By now, most of us are familiar with the fate that befell 12 year-old Graeme Frost, courtesy of the right-wing blogosphere. For those who've not read of his story, Markos Moulitsas and Paul Krugman offer their characteristically-useful information about the right-wing smear campaign:

Soon after the radio address, right-wing bloggers began insisting that the Frosts must be affluent because Graeme and his sister attend private schools (they’re on scholarship), because they have a house in a neighborhood where some houses are now expensive (the Frosts bought their house for $55,000 in 1990 when the neighborhood was rundown and considered dangerous) and because Mr. Frost owns a business (it was dissolved in 1999).

You might be tempted to say that bloggers make unfounded accusations all the time. But we’re not talking about some obscure fringe. The charge was led by Michelle Malkin, who according to Technorati has the most-trafficked right-wing blog on the Internet, and in addition to blogging has a nationally syndicated column, writes for National Review and is a frequent guest on Fox News.

Those familiar with the work of sensationalist wingnuts on the opposite side of the aisle must be familiar with the works of Malkin, Anne Coulter, and others who seemingly serve no purpose to rational discourse. They are the ones who deal in the politics of hate, and aim to divide our nation in times of both war and peace, merely for partisan politics points and book sales. Yet their words do not worry me, for I know that when rational citizens are called upon to lead our nation, they will almost always choose to exclude such figures from reasonable policy discussion.

What does worry me, however, is the efforts of some to enshrine and legitimize extreme viewpoints under the banner of academic diversity. For those who don't remember, Sara Mikolajczak (thank goodness for copy and paste) used the College Republicans' first Badger Herald column of this semester to announce intentions to bring Malkin to Madison:

That is only our first meeting; aside from our 9/11 project, we are also planning a day to shoot guns and learn about the joys of the Second Amendment. We want to bring major issues that are important to students onto the campus so they can hear both sides of the story on border control, health care, the Iraq War, business and the economy, and other topics. If something is important to you personally, tell us. We are always open to suggestions. With any luck, we will even end the first semester with a visit from author Michelle Malkin.

I ask Mikolajczak, what "side of the story" do Malkin and the College Republicans represent, and how has it been marginalized on this campus? As an American of Japanese descent, I hold the internment of Japanese-Americans during the second World War to be wrong and unjustified, and find contrary suggestion ill-informed, at best. The other side of the story: Michelle Malkin disagrees. I believe that ad hominem assaults on children damage our capacity to reasonably discuss issues of public policy. Michelle Malkin disagrees. Where do the College Republicans stand on such issues?

In case you don't wake up and immediately check the news, Al Gore will share this year's Nobel Peace Prize. My roommate turned MSNBC on this morning, and naturally, the main focus of their coverage is the former Vice President's possible presidential ambitions. I feel that our field of candidates will remain strong regardless of Gore's eventual decision (assuming there's still one to be made), but there are still plenty of people around here looking for a new Gore candidacy.

Hey, at least Joe Lieberman wouldn't be along for the ride this time.

...or at least it felt like it was last night. As primary season gears up – and it seems to do so earlier and earlier every time around – those of us with worldly ambitions have shifted focus to the latest happenings in the biggest races. Does Dave Magnum still have a loss fight left in him? Is Ron Paul the new people-powered Howard Dean? Well okay, maybe you haven't been asking those questions. The point is that while none can resist the allure of national politics, the College Democrats meeting last night remained firmly based in the happenings around this town, focusing briefly on national races, and addressing pressing issues around Madison.

First things first: everyone should be sure to check out the College Democrats' (and the College Republicans', among others) efforts to help make our neighborhoods safer. Mr. Kiefer even gave his personal assurance that he'll be working the streets (did I say that right?) on Saturday after work. He has written on this subject previously, and made sure to make clear our efforts to make our city a safer and more enjoyable place for students.

Other presenters included the three major students-for-candidates groups, as well as announcements regarding student participation in the Student Union Initiative and Roosevelt Energy. Anyone interested in how our money will be spent in the construction of the new Union South ought to check out the first link, and anyone with an interest in green issues would be well-served by either project. The new Union will be built with student funds, and the energy innovations of today will shape the world of tomorrow. This is our chance to do something about the issues that will effect us in the years ahead.

Finally, the marquee speaker of last night's meeting was none other than Johnny Winston, Jr. – a veteran firefighter and public servant of the MMSD school board. This morning's Badger Herald offered a good summary of the educational challenges we face as a city in changing demographics and budgetary restrictions. Winston's knowledge and dedication to his office showcases the investment he has made in the children of Madison and surrounding communities. But as he makes clear, there is no such thing as an easy solution in his line of work. Winston has been forced to make tough decisions for years, and I would like to think that his words last night made a lasting impression upon all of our hearts and minds.

