Blogs

Here's a little lesson in technology for de Russy and Kline. When you Google "college and university courses in community organizing" without quotation marks you get 23 million results, including a handful of actual courses. Almost all of the 23 million responses include various references, anywhere on the internet, to a college, a university, courses, a community, or organizing. The precise number of responses tells you absolutely nothing about anything.

If you actually Google "college and university courses in community organizing" utilizing quotation marks you get two responses. One is to Kline's statement, and the other is to de Russy's comment on it (there are also 30 duplicate references on Free Republic to their claims).

The most disappointing thing to me about this Google search is that there isn't a vast conspiracy out there in higher education to teach people the kind of skills that most Americans desired to have in a president. A New York Times article reports a growing interest in the subject among students. Although colleges routinely have entire majors devoted to vapid fields such as public relations that serve corporate America, you'll look in vain for any majors in community organizing. After all, there aren't a lot of wealthy community organizers out there to fund these programs.

That's what really needs to change. We need colleges to meet this demand for community organizing, and give it the serious academic attention it deserves. And perhaps someday, there will be courses and majors in community organizing across the country.

When that happens, de Russy and Kline can cry out with pride that they discovered the problem before it ever existed.

Crossposted on CollegeFreedom and DailyKos.

According to Martin,

Anyone is welcome to register and attend. But please, if you want to express a theory, bring some rational, tangible evidence to support your claims about Mr. Obama. Those of you who know me know I am committed to only working with accurate information and, as we lawyers say, "reasonable inferences drawn from the available facts or available documentation." Pie-in-the-sky will not fly.

This is one of the truly hilarious claims. The nutcases who think Barack Obama was born in Kenya and secretly smuggled into Hawaii will only accept "rational, tangible evidence." You gotta love it when Andy Martin tells you that you’re too crazy.

As I note in my book about Obama, Martin is a right-wing, anti-Semitic crackpot and was the original source for the "madrassa" myth about Obama attending an Islamic school in Indonesia. Martin is an unending source of smears.

Martin, who is running for the U.S. Senate in 2010, has named himself the head of The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama, which is roughly 999,900 lunatics shy of that goal right now. Martin claims to be a "Professor of Law (Adj.)," although it’s not clear if any law school is actually employing him (let’s hope it’s just another one of his infamous lies).

So what’s on the agenda for this conference?

Andy Martin’s "Frank Marshall Davis theory," an analysis of Barack Obama's parentage that has the hard left in a quandary.

Hmm, I thought I was in a quandary, and I couldn’t figure out why. This must be the reason!

The birth certificate controversy: why does it matter?
(Andy’s hint: When Obama was viewed as invincible, the mainstream media did not want to ask questions about his past. Now that Obama is increasingly being seen as shell shocked and pockmarked, more and more people will demand answers to questions about who Obama "really is."

Thanks for the hint, Andy! Otherwise, I would have answered, "Because it shows why Andy Martin is a lunatic."

Other suggestions or solutions for seeking access the birth certificate or college records (e.g. alumni pressure?)

Of course, there’s nothing of any significance in Obama’s college records (or anyone else’s, for that matter). Nor could alumni pressure help them out, since it’s illegal to release information from college records. I’ve never quite figured out what they could possibly think is hidden in Obama’s college records.

I came across news of the conference via an email from Alan Keyes’ Renew America. Keyes, by the way, is continuing his crusade to have Obama removed from the presidency based on the loony theory that he wasn’t born in Hawaii. WorldNetDaily published an "exclusive" article a few days ago explaining that Keyes in California is suing the "secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office." Wow, I bet President Obama is pretty worried that they won’t count the electoral votes in California’s that he needs to become president.

Andy Martin reports,

Media are welcome, but we would suggest you let us know in advance. We will be providing twitter.com updates during the conference (twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA).

I don’t twitter, but I’d almost consider starting to read tweets just to get ahold of those fine updates. And alas, I can’t be in DC for this fine conference, but I certainly encourage others to sign up to attend the conference as media and report on the event.

