Success...?
This was a post I wrote last November and never published because it seemed to add little to the age-old question, but in retrospect, and at the beginning of a very busy semester, I think it is an appropriate time to ask some questions like these:
A couple of interesting conversations I've had this weekend have prompted me to really reconsider what I personally define as success, for myself. I think that sometimes what's easiest to say and what sounds good or right is not really what we feel inside: though I may say, and truly want to believe, and sometimes do believe, that I am comfortable with my academics being less than stellar because I have chosen to spend my time here in other ways, I know that a little part of me is disappointed whenever I see my transcript and wonders if I have sacrificed or compromised my future goals in some way for something I can't even put my finger on. I think this is true for many who enjoy their academics, but feel that their devotion to other causes, which may be equally or more important to them, make it impossible to learn and perform as they know they could.
So. How do you define success? How should we define success at Harvard? Do we lie to ourselves on the surface to relieve the stress or burden we may feel to do something big or achieve a certain level or result or make change, but by denying what we feel inside, do we do ourselves greater injury? Is it possible to turn an entire college of overachieving do-it-alls into satisfied and occasionally mediocre people? ...how?
reminder
Hey all, just a quick reminder that we're having
a little shindig tonight at 9 pm in the Lowell Grille (in the basement of O-entryway) to celebrate our move over to
CampusTap and our new writers and to hopefully encourage some friends and readers to come share their thoughts with us (along with some pizza and drinks).
update: A reader reminds me that I haven't explained what
CampusTap is. Basically, it's a new venture being kicked off by a handful of Harvard students that seeks to be the blog platform- like Blogger- for Harvard. The Crimson has
a story on the site today.
Another quick note: many apologies to those of you who are having a hard time reading the site with this new font. We have no idea why it changed and I don't really like it. Luckily, as of 9 pm tonight, it won't matter!
Hope to see you there.
Larry Summers Takes A Bow
One year ago, I spent the better part of the afternoon at a rally sponsored by the Coalition for an Anti-Sexist Harvard, where a hundred undergraduates suffered through subzero temperatures and intermittent rain to demand Larry Summers' resignation. The protest was timed to coincide with a critical meeting of the faculty, which was being covered by media outlets nationwide. It was a convergence of local and national opinion - the back of my head, for example, was featured on the next week’s Independent, but I had friends whose grandparents came across their pictures by way of the Associated Press. Larry Summers probably wasn’t having a fantastic day on February 22nd. Frankly, he’s not doing much better this year, since he's apparently opted for the whole unemployment thing instead of doggedly picking a fight.(more in expanded post)
What surprises me, though, is that I’m kind of ambivalent about the whole resignation announcement. Last year, I felt so strongly about the need for a change in leadership that I stood in an ankle-deep puddle of ice water for an hour and even filled out my own little no-confidence vote to place in the rally’s novelty-sized ballot box. If that’s not dedication, I don’t know what is. This year, for no apparent reason, I can’t seem to summon up any sort of seething rage.
It’s not like Larry Summers has personally changed my mind; if anything, I’ve been pretty disheartened by the constant controversy over things like Dean Kirby’s resignation and the backsliding on issues that hit closer to home, like Harvard’s refusal to join the lawsuit against the Solomon Amendment, pay its workers a living wage, or include gender identity and expression in its non-discrimination code. I’m convinced that leaders need to lead, and that conviction doesn’t necessarily stem from any sort of progressive belief that Harvard needs to set a global example (although, in an ideal world, maybe it would). Instead, I’d be satisfied if Harvard’s leadership took the initiative to solicit student opinion and listen to concerns instead of waiting until they’ve got dozens of unwashed labor activists calling the New York Times from their office. The student body is incredibly diverse, and almost every student group has concerns that deeply affect their college experience. I’d be refreshed if this was acknowledged by anyone, including Summers’ successor.
I’m invested in a university that functions as a model of academic excellence and democratic ideals, and I don’t believe that we were headed in the right direction – so why am I ambivalent right now? On a visceral level, I feel bad for Larry Summers because he’s human and deserves some degree of sympathy. It’s one thing to watch someone resign in an acknowledgment of bad decisions on his part; it’s another thing, though, to watch him shrug his shoulders and call it quits because a significant portion of his colleagues find him generally unlikable. My guilt complex is fairly overactive, and when I opened my inbox and found Larry Summers’ terse, wistful letter, something in me died a little. In a totally irrational way, I feel bad for wishing this upon him. Clearly, no individual student is responsible for his departure, but I held a sign and let my mullet-like haircut grace the cover of the Independent, so I feel apologetic in an admittedly irrational way.
It’s easy to become apprehensive about the more concrete effects of Summers’ departure, too. First and foremost, I worry about what this decision is going to do to the credibility of the left at Harvard. It was easy to dislike Summers when he had done something that was widely recognized as sexist – or, at the very least, wholly insensitive – by a large audience across the nation. At this time last year, the same announcement would have carried a very different symbolic weight, and it might have suggested that Harvard’s female students mattered more than its feckless president. It would have been a lesson, for better or for worse, in cause and effect and the importance of taking responsibility for one’s own actions – and that could have been meaningful for women and minorities everywhere. Instead, the lack of a single, salient source of discontent at the time of the announcement means that the whole episode is likely to go down as an anecdote about liberal academia’s chokehold on free thought – and that’s a drastically reductionist understanding of the whole debacle.
It makes sense for activists to be apprehensive about the announcement – not necessarily disappointed that Summers is leaving, but disappointed that the whole ordeal is likely to become a retroactive pox on the left at Harvard. Summers is departing at a time when there’s no single error in judgment that might merit his removal from power. Overall, this – more than anything else – is disappointing to those of us who can identify a litany of past frustrations and are still hoping against hope for positive, progressive institutional change. Harvard can easily stand up for its students and develop ethical fiber by divesting from Sudan, by refusing federal money until all of its students are eligible for the same employment opportunities, by updating its non-discrimination code, by fully recognizing underfunded academic disciplines, and by paying its workers a living wage. The feuds that marked Summers’ tenure didn’t have to be political, but the intractability of the university’s position turned them into ideologically charged free-for-alls between liberal academia and a controversial, more conservative figurehead. Now, by avoiding any issue directly and stepping down in a period of general discontent, there’s a good chance that the decision will go down in history as a victory of the implacable left, without really remembering why discontent built over the years. Overall, that’s bad news for those of us who will sacrifice a good pair of shoes and risk frostbite to fight sexism, but can’t seem to get excited about a decisive victory over nothing in particular.
on the radio
Earlier this evening I participated in
a roundtable discussion on WHRB about the Summers resignation. The other panelists were Zach Seward, the former Crimson Managing Editor who broke the story itself for the WSJ, Eric Lesser, the President of the Dems, and Matt Meisel, one of the co-chairs of the Crimson. I think it was a good discussion, although the other three probably contributed more to it than I did. The piece also featured a taped statement from Professor James Engell on behalf of the faculty, an interview with
Richard Bradley of
Harvard Rules and a (wo)man on the street montage of Harvard students. Check it out and share your reactions.
on covering coverage and breaking news
On a few email lists, and now
in the comments section, has been the complaint that Cambridge Common thinks it "broke" the news that Larry is resigning. I
quickly mentioned this issue earlier today, but I thought it was fair to address it more in full. Apologies to people on the FUP list who have already read this explanation. (more in expanded post)
I do not claim to have "broken" the fact that Larry Summers was resigning. Simply speaking, I (and people on email lists) "broke" the fact that the Crimson believed that the WSJ had the story and that some Crimson staff members were sharing this information. That fact (and it is a fact) was verified by two sources and a half a dozen emails. I realize that the emails are less reliable, but the sources at the Crimson were as reliable as any sources that the Crimson uses on reporting on other things.
