You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Politics’ category.
A study of California’s community college system released yesterday finds that despite shocking enrollment reductions, budget cuts are making it impossible for hundreds of thousands of students to get into the courses they need to maintain progress toward their degrees.
Community college enrollment has been reduced by 17% in the past four years, but course offerings have been cut by 24%, leaving some 470,000 students on waiting lists as the fall semester gets underway. The system’s budget, which has been cut by $809 million since 2008, will be slashed another $338 million this winter if California voters reject a tax increase referendum in November.
The problems in the state’s community colleges are compounded by the fact that California has cut enrollment at four-year schools in recent years, increasing demand for CC slots:
“We have all of these students who want to take courses — high school graduates, then a whole group who had planned to go to the University of California or Cal State but can’t afford to, and with the economy, all of these people coming back to college because they need skills,” one college’s spokeswoman told the LA Times. But “we’re all being forced by the state to offer fewer courses for students.”
Student support services have been cut to the bone as well, which means that enrollment counseling is harder to come by, along with help in sorting out financial aid problems. One college has completely eliminated tutoring and student visits to four-year colleges, and ended publication of its student handbook, the report says.
The summer lull in this year’s Quebec student protests is coming to a close, and the next few weeks are likely to be crucial ones for the future of the movement.
To recap: Quebec’s ruling Liberal Party announced plans for multi-year tuition hikes last February, prompting students to walk out of classes throughout the provinces. Those walkouts quickly developed into ongoing student strikes, with many campuses closing entirely after student strike votes at general assemblies. College administrators generally respected the strikes, even — in some cases — refusing to comply with court orders that their campuses be reopened. Suddenly the red square, symbol of the movement, was everywhere.
In mid-May the government brought forward a proposal to end the strike, but it offered only minimal concessions and its plan was overwhelmingly rejected in a series of campus votes. After that debacle the Liberal Party put forward Bill 78, a law that criminalized much protest in the region and imposed stiff penalties on student organizations that supported campus closures. Bowing to the reality of widespread campus closures, Bill 78 suspended the spring semester at colleges shuttered by the strike, mandating that they resume meeting in mid-August. (The law passed on a party-line vote after a hectic marathon session.)
Defiance of Bill 78 was widespread, and its provisions have generally not yet been implemented. Hundreds of thousands of Quebecois took to the streets in the aftermath of its passage, and protests have continued throughout the summer on a somewhat smaller scale.
That’s what’s happened. Here’s what’s coming:
Rumors have been swirling for months that Quebec’s ruling Liberal Party will announce on August 1 that they will be holding provincial elections on September 4, and news reporting is increasingly treating a Wednesday announcement as a done deal. Polling has been sparse so far, but the most recent data show the LP and the Parti Quebecois virtually deadlocked, with one poll aggregator showing the LP likely to win some 60 seats in the new legislature — a six-seat loss from their current standing, and a decline large enough to rob them of their current majority in the 125-seat body.
But the situation could change dramatically between now and the election, particularly since Bill 78 mandates that the province’s striking colleges re-open their doors on August 17. A student lawsuit to block implementation of the Bill was rejected earlier this month, but another challenge is still pending — this one from professors who say the government does not have the right to unilaterally impose a new teaching schedule on them.
Mark your calendars: This year, campus activism for the new academic year starts in Quebec, and it’s starting early.
One of the Supreme Court’s first cases when it returns in the fall will be Fisher v. University of Texas, scheduled for argument on October 10. The Fisher case concerns the constitutionality of affirmative action policies in undergraduate admissions at UT.
Campus affirmative action has been on shaky legal ground since 2003, when the Supreme Court ruled in the 5-4 Grutter v. Bollinger decision that race-conscious policies could not be used to remedy the effects of past societal discrimination, but only “to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.”
Four of the Court’s members were then willing to accept a broader role for affirmative action, while four wanted to end it entirely. It was Justice O’Connor, the swing vote, who endorsed the compromise that carried the day, but in the last nine years, four members of the Court — including O’Connor — have left by death or resignation, and their replacements have shifted the Court significantly to the right.
Chief Justice John Roberts, one of the conservative post-Grutter additions to the Court, wrote in a 2007 opinion that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race” — that the Constitution and sound public policy demand race-blind admissions, in other words. In contrast, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is likely to be the swing vote this year, held in the same case that the government has a “legitimate interest … in ensuring all people have equal opportunity regardless of their race,” and that “narrowly tailored” affirmative action is permissible in service of that interest.
