away with the other.
Connecticut Joins the Vanguard of Civilization
The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that gay couples have the right to marry, the third state after Massachusetts and California to do so. Connecticut did break one barrier though:
Maryland could learn a lot from this tale.
The 4-3 ruling is the first time that a state that had willingly offered an alternative to marriage was told by a court that civil unions aren't enough to protect the rights of gay couples. Connecticut was the first state to voluntarily pass laws to affirm civil unions.
Maryland could learn a lot from this tale.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Who Can Speak The Word?
In a post this weekend, I inquired as to how I ought to raise the issue of anti-Semitism in discussions about Israel, or religious liberty, or Jews in general. Since on the one hand so many people seem to believe that the issue is raised as a distraction or canard, and on the other hand it's clearly a very important topic that needs to be investigated thoroughly, attempting to set some ground rules seemed like a good idea.
But upon further reflection, I feel like I was missing something important. The assumption behind my "how would you like me to raise it" is that there is a split between the substantive merits of the claim "that is anti-Semitic" (or "there is an issue of anti-Semitism that needs to be discussed"), and procedure by which it is raised. I still think that's true, but now I also think there seems to be a third angle: who is allowed to raise the issue of anti-Semitism? My intuition is that much of the reaction I've experienced in trying to raise the issue of anti-Semitism doesn't come because I've used the wrong words or timing. Rather, it's due to an entrenched belief that Jews don't have the right to raise the issue at all -- we are marked and tainted by our Jewishness, and are not objective arbiters.
The cynical person, after all, who thinks that anti-Semitism is a serious problem would likely believe that the refusal to consider anti-Semitism is evidence that the objectors do not care much about anti-Semitism at all. But that doesn't seem quite right to me. If they didn't care, they wouldn't have a reaction upon being called (or feeling like they're being called, or being within a mile of being called) anti-Semitic. On the fringes, you do get people who are either proudly anti-Semitic, or say things like "given the scope of Jewish power, it's reasonable and necessary to be a little anti-Semitic." But most people are not like that. Most people seem to vest a considerable amount of weight in their self and social perception as not anti-Semites.
From this framework, people create rules of discourse which help regulate which claims of anti-Semitism are considered to be worthy of response. An effective way to manage one's own image (to oneself and to society) on the anti-Semitism issue is to derail, prior to the merits, as many threatening accusations of anti-Semitism as possible. One way of doing that is via the procedural objection -- the anti-Semitism charge is being raised in bad faith, or at an inappropriate time in the conversation. Another is by challenging the party raising the claim. Since Jews are presumably the most attuned to anti-Semitism and most likely to feel its effects, a facial rule discounting Jewish claims of anti-Semitism yields great benefits to the Gentile population which does not want it to be seen or see itself as anti-Semitic.
This framework, I think, helps elucidate a continuum of responses that one sees from people who are charged with anti-Semitism, or racism, for that matter. On one end of the continuum are those who take the charge to be one which must be grappled with seriously. That doesn't mean they ultimately agree, or immediately acquiesce, it just means they recognize the right of the speaker to bring the charge and the correspondent duty to engage it. Some liberal minded White people, upon being called racist (or any other permutation -- asked to discuss racism, told there are racist implications to an issue area) by a person of color, react this way. I suspect a somewhat higher proportion would react this way if racism is brought up by a White person, but still a minority.
In the middle is the defensive reaction. Defensiveness is a mixture of guilt and dismissal. The guilt stems from the belief that the speaker has a right to bring the charge. The dismissal, though, is a denial of the duty to engage -- presumably based on a claim of epistemic superiority: I know I'm not anti-Semitic, so I have no need to grapple with your argument saying it's an issue in our interaction. While it recognizes, at some level, that it is meaningful that the charge has been brought (hence the guilt), it does not extend beyond that. Rather, the objection is procedural, claiming fault with the form or method or sufficiency of the instigating event, derailing the discussion before reaching the merits: "You have not (and probably cannot) show what I think is necessary to be shown before I will engage the topic of racism. So I won't, and don't have to." Most liberal Whites, and some conservative ones, respond this way to racism charges. Some Gentiles (of all political stripes) also respond this way to anti-Semitism charges.
Finally, at the other end of the spectrum is the disdainful reaction. Disdain mixes contempt with dismissal. The contempt comes from the idea that the speaker is for some reason, e.g., social position, barred from making the claim in the first place. The allegation of "the race card" is an expression of contempt by people who do not recognize in the first instance that Blacks have a right to talk about racism. The dismissal works the same way as above -- knowing oneself, there is no need to engage in what anyone else (certainly, any minority) has to say on the subject. Most conservatives respond to race charges in this way. It is also my experience that many Gentiles react this way when Jews bring up anti-Semitism. They don't look guilty, they look disdainful: "Oh, there they go again."