Simply said, this was coverage of the Crimson. If anything, that people believed that because I reported this fact-that the Crimson believed that it had been scooped by the WSJ- they believed that Larry was in fact resigning is a testament to the reliability of the Crimson.
To the extent that you believe that the Crimson should not be covered as a newsmaker in and of itself, or to the extent that you do not trust me as a source and therefore don't believe my sources were legitimate, I would understand concern and clarification. But if you believe that I am a reliable source and the Crimson is a legitimate thing to be covered, I held myself to the same standards that the Crimson holds itself to.
It seems odd to me that some have decried my coverage of the "breaking" of the story, and yet do so because they are so interested in that fact as a piece of news. Because I wrote about the "breaking" of the story before it was "broken" doesn't make my story any less legitimate. In addition, this seems ironic to me considering the fact that the story the Crimson ended up running this morning was about the fact that another media source had confirmed the story but they could not.
In any event, I want to make this clear because it's important to me
not to delegitimize the hard work done by the people who actually confirmed the truth of the story and worked hard to do so. I was excited to find out about the process as it was happening, but only because the process itself is important and a valid thing to cover.
I hope that's clear. Feel free to share your thoughts and wisdom. If you're interested, you can read more about
my thoughts on alternative media at Harvard.
Think we're spiffy?
Come hang out with us at the Cambridge Common R E L A U N C H party!
This Thursday, 9-11 pm, Lowell Grille.
Some food, some great company and some RELAUNCHING!!!
Different president, same shit
To go off Deb's point, why should the average Harvard college student care about Summers' resignation? While I think that Summers has been a bad president (weakening the Af-Am department, comments on women, etc.), I don't think that it matters that he has resigned because whoever replaces him will most likely follow the same policies. Who cares who the actual person in charge is, if Harvard remains the same. Is the same argument I have with folks who think that the problem with the American government is Bush. No, the problem with the American government is the American government, i.e. it's the system, not the person. If Bush died tomorrow, he would be replaced by Cheney and things would remain the same or get worse. Same principle applies to Larry Summers. A progressive President of Harvard University could accomplish a lot. Harvard is a leader (if not the leader) of American higher education. Harvard has played a leading role in monumental changes in the American college system, such as the SAT, but is any future president of Harvard really going to rock the boat like that? No. Therefore, why care? The personalities will be different, the policies are the same i.e. Allston campus still gets built and the residents screwed over, still no campus center, still an undemocratic governance structure, etc. Hopefully, whoever they find to permanently replace Larry will be better at PR. As long as the next president doesn't stick his (or her, but doubt the corporation would do that) foot in his mouth and continue doing what Larry was doing then he will be successful. That was Larry's only real mistake, saying stupid things and attracting too much media attention.
And this matters to us because...?
Alongside Andrew's very on-top-of-it updating, I'd like to ask all of you some more wishy-washy questions. Why you think the average Harvard student should care about Summers resigning, why people
do care, or why they don't? Apart from the peripheral (or perhaps not-so-peripheral) effects of Summers on the general Harvard image, I'm inclined to feel that there really won't be any real, immediate consequences on Joe Schmoe's day-to-day Harvard experience, but should there be? Should the students have a say in who sits in that Mass Hall office next fall? Or would that just be an extension of what some are suggesting is an undue power/influence that FAS has shown over the presidency of the entire University?
did Bok prepare?
A great find from Vikram posted as a comment below (from
Blue Mass. Group):
Derek Bok, who was Harvard's President from 1971-1991, will return to serve as interim President - perhaps this explains Bok's resignation as head of Common Cause last week. The timing seems a bit too close to be pure coincidence - Bok must have known Summers' resignation was coming.
Does this explain Larry decision to get out and going skiing for the weekend?
WHRB to play Summers resignation address
Now (8 pm) WHRB is going to play the speech Larry made from in front of Mass Hall this afternoon. You can tune in to 95.3 (if for some reason you still have a radio) or check it out at
their website.
UPDATE: It's not on, so I guess throptalk was wrong or there's a delay...
UPDATE 2: It's on.
breaking: a protest and possible sit-in
It's official, Trombly and his crew (whoever they turn out to be)
will be protesting next Tuesday's faculty club meeting and, if the faculty doesn't make its case, "adjourn to the Faculty Club and will remain there until an explanation is provided."
covering the coverage of my coverage of the coverage of the coverage
Good lord, all of this coverage is making me tired. I just got off the phone with a Boston Herald reporter who is writing a short story about Cambridge Common breaking the news. I tried to make it clear: all we did was cover the coverage to come. In any event, a few other Boston blogs have kind words for Cambridge Common in covering all of this (
Universal Hub and
Hub Blog) which are much appreciated. The word got out because
Instapundit, one of the biggest blogs in the country,
linked over to
my first post. We even got a link up in
TradeSports where people were betting on Larry's future.
Hub Blog sums it up best: it's not your father/mother's media anymore.
breaking? a sit-in?
Further proof that we now live in bizarroland: a conservative Editorial Exec at the Harvard Crimson, Drew Trombly, is promoting the idea of a sit-in at either the Faculty Club or Professor Judith Ryan's (an anti-Summers leader) office hours. He's posted the idea in
our comments section and over at
Summersville, and a few other active conservatives (Kavulla of the Crimson/Salient and Vivek Ramaswamy of the Harvard Political Union) are pubbing the idea on political email lists. Strangely I feel for their cause: while I'm not a big Summers fan the Faculty simply hasn't made an adequate public case for their revolt. That’s not to say that I don’t think it was warranted, but if the President of Harvard is resigning we should be able to point to an OpEd or a speech or something. Occassional quotes (anonymouse and otherwise) and random anecdotes are clearly not enough.
Even so, a sit-in would be hilarious and absurd, especially when the basis of the conservative critique of both lefties on campus and the faculty itself is an inability to deal "rationally" with serious issues. Part of me is rooting for it to happen, the other part of me is worried that only incredibly strong drugs would allow me to make it through the whole thing with my sanity intact.
liveblogging Larry
That's right, Garrett Dash Nelson over at Demapples is actually
LIVEBLOGGING Larry Summers resignation speech. For so many reasons, we now officially live in bizarroland.
Summers emails campus
As I'm sure you all know, this email was just sent around to campus:
Dear Members of the Harvard Community,
I write to let you know that, after considerable reflection, I have notified the Harvard Corporation that I will resign as President of the University as of June 30, 2006. I will always be grateful for the opportunity to have served Harvard in this role, and I will treasure the continuing friendship and support of so many exceptional colleagues and students at Harvard.
