Alas, a Blog | It's about stuff.

News from White Land

Posted on November 23, 2011 by Julie

Karnythia sort of beat me to this, but I found two very interesting news items yesterday. One comes from James Fallows’ blog on The Atlantic, courtesy of an anonymous reader:

You all (and by you all I mean whites, yes I’m black) let this happen because the people being hurt by police brutality were mainly poor, black and brown, and in many cases, immigrants. It has always been this way.

…

The most frustrating thing for me in the last 24 hours after seeing the footage from UC Davis is knowing that if it was a group of people like me protesting there wouldn’t be the same outrage. It’s not every day you get told over and over again you don’t matter. It’s depressing

Do go read the whole letter, as the reader makes a salient point about how the military industrial complex has influenced our police forces.

The second item came from Naomi Wolf, via Twitter:

well I am very sad to say we do have our first death in the US caused by police violence and it is a fetal death:… http://fb.me/VQ5K50OT

…our… first… death?

Later, Wolf wrote that she meant “in these protests,” and that “I wish you give me or anyone the benefit of the doubt, it was an error.” Fine, but you know, I’m so very, very sick of white people fucking up and then immediately going on the defensive. What Wolf doesn’t realize is that in an issue so absolutely racialized as police brutality, a mistake like this one is not neutral. In misspeaking, you support a long, widespread, ruthless history of suppressing knowledge of violence against communities of color. Anyone with any sense of justice would be more disturbed by the damage such a comment can cause than by the backlash they received. Why was her first and only instinct to snap at people instead of to apologize?

Let me put it another way (and I’m not the first person to make this analogy): let’s say I accidently slam a door on someone’s fingers and, surprised and in pain, they bark out something I perceive as mean. Even if I later grumble to myself about how they shouldn’t have hurt my feelings, if I respect them as human beings, my first instinct is going to be to tell them I’m sorry and get them some ice.

H/T Brown Femi Power.

Brandon McInerney Sentenced To 21 Years In Prison Via Plea Bargain

Posted on November 23, 2011 by Ampersand

The Oxnard teen who shot a gay classmate he believed was flirting with him has agreed to spend the next 21 years in prison, a plea deal that ends a case that drew national attention and ignited debate on how schools should deal with openly gay students.

Brandon McInerney, who was 14 when he pulled a gun out of his backpack and shot Larry King twice in the head in 2008, has already served nearly four years in jail and would be released by the time he is 38, under terms of the deal.

Brandon McInerney’s crime was unforgivable. But I just don’t believe that two decades in prison for a crime committed when he was fourteen makes sense. It doesn’t bring Larry King back; it doesn’t act as a deterrent for the next 14 year old who might commit murder; it doesn’t bring justice. It doesn’t do anything but compound the tragedy.

If we want a just society, we can’t hold children as accountable as adults.

Posted in crossposted on TADA, In the news, Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans and Queer issues, Prisons and Justice and Police | 29 Comments

On Police Brutality, Living While Of Color, & Why Brutality At OWS isn’t Shocking

Posted on November 22, 2011 by karnythia

I’ve seen a lot of posts talking about OWS, police brutality, race, gender, & intersectionality. Many of those posts include links to the famous stories of police brutality. And those stories are important & should be told. But, by only talking about those stories I worry that we’re giving the impression that police brutality is relatively rare in communities of color. I’ve posted in the past about the cop who called me a nigger when I was 12 & the time my (then) 13 year old husband was beaten up by a cop. But, those weren’t our only run ins with abusive police officers. Experience has taught me to worry about the cops. I think of them as a risk to navigate more than I think of them as people who are here to protect me or my family. My husband & I have already had the talks with our oldest son about how to act when he’s stopped by the cops. Notice I said when he’s stopped.

