Author: Sahar

A friend of mine asked what “progressive” meant today. Was she a progressive? I couldn’t answer her right away: I asked her if she believes in government transparency and more democracy. I asked her if she opposed the Iraq war, and what she thought of Howard Dean. She answered in the affirmative to each question, (and loves Howard Dean) so I told her that indeed, she was a progressive. Yet I feel issue positions can only serve as a heuristic, not definition, of the progressive mindset. So if I couldn’t answer my friend in a glib sentence or two, perhaps this short statement I had lying around will do the trick. :

What is progressivism?

Progressivism is often confused and interchanged with liberalism. That is a mistake. Liberalism is an orientation regarding policy. Progressivism is a related orientation regarding politics. To be a progressive is to believe that our political system is breaking or broken, and to agitate for transparency, campaign finance reform, and enforcement of civil rights.

Yet progressivism is much more than a laundry list of initiatives provided by institutions like the Brennan Center for Justice, worthy as those goals are. A progressive is not a blind patriot; she believes fervently in the value of American ideals due to their inherent worth in promoting the dignity, liberty, and welfare of everyone, rather than in the infallibility of American action due to the geography of her birth. A progressive believes that liberty means much more than lack of a king; in freedom from want as well as freedom of speech; in freedom from fear as well as freedom of religion.

Simply put, progressive politics are common-sense politics. Many progressives my age are bemused at the sorry state of politics today. Blatant corruption and abuse of power weren’t mentioned in the America that was promised by our high school textbooks. A progressive works to re-orient the United States towards its promise and self-image as the embodiment of the Enlightenment.

A progressive is warrior battling against the Assault on Reason.
Continue reading “I am a progressive patriot”

The very cool Mike Kerns has replied to my question re:bikes on campus:

Hey Sahar,

So this idea was proposed a couple of months ago, but due to logistics, maintenance, and safety/liability concerns we decided to hold off on that plan for the time being (while I looked into another option). The idea that jives with your suggestion had been to purchase extremely cheap bikes and get them fixed up…but the safety, liability, maintenance, etc. were questioned. The option of charging an additional amount to fund the program was also not well-received. As soon as I get some final numbers back from the bike company we’ve been working with of late, I’ll let you know in case you want to come meet with a handful of us to discuss everything and decide how to move forward.

-Mike

Kudos to Mike to get back to me so quickly.

I’m definitely going to try to meet with the “bike committee”; commenter Ari reports that

Don’t look to Paris for your model — they are a huge city and the cost is pretty high. Hampshire college has the system you’re talking about and they’re relatively closer to our size.

It’s the “yellow bike” system or was when I visited it some four years ago. Basically there are spots in key areas around the school and in the surrounding neighborhood with 4-5 bikes, more for really high traffic areas. Pick it up one place, leave it in another, so long as it’s locked and attached to the appropriate bike rack.

One thing we would need to do is add a bike repair center — someplace that you can drop off a broken bike for problems like flats, gear issues, etc. It’s a pretty simple system, should be able to do it.

Excellent news. I hope the committee takes a good look at the Hampshire model.

I encourage everyone else who cares about the issue to contact Mike and meet with “the bike committee” as well

I hear the Student Union is considering a bike rental program.

Well,  Paul Balik has a better idea. Why can’t we have a system of bike borrowing? Swipe your ID card at a designated bike rack to borrow a bike. Return that bike within X amount of hours (24? 48?) or pay a fine. It’s totally doable – I’m told that Paris and Copenhagen both have such a system. We can pay for the bikes by raising parking fees by five dollars.

Make driving marginally more expensive to fund a self-sustaining, zero-emissions form of transport. It’s a no-brainer.

It’s going to happen. And Soon.

I get email:

Weekend Events in Melrose, Weston Continue Markey’s Push to Save Planet

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Malden) has spent his career studying global warming and energy dependence, the most pressing issues of our time. This past year, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, he has been able to focus on the scientific and economic evidence and impacts of our planetary crisis, and talked to the pre-eminent experts in the world on these issues. This weekend, Markey will sound the planetary alarm bell here in his home state of Massachusetts.

At events in Melrose and Weston this Sunday, March 16, Rep. Markey will give an update of what’s happening at his Select Committee and in Congress on these issues, and more importantly, discuss how the citizens of Massachusetts can reduce their carbon footprint and help reduce the impact of global warming.

Events information:

Town Meetings on Global Warming and Energy Independence
With Congressman Ed Markey

Melrose Event:
Sunday, March 16th
12:30 – 2:30 PM
Melrose Memorial Hall
590 Main Street
Melrose, MA

Weston event:
Sunday, March 16th
4:30 – 6:30 PM
Eleanor Welsh Casey Theatre
Fine Arts Center
Regis College
235 Wellesley Street
Weston, MA

The Weston event is 9 minutes away (by car). The Melrose event is about 35. I will not be able to go there, but any reader can go, please email your impressions of the event to Czar<at) innermostparts d0t org and we’ll be happy to publish them

Wake up earlyish tomorrow.

Brandeis Students against the War will be meeting

Tomorrow, March 16, at 11am in the Romper Room in Shapiro Campus Center

to  prepare resources and plan the March 19th anti-Iraq rally (all day, main event at 5:15 pm).

Be there.

we want freedom, we want freedom

News you should know about – A few days ago, in the 49th anniversary of a failed Tibetan uprising, many Tibetans, led by Buddhist Monks, started rebelling against Chinese rule.

Eyewitness account:

Then the gate of the debating compound opened and this stream of maroon humanity poured out, several hundred monks. It was impossible to count but I think there were at least 300.

We thought it was part of the tradition but when you looked at the expression on their faces, it was a very serious business. They were pumping their hands in the air as they ran out of the temple.

The minute that happened we saw the police – two or three who were inside the compound – suddenly speaking into their radios.

They started going after the monks, and plain-clothes police – I don’t know this for sure but that’s what I think they were – started to emerged from nowhere.

There were four or five in uniform but another 10 or 15 in regular clothing. They were grabbing monks, kicking and beating them.

If we had gone to Sera monastery an hour earlier or an hour later, no-one would have known what these monks had done

One monk was kicked in the stomach right in front of us and then beaten on the ground.