As if anticipating tonight's College Dems meeting, Thomas Friedman has a bit to say regarding our very own "Generation Q":

It’s for all these reasons that I’ve been calling them “Generation Q” — the Quiet Americans, in the best sense of that term, quietly pursuing their idealism, at home and abroad.

But Generation Q may be too quiet, too online, for its own good, and for the country’s own good. When I think of the huge budget deficit, Social Security deficit and ecological deficit that our generation is leaving this generation, if they are not spitting mad, well, then they’re just not paying attention. And we’ll just keep piling it on them.

There is a good chance that members of Generation Q will spend their entire adult lives digging out from the deficits that we — the “Greediest Generation,” epitomized by George W. Bush — are leaving them.

Regardless of anyone's views of Friedman's politics, he makes a salient point. He has noticed that, despite student concern over issues that ought to bother us – everything from global warming to the current budget deficits – we as a generation have not "organized in a way that will force politicians to pay attention rather than just patronize [us]." It is through direct participation and debate, not Facebook group invitations, that we may accomplish the ideals that we wish to achieve. The first step in this process is the act of reaching out to like-minded individuals, and discussing our aims and ambitions. That is the point of tonight.

Remember: 7:00pm, 1641 Humanities.

Yesterday, I wrote about the lack of diversity at UW-Madison and how that prevents our university from reaching its full potential. I was responding in to Gerald Cox's column in the Badger Herald on Monday which talked about the need for parental support in helping children to succeed in school. The article is poorly mistitled (props to Jason Smathers for that one), as Mr. Cox's main point is not that the "Education system fails black pupils," but rather that, "The number of black students admitted to our university will not substantially increase until black communities and families are unified in a determination to increase it themselves."

Yesterday, I talked about the problem and discarded two issues (one being Holistic Admissions, the other being high school curriculum) as ways of fixing the achievement gap (and thereby our lack of diversity) in public schools and universities. Today, I want to address the solutions.

The first solution is the one that Mr. Cox states at the end of his column: it truly comes down to what happens at home. If you want to understand why some kids do better in reading than others, you need only look at who is being read to at home, who is going to the library with their parents, and who is getting regular help on homework to make sure that they don't fall behind. In the United States today, the discrepancy between those who get parental support and those who don't is often determined by socio-economic status. To deny that there is a link between race and poverty is both ignorant and irresponsible. No, not every person of color is poor and not every white person is wealthy, but in 2004 black households in America had a median income of just over $30,000 while the same figure for white households was $48,000. Whatever the reasons are - be it that poor parents are working too many hours to try to make ends meet, or that they simply don't have the resources to give their children the supplemental learning materials they need - kids end up paying the price.

I should hope that this is deeply troubling to all of us. We believe that our background should be no barrier to what we are able to achieve in life. Kids should not have to suffer because their parents can't give them the support they need.

Here is the place that government can help. Ideally, all parents would give their kids the help they need to be successful, but until Utopia arrives we should talk seriously about expanding a proven school program that can help bridge the achievement gap and bring the "pusuit of happiness" one step closer to reality.

I'm talking about the Student Achievement Guarentee in Education (SAGE) Program. SAGE is a state funded program designed to reduce class sizes in Kindergarten through 3rd grade classrooms to a ratio of fifteen students per teacher for core academic subjects. Governor Doyle has been a huge proponent of this program, and if the State Assembly was controlled by Democrats you can bet that his funding requests for the program would have already been met.

What we need to do is fully fund SAGE statewide. No kid that goes to public schools should have more than fourteen classmates when he or she is learning the fundamentals. There is a cost to this program, a significant one at that, but it is nothing compared to the cost society pays to incarcerate felons in our corrections system.

Want to know the best predictor of which kids will commit crimes when they get older? You need only to look at their 3rd grade reading test scores. If a kid is reading at grade level in 3rd grade, he or she is FAR more likely to stay out of the corrections system. In Wisconsin, one of the biggest problems facing educators is that African-American boys are not reading well in early elementary school. SAGE has been shown to bridge that gap. African-American males are the demographic that see the most scholastic improvement when SAGE is implemented. So the question then becomes, "Why haven't we as a state made a commitment to this sound, effective program?"

Yes, Mr. Cox, you're right. It does all start at home. But it takes a village to raise a child, and we have a responsibility to make sure that every child in our state has a fair shot at success, no matter what side of the tracks they're from.

