Obama Up, Clinton Down

Things certainly are in flux in the presidential races of both parties.  The rise of Mike Huckabee among the Republicans has been well covered.  Now the story is the rise of Barack Obama, or, perhaps more accurately, the sinking of Hillary Clinton.  Peggy Noonan puts it well:

This thought occurs that Hillary Clinton's entire campaign is, and always was, a Potemkin village, a giant head fake, a haughty facade hollow at the core. That she is disorganized on the ground in Iowa, taken aback by a challenge to her invincibility, that she doesn't actually have an A team, that her advisers have always been chosen more for proven loyalty than talent, that her supporters don't feel deep affection for her. That she's scrambling chaotically to catch up, with surrogates saying scuzzy things about Barack Obama and drug use, and her following up with apologies that will, as always, keep the story alive. That her guru-pollster, the almost universally disliked Mark Penn, has, according to Newsday, become the focus of charges that he has "mistakenly run Clinton as a de facto incumbent" and that the top officials on the campaign have never had a real understanding of Iowa.

As Noonan goes on to say, the Clinton team looked on this contest less as a campaign than a coronation.  I still think Clinton is the favorite, but her weaknesses have been revealed.  And more revealingly, they have been exposed by herself as much as by her opponents.  Take the story surrounding her campaign's lame discussion about Obama's kindergarten essays or the recent one about Obama's past drug use. There is an air of meanness and desperation in these attacks.  In the recent case involving drugs one sees a typical Clinton ploy: get your surrogate to poison the well with by talking about Obama's checkered past and then attempt to take the high ground by saying, "Hey, it wasn't me, it was just this campaign lackey."  Add these campaign tactics with the Clinton record of ethical lapses, and one gets a picture of someone who perhaps should not be trusted with power. 

It is a shame that the grown-ups in the Democratic race, namely Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, appear to be going no where as candidates.  Perhaps the Democratic voters should give them a second look just as they are now giving Sen. Clinton a second not-so-favorable look.

Here is the video of the moment Andrew Sullivan calls "One of those split-second responses in which political authority is passed from one person to another." 

What Is The Bias

The other day I posted on a Robert Maranto column in the Washington Post about the bias against conservatives in academia.  The Post now prints a rebuttal by political scientist Eric Uslaner.  His argument can be summed up thusly: conservatives don't go into academia because they are more concerned about making money and even though there is an overwhelming bias toward the Left in academia, Uslaner hasn't seen any outright bias. 

Patrick Deneen pretty much has the goods on Uslaner.  Uslaner complains that Maranto can provide no scientific evidence that liberal domination of the academy leads to bias, yet Uslaner's own evidence against such bias is all anecdotal.  I don't know how one would go about scientifically proving such bias, but one can do a scientific thought experiment.  Uslaner is certainly correct that most academics do not bring their biases into the classroom.  But a certain percentage do, let's say 10% (a number that I suspect is low in some disciplines).  That still means that liberal bias will far outnumber conservative bias due to the fact that left-of-center political views are dominant in academia.  A conservative student is likely to find a class or two (at least) where he or she is made to feel unwelcome.    Maybe conservatives trend toward business degrees because, due to the nature of the subject, that is a place where they are less likely to feel unwelcome.  Further, Uslaner would have to admit that there are entire disciplines (such as ethnic studies, gender studies, peace studies) that are based on ideological assumptions unfriendly to conservative points of view. 

While the above discussion will be of more interest to the typical reader, but as I find arguments over liberal bias in the academy tiresome, I find Deneen's larger point more penetrating and thought provoking as it gets to the nature of the university.  Here, I think, is his point:

The dominance of a liberal - or better put, progressive - worldview among university faculty has more to do with the transformation of the University from a conservative institution to an "agent of progressive change" in our culture. Universities until relatively recently were conservative or better put "conservators," particularly inasmuch as they were charged with transmitting knowledge and collective wisdom of the past to future generations. Universities were the repositories of the past and conveyors of tradition to the future. More often than not colleges and universities were religious institutions and its professors were just that - men and women who professed faith to the young. If there were sophisticated surveys that measured worldviews and dispositions (and not mere party affiliation, since then - as is often the case now - Republicans were apt to be the more progressive of the two parties), one would find that faculty at most colleges and universities even just a few decades ago would likely have been "conservative" as a matter of disposition, valuing above all the transmission of knowledge and liberal learning among their charges. The contemporary agendas of "research," "originality," and "problem-solving" were not a part of the college agenda.