The monks were not attacking the soldiers, there was no melee. They were heading out in a stream, it was a very clear path, and the police were attacking them at the sides. It was gratuitous violence.

There’s a lot of confusion right now, since Tibet is very hard for foreign journalists to correspond from and get into. You can get more info from the blog of students for a free tibet. I think the general feeling of what’s going on is this: the Chinese military has occupied and cracked down on the main city, Lhasa. Protesting has spread elsewhere. This is a big deal and a large blow to China’s carefully cultivated image of national unity in preparation for the 08 Olympic games. There are comparisons to Tiananmen Square, the American boycott to the Olympics due to Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan, and that “The wave of violent protests in Tibet could not have come at a worse time for the Chinese government”

James Fallows, a journalist for the Atlantic Monthly, is in China right now. He reports that the Chinese authorities have censored all internet, tv, or newspaper news of the events in Tibet. The great majority of the people of China don’t know what is really going on right now: the Chinese media is treating it as “small groups of hooligans have attacked soldiers in Lhasa but that things are under control.” (read here here and here)

Do we have a chapter of Students for a free Tibet here on campus?

To Brandeis University’s own Rivka Maizlish, who, by unanimous consent, was elected Secretary of the Waltham City Democrats last night.

Kudos. If all works as planned, she will be one of two Brandeis students to go to the Democratic National convention this year. Another example that you have the power.

March seems to be “kick Brandeis students off campus” month.

Hopefully, you already know about the case of my dorm-mate Mamoon Darwish. His room-mate has started a “Where is the Justice at Brandeis????” group on facebook. It already has 208 members. It asserts:

Mamoon has suffered from lack of due process and an unfair trial as administered by the Brandeis Judicial System. We are writing to draw your attention to his situation.

Rights violated (in chronological order):
1. Prevention from receiving medical consultation before making his police statement
2. Failure to receive proper legal council from the Student Development and Conduct SDC according to the Brandeis Rights and Responsibility booklet
3. Failure to receive written charges of accusation from the Student Development and Conduct
4. Mistrial:
a. Photographic evidence withheld
b. Witness statements withheld
5. Use of unnecessary force by Brandeis police officers.

I don’t know enough to tell whether all that is true or not. Maybe Mamoon has been given a fair hearing by the Brandeis Judicial System pursuant to University Policy. At this moment, I can’t judge. What I do know is that Mamoon, an international student, is barred from campus. This has a number of ramifications, including:

1. Health: Deprived of access to food. Since Mamoon was banned from campus he has been unable to access his campus meal plan. This meal plan represents the only provision of food within his Brandeis scholarship, which is Mamoon’s sole current source income.
2. Housing: Banned from campus since 16th of February to present. As an international student with limited funds and no family in the United States, the revocation of housing has left Mamoon homeless
…
4. Education: Suspended from all academic activities. Suspension at this time is critical, because the admission of TYP student as Brandeis freshmen for the 2008-09 is currently under consideration and hinges upon successful completion of all courses. Thus Mamoon’s suspension is equivalent to expulsion.

(emphasis mine)

So, if these reports are true, and I see no reason to believe otherwise, right now Mamoon has no income, few funds, and has been denied his only secured access to Food and Shelter, and, as a TYP student, has effectively been expelled, starting next semester. That isn’t right.

As a Brandeis student, I am very concerned. I expect my teachers to respect me and help guide my human development. How can I trust that they are acting in my interests when the University, the institution that represents them, treats a fellow student so badly? This shows a profound lack of humanity and decency on behalf of the people acting in loco parentis. I understand that they consider Mamoon too threatening to be on campus. Yet, could they not arrange housing for him? Surely they could feed the poor boy.

I just can’t believe that a place that is supposed to nurture me and be my parent-surrogate can act in such a harsh, reactionary, manner. What a desperate situation: a near-broke international student facing legal action in an unfamiliar country.

My point here is simple. Even assuming that the University is in the right to kick Mamoon off campus, even assuming that he is guilty and so forth, I feel that the University, seeing as it serves as a parent-surrogate; seeing as how it is in the unique position of being our metaphorical “teacher”; seeing as how it has a mission to help guide and nurture our development, should act in a more supportive manner.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure that the “powers that be” have a thought-out, clear reason they are acting as they are. I’m sure there are more arguments to be made on both sides. I know that there are many well-meaning, caring individuals on staff here. However, speaking as a student, I’m getting the message that the University cares very little about me. I’m of the impression that Brandeis would waste no time leaving me to the wolves if it thought doing so would be good for its reputation. I do not feel supported. I do not feel comforted and safe. Frankly, I find this a signal that I am seen more as a source of tuition/future bragging rights than as a vulnerable human being.

That’s a terrible shame.

Terry Pratchett, outstanding author, has early-onset dementia.

That sucks. Our hearts go out to him.

I went to see Harvey Silverglate today. I’ll have a complete writeup later.

Some quotes:

“American college campuses, especially liberal arts campuses, are the least free places in American society”
“One can not say in Harvard Yard what one may say in Harvard Square”
“Humor has taken more of a beating on campuses than political debate”
“If [college administrators] are afraid to say to the outside world what they say to the campus” (aka if his organization publicizes what they are doing and colleges back down) “they must know, deep down, that what they are doing is wrong”
“Restrictions are unconscionable because they enforce a particular viewpoint or ideology”

The basic story he told went something like this:
The mid-1980’s had a lot of “diverse” (read- non-white or non-male) students. College administrators decided that different types of students couldn’t get along without heavy-handed censorship. This was sparked by an ideology spread by a misreading of Herbert Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance“. [Interesting note – Herbert Marcuse wrote this essay while he was teaching at Brandeis. He even dedicated it to his students] Administrators got the idea that since some groups have been historically disadvaned, they deserved more freedom of speech than others (thus it’s OK to restrict speech hateful to minorities especially). Soon enough, they started restricting all sorts of speech. We then witnessed the growth of the number of “Mid-level administrators” micromanaging speech. Those in charge of Universities rationalized this by saying that “If we don’t make campus welcoming to potential students, they won’t come”. In a coup of PR, they rebranded their “speech codes” as “harassment codes” and that’s how we got into a situation when students can get expelled from Universities for saying/writing things that are “100% protected by the constitution”

Most shocking moment of the night? David Emer, an officer of the Brandeis Democrats (one of the groups who invited Mr. Silverglate on campus) demanding not only that Mr. Silverglate apologize for using the words “Nigger” and “wetback” in his examples.