That’s because I have been stopped while doing everything from taking a walk to grocery shopping to helping someone move. My father in law runs a Medicar service that primarily caters to the elderly who need help getting from their homes to doctor’s appointments. My husband used to ride along to help him out, since it’s a family business. One day they were stopped by the police because some cop decided a white van leaving a hospital on the West Side of Chicago fit the description of a tan truck that had been involved in a robbery in the Loop. They forced them out of the vehicle at gunpoint while a bunch of elderly people watched & worried. When it became clear that they didn’t fit the description? The cops told them they were free to go and left. That’s it. No apology, no consideration for all the people in the vehicle, but then everyone involved was a POC.

Matter of fact, let me tell you about Kourtney Wilson. I’ve known her since she was a teenager. She’s a nice young lady who unfortunately has lupus. Two years ago she had a seizure, her roommate dialed 911 & when the paramedics came (despite being told about her health status), they manhandled her & had the police arrest her. As if that wasn’t bad enough they took her all over the place (two different precinct houses & two different hospitals) so that she was denied medical treatment for 9 hours. Think about that for a second. NINE HOURS after she had the seizure she finally got the help she needed. And that’s a case that only made the local news & the blogosphere before vanishing into the Wayback machine to be dug up by people like me with a reason to know her name. Imagine being afraid to call an ambulance when someone you love needs one because they could be arrested for being sick. Imagine being killed in your own home like Kathryn Johnston or Aiyana Jones. Imagine being harassed or having a gun pulled on you just because you’re going about your day while being of color.

We don’t have to be at a protest, or actually fit the description of a suspect to have a negative interaction with the police. Officers like John Burge have tortured POC into confessing to crimes they didn’t commit & gotten away with it for decades. We know the police cannot be trusted. So, to see the police using pepper spray on protestors, or going out dressed in riot gear to evict them from encampments? Not at all a shock. I know some will say “Well now we know, & we’re trying to fix it for everyone” but you’ll pardon me if I don’t buy that the changes OWS is fighting for will extend to POC. Not when every time someone brings up race and OWS there is invariably a “It’s not about race, it’s about class. Why are you being divisive?” response from multiple people. POC of every class have to be concerned with the possibility of police brutality, & until OWS addresses that reality, how can it represent the entire 99%?

On Police Brutality, Living While Of Color, & Why Brutality At OWS isn’t Shocking -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman

Posted in Syndicated feeds | 11 Comments

The latest from UC Davis

Posted on November 22, 2011 by Myca

This is a general update on the UC Davis Occupation, the illegal police assault on multiple students, and the fallout. It’s a little stream of consciousness, because there’s a lot to cover.

For those of you who don’t know, UC Davis, the site of the horrible police brutality and inspirational protester’s victory that Amp posted about here is my local university. It’s right up highway 80, about 45 minutes away. It’s where my wife got her degree.

Even so, I was surprised to learn that the fellow leading the, “This is a moment of peace/You can go, we will not follow you,” chant is someone I know. His name is Tom Zolot. He’s one of the leaders of the UC Davis Unitarian Universalist Young Adult group, and he’s remarkable.

This is Tom.

Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

If it’s rape, call it rape

Posted on November 21, 2011 by Richard Jeffrey Newman

An interesting article by the public editor of the New York Times, Arthur S. Brisbane, in response to complaints he received about how the Times’ handled descriptions of the allegations against Jerry Sandusky.

Some readers, responding to The New York Times’s first reports on the case, strongly objected to wording in the articles that, in their view, either underplayed the details or wrongly applied the language of consensual sex to the narrative.

One reader, for example, objected to the phrase “sexual assault,” suggesting it served to make Sandusky’s alleged rape of a 10-year-old boy invisible. Another pointed out that the phrase “having anal sex with” to describe what Sandusky was doing to that boy implied consent on the boy’s part and so also served to make the alleged rape vanish.

Brisbane’s take on all this is worth reading, and I like his conclusion, “When the facts warrant it, journalists should be as specific as possible, they should avoid using the language of consensual sex and, when appropriate, they should call a rape a rape.” What I found most interesting about the article, though, was this:

[Wendy Murphy, an adjunct professor at the New England School of Law] said that in surveying the 50 states, she found “something like 40 different terms to describe the act of rape of a child.”

