I didn't say that big churches were particulary intolerant, I just meant to respond to the argument that churches shouldn't be chastized for not hiring minorities. Obviously, they shouldn't be held to standards of ultimate religious tolerance when choosing their ministers, but, and this was my only point, when you have a staff of that many people, you should be held accountable.
I come from a church and a state with a gay bishop, and almost systematic tolerance, though I know for a fact that even in my church, this is distinctly not the policy in many other parts of the country.
I have, I should add, no doubt that most churches strive to help those in need. In fact, of one of the churches that I think is most pathetically backwards and yet accepted, the Catholic one, the only hope of justification for its existence is Catholic Charities, one of the most prolific aid organizations in the world.
Of course, we'll note that when they go into Southeast Asia and try to combat AIDS and population explosion, they don't bring condoms for the ride. They also don't make too much effort to help gay people. Anyone in the global AIDS fight will tell you how utterly inane this policy (which we'll note our asshole president is following exactly himself - in a recent World AIDS conference, the US fucking delegation fought bitterly to reduce condom distribution and aother forms of birth control, which is just painfully stupid) is in terms of solving problems. This is just a small example of how morality or the presumption of it can interfere with charity. What happens if we let those with the most presumption of said morality control more than half of the US' social welfare money?
And, I strongly believe that Bush doesn't have any good motivations in this - as his policy on foreign and domestic aid has been inexplicably barren, even by Republican standards. If he were motivated to help, he wouldn't constantly stymie other nations and international aid organizations when they are actually doing just that.
I live in Colorado now, which is "out West" enough (concealed-carry and cowboy boots). As far as I can tell many large churches here are quite tolerant. Last week my parents' church (Christian evangelical) held a couple of Christmas dinners for poor community members in conjunction with a local, predominantly black church. Even met an openly gay member of the congregation to boot. No doubt intolerant churches exist, but it does no good to judge 84% of the US population by their most intolerant members...
As far as churches not willingly helping the needy, that doesn't necessarily follow. I was trying to find figures on what percentage of poor people vs. rich people belong to a church. Couldn't find anything, but my guess would be that plenty of poor people and minorities believe in God and would "qualify" for help from churches. (Remember, 90% of the US is theistic in some sense). The gay, etc. population is a different matter, as I imagine significantly fewer churches would be excited about supporting these groups/individuals (which is both idiocy and bad theology in my book, at least as far as Christianity is concerned).
Anyways, I think it's wrong to see religion as the exclusive enterprise of bigots and rich white rightwingers (hey, that's sort of a tongue twister), without interest in the poor. I think it's entirely possible that church programs are as effective as other forms of social welfare. Perhaps moreso if religious support has useful psychological gains (Protestant work ethic, anyone?). I don't have a clue how to measure this though (just like I'm still trying to figure out how to measure school success... heh). Anyways, my point was that we should probably examine to what extent churches actually do discriminate in their social programs, rather than assume that because they won't hire a gay pastor, they'll automatically turn their backs on the needy. I think Bush could genuinely have better motives than simply "sucking right-wing sausage". Of course, we should also see if mosques fall under the Faith-Based Initiative too...
EDIT: And apologies for the genetically modified foods assumption! :)
Posted by Brad Plumer,
5:41 PM
-
Yay, an interesting subject!
But, 1: Happy Birthday a day late to Eisenman 2: Brad, you can't go assuming I have something against genetically altered food - I actually never really gave it too much thought but am in general fine with it 3: The questions of hiring and such for churches were more, as I understood them, focused on other positions. I don't know where everyone's from, but I know that unlike where I'm from, New England, out West there are HUGE churches of every dominitation with ginormous staff of often hundreds of people. The question is, what about one of these churches who refuses to hire a black or a gay person - what does that say about how they're going to help the needy with Federal money? The more basic question is, though, why should religious groups be favored at all in this way? If our "president" were truly concerned about social welfare, and not sucking right-wing sausage, wouldn't he be saying, well, no one likes my Give it to the Right money distribution plan, let's just improve social welfare? Of course not.
hmmm... that's a great point, Karsten. Church groups almost always discriminate when it comes to hiring (in some cases, I wonder if it's really discrimination proper, eg. hiring a pastor... how does the military hire their chaplains, etc.???). But let's say we can circumvent Kumar's practical concerns for a moment... and religious groups received funds STRICTLY allocated for social service use. From an civil rights perspective, should the groups only have to follow non-discriminatory policies when they hire their social workers? Or do they have to become completely non-discriminatory and open up every position (pastors, priests, sunday school teachers...)? And what if, say, the pastor is in charge of the social services of a church (as is usually the case)? Does this count as discrimination, since the pastor's faith is highly relevant to other aspects of his/her position? I'm just wondering where the line can/should be drawn.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
1:08 PM
-
The following comes from "People for the American Way," a church/state separation watchdog and otherwise sensible organization, in my book. http://www.pfaw.org
Executive Orders By-Pass Congress, Permit Religious Groups to Discriminate Using Federal Funds
Dec. 12, 2002
The White House today ordered federal agencies to allow religious groups that discriminate in hiring to receive federal tax dollars to operate social services.
Before announcing his administration’s orders, President Bush criticized Sen. Trent Lott’s recent comments that the nation would be a much better place today if Strom Thurmond had won his 1948 presidential bid.
Bush called Lott’s comments “offensive and wrong.” The president then declared that his administration is guided by principles of equal dignity and equal rights for every American.
“President Bush says his policy is designed to put religious groups on an equal footing, but in fact he has created a special right for religious groups to discriminate using tax dollars, something other groups are forbidden from doing,” said Ralph G. Neas, president of People For the American Way. “Far from championing equal rights, the president is endorsing tax-funded discrimination.”
