0 What We're Reading Today (10-31-12)

Chicago Passes Last Year's Homicide Total of 435 - The Grio
Ugonna Okpalaoka

Oct. 30: What State Polls Suggest About the National Popular Vote - FiveThirtyEight
Nate Silver

Slate's Electoral Map Challenge - Slate
Chris Kirk

Change Newspapers Can Believe In - Slate
David Weigel

Getting Iran to Say, "Uncle," Might not be Smart - Foreign Policy
Stephen M. Walt

Romney's Window in Ohio is Closing - The New Republic
Nate Cohn

0 Barack Obama, the White House, and Black America

I am an ardent defender of Barack Obama and barring some sort of calamitous event in his Presidency, I will most likely continue to be defender of his.  More than that, though, I am an Obama apologist.  I will make a case in his defense whenever possible and rationalize his decision-making.  Perhaps it is because I identify so heavily with the Obama narrative or, maybe, I've developed a sort of motherly instinct toward the nation's first black President -- whatever the case, I'm of the mindset that Barack, if given a more cooperative Congress and a second term, would be every ounce the President I (we) had hoped for.

That said, his four-year review is in progress and black America has overwhelmingly polled in his favor.  Black and voting for Mitt Romney? Consider yourself a statistical aberration; you exist within the purgatory of "the margin of error."  With that, debate over the merits of Obama's command of the black vote has bubbled over and his record on issues that affect black Americans has been on trial.

From the New York Times

The New York Times published an op-ed on the 27th of October titled The Price of a Black President that captured, for me, much of the uneasiness I feel.  Frederick C. Harris, the author of the op-ed, referenced the degree to which the modern reality of a black face in the White House is a disappointment in comparison with the vision black intellectuals of the past had conceived.  For Harris, the black American elite are not scrutinizing Obama in a way that is conducive to the advancement of blacks, that instead of being scholars and thinkers in the mold of W.E.B. and Ida B. Welles, black intellectuals have become (gulp) Obama apologists.

A week away from the election, I would like to explore the question more -- and not just be chastised/praised by various media outlets for my affection/frustration for the Fourty-Fourth President of the United States of America.  So I'm going to put some links below which anyone and everyone is welcome to (should) read and invite my blogging, intellectual, and quick-witted Intelligentsia-of-a-friend-group to offer their thoughts.  I'll post whatever you write if you don't have a blog and link/tweet/Facebook share/+1 whatever you write yourself.  Mickey, Mr. Wright, Tabias, Jameelah, Roy, Brandon Lacy Campos, Shabazz, Kiese Laymon, Kris, Chartise, Barbara, Lev, Munir, Matt Parsons, Jacob, Son of Baldwin, etc. - I'm looking at you all.  Crunchatize -- er, rather, enlighten me, cap'n!

The Price of a Black President - New York Times
Frederick C. Harris

Fear of a Black President - The Atlantic
Ta-Nehisi Coates

For President, a Complex Calculus of Race, Politics - New York Times
Jodi Kantor

What are President Obama's Black Critics Talking About - The New Republic
John McWhorter

What Difference Would Obama's Re-Election Make to Black Americans - The Nation
Melissa Harris-Perry

We Are All Welfare Queens Now - The Atlantic
Ta-Nehisi Coates

Obama's Mistakes and the Role of Race - The Atlantic
Clive Crook

The Obama Deception: Why Cornel West Went Ballistic - Truth Dig
Chris Hedges

Poll: Majority of Americans are Racist Against Blacks - The Raw Story
Jonathan Terbush

0 Why Obama? Why Now?

A great video from one of the animators of The Simpsons.

0 What We're Reading: Brussels Edition (10-26-12)

MORNING MINDMELD: If you're a political junkie, enjoy it, soak it in: In our lifetimes, there may never be another race that looks this close for the final two weekends. Yesterday, two of the most widely followed polling analysts drew opposite conclusions about who has Big Mo:

--Nate Silver, who gives Obama a 73% chance of winning, argued in the morning that the move to Romney had "stopped": "What isn't very likely ... is for one candidate to lose ground in five of six polls if the race is still moving toward him. ... [W]e can debate whether Mr. Obama has a pinch of momentum or whether the race is instead flat, but it's improbable that Mr. Romney would have a day like [Wednesday] if he still had momentum."http://nyti.ms/Y2zNij

--Six and half hours later, ABC's Gary Langer popped his analysis of the latest ABC-WP tracking poll, which had : "[T]he momentum on underlying issues and attributes is Romney's. Romney's gains are clear especially in results on the economy."http://abcn.ws/ROKMZa

SO AS A PUBLIC SERVICE, here is each campaign's latest THEORY OF THE CASE, in 890 words:

ROMNEY POLITICAL DIRECTOR RICH BEESON, in a phone interview with Playbook from Boston HQ on Wednesday: "Florida is like an aircraft carrier: Once you start turning it, it's hard to stop, and it's been turning now for about the last 10 days. ... The Dems are talking about how they've closed the gap on absentee, but since the early vote window's gone from two weeks to one week, all that they're doing is taking their early vote and voting them absentee. ... We're ahead of where we were in '08, and ... our Election Day turnout is going to be very strong. ... Every day, [Florida] gets better, and as Haley Barbour says, 'Good gets better and bad gets worse.' ... I think at the end of the day, North Carolina is probably a 53-47 state. ...