This is similar (but not the same) to the explanation some give for the preponderance of progressive views among journalists (more prevalent the larger the media institution).  Journalism in the late 20th Century began to see its mission as reporting on problems/injustices and then proposing solutions.  Journalism became a progressive enterprise, an agent of social change.  The university now sees itself as an engine of change rather an institution that passes on a heritage (see Deneen's discussion of "post-everything" in English departments, for example). 

Interestingly, many, if not most, of conservatives I am aware of in academia are drawn to small liberal arts and/or teaching centered schools.  There one can actually focus on teaching undergraduates rather than producing new research.  Readers may be surprised at how little teaching goes on at bigger schools, such as the Big Ten schools.  I recall the contempt for undergraduate teaching expressed by the graduate students at a Big Ten university where a friend of mine got his PhD. This lends credence to Deneen's argument that the places that grant PhD's are especially antagonistic to those with conservative dispositions (if not conservative politics). 

I have argued before that as an undergraduate one is more likely (although not certain) to get a better education at a smaller teaching centered school than a large research university, although each serves a purpose.  Deneen's argument provides more evidence for that argument. 

Some Inconvenient Statistics On Climate Policy

Al Gore has taken his Power Point show on the road and is now criticizing the U.S. for standing in the way of progress. 

In a 48-minute speech, Gore urged the delegates to "go far, quickly" in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, saying they should forge ahead with a consensus statement and leave "a large open space in your document" to allow a future U.S. president to work more aggressively to curb global warming.

"My country's been responsible for obstructing the process here in Bali, we know that," he said to a crowd that overflowed the hall, forcing some people to sit on the floor. "Over the next two years, the United States is going to be somewhere where it is not now. You must anticipate that."

It is a rather striking thing for a former Vice President to urge other nations to ignore the current U.S. Administration and just wait for the next one.  But given Gore's obvious belief in this cause, I suppose he has to do what he has to do. 

But it is also striking to compare the record of nations that ratified the last global treaty on climate change, the Kyoto Protocols, with that of the U.S.   Here from Randall Hoven at American Thinker is the comparison (ht to Powerline):

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998.  A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.

• Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
• Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
• Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
• Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto.

So the percentage increase in carbon emissions in the U.S. was a third of that of the rest of the world, and closer to a quarter of the average increase among nations that signed the Kyoto treaty.  President Clinton signed the Kyoto Treaty, but never submitted it to the Senate. The Senate voted on it anyway, in 1997, and by a 95-0 vote rejected any treaty like Kyoto that did not include major players such as China and India.  Nonetheless, the U.S. has a better record on controlling its own carbon emissions than three quarters of those nations that did sign the treaty.  It is characteristic of international politics that actual outcomes are considered less important that pious statements of intention. 

The world is almost certainly warming.  That human industry plays an important role is likely, but far less certain.  The really inconvenient truth is that it is impossible to stop the growth in world greenhouse emissions without bringing global economic growth to a halt, especially in the rising economies in the East.  It looks like China has now passed the U.S. as the single largest contributer to such emissions, and China is just getting going.  A reduction in the growth of future emissions may be possible, and perhaps that is something to be worked for.  Stopping the growth of green house emissions, let alone reducing global emissions, is just not going to happen in any reasonable time frame.

A rational and honest policy would face these facts, and would include planning for the future in light of those facts.  Bear in mind that the low growth of greenhouse emissions in the U.S. coincided with a remarkable period of economic growth under President's Clinton and Bush.  This had a lot to do with the increased productivity in American industry. The only way out of the problems created by technology is through better technology, shared around the globe through trade.  And honest and rational policy would take that into account as well.  Don't expect anyone to win the Noble Prize by proposing such a policy.   

Mitchell Report

The Mitchell Report on performance enhancing drugs in Major League Baseball has been released.  View it here (pdf alert).  Some names that fans will find familiar:
Barry Bonds
Gary Sheffield
Andy Pettite
Roger Clemens
Rondell White
Chuck Knoblauch
David Justice
Mo Vaughn
Denny Neagle
Miguel Tejada
Mike Stanton
Paul Lo Duca
Kevin Brown
Eric Gagne
Jason Giambi

There are other names of players you have heard of and some you haven't.  What is clear from a quick scan of the report is that steroids were rampant in baseball as of about five years ago.

Update: Here's a complete list of players named in the report.

