« November 2008 | Main | January 2009 »

December 30, 2008

Blago’s Choice: Parallels Converging...

Illinois Gov. Rod (“Pay To Play”) Blagojevich has defiantly named Barack Obama’s Senate replacement, former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris, both of them no doubt believing that Burris’s blackness will blunt opposition from Democrats and others who have recently developed ethical sensitivities regarding the practice of politics in Chicago.

He sounds like a winner.

Burris, standing at the governor’s side, said he’s eager to get to work in Washington “to face a convergence of parallel crises.”
Silly me. I always thought the essence of “parallel” items (lines, crises, whatever) was that they never converged.

December 27, 2008

Kwanzaa’s True Believers

Michael Eric Dyson speaks for and to Kwanzaa’s true believers, whether they identify with “pan-Africanist” or “Diasporic” values:

while the former voices common African values and a black homecoming, the latter speaks of lack, exile and migration — in short, a loss of home and what it means to black identity and the rituals that sustain it.
Presumably Kwanzaa has little, or at least less, to offer American blacks who do not yearn for “a black homecoming” and who feel not “a loss of home” but that America is their home.

If “Preferential Treatment” Is Bad...

As has been widely reported, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd received “preferential interest rates on two mortgages from Countrywide Financial Corp.” (HatTip to InstaPundit)

Dodd acknowledged that Countrywide placed him in a “VIP section,” but he denied he knew he was getting a special deal and said he was not friends with Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo.

Dodd said that he and his wife refinanced their homes like millions of Americans did at the time and got a “market rate,” and would have walked away from the deal had he believed he was getting preferential treatment from Countrywide, a leading subprime lender at the center of the mortgage meltdown.

Would someone please ask Sen. Dodd why he believes preferential treatment based on Senatorial status is more objectionable than preferential treatment based on race, which he actually supports.

December 23, 2008

Political Analysis, Washington Post Style

Chris Cillizza has been writing The Fix, a Washington Post political blog for several years. Back during the late and unlamented primaries he ran a series of “Case For/Case Against” articles on the various candidates, and he has decided that “now seems like the right time to dust off that oldie but goodie to make the argument for why Gov. David Paterson (D) should pick [Caroline] Kennedy” to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate. Today is “Case For,” and he will present the “Case Against” tomorrow.

Here are a couple of analytical nuggets from today’s “Case For”:

Universally Known

One of the unique challenges for whomever Paterson ultimately picks is that he/she will have to run statewide twice in the next four years -- in a 2010 special election for the remaining two years on Clinton’s term and then in 2012 for the full term.

With such a short calendar and such a big state, it is a major advantage to start as a known commodity to voters. No one fills that role better than Kennedy who, although she has spent very little time in public life, is universally known by voters due to her famous family.

So, big plus: Kennedy is “universally known.”

After discussing other Kennedy advantages — money, she’s a woman, money, she’s a Catholic, money, she’s a “new face” (I know, I know; that conflicts with “universally known,” but hold on), new generation, etc., Cillizza then writes:

Kennedy is uniquely able to do this [“to position herself as a natural heir to the ‘new politics’ that Obama ushered in during his victory”] because there is so little known about her issue positions or political ideology. She is the classic tabula rasa — onto which almost anything can be put. And, because of her lack of a record (or even a series of public pronouncements on controversial issues), it will be very hard for her opponents in either a primary or a general election to dispute the way in which she positions herself for election and possibly reelection.
I think I’ve got it now: Kennedy is a “known commodity,” is in fact “universally known,” and she is “uniquely able” to present herself as the embodiment of Obamaian “new politics” because “there is so little known about her issue positions or political ideology” that she is “the classic tabula rasa.”

Hmm. Now that I think about it, Kennedy does sound like the perfect Obamian candidate, and Cillizza’s reporting here continues the clear, perceptive analysis that we’ve come to expect from the mainstream media.

December 22, 2008

Affirmative Action As Quota-Based Race Norming

Affirmative action supporters generally insist that they do not support quotas and that affirmative action does not employ them. Nor, they nearly always assert, does it involve “Race norming” — putting applicants into racial pools where they compete only against others in their pool — which has been illegal since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

As quotes in some of the above linked posts demonstrate, however, it is often impossible for even thoughtful defenders of affirmative action to describe it without revealing that its programs frequently rely on either quotas or race norming, or both. For example, Douglas Laycock, a prominent law professor, first at Texas and more recently at Michigan, wrote that

Affirmative action has been a program to maximize the dual goals of diversity and academic excellence, by enabling selective programs to admit the very best students of each ethnicity.
In practice, admitting “the very best students of each ethnicity” involves admitting the highest scoring whites, the highest scoring blacks, the highest scoring Hispanics, etc., i.e., race norming.

Another example of the degree to which affirmative action programs in practice often depend upon both quotas and race- (or in this case, sex-) norming comes from Houston, where the city government recently agreed in settling a lawsuit to drop women from its affirmative action plan for contractors.

The program originally was set up to encourage contractors to give a set percentage of work under city contracts to businesses owned by minorities and women. It later was expanded to include people with disabilities and small businesses.

Prior to the agreement in U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes' court, the city wanted construction companies seeking contracts to give 14 percent of their work to subcontractors who were minority-owned. The city also has goals of 3 percent for women and 5 percent for small businesses.