Just how narrow such a policy must be to meet Justice Kennedy’s standards will likely be the central question before the Court in Fisher. And although Kennedy has so far refused to join the Court’s conservative wing in endorsing a ban on race-conscious admissions, he has never yet voted to uphold an actually existing affirmative action program.
I’ll be following this case as it proceeds through the SCOTUS calendar during the coming year, commenting in more detail on the issues involved, the oral arguments, and the decision when it eventually appears. But for now, as I mentioned above, I wanted to draw your attention to a website and petition that the United States Student Association has put up.
USSA will be submitting an amicus brief in support of UT’s affirmative action policies to the Supreme Court early next month, and they’re currently collecting signatures from students to include in that brief. If you’d like to let SCOTUS know you support affirmative action in college admissions, you can do it by adding your name to the USSA brief here.
One of the most unfortunate elements of the Breitbart organization’s attempt to smear President Obama on the basis of his support, as a law student, for professor Derrick Bell has been the claim that Bell was somehow antisemitic. The claim rests on “Space Traders,” a 1993 short story Bell wrote, a sci-fi parable that sketches an encounter between the United States and mysterious space aliens who offer the country unimaginable wealth in exchange for the abduction of the nation’s black population.
The Breitbart folks quote from a review of a book critical of Bell which includes a gloss on the Space Traders story. Here’s the relevant portion:
“Jews condemn the trade as genocidal and organize the Anne Frank Committee to try to stop it. Empathy from another group that has suffered oppression? Not according to Bell. Instead, Jews worry that ‘in the absence of blacks, Jews could become the scapegoats.’ … The story is … a poke in the eye of American Jews, particularly those who risked life and limb by actively participating in the civil rights protests of the 1960’s. Bell clearly implies that this was done out of tawdry self-interest. Perhaps most galling is Bell’s insensitivity in making the symbol of Jewish hypocrisy the little girl who perished in the Holocaust — as close to a saint as Jews have. A Jewish professor who invoked the name of Rosa Parks so derisively would be bitterly condemned — and rightly so.”
This passage is the source of numerous criticisms of Bell, including a viral claim on Twitter that he “publicly mocked Anne Frank.” But it’s grounded in a fundamental misreading of Bell’s story.
In Space Traders, American Jews are among the leading opponents to the plan to trade away the country’s black population. Bell quotes a fictional rabbi as saying that people of faith
“Simply cannot stand by and allow America’s version of the Final Solution to its race problem to be carried out without our strong protest and committed opposition. Already … a secret Anne Frank Committee has formed, and its hundreds of members have begun to locate hiding places in out of the way sites across this great country. Blacks by the thousands can be hidden for years if necessary until the nation returns to its senses. We vow this action because we recognize the fateful parallel between the plight of the blacks in this country and the situation of the Jews in Nazi Germany. Holocaust scholars agree that the Final Solution in Germany would not have been possible without the pervasive presence and the uninterrupted tradition of anti-Semitism in Germany. We must not let the space Traders be the final solution for blacks in America.”
Bell never suggests that this speech is dishonest or maliciously motivated. He portrays American Jews as flocking to the rabbi’s call, and as suffering legal persecution, economic retaliation, and antisemitic abuse as a result.
But what of Kosinski’s quote, which he says demonstrates that Bell “derisively” regards all of the above as “hypocrisy” and craven self-interest? Well, you can read the relevant passage for yourself:
“A concern of many Jews not contained in their official condemnations of the Trade offer was that, in the absence of blacks, Jews could become the scapegoats for a system so reliant on an identifiable group on whose heads less-well-off whites can discharge their hate and frustrations for societal disabilities about which they are unwilling to confront their leaders. Given the German experience, few Jews argued that ‘it couldn’t happen here.'”
Bell doesn’t describe Jewish concern for blacks as a sham, nor does he characterize their concern about antisemitism as “tawdry self-interest.” He depicts Jewish opponents of the trade as motivated both by sincere empathy for blacks and by legitimate worries about antisemitism.
