As anyone with an eye on the world of electoral politics has seen, because this is an election year we've been seeing "Candidate Obama" much more often. The Candidate Obama stage is about the only time the Democrats' liberal base gets a few bones thrown to it (it's a shame he wasn't up for re-election in 2010 - we might have gotten a halfway decent healthcare bill).
In a bid to re-energize the university student vote, President Obama made quite a few pledges and proposals around higher ed in his State of the Union Address. The crux:
Join me in a national commitment to train two million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job. My Administration has already lined up more companies that want to help. Model partnerships between businesses like Siemens and community colleges in places like Charlotte, Orlando, and Louisville are up and running. Now you need to give more community colleges the resources they need to become community career centers – places that teach people skills that local businesses are looking for right now, from data management to high-tech manufacturing. [...]
When kids do graduate, the most daunting challenge can be the cost of college. At a time when Americans owe more in tuition debt than credit card debt, this Congress needs to stop the interest rates on student loans from doubling in July. Extend the tuition tax credit we started that saves middle-class families thousands of dollars. And give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work-study jobs in the next five years.
Of course, it's not enough for us to increase student aid. We can't just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition; we'll run out of money. States also need to do their part, by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets. And colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down. Recently, I spoke with a group of college presidents who've done just that. Some schools re-design courses to help students finish more quickly. Some use better technology. The point is, it's possible. So let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can't stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. Higher education can't be a luxury – it's an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.
I left higher ed with roughly $50,000 in student loans. That debt, by way of the sometimes staggering monthly payments, has restricted where I can live, what I can do as a career (and specifically what kind of jobs I can afford to take), and what I can do with my free time.
That particular $50k was thanks to one single year of law school. One.
I was one of the lucky few as I left college -- I had zero student loan debt, a combination of commuting from home and tuition remission thanks to my father's faculty position. I had grand visions of walking in the footsteps of other radical lawyers, who eschewed the limousines and corner offices (and 100-hour work weeks) and instead used the law to at best help (at worst, mitigate the harm to) those most beaten down by the powers-that-be.
On December 2nd, students at the London School of Economics and Political Science occupied the Old Building on campus, demanding the Administration take a stand against the looming education cuts coming from Parliament. I chatted with occupying LSE students Isla Woodcock ('11), Emma Kelly ('12), and Alice Stott ('13).
FSP: So first off, what's the overall mood in the building right now? What are folks doing?
LSE: Very positive. The events team are drawing up a schedule for the week, others are drafting our statement.We're all ecstatic about getting official union backing this afternoon after a vote!
FSP: Yes, I read that! How much organizing for the occupation itself was done under the auspices of the student union? Or was it more of an independent grouping of student activists?
On July 7, 2007, Marcus Epstein had too much to drink and stumbled onto Georgetown’s scenic, shop-lined M Street, walking in no particular direction. At 7:15 p.m., he bumped into a black woman, called her a “nigger,” and struck her in the head with an open hand. An off-duty Secret Service agent was watching. Epstein “jogged away,” according to the agent’s affidavit, and when Epstein was finally chased down, he “continued to flail his arms while being taken into custody.”
He faces a maximum punishment of 180 days in jail and a $1000 fine. He’s under a restraining order to stay away from the couple involved, has agreed to seek mental health treatment, complete an alcohol treatment program, write a letter of apology to the victim and donate $1000 to the United Negro College Fund.
$1000 to UNCF? That's got to sting. How many times will you have to mow David Duke's lawn to make that back?
So who is Marcus Epstein, anyway? Oh, where to begin...
Dubbed "the man who seems to be vying for the World's Second Darkest White Supremacist" by OnePeople'sProject, Epstein is a frequent writer for far-right outlets like Human Events, The American Conservative, The Washington Examiner, the anti-semitic Taki's Mag, and racist/anti-immigrant sites like VDARE. He's also linked with the founding of the white nationalist Youth for Western Civilization (started by his good friend Kevin DeAnna).
He also does his fair share of legwork for the far right: Epstein founded the Washington DC Robert Taft Club (yes, the Taft of Taft-Hartley infamy) which often features white supremacist speakers, is the executive director of Tom Tancredo's Team America PAC, and runs Pat and Bay Buchanan's The American Cause.