The city will alter those percentages, which change slightly for specific types of projects, eliminating the category for women and increasing the goal for small business subcontractors to 8 percent.

Perhaps some affirmative action defender can explain to me why these “set percentage[s]” are not quotas.

Needless to say (but I’ll say it anyway), the lady contractors are not pleased.

“The women are out,” said Deborah Morris, president of the Women Contractors Association. “They’re telling us we can be included in the (small businesses), but so can everybody, minorities, white males. So, now, we have a much larger pool to compete with, in a male-dominated industry.”
And perhaps one of the displeased ladies, or other defender of treating women contractors preferentially, can explain to me why the privilege of only competing against other women contractors, instead of against all contractors, is not pure and unadulterated sex-norming.

Did Obama Hold A Black Senate Seat?

Did Barack Obama’s election to the Senate from Illinois mean that his seat thus became black, and must be occupied by a black from now on? Laura Washington, whose argument suggests that she occupies a black journalist’s seat at the Chicago Sun Times, thinks so.

Bye bye, black Senate seat!” she wrote last week.

The political blackbirds are singing a swan song for the hopes of keeping a U.S. Senate seat in African-American hands. The Rod Blagojevich implosion may have dealt that cause a fatal blow....

That possibility has provoked outrage among black community leaders and politicians. Not so fast, they are saying.

Last month, the Concerned Clergy of Illinois demanded that the governor appoint a “qualified” African American “who can fill this vacancy and who has the capacity to be re-elected when [Obama’s] term ends in 2010....”

.... [T]he concerned clergy, a cadre of several dozen prominent black ministers, are “appalled” by the fallout of the sensational federal investigation. They see it as a thinly veiled attempt by white pols to hijack the seat, says Stephanie Gadlin, the coalition’s spokeswoman.... There’s a massive conspiracy afoot, Gadlin says. “We see it for what it is. What we are really looking at is ‘The Luck of the Irish’ — two Madigans, Fitzgerald, Durbin, Cullerton, Claypool, Daley, and all the rest. They’re making a power play to regain the control of the politics, money and jobs in this state.”

Laura Washington and her friends “among black community leaders and politicians” oppose having Obama’s replacement selected by the people of Illinois in an election. Why? Because:
White voters don’t and won’t accept the idea that America and Illinois need — and deserve — a black senator. (When the Senate was all white, they never complained).

Black folks need The Big O to endorse the concept of keeping the seat. That’s not going to happen.

Keeping the seat”? I wonder if most “Black folks” believe that Obama’s Senate seat belongs to them and not to all the people of Illinois. If so, they’ve been very poorly led by their “black community leaders and politicians” and very poorly informed by journalists like Laura Washington ... and the newspapers that employ them.

December 21, 2008

Are Constitutions Unamendable?

Usually liberals believe that constitutions are easily amendable, and without going through such troublesome and difficult procedures as the U.S. Constitution’s Article V process. Many judges, to judge by their practices, believe they have the authority to “construe” certain rights right out of the text, or others (think “emanations and penumbra”) into it.

Now comes a novel legal theory of amendment (or lack thereof) from the former Governor Moonbeam of California, its current Attorney General and future gubernatorial candidate, Jerry Brown, who argues that the California constitution is unamendable by the people (at least by majorities of which he disapproves).

California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown asked the state Supreme Court on Friday to invalidate the voter-approved ban on gay marriage, declaring that “the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification.”
....
The California Constitution protects certain rights as “inalienable,” Brown wrote. Those include a right to liberty and to privacy, which the courts have said includes a person’s right to marry.

The issue before the court “presents a conflict between the constitutional power of the voters to amend the Constitution, on the one hand, and the Constitution’s Declaration of Rights, on the other,” Brown wrote.

The issue “is whether rights secured under the state Constitution’s safeguard of liberty as an ‘inalienable’ right may intentionally be withdrawn from a class of persons by an initiative amendment.”

Voters are allowed to amend other parts of the Constitution by majority vote, but to use the ballot box to take away an “inalienable” right would establish a “tyranny of the majority,” which the Constitution was designed, in part, to prevent, he wrote.

If only slaveholders (or, arguably, former slaveholders) had been as smart as Jerry Brown, they could have urged the Supreme Court to invalidate the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, on the Brownian ground that the Constitution as adopted protected property, including property in slaves, and that that right should not be sacrificed to the whims of a tyrannical majority.

December 19, 2008

Card Check, Early Virginia Style

One of the Democrats’ most controversial proposals (a writer in Forbes calls it “the most radical revision of labor law since 1935”) is to do away with the secret ballot in union elections, known as “card check.”

Since the debate over this proposal is likely to be heated, it is worth pointing out that the secret ballot is a more recent invention than is commonly recognized. In colonial Virginia, for example, most voting was done in public. Consider, for example, this passage from one of the best studies of pre-Revolutionary Virginia, Charles Sydnor’s American Revolutionaries in the Making: Political Practices in Washington's Virginia (Univ. Of North Carolina, 1952), p. 29, describing a particularly tense Congressional election in 1799 (found search of book on Amazon):

As each freeholder came before the sheriff, his name was called out in a loud voice, and the sheriff inquired how he would vote. The freeholder replied by giving the name of his preference. The appropriate clerk then wrote down the voter’s name, the sheriff announced it as enrolled, and often the candidate for whom he had voted arose, bowed, and publicly thanked him. When a voter came before the table in the contest for a seat in Congress between Johnn marshall and John Clopton in 1799, the sheriff asked: “Mr. Blair, who do you vote for?” “John Marshall,” said he; and thereupon the future Cheif Justice of the United States replied: “Your vote is appreciated, Mr. Blair.” As the next voter approached, the sheriff inquired: “Who do yhou vote for, Mr. Buchanan?” “For John Clopton,” he answered; and Clopton, at the other end of the table, responded: “Mr. Buchanan, I shall treasure that vote in my memory. It will be regarded as a feather in my cap for ever.”