"Virginia is a lot like Florida : It's starting to head the right direction. They tried to cut us with Northern Virginia, those suburban women. We've held serve: We're holding our numbers in Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William. We will win Loudoun and Prince William counties. Then, as you go down to Hampton Roads and Virginia Beach, those Obama defense cuts are really starting to undermine him. ... And then, in Henrico County ... and those collar counties around Richmond - [including] Chesterfield -- we're going to ratchet it up to Bush turnout numbers in there. Then, from Danville on down to Bluefield and Tri-Cities, anybody down there who's voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders [because of coal]. And so, we're going to have historic margins out of those. ... [W]e're talking 70-80 percent ...

"New Hampshire , ... we were tied there before we went and bought the TV, and [are] going up with a heavy, heavy radio buy. ... Wisconsin is a tie. There's no two ways about it, and the good news for us there is where we have room to grow is, the further north and the further west you go, those places where we cut up Santorum in the primary, we can still get some Republicans to come home. We're going to run better in Madison, Milwaukee, and Green Bay than Republicans normally run. ... In the primary, we were called the 'Massachusetts moderate.' [That's helpful in Wisconsin's] urban and even close-in suburban areas ... Same thing in Madison, Green Bay, and Milwaukee. Those were the only three DMAs we went to in Wisconsin in the primary, and that's where we won the Wisconsin primary... Romney runs better in those urban areas than the Republican presidential candidates have for the last two cycles. ... Paul Ryan being able to peel off blue-collar Democratic votes, ... that's just going to be icing on the cake.

"Iowa is one of my favorite states because it's obviously the state that launched Barack Obama in the caucuses ... Now, he is locked in a tie race. ... [I]n another week or so, I'm going to be prepared to move Iowa into our column. They have to go into Election Day with a 15 percent partisan advantage on absentee ballots. ... Anything over it they'll win; anything under it, we've got a shot at winning, because on Election Day turnout, Republicans in Iowa vote on Election Day; Democrats like to vote absentee. This is the first time we've ever had a registration advantage in Iowa ... In Colorado, which is my home state, there's a number of factors there that are working against the President. ... Again, it gets back to that candidate who runs better in urban areas than we've seen in the past. ...

"Nevada has been the toughest nut for us to crack , but having said all of that, we're still within a couple of points in Nevada. ... We never won early voting in Washoe County one day in 2008; we've now won it two days in a row. ... The other thing about Nevada to keep in mind is that the rural, the cow counties out there, they vote on Election Day. So, you've got 11 percent of the vote that's just going to sit there until Election Day, and we're going to win those rurals by big margins. There's a lot of LDS out there, very conservative voters ... I saw somebody move [Nevada] into the Obama column the other day and I found that sort of interesting, especially since they've done the same with Iowa and Ohio and add all those back.

"I think it was two weeks ago that people were asking if we were going to have to pull out of Ohio, and now ... it is a tie in Ohio ... [T]hey're counting party registration as a vote for them. So, [for] a Democrat early vote or a Democrat absentee ballot, they're saying: It's ours. But you look at the Mahoning Valley from Youngstown, down to the Charleston and Huntington media market, the further south you go, the more coal there is ... We are peeling off an enormous amount of Democrat votes in those coal counties ... The fight in Ohio is going to be Franklin County and then what margin we can come out of Cuyahoga with. ... They've dropped the auto bailout on us, but ... there's only so long you can ride that one-trick pony, and they just kept pounding away at it, and so that's baked in right now and we're tied."

OBAMA CAMPAIGN MANAGER JIM MESSINA, on a press conference call Tuesday:"We are outperforming our early vote margins in key states, compared to 2008. We're ahead of where we were against McCain, and more importantly, we're ahead of Mitt Romney. Romney may be winning more raw votes than McCain did at this point, but ... the numbers tell a very clear story. The electorate is bigger this year, and our vote margins are, too. In every presidential election since 1984, the turnout in a presidential year has eclipsed turnout in midterm elections, and in every presidential election since '96, the voter turnout has increased significantly over the previous election. In fact, more people are going to vote early this cycle than in 2008. And more of them will vote for President Obama in the states that will decide this election. Every single day now is Election Day, and voters in Iowa and Nevada and Wisconsin and Ohio are voting ...

"We are not leaving anywhere we are tied or ahead. Romney hasn't been unable to knock us out of a single battleground, but we've forced him to continue to spend significant resources in states like North Carolina that the Romney campaign said they wanted locked up a long time ago. By contrast, we've gotten him to pull resources out of states like Michigan, Pennsylvania ... and New Mexico. ... The Romney campaign has bet that young people and minorities won't turn out. The early vote numbers are already proving the folly of that gamble, and the wisdom of our plan. ... Early vote is not taking a final universe of voters and only changing the day they vote. ... What early vote does is help us get out low-propensity voters - voters called 'sporadic' voters - which broadens are universe and freezes up more get out the vote resources later and especially on Election Day. ... Public polls show we are winning early votes in Iowa, Ohio and Wisconsin. President is winning overall by 15 to 35 points among those who have already voted, and we are winning in-person early vote everywhere they have it. In Ohio, early vote turn-out is higher in counties that voted for Obama in 2008 than Republican counties. ...