Memorable Epstein quotes:
"Diversity can be good in moderation — if what is being brought in is desirable. Most Americans don't mind a little ethnic food, some Asian math whizzes, or a few Mariachi dancers — as long as these trends do not overwhelm the dominant culture." [source]
"A number of Miami's boosters, including Time Magazine, have dubbed it 'The Capital of Latin America.'
But why are Americans supposed to like this?
Even the Cuban immigrants, still preponderantly white, law-abiding, Republican-voting, affable people are not desirable if they don't assimilate. Perhaps a few Little Havanas are manageable in a huge country, just as many Americans may see a few isolated Chinatowns as an exotic novelty. The problem is when the Little Havanas become Big Havanas and the Chinatowns become Chinacities or even Chinastates." [source]
Looking at a tapestry in Ethiopia:
"It's no Sistine Chapel, but you know what Samuel Johnson said about a Dog walking on it's hind legs." [source]
Here's what Samuel Johnson said: "Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."
Not so tough when not on the interbutts, are you Marcus? When you attack people of color in real life, your internet buddies and Stormfront trolls aren't there to back you up. I'm glad more and more people linked with Youth for Western Civilization are pulling out their fasces for all to see.
Earlier this month, the late Jerry Falwell's Liberty University decided to decertify its chapter of the Campus Democrats club. This means the group cannot use Liberty University's name on any of its materials, can't advertise events on campus, and can't use any university funds. Why? Because its parent organization, the national Democratic Party, "supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the 'LGBT' agenda, Hate Crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc".
These idiots are going to be sued, have their tax exempt status revoked, or both. Americans United for Separation of Church and State laid out a pretty solid case as to why what Liberty did was illegal, and has filed a formal complaint to the IRS. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), however, states that it's entirely within Liberty's rights as a private university to do so - once again, property rights discourse trumps all other legal arguments with them.
Reaction to the decision has been almost universally condemned. Young Democrats of America has set up a petition you can sign here.
Today the club members met with Liberty Chancellor Jerry Falwell, Jr. to negotiate how the club may be recognized again. And one of the conditions Liberty is setting is a public apology:
After meeting with Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. today, members of Liberty University’s Campus Democrats club said they are developing a proposal that would let the club regain officially recognized status while promoting a pro-life agenda.
The club also is drafting an apology to the school and a retraction of some statements it made to the news media last week after the university revoked the club’s official recognition.
Maria Childress, the club’s staff adviser, said Falwell and other administrators criticized the club for its comments to the news media. A meeting of club representatives and university administrators lasted almost two hours today.
And the Administration has made it clear that they aren't budging when it comes to funding - which is likely to be the crux of any court case against them. Those clever Dems! They must know that classic maxim, "power concedes nothing without groveling apologies."
I've included the entire "cease and desist" letter the club got from the Liberty administration:
Education Secretary Arne Duncan said Tuesday that mayors should take control of big-city school districts where academic performance is suffering.
Duncan said mayoral control provides the strong leadership and stability needed to overhaul urban schools.
[...]
He acknowledged Baltimore schools chief Andres Alonso, asking how many superintendents the city had in the past 10 years. The answer was seven.
"And you wonder why school systems are struggling," Duncan said. "What business would run that way?"
After the forum, Duncan told The Associated Press that urban schools need someone who is accountable to voters and driving all of a city's resources behind children.
"Part of the reason urban education has struggled historically is you haven't had that leadership from the top," he said.
In a sense, I can understand his motivation: as head of Chicago Public Schools, he was a direct recipient of abrogated school board power. The democratic, decentralized, and much-lauded Local School Council system in Chicago (which was created in the late 80s through tireless grassroots community organizing against the very bureaucracy Duncan would end up running) was systematically gutted and ignored under his tenure. It also isn't surprising that his main line of attack is that institutions of learning and governance aren't run enough like businesses. Duncan's Renaissance 2010 program was written and handed to him by the big business players in Chicago and elsewhere.
Now the Center for American Progress, through its panoply of blogs, is pushing the idea with some help with Mayor Bloomberg. Both CAP's Wonk Room and Matthew Yglesias blogs talked up the idea that really, having fewer elected officials means more democracy. Tom Vander Ark at the Huffington Post called what little democratic control we have over our schools to be a "strange historical remnant." Yglesias took the idea and ran with it, all the way to its monarchical end:
I think this is part of a larger issue about getting democracy right in the United States. There was an assumption, at one time, that you could make government more democratic and accountable by, in essence, multiplying the number of elected officials.