Below are links to my letter to the community, as well as a letter from the members of the Corporation and a related news release.
Sincerely,
Larry Summers
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/2006/02/21-summers.html
http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2006/0221_summers.html
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/2006/02/21-board.pdf
NYT piles on, breaks new news
The New York Times
has finally chimed in with some new tidbits:
Lawrence H. Summers, the president of Harvard University, has decided to resign and is expected to make his decision public later today or tomorrow, three officials affiliated with the university said today.
Someone has finally gone past the two anonymous Wall Street Journal sources, so I think it's finally safe to say that the fat lady is singing loudly. Another interesting revelation:
Derek Bok, who served as president of Harvard from 1971 to 1991, and before that as dean of the law school, is expected to step in as interim president, starting in July, according to a university official.
A new president by next fall. Would the first female president of Harvard be too not subtle?
UPDATE 1:15 pm:
The Crimson is now reporting the same thing.
my favorite response:
This is
my favorite response yet to Summers resigning (from RedIvy):
A Sad Day
If the rumor mill is true, then tomorrow will go down in the annals of Harvard history as a truly sad day indeed. A moderate and effective President with many great ideas will be forced to resign by a group of very vocal socialist FAS professors that have hijacked this university, despite clear opposition from both the student body and the faculty of most of the graduate schools. It all started with a few innocent and completely appropriate comments made that were a little too much for the professors' vision of a socialist utopia embodied in Harvard. If we can be grateful for anything in this, it's that the pack of wolves who forced Summers out will have little or no say in who comes in next. Maybe our next president will help us to work towards giving them the boot, something that, I think we can all agree, is long overdue.
I honestly think that many Republicans are still fighting the Cold War, and I love it.
it's officialish?
It's funny, some have criticized (maybe fairly) this blog for feeding the rumor mill without hard facts. Then I read
the Crimson story today: it's the same thing! No one but two Wall Street Journal anonymous sources seems to be able to confirm this thing. Until then, I will continue to report on reports of other people's reports.
whoa
As if this evening couldn't be any weirder,
the Indy weighs in.
hilarious.
Some members of The Crimson are apparently livid with their leakers (which are, I assure you, numerous). An anonymous poster posted a line from an email to News-Talk that I found entertaining, for obvious reasons.
Summersville picked it up: "crimeds never should have spoken to outside sources - especially not Andrew F-ing Golis." As fits with the pattern of the night, the entirety of that email was leaked to me about a half hour ago. It's below the fold. (more in expanded post)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andrew Mark Trombly
Date: Feb 20, 2006 11:32 PM
Subject: RE: [NEWSTALK] Covering Summers' Resignation
To: Timothy John McGinn , Newstalk < newstalk-l@thecrimson.com>
Even (and especially) if the story hadn't been confirmed, crimeds never
should have spoken to outside sources - especially not Andrew F-ing Golis.
The way this story broke is unacceptable. It makes us look like fools when
the rumors are attributed to crimeds while The Crimson is refraining from
releasing the story. The rumor mill never would have started churning if
people had managed to keep their mouths shut.
DMT
-----Original Message-----
From: newstalk-l-bounces@magenta.thecrimson.com
[mailto:newstalk-l-bounces@magenta.thecrimson.com ] On Behalf Of Timothy John
McGinn
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 11:23 PM
To: Newstalk
Subject: [NEWSTALK] Covering Summers' Resignation
Have we confirmed that Summers is resigning yet? (Some of the emails
that've been forwarded over newstalk would seem to suggest we
haven't.) I mean, if we haven't, that's one thing, but if we have,
wouldn't it have made more sense to do a web update with a first
write-through of the story as soon as we did? We could've controlled
the release of the story that way, before it leaked all over house
open lists and cambridge common and whatnot, and then published an
updated story tomorrow with student reaction. Obviously if we're
still trying to nail this down on the record the whole situation is
different, but I was just wondering...
/tjm
looking for confirmation
Does anyone have Larry Summers phone number?
BREAKING: Summers is resigning
ORIGINAL POST: I have it from two sources at the Crimson, and it is now on the Adams house list, that Summers is resigning. Apparently the Crimson is leaking like a sieve. Either that or they're floating false information. You know what I know, but it looks like it's all over.
UPDATE: I just spoke to someone in the Crimson newroom who told me that they are in the process of writing the story as we speak and will be publishing it later tonight. The person also told me specifically that it was not a Lampoon Hoax. Again, just reporting what I know.
---
Travis Kavulla wrote this to GOP-Open:
Rumor has it that Larry Summers is resigning.
The Wall Street Journal is supposedly breaking the story tomorrow; The Crimson is looking for confirmation on the story.
From Currier-Wire (via Dems-Talk):
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [CurrierWire] summers resigns
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:59:32 -0500
From: Zak Tanjeloff
To:
Yup. I called up a friend at the Crimson and said it's true. They have some legit sources apparently. From my understanding, the reason he is resigning is because the corporation has begun a dialogue with the faculty, something which it usually never does. It seems that the corporation was beginning to mull Summers future and thus, Larry thought it better to resign now then face another vote of no confidence and a potential reaction from the corporation.
Z
Another possibility?
All this is a ploy to make money on in-trade stock. Larry isn't resigning tomorrow, I am sure of that. The stock on in-trade just went up from 72 to 99 dollars a share... and that happened only from the information from a few crimson people and Travis K. This is a classic case of insider trading and someone is going to get busted for it... mark my words, Summers doesn't resign tomorrow and someone makes a lot of money...
Of course, for that to be true Kavulla and Tanjeloff's friend and my sources would all have to be lying, which is possible, but would be kind of sad. I would bet that anonymous commenter is just worried about losing a lot of money, hence the watching the price.
Freedom to deny truth?
On the recent debate on freedom of expression prompted by the cartoons depicting Mohammed, what do you all think of
this article, where a notorious Nazi-denier is sentenced to several years in prison? While we might feel that this is an extreme case, where do we draw the line between freedom of interpretation and something that should be punished by law?
summersgate links
As the Summersgate speculation
reaches fever pitch, I thought I'd through a few links out there for any of you who, like me, have had to dig around to figure out what in the world is going on.
First,
CampusTap is hosting an open discussion blog called
Summersville. We'll have more news about CampusTap and Cambridge Common's future soon, but for now suffice to say the site is a cool new space for Harvard blogs.
Second, check out
Richard Bradley's blogging on the whole thing. Bradley is the author of
Harvard Rules, and is very much anti-Summers. He's also very thorough and collects all of the latest news on what's going on, whether you agree with his opinions or not.
There seems to be a growing consensus that Summers is done, what do you think?
The (Native) American Dream
If you saw this woman walking down the street would you think:
a) She is a model.
b) She is a teacher.
c) She is a sales clerk.
d) She is former $60,000/day-making drug dealer.
