Archive for the 'Politics' Category

Ms. on Ward Connerly and affirmative action

The spring issue of Ms. Magazine will soon be available. One highlight of the upcoming issue will be a detailed and searing expose of Ward Connerly, the infamous anti-affirmative action crusader.

I haven’t blogged much about affirmative action here, though I have long supported it in both principle and action. In 1996, when Connerly succeeded in getting Proposition 209 on the California ballot, I was on the steering committee of the college’s campaign against the initiative. 209, which ended up passing by a fairly wide margin, struck a serious blow to outreach efforts across the Golden State. (Famously, the percentage of black and Latino students at UCLA and at Cal plummeted). Connerly repeated his California success in Michigan a decade later, with the “Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.”

The Ms. expose focuses on several aspects of Connerly’s career and mission. For one thing, his anti-affirmative action work has made him a very rich man; Ms. reports that Connerly receives well over $1.6 million per year from the non-profit anti-affirmative action charities he controls. (Most of the funding comes from the construction industry, which profits enormously when Connerly’s propositions ban the “minority set-asides” that level the playing field in bidding for government contracts.) As Connerly (who is, of course, partly of African-American ancestry) continues his fight against affirmative action, he makes a very nice living.

The damage done to women (both white and non-white) by Connerly’s movement is deftly explored in the new Ms. Continue reading ‘Ms. on Ward Connerly and affirmative action’

“Lucky in her enemies”: why I can’t stop pulling for Hillary

As we head through another primary day, and the sense grows that Barack Obama is picking up unstoppable momentum, Melissa at Shakespeare’s Sister offers us a fine compendium of anti-Hillary articles. Melissa figured she’d be able to find twenty or so recent instances of misogynistic attacks on Senator Clinton; instead, she came up with 62.

I’m not the only person who’s gone back and forth between rooting for Hillary and rooting for Barack. Sure, as a registered Republican, I voted for McCain (as part of the quixotic effort to drag the GOP back to its centrist, moderate roots). And last year, I backed John Edwards. And literally daily, I vacillate between pulling for the junior senator from Illinois and the junior senator from New York. And one thing that keeps me leaning — ever so slightly — towards Hillary Clinton is my outrage at the venomous misogyny that is so regularly directed her way. Continue reading ‘“Lucky in her enemies”: why I can’t stop pulling for Hillary’

In praise of progressive Republicanism: celebrating the triumph of McCain

I spent a lot of time yesterday reading commentary about the Super Tuesday results, and admit that I spent most of that time focused on the Republican race, about which more in a moment.

On the Democratic side, I started supporting John Edwards last year and continued to support him until he dropped out of the race. His was the most consistently progressive voice of the three major candidates; I am pleased to see that the two candidates who remain have been influenced by his rhetoric, particularly on poverty issues. I wrote last month that all things being equal, I was slightly more inclined to Hillary Clinton than to Barack Obama. That’s more out of admiration for Hillary than dislike of Barack. I don’t accept the “suffering Olympics” model that posits either sexism or racism as worse than the other; the election of either a woman or a black man to the most powerful office on the globe would be equally revolutionary. What matters to me is simple: I want each candidate’s voters to pledge unequivocal support to the party’s nominee. If Clinton does end up with the nomination — and I give her about a 60% chance of doing so — Obama will need to urge his supporters, particularly the young ones, not to be disheartened. If he doesn’t get the nomination in 2008, the chances are excellent he will someday.

But of course, I changed my registration to Republican last year. It’s not that I am ideologically comfortable with today’s GOP. On virtually every major issue, the Democratic party is a better fit for me. But that’s less because I am particularly left-wing and more because the GOP has, since my childhood, moved farther and farther right. The GOP of my childhood included not just moderates, but genuine progressives, especially on environmental issues. The GOP was never just the party of the right; it was also the party of Pete McCloskey and Millicent Fenwick. Continue reading ‘In praise of progressive Republicanism: celebrating the triumph of McCain’

More election endorsements, and choosing Clinton over Obama

I’ll be leaving the country again on Wednesday, January 16. We won’t be back until February 6, the day after “tsunami Tuesday” and the California presidential primary. I am eagerly awaiting my absentee ballot, quietly confident it will arrive in the next couple of days. I haven’t missed voting in an election since I turned 18 in 1985, and don’t want to break that streak now.