Speaking in Philadelphia to a gathering of religious leaders, Bush signed executive orders that will ensure that religious institutions can receive federal tax dollars even if they refuse to hire employees because of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Such an exemption from federal civil rights laws will not be available to non-religious charitable groups.
Last year, the president failed to get his faith-based bill through Congress. Although the House passed the bill, the Senate could not muster enough votes, primarily because of the bill’s provisions allowing religious groups to discriminate in hiring.
This morning in an NPR interview, the Director of the White House office of faith based initiatives Jim Towey said that religious groups that refuse to hire certain people, such as nonbelievers or gays, should not be barred from federal funds to operate social services.
“The president’s words in support of equal rights for all Americans contrast sharply with his orders giving religious groups the ability to use tax dollars to discriminate against citizens who have different beliefs or no religious beliefs at all,” Neas said. “The president in fact has put the power of the federal government and our tax dollars behind discrimination.”
Posted by Karsten Barde,
11:50 AM
-
The Devil is in the Details
Brad, I believe that the best arguments against the faith based initiative are questions of implementation. Although most liberals certainly would favor an expansion of government social services for the poor and needy, critics are unsure how effective this policy will be. How does one determine that funds given by the government are going towards social service?* Is it a voucher based on who goes to what church or do religious organizations have to lobby for funds? Couldn't the same funds that would go to religious social programs be sent to under-funded government social programs? I think these questions are just the tip of the iceberg.
*The reason why many religious conservatives have come out against faith based initiatives is this accountability question. They don't want to give the government detailed reports of their finances and operations.
Posted by Kumar,
8:05 AM
-
Friday, December 27, 2002 re: Cloning
Mr. Alessandroni wrote: "I feel like it's similar to the anti-abortion people - you have people who get so worked up over these things that at least make sense to some people, but no one's running around putting away gun racks or making peace with all these countries we're dicking."
1) Removing gun control "makes sense to some people" too. So does attacking Iraq, etc.
2) Not everyone has to believe all three of those things. It's not a package deal. I'm anti-abortion and anti-gun control, but am not in favor of dicking countries over, as far as I know. But if your point was that people often hold contradictory views, well, yes.
3) [Honest question, not sarcastic]. What is wrong with the Faith Based Initiative? As far as I can tell it removes discrimination against faith-based community organizations when it comes to funding. Why should the government actively oppose these organizations? They do a LOT of good in a wide variety of communities. Funding for these organizations usually considers the usefulness and efficacy of the organization in question. So if an outreach program does well, it should be funded, regardless of the religious overtones that accompany it. As far as I can tell, nothing in that logic favors a particular religion, or favors religion over non-religion. It simply makes sure that organizations are rewarded according to their merit. At least, that's the ideal... (and as a corollary... why do people not consider atheism a religion? why should atheism be "favored" at the expense of organized religion?).
4) By your logic, how come human cloning is acceptable but genetically modified foods are considered evil? Aren't they both just valid scientific attempts to play god? (Assuming you oppose genetically modified foods... if you don't, well... never mind.)
That stuff's funny. That religion is certainly not on my list, but if the Faith Based Initiative keeps on going through as sneakily as it has, it would be great if Bishop Boisselier and her flock were to find a way to get money from it.
While I'm entirely opposed to the Faith Based Initiative, I'm not as disturbed by cloning. I mean, it's playing God and all that, if you believe there is such a beast you can play - I do - but we play God all the time. It seems funny to draw the line at copying life, when we, and by we I'm referring to our country and representative government, seem to be so set on destroying it all the time. At least this is productive. I feel like it's similar to the anti-abortion people - you have people who get so worked up over these things that at least make sense to some people, but no one's running around putting away gun racks or making peace with all these countries we're dicking.
As for stem-cell research, blocking is even more inane, but the argument against all out cloning - and if the Raelians really did do it, more power to 'em - is the same. D'oh, you're playing God.... I'm sure God or whatever is really pleased about this whole war and ignorance of the AIDS crisis and such - I'm sure it gets her all giddy - and I'm sure that in contrast, cloning one poor baby girl really sits up there on her list. If anything, Bush is already serving as our punishment.
No matter how you feel about human cloning, I think most would agree that Brigitte Boisselier conveys enough whackyness to convince most people that human cloning is only for fringe scientists. Bush is probably loving this because it will build support for his ban on all human cloning, a law that could be seriously detrimental to stem cell research and all that entails.
Those of us that think human cloning might have some medical benefits in the long term can at least hold out hope that the Raelians may simply be lying. Perhaps a better "spokesperson" for human cloning can be found among the numerous other human cloning projects in operation elsewhere. All of these human cloning projects were fairly restricted in their scope in that they only cloned the mother of the child. The real question is how will we react when someone clones a Michael Jordan or a Richard Nixon or a Jesus Christ? In light of all this sci-fi-become-reality talk I feel a need to quote the immortal words of James Traficant, "Beam me up!"
Posted by Dan,
10:08 AM
-
Wednesday, December 25, 2002 Merry Christmas and All That
As long as you haven't sold your pathetic small soul to the drunk Santa from the mall. He's not even an elf!
Posted by Jared,
12:09 PM
-
Merry Christmas, you sectarian unbelievers! (an inside joke, for whom the remainder of "inside" is actually not party to this blog...I'm still laughing though)
Posted by Jonathan,
11:17 AM
-
Tuesday, December 24, 2002 Well Then
As I have no personal interest (on Christmas Eve especially) in the college knocking on our door, (which I concede is terribly unlikely but think still possible) I'll just say, Okay, hope Tim's right, but, we need a solid policy. So - ideas?