Today in the Daily Cardinal there was an article about the need for further separation between church and state. http://www.dailycardinal.com/article/607 While I do not think in any way that the article was "anti-religion," I do believe some of the statements were a bit misguided.

1. "Of course religion plays a role in forming one's personal politics, but when the religious view of politicians directly affect the rights of citizens, that is a problem."
and
2. "Laws should not be justified with religious reasoning, but because they enrich liberty and equality, and defend justice."

I can say as a Christian my faith absolutely influences my political stance on issues. What the author seems to be alluding too with this first statement is that this is OK, as long as I don't let my religious beliefs get in the way of others people's actions, i.e. abortion. (An issue that not all Christians agree on by the way, and the same goes for gay marriage.) The problem with this idea is that the author is insinuating that beliefs are "OK on Sunday morning, but shouldn't be applied the rest of the week." It doesn't work that way. To someone who holds strong Christian beliefs, their faith will trump politics every day of the week. It would be extremely hypocritical for a Christian to hold a set of beliefs and then not work to uphold those values in every facet of their lives.

While I realize the problem that occurs with starting a public school day off with prayer instead of the pledge of allegiance, I think it needs to be recognized that faith does shape people, and it is not a part of an individual that can (nor should be) left at the door when debating "a political issue."

Brian Williams just reported on NBC Nightly News that Gordon Brown, British PM, will withdraw half of all British troops (leaving only 2500) from Iraq by early spring 2008, with some senior officials speculating that all British troops will be out of Iraq by the end of 2008.

Does this even need commentary? I think the disintegration of our "coalition of the willing" speaks volumes in itself.

Labels: war

In today's Badger Herald, Gerald Cox wrote an interesting column about UW's lack of diversity and the achievement gap between white students in Wisconsin and their peers of color. If you've spent more than two minutes on campus you have likely noticed our lack of diversity, and while some are quick to say, "Well, these are the people who applied and were qualified enough to get in," we are in danger of missing the bigger picture if we fail to look beyond that.

Racial diversity - indeed diversity in any measure - is an inherent good. The more time we spend with people who don't look like us, talk like us, or worship like us, the better able we are to understand our world. One need only to look at the US Army or at major corporations around the world to see that many of the most successful enterprises in the world share this view of diversity. Diversity helps corporations reach into new markets and develop their products to reach millions of new consumers. Since the 1970s, when they first took significant steps to break down discrimination, we have watched the military become one of the most diverse institutions in our country. They fair far better than most communities, schools districts, and universities at having people of color in leadership positions. When the racial barriers to advancement are removed, we don't see an achievement gap.

Alas, we aren't talking about the military or large corporations, we're talking about our humble university. Mr. Cox points out that merely 12% of UW students are students of color, compared to 13.8% of Wisconsin's population and 14.9% of our high school graduates. Clearly, students of color are underrepresented by as much as 3% (a statistically significant number).

But who's to blame? Should we fault Holistic Admissions for "lowering the standards" of admission for students of color? Are high schools guilty for not encouraging more youth of color to participate in AP and college-track classes? Or is it parents who "don't care" about education and their children's future? If you answered yes to any or all of these, keep reading.

If you think Affirmative Action is to blame, and that the policy unfairly allows students of color to be admitted before white students with better grades and test scores, you need to more thoroughly look at what UW's Holistic Admissions policy says.

Let me clear up one thing about Holistic Admissions:

It isn't just about race! The sole reason I go to this school is the Holistic Admissions. The policy takes into account other factors like, "accomplishments, demographic factors, extracurricular activities, leadership qualities and racial and ethnic heritage, socioeconomic status, special talent and work experience," (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel). Seriously, my grades weren't the best, I did pretty well on the ACT, but what got me in here was all of the extracurriculars. I challenge anyone to say that I don't deserve an education at this fine institution simply because of my high school GPA.

Holistic Admissions is a good policy, but it won't solve the roots of the problem. It's kind of like kicking an extra point when you're down by two with a minute to spare. Sure, you'll close the gap a bit, but you won't really even up the game.

So let's dig a little deeper, maybe it's a problem with high schools. Mr. Cox points out that 8th graders in Wisconsin are showing a measurable achievement gap between white students and students of color. That might explain why my high school was so segregated. (There was one kid of color in my advanced level chemistry class of twenty-five students. If the class was representative of the student body there would have been six.) Perhaps guidence counselors should be pushing more students of color into upper level classes, but I think we're still kicking the extra point when we're down by two.

We've still got a problem, and I think I have a solution. But for that you're going to have to wait for tomorrow. This post is long enough as it is.