When the going was close, as it was in this election, there were feverish efforts to bring in a few more voters who would poll on the “right” side. Marshall’s Federalist supporters with great effort persuaded the Episcopal clergyman and his good friend the Presbyterian minister to come to the election in the closing moments; but those two worthies mainatined the political neutrality of the cloth by voting, one for Marshall and the other for Clopton.

An even more colorful description of that same election (a source apparently used by Sydnor) appears in this Clopton family genealogical report:
Three Cheers for Clopton

Politics today, is at best, child’s play compared to elections of the past. In 1799 an election was held in Richmond which has been described as, “animated,” and the “most pugnacious election day Richmond had ever seen.” Of course, a Clopton was right in the middle of it. But first we must set the stage.

John Clopton was a staunch supporter of his kinsman, Thomas Jefferson. He was elected as a Republican to the United States Congress for the Richmond District, in 1795. By 1799, American commerce was suffering greatly because trade between both France and England had been virtually suspended thanks to the war raging between Napoleon and Great Britain. First Britain declared the ports of Europe, under the control of France, in a state of blockage, and authorized the capture of American vessels bound to those ports. The French countered by declaring Britain to be in a state of blockade, commerce suspended, and just for good measure, forbid the introduction of any English goods into Europe. The English retaliated by declaring the entire coast of Europe in a state of blockage, and prohibited all neutral countries from trading with the Continent. Not to be outdone, Napoleon issued his Milan Decree which confiscated not only the vessels belonging to neutral countries which dared to land at any English port, their captains must permit their ships to be searched.

This caused much excitement throughout the land, giving all the politicians an excuse to jump down each other’s throat. The coming election represented a huge struggle of the first American political machine to come into being. Thomas Jefferson, chieftain of those who today are known as Democrats, with John Clopton one of his leading lieutenants, was its master mind. George Washington, was determined to stop this from happening.

A reluctant John Marshall, a member of the Federalist Party and former Minister to France, was browbeaten for four days by George Washington into running against John Clopton for the 6th Congress in 1799. The campaign, characterized as “one of the most acrimonious,” generated heated debates in gazettes, pamphlets, and private letters intended to be passed from hand to hand. Every tavern and social event was dominated with talk of the Clopton-Marshall campaign. Marshall was never too hopeful he would win. He wrote to his brother, James Markham Marshall that the fate of his election was extremely uncertain.

There were no precinct elections at that time. All eligible voters within a county assembled at the court house, and the crowds were often large.

Late in April the election was held. A witness of that event in Richmond tells of the incidents of the voting which were stirring even for that period of turbulent politics. A long, broad table or bench was placed on the Court-House Green, and upon it the local magistrates, acting as election judges, took their seats, their clerks before them. By the side of the judges sat the two candidates for Congress; an when an elector declared his preference for either, the favored one rose, bowing, and thanked his supporter.

Nobody but freeholders could then exercise the suffrage in Virginia. Any one owning one hundred acres of land or more in any county could vote, and this landowner could declare his choice in every county in which he possessed the necessary real estate. The voter did not cast a printed or written ballot, but merely stated, in the presence of the two candidates, the election officials, and the assembled gathering, the name of the candidate of his preference. There was no specified form for this announcement. [This method of electing public officials was continued until the Civil War.]

“I vote for John Marshall.”

“Thank you sir,” said the lank, easy-mannered Federalist candidate.

“Hurrah for Marshall!” shouted the compact band of Federalists.

“And I vote for Clopton,” cried another freeholder.

“May you live a thousand years, my friend,” said Marshall’s competitor.

“Three cheers for Clopton!” roared the crowd of Republican enthusiasts.

Both Republican and Federalist leaders had seen to it that nothing was left undone which might bring victory to their respective candidates. The two political parties had been carefully “drilled to move together in a body.” Each party had a business committee which attended to every practical detail of the election. Not a voter was overlooked. “Sick men were taken in their beds to the polls; the halt, the lame, and the blind were hunted up and every mode of conveyance was mustered into service.” Time and again the vote was a tie. No sooner did one freeholder announce his preference for Marshall than another gave his suffrage to Clopton.

“A barrel of whisky with the head knocked in,” free for everybody, stood beneath a tree, and “the majority took it straight,” runs a narrative of a witness of the scene. So hot became the contest that fist-fights were frequent. During the afternoon, knock-down and drag-out affrays became so general that the county justices had hard work to quell the raging partisans. Throughout the day the shouting and huzzaing rose in volume as the whiskey sank in the barrel. At times the uproar was “perfectly deafening; men were shaking fists at each other, rolling up their sleeves, cursing and swearing. . . . Some became wild with agitation.” When a tie was broken by a new voter shouting that he was for Marshall or for Clopton, insults were hurled at his devoted head.