Posted by Jared,
10:30 PM
-
Re: Computing Code Other blogs have the names of their schools (like yaleinsider.com) and I do NOT think they are officially connected with the college. Also, the argument that the Dartmouth Review freed itself of college control by naming its blog 'dartlog.net' is well, silly. The college tried to assert its control over The Dartmouth Review along similar lines to what Jared suggested when it first got started. It failed. I've seen the history on this. The Dartmouth bookstore, for example, did not need permission from the college. As long as we do not try to pass ourselves as officially published by Dartmouth or by its administration, we are fine. The College tried to press itself on The Review because they argued that people would mistake it for an official college publication. They said they still thought they had a strong enough case, but did not want to sue their own students. But their case didn't rest simply on name=entitlement, it required that people thought it was run by the college. The College does not run a 'blog'. No one is going to mistake 'Free Dartmouth' as officially published by Dartmouth (I mean, it sounds like Free Tibet, like the college is in captivity) We are free to comment on matters about Dartmouth as an issue of free speech. As an alum who first wanted a blog, I see no reason why my speech should be regulated by Dartmouth. I'm not sure what precedent Jared is referring to with the mascot- you see plenty of people with Indian shirts around campus. Yes, people did skate onto the ice at a game in the 70s dressed like Indians. But that was a physical, something I'm guessing we'll never do. I'm assuming Jared if referring to some case where the student assembly tried to sell moose shirts. Well, that involved an official college organization (the student government!) selling College merchandise! College sports team shirts and simply references to 'Dartmouth' in the shape of the official logo aren't allowed. But we're a bunch of students and alums expressing our opinions on what's wrong (and right) about Dartmouth and the world. The precedent seems doubly not apt.
And in case, that is mostly moot: I think Jared's interpretation of the computing policy is strained. We aren't allowed to hack into and break into people's computers, but if someone makes a blitz public, I don't think we technically aren't allowed to publish it on the web. That's why it's important that we have ethical standards on this, which I take seriously whatever the official regulations are or could be.
UPDATE: Yale Insider says near the top: "Yale Insider is produced by the unions at Yale. Its contents are not approved by Yale University or Yale-New Haven Hospital."
1. Jurisdiction: We fall under the computing code indirectly. While I love our name, the fact that it included the word Dartmouth [like the Observer, but not the Dartlog] should have meant that we had to get it through legal affairs. We didn't, but should have, because technically Dartmouth could put up and rightly win a lawsuit against us. They have precedent on their side - I don't know if anyone knows about the debacle with the mascot. Regardless, they are very unlikely to do that as long as we follow college policy on it, and the policy we would follow would be the computing code. Simply enough, if we are accused of something, and we can't say we tried to follow the policy, it would be very easy for the college to shut us down. It's not free speech, it's marketing. As Kumar has made clear, one of the dangers of this blog is that we are responsible for it - this is the point of administrative oversight.
2. As for what the code says, I agree that it's not very clear, but I translated it this way. Here is the relevant paragraph:
Information stored on an individual's account is presumed to be private unless the account holder has made the information available to others. If, for example, the account holder allows public access to files via file sharing, it is presumed that the account holder has waived his or her privacy rights to those files.
As the policy doesn't speak to the idea of e-mail specifically, I believe that it is fair to presume that that last sentence is the definitive one. The account holder waives their rights only when they have stated their nature as a public document. In theory, the Ghetto Party Blitz would be the same, though it could be argued that that was an invite that was meant to be circulated. Again, I think Kumar was right in theory, but technically wrong.
When we have a policy, an administrator can simply point to that policy [to which the community does agree] and manage information accordingly. That's the point of it. As for the shape of our policy, I think it's important to remember what Tim said about community. Even when things are appropriate for New York Times writers, they are not necessarily so for us. We can't forget that we're now archived on Google - what we say becomes fodder for a New York Times (or Dartmouth Review) article. This is why, lest we forget, the College would seek to control anything with its name on it. More importantly, we're members of a civil community - usually - and there is no reason to incite the campus against our policies. I think that at least part of this policy should prevent us from quoting any conversation with a peer (as a peer) without their permission. Of course, a conversation with President Wright in his office is a different story, as is, probably, a conversation with Janos in the SA office. There are, certainly, other considerations as well for our policy which we must take into account.
First, I did not see anything in the computing code I thought even directly alluded to banning the publishing of emails. I might not have caught it, but it does not seem to be there. Second, it is NOT clear to me we fall under the jurisdiction of the Dartmouth computing code. Free Dartmouth does not use any dartmouth resources (or anymore than anyone doing a private webpage), and we're not all students (and not all of us have been free press writers). It's not strictly like the Free Press, whose printing is funded by the college and hosted on the college's webpage by That doesn't mean we should publish any email, but I'm not sure that's the computing code is a barrier per se (unless we unethically obtain the email through hacking or what not- which is a no-no!). But it makes it more important that we should have a faily rigorous code of ethics on it.
As for Jared saying "I would rather that if we agree to repost the e-mails and that such is appropriate in the future, that if someone did call us on it". I think at this stage, so early in the blog, it's fine to be safe than sorry, because we don't have clear guidelines. But ideally, we would not have the administrators make that determination on their alone, unilaterally. Because that means each email we leave up, we're endording it as ethical. I completely agree with Jared that now is the time to discuss this policy and thank him for giving us the opportunity to do so.
