HSG's blog

How to Reduce Racial Animus 101

HSG — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 01:37:28 +0000

The good parents in central New Jersey's West Windsor - Plainsboro Regional School District are embroiled in a conflict over best educational practices that has broken down along racial lines.

On one side is Superintendent David Aderhold and the minority white community which favors relaxing homework requirements, ending high school final exams, and even easing up on the perfectionist ethos in the system's elite music program. On the other side are Asian-Americans who comprise a majority of the parents in the school system.

They feel their value system which extols hard-work and achievement is being rejected. At a recent school board meeting, a first-generation Chinese mother claimed that lower school standards will "hold her and her children back."

The evidence does suggest that the district is unusually competitive and many kids are feeling the strain. But, to the perplexity of the superintendent and many other whites, the Asian-American parents aren't budging on their insistence that the school district continue to push kids to the limit. Author Jennifer Lee explains:

[W]hite middle-class parents do not always understand . . . how much pressure recent immigrants feel to boost their children into the middle class. 'They don’t have the same chances to get their children internships or jobs at law firms. . . So what they believe is that their children must excel beyond their white peers in academic settings so they have the same chances to excel later.'

Obviously this is a battle without villains. Both sides are doing what they believe is best for their kids. My initial reaction is sympathy for overworked tweens and teens and an inclination to support proposals to alleviate their burdens. Still my sons attend a very competitive public high school in a district that isn't so dissimilar from the one in the article. Yet neither they nor their friends appear to be overly stressed from excessive demands. Perhaps, the pressure on the high school students in West Windsor - Plainsboro isn't as great as some are making it out to be.

In any case, the best solution is government programs to reduce wealth disparities and poverty. As Jennifer Lee suggests, the pressure to perform stems from Asian parents' overwhelming desire to see their children solidly ensconced in middle-class comfort. In our winner-take-all economy, parents understandably fear that anything less than extraordinary scholastic performance may lead to life-long economic struggles. In 2011, 15% of Americans were impoverished with more than 1 in 9 Asians facing economic privation. The Wall Street Journal's Marketwatch reported three days ago that "most Americans have less than $1,000 in savings."

So the price in lifestyle and comfort that many Americans may pay for not achieving academically is a very steep one indeed. Moreover, even among those who attend a top college or university and go on to graduate school, the winnowing process is unusually harsh in America today with the super rich far outdistancing the merely rich. In this environment, it is perfectly understandable that some working and middle-class parents put extraordinary demands on their children and expect the school system to do the same.

What's the answer? Flattening out wealth distribution comes immediately to mind. Reinstituting top marginal tax rates in the 70% or higher range; tightening up the safety net so nobody is homeless, hungry, or without health care; bringing good jobs back to America via wise trade policy; and imposing a living wage on employers are obvious remedies to the racial animus in central New Jersey.

Doesn't it seem likely that with these remedies in place, the benefits of finishing first in one's class, graduating from Harvard or Stanford Phi Beta Kappa, and taking a job at Goldman Sachs or Google won't seem that much better than more prosaic alternatives? And, when this becomes the case parents will reduce the pressure on their kids to be spelling champion, first violin, a top mathlete, and ultimately valedictorian all wrapped up in one.

Topics:

Politics

The Gender Gap among Democratic Voters

HSG — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:53:48 +0000

The idea has taken hold in some circles that a fair number of Bernie Sanders supporters are sexist. Fellow Dagblogger PeraclesPlease describes "leftist misogyny" as "waiting for the right woman [not Hillary]".

At Salon, the reliably misandrist Amanda Marcotte identifies a "Bernie bro phenomenon" consisting "of young men whose enthusiasm for socialism is goosed by an unacknowledged sexism". Slate's more credible Michelle Goldberg contends many male Bernie backers "certainly don’t care about female leadership."

If you are now expecting a critique of these claims and their espousers for using them to avoid a discussion of the real and important policy differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, prepare to be disappointed. Within every age group, Clinton appeals to a higher percentage of women than Sanders even though Clinton's more conservative record should be more appealing to the more conservative sex. Plausibly, moderate to conservative Democratic men prefer Sanders because he's a man.

In fact, I frequently question why I feel only contempt for the centrist Hillary Clinton. Most of the time, I attribute it to our very different positions on any number of issues as well as her questionable character, dubious ethics, and history of dishonesty. But to be fair, her husband shares ~~many of~~ these unpleasant traits. Likewise, Barack Obama has betrayed his mandate and nation by pursuing damaging corporatist and militarist policies.

Yet I harbor affection for (as well as antipathy towards) both recent Democratic Presidents with whom I would love play a pickup basketball game and then share a beer. Such feelings are consistent with a sexist attitude. Accordingly, I do not reject out-of-hand the Peracles-Marcotte-Goldberg sexism thesis. On the other hand, I have no interest in hanging out with Bernie Sanders and am confident I would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat.

So ladies, you may well be right when you claim some sons of Sanders are just "he-man women-haters" at heart. My response is so what. What good does it do to hang a scarlet S around our necks?

You want us to support Clinton enthusiastically in the general election if she wins the Democratic nomination right? Presumably, you'd like to peel some of us away from Sanders over the next few months to make her expected victory in the Democratic primaries even more decisive than it seems likely to be. This would allow her to conserve resources for the bigger fight ahead.