“You sir, ought to have your mouth smashed,” cried an enraged Republican when Thomas Rutherford voted for Marshall; and smashing of mouths, blacking of eyes, and breaking of heads there were in plenty.

Many ministers felt it was their duty to preach politics in and out of the pulpit, and threw themselves into the fray with much enthusiasm. But two Richmond ministers, the Rev. Buchanan, an Episcopal priest, and the Rev. Blair, a Presbyterian, shared the opinion that men of the cloth should refrain from publicly discussing political controversies.

As the hours dragged on, and first Mr. Marshall leading by a vote or two, and then John Clopton making up the gap, the committees examined their lists to find those who had not yet voted. It was soon discovered that our good pastors had not appeared to vote, despite hourly pleas to do so. Desperate, some of the most influential members of the Federal committee found them together at Pastor Blair’s home, and proceeded to beg them to vote; that the “salvation of the party depended upon it, and the great interests of the party depended upon it.”

Eventually the two were worn down and escorted to the court house, were elbowed and squeezed through an increasingly wild and agitated crowd, up to the polls.

The crowd rolled to and fro like a surging wave. Parson Blair came forward. A swaggering fellow just above him said, “Here comes two preachers, dead shot for Marshall.” Both candidates knew them intimately, and rose from their seats, and the shout was terrific.

“Mr. Blair,” said the sheriff, “who do you vote for?” “John Marshall,” said he. Mr. Marshall replied, “your vote is appreciated, Mr. Blair.”

… The whole Federal party thought this vote was certain, beyond the possibility of a doubt, for Marshall. “Who do you vote for, Mr. Buchanan?” “For John Clopton,” said the good man. “Mr. Clopton said, “Mr. Buchanan, I shall treasure that vote in my memory. It will be regarded as a feather in my cap for ever.” The shouts were astounding. Hurrah for Marshall! Hurrah for Clopton!

… (when they had returned home), Parson Buchanan said, “Brother Blair, we might as well have staid at home. When I was forced against my will to go, I simply determined to balance your vote, and now we shall hear no complaints of the clergy interfering in elections.”]

Never before and seldom, if ever, since, in the history of Virginia, was any election so fiercely contested. When this ‘democratic’ struggle was over, it was found that Marshall had been elected by the slender majority of 108.

George Washington was overjoyed at the Federalist success, Jefferson was depressed, and the Federalist leaders were “none too sure of their Virginia congressional recruit,” who was “entirely too independent to suit the party organization.

Back in September The Hill obtained an “internal Obama campaign memo” noting that
Obama is a cosponsor of the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, which is also called the “card check” bill. The measure would allow workers to join a union when a majority of them sign authorization cards. Industry groups are strongly opposed to the bill, which is a top priority for unions. Republicans and business groups say the bill would compromise a worker’s right to cast a private ballot on whether to join a union.
Presumably President-Elect Obama and the Democrats would like to revive the early American tradition of public voting with no secret ballot, at least for workers considering unionization..

The Bill Of Rights? Not Applicable In Chicago & Illinois...

Whatever one may think of the recent Heller decision holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual, not a collective, right to own and bear arms, and thus that Washington D.C.’s sweeping gun ban was unconstitutional (I like it, even if George Will and Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III don’t), that issue is now settled law, at least until and unless new Obama justices reverse it.

According to Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago, however, the Bill of Rights, and by logical extension the Fourteenth Amendment (which many believe applied most of the Bill of Rights to the states), is not applicable in the Windy City, a prominent victim of gun control violence. (HatTip to Alphecca, via InstaPundit)

Daley has maintained the ruling striking down D.C.’s handgun ban cannot be extended to states and cities not under federal control.
If Governor Wallace and his segregationist colleagues had been smarter, they could have made that same argument back in the 1950s and 1960s. Oh, wait. They did.

Since Obama is a product of the same Chicago that produced the, er, revisionist scholarship of its mayor, it will be interesting to see whether the new president believes the Constitution’s protections are limited to the federal government and its territories.

December 16, 2008

Cultural (In)Competence

Jennifer Kabbany, a columnist for the North County Times, caustically observes that “cultural competency training” is coming to Chaparal High School in Temecula (Calif.).

Last week, the Temecula school board approved a $15,000 contract for a consultant to come to the campus for five days next semester and teach educators how to better understand where their students are coming from ---- on a cultural level ---- in an attempt to improve their grades.

Chaparral officials said the campus is becoming increasingly diverse, and has more than 1,800 students who have not passed either section of the exit exam, scored below proficient on standardized tests, or are still learning English.

The training is expected to examine why these students "are not being educated to their full potential" and to "promote educational equity for all students," according to district documents.

We’ve encountered “cultural competence” before (see here and here), but Ms. Kabbany skewers it better than anything I’ve written.

“This is not the best way to improve academic performances,” she writes,

but cultural competency is the latest craze in education, and many tout its benefits, including California’s Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell.

“Students are more likely to do well in school if they feel supported and understood by their teachers ... and teachers are more likely to be effective if they understand and can relate to the diverse cultures of students in their classroom,” O’Connell said last week in a written statement.