Today, we host the previously-discussed Harvey Silverglate.

What other speakers and events can we look forward to over the coming week?

Well, first off, there will be a very important pre-March 15th organizing session in the Romper Room at 11am this Sunday. There, people will make signs, create arts and crafts, and delegate duties for the
March 19th anti-Iraq War/ 5 year anniversary of Iraq vigil/rally at the Shapiro Campus Center Atrium at 5:15.

Well, there will be events throughout the day, but the main action happens at 5:15.

This anti-Iraq rally has been in the works for a while. Let’s make it happen. For more information contact our very own Ben Serby or Lev Hirschhorn

What else is on the agenda this week?

• WATCH, a local organization promoting good low-income housing, is having a fundraising gala this April 15th. They want us to call local businesses to fundraise. Contact Justin Backal-Balik
  People are calling wednesday, thursday, and friday.
• Jamie Eldridge, a wonderful progressive and nearby assembly member, is running for Massachusetts State Senate. Help him out by canvassing over the weekend. Contact Innermost Parts contributor Phil Lacombe for more detals.
• Cape Wind is a great idea to have a wind farm in Eastern Mass. There will be a public hearing on whether to build it in Boston this Thursday. Drive down to Boston with Phil to speak in favor of clean energy.
• The Waltham City Democratic Committee is having it’s first meeting of the 2008-2010 session 7pm this Thursday at in the Auditorium at Government Center, 119 School Street. This is your last chance (for the next 2 years) to become a Committeemember. The BranVan will take the Brandeis delegation there at 6:30. Questions? Email me at sahar <~at~> innermostparts *dot* org or use facebook.
• Dr. Peter C. Frumhoff* will be giving a talk entitled: “Confronting Climate Change in the United States: Science, Political Will and Public Policy” this Friday from 12:15-1:45 pm at the Zinner Forum in the Heller School. Sources tell me there will be free food.

*Director of Science and Policy and Chief Scientist, Climate Campaign, Union of Concerned Scientists
I’m sure there are many other activists events going down this week. If you are a member of an activist club and want us to include updates on what you guys have been up to, email us at czar *at* innermostparts d0t org

Stay tuned for a special announcement later today…

Harvey Silverglate, noted civil liberties attorney, is giving a free lecture on free speech, academic freedom, political correctness, etc. tomorrow. We previously covered this event here.

Date:Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Time: 8:00pm – 10:00pm
Location: Shapiro Campus Center, Multipurpose Room

Facebook event page here.

You should definitely go. I know I will.

Bumped. –Sahar
Brandeis is trying to rebrand itself. But what will be its new image?
This:

Or this?

Related links:
– Marketers analyze the “Smart from the Start” campaign: here here and here.
– The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education sounds the red alert on academic freedom at Brandeis:

Today, Brandeis University joins FIRE’s Red Alert list, a distinction afforded to colleges and universities that act with severe and ongoing disregard for the fundamental rights of their students or faculty members. In the case of Brandeis, the university’s mistreatment of Professor Donald Hindley and subsequent shameless attempt to sweep the incident under the rug earn it a spot on the list.

Don’t get me wrong. I love Brandeis. I love the people here, the professors, and the fact that I cite Justice Louis Brandeis quotes and use them to great effect. I love sitting by the Justice Brandeis statue and basking in the fact that Earl Warren wrote the statue’s dedication. Our mascot is named after Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr! How much more awesome can you get? (I’ll tell you how – if we had named Ollie’s Eatery Thurgood’s, that’s how). Many times, however, I’m upset by how this University – dedicated to perhaps the most fair and famous advocate of civil liberties, honest government, protecting the powerless, and other great progressive causes- seems to forget it’s commitment to both Brandeis’ name and his ideals.

Which of Brandeis’ sophisticated marketing campaigns will win? Einstein holding a bagel spread, or a University steadfastly refusing to admit it was unacceptably curbing academic freedom?

Hey I’m at Shapiro Atrium liveblogging my impressions of the State of the Student Union Address. They have free falafel here, so get on down; the actual address didn’t start yet.

Note – all quotes are quick drafts and could be easily be misquotes. This is more about the general gist of her sentences than what she actually said.

Update 1: 6:57
Still no speaches. Many well0dressed members of hte student union are walking around. There is also a table of adults right next to me. Let’s see who they are. Jean Eddy, Ed Callahan, Joe Dupont other people who’se names I forget. They are all sitting right next to me. Interestingly enough, they’re talking about Eliot Spitzer and the whole “being caught with a prostitute” thing.

Update 2: 7:03
Ed Paternoso is talking. Talking about how he’s tight with Shreeya.
Now Shreeya is taking the se

Update 3: 7:04
Moment of silence for Bernard Herman. Who is he?
“I set up this year was to set up a culture of activism”
“Global Students for Global Change”
Dude she’s blasting Goldman. Then Jean Eddy/ Student Activities. She talks about facing media ignorance in October. What was this?

Update 4: 7:06
“The state of the union is strong” – Obligatory.
Talking about the Brandeis Citizenship campaign.
Shoutouts to some clubs she’s inspired by –
Student Peace Alliance: Hosting the SPA convention.
SEA: For working with administration & recycling
Vocal
Student Crossing Boundaries – brandeis students going to the west bank
Clinton -> PF.

Update 5 – 7:08
Shout outs to Jason Gray / Itsmystudentunion.com , “stall street journal” , outreach dream team
Shout out to Mara Cullen
It seems that Shreeya is taking an optimistic tone, etc. She said that the union overcame the challenges of Student Activities fee, etc. Yet the Student Union backed down: the student events fee will still be diverted

Update 6 – 7:11
She’s been talking about sundry quality of life issues now. Shout outs to specific senators.

Update 7 – 7:14
Enough shout outs to specific senators. Now she’s talking about the accomplishments of committees. Examples of some things she’s talking about: zip cars, ridge wood, ollies eatery, midnight buffet.