Some folks have tried to get me to admit that anti-Semitism is worse on the left than on the right. That has not been my experience. Rather, my experience is that both leftward and rightward responses to my talk on anti-Semitism has come with disdain. Conservatives are no more likely than liberals to react thoughtfully (or hell, even guiltily) when a Jewish interlocutor notes anti-Semitic implications in their argument. Sometimes, if you hit at just the right moment, you can get them to skip a beat, but that's usually about it. And I genuinely do not think that there is that same resistance to the claim from Christian speakers. A Jew who goes to a Evangelical congregation and says "they way you treat us and talk about us is wrong and hateful" isn't going to be taken seriously. A fellow member of evangelical community will. A mainstream Christian, I believe, is more likely to listen to an atheist or Hindu critic on the subject than he is a Jew.
So, for the most part, neither camp recognizes the right of Jews to speak on the issue. Neither sees the Jewish view as one with which they need to engage, and neither even feels particularly bad when faced with the knowledge that the Jewish community finds them hostile to their interests and liberation. Both make noises about how they're really all about helping and supporting everybody, and thus are bona fide friends of the Jews. But neither wants to hear nor cares about the Jewish perspective on what being our friend means -- indeed, they think our views on the subject are fatally defective and thus can be dismissed on face. As far as I'm concerned, then, the methodology of silencing is essentially identical on both sides. The first step towards remedy is a stated recognition that Jews have the right to raise the issue of anti-Semitism, at our discretion, and command the right to engagement on it. As I noted, that doesn't require capitulation. It does require a serious effort to figure out where we're coming from and understanding our argument.
But upon further reflection, I feel like I was missing something important. The assumption behind my "how would you like me to raise it" is that there is a split between the substantive merits of the claim "that is anti-Semitic" (or "there is an issue of anti-Semitism that needs to be discussed"), and procedure by which it is raised. I still think that's true, but now I also think there seems to be a third angle: who is allowed to raise the issue of anti-Semitism? My intuition is that much of the reaction I've experienced in trying to raise the issue of anti-Semitism doesn't come because I've used the wrong words or timing. Rather, it's due to an entrenched belief that Jews don't have the right to raise the issue at all -- we are marked and tainted by our Jewishness, and are not objective arbiters.
The cynical person, after all, who thinks that anti-Semitism is a serious problem would likely believe that the refusal to consider anti-Semitism is evidence that the objectors do not care much about anti-Semitism at all. But that doesn't seem quite right to me. If they didn't care, they wouldn't have a reaction upon being called (or feeling like they're being called, or being within a mile of being called) anti-Semitic. On the fringes, you do get people who are either proudly anti-Semitic, or say things like "given the scope of Jewish power, it's reasonable and necessary to be a little anti-Semitic." But most people are not like that. Most people seem to vest a considerable amount of weight in their self and social perception as not anti-Semites.
From this framework, people create rules of discourse which help regulate which claims of anti-Semitism are considered to be worthy of response. An effective way to manage one's own image (to oneself and to society) on the anti-Semitism issue is to derail, prior to the merits, as many threatening accusations of anti-Semitism as possible. One way of doing that is via the procedural objection -- the anti-Semitism charge is being raised in bad faith, or at an inappropriate time in the conversation. Another is by challenging the party raising the claim. Since Jews are presumably the most attuned to anti-Semitism and most likely to feel its effects, a facial rule discounting Jewish claims of anti-Semitism yields great benefits to the Gentile population which does not want it to be seen or see itself as anti-Semitic.
This framework, I think, helps elucidate a continuum of responses that one sees from people who are charged with anti-Semitism, or racism, for that matter. On one end of the continuum are those who take the charge to be one which must be grappled with seriously. That doesn't mean they ultimately agree, or immediately acquiesce, it just means they recognize the right of the speaker to bring the charge and the correspondent duty to engage it. Some liberal minded White people, upon being called racist (or any other permutation -- asked to discuss racism, told there are racist implications to an issue area) by a person of color, react this way. I suspect a somewhat higher proportion would react this way if racism is brought up by a White person, but still a minority.
