A forum for independent, progressive, and liberal thinkers and activists from Dartmouth College.

Civilian casualties update
Dartmouth

The Free Press
Dartmouth Alums for Social Change
The Green Magazine
The Dartmouth
Dartmouth Observer
Dartmouth Review
Dartlog
Inner Office
The Little Green Blog
Welton Chang's Blog
Vox in Sox
MN Publius (Matthew Martin)
Netblitz
Dartmouth Official News

Other Blogs

Ampersand
Atrios
Arts & Letters
Altercation
Body and Soul
Blog For America
Brad DeLong
Brad Plumer
CalPundit
Campus Nonsense
Clarksphere
Crooked Timber
Cursor
Daily Kos
Dean Nation
Dan Drezner
The Front Line
Instapundit
Interesting Times
Is That Legal?
Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo
Lady-Likely
Lawrence Lessig
Lean Left
Left2Right
Legal Theory
Matthew Yglesias
Ms. Musings
MWO
Nathan Newman
New Republic's &c.
Not Geniuses
Ornicus
Oxblog
Pandagon
Political State Report
Political Theory Daily Review
Queer Day
Roger Ailes
SCOTUS blog
Talk Left
TAPPED
Tacitus
This Modern World
Tough Democrat
Untelevised
Volokh Conspiracy
Washington Note
X. & Overboard

Magazines, Newspapers and Journals

Boston Globe Ideas
Boston Review
Chronicle of Higher Education
Common Dreams
Dissent
In These Times
Mother Jones
New York Review of Books
New York Times
Salon
Slate
The American Prospect
The Nation
The New Republic
The Progressive
Tikkun
Tom Paine
Village Voice
Washington Monthly

Capitol Hill Media

ABC's The Note
American Journalism Review
Columbia Journalism Review
CQ
Daily Howler
Donkey Rising
The Hill
Medianews
National Journal
NJ Hotline
NJ Wake-up call
NJ Early Bird
NJ Weekly
Political Wire
Roll Call
Spinsanity

Search Search the DFP

www.blogwise.com

Feedback by blogBack
 
 
  contact the freedartmouth

Saturday, June 07, 2003


Be careful what you predict.
In his June 5th, 2000, New Yorker article entitled Whimper on the Right Fareed Zakaria begins his concluding paragraph like this:
Whoever wins the Presidency- Bush or Gore-will strike ideological purists as a sordid compromise. But he will probably govern the way people today want to be governed: from the center, incrementally, and through consensus.

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that the piece begins with this gem:
The day after John McCain won the New Hampshire Republican primary, William Kristol, the publisher of The Weekly Standard, wrote an article in the Washington Post declaring, "The conservative movement . . . is finished."
Well, at least Bill Kristol came through with some good spin. But Zakaria comes back with this one:
Actually, the conservative movement was in trouble before New Hampshire. The front-runner, George W. Bush, had entered the campaign as a "compassionate conservative," championing the cause of those "left behind" by the current economic boom.
Whatever happened to those poor folks for whom Bush was championing the cause?
Oh, what people could get away with saying three years ago!


Posted by Graham, 8:37 PM -

HAPPY BIRTHDAY WALIGORE


Posted by Jonathan, 2:40 AM -

India and the US seem to be getting closer perhaps at the expense of Pakistan. Singapore's Straits Times reports:
In what is being viewed as growing cooperation between Washington and New Delhi, the United States has brushed aside Pakistan's objections to the sale of an Israeli airborne radar to India. American officials reportedly told visiting Pakistan Foreign Secretary Riaz Khokhar that the radar deal was a matter between India and Israel and that the US could not intervene.
There also seems to be some military cooperation, joint air exercises and more. Is this a statement on alleged cooperation with mujahedeen and pan islamists in Kashmir? A general distrust of muslim majority countries? Or has the US finally realized that years of ignoring South Asia's largest democracy for its largest autocratic society because of India's non-aligned stance isn't good liberalism?