If this is true, Ms. Kabbany notes,
all teachers must have minored in Asian studies during college, because clearly they are adept at getting most Asian students to perform well academically.
By now it should come as no surprise that Calif. Supt. of Education Jack O’Connell peddles such tripe. See The Supe Is Nuts: Just When You Thought California Schools Couldn’t Get Any Worse...

Can We COPE?

In South Africa the ruling African National Congress is facing

growing discontent with the former liberation movement, prompting party leaders to breakaway and form a new political party that many think will be the ANC’s first serious challenge at the polls.

The Congress of the People, or COPE, led by former defense minister Mosiuoa Lekote, was being launched in the small city of Bloemfontein, which was also the birthplace of the ANC in 1912....

COPE has attracted a diverse range of members, pinning itself as a party for all races, as the ANC is seen as alienating minority groups with policies of affirmative action.

COPE is making non-discriminatory equality one of its core prinicples.
Lekota, who emerged as the consensus choice of nearly 4,000 delegates at the congress to lead the party into elections next year, said COPE was “a truly non-racial party which shall provide a home and voice for all South Africans,” irrespective of race or gender....

Lekota also vowed, if elected, to end affirmative action “on the basis of race.”

Our own Democratic Party, of course, is too savvy to alienate only minority groups with its affirmative action policies. It alienates the majority group as well as some minority groups.

December 10, 2008

Shocked! Shocked!

Last spring, after beginning this post on “The Real Barack Obama?” by quoting E.J. Dionne’s observation —

The result of the 2008 election may come down to how voters decide to define Barack Obama. Is he Adlai Stevenson or John F. Kennedy?
— I continued:
Note well that this formulation of the central question of the election does not deign to ask who Obama really is, emphasizing instead that “almost all of the turns in this contest have been driven by how Obama presented himself and how voters perceived him.” (Emphasis added)

Since the operative question about Obama concerns presentation and perception rather than actual identity and character, I have a much better way to pose it than Dionne’s false alternative between Kennedy and Stevenson. Here’s how I put the question in an email to a good friend back in February:

What a fascinating show future president Obama is putting on! It will be even more fascinating to discover whether he is:

a) Jimmy Stewart, in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington;

b) Robert Redford, in The Candidate;

c) Peter Sellers (Chauncey Gardner), in Being There; or

d) Laurence Harvey, in The Manchurian Candidate....

Now after the seemingly endless campaign and an already long “transition,” there have been so many things that everyone else long knew but that Obama, upon belatedly discovering them, feigned shock and surprise (that Bill Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist; that blocking legislation to require medical care for babies born accidentally after botched abortions would lead people to say he opposed medical care for babies born after botched abortions; that during his twenty years as an acolyte of Rev. Wright that the good reverend frequently laced his sermons with anti-white and anti-American diatribes; that his signature somehow appeared on a questionnaire on which he had said that he favored outlawing all handguns; that Tony Reszko and the cabal of Chicago pols with whom he made his peace did not distinguish politics from corruption; etc.), that I now believe he most closely resembles another movie archetype: Claude Rains (“Captain Renault”) in Casablanca:
Rick (Humphrey Bogart}: How can you close me up? On what grounds?

Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]

Croupier: Your winnings, sir.

Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.

Captain Renault: [aloud] Everybody out at once!

December 9, 2008

UPDATE!

This recent post, criticizing Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson’s critique of the Heller decision, which held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own and bear arms, has been UPDATED with a link to an article that offers a far more substantial critique.

December 7, 2008

The New Identity Politics

Many blacks voted for Obama because he looks like them.

Many liberal (or if you prefer, progressive) whites voted for Obama because he doesn’t look like them.

Intellectuals are above that sort of crass, superficial identity politics. They voted for Obama because he talks like them. As Yale law professor Dan Kahan put it, as quoted in the Washington Post this morning,

“You know how Obama always said, ‘This is our moment; this is our time?’” Kahan said. “Well, academics and smart people think, ‘Hey, when he says this is our time, he’s talking about us.’”

Jobs For Whom?

Bloomberg reports that in his Saturday radio address

President-elect Barack Obama said he’ll make the “single largest new investment” in roads, bridges and public buildings since the Eisenhower Administration to lift the sagging economy and create jobs.

Obama ... said his plan to create or preserve 2.5 million jobs will also include making public buildings more energy efficient, repairing schools and modernizing health care with electronic medical records.

Has anyone asked what, if any, steps Obama will take to ensure that all those 2.5 million new jobs go to American citizens or legal resident aliens? Would not the predictable effect of failing to enforce a citizenship requirement be to suck a new wave of illegals into the country and enable those already here to stay?

Parting Shot Or Crime Prevention?

“Campers may now pack heat along with their sleeping bags when they travel to national parks,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported yesterday in a clever imitation of a news story. By “heat” the reporter/comic, Peter Fimrite, did not mean electric socks.

The Bush administration on Friday struck down federal regulations banning loaded guns in most national forests, a move that was widely seen as a parting shot on behalf of the National Rifle Association.

The ruling overturned a 25-year-old federal regulation severely restricting concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. The new rule, which would take effect in January, would apparently allow anyone who already has a concealed weapons permit in his or her state to also tote a gun in federal parks within state boundaries.