Children and The Boob Tube

Megan Cox Gurdon ponders some new evidence about the effect of television on young children.  Those effects are mixed, although she does conclude:

But over and over, Ms. Guernsey's findings point away from the beneficence of the screen and toward the irreplaceable value of loving and engaged contact between parents and children--and between children and their own imaginations. "It is play, plain and simple play, that affords many of the most essential intellectual and social advantages for children," Ms. Guernsey says, quoting from a book called "Einstein Never Used Flashcards." At another point she writes: "Video exposure is no match for the stimulation children experience in real life. Scientists have so far come up with nothing to suggest that babies are better off watching a baby video than, say, watching Dad fold laundry."

Ms. Guernsey is tolerant and circumspect about what she has found. I don't have to be. If you have small children at home, please turn off that wretched TV.

The defense of our increasingly visual culture is that we are becoming wiser in our use and interpretation of imagery.  A colleague of mine who teaches a class on pop culture and advertising tells me that our students are very sophisticated interpreters of visual stimuli.  So it might be that we are trading one sort of literacy for another.  Thus it may not be a problem, it could be argued, that each generation's vocabulary is decreasing and the ability to communicate in the written and spoken word is on the decline.  This is no worry unless the ability to speak and write is essential to being a fully rational human being. 

College Costs

The Wall Street Journal takes our elite colleges and universities to task for the high price of attendance coupled with their enormous endowments. 

While private foundations have been required for decades to shell out 5% of their total assets annually, universities decide for themselves and average close to 4%. The difference may seem small, but the money at stake is very large. Harvard's endowment is $35 billion, and growing, with implications that Fay Vincent illuminates nearby. Mr. Grassley wants to know why rich schools don't spend more of their money to reduce ballooning tuition. (snip)

Ironically, these government handouts are creating the tuition problem. Tuition has risen about three percentage points faster than inflation every year for the past quarter-century. At the same time, the feds have put more and more money behind student loans and other financial aid. The government is slowly becoming a third-party tuition payer, with all the price distortions one would expect. Every time tuition rises, the government makes up the difference; colleges thus cheerfully raise tuition (and budgets), knowing the government will step in.

As a result, "colleges have little incentive to cut costs," says economist Richard Vedder, the author of "Going Broke by Degree: Why College Costs Too Much." Mr. Vedder explains that there are now twice as many university administrators per student as there were in the 1970s. Faculty members are paid more to teach fewer hours, and colleges have turned their campuses into "country clubs." Princeton's new $136 million dorm, according to BusinessWeek, has "triple-glazed mahogany casement windows made of leaded glass" and "the dining hall boasts a 35-foot ceiling gabled in oak and a 'state of the art servery,' " whatever a servery is.

One should note that the trends at these elite universities (and the same is true at the major public research institutions) have avoided our state.  One thing you cannot say about our universities is that they have more money than they know what to do with.   This report also shows the shortsightedness of our federal representatives who call for more and more spending on higher education without looking at how the colleges and universities spend their money. 

The Gov Takes Another Flight

Gov. Mike Rounds is in Iraq. He reports that soldiers are telling him that the level of violence is down.

Gov. Mike Rounds visited South Dakota troops in Iraq on Wednesday and talked with soldiers who he said are optimistic that the level of violence is decreasing. (snip)

''It has changed over the last few months, according to them,'' Rounds said from Camp Arifjan in Kuwait during telephone a conference call Wednesday. ''They've indicated to us that the violence is down. They're not getting shot at near as much as what they used to be.''

"They're not getting shot at near as much as what they used to be."  If only we could say that here in the US. 

Internet Films

I understand the latest edition of the Jackass movies is only being released online.  Perhaps this is an installment (hat tip to reader Gary, and yes this is Alan Keyes giving us his opinion on global warming, sort of):

So You Don't Have To

I watched the Republican debate this afternoon.  I have had invasive body exams that were more fun.  The analysis seems to agree that this was a boring debate dominated by a dreadful moderator who Fred Barnes on Fox compared to Nurse Ratchet.  The only really interesting moment was Fred Thompson refusing to raise his hand in answer to, "Do you think there is global warming caused by humans?"  His point was that he was not going to raise his hand without being able to actually explain his answer, which the moderator told him he would not be able to do.  Good for Thompson. Then, after Alan Keyes addressed the global warming issue by talking about how unfair it is that he hasn't been invited to the other debates, Thompson quipped, "I agree with Alan Keyes on global warming."  And whoever it was at the Des Moines Register who thought inviting Alan Keyes was a good idea ought to be fired.  An otherwise entirely uninteresting debate.

Update: I think Jim Geraghty at NRO pretty much as it right, down to the absurdity of the Des Moines Register inviting the irrelevant Alan Keyes to the GOP debate while refusing to invite Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich to the Democrat debate tomorrow. 