If you chose "d" then you are absolutely right. Today's NY Times contains
a feature on this woman, Eugenia Phair, who is a Native American of the Lummi tribe in Washington and a former high-level drug trafficker. Take a few minutes and read the article on her life both pre, during, and post-drug trafficking. Any reactions?
Unhand The Throne
Check out this Boston Globe
article published today on the possibility of President Summers being removed from office by the Harvard Corporation in order to settle the ongoing dispute between him and the University. Seeing as how the faculty plans to have a vote of no confidence in him on February 28 the Globe states that the Corporation may "act quickly" to avoid what is expected to be a lopsided vote of no confidence. Throughout this time of President Summers being on the hot seat for
controversy after
controversy after
controversy my main question in the midst of all this has been: why should any undergraduate care?
Do President Summers' statements have any impact on us as students at the University he presides over besides offending some of us (and does offending students and faculty justify his removal) What is this impact?
Does President Summers have a greater responsibility to students and faculty or to the Harvard Corporation and its shareholders (or to alumni? Staff)?
As has been
previously suggested, a vote of no confidence from the student body directly or the UC representatively would mean...what? Please respond to any of these questions of you have opinions on them, informed public.
Sorry, Mr. Wealthy Shooter of My Face Who I Give Money To
Well the guy that Cheney shot has now emerged from the hospital in Texas where he has been for the past week and what was one of the first things to come out of his mouth?
An apology to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, the man that has permanently tatooed him with shotgun pellet holes and wounds along the right side of his upper body. I'm all for forgiveness but come on...
This comes a day after sheriffs in Kenedy County where the shooting occurred decided
not to press charges in the incident after deeming it a "hunting accident". Conflicting reports have arisen over numerous details about the shooting and its subsequent investigation including
when exactly Cheney was questioned by sherrifs in Kennedy County, whether Secret Service agents initially turned away the sheriffs, etc.
What suprises me about all this is that: (1) Harrington has been released from the hospital much earlier than most people expected (read: Cheney got him the best doctors...if not his personal ones), (2) the sheriff's investigation seems to be based primarily on Cheney's personal account of what happened, and (3) nobody has heard a peep from
Pamela Pitzer Willeford, a high-level U.S. diplomat who was the third person present when Cheney shot Harrington. What I see is the Vice President's entourage (including his doctors, the Secret Service, and more) doing a darn good job at protecting him, whether it means they are restricting some people from talking, working their tales off to make sure that the medical condition of Harrington didn't worsen, stifling the local sheriff's investigation or what have you.
UC special election
The results are in. You may not have known it, but the UC just held a round of special elections to fill 6 seats in 5 houses. The three victories of note: a Haddock campaign worker, an ex-VP candidate and a former UC member. Erik Kouslkalis won John Haddock's seat in Currier and, seeing as how he was
an active member of
Haddock's campaign team, he will likely be a close ally of the President. Tom Hadfield, who ran for Eliot UC Rep in the fall and then for UC VP with Magnus Grimeland in December, finally managed to get himself onto the Council but appears to have given up on his brief effort to convince the Council to hold a campus vote on student confidence in President Summers. If he ran for VP as a sophomore from off the Council, one can imagine what he'll be looking to do as a Junior on the Council if he can stay on until next December. Finally, Eddie Lee won the seat in Leverett and previously served last year as a first-year. Lee was best known as an outspoken supporter of funding Christian groups whose constitutions explicitly prohibit non-Christian leaders, a practice deemed by many to violate the UC's anti-discrimination policies.
Are any of the other races of particular note? The rest of the results are below the fold. (more in expanded post)
Adams: 1 Seat
Elected: James Sietstra
2nd: Jacob Mays
3rd: Tom Hamnett
4th: Kyle A. Krahel
5th: Erin Frey
6th: Jill Sylvester
Currier: 1 seat
Elected: Eric Kouslkalis
2nd: Joe Cooper
Eliot: 1 seat
Elected: Tom Hadfield
2nd: Greg Schmidt
3rd: Brian Aldrich
4th: Harrison Greenbaum
Leverett: 1 seat
Elected: Eddie Lee
2nd: Ben Decker
3rd: Matthew S. Fasman
Winthrop: 2 seats
Elected: Raymond Palmer
Elected: Jenny Skelton
3rd: Dan Koh
4th: Tom Jackson
big Q!
Alright, I know we've been overdoing the event promoting the last few days, but some stuff is just that good. Tomorrow is the Big Question, an amazing project that is trying to encourage people to engage those scary deep meaningful conversations with people other than their roommates late at night. I love the thinking out loud, it's the best way to build community knowledge and insight. The challenge for Harvard students (for me, anyway) is learning to listen...
Go ask the Big Question tomorrow, share and listen! They're asking: Social Justice Tourism? What do service trips mean for us and for the places we go? The blurb is below the break... (more in expanded post)
?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?
* Have you spent time volunteering or teaching abroad?
* Have you gone on "alternative" spring break trips before?
* Ever feel like the "big questions" don't get asked at Harvard?
* Do you like FREE PIZZA? :)
This Friday, PBHA Presents this Semester's First...
((((((THE BIG QUESTION))))))
"Social Justice Tourism?"
What do service trips mean for us and for the places we go?
Special Guest:
Hamilton Simons-Jones,
Tulane University Director of Community Service
Hamilton helped organize the PBHA intersession trip to New Orleans.
This Friday, February 17th, 5PM-6PM
Phillips Brooks House Parlor Room
FREE PIZZA! :)
?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?*?
The Big Question is an experimental new PBHA project intended to provide
a weekly space for taking on the tough questions about society and our
role in it. The Big Question is not about jargon-filled policy debates or
easy answers from experts but instead strives to create an open, humble,
and respectful environment for constructive dialogue on essential issues.
For more information: stevelin@fas
Yale divests from Sinopec
Last week,
the Crimson informed us that Harvard had increased its investments in a Chinese oil company named Sinopec. Today, Yale divested from Sinopec and six other oil companies completely
saying:
Yale’s decision to divest from these oil companies, which are actively conducting operations in Sudan, is based on the finding that more than half of the Sudanese government’s revenue is derived from oil. As the source of such revenue, the companies are presumed to be committing “grave social injury” by providing substantial assistance to the perpetrators of genocide.
Last year's divestment success at Harvard was exciting, but don't be fooled: according to Yale's study we are still funding genocide. There is no moral distinction that I know of between Sinopec and PetroChina, so it's time for Harvard to stand up and do the right thing.
Harvard Salient: "look at me! look at me! PLEASE LOOK AT ME!"
Now, let's be honest, I'm not exactly immune to the allure of self-promotion. Unless you're writing for the Crimson or some other overly dominant news source, media is part ideas and part politics; you've got to get attention if you want to be heard. The Salient has for a long time been an all too able embodiment of that principle: provoke first, explain second, bask in the attention, adulation and disdain third. But, one would think the Fullah Barbie, a profoundly hilarious martyrdom complex and an appropriate but unhealthy love of Harvey Mansfield would be enough to satisfy their need for conservative flamboyance and blatant demagoguery. Apparently not, and this week the Salient decided to publish the cartoons of Muhammad that have resulted in international outrage, both peaceful and violent, and a sudden interest on the Right in free speech. And they're
very excited about it. (more in expanded post)
Let me start by noting this: I am not attacking their right to do so. People have the right to do and say all kinds of silly or tasteless things (like run through Harvard Yard with socks on their ears declaring their love for football tees and clowns, for instance), that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to say they are wrong or weird for doing it. So please, spare me the free speech whining, no one's knocking on Travis Kavulla's door in Mather and demanding that he follow them to one of our secret prisons in Eastern Europe.