In retrospect, I think this was based on flawed logic and faulty assumptions that forgot to account for the fact that people have a limited amount of time they’re realistically going to spend monitoring public officials.
[...]
I think part of the answer is that states should probably adopt unicameral legislatures and consider cutting down on the number of independently elected statewide officials. But cutting down on the quantity and influence of hyper-local electeds and putting responsibility in the hands of visible figures like the mayor and city council is crucial.
Apparently Bloomberg did an interview for ThinkProgress, part of which featured him extoling the virtues of dictatorial control over schools, teachers, and students, with the help of bogus, cooked numbers:
My favorite part is near the end, when he says: “...you could literally end democracy as we know it here in this country… without an educated public. And when you have these school boards that are fundamentally controlled by special interests, the truth of the matter is that students come last, if at all.” Fewer elected officials = more democracy! It all makes perfect sense now!
Thankfully, regular readers largely countered and ridiculed such a position:
The flipside of Matt’s point is that when a single local elected executive is responsible for EVERYTHING, it’s pretty hard to hold him or her accountable for any specific thing. If you like what Bloomberg’s doing with, say, public safety and housing but don’t like his education policies, how do you hold him accountable? You can’t cast half a vote. On the other hand, a school board subject to being voted out of office can be held accountable.
And one of the commenters actually mentions what progressive reform of our school systems would look like:
The other kind of reform that is possible is to empower parents and teachers, but in order to do that you don’t need to gather power into the office of the mayor- you need to distribute power into the neighborhoods, families, and classrooms.
Another tip-off is the exaggerated concern about the “special interests”. Matt isn’t talking here about the textbook publishers and computer sellers- a mayor who doesn’t know anything about education isn’t going to tangle with those “experts”. And he isn’t talking about the real estate industry that wants to keep school taxes low- no mayor is going to try to trim the horns of the real estate barons.
No, when Matt is talking about “special interests” he’s referring to teachers and parents. Transfer the powers of the school board to the mayor’s office and those “special interests” will have just as much influence as the rest of us in an election- which is to say, none.
Authoritarian, bureaucratic schools are a bipartisan affair in politics - which means it's going to take a lot more than mere elections to reclaim our country's educational systems.
I just ran across a great article from Education Week looking at the striking similarities between Obama's Department of Education and George W. Bush's.
The writer also interviews the always-awesome Alfie Kohn, teacher union officials, and some right wing policy people (Bush Administration, AEI, etc.). It's one of the best mainstream analyses of Obama's education priorities that I've seen in awhile.
The money quote is pretty early on in the article:
"He is operating almost in a straight line from President Bush," said Diane Ravitch, an education historian at New York University, who co-writes a blog for edweek.org. She has criticized core elements of Mr. Obama’s K-12 agenda, such as his enthusiasm for the charter sector and what she worries is an overreliance on standardized testing to judge schools and teachers.
"Obama is, in effect, giving George W. Bush a third term in education," said Ms. Ravitch, who served as an assistant secretary of education under the first President Bush.
The article is behind a barrier at edweek, so I've reposted it below the fold:
Student organizers with the Student Power Party screened a portion of the high-budget porn/satire "Pirates II: Stagnetti's Revenge" last night, after a panel discussion on censorship and free speech.
The film was originally to be screened last week in the theater of the student union in conjunction with a talk about safe sex - but once Maryland state legislators in heard about it, conservative lawmakers headed by State Senator Andrew Harris threatened to pull all $400+ million of state funding to the school if it went ahead with the screening. UMD Administration was all too happy to comply, all the while insisting that they did it of their own accord.Baltimore Sun:
Linda Clement, vice president for student affairs at Maryland, said the decision to cancel the film was her own and based on a variety of factors.
"I think people were concerned about portrayal of women, concerned about violence, concerned about our students and decision-making processes," she said. "We were losing sight of the educational value that might come from some kind of exercise like this, so it just seemed like the best thing to do."
Clement said it was appropriate for state lawmakers to be debating what films a university shows on campus. "I think state legislators have the right to weigh in on many, many issues regarding state agencies," she said.
As Marc Fisher of the Washington Post put it, "At the University of Maryland yesterday, the school's top brass faced a classic test of their allegiance to the ideals of open inquiry, freedom of speech and academic independence. They flunked big time."