Posted by Nikhil, 1:34 AM -

Friday, June 06, 2003


Why is it...
That everytime in the past 2 years that there's been a minor plane crash anywhere in the fifty states, it's made headlines around the globe. Why does this light aircraft with just one person on bord, and an unfortunate crash involving two deaths trump:

- 15 people being killed in armed clashes in Kashmir
- God knows how many hundreds, just today, in the Congo... and the arrival of UN forces there (in Bunia)
- A civil war advancing quickly on the Liberian capital
- Coverage of the crisis in Cambodia

In terms of death tolls: all but one are more important. In terms of the number of people affected directly, all are more important. All the others are national issues, the plane story relevant to maybe three counties in California.


Posted by Nikhil, 11:07 PM -

Veil
Florida seems to get in the news for the strangest things
A Florida judge has told a Muslim woman that she must remove her veil for an identification photograph if she wants to be issued with a driver's licence. Sultaana Freeman, a United States citizen who converted to Islam six years ago, had her licence revoked after she refused to remove the veil, called a niqab, for the picture.
Does this mean that any traffic cop, in an attempt to identify her, will have the power to require her to take her a veil of; woudn't that be just a little unconstitutional?

Incidentally, can someone tell me the cover story on the US Edition of Newsweek (the current one).


Posted by Nikhil, 10:59 PM -

Question
Has Dartlog's Inner Office ever cited a poll not conducted by Fox News?

Incidentally, congratulations to my fellow '03s.


Posted by Jonathan, 9:31 PM -

Thursday, June 05, 2003


Dean's numbers keep on climbing in Iowa
From the official Howard Dean Weblog:
In the latest KCCI poll of likely Iowa voters, Howard Dean has made tremendous gains while most other candidates are losing ground. The poll results for the top 5 candidates now, as compared to March:

JUNE MARCH NET CHANGE
Gephardt 27 22 plus 5
Kerry 14 20 minus 6
Dean 11 6 plus 5
Lieberman 10 16 minus 6
Edwards 4 8 minus 4

The poll reveals that only two of the top five candidates-- Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt-- are gaining support in the race to win Iowa. Howard Dean has leaped from 5th place to 3rd. The direction of John Kerry's momentum suggests he risks falling back into the pack, and Senators Lieberman and Edwards have also lost traction.


Does Gephardt have staying power? Why can't Edwards pick up steam? Dean will be in Iowa for a picnic with the Governor and fellow candidates Liberman, Sharpton, and Bob Graham. Let's see if this helps him gain more traction in the Midwest.
Dean's got big plans for June. Read about them at his official campaign website.


Posted by Graham, 7:23 PM -

Human Rights?
Over on This Modern World Bob Harris writes about the Saudis that:
From the Arab News, a Saudi English-language daily I can't recommend enough for its unblinkingly proud insights into the horrific medieval theocratic dictatorship America has maintained as a cherished ally for decades:

Kingdom's Leading Executioner Says: 'I Lead A Normal Life'
Saudi Arabia's leading executioner Muhammad Saad Al-Beshi will behead up to seven people in a day.

"It doesn't matter to me: Two, four, 10 -- As long as I'm doing God's will, it doesn't matter how many people I execute," he told Okaz newspaper in an interview...

An executioner's life, of course, is not all killing. Sometimes it can be amputation of hands and legs. "I use a special sharp knife, not a sword," he explains. "When I cut off a hand I cut it from the joint. If it is a leg the authorities specify where it is to be taken off, so I follow that."


Well, obviously.

We get to feel civilized right about here, incidentally, because our president didn't do punitive mutilations in Texas. Just death penalties.


Conservatives love to blame progressive thinkers for making use of moral relativism.
Here's a new one: "political relativism." Not a new topic, people have long agreed that our economic interactions with Saudi Arabia were a blot on America's rep. But, with no WMDs turning up, the argument that Iraq caused any sort of immediate threat to America has become so last winter. So the neocons and their ardent supporters are proudly proclaiming that they've liberated the suffering masses of Iraq. Saddam and his minions did, after all turture and murder thousands of people.
Now back to Saudi Arabia. In that country, the monarchy controls most aspects of society and capital punishment and turture run rampant. Most of the 9/11/01 hijackers hail from Saudi Arabia. Real ties to terror. Real human rights violations. And we invaded Iraq to liberate the people? If you really believe this, you're guilty of political relativism.