Update II:  Jay Reding has the Thompson video:

South Dakota Development

A couple possible government initiatives might bring economic development to South Dakota.  First, there is possibility of building a four-lane highway from Aberdeen to Mobridge.  This obviously would make commerce between the two cities much easier.  This would also mean a four-lane highway from Interstate 29 to the Missouri River on US Highway 12. 

If one reads this story on the farm bill (which, btw, is going nowhere), one gets this nugget. 

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., indicated Tuesday that an expanded renewable fuels mandate for gasoline production would be part of the farm bill. A similar provision is included in stalled energy legislation, and supporters want to include the language in the farm bill in case the energy bill doesn't pass.

The amendment, sponsored by Republican Sens. Pete Domenici of New Mexico and John Thune of South Dakota, would require 36 billion gallons of biofuels be blended with gasoline by 2022.

Energy News

The Wall Street Journal reports on the latest shenanigans regarding the Energy Bill.

Risking the possibility of a White House veto, Senate Democrats try again tomorrow to pass an energy bill that includes some provisions President Bush has said he won't accept. (snip)

The bill removes a section requiring utilities to make 15% of their electricity from "renewable" sources, such as wind and solar power, but leaves in other items Mr. Bush opposes.

Before going to the president, the measure would have to be approved by the House, which has taken a more pro-environment stance than the Senate. President Bush then would consider whether the bill's main actions, broadening a mandate to require more ethanol and "advanced biofuels" and a historic tightening of fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles, should be signed into law. (snip)

The White House yesterday reiterated its opposition to the tax package, which would raise money by removing tax incentives that Congress had previously given oil companies.

SDSU economist George Langelett had this op-ed recently in the American News arguing that removing government regulations and keeping taxes low is the best way to keep supply up and price down. 

Is Congress trying to increase or decrease the supply of oil? Increasing the supply of oil to meet growing world demand will lower gasoline prices. Additional taxes on petroleum profits are a disincentive to produce oil and to invest in new technologies to convert oil shale in the Rocky Mountains or oil sands in Alberta into gasoline. These new taxes will lead to higher prices for consumers at the pump.

History has shown that attempts by the federal government to tax and regulate our way to more plentiful and secure energy have failed miserably. In 1980 Congress instituted a "windfall'' profit tax to punish the oil industry. The result, according to a congressional study, was a 3 percent to 6 percent drop in domestic petroleum production and an 8 percent to 16 percent increase in oil imports.

The economic reality of U.S. energy demand is that America needs both oil and alternative fuels. A University of Minnesota study found that if every bushel of corn grown in the United States were converted into ethanol, the resulting ethanol would only replace 12 percent of American's gasoline consumption.

Finally, endorsing congressional taxation of industry profits can be a slippery slope. What might be the next industry for Congress to target for additional taxes on profits? As corn goes to $4 per bushel, agriculture may become a lucrative target for additional federal taxes.

Update: Read Mac Owens on the same subject. 

How Far We've Come

Todd ponders the role of celebrities in politics.  Glen Reynolds links to the answer, entitled "Decline of the West":

Update: Dennis Prager spends a little time discussing Oprah Winfrey at an Obama rally.  Go to hour two of December 11, 2007.  Needless to say, Oprah perhaps should stick to her TV show. 

SDP Jazz Note: 10 Best CDs for Christmas

This may come too late for use, as the Post Office has largely congealed already.  But here is my 10 best list of jazz discs.  Bear in mind that I think Jazz is the heart of music, that 50's bop is the heart of jazz, and that Miles Davis is the heart of it all. 

1.  Miles Davis, Kind of Blue. This is the best selling jazz album, and in this case it really  deserves the honor. 

2.  John Coltrane, A Love Supreme.  I argued against Mr. Heppler's view that this was number two, on the grounds that it is very atypical in structure.  But it is magnificent jazz, and clearly is the 2nd most influential disc. 

3.  Miles Davis Quintet, Cookin'.   Davis' first great quintet, with Trane and the incomparable rhythm section of Red Garland on piano, Paul Chambers on bass, and Philly Joe Jones on drums, it doesn't get better than this.  But Cookin' is one of four albums that present the work of the Quintet on tour.  Any one of them, Workin', Relaxin', or Steamin', would be a great stocking stuffer. 

4.  Wayne Shorter, Speak No Evil.  Shorter would replace Trane in the second great Davis Quintet.  Wayne Shorter was one of the great player/composers of modern jazz.  He is my personal jazz hero.  If you or your Christmas friend has that album, see if they have Night Dreamers of Juju.  Shorter's compositions are spooky and penetrating.