In the middle is the defensive reaction. Defensiveness is a mixture of guilt and dismissal. The guilt stems from the belief that the speaker has a right to bring the charge. The dismissal, though, is a denial of the duty to engage -- presumably based on a claim of epistemic superiority: I know I'm not anti-Semitic, so I have no need to grapple with your argument saying it's an issue in our interaction. While it recognizes, at some level, that it is meaningful that the charge has been brought (hence the guilt), it does not extend beyond that. Rather, the objection is procedural, claiming fault with the form or method or sufficiency of the instigating event, derailing the discussion before reaching the merits: "You have not (and probably cannot) show what I think is necessary to be shown before I will engage the topic of racism. So I won't, and don't have to." Most liberal Whites, and some conservative ones, respond this way to racism charges. Some Gentiles (of all political stripes) also respond this way to anti-Semitism charges.
Finally, at the other end of the spectrum is the disdainful reaction. Disdain mixes contempt with dismissal. The contempt comes from the idea that the speaker is for some reason, e.g., social position, barred from making the claim in the first place. The allegation of "the race card" is an expression of contempt by people who do not recognize in the first instance that Blacks have a right to talk about racism. The dismissal works the same way as above -- knowing oneself, there is no need to engage in what anyone else (certainly, any minority) has to say on the subject. Most conservatives respond to race charges in this way. It is also my experience that many Gentiles react this way when Jews bring up anti-Semitism. They don't look guilty, they look disdainful: "Oh, there they go again."
Some folks have tried to get me to admit that anti-Semitism is worse on the left than on the right. That has not been my experience. Rather, my experience is that both leftward and rightward responses to my talk on anti-Semitism has come with disdain. Conservatives are no more likely than liberals to react thoughtfully (or hell, even guiltily) when a Jewish interlocutor notes anti-Semitic implications in their argument. Sometimes, if you hit at just the right moment, you can get them to skip a beat, but that's usually about it. And I genuinely do not think that there is that same resistance to the claim from Christian speakers. A Jew who goes to a Evangelical congregation and says "they way you treat us and talk about us is wrong and hateful" isn't going to be taken seriously. A fellow member of evangelical community will. A mainstream Christian, I believe, is more likely to listen to an atheist or Hindu critic on the subject than he is a Jew.
So, for the most part, neither camp recognizes the right of Jews to speak on the issue. Neither sees the Jewish view as one with which they need to engage, and neither even feels particularly bad when faced with the knowledge that the Jewish community finds them hostile to their interests and liberation. Both make noises about how they're really all about helping and supporting everybody, and thus are bona fide friends of the Jews. But neither wants to hear nor cares about the Jewish perspective on what being our friend means -- indeed, they think our views on the subject are fatally defective and thus can be dismissed on face. As far as I'm concerned, then, the methodology of silencing is essentially identical on both sides. The first step towards remedy is a stated recognition that Jews have the right to raise the issue of anti-Semitism, at our discretion, and command the right to engagement on it. As I noted, that doesn't require capitulation. It does require a serious effort to figure out where we're coming from and understanding our argument.
Let Him Lose?
Pennsylvania Democratic Representative Paul Kanjorski is in trouble in his re-election bid. DCC polling has him below 50%, while his opponent, Hazelton mayor Lou Barletta has his own numbers placing him with an eight point lead over the two-decade incumbent.
The 11th District is normally considered safe terrain for Democrats. But Kanjorski seems to exemplify the type of politician who thinks his seat is his by birthright. He has been a very sluggish campaigner this cycle. He was previously under federal investigation. He's old. And he's not all that liberal.
I'm not saying I want him to lose, if for no other reason than Barletta's main source of notoriety is as one of the most vicious opponents of immigration even during the peak of the xenophobic wave that crested in 2007. But I have to say, the prospect of losing this seat -- probably for only one term when it is not at all critical for a Democratic majority -- does not cut me up that much. If it lets us clean a little deadwood out of our closet, so much the better.
The 11th District is normally considered safe terrain for Democrats. But Kanjorski seems to exemplify the type of politician who thinks his seat is his by birthright. He has been a very sluggish campaigner this cycle. He was previously under federal investigation. He's old. And he's not all that liberal.
I'm not saying I want him to lose, if for no other reason than Barletta's main source of notoriety is as one of the most vicious opponents of immigration even during the peak of the xenophobic wave that crested in 2007. But I have to say, the prospect of losing this seat -- probably for only one term when it is not at all critical for a Democratic majority -- does not cut me up that much. If it lets us clean a little deadwood out of our closet, so much the better.
Vote or Die! (Vote, Please)
I voted today. I suppose I could regret it, if Barack Obama morphs into his true, Maoist form in the next few weeks. So I preemptively apologize for my vote, in that case. But somehow, I'm skeptical that will happen. And I'm also skeptical that my vote will be a decisive player in the paradigmatic swing state that is Maryland.