A prediction:

I’m fairly confident that neither party will have decided its nominee by February 6. Even after so many huge states cast ballots on the 5th, no candidate will have clinched his or her party’s nomination. I suspect that for the Democrats, Obama and Clinton will still be neck-and-neck, with dear John Edwards — sadly — eliminated. For the GOP, there will still be four candidates with a shot at the nomination: McCain, Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee. McCain and Huckabee will be in the best position, but look for Republican party elders (who not-so-quietly loathe both these mavericks) to do everything they can to help their favorite lad, Romney, put together a coalition that helps him win a brokered convention. Frankly, I’d love it if both parties had exciting conventions.

So, below the fold, my endorsements for the California primary. Continue reading ‘More election endorsements, and choosing Clinton over Obama’

Vote for someone named John: primary and caucus endorsements

Months ago, I predicted that the 2008 general election would be between Mitt Romney and John Edwards, anticipating a celebrated match-up between two talented, articulate, and strikingly good-looking candidates.

I’m not sure if my prediction will hold true, but on this eve of the Iowa caucus, let me be clear once more that I am endorsing John Edwards for the Democratic nomination. Of the top-tier candidates, he has the boldest and most progressive platform. His willingness to talk about the widening gap between rich and poor is refreshing; of all the major candidates, he promises to be the most aggressive in standing up for environmental and economic justice.

On the Republican side, it’s an easier call. John McCain is the class of the field. Unlike most of his fellow GOP candidates, McCain has not given in to the anti-immigrant xenophobia sweeping the party of the elephants. He is the only Republican to acknowledge the reality that global warming is largely a human-made phenomenon, and he has earned the enthusiastic endorsement of Republicans for Environmental Protection. Though far from being progressive in any real sense of the term, McCain’s willingness to buck right-wing orthodoxy and his commitment to the preservation of wild spaces earn him my vote.

Against “end of the year” retrospectives coming too early

Every morning, after my all-too-brief prayer time, I turn on CNN. This morning, when I saw the coverage of the Benazir Bhutto assassination, I watched for only a few minutes before going online. The American television news agencies have cut back so much on their coverage of world events that they no longer have the power they once did to bring multiple reporters on to a story instantly. I’ll still check in on the television throughout the day, but will stream BBC news on the radio and spend more time online, visiting my “usual sources”.

This is a tragedy, of course, but it’s another reminder as well that news-gathering organizations really ought to refrain from doing their “top stories of the year” in mid-December. When you look back over the past few years (the tsunami, the Hussein execution, this assassination), it’s evident lots of newsworthy events can happen after Christmas and before New Year’s Day.

GOP pundit: we want poor social conservatives, just as long as they know their place

Rich Lowry in today’s National Review Online, expressing the anxiety that the right-wing punditocracy has about Mike Huckabee, and the damage he’s doing to the conservative elite’s golden boy, Mitt Romney:

The GOP’s social conservatism inarguably has been an enormous benefit to the party throughout the past 30 years, winning over conservative Democrats and lower-income voters who otherwise might not find the Republican limited-government message appealing. That said, nominating a Southern Baptist pastor running on his religiosity would be rather overdoing it. Social conservatism has to be part of the Republican message, but it can’t be the message in its entirety.

Bold emphasis mine.

Well, that’s more candor than I expect from GOP strategists: “we like poor uneducated social conservatives, but only as long as they know their place, which is to provide votes so we can do the important stuff.” It’s a bald admission of what the left has known for a long time: the GOP uses the “God, gays, and guns” issues to bring in voters whose economic needs are utterly incongruent with the Republican message.

Lowry continues:

Huckabee has declared that he doesn’t believe in evolution. Even if there are many people in America who agree with him, his position would play into the image of Republicans as the anti-science party. This would tend to push away independents and upper-income Republicans. In short, Huckabee would take a strength of the GOP and, through overplaying it, make it a weakness.

In other words: social conservatism, once you scratch the surface, is embarrassing.

Right-wing evangelicals are to the GOP what African-Americans have traditionally been to the Democrats: a group that is heavily courted come election time, but whose deepest concerns are routinely dismissed by the party elite. I’m an evangelical whose views on most issues are very different from Mike Huckabee’s. But on behalf of my “fellow believers”, I’m a bit stunned by the dismissive, patronizing tone Lowry strikes in his message.

Shorter Lowry: “Conservative evangelicals to the back of the bus, because you scare folks.”