No doubt this decision to have the feds desist from displacing state law in some remote areas was indeed “widely seen” as a sop to the NRA by occupants of the newsrooms of the major media and other inhabitants of liberal precincts. Predictably, much of this criticism ranged from unsupported to silly — or both, as in the comment of Bryan Faehner, associate director of the National Parks Conservation Association, quoted in the Chronicle editorial article:
This is pretty outrageous. We're concerned that there is going to be an increase in gun-related accidents in parks and opportunistic poaching.
Faehner, of course, presented no evidence that states with liberal concealed carry laws have more gun-related accidents than states that don’t, or that the number of such accidents increased after the more permissive concealed carry laws were passed. Nor is it likely that holders of state-issued concealed carry permits are going to launch an epidemic of “opportunistic poaching” of bear, bison, moose, or other wild game with their short-barreled, concealable handguns.

Moreover, it is equally true, though largely unreported, that the new regulation was also “widely seen” by many others as either inconsequential or a positive step in the right direction.

Indeed, given the findings of scholars such as Gary Kleck and John Lott, it is more likely than not that an increase in the number of armed national park visitors will reduce rather than increase crime and incidents of gun violence.

The recent terrorist attack on civilians in Mumbai makes the ongoing debate over our own domestic gun policy more relevant than it otherwise be, though the connection is not often made. John Lott is someone who did:

In India, victims watched as armed police cowered and didn’t fire back at the terrorists. A photographer at the scene described his frustration: “There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything. At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, ‘Shoot them, they’re sitting ducks!’ but they just didn’t shoot back.”

Meanwhile, according to the hotel company’s chairman, P.R.S. Oberoi, security at “the hotel had metal detectors, but none of its security personnel carried weapons because of the difficulties in obtaining gun permits from the Indian government.”

India has extremely strict gun control laws, but who did it succeed in disarming?

Someone else who made the connection, at least implicitly, is Mickey Kaus. Commenting on the fact, mentioned by many bloggers linking to this story from the Belfast Telegraph and others, that the Indian police “had lots of guns, and no problem seeing who and where the terrorists were, but they wouldn’t shoot at them,” Kaus comments (among other good points):
Maybe we Americans are trigger happy. But do we think that a handful of terrorists could have gone on a similar rampage in New York City without quite quickly encountering a fair number of cops who would have shot back — let alone armed civilians who did the same.
I think Mickey is half-right, maybe two thirds right, here. Certainly no American cops, in any city, would have failed to shoot, but I suspect that the preponderance of “armed civilians” in New York City either aren’t citizens or are not armed legally. Indeed, because of New York’s stringent gun control policy, I would expect there would be almost no armed civilians of any kind in the fancy hotels similar to the one attacked in Mumbai.

There is another relevant issue in the domestic gun debate that is relevant to discussion of Mumbai-type attacks that has been insufficiently discussed, if indeed it has been mentioned at all. Opponents of stringent gun control argue (persuasively, I believe) that the presence — even the possible presence — of even a few armed civilians acts as a strong deterrent to crime. As John Lott noted two years ago:

* The British government banned handguns in January 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the seven years from 1996 to 2003. Since 1996, the rate of serious violent crime has soared by 88%, armed robberies by 101%, rapes by 105% and homicide by 24%.

* Australia's 1996 gun-control regulations banned many types of guns and the immediate aftermath was similar. While murder rates remained unchanged, armed robbery rates averaged 59% higher in the eight years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2004) than in 1995.

* The Republic of Ireland banned and confiscated all handguns and all center-fire rifles in 1972, but murder rates rose five-fold by 1974 and in the 20 years after the ban has averaged 114% higher than the pre-ban rate (never falling below at least 31% higher).

* Jamaica banned all guns in 1974, but murder rates almost doubled from 11.5 per 100,000 in 1973 to 19.5 in 1977, and soared further to 41.7 in 1980

Note particularly the dramatic increase in the rate of armed robberies after the passage of gun control noted above.

David Kopel, among others, has discussed

the major role that widespread gun ownership plays in reducing the rate of home invasion burglaries (a.k.a "hot burglaries"). Because potential burglars cannot tell which homes possess guns, most burglars choose to avoid entry into any occupied home, for fear of getting shot. The entry pattern of American burglars contrasts sharply with that of burglars in other nations; in Canada and Great Britain, burglars prefer to find the residents at home, since alarms will be turned off, and wallets and purses will be available for the taking.
....
The overall Canadian burglary rate is higher than the American one, and a Canadian burglary is four times more likely to take place when the victims are home.

In Toronto, forty-four percent of burglaries were against occupied homes, and twenty-one percent involved a confrontation with the victim. Most Canadian residential burglaries occur at night, while American burglars are known to prefer daytime entry to reduce the risk of an armed confrontation....

A 1982 British survey found fifty-nine percent of attempted burglaries involved an occupied home.... In the Netherlands, forty-eight percent of residential burglaries involved an occupied home. In the Republic of Ireland, criminologists report that burglars have little reluctance about attacking an occupied residence.

And from an earlier Kopel article:
Rather than reducing crime -- as the Canadian government and some American researchers claim -- Canada's restrictive gun laws may well cause crime.  The crime that gun ownership best deters is burglary of occupied residences.  While only one in ten American burglaries is committed against an occupied home, half of all Canadian burglaries are.  Since the 1977 law took effect, the Canadian breaking and entering rate rose 25%, surpassing the American rate, which has been declining. (The situation is even worse in Britain, where gun control is stricter, and 59% of burglaries are attempted against occupied residences.)
And why is it that American burglars, unlike burglars in Canada and Europe, are so reluctant to invade occupied homes? “The answer cannot be,” Kopel writes, “that the American criminal justice system is so much tougher than the systems in other nations,” for it isn’t. “Could the answer be,” Kopel continues, “that American criminals are afraid of getting shot?”

