Minority Politics in a Majority State

The perils of an ethnographically driven democracy are numerous and obvious, as shown in the recent nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic American to be placed on the Supreme Court. While I personally couldn't be more thankful for the nomination of the third woman to the Supreme Court, as well as I revel in the fact that she is from the Bronx, I can't help but think that this progress was still limited by Obama's fears of total cultural domination. What do I mean by this? Well, to put it simply, the Obama administration is constantly on the fringe of playing privy to race politics. Why are race politics less acceptable under a black president (the first, of course) in comparison to their acceptability under the 200 years of white presidents? Good question.

As the New York Times reported this morning, there are many politicians struggling to understand Sotomayor's intentions as Supreme Court Justice. Naturally, the Justice selection process often leads to intense scrutiny, but with the selection of Barack Obama was president, this scrutiny becomes much more, well, suspicious.

“The American ideal is that justice should be colorblind,” said Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “As we see people like Barack Obama achieve the highest office in the land and Judge Sotomayor’s own nomination to the highest court, I think it is harder and harder to see the justifications for race-conscious decisions across the board."

The notion that changed has happened, and race issues can be moved away from is pertinent to the ideal of American democracy; simultaneously, the repercussions of race politics have severely distorted the legacy of what America was meant to be. You cannot have reconstruction in race relations in 40 years (since 1964), even when everything has been done properly. It took America nearly 100 years to resolve the true issues of Reconstruction, and most of this time was spent turning deaf ears unto the needs of most Americans. Besides, what is the "proper" way to tend to race relations? Some seem to feel its ethnic purging, genocide. Are we not purging our troubles by just not listening? While there is no proper way, there certainly need to be some established strictures to make sure that all Americans are given equal societal footing.

In a related article (which nearly brought me to tears of bittersweet-ness), native Puerto Ricans discuss the importance of Sotomayor's nomination. They truly see this nomination as an opportunity to gain strength in the equalization of minorities and races. "The Americans, he said, 'nos mastican pero no nos tragan' — they chew us but they do not swallow." To go with this analogy, Sotomayor's nomination will force ingestion of such issues into the public eye.

Going back to the main notion of "cultural domination," the culture shock that Sotomayor's nomination brings to America is nothing in comparison to the reaction that would have happened if Obama had chosen an African American. Sotomayor lies in the safe region between non-white, but the even safer region of non-black. Had Obama selected a black Justice, the reaction would have been atomic: "Barack Obama is a reverse racist who is going to strike provisions of the 13th Amendment through the Supreme Court in order to enslave white Americans." Again, while this nomination is certainly pushing the envelope, there are just some things beyond its reach.

-Sabrina

Community Colleges Offering Four Year Degrees

Yesterday, the New York Times posted an article entitled "Community Colleges Challenge Hierarchy With 4-Year Degrees" by Tamar Lewin. This article addresses the growing trend of Community Colleges upgrading their programs to offer 4-year Bachelor's Degrees. At the current time, most Community Colleges serve as an inexpensive option for completing core classes to obtain an Associate's Degree. Then, students seeking a Bachelor's Degree have to travel on to more expensive 4-year colleges and universities in order to complete their undergraduate studies. However, Miami Dade College and thirteen other Florida Community Colleges are seeking to change all that. Throughout the country, seventeen other states are implementing similar programs in which students can continue their studies at their Community College to obtain a Bachelor's Degree. While critics argue that this shift is unnecessary and will "drive up costs, take resources from needy students and lead to low-quality degrees," Miami Dade’s President, Eduardo J. Padrón, argues that they are providing affordable education to the community in fields that regular universities do not want to teach. Dr. Padrón states that "Ours is a mission of rescue. The universities that handpick their students based on SATs and grades get three times the funding we do. We are the underfunded overachiever."