As the old saying goes, you're more likely to catch flies with honey than vinegar. So take us Bernie bros (and sisses - more women under 30 prefer Bernie) at our word. Believe or at least pretend you believe we are sincere when we tell you Hillary scares us.

Patiently explain to us cavemen that she's not likely to embroil America in another destructive Middle East war despite her history and recent bellicose rhetoric. Convince us that we can trust her when she says that she's against the Trans Pacific Partnership notwithstanding her previous support and votes in favor of past free trade deals. Persuade us that her opposition to a new Glass-Steagall Act and a $15 national minimum wage doesn't signify the ascendancy of Wall Street over Main Street in her political calculations.

When you play the gender card, provide concrete evidence that Hillary's womanhood will result in women-friendly policies despite her close relationship with the government of Singapore which is a destination country for traffickers of girls and women. Assuage our concerns that she's Rupert Murdoch's favorite Democrat. After all, at the last debate, she relied on a debunked Wall Street Journal to claim Bernie's healthcare and college education plans will cost Americans $18-20 billion rather than save billions.

Finally ladies, if you really are concerned about electing the best candidate and making America a better place for our children and their children, take us seriously. As men, we may incorrectly believe we deserve the last word. But indulge us XY Democrats anyway - not with the last word of course but with a seat at the table. It's just barely possible, isn't it, that despite our chauvinism we may have doped this race out pretty well.

Topics:

Politics

Miss Universe no Misses Universes

HSG — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:18:41 +0000

In case you missed it, the wrong woman was crowned Miss Universe last night. With the choice narrowed down to Miss Colombia and Miss Philippines, the always affable comedian Steve Harvey mistakenly announced Colombia had won. As is customary at these events, lovely Ariadna Gutierrez burst into tears while last year's champion Paulina Vega - also from Colombia - coronated her.

Harvey quietly exited the stage as the statuesque senorita, who closely resembles a younger less curvaceous Sophia Vergara, blew kisses to the audience and the other contestants. A few moments later though the follically challenged host returned sheepishly to announce he had misread the cue cards. In fact, Gutierrez was only first runner-up.

On cue, Miss USA who was standing next to Miss Philippines smiled and hugged the real winner Pia Alonzo Wurtzbach and escorted her to the front of the stage where she and Gutierrez stood awkwardly side-by-side for a moment. The most dramatic moment then occurred when Vega removed the tiara from the understandably devastated Ariadna to place it on Pia's head.

As mortifyingly wonderful television, the pageant's culmination was unbeatable. But it left me unsatisfied. Not being a beauty contest aficionado, I saw none of the event live. I only tuned in after the fact to observe the train wreck via youtube. Accordingly, I have no opinion as to whether La Philippines was truly more deserving.

What I can say is that both ladies are stunning and looked fantastic in the gowns they were wearing when each was champion seriatim. Gutierrez showed great class after the event in an interview with Fox saying she was happy finishing second. Nevertheless, in light of the cruelty of losing one's realm within minutes of what appeared to be an orderly ascension to the throne, a much better solution would have been a joint reign.

The ladies could serve ably as co-queens. The universe is unfathomably large. There's more than enough for the two beauties to share.

Topics:

Arts & Entertainment

What the CWA and DFA Endorsements Mean

HSG — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 03:30:05 +0000

Bernie Sanders' Presidential bid received two significant boosts today. First, the 700,000 member Communications Workers of America (CWA) endorsed Sanders. Then, Howard Dean's Democracy for America (DFA) bucked its founder's call for members to support Clinton and instead overwhelmingly opted to back Dean's fellow Vermonter. Here are five takeaways:

1) When the rank and file decides, unions choose Sanders. CWA's decision “followed a 3-month democratic process, including hundreds of worksite meetings and an online vote by tens of thousands of CWA members on which candidate to endorse.” In August, the National Nurses United endorsed Sanders in part because of “overwhelming support for [him] in an internal poll.”

By contrast, the Executive Board of the National Education Association backed Clinton without asking its members whom they prefer and in defiance of some state affiliates. Likewise the Executive Council of the American Federation of Teachers, led by a long-time Clinton ally, announced support for Clinton without even polling its members. Similarly, in July, the Board of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers endorsed Clinton after an election in which only 1,700 of over 600,000 machinists participated.

2) Clinton has made no headway with activist Democratic progressives. To win DFA's endorsement Sanders needed to garner 2/3 of the 272,000 votes cast. He actually received 88%. The front runner followed with a mere 10% and Martin O'Malley got 1%. Clinton supporters are already claiming that Bernie's techbros gamed the system in his favor since anybody could participate. The problem for them is that, as DFA President Charles Chamberlain noted in his announcement of the endorsement, “77.8% of voters who were already members of DFA prior to the poll being launched on December 7” voted for Sanders.

Even Dean's endorsement, which was included in an email to DFA members when voting began and was accompanied by Clinton's plea for support, had virtually no impact.

3) Clinton (still) doesn't get technology. Many blamed a) her failure to maintain government-related emails on federal servers on a penchant for secrecy and b) her refusal to admit error on arrogance. Another possibility is that she is a complete technophobe who never really understood what a server is or the different ways and places that emails can be stored. In light of her extraordinarily poor showing in the DFA poll, the latter explanation gains credence. With support from millions of people around the nation, an “unparalleled network of experienced advisors,” and sharp-elbowed political operatives on her payroll, it beggars belief that she could not have cajoled a few hundred thousand people to spare the minute or so it took to vote.