Posted by Graham, 6:57 PM -

Ashcroft Loves You So Much He Wants To Detain You In His Arms
Ashcroft Seeks Expanded Death Penalty.


Posted by Richie Jay, 5:03 PM -

What do folks make of this?
Wesley Clark has this website up and running.


Posted by Graham, 1:23 AM -

Wolfowitz Gone Wild!
Josh Marshall writes:
Unless you've been living under a rock for the past week, you've heard about Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz's comments to Vanity Fair magazine in which he told author Sam Tanenhaus that the decision to focus on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was made in part for "bureaucratic reasons."
... But there's another part of the story that's essential for understanding the whole picture. There, toward the end of the article, Tanenhaus reveals that Wolfowitz is "confident Saddam was connected to the World Trade Center bombings in 1993" and that he has "entertained the theory" that Saddam was behind the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 1995, as well. Needless to say, those are not ideas that are widely shared within the U.S. intelligence community, or any other intelligence community, for that matter. In fact, they aren't given a lot of credence much of anywhere.



Posted by Timothy, 1:23 AM -

Ed Rosenthal goes free!
Grower of medical marijuana in Oakland, CA gets sentenced to one day, already served.
In the Fed Case, he initially could have received 80 years and $2.5 million in fines. However, after 8 jurors wrote to the judge saying that they felt they were misled because mention of prop 215 had been banned from the trial, the judge decided to give Rosenthal a sentence that set him free.
read about it here and also here.

what does this mean for States' rights? for the future of marijuana legislation? what does it imply that John Ashcroft pushed prosecutors to attempt to try the case the way that they did, without taking into account the California state, or Oackland city, laws?

does anyone believe that the GOP is actually in favor of strong states' rights when they don't fit their agenda?


Posted by Graham, 1:16 AM -

Wednesday, June 04, 2003


Lula proposes a plan to fight hunger
At the G8 Summit meeting last weekend, Brazilian President Lula da Silva put forth a plan to create a fund to fight global hunger.
There are various ways to generate resources for a fund of this nature. I give you two examples. The first is taxation of the international arms trade - which would bring advantages from economic and ethical points of view. Another possibility is to create mechanisms to stimulate that the rich countries reinvest into this fund a percentage of the interest payments made by debtor countries.
read his whole speech here.
the BBC covered it here.
The proposal is bold yet simple. Lula is scheduled to meet with Bush on June 20th, so we can see how hard he pushes his plan then.
Incidentally, Scott Anderson covered Lula in this article that came out last winter.


Posted by Graham, 11:05 PM -

Cicero, Reincarnated

I'm reluctant to be too cynical at a moment that may be the beginning of a great moment in history and for Bush's administration. And I think Bush is more intelligent than he's usually given credit for. However, the man should never ever be allowed to speak in public, ever. The speech he just gave in Jordan cries out for red ink:

The following is the full text of the statement by US President George W Bush after the Middle East peace summit in Aqaba, Jordan. My comments are in italics. The source for this is the BBC news site, but I'm sure it's the same everywhere, so no hyperlink for you.

King Abdullah [of Jordan], thank you for hosting this event. Her majesty, thank you for your hospitality. (Sudden change from third to second person.)It is fitting that we gather today in Jordan. King Abdullah is the leader on behalf of peace, ("a leader" unless the definite article implies there are no other pro-peace leaders in the world right now, which isn't an unreasonable assertion) and is carrying forward the tradition of his father, King Hussein.

I'm pleased to be here with Prime Minister [Ariel] Sharon. The friendship between our countries began at the time of Israel's creation. Today America is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed, to Israel's security as a vibrant Jewish state.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, there are four different meanings of vibrant: 1a. Pulsing or throbbing with energy or activity: the vibrant streets of a big city. b. Vigorous, lively, and vital: “a vibrant group that challenged the... system” (Philip Taubman). 2. Exhibiting or characterized by rapid, rhythmic movement back and forth or to and fro; vibrating. 3. Produced as a result of vibration; resonant or resounding: vibrant voices. 4. Relatively high on the scale of brightness: a vibrant hue.