"Republicans traditionally mail in ballots , especially in states like Florida and North Carolina, but Democrats are performing better than we did in 2008. ... In [Florida in] 2008 right now we were behind in vote-by-mail by almost a quarter a million of votes - that margin is now 38,000 ... We've dramatically reduced the Republican advantage. And what all that means, is the math for Republicans, and what they have to beat us by on Election Day, gets harder and harder, especially in states like Nevada, Iowa and Ohio. ... Republicans are anticipating that minority turnout will drop off, but we already know that's not the case, and that's important as you look at some polls here. The electorate has been increasingly and consistently more diverse.

"Minority voting is going to reach an all-time high this year , projected as high as 28% of all voters in the '12 Election. Most new registrants over the past three months are under 30, and nearly all-four in five-are youth, women, African American or Latino. ... [T]hese are all groups that strongly support the President's re-election. Voter registration has increased most among Latinos and African Americans, and two-thirds of those who have already voted are women, youth, African Americans or Latinos. In-person, early vote is especially popular among African American voters, and early voting among African Americans has increased since 2008 in North Carolina and Virginia. In-person to early voting has only just begun in Colorado, North Carolina, Nevada and Wisconsin - has not yet begun in Florida, but Democrats are winning everywhere among in-person early votes. ...

"We continue to think it's going to be a higher percentage of minorities and young people than some are forecasting. If you look at the past, you continue to see an increase in numbers who voted. 1996, 96 million people voted, then 105, then 122 in the Bush/Kerry election, then 131 in 2008. We aren't looking at national numbers. We're going by state, and how we get to 50.1 in all these battleground states. And we continue to think that the math has changed. Florida's a good example of that. There are 250,000 more registered African American and Latino voters than there were four years ago when the President won Florida. ... In North Carolina, in the first five days of early vote, 50% more African Americans voted than in 2008. ... [T]hat shows enthusiasm, it shows organization, but I think it also says it's going to be a different total electorate that votes in 2012 than people are expecting. ...

"Early vote in Wisconsin, it's another bright spot for the campaign: 67% of all early voters are women, youth, African American and Latino, groups that favor the President strongly. ... We have the added advantage in Wisconsin: It's a same-day registration state, so we can help ourselves on the ground on Election Day as well, so we expect a higher turnout there. Look, we understand Wisconsin is a battleground state ... [T]he math is just getting harder and harder for Governor Romney in some of these states, to what he would have to get on Election Day to come back in states like Wisconsin."

-Politico Playbook (10-26-12)

0 What We're Reading Today (10-25-12)

Why the GOP Should Fear a Romney Presidency - The Atlantic
Jack M. Balkin

Infographic: The Enormous Racial Gap in Political Reporting - The Atlantic
David A. Graham

Dignity Beyond Voting: Undocumented Immigrants Cast their Hopes - Colorlines
Aura Bogado

A New Way to Measure Afghan Security: Beef and Tomatoes - The Atlantic
Brian Fung

Why Khamenei Will Compromise - Al-Monitor
Meir Javefander

Is Europe About to Crack-Up? - Real Clear World
Tomas Valasek

Obama says Ayn Rand is for Teens - Buzzfeed Politics
Buzzfeed Staff

Ladies, Don't Fall for Moderate Mitt! - The Nation
Katha Pollitt

0 What We're Reading Today: Brussels Edition Pt. 2 (10-24-12)

Republicans Struggle to Contain Mourdock Comments  - The New York Times
Jonathan Weisman

How Bill Clinton May Have Hurt the Obama Campaign - The New York Times
Matt Bai

Poll: Elizabeth Warren Opens-Up 6-Point Lead - Politico
Kevin Robillard

President Obama's 11th-Hour Strategy Shift - Politico
Glenn Thrush

Romney Says He's Winning -- It's a Bluff - New York Magazine
Jonathan Chait

From Belgium with love.

0 What We're Reading Today: Brussels Edition Pt. 1 (10-24-12)

MORNING MINDMELD : As an antidote to the (perhaps) irrational Republican exuberance that seems to have seized D.C., we pause for the following public-service announcement. To be President, you have to win states, not debates. And Mitt Romney has a problem. Despite a great debate and what The Wall Street Journal's Neil King Jr. on Sunday called a polling "surge," Romney has not put away a single one of the must-have states. President Obama remains the favorite because he only needs to win a couple of the toss-ups. Mitt needs to win most of them. A cold shower for the GOP: Most polling shows Romney trailing in Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Hampshire and Iowa - by MORE than Obama trails in North Carolina. Glenn Thrush and Jonathan Martin reminded of us of the 2008 primary analogy: Whatever else Hillary Clinton had, Barack Obama had the math. And math, not momentum, gets you the big house, the bulletproof car, the cool plane. We now resume our regularly scheduled Playbook.