Return to the X-Files
Paul Campos states the obvious, at greater length than objectively should be needed: There are no grounds to question whether Sarah Palin is Trig Palin's mother. Continuing to ask such questions is unhinged. The McCain/Palin campaign is under no obligation to "respond" or "put to rest" these "allegations", any more than Barack Obama needed to give a press conference proving his place of birth, or a GPS-verified account of the relative proximity he had to William Ayers at all times over the past two decades. Folks who are keeping on this line of question, like Andrew Sullivan, need to knock it off. It's simply abysmal behavior.
Obviously
Of course today the law school offered a free, delicious-smelling lunch for all law students today. Located right outside my class.
Of course.
Of course.
Civil Rights Roundup: 10/09/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
It's election time, and you know what that means: illegally keeping eligible voters off the rolls!
Polling places may not have the resources to handle the expected crush of voters this election.
The Supreme Court is examining whether employees who cooperate in discrimination and harassment cases, but are not the complaining parties themselves, are protecting via anti-retaliation provisions.
A federal appeals court has blocked the release of 17 innocent men being detained at Guantanamo, pending a hearing by that court.
Not only was the torture regime developed at Guantanamo exported to American prisons, but some officials worried that the tactics used domestically were actually "harsher" than those at our Cuban base.
High fuel prices mean its harder to run school buses. Not running buses means kids only go to their neighborhood schools. Neighborhood schools lead to school resegregation. Resegregation means students suffer.
An Iowa resident crossed into Nebraska to take advantage of the state's extremely broad "safe haven" law, abandoning her 14 year old daughter to state authorities.
A federal judge is urging immigration authorities to hold off deporting a man until his civil case against the Boston Police concludes. The man served 19 years in prison for rapes that he did not commit.
Another immigration raid, another town torn asunder.
The Cook County (Chicago) sheriff has ordered his deputies to cease evicting people, arguing that many of the evicted are renters who have done nothing wrong -- victims of landlords whose properties are being repossessed.
The Ohio Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by a death row inmate arguing he's too fat to be executed. The argument is that his girth will make it too hard to find a vein insuring the execution is done quickly and painlessly.
It's looking as if minority college enrollment is stalling out. In an amazing coincidence, affirmative action efforts have also been stalling out or proactively rolled back in recent years.
Another Virginia paper comes out in favor of re-enfranchising ex-felons.
The Department of Justice has checked -- for now -- efforts by a Georgia county's election officials to investigate the citizenship of voters whom the county had suspicions about.
It's election time, and you know what that means: illegally keeping eligible voters off the rolls!
Polling places may not have the resources to handle the expected crush of voters this election.
The Supreme Court is examining whether employees who cooperate in discrimination and harassment cases, but are not the complaining parties themselves, are protecting via anti-retaliation provisions.
A federal appeals court has blocked the release of 17 innocent men being detained at Guantanamo, pending a hearing by that court.
Not only was the torture regime developed at Guantanamo exported to American prisons, but some officials worried that the tactics used domestically were actually "harsher" than those at our Cuban base.
High fuel prices mean its harder to run school buses. Not running buses means kids only go to their neighborhood schools. Neighborhood schools lead to school resegregation. Resegregation means students suffer.
An Iowa resident crossed into Nebraska to take advantage of the state's extremely broad "safe haven" law, abandoning her 14 year old daughter to state authorities.
A federal judge is urging immigration authorities to hold off deporting a man until his civil case against the Boston Police concludes. The man served 19 years in prison for rapes that he did not commit.
Another immigration raid, another town torn asunder.
The Cook County (Chicago) sheriff has ordered his deputies to cease evicting people, arguing that many of the evicted are renters who have done nothing wrong -- victims of landlords whose properties are being repossessed.
The Ohio Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by a death row inmate arguing he's too fat to be executed. The argument is that his girth will make it too hard to find a vein insuring the execution is done quickly and painlessly.
It's looking as if minority college enrollment is stalling out. In an amazing coincidence, affirmative action efforts have also been stalling out or proactively rolled back in recent years.
Another Virginia paper comes out in favor of re-enfranchising ex-felons.
The Department of Justice has checked -- for now -- efforts by a Georgia county's election officials to investigate the citizenship of voters whom the county had suspicions about.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Civil Rights Roundup: 10/08/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
A Federal judge has ordered the release of several Chinese Muslim detainees from Guantanamo who have been cleared of links to terrorism for several years. The judge demanded that the men be admitted to the United States immediately, and ordered that immigration services not interfere with them in any way. The US filed an emergency appeal to stay the order, with White House spokeswoman Dana Perino saying that allowing admittedly innocent men wrongfully detained for years in a lawless prison might make us vulnerable to terrorism (I wish I was kidding).