I think that this shift is long overdue. In a society where a Bachelor's Degree has become a requirement for employment, (even in jobs where there is no clear need for such a degree) students need an affordable option to obtain a 4-year degree. During the current financial crisis, jobs are hard enough to come by for people with degrees, but for those without them finding employment is nearly impossible. If we are going to require a Bachelor's Degree in the same manner that my parents' generation required a high school diploma, then we must make that option accessible to all citizens, not only those who can afford the ever increasing tuition at four year colleges and universities. As I recall the Community College for my area, Bergen Community College, allows the top ten percent of graduating high school seniors at each school in Bergen County to attend the college free of charge. This makes education an option for people who it otherwise would not be. Beyond that, tuition is substantially lower than that of Ramapo College, the College I currently attend. At Bergen Community College, a course cannot exceed $420.00 in cost to the student. At Ramapo, it costs $336.40 per credit for in-state students (the cheapest rate). That means, for one four credit course at Ramapo (they are all four credit courses) it costs the student $1,345.60. That is almost a thousand dollar difference per class.

Another reason that I feel so strongly about this initiative is that the increased demand for employees with degrees has forced young adults to attend colleges or universities more than ever before. However, most of us are not fortunate enough to have the kind of money lying around to simply pay all these expenses up front. Instead, we have mortgaged our souls to Freddie and Sallie and the like, and will be paying them back for a decade (if not more) after we graduate. With an entire generation starting their lives this far in debt, it is no wonder that our economy can no longer sustain itself. I know many friends of mine have already accumulated close to $100,000.00 in student loans, and that is just for undergraduate studies. Starting out "adult" life that far under water is not good for anyone, but especially for people seeking the type of degrees that these Community Colleges are offering 4 year programs in, who most likely will not seek Post Graduate education and will take a lower paying job because of it. The New York Times article states that: "Mike Boulus, the executive director of the group that represents the four-year universities, called the plan to expand community colleges 'a solution in search of a problem." I could not disagree with Mr. Boulus more. There is a problem, regardless of how much it is ignored, and this solution will benefit students nationwide who have hit a brick wall after two years at Community College.

European Living: Why It's So Hard for Americans to Handle?

At the suggestion of Professor McKenna, I just read Russell Shorto's article in the New York Times about the past eighteen months that he has spent living in Holland. I found this article to be an interesting and informative account of the life of an American in Holland. The primary focus of the article seems to be on defending the European welfare state, although Mr. Shorto does recognize its drawbacks. He notes that, as an American, it was very difficult to accept the high income tax rate in the Dutch welfare state. Fifty-two percent of each citizen's income is taxed, in order to support the vast array of social programs. However, when Mr. Shorto finds that between income taxes (state and federal), property taxes, sales taxes, social security, and similar items that all Americans have to pay, we are already quickly approaching that fifty-two percent mark, he seems to find the figure much more acceptable.

I think my favorite feature of the Dutch welfare state is the mandatory four weeks vacation each worker is given, and the salary they are still paid while they are away, as if they were at work the whole time. I think I could go for an arrangement like that! This is on top of quarterly payments for each of your children, school supplies, free health care, subsidized daycare costs, and socially acceptable (and comfortable) public housing. The Dutch have found a way to keep things uncomplicated, and have a shared sense of community that ripples through their society. Unfortunately, the American mindset is an extreme contrast to that of the Dutch. Everyone here is out for themselves, and working non-stop is the only way to become a success. It seems to me that we have versions of most of these programs in America, but they are ineffective in their current form. We have yet to be able to figure out public health care, and even the most progressive states are falling short on health care programs for children. Why, I wonder, do we pay all these taxes and have so much less to show for it?

According to the BBC News, Dutch Children are the happiest of all the children in Europe. I find it telling that children living in the Netherlands are the happiest, and children living in Britain, a country with similar economic and governmental policies to the United States, are the unhappiest. BBC also states in the above article that Dutch schools and parents do not put as much pressure to excel on the students as other countries do. This probably has a major impact on the overall level of happiness in the childrens' lives. Something else that probably plays a role in happiness among Dutch children and adults is the cost of eduction. Taken from a brochure on why you should study in the Netherlands, this factor probably makes a lot of people very happy:

A national system of student grants gives direct subsidies to all permanent residents who study full-time and meet the criteria. As a temporary resident you will not be eligible for such a grant, and there will be no other sources of funding to which you can turn. Therefore, when you enter the Netherlands you will have to prove to the immigration officials that you have enough money to support yourself. The authorities will ask you each year to prove that you have the equivalent of at least EUR 658 (in 2003 = USD 690) a month. In fact, it costs approximately EUR 700 (USD 740) a month to live as a student in the Netherlands. The annual tuition fee for enrolment in a regular degree programme at a university or hogeschool starts at EUR 1396 (2002-2003 = USD 1465). At several universities the fee is much higher than this.