It’s hard for me to imagine that, but then, as Brisbane points out:

“Rape” is a word in flux. The Times stylebook says to use it to mean “forced intercourse, or intercourse with a child below the age of consent.” In many cases, though, the justice system doesn’t use the word. In the Sandusky case, the charges do not include the word “rape” because he was charged under the statute covering “Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse.”

Cross-posted.

Posted in Language Politics, Rape, intimate violence, & related issues | 3 Comments

Power Rankings: They’re Cool, They’re Funny, They’re…uh….

Posted on November 20, 2011 by Jeff Fecke

I’m not sure I remember a political primary quite like the 2012 GOP primary. There have been primaries with weak fields (the 1988 Democrats, the 1992 Democrats, the 1996 GOP, the 2008 GOP), and there have been candidates who have gained traction, only to implode (Gary Hart, Pat Buchanan, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani). But there’s never been quite the combination of weakness and collapse that has been the hallmark of this year’s GOP matchup. Bachmann, Perry, and Cain all have spent time atop the polls, and all have seen that support fall apart. Meanwhile, the only candidate in the race with any legitimate chance of winning the presidency is despised by pretty much all Republicans.

This isn’t to say that one of these chuckleheads couldn’t come out of the pack and somehow beat Obama next November. We’re a long way from the election. If the economy keeps improving, I think it’s likely Obama wins reelection. But if Europe collapses, the economy tanks, and the GOP nominates one of its few credible candidates, Obama could lose.

All of those are big ifs, of course. First, the Republicans have to pick a standard-bearer. But who? Let’s play Power Rankings.

Republicans

1. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. (Last Rank: 8 )

Newtmentum is running wild. He’s leading in several national polls, and at least one poll has him within striking distance in New Hampshire. Is Newt the Republicans’ Mr. Right? I don’t know, but he is certainly Mr. Right Now.

As Cain has slowly sunk, the anti-Romney voters have apparently begun to move to Gingrich by default. It makes a certain amount of sense. As I said way back in 2009:

That doesn’t mean Newt couldn’t get the nomination. In many ways, he’s the best sacrificial lamb in the race for the GOP. He doesn’t have a political future, so there’s no reason he can’t go out and get destroyed by Barack Obama in 2012. And like Tim Pawlenty, he allows the party to sidestep the rifts that a Romney or Huckabee nomination would expose. For those reasons, I can see Newt getting establishment support to prop him up as a bulwark against Huckabee and/or Romney, and I can see him getting the nomination in an effort to hold the party together.

This is why Newt is still hanging around: he’s a good compromise candidate. The establishment can accept him because he’s One Of Them, while the tea party folks like him because he’s a complete, raving asshole. And best of all, he’s not Mitt Romney.

Of course, Newt still has a ton of downside — from his work as a “historian” for Freddie Mac to his raving dickishness — which makes it possible his bubble could burst before Iowa gets here. He also lacks an organization, which could cause him to underperform in the Hawkeye state, even if he gets ahead of Cain. And if he gets the nomination, I think he’s easy pickings for Obama. But right now, at this precise moment, he’s the candidate with the best chance of winning the nomination, because the guy in the second spot is so despised.

2. Former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney (LR: 2)

Let’s say that in a year or two, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., decided to start talking in populist terms. He’d run around the country quoting Paul Wellstone’s Conscience of a Liberal, and praising Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., for his strong liberal economic views. He’d claim to be not just pro-choice, but he’d start advocating federally funded abortion. He’d claim not to be pro-gay, but he’d start advocating a constitutional amendment to make same-sex marriage legal. He’d push for high taxes on the rich, demand increased spending, and he’d claim that his decision to oppose the public option on health care was a huge mistake.

Then he’d announce he was running for president.

Would you trust him?

Of course you wouldn’t trust him. You know who Ben Nelson is. You know what he’s stood for his entire political career. At best, you’d welcome his conversion while supporting anyone – anyone – else. Because even if you thought he was now sincere, you’d never quite know. And you’d know full well that if he was able to shake off a lifetime of beliefs over a year or two, he could shake off a year or two of beliefs in a minute.