I think he may have meant vital or viable. One of those pesky bisyllabic v-words.


I'm also pleased to be with Prime Minister [Mahmoud] Abbas. He represents the cause of freedom and statehood for the Palestinian people. I strongly support that cause, as well.

Each of us is here because we understand that all people have the right to live in peace. We believe that with hard work and good faith and courage (there should be a comma instead of a conjunction between hard work and good faith) it is possible to bring peace to the Middle East. (is irony really appropriate here?) And today we mark important progress toward that goal.

Great and hopeful change is coming to the Middle East. In Iraq, a dictator who funded terror and sowed conflict has been removed. And a more just and democratic society is emerging.

Prime Minister Abbas now leads the Palestinian cabinet. By his strong leadership, by building the institutions of Palestinian democracy and by rejecting terror, he is serving the deepest hopes of his people.

All here today now share a goal. The Holy Land must be shared between a state of Palestine, and the State of Israel, living at peace with each other and with every nation of the Middle East. All sides will benefit from this achievement, and all sides have responsibilities to meet.

As the roadmap accepted by the parties makes clear, both must make tangible, immediate steps toward this two-state vision.

I welcome Prime Minister Sharon's pledge to improve the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian areas and to begin removing unauthorised outposts immediately. I appreciate his gestures of reconciliation on behalf of prisoners and their families. And his frank statements about the need for territorial contiguity. (That's the BBC's fault -- should be a comma not a period there.) As I said yesterday, the issue of settlements must be addressed for peace to be achieved. (Can you believe this insipid piece of passive voice GovSpeak is the BBC's pull quote for this article?)

In addition, Prime Minister Sharon has stated that no unilateral actions by either side can or should prejudge the outcome of future negotiations. The prime minister also recognises that it is in Israel's own interest for Palestinians to govern themselves in their own state.

These are meaningful signs of respect for the rights of the Palestinians and their hopes for a viable, democratic, peaceful, Palestinian state. But not a vibrant one.

Prime Minister Abbas recognises that terrorist crimes are a dangerous obstacle to the independent state his people seek. He agrees that the process for achieving that state is through peaceful negotiations. (Just shoot me! How about, "He agrees that peaceful negotiations are the only process for achieving that state," at least?) He has pledged to consolidate Palestinian institutions, including the security forces, and to make them more accountable and more democratic.

He has promised his full efforts (eh? Why is effort pluralized?) and resources to end the armed intifada. He has promised to work without compromise for a complete end of violence and terror. In all these efforts, the prime minister is demonstrating his leadership and commitment to building a better future for the Palestinian people.

Both prime ministers here agree that progress toward peace also requires an end to violence (true by definition) and the elimination of all forms of hatred and prejudice and official incitement, in schoolbooks, in broadcasts and in the words used by political leaders.

Both leaders understand that a future of peace cannot be founded on hatred and falsehood and bitterness. (There's another string of conjunctions. Have a comma, George.)

Yet these two leaders cannot bring about peace if they must act alone. True peace requires the support of other nations in the region.

Yesterday in Sharm el-Sheikh we made a strong beginning. Arab leaders stated that they share our goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace, and in security.

And they have promised to cut off assistance and the flow of money and weapons to terrorist groups and to help Prime Minister Abbas rid Palestinian areas of terrorism.

All sides have made important commitments, and the United States will strive to see these commitments fulfilled. My government will provide training and support for a new, restructured Palestinian security service. And we'll place a mission on the ground, led by Ambassador John Wolf.

This mission will be charged with helping the parties to move towards peace, monitoring their progress and stating clearly who is fulfilling their responsibilities. And we expect both parties to keep their promises.

I've also asked Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to make this cause a matter of the highest priority. Secretary Powell and Dr Rice as my personal representative will work closely with the parties, helping them move towards true peace as quickly as possible. "True" peace? I've heard of a phoney war, but not a false peace.