5.  Bill Evans, Sunday at the Village Vanguard.  Cool Jazz.  Subtle.  A place where the soul can rest while the piano does its work.   

6.  Sonny Rollins, Saxophone Colossus. About as much raw power as a brass instrument can produce.  You will be humming the tunes all day. 

7.  Dexter Gordon, Our Man in Paris.  Spend a Night in Tunisia with Gordon, only you're in Paris.  It's raining.  The street is cobblestone.  Everyone is speaking French.   

8.  Cannonball Adderley, Somethin' Else.  Miles Davis as a side man.  Art Blakey on drums.  Love for Sale, at about nine bucks if you are a Barnes & Noble member. 

9.  Oliver Nelson, Blues and the Abstract Truth. Bill Evans on Piano.  Paul Chambers on bass.   Brilliant composition.   

10.  Art Pepper Meets the Rhythm Section.  See #3 for the rhythm section.  Pepper's wife dragged her husband and Garland, Chambers, and Jones together for a perfect session.  Listen, and be perfected. 

Bias & Diversity in the the Universities

My SDP colleagues Professor Schaff and Jason Heppler  have commented on liberal bias in the academy.  Anyone who has visited a many a college campus in the past three decades, as I have, knows that most of the major public and private university faculties are clearly much further to the left than are the people at large.  Surveys always support this impression.  My friend Anna at Dakota Women calls this complaining on our part.  Well, I suppose that one person's comment is another's complaining or whining.   

The problem with this bias lies not so much in its unfairness, but in the fact that it contradicts principles that persons on the left profess to believe in.  The left has frequently argued for affirmative action in university hiring and admissions on the ground that it promotes a diversity of perspectives.  This argument is the basis of Supreme Court decisions upholding deliberate discrimination by universities in favor of minorities.  I have seen for myself how well it works.  Some years ago I joined the National Association for Ethnic Studies and delivered a paper at their annual conference.  At one panel I attended, a number of persons from diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds stepped up to testify about their experiences and perspectives.  Every single one of them told exactly the same story, and expressed the same set of opinions about race, cultural, and equality. 

Much closer to home, I experienced real diversity of thought when I occupied an office just across a narrow hall from a historian, Walter King.  Walter and I were very similar in most demographic details, but when it came to a wide range of political and intellectual questions, we were miles apart.  So we argued for hours at a time.  Much the same was true of my friendship with a sociologist from Nigeria, Olu Oyinlade.  That is what happens when you have a real diversity of perspective.  The liberal bias in the modern academy largely freezes out the most interesting kind of diversity, real differences on the issues that generate the most passion.  All you have to do is look at the reaction of many academics to the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004.  They couldn't believe it would happen, because they never, ever, talked to anyone who would admit to voting Republican. 

Anna says this:

I find it interesting, the way Schaff and Heppler word their complaints about the lack of conservatives in academia - Heppler criticizes "the more personal aspect of ideological bias -- the assumption that all the strangers in the room are liberals." Has it ever occurred to either of them, I wonder, that women feel the same way? People of color? GLBT people? People with disabilities? Why is it that only political conservatives ought to be better represented?

I know of no one who says the latter.  It looks to me like a straw man fallacy.  But the question is not how people feel, but what selection processes are in fact at work in the academy.  Women, persons of color, GLBT persons, and persons with disabilities, all get extra points when applying for admission or for a position.  That is a simple and very consequential fact.  Persons who think that the war in Iraq was the right policy or who believe that affirmative action is bad for minorities would do well to keep their politics a secret, at least until they have been granted tenure.  That is also a fact.

When I came to Northern, the historians and sociologists were, for the most part, liberal to socialist in their leanings.  They were nonetheless eager to welcome me, as a conservative, into the department.  They were scrupulously respectful of and even delighted by honest disagreements.  I learned much from our conversations, and perhaps they profited as well.  The contemporary academy has not taken that as a model.  I humbly submit that this amounts to a decline. 

Lauck Book Signing in Mitchell Saturday

Jon Lauck will be at the McGovern Center on the campus of Dakota Wesleyan University in Mitchell from 10 am to 1 pm this Saturday (December 15) signing copies of his book, Daschle Vs. Thune: Anatomy of a High Plains Senate Race.  If you're in the area, be sure to stop by.

The Idea Of The University

Jason has already linked to this column from the Washington Post by one Robert Maranto discussing life as a moderate Republican in academia.  There is much here to chew on, but take a look at this part:

At a Harvard symposium in October, former Harvard president and Clinton Treasury secretary Larry Summers argued that among liberal arts and social science professors at elite graduate universities, Republicans are "the third group," far behind Democrats and even Ralph Nader supporters. Summers mused that in Washington he was "the right half of the left," while at Harvard he found himself "on the right half of the right."