But seriously, what point was there to do this other than pure attention-mongering? Yes, I know, it's a statement of principle that reaffirms the freedom of the press in the United States. That's fine, it's a good principle. But who really thought it was in jeopardy? Mature people realize that part of having a right is being intelligent about exercising it. Of course, the other argument is that the cartoons have a powerful political point – that they are witty or important observations of the realities of "Muslim extremism."
First of all, no, they're not. None of them are particularly insightful as individual political statements; they range from sarcastically self-referential to downright meaningless. Second of all, was the Salient really worried that we hadn't heard this profound set of ideas? Were they worried that the Harvard political community hadn't noticed the massive international debate, protest, deaths and diplomatic stress? Please.
Again, because I fear that some people might spin my thoughts into a defense of the violent outrage, let me be clear: the Salient can print whatever it wants, the Danish newspapers should be able to print whatever they want. The Danish papers, though, could at least make the claim to starting a relevant and difficult political debate to justify being offensive. The Salient is just looking for a few more readers, a lot more attention, and a lot of liberal outrage. In some ways, I guess this post gives them what they want. Unfortunately, I'm not outraged that they printed them, I'm just disappointed that their sophomoric stunts have reached a new low.
Katrina
I encourage any and everyone interested in Hurricane Katrina and the *ongoing* efforts to rebuild the Gulf Coast to come out tonight to "Stories from the Front Line: Communities Rebuilding from Katrina" from 8-9:30 p.m. in Lowell Dining Hall. You'll be able to hear from people such as the Mayor of Moss Point, Mississippi--the small Gulf Coast town that Cambridge adopted in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and that PBHA has and will be sending groups of students to (including my trip over Spring Break). A number of undergrads that went on the trips to Moss Point, Ocean Springs (Mississippi), and New Orleans over Intersession will also be there sharing their stories of what it was like to go to the region. In talking with them personally I've come to understand that words and pictures cannot adequately express the situation along the coast but maybe the one above will help (from
AllHipHop.Com).
columnists
The Crimson has announced
its Spring columnists. The Ed Board gave them to... THEMSELVES! Alex Slack, Maggie Rossman and Hannah Wright, all Crimson Ed Execs from the fall semester, somehow managed to convince the people they hired to hire them! I can't imagine how that worked out...
In all seriousness, looks like an interesting group. Mr. Schmidt, Ms. O'Brien, Mr. Kavulla, Mr. Goldenberg, don't dissappoint!
manliness and masculinity
Tonight (Wednesday night), will be Round Two of the Harvey v. Judith Lecture-Off. I don't know about you, but I'm excited.
In October,
Harvey Mansfield proposed a New Feminism (conservatism) in Sever at the same time as preeminint radical social theorist
Judith Butler gave a lecture on her new book in the Holyoke Center. Tonight, Mansfield is back for more and this time lecturing on "manliness" in Kirkland (6 pm) at the same time as famous gender and queer theorist
Judith Halberstam is speaking in the Barker Center (5 to 7 pm). Halberstam, visiting this semester from USC, is most famous for her book
Female Masculinity. I would love to know if either speaker had the other in mind when scheduling their event; it certainly seems too good to be coincidental.
say what?
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."
Who said it? (don't cheat!) Do you think these words still apply?
On This Special Day
As many of you already know (or hopefully should know), today is Valentine's Day. The day of love. The day restaurants nationwide thank
5th Century African Popes for creating what is probably their best business day of the year. If you have a significant other, make sure you take the time out to express those innermost, gushy-most feelings so they know that you care. And buy them stuff...because words are not enough.
Some of you may not know that in addition to Valentine's Day today is
Singles Awareness Day. Instead of spending the day out with that special someone your awareness of being single is heightened by every person you see serenaded by an acapella group, snuggled up with their lover on the shuttle, or banging against the walls next to your room. Tough...get a bottle of wine and drown those sorrows. By yourself (you ARE single).
In addition to the aforementioned two holidays today is
National Condom Day (most likely for the former holiday...not the latter). In 2006, don't be one of the 15.3 million U.S. citizens that will be diagnosed with an STD (many of these people being of college age). Even worse, don't be someone who doesn't know that they have one. Like BET says,
Rap-It-Up (or better yet, pen-i-cillin).
Finally, today is
Race Relations Day (to some). Hug a Black person...then check for your wallet.
Hooray for interracial 99% protected when used correctly loving. Yeah...
Yesterday Abu Ghraib, Today Guantanamo Bay, Tomorrow...?
A report to be released this week by the United Nations' Human Rights Commission calls for the
immediate close of the U.S. military's blackhole of a detention center, otherwise known as Guantanamo Bay. The report also calls for the prosecution of those involved in the perpetration of the prison up to the highest levels of "military and political command" to be brought to justice. According to the UK's telegraph, this may even include U.S. President Bush as the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military and chief executive of the government. This is looking to be a pretty crap next few weeks for the White House while Cheney ducks the spotlight after
shooting a man and
federal budget cuts from Bush continue to draw popular and legislative criticism.
I wonder what would happen if this U.N. commission visited U.S. prisons on the mainland. There are surely many here with
conditions not befitting any human being despite whatever crimes they may have committed, yet they are allowed to persist. Although U.S. prisons may be deemed as being in better shape than many other countries' prison systems the world over that doesn't make ours decent. Our prisons should not only be
comparatively decent but
normatively decent.
constructing dialogue
I'm sure I'm going to get kicked off a lot of emails lists if I keep doing this, but I couldn't help but be fascinated by an email sent out over GOP-Open a few days ago:
Subject: [GOP-Open] conservative women - have strong feelings about feminism, bettyfriedan?
Let me know ASAP, like this night. We have an opportunity to put somebody on a panel on NPR radio to discuss this issue, taking place TOMORROW. They're looking for "a smart, articulate young woman who feels disillusioned by the [feminist] movement." You would probably be going up against people who are supporters of Betty Friedan / the more radical strain of feminism.
The whole thing reminds me of a strange episode during the Larry Summers/Sex Differences debate of last year. My blockmate was supposed to go on TV (as "the woman" representing the Crimson Ed Board) but was replaced when the show found out she had a nuanced, and not completely anti-Larry position (
she wrote a great piece about it). Considering both incidents, it seems fair to ask: is there any reason to believe that any dialogue on TV or radio or anywhere else is "representative"?
snowball fight!