The journey we're taking is difficult. But there is no other choice. No leader of conscience can accept more months and years of humiliation, killing and mourning. (And how are things in Congo and Zimbabwe these days, anyhow?) And these leaders of conscience have made their declarations today in the cause of peace.

The United States is committed to that cause. If all sides fulfil their obligation, I know that peace can finally come. Thank you very much. And may God bless our work. Specifically, Jesus.



Posted by Nic, 3:57 PM -

Yay Dixie Chicks
Article Here
Someone in the article is quoted as saying I know a lot of KTEX listeners were ready to move on, but now there has been a national display against one of the more popular performers in our format. Maines might as well have taken another jab at Bush. [for wearing a FUTK shirt, as in Fuck You Toby Keith, who sings the Angry American uber-patriotism song]
Just think about this - taking a jab at Bush and a flag waver means that people can't listen to you regardless of your music. People are offended. Personally offended - they almost "moved on", but then... Of course now, those bans on their music can be national, because thanks to Colin Powell's son, one company can own all the stations. And the gay-haters cry free speech...


Posted by Jared, 1:00 AM -

Tuesday, June 03, 2003


Boy... did I made the wrong decision!?! Read this if you're thinking about going to grad school.


Posted by Timothy, 9:47 PM -

"Christian Group Wants Disney's No-Fly Zone Down For Gay Days"
The airspace above Walt Disney World has been free of aircraft since March, when the government said the resort was a terrorism target of symbolic value. But a Christian organization that wants to send banner-towing planes over the theme park during this week's Gay Days festivities believes the no-fly zone equals no free speech.

Link via metafilter.


Posted by Timothy, 8:45 PM -

Political Philosophy Pick-up lines
Josh at Oxblog is procrastinating from his studies by soliciting political philosophy pick-up lines. My entries for worst pick-up lines:

-Stanley Fish: When you're lost in paradise with me, babe, there's no such thing as bad sex... and it's a good thing too.
-Michael Sandel: I'm not like all those guys who hold the priority of the night over the good.
-Thomas Nagel: There's no view from nowhere, but a webcam will do.
-Habermas: Is it a mythical worldview to think I can colonize your lifeworld?

Kevin Drum take the low, Hobbesian road, while Matt Yglesias takes a classier route. Ezra Klein goes for old-fashioned liberalism.


Posted by Timothy, 7:48 PM -

Kucinich and Spirituality
Amy Sullivan links to the full text of the speech by Kucinich mentioned in my post below. Some highlights:
We begin as a perfect union of matter and spirit. We receive the blessings of the Eternal from sky and earth. In our outstretched hands we can feel the energy of the universe. We receive the blessings of the Eternal from water, which nourishes and sanctifies life. We receive the blessings of the Eternal from the primal fire, the pulsating heart of creation. We experience the wonder of life multidimensional and transcendent. We extend our hands upwards and we are showered with abundance. We ask and we receive. A universe of plenty flows to us, through us. It is in us. We become filled with endless possibilities.
Any comments, Clint?


Posted by Timothy, 7:35 PM -

More Abuse of Prisoners by the U.S.A.
Following reports of torture and abuse in Iraq, the BBC now reports that the detention of unconvicted, and usually uncharged foreign nationals was executed illegally under abusive conditions.
They were also subject to escort procedures that included hand-cuffs, leg-irons and heavy chains; and a limit of one legal telephone call per week, which the report says prevented them from obtaining timely advice.

Some detainees also suffered a pattern of physical and verbal abuse at the centre.

The Justice Department says its actions were fully within the law, adding that it makes no apologies for finding every legal way possible to protect the American public from terrorist attacks.
Legal or not, the Justice Department's actions were racist, and against any possible spirit of 'Justice'. Leg irons, heavy chains and effectively denying innocent men and women access to a lawyer does not protect anyone from terrorists.