I know how he feels. I spent four years in the 1990s working at the centrist Brookings Institution and for the Clinton administration and felt right at home ideologically. Yet during much of my two decades in academia, I've been on the "far right" as one who thinks that welfare reform helped the poor, that the United States was right to fight and win the Cold War, and that environmental regulations should be balanced against property rights.

All these views -- commonplace in American society and among the political class -- are practically verboten in much of academia.

This gives one a fairly accurate picture of life on many (not all) college campuses today.  The faculty is monolithically on the left, on the far left in some disciplines, and that makes anyone who is moderate to conservative seem outlandish.  Thus a Democrat in good standing like Lawrence Summers, who was in the Clinton administration, becomes a "conservative" because he is a man of moderate politics. 

Law professor Tom Smith reacts to Maranto's piece by speculating why the academy is so far left.  He suggests that universities, with their unthinking, unexamined leftism, have become intellectually boring. Thus bright conservative students not only feel unwelcome in a pervasively liberal atmosphere but also are not intellectually stimulated by professors who relate left-wing tropes as if they are deep thoughts.  For example, see Patrick Deneen's insightful discussion of the lazy "diversity" on campuses, a diversity which asks us to exaggerate our differences to the end of ignoring them.  Not surprisingly this project fails, which leads to calls for ever more "diversity." This faux diversity, Deneen notes, may even work against actual intellectual diversity. 

Deneen offers an explanation for the political/intellectual trends on campus.  It's long, but worth reading.  I have highlighted what I take to be the key phrases.

Maranto notes that people have a tendency to want to surround themselves with people who think like themselves, but he doesn't tell us how we reached a point we are now at. For that we would need a deeper analysis of the modern liberal project and especially the transformation of the idea of a university from a place in which certain kinds of knowledge was transmitted from one generation to the next, to one in which the university came to be an agent of human progress and advancement. We would further need better understanding of what this transformation does to the humanities - those very disciplines that were the conservators and transmittors of ancient learning, and which become superfluous in the new university. Left without a mission or an identity, their only recourse is to demonstrate their hostility to the very thing that they are supposed to teach: and hence, they become critics of past thinkers, of past ideas, and even of books. Each person is charged with making themselves anew, and no limits or ideas of what constitutes human good (or a good life in concert with natural limits and possibilities) can be posited or even intimated. Thoroughgoing human autonomy is the object and aim of the transformed university - and thus, the humanities become the intellectual handmaidens to the modern sciences and their quest to extend human mastery of the world.   

Bear Butte Buffer Zone II

The vote here at Keloland so far stands at four to one in favor of the Governor's proposal to create a commercial-free buffer zone around Bear Butte.  Pat Powers objects on the grounds that it is not the business of government to "limit property rights for religious reasons."  I reply that the religious motives of one of the parties shouldn't matter, so long as the State has a secular motive.  Promoting freedom or even ease of religious practice on the part of a minority is not itself a religious motive. 

Professor Schaff is less certain than I that the Court will agree.  I emphatically agree that the Court's establishment clause jurisprudence is a chaotic mess, and there is no decision so bad that the Court might not arrive at it.  The Court has generally upheld state expenditures if 1) a religious interest is only one of the beneficiaries, and/or 2) the expenditure is necessary for the safety of someone involved.  Thus fire protection covers both the church and the adult bookstore, and if a extra policeman must be hired to direct traffic in front of a Catholic elementary school, that's okay.  Neither would cover the Bear Butte proposal.  However:

Todd Epp points out that the State can argue for the cultural and historical significance of Bear Butte. Since the religious group in question is not Christian or Jewish, I think the Court would be trying to find a way to let this pass; Epp's brief provides a more than adequate secular purpose.

Professor David Newquist argues that the establishment clause is not involved, since the Sioux Nations have the rights to all of West River by the 1868 treaty.  He is certainly right that conceding that point would render moot any establishment clause objection against the State.  But I submit that the State is very unlikely to concede it, and if such a concession is part of the Governor's bill you can kiss the money goodbye. Nor is it likely that the treaty will figure into a case if one arises in the Courts.  However we might resolve this issue, I doubt that the 1868 treaty will be of much help.   

Get A Church

Speaking of religion, here's former minister Mike Huckabee:

"I didn't get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives."

So he left the ministry for politics so he could bring people to Christ?  Someone is traveling in the wrong direction. 

