This is an informal piece I composed for one of my courses at Georgetown; to facilitate others’ viewing of the piece I am posting it on my ill-updated blog:

Though not referenced directly in our reading, I think this is an appropriate time to discuss affirmative action, an issue which Prof. Seidman discussed at length in lecture, and is of great interest and controversy to all of us.

I reference the case of Grutter v. Bollinger. 539 U.S. 306 (2003). The facts are relatively simple. Grutter was the case against the University of Michigan law school. The plaintiff was a white woman who was denied admission despite having academic qualifications that, she claimed, were more than sufficient to gain admission. She charged that the law school admitted minority students with sharply lower qualifications (an uncontested fact), and further alleged that the school unconstitutionally used racial preference in admitting students. The Supreme Court upheld the law schools admission policy.

I would go into the machinations of how the court employed the equal protection doctrine of the 14th amendment if it were necessary. But, I don’t think it is; I am happy to dispense with the idea that this case was about interpreting whether Barbara Grutter’s 14th amendment rights were violated, though nearly the entire court seems to think that that is exactly what the case is about. The only Justice who seems willing to move beyond the ritualized dance of the equal protection debate is Justice Thomas, who as the sole black member of the court, analyzes the issue in a way that no other court member did, or could. Even though the other dissenting Justices (Rehnquist and Kennedy) come to the same conclusion I would have, they do so by way of the old-style rule based formulations that, at least in this case, I deem to miss the mark in deciding if these policies ought to be permitted. In contrast, Justice Thomas’ opinion, for its clarity and motivation, is the only opinion with which I can identify and agree.

Justice Thomas begins his opinion by quoting Fredrick Douglass, who argues that that pity-motivated white interference into the lives of blacks does harm, even if well intentioned. Though Thomas seems to go on to do lip service to the kind of faux-formalist reasoning that is often seen in Supreme Court decisions, it is not long before one can see that this central idea motivates his opinion. That is, we could easily charge that Justice Thomas only weakly attempts to put up the façade of formalist legal reasoning. For him, it seems the kind of affirmative action the University of Michigan law school employs is unconstitutional because it is bad.

For example, in response to the claim that racial preference is necessary to achieve a sort of educational benefit, Thomas notes that black students do not perform better in racially diverse academic atmospheres, even citing empirical evidence that black students report higher academic achievement at historically black colleges and universities, which often enroll but a handful of non-black students. Thomas further asserts that the type of policies used by the law school are themselves harmful to the students they purport to help, arguing that the policies place black students in academic environments for which they are ill prepared and mismatched, setting them up for a cold dose of reality which is damaging to their self-esteem and sense of dignity, all for the sake of the “aesthetics” of diversity. These arguments take center stage in Justice Thomas’ dissent, while the interplay of equal protection doctrine seems to take a backseat.

To me, it is doubtful that a non-black Justice would be able, or willing, to come to these conclusions as Justice Thomas has – I know that my experience as a black man in the academic arena has convinced me of their veracity. For some, facing the ugly reality that colleges and universities (including law schools) systematically admit black students who are underqualified might run afoul of the “progressive position” that Richard Ford talks about in his article on identity politics. Perhaps Justice Thomas’ assertion that to university administrators, the true interests of black students give way to the politically correct motives of producing the paradoxical “elite and diverse” law school class, even though those administrators know that the very mechanisms they use to ensure “eliteness” are the precise cause of their problems with racial diversity might also violate that elusive “progressive position”. Whichever the assertion, can there be any doubt that someone who has never been subjected to the type of racial experimentation that Justice Thomas criticizes might lack the ability to come to these same conclusions?

Many would challenge Justice Thomas’ assertions by noting that there is not a more high profile beneficiary of the very policies he seeks to strike down; cries of hypocrisy and racial betrayal are commonplace, and both he and I are quite familiar with them. But, I return to the Ford article, which cites Henry Frankfurter’s pamphlet On Bullshit. In making these arguments, Justice Thomas shows himself to care little for what any one person might think of him. Compare that to the legions of academics and university administrators who must at least have some misgivings about admitting underqualified black applicants en masse, but remain silent out of fear of being thought to hold racial positions that are less than forward – thinking.
Justice Thomas’ obvious disagreement with the “liberal discourse” on race is made clear in his dissent, but I am also forced to wonder how he might confront the CRT discussion on affirmative action. I am led to believe that, despite his coming to a conclusion that most CRT scholars would disagree with, Justice Thomas’ analysis is in a way right in their tradition. It is plain to me that his race consciousness motivates his decision. Take for example the assertion we find in the “Introduction” to CRT piece we were assigned that the mainstream discourse on race misses the mark on the issue of racial subordination, and incorrectly formulates color-blindness as the opposite of racism. Justice Thomas doesn’t seem to attempt to view the issue of affirmative action as a question of preferring “color-blind” admissions over “racial preference” admissions as Justice Kennedy does, for example. That is, he doesn’t argue that color-blind admissions are better, or more constitutionally permissible because color-blind is good and racial preference is per se bad; he argues that racial preference in admissions is bad from the black students point of view, and bases much of his argument off of that assertion.