Posted by Nikhil, 11:15 AM -

The UK Opposition is building some momentum behind efforts to investigate Tony Blair's government over "twisted" intelligence evidence. A member of Blair's own party, Lord Healey, told B.B.C. Radio One
"I think a lot of damage has been done because if intelligence services believe their information is being deliberately distorted by the government, relations between them are bound to be very bad indeed."
The British Government stuck almost exactly to the American line in war justification, and if Tony Blair is seriously investigated -- while it may not become a large issue in the United States -- it ought to shed a great deal of doubt on the way the Bush administration sold the war. As the latest Free Press' "Heads/Tails" section demonstrated, administration officials are already backtracking from their old justifications.


Posted by Nikhil, 11:04 AM -

Not that anyone will notice...
But we're finally admitting that we weren't so big on human rights when it came to post-9/11 illegal immigrant detainees... see here.


Posted by Jared, 11:03 AM -

Monday, June 02, 2003


This is why I don't like being called a 'freeper'
Sullywatch links to disgusting responses in Free Republic commenting on Andrew Sullivan's review of The Clinton Wars.


Posted by Timothy, 9:50 PM -

Yes, this is the beginning of a real Washington Post story...
John Kerry eats dove. Even better, he shoots them. From behind the stalks of a Southern cornfield, he'll watch them flutter and dart, and fire. "You clean them. Let them hang. It takes three or four birds to have a meal," said the Massachusetts senator. "You might eat it at a picnic, cold roasted. I love dove." Dove, quail, duck, deer. Kerry described how to hunt and gut them, talking as he sliced through a steak at midnight after campaigning all day in Iowa for the Democratic presidential nomination. Carve out the heart, he said over dinner, pull out the entrails and cut up the meat. Bad table manners, perhaps, or good politics. After Sept. 11, 2001, some Democrats argue, they can't take the White House if they sound like doves. That is not a problem for the dove hunter. Kerry, 59, is the only combat veteran in the field. He stands 6-foot-4. He rides a Harley, plays ice hockey, snowboards, windsurfs, kitesurfs, and has such thick, aggressive hair he uses a brush with metal teeth. "That's our slogan," quipped his ad man, Jim Margolis. "John Kerry: He's no weenie." "He doesn't need a consultant to tell him how to dress like an alpha male," said his friend Ivan Schlager. "He is a damn alpha male." (link via Roger Ailes)
Does no else find it depressing that this is the writing style in our capitol's newspaper? I swore it was a parody page at first...


Posted by Timothy, 9:21 PM -

The Matrix Aborted?! This is strange:
A man dropped abortion-related leaflets from a Paralite Sky Cruiser he flew over the La Serna High School campus Thursday until he accidentally stuck his hand into the aircraft's propeller blades, severing two fingers before he crashed, according to Whittier police.... Officers were unsure whether the man was flying so low because he was having problems, but then the bright yellow, pennant-shaped leaflets started fluttering down. The leaflets made reference to anti-abortion protesters with graphic displays in front of the school, police said.The leaflet partially read, "You are in the Matrix. Truth is evil. Abortion is good. There are people in front of school with signs and pictures right now that you must not look at. They will show you things you must not see. You must not talk to them.'...Lowe said one of the leaflets got caught in the netting that separated Grumbine from the propeller. When Grumbine reached with his right hand to retrieve it, his index and middle fingers were cut off, Lowe said. (link via Roger Ailes (the good one))