Keep Your Bear Butte Covered

Pat Powers has legal objections to the governor's prosed "buffer zone" around Bear Butte.  I file a concurring opinion to my colleague's post. I have no doubt this action should pass Constitutional muster, but I am not as sure as my colleague that it would get a pass as I put nothing past the Supreme Court when it comes to Establishment Clause jurisprudence. 

Like Lawyer Epp, I think the state stands on firmer ground arguing this is being done for historic and cultural reasons, not for reasons having to do with sacred ground. There is precedent for zoning "buffer zones" around places such as churches, but not specifically around churches or a particular church.  Todd's St. Joseph's Cathedral example would run into problems with the "secular purpose" prong of the Lemon Test (granted, it isn't clear these days what the Court thinks of the Lemon Test). The purpose of the law cannot be to benefit a church (or a sacred site).  There must be secular reasons for the law.  Similarly, in the Kiryas Joel case New York State tried to carve a school district out of a community made up mostly of Satmar Hasidic Jews.  The Court struck down the law on Establishment grounds.  This was too much "accommodation" for one specific religious group.

Mr. Powers is correct to point to the Blaine Amendment language in the South Dakota Constitution that prohibits any public dollars going to religious societies or institutions. This project may run more afoul with the South Dakota Constitution than the First Amendment of our national Constitution.  Perhaps just one more reason to repeal the Blaine Amendment. 

Tortured Definitions

Some prone to castigating the Bush administration for the use of water-boarding knew of the policy in 2002 and raised no objections, according to the Washington Post.  Among those was current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. 

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement." (snip)

"In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.' "

The use of this technique has since spawned much agitation on the part of some (including my preferred presidential candidate, John McCain), who accuse the Bush administration of advocating torture.  Of course this is classic question begging (oh no, more logical fallacies!).  Many who call water-boarding torture do so without defining torture and explaining why water-boarding should be included.  This is question begging as it takes something as a given that actually needs to be proven by argument. 

Water-boarding clearly puts the interrogated under severe psychological stress, yet it does not cause any actual physical injury.  So is it torture?  According the United Nations Convention Against Torture, torture is, "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, , is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession...."  This being the case, water-boarding seems to fit the definition and should not be used by civilized peoples. 

But one must be clear.  According to ABC, the US only used this technique three times, and it has been banned by both the military and the CIA.

For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director. 

Officials told ABC News on Sept. 14 that the controversial interrogation technique, in which a suspect has water poured over his mouth and nose to stimulate a drowning reflex as shown in the above demonstration, had been banned by the CIA director at the recommendation of his deputy, Steve Kappes.

While the United States has used to practice only three times, it should not use it at all.   

A Final Note on Logical Fallacies

My esteemed colleague Emeritus Professor David Newquist and I have been at it over the definitions of logical fallacies.  He begins his latest post with this:

I wish Professor Blanchard would stop reading the Northern Valley Beacon...

I can easily see why!  In this latest post he provides a lengthy discourse on the one logical fallacy (out of four) that he didn't get dead wrong. Informal fallacies are defined with some precision in the field of logic.   Academic philosophers may disagree as to whether any particular argument commits a given fallacy, but they are in nearly complete agreement as to the definitions of each fallacy. Professor Newquist carelessly made up his own definitions in order to tar his opponents, and I pointed out that they were way off the mark.  No wonder he wants me to stop reading his blog. 

My colleague appeals to his own authority:

Prof.  Blanchard assumes a prodigious responsibility when he calls into question more than 55 years of the study (including a doctorate), the practice, and teaching of rhetoric. However, the point is that there are more appropriate and effective venues to resolve such accusations than on Internet blogs. 

In academic disputes, personal authority carries no weight.  If someone says that the moon is made of green cheese, or that Mars is a comet, it doesn't matter how long he has taught astronomy or what degrees he has earned.  Professor Newquist provided definitions for the straw man, bifurcation, and equivocation fallacies that were just plain wrong.  Both his sources and mine confirm this.  It is a good thing that, for 55 years of study and teaching, he wasn't working in the field of logic.  Otherwise he would have reason to be embarrassed.   

Bear Butte Buffer Zone and the First Amendment

My Keloland Colleague Pat Powers blogs on Governor Round's proposal to create a buffer zone around Bear Butte, in Western South Dakota.  The buffer zone is intended to protect that site, sacred to Native Americans, from commercial development.  This would require considerable public funds.  From the Rapid City Weekly News:

Rounds wants to blend $250,000 in state funds with $900,000 in federal and private dollars to obtain the easements.

Pat raises some very legitimate questions about public financing for this purpose. 