I had trouble finding any more information about the cost of university studies for permanent residents, how much the direct subsidies are usually for, or what the criteria is that must be met in order to qualify for the grants. However, I am certain from what I have found that it is much less expensive to obtain higher education in the Netherlands than in America. I am wondering if higher education there is free. Does anyone know?

Given all of the above information, it would seem that living in the Netherlands is just not as hard as living in America. Everyone understands the importance of helping one another, working hard and relaxing. Unlike the Dutch, Americans seem only to know how to work really hard. Somehow though, most of us still have trouble making ends meet; go figure. For me, though, it seems that no matter how hard I work, or how many hours I work for that matter, I cannot afford something as simple as my own place to live. In America, these issues that should be simple, basic needs become complicated and difficult to obtain. All of the things that the Dutch have accounted for, health care, education, housing, and the like, are all things that many Americans are struggling to be able to afford. The result is a lot of overworked citizens who are under constant pressure and stressed out all the time. I think that many Americans feel like they are just another hamster; running on the wheel as fast as they can, but seemingly getting nowhere. Perhaps some will choose to give up on the American dream for a European one in which life will be less complicated and more enjoyable. As for me, although I love everything that the Netherlands has accomplished, I think I will stick it out here and hopefully participate in the improvement of my own country one day.

CNN versus Fox: Ideologically Driven News

Today I watched the CNN Newsroom and the Fox Newsroom from 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM. Ah, the modern marvels of DVR! I wanted to see how the stories that were being presented at the same time overlapped with one another and the different ways in which they were presented. I found that through the hour, both news stations covered many different stories, but only five of them contained similar content (discounting the weather). Of those five, only three were presented in a significantly different fashion.

Both stations discussed the Republican party's desire to change their image. CNN covered the story from a skeptical, bordering on mocking perspective. Both stations described a Town Hall meeting led by Eric Cantor, a young House Republican and growing force in the Republican Party. CNN focused on how badly Republicans are doing in the polls and how they desperately need a new image. They even implied that they are utilizing the same tactics Obama did in the hopes of gaining some popularity. CNN also pointed out that the Republican party is at an all time low as far as popularity. They went on to state that this initiative, the Nashville Council for America, is officially declared as a nonpartisan initiative, although all of supporters the appear to be republicans. They are going around America trying to a more positive message for the country and a more positive image for the party. CNN ended the segment by adding that the Democrats are calling the Republicans the party of "No". Fox's coverage of the issue was focused more on the future of the Republican party. I was surprised that the Fox anchors did seem skeptical of Representative Cantor's efforts and mentioned that perhaps the party leadership should focus on other prominent members of the party. Fox news generally portrayed the pizza party as a positive effort, much more so than CNN. Fox did mention that the Republican electorate is shrinking and changes do have to be made to the Republican party if it hopes to have the future Fox was so focused on.

Both news stations also spoke about mourning the loss of former Congressman Jack Kemp. Fox news spent a few minutes praising former Congressman Kemp and tracing his career all the way back from when he was a college football player. Fox called him a "champion of Conservatism, a crusader for lower taxes who helped inspire President Reagan and a leader who helped shape and strengthen the Republican party." Their coverage was in depth and actually seemed sincere. CNN on the other hand spent probably a minute or less on the story just stating that former Congressman Jack Kemp passed away last night from cancer at the age of seventy-three. They briefly discussed his career and stated that lots of tributes "from both sides of the aisle" were coming in about him. They then aired President Obama's letter of condolences, which spoke about former Congressman Kemp in high regard. However, after watching both, it seemed as if, in comparison to Fox, CNN had rushed through the issue and did not give him adequate attention. Although, CNN also covered the untimely death of Reverend Vernon King, the nephew of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.. He passed away at 48 years old, in Greensboro, North Carolina, and there was still no word on cause of death. Fox news did not even report this story.

