This Sunday, Education Secretary Arne Duncan made his first diplomatic visit to gaffe-land while discussing New Orleans' educational gains on Washington Watch: "The best thing that happened to the education system in New Orleans was Hurricane Katrina." Duncan later apologized for the comment.
The statement itself isn't really a call for outrage; it was a trite way to tie test-score gains to the mythology of the city's resurgence.I see it as just another excess of the "education speak" that's bandied about, where everything's about "reform," "achievement," "accountability" -- and "wake-up calls."
However, the reason for the correlation should provoke anger. New Orleans schools aren't necessarily doing better with the same students. They are serving a different demographic, one that is more affluent, whiter, and more educated (to see the pre-/post-Katrina demographic breakdown, you can look here).The educational "gains" are only further evidence that Hurricane Katrina disproportionately affected -- and exiled -- the city's substantial and segregated underclass.
--Gabriel Arana, cross-posted from TAPPED, the group blog of The American Prospect
The Not Quite Overhaul of No Child Left Behind
The Obama administration released its 2011 budget proposal today, which includes a sweeping overhaul of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The Bush-era education law was widely criticized as an "unfunded mandate" that punished struggling schools and encouraged districts to slough off poor-performing students.
Details of the overhaul are sketchy, but it seems the primary focus is to change the funding structure and accountability standards.
Details of the overhaul are sketchy, but it seems the primary focus is to change the funding structure and accountability standards.
- Accountability: Under NCLB, all schools were required to meet state-set reading and math standards by 2014; schools that did not make incremental gains toward this goal were classified as "failing" and risked firings and closure. Obama's new plan eliminates this deadline and proposes replacing the math and reading standards with "college- or career-readiness" goals. Instead of being evaluated on a pass/fail basis, the metric for measuring schools' success will be expanded.
- Funding: The administration also proposes to replace an enrollment-based funding approach with one that partially funds schools based on performance. Under the new funding regime, nearly 30 percent of funds would be disbursed on a competitive basis.
Given the plan's vagueness, it's difficult to assess whether the new accountability standards will be an improvement. But the new funding proposal is problematic. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan compared the funding structure to the administration's $5 billion "Race to the Top" initiative, which asks school districts to compete for federal funds with "innovative" proposals for education reform. Jack Jennings, president of the Center on Education Policy, is skeptical:
The contempt for underperforming schools who feel "entitled" to federal funding mirrors the rhetoric of the welfare debate: Why are we "rewarding" laziness and failure? It assumes that bad schools are bad because their teachers are bad, or they've implemented ineffective policies. But many of these schools are tasked with serving students from the poorest and most crime-ridden areas in the country. How will it help them improve to have their funding cut because they failed to beat another school in the funding race?
Making federal funding contingent on competition also has the same drawbacks as making it contingent on students' test scores: In the same way that schools rigged the system and "taught to the test" under NCLB, school districts will be rewarded not on their ability to educate students but on the ability to write grant proposals.
--Gabriel Arana, cross-posted from TAPPED, the group blog of The American Prospect
Right now most federal money goes out in formulas, so schools know how much they’ll get, and then use it to provide services for poor children. The department thinks that’s become too much of an entitlement. They want to upend that scheme by making states and districts pledge to take actions the administration considers reform, before they get the money.I'm wary of applying corporate rules to the K-12 educational establishment, where you reward players who succeed and "innovate" -- and punish those who do not. Reforming public education should mean helping struggling school districts rather than making them compete against better-performing schools for funds to meet basic operating expenses. Underperforming schools will arguably be in the worst position to compete for federal aid; it makes as much sense as asking the unemployed to duke it out over benefits.
The contempt for underperforming schools who feel "entitled" to federal funding mirrors the rhetoric of the welfare debate: Why are we "rewarding" laziness and failure? It assumes that bad schools are bad because their teachers are bad, or they've implemented ineffective policies. But many of these schools are tasked with serving students from the poorest and most crime-ridden areas in the country. How will it help them improve to have their funding cut because they failed to beat another school in the funding race?
Making federal funding contingent on competition also has the same drawbacks as making it contingent on students' test scores: In the same way that schools rigged the system and "taught to the test" under NCLB, school districts will be rewarded not on their ability to educate students but on the ability to write grant proposals.
--Gabriel Arana, cross-posted from TAPPED, the group blog of The American Prospect
Camera Ready
Anti-gay marriage activists' opposition to live broadcasting the federal challenge to Prop. 8 has little to do with the propriety of cameras in the courtroom and everything to do with setting the agenda.
Jan. 12, 2010, The American Prospect Online
Judge Vaughn Walker's decision to allow video cameras in his courtroom for the federal challenge to California's Proposition 8 has been temporarily suspended pending a decision by the Supreme Court midweek. Proceedings from the trial, which began Monday, were to be broadcast on YouTube as part of an experimental program in the Ninth Circuit to allow cameras in non-jury civil trials. Prop. 8 proponents have claimed broadcasting the proceedings will lead to harassment of "Yes on 8" campaign staffers.
The debate is hardly new -- courts have wrestled with the question of media's visual access to courts since photography first emerged in the 1930s. But in the push to make government proceedings readily available to the public, federal courts have emerged as a conspicuous outlier. Most state-level courts allow cameras to be present in both civil and criminal courts at the judge's discretion. But federal courts are far more restrictive: Cameras are prohibited in criminal trials and while the rules for civil trials vary by circuit, most jurisdictions do not allow broadcasting of civil cases.
For civil trials with broad social implications, making court proceedings publicly available has the obvious advantage of making the judiciary more transparent, but there is reason to tread carefully. The main concern is that making proceedings widely available will affect the behavior of those in the courtroom. Witnesses may be less likely to testify fully and truthfully, victims -- especially rape and underage victims -- could be further dissuaded from bringing civil charges against their assailants and testifying, and jurors may hesitate to vote their conscience for fear of public reprisal.
However, none of these concerns applies to the challenge to Prop. 8, Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Not only are the proceedings of substantial public interest, the case does not involve a vulnerable defendant nor is it being heard by a jury. And the argument that Prop. 8's defenders have proffered is suspect: They say they fear harassment, but the organizers being put on the stand are public figures who appear regularly on network news shows and make public pronouncements against gay marriage. They have no problem making their case in other, more public venues, why is the court an issue?
The answer is that in court, it's a crime to lie -- and you don't get to set the agenda. While it's the constitutionality of Prop. 8 that's on trial, the court is also set to decide whether the anti-gay-marriage campaign was motivated by prejudice. Already, embarrassing "Yes on 8" campaign materials have come to light, including literature authored by Hak-Shing William Tam, a defense lawyer on the case who was one of Prop. 8's official sponsors. Tam wrote that if the ballot measure did not pass, "every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex. More children would become homosexuals." Last week, he asked to withdraw from Perry v. Schwarzenegger, citing the harassment he had endured (in his case, negative comments on a YouTube video).
It might seem laughable that the leaders of the discriminatory "Yes on 8" campaign insist on portraying themselves as victims, but this has been anti-gay-marriage folks' modus operandi for some time. Whether in the ridiculous "gathering storm" video or in campaign literature, gay-marriage foes argue that marriage equality harms them. But in court, they have been unable to substantiate this; when Judge Walker asked lead defense counsel Chuck Cooper how gay marriage would harm society, he answered, "I don't know."
In the political discourse that plays out on television, on blogs, and in print, there is little accountability for statements made by opposing sides -- especially given journalism's artificial pro-con model of objectivity. But in the harsh light of the courtroom, with the legal profession's rules of evidence in play, you can't argue that allowing gay marriage means pastors will have to sanctify gay unions, one of the "Yes on 8" campaign's favorite lines. Or that if gay marriage is legal in California, other states will fall "one by one into the hands of Satan." Instead, bringing the gay marriage debate into the federal courtroom strips the issue of the histrionic rhetoric that's surrounded it and makes both sides argue on an even playing field. I can think of no better reason for allowing the proceedings from the Perry case -- or any other controversial constitutional challenge -- to be broadcast.