Could be.

One out of thirty-one burglars has been shot during a burglary. On the whole, when an American burglar strikes at an occupied residence, his chance of being shot is about equal to his chance of being sent to prison. If we assume that the risk of prison provides some deterrence to burglary, it would seem reasonable to conclude that the equally large risk of being shot provides an equally large deterrent. In other words, private individuals with firearms in their homes double the deterrent effect that would exist if government-imposed punishment were the only deterrent.
....
The most thorough study of burglary patterns was a St. Louis survey of 105 currently active burglars. The authors observed, “One of the most serious risks faced by residential burglars is the possibility of being injured or killed by occupants of a target. Many of the offenders we spoke to reported that this was far and away their greatest fear.” Said one burglar: “I don’t think about gettin’ caught, I think about gettin’ gunned down, shot or somethin’...’cause you get into some people’s houses...quick as I come in there, boom, they hit you right there. That’s what I think about.” [Citations omitted]
Kopel also cites a good deal of evidence demonstrating the deterrent effect of armed citizens. A few examples:
In Orlando in 1967, the police responded to a rape epidemic by initiating a highly publicized program training women in firearms use. While rape increased in the nation and in *357 Florida over the next year, the rape rate fell eighty- eight percent in Orlando, and burglary dropped twenty-two percent.

The same year, rising rates of store robberies prompted a similar (but smaller-scale) program in Kansas City, Missouri, to train store owners in gun use. The next year, while the robbery rate in Missouri and the United States continued to rise significantly, the rate fell in the Kansas City metro area. The trend of increasing burglary in the area also came to an abrupt end, contrary to state and national patterns.

In 1982, the town of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance requiring every home to have a gun. Exceptions were made for conscientious objectors, people with criminal records, and for people in various other categories. In the seven months before the ordinance, there had been forty-five residential burglaries; in the seven months after the ordinance, residential burglaries declined eighty-nine percent. Over the next five years, the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was eighty-five percent below the rate before the enactment of the ordinance. [Citations omitted]

I’ve quoted heavily from David Koppel, but other scholars have made similar points with similar evidence. Thus Joyce Lee Malcolm, one of the leading scholars of gun control in America, wrote in 2002, discussing the effect of gun control in England:
In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent....

... [I]n the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police....

Unless international terrorists planning future Mumbai-type attacks on Americans, Jews, and other infidels are dumber than American burglars, don’t you think they would choose a city where they are less likely to encounter armed civilians?

December 5, 2008

Minority Faculty Dissatisfaction

“Minority professors on the tenure track aren't as satisfied with their academic workplace as their white counterparts are,” the Chronicle of Higher Education reports this morning, based on a new study published by the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education at the Harvard School of Education.

On many questions—including one on whether their academic department treats pretenure faculty fairly and equally—Native American faculty members were less positive than their white colleagues. On a five-point scale, with 5 meaning “strongly agree” and 1 meaning “strongly disagree,” the mean rating for Native Americans was 3.33, the lowest of all minority groups surveyed. The mean rating for Asian faculty members was 3.83, slightly higher than the 3.81 rating from white faculty members. Hispanic faculty members’ mean rating was 3.75, compared with African Americans at 3.6.
In one sense these responses are not surprising. A generation or more of racial preferences have done nothing to reduce the grievance gap, and in fact probably have accentuated it. But on another level they raise a couple of interesting questions:

• Minority faculty are less likely than whites to believe they have been treated “fairly and equally.” Could that mean that they are aware that racial preference played a role in their being hired?

• Do minority faculty believe that being treated “equally” is being treated “fairly,” or do they believe that in order to be treated fairly they must be treated preferentially?

It’s pretty clear that the authors of the study believe their findings support the conclusion that minority faculty should be treated better. But I suspect I’m not the only reader who believe these findings more strongly support the view that what minority faculty deserve is what all faculty deserve — to be treated by their institutions without regard to their race.

December 4, 2008

Rue II

In the immediately preceding post I discussed higher education officials ruing the lack of “diversity” in science and engineering.

“Diversity,” of course, is lacking all over, at least enough of it to satisfy the diversifiers. For example, both men and minorities (presumably of both genders) are woefully “underrepresented” in study abroad. It’s not clear to me exactly why the lack of “diversity” is a problem among Americans who study abroad, but then (see preceding post) it’s also not clear why it’s a problem in domestic education, either.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: if not enough men or minorities choose to study abroad, or not enough minorities choose to study science, draft ’em!

1) If the yield [of admitted minority students who chose not to attend the University of California] has declined over the past 10 years, that is not the result of 209. That is, 209 didn’t keep those who were admitted but chose not to attend from attending. That was their own choice. [Not altogether frivolous aside: If “diversity” is as important as its advocates claim, draft them! Why should they be allowed to choose not to attend a college that needs them so much when K-12 students who want to attend a different school from the one to which they are assigned are often held hostage to “diversity,” i.e., not allowed to transfer because their leaving would deprive the remaining students of the advantage provided by being exposed to them.