Have a good Tuesday

The key analysis:

“This is not the modern, youthful, multiethnic, forward-looking GOP that Karl Rove and George W. Bush envisioned when they were plotting a run for the White House….Like the Perot voters who were so desperate for sincerity that they turned to an eccentric and enormous-eared billionaire, this is a movement of old, flinty, very skeptical people who don’t believe President Obama when he claims that he can cover the uninsured and improve quality and lower costs long-term. They see it as their duty to save America from smooth-talking politicians.”

First of all, any first year political science undergrad can tell you that when you have one party government in Washington, characterized by sinking popularity and drastic overreach, the opposition is in a position to do well in subsequent elections.  See 2006, 1992, hell all the way back to 1938.

That the GOP might pick up seats in 2010 isn’t a shock.  However, the underlying cultural and demographic problems the GOP faces are likely to persist even in the face of short term gains.

Every indicator  indicates that the GOP in Congress, statehouses, and on the grassroots level continues to be dominated by an evangelical, white working class element.  Even on a pure anecdotal basis, a quick browse of online videos of GOP talking heads shows a party that continues the same failing model of a party dominated by southern religious conservatives.  It may just be enough to squeak out a nice victory in 2010; Americans in marginal districts might use GOP congressional candidates as a means of telling the Dems in charge that they’ve gone too far.  However, come 2012 and beyond, unless the GOP puts an end, or at least sharply curtails this type of cultural and demographic imaging, they will find themselves not far from where they are today, in the minority, and losing support by the day.

Doesn’t this idiot know that Bill Clinton has been swatting down hecklers for years.  Heckle any current or former politician in this country, but Bill Clinton knows just how to make you look dumb as hell. For example…

I don’t mean to paint a picture of the gay community as hopelessly racially balkanized; indeed were you to step into a gay bar or go to a gay community event you would likely see plenty of people of all colors, shapes, and sizes mingling and interacting.  But, underneath the surface, obscured by a cloak of uncomfortable silence lie these divisions, and it is time we began to explore them openly.

I write these words in the wake of two impactful articles.  The first was published roughly a month ago by LZ Granderson on CNN.com.  Judging from his tone I’m betting he and I have slightly different politics, but his main point has some merit:

“Despite the catchiness of the slogan, gay is not the new black.

Black is still black.

And if any group should know this, it’s the gay community.

Bars such as The Prop House, or Bulldogs in Atlanta, Georgia, exist because a large number of gay blacks — particularly those who date other blacks, and live in the black community — do not feel a part of the larger gay movement.”

I won’t claim LZ’s indignation – I can’t even say I’ve been to the Prop House, a popular gay nightclub with a mostly black clientele, even though it’s walking distance from my last apartment in Chicago ( I don’t care what he says I dancing to Lady Gaga).  From the tone of his article I think he sees a racial division that is more intense than what I would probably convey.  But I can certainly identify with his sentiment, and according to a recently released study by the Human Rights Campaign, I am not alone.  A key finding from that report:

“Nearly two in five LGBT people of color do not feel part of the larger LGBT community in their city or in the United States.  In discussion groups, when asked about the “gay community,” conversation often seemed forced, and discussants pushed back when we asked if they felt a part of it…There was little agreement over what the community is, and discussants were reluctant to feel part of it.  Those who did recognize a gay community described it as white, moneyed, male and elite.

Discussants also said there is as much racism among the LGBT population as there is among non-LGBT people.  When raising the question discussion participants became incredulous: “Of course there is racism in the gay community!”

The study also outlines just how differently gay people of color view and experience the world compared to their white counterparts.  The HRC study highlights the differences in how gay people of color view politics, religion, and important issue within the gay community, and those differences are both frequent and pronounced.

Perhaps what underlies the shock in some of these claims and opinions is this idea that because the gay community is united by marginalizing sexual orientations, other divisions would be more muted in comparison to the broader society.  We’re all oppressed and excluded by society because we don’t love who we’re supposed to, so at the very least shouldn’t we all get along and identify with eachother?

Well, no.  From more formal studies such as the one done by HRC to the anecdotal evidence that nearly any gay person of color with enough sense to pay attention would posses, there is plenty of evidence that suggests that the gay community has just as much work to do, if not more, than the larger society when it comes to veritable integration and racial reconciliation.