Low income residents of DC are being deprived of legal services, and many don't know where to turn for help.
The anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 has made a comeback and is now shown to be leading in the polls.
As a result, gay couples are flocking to the altar ahead of the November vote on their rights.
President Bush signed into law a bill which would establish a task force to try and crack cold civil rights era cases.
The Supreme Court has a few cases being argued this term that have big implications for the future of the Exclusionary Rule (illegally obtained evidence cannot be admitted into court).
The AP has gotten its hands on documents showing that American officials knew that their detention policies had driven some detainees "nearly insane".
Gay and lesbian candidates for political office are looking at a banner year.
A Rabbi has notified police after receiving thousands of threatening emails from a campaign sponsored by PETA, protesting a ritual by which he sacrifices a chicken in order to atone for his sins.
The NAACP is criticizing hiring practices in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
A Federal judge has ordered the release of several Chinese Muslim detainees from Guantanamo who have been cleared of links to terrorism for several years. The judge demanded that the men be admitted to the United States immediately, and ordered that immigration services not interfere with them in any way. The US filed an emergency appeal to stay the order, with White House spokeswoman Dana Perino saying that allowing admittedly innocent men wrongfully detained for years in a lawless prison might make us vulnerable to terrorism (I wish I was kidding).
Low income residents of DC are being deprived of legal services, and many don't know where to turn for help.
The anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 has made a comeback and is now shown to be leading in the polls.
As a result, gay couples are flocking to the altar ahead of the November vote on their rights.
President Bush signed into law a bill which would establish a task force to try and crack cold civil rights era cases.
The Supreme Court has a few cases being argued this term that have big implications for the future of the Exclusionary Rule (illegally obtained evidence cannot be admitted into court).
The AP has gotten its hands on documents showing that American officials knew that their detention policies had driven some detainees "nearly insane".
Gay and lesbian candidates for political office are looking at a banner year.
A Rabbi has notified police after receiving thousands of threatening emails from a campaign sponsored by PETA, protesting a ritual by which he sacrifices a chicken in order to atone for his sins.
The NAACP is criticizing hiring practices in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Tuesday are Rough
I have all four of my substantive classes on Tuesday, consecutively from 9:45 - 3:50 (with a break for lunch). It is rather tiring, and is my excuse for lack of blogging today.Normally, I have only three classes on Wednesday's, but thanks to Yom Kippur my legal writing class got moved from Thursday, so I have another four-in-a-row day coming up. As usual, it's the Jews fault. Maybe that's something I can repent for.
So far I've yet to say anything in class that doesn't make me look like a blithering imbecile. Today was bad luck though -- I rose my hand for question X, and got called on just as the Professor decided to move to question Y. X was close enough to Y that I could kind of spin my answer off, but she just gave me a very queer look and moved on. If it was Property, I'd probably have been decapitated. Oh well. Better luck next time.
I did watch the debate, but it was boring and I had reading to do, so I can't say I payed very close attention. I did notice John McCain's "my friends" tic is back with a vengeance. And he still thinks that turning the campaign into a vicious slime-fest is the best way for him to go. I think it ends up hurting him a lot more. The images of him skulking in the background while Obama was talking, compared to Obama calmly sitting in his chair, listening attentively, were not good. It just emphasizes who is the nasty one in the race. McCain looks like he loathes Obama, and the Illinois Senator is just too popular for that to fly.
Also, this week I uncovered the solutions to one of my life's greatest mysteries: Why do I get the musician Sting confused with Kiss? The answer is that the wrestler Sting wears Kiss-style makeup in the ring. Bingo.
So far I've yet to say anything in class that doesn't make me look like a blithering imbecile. Today was bad luck though -- I rose my hand for question X, and got called on just as the Professor decided to move to question Y. X was close enough to Y that I could kind of spin my answer off, but she just gave me a very queer look and moved on. If it was Property, I'd probably have been decapitated. Oh well. Better luck next time.
I did watch the debate, but it was boring and I had reading to do, so I can't say I payed very close attention. I did notice John McCain's "my friends" tic is back with a vengeance. And he still thinks that turning the campaign into a vicious slime-fest is the best way for him to go. I think it ends up hurting him a lot more. The images of him skulking in the background while Obama was talking, compared to Obama calmly sitting in his chair, listening attentively, were not good. It just emphasizes who is the nasty one in the race. McCain looks like he loathes Obama, and the Illinois Senator is just too popular for that to fly.