- Politico Playbook (10-24-12)

0 Parodies and Politics

Living in a democracy means that every four years we not only get to voice our say in who runs our country, we have endless opportunities to turn their every word, campaign and factual gaffe into an excuse to churn out political parody videos, cartoons and twitter accounts. (If only Abraham Lincoln were alive today for us to meme.)  Not to mention SNL and Comedy Centrals impact on how our generation views politics. SNL’s take on the last eight elections have affected many of the candidates — and the performers who have played them. Getting to be a Bush (Dana Carvey and Will Ferrell) or a Clinton (Phil Hartman, Darrell Hammond, Amy Poehler), or a Palin (Tina Fey) has elevated the careers of several cast members. In the end parodies might not be the most informative of new sources, but they certainly hold their place in influencing the elections and entertaining us while we avoid doing our work.

Here are some of the great parodies from this year's election cycle:








Click here to see the other SNL videos from the election. 

0 What We're Reading Today (10-24-12) Pt. 2

Becoming Obama: A Young Barack Obama in Love - Vanity Fair
David Maraniss

I, You, and 'the Embrace': Tango as Relationship Therapy - The Atlantic
Amelia Rachel Hokule’a Borofsky

Nearly 30% of Veterans by V.A. have PTSD - The Daily Beast
Jamie Reno

Netroots Bloggers Mark 10th Birthday in Decline and Struggling for Survival - The Daily Beast
David Freedlander

Election 2012 and the Missing Millennials - The Nation
Zoe Carpenter

Photos of Teen Mitt Romney Pulling Pranks, Bullying - Vanity Fair

0 What We're Reading Today (10-24-12) Pt. 1

The Campaign to Steal Ohio - The New Republic
Alec MacGillis

Ranking the Battleground States - The New Republic
Nate Cohn

Survey: Most Israeli Jews Would Support Apartheid Regime in Israel - Haaretz
Gideon Levy

For President Obama, a Complex Calculus of Race and Politics - NY Times
Jodi Kantor

The Economics of Magazines and Diversity - The Atlantic
Ta-Nehisi Coates

Our Vision for Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship at Tufts - Tufts Observer
Elaine Kim

0 13 Days and the State of Massachusetts

Now that the final debate has ended we have 13 days of mass chaos in front of us. In the next two weeks every door in New Hampshire will be canvassed an average of four times and we will receive no less than 100 emails from Obama's campaign asking us to give money. It is this now or never mentality that will shape the rest of the rhetoric surrounding the election. Before we embark on that craziness here are some important stories to look at:

- 41 Minutes, 24 Myths, how Romnesia is affecting our nation.

-More people are being told the wrong place and time to vote by election officials.

-The latest “you didn’t build that” hypocrisy from Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

-Three charts prove why calling Obama anti-business is ridiculous.

-Mitt Romney is very confused about the world court.

-A closer look at the Iraq War cheerleader who is now a top Romney adviser.

-Log Cabin Republicans abandon their principles to endorse Mitt Romney.

-How pollsters are missing the Latino vote and why it matters.

-Four big issues ignored in last night’s debate.

More importantly, for the first time in memorable history Massachusetts is important nationally. Massachusetts GOP population is less than 20% of the state, but currently they are causing all the problems. First of all, Mitt was governor here and thus residents can tell you first hand how bad he was. When Willard was governor here Mass ranked 47th state in job creation. His economic plans didn't work in Mass and they won't work at the national level. Second of all, Scott Brown v. Elizabeth Warren might decide the senate. Currently, Democrats maintain a very slim majority in the Senate, 53 – 47. Of the 33 seats up for grabs in this election, over two thirds are held by Democrats. On top of that, seven Democratic senators are retiring this year. If elected, Scott Brown’s first vote when he returns to DC will be to elect Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader. Warren has fought for consumers, the middle class, and women: I know personally I would be proud to have her as a senator. To learn more about why keeping Scott Brown a senator is terrifying go here.


Also watch this.

0 NY Times Votes Predictor Tool and my Prediction as of Today

NY Times has this nifty tool that lets you try to predict the way the election will go this year.  You can see my distribution of states here.  I was even more pessimistic than Nate Silver when he did his most recent electoral map for FiveThirtyEight.com which, for me, bodes well for Obama because he wins in both of our scenarios -- only by a larger margin in Nate Silver's as Silver thinks that Obama will carry Nevada and New Hampshire while I give those two states to Romney.
That decision was based on two very shallow considerations: 1. that high unemployment in Nevada will make voters sympathetic to Romney's, "All that matters is the economy," shenanigans and 2. that New Hampshire will take Romney's anti-government message even though it doesn't make sense.  Also, when I played a rugby match at University of New Hampshire I saw more Romney signs than Obama ones -- but not by many, granted.

The very scientific "Cotton Prediction" as of October 22, 2012

You can design your own diagram and make your predictions using the link I embedded above.  Another useful tidbit about the NY Times tool is that it shows you the various scenarios both camps are hoping for.  Fill it out before tonight's debate and then place bets on who places the states correctly -- maybe I'll do that with my house.