One cannot understate the importance of open and honest discussion about our racial differences.  While nearly every aspect of gay life is racial, be it sexual and romantic preferences, politics, or general lifestyle, our country is becoming more black and brown every day – by extension, so is gay America.  How can the gay community continue to thrive if the combination of racial division and increasing racial diversity becomes an overbearing deadweight?

I know I run the risk of being like one of those idiots on those State of Black America panels, all of whom are skilled at identifying the problems within the black community without proposing any practical solutions, much less actually doing anything beyond talking (Dear Tavis Smiley please shut up) .  The truth is I don’t have the magic solution for this question.  But the more people talk about it the better.  After all, it’s hard to wash your dirty laundry if you don’t acknowledge that it’s dirty in the first place.

Since one of my posts had to do with my good friend Rick Santorum, I felt it appropriate to close out the week with some tunes popular with the sodomite crowd down by Halsted and Belmont:

Enjoy, check back in on Monday, and remember: one long island just isn’t sufficient.

I like Mark McKinnon quite a bit, but I disagree with his argument here.

The attention that Santorum’s traditionalist social policies will attract will do the most damage to the GOP in the long run, and make it more difficult for a more reasonable candidate to succeed in winning the nomination and the general election.

McKinnon, a smart, experienced and quite ethical Republican strategist, ought to know by now what it’s like to find an honest man in parliament.  If we were to discard every politician with questionable character we’d have to go back to a monarchy just because of the lack of honest souls to put in Congress.  Whoever the Republican nominee is in 2012, they’ll probably have to do some sketchy things to get there.  That’s the nature of the business.

For those unaware, Rick Santorum is probably one of the most extreme social conservatives to serve in the United States Senate this decade, not as much perhaps because of his positions, but because of the jihadist tone he uses in advocating them.

Not only is Santorum’s approach bad politics for a Republican party trying desperately to appeal to young voters and voters in urban centers and inner ring suburbs.  It also departs sharply from the tradition set by President Ronal d Reagan – a tradition that is supposedly quite important to activist Republicans.  McKinnon notes the difference between Reagan’s Republicanism and Santorum’s:

Here’s Reagan in 1975:

“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism…The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

And here’s Santorum in 2005:

“One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right…This whole idea of personal autonomy, well, I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”

Santorum’s view is neither consistent with the traditional Republican view, nor popular with the groups the GOP needs to be competitive with in order to become electorally effective.  But it is effective with those pesky social conservatives who can dominate a state like Iowa – if he becomes a serious contender he’ll be the candidate who’ll be loudest on those issues which are of the least appeal for the Republican Party.

There may not be anything one can do about it – the guy is articulate, passionate, and he probably knows if he got in the 2012 race he’d certainly attract a following.  But in the long run his return to public life will be a net negative for the Republican Party, and for the nominee in 2012, no matter who it winds up being.

Just like the other santorum, it looks like this former senator is just going to be another unpleasant part of everyday life for the foreseeable future.

Radio personality Ed Schultz caused a bit of a stir on his program by alleging that there are “some” conservative activist or media personalities who wish to see the President of the United States shot.   Of course, these remarks are not totally out of the realm of possibility for a radio personality, nor are radio personalities on the right immune from this type of over-the-top rhetoric.  But, it’s the overarching pattern of assuming someone’s personality or motives based on their political preferences that illustrates just how weak our political discourse has become.

I think the perfect example of this pattern is Janeane Garofalo’s now famous accusation that the tea party protests from earlier this year were simply lightly veiled racist gatherings.  Apparently opposing the President’s policies when it comes to spending is enough evidence to establish a prima facie case of racism.

I mean – this defies logic; what has opposition to, say, the TARP program have to do with liking or disliking black people?

Again, I’m not arguing that the right is above these tactics; we all remember learning in 2002 that opposing the War in Iraq obviously meant that a person wasn’t a patriot and desired to see terrorist victory around the world.

I don’t follow the logic of they-did-it-too rationalization, where engaging in something wrong is suddenly less wrong because my opponents did it too.  Whether on the right or the left, attacking caricatures of our opponents cheats the intellectual debate on public policy issues that this country really needs.  I understand that it’s easier to call your opponent a racist or unpatriotic than actually engage in actual debate, but surely there are some adults.

And, for the record Janeane, calling something racist when it isn’t can have the unintended consequence of diminishing honest-to-God instances of racism.  Just a thought…

The kicker for me: beers at Wrigley Field cost I believe in the 6 – 7 dollar range.  Only a northsider would toss out a full cup of beer at those prices…

Please tell me that idiot doesn’t vote…

Ugh…rude.