4) There's a world of difference between the two leading Democratic candidates. Despite one pundit's claim that Clinton is more progressive, a supporter's insistence that “she is more than his equal,” and Clinton's coded implications that Sanders is sexist and racist, Democratic activists are having none of it. While liberals generally like the idea of electing the first woman President after the first African-American one, progressive activists prefer Sanders by a margin of nearly 9 to 1. This reflects both a) the vast gulf in policy, votes, and rhetoric between the two on issues that matter most to liberals - rampant militarism and corporatism, economic injustice, and incipient ecological collapse and b) an inherent mistrust of Clinton based on her dishonesty, her close ties to Wall Street not labor, and her history of embracing progressive causes tardily and unenthusiastically.

5) Sanders would be the strongest Democratic candidate in the general election. In recent polls matching Clinton and Sanders against various Republican challengers, the Vermonter tends to do slightly better. When one factors in the remarkable advantage he has in terms of motivated excited supporters, Clinton's technology difficulties, and her unmatched ability to antagonize Americans across the political spectrum there is no question but that he'd be the tougher out for the Republican nominee.

Topics:

Politics

The problem with Hillary Clinton's anecdotes

HSG — Thu, 03 Dec 2015 22:50:15 +0000

As is her wont, Hillary Clinton is telling tales on the campaign trail. Eight years ago, she cited her landing in Sarajevo during the Balkans war under sniper fire and having "to run with our heads down" from the plane as evidence that she had more foreign policy experience than then-Senator Barack Obama. Pointing to video of Clinton's arrival in Bosnia that showed her walking calmly on the tarmac with daughter Chelsea at her side, an Obama spokesman claimed that Clinton was exaggerating her role in foreign affairs. In reply, Clinton exaggerated "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement".

While Clinton has left the Bosnia whopper behind - perhaps on a Sarajevo landing strip - she has been telling apocryphal stories in this election cycle as well. Two describe rejections from government agencies because of her sex. One hoary yarn dates back well over 50 years while the other allegedly transpired a mere four decades ago circa 1974-75. In the early 1960s, the first story goes, a 12-14 year old Hillary Clinton, like so many other tweens and teens, besotted by the space program, inquired of NASA whether there might be any openings for her.

As Clinton related as early as 1992, the space agency's response was blunt and brutal. "[W]e are not accepting girls as astronauts." This past July, Clinton told an audience in New Hampshire this July how NASA circa 1961 curtly rejected her with a "Thank you very much, but were [sic] not taking girls."

Hillary Clinton's other formative brush with sexism occurred in the mid-70s. In 1994, Maureen Dowd, then a reporter at the New York Times, wrote about a speech the first lady gave to a group honoring woman in the military. Just after moving to Arkansas in 1975, Hillary told the group, she offered her services to the United States Marine Corps. The Marines though didn't want them. "You're too old, you can't see and you're a woman. Maybe the dogs [the Army] would take you."

Clinton is telling almost the exact same story right down to the dogs this year. On November 10, Hillary described to a New Hampshire audience how she approached a marine recruiter about signing up.

He looks at me and goes, ‘Um, how old are you. And I said, ‘Well I am 26, I will be 27.’ And he goes, ‘Well, that is kind of old for us.’ And then he says to me, and this is what gets me, ‘Maybe the dogs will take you,’ meaning the Army.

In 2008, Bill Clinton said Hillary actually had tried to join the Army, aka the "dogs" (not the Marines), but was rejected because of bad eyesight.

Are either of these stories factual? Maybe. Both seem awfully pat and well-formed. Moreover, Hillary's dishonesty when describing her landing in Sarajevo and her wrong-headed insistence that her private email set up at the State Department complied with all pertinent regulations make it tough to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Still Hillary's chestnuts could be true. NASA didn't start considering women as potential astronauts until the mid-60s or even later. A recently-surfaced letter dated February 26, 1962, to a female college student who expressed interest in becoming the first woman in space noted "we have no existing program concerning woman astronauts nor do we contemplate any such plan."

Hillary's claim that she considered a career in the marines seems far-fetched. For years, she had been active in the anti-war movement. By the summer of 74, she was a budding political star. She moved to Arkansas to be with Bill and she was teaching law at the University of Arkansas. Is it plausible that pro-peace Hillary would have considered putting her relationship and her legal career on hold for the US Marine Corps?

Military veterans from the mid-70s say Hillary, with an Ivy league law degree, would have been welcomed with open arms into the JAG Corps regardless of gender and the coke bottle glasses she sported at the time. Still a recruiter may have brushed her away if he thought she intended to enlist rather than join as a well-qualified officer with an advanced degree.

Dubious, apocryphal, but possibly accurate, the problem with Hillary's tales isn't their sketchiness, it's their content. They describe an America that no longer exists. There have been a number of women astronauts since Hillary's space dreams were or weren't dashed. Women have served in the marines since 1918 and are now being considered for every aspect of military service. Simply put, the conflict that defines America today isn't between the sexes. It's ultimately not even between races. It's between those favoring the economic interests of the 1% and everybody else.

But what about the gender pay gap. A study just came out saying it's real although it's narrowing. Here's what the authors told Salon.