But as mentioned above, I'm not sure Kumar was in violation even technically. The only thing he could have more on his side was if explicit permission to publish the email had been given, or he had asked after receiving the email if he could publish it. The only reluctance I now have about publishing the rocky emails is this: there really wasn't a need to. We could have summarized the arguments. We didn't need to quote them, and was simply easier and less work to do so. And by quoting them, some people recognize the style of writing, etc. In other words, these people didn't intend for these to be publically available as quotes. They might have thought harder about it. But is it wrong only to quote the emails, or to refer to them? Could we say Rocky is asking for comment? Why or why not? And dartobserver was going to publish them too. But again, there should not be a presumption to do so. I think had this email been newsworthy, it would have been worth publishing and ethical to do so (Kumar personally received the email, it was sent out to such a large list, all the emails were included in that one email, Kumar took out the names, they invited more involvement). So unless you think all published emails must give explicit permission, this doesn't violate ethics. But even then, the email need not have been published to make the same point, so it shouldn't have been.
BUT... that doesn't mean we shouldn't publish emails if it's not warranted. I'm assuming that the Free Press has stricter standards than a blog. So let's look at what we've published there (Again, we would usually have the names removed). In a dispute over whether the Tucker Center was intolerant, a student published an email they had received from an official there. I think the presumption should be not to publish emails. But some things can trigger it so it is ethical to do so. First of all, if the email is clearly public, like an organization sending a message out to its membership list (eg. we once made fun in the commonshare of the young democrats for a stupid message they sent out). Or if a recognized college organization sends out an offensive message (we criticized a group for sending out a playboy party invitation- perhaps you don't think that is offensive, but there are good arguments why it is so, and it perfectly acceptable to base this on publically available info). And we published quotes from the email sent out publically to the entire campus. Or when the '01 class council sent out something saying we should send dirty limericks to Jim Wright, and we published that... that was definitely newsworthy (though humorously so): an official representative student group getting way out of line. Anyway, you can see we have published emails for a while, and I think these were all defensible, newsworthy and ethical.
I will note that being at a college does make things different at the new york times. We do not want to destroy a sense of community in the name of reporting. Don't forget this. We're not the Review. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. I would never quote friends, unless I told them first I was working on a story (ah...what I could have said about the Dartmouth Review boys...). But the free press is a paper: it has more responsiblity than a blog, both in terms of being ethical and in reporting important stories. I think printing stuff from official organizations is the most acceptable. Further thoughts later, interested in feedback.
X-mas eve is rapidly approaching in the NJ statehouse, freeing me up to post some responses I've been meaning to make to the various commentaries over the past week.
On Bush and immigration, I'm amazed that no one has mentioned one of the most glaring demonstrations of Bush's attitude evidenced by his initial appointment of Linda Chavez as Labor Secretary. She's not as ardently racist as that other guy's article , but she's pretty far out there.
From a broader perspective, I think the GOP has been struggling to re-define its immigration platform ever since Pat Buchanan's withdrawl from the GOP in 2000, along with most of his isolationist buddies. Talk to anybody that was in Long Beach in Aug. 2000 and you'll hear that a lot of the fighting that occurred while the Reform Party went down in flames was driven by Buchanan's Uber-Henchmen determined to close the borders and register all the immigrants at the nearest detention camp. Don't mistake Bushites' "softness" on immigration for real compassion towards recent immigrants. Bush is clearly more concerned with the bottom lines of his friends' big agri-industry companies, which depend on large and easily-accessible sources of cheap labor.
The other thing is that many Hispanics (most of whom are Catholic) poll as leaning-Republican on the hard core social issues. Try finding a prominent Mexican politician that favors gay-rights. The GOP seems constantly befuddled that they can't win more of the Hispanic vote through social conservative speeches delivered in broken spanish.
If you look at the issue from the perspective of Social Security reform, giving immigrants access to SS benefits makes a lot of sense if it encourages them to be more forthright with paying into the system. The dirty little secret about Social Security is that it's doomed to go bankrupt in the next 20 years no matter how successful Bush's privatization scheme is, unless there is another massive increase in the labor pool paying in to the system (aka another baby boom or increase in immigration).
Posted by Dan,
1:46 PM
-
By the way... This is damn scary.
For his voting record. Anti-gay, pro gun, anti-taxes unless they're paying for guns, etc. His environmental record isn't that bad. I don't seem him as a corporate bitch like Bush, more of an uber-Christian.
Posted by Jared,
1:17 PM
-
Re: Now that's a Resume.
Jesus. That makes ME want to vote Republican.
Marathons, editorial boards for transplant publications, just about every award at his high school, Princeton, Hahvad... And, oh yeah, senate majority leader.
Posted by Clint,
1:07 AM
-
Monday, December 23, 2002 Now that's a resume.
On a policy discussion, the Dartmouth Computing Code (privacy section) - under which we definitively fall being under no other jurisdiction - makes it muddily clear that e-mails can not be reposted in this way. Thoughts?
I think in spirit, Kumar was totally in the right. Most of the people on that list would probably have been delighted that so many people would be thus interested. I removed the post for now however, because in my opinion, he was literally in the wrong. Some of the people on that list could have easily wanted that even one person, whom they know not to be on the list, to not hear their opinion, attributed to them or not. As for my removal (which I will immediately retract if people disagree) I think that a fair policy on questions of ethics for this Blog or any is that it is removed and then discussed, like libel, rather than the opposite - where whatever potential harm it may do would be done while we discussed it. Like I just replied to someone who disagreed and believed it fell into the realm of censorship, I would rather that if we agree to repost the e-mails and that such is appropriate in the future, that if someone did call us on it, we could say, Well, we respect your opinion, but as a group we feel that this kind of posting is appropriate, and be able to point them to a page with our policy, rather than having it up and saying, well, it's up for discussion so we left it up.
I reiterate what I wrote in my edit - I think now is a time to consider policy in general on this site and would love to see what people think in general.