Nate Silver's forecast for Nov. 6 as of October 22, 2012

0 Mickey Desruisseaux: On Affirmative Action, African-Americanism, and Anger

Mickey was one of my advisees in high school.  He is at the University of Chicago now and continues to develop into a prolific thinker and excellent writer.  His blog post, linked below, captures many of the emotions that I tried to convey in my earlier post (Justice, not Diversity) but Mickey does so with much more sophisticated flair and rhetorical flourishes.  We are both high-achieving black kids from the South Side of Chicago who graduated from the school of one Greg Wright so, of course, there is a natural affinity between us and a certain tendency to reaffirm one another's thoughts.

Mickey, you just keep making me proud.

Read Mickey's post here

I’ll admit it. I’m a hypocrite when it comes to the subject of affirmative action—but not in the way you might think. Because I believe, flawed as its implementation may be sometimes, it is still a necessary component in modern American society. But in regards to my own life, I want absolutely nothing to do with any of it. At all. In any way, shape, or form. And, after reading the LZ Granderson article I linked in the italicized intro, I suspect that it’s a more widespread attitude among minorities that most would think 

... 

Being a nerd, I spend a lot of time in the realm of the internet, and while that should inoculate me against some of the idiocy that roams there, sometimes it still catches me off guard. Like the people who believe that HBCUs are racist institutions that ban white applicants, as opposed to nondiscriminatory institutions that were formed in response to colleges that that were guilty of the opposite. People who believe that if you’re a white, heterosexual conservative Christian male whose parents were born in America, you somehow have “less rights than everybody else.” People who believe that America is strictly a meritocracy, where everyone starts out at the same place, that if you make it ahead of the rest of the pack, it happened because you worked harder or were simply better than them. People who believe that all the terrible things that happened in our past have little to no bearing on our present or futureHow quickly they forget. How fucking quickly they forget. How lucky they are to have the luxury to forget. Because as a Haitian boy growing up on the shittier side of one of America’s most segregated cities, that is a luxury that I have never had, and that I never will.

0 Justice, not Diversity, when Considering Affirmative Action

The rub, for me, in conversations about Affirmative Action, is that we often talk about Affirmative Action in terms of the value of diversity as opposed to fairness.

Diversity for diversity's sake is foolishness. It's like asking for a people safari or a face bouquet between classes.  People of color aren't decorations to be available for the perusing of their peers because it makes the peers feel better.  People of color have experiences and identities and it is unfair, if not offensive, to speak about their presence in institutions of higher learning like they are around for decorative flair.

When President Johnson spoke about affirmative action at Howard University (I posted the speech just before this post) he did not make reference to the aesthetic value or the need for "cultural exchange/interaction" between blacks and whites.  He framed the argument for affirmative action as a compensation, a righting-of-errors, a decision by the United States to recognize that although it had freed the black individual, the United States had done little to promote his progress.  It was an admission that the plight of blacks in the US was unique in that the racial group was heavily burdened by the fetters of slavery.

Over time, however, our discussions about racism have taken a different hue as racism has become less blatant and its effects more subtle and subversive.  The white American, in most circumstances, is taught that racism is an abomination and a "mistake of the times" before Dr. King said that he had a dream and everyone magically understood that blacks and whites were equal.  The history and struggle of Civil Rights is condensed into a package that does not implicate American society as conspirators or collaborators within a racist system.  Instead, Civil Rights is presented as an ailment of the South and something that anyone who never owned a slave and never sprayed protestors with fire hoses should not feel responsible for.  As a society, we have been reluctant to talk about the systemic and institutional advantages that all dominant groups have enjoyed at the cost of those who are marginalized and, in doing so, have redefined the context in which progressive policy is defended.  Instead of Affirmative Action being about justice, Affirmative Action is about diversity -- a noble, but not at all equal, endeavor.

Therefore, the argument that is waiting to be made is that Affirmative Action continues to exist because the damage done by centuries of slavery and disenfranchisement to blacks (that continues today) cannot and has not been erased in the half-century since Affirmative Action's implementation.  And this is especially salient considering that fact that the President of the United States is a black man.  Considerations of the United States being in a "post-racial" era abound because Barack Obama ascended to the White House.  His rise is certainly valuable and symbolic of the great strides the United States and black Americans have made.  But to say that one man reaching such a station in life is indicative of the collapse of racism in the United States (at an institutional or personal level) is foolhardy.

We have to look at equality of opportunity and resources as the end goal, not simply diversity.  Brown v. Board of Education is treated as a landmark case because it integrated schools but integration was not the end goal for Civil Rights activists.  The black child is no more likely to succeed simply by sitting in class next to a white student.  In fact, after years of being told by society that he is less capable than his white peer the black student is likely to perform worse (see: stereotype threat).  And the stereotype threat does not even address micro-aggressions, overt racism, pressure to speak on behalf of one's race, association with the worst aspects of one's race, resentment from one's own racial group, anxiety induced by attempting to be non-threatening to whites, and so on, which affect a person's ability to learn.

Brown v. Board was about access to resources for students of color.  A practical step toward accessing the resources that white students were given over black students was through integration.  Integration, in and of itself, was not the goal.  Being a person of color at an institute of higher education is not sunshine and rainbows after matriculation.  Being expected to speak on the behalf of your racial group is fatiguing; your heritage is treated as exotic or foreign; you are constantly defined by your racial identity, your peers second-guess your actual intelligence because you "were admitted through Affirmative Action and not test scores" (I wasn't, for the record -- upper-half of my class' ACT range); and you are an activist, a student, a spokesperson, and an ambassador.  This is not to diminish the difficulties that my classmates face in college or to say that they do not feel other pressures.