The wage gap still persists. It is better, but it is still a problem. But we were also looking at the general wage trends, and when you look at that, you find that the wage gap has narrowed mostly because women are becoming equal, but also because men’s wages have fallen. Men’s wages in 2014 were lower that they were in 1979 [if you adjust for inflation]. Low- and moderate-wage men have been losing economic ground. And we predict that 40 percent of the closing of the gender age gap is due to men’s wages becoming lower — which is obviously not the right way to close the gender wage gap.

Other quotes.

The decline of collective bargaining has led to the rise of inequality in this country and is one of the reasons we’ve seen this disconnect between pay and productivity. Women in unions make more than women that are not in unions. The gender pay gap is smaller in unionized workplaces. That is true for women of color, as well. Thinking of unions and how they affect women is important in thinking about increasing the bargaining power of women workers.

Regarding minimum wage, most of the workers who would be affected are women. The average minimum wage worker is a woman in her 30s who likely has children. People don’t think about the tipped minimum wage, and how we need to eliminate that; women are disproportionately more likely to populate low-wage tip occupations, and are more likely to be servers and waiters.

In other words the etiology of women's relatively low pay is exactly the same as the low pay of the increasing numbers of poor and working class men - weak and declining unions and a low minimum wage that doesn't cover all jobs.

Today the U.S. is a land with a few haves and many have nots. While women, African-Americans, and Latinos are less likely than white men to be haves, a growing number of folks in every demographic (except the rich of course) are barely getting by. In terms of mental health, the white working class has been especially hard hit in our winner-take-all economy with death rates skyrocketing among this group.

Far too many American women and (men) are worried about a "sticky floor". The so-called glass ceiling is almost unimaginably distant. In this environment, Hillary's decades-old tales of putative difficulties won't reverberate far beyond their intended audience - highly educated women who overcame once imposing barriers.

Worse though than their limited resonance, Hillary's dusty recollections may alienate those white working-class voters who have abandoned the Democratic party in droves and whose support progressives need if they wish to regain legislative power across the nation. As noted above, this demographic has suffered psychically worse than any other over the past thirty years. For them, the early 60s - when NASA rejected young Hillary Rodham - was a golden era. Even in 1974-75, when a plain-talking recruiter rendered still-born her nascent military career, their wages and influence were much greater than today.

With the eager help of right-wing media and high voltage preachers, working-class whites are apt to conflate the barriers that Hillary couldn't hurdle with their much better fortunes four decades ago or more. In other words, this line of thinking goes, when girls and women knew their place, hard-working salt of the earth Americans like us made good middle-class wages, owned our own homes, and sent our kids to the state college. Now with the government making women astronauts and Army rangers, we're living in trailer parks and lucky to get $10 an hour at Walmart.

The truth of course is that the mostly abandoned progressive economic policies FDR initiated in the 1930s and 40s led directly to the broad-based prosperity of the 50s and 60s and ultimately to the successes of the civil rights, women's, and environmental movements among others.

If Hillary Clinton is committed to protecting women's rights and improving their economic lot, she should remind affluent progressive voters that we enacted civil rights laws and reversed policies enshrining sexist attitudes when the middle-class was thriving and the working-class was secure. She should also explain directly and convincingly to those tens of millions who have been left behind how, if she becomes President, she would pursue the economic policies that brought them economic security. In other words, she must forthrightly promise to fight for a resurgent union movement, a living wage for all employees, to raise top marginal tax rates, and to reverse free trade policies. These, not unsubstantiated disingenuous self-aggrandizing tales, can make America truly great for all of us.

Topics:

Politics

Rahm Emanuel is gettting away with Murder

HSG — Sun, 29 Nov 2015 20:35:51 +0000

Chicago's Rahm Emanuel has about as ugly record as a Mayor can have when it comes to protecting the public - especially African Americans - from police brutality. An ongoing series by the Guardian this year revealed that since Emanuel took office in 2011, the Chicago Police Department (CPD) has detained over 2500 people – nearly all of whom are black - at a secretive facility known as Homan Square. Locals liken it to a CIA “black site” where arrestees are routinely held for hours or longer and subject to physical abuse.

In response to reports by 1) four black men of “prolonged shackling and off the books interrogation,” 2) attorneys who say they were unconstitutionally denied access to clients, and 3) white protesters that they were shackled for 17 hours at Homan Square, Emanuel told the Guardian “we follow all the rules”.

In July 2014, Emanuel declined to follow the recommendation of the Chicago Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA) to strip Commander Glenn Evans of his authority. IPRA had investigated a complaint that Evans jammed his handgun down a black suspect's throat and held a taser against his crotch while threatening to kill him. Notwithstanding a DNA test finding the Ricky Lee Williams' saliva on the muzzle of Evans' weapon, Emanuel left him in command. Evans was only discharged after he was charged with assault stemming from the Williams arrest.

In October, Emanuel attributed the recent uptick in Chicago's crime rate to tentative police who fear they will be videotaped by cell phone wielding citizens when they arrest suspects. To protect themselves, from unfair charges of police brutality, many officers are becoming “fetal” the Mayor said. The Mayor did not explain how the cops at Homan Square and Commander Evans managed to torture and batter citizens while “fetal”.

Chicago is now being roiled by protests stemming from the release of a police videotape of the execution-style killing of 17 year old Laquan McDonald in October 2014 by white Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke. The video shows that McDonald was walking away from the cop whose first rounds struck the teen in the back spinning him to the ground where he collapsed into a fetal – there's that word again - position facing the killer cop who emptied his 16-bullet clip into McDonald's prone motionless body. Within days the officer was taken off the streets and given a desk job.