2) If our national security really depends on having more women engineers, perhaps women should be drafted and sent to engineering schools.

3) I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if “diversity” is important enough to the education of non-minority students at selective institutions to justify sacrificing the right of applicants to be free from racial discrimination, it’s important enough to draft some minority students and require their attendance at those schools. Why should their merely personal and individual interest in their own freedom of choice trump the needs of large numbers of otherwise diversity-deprived students to be exposed to them, especially since the trespassing on the drafted minorities’ freedom of choice would affect only a relatively small number of individuals.

Every time an applicant is rejected who would have been accepted in the absence of “diversity”-justified preferences, we confirm that individual choice must be sacrificed to some supposedly greater national good. Thus, since we have already established that “diversity” can trump individual choice, as I concluded here, “drafting a few minorities and women [and men to study abroad] to provide such an essential service would seem to be a small price to pay for something on which our society depends.”

Why Rue?

In “What Universities Can Do to Graduate More Minority Ph.D.’s” the Chronicle of Higher Education reports this morning that

Universities have long rued the stark disparity between minority students’ share of the population and their share of Ph.D.’s, especially in engineering and the sciences.
Why?

That is, why is it a problem that recipients if Ph.D.s, “especially in engineering and science,” do not mirror the nation’s demographics, especially a problem worth not only ruing but devoting millions of dollars and much effort “by private foundations and federal agencies” to fix?

According to Daryl E. Chubin, director of the Center for Advancing Science & Engineering Capacity, a project of the American Association for the Advancement of Science,

We are underutilizing a lot of the talent in this country.... A lot of people will reply, Well, over all, there’s no shortage of Ph.D.’s. And that’s true. But this is not simply a supply-and-demand question. Women and underrepresented minorities are not participating in the sciences anywhere close to their representation in the general population.
In other words, we don’t need more science and engineering Ph.D.s (“this is not simply a supply-and-demand question”); we don’t need higher quality Ph.D.s in science in engineering (otherwise the national effort to recruit and retain “underrepresented minorities” would be directed toward creating and finding better better candidates and improving programs); what we need is more “underrepresented minorities” in science (and, it follows, fewer “overrepresented minorities” and whites).

In addition to the legal problem with this approach — the Supreme Court has made it clear that simple racial balancing/proportional representation is unconstitutional — the question remains, why? Why is racial and ethnic proportionality important at all? Does anyone know whether the humanities and social sciences are also afflicted by a crippling “underrepresentation” of certain groups? Do Korean-American sociologists or Japanese-American literary critics come “anywhere close to their representation in the general population?” Does anyone care? Should they? Is “diversity” more important for the study and practice of engineering and chemistry than history, anthropology, and philosophy?

In any event, what would the diversity mavens recently assembled at a meeting of the Council of Graduate Schools do to improve the representation of the groups they care about in the fields they care about? According to the Chronicle report, two suggestions emerged from the meeting. First, “Think broadly.” Second, “improve the academic climate.”

It may be harder to promote climate change in science labs (where a little global warming might be a good thing, where personal relationships often are the closest modern equivalent of indentured servitude, if not slavery) than to slow down in the external environment. But let’s not quibble; only a misanthrope would find fault with broad thinking and climate change.

There was one other approach mentioned. Janet C. Rutledge, interim vice provost for graduate education at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County, described a successful program at her institution.

She said that the mere act of carefully measuring their attrition rates had caused many programs on her campus to be more thoughtful about recruiting, training, and overseeing their students. And students from underrepresented minority groups, she added, have disproportionately benefited from those changes....

Students who participate in the program, Ms. Rutledge said, must be prepared for intrusive mentors. “Like it or not, we are going to be in your business, monitoring your progress,” she said. “That’s a condition for receiving this money.”

All of the panelists at the session agreed that careful monitoring was essential, and Daryl Chubin of the AAAS’s Center for Advancing Science & Engineering Capacity noted that “[p]rivacy laws should not be interpreted in ways that make it impossible to track students’ progress over time.”

Perhaps Mr. Chubin and his colleagues at the American Association for the Advancement of Science should speak to the officials of the California Bar Association, which is blocking research on the progress of minorities that is far less intrusive than the measures he and Ms. Rutledge of UMBC advocate here.

ADDENDUM

The Meyerhoff Program at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County is indeed impressive, but for reasons explained in detail here it may not be possible to duplicate it on other campuses.

ADDENDUM II

Roger that.

December 1, 2008

Just Words III

When Hillary Clinton criticized Obama during the primaries for having a campaign built on little more than speechifying, for a candidacy that is “about words” (often not his own) and little else, Obama replied, either feeling or feigning anger: “Don’t tell me that words don’t matter!”

Now that he’s going to be president, apparently they’re going to matter more than ever — not because of speeches, but because they may represent the core of our new national security policy. This shift in policy, supported by Obama’s formerly hawkish national security team (Hillary at State, James Jones as national security advisor, Gates at Defense) is described in today’s International Herald Tribune:

The shift, which would come partly out of the military's huge budget, would create a greatly expanded corps of diplomats and aid workers that, in the vision of the incoming Obama administration, would be engaged in projects around the world aimed at preventing conflicts and rebuilding failed states.
Perhaps the Obamanauts will explain how more “diplomats and aid workers” would have prevented Mumbai, and whether they regard India and Pakistan as “failed states.”