But the line of thinking that treats "diversity" as the ultimate prize for blacks just doesn't make sense.  I love my friends of every color -- even the Conservatives -- but they and I recognize that our experiences are different.  I am no more likely to succeed simply by learning in the same room as them. I am more likely to succeed because we are now drawing from the same resource pool by way of integrated classrooms -- though, granted, other systemic advantages greatly favor them (networking, criminalization rates, family income, etc.).

So the Supreme Court's time could and should be better spent hearing a different case, I feel.  Abigail Fisher is one of many white students who simply missed the mark and chose to target students of color as opposed to herself, the athletes, the legacy students, the children whose parents gave large sums of money, and/or the university's general admissions practices.

If anything good comes from this very public referendum on Affirmative Action, I hope it is that the argument is re-contextualized as a policy meant to ensure fairness and justice for those whose labor was not rewarded, wealth was not protected, and whose plight fed the success of others.  President Johnson was very candid when he spoke at Howard in 1965.  He talked about the disintegration of the family structure of blacks and how white Americans were complicit in that.  He talked about white hatred, prejudice, and condescension.  He confronted the reality that black Americans deserved more than just "freedom" because the years of bondage and oppression robbed them of the basic ingredients necessary for progress.  Courageously, he said:

You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. 

Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.

Affirmative Action isn't about making admissions pamphlets more colorful or aspiring to a "diverse" society because we have been taught that diversity is a value we should celebrate.  Affirmative Action was born of a stronger American tradition: justice.  It is the repaying of a societal debt and a recognition of guilt that affirms the strength of the American spirit and American values in its willingness to accept culpability.



The inspiration for this post came from this New York Times piece.

0 President Lyndon Johnson's Commencement Address at Howard University (1965)

Full text 

But freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please. 

You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. 

Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates. 

This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result. 

For the task is to give 20 million Negroes the same chance as every other American to learn and grow, to work and share in society, to develop their abilities--physical, mental and spiritual, and to pursue their individual happiness. 

To this end equal opportunity is essential, but not enough, not enough. Men and women of all races are born with the same range of abilities. But ability is not just the product of birth. Ability is stretched or stunted by the family that you live with, and the neighborhood you live in--by the school you go to and the poverty or the richness of your surroundings. It is the product of a hundred unseen forces playing upon the little infant, the child, and finally the man. 

... 

For what is justice? 

It is to fulfill the fair expectations of man. 

Thus, American justice is a very special thing. For, from the first, this has been a land of towering expectations. It was to be a nation where each man could be ruled by the common consent of all--enshrined in law, given life by institutions, guided by men themselves subject to its rule. And all--all of every station and origin--would be touched equally in obligation and in liberty. 

Beyond the law lay the land. It was a rich land, glowing with more abundant promise than man had ever seen. Here, unlike any place yet known, all were to share the harvest.
And beyond this was the dignity of man. Each could become whatever his qualities of mind and spirit would permit--to strive, to seek, and, if he could, to find his happiness.
This is American justice. We have pursued it faithfully to the edge of our imperfections, and we have failed to find it for the American Negro. 

So, it is the glorious opportunity of this generation to end the one huge wrong of the American Nation and, in so doing, to find America for ourselves, with the same immense thrill of discovery which gripped those who first began to realize that here, at last, was a home for freedom. 

All it will take is for all of us to understand what this country is and what this country must become. 

The Scripture promises: "I shall light a candle of understanding in thine heart, which shall not be put out." 

Together, and with millions more, we can light that candle of understanding in the heart of all America. 

And, once lit, it will never again go out.

0 Ta-Nehisi Coates on Why the SCOTUS Can't Kill Affirmative Action

In his piece for The Atlantic, Ta-Nehisi Coates echoes the argument that various scholars have been making since Abigail Fisher brought her case against Affirmative Action to the Supreme Court.

Coates points out that since there is no metric to measure the value of an individual's experience with prejudice, discrimination, etc., (for malevolent or beneficent ends), it will be incredibly difficult to disentangle racial experience and/or identity from other "soft factors" in a candidate's portfolio.  That is to say, that if the university is allowed to examine a student's character, their life experience, and their "leadership" as  a means to find strong candidates for a freshman class, how can law force them to ignore race?

He highlights the fact that an employer who promotes men over women will make an appeal to the male's immeasurable qualifications (leadership, attitude, character, know-how, etc.) over the measurable  components of the female's application (education level, starting salary, training, etc.) in order to justify his decision.  That is very, very, difficult to prove as being discrimination in all instances because, after all, we do believe in intangibles (Seriously, Tim Tebow's numbers are shit but he is still in the conversation for a starting job in the NFL.)

By the same token, how does one identify race as the single factor that pushes a candidate into the accepted pool when looking at college admissions?  The university could readily identify any of a multitude of "soft factors" that make the candidate a good fit for the school.  University's, like corporations and society as a whole, have placed value in the idea of diversity and are reluctant to simply throw their hands up and move along with the great society made exclusively of educated whites.