In the wake of the killing, Emanuel did everything he could to prevent the video's release. This included 1) requesting approval of a $5 million settlement with McDonald's family in April 2015 – just a few days after Emanuel won re-election in a run-off against a progressive challenger tapped by the Chicago Teachers Association – even though several officers on the scene described the shooting as legitimate self-defense, 2) denying 15 FOIA requests for the video, 3) fighting in court a lawsuit brought by a journalist demanding the video's release.

In light of this history, one might expect the President and the leading Democratic Presidential candidates to distance themselves from Emanuel if not to follow the lead of Roots Action and demand the Democratic Mayor's resignation. One would be wrong.

President Obama and Hillary Clinton released anodyne statements on social media expressing dismay at the McDonald slaying but studiously avoiding mentioning Emanuel. Both singled out the police for praise. On facebook, Obama asked Americans to be “thankful for the overwhelming majority of men and women in uniform who protect our communities with honor.” For her part Clinton decried on twitter the “loss of so many young African Americans taken too soon” but like Obama reminded us that “[a]ll over America, there are police officers honorably doing their duty”.

Obama's and Clinton's refusal to chastise Emanuel, even in the mildest terms, is understandable. Obama endorsed Emanuel, who was his first White House Chief of Staff, against a much more progressive challenger earlier this year. In 2011, Bill Clinton campaigned for Emanuel. Hillary has praised Emanuel as the “glue” who held Bill Clinton's cabinet together. Suggesting Emanuel did less than he should have would be akin to admitting they badly misjudged a man they have empowered and relied upon heavily.

Still, their broad-based encomiums for the police set a standard in tone-deafness given that many police are complicit in McDonald's death and protecting Van Dyke after the fact:

1) Five officers watched Van Dyke gun down McDonald and said nothing.

2) The manager of the Burger King near where McDonald was slain claims a CPD detective and technician seized surveillance footage from the restaurant and returned the records with the video from the time of the shooting missing.

3) Prior to killing McDonald, Van Dyke had never apparently been subject to disciplinary action, despite A) the fact that CPD had received 20 citizens complaints against him including several claims of brutality and that he used the n-word and B) a payout by the city of over $500,000 after a jury finding that Van Dyke employed excessive force when arresting a suspect for a traffic violation.

4) Van Dyke was not fired until it became clear that CPD and the Mayor's Office could not prevent the video's release.

Less understandable than Clinton's and Obama's inadequate response to Emanuel's neck-deep involvement in the latest Chicago police outrage, are Bernie Sanders' tepid comments.

All Americans should be sickened by the video of Laquan McDonald’s murder. As a nation we must do more than just echo the phrase Black Lives Matter. We must put actions behind those words. Actions that will bring about the fundamental reform that is needed in the face of this crisis. Criminal justice reform must be the civil rights issue of the 21st century and the first piece must be putting an end to the killing of African Americans by police officers.

At least he didn't praise the police. But with no connections to Emanuel, whose impeccable DLC credentials make him anathema to the progressives who support Sanders, the Vermont Senator missed a golden opportunity to call directly for a full-scale Justice Department investigation into the unconstitutional practices of CPD and Emanuel's involvement in covering them up. Perhaps, Sanders feared that taking too confrontational approach might hurt him with the white working-class voters he is trying to woo. If this is the case, it is most regrettable.

Regardless of the reasons, top Democrats are wrong to give Emanuel a pass. Doing so flies in the face of their claims to support the “Black Lives Matter” movement. Nothing would reform bad police departments like the indictment, or failing that, the forced resignation of a high-profile Mayor and Police Superintendent because they protected killer cops.

City and county executives, police chiefs, sheriffs, and other top police officials will be loath to cover up brutal cops if doing so is likely to lead to the end of their political careers and possibly jail time. With the recognition that their political livelihood depends on overseeing clean forces, bad apples will quickly be removed to prevent their taint rubbing off and police killings are likely to be fewer and farther between.

Moreover, Democrats lose the moral high ground when they fail to call out their own. Progressives rightly in my view see themselves as morally superior to right-wing Republican knuckle-draggers. But how superior can we be if our party's leaders support a powerful Mayor who repeatedly ignores well-documented examples of police brutality thereby enabling the abusers.

Finally, when Democratic leaders back an unrepentant Rahm Emanuel, they greatly weaken their (and our) ability to rally Americans to support them and the obvious liberal solutions to our most serious problems.

Topics:

Politics

University Unrest - It's Complicated

HSG — Wed, 18 Nov 2015 19:04:46 +0000

I'm a hard-core liberal progressive definitely. Or perhaps I'm a progressive liberal. Anyway, I'm one or the other unless I'm both. Conservative ideology in my view is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Back in the last century, my somewhat more moderate - but still definitely liberal - father and my teenage self debated this. When the argument heated up, he would put his hand on my shoulder and say “my son, surtout pas trop de zèle.” Okay, maybe he didn't always say “surtout pas trop de zèle” but I'm pretty sure he did at least one time. And if he didn't he should have.

By this dad meant don't be overly zealous. Issues are complicated. Don't be too certain you know the truth or that there even is a truth.

