Campaign 2008 Issue Tracker

\ Leave a Comment \ by

Here’s a crude but clever little tool developed by a company called Daylife for the Washington Post. It’s a good example of what people used to call smart agents, only it lacks the capacity to learn. (Actually, the term is still used, although most of the Google search results on the term seem to be from several years ago).

I like the idea of representing data visually and then providing links so that you can learn more where and when you choose. I was looking at Denis Kucinich, for example, and noticed that his two big issues seem to be the Iraq War (50) and Health Care (33). Then I compared that to Barack Obama, whose big issues are also the Iraq War (488) and Health Care (222).

Why does Obama have so much to say on his website when he is so short on detail elsewhere? True to her fence-balancing strategy, Hillary also has Health Care (578) and the Iraq War (558) as the top two, each with almost identical emphasis. She out does Obama, though, in sheer output. John Edwards’ economic populism puts Health Care (240) well above the Iraq War (122).

On the Republican side things are much different. Fred Thompson’s top two, for example, are Abortion (91) and the Iraq War (62). That’s a frightening combination that must reflect his desire to launch a campaign that would capture the lunatic fringe right that apparently feels so alienated from the rest of the Republican field. My guess is that we will start to see a rise in Immigration (28) as the primaries approach.

Rudy Giuliano presents a more complicated picture. Immigration (121) and Health Care (121) top his lists, with the Iraq War (116), Abortion (93), and the Economy and Budget (84) not too far behind. That’s either a sign of a more nuanced strategy or a lack of focus. Not surprisingly, John McCain’s number one issue by far is the Iraq War (349) with immigration a far second (86). He’ll be gone before my birthday in March.

Posted in: Economics, Language, Online Places, War, Writing

The Academy on Capitalism and Limited Government Fund

\ Leave a Comment \ by

The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure affirms that “teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject.” This affirmation was meant to codify understandings of academic freedom commonly accepted in 1940. In recent years these understandings have become controversial. Private groups have sought to regulate classroom instruction, advocating the adoption of statutes that would prohibit teachers from challenging deeply held student beliefs or that would require professors to maintain “diversity” or “balance” in their teaching. Committee A has established this subcommittee to assess arguments made in support of recent legislative efforts in this area.

Freedom in the Classroom (2007), AAUP

Free market capitalism, limited government, individual rights, individual responsibility, enterprise and entrepreneurship are the foundation of a productive and successful American society. To promote and advance scholarly research and teaching about these vital principles, gifts from donors have established an endowment within the University of Illinois Foundation—The Academy on Capitalism and Limited Government Fund. The Fund is overseen by the Academy Fund’s board of directors and it will provide grants for programs, research and activities on the Urbana-Champaign campus in response to proposals submitted by faculty and approved by the Chancellor’s office.

The Academy on Capitalism and Limited Government Fund

Steven Forbes and Robert Novak are in the neighborhood this week, helping to launch The The Academy on Capitalism and Limited Government Fund’s inaugural conference. As the IlliniPundit would have it, “this is just the beginning of a growing effort to bring more conservative thought to the University of Illinois campus.” I think calling a large research university like the U. of I. ‘liberal’ because it hires a few high-profile critics is like calling the Bank of America ‘generous’ because it sponsors the local cancer drive.

Indeed, as the first comment notes, “I thought we already had such an academy at UIUC. It’s called the School of Business.” Or the Economics department, or… The comment writers then launch a lively but altogether irrelevant discussion of the general education requirements. What’s so unhelpful is that the writers seem unaware of the simple fact that the courses are meant to create a conversation with society at large, not to “represent” each point of view “equally.”

We live, for example, in a culture dominated by white, materially privileged men. No one needs to speak for them; they own most of the microphones. But a good education tries, at least, to offer other voices. Thus the required course in Minority Studies. That’s also why the AAUP is not interested in the specifics. Obviously, if you simply repeat the implicit arguments of the culture around you– capitalism is good, government should be limited– the powers that be will not be upset. If you want to hear that point of view you can turn on the TV.

What I find interesting, though, is the way the Academy (or its founders) seems to have been fooled into believing the bloated self-image of a small number of academic stars. If they spent a little time among the so-called liberal professors they would find that very few are anti-capitalism in any substantive sense. They are more like rich rock star paid to perform their “criticism” and then go home to their expensive cars and big houses. There just are not very many Bonos out there. (Just ask the Graduate Employees Organization.

Posted in: Economics, Professional, Union, Writing

Jena, Louisiana

\ Leave a Comment \ by

As the rally began to unfold this morning, it became clear that it would attract huge numbers of people, perhaps even the 40,000 that some organizers had predicted. They came to protest the case of the “Jena 6,” black youths who were charged with serious crimes for an attack on a white youth not long after white teens who had targeted blacks were let off with a slap on the wrist. White supremacists reacted with a strange mixture of anger and admiration for the organizing behind the rally.