Also, this week I uncovered the solutions to one of my life's greatest mysteries: Why do I get the musician Sting confused with Kiss? The answer is that the wrestler Sting wears Kiss-style makeup in the ring. Bingo.
Monday, October 06, 2008
One New Fact
In my civil rights roundup today, I referenced an AP analysis which argued that Sarah Palin's charge that Obama "pals" with terrorists had a "racial subtext", as well John Cole's claim that he really did not see it. I noted that while I essentially agree with Cole, I thought that the case raised some interesting hypotheticals worth exploring in a later post.
One of the favored modes of exploration in law school is the "one new fact" game. The way it works is that, after crafting a rule for a given case or scenario, the professor presses you as to what you'd think given one new fact. "What if X is true", or "what if we stipulate Y? Does that change anything?" These hypotheticals are not rhetorical -- they are genuinely meant to explore and are written with the presupposition that they represent difficult questions (and that is how I mean the questions written below -- they are not backhanded ways of saying "clearly, this would be racist!"). It's a good way to test the boundaries of certain moral and legal intuitions we have. I've always been a fan of a quote by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic in their book Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge: "Normative discourse ... is highly fact-sensitive ... adding even one new fact can change intuition radically." [Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, eds. Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2000, pg. xvii].
So let's take the case at hand. Governor Palin is attacking Obama as associating with terrorists (the reference being to former Weatherman William Ayers). On the face of it, this is race-neutral, though still risible: I don't think there is anything in Obama's race that is necessary to the attack. If John Kerry was running and had the same association with Ayers as Obama, the attack would still make as much of what little rational sense it possesses.
But now let's stipulate some facts (these, to reiterate, are hypothetical -- I don't make any claim as to them being objectively true, though I do think they are plausible enough so that we can analyze them). People are more vulnerable to certain types of attacks based on our pre-existing perceptions about their qualities as persons. We're more likely to believe a charge the meshes or coheres to our broader view of a person. So if I think John is aggressive, and someone tells me he assaulted a kitten, I'm more likely to believe them then if my perception of John is as a big ol' softie.
So, suppose Obama's race makes him more likely to be seen as an outsider, which makes voters more receptive to the "associates with terrorists" claim, as outsiders are more likely to be friends with terrorists then "real" Americans. Is there a racial component then? What if we cut the intervening link: Americans think "terrorist = brown person", Obama is a brown person, and that is the mental link. Is that racist? Would it be racist of the McCain campaign to exploit that?
The calculus of running a political attack is that one assumes the political benefit of fostering negative opinions about your opponent outweighs the backlash you get for "going negative". If the backlash is likely to be greater than the gain, the attack won't be run. Suppose that the "bonus" negativity the McCain attack would produce due to Obama's race has an impact on the McCain campaign's decision of how often and where to run an ad focusing on Obama's putative terrorist ties -- for example, they decide to direct their spending in areas where the "racial bonus" is largest. Is that racist?
What if the racial bonus is such that it provides the marginal gain needed to make the ad worth the cost in terms of potential backlash? That is, the ad would not have been "worth it" against a White candidate because the backlash would outweigh the gain, but the extra negativity due to race makes the advertisement a net gain for the campaign? In that way, race would be the critical factor in deciding whether to run the ad. Is that racist? What if the McCain campaign stipulates that it simply wants to run the most effective ads possible, and avers that it does not study and does not care whether its ads are effective because they trigger associations due to race or associations due to the 60s culture war? If they make that stipulation, but know that this ad is (solely? more?) effective due to race, does that satisfy an "intent" requirement that many hold necessary to charge something as racist?
The point here isn't to say that any of these scenarios are true. Only that they represent potential facts which complicate simple, on-face efforts to analyze a given political claim as "racist" or "not racist" (or "racially-tinged" or what have you). It would seem, given the right fact pattern (e.g., McCain runs a facially race-neutral ad knowing that it gains a racial bonus, targeting the ad on the basis of that bonus, and that bonus giving the marginal gain necessary for the ad to be run in the first place), even Palin's charge could be tagged as "racist" under even relatively stringent definitions of what racist means.
One of the favored modes of exploration in law school is the "one new fact" game. The way it works is that, after crafting a rule for a given case or scenario, the professor presses you as to what you'd think given one new fact. "What if X is true", or "what if we stipulate Y? Does that change anything?" These hypotheticals are not rhetorical -- they are genuinely meant to explore and are written with the presupposition that they represent difficult questions (and that is how I mean the questions written below -- they are not backhanded ways of saying "clearly, this would be racist!"). It's a good way to test the boundaries of certain moral and legal intuitions we have. I've always been a fan of a quote by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic in their book Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge: "Normative discourse ... is highly fact-sensitive ... adding even one new fact can change intuition radically." [Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, eds. Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2000, pg. xvii].