Via Dems-Talk:
WHAT: MASSIVE SNOWBALL FIGHT
WHEN: TONIGHT AT 10:30PM
WHERE: HARVARD YARD
Sharp Shooting Cheney
Numerous
national news outlets are reporting that U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney shot a 78 year-old man with a shotgun today while on a hunting trip in Texas. Although the story is that it was a mistake, how can someone mistakenly shoot a person while aiming at a bird? Also and possibly equally important, who shoots a relatively small bird such as a quail with a huge, powerful shotgun? Will the man, a lawyer from Austin, Texas, pursue charges against the VP? We'll have to wait and see...
a hero
I was reading the coverage of the opening ceremonies of the Olympics and I came across a list of the eight women who carried the Olympic flag. "The eighth was Cambodian human rights activist Somaly Mam." Who is Somaly Mam? I thought. Obviously they're trying to bring some attention to her, why?
I googled her and found this story from December,
"A Life in the Day". Read it. This woman fights against the worst of human nature, people and things we don't talk about because we don't like to admit that they exist:child prostitution, rape as tourism, sex slavery. I often feel badly in need of heros. Here's one.
except when it's MY holy symbol
Volokh brings up an interesting point (quoting someone else):
Republication of the cartoons boils down to this: Depicting Mohammed in violation of Muslim tenets strikes a blow at the very heart of Islamic beliefs, and and such sacrilegious desecration of their beliefs is so offensive and hurtful that it simply should not be allowed, even under the guise of "free speech."
Personally, I don't buy into that, but here's a question for discussion: Isn't this the same argument advanced in the United States by those who want a constitutional amendment (and implementing federal and state statutes) to ban the burning or other desecration of the flag of the United States? Can one support the right to publish the cartoons and also support a flag-burning amendment? If so, how does one distinguish between the two?
The take home message for me is this:
Hillary or no Hillary, the flag-burning issue should now be fundamentally dead in American politics.
CPAC: HRC goes to DC
The Harvard Republican Club has headed down to DC this weekend to hang out with, according to advertisements on their email list, "Cheney, Coulter, and all the bigwigs in the conservative movement." CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, is one of the center pieces of this movement, and something liberals should look at very seriously both in order to understand our political opponents and ourselves. The conservative movement is incredibly good at teaching (or indoctrinating, depending on how cynical you'd like to be) and training its foot soldiers, and CPAC is one of the primary ways it does that. I'm not sure the liberal/left movement wants to go exactly that route, but it's something to think about.
I don't have any commentary beyond that (please do share yours), but definitely check out the coverage
from CampusProgress, whose writers are there and blogging. I'd love to hear HRC's take on all of this...
UPDATE: The NYTs has
an interesting article.
UPDATE 2: Remember how I noted that the HRC advertised CPAC with enthusiasm for Ann Coulter? Check out what their lovely and hateful hero had to say (
here and
here). I'll give you a hint, it had to do with "ragheads."
money, death and Harvard
In case you missed it, in today's Crimson (and very unfortunately buried on the third page):
Harvard Grows Sinopec Holdings.
In case the Harvard Administration missed it:
A report by the Harvard Corporation Committee on Shareholder Responsibility (CCSR) stated that “substantial revenue from Sudan’s oil production has gone toward the purchase of weapons.”
Weapons? For what?
U.S. Secretary of State Colin S. Powell said in September 2004 that “genocide has been committed” in the western Sudanese region of Darfur, and that Sudan’s government along with so-called Janjaweed militiamen “bear responsibility.”
Remember when we invaded Iraq and retrospectively decided that it was because Saddam killed his own people? 250,000 dead. 2 million displaced, homeless, starving and desperate. In Sudan. Killed and displaced with our money. But hey, I'm sure the profit makes it well worth it.
UPDATE: I quoted 250,000 dead from
DivestSudan. Last year, I read numbers around 400,000.
Eric Reeves puts the number at 340,000. The official UN number is set at 70,000, but the BBC describes that number as "obviously wrong."
Read the BBC's full discussion of the difficulty of getting an exact number.
American Hegemony?
A few times this week I have been bothered by people's comments about professors with accents and how awful it is to have to listen to them. While I understand that sometimes there are TFs that you really simply cannot understand, what bothered me the most was these particular professors, while they did indeed have accents, spoke fluid English that was for the most part very correct. The height of my frustration came when in a class, the professor, who is French but speaks excellent English with a light French accent, switched off with the (American) TF and someone beside me said, "Thank God, someone who can actually speak English." Excuse me? Can you speak a second language the way he speaks English? Is this, as I feel, yet another case of American hegemonistic intolerance or am I being too sensitive?
celebrating a political life
So, the talk shows are all abuzz about whether or not Lowery and Carter's speeches were inappropriate. I linked to some clips below. I want to offer some thoughts about the controversy, hopefully you'll do the same. Forgive the rantiness, I'm taking a breather from other work and writing quickly.
---
Celebrating a political life without politics, simply doesn't make any sense. Especially when that person's politics meant speaking truth to power, even when it wasn't "appropriate" or "acceptable" according to the powers that be. Coretta Scott King committed her life to fighting for civil and human rights, fighting on behalf of the poor and people of color, fighting against war. Today, civil and human rights are violated around the world and in our own country. Poor people, and disproportionately people of color, are suffering without real opportunity, in prison, trailers and slums throughout our country. In another country we have killed at least 30,000 and maybe as many as 100,000 innocent civilians based on an exaggerated threat and faulty intelligence. We are setting up 14 bases but claim we are introducing democracy.(more in expanded post)
As one reader has already pointed out, President Bush and the conservatives of the world would rather remember Coretta Scott King as the good wife of the hopeful civil rights leader that "fixed the race problem" in this country. Sorry, that just can't fly. We need to remember her suffering at the hands of her own government (including wiretapping and blackmail by the FBI). We need to remember that her husband sacrificed his popularity to oppose an unjust war and that she continued to speak out against that war after he was killed. We need to remember that she fought against American businesses who were complicit in South Africa's apartheid. We need to remember that she didn't just fight to end Jim Crow, but also to radically transform our country to a place of racial and economic justice. We need to remember that she carried on her husband's tradition of non-violence, and strove to transform the entire world to peace. And, most importantly, we need to remember that we aren't there. Not even close.
The right-wingers are acting offended so that they don't have to talk about those things. Have they asked this: what does the King family think? If they're not offended, if they're not upset, who are you to say what is or isn't appropriate at their mother's funeral? Essentially, the Right wants the country to remember the woman and forget the life and the causes. They want to mourn and reflect, but they don't want to have to reflect on the things they disagreed with.
If you haven't already,
watch Rev. Lowery's speech:
She extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war,
She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar.
We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there,
But Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here,
Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds.
For war billions more, but no more for the poor.
purdy
congratulations to the College Dems on their
new website and blog.
the controversy over remembering Mrs. King
Below,
Jersey Slugger notes his surprise at the amount of attention that has been focused on the passing of Coretta Scott King. Check out that conversation (it's a good one), but I think it's equally interesting and surprising how controversial that event became. Before I share thoughts, some video:
Via
Crooks and Liars:
A summary of the event and the controversy from MSNBC's countdown.
Via
Expose the Left (yes, I read "Expose the Left"):
Reverend Joseph Lowery's controversial comments.
Jimmy Carter's controversial comments.