Update 8 – 7:17
Kaamilah and Tamar Ariel are apparently switching us to recycled paper and sweatshop free clothing. Cool!
This speech is very much like a laundry list of things going on. Which is warranted up to a point.
Talking about Hiatt reform. Apparently it’s a-happening.
Shout-out to Rebecca Wilkof for setting up Communiversity. I agree with Shreeya. Communiversity is awesome.

Update 9 – 7:20
Diversity at Brandeis is different: “It’s not the way we look, but the ability to freely associate … It’s not an initiative. … not a reaction”
Talking about how the validity of the Senator for Minority Students. There will be a committee report. Bah.

Update 10 – 7:21
Talking about Virgina Tech and other shootings. Decision to arm Public Safety.
“Discourse and lobbying led to creation of the Firearms Implementation Committee”.
“One of the more serious concerns raised involves the sensitivity training policemembers get” Damn Straight that’s right.
She’s going to create a propoganda arm to quiet people’s fears? Maybe she should instead pay attention to the concerns raised?

Update 11 – 7:23
Talking about Jean Eddy and Student Activities Fee.
Jean Eddy is a few feet away from me. I can’t see her expression but she seems to be paying attention attentively.
“Whether it was a good decision or not, students should have decided whether students should have gotten a say”
Talking about the Bernstein Marcus protest. Called it “inspiring”. “We will not shy away from [this issue] in the coming months” I wonder if that’ll happen.

Update 12 – 7:25
Talking about Extasy.
“Currently Brandeis is lacking in accommodation capacity. we simply do not have enough large spaces for large events”

Update 13 – 7:29
Talking about Club Collaboration
Talking about F-Board reform. It all sounds very worthy but I can’t copy it down fast enough. Wants a more centralized and transparent F-board structure.
Talking about funding rollover. Blames clubs for not spening money they ask for. I’m not sure how true this is.
Challening club leaders – “we want you to think big. Then think bigger”

Update 14 – 7:31
Student Union wants a cap on its funding for one year – the student activities fee keeps growing since tuition keeps increasing. <-News?
She missed a chance to potshot the upward-spiraling tuition fee.
Talking about CapX. What is this?
News – in the Spring we will ask you to amend the constitution
Thanking Jean Eddy now for working with them. Is this in return for talking about the Student Events thing?

Update 15 – 7:34
Jason Gra will start an executive committee to create a student bill of rights.
[ed – this could end up badly. The conservative or “Let’s not challenge the university on anything” voting blocks in the union senate could end up crippling such an attempt. This could end up with us having less rights than before]

Update 16 – 7:36
“To the Union. Take responsibility for your government.”
She lauded the progressiv / activist community on campus. Pretty words.

It’s over

Gen Ed, a really cool new club that tries to bring smart/cool/famous people to Brandeis, has sent an email updating us on their efforts and asking people to help. Out of their six(!) current projects, here are two I think you really should pay attention to:

We are currently working on an environmental and sustainability week entitled Green Week ’08 from April 9th to April 16th. This is a collaborative effort with organizations ranging from Students for Environmental Action to the International Business School to the Office of Communications. This week will include an address by Congressmen Edward Markey and a panel of NGO and business leaders discussing business opportunities in the Green Revolution on Sunday, April 13th in Rapaporte Treasure Hall. Other events during the week include the launch of SEA’s green fund to significantly reduce the campus carbon footprint, and a cleanup of the Charles River. There are many more events for this week.

This sounds great. Ed Markey is a good congressman who is a leader in the House on Internet freedom issues. I’m looking forward to this week.

We are co-sponsoring a talk by Harvey Silverglate, the attorney for Donald Hindley in his case of accused of racial insensitivity:’

<Link to Article>

Mr. Silverglate’s lecture will be entitled: The Death of Free Speech, Parody, and Vigorous Debate on Campus: Why has it Happened, and What is to be Done? The event, co-sponsored with Brandeis Republicans, Brandeis Democrats, and Brandeis Academic Debate and Speech Society will take place Wednesday, March 12th at 8:00 P.M. in the Shapiro Multipurpose room.

Like we’ve said before, the Hindley case is very important. Teachers got tenure in a reaction to the McCarthy era. Tenure was instituted to provide protection from the University or Government from punishing you for critiquing the status quo. As far as I know, Professor Hindley is an outspoken voice on campus in challenging the administration. When the administration broke its own rules in its haste to attack him, that creates a clear perception of wrongdoing.

All of the Brandeis community should lend Mr. Silverglate our ears. If the Brandeis Republicans and Brandeis Democrats can both unite around academic freedom, so should we.

What’s up with the Activist Resource Center?

I know they do good things (Sundays at 8pm in the Castle Commons), but their website, calendar, and blog seem to be abandoned. That kinda sucks.

I’ve got it. How do you deal with your outrage fatigue?

First off, please welcome our two newest contributors, Phil and Adam. It’s a pleasure having such talent onboard.

I’ve been thinking. One not-so-secret conventional wisdom of campaigning (though most of the media seems to have missed it entirely) is the concept of firing up your base. What do I mean by this? The American political system is structured so that there are often greater returns to activating and exciting your base than to chasing the elusive middle. For example, one reason people cite Karl Rove’s supposed genious is that he realized, in time for the 2004 election, that Bush should not swing leftward/more moderately in the General Election, but instead hold steady in his reactionary politics/ swing rightwards.

Why does this work? Conventional wisdom has it that an undecided vote is worth two normal votes, since you both gain a vote and deny your opponent one. The new electoral calculus, however, has a different way of seeing things: the swing voter can be trumped by the swing activist. A “centrist” candidate (a la Harold Ford in 2006) who sticks to polls, is politically cautious, etc, may have the same issue positions as much of the electorate, but doesn’t neccessarily inspire. This candidate may give off the impression that they aren’t too committed to their cause. Their subconscious antipathy to their public positions may show off in their body language, etc. Perhaps most importantly, these candidates don’t do much to excite their core constituency. A hardcore party member may vote for a Milquetoast nominee, but they likely won’t volunteer for them, or show as much enthusiasm if they do. A committed volunteer in a well-run campaign can easily be worth 10 votes.

Similar to swing activists, there are (in the context of Democratic politics) “swing liberals”, who may usually sit out elections because “both parties are the same” or “I’m tired of voting for the lesser evil”, etc. This well of untapped votes can be substantial. In 2006, for example, Democrats famously gained more votes from self-identified Democrats – 2.41% , than from Independents – 2.08%.