Some people may wonder, "Shouldn’t we just ignore these crackpots?" Well, there are many good reasons not to. First, these nuts are damn hilarious. Second, these nuts have serious influence on right-wing talk radio. Third, these nuts expose the dark, loony underbelly of the conservative movement for what it really is. So, as far as I’m concerned, we should do everything we can to promote this conference and interview every psycho in attendance for eternal YouTube fame.

Crossposted on DailyKos.

As I note in my book, Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies, the Cardinal Newman Society is a right-wing Catholic group (actually, it's a guy named Patrick Reilly and a few of his right-wing friends) that, often successfully, lobbies Catholic colleges to censor liberal views (needless to say, it's never called for banning conservative supporters of the death penalty from speaking on campuses, even though they violate Catholic doctrine).

The group even attacks conservatives. Quincy University commencement speaker (and well-known conservative radio legend) Paul Harvey withdrew in 2003 after the group’s criticism of his pro-choice beliefs. Reilly called upon Catholic University of America in 2006 to ban politician Bob Casey from speaking on campus. Although Casey is a Catholic who opposes abortion rights, Reilly proclaimed that "Bob Casey has no business delivering a lecture on public morality" because Casey does not want to ban contraceptives.

The Cardinal Newman Society demands that all Catholic colleges impose an unprecedented regime of censorship; in 2005, the Society presented a list of 18 professors at Catholic Colleges that the group believes should be fired because these professors took a position on the Terri Schiavo case contrary to that of the Vatican. These attacks have had a strong influence on Catholic Colleges, and administrators fear being the next target of the group.

Perhaps the most dramatic case of the Cardinal Newman Society’s attack on academic freedom came at the University of St. Francis in Chicago in spring 2004. Dr. Nancy Snyderman was dis-invited from giving the commencement address four days before graduation after a campaign against her by the Cardinal Newman Society. A surgeon, author and former ABC medical correspondent (she's now featured on NBC Nightly News), Snyderman, who is personally opposed to abortion, had mentioned in a medical report on ABC's "Good Morning America" on Oct. 30, 1997 that some doctors recommend "selective reduction" via abortion for a woman pregnant with septuplets because of the high risk in having seven babies. A letter to Snyderman from the university read, "The university recently received information ... containing comments by you on the topic of abortion, and these comments appear to be contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. As a Catholic university, we have no choice but to rescind our invitation." When a journalist and doctor is banned from a campus for accurate reporting on abortion issues, it indicates how far the repression of freedom at Catholic colleges has gone.

In 2005 the St. Elizabeth College of Nursing in New York invited Rep. Sherwood Boehert as commencement speaker. But under pressure from local bishop James Moynihan and the Cardinal Newman Society, St. Elizabeth’s president, Sister Marianne Monahan, banned Boehert from speaking.

Another form of retaliation used by the Cardinal Newman Society is to remove institutions from official designation as Catholic colleges, hurting their recruiting and fundraising. In 2003, the Cardinal Newman Society was able to pressure to have Marist College removed from the list after Eliot Spitzer was allowed to speak at its graduation. In 2005, Marymount Manhattan College was similarly de-recognized after it allowed Hillary Clinton to speak. This kind of intimidation forces colleges that wish to remain Catholic to censor the speakers allowed on their campus on the orders of a right-wing splinter faction.

But the group, although adept at getting publicity, is far outside the Catholic mainstream. The Association of Catholic College and Universities denounced the Cardinal Newman Society for making accusations that are "distorted, inaccurate and in some cases simply untrue."

Thanks to Reilly, Eve Ensler's "The Vagina Monologues" is the most frequently banned play in America. The Cardinal Newman Society has taken credit for "a marked decline in planned performances of the Monologues" at Catholic colleges. In recent years, the play has been banned at the University of Portland, Iona College, the College of New Rochelle, Loras College, Rivier College, Xavier University (Ohio), Catholic University of America, Providence College, Loyola University of New Orleans, Emmanuel College, St. Ambrose University, St. John’s University, St. Joseph’s College (Indiana), Wheeling Jesuit University, Alverno College, College of Saint Mary (Nebraska), Edgewood College, Fontbonne University, Loyola Marymount University, Marquette University, the University of St. Francis, and several other institutions. Censorship has discouraged students from trying to organize performances at many other colleges.