Given the broad impact of the case on millions of Americans, the Supreme Court should recognize the public's interest in openly and honestly airing the arguments on both sides. It's an opportunity gay-marriage opponents, who complain about getting the short shrift in public debate, should jump at. We're listening.
Box Turtle Bulletin Podcast
This is the inaugural episode of what we hope will be a regular podcast at Box Turtle Bulletin. The format we’ve tentatively agreed upon is a discussion of three topics that are prominent in the news. If our readers can think of topics they’d like to hear about, or have any other suggestions or comments, please let us know.
We are also working on making the podcast available on iTunes so that you can subscribe to the feed and have the episodes downloaded automatically on your mp3 player.
For this installment, you have Timothy, Jim and me (Gabriel) discussing the Prop. 8 trial, the Uganda situation, and the Portugal marriage decision:
We are also working on making the podcast available on iTunes so that you can subscribe to the feed and have the episodes downloaded automatically on your mp3 player.
For this installment, you have Timothy, Jim and me (Gabriel) discussing the Prop. 8 trial, the Uganda situation, and the Portugal marriage decision:
Is 'Principled Opposition" to Homosexuality Different From Bigotry?
The proposed bill in the Ugandan Assembly prescribing the death penalty for homosexuality, which was broadly condemned in a Times editorial yesterday, has highlighted the link between American evangelical Christianity and anti-gay extremism in Africa.
Many Christian groups that oppose homosexuality have spoken against the bill (they say it goes too far) and have resisted being grouped with “extremists.” But it’s only a difference in degree. Anti-gay groups may not be calling for gays to be murdered, but Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren and members of groups like Exodus International (Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge, Don Schmiere) have been instrumental in bringing virulently anti-gay forms of Christianity to Africa, and have been loath to criticize the Ugandan “kill gays” bill.
The underlying assumption to their defense is that a difference exists between anti-gay bigotry and “principled opposition to homosexuality.” But there is no such thing as principled opposition to homosexuality: It is always an axiomatic assumption — a fiat – which is why it’s so tough to argue with those with anti-gay attitudes.
Despite pseudo-scientific claims that homosexuality is medically and psychologically harmful, major medical and psychological organizations have all condemned these propositions. Homosexuality has never been shown to be a threat to society. Without any concrete evidence, anti-gay activists are left with only the veil of religion to cloak their prejudice.
It has always struck me that both anti-gay and anti-choice activism are premised on a contradiction. If abortion really is murder, why does the anti-abortion movement condemn the murder of Dr. George Tiller? In the same way, if homosexuality really is bad for society and those involved, and if it’s deeply immoral like pedophilia (anti-gay activists love to make this comparison), why shouldn’t it be criminalized? If it’s a threat to society and children, why don’t we imprison people who have gay sex? When most of society agreed with our “principled” opponents, we did.
But thankfully our understanding of the science and psychology of sexuality — along with our social mores — have evolved to the point where society won’t brook anti-gay activists calling for homosexuality to be criminalized. So while they hold the same retrograde views as their Ugandan counterparts, they are restrained from putting their prejudice into action.
Cross-posted at TAPPED, the group blog of The American Prospect.
Many Christian groups that oppose homosexuality have spoken against the bill (they say it goes too far) and have resisted being grouped with “extremists.” But it’s only a difference in degree. Anti-gay groups may not be calling for gays to be murdered, but Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren and members of groups like Exodus International (Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge, Don Schmiere) have been instrumental in bringing virulently anti-gay forms of Christianity to Africa, and have been loath to criticize the Ugandan “kill gays” bill.
The underlying assumption to their defense is that a difference exists between anti-gay bigotry and “principled opposition to homosexuality.” But there is no such thing as principled opposition to homosexuality: It is always an axiomatic assumption — a fiat – which is why it’s so tough to argue with those with anti-gay attitudes.
Despite pseudo-scientific claims that homosexuality is medically and psychologically harmful, major medical and psychological organizations have all condemned these propositions. Homosexuality has never been shown to be a threat to society. Without any concrete evidence, anti-gay activists are left with only the veil of religion to cloak their prejudice.
It has always struck me that both anti-gay and anti-choice activism are premised on a contradiction. If abortion really is murder, why does the anti-abortion movement condemn the murder of Dr. George Tiller? In the same way, if homosexuality really is bad for society and those involved, and if it’s deeply immoral like pedophilia (anti-gay activists love to make this comparison), why shouldn’t it be criminalized? If it’s a threat to society and children, why don’t we imprison people who have gay sex? When most of society agreed with our “principled” opponents, we did.
But thankfully our understanding of the science and psychology of sexuality — along with our social mores — have evolved to the point where society won’t brook anti-gay activists calling for homosexuality to be criminalized. So while they hold the same retrograde views as their Ugandan counterparts, they are restrained from putting their prejudice into action.
Cross-posted at TAPPED, the group blog of The American Prospect.
Me on Pacifica Radio Discussing Prop. 8
Me on Pacifica Radio in Los Angeles discussing the Prop. 8 case. The segment starts about halfway through the recording:
There Are No Gold Medals in the Oppression Olympics
This slipped under my radar, but David Kaufman at HuffPo has a stinging diatribe against Andrew Sullivan for suggesting that the fight for marriage rights is equivalent to the Civil Rights Movement. Part of me agrees that it's somewhat problematic that the "separate but equal" analogy has become a gay-rights orthodoxy. I have argued vigorously that the marriage issue does not compare in scale to segregation, where blacks were barred from attending certain schools, restaurants, etc. -- not just the institution of marriage.
But Kaufman's takedown is often contradictory and borderline distasteful. First, while the analogies might be hyperbolic, the statement itself is fairly straightforward: Having separate marriage institutions is an affront to equality, just like miscegenation laws were. In the push to win equal rights -- not just marriage rights -- for their constituents , the gay and black civil-rights movements are similar. Members of both groups have been victims of violence and discrimination for decades.
Second, Kaufman criticizes the LGBT community for painting all African-Americans as virulently anti-gay. He then paints the LGBT community with the same broad brush:
But most problematically, Kaufman engages in the same "Olympics of oppression" that he claims to repudiate:
But Kaufman's takedown is often contradictory and borderline distasteful. First, while the analogies might be hyperbolic, the statement itself is fairly straightforward: Having separate marriage institutions is an affront to equality, just like miscegenation laws were. In the push to win equal rights -- not just marriage rights -- for their constituents , the gay and black civil-rights movements are similar. Members of both groups have been victims of violence and discrimination for decades.
Second, Kaufman criticizes the LGBT community for painting all African-Americans as virulently anti-gay. He then paints the LGBT community with the same broad brush:
Indeed, since the defeat of Proposition 8 last year, the Marriage Equality movement has been in a problematic pas de deux with Black America. On one hand, LGBT Inc. demands the right to appropriate the Civil Rights struggle wherever and whenever possible. Yet at the same time, it constantly blames Black folks for every same-sex marriage set back. From the Black church to Black singers to our Black president, somehow a mere 13.5 percent of the population is responsible for 100 percent of the problems.As Adam Serwer has argued, the black community is no monolith when it comes to marriage rights, and not everyone in the gay community in blaming African Americans for Prop. 8.
But most problematically, Kaufman engages in the same "Olympics of oppression" that he claims to repudiate:
I was immediately struck by the chutzpah of Sullivan's statement -- both because of its erroneousness and because he had the audacity to make it. Like many before him, I'm certain Sullivan never considered that despite my Jew-boy sounding name and Valley-Boy sounding accent, my Black father attended a segregated high school while his sister was hosed down by haters when she dared enter a mixed-race college.
Ultimately, this rhetoric is silly and -- as Kaufman himself notes -- unproductive. Collaborative conversations aren't prefaced with a laundry list of discrimination you've faced. We've all got the cred; let's argue on the merits.
--Gabriel Arana
--Gabriel Arana
Cross-posted from TAPPED, the group blog of The American Prospect.