For more on swing voters and swing activists, there is much good discussion at the Democratic Strategist and at Open Left.

So. Long story short, the comparatively low turnout in the American political system is such that you can get more votes from persuading your base to vote than by persuading independents/undecided voters to vote for you. Also, it’s probably easier.

In the recent French Presidential Elections of 2007, however, we see a different dynamic. The French system is characterized by multi-party runoff voting. There are various political parties, all with their own candidate. If no one candidate gets 50%+1 votes, then the top two vote-getters square off in Round Two. 2007 was characterized by many interesting deviations from the historical French norm. First of all, the voter participation rate was very high – 84.6%. Secondly, this election was a very polarizing one, such that many voters decided to forgo the minor-party candidates and to “vote utile” for one of the mainstream candidates – Ségolène Royal, Nicolas Sarkozy, or, interestingly, François Bayrou. That brings us to the third deviation: Bayrou, a “centrist” candidate, picked up a great deal of the vote (18.57%, compared to Sarkozy’s 31.18% or Royal’s 25.87%), almost tripling 6.8% in the previous 2002 election.

For the second round, however, of the 2007 election, Royal and Sarkozy could not utilize the base-voter mobilization strategy: almost 90% of the electorate had voted in the 1st round. There were dimished returns to trying to squeeze votes from the remaining 10% (assuming that the voters of the “fringe parties” would automatically vote for whichever candidate was most ideologically aligned to their first choice. I.e. the number of people switching from Communist to Sarkozy is assumed to be negligible). Thus, both candidates were forced to pander to the center – Bayrou’s voters.

The voter participation rate and structure of the American politcal process, then, can perhaps be said to be a facilitator* to the horrible, 2002-2006 reign of the Repuiblican Trifecta (House, Senate, Pres). Knowing that appeasing their far-right base was more important than responding to the will of the majority of voters, Republicans felt free to ransack the country. Soon enough, however, they went too far. Let’s hope they keep marginalizing themselves.

William F. Buckley, 1926-2008.

Buckley was an icon of the conservative movement. An architect, even.

As a writer and architect of the modern conservative movement he truly made his mark. He founded National Review in 1955 at age 30, when the world considered conservative intellectuals a genetic impossibility. Just nine years later, NR would prove instrumental in Barry Goldwater’s rise to the GOP nomination for president. In 1980, Goldwater protege Ronald Reagan won the White House, and made National Review mandatory reading for his entire staff.

Rick Perlstein wrote a moving obit:

He was a good and decent man. He knew exactly what my politics were about—he knew I was an implacable ideological adversary—yet he offered his friendship to me nonetheless. He did the honor of respecting his ideological adversaries, without covering up the adversarial nature of the relationship in false bonhommie. A remarkable quality, all too rare in an era of the false fetishization of “post-partisanship” and Broderism and go-along-to-get-along. He was friends with those he fought. He fought with friends. These are the highest civic ideals to which an American patriot can aspire.

Anyone trying to understand the history, power, and current form of the conservative counter-establishment must study Buckley.
Continue reading “William F. Buckley is dead”

In the latest version of The Hoot, we get treated to this kind of thinking:

It’s a legitimate concern to consider how the United States is perceived by the rest of the world and it’s a legitimate desire to have the leader of our country be someone who is PR-friendly. After all, regardless of whom we elect president, he/she will have his/her share of mistakes and it is the media that will reign over how colossal or mild their transgressions are. But, this isn’t to say that a presidential candidate can’t overcome their lack of PR luster. After all, we did elect Nixon—twice.

I disagree with the premise of this editorial. It’s not a sophisticated PR shop that allows St. McCain to be the darling of the D.C. Press: it’s his relationship with the reporters who cover him. In 2000, the reporters covering Al Gore infamously hated him. This led to the establishment of some journalistic frames of thinking about Al – (He’s too wooden, a serial
exxaggerator, etc) that, regardless of their inherit truthfulness, served to perpetually shape how he was covered.

And remember, the Giuliani myth was predicated on him having a good PR team on 9/11. Truth is, he made corrupt and horrible choices that got men killed that day. He got away with it for 6 years before people started taking notice.

Marianna Faynshteyn may not be conscious of it, but what she advocates is letting the beltway press choose our president for us. I don’t think that’s a good idea.

Continue reading “Keep your media away from my politics”

Alex Norris is tired and upset with all the organic pro-Obama content on the web.

Even if I were a diehard Clinton supporter, I would totally oppose this line of thinking.

We should be happy that our candidates are so compelling that people willingly take time off of their busy schedules to spontaneously create candidate-related content. It reflects well on how invested people are in their candidate, certainly, but more importantly, it’s a shift in culture from the TV-centric, big-media driven campaigns of the past. People are taking ownership of the campaign and participating more in the election process. As progressives, as decent human beings, we want more citizen participation in government, and Obama Is Your New Bicycle is part of that.

Alex, if you find Amigos de Obama so annoying, no one is forcing you to click that link.

edit: Turns out I misunderstood Alex after all. Whoops. Amigos de Obama is still really fun though.

I’m reading an interesting article in the Nation, taking a critical and nuanced look at Hugo Chavez. Is he a Democrat or Dictator? The article never really decides on one or the other, but instead chooses to discuss the contradictions, motivations, and context for Chavez’s Bolivarian Project.

The failed referendum did not end the polemics. But for the many, more sober observers caught in the middle, it did help to clarify the actual state of Venezuelan democracy. Chávez’s defeat was proof that Venezuela today is not a dictatorship. Still, the authoritarian tendencies of Chávez’s government, while exaggerated by some of his critics, are very real. His supporters may excuse them as responses to the problem of political exclusion that is, undoubtedly, a more fundamental threat to democracy throughout the region. But unless those authoritarian tendencies are curbed, the Bolivarian dream of overcoming this exclusion will almost certainly remain unfulfilled.

Interestingly enough, this article claims that Venezuela was a model of democracy throughout the 70s: it had a vibrant two-party system, the parties compromised when they needed to, etc. Yet this was bad thing, because, in the end, Venezuelan society was very unequal and fraught with class division. While both major parties contained members of all economic classes, both were also ruled by the economic and political elite. Chavez lead the disenfranchised to power, and tried to right some of those wrongs and oust these elites from power. By all accounts, he succeeded.