In praise of cacophony: rejecting Romney’s “symphony of faith”

I left home for the office this morning just before Mitt Romney started his speech about faith. I couldn’t find it on the radio (I was a bit surprised that NPR didn’t pick it up, and I mean that seriously rather than facetiously), and couldn’t get it to stream online. So I’ll have to content myself, for now, with reading excerpts from the speech that the Romney campaign released in advance.

I’m an evangelical who has spent almost his entire life in the secular academy. There are few other serious Christians in my department; most of the colleagues to whom I am closest are firm atheists. Indeed, I note that more and more folks I run into these days seem willing to call themselves atheists rather than agnostics. There seems to be more openness about unbelief, and I appreciate that we live in a climate where those who are genuinely convinced that there is no God at all don’t feel pressured to use the safer language of uncertainty and doubt.

Romney said this morning:

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America — the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

Mitt’s got it right when he suggests that it is unreasonable to ask anyone to divorce their spiritual convictions from their politics. The post immediately below this one is a brief polemic against compartmentalization, albeit a very different kind of compartmentalization. But to a serious believer, a Sunday morning (or Saturday morning) faith is poor beer indeed. If the relationship I have with God is the transcendent Fact of my life, it’s absurd to suggest that that Fact shouldn’t inform and guide everything I do — including how I teach and how I vote.

But the parallel to teaching is important. My faith makes me, I’m certain, a better teacher. That doesn’t mean that folks who don’t share my faith can’t be good teachers (better than I in many cases). It doesn’t mean that folks who have no faith at all can’t be wonderful instructors and mentors. It is simply true that in my case, my faith has made me an infinitely kinder, more patient, and less self-absorbed person. (Whatever notable tendencies I still have towards self-absorption, are, of course, attributable to the obvious reality that I, like all converts, am still very much a work in progress.) If someone asks me, “Hugo, why do you do what you do the way you do it?”, faith is going to be part of my answer. But the fact that my teaching rests on a spiritual foundation doesn’t mean that I am entitled to inject my spiritual beliefs into the classroom. If I can be a fairly religious person, and work day in and day out without talking incessantly about how my faith undergirds everything I’m doing, then I’m quite confident that others can do the same. That’s not compartmentalization, because I’m not living at odds with my faith or hiding my faith. I’m just choosing not to bludgeon folks with the cross. I’d like it if my fellow believers in public life felt the same way.

(And for the record, the notion of a “religion of secularism” is silly. But suppose someone did want to start such a religion, committed to the notion that the Divine Being is Absent, Never Was, and Never Will Be? The America I want is an America where that “religion” would be able to take its place in the public square too.)

But I’m particularly troubled by the (admittedly eloquent) concluding lines of Romney’s speech, sure to be remembered longest:

In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion — rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.

Bold emphasis mine.

Yikes. I hit my knees a lot, Mitt, and I worship the same Almighty you do. I’m heartened to hear you will be my friend and ally. Tell me, will you also be a friend and ally to my mother, who does not believe in God? (For that matter, will you be a friend and ally to many of my Anabaptist friends, who believe in God but don’t kneel?)

And I wince at the notion that faith is a symphony. Symphonies, as we understand them, are innovations of the Christian west. The image that pops into my head is of the Catholics in the string section, the Baptists blowin’ their horns, the Eastern Orthodox on their woodwinds and the Pentecostals on percussion. Perhaps they’ll play “Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring” and it will sound very pretty. But will there be Muslims? Will there be atheists? Will there be Buddhists and Hindus? Will there be animists and Wiccans?

Real diversity is not harmonious. Real diversity is African and Japanese drums, the throbbing of synthesized beats, the rich, challenging melodies of an Indonesian gamelan — and French horns. Put that all together, and it isn’t going to be a beautiful symphony. It’ll be beautiful yes, but it will be the beauty of a great big messy cacophony, like what happens when you put plastic musical instruments into the hands of second-graders on a sugar high. And that great big messy cacophany is my America, Mitt. It’s the rancheras I hear blasting as I drive through Highland Park, it’s the hip-hop bumping from the car stereos as I walk on Crenshaw. It’s the ululating of Sephardic Jewish women at a Kabbalistic wedding, and it’s the speaking in tongues of Pentecostals at a late night prayer meetin’. It’s noisy and it’s difficult to understand and it doesn’t all fit together.