The expression is attributed to the French statesman Talleyrand who on the eve of the French Revolution reportedly cautioned his staff not to act emotionally when choosing among various military and diplomatic responses. A count's son and one of the most powerful men in the monarchy before the Revolution, during the Terror Talleyrand managed to keep his head and increase his power and influence while nobles all around were losing theirs.

More recently philosopher Isaiah Berlin described how Talleyrand's dictum came to mind when he watched a man with blood streaming down his face flee a mob during the Russian Revolution. Berlin explained that legitimate outrage at the Tsar may have animated the Bolsheviks early on. But their zealotry to cleanse Russia of his oppressive legacy and insistence that any dissent was treason ultimately led to equally bad or perhaps even worse repression.

Generally, I pooh poohed my Democratic dad's cautious incrementalism. No zeal, really? I'm not supposed to be outraged at poverty, racism, American imperialism, the war on drugs, circumcision. No compromises I'd thunder.

Mostly, I still feel that way. But reading about events at America's temples of higher education over the past few weeks reminds me of my dad's wisdom - not to mention Talleyrand's and Berlin's.

Unsurprisingly, our colleges and universities mirror the seething caldron that is America today. Race, class, and generational tensions are leading to highly publicized conflicts and causing deep divisions on campuses. Debates over what forms of expression should be protected and whether offensive speech should be punished are leading to demands to defund publications and causing administrators and student government leaders to resign.

At the University of Missouri a coalition of African-Americans students, graduate student instructors, reproductive rights activists, and the Mizzou football team succeeded in forcing the school's President to resign. The concerns of this disparate group included the administration's failure to investigate several incidents involving racism against black students, cutbacks in the provision of health care to graduate students and instructors, and a doctor's loss of clinical privileges in the University of Missouri Healthcare system because he was performing legal abortions at an off-campus clinic. In a much-discussed incident, activists led by a professor physically evicted an ESPN student reporter from a campus field when he tried to interview protesters.

Roiling racial controversies at Yale have led to demands for the dismissal of the “Master” of Silliman College Nicholas Christakis and his wife “Assistant Master” Erika Christakis. Erika Christakis drew the ire of Sillimanders of color when she questioned the wisdom of an administrative request that students respect the sensibilities of fellow students when selecting Halloween attire. The students argued vociferously that Erika was insensitive to the pain caused when whites wear blackface or dress as stereotypical Latinos.

At Claremont McKenna College, the Dean of Students and the President of the Junior Class resigned after admitting they demonstrated insensitivity to various minorities on campus. The Dean's mistake was sending out an email asking for feedback on how to best help students who don't “fit the “CMC mold”. Students of color took this to mean the dean didn't view them as normative students. Their protests led her to step down. After a Halloween photo was posted on facebook of the Junior Class President with two students wearing stereotypical Mexican bandito costumes complete with handlebar moustaches, sombreros, and ponchos, she too resigned.

For running an op-ed that criticized aspects of the Black Lives Matter movement, the Wesleyan Argus received scathing criticism and is now facing severe budget cuts. At Dartmouth just a few days ago, during the campus blackout in solidarity with Mizzou, protesters marched through the library shouting “black lives matter” in students' faces and according to at least one report yelled “fuck your white tears” to a woman who began to cry.

These controversies are alike in certain obvious ways. They all involve disputes over the meaning and legitimacy of various expressions on campuses. Regardless of the school, the students demanding change have been mostly uncompromising but the justness of each cause varies as do the responses of administrators. Nevertheless, there is one common factor. Various commentators from both left and right insist on filtering complex dynamics into simplistic narratives that suit their political predilections.

For conservative pundits and self-appointed free speech advocates, Mizzou, Yale, Wesleyan, and Claremont McKenna are object lessons in the follies of liberal education. Writing before the Dartmouth protest became news, George Will mocked Yale President Peter Salovey for meeting with upset Yalies and “hearing the[ir] cries of help”. Will doesn't deny that some kids may find stereotypical costumes hurtful and could lead to a hostile campus environment. But he is indifferent, if not downright hostile, to these concerns.

Jonathan Chait argues in New York Magazine that the Yalies calling for the Cristakises to be dismissed, the Wesleyan Argus defunders, and the Mizzou professor's heeded call for “muscle” symbolize a totalitarian movement, that brooks no dissent, with antecedents in 20th century Marxist governments. Like Will, Chait is unmoved by the causes of the students whose actions he decries.

Will and Chait refuse to accord even a patina of legitimacy to the student protesters. But they do have defenders in the media. Elias Isquith at Salon says the students are “mad for a reason. . . Too many well-meaning people . . . aren't listening.” In the New Republic, Roxane Gay writes:

In the protests at Mizzou and Yale and elsewhere, students have made it clear that the status quo is unbearable. Whether we agree with these student protesters or not, we should be listening: They are articulating a vision for a better future, one that cannot be reached with complacency.

I'm with Isquith and Gay to a point. We absolutely should listen to the students. I think they had the better arguments at Mizzou and Yale. But we must also demand civility and properly directed outrage, rather than profanity and the shotgun approach that some at Dartmouth employed when they verbally assaulted fellow students in the library.

Regarding the calls to defund the Argus, the Wesleyan students are wrong to expect newspapers - especially their op-ed pages - to be “safe” places. By publishing a reasoned critique of the Black Lives Movement, the Argus was challenging its readers - exactly what it is supposed to do. Likewise, it would have been nice to see the students of color at Claremont McKenna accept what appear to be genuinely sincere apologies from the Dean and the Junior Class President rather than to continue to press for their resignations.