And so it is with Mitt Romney. The Republicans don’t trust him. And why should they? Mitt once claimed he was more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy. He’s advocated state funding for abortion. He put in place a health care plan that was nearly identical to the Affordable Care Act. During his term as governor of Massachusetts, he governed as a pure centrist, or perhaps someone who was center-left. The Mitt who governed Massachusetts would fit comfortably in the House Democratic Caucus.

And so when he now claims to support Question 26 in Mississippi, or to be opposed to same-sex marriage, or to be eager to strike down Obamacare, who can trust him? Certainly not Republicans. Which is why, despite the inability of any candidate to demonstrate any electoral viability, Mitt’s poll numbers are dropping.

Quite simply, Republicans don’t like Mitt. They don’t trust him. They don’t believe in him. They may have to accept him by Hobson’s choice, but if they can find anyone – anyone – else, they will.

Mitt has so far been having about as good a run as he could hope for, as potential challengers have collapsed along the way. But with each collapse, we see more and more clearly that Republicans are trying to find someone else to support. The flavor-of-the-week appears to be Newt Gingrich right now, and he may be the most dangerous candidate left to Mitt’s hopes. Newt is at least sort of credible. He’s not anathema to the right. He’s acceptable to the Wall Street wing. If Newt becomes the anti-Mitt, Mitt probably loses.

His best hope is that Cain avoids total collapse, but those hopes appear dim; Cain’s support appears to finally be falling off the cliff. If Cain can arrest his collapse before Iowa, or if someone else can rise, the rest of the field might be muddled enough that Mitt ekes out a win, closes things out in New Hampshire, and effectively sews up the nomination. But if Gingrich continues to rise, then Mitt is probably toast.

3. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas (LR: 5)

Paul won’t get the nomination, of course. But as I’ve said many times, he’ll keep floating around, pulling around 10% of the vote in every state, occasionally saying something in a debate that makes his fellow GOPers uncomfortable, and then following that up with some bizarre goldbug argument. He could even win a state or two, given the churning in the race — Iowa appears within reach, at least for the moment — but he has t00 many views out-of-step with the GOP to earn the nomination.

A Paul win in Iowa would be hilarious, but ultimately, he’s not going to win the nomination, and if he fails, he’ll leave without causing much of a wake; his supporters are generally not going to go to anyone if he drops out. But he continues to remain a presence in the race, and as long as he keeps floating around 10%, he’ll keep showing up at debates and in forums, and that’s mainly why he’s running, anyhow — to push the party toward libertarianism. It won’t work, of course, because libertarianism is a childish, unworkable political system, but it’s better than the bizarre blend of state support for the rich and laissez-faire for the poor that the GOP currently espouses.

4. Herman Cain (LR: 3)

I guessed last time around that Cain would lose support. I didn’t expect it to be due to a sexual harassment scandal. But that, combined with his disastrous non-answer to the Libya question, has caused his support to crater.

Cain’s support is still in double-digits simply because the far right has not seen another viable alternative to Romney. Perry is a train wreck, Bachmann is Bachmann, Santorum has his Google problem, Paul doesn’t hate gay people or Muslims enough, and Huntsman is like Romney only more liberal. Given that it’s too late for a white knight, conservatives have held onto Cain as their life raft.

The question will be whether Gingrich’s apostasies and mess of a family life will keep the far right from embracing him. I don’t think it will; Newt has said all sorts of dumb things, but he’s got a three-decade career of being a douchebag of conservatism. That will count for something.

The best hope for Cain is that Newt’s lobbying and infidelity cause him to fall. If that happens, then Cain could end up rebounding and regaining his standing as the best candidate to stop Mitt. But I don’t see that happening. Even though the Republicans tried valiantly to prop Cain up in the midst of the his sexual harassment scandal, they know in their hearts that it’s dealt a fatal blow to his chances in a general election. Newt still has a chance; they’ll back him before they back a sure loser. And if Newt fails, they’ll find someone who isn’t Cain.