It's time for Catholics and anyone concerned about academic freedom and free speech in this country to speak up and say that the Cardinal Newman Society is wrong. There shouldn't be repression of different views at Catholic colleges. And Notre Dame should be proud that Barack Obama has chosen to honor its campus by giving the commencement address.

Crossposted at DailyKos and CollegeFreedom.

Conservatives have a system of talk shows to promote their books to an audience that aggressively buys these books in large quantities. Once these books are on the best-seller lists, they are instantly given prime position and huge discounts at bookstores everywhere, which generates even more attention and sales.

Progressives won this election, and our values represent the majority in America, but progressive books are increasingly being shunted to the sidelines. Today, it’s conservatives who dominate the political book industry.

If we can publicize progressive books and help sell more of them, we can directly increase the dissemination of progressive ideas. And by increasing sales, we would also encourage publishers to acquire more progressive books and pay a living wage for them, enabling more progressive writers and investigative journalists to do this important work.

What can you do to help? I have a proposal below for a new website (DailyProse.com) to be a bookish sister site to DailyKos, but here’s the basic way progressives can help:

BLUR: Buy. Lend. Understand. Recommend.

Buy: Buy more progressive books. Try to support independent bookstores or the Progressive Book Club, but if you need to buy them cheaply, buy them. If you can’t afford to buy many books yourself, contact your local library (don’t forget college and school libraries) to recommend good books you’ve heard of. Ask to find out who the acquisitions librarian is, and try to get an email address for recommending good books (and DVDs, too). If you know a faculty member, ask if they’ll request books you suggest to them for the university library to buy. (Personally, I’m very bad at this–my own university doesn’t have my latest books.) Note: donating books to libraries doesn’t usually work at getting them into the collection (you can ask): most of the time, they just sell these books to raise money.

Lend: books are for reading, not for hoarding. After you’ve read a book, lend it out to someone. Start up a lending club among your friends to exchange books.

Understand: Read those books, and think about them. Read progressive book reviews. Watch BookTV on C-SPAN2 weekends. Start a book club, or join one and suggest good books to read.

Recommend: Tell the wider world about the books you like. Write comments and book reviews on DailyKos. Tell your friends on listservs and in person about good books.

There are already some good book features on DailyKos.

Cfk has Bookflurries on Wednesday nights at 8pm ET.

plf515 has What are you reading? on Friday mornings.

sarahnity has Books by Kossacks on Sundays.

But we need to have more book reviews on DailyKos, features such as interviews with authors, and a permanent website to make it easier to find this information and promote good books.

Here’s my proposal for DailyProse.com:

The aim of DailyProse.com is to be a comprehensive website focused on progressive books working in cooperation with DailyKos.

DailyProse.com has the following goals:

1. Increase awareness of progressive books (and books in general) by providing easily accessible links (with commentary) to current reviews (on DailyKos and other websites) of progressive books.

1. Criticize conservatives by providing links to reviews that debunk right-wing books.

1. Encourage DailyKos contributors to write book reviews by providing an additional outlet for their reviews and by providing an easy system for reviewers to get review copies of books in advance of publication. Or, to put it in more easily understood terms, Free Books!

1. Create original content by doing email interviews with authors and other features, such as a "best progressive books of the year" list.

1. Help DailyKos writers publish books by providing a guide on how to do it, and perhaps working with an agent to look at book proposals from DailyKos writers and to help them to improve their proposals and find publishers.

1. Help readers and authors find independent bookstores by having an updated list of links to these bookstores.

1. Help progressive authors promote their books by creating a weekly summary of new progressive books and interesting reviews, and posting that summary while sending it out to various reporters, editors, talk show producers, etc. DailyProse could also provide a list of progressive author events around the country and a system for helping them organize events.

