The Chronicle of Higher Educationreports today that Bob Jones University’s current president has “apologized” for his institution’s racist policies, which persisted until the Civil Rights Movement finally made it to their little corner of Greenville, South Carolina in 2000. Per the university’s website:
For almost two centuries American Christianity, including BJU in its early stages, was characterized by the segregationist ethos of American culture. Consequently, for far too long, we allowed institutional policies regarding race to be shaped more directly by that ethos than by the principles and precepts of the Scriptures. We conformed to the culture rather than provide a clear Christian counterpoint to it. …
On national television in March 2000, Bob Jones III, who was the university’s president until 2005, stated that BJU was wrong in not admitting African-American students before 1971, which sadly was a common practice of both public and private universities in the years prior to that time. On the same program, he announced the lifting of the University’s policy against interracial dating.
As my fellow political scientist Jacob Levy points out this statement is rather pathetic and, shall we say, rather lacking in any sense of just how out-of-step BJU was with the rest of the nation for 32 of the past 40 years:
In short, Bob Jones University did not passively float along on the tide of American racism, and it was not racist only in its “early stages.” It was worse on racial questions, longer, than any other university in the country. And it was actively, determinedly, passionately worse. The University did not conform itself to a surrounding ethos. It fought to resist changes to that ethos; it fought hard, at serious institutional cost.
Now, resisting the surrounding culture is something one expects from religiously dissident institutions. Of course a fundamentalist Christian university views itself as being at odds with the surrounding world–for better and for worse. Passive conformity is no great virtue, and fighting hard for one’s beliefs is admirable. But if it turns out that your beliefs were grotesquely, abominably wrong, then it’s cowardice to suddenly plead passive conformity. That’s a vice of which Bob Jones University has never been guilty–and the lie that it has been strips its supposed apology of any moral force.
As Levy is perhaps too polite to point out, not only is the plea of “passive conformity” cowardly, it’s also factually inaccurate, unless the trustees, faculty, and administration of Bob Jones University were conforming to the norms supported by the Ku Klux Klan and few others.
While the university’s statement does recognize a failure of leadership by white Christian organizations during the segregationist era that was hardly unique to Bob Jones and his progeny, it fails to recognize the degree to which the university both served to legitimate values that today it acknowledges were fundamentally at odds with Christian teachings and acted as an exemplar of racial intolerance that bigots everywhere could point to as a legitimate institution that shared their warped sense that segregation and white supremacy were acceptable values in late 20th century society. While today’s mealy-mouthed statement may assuage those who seek political cover for their association with Bob Jones, it should not satisfy those who expect intellectual honesty from a purported institution of higher learning.
It appears that Barack Obama’s economic team is set, with Timothy Geithner at Treasury and Bill Richardson at Commerce.
President-elect Barack Obama has selected Timothy Geithner as Treasury secretary, charging the respected head of the New York Federal Reserve with pulling the United States out of an economic nosedive, NBC news reported on Friday. Geithner, 47, had been seen as one of two main candidates for the job along with former Clinton administration Treasury chief Lawrence Summers.
U.S. stocks soared on the news, pushing major indices up more than 6 percent. The Dow Jones industrial average closed above 8,000, an important psychological trading level.
“A fantastic choice to help lead the financial markets out of the wilderness,” said Chris Rupkey, senior economist at The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi in New York, of Geithner. “A crisis manager par excellence who will hit the ground running as he has been on the case since the global funding crisis began way back in July 2007.”
That the stock market can jump six percentage points on the announcement of a political appointee is worrisome on a variety of levels. But there you go.
Barely rating a mention:
NBC also reported that New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson — who was one of a crowded pack of Democratic presidential early this year — could receive Obama’s nod to become commerce secretary. Richardson’s elevation to the cabinet would give the Obama administration its first high-profile Hispanic member as its main liaison to the business community. Richardson was a United Nations ambassador and energy secretary under former President Bill Clinton.
While discussions of tokenism are inevitable, I suppose, it seems odd in the case of Richardson. He’s superbly qualified. If anything, Commerce is something of a demotion for him.
Hillary Clinton has accepted Barack Obama’s offer to be his Secretary of State, NYT and numerous other authoritative outlets are confirming.
Hillary Rodham Clinton has decided to give up her Senate seat and accept the position of secretary of state, making her the public face around the world for the administration of the man who beat her for the Democratic presidential nomination, two confidants said Friday.
The apparent accord between perhaps the two leading figures in the Democratic Party climaxed a week-long drama that riveted the nation’s capital.