So let's take the case at hand. Governor Palin is attacking Obama as associating with terrorists (the reference being to former Weatherman William Ayers). On the face of it, this is race-neutral, though still risible: I don't think there is anything in Obama's race that is necessary to the attack. If John Kerry was running and had the same association with Ayers as Obama, the attack would still make as much of what little rational sense it possesses.
But now let's stipulate some facts (these, to reiterate, are hypothetical -- I don't make any claim as to them being objectively true, though I do think they are plausible enough so that we can analyze them). People are more vulnerable to certain types of attacks based on our pre-existing perceptions about their qualities as persons. We're more likely to believe a charge the meshes or coheres to our broader view of a person. So if I think John is aggressive, and someone tells me he assaulted a kitten, I'm more likely to believe them then if my perception of John is as a big ol' softie.
So, suppose Obama's race makes him more likely to be seen as an outsider, which makes voters more receptive to the "associates with terrorists" claim, as outsiders are more likely to be friends with terrorists then "real" Americans. Is there a racial component then? What if we cut the intervening link: Americans think "terrorist = brown person", Obama is a brown person, and that is the mental link. Is that racist? Would it be racist of the McCain campaign to exploit that?
The calculus of running a political attack is that one assumes the political benefit of fostering negative opinions about your opponent outweighs the backlash you get for "going negative". If the backlash is likely to be greater than the gain, the attack won't be run. Suppose that the "bonus" negativity the McCain attack would produce due to Obama's race has an impact on the McCain campaign's decision of how often and where to run an ad focusing on Obama's putative terrorist ties -- for example, they decide to direct their spending in areas where the "racial bonus" is largest. Is that racist?
What if the racial bonus is such that it provides the marginal gain needed to make the ad worth the cost in terms of potential backlash? That is, the ad would not have been "worth it" against a White candidate because the backlash would outweigh the gain, but the extra negativity due to race makes the advertisement a net gain for the campaign? In that way, race would be the critical factor in deciding whether to run the ad. Is that racist? What if the McCain campaign stipulates that it simply wants to run the most effective ads possible, and avers that it does not study and does not care whether its ads are effective because they trigger associations due to race or associations due to the 60s culture war? If they make that stipulation, but know that this ad is (solely? more?) effective due to race, does that satisfy an "intent" requirement that many hold necessary to charge something as racist?
The point here isn't to say that any of these scenarios are true. Only that they represent potential facts which complicate simple, on-face efforts to analyze a given political claim as "racist" or "not racist" (or "racially-tinged" or what have you). It would seem, given the right fact pattern (e.g., McCain runs a facially race-neutral ad knowing that it gains a racial bonus, targeting the ad on the basis of that bonus, and that bonus giving the marginal gain necessary for the ad to be run in the first place), even Palin's charge could be tagged as "racist" under even relatively stringent definitions of what racist means.
Civil Rights Roundup: 10/06/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
Obviously, this column by the treasurer of the Buchanan County (Va.) GOP (and county representative on McCain's Virginia leadership team) is not racist. After all, the author denied that it was, and we all know that's good enough when it's a White guy!
It's worth noting again -- this election will be a pivotal one in terms of setting the Supreme Court's agenda for the foreseeable future.
It's not a parody -- the poor really are hit hardest by the current economic downturn.
The Pittsburgh diocese of the Episcopalian church has voted to secede in protest of the broader organizations tolerant attitude towards homosexuality.
Activists in Virginia are working to get ex-felons' voting rights restored.
The Washington Post urges a settlement in a long-standing legal fight between D.C. and advocates for the city's mentally and physically disabled population, who are working to overhaul the district's abysmal record of care towards that demographic.
Ten years after the brutal torture and murder of Matthew Shepard, CBS looks back.
Opponents of Nebraska's proposed affirmative action ban are in court trying to keep it off the ballot, alleging that many signatures were obtained fraudulently.
The University of Illinois appears to have gone slightly overboard in trying to curb political expression by its employees.
The Supreme Court refuse to review a Colorado case in which the jury foreman read bible passages to recalcitrant jury members in order to (successfully) convince them to apply the death penalty.
The AFL-CIO is on the case, protecting citizens from illegitimate voter suppression efforts.
A symbolic constitutional amendment in Florida which would strip anti-Asian provisions from the document is likely to fail, primarily because voters are expected to mistake it for increasing rights of contemporary illegal immigrants. Voter ignorance is lamentable, but expected. What is unexpected and unexcusable is that 31 State House Republicans voted against the measure, probably under the same misapprehension.