First, I would like to note that having somehow missed the notation in the original blitz that invited the recipients to discuss it with their colleagues, I was overly harsh in my criticsm of Kumar. Notwithstanding that concession, the blitzes of others to the group were still intended for that group, and not for larger discussion. I do not object to my blitz informing a broader discussion, as perhaps it avoids a reinvention of the wheel further along. Therefore, vis-a-vis Kumar's comments 1-3, I retract my the brunt of my objection. I have no shame in admitting I have made a mistake.
As far as the ethics of reporting are concerned, if you, as a reporter, stole a document, I would think if it was found that you did so, you would be prosecuted. But assuming you did not, I do not think one's peers are subjects upon which any reporter should be digging without notice. I think it is unethical, without informing those present (especially if they are one's friends, perhaps less so if to inform the subject of one's intention to publish compromises the integrity of the information), to take statements as de facto on the record. I have know rather few professional reporters; however, I have noted, with a large deal of disgust, that half-ass student reporters (I am not calling Kumar one of these) take the liberty of using idle conversation with their friends to inform their written work. They do so without the consent of their friends, or if they obtain it, it seems after the fact. Now, whether or not this is ethical by some particular "reporter" standards, I am unsure. I do know, however, that it is not a good practice for one to undertake if one wishes to keep one's friends for long. Again, I would like to note that this is a reponse to the broader ethical question, and not directed at Kumar whatsoever. I am reiterating that the portion of this response in the first paragraph addresses the subject at hand, specifically, while this paragraph is addressing a broader ethical question.
Posted by Jonathan,
7:21 PM
-
This is an interesting ethical question. What if Kumar wasn't himself on the Rocky list, but got a copy of all those emails from an inside "source"? Couldn't he then publish portions of those emails assuming they're news worthy? Journalists do that all the time. The NYTimes does it every day. I don't think Kumar did anything wrong here.
I will take those emails down if others agree with Jon. I did not think my actions were controversial in the least, let alone unethical. Maybe, I need to be brought up to speed on the ethics of email conversation. My logic was simple. Lets see if you agree.
1) The Rockefeller Center email said the following: "We hope to gain perspectives from the broadest cross-section of campus, so please do not hesitate to involve your friends and colleagues, as well as other groups who may be interested in a potential visit by Dr. Ashrawi. We welcome input from all quarters. It is our hope that opening the process early on will forestall any negativity associated with the element of surprise. By garnering a diverse and substantial field of support, we take the first step assuring that her visit is successful and enriching for the academic community."
2) Those who were emailing were doing so to the a very large and diverse recepient list rather than respond directly to Rocky. I took, maybe mistakenly, as their desire to have their comments be aired publicly. This was not a conversation among friends. It did not have privacy concern that the private conversation might have.
3) I did not think the names of the those that emailed were important, just the comments. I thought it would be nice for the blog to have something to build on. I did not a want a discussion on who said what. Since it was not necessary to disclose names, I did not. Given that names were not attached to comments, I found my actions to be rather harmless.
4) I am still confused about the larger ethics of email. If I was a reporter (which I am in some respects) and I was able to get hold of emails between two government officials, would I be able to make them public? I would think that my only responsibility is that my information is correct and that revealing that information is in the public good. Maybe this is very different but if so, I was far less intrusive. I did not reveal names. I just disclosed some quotes that could be attributed to anyone.
This was my thinking. I totally admit that I could be mistaken. If Jon still disagrees and others do as well, I will take my post down and take responsibility for my actions. I await your thoughts.
How's this. Garg, posting that blitz conversation is unethical as hell. Just because you expect that "people will get word of it" because the recipient list was so large and the sender did not specifically ask that this information be withheld does not grant you carte blanche to distribute it publicly. It's even close to verbatim, although I see you've edited out names from the headers and blitzes themselves. If the sender of the original blitz message (or any thereafter) meant for it to be distributed to everyone that possibly wanted to see it, he would've sent it to "All Users." How about next time a blitz circulates between our group of friends, I post it on here because no one specifically said not to share it, and since it went to such a large group of people (that term's arbitrary, right?) clearly they would've said something if they didn't want the entire viewing world to know about it. After all, it's implicit that private communication should be shared publicly. Right?
Posted by Jonathan,
1:23 PM
-
I'm not quite understanding why Hanan Ashrawi is such a controversial figure. She's pro-Palestinian, to be sure, but so was Ian Lustick. No one objected to his invitation. I wouldn't believe a word of what CAMERA says. It's about as objective as Bill O'Reilly. As for Ms. Ashrawi, she's much more than a political activist. She's a UVa grad and a former lecturer at the UC Berkeley. She could have pursued a career in academics here in the States, but instead chose to return to Beir Zeit University in Palestine. Granted, Beir Zeit isn't Oxford, but it's the best university the Palestinians have and one where Harvard lecturers have taught in the past. Why should Ms. Ashrawi, a former professor and dean of faculty there, not be considered a scholar? Because she was only a professor at a Palestinian university, and not a "real" university? She's also a member of the Independent International Commission on Kosovo, the Council on Foreign Relations, the World Bank Middle East and North Africa Region, and the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. I don't mean this to sound like her bio, but her presence cannot be compared to that of a mere politician. Finally, she's an elected leader of Palestinian Christians (and indeed is Christian herself) and can speak to the rights and concerns of that community in Palestine. She gave up a ministerial post in Arafat's cabinet because she was unhappy with the Palestinian leadership and has been sharply critical of Arafat in Arab media, though I doubt she would be as frank in front of an American audience. I guess I just don't understand what the issue is with Ms. Ashrawi's visit.
Interesting article in the Times regarding cities fighting against the oppression of our little post-9/11 quasi-government here.
I'm so glad I come from a good state. Just wish I came from a good part of it...