Posted by Timothy, 9:15 PM -

Affirmative Action
This NYT magazine article by Jeff Rosen is an absolute must read for anyone interested in affirmative action. Rosen was a skeptic of affirmative action (when I interned at The New Republic, I asked if I could borrow a copy of the book "Critical White Theory," but he seemed extremely happy to simply get rid of it.) Rosen makes tells of how he changed his mind on affirmative action, and makes a very smart argument. Whether you agree or disagree with his argument, it is made so smartly, you wonder why no one had said it that way before. Here's part of it:
After the courts and popular initiatives began to ban affirmative action, I noticed that state legislatures and universities rebelled, deciding on their own that racial diversity is more important than meritocracy... In other words, I became convinced that selective universities can't achieve colorblindness, diversity and high admission standards at the same time. They can achieve only two out of the three goals. For the most part, schools would prefer to choose standards and diversity, using racial preferences to create a diverse class while keeping standards relatively high. But if the courts order colorblindness, America's finest public and private universities won't hesitate for a moment in choosing diversity as the second goal, allowing rigorous admissions standards to go out the window. This is a prospect that both the Bush administration and some of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court seem ready to embrace. ''If Michigan really cares enough about that racial imbalance, why doesn't it . . . lower the standards, not have a flagship elite law school?'' asked Justice Antonin Scalia at the oral argument. ''It solves the problem.''
I first encountered the argument that eventually persuaded me to change my mind about affirmative action in a Supreme Court brief filed by three University of Texas law professors in 1997. In the brief, they predicted with eerie accuracy the political pressures that would lead public universities to lower academic standards if the courts prohibited racial preferences. ''If affirmative action is ended, inevitable political, economic and legal forces will pressure the great public universities to lower admission standards as far as necessary to avoid resegregation,'' wrote Douglas Laycock, Samuel Issacharoff and Charles Alan Wright. ''The complete end of affirmative action would be a formula for the destruction of the great public universities.''
As it happened, the pressures to lower admissions standards in Texas and California played out precisely as the professors predicted. After the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit banned affirmative action in 1996, the Texas Legislature adopted a series of laws that required the University of Texas to lower its admissions standards in various ways. First, the Legislature adopted a ''10-percent plan,'' which guaranteed that any students who graduated in the top 10 percent of their high-school classes would be admitted to any public university in Texas, regardless of their test scores, the classes that they took or their ability to contribute to intellectual diversity.
According to Douglas Laycock, who has reviewed the undergraduate admissions figures for the University of Texas, the school before the 10-percent plan admitted 93 percent of all applicants at the top 10 percent of their high-school classes. Now it has to admit the remaining 7 percent of white and black students who would have been rejected under the old system. I asked Laycock to describe the students in this group. ''These are students with some serious weaknesses elsewhere in the file,'' he said. ''Either very low test scores, or they didn't take college prep courses, or their recommenders have serious reservations, or they have a lousy writing sample or some combination of those things.''
In other words, by taking a single attribute -- class rank -- and requiring the university to throw out all the other more nuanced measures of intellectual diversity and academic ability -- from test scores to musical skills to success in overcoming adversity -- the 10-percent plans guarantee the admission of white and black students who are both less academically prepared and also less likely to contribute to the diversity of the university as a whole than the white and black students they are displacing. The effect on academic standards has been tangible: Laycock said the percentage of students admitted from the top 10 percent of their classes with SAT scores below 1,000 has tripled since the 10-percent plans were introduced. To keep the new admits from dropping out, the university has had to offer remedial classes.


Posted by Timothy, 9:02 PM -

How times have changed... Chien Wen writes on dartobserver:
And at present, the only mouthpiece for political opinion is the Free Press, a left-liberal publication. The absence of a Dartmouth publication that offers centrist, center-right, and conservative perspectives on current affairs and public policy is not good for campus discourse, which is already left-leaning thanks to faculty and administrators.I'm surprised one doesn't exist, given that 1) there are many conservatives on campus who don't write for the Review, 2) the administration despises the Review, and would love to put it out of business by embracing an official conservative publication, and 3) Dartmouth students love to talk politics, as any regulars to Agora/WWIR/Politalk will tell you.
When I was at Dartmouth 2 or 3 years ago, many thought for years that "the only mouthpiece for political opinion" for students on campus was The Dartmouth Review. So I find it odd that Chien Wen's posts mirror from the right complaints of mine (and many others) from as little as 3 years ago. To my surprise, many current students seem to think that The Free Press has become dominant in campus opinion journalism. That wasn't true when I was on campus and I tended to think student campus discourse was slanted towards the right and the apathetic center. One of the goals of the Free Press was to move the discourse to the left and provide an institution to get students thinking and engaged. Chien Wen is effectively saying that we succeeded. But if he's interested in knowing why there isn't a paper besides The Review on the right, it's because no one seems able and interested in putting the energy to start one (or to make The Review good) and to sustain that effort.