The structure of DailyProse would be to have a rotating group of editors who would make one post per day (or more as needed for breaking news) probably featuring one "book of the day" (a quick summary, not necessarily a review) and additional notable links found that day to any book reviews on DailyKos and other websites. This post would also be crossposted on DailyKos to get more comments and suggestions for other books/book reviews. Each Saturday or Sunday would be a round-up of various newspaper book reviews, and once a week the feature would be a posting/email summarizing news about progressive books that week. Although the site would focus on new books, there would be occasional postings on interesting older books relevant to a current issue or celebrations of the anniversary of important books.

Financial: the aim is for DailyProse to be a not-for-profit, break-even endeavor, perhaps with advertising sought which might eventually be used to pay editors and contributors a small amount. DailyProse would rely primarily on volunteers.

That’s my idea for DailyProse.com. So what am I asking from you? I’d like to see if there’s really interest in doing this. Are there people here willing to volunteer to write some book reviews? Are there people willing to be editors who search the internet for reviews and post updates on the site? Is there someone willing to volunteer to design a website for this project? Does anyone have contacts with the DailyKos editors to convince them to endorse this project and help promote it?

Post a comment AND email me (collegefreedom@yahoo.com) if you’re interested in helping with the idea of DailyProse.com.

Crossposted at DailyKos.

The common view about race in this election was given by ABC News:

Race was perhaps a surprisingly minor factor. Nineteen percent of all voters called it at least somewhat of a factor in their vote; 80 percent said it was not a factor at all. But Obama's margin was essentially the same among those who called race a factor – 53-45 percent – and those who said it was not, 51-46 percent. There were, however, differences by race. Seventeen percent of whites called race a factor, and favored McCain by 61-37 percent. Whites for whom race was not a factor voted for McCain by a narrower 53-44 percent. Meanwhile one in three blacks called race a factor in their vote, and, like all blacks, favored Obama almost unanimously.

I've put together a spreadsheet listing the exit poll data on racial views for each state. It is statistically impossible for the 9% and 19% figures to be correct. In fact, out of 36 states with exit poll data on the race-based voting question, only California (9% significant, 16% a factor) fell below the reported national figure of 9% significant and 19% a factor, and it only did so by a bare margin.

The states without exit poll data on the influence of race are Alabama, Connecticut, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Wyoming, and District of Columbia. (If anyone can find this data, please let me know; I've checked MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News with the same lack of results.)
Considering that the remaining states include high-population states with high levels of racism such as  Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas, it's inconceivably that these missing states could lower these numbers. In fact, the correct national numbers on race would almost certainly be much higher than what I report below.

To get an accurate analysis of race, I calculated the influence of race, and then adjusted it for the population of each state in the 36 states where we have results. Assuming that I didn't screw up, I found that nationwide, 13.24% of voters said race was an important factor (including the small number who said it was the single most important factor), and 21.4% of voters said race was a factor (adding those who called it a minor factor).

Now, it is true, as the reports said, that 53% of these votes where race mattered were for Obama, a contrast with the primaries where race-based voting hurt Obama much more. However, it is mistake to imagine that these votes indicate that race was a positive factor for Obama. The overwhelming number of votes for Obama where race mattered came from African-Americans, who vote for Democrats anyway by a large margin. Obama slightly increased the Democratic percentage of the African-American votes, and slightly increased African-American turnout. But for the most part, the people voting for Obama who said that race mattered were almost certain to vote for Democrats anyway. And it is much easier to admit that race mattered and say that you voted for the black candidate than. It is far less clear that people are willing to admit racism.

I measured the "racist vote" (defined as those who said race was a factor and who voted against the black candidate). I should note that this definition represents the bottom-level measure of racism. For example, there are an unknown number of people who voted against Obama because of race and refused to admit it to the pollsters. There are also probably a small number of racists who considered Obama's race as a negative factor but voted for him nevertheless due to other factors (for example, in nearly all-white West Virginia, the proportion of people who said race mattered but who voted for Obama grew from 9% in the primary to 39% in the general election). I know there are some who would say that voters (of any race) who supported Obama and said race was a factor are also racists. I disagree. That's like saying the NAACP is the same as the KKK because they both are concerned about race. It’s not racism to support electing the first African-American president. It is racism to oppose doing so based on race.