But resolutions passed by some towns like Amherst, Mass., have a sharper tone, going so far as to direct city personnel not to help federal or state officials in activities that could be considered in violation of civil rights or liberties.
I'd love to see Boston do something like this, New York? Maybe even Hanovah.
Well, Kumar, no offense, but that was such a total convo-killer. It took my pathetic little mind like 40 minutes to figure out what it was about, and definitely some outside research. But, now I'm all over Dr. Ashrawi (that is, I get the discussion, I think).
We don't think the decisive factor should be, 'This is what you can get now. Grab it or else you have nothing,'" said Ashrawi, taking a drag from a Marlboro Menthol. "We have changed the mentality of our people from the all-or-nothing equation. There are basic rights that no Palestinian will abandon. When they ask us to abandon these rights, they are asking us to negate not just our national rights but our legitimacy, our credibility. (in Motherjones)
I think I knew this - the part that confused me about the Blitzes below was that no one was really that much against her. As for her being scholarly or not, I'd vote with not as well. She's a scholar, but not a political one.
As for weighing in - I have to say my biggest problem with her is not her politics. It's her token-ness. I feel like having her speak for Palestine is like having me speak for Colombia, or Bush's little suck Fox speak for Mexico, or the like. She can be pissed that she was shut out of her country, just like Foxxy can have his paper-routes, but in the end, she's a rich kid who got out, never had to deal with the horrors and indignation of being a marginalized Palestinian, only an affronted one. They closed down her college a few times. Biggie. I think she is certainly an interesting if not fascinating woman, and I'd like to hear from her, but something at the back of my mind fears that she'll be passed off as one thing but really be something else. She's not Palestinian in the way we think of an oppressed Palestine, and frankly, there's little question that her class of Palestinian (economically) has been less than brotherly to its less fortunate cousins. In fact, unless they happen to be buddy buddy with Arafat, they end up on the same lists as the arrogant single-mindedly oppressive Israelis. She's not, in that case, a voice risen.
On the other hand, she's not a scholar in any way of politics, law, history, or even Middle-Eastern studies. She deserves her political positions in the same way that Cheney deserves his. That is, she's not a voice of wisdom.
This is to say, that besides her accomplishments, which are many, but really, given her elite upbringing and the situations into which she has been thrust, not terribly astounding, she's not really more than a media-magnet for us. She's crying Holy Holy with tears that aren't really hers.
This is fine, but I think it has to be admitted.
Posted by Jared,
6:35 AM
-
Sunday, December 22, 2002 A Debate Worth Joining
I wanted to bring the blog up to speed on a coversation/debate/argument that has begun due to the Rockefeller Center. The Rockefeller Center is considering the invitation of Hanan Ashwari. A number of professor have weighed in as well as students, including our own Jon. Thought it would be interesting to hear your views. Below are some of the more choice emails from the discussion. (Names have been removed)
EDITED BY JARED - Until we come to a concensus on how e-mails from outside sources should be handled, I hope it's cool that we take this down. If you're looking for the e-mails in question, in theory, the best place to look would be to Blitz the folks at Rockefeller.
I (Jared) think now would be a good time to establish rules as to how the DFP Blog should be handled. Post or Blitz ideas to the DFP, and we'll create a policy page. Questions may include outside sources, use of non-involved names (for instance, my friend Big Bird said...) and probably many others.
Just saw Lord of the Rings tonight. I don't know what to say... honestly one of the most disgusting, politically incorrect pieces of right wing propaganda I have ever seen. Here's a list of some of the outrages (don't worry, I won't spoil anything major):
1) As the White Wizard Gandalf suddenly has "newfound" power. Hm, interesting. Also couldn't help but notice that all the good guy Elves have blond hair and blue eyes, while the Orcs are all of a darker hue. Wow, I just can't wait for the master race to "save" the world in the third installment, all led by their charismatic leader Aragon! Or should I say... Adolf. Hm?
2) I counted several times in the movie where male characters were in a position to hug each other, and then backed off. Can't have homoerotic feelings standing in the way of that masculine urge to go to war, now can we?
3) The female elf (Liv Tyler) has to choose between remaining immortal and living a mortal life with her love. Needless to say, her father, ruler of Elfdom, is decidedly "pro-life" rather than "pro-choice" on the matter. REAL subtle.
4) Gimli, the Dwarf, becomes comic relief in this sequel. Moral: short people are funny.
5) A certain "drug addict" in the movie continues to have troubles, even after his friends stage an intervention. Moral: drug users are beyond saving, and deserve death.
6) At one point a certain king refuses advice from a friend. Oh, I get it. We wouldn't kids getting ideas about the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, now would we?
I for one was mortified. ;)
EDIT: Mr. Allesandroni, I'll definitely reply to your education question when I get a chance. I was hoping to quietly sidestep talking about educational philosophies... hehe. But I *suppose* I should start using my brain eventually... :)
Posted by Brad Plumer,
4:23 AM
-
More about Bush and immigration
The article Jared linked to talked about an invasion by Mexican immigrants. Jared had said that Bush used such dehumanizing rhetoric in his campaign. I don't think the "enforcing borders" is quite the equivilant of Pat Buchanan-talk, though I understand it could used as a code for those who wanted to hear that message. Which brings up an interesting point: when Republican send coded racial messages, do they intend to fulfill their promises racists think they are hearing? Are the messages a way of saying, look, I really share your worldview, and that's what important?
I just wanted to clarify what Bush is being charged with, rather than a blanket statement that his rhetoric is akin to the anti-Mexican article Jared linked to. I think the dispute now is in large part about whether 'more border control' is equivilant to 'invasion' rhetoric. We all can decide for ourselves. My basic point is that Bush's rhetoric and appeals are different from Pete Wilson's (isn't someone going to challenge me on this? heh). I think there is a divide between the two, though I can see the argument that's the divide is between bad, and really, really bad. (But isn't most politics these days? Sigh...)