A Decade of 'Progress' for Gay Rights
Today, the Movement Advancement Project, a think tank funded by major LGBT donors, released a progress report that tracks various indicators of LGBT rights over the last decade. As one might expect, the results are mixed. Since 2000, 26 states have banned marriage through a statewide vote; two more states have banned gay adoptions (bringing the total to 6); murders against LGB people have about doubled; more LGB students report being harassed at school; and HIV infection rates for gay men are up 10 percent. But it's not all grim -- gay-rights issues continue to gain public support:
The numbers, of course, are not where we progressives would like them to be (marriage and adoption rights for gay couples are far from having majority support), but they're trending in the right direction. And while the Obama administration has dragged its feet on openly gay military service, workplace protections for LGBT folk have kept pace with changing attitudes:
A few observations:
There is an obvious disconnect between the amount of violence and harassment faced by the gay community and overall public attitudes. It seems that anti-gay sentiment isn't more widespread, but rather more fervent. This is no surprise given the incendiary tactics of the anti-marriage campaigns in the last few years, in which opponents of marriage equality like Prop. 8 campaigner Hak-Shing William Tam have stoked the homophobic fire.
In the run-up to the Prop. 8 vote, Tam told supporters that if the measure didn't pass, "Every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex" and that the "gay agenda" included "legaliz[ing] sex with children." He also warned about each state falling one by one into the hands of Satan. Thankfully, this ridiculous rhetoric hasn't diminished support for gay rights. It may make homophobic people more homophobic, but to the average citizen, it does little but underscore how irrational and prejudiced the opposition is.
The focus on other issues has led the LGBT community to table HIV prevention, which has predictably led to an increase in infections. More frightening, the proportion of those with HIV who are gay has increased, albeit modestly, from 51 to 53 percent. Part of this is due to "condom fatigue" and advancements in care, but LGBT rights groups are also at fault for putting it on the back burner. A 10 percent jump in HIV infections should sound the same kind of alarm it did in the early '90s.
The one sticking point, however, is marriage. As much as I hate to admit it, when anti-marriage people claim the public's on their side, they're right. This may not be the case in individual states (it is not the case in, say, New York), but nationwide it will be some time before the scale tips in favor of gay marriage rights. In the short term, I doubt too many more individual states will be legalizing marriage on their own. The constitutional bans have put giant roadblocks in place for either the courts, legislatures, or citizens to legalize gay marriage. New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Maine are most likely to come next, but none of these states has a constitutional marriage ban. For the broad swaths of the country that do, it will probably require another decade or so of "progress" for their citizens to enjoy the same rights as those in Massachusetts (and soon, Washington, D.C.) do.
--Gabriel Arana
The numbers, of course, are not where we progressives would like them to be (marriage and adoption rights for gay couples are far from having majority support), but they're trending in the right direction. And while the Obama administration has dragged its feet on openly gay military service, workplace protections for LGBT folk have kept pace with changing attitudes:
A few observations:
There is an obvious disconnect between the amount of violence and harassment faced by the gay community and overall public attitudes. It seems that anti-gay sentiment isn't more widespread, but rather more fervent. This is no surprise given the incendiary tactics of the anti-marriage campaigns in the last few years, in which opponents of marriage equality like Prop. 8 campaigner Hak-Shing William Tam have stoked the homophobic fire.
In the run-up to the Prop. 8 vote, Tam told supporters that if the measure didn't pass, "Every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex" and that the "gay agenda" included "legaliz[ing] sex with children." He also warned about each state falling one by one into the hands of Satan. Thankfully, this ridiculous rhetoric hasn't diminished support for gay rights. It may make homophobic people more homophobic, but to the average citizen, it does little but underscore how irrational and prejudiced the opposition is.
The focus on other issues has led the LGBT community to table HIV prevention, which has predictably led to an increase in infections. More frightening, the proportion of those with HIV who are gay has increased, albeit modestly, from 51 to 53 percent. Part of this is due to "condom fatigue" and advancements in care, but LGBT rights groups are also at fault for putting it on the back burner. A 10 percent jump in HIV infections should sound the same kind of alarm it did in the early '90s.
The one sticking point, however, is marriage. As much as I hate to admit it, when anti-marriage people claim the public's on their side, they're right. This may not be the case in individual states (it is not the case in, say, New York), but nationwide it will be some time before the scale tips in favor of gay marriage rights. In the short term, I doubt too many more individual states will be legalizing marriage on their own. The constitutional bans have put giant roadblocks in place for either the courts, legislatures, or citizens to legalize gay marriage. New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Maine are most likely to come next, but none of these states has a constitutional marriage ban. For the broad swaths of the country that do, it will probably require another decade or so of "progress" for their citizens to enjoy the same rights as those in Massachusetts (and soon, Washington, D.C.) do.
--Gabriel Arana
Cross-posted from TAPPED, the group blog of The American Prospect
Bringing Back the Education Beat
The Brookings Institution recently released a study on education coverage that found reporting on the issue accounted for only 1.4 percent of all news. It's a paltry figure, and while the report provides some suggestions for how schools can make themselves more newsworthy, a lot of the blame falls on reporters:
Reporting should become more proactive and less reactive. Much of coverage today is episodic and driven by events. Focusing on long-term trends would help to inform communities about the content of education and ways schools are seeking to move forward.
One of the things that keeps many outlets from reporting more comprehensively on education is the imperative that every story have a time-sensitive "hook," or be absolutely singular. Journalism's penchant for the curio tends to overlook education, where policies are enacted gradually and continually. This is why most of the reporting you see in the mainstream press is about rankings, the flu, or Princeton using its applicants' data to log into Yale's admissions system.
But much of what drives this type of news is also demand: Do most readers want to know about how schools in the area are moving forward? Prospect readers might, but quite a few more people would much rather hear about Tiger Woods' crashing into a fire hydrant. It has always struck me that calls for journalism to report "real news" instead of fluff are inherently anti-populist. This isn't a bad thing, but it does mean good journalism doesn't make a good business model.
It seems to me that the future of this type of journalism is at non-profit outlets like the Prospect, where Dana Goldstein has contributed in-depth education pieces for years. Unfortunately, there aren't very many of them, and they don't have the reach of larger organizations like the Post or Times, so even when the sort of reporting the Brookings report is calling for gets done, it often doesn't get the attention it deserves.
--Gabriel Arana
But much of what drives this type of news is also demand: Do most readers want to know about how schools in the area are moving forward? Prospect readers might, but quite a few more people would much rather hear about Tiger Woods' crashing into a fire hydrant. It has always struck me that calls for journalism to report "real news" instead of fluff are inherently anti-populist. This isn't a bad thing, but it does mean good journalism doesn't make a good business model.
It seems to me that the future of this type of journalism is at non-profit outlets like the Prospect, where Dana Goldstein has contributed in-depth education pieces for years. Unfortunately, there aren't very many of them, and they don't have the reach of larger organizations like the Post or Times, so even when the sort of reporting the Brookings report is calling for gets done, it often doesn't get the attention it deserves.
--Gabriel Arana
Cross-posted at TAPPED, the group blog of The American Prospect.
Leave Your Baby, or Go to Jail
In a story that's provoked justified outrage, the Army has threatened single military mom Spc. Alexis Hutchinson with a military court marshal for refusing leave her 10-month-old and ship off to Afghanistan when none of her family members could care for the child. In a compassionate display of flexibility, her superiors offered her the alternative of putting the child in foster care. The whole episode seems to be a the result of military keeping an inadequate and inconsistent family policy.
The Army requires single parents to have a "family plan" in case they are deployed, but if yours falls through, you're out of luck. Why isn't there a backup plan? Hutchinson -- a chef -- could serve on the base for a certain period until she finds an adequate solution. Worse comes to worse, she could receive an "administrative discharge." Whatever the details of the arrangement are, the default choice should not be to put your child in foster care or face criminal charges.
Hutchison also wouldn't have been in this predicament had she been serving, in say, the Navy. Military women generally get six weeks of maternity leave. But the time period before they can be deployed varies by branch. The Navy and Marine Corps don't require women to deploy for up to a year. The Army, however, is ready to ship you off after four months. Four months of leave isn't enough of a grace period for deployments -- many women are still breastfeeding then. Returning to work after four months might not seem so bad, but it's a huge burden when work is thousands of miles away.