5. Texas Gov. Rick Perry (LR: 4)

Perry has had a collapse unparalleled in modern political history. Sure, Fred Thompson burst onto the scene four years ago and made some noise before disappearing. But Big Sleepy’s fall was not so precipitous, and not nearly as visible. Thompson fell slowly, because he wasn’t that exciting and didn’t run a particularly vibrant race. Perry has collapsed through gaffe after gaffe, horrible debate performance after horrible debate performance. His epic, never-ending debate gaffe was just the final nail in the coffin. It confirmed what everyone in the nation had already concluded: the man is not bright enough to be president.

Perry has a lot of money left, but at this point, I can’t imagine how he undoes the damage he’s done to his own image. Not only can’t I imagine him winning the GOP primary, I can’t imagine him winning another election, even as a Republican in Texas. Rick Perry’s political career is over; he talked himself to death.

6. Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn. (LR: 6)

There were two candidates who could have been beneficiaries of a Cain drop-off. Rick Santorum was one, and Newt Gingrich was the other. And the GOP voters appear to have chosen Newt.

I’m not sure what it is about Santorum; whatever appeal he once had, it’s gone. I think it’s the vibe he gives off, an old-school fundamentalist vibe — one more of the 70s and 80s than today. Santorum feels like he would fit right in with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, but that’s not the manner of today’s evangelical right. They’re more Bachmann — angrier, more strident, more in-your-face.

Maybe it’s something else. I don’t know. All I know is that whatever the GOP is looking for, it isn’t Rick Santorum. He’s done.

7. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. (LR: 7)

Our Michele is showing no indication of regaining her previous lofty heights. She remains an afterthought in the polls, and for whatever reason, she seems mired in also-ran territory. Which is, of course, where a ludicrously conservative conspiracy theorist backbencher belongs.

That Bachmann ever had a lead in the polls is a huge indictment of the state of the current Republican Party. Sure, someone like her can get elected to Congress — there have always been extremists, in both parties, who have managed to bubble up through the ranks and get elected from safe districts. But that’s the ceiling for them; they don’t get taken seriously for president, not by serious parties. The Republicans of 2012, of course, are not serious. And while Michele Bachmann may have been an awful candidate, she is — and I can’t believe I’m saying this — no less awful than the three men who have succeeded her as front-runner. Perry is foolish, Cain is vacuous, and Gingrich is licentious. Michele Bachmann may have spouted bizarre gibberish on Libya, but she would have spouted it immediately, and with fervor. She knows damn well what 37 agencies she wants to cut, and she sold out to Fannie Mae for far less money than Newt sold out to Freddie Mac. And say what you want about Michele Bachmann, but she is no flip-flopper. She’s held the same ridiculous positions her entire political career.

Michele Bachmann is superior in many ways to the men who have surpassed her in the polls. That should terrify America. It terrifies me.

8. Former Ambassador Jon Huntsman (LR: 9)

Huntsman is doomed for the same reason Huntsman has always been doomed: he’s far too moderate for the Republican Party. Don’t misunderstand me: Huntsman is not a moderate. He endorsed Paul Ryan’s debt plan, which would be seriously damaging to America. But he’s at least willing to entertain the idea that political parties should work across the aisle. He’s not dedicated to destroying the Democrats at all cost, even the cost of the nation itself. And for that reason, he will never get the nomination of today’s GOP.

The only impact Huntsman will have on this race is by possibly making things interesting in New Hampshire. Huntsman has gone all-in on the Granite State, and while that state will most certainly be his Waterloo, he could still cut into the support of fellow moderate Mormon ex-governor Mitt Romney. Cut in enough, and Mitt could find himself underperforming expectations there — and that could sink Mittens. Of course, more likely is that Huntsman gets his gentleman’s three percent, and vanishes until 2016.

