Sunday Briefs

Since most everyone is sermoned and epistled out by now (I am not really sure sermon and epistle can be used as verbs), Sunday will be reserved here for brief thoughts.

On Health Care Reform

Why is it in this vital public service area the word "Socialized" can be used to quash any talk of real reform? If government run programs are really all that bad, then should not police and fire service be privatized? Perhaps the military too should go private. That Blackwater firm did a bang-up job in Iraq, right?

Save Me, Save Me! The Terrorists are Coming!

Are we really that wussified of a country these days? We can't close Guantanamo because the terrorist prisoners will be on our soil. . . really? While WWII was being fought POWs were brought to the US and no one batted an eye. Of course that generation was in a real war where everyone REALLY sacrificed, and they had a real economic collapse to deal with. This kind of spineless whining makes me wonder what happened to American resolve.

Cheney and Rush

Isn't it funny that so many people take their marching orders on national defense and family values from these two sterling role models? Both draft-dodging wimps, in and out of alcohol and drug rehab, and enough wives to qualify as Hollywood movie stars. Following that logic. . . how about Joe Camel for Surgeon General, Charlie Manson for the head of Homeland Security, and MC Hammer as Director of the IRS?

On Affirmative Action

With President Obama's appointment of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, the Republican Right has once again used this event to make an assault on racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in education and the work-place. In the case of Judge Sotomayor, the Limbaugh pin-heads have challenged whether or not she was worthy of admission to Princeton. Let us forget for a moment that Judge Sotomayor graduated Summa Cum Laude from this prestigious Ivy League school, and further let's set aside the fact that she graduated at the top of her class from Yale Law School as well. After all, her academic performance may have been an anomaly, and not really an example of the norm for affirmative action students. In fact, I think we can all agree that Judge Sotomayor's academic achievements would be outside of the norm for every demographic group in America, save perhaps for life members of MENSA. Instead, let's look at the history of university and workplace preferences and measure affirmative action programs against those.

Long before the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s, American educational and enterprise institutions were practicing a variety of preferential programs that benefited certain groups over others. From its very inception, the United States Government has been practicing a unique form of cronyism called the "Spoils System." After every election, executive branch jobs were passed out to loyal political supporters, regardless of their qualifications. It took the assassination of President Garfield and a piece of reform legislation in the 1880s (the Pendleton Act) to force the federal government to use a system of merit based competitive exams to fill most public service jobs. But right up to and including the 21st century, the top non-elective jobs in government are still reserved for loyal political toadies. Does anyone really think that Alberto Gonzalez was the most qualified American to serve as US Attorney General? And qualified or not, President Obama's administration is full of his election campaign staffers.

American higher education and private industry have had their own brand of preferential placement and hiring programs too. Does anyone really believe that Edsel Ford had to interview for the top job at his grandfather's automobile company? Family legacy may be the most prevalent form of preferential treatment in American society. After Teddy, do you think Harvard has ever denied admission to a Roosevelt? And don't forget "Dubya," I have no doubt that this most recent example of intellectually challenged presidents got into Yale based on academic merit. Yeah right. Top universities and Fortune 500 boardrooms are swollen with the children and grandchildren of America's Brahman elite. Do any of you really think your budding little brainiacs will get that last coveted Ivy League spot if its down to two choices and the other kid's last name is Kennedy, Rockefeller, or Gates?

Which leads me to my next category of preferential placement policies, those based solely in economics. Long before the first athletic scholarship (which I will discuss later) was awarded, colleges were actively recruiting the children of the financially elite. A donation here a new building there and voila, your mouth breathing progeny is strolling through Harvard Yard or skate-boarding in the Stanford Quad. The name Robert Woodruff may mean little to you, but the administration at Emory University in Atlanta genuflects when he is mentioned. Woodruff, who owned Coca Cola before it went public, gave Emory one hundred million dollars before he died. Do you think any of his heirs get the consolation letter from Emory's admissions department? Then there is Phil Knight, the founder of Nike. Over the years he has donated untold millions to the University of Oregon's athletic program. I doubt that any of his kids would have any difficulty at all in enrolling at the Eugene campus.

And what about athletics? Almost every major university in the United States fudges their respective enrollment qualifications for gifted athletes. With the cash generated from ticket sales, promotional goods, and television revenues, colleges across this country waive almost all their academic standards for the physically gifted. There is so much money pouring into university bank accounts from intercollegiate sports that most of them build special living accommodations for their athletes and offer them their own dining and recreation facilities too. To put it more bluntly, if the last spot for next year's freshman class at Michigan comes down to your little spelling bee champ and a lightning quick high school all American linebacker, you better have a fall back plan for Wayne State.

Finally we have the preferential placement program that draws all the heat, "Affirmative Action." This isn't really one program but it is the tag of a collection of legislative and executive initiatives to bring racial, ethnic, and gender diversity to both the workplace and college campuses. In other words, an attempt to make major American institutions a little less white and a little less male. So now do you see why this is program is second only to abortion as the prime target of the Republican party? No? OK, let me state it more bluntly, only Casper the Friendly Ghost and Wonder Bread are more white than the GOP. Since Richard Nixon launched his "Southern Strategy," in 1968, the party of Lincoln and emancipation morphed into the party of privilege and the status quo.

So what is all the fuss? With all these preferential programs in America, it is pretty obvious that pure academic merit is hardly ever the deciding factor for who gets the brass ring, right? Well, no actually. As James Madison said during the Constitutional Convention in 1787, we are all primarily motivated by self-interest. And no one in this country is more skilled at protecting their self interest than the good old boys club. It isn't, after all, preferential treatment that they abhor, it is only preferential treatment for non-club members. Affirmative action for rich white men has been in place in this country since before the American Revolution. Think not? Then take a look at the letters Abigail Adams sent her husband, John at the birth of the United States.