Overall, the military's family policies belong in the 1950s, both in their understanding of gender balance and in terms of labor law. The government's requirement for private employers – under the Family and Medical Leave Act – makes companies with 50 employees or more give new mothers 14 weeks, a meager baseline that it fails to follow itself. And after years of prodding, the military finally acknowledged that men take care of kids, too: They get all of 10 days.
--Gabriel Arana
The Army requires single parents to have a "family plan" in case they are deployed, but if yours falls through, you're out of luck. Why isn't there a backup plan? Hutchinson -- a chef -- could serve on the base for a certain period until she finds an adequate solution. Worse comes to worse, she could receive an "administrative discharge." Whatever the details of the arrangement are, the default choice should not be to put your child in foster care or face criminal charges.
Hutchison also wouldn't have been in this predicament had she been serving, in say, the Navy. Military women generally get six weeks of maternity leave. But the time period before they can be deployed varies by branch. The Navy and Marine Corps don't require women to deploy for up to a year. The Army, however, is ready to ship you off after four months. Four months of leave isn't enough of a grace period for deployments -- many women are still breastfeeding then. Returning to work after four months might not seem so bad, but it's a huge burden when work is thousands of miles away.
Overall, the military's family policies belong in the 1950s, both in their understanding of gender balance and in terms of labor law. The government's requirement for private employers – under the Family and Medical Leave Act – makes companies with 50 employees or more give new mothers 14 weeks, a meager baseline that it fails to follow itself. And after years of prodding, the military finally acknowledged that men take care of kids, too: They get all of 10 days.
--Gabriel Arana
Cross-posted from TAPPED, the group blog of The American Prospect.
Largest Publisher of Gay Newspapers Shuts Down
Window Media, the nation's largest owner of gay newspapers, shut its doors today bringing D.C.'s local gay newspaper The Washington Blade as well as four others down with it.
The Washington Blade, you could say, was the New York Times of LGBT news. It was the second-largest gay newspaper by circulation (beside Gay City News) and covered national issues as well as local D.C. politics. It was widely recognized for its reporting on the AIDS crisis and the marriage fight and has served as a bulletin board for local events, including political rallies. Most obviously, gay D.C. residents will be less informed about issues that affect them without the Blade -- and less likely to be drawn to activism, which is no small blow for groups that are already underrepresented in politics anyway.
I regularly wrote for the New York Blade, its sister publication, until it shuttered its operations in July. Whenever I had an idea I thought would be too "gay" for mainstream media, or when I wanted to write about a certain politician's gay-rights record, I went to the NY Blade.
Much has been made of local city papers like the Rocky Mountain News closing their doors, but if anything, the disappearance of publications that cater to minorities -- the "ethnic" or "minority" media -- is even more troubling. Papers like the Blade not only provide a voice to dispossessed groups, they're how a community talks to itself – and sounds the alarm when there's a threat. Next time a D.C. police officer roughs up and arrests someone gay while calling him a "faggot," I question whether the Washington Post will immediately run to the scene. Who will?
--Gabriel Arana
The Washington Blade, you could say, was the New York Times of LGBT news. It was the second-largest gay newspaper by circulation (beside Gay City News) and covered national issues as well as local D.C. politics. It was widely recognized for its reporting on the AIDS crisis and the marriage fight and has served as a bulletin board for local events, including political rallies. Most obviously, gay D.C. residents will be less informed about issues that affect them without the Blade -- and less likely to be drawn to activism, which is no small blow for groups that are already underrepresented in politics anyway.
I regularly wrote for the New York Blade, its sister publication, until it shuttered its operations in July. Whenever I had an idea I thought would be too "gay" for mainstream media, or when I wanted to write about a certain politician's gay-rights record, I went to the NY Blade.
Much has been made of local city papers like the Rocky Mountain News closing their doors, but if anything, the disappearance of publications that cater to minorities -- the "ethnic" or "minority" media -- is even more troubling. Papers like the Blade not only provide a voice to dispossessed groups, they're how a community talks to itself – and sounds the alarm when there's a threat. Next time a D.C. police officer roughs up and arrests someone gay while calling him a "faggot," I question whether the Washington Post will immediately run to the scene. Who will?
--Gabriel Arana
Carrie Sans-jean
This piece is the commentary of the author and does not necessarily reflect the view of Box Turtle Bulletin’s other contributors.
I dislike Carrie Prejean as much as anyone. She’s stupid, bratty, and immature. I want to throw a pie in her face. But the response to her CNN interview and her comment in Christianity Today — “I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where it says you shouldn’t get breast implants” – has me questioning the tone of the attacks from the gay community (and liberal folks).
Many gays call her a “slut” because of the sex tapes she made, the pictures, and her boob job. But should we? At the heart of the “slut”-bomb we keep dropping on Carrie is the assumption that women should be pure, that having too many sex partners makes you a skank and that all this behavior makes her bad. But I don’t think that. I don’t think sex outside of marriage is wrong, or that sex with many people — even at the same time! — is wrong. I might not personally videotape myself in sexual poses or take racy pictures (maybe I just need some confidence?), but I see these things as natural expressions of sexuality. She’s a bad person because she’s a bigoted fame-monger, not because she rubbed herself the wrong way.
You might say it’s about hypocrisy, but if so, let’s call her a hypocrite.
This brings me to another point: Carrie’s right when she says the Bible doesn’t say you can’t get implants. Despite being a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, I’ve often wondered why being Christian means, for some, that you repress sexual desire and abandon all concern for your appearance. Technical terms: vanity, lust. Carrie’s certainly a hypocrite when it comes to the Christian values of people she’s representing, but aren’t there versions of Christianity that make room for you to be human?
I dislike Carrie Prejean as much as anyone. She’s stupid, bratty, and immature. I want to throw a pie in her face. But the response to her CNN interview and her comment in Christianity Today — “I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where it says you shouldn’t get breast implants” – has me questioning the tone of the attacks from the gay community (and liberal folks).
Many gays call her a “slut” because of the sex tapes she made, the pictures, and her boob job. But should we? At the heart of the “slut”-bomb we keep dropping on Carrie is the assumption that women should be pure, that having too many sex partners makes you a skank and that all this behavior makes her bad. But I don’t think that. I don’t think sex outside of marriage is wrong, or that sex with many people — even at the same time! — is wrong. I might not personally videotape myself in sexual poses or take racy pictures (maybe I just need some confidence?), but I see these things as natural expressions of sexuality. She’s a bad person because she’s a bigoted fame-monger, not because she rubbed herself the wrong way.
You might say it’s about hypocrisy, but if so, let’s call her a hypocrite.
This brings me to another point: Carrie’s right when she says the Bible doesn’t say you can’t get implants. Despite being a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, I’ve often wondered why being Christian means, for some, that you repress sexual desire and abandon all concern for your appearance. Technical terms: vanity, lust. Carrie’s certainly a hypocrite when it comes to the Christian values of people she’s representing, but aren’t there versions of Christianity that make room for you to be human?
Cross-posted at Box Turtle Bulletin.
NY to DC and Back Again
I bought a digital camera recently and this is my first try at cutting and editing video. Shot in New York and D.C., it's cheesy, but cute. (Cross-posted from Box Turtle Bulletin).
Washington Blade Goes Under
Window Media, the nation's largest owner of gay newspapers, shut its doors today bringing D.C.'s local gay newspaper The Washington Blade as well as four others down with it.
The Washington Blade, you could say, was the New York Times of LGBT news. It was the second-largest gay newspaper by circulation (beside Gay City News), and covered national issues as well as local, D.C. politics. It was widely recognized for its reporting on the AIDS crisis, the marriage fight and has served as a bulletin board for local events, including political rallies. Most obviously, gay D.C. residents will be less informed about issues that affect them without the Blade -- and less likely to be drawn to activism, which is no small blow for groups that are already underrepresented in politics anyway.