Continue reading “Chavez, Considered”

Notice how nearly all these presidential debates are co-sponsored by the Coal Industry?

Notice how all these presidential debates conspicuously don’t ask any questions on Global Warming, energy policy, etc?

Perhaps these two phenomena are related.

Bonus Thought: Coal is the enemy of the human race.

I was reading the archives of The Atlantic Monthly when I came across an article called Black Nationalism On Campus. It’s an interesting read, but this passage in particular jumped out at me:

Many whites see being black, once you’ve made it out of the ghetto, as a big advane: they think blacks are constantly getting little breaks that whites don’t. Many blacks have exactly the opposite view: race will always be an extra burden. The cost of housing is higher for blacks. The risk of crime is higher. Nearly every social relationship with whites eventually arrives at a chilling moment of revelation of the hard inner kernel of racism. At work the assumption of inferiority is ever present; affirmative action underscores it, but is the only way even to get in the door.

I don’t claim any special insight here, but this is really poignant. I will say, however, that anyone identifying with the “white” outlook should read Peggy McIntosh’s White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsackl.

Speaking of which, never use the term “Political Correctness”. It reinforces conservative frames and thinking. Instead, use the terms “respect” or “sensitivity”. “Political Correctness” reinforces both disgust with government and disgust with embracing diversity. Instead, it is more about realizing that our words and phrases can hurt others, and being good enough people to act accordingly.

(Crossposted to Blue Mass Group)

There’s a lot that’s been going on with FISA, wiretapping, and so forth lately. Maybe you find it somewhat confusing. I sure did. So I decided to write down a timeline and explanation to clear my head. I took that paper and turned into this post. First off, this video is the best way to explain what’s going on in the most concise way that I’ve found (and it’s a video starring a cute cuddly teddy bear!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxKYG6KTK-M&[/youtube]

In other words. Bush bragged about illegally spying on Americans a few years ago. Everyone was outraged. Then enough Democrats in Congress (and almost all Republicans), instead of punishing him for breaking the 4th Amendment, decided to retroactively make all the illegal stuff the White House has been doing legal. Now, Bush is fearmongering again that the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) is outdated, because it covers wiretaps but not email, etc. Instead of making a small technical change, enough Democrats (and almost all Republicans) in Congress decided to give the White House sweeping new PATRIOT-act style powers when they updated the FISA law.

FISA (remember, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) was a law Congress passed in the wake of Watergate, making sure that the FBI had to check with a court up to 2 days after wiretapping someone. Remember, this law governs spying on Foreigners. Spying on American citizens without a warrant is explicitly forbidden by the 4th Amendment.

This sweeping change to FISA with Patriot-Act style powers was called the Protect America Act. Congress passed it about 7 months ago, and gave it a 6 month window before it expired. So it was due to expire. The House passed a pretty good law to replace it. The Senate split consideration of the law into two committees: Intelligence and Judiciary. The Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont came out with an ok version of the bill. The Intelligence Committee, chaired by Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, came out with a version of the bill so horrible that it pardoned Telecommunication companies (such as AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint) for any and all crimes they made while aiding the White House. Remember, this spying all started *before* 9/11.

Now, Harry Reid, Senator from Nevada and Senate Majority Leader, had a choice. He could make the (comparitively good) Judiciary bill the official one, or the (horrible unconstitutional illegal) Intelligence bill the official one. Guess which one he chose? The way the Senate works, since Harry Reid chose to make the Judiciary bill the official bill that the full Senate worked on, it was much harder to amend the bad bill into the good one than keep the good one intact.

After a lot of boring parliamentary stuff that you don’t need to worry about (just know that Republicans are good at blocking stuff they don’t like in the Senate), the Senate rejected any sort of amendment to the (bad) Judiciary Bill that would make it any better at all, and then passed it as-is.

Where does this leave us? The bills that the Senate passed and the House passed are substantively different. We’re waiting to see what unified bill comes out of the conference committee (composed of elements of the House and Senate, this committee takes the two bills, comes up with a compromise bill, and sends it to the House and Senate to be voted on, with no amendments permitted).

While all this drama was going on in Congress, the (Patriot-Act style) Protect America Act expired. Democrats offered to extend it for a few weeks until the new bill could be voted on. Bush demanded that they extend the (Orwellianly-named) Protect America Act into a permanent law, or he’d veto it. House Democrats showed some spine* and basically didn’t buy his B.S.

So, on one hand we have the Republican White House and Republicans in Congress swearing up and down and frantically running to the press and creating other sorts of theatrics, urging that the Protect America Act (that is only 6 months old) is absolutely indispensable to the safety of the Country, terrorists will attack as soon as it expires, etc. On the other hand you have Bush vetoing (or threatened to veto such that no one even bothered trying, it’s a bit unclear) an extension of the Protect America Act.

This is a prime example of the Republican *Politics of Fear*.

For instance, look at the video ad that Republicans are running now on the issue. It’s a work of art, almost, how their ads look more and more like promos for 24.

And here’s a kickass response:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3r8VRnTW4w&e[/youtube]

See Louise Slaughter in the video? If my house was 500 feet over to the side of where it is now, she’d be my congresswoman. I’m proud of her today.

Innermost Parts is still on break. Since you were cool enough to check up on us even though school is out, we thought we’d return the favor by posting this “easter egg” before we really return from our one week hiatus\

Want to learn more about Professor Lessig?

There are three places that I’d encourage you to look and are the standard web articles people point to:

1. This feature in Wired Magazine. “Lawrence Lessig helped mount the case against Microsoft. He wrote the book on creative rights in the digital age. Now the cyberlaw star is about to tell the Supreme Court to smash apart the copyright machine.”
2. This feature in New York Magazine. It deals with his life today, but the main focus of the story -his experiences of sexual abuse as a child- really helps show what a decent man Prof. Lessig is. I cried after reading this.
3. Wikipedia. ’nuff said.

More recently, there exists a good interview in Ars Technica regarding his run for congress.