Religion has a place in the public square. But it doesn’t get to define the boundaries of the public square. Public displays of faith have their place, indeed — but so too do public displays of humanistic secularism. The right to pray as one chooses is inextricably linked to the equally important right to scoff at those who pray. Real ecumenism, real diversity, is not simply making the case for common ground between Mormons and evangelical Protestants, arguing that each has a part to play in the grand symphony of faith. A real commitment to diversity is embracing not only all believers, but embracing all those who are in varying states of unbelief. I say this as a Christian who loves Jesus, and I say it on behalf of those whom I love who share my convictions — and those whom I love who don’t.

UPDATE: I wish I could say that the way I originally spelled “cacophony” was deliberate. When dealing with Greek suffixes, I’m better on manifestations than sounds, so “phany” always “looks right” to me. I’ve changed it to the right spelling now.

Quick GOP debate thoughts

I was feeling a little drained last night, so I stayed on the couch and watched the Republican “Youtube” debate on CNN. Lots of other folks around the blogosphere were watching, and many will have deeper thoughts than I. What follows is pretty darned superficial:

In the general election, I will likely vote for any of the current Democratic candidates over any of the men who were on the stage last night. But in the primary, as a registered Republican, I’ve been leaning towards voting for John McCain. And last night’s debate — especially with McCain’s fierce rejection of waterboarding as torture — reminded me of what I’ve always admired about him. He’s not going to get the nomination, but despite his obvious anger problem, he’s probably the most worthy man in his party. And he has the endorsement of Republicans for Environmental Protection, a group whose opinions I admire.

Huckabee was charming. His candidacy has the potential to widen the fissure that liberals very much want to see widened — that between fiscal and social conservatives. He’s never going to get the nomination, but he’s for real. If he pulls social cons away from Romney, that ends up helping Rudy.

As for Romney — are we really ready to have a president who is that handsome? I mean, forget the Mormon thing. I found myself studying Mitt’s face and hair last night, looking for flaws. It’s positively unnerving, and in “all half-seriousness”, I wonder if his “central casting looks” will end up hurting him in the general election. His appearance was genuinely distracting.

Fred Thompson was beyond hopeless. Great voice, but he looked bored, disengaged, and grumpy. And his suit jacket didn’t fit. Give the man a drink and send him home.

The “miracle cure” of marriage: responding to Kay Hymowitz and Brad Wilcox (again)

I’ve taken two days to write this post. I feel very, very strongly about it — more than about any post I’ve written in, well, at least a few months.

In the latest issue of First Things (not available yet online except to subscribers), W. Bradford Wilcox reviews Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age, the latest from conservative family scholar Kay S. Hymowitz.

I haven’t read Hymowitz yet, but I always seem to have a bone to pick with Brad Wilcox. I’ve taken issue with him in three separate posts: here, here, here. Wilcox is a Virginia Cavalier (and I have a soft spot for all things Charlottesville), and he’s an important family scholar in his own right. I agree with him on almost nothing, but admire his writing style.

Wilcox has this way of saying things that are so stunningly wrong that I leap up from the couch or chair or desk and start madly pacing about. From this month’s First Things review:

The rise of the marriage gap also reveals that a large minority of working-class, poor, and minority adults no longer “believe in marriage as an institution for raising children.” They have lost touch with a marriage orientation that requires them to keep an eye on the future, to work hard, to discipline their sexual (or at least reproductive) behavior, and to be discriminating in their choice of romantic partners. In making this point, Hymowitz provocatively turns on its head the standard liberal argument that the poor do not marry because they do not have good jobs, adequate income, and decent housing; instead, she persuasively argues that the disappearance of a marriage orientation—and the virtues and values associated with this orientation—among the poor and working class is a big part of the reason that they and their children are more likely to end up at the bottom of the social ladder.

I may be blaming Wilcox for Hymowitz’s sin, but his approval of her stance (the bold is mine) is clear. It’s like reading something from the Gilded Age of nineteenth-century social reform, when earnest upper-middle-class types tut-tutted about the licentiousness and immorality of the poor and the brown. The urban poor (particularly, I suspect, Wilcox and Hymowitz mean black and Latino people) have — get this — no work ethic and no sexual self-control. Why? Because the “po’ folks ain’t gettin’ married no mo”. Wilcox and Hymowitz, like most social conservatives, see marriage as the panacea for all social problems. Sexually frustrated? Get married. Worried about social security? Get married. Want to have happy children? Get married. Want to end global warming, cure the common cold, and hasten the return of the Lord? Get married. Continue reading ‘The “miracle cure” of marriage: responding to Kay Hymowitz and Brad Wilcox (again)’