I regularly wrote for the New York Blade, its sister publication, until it shuttered its operations in July. Whenever I had an idea I thought would be too "gay" for mainstream media, or when I wanted to write about a certain politician's gay-rights record, I went to the NY Blade.
Much has been made of local city papers like the Rocky Mountain News closing their doors, but if anything, the disappearance of publications that cater to minorities -- the "ethnic" or "minority" media -- is even more troubling. Papers like the Blade don't only provide a voice to dispossessed groups, they're how a community talks to itself – and sounds the alarm when there's a threat. Next time a D.C. police officer roughs up and arrests someone gay while calling him a "faggot," I question whether the Washington Post will immediately run to the scene. Who will?
--Gabriel Arana
The Washington Blade, you could say, was the New York Times of LGBT news. It was the second-largest gay newspaper by circulation (beside Gay City News), and covered national issues as well as local, D.C. politics. It was widely recognized for its reporting on the AIDS crisis, the marriage fight and has served as a bulletin board for local events, including political rallies. Most obviously, gay D.C. residents will be less informed about issues that affect them without the Blade -- and less likely to be drawn to activism, which is no small blow for groups that are already underrepresented in politics anyway.
I regularly wrote for the New York Blade, its sister publication, until it shuttered its operations in July. Whenever I had an idea I thought would be too "gay" for mainstream media, or when I wanted to write about a certain politician's gay-rights record, I went to the NY Blade.
Much has been made of local city papers like the Rocky Mountain News closing their doors, but if anything, the disappearance of publications that cater to minorities -- the "ethnic" or "minority" media -- is even more troubling. Papers like the Blade don't only provide a voice to dispossessed groups, they're how a community talks to itself – and sounds the alarm when there's a threat. Next time a D.C. police officer roughs up and arrests someone gay while calling him a "faggot," I question whether the Washington Post will immediately run to the scene. Who will?
--Gabriel Arana
Cross-posted from TAPPED, the group blog of The American Prospect.
Lou Dobbjectivity
Lou Dobbs' abrupt departure from CNN seems to be the product of ongoing wrangling between the anchor and network executives, who gave him the choice of either making his show more "objective" or resigning. CNN had been under increasing pressure from immigrants' rights groups to fire the news anchor: His histrionics in the last few years have included blaming immigrants for 7,000 cases of leprosy in 2007 and joining certifiable crazy Orly Taitz in demanding Obama turn over his real birth certificate even as CNN repeatedly debunked the birther myth.
CNN's demand that Dobbs tone it down seems to be part of an effort to hold firm against the editorialization of the news that happens at networks like Fox and MSNBC. But I'm not sure that purging the loudest scaremongers will necessarily guarantee CNN objective coverage -- this might be a futile endeavor on their part. Sure, a story can strike a tone that isn't alarmist, but any journalist can tell you that the types of stories an outlet covers -- and doesn't cover -- are themselves an indication of politically informed priorities.
CNN's demand that Dobbs tone it down seems to be part of an effort to hold firm against the editorialization of the news that happens at networks like Fox and MSNBC. But I'm not sure that purging the loudest scaremongers will necessarily guarantee CNN objective coverage -- this might be a futile endeavor on their part. Sure, a story can strike a tone that isn't alarmist, but any journalist can tell you that the types of stories an outlet covers -- and doesn't cover -- are themselves an indication of politically informed priorities.
The bias question isn't just a matter of whether or not the title of Dobbs' news series had been "Broken Borders." Simply reporting on the immigration "problem" -- as opposed to our failure to plan for the regular influx of new citizens -- is a political decision. As James Poniewozik writes in Time, all it means for a news outlet to be "moderate" or neutral is that it reflects the values and prejudices that are the status quo. Still, it's nice not to watch the nightly news and be told that Armageddon is around the corner. CNN is better off without Dobbs' senile, paranoid invective.
Setting aside the issue of whether one can be an "objective" journalist, the more important question is what it means to be a good journalist. It means not being a prisoner to ideology and instead pointing the skeptical, journalistic lens on yourself -- as well as on the government officials and organizations you cover. Dobbs is a font of certainty, and now, the subject of reports rather than the reporter. He belongs there.
--Gabriel Arana
Cross-posted from TAPPED
Setting aside the issue of whether one can be an "objective" journalist, the more important question is what it means to be a good journalist. It means not being a prisoner to ideology and instead pointing the skeptical, journalistic lens on yourself -- as well as on the government officials and organizations you cover. Dobbs is a font of certainty, and now, the subject of reports rather than the reporter. He belongs there.
--Gabriel Arana
Cross-posted from TAPPED
What's the Impact of the Matthew Shepard Act?
Today, the Senate joined the House in passing the Matthew Shepard Act, which provides for stricter sentences if a crime appears to be motivated by anti-gay bias. It's near certain that Obama will sign it, giving the Human Rights Campaign a public relations boost and likely a fundraising bump. But in reality, the lobbying crusade for this legislation doesn't amount to much more than wasted effort and lost opportunity.
Hate-crimes legislation is symbolic: It sends the message that anti-gay prejudice is abhorrent. But it does little for gay victims. Stricter sentencing might send a message to bigots, but by then it is probably too late. Even the bill's proponents concede that it is unlikely to prevent violence against gays and lesbians. If that is really the goal -- and it should be -- why not prioritize education and activism instead?
I don't think that all crimes are hate crimes and that this is a form of thought-policing like some, but I do question whether the movement should have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and countless hours fighting for a bill that kicks in after damage is done when gays and lesbians can still be fired in most states for being gay. The employment nondiscrimination act (ENDA) would have a significant and concrete effect on how most gay people live their lives, but it's taken a backseat to the HRC's strangely single-minded campaign to get the Matthew Shepard Act passed.
Congress' heart may be in the right place, but it would be better for them to make a move where it makes a difference.
--Gabriel Arana
Hate-crimes legislation is symbolic: It sends the message that anti-gay prejudice is abhorrent. But it does little for gay victims. Stricter sentencing might send a message to bigots, but by then it is probably too late. Even the bill's proponents concede that it is unlikely to prevent violence against gays and lesbians. If that is really the goal -- and it should be -- why not prioritize education and activism instead?
I don't think that all crimes are hate crimes and that this is a form of thought-policing like some, but I do question whether the movement should have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and countless hours fighting for a bill that kicks in after damage is done when gays and lesbians can still be fired in most states for being gay. The employment nondiscrimination act (ENDA) would have a significant and concrete effect on how most gay people live their lives, but it's taken a backseat to the HRC's strangely single-minded campaign to get the Matthew Shepard Act passed.
Congress' heart may be in the right place, but it would be better for them to make a move where it makes a difference.
--Gabriel Arana
Reposted from TAPPED
Obama's HRC Speech
A March Toward Irrelevance?
This weekend, thousands of gay people will descend on Washington to participate in this year's National Equality March, which calls for "equal protection in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states." Organizers have planned workshops and genteel cocktail hours leading up to Sunday's march on the Capitol, but these events aren't really what most people are coming for.
For many attendees, the weekend will largely be a social affair, with all the trappings of a carnival. Cobalt -- a stalwart of D.C.'s gay nightlife scene -- helped kick off the festivities with a "best package" contest Thursday. And while well-connected lobbyists and rich donors will hear Obama speak at the Human Rights Campaign dinner on Saturday, everyone else will be attending the Imperial Drag-Trans Extravaganza: ''Marching for Equality ... in Heels'' at the M Street Renaissance hotel. Visitors also have a raft of -- as one venue put it -- dancestravaganzas to choose from.
Gay-rights marches have played an important role in the history of the movement: They increased visibility, helped change attitudes about gays and lesbians, and united members of the community. But in the 1990s, public opinion shifted dramatically in favor of gay rights. This is the byproduct of steady activism over the past few decades but is also attributable to the urgent response to the AIDS crisis. In light of this national attitude change, it's worth asking whether general "awareness raising" marches are as effective as they once were.
When the Stonewall Riots occurred 40 years ago in New York City's Greenwich Village, repressive social mores and laws forced gay people to conceal their sexual orientation. Gay sex was illegal; homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder; and the FBI kept files on known gays and their personal associations. The riots, which erupted after police tried to close down a local bar, were a spontaneous response. Local papers picked up the story, and Stonewall became the iconic spark of the gay-rights movement.