Derrick Bell was a pessimist. He believed that those who thought the country’s racial woes were in its past were dangerously deluded, and Space Traders was an expression of that perspective. A fair reading of the text makes it absolutely clear that he saw American Jews, like American blacks, as victims of the country’s white supremacist ideology, and that he viewed their fear of becoming targets of bigotry as entirely reasonable. The story is a slavery allegory, but it is a Holocaust allegory as well.
There’s nothing antisemitic in the piece. Nothing at all.
Update | Lots of folks seem to be under the mistaken impression that Bell himself called Anne Frank “the symbol of Jewish hypocrisy.” As the quotes above make clear, Bell never used that phrase in any context. The term comes from Alex Kosinski’s review, in which it appears as Kozinski’s gloss on Bell’s writing.
Second Update | Now it’s being argued in multiple places that Bell wrote that “Jews would sell blacks as slaves.” This is, of course, pretty much the opposite of Bell’s position, even in the most uncharitable reading of his work.
The Breitbart machine’s attempt to smear President Obama for his 1990 embrace of civil rights activist and legal theorist Derrick Bell is an act of cynical, craven maliciousness. There was nothing covert about Obama’s support for Bell, nothing hidden about a video clip that appeared on television during the 2008 campaign and has remained online ever since. It’s a ginned up non-story grounded in a long list of lies and distortions.
Which is a shame not least because Bell is a figure around whom real, important arguments could easily be built. A civil rights lawyer who grew skeptical of the Brown vs. Board of Ed decision, a Harvard Law professor who wrote an agitprop sci-fi story that was adapted into a schlocky HBO production, Bell was a strange and complicated man. His views on race and justice were contrarian, pessimistic, and deeply unsettling to those — of any race — who regard the project of achieving American racial equality as having entered its mopping-up phase.
I’ve been going back and reading (often re-reading) some of Bell’s writings since this story broke yesterday, and I’ve been struck again and again by his ability to provoke and to unsettle. Take for instance his characterization, from a 1998 book review, of black people as living “at the mercy of a criminal justice system that unapologetically prefers and protects whites.”
It’s the “unapologetically” that inflicts the real pain there — a defiant, hostile characterization that seems designed to provoke defensiveness and dismissal. But the word is crucial to his larger argument, because it characterizes our society as one in which racism is not vestigial but essential. Racism, to Bell, wasn’t peripheral to American identity, but ingrained deeply within it, and if one did not acknowledge that reality, one’s efforts to combat it were bound to fail, and fail in shoddy, pathetic ways.
Bell’s critics often accused him of proceeding by assertion rather than argumentation, and there’s merit to that complaint. The “unapologetically” in that sentence is offered as a fact, not a hypothesis, and the casualness with which it is deployed renders it difficult to respond to. How would one prove that Bell was wrong? By offering examples of white American racial apology? By pointing to instances of liberal hand-wringing over racial abuses? Any attempt to engage seems to lead to entanglement, and Bell has no interest in finding a congenial middle ground.
But what he’s up to is something far more interesting than mere assertion, even in the parables that have drawn so much mockery. (Evidence of their confounding power can be found in the fact that they reduced a scholar as cogent as Richard Posner to the ugly and spluttering claim that they “reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of nonwhites.”) No, the project Bell is engaged in is the construction of an alternate reality, a brick-by-brick dismantling of received notions of how things are, to be replaced with a new way of seeing. Facts are important to this project, but Bell is mostly uninterested in arguing over facts — he proceeds from the premise that the facts are undisputed, and that it’s the interpretation of those facts that’s at issue.
Take this, from the piece I quoted above. Addressing the question of whether it is “proper to use a person’s race as a proxy for an increased likelihood of criminal misconduct,” Bell notes that from the dawn of slavery to the days of Korematsu, “the law’s answer was clearly, yes.”
He goes on:
“Affirmative action is under tremendous pressure politically and legally because whites claim they are innocent victims of policies that penalize them for the misconduct of others who also happen to be white. As a result, the Supreme Court has severely limited those programs by requiring that they meet the exacting standards of strict scrutiny. But the Court has approved race-based police stops with barely a mention of the harm suffered by innocent blacks or Mexican-Americans who look like suspects who also happen to be black or Latino. This inconsistency is not an aberration but part of a long-standing pattern to shape legal standards to protect whites when such protection can be achieved at the expense of blacks.”
“This inconsistency is not an aberration.” That phrase, that idea, constitutes the heart of Derrick Bell’s analysis of race and law in the United States.
studentactivism.net 
Recent Comments