Perhaps most importantly, he’s released a 10-min movie in his deliberate, powerpoint style detailing the launching of what he calls the “Change Congress Movement” as well as his possible plans to run for Congress himself. The
“Change Congress” idea boils down to this:

The influence that money now has in Washington skews public policy in important areas. Good people working in a bad system. Change that system, change that ethic. It is the first problem that has to be solved. How? A bipartisan coalition of members of Congress who pledge to support three things:

1. No money from lobbyists or political action groups
2. Ban earmarks in the Congressional appropriations process
3. Public financing of campaigns

Continue reading “Who is that bespectacled man, anyway?”

Innermost Parts is still on break. Consider this posting snippet an “easter egg” in thanks for you still checking up on us, break nonwithstanding.

Lawrence Lessig is one my heroes.
Lawrence Lessig is, in fact, an academic and a lawyer.

I know what you’re thinking. “One of his heroes and not even a politician. This Lessig guy must really be special, huh.”

In a word: Yes.

From a time way before I got into the political scene, I’ve been interested in the Open Source / Technology scene. And the slashdot scene had a healthy respect for Internet Freedom, consumer freedom. Information, they say, wants to be free.

Well, Professor Lessig pioneered all this. He’s like the MackDaddy of all legal theorists when it comes to the internet. His wikipedia profile begins like this:

Lawrence Lessig (born June 3, 1961) is an American academic. He is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society. He is founder and CEO of the Creative Commons and a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and of the Software Freedom Law Center, launched in February 2005. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications.

Pretty cool, huh? Prof. Lessig has spearheaded, founded, and/or aided some pretty important movements, like Free Culture (Culture, (i.e. media) should be free for society to remix reinterpret, and redistribute), Creative Commons (A type of license that encourages derived works) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (ACLU for the Internet).

Right now, he’s moved his focus from patent reform to a broader fight against corruption, and specifically on the corrupting influence of money on politics.

Long story short, he’s probably running for Congress in CA-12. Thing is, the election is 6 weeks away (it’s a primary for the special election in a heavily blue district) and he’s facing a well-funded and strong competitor.

Prof. Lessig running is super cool. Like, he’s a totally legit possible Supreme Court pick. Imagine if Louis Brandeis ran for Congress. That’s how awesome this could be. Like Brandeis, Professor Lessig is of high integrity and has dedicated his life working on obscure points of law that impact real people. Louis Brandeis was known as “the people’s attorney”. Professor Lessig is also a people’s attorney, working to change the restrictive copyright and patent laws that stifle innovation and hinder our rights.

More on this later.

I’m the interim/initial chair of the Draft Lessig National Organizing Committee. I’d like to invite you to join me in my quest to put this singularly brilliant, intellectual, upright, honest, visionary man into Congress.

Innermost Parts is still on break. Consider this an “easter egg” as a thank you for still checking up on us.

Anti-Lobbyist Candidate Is Advised by Lobbyists

For years, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has railed against lobbyists and the influence of “special interests” in Washington, touting on his campaign Web site his fight against “the ‘revolving door’ by which lawmakers and other influential officials leave their posts and become lobbyists for the special interests they have aided.”

But when McCain huddled with his closest advisers at his rustic Arizona cabin last weekend to map out his presidential campaign, virtually every one was part of the Washington lobbying culture he has long decried. His campaign manager, Rick Davis, co-founded a lobbying firm whose clients have included Verizon and SBC Telecommunications. His chief political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., is chairman of one of Washington’s lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates, which has represented AT&T, Alcoa, JP Morgan and U.S. Airways.

Remember, the real McCain scandal: he took money from lobbyists in exchange for using his power on the Senate to tell the FCC to benefit their clients.
Continue reading “Front page of the Washington Post tomorrow:”

Hey all. Due to Brandeis being out due to break, we’ve decided to wind down our blogging for the next week. Check back when vacation  is over (Feb 24th). Great! Have a fun February Break!

Speaking of Net Neutrality…
The FCC, in a rare move, is having a hearing on the issue, open to the public, here in Boston. ArsTechnica has the goods:

 The hearing will be held at 10am on February 26 at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and is open to the public (more details in the official announcement). With all the commissioners planning to be in attendance, this is as good a chance as most people will ever get to air their views directly to the FCC’s top officials, so take advane if you’re in the area

I can’t make it; classes. Hopefully someone else in the Innermost Parts community can go. If so, tell us how it went!

Still confused by Net Neutrality? Here’ s a fun primer:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt0XUocViE&feature=related[/youtube]

This is Ed Markey. Ed Markey represents Brandeis to Congress. Ed Markey also represents the American people. He’d like a word:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXkUahWnpTY[/youtube]

Net Neutrality. It sounds complicated. It sounds important.  Lucky for you, it’s the latter. Unlucky for you, it doesn’t exist in America anymore at this time.

Net Neutrality means freedom of speech on the internet. It means that Verizon has to treat your bits of data with the same care and resources as it treats Microsofts. It means that TimeWarner can’t block the websites of it’s competitors (like Newsweek, Skype, etc).

Except Net Neutrality doesn’t exist anymore. The democratic ideal that the internet was founded on is being crushed by the greed of Comcast, AT&T, and their ilk. To learn more about Net Neutrality, you can read my earlier work on the subject, or go to SaveTheInternet.com.

Suffice to say: Net Neutrality is the thing that keeps the internet fun and not controlled by any company or government. It’s gone, and there’s a big push to bring it back.

I’m proud that my Congressman is leading the charge.

Continue reading “Your Congressman would like a word”

Regarding the administration’s treatment of Professor Hindley, an alum speaks out: “I urge the administration in the strongest possible terms to drop the case and extend its apologies to Hindley. The reputation of Brandeis University depends on it.”

More info on Blue Mass Group.

I want you to be among the first to know that I am announcing today I am running for the Middlesex-Worcester Senate seat after last week’s announcement by Senator Pam Resor that she will not be running for re-election. I have worked closely with Pam in the Legislature for nearly six years and managed her State Rep. and State Senate campaigns. I know Pam not only as an incredible legislator who has shown leadership on environmental, public safety, education and economic development legislation, but also as a mentor and good friend. Her honesty, integrity, and work ethic will be greatly missed after this year.

Jamie Eldridge is a true progressive and is the only member of the Massachusetts legislature to come into office through clean money / clean elections. He’s a really great guy and I’m looking forward to helping him out in any way I can.

Important things you should know about that happened today:

– History was made today as Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd officially apologized to the Aborigines on behalf of the Australian people and government.