In the late 1970s, when pageant winner Anita Bryant was gallivanting around the country pushing legislation that barred gays from teaching in public schools, gays and lesbians organized the first march on Washington to protest the destructive campaign and increase social acceptance of homosexuality. The effort largely failed to prevent discriminatory laws from being passed, but it mobilized gay-rights supporters around a common foe. The AIDS crisis in the 1980s inspired dramatic demonstrations from Act Up, a coalition founded by rabble rouser Larry Kramer. Activists stormed Grand Central Station, wrapped then-Sen. Jesse Helms' house in a giant condom -- and ultimately helped change national health policy. This weekend's cocktail hours, workshops, and marches have little of the immediacy of these historical moments, which is why many people choose to sit them out.
We haven't reached the end of the gay-rights movement, but the modern issues we are fighting for -- achieving marriage equality, passing the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- aren't really issues of visibility. People know we're here and that we're queer, which is to say that the public-relations war has been won in many respects. The most recent New York Times/CBS poll shows that 63 percent of Americans favor either gay marriage or civil unions. An even greater majority thinks gays should be protected from job discrimination. And young people, the best indicator of where we are headed, overwhelmingly support gay rights; based on polling data, 38 states would have marriage equality if only those under 30 made the laws. Of course discrimination still persists, but in 1990, few would have thought marriage would be on the table in a serious way. At the time of Stonewall, marching publicly as a gay person was a seditious political act. It's just not anymore.
Today, we are not responding to an immediate threat, like we were with the Anita Bryant and Act Up protests. Instead, the campaign billed as the Equality Across America movement, with its laundry list of things it is supposed to represent and associated workshops, is ultimately incoherent. The march has a theme but no message. Because of this, most of the press coverage -- and talk among those in the gay community -- has been about Obama's speech at the HRC, or the fact that Lady Gaga is appearing. Visitors to D.C. mostly talk about what hotel to stay at over the weekend, where to go out, or what the best way to get into the city is. In other words, it's a typical pride parade.
But with an administration in office that ostensibly supports gay-rights issues and a Democratic majority in Congress, it should be a watershed moment. It's the first time in which gay-rights leaders are in a position to put real pressure on Washington. Instead of having a general "awareness raising" campaign where gays say they want equality, organizers could have instead presented the administration with a concrete list of demands -- and a deadline for each. For example, Obama should immediately suspend Don't Ask, Don't Tell discharges and set in motion the formal process to repeal the law. In the next six months, he should campaign publicly for passage of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which would make it illegal nationwide to fire someone because of their sexual orientation. By the end of 2011, he should have a similar campaign to end the Defense of Marriage Act. Having these concrete goals makes for better slogans -- "End Goal? ENDA 2012!" perhaps? -- and they also provide a metric for progress.
Then the message would be clear: Act now, or future marches will be protests. Groups like the HRC could also threaten to withhold contributions to Democratic candidates until real progress is made. Instead, what we currently have is a weekend of glitzy events where politicos hobnob with donors and the rest of the gay community caps their weekend vacation with a feel-good march.
At the last pride weekend I attended in New York City, I awoke on the day of the parade dehydrated and with a headache. I had stayed up late the night before and drank too much. By the time I dragged myself out of bed, the parade had been going on for two hours. What a shame, I thought. But the shame was not that I missed making an important political point; I regretted missing the pridestravaganza of go-go dancers, baton twirlers, and floats passing by.
For many attendees, the weekend will largely be a social affair, with all the trappings of a carnival. Cobalt -- a stalwart of D.C.'s gay nightlife scene -- helped kick off the festivities with a "best package" contest Thursday. And while well-connected lobbyists and rich donors will hear Obama speak at the Human Rights Campaign dinner on Saturday, everyone else will be attending the Imperial Drag-Trans Extravaganza: ''Marching for Equality ... in Heels'' at the M Street Renaissance hotel. Visitors also have a raft of -- as one venue put it -- dancestravaganzas to choose from.
Gay-rights marches have played an important role in the history of the movement: They increased visibility, helped change attitudes about gays and lesbians, and united members of the community. But in the 1990s, public opinion shifted dramatically in favor of gay rights. This is the byproduct of steady activism over the past few decades but is also attributable to the urgent response to the AIDS crisis. In light of this national attitude change, it's worth asking whether general "awareness raising" marches are as effective as they once were.
When the Stonewall Riots occurred 40 years ago in New York City's Greenwich Village, repressive social mores and laws forced gay people to conceal their sexual orientation. Gay sex was illegal; homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder; and the FBI kept files on known gays and their personal associations. The riots, which erupted after police tried to close down a local bar, were a spontaneous response. Local papers picked up the story, and Stonewall became the iconic spark of the gay-rights movement.
In the late 1970s, when pageant winner Anita Bryant was gallivanting around the country pushing legislation that barred gays from teaching in public schools, gays and lesbians organized the first march on Washington to protest the destructive campaign and increase social acceptance of homosexuality. The effort largely failed to prevent discriminatory laws from being passed, but it mobilized gay-rights supporters around a common foe. The AIDS crisis in the 1980s inspired dramatic demonstrations from Act Up, a coalition founded by rabble rouser Larry Kramer. Activists stormed Grand Central Station, wrapped then-Sen. Jesse Helms' house in a giant condom -- and ultimately helped change national health policy. This weekend's cocktail hours, workshops, and marches have little of the immediacy of these historical moments, which is why many people choose to sit them out.
We haven't reached the end of the gay-rights movement, but the modern issues we are fighting for -- achieving marriage equality, passing the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- aren't really issues of visibility. People know we're here and that we're queer, which is to say that the public-relations war has been won in many respects. The most recent New York Times/CBS poll shows that 63 percent of Americans favor either gay marriage or civil unions. An even greater majority thinks gays should be protected from job discrimination. And young people, the best indicator of where we are headed, overwhelmingly support gay rights; based on polling data, 38 states would have marriage equality if only those under 30 made the laws. Of course discrimination still persists, but in 1990, few would have thought marriage would be on the table in a serious way. At the time of Stonewall, marching publicly as a gay person was a seditious political act. It's just not anymore.
Today, we are not responding to an immediate threat, like we were with the Anita Bryant and Act Up protests. Instead, the campaign billed as the Equality Across America movement, with its laundry list of things it is supposed to represent and associated workshops, is ultimately incoherent. The march has a theme but no message. Because of this, most of the press coverage -- and talk among those in the gay community -- has been about Obama's speech at the HRC, or the fact that Lady Gaga is appearing. Visitors to D.C. mostly talk about what hotel to stay at over the weekend, where to go out, or what the best way to get into the city is. In other words, it's a typical pride parade.
But with an administration in office that ostensibly supports gay-rights issues and a Democratic majority in Congress, it should be a watershed moment. It's the first time in which gay-rights leaders are in a position to put real pressure on Washington. Instead of having a general "awareness raising" campaign where gays say they want equality, organizers could have instead presented the administration with a concrete list of demands -- and a deadline for each. For example, Obama should immediately suspend Don't Ask, Don't Tell discharges and set in motion the formal process to repeal the law. In the next six months, he should campaign publicly for passage of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which would make it illegal nationwide to fire someone because of their sexual orientation. By the end of 2011, he should have a similar campaign to end the Defense of Marriage Act. Having these concrete goals makes for better slogans -- "End Goal? ENDA 2012!" perhaps? -- and they also provide a metric for progress.
Then the message would be clear: Act now, or future marches will be protests. Groups like the HRC could also threaten to withhold contributions to Democratic candidates until real progress is made. Instead, what we currently have is a weekend of glitzy events where politicos hobnob with donors and the rest of the gay community caps their weekend vacation with a feel-good march.
At the last pride weekend I attended in New York City, I awoke on the day of the parade dehydrated and with a headache. I had stayed up late the night before and drank too much. By the time I dragged myself out of bed, the parade had been going on for two hours. What a shame, I thought. But the shame was not that I missed making an important political point; I regretted missing the pridestravaganza of go-go dancers, baton twirlers, and floats passing by.