Of all the players in these campus dramas, and in light of Talleyrand's call for reason not passion in times of crisis, Yale President Peter Salovey and Wesleyan President Michael Roth have responded best to the upheavals. The Yale Daily News published Tuesday (November 17) Salovey's response to the Yale protesters. In “Toward a Better Yale”, Salovey announces a number of measures to improve the experience for Elis of all colors.

These include better funding for campus centers, reduced work requirements for students receiving tuition breaks, and the creation of a permanent university center for race, ethnicity, and social identity studies. Salovey deserves kudos for focusing on legitimate concerns of the protesting students rather than trying to shame them for alleged immaturity and intolerance.

Roth penned a remarkably thoughtful and measured opinion piece for the October 25 Hartford Courant. In it, he decried calls to punish the Argus but also noted:

While economic freedom and political participation are evaporating into the new normal of radical inequality, while legislators call for arming college students to make them safer, puffed-up pundits turn their negative attention to what they see as dangerous calls to make campuses safer places for students vulnerable to discrimination. But are these calls really where the biggest threat to free expression lies? I fear that those who seize upon this so-called danger will succeed in diverting attention from far more dangerous threats.

President Roth is echoing the advice of three great scholars - Talleyrand, Berlin, and my dad - “surtout pas trop de zèle.”

Topics:

Politics

Oops, She Did it Again

HSG — Fri, 06 Nov 2015 02:24:38 +0000

Hillary Clinton's kindler gentler Presidential campaign grinds on. It's been a few weeks since the first (and so far only) Democratic debate where she enjoyed her finest hour in this election cycle thanks in no small measure to Bernie Sanders. She has returned the favor by shamelessly and dishonestly playing gender and race cards against him.

Nine days after the October 13 debate, Clinton told the Democratic National Women's Committee Forum "I’ve been told to stop, and I quote, ‘shouting’ about gun violence. Well, first of all, I’m not shouting. It’s just when women talk, some people think we’re shouting.” Clinton was referring directly to Bernie Sanders remark that “[a]ll the shouting in the world is not going to do what I would hope all of us want, and that is keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have those guns and end this horrible violence.”

Obviously, Sanders was not literally criticizing Clinton for "shouting". He used the term metaphorically to mean refusing to compromise on the issue. Those watching the debate or reading Sanders' words after the fact did not hear any sexism and no commentators remarked upon it. Moreover, Sanders has on many previous occasions described dogmatism on this issue as "shouting" or "screaming" or "yelling" or "raising our voices"

Within a few days, however, Clinton and her team, which includes "hitman" David Brock, seized upon the exchange and decided it could be used potently, albeit falsely, to portray Sanders as a chauvinist. With the help of reliable media allies Amanda Marcotte at Salon and Emily Crockett at Vox, Clinton succeeded in putting Sanders on the defensive even though he did nothing wrong.

Recognizing that calling Bernie - a feminist and reproductive rights hero - sexist might be viewed as overreaching, Marcotte and Crockett instead praised Clinton for triggering a conversation about how many men (not necessarily Bernie) perceive women as shouting just for speaking up - a conversation, needless to say, Sanders can't win. Clinton herself stopped just short of accusing the women's movement champion of misogyny. When asked in New Hampshire whether she would call Sanders sexist, she "shrugged, smiled, and sidestepped the question. 'I said what I had to say about it.”

This week, with the smoke from her sexist smear clearing, Clinton played the race card. Speaking to a South Carolina NAACP chapter, she said: “There are some who say that this [gun violence] is an urban problem. Sometimes what they mean by that is: It’s a black problem. But it’s not. It’s not black, it’s not urban. It’s a deep, profound challenge to who we are.”

Again Clinton profoundly and willfully misrepresented Sanders comments at the first debate. Defending his votes against the Brady Bill and permitting products liability lawsuits against gun makers and distributors, Sanders correctly noted his "rural" state constituents were pro-gun. There's simply no way to square that statement with Clinton's implication that Sanders dismisses gun violence as a black problem.

Notwithstanding his less than stellar voting history on guns, Sanders has a much better overall record on racial justice matters than Clinton. Black Lives Matter offshoot Campaign Zero recognized this in August by assigning him far better grades than Clinton. Since then, Sanders has only improved his standing among civil rights and criminal justice activists by calling for an end to the federal war on pot.

Of course Clinton knows all this just as she knows full well that Sanders is neither sexist nor racist. What makes her latest smears truly despicable is that in 2008 she used nearly identical language to that for which she now attacks Sanders.

In her first campaign for President, then Senator Clinton called for a respectful back and forth on proposed gun control laws.

I respect the 2nd Amendment. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns. But I also believe that most lawful gun owners whom I have spoken with for many years across our country also want to be sure that we keep those guns out of the wrong hands. And as president, I will work to try to bridge this divide, which I think has been polarizing and, frankly, doesn’t reflect the common sense of the American people.”

Before the Nevada caucus, Hillary Clinton explained her recently announced opposition to a national gun registry, which she had previously supported, by saying “I don't want the federal government preempting states and cities like New York that have very specific problems."

Justifying different laws for urban and rural regions, she noted at a debate in Philadelphia,“we have one set of rules in NYC and a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in NYC is certainly not going to work in Montana."