P.S. on Bob Jones, we agree his visit was a signal, not a statement with rhetoric. I don't think people interpreted that signal as the 'immigrants are coming, to the barricades.' Whether anti-immigration feelings is a logical extension of the racist signal it did send is irrelevant: I don't think Bush's advisors had an intention or a need to send that signal in South Carolina. And I think a lot of other things about Bob Jones would have popped into South Carolinians heads before they assumed this was a signal that aimed to dehumanize immigrants. I'm not saying no could have taken it that way, but I think at best, you could say that message was one small string of a very large ball of racist 'I'm a good Southern boy' yarn. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think other issues of race far overshadow immigration in South Carolina. Maybe racism is some southern states is wrapped up with anti-immigration sentiment. But since Bush disavowed the visit after he had secured his crucial victory in S.C., could the signal have helped Bush in other states?
Posted by Timothy,
4:18 AM
-
Perhaps I Wasn't Clear
Though I did read Tim's post. I'm sure I'm getting semantic groupings mixed up for want of sleep or mental resources. But, as a particularly interested party, I saw that even while Bush was playing his catchthelatino games, his talk wasn't matching. One commentary notes:
But in his speech governor Bush also stressed again and again that the U.S. must enforce its borders and--in other venues--he has argued that those controls should be even stronger than the ones currently in place. This begs the question: what would a kinder, gentler, but tougher Bush immigration policy really look like?
Also, we must note that while the Republicans brilliantly strategized, Bush vocally opposed LIFA.
I understand that the rhetoric was pro-Latino, and to that extent pro-immigrant, but the actual platform, I took a different way than Tim.
I think it's just as dangerous to ignore this duplicity of rhetoric. As for the post-9/11 references, I should have clarified that those were the most obvious examples of this duplicity. In terms of Bob Jones - while their policy on immigration might not be well documented, you can easily infer an opinion on immigration by looking within their site for the word immigration or, as I did when I first heard he was there, making the perhaps unfair but very natural correlation: If these people can, with a straight face, say that they are better than a minority group, what are the chances that they won't extend that to a group that ghasp isn't even American? (And, yes, in my experience, the continental nomenclature - the use of American for someone not from the US - leaves many of this ilk looking back at you like you'd just been let out of some cage). I have yet to see an argument that the tone if not the rhetoric of a campaign is defined only purely in words. Bush made a point to a lot of right-wingers with that visit - for those of us who were looking, he made other points as well.
I should have said, to me, it felt like he talked like that guy in that article I referenced when it came to border control.
And, as a side-note, I remember the day I heard the sentence Texas' Border with Mexico boasts 3rd world health-problems. after which any other rhetoric was to be laughable. Though he wasn't even consistent in that. See here and here and here. Love in the last one:
and I support expanding the H-2A temporary agricultural workers program so that willing workers can help meet America's labor needs.
Yes, kiddies, he's talking about migrant workers.
In any case, any responses to my questions about education anyone?
Posted by Jared,
3:51 AM
-
Bush's moral stand on Lott, my @$$
If this magazine article is right, I don't want to hear any garbage from conservatives about how Bush took a brave stand against Lott. I've heard commentary on CNN that he made the initial condemnation as a way of giving Lott an opportunity to stay (depending on how it all went). It seems Bush's strong words against Lott did have an effect, but Bush did not have a firm conviction on this. Just before Trent Lott stepped down, Bush said Lott shouldn't leave and "I don't think Trent Lott is a bigot." Maybe those same conservatives who said rightly condemned Lott, and on principle said Lott should leave, will have something new to add about Bush's moral "courage."
But just 48 hours before Lott stepped down, Bush said Lott "shouldn't leave his position." The president did not want to give Lott the final public shove, even while his allies were working behind the scenes to force Lott out. "My attitude about race is that we ought to confront bigotry, all forms of bigotry," Bush said, "and I believe the American–I know the American people are good, honorable, decent people. And occasionally the bigot has his day. I don't think Trent Lott is a bigot. I find him to be a, you know, he's a friend. . . . My job is to continue to work for an America that welcomes all and that is nondiscriminatory, and I will do that." -U.S. News
Posted by Timothy,
3:49 AM
-
No canonization of Bush, but send him to hell for the sins he does commit
Sigh. I hate to say it, but I feel like Brad when I ask if Jared even read my post. I said what I was disputing was that Bush used anti-immigrant rhetoric in his 2000 campaign. Jared said: "And, Tim, how can you ignore the blatant violations of civil-liberties recent immigrants and foreigners are feeling post-9/11?" I count THREE references to 9/11 in my post ": "Whatever Bush's policies have been since Sept. 11" and "So there is no puzzle as to why Bush's recent actions are consistent with his pre-Sept. 11 rhetoric. " and [added a half hour after I initially posted] "I believe Bush was even considering an amnesty or something like that for illegal immigrants (before Sept. 11 stopped this... " Clearly I was not saying Bush's actions since 9/11 have not been anti-immigrant. THey have been atrocious. What I don't think his actions are directed at an invasion by Hispanic immgrants. But to pretend they are predicted by his 2000 campaign rhetoric is ridiculous. In fact, Bush even said during the campaign he would look into eliminating the use of secret evidence in court. Pre-9/11 Arab Americans were particularly happy about this piece of political show boating. And right after 9/11, Fox was unhappy that Karl Rove's plans to relax security barriers with Mexico were put on hold. What would have happened without 9-11 on immigration? We'll never know, but it does not appear Bush's bigotry would have destined this administration to become anti-immigration.