Reposted from The American Prospect.
Who Are We Without the Wall?
Yesterday, major media outlets reported that for the first time an AIDS vaccine has had partial success in humans. In trials, it was about 31 percent effective. This is a far cry from the 70- to 90-percent effectiveness typically required for a vaccine to be licensed, but it shows that a vaccine is possible and represents the first-ever major breakthrough.
Since the announcement, I’ve allowed myself to consider seriously what a world without AIDS would look like. I was born in 1983 and remember the late ’80s, early ’90s television reports on the devastation wrought by AIDS in the U.S. The reports were terrifying, and it is odd to look at them in retrospect, knowing what they foreshadowed.
Probably.
The brief window of worry-free (or at least more worry-free) sex ushered in by the discovery of antibiotics, the pill, and abortion would open again — to the chagrin of social conservatives who have made the regulation of sex, reproduction, and sexuality an essential component of their agendas. It would deflate many of the biological justifications for religious arguments (or maybe we’d just be cheating God?).
Whereas earlier gay rights activists wanted nothing to do with heterosexual marriage, the shift has been toward assimilating and adopting marriage, which some people think is good and other people think is bad (I’m on the fence). Part of this has come from increasing social acceptance and support of gay couples, but it would be silly to deny that the re-medicalization of sex had nothing to do with the rise of monogamy in the gay community. Will the end of AIDS reverse this trend? I am not saying that bathhouses will reopen their doors and meth-fueled orgies will mark the scene until the next pandemic comes around, but de-coupling sex and relationships from the fear of death, disease, and social stigma will change the dynamics. In a sense, though, sex will always be fraught with anxieties: the virgin won’t stop wondering whether he or she will be good for their partner, and people will still feel the sting of betrayal when they find out they are being cheated on.
I’ve hesitated to use the word “freedom” or “liberation” in discussing the de-medicalization of sex. There is something mundane about equating this with human freedom. It seems a rather nihilistic, ’60s-’70s understanding of it. I have no idea what it really entails, but I doubt that freedom just means you have nothing left to lose.
This commentary is the sole opinion of the author and does not reflect the opinion of Box Turtle Bulletin’s other contributors.
Since the announcement, I’ve allowed myself to consider seriously what a world without AIDS would look like. I was born in 1983 and remember the late ’80s, early ’90s television reports on the devastation wrought by AIDS in the U.S. The reports were terrifying, and it is odd to look at them in retrospect, knowing what they foreshadowed.
Since then, even as medical advances have made AIDS a chronic illness instead of a death sentence, contracting HIV has been one of my biggest fears, which goes to show that the stigma associated with it remains. I fear hearing, “you’re HIV positive” more than being told I have an inoperable brain tumor, which I know is irrational. I’ve had probably five HIV tests, and for all except the first one, the anxiety of waiting a week for lab results has made me run to the nearest rapid HIV testing site and get an answer in 20 minutes, which is also excruciating.
I grew up understanding that gay = AIDS, an equation that I realize is outdated and perhaps prejudiced. But part of me fears that being infected with HIV would confirm all the dire predictions made for me by reorientation therapists and concerned family members. I’ve often felt the pressure to defy these predictions by leading an exemplary life — which I of course haven’t, and won’t. But the point is that AIDS has been framed as the natural “consequence” of homosexuality.
Perhaps the best-known piece of writing on the social meaning of AIDS was written by Susan Sontag, “AIDS and Its Metaphors,” in which the author talks about the ways in which we imbued a virus — which is inherently indifferent to human feelings, morals, and motivations — with exactly those attributes. AIDS was cited by people like Pat Robertson as divine retribution for sinful sex, an understanding that reversed the natural inclination to view the afflicted person as a victim. People with AIDS were “guilty,” or earned it, or something like that. You “get” AIDS; you don’t “get” a brain tumor. HIV in the blood is a “poison,” AIDS a “plague.” As dehumanizing as terminal disease is, even more dehumanizing — and disempowering – is how moral, religious, and political leaders talk about AIDS and its victims.
On the other hand, the AIDS crisis galvanized the gay rights movement, and many of the advances in equality were made during the late ’80s and early ’90s. The AIDS crisis was the tipping point for social acceptance of homosexuality, a change that is reflected in the language. It’s no longer politic to call gay people “homosexuals” or refer to the homosexual “lifestyle,” but in the ’80s these were standard phrases used by newscasters.
I grew up understanding that gay = AIDS, an equation that I realize is outdated and perhaps prejudiced. But part of me fears that being infected with HIV would confirm all the dire predictions made for me by reorientation therapists and concerned family members. I’ve often felt the pressure to defy these predictions by leading an exemplary life — which I of course haven’t, and won’t. But the point is that AIDS has been framed as the natural “consequence” of homosexuality.
Perhaps the best-known piece of writing on the social meaning of AIDS was written by Susan Sontag, “AIDS and Its Metaphors,” in which the author talks about the ways in which we imbued a virus — which is inherently indifferent to human feelings, morals, and motivations — with exactly those attributes. AIDS was cited by people like Pat Robertson as divine retribution for sinful sex, an understanding that reversed the natural inclination to view the afflicted person as a victim. People with AIDS were “guilty,” or earned it, or something like that. You “get” AIDS; you don’t “get” a brain tumor. HIV in the blood is a “poison,” AIDS a “plague.” As dehumanizing as terminal disease is, even more dehumanizing — and disempowering – is how moral, religious, and political leaders talk about AIDS and its victims.
On the other hand, the AIDS crisis galvanized the gay rights movement, and many of the advances in equality were made during the late ’80s and early ’90s. The AIDS crisis was the tipping point for social acceptance of homosexuality, a change that is reflected in the language. It’s no longer politic to call gay people “homosexuals” or refer to the homosexual “lifestyle,” but in the ’80s these were standard phrases used by newscasters.
A lot of the momentum of Act-Up has waned, but AIDS consciousness still permeates gay culture. Gay people will tag “be safe” (code for “use condoms”) to a goodbye at the end of an evening. I’ve been accosted more than once at a New York gay bar by an awkward grad student wanting me to fill out a survey about my sex life, which includes transparent questions about condoms, meth use, and depression (I can save you the work: gays who are reckless with drugs are probably more likely to have sex without condoms, and are probably more likely to be depressed). Public health officials obsess over how to “reach” us and set up condom stands at every LGBT event imaginable. And we’ve been Riding For The Cure forever. What happens when the finish line appears beneath us?
We thought the wall would stand forever,The Hedwig quote probably implies a nostalgia for AIDS that I do not intend, so let me be clear: the day the AIDS crisis ends — whether it’s a gradual process or an all-at-once medical achievement — will be a great day, the end of suffering for millions around the world. But it will mark the beginning of a shift in the culture. Will condom use plummet? Will the rate of other STDs rise? Will it change the forms our relationships take?
And now that it’s gone we don’t know who we are anymore.
Probably.
The brief window of worry-free (or at least more worry-free) sex ushered in by the discovery of antibiotics, the pill, and abortion would open again — to the chagrin of social conservatives who have made the regulation of sex, reproduction, and sexuality an essential component of their agendas. It would deflate many of the biological justifications for religious arguments (or maybe we’d just be cheating God?).
Whereas earlier gay rights activists wanted nothing to do with heterosexual marriage, the shift has been toward assimilating and adopting marriage, which some people think is good and other people think is bad (I’m on the fence). Part of this has come from increasing social acceptance and support of gay couples, but it would be silly to deny that the re-medicalization of sex had nothing to do with the rise of monogamy in the gay community. Will the end of AIDS reverse this trend? I am not saying that bathhouses will reopen their doors and meth-fueled orgies will mark the scene until the next pandemic comes around, but de-coupling sex and relationships from the fear of death, disease, and social stigma will change the dynamics. In a sense, though, sex will always be fraught with anxieties: the virgin won’t stop wondering whether he or she will be good for their partner, and people will still feel the sting of betrayal when they find out they are being cheated on.