I can speak to the difficulties in getting a paper started. It wasn't easy. The Dartmouth Review had 2 decades of history and alumni support behind it. It is tough to get one off the ground, but there is always something energizing about being in the founding year. But that doesn't explain the success of The Free Press in continuing to expand and improve, and to have new people take up the mantle and want to dedicate themselves to it. Could there be a sustained effort over several years to have a centrist and/or conservative publication? But what will motivate students to keep such a publication going? Why not publish your opinions in The Dartmouth? You need people willing to sustain the commitment that goes into building an institution and forum for opinions. Why would so-called 'independents' want their own paper? Public Policy Quarterly, a Rocky paper that lasted for a few years, did not gain the staff and readership it needed. What would unite people in such a group effort to advance individualism (heh), especially with The Review on campus (I think Chien Wen neglects a bit how The Review has, and still could, connect campus issues with a larger, national conservative agenda). The Review's history is tainted, but it also has past glory (the former and latter largely stem from the same events). Don't forget that there was a non-Review conservative paper (The Beacon) on campus for a good part of the 1990s. I think it was started in reaction to the Hitler quote controversy at The Review. The administration 'embraced' it by funding it, but beaucratic hurdles come into play with College funding, however 'noble' or 'favored' the goal of an organization. The Review still outlasted it. And in George W. Bush's America, being from a notorious conservative publication ain't necessarily a bad thing.

Finally, Chien Wen asks why there is not a conservative paper and gives three reasons why this surprises him. But bone of those reasons tell us why students would actually put the energy into not just talking about politics, but actually doing the extremely hard work of putting a paper together. The alliance of conservatism and apathy continues!!


Posted by Timothy, 3:58 PM -

I've found my candidate!
Dean, a graduate of Yale University and Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, is known in Vermont for his mastery of arcane information — from statistical data to the rap sequence from the movie "Bulworth." (LA Times)


Posted by Timothy, 12:54 PM -

FCC Regulations on the number of stations a single company can own in one market were 'eased' today.

If I felt this was the type of forum where I could swear...

And of course, I heard that first on ClearChannel WorldWide News.


Posted by Nikhil, 12:17 PM -

Sunday, June 01, 2003


The American Prospect on Democrats and Religion

Tapped, the blog of the The American Prospect, writes: "Prospect contributor Amy Sullivan has a cover story in the latest Washington Monthly. It's a piece that every Democratic consultant and presidential candidate should read, because it explains one of the major dilemmas the party faces today: the lack of support for Democrats among religious voters." In the piece, Sullivan has this quote from columnist E.J. Dionne: "The core problem for liberals is the extent to which they are viewed as arrogant and distant from the understanding of ordinary people. Their attitude toward faith is to look down their noses."

So what does Tapped do a day later? It makes fun of the spiritual beliefs of Dennis Kucinich, quoting this A.P. interview on how Kucinich is friends with Shirley McClaine. Kucinich is Roman Catholic, but also says stuff like this: ""The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite and we begin: One with the universe." Tapped snidely ends with "Makes us wonder which Age of Aquarius Democrat Kucinich is a reincarnation of . . ." If Tapped wants to lecture liberals on how they shouldn't look down on religious faith, Maybe Tapped should take Dionne's warning about being "arrogant" and apply that when talking about progressives with sincere spiritual beliefs.

So why is Tapped selectively following some popular stereotypes while trying to combat others? Maybe this is Tapped's thoughtlessness, or maybe Tapped is cynically exhorting people to understand religion only because we want these people to vote for Democrats. Yet, Bill Kristol once talked (in a New Yorker article, I think) about how many Suburban women often held spiritual (or New Age) beliefs. So I'm not sure 'Crystal moms' are really a small voting bloc. Why the difference between spirituality and faith? Of course, you can say that Kucinich seems out there for airy-fairy sprituality, and it's OK for Tapped to make fun of foofy New Age ideas. But that reasoning isn't going to wash for a hard core secularist who also thinks that all religion seems ridiculous. And a liberal who thinks religion and God do not belong in the public sphere is not going to be convinced by the incoherency of the double message sent by Tapped.


Posted by Timothy, 8:41 PM -
Powered by Blogger

The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.