I think I’m a bit confused as to how it is the place of government to create a buffer zone limiting the property rights for religious reasons. Certainly I have no problem with property owners if they decide to agree to it. But it’s the source of the funds that make me squirm a little. Given that the funds are being proposed to protect “a sacred site,” it seems uncomfortably close to standing in opposition to the First Amendment.

There are two uses of government powers here that are in question: the power to spend for certain purposes, and the power to force land owners to give up some of their rights for those same purposes.  In this case the purpose is to protect the use of the site for religious reasons.  I agree with Pat that both of these exercise of public powers raise establishment clause questions. 

The Establishment Clause, with which the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution begins, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." It clearly prohibits Congress and, under Court precedent, the States,  from establishing National or State Churches, or from spending public money for the advancement of religion. It also prevents governments from endorsing religion, though that is a twentieth century innovation by the Courts and would not have been accepted by the Founders.   

I can easily imagine that one of the land owners affected by this policy might challenge it on establishment clause grounds.  However, I expect the Courts would uphold the policy, and I think that they should do so.  It is very difficult to imagine that Governor Round's policy amounts to an endorsement of Native American religion.  The protection of Bear Butte can be justified on two grounds: it enables a minority of our state citizens to freely practice the religion of their choice, and it preserves a site of considerable historical value.  Both grounds are neutral with regard to the First Amendment. 

A cynical observer might wonder whether this is really about religion at all, and not about the control of land by an organized minority interest in a state where the latter is a constant issue.  But if so, that is a matter of ordinary politics.  A more relevant question is whether the Courts would allow the State to erect a similar buffer zone around the St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church in Hoven.  I am guessing that that would be a harder sell, because a Federal Court would be more likely to view it as an endorsement of religion.  But it would be the same principle and ought to be decided the same way.

It is clear that the State of South Dakota is not required to protect Bear Butte either by the free exercise clause or by anything else in the Constitution.  That clause should not grant religious groups special powers or immunities (see Oregon v. Smith).  It is just a nice thing to do.  Christians interested in establishment clause questions should endorse the Governor's proposal.  It creates a precedent that they might find useful in the future. 

More Diversity Problems for the University of Iowa

Yesterday's Iowa City Press Citizen provided a political snapshot of the University of Iowa.  The university has come under scrutiny after it was learned that history professor and author of Triumph Forsaken, Mark Moyar, was denied a faculty position due to ideological discrimination.  Here are few highlights:

1) Out of the 1,775 UI faculty registered to vote in Johnson County, 1,173 register Democrat (66.1 percent), 397 have no party affiliation (22.4 percent), and 205 are registered Republicans (11.5 percent)
2) According to the article, there are twenty-one departments with at least ten registered faculty voters with one or fewer Republicans, including the College of Law, teaching and learning and the School of Journalism and Mass Communication.
3) There are seven departments with at least ten registered faculty voters with zero registered Republicans, including history, anthropology, and religious studies.
4)  Political science Professor Tim Hagle remarked:  "I think people that get hurt most are the students. They are not getting a balanced view. They get out of college and realize they didn't hear about this or that argument. Or, if students come in with conservative views and the professor shoots down their ideas."
5) History Professor Sarah Hanley, an active participant in various 1960s movements, said she doesn't think the department is biased: 

"I have great faith in the integrity of faculty members to not put political views on students," she said. "I just had a Western civilization class where I could have hammered away on politics, but I didn't. In the history department, you don't talk about politics," Hanley said.

Hanley thinks the UI campus numbers are skewed because Johnson County is heavily Democratic, she said. To participate politically here, you have to be a Democrat, she said, noting that most local public officials are Democrats.

Regardless, she doesn't think it is a bad thing for campuses to lean heavily toward one political party.

I would wonder if Professor Hanley would feel the same way if the history department at Iowa was made up of twenty-one Republicans and zero Democrats.  Therein lies the problem: the lack of exposure to various ideas means students are introduced to narrow sets of arguments and interpretations.  Why do cultural studies seminars lists works from Michael Focault, Michael Hardt, and Antonio Negri but rarely mention Friedrick A. von Hayek or Francis Fukuyama, who have made their imprints felt on world affairs?  Or others from the conservative intelligentsia like Russell Kirk, Leo Strauss, or Thomas Sowell?  There's also the more personal aspect of ideological bias -- the assumption that all the strangers in the room are liberals.  The result is conservatives who feel marginalized in academia.

Also, see this Washington Post editorial by political science Professor Robert Maranto entitled "As a Republican, I'm on the Fringe."