A White South Carolina state trooper who rammed a Black suspect with his police cruiser, then bragged that he did it deliberately on video, was acquitted by a federal jury of civil rights violations.
A new federal courthouse in Missouri is named after Rush Limbaugh. Thankfully, it's not that Rush Limbaugh (though I had a mild heart attack before deciphering that in the article).
Companies love to sing the praises of arbitration clauses when they're applying them against unwilling consumers, but are far less keen on using them in disputes with their fellow corporations.
The Supreme Court has for the third time rejected a suit by anti-abortion activists protesting a judgment against them due to their "wanted" posters targeting abortion doctors.
Both supporters and opponents of California's Prop. 8 (revoking the right of gay couples to marry) are treading lightly in their efforts to persuade swing voters.
An AP writer says Sarah Palin's charge that Obama "pals around" with terrorists has a racial subtext. John Cole doesn't see it. I'm inclined to agree with Cole, but I think it raises some interesting questions I'll probably raise in a post later today.
A transgender woman won a suit filed against her by former political opponents who said she "misled" voters by running for office as a female.
The New York Times demands the obvious -- having your home foreclosed upon should not deprive you of the right to vote. I wrote about this twisted tactic adopted by some local GOP bodies earlier here.
The Washington Supreme Court holds that employers can't retaliate against employees victimized by domestic abuse who take time off to protect themselves and their children. The Court was bitterly divided; you can access the four opinions handed down here.
Obviously, this column by the treasurer of the Buchanan County (Va.) GOP (and county representative on McCain's Virginia leadership team) is not racist. After all, the author denied that it was, and we all know that's good enough when it's a White guy!
It's worth noting again -- this election will be a pivotal one in terms of setting the Supreme Court's agenda for the foreseeable future.
It's not a parody -- the poor really are hit hardest by the current economic downturn.
The Pittsburgh diocese of the Episcopalian church has voted to secede in protest of the broader organizations tolerant attitude towards homosexuality.
Activists in Virginia are working to get ex-felons' voting rights restored.
The Washington Post urges a settlement in a long-standing legal fight between D.C. and advocates for the city's mentally and physically disabled population, who are working to overhaul the district's abysmal record of care towards that demographic.
Ten years after the brutal torture and murder of Matthew Shepard, CBS looks back.
Opponents of Nebraska's proposed affirmative action ban are in court trying to keep it off the ballot, alleging that many signatures were obtained fraudulently.
The University of Illinois appears to have gone slightly overboard in trying to curb political expression by its employees.
The Supreme Court refuse to review a Colorado case in which the jury foreman read bible passages to recalcitrant jury members in order to (successfully) convince them to apply the death penalty.
The AFL-CIO is on the case, protecting citizens from illegitimate voter suppression efforts.
A symbolic constitutional amendment in Florida which would strip anti-Asian provisions from the document is likely to fail, primarily because voters are expected to mistake it for increasing rights of contemporary illegal immigrants. Voter ignorance is lamentable, but expected. What is unexpected and unexcusable is that 31 State House Republicans voted against the measure, probably under the same misapprehension.
A White South Carolina state trooper who rammed a Black suspect with his police cruiser, then bragged that he did it deliberately on video, was acquitted by a federal jury of civil rights violations.
A new federal courthouse in Missouri is named after Rush Limbaugh. Thankfully, it's not that Rush Limbaugh (though I had a mild heart attack before deciphering that in the article).
Companies love to sing the praises of arbitration clauses when they're applying them against unwilling consumers, but are far less keen on using them in disputes with their fellow corporations.
The Supreme Court has for the third time rejected a suit by anti-abortion activists protesting a judgment against them due to their "wanted" posters targeting abortion doctors.
Both supporters and opponents of California's Prop. 8 (revoking the right of gay couples to marry) are treading lightly in their efforts to persuade swing voters.
An AP writer says Sarah Palin's charge that Obama "pals around" with terrorists has a racial subtext. John Cole doesn't see it. I'm inclined to agree with Cole, but I think it raises some interesting questions I'll probably raise in a post later today.
A transgender woman won a suit filed against her by former political opponents who said she "misled" voters by running for office as a female.
The New York Times demands the obvious -- having your home foreclosed upon should not deprive you of the right to vote. I wrote about this twisted tactic adopted by some local GOP bodies earlier here.
The Washington Supreme Court holds that employers can't retaliate against employees victimized by domestic abuse who take time off to protect themselves and their children. The Court was bitterly divided; you can access the four opinions handed down here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