Mrs. Clinton came to her decision after additional discussion with President-elect Barack Obama about the nature of her role and his plans for foreign policy, said one of the confidants, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the situation.
Mr. Obama’s office told reporters on Thursday that the nomination is “on track” but this is the first word from the Clinton camp that she has decided.
“She’s ready,” the confidant said, adding that Mrs. Clinton was reassured after talking again with Mr. Obama because their first meeting in Chicago last week “was so general.” The purpose of the follow-up talk, he noted, was not to extract particular concessions but “just getting comfortable” with the idea of working together.
CNN and Politico are both reporting that General James Jones, chairman of the Atlantic Council, is the leading candidate for National Security Advisor in the Obama cabinet.
Two sources close to the Obama transition team tell CNN retired Marine Gen. Jim Jones has emerged as President-elect’s leading choice to become national security adviser in the White House.
The sources said Jones has been given the impression by the President-elect that the job is his if he wants it. But the officials said there are still private discussions underway and no final decision has been made. The discussions are focused on precisely how much power Jones will have in the staff job since he is used to being in a command role. Among his many posts, Jones served for several years as the operational commander for NATO.
In the third and final presidential debate, Obama noted that he deeply values advice from Jones, who has four decades of military service.
One person close to the transition noted Jones is a bipartisan figure who has warm relationships with both current Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who may stay on the job for at least a brief period, as well as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who is now on track to be nominated as Secretary of State after Thanksgiving.
I’ll demur on commenting on the merits of my boss’ boss for the job. I will, however, note that the chatter thus far on Memeorandum is quite positive.
Joe Klein (TIME): “General Jones is universally respected. He refused a series of major positions offered by the Bush Administration, presumably because he opposed the policies he would have been expected to implement. He did agree to study the security situations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the Bush Administration, and came back with reports that were embarrassingly candid. If appointed, he–not David Petraeus–will be the most important (former) general in the Obama Administration, which will help tilt power back toward the President.”
Spencer Ackerman (Washington Independent): “If so, it would be a good choice. [...] Also, Jones would be reflective of two huge Obama priorities. First, Afghanistan. As NATO Commander, Jones ceaselessly lobbied the European allies for greater assistance in the Afghanistan war. Second, energy security. Jones is widely known to be an advocate of alternative energy sources, and, as Politico notes, chairs an energy task force for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And of course there’s the good optics of such a well-respected general being Obama’s closest White House aide on foreign policy.”
Steve Benen (Washington Monthly) and Adam Serwer (American Prospect) seem favorably disposed as well.
I’ll be interested to see the reaction from the Right; thus far, there’s been none. [UPDATE: Tom Maguire's on board.]
As an aside, I’m always amused by the use of obviously outdated file photos. Jones retired from the Marine Corps two years ago and Michael Hayden retired from the Air Force over the summer. Yet virtually every story about them shows them in uniform.
Aside #2: So long as I can recall, the informal title of the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs has been National Security Advisor. Over the last couple of days, however, I’m mostly seeing it spelled Adviser. Odd.
Aside #3: There have been several jokes about the name “Jim Jones” and “James Jones,” noting other famous people with those names, but none that I’m seen invoking the Rev. Jim Jones of Jonestown fame. This is truly disappointing, given all the “drinking the Kool Aid” jokes we’ve heard about Obama.
UCLA corporate lawprof Stephen Bainbridge has gone from thinking that the SEC probably had a case against Mark Cuban to thinking they probably don’t, largely on the strength of Cuban’s presenting his case publicly on his “Blog Maverick” site.
But that raises another question: Should Cuban be conducting his defense in public on his blog?
If Cuban’s point is to clear his name with the public, the answer would seem to be an unequivocal Yes. If, however, his goal is to avoid alienating the goons at the SEC, causing them to spend tax dollars ginning up a case — any case — against him as payback for making them look bad, not so much. We’ve seen time and again that armies of government lawyers with unlimited resources pretty much always find something to charge high profile targets with, even if it’s seldom the thing they started out investigating.
Economic advisor Austan Goolsbee, right, listens as Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama answeres questions at a campaign stop in Albuquerque on Feb. 1. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)
One would think that a biracial president named “Barack Obama” who grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia would feel a certain freedom from the need to demonstrate his bonafides on the diversity front. Not so much, it seems.
Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee — once the chief economic adviser to candidate Barack Obama — may be less of a shoo-in to chair Obama’s White House Council of Economic Advisers than his admirers once imagined.