The point here is not that there will be zero damage, but that Affirmative Action, at this point in American history, is not so much a single policy, but a broad American value. This is, again, one of the great triumphs of the black freedom struggle. From the perspective of the struggle, Hermain Cain is a problem--but he is a decidedly better problem than the previous ones. He is also the problem we fought for, and thus evidence of progress.
Affirmative Action enjoys defenders in the corporate world and the military because of the relative success of the long war. The war continues, regardless of the court.

Read the full piece here

0 Wright and Left: "On Affirmative Action/Why Abigail Fisher is the New Veruca Salt"

Luke Sharrett for the NY Times

Read the story

Words from Mr. Wright at Wright and Left (full post here):

It takes but a quick look at our charts to see just how sick we still are.  If we lived in a post-racial society, our percentages would align.  The ills and successes available to Americans would be doled out equitably, with little regard for race or ethnicity.  In a post-racial society, we would have a senate that replicates our demographics, with thirteen black senators, seventeen Hispanics, five Asian-Americans, an American Indian, and two multiracial representatives.  Certainly these numbers may not play out exactly with each election, but they certainly would be stronger than the four total representatives of color--two Hispanic and two Asian-American--we have currently or the twenty-one senators of color we have had in the entire history of that institution.  In a post-racial society, our 15.1% poverty rate would be true for all demographics.  Instead, 27.4% of blacks and 26.6% of Hispanics live in poverty--a rate almost three times that of the 9.9% rate for non-Hispanic whites.  Unemployment and incarceration rates are similarly skewed.  September unemployment figures showed non-Hispanic whites down to 7.0% while blacks were at 13.4% and Hispanics were at 9.9%, and, for every 100,000 people in each population, we incarcerate 380 non-Hispanic whites, 966 Hispanics, and 2,207 blacks. 

0 Fact Check's Beautiful Graphical Summary of Obama's Numbers

Check out what Fact Check has to say about these numbers here.

0 Why Snoop Dogg (Lion) is voting for Obama and not Romney

0 What We're Reading Today (10-4-12)

At Last Night's Debate, Romney Told 27 Myths in 38 Minutes - Think Progress
Igor Volsky

The Search for the Most Racist City in America - Gawker
Drew Magary

University of Texas Students are 'Bleach-Bombing' their Black Peers - Gawker
Robert Kessler

Mac Owens on the forgotten dimensions of American civil-military relations - Foreign Policy
Thomas E. Ricks

Snippy Obama, Whose Heart's Not in It - The Atlantic
Garnece Franke-Ruta

Unseen for Months, but Running in Illinois - The New York Times
Monica Davey

Coal Miner's Donor - The New Republic
Alec MacGillis

American Colleges are Failing Low-Income Students - The Atlantic
Jordan Weissman

0 What Obama's and Romney's Gestures Say to Voters

Head on over to the New York Times for this one.

Click here

0 Romney Wins Debate 1 -- Voters, like Honey Badger, Don't Care

The internet, the prevailing source of all human knowledge, seems to have ruled that Mitt Romney dominated President Obama in the debate tonight.  It is being called a "knock-out," a "game changer," a "rebirth."  President Obama certainly failed to deliver his normal charisma and energy and Mitt Romney certainly did steal the President's thunder.  Sadly for Mitt Romney, it seems that the debates don't matter all too much.

By this point in the election cycle, it seems, that voters -- much like the famous honey badger of The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger (original narration by Randall) YouTube sensation -- have made up their minds by this point and the debate is not enough of a stage to convince them to change sides.  If the honey badger decides that he is hungry, that honey badger is going to eat.  If the voter has decided the President isn't bad-enough to remove from office, the voter will stick with the President.  The Daily Beast and The New Republic have both published articles echoing this statistically-backed conclusion.

There may be a small post-debate bounce for Romney's numbers in the polls but these bounces don't tend to last through the final stretch of the campaign and they very, very, rarely affect the outcome of an election.  The idea that Romney convinced the last few -- very few -- undecided voters to commit last night just isn't unlikely.  Obama was outshone, certainly, but he did not say anything to make voters question his capacity or ability to lead.  If anything, all we saw was a Romney energized and ready to debate -- and Romney can debate; that isn't news for anyone who watched the Republican primaries.  The Romney-Obama disparity was not on the level of the Kennedy-Nixon one -- in which JFK oozed charm and Richard Nixon was captured as a sweaty mess on television.  The only other example of the debates affecting the polls in a serious fashion was at the end of the Bush/Gore campaign and that, most likely, can be attributed to the media's relentless coverage and interpretation of Gore's purported sigh during a debate.

If anything, debates tend to provide material for those who are watching to reinforce their previous beliefs.  Campaigning begins so far in advance of this home stretch that most voters have been bombarded with information and are tired of the arguing at this point.  Therefore, gaffes, missteps, sighing, sweating, and other calamities aside, the debates are a chance for Democrats and Republicans to find more reasons to love their respective candidates.

So while this debate is being scored as a "Romney Victory" I can't help but click away and read something more interesting and meaningful in my life (perhaps this).  It's nice to think that the debates made a difference and feeling the post-debate, "My candidate kicked their candidate's ass" high, is a boon, for sure.  However, in objective terms, the debates just don't matter all too much.  Much like the aforementioned honey badger, [voter] don't care.