While the UMD bureaucrats were scrambling to kiss rings in Annapolis, student organizers seized on the moment to give everyone an object lesson in freedom of speech and student power. Members of the Student Power Party reserved a large room and screened the first half hour of Pirates II, after a rousing panel discussion by UMD professors and a lawyer for the ACLU.
This was certainly a victory for student power and direct action - "you won't screen the film? Then we will!" And this was also a great example of the Streisand Effect: that is, attempts to censor something often only result in many more people hearing about and seeing it. Student organizers also did a wonderful job with messaging and media strategy. If Student Power Party members win the UMD student government elections going on today and tomorrow, this may be a hint of what an energized, aggressive SGA will look like.
State Sen. Harris, who despite his best efforts is left with egg on his face, is now arguing that the Regents should come up with a policy regarding pornographic movie screenings on campus. Of course, he's clear as to what he wants that policy to be. As the Washington Post reported, "Harris said the university pornography policy should require that 'you can't have university-sponsored XXX entertainment on campus.'" Thankfully as a Republican he doesn't have a lot of legislative clout in the legislature, and everyone involved knows that University funding isn't in jeopardy. It's telling, however, that the group of people most aware of this fact, the Administration, were also the first to abandon free expression on campus. And from the start that's what this controversy has always been about: it hasn't been about pornography itself (which I'm sure most everyone has strong opinions regarding), but about how deep into campus affairs government officials can reach and meddle.
In a move reminiscent of The Wall Street Journal criticizing David Graeber's anarchist credentials, the electoral and reformist student groups at NYU did their best at hand-wringing and concern trolling, through a press release (of course sent out after they knew how everything would turn out).
NYU Students and Administration Members,
Though “Take Back NYU!” (TBNYU) has raised legitimate concerns regarding the conduct of the NYU administration, we, the undersigned believe that these concerns should be expressed in a more constructive manner within the avenues that NYU has established for student advocacy.
Many NYU students support budget disclosure, financial aid reform, greater sensitivity to student concerns, and increased openness and transparency. However, we believe that:
1) TBNYU’s tactics are confrontational and disrespectful in a manner that alienates sympathetic students and prevents the university from constructive and respectful engagement.
2) TBNYU’s demands are too disjointed. Broader student support can only be achieved if demands are coherent and focused.
3) TBNYU’s conduct is not appropriate to the gravity of the situation and does not encourage the thoughtful discourse necessary.
We urge that the NYU administration not dismiss the concerns of TBNYU and continue to pursue an amicable end to the situation. Should they be raised in a more constructive and appropriate manner, whether by TBNYU or any other student group at NYU, we hope the administration will not close the door to future discussion on the issues.
We, the undersigned:
NYU Students Organizing for America
Students of Color and Allies
Think Torch
NYU College Democrats
NYU College Republicans
Political Union & Review at New York University
"Golly gosh! Can't we win a better university without ruffling any feathers? What if we just kept asking nicelyurging NYU to open its books and for the Administration to cede power to democratic structures?"
If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, TBNYU activists and allies can easily determine the mental status of their fair weather friends.
As anyone with an eye on the world of electoral politics has seen, because this is an election year we've been seeing "Candidate Obama" much more often. The Candidate Obama stage is about the only time the Democrats' liberal base gets a few bones thrown to it (it's a shame he wasn't up for re-election in 2010 - we might have gotten a halfway decent healthcare bill). 
$1000 to UNCF? That's got to sting. How many times will you have to mow David Duke's lawn to make that back?
Earlier this month, the late Jerry Falwell's Liberty University decided to decertify its chapter of the Campus Democrats club. This means the group cannot use Liberty University's name on any of its materials, can't advertise events on campus, and can't use any university funds. Why? Because its parent organization, the national Democratic Party, "supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the 'LGBT' agenda, Hate Crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc".
In a sense, I can understand his motivation: as head of Chicago Public Schools, he was a direct recipient of abrogated school board power. The democratic, decentralized, and much-lauded Local School Council system in Chicago (which was created in the late 80s through tireless grassroots community organizing against the very bureaucracy Duncan would end up running) was systematically gutted and ignored under his tenure. It also isn't surprising that his main line of attack is that institutions of learning and governance aren't run enough like businesses. Duncan's Renaissance 2010 program was written and handed to him by the big business players in Chicago and elsewhere.
I just ran across a great article from 
In a move reminiscent of 