Not so long ago, when she thought it served her political interests, Clinton called for a respectful dialogue with gun rights advocates. She opposed mandatory gun registration. She defended different approaches in rural and urban regions. Now, Bernie Sanders is sexist and racist for saying the same things.

Topics:

Politics

It's time to rethink this whole "men's" room/"women's room thing

HSG — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 00:42:27 +0000

An Illinois school district is in the news because it has been refusing to permit a transitioning female athlete use the girl's locker room. Instead, her high school has made available a private shower for her. She has sued claiming stigma and the Department of Education agrees that because she is psychologically a girl, she has the right to use the girl's room. If the school doesn't make available to her full access to the girl's room within 30 days or reach a mutually agreeable accommodation, the feds may withhold funding.

In light of this latest development in the ongoing battle of the bathrooms, I decided to cross-post the following article which I published at halginsberg.com in September.

---------------

From the Washington Post Magazine (Sep 6, 2015):

Reader: Two years ago, I wrote you about a transgender co-worker, “Barbara,” and her decision to use the ladies’ bathroom even though she is not undergoing surgical reassignment. Now I wonder if you could help us understand the next step.

Our government workplace provides an on-site gym. Barbara wants to use the gym like everybody else — and she has indicated that she will be using the women’s locker room.

I realize her transition has been difficult, but others are antagonistic toward what she’s doing. I understand that her gender identity is unrelated to whether she’s had medical or surgical intervention. But how does her identity trump our right not to see penises in the locker room? We are still not comfortable with her standing facing the toilet in the next stall.

If she were acting inappropriately, we could talk to HR. But she’s not; she simply intends to claim her place culturally as a woman. And yet, she’s not a woman physically.

Does our employer have any way to avoid this outcome? If not, many of us will cease working out, and that seems unfair.

Signed: Trying Here

Karla: With ever more transgender celebrities, colleagues and classmates seeking to claim their place, it’s a great time to revisit this issue.

In federal agencies, the same rules apply to locker rooms as to bathrooms: Barbara is entitled to use the facility that aligns with her identity. Your employer can provide private spaces to dress and shower, but it can’t confine Barbara to them. Barbara cannot legally be penalized for others’ discomfort with her existence.

In my view, contrary to Karla Miller's, the letter writer raises a legitimate concern. She doesn't want to see pre-op transgender female co-worker Barbara's male genitalia when they're changing in the women's workplace locker room. The writer might also not wish Barbara to see her undressed. On the other hand, Barbara self-identifies as a woman, despite being physiologically a man. Understandably she doesn't want to use the locker room designated for men since psychologically she's not one.

Is there a way out of this conundrum? I think so. Why don't we start assigning people to bathrooms and locker rooms based on their genitalia not their gender? The currently-identified "Men's Room" could be labeled "for those with Penises" or something similar while the currently identified "Women's Room" could also get a new moniker. How about "Vaginas only"?

If people are expected to use the room that corresponds with their anatomical state, then the users of each room won't have to worry about being confronted with anomalous genitalia. But pre-op transgendered women wouldn't feel as though they were misidentifying themselves when using "for Penises" since they do indeed have one. Likewise, pre-op transgendered men wouldn't be denying their true selves when using "Vaginas only".

I realize that more and and more businesses and agencies are moving to gender-neutral stalls which is the best solution when possible. But they are more space-intensive than genitalia or gender-based bathrooms which may contain urinals and rows of stalls. In addition, even large corporations, fitness centers, and government agencies may find it difficult or impossible to build a third locker room for their pools, gyms, and weight rooms.

Topics:

Potpourri

Art is Inherently Personal and Political

HSG — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:58:23 +0000

Helaine Smith is an English teacher at an elite K-12 girls school in New York City. The Wall Street Journal recently published her essay on teaching literature without letting "politics" or "personal identity" intrude. Here is my response to the Journal:

I share Brearley teacher Helaine Smith's disdain for "trigger warnings" and excessive deference to hypersensitive political sensibilities. Ultimately, however, I reject what I consider to be her constricted view of literature.

Smith writes that she teaches 6th graders Barbara Allen and several other Scottish ballads that "[are not] about politics or personal identity." But this claim is false. All great art is about personal identity and rare indeed is the classic, if one even exists, that doesn't touch on politics as well.

In one of the many versions of Barbara Allen, dying Willie dispatches his servant to notify Barbara Allen of his condition. At Willie's deathbed, Barbara Allen reminds him that the last time they were together he slighted her while paying respects to other ladies in a tavern. She is otherwise cold and unresponsive.

After Willie dies, Barbara Allen is very sad and she dies too - apparently from a broken heart. They are buried next to each other and the rose bush that springs from Willie's grave and the briar that sprouts atop Barbara Allen's grow entwined to the old church wall.

Notwithstanding Smith's claim, the theme of Barbara Allen is the importance of one's personal identity and how self-worth depends on recognition by others. Willie's failure to identify Barbara Allen and her subsequent refusal to respond to his entreaty prove fatal to both. By contrast, the briar and the bush thrive together.

Barbara Allen contains a political element that is directly connected to the importance of personal identity. There are three characters in Barbara Allen but only two count. Unlike the lovers, the servant is unnamed and has no personal identity or value independent of the master he serves. If that's not a politically fraught statement, what is?

Topics:

Arts & Entertainment