- Romney Won the Debate, but Will it be Enough? - The New Republic - Nate Cohn
- Presidential Debates Rarely Have Much Effect on Election - The Daily Beast - Miranda Green

0 Romney/Ryan Ticket Hurting GOP Hopes with Latinos

With black support virtually non-existent for the GOP in this year's Presidential race, much attention has shifted toward the allegiances of the US' many Latino voters.  Much less monolithic and homogeneous than the title suggests, Latino voters have various experiences and distinct interests.  With that, there continues to be an opportunity for Republicans to cut into Democrats' long-standing hold on the Latino vote.  Courting Latinos, however, is a much different game than courting blacks or even Asian voters due, in large part, to cultural and linguistic factors.

A ready example of this is where Latino voters turn for information as opposed to other demographics.  Blacks, for the most part, still speak English and primarily tune-in to English-speaking channels like CNN, MSNBC, or CBS.  For Latinos, however, Spanish is much more pertinent and for that reason, Univision (which reaches 97% of Latino households) is the gatekeeper to America's fastest-growing voter group.

One of the things I find most curious and interesting about the need for the two parties to court Latino voters is that Univision and Univision hosts have a different disposition and network etiquette for guests.  By this, I mean that hosts on Univision are much less willing to accept non-answers from their guests or to allow politicians to pivot away from questions.

Jorge Ramos, the network's most prominent anchor, put Romney on the spot when he asked Romney if Romney considered himself Mexican-American.  Romney's father was born in Mexico so Romney could have, potentially, answered in the affirmative however to consider himself Mexican-American so abruptly might have alienated him from Republicans who were already suspicious of the former Governor of Massachusetts.  Romney answered as best he could but this is only one example of the willingness Univision hosts -- and hosts from other Spanish-speaking media outlets -- have deliver direct and difficult questions to candidates. (Read more about Jorge Ramos - here)

The other day, I was listening to NPR as they discussed the experiences both Obama and Romney had on another program -- I forget the name of the particular program.  I remember that the host was female and she hammered both candidates on their positions and track records.  For Obama, the questions were based around the record number of deportations under his administration in 2011 (which, to be fair, Obama reversed in 2012 - Guardian UK) and how Obama was advocating for Latinos who had come out in droves for him in 2008.  For Romney, in an even worse position than Obama among many Latino voters, the criticism was even more harsh as the interviewer asked Romney for explanations about his own attitude toward immigration which is far less forgiving than Obama's -- I believe Gov. Romney called for "self-deportation".  Worse than that, until yesterday (literally, yesterday - CNN) Mitt Romney was in opposition of even the DREAM Act which would allow around 1.7 young illegal immigrants to avoid imminent deportation.  In the past, Romney has situated himself as someone who is squarely opposed to the DREAM Act though this yield on the point about the two-year grace period against deportation shows an attempt by the Romney camp to gain support among young Latinos.

This isn't to say that immigration is the most important issue among all Latinos or even a majority of them.  Jobs; education; and healthcare, depending on the poll, tend to outrank immigration as the issue that most Latinos vote on.  However, the immigrant experience and the way that millions of Latinos in the United States are growing up is going to affect their political allegiances later in life.  The Romney/Ryan ticket isn't doing any favors for the GOP by standing in opposition to immigration reform (more benevolent immigration reform, I mean) and banking on Marco Rubio to carry Latinos in 2016 isn't going to be the best strategy.

First of all, Marco Rubio is Cuban-American and being Cuban-American is an experience distinct from that of many other Latin Americans.  The political history of Cuba and the United States along with the fact that growing up as a descendant of the Caribbean as opposed to a descendant of Central or South America make for a very distinct interpretation of one's circumstance in the United States and also of the alternatives for life back home.

For example, many Cuban-Americans in states like Florida carry a fear carried over from their ancestors who lived under Castro about the dangers of "big government", or of "socialism" and thus vote Republican.  The same anxiety isn't as prevalent for Mexican-Americans.  They aren't as afraid of ObamaCare and won't respond as readily to the calls to beat-back the Democrats' socialist machine; in fact, these voters probably stand to gain from legislation that makes health care more affordable.

The issue at hand is that Republicans, if they are looking to actually gain ground with Latinos, should probably court more social issues, reform their stance on immigration, and give ground on issues like the DREAM Act.  If Univision, Jorge Ramos, and the opportunities for advancement for immigrants are the crucial ingredients necessary to draw Latino voters to the GOP then Romney and Ryan might be setting the party in a worse position for winning the hearts of Latinos by playing to the far-side of the right -- a side of the right which, lest we forget, has been alienating itself from the national "sense-of-common-sense" for several years now.

0 What We're Reading Today (10-2-12)

The Anchor - The Washington Monthly
Laura Colarusso

Kill the Indians, then Copy Them - The New York Times
David Treuer

Women Hurting Women - The New York Times
Nicholas D. Kristof

How Massachusetts Became 2012's Nastiest Race - The New Republic
Ben Jacobs

The Uneven Geography of US Economic Growth - The Atlantic Cities
Richard Florida