Dobson versus Robertson, the Giuliani endorsement, and the split over the End Times — a brief post with a long title

Hugh Hewitt, the only right-wing radio talk-show host to whom I regularly listen, has an interesting post up about Pat Robertson’s surprise endorsement of Rudy Giuliani. Given that James Dobson — right up there with Robertson in terms of influence among conservative evangelicals — has stated categorically that he won’t support the pro-choice Rudy if he is the GOP nominee, Robertson’s announcement seemed surprising. Hugh Hewitt, an enthusiastic Mitt Romney supporter, is rather eager to make the case that the endorsement doesn’t matter much. (The Romney types really should be getting nervous, as their boy is still going nowhere in the national polls. I still think he’ll be the nominee, however, facing Clinton.)

I think there’s another reason Robertson picked Giuliani, and it has everything to do with how Pat interprets prophecy. Continue reading ‘Dobson versus Robertson, the Giuliani endorsement, and the split over the End Times — a brief post with a long title’

Dream Act Disappointment

Very busy this morning. Two of my classes turn in papers this week, and I’ve been giving midterms in the other five. By this afternoon, I will have (by my best estimate) 335 exams or essays to grade — and all must be graded within the next two weeks.

A quick note: I was very disappointed that a senate filibuster yesterday blocked the “Dream Act.”

The Senate on Wednesday rejected a bill offering the children of illegal immigrants a path to citizenship if they serve in the military or complete two years of higher education. The defeat of the measure, which had attracted bipartisan support, underscored the difficulty of enacting even a narrowly tailored proposal in the polarizing atmosphere surrounding immigration reform.

Off the top of my head, I can think of five or six current students of mine whom I know to be undocumented. I’ve had dozens of other students over the years whose parents came here illegally, often when their children were very small. These kids have grown up, worked hard, and are often finding it very difficult to continue their education. As undocumented students, they can’t apply for federal student grants or loan guarantees.

“Tammy” was my student in my women’s studies and humanities classes. She was the best student in the class each time; she was accepted to UCLA, planning to major in Women’s Studies and History. Her family had come to this country from the Philippines illegally, when Tammy was two. Tammy didn’t find out until her junior year of high school that she and her parents had no immigration documents. She found out her citizenship status when, returning home from her school’s “college day”, she told her parents that they would need to fill out the FAFSA (the standard federal student aid form.) Her parents sat her down and gently told her that that wouldn’t be possible. Tammy felt doubly betrayed: by her parents for never telling her that she had no legal status, and by the only society she has ever known. (Tammy speaks halting Tagolog, and flawless English. Because of passport issues, she has never been back to the land of her birth. Her home is Silverlake and Echo Park, not Manila.)

She was accepted to UCLA straight out of high school, but without financial aid, came to PCC.

Somehow, by borrowing money from family and friends, working two jobs, Tammy is making it happen at UCLA, and will graduate more or less on time. She’s got the raw talent and determination to succeed in the face of any obstacle. Others lack her extraordinary resolve, and slip through the cracks, moving into permanent lives in the shadow economy. I’ve seen it happen.

It ought to be a basic moral principle that children shouldn’t be punished for their parents’ crimes. I’m not sure I regard illicit immigration as a crime, but if I could be convinced that it was, it’s a crime for which the punishment ought only to come to bear on those who were adults at the time it was originally committed. The Dream Act, with its insistence on scholarship or service as conditions for naturalization, was a thoughtful, reasonable, and humane step in the right direction. And it’s been blocked.

I agree with President Bush about very little. But I think he’s been right on immigration more often than not, and I’m sorry that the far-right flank of his party has consistently blocked his efforts at modest immigration reform. (John McCain has also been relatively reasonable on the issue, but most of his fellow GOP candidates have not.) The defeat of the Dream Act is only temporary, I’m hopeful; if things go the way they might in the elections next fall, filibusters may largely become a thing of the past… but for now, the walls that block so many of my students remain in place.

The religious right lines up behind Romney: UPDATED

I note that leading conservative evangelicals are quietly (and not so quietly) putting their eggs in the Mitt Romney basket. With Mike Huckabee going nowhere, Fred Thompson still mysteriously half-hearted, and Sam Brownback dropping out of the ‘08 race, most thoughtful social conservatives realize that Romney represents the only real chance they have to avoid having to cope with noted pro-choice philanderer Rudy Giuliani as Republican nominee.

