Category Archive

Yesterday University of California officials announced that they intend to seek an 8% increase in student fees for next fall, bringing the cost of in-state, off-campus attendance to more than twelve thousand dollars a year. This new hike comes on the heels of the 32% fee increase, implemented last fall, that sparked massive student protests throughout the state.

As noted here yesterday, in-state tuition, room, and board in the UC system is already several thousand dollars a year more expensive than average out of state costs nationwide, making it cheaper for California students to study in other states than to stay at home.

The proposal will be voted on at a meeting of the UC Board of Regents next week. Expect fireworks.

Tuition, room, and board for out-of-state students at the University of California at Berkeley topped $50,000 this year, the first time that any public university’s costs have broken that barrier.

But Berkeley, which charges out of state students who live on campus a total of $50,649 in fees, isn’t just the most expensive public university in the country — its rates top those of all but 87 of the nation’s more than a thousand private colleges and universities.

Attendance at Berkeley costs $27,770 for in-state students this year. With the average total cost for out-of-state students at American public colleges and universities standing at $23,526 this year, that means that California’s home-state students are paying more to attend Berkeley than they would to attend a typical state institution at out-of-state rates.

Oh, and Berkeley fees are slated to rise another eight percent next year.

Andrew Shirvell, the Michigan Assistant Attorney General who waged an ongoing campaign of homophobic slander against an openly gay student government leader, has been fired.

Shirvell was a political ally of Attorney General Mike Cox, and had even served as Cox’s campaign manager in a past election. But today Cox said in a statement that Shirvell had “repeatedly violated office policies, engaged in borderline stalking behavior, and inappropriately used state resources” in his harassment of Michigan State student assembly president Chris Armstrong. In addition, Cox said, Shirvell had “lied … several times” to AG staff investigating his conduct.

Cox stood by Shirvell when the Michigan Daily first wrote of his bizarre behavior, but placed him on disciplinary suspension when the story broke in the national media.

There’s a lot to like about libertarianism. The idea that people should, in general, be left alone to make their own decisions and control their own destinies is a righteous and important one. But there’s a narrowness of focus in a lot of libertarian argumentation that I find incredibly frustrating.

Take this piece from the libertarian magazine Reason. In it, Steve Chapman claims that by regulating Happy Meals and trying to tax soda, politicians in San Francisco and New York are acting as “food police” — telling us what we can and can’t eat.

The reality is, though, that none of the politicians Chapman slams are trying to ban anything. The San Francisco law doesn’t stop parents from buying their kids fries or burgers, it just regulates which foods can be bundled with toys. And the New York proposal wouldn’t halt sales of sodas, it’d just tax them a bit more.

In today’s United States, attempts to actually ban products on moral grounds are thankfully quite rare. But by framing regulatory schemes like these as contests between free choice and state nannyism, libertarians often obscure the real dynamics at play in business-consumer relationships, and let insidious governmental acts off the hook.

Consider, for example, the recent New York Times exposé of the federal government’s role in promoting the sale of unhealthy, cheese-laden fast food. Under a paradigm of consumer choice, such bizarre schemes are unobjectionable — the feds are merely helping certain products make it to the market, where folks have the option of buying them or not.

But we make choices based on the options we’re presented with, and the choices we make are shaped by others’ decisions about what to offer us. If we’re presented with the opportunity to buy a traditional Happy Meal, we’re more likely to choose that particular set of menu items than we are if we’re left to pick and choose from an a la carte menu. If the price of Coke goes up, we’re likely to buy less of it. And if some government employee develops and promulgates a more artery-clogging pizza, then we’ll be presented with that as an option in the marketplace, and some of us will select it.

The war of autonomous consumer vs freedom-hating government is a classic libertarian construct, but as a rhetorical device it obscures as much as it illuminates. None of us constructs our world from an unbounded sea of possibility. Each of us lives an existence mediated by bureaucratic, corporate, and social forces, and those forces interrelate in ways far more complex than the “market vs government” strawman suggests.

Tuesday evening, as the polls were closing in most of the country, a young black Milwaukeean named Andre Douglas tweeted that only 4.7% of blacks had voted in his home state. It’s still not quite clear where he got this incorrect information — my best guess is that he or someone he knew misread a report that only 4.7% of Wisconsin voters had been African American — but the stat spread like wildfire on Twitter that night, quickly losing its connection to Wisconsin and becoming a “fact” about the country as a whole.

The claim was greeted with skepticism by many, but the doubters were overwhelmed by the believers. The story was repeated so often that it — combined with the news that the US Senate would be losing its only black member — turned the term “African Americans” into a Twitter trending topic for much of Wednesday.

Why did this false claim, first made by a guy with fewer than three hundred followers, blow up so big? Three reasons, I think…

First, it couldn’t be easily debunked.

You might think that how many African Americans voted in this week’s election would be a fact you could quickly Google, but if you did, you’d be wrong. It’s not a stat that appeared in any media coverage of the election, and — as I discovered when a friend on Twitter asked if anyone knew the true number — calculating involves tracking down data from a bunch of different sources.

If folks had been able to research the claim and quickly post a link to a more accurate number, they would have done so. But they couldn’t, so they didn’t. (Almost immediately after I posted my own estimate of black turnout — something like 34% — yesterday evening, my site started lighting up with the results of Google searches on the stat.)

Second, midterm election turnout is an obscure subject.

What percentage of Americans turn out to vote in a typical midterm election? How much less (or more) likely are blacks to vote than whites? How much did voter turnout rise in 2008, and what has happened to midterm voting numbers after elections similar to 2008’s?

I could have given you pretty good answers to most of these questions yesterday, but I’m a historian of American social movements who specializes in issues of race and electoral politics. And even I would have been guessing about some of them.

But unless you have this data — unless you’ve got at least a solid hunch about what off-year turnout numbers should look like — you’re not going to be able to form your own opinion about whether the 4.7% stat makes sense.

If you don’t know whether overall turnout in 2010 was 20% or 40% or 60% (and most Americans don’t) and you don’t know whether blacks typically turn out 90% as often as whites or 60% or 30% as often (and again, most Americans don’t), then you’re not going to be able to assess the stat’s plausibility on your own.

Third, it reinforced a belief that was already there.

For whatever reason, the false stat circulated almost exclusively among African American Twitter users. For those who shared it, it served to reinforce beliefs that they already held about low levels of black civic engagement — and in many cases a cynicism about the shallowness of black support for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

Interestingly, though, those beliefs are themselves false — or at least exaggerated. It’s true that blacks tend to vote at lower levels than whites, but the differences aren’t dramatic, as figures from recent elections show.

In 2004, when John Kerry ran for president against George W Bush, 65.4% of white citizens voted in the November election, as opposed to 60% of blacks. In the midterm elections of 2006, the figures were 49.7% for whites and 41% for blacks. And in 2008, with Obama on the ballot, blacks were more likely to vote than whites — by a margin of 64.7% to 64.4%.

The gap between white and black turnout does exist, but it’s not huge — in 2006, the last midterm election for which we have data, it was about the same as the gap between 35-44 year olds (45.5%) and 45-54 year olds (53.8%), and considerably smaller than the gap between married people (56.2%) and divorced people (42.9%).