So how about it Rush? If you are really angry about preference then let's get rid of all the programs that favor one group over another. How about you call up Dubya next week and suggest he give back his Yale and Harvard diplomas, as he didn't actually earn them on merit. Perhaps he could apply again to say, West Texas State, or maybe UTEP, if his SATs are good enough. Nah, it would take a new stroll down the Oxycontin highway for you to muster that kind of courage, better to stick with bashing gays, blacks and Latinas!

Random Thoughts for May 28

The Great Budget Fix

Yesterday our fearless state leader, the Governator, announced some severe budget cuts in order to head off state bankruptcy. And with the courage of so many of our elected political leaders decided to eliminate most of the health care programs for children and the poor in our state. While top state administrators will enjoy gravy-laden retirement benefits on the state dole, (some in excess of $20,000 per month), California is on the verge of becoming a Dickens-like environment for the have-nots.

Of course, this is a shrewd political move, as people in poverty seldom vote, make no campaign contributions, and have no expensive lobbying organization in Sacramento to represent their needs. But hey, as long as cash remains the mother's milk of state politics (long past Assembly Speaker Jesse "Big Daddy" Unruh's favorite phrase), then those least responsible for our budgetary crisis will bear the heaviest burden in its repair. Someone once said that the true measure of a civilization is not in its grandiose accomplishments, but rather in the way it treats its most vulnerable citizens. If that is the case we should rank somewhere between Czarist Russia and Pol Pot's Cambodia!

A Rock and a Hard Place

Leave it to President Obama to find a way to further marginalize the Republican Party, by nominating Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the vacancy on the US Supreme Court. Not only does she bring more judicial experience to the job than did any of the current Supreme Court justices(before their appointments), but she is the first Hispanic so honored in American history(hey, wasn't Benjamin Cardozo's dad from Spain? I guess under the rules of contemporary Ameri-speak the term "Hispanic" does not mean of Spanish descent, but rather of Latin-American). So now the Flat Earth Party has a very fine line to walk. Any vigorous attacks on Judge Sotomayor, like that stoned pinhead, Rush Limbaugh, threw out yesterday, and the fastest growing ethnic group in the US will move even faster into the welcoming arms of the Democrats. Viva Rush! But hey, maybe their ultimate strategy of right-winged purification is to dig a moat around the Old Confederacy and launch a new assault on Fort Sumter. That might explain the record number of guns being sold since the 2008 national elections.

In my opinion we do not need to find another Lincoln this time. I suggest we let them go their merry way. Think of all we stand to gain: Social Security and Medicare solvent forever, our international education rankings soar, no more problems with hurricane and tornado relief, George W Bush and all televangelists no longer are American citizens, tobacco products stopped at the new border, the KKK a foreign terrorist organization, and on and on (feel free to add a few of your own). Unfortunately we will have to scale back our expectations of college football. Without the SEC and the ACC, football's TV ratings may slip to the level of soccer and professional bowling. Then the only major university to be under constant investigation for cheating will be USC.

Huh?

So let me get this straight (oops, bad choice of words), the California Supreme Court decided that it was perfectly reasonable for the electorate to vote away civil rights for same sex couples in a state-wide initiative. Then, these bastions of the third branch said that all gay marriages previously legal were still protected. Thus, for one class of citizens, there are now two classes of civil rights in California. Yeah, that makes sense!

I am not a lawyer, but I do teach American Government and I do have a passing knowledge of the US Constitution. Maybe I am wrong, but I thought that state judges, like federal judges were required to swear (or affirm) an oath that binds them "to support this Constitution" (see Article VI of above mentioned document). Further, I could swear that there was language in the 14th Amendment (same document) that mandated "no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Maybe they don't teach Constitutional law in law school anymore. No, that can't be right, because I believe our newly-elected president used to teach that very course at the University of Chicago Law School. Well then, maybe none of our state judges attended law school. After all we have a governor whose last course in Civics was in a country whose president spent some time in a Nazi SS unit. That might explain this bizarre behavior, but just a year ago, this same august body declared that marriage was indeed a civil right that could not be limited based on sexual preference, so what gives?

As with so much in government the answer can found in a document written over 200 years ago.

At the insistence of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, the Framers of our national Constitution created an independent national judiciary. They knew that there were real dangers in establishing democratic governance, especially in the area of protecting individual liberties and rights. Madison called it the wrath of the majority. For those of you not familiar with the Federalist Papers, see The Lord of the Flies and you will get the picture. As Socrates discovered in that other experiment in democracy, the will of the majority is no guarantee against tyranny. I wonder what hemlock tastes like?

And to make sure that our judges would be exempt from majoritarian whim, the Framers granted them almost total insulation from the political process. They do have to be appointed by a president and confirmed by the Senate, but once in office only criminal behavior can be grounds for their removal. Unlike elected politicians, who take a poll before they use the bathroom, federal judges are free to protect the rights of even the most reviled minority among us. And what a job they have done. Long before politicians got on board, the federal courts were extending civil rights and liberties to racial and ethnic minorities. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed ten full years after the United States Supreme Court abolished racially segregated schools.

So what is up with the California version of that august body? Well, in our state, we do not absolutely guarantee judicial freedom. Many of our judges are elected to office and are subject to voter recall. Thus, every branch of government in the Golden State is responsive first and foremost to majoritarian politics. Ever read our state constitution? It has been revised so many times by the initiative and referendum process that no one ever refers to it with the awe and reverence reserved for its national parent. Don't think that civil right should apply to a certain minority? Easy, just vote it away!

One can only wonder what Thomas Jefferson might have thought about this process while penning the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. . . " Hmmm, there must be a footnote somewhere exempting California from this.