Today’s endorsement comes from the professor and theologian Wayne Grudem, the leading defender of what egalitarian evangelicals like me sometimes call the “complementarian heresy”. This follows the endorsement of Romney earlier this week by Robert Taylor, dean at the ultra-conservative Bob Jones University.

The big question: will the fundamentalist Protestant elite succeed in convincing their footsoldiers that it’s okay to vote for a Mormon, or will a disconnect emerge between the relative pragmatism of folks like Grudem and Taylor and the evangelical base, many of whom will be unable to separate Romney’s politics from his LDS faith — which they regard as a cult?

I’m a progressive evangelical with no interest in supporting Mitt Romney. But part of me would like to see him gain the nomination (and then lose the general election), if only to strike a blow for religious tolerance. Maybe then Christian bookstores (like that at my own Fuller Seminary) won’t still stock books about Mormonism under “cults”, as it would be a bit awkward for evangelicals to view their political champion as a cult member!

UPDATE: I’ve been sent this link: Dallas minister urges vote for a Christian, not Romney

UPDATE II: Maybe Mike Huckabee is going somewhere. Lord knows, I like the way he talks about a responsibility to the poor; he’s a social conservative, but he makes good sense on some of the economic issues. After all, anyone who can attract the ire of the Club for Growth can’t be all bad. If I were a principled social conservative (I’m not, at least not the conservative part), I’d be an enthusiastic Huckabee guy.

Denial and recognition: some long thoughts on the Armenian genocide resolution

I have this post about “Nice Guys” (a subject about which many in the feminist blogosphere have written over the years) percolating in my head, but it will have to wait for tomorrow or Monday.

As most know, the House was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution concering the Armenian Genocide. It now appears that vote may be put off.

Mr. Bush, who as a candidate in 2000 criticized what he called a “genocidal campaign” against the Armenians, said lawmakers had better things to do than be caught up in the past, pursuing legislation that has unsettled an important ally.

“With all these pressing responsibilities, one thing Congress should not be doing is sorting out the historical record of the Ottoman Empire,” Mr. Bush said. “Congress has more important work to do than antagonizing a democratic ally in the Muslim world, especially one that is providing vital support for our military every day.”

Backers of the resolution said they would push ahead despite mounting opposition and try to rally support for the declaration, which they said was essential to deter future genocide and protect America’s credibility in speaking out against brutality in places like Darfur and Myanmar.

I teach and live in the heart of one of the largest communities in the global Armenian diaspora: hundreds of thousands of Armenian-Americans live in the Glendale-Pasadena region. My congressman, Adam Schiff (no relation to the fictional Law & Order DA) has been one of the chief proponents of a genocide resolution. Here at Pasadena City College, we have a huge number of students of Armenian descent; I have heard one administrator, speaking off the record, suggest that nearly 65% of “white” students on this campus are Armenian. (My students, who tend to assume that “white = Northwestern European” rather than literally “Caucasian”, generally don’t label Armenians as white. The college does.)

Since 1993, I’ve taught Modern European history here. Every semester, I cover World War One in considerable detail. But when I first started teaching at PCC, my focus was entirely on the causes of the war — and on the catastrophe that was the Western Front. I talked about the Somme and Verdun, and skipped over the eastern campaigns very quickly. World War One was not my primary field (my training was as a medievalist), and my inclination was to focus on the better-known Western story. My second semester at PCC, a very bright and vivacious young Armenian-American woman named Lori came to my office and challenged me: “Why aren’t you teaching the Armenian genocide when you teach World War One?” Lori was in her second semester with me, and had been in the first women’s studies class I ever taught, and had no trouble confronting me about what she regarded as a serious oversight in my syllabus. Continue reading ‘Denial and recognition: some long thoughts on the Armenian genocide resolution’

More political notes

Since I posted this morning a moderately enthusiastic summary of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s latest round of bill-signings, I’ll stay with the politics theme.

My friends at Republicans for Environmental Protection have endorsed John McCain for president. On environmental issues, McCain is surely the best of a relatively weak bunch. Given that his campaign has been in free-fall lately, there isn’t much hope that a REPAmerica endorsement will help turn the tide.

I’ll vote for McCain in the primary, and come November 2008, vote for Clinton. Continue reading ‘More political notes’