Finally, both news shows addressed some aspect of President Obama's current administration. While CNN was singing President Obama's praises, Fox news in essence attempted to tear him apart (I wonder if that is what they do every night). CNN reported on President Obama's scheduled meetings for the upcoming week and the big decision to be made with regard to a Supreme Court nomination. The coverage about President Obama was all very positive, which is to be expected I suppose. Even if there were significant, measurable problems with Obama's policies up to this point, I do not think that CNN would be covering them. However, the Fox news coverage of Obama was exactly the opposite. It was as if they were trying to create an issue where there was none to report on. The anchor began the segment by stating that President Obama spent his first three months in office saying he inherited all these problems from the Bush Administration. She then posed the question: Is it time for President Obama to start accepting responsibility if things do not turn around? Then with a huge grin on her face she said that she believed that time came last week, and asked the Fox news correspondents (one Democrat and one Republican) to weigh in. This basically turned into a back and forth between these two correspondents, with the two Republicans getting more and more excited (visibly) at the idea that with a super majority in Congress and power in the Executive branch, the Democratic party will start getting blamed for some of the mess the country is in. The Republicans of course stated that Obama is not taking any responsibility that none of his plans have helped the economy out of turmoil yet. At that point you could see that the Democrat was getting more and more frustrated that they would not let him talk. When they finally did let him speak, he said one hundred days is too early to assess President Obama's programs and how they are working; to give him more time. At that point the Republican correspondent started going on about how Democrats all blame Bush for all the ails of the world and that the Obama supporters will find a way to blame Republicans when none of Obama's plans work. By the end, both correspondents were speaking over each other and the anchor eventually had to cut them off. This childish display was embarrassing in my opinion, to all three parties involved. It was obvious before they even started speaking where each of them stood on this issue, and they all ended up looking very unprofessional.

I just realized that I really do not like partisan news coverage. I am aware that completely objective news does not interest most people, (I can not even guarantee that it would interest me fully) but I believe that the extreme nature of these news stations is out of control. I do not mind if there is some leaning in the news I receive, but when it is so focused on blatant digs at the other party, the sense that the information you are receiving is legitimate is completely lost. When the news is centered primarily on benefiting one party and hurting the other, the stories get further and further from the truth. In this situation both sides are only obtaining propaganda, and being distracted more and more from the issues that really matter. That is a scenario I am simply unwilling to support.

Pandagon Blog

Today I read the past few days of posts on Pandagon, an obviously liberal blog which features outrageous political stories. A few of the posts from the past few days stuck out to me. The first was about an abstinence educator named Keith Deltano. It remarks on how abstinence only education does not work, but money is still being given from the government to fund these programs. The post includes a video of a Keith Deltano conducting his abstinence only routine for a group of students. The post is clearly mocking the routine and implies that Keith Deltano is having a negative impact on students, reinforcing gender stereotypes and insulting the intelligence of females. The author, Pam Spaulding, uses a very informal tone in the post, which appears to be aimed at getting a rise out of people by explaining that, as outrageous as this program is, it is funded by United States taxpayers. I know I am offended that any of my money would support the programs of this "cinder block wielding lunatic."

The next post that caught my attention was by Amanda Marcotte and is about the controversy over President Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame. This post is also informal in tone. Ms. Marcotte states that there really is no controversy, and that only a small number of right-wing "wankers" are objecting. The post says that those who are creating the problem say it is a relgious issue because President Obama is Pro-Choice, which goes against Catholic teaching. However, Ms. Marcotte cites the inconsistency that Notre Dame had no problem with President Bush who initiated the Iraq War, but war is also against Catholic teaching. The post insinuates that is really a race issue, but then does not address that for the rest of the post stating that discussing it would result in "bunch of pearl-clutching faux outrage of the sort we’ve seen from Donna Barstow or Byron York." The author seems to dismiss this as a non-issue, implying that the right wing minority at Notre Dame will not have any impact whatsoever.