9. Former La. Gov. Buddy Roemer (LR: 11)

Roemer rises because a few of his positive quotes about Occupy Wall Street have trickled into the mainstream media, so…that’s something, I guess. But running for president as a Republican opposed to money in politics is like running for president as a Democrat opposed to Social Security. Getting more money into politics is a core Republican value. Indeed, it’s arguably the glue that binds the whole coalition together. Roemer is right that money in politics is a problem, and that we need to find a way to regulate it. But he’s wrong to think that he’ll ever convince a significant number of Republicans of that.

10. Former N.M. Gov. Gary Johnson (LR: 10)

Remember Gary Johnson? He’s still running for President. Honest, he is. No, seriously — he’s on the ballot and everything. If you are heavily invested in smoking pot, you might have heard of him, or maybe not — it’s hazy. If you aren’t, you haven’t heard of him. Don’t feel bad. Neither has anyone else.

11. Jimmy “The Rent is Too Damn High” McMillan (LR: 12)

With the ouster of protesters from Zuccotti Park, a prominent challenge to the too highness of the damn rent has been eliminated. That leaves Jimmy McMillan to save the day, reminding Americans of a simple truth: The Rent is Too Damn High. And it is, my friends. It unquestionably is.

12. Fred Karger (LR: 13)

Karger gets an up arrow because I actually heard something he said about Florida’s GOP chair. I don’t remember what it was — he was upset, as I recall — and I’m too lazy to look it up. And I’m not sure if it was on the radio or Twitter or something. But still, I actually heard Fred Karger’s name mentioned by someone somewhere. That’s progress.

Democrats

1. President Barack Obama (LR: 1)

Obama’s nomination is assured, of course, but it should be noted that his polling is continuing to improve, and that he is looking much stronger going into 2012 than he was coming out of 2010. For this, he owes a huge thank-you to the Republican Party, which has managed to do just about everything conceivable wrong in the past year.

As of right now, I’d rate Obama’s chances of being re-elected as 70-30; if the Republicans nominate anyone who’s name doesn’t rhyme with “spit,” those odds go 90-10.

2. Randall Terry (LR: 2)

Terry continues to get absolutely no traction, but that’s okay; his main goal is to run disturbingly graphic anti-choice ads during the Super Bowl. Of course, everyone thinks the fetus-picture people are a bunch of douchebags, even most conservatives, so I welcome that. Far from being shocked that surgery is messy, Americans will draw the conclusion that anti-choicers are assholes. Which they are.

Falling Out:

Ralph Nader (LR: 2)

Nader and Cornell West missed the deadline to get anyone on the ballot to challenge Obama in New Hampshire, and they’re unlikely to succeed elsewhere. For all their griping, the overwhelming majority of Democrats are behind Obama, and while I have no data to back this up, my guess is that the overwhelming majority of those most disaffected with Obama still understand that challenging him in the primary is a disaster waiting to happen.

In a way, I think Occupy Wall Street sucked the wind out of Nader’s sails. They conclusively demonstrated that there are other, more effective ways to get a politician’s attention than mounting a primary challenge. And Obama’s embrace of their core message undercut the emoprog argument that Obama is a secret Reaganite.

Whatever the reason, any hope of a primary challenge against Obama has fizzled. This doesn’t mean Ralph might not mount yet another independent run for the White House, of course. He’s like Pat Paulsen, only he isn’t funny.

Posted in Elections and politics | 28 Comments

An Officer Acting Out Of Concern For His Own Safety, According To UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza

Posted on November 19, 2011 by Ampersand

UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza said officers used force out of concern for their own safety after they were surrounded by students.

“If you look at the video you are going to see that there were 200 people in that quad,” said Chief Spicuzza. “Hindsight is 20-20 and based on the situation we were sitting in, ultimately that was the decision that was made.”

Here’s the situation Chief Spicuzza was describing:

It’s disquieting to consider that both Chief Spicuzza, and Lieutenant John Pike, the brave wielder of pepper spray in the video, doubtless consider their actions reasonable, measured and justified.

(Via.)

UPDATE: Be sure to read Myca’s full comment in the comments: “Though of course the unnecessary, casual, cruel brutality of the police is something important in this video, and should not be ignored, what I find as important and interesting is that if you watch to the end of the video, the protesters win. They fucking win.”