But the dominant response was violent rage. “I think a group of White men with AK rifles loaded with high capacity magazines should close in on the troop of howler monkeys from all sides and compress them into a tight group, and then White men in the buildings on both sides of the shitskinned hominids shall throw Molotov cocktails from above to cleanse the nigs by fire,” wrote “NS Cat” on VNN. Another poster fantasized about a terrorist attack in Jena today: “Wouldn’t that be sweet? Gosh darn, wouldn’t that be sweet? Good LORD wouldn’t THAT be SWeeeeEET? Boom, Boom, no more Coon! Well? A White man can dream can’t he?”

Mark Potok on September 20, 2007, from Hatewatch

I was born one year after Central High School, in Little Rock, Arkansas, was integrated with the help of the National Guard. “On the morning of September 23, 1957,” according to the National Historic Place website, “nine African-American teenagers stood up to an angry crowd protesting integration in front of Little Rock’s Central High as they entered the school for the first time.”

I was reminded of this over the last week as I was watching the march on Jena, Louisiana, and reading about the debates it has engendered, and then thinking about the anniversary of the Central High integration. What’s so striking is that it is so easy to believe that Jim Crow belongs in the very distant past, instead of my childhood.

We all want Jim Crow to be a part of the past, of course, and I think people get resentful when they are reminded that in too many ways the legacy of segregation is still with us. There’s nothing trivial about the use of the confederate flag, or making a “joke” by hanging a few nooses in a tree that was unofficially reserved for whites. Calling it a joke is just a kind of wish fulfillment fantasy.

And then I go to Hatewatch and hear about the most virulent forms of white supremacy. I was born in the South, though, and I know that these attitudes– the racists’ macho bravado– is still very common and very dangerous. I’m sure that you could have heard versions of it all over the country after the march last week. I heard a polite echo of that in Reed Walter’s famous threat to the students of Jena High school: “See this pen in my hand? I can end your lives with the stroke of a pen.”

Posted in: Autobiographical, Online Places, Writing

An Interview with Philip Dine: the Sate of the Unions and Higher Education

\ Leave a Comment \ by

You may already know Phillip Dine’s work. According to his official biography, he “covered the labor beat for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for two decades. “ Among his many achievements are two Pulitzer Prize nominations; more recently he won the 2007 National Press Club Edwin Hood Award for Diplomatic Correspondence and the 2007 Society of Professional Journalists Dateline Award for Investigative Reporting.

His first book, published this year, is called, State of the Unions: How Labor Can Strengthen the Middle Class, Improve Our Economy, and Regain Political Influence. Dine believes that unions need to play a more important role in the U.S. “What’s lacking,” he has written, “is not relevance but rather a way for labor to strengthen itself…” I was curious about Dine’s thoughts on labor and higher education and sent him a series of questions via his publicist. His answers were somethings brief– he has got to be a busy man!–but provocative nonetheless.

_________________________________________________________________

RW: Do you think higher education largely reproduces or challenges class structures in the United States? Has this changed as union membership has decreased? Would it change again if union membership rose?

PD: Higher education largely perpetuates class structure in this country, and that has not changed much as union levels have decreased. Why? Because unlike in countries such as France and Italy, labor in the United States never has challenged the class structure or the economic system. Rather, unions seek to increase the pie and provide a place at the table for their members. They aim to make the system work better and be more fair, rather than trying to dismantle it. There have been a few threads in the labor movement that have leveled more fundamental questions about the class system over the years, but they generally been short-lived. Ironically, the stronger unions are, the better the current system works, because it meets the aspirations of a broader segment of the population.

RW: Do you believe that the union movement in general has an interest in seeing higher education unionized?

PD: Clearly the union movement is interested in seeking higher education — academics, staff, even students — unionized, for the same rationale it wants other sectors of society organized. Moreover, doing so in the education sector would have even a broader impact, given the influence educators have and students will eventually have.

RW: How do you see the role of unionization in American Higher Education? Do professors need unions? If so, why? Professionals often resist unions because they are so vested in individual systems of merit. How can unions begin to change these entrenched attitudes, particularly in higher education?

PD: Complex questions. On one hand, academia doesn’t lend itself to what at times can be the lowest-common denominator, mass-production approach of unions whose emphasis can be on protecting workers who need it rather than rewarding those who merit it. At the same time, the problems created by administrators who are incompetent or worse can sometimes require that professors have some built-in recourse or collective clout to stand up for their rights. There already is pressure for unions to back off their tough stand against merit pay in secondary education, and the questions that poses are not dissimilar to those you raise here.

RW: Some researchers estimate that more than 60% of all university teachers are adjuncts. How might unions help to alleviate this situation?

PD: Good luck. This is happening in various forms in a host of industries or economic sectors, including two-tier structures for journalists. But unions might have more success in education, because the balance of power hasn’t shifted as much and the employers aren’t as profit-driven.

RW: Online proprietary schools are the fastest growing sector of higher education in the United States today, yet many have argued that they represent the ‘Wall-Martization” of the university. Do you see parallels between the rise of Wall-Mart and the more recent rise of proprietary schools such as Phoenix and DeVry? Is it possible for unions to be organized at online proprietary schools?

PD: There are definite parallels. The diffusion of personnel and impersonality of interaction involved here make organizing all the more challenging.

Posted in: Composition, Economics, Professional, Union, Writing