Jared said that Bush used rhetoric dehumanizing immigrants (he linked to an article by another author saying that immigrants from Mexico were launching an attack on America). Bush has never used that rhetoric, and Jared has not produced any quotes from the campaign. I'm not even sure that is rhetoric (as oppossed to action) that is like that since 9/11. Bush is NOT a hispanic-baiter like former Governor Pete Wilson in California (in fact, I believe Bush oppossed Proposition 187-- how does that square with Jared accusing him of saying Bush claims immigrants are attacking America, or other similar duhumanizing rhetoric?) So again, the still unanswered question of my earlier post was can Jared provide ANY quote or evidence to back up when he said that Bush "during his election talked a lot like the sub-human in the article referenced above." We can argue about the rest, I just want Jared to take back that quote and not compare Bush's rhetoric to this article.
So I think Jared has not shown that Bush's rhetoric was anything close to dehumanizing. I hope he agrees. He can continue to be suspicious of the man's motives if he likes, but I think that he uses pro-Hispanic rhetoric a lot. I remember doing policy debate in 1996 when the topic was immigration, and it looked like Pete Wilson might the Presidency on this issue. George Bush is not Pete Wilson. He's also no saint, far from it. I think Bush does this pro-Hispanic schtick to portray himself as a moderate Republican, and hide his evils in other areas. His grand plan is to court the Hispanic vote. (Let's also not forget his brother is married to a Hispanic) I know what this seems to imply: Bush is courting the racist vote to appease Southerners who hate blacks, but the one minority group he doesn't hate is Hispanics. Obviously that's a tricky illogic position, but I think it's close to Bush's strategy (who said bigotry has to be coherant) in that he has been working to actually be pro-Hispanic (at least pre-9-11, and even then I don't think his actions have been directed at hispanic immigrants, which is what Jared talk of rhetoric referred to). If you think all this is cosmetic, fine, maybe it is all for show, but I think he has put on far more of a show with regard to Hispanics than to African Americans, though I admit this is arguable.
Lastly, let's look at the evidence Jared produces to say Bush's ACTIONS show him to be a bigot (towards hispanics). What has Tom Jones [sic] University got to do with immigration? You think he was sending a signal to South Carolinians that he would oppose a border invasion? No, he was making a statement about race, but it was directed agaisnt African Americans. I'm NOT defending this at all, and I continually bring it up to illustrate how Republicans (even 'moderate' ones or ones said to 'not have a racist bone in their body') will resort to race baiting. But it was not dehumanizing rhetoric against immigrants. That's ridiculous. If you think going to Bob Jones was sending out a signal (and I do), we have to acknowledge what kind of signal it was. And it doesn't help Jared's case. As for the stuff on the Drug War, appalling stuff goes on in its name. Is Jared willing to say Clinton is just as anti-Hispanic as Bush? And every other President? That may be so, and he can make a case for it, but the Drug War began long before Bush (though I bet he has done more recent actions) and its basic outlines were in place before he came to office. As for the death penalty in Texas, I said Jared might be able to find some actions in Texas that help his case. I could argue Bush directs that mostly at African Americans, but I really have no idea, and I think that would be a little silly. His policies could easily be anti-hispanic. My point was that his rhetoric is not and pre-9/11 his policy advisors looked for proposals to back up this rhetoric. Being pro-Hispanic is something he has built his whole image on (yes, I am saying image, as oppossed to substance). How do you explain the large percentage of the Hispanic vote he got in Texas? Perhaps that all is a media myth (wouldn't be the first time), and I'm open to evidence to say it is, but I'm not convinced right now. I'm not denying there aren't lots of reasons Hispanics shouldn't vote against Bush, but what explains his popularity? The article Jared linked to about Bob Jones said nothing about Hispanics that I could see on my quick reading. What reason do we have to think in his heart of hearts Bush is anti-Hispanic bigot? I wouldn't doubt that Bush and the advisors he lets run things implement policies that are not in Hispanic's best interests (that's mild language obviously especially in the post-9-11 world). (Oh, I'm not a fan of Vicente Fox: didn't he used to be a Coca-cola executive?).
Whatever else Bush does, he does not use dehumanizing rhetoric like Jared claimed. I think to link Bush to people who language worse than Pete Wilson did deemphasizes how corrosive that rhetoric is. Jared can make a case why Bush's policies are still anti-Hispanic. My point is that Bush turned away (pre 9-11 at least) from an avenue that Wilson was pointing to, which would have been the type of virulent anti-immigration rhetoric that would have led to policies like prop 187. Why have I cared to emphasize all this? Because it does no good to make incredible accusations against Bush (at least without more evidence) when so many other charges are right on target.
Posted by Timothy,
2:23 AM
-
Blogs, words, and Graphics
Clint says below: "The word that Tim was looking for is Madrasa."
Huh?? When was I looking for a word? I assume this has something to with my posting of Senator Murray's comments on Bin Laden building schools in the third world, but I'm confused. No matter.
UPDATE: I think Clint confused me with Jared. But I give him props for the Tom Jones image. Graphics, believe it or not, are not a common thing with blogs. I think it adds a nice touch, though, and has the potential for some real creativity (and to be pleasing to reader's eyes!) what do you think?
Posted by Timothy,
2:11 AM
-
On a more serious note
The word that Tim was looking for is Madrasa. And the best article that I've read on them was "Inside Jihad U: The Education of a Holy Warrior" by Jeffery Goldberg. It's from the June 25, 2000 NY Times magazine (published a good year before September 11, 2001).
I couldn't agree more Jared. Speaking at Tom JonesUniversity sent quite a message indeed. (Yes, please do enjoy all three TJ Amazing links in the preceding sentence)
Merry Christmas, you sectarian unbelievers! 