The average state was 8.07% racist (as an important factor) and 12.62% racist (as any factor). Because the larger states tended to be less racist, the nationwide average of these 36 states was 7.13% racist as an important factor and 11.5% racist as any factor. (By contrast, according to the inaccurate numbers reported by the national exit poll, only 4.23% of voters were racists who considered race an important factor, and 8.93% voters were racists who said race was a factor at any level. So the levels of racism on Nov. 4 were 69% and 29% higher than what's currently being reported.)

The most racist state in these polls was Louisiana, where 14.84% of voters against Obama felt race was an important factor, while 23.78% of anti-Obama votes said race was a factor in their vote. Closely following Louisiana were Alaska (14.0% and 21.08%) and Kentucky (14.3% and 19.8%).

The least racist state in these polls was California, where only 3.78% of voters against Obama said race was an important factor, and only 5.92% overall said race was a factor. Close behind California were New York (3.41% and 7.44%), Washington (3.51% and 6.84%), and Illinois (3.96% and 7.68%). The biggest surprise might be Georgia, where the numbers were only 4.81% and 8.4%. Maybe it’s notable that the Obama campaign fought hard for Georgia, while the most racist states had essentially no Obama commercials or campaign workers.

However, we shouldn't discount the power of racism just because Obama won. In presidential elections, 11.5% of the electorate isn't a small factor; it's a massive group of voters (more than 14 million people).

How big of an influence was racism? The following states would have turned to Obama if the McCain voters who said race was an important factor had switched sides: Arizona (10), Missouri (11), Montana (3), South Carolina (8), West Virginia (5). That's a total of 37 electoral votes. And these states would have turned to Obama if the McCain voters who said race was a factor of any kind had supported Obama: Georgia (15), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Tennessee (11). That's 43 more electoral votes.

Speculating among the states without exit polls on race, it seems likely that Texas (34), Mississippi (6), South Dakota (3), and North Dakota (3) would have gone for Obama without racism, since they were fairly close, based on the levels of racism in similar states. That's 46 more electoral votes.

Altogether, without the influence of racism, by my calculation, the only states McCain would have won would be Alaska (3), Idaho (3), Wyoming (3), Utah (5), Alabama (9), Arkansas (6), Oklahoma (7), Nebraska (4), Kansas (6): a total of 46 electoral votes, compared to Obama's 492. And Obama's popular vote margin would have easily been in double digits.

There has been far too much attention given to the Bradley Effect, which many commentators declared dead on election night. The Bradley Effect only refers to racists who lie to pollsters (which apparently didn't happen on Nov. 4). But we should be far more concerned about the large number of Americans who are openly willing to admit their racism to pollsters (or those who are influenced by race without saying so).

Frank Rich proclaimed in the New York Times that the election proved, "While there are still bigots in America, they are in unambiguous retreat."

It is indeed a sign of progress in this country that "only" one-tenth of Americans openly admit to being racist in choosing a president. But it is far from a sign that racism is over. Obama was the perfect candidate to overcome racist views among voters, and 2008 (with an economic crisis and a failed Bush presidency) provided the perfect circumstances to do so.

If someone as highly qualified as Obama still faces this kind of racism, imagine what happens to African-Americans in this country who don’t have sterling academic credentials, who are not among the most eloquent speakers in American history, who do not happen to be the greatest fundraiser and campaign organizer in the history of politics, who do not have the opportunity of massive media coverage for two years to enable racists to overcome their doubts.

Obama’s election as president surpassed the hurdle of racism only because he was able to leap so high and because the racial barrier is lower than it once was. But the barrier of race is still there. Racism turned a double-digit Obama victory into a six-point margin. Racism turned a massive electoral vote landslide that could have exceeded Johnson’s victory over Goldwater into a moderate landslide.

Racism still matters in America. Racism substantially affected the Nov. 4 elections, and severely hurt Obama’s pursuit of the presidency. We need to recognize the continuing significance of race in America, not only in order to continue the fight for racial equality, but also to appreciate how truly amazing Obama’s substantial victory was in the face of this racism.

Crossposted at DailyKos.