Posted in crossposted on TADA, In the news, Prisons and Justice and Police | 58 Comments

There is Way Too Much Drama in My Classes This Semester

Posted on November 18, 2011 by Richard Jeffrey Newman

One of the things I really like about teaching at a community college, and specifically at the community college where I am employed, is that it’s a place where people who might otherwise not have the chance to get a college education can get one at a reasonable price and can also reasonably expect that their teachers will be committed to helping them succeed, despite the obstacles–financial and otherwise–they might be facing. Usually, in terms of the student’s classwork, that help involves relatively simple things like spending extra time outside of class, and in addition to your scheduled office hours, to offer the student additional instructional support, extensions on assignments and other such things. Sometimes, though, you also end up doing a kind of counseling triage, trying to help the student see her or his situation in perspective, referring them to counseling and other services they might need, convincing them that sometimes, when life gets in the way of their education, they need to take care of their lives first, that to do so is not the same thing as failing at school and that the opportunity to continue their education will–all else being equal–still be there in the future. Sometimes, you can find yourself getting involved at a level where someone’s life might truly be on the line.

I value this aspect of my job as deeply as the purely educational aspect of the work that I do because the students who come to me with the kinds of problems I am talking about really do care about why they are in school–and I am not talking here about the grades they earn; grades are an entirely different issue–are struggling as honestly and as fully as they can to figure out how to use the education they’ve come to college to get to understand themselves, both in the grand liberal arts sense of self-awareness and in the more practical sense of how am I going to use what I have learned to get a job, have a career and build a life for myself? These students in crisis are often the ones for whom these two ways of understanding education are often the most inseparable, because they desperately need both of them, and the trust they place in me when they share their crises is at least as precious as the commitment to good grades, intellectualism, scholarship and so on that the honors students I will be teaching next semester in my Myth and Folklore class bring into the classroom. (Not that honors students don’t also have crises, of course.)

Still, for some reason, this semester the amount of drama students have brought with them into my classes–by which I mean into their relationship with me as the person who holds them accountable for the work that they do and the grade that they earn–is really getting to me. I don’t want to give too many details, for obvious reasons, but here is a partial list. Each of these people is paying for school out of his or her own pocket:

A man whose wife kicked him out of the house and did not allow him back in for at least some weeks. He did not, therefore, have access to his laptop, his textbook or anything else connected to my class. I have no idea who is in the right, and on one level I really don’t care, but when he tells me in the middle of class that he has to leave because there is no babysitter and he needs to be home to take care of his daughter, what am I supposed to say? (I don’t know, and I am not going to ask, if “being home” means that his wife let him back in, or if his daughter is now living with him.)
A 20-something woman whose parents are desperate to marry her off and the pressure they are putting on her is getting so intense that she really cannot concentrate on school; and she is scared to go live on her own–which she can afford to do–because she worries that they will either disown her completely or scheme to get her to return to her country–<i>Grandma is dying</i> or some such ruse–where they will be able take her passport, trapping here there; and she’ll end up with no choice but to marry the man they choose for her. I don’t want to say more, but I know she is not being melodramatic about this.
Another 20-something woman whose boyfriend has kicked her out of the apartment where they were living together; so I guess he’s really an ex-boyfriend. She has, though, no place else to live that will also allow her to continue to go to school. (She has some family, but they live too far away.) So she ended up, I guess, convincing the boyfriend to let her stay in the apartment until she can get her own place. (She has a full time job, so she can pay rent; she just needs the time.) Except the ex-boyfriend yells at her all the time and has told her that she is not allowed to be in the apartment when he is there.
A man who, by his own admission, got involved with the wrong crowd and ended up getting arrested. His sentencing was this semester and he was very concerned that he would have to drop out of school in order to serve his time.
A woman who is failing, with whom I spoke and who said she really wanted to try to do better. She got into a car accident, did not go to the hospital, which she really needed to do, and yesterday–the day after the accident–showed up in my class, in tears, barely holding it together, because she felt it was more important to prove to me that she meant what she said when she told me she was going to start taking her work seriously than it was to get medical attention.