I’ve hesitated to use the word “freedom” or “liberation” in discussing the de-medicalization of sex. There is something mundane about equating this with human freedom. It seems a rather nihilistic, ’60s-’70s understanding of it. I have no idea what it really entails, but I doubt that freedom just means you have nothing left to lose.
This commentary is the sole opinion of the author and does not reflect the opinion of Box Turtle Bulletin’s other contributors.
Reposted from Box Turtle Bulletin.
The Deification of Matthew Shepard
Since Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered a decade ago, his story has achieved the status of parable, illustrating how ugly anti-gay bigotry really is. Every year, thousands of high school students across the country perform Moises Kaufman's play, The Laramie Project , which recounts the aftermath of Shepard's murder through the eyes of the local residents. Shepard's story has been the subject of three screen productions, a documentary, and countless investigative reports. That he was discovered tied to a pole on a dirt road only encouraged Christian analogy, one not-so-subtly invoked by the 2007 Phil Hall theatrical production, Matthew Passion.
As Shepard's father said at the trial of the two men eventually convicted of killing Shepard, "My son has become a symbol."
This familiar story -- Matthew as a pure, meek victim of anti-gay bigotry -- remains an orthodoxy unquestioned by all but the most ardent gay-rights opponents. In fact, Shepard was a deeply troubled young man. He had a severe drug and alcohol problem, suffered from bouts of depression, and failed out of school numerous times. He spent his money on partying, leaving him unable to pay bills. He contracted HIV, most likely through unsafe sex. These darker details are conspicuously absent from the prevailing narrative about Shepard's life.
There's no question that Shepard's murder was the result of bigotry. But by ignoring Shepard's flaws, supporters of gay rights make a critical mistake. The allegorical Matthew of vigils and plays is a not a person with conflicting desires and motivations. He's a one-dimensional caricature. If Shepard's story is intended as a lesson on the tragic consequences of gay bigotry, the ardent refusal to cast him as anything but an unblemished victim provides another: In order to win rights, gay people not only have to be just like you, they have to be better than you.
In her new book, The Meaning of Matthew, Judy Shepard acknowledges her son's shortcomings. But despite her frank acknowledgement of his problems, she ultimately falls back on eulogistic platitudes: He made everyone "feel that they were the only ones in the world at that moment." He liked to "ruffle a few feathers" and "had a promising future." Her son "put an everyday face on the gay rights movement."
It's understandable that a grieving mother remembers her son in the best light. But Matthew Shepard's status as a gay everyman was determined -- first by the media, then by gay-rights groups -- with little knowledge of who he was. He looked like an attractive, angelic, white college student from the heart of conservative America. He was found tied to a pole and beaten, hovering near death. The story could have written itself -- and it did: Numerous media outlets erroneously reported that Matthew had been "crucified" when in reality he was found on the ground.
Over 1,400 members of the LGBT community are victims of a hate crime every year, which includes violent attacks as well as harassment. Why, then, is Shepard the "face" of gay rights? The implication is that all the other candidates weren't quite right: not urban New Yorkers dying of AIDS in the 1980s, not inner-city black adolescents whose parents kicked them out of the house, not leather daddies marching on Washington. The pictures of other gays, lesbians, and transgender people did not prove sufficiently salable to make it onto rally placards.
At worst, anointing Shepard the "everyday" face of gay rights is a concession to other types of bigotry -- against trans men and women, racial and ethnic minorities, gay men with AIDS. At the very least, it demonstrates a willingness to appeal to mainstream tastes in order to earn political capital. It's the type of pragmatic bargain that organizations like the Human Rights Campaign and Equality California make all the time: You give us rights, and we'll hide the drag queens.
The "perfect icon" problem is not exclusive to the gay-rights movement. We revere Martin Luther King Jr. -- a peaceful reformer who couched his calls for civil rights in terms of brotherhood and Christian values -- instead of Malcolm X, a secessionist and Muslim who blamed whites for slavery and black oppression. There is also a reason the long-haired and beautiful Gloria Steinem is a better known feminist than Judith Butler, the androgynous queer theorist. All these figures have similar messages, but we choose to elevate those who are less threatening. Cast as a small, good-natured kid who loved everybody, Shepard is the epitome of nonthreatening.
This deification is part of what happens when a personal narrative turns political.
Judy Shepard calls comparisons of her son to Christ "inappropriate," but that framing has helped make him the patron saint of hate-crime legislation. The fight for this legislation is at least part of the "meaning" of Matthew. The Matthew Shepard Act is currently under consideration in the House after being stymied under George W. Bush, who threatened to veto it. If it passes, gay-rights groups can declare a victory. But what will have been vanquished? Even his mother acknowledges that "a dyed-in-the-wool and determined bigot isn't about to log onto the Internet to check state or federal statutes before bashing someone's head in."
What hate-crime laws do provide are stricter sentencing guidelines, feeding a criminal-justice system that has imprisoned more than 1 percent of the U.S. population and unfairly targets minorities. The courts imprison blacks at six times the rate of whites, and Hispanics, at more than double the rate of whites; the rate of black incarceration under President George W. Bush was higher than it was in South Africa during apartheid. If the face of anti-gay violence were a racial or ethnic minority, would we still be pushing for hate-crimes legislation that props up the criminal-justice system?
As Jos Truitt at Feministing.com points out, activists' energy would be better spent on empowering victims and combating the homophobia that motivates hate crimes. Groups like the Human Rights Campaign, which are spearheading the effort to get the Matthew Shepard Act passed, should focus instead on education programs and passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Harsher murder sentences can't bring back the dead, but nondiscrimination laws and education programs can help LGBT Americans who are still living. It's hard to see how Shepard's memory is "honored" by a legalistic redefinition of federal sentencing guidelines or how this accomplishes anything concrete for gay rights.
Judy Shepard is entitled to remember her son however she likes. The rest of us have no such excuse. In an objective sense, the "meaning" of Matthew is not to be found in the passage of legislation, candlelight vigils, or passion plays. The real tragedy of Matthew Shepard's death is that it was senseless: He did not die for hate-crimes legislation or to become a martyr. The public can craft a narrative in which trauma finds redemption in politics, but ultimately the meaning we find in Shepard's death says more about the gay-rights movement than it does about Judy Shepard's son.
Reposted from The American Prospect Online
As Shepard's father said at the trial of the two men eventually convicted of killing Shepard, "My son has become a symbol."
This familiar story -- Matthew as a pure, meek victim of anti-gay bigotry -- remains an orthodoxy unquestioned by all but the most ardent gay-rights opponents. In fact, Shepard was a deeply troubled young man. He had a severe drug and alcohol problem, suffered from bouts of depression, and failed out of school numerous times. He spent his money on partying, leaving him unable to pay bills. He contracted HIV, most likely through unsafe sex. These darker details are conspicuously absent from the prevailing narrative about Shepard's life.
There's no question that Shepard's murder was the result of bigotry. But by ignoring Shepard's flaws, supporters of gay rights make a critical mistake. The allegorical Matthew of vigils and plays is a not a person with conflicting desires and motivations. He's a one-dimensional caricature. If Shepard's story is intended as a lesson on the tragic consequences of gay bigotry, the ardent refusal to cast him as anything but an unblemished victim provides another: In order to win rights, gay people not only have to be just like you, they have to be better than you.
In her new book, The Meaning of Matthew, Judy Shepard acknowledges her son's shortcomings. But despite her frank acknowledgement of his problems, she ultimately falls back on eulogistic platitudes: He made everyone "feel that they were the only ones in the world at that moment." He liked to "ruffle a few feathers" and "had a promising future." Her son "put an everyday face on the gay rights movement."
It's understandable that a grieving mother remembers her son in the best light. But Matthew Shepard's status as a gay everyman was determined -- first by the media, then by gay-rights groups -- with little knowledge of who he was. He looked like an attractive, angelic, white college student from the heart of conservative America. He was found tied to a pole and beaten, hovering near death. The story could have written itself -- and it did: Numerous media outlets erroneously reