Monthly Archives: April 2009

African American communities are not the only ones that suffer from the slow death of journalism. Civic engagement in the larger American polity is withering too, and for the same reason. Newspapers are folding not because they are unprofitable, but because even after cutting actual journalism to the bone, they don’t bring in the fifteen and twenty percent returns that the bubble economy has accustomed investors to. A well-run newspaper can consistently bring in a seven to nine percent annual return on investment, which in pre-bubble days was considered just fine. The very few newspaper corporations that remained family owned, or that went nonprofit are doing journalism as well as ever.

Forty-some years ago, Dr. Martin Luther wondered aloud that all his life’s work might have been the integration of African Americans into a burning house. King answered his own question by declaring that if that was the case, we would have to be the firefighters, not just for ourselves, but for the whole American polity…

Black Agenda Report, Bruce A. Dixon on Wed, 04/15/2009

I think you could dedicate an entire blog to the “push from the left” drama that seems to be so characteristic of the first few months of the Obama presidency. Obama is a consummate liberal, more interested in repairing the system than profound changes to its basic assumptions, but he’s also pragmatic and interested clearly in ideas.

That means the possibilities, at least until he establishes a longer record, are going to seem wide-open. That also means there’s going to be a lot of dreaming going on in the next few years, as well as a lot of hand-wringing. I am trying to keep my eyes on a few potential changes, or kinds of changes, that I think might create real shifts in power.

The Employee Free Choice Act is a good example, because it would allow, if not encourage, certain kinds of democratic organizing and power. Media reform is less well defined, but it too could create substantive change. What I like about Dixon’s post, however, is his notion of “reasonable” profit. The cliches about so-called old media– that they are unprofitable, especially– are just not true.

What’s really driven economic change over the last three decades isn’t profit as such, it’s greed. In other words, the idea of profit has lost its “reasonable” basis. “Reasonable” is relative, of course, and I am sure this sort of cultural shift happens regularly, but Dixon’s point is an important reminder. We won’t stop the slash and burn economy until we try to define a reasonable profit.

Virginia Tech has been receiving some unwelcome but necessary scrutiny of late over the emphasis its college of arts and humanities has been giving to a divisive issue: diversity. The Virginia Association of Scholars, the National Association of Scholars, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni all have voiced concerns about an apparent attempt to mau-mau professors into toeing an ideological line.

Last year a memo from Tech’s provost stressed the need for candidates seeking promotion or tenure to “do a better job of participating in and documenting their involvement in diversity initiatives” — an effort, it said, that was “especially important for candidates seeking promotion to full professor.” Draft guidelines for the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences stipulate that “the university and college committees require special attention to be given to documenting involvement in diversity initiatives.”

Richmond Times Dispatch, Staff Reports, Published: April 12, 2009

I like to watch the American Council of Trustees and Alumni blog because they seem to have an eye for reactionary politics, which they support enthusiastically. The other day I noticed this story about the ‘p.c.. police’ at Virginia Technical Institute, which of course sends up a red flag.

I think the tenure process is creepy; it often has a pyscho-sadist edge. If standards do anything, they set the tone on campus for what teachers do. In this case, the proposal made a fairly innocuous suggestion that professors who are promoted to full professor should demonstrate some involvement in diversity.

The Times Dispatch and the ACTA find this comparable to demanding evidence of patriotism. (As if that were not already the case to some extent; and as if they would really be upset by that sort of requirement.) I have a hard time figuring out why this is so upsetting to the right-wing.

Large corporations and the military, not to mention the law, have long recognized the need to counter our long history of racism and sexism in all sorts of ways, from affirmative action programs to diversity seminars. Most are still very reactionary about gays and lesbians, but even that is changing.

I don’t think you can argue that the military and most large corporations are run by bleeding hearts, so there must be some other reason why they support civil rights for women and minorities. My guess is that they know it makes their organizations run better. It’s good public relations, too.

Too much of this, of course, is just lip service, and I am sure lots of minorities and women could tell horror stories about their treatment. But it still a generally accepted value, a small but important commitment to democratic culture. You would think that this commitment would be less rather than more controversial in academia.