Debate over the issue from Hardball.
Check it all out, read the
NYT story (or others), and share your thoughts. I'll do the same later tonight.
Just The Basics (view video through link below)
I waned to share an e-mail I received yesterday with you all. It is from a good friend and mentor of mine, David Jenkins '05, and it gives a glimpse of the work he is doing in South Africa to help bring basics such as electricity and water--things we in the U.S. and at Harvard seem to waste en masse--to a population lacking it due to the government's privatization of those industries (once privatized, the prices became too costly for many people to afford these basic utilities). It is a reminder to people like myself that the struggle we are engaged in is global and systematic and cannot be isolated by region or event as well as how, as David said in a later private e-mail, "The police protect wealth not people".
***********************************************************************************
Dear Friends,
I know that I've been terrible about updating people on what's happening with me here in South Africa; I've been working on a blog with lots of details that is slow on going up. I've been seeing some very cool stuff, and will hopefully update everyone soon, one way or another. Still, I had
an experience yesterday that was at once frightening and developmental, and since the footage I was shooting is now online, I thought I would drop this quick note to a group of friends. (more in expanded post)
Some background: In Soweto, one of the groups I've been working with is called the Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee [SECC], which is a social movement that formed five years ago in response to the privatization of the government's electricity services, which left most poor people unable to afford electricity. Right now the SECC struggle focuses on the same issue with the privatization of water, and the tactic in each struggle is to simply reconnect (repeatedly if necessary) water and electricity for free (illegally) for people who need it. I will attach a version of a short article that I co-wrote for the SECC newsletter, which explains the seriousness of the water issue (mind you, it is in SECC language).
Yesterday afternoon I was called by a member of SECC, who let me know that a confrontation had arisen between, on the one side, the electric company (Eskom) and the police, and, on the other side, a group of community members and activists from the SECC. Eskom—whose (domestic) shareholders fill the ranks of the ruling ANC—had decided that in the run-up to the local election, they would disconnect the electricity connection from Trevor Ngwane, the lead SECC organizer's house; Trevor and four other SECC members are for the first time contesting seats against the ANC in the local government election, so it seemed ironic that the company would choose now, after five years, to forcefully disconnect. I was asked to transport people
and film what was happening, which I did. When I arrived, the Eskom employees had already been to the house twice—once without the correct paperwork, and once, they decided, without enough police protection.
You know, I have always been trying to think about issues of social justice in terms of the larger theoretical and political issues at stake, but sometimes it feels contradictory; i.e. only slightly-relevant or elusive theoretical stances on issues of obvious basic living—like people's right to quality food, shelter, work, and education. However, when the police open fire on people for demonstrating—loudly, but non-violently demonstrating,—when you film them aiming guns and firing rubber bullets at people who are begging them to stop, when they shove and hit elderly dissenters, when they perform "crowd control" by firing into people's homes, and—I guess this is what I'm feeling the most—when you look up from filming all this and realize that you are the one on the opposite end of a shotgun barrel that is firing rubber bullets… That's when all that theory hits home in a deep way. That's when you see once and for all, without a shadow of doubt, that the police—working public security for a private corporation and the political party that constitutes at least part of that corporation—is nothing more than a mechanism of repression, to stop dissent, to maintain unlivable conditions that make other people lots of money, and not, by any means, to serve and protect.
On this Indymedia South Africa link--
http://southafrica.indymedia.org/ --is a very edited 1.3 minute take from the footage I shot yesterday. It leaves out a lot: the demonstration that followed the disconnection, people bleeding and being taken to the hospital, people in solidarity supporting one another after the police left; and I should note that I also didn't catch on tape the worst of it. But at least it gives a feel. Peace everyone, and in case you're worried, don't be; I'm in good hands.
Dave
Contradictions Abound
The amount of attention that has been garnered by the passing of Coretta Scott King is beginning to not just suprise me, but shock me. At her funeral this past weekend numerous famous civil rights figures and contempoary local politicians were in attendance (as is expected) but, for some reason, so were
the four living U.S. Presidents. Not only were these people in attendance but Hillary Clinton, Ed Kennedy, and a host of others took time out of their schedules to pay their *respects* as well. As a crusader against capital punishment, against the War in Iraq, pro-women's lib(eration), pro-queer rights (including same-sex marriage), and pro-animal rights (she's a vegan for political reasons) she's basically pretty darn leftist. Do the U.S. and these leaders realize these things in their adulation of her?
I find it contradictory that people like our current President or his father would attend the funeral of this woman--our current President due to the recent
immense budget cuts to education and health programs that she and her husband, Dr. Martin Luther King, would have surely opposed and H.W. Bush due to the
criticism that Reagan initially had for her husband's birthday being established as a national holiday (criticism that was probably shared by his VP, H.W.). I guess it can be summed up in one word: politics.
Anyway, can anyone give me clarification as to why she is being treated in this way? I in no way am attempting to diminish her to "Dr. Martin Luther King's wife" as so much of the mainstream media and history books depict her. She has fought for the past 38 years since MLK's death to help bring his dreams to reality (even more counting when MLK was alive) but I still feel like people are attending because of her historical and present-day symbolism to the civil rights movement as oppose to their agreement with what she fought for. Other thoughts on this? Anyone also feel strange about the attention focused on her passing?
you see, it's the whole checking and the balancing part that you don't seem to get
It's actually become kind of hilarious to read about and listen to the Bush Administration (and their luckily few allies on this) try to defend their warrantless wiretapping.
This New York Times article is either the most biased piece of trash ever written (and colluding with the Senate Judiciary Committee), or these people are kind of out of their gords. My favorite give and take from the article:
"In all honesty," Mr. [Senator Lindsey] Graham told Mr. Gonzales, "this statutory-force-resolution argument that you're making is very dangerous in terms of its application for the future." An expansive reading of the 2001 resolution, Mr. Graham said, may make it "harder for the next president to get a force resolution if we take this too far."
Mr. Gonzales maintained yesterday that the two enactments "complement each other."
The committee's chairman, Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, responded, "Well, that just defies logic and plain English."
But wait, it gets better.(more in expanded post)
Mr. Gonzales conceded that his was not the only possible way to harmonize the two Congressional actions. But the administration's reading is, Mr. Gonzales said, "fairly possible."
Ladies and gentlemen, the Attorney General of the United States of America is presenting a legal case regarding spying on its own citizens to the Senate of the United States based on the conviction that his legal position is "fairly possible." My mind has been blown. This can't be right. No one's that crazy. But
the Financial Times represents the issue similarly. Quoting Gonzalez:
"No communications are intercepted unless first it is determined that one end of the call is outside of the country, and professional intelligence experts have probable cause [that is, "reasonable grounds to believe"] that a part to the communication is a member or agent of al-Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organisation.
I almost imagine Senators wanting to say to him:
"Yes sir, Mr. Attorney General. But the point of the separation powers... yes there are three co-equal branches of government. Yes sir, we're called the Congress, the Legislative Branch. Anyway, the point of the separation of powers is that we'll feel a lot better if one of us, the other branch is called the Judiciary, does the part where we determine what is and isn't reasonable. Right, that part. You see, that way we share power. Yes sir, share."