– The Senate voted to trash the constitution today, giving a no-questions-asked pardon to telecommunications companies that probably helped the Bush Administration break the 4th Amendment (before 9/11!).

These are the Democratic Senators that voted for telecommunication amnesty (boo! hiss!):

Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Evan Bayh (D-IA), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Tom Carper (D-DE), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Jim Webb (D-VA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

No Republican voted against amnesty, Senators Clinton (D-NY) and Graham (R-SC) didn’t vote at all.

More on this later.

– Today was the “Potomac Primary”. Obama swept.

– It looks like progressive champion Donna Edwards will defeat corrupt incumbent Al Wynn in the Democratic primary of Maryland’s 4th District. This is a huge victory for the progressive movement and for the citizens of MD-4.

edit: oh, how could I forget? U.S. Supreme Court Judge Anthony Scalia is fine with torture. Help me: I’m no law student; what part of “cruel and unusual” do I not understand correctly?

another update: Donna wins outright. Woot!

yet another update: The Writer’s Strike is over, the writers won, hooray!

Like be superdelegates at the Democratic National Convention. Imagine getting personal phone calls from Bill Clinton and John Kerry urging to endorse their candidate. At age 21.

Or totally school cynical newsmen.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kica8hmSdAM[/youtube]

That’s why you should try to be a delegate to the Massachusetts Democratic State Convention or even the Democratic National Convention.

So you may have noticed that we here at Innermost Parts haven’t been talking much about the Professor Hindley situation.

That’s by design. There’s no point commenting until we have something useful to contribute to the debate. I will say that, at this time, I generally agree with the sentiment expressed here:

Rather than taking an objective approach to determining whether Hindley’s comments were discriminatory, the administration appeared to begin the process with a judgment already in mind. Due process was ignored, and the administration instant punitive response made Hindley’s guilt a foregone conclusion. Unfortunately, this is not the first event in recent years in which the administration has been criticized for failing to protect freedom of speech rights. While increasingly more competitive students matriculate at this University, the administration continues to exercise its ability to censor speech.

This seems to be part of a troubling trend of hamhanded authoritarianism on part of the Brandeis establishment. If we understand the accounts of the University correctly, it seems clear that the University has not been acting honestly in this case, with it’s own Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities finding that

Brandeis’s investigation had “lacked thoroughness and impartiality” and “concluded that decisions made by Provost Marty Krauss to threaten termination and place a monitor in Hindley’s classroom ‘should now be entirely withdrawn.'” The committee’s report also faulted the university administration for its vague standards on allegedly offensive speech and its relation to allegations of discriminatory harassment, noting that the standard for true discriminatory harassment involves far more than merely offensive speech.

Most tellingly, it seems the University has been flouting its own rules, threatening to fire a tenured professor, denying him some due process rights, etc.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education wrote a concerned letter to President Reinhartz. He never replied, but Provost Marty Kruass wrote that she considered the case “closed”.

When the ACLU makes a stand, we pay attention. We here at Innermost Parts do not consider this issue closed at all. We don’t know why the Administration has such animosity towards Professor Hindley, but it seems that the he is in the right.

Required reading:

Quietly, while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been inspiring Democrats everywhere with their rolling bitchfest, congressional superduo Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have completed one of the most awesome political collapses since Neville Chamberlain. At long last, the Democratic leaders of Congress have publicly surrendered on the Iraq War, just one year after being swept into power with a firm mandate to end it.

Solidifying his reputation as one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history, Reid explained his decision to refocus his party’s energies on topics other than ending the war by saying he just couldn’t fit Iraq into his busy schedule. “We have the presidential election,” Reid said recently. “Our time is really squeezed.”

Working behind the scenes, the Democrats have systematically taken over the anti-war movement, packing the nation’s leading group with party consultants more interested in attacking the GOP than ending the war. “Our focus is on the Republicans,” one Democratic apparatchik in charge of the anti-war coalition declared. “How can we juice up attacks on them?”

In and around the halls of Congress, the notion that the Democrats made a sincere effort to end the war meets with, at best, derisive laughter. Though few congressional aides would think of saying so on the record, in private many dismiss their party’s lame anti-war effort as an absurd dog-and-pony show, a calculated attempt to score political points without ever being serious about bringing the troops home.

“Yeah, the amount of expletives that flew in our office alone was unbelievable,” says an aide to one staunchly anti-war House member. “It was all about the public show. Reid and Pelosi would say they were taking this tough stand against Bush, but if you actually looked at what they were sending to a vote, it was like Swiss cheese. Full of holes.”

In the House, some seventy Democrats joined the Out of Iraq caucus and repeatedly butted heads with Reid and Pelosi, arguing passionately for tougher measures to end the war. The fight left some caucus members bitter about the party’s failure. Rep. Barbara Lee of California was one of the first to submit an amendment to cut off funding unless it was tied to an immediate withdrawal. “I couldn’t even get it through the Rules Committee in the spring,” Lee says.

This is ridiculous. I encourage you to read the whole thing.

SEA is working with the University to implement a “sustainability fund”. Good work. It’s nice to see the University showing an intention to live up to the Presidents Climate Commitment it signed; it’s also nice to see them working with a student group on the matter.

Kudos to both of them.

In his latest column, Brandeis celebrity Jordan Rothman has this to say:

I absolutely despise affirmative action and any programs in admission that give preference to people of racial minority backgrounds. First of all, why should people be judged better for the color of their skin? Like Martin Luther King jr., I belive that the content of one’s character should be the sole determinant of one’s success in life. However these, yes, racist officials seem to give preference for the arbitrary characteristic of race.

I respect Jordan, especially his uncanny ability to juggle so many activities (such as writing a column for the Hoot!) but in this case I think he’s viewing the situation in a narrow manner. We live in a society with a white-male power structure. Look at the composition in Congress, CEO’s in business, people in positions of power, etc. Colleges recognize this. Thus, Universities like Brandeis take in people who are disadvaned by the dominant rich-white-male power structure, such as minorities and the poor, and give them the extra tools they need to compete in a hostile environment.

The outside world is full of unfair competition. Racism and misogyny are alive and well. Brandeis wants to give some people a leg up so they can be better prepared for that unequal “real world” and I’m fine with that.