Another post that really stood out to me was written by Pam Spaulding and described a school in Kentucky's new policy of banning homosexual students from the restrooms. Allegedly, an Assistant Principal of Franklin County High School in Kentucky sent an e-mail to teachers directing them to not allow homosexual students out of the class to use the restroom. This e-mail came as a result of two female students being caught kissing in the restroom. Ms. Spaulding states the obvious health issue, and also points out the laughable irony that the word of the month at Franklin County High School is tolerance. I agree that there is no need for students to be making public displays of affection in High School entirely, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual, but this Assistant Principal went way too far in her attempt to prevent this specific type of incident. I can only wonder what her policy is on the heterosexual students (who, if my high school is indicative of what other schools across the nation are like, do the same thing). In this instance, I really hope that this report is mistaken, because I would like to believe someone who could be an Assistant Principal would not be that ignorant.

I was very entertained by reading Pandagon. The authors of the blog use the shock factor to their advantage, taking any outlandish story and addressing it as you would if speaking to a friend. The informal tone of the blog tied with the type of posts they write makes it a fun read. However, I am not sure how informative the posts really are, because they seem to be more aimed at getting a reaction than explaining both sides of the story. I heard about things I had not heard about elsewhere, so I suppose it is informative, and I was annoyed that people could be so ridiculous when I read them, but I can not help but suspect that in some instances there is probably more to the story.

Girls Next Door

The Girls Next Door is a show about three women, Bridget, Holly and Kendra who live with Hugh Heffner in the Playboy mansion. I watched the show today in order to determine whether or not I think the show has an impact on the socialization of young women. I have never seen the show before, but it was pretty easy to understand the basic premise: three playboy bunnies use the unlimited supply of money they have to do whatever they want.

The show today was about the women taking a trip to New Orleans for Mardi Gras. Bridget has a radio show, and they were broadcasting from Mardi Gras. The three went there, partied at Mardi Gras, held a fundraiser to benefit victims of the Hurricane Katrina disaster, and toured the area that was primarily effected by the Hurricane. After watching it, I believe that it definitely would have an impact on the socialization of girls who watch it.

First of all, the girls are all beautiful (a requirement for being a Playboy bunny). Any young girl who is exposed to any type of mainstream media knows what "beautiful" women are supposed to be, and these three meet the criteria very well. They are all blond, tall (from what I can tell on television), thin and large-chested. It is drilled into the heads of young women all the time that these qualities are what makes a woman attractive. This has all kinds of effects on the socialization of young women, as they aspire to look like the women that they see portrayed as attractive. If there was not so much emphasis in our society on being attractive, I do not think that we would have nearly as much of a problem with teenage girls and eating disorders. This is serious problem among young women especially, and I have personally seen too many people struggle with eating disorders. As if that were not bad enough, the girls then try to imitate how these women act, and that really worries me.

These women live in the lap of luxury. In the episode I just saw there is the mansion they live in, limousines that take them everywhere, make-up artists that travel with them, extravagant hotels and a lot of partying. Everyone in the show, even the news anchor when Bridget appeared to talk about the fundraiser, seems to worship these women. Who would not want all of those things? However, most girls will equate looking and acting like these women as being the only way to get them. During this show, there were surprisinly not more than a few instances where I thought the women were portrayed as being stupid, but I am sure that is shown in some episodes. They definitely were not shown as intelligent women. So girls think they have to act dumb in order to obtain this kind of life. Also, the women dress in skimpy clothing and act as if they are always a sex object. At one point Kendra said "I'll get the most beads because of my new and approved babies right here" while rubbing her chest. Does it really surprise you that you see young women sporting less and less clothing everywhere you go? Society cannot figure out why teenagers are becoming sexually active at earlier and earlier ages, but I have a pretty good inkling why. Girls are exposed to behavior like this and think that acting like a tramp is the best way to get everything these women have.

I have no problem with Playboy, or with this show existing. If people want mind-numbing entertainment, they can have it. However, if I were a parent, I can guarantee my children would not be watching this show. Unfortunately, I think this type of influence over the socialization of young women (and men; they expect women to look and act this way as much as the young women think hey have to) permeates deeper into all of the media in our society. I do not think the show is powerful enough to have a vast impact all on its own. However, within the context of our society where women are portrayed in this way, it definitely does. Hopefully, the media will find a way to stop reinforcing this stereotype and help young women realize there is lot more to life than trying to be like the women they see on television.