The Obama transition team is interviewing to find a woman, perhaps a minority woman, to fill the CEA chair — a Senate-confirmed position. Informed sources suggest the candidates on the CEA list now include Princeton University economics and public affairs professor Cecilia Elena Rouse, whose specialty is labor economics. The hunt for a woman, explained several sources close to the transition deliberations, is aimed at broadening the white-male cast of the White House team assembled to date (the current tally of announced picks is 3 women, 9 men).
[T]he worst financial crisis in seventy years is really not the time to see if you can brighten up the CEA offices with a nice, decorative matched set of X chromosomes. [...] Needless to say, given that Obama’s sterling choice of highest-caliber economic advisors was one of my main reason for supporting him, my regret is mounting faster than ever.
Her first commenter retorts:
Elect a Democrat, get a Democrat. We aren’t even past Thanksgving yet, let alone the Innaugural Ball; a bit early for buyer’s remorse, don’t ya think?
I’m again reminded of Jeff Medcalf’s comment posted on Dave Schuler’s Other Blog recently: “[M]any of the people voting for Obama seem to be doing so on the hope that he doesn’t mean what he says, and most of the people voting for McCain are doing so on the fear that Obama means exactly what he says.”
Obama ran on an overt platform of “CHANGE!” but on a more understated platform of competence and a covert platform of conciliation. He has thus far emphasized the last two, necessarily at the expense of the first.
Much to the consternation of the Netroots, he’s filling his administration with people who served in Bill Clinton’s administration. But where else was he going to find Democrats competent in the ways of Washington? It’s well and good to want “CHANGE!” but people who don’t know what they’re doing are hard pressed to deliver it. Unfortunately, this means pragmatic compromise.
Similarly, party building means outreach to Hillary Clinton, including apparently naming her Secretary of State, and making sure that the usual constituencies are placated. That means a share of the spoils in a highly visible way.
Goolsbee will be a prominent economic voice in Obama’s administration. But, alas, there are only so many jobs for balding, 40-something white dudes with PhDs.
In my youth, video killed the radio star. Now, Nate Silver suggests, conservative talk radio has killed conservatism. John Ziegler, of whom I’ve never heard, is apparently an imbecile. QED.
This might be the key passage of my interview with John Ziegler on Tuesday, for it is, in a nutshell, why conservatives don’t win elections anymore. It is not that conservatism generally permits less nuance than liberalism (in terms of political messaging, that is probably one of conservatism’s strengths). Rather, the key lies in the second passage that I highlighted. There are a certain segment of conservatives who literally cannot believe that anybody would see the world differently than the way they do. They have not just forgotten how to persuade; they have forgotten about the necessity of persuasion.
Talk radio is about entertainment and drama, not persuasion. Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage aren’t running latter-day Firing Lines; rather, they’re Howard Stern and Don Imus with a political bent.
For a variety of reasons, liberals have not done well in the talk radio genre. But they’ve got every bit the talent for single mindedness as their counterparts on the right — as seen in a large chunk of the blogosphere. It’s easier to build an audience by serving up healthy chunks of red meat, generating faux outrage, and flaming the passions of a single minded audience than to persuade people towards your point of view. And the Netroots are much better at that than their conservative counterparts. (It’s also true, I think, that most of the best analytical blogs are on the center-left; that’s a subject for another post, possibly later today.)
It’s worth mentioning, as an aside, that conservatism is far from dead. It’s main electoral instrument, the Republican Party, has seen better days. But that’s a cyclical thing in American politics. Many had written the Democrats off for dead in 1991 and again in 2000. There’s nothing like losing to motivate reform.
UPDATE:Stacy McCain thinks Silver is unfair to Ziegler. The problem, though, is that Ziegler goes into attack mode when challenged rather than adducing evidence. It’s an entertaining way to deal with a hostile caller to a radio show but an odd tactic for an interviewee.
Albert Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 has been proven.
It’s taken more than a century, but Einstein’s celebrated formula e=mc2 has finally been corroborated, thanks to a heroic computational effort by French, German and Hungarian physicists.
A brainpower consortium led by Laurent Lellouch of France’s Centre for Theoretical Physics, using some of the world’s mightiest supercomputers, have set down the calculations for estimating the mass of protons and neutrons, the particles at the nucleus of atoms.
According to the conventional model of particle physics, protons and neutrons comprise smaller particles known as quarks, which in turn are bound by gluons. The odd thing is this: the mass of gluons is zero and the mass of quarks is only five percent. Where, therefore, is the missing 95 percent?
Beats me.
This is one of those pop-science thing that all of us are supposed to understand but few really do. I “get” the science fiction applications but my understanding of subatomic particles is next to nil. Of course, gluons were cutting edge science when I was learning that stuff.