The interaction that moved me to write this post, however, was drama of a different sort. In my technical writing class is a man–I am guessing he is in his forties at least–who has decided that he really doesn’t need to take seriously any of the instructions I have given the class. He is a good writer; he got an A on his first assignment; and he has taken the class before, at another college, but for some reason he needs to take it again. Anyway, he came last class and handed me an assignment that was completely wrong; I don’t mean badly done. I mean completely wrong; he had written the wrong assignment. I will spare you the details of the conversation we had in which he didn’t believe me, but when he finally had no choice but to accept that he had done the wrong assignment, he asked me if one of the members of his group has turned in the proper assignment. (The groups do research and planning together, but each member writes his or her own paper and gets an individual grade; I don’t give group grades; and this is all spelled out in detail on the assignment sheet.) When I said yes, that the other person had done the assignment properly, this guy asked me if I would just count that paper twice, once for him and once for the guy who wrote it.

I was, as you can imagine, furious. The details of what I said to him are unimportant, though I felt really awkward talking to a grown man that way, but I just left that class thinking about the difference between the students I told you about above, who are struggling against some pretty serious obstacles to get their work done, and not always successfully, and this guy, who is very clearly just trying to get over. The result was this post.

Cross-posted.

Posted in Education | 33 Comments

Prop 8 Proponents Have Standing To Defend It In Court

Posted on November 17, 2011 by Myca

NPR Report

The Full Decision

I think this is the right decision.

I’m in favor of full legal equality for all citizens. I don’t believe that there is a legitimate state interest in restricting marriage rights to heterosexual couples. I believe that all the quasi-sophisticated arguments about the ‘essence’ of marriage exist simply to mask naked homophobia. I believe that the heart of Proposition 8 can be reasonably described as “people who are not members of my religion ought to be compelled, by force of law, to comply with the dictates of my religion.” And, as ever, I am disgusted by the open and repeated lies Proposition 8 proponents spout about “changing the definition of marriage,” as if marriage was always one thing, and as if that one thing has always excluded same-sex couples, neither of which is true.

But even bad ideas … even the worst ideas … deserve a fair day in court. Proposition 8 was voted on and passed by a majority of citizens of California, and though I believe it to be unconstitutional, that’s for a judge to decide. We oughtn’t make an end-run around proving it’s a bad law by disallowing anyone from arguing in court that it’s a good one.

The remedy to speech we dislike is more speech, and I’ve found that the best arguments against Proposition 8 often come from merely letting its proponents speak freely. Let’s hear their best arguments. Let’s hear them loudly, clearly, and in public. It’s only through letting them speak, after all, that we can be certain that their very best arguments are, simply … bad.

Please do not comment unless you accept the basic dignity, equality, and inherent worth of all people.

Posted in Free speech, censorship, copyright law, etc., Homophobic zaniness/more LGBTQ issues, Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans and Queer issues | 23 Comments

Help Increase Nuanced Racial Representation in The Media

Posted on November 16, 2011 by karnythia

If you can spare a few bucks (every dollar helps) please consider kickstarting this great film project!

Synopsis

Cedric and Tiffany, two college friends, realize their feelings for each other and after an illicit night together, decide to make a pact. They vow to end their respective relationships in order to build one together. When one of them cannot follow through on their promise, the other is left broken. 3 years later, a get-together is orchestrated by a mutual friend and the situation reaches its tipping point. Cedric and Tiffany are in different places in their lives and have to discover whether a second chance is fate or failure. One of them has made up their mind. The other has a decision to make: settle for their current relationship, or try again with the only person they’ve ever loved. – Faux Pas

Theme

The film Faux Pas draws from the old adage that communication is key in any relationship. But now, technology puts various methods and layers of communication at our fingertips, constantly challenging the boundaries of the relationships that we hold dear. Even the ones that haven’t happened yet. Faux Pas explores the issues of trust, mistakes, recovery, and interpersonal connection.