No Child Left Behind Act: Response

One of my classmates, Chris Doyle, recently wrote about the failures of the No Child Left Behind Act in response to the New York Times front page coverage of the issue. After reading the post, the New York Times article and watching the video of Obama's comments which was embeded in the post, I have the following response:

When I first heard about the No Child Left Behind Act, it sounded like a great thing. Who does not want to promise equal education to all students in the country? However, that is an ideal that is complicated to actually obtain. There are many issues with this process, but I will address only a few which I think to be the most important.

Firstly, as long as school districts are primarily funded by local property taxes, there will always be a disparity among the quality of education from school to school. I live in a southern Bergen County town, and our school district relies upon the approximately 8,000 citizens of the small town to pay for it. Things get a bit more complicated to explain in my district because the town next to ours does not have a high school and also pays to send their high school students to ours. But in theory, they are paying an equal amount in their property taxes to sustain the cost of the eduction for the students of their town. While my school was always struggling for funding, we could afford Advanced Placement classes, computer labs, and apparently (recently) an artificial football field that cost millions of dollars. A few miles in pretty much any direction, one could find schools in towns with higher property taxes which had all of these things and extras, such as more selection in Advanced Placement classes, personal laptops issued to all students, student-run televison and radio stations, etc.. However, within these same few miles, towns with lower property taxes and a lower median household income can be found. In these schools you hear about a tremendous dropout rate, not having enough books to go around, and not being able to pay high quality teachers enough for them to consider working there. Although there are Abbott Districts in New Jersey, which receive extra funding from the State based on these problems, I can attest to the fact that children in Passaic (an Abbott District) do not receive even close to the quality of education I did at my small high school. These problems of inequality will subsist until the funding process for New Jersey schools is reevaluated. Right now, if you can afford to live in an affluent district, you get a better education. It is unfortunate and wrong, but it is the status-quo.

Secondly, from my own experience in speaking with grammar and high school teachers in my personal life, the No Child Left Behind Act places too much burden on the educational systems in the less affluent towns. To be honest, the more affluent districts do not have much to worry about as far as holding up to national standards because they usually have less students in classes and can provide individual attention, students are usually coming from fairly stable homes and parents with some level of education, and teachers would rather work there than in a less affluent district. However, the districts in which the income is lower, the population of the schools is higher and the overall education level of the community is lower are the places that cannot meet these expectations. The teachers in the districts that are struggling with this find themselves teaching children not about math or science or reading, but about how to pass a national test which focuses on these areas. When children are simply being taught how to take a test due to the district's fear of penalization, no one benefits. The teachers cannot do their jobs correctly due to pressure to make sure the students pass the test, and the students are not really learning substantive information. From what teachers in my life have told me, the No Child Left Behind Act merely reinforces this cycle, and the districts that need the help the most are penalized for not achieving the minimum standards.

I agree with my classmate that President Obama must critically reevaluate the No Child Left Behind Act if it is ever to be successful. President Obama remarked that he intends to change the assessment tools, and rather than relying on a blanket national standard, evaluate each district as it stands and create a growth model. Then, based upon this growth model, schools would have to show a certain level of improvement each year until they met the national standards. This seems like a great place to start in my opinion, but I think New Jersey needs more. I cannot speak for other areas, but I do not see why there is any reason to have 70 (or more) school districts in Bergen County. While it is nice to have your high school right in your town, I think regionalizing the school districts is worth considering. Each town could contribute less money, while at the same time levelling the playing field of education for their children. Although I am sure this is not what many people living in more affluent school districts want, I think it is what is best for our society as a whole. If every county in New Jersey did this, perhaps some of the major disparity between districts would be lessened. I know that some counties already do and are still struggling, but then those districts would be evaluated and receive state funding appropriately. I am no policy genius, and I do not claim to know the nuts and bolts of exactly how all of this would work, but it makes sense practically, and is worth some attention as an option from our government and our media.