Am I missing something or is this just weird? I honestly hope I'm just confused, let me know if I am.
Sak passè avèk Haiti (What's up with Haiti)?
Tomorrow Haiti will hold its
first elections since 2000 when the nation elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide as its President. In 2004 Aristide was removed from power following months of turmoil domestically through groups who strongly and violently opposed him as well as internationally from world powers such as France and the U.S. On February 24, 2004 one of these two groups completed the rebellion by removing him from power. Some say it was the pressure from rebel groups that forced Aristide to resign and exit the country with the
help of the U.S. (he left the country on a U.S. military plane that took him to the Central African Republic); Aristide himself says that it was the
guns of the U.S. Marines who arrived and demanded he board a plane out of the country.
Few people look at the history of Haiti to gain an understanding of its current political or economic situation. Many will be able to tell you that it is the poorest nation in the Western hemisphere though few know that this stems in large part from the reparations that Haiti was forced to pay to French slaveholders by France, the U.S. and other nations in 1825:
90 million francs (or $21 billion today). This embarassing, morally backwards, and economically crippling demand impeded Haiti from utilizing its early independence, only 17 years after the U.S., for the betterment of its nascent republic. Haiti did not complete paying off this debt for
122 years. Luckily, the U.S. didn't have to pay similar reparations to the British for the
587, 182 slaves (very near the population of present-day
Boston) in the U.S. around the time of independence since they kept them and proceeded to utilize their labor for free for the next several decades. What if...
calling out into the void
We were hoping that this weekend would be dedicated to discussing the letter below, a kind of call to arms for democratic discourse and commitment to building a new left of common causes. Alas, even after begging a few political lists to speak up, responses were few and far between. There is, of course, a whole host of reasons that this could be the case: people don't want to read six paragraph letters, people generally agree and have nothing to add, people generally disagree and feel it's pointless to discuss, etc. etc. I'm willing to accept any and all of these explanations, but I would really like to try to figure out which is true.
One reader wrote... (more in expanded post)
...that the audience is the problem:
Golis, the reason no one is commenting on this is because they haven't thought that much about New Media and they don't know that much about the history of the American left. I know you like studying the new left in the sixties, the New Deal coalition and early progressivism, most political people don't. They like playing paintball.
Another reader wrote that the effort itself was the problem:
Basically, it's unrealistic to expect that by calling for dialogue you are suddenly going to have an explosion of people rising up and saying brilliant things or suddenly networking. Calling for dialogue is kind of vapid, almost as vapid as the bit about the coalition of infinite causes at the end... which btw is a lot of the reason that the Dems keep losing.
Which is true? Both?
Obviously, there's something self-indulgent in trying to make an accounting at one's own failed attempt to gain attention and start a conversation. But it also seems to me important to try to understand why exactly no conversation occurred, even if that means pondering our own inadequacies here at CC. Share your thoughts!
an open letter: CC, new media and the Harvard Left
Below is a letter that we're sending out tonight on email lists and to friends. Give it a read.
Please let us know what you think about CC, New Meadia or the Harvard Left. ---
To all!
Last spring, a website called Cambridge Common was founded to add more voices to our campus’s political dialogue. This fall, all four of us took up the project, using the blog to offer thoughts about campus, national and international politics and society, and encouraging our readers to do the same. We’ve had some success and, along with a handful of other emerging blogs at Harvard like
Team Zebra,
Quenchzine, and
Demapples, have started to build an online community of political perspectives and dialogue, offering a great alternative to old-school print media and top-down opinion writing. We’re writing this letter in the hopes that you will join the community, either with Cambridge Common or by starting blogs of your own.
New Media, including blogs, has sparked enthusiasm worldwide. Whereas in the past only the wealthy, the powerful, the connected or institutionally-endorsed had easy access to public discourse, now anyone with a computer and an internet connection has a shot at gaining not only an audience of observers, but a community of contributors. In other words, the internet has created an entirely new public sphere. At Harvard, this creates a particular and exciting set of possibilities: our community is small, we are privileged enough to have technology and time, and we are here to learn, most often from each other. The radically democratic ethos of New Media—the understanding that no one person’s beliefs or arguments or politics should be privileged by volume instead of quality and that everyone should have equal access to expressing themselves—gives us the opportunity to engage each other in a new way.
As we said before, this letter is intended to encourage you to join us, teach us, learn with us and express yourselves. Just because we have started to write on a blog doesn’t make us the best or only qualified people to share our thoughts. We know from classes, friends, student groups and the comments section of Cambridge Common that there are a ton of you who are passionate and articulate about political and social issues but aren’t joining the public dialogue. Some are too shy, too busy or too humble. For the shy and humble among us, we hope you’ll recognize that everyone’s contributions are works in progress that serve the greater community. Bloggers needn’t know all the answers; sometimes it’s just important to bring up good questions. For the over-committed, we hope you can make time. If not, encourage others who you think can and should to consider doing so. We don’t just need pundits; we need activists and organizers, thinkers and questioners, writers and facilitators.
Over the last 40 years the left has been gradually losing power in America. Partially, we think, this is a result of the fact that we are no longer easily driven by a single cause that is simply defined, or even a small handful of causes with obvious connections; as a community we have come increasingly to recognize the importance of a variety of viewpoints in the context of our political perspective. This is difficult because it divides us, but it’s important because it broadens and deepens our understanding of the world and our ability to change it. We will never again have a singular cause or just three or four causes. Our task now is to become each other’s constituents, overcoming our divisions in order to celebrate and advocate a whole host of common causes. This is not an original thought: attempts at building multi-issue campaigns and diverse, united communities have met with varying degrees of success. We simply hope that Cambridge Common can contribute to this ongoing effort, using diverse voices to find common causes.
Right now at Cambridge Common, our goal is to recruit more people who self-define on the political left—liberals, radicals and moderates; Democrats and democrats—to join our team of regular contributors to the blog. We’re looking for people of various perspectives to join our community of writers and thinkers, discussing among ourselves and with readers the issues and ideas that animate us.
If Cambridge Common is not a project for you, we still hope you’ll take advantage of New Media. If it is, we would love to hear from you. You can get in touch with any of us individually or join us at the Cambridge Common Open House: Thursday, February 9, from 8 to 10pm, location TBA.
Thanks for reading and sharing your wisdom,
Andrew Chimaobi Deb Katie
If You Write It, They Will Come
Interesting story from
today's Globe. The Secret Service came to a Rhode Island middle school just hours after a 13 year-old seventh grader submitted an assignment to his teacher where:
"The boy...had written an assigned class essay saying that his idea of a perfect day was to hurt President Bush, kill the popular talk show host [Oprah Winfrey], and harm executives of Coca-Cola and Wal-Mart."He's been suspended from school indefinitely and his case is under investigation by the Secret Service who say that they'll investigate it in the same way whether the person is 13 or 33. The child's actions would normally constitute a felony. Are the school district and Secret Service overreacting in a post-Columbine environment as some say? Or is this totally justified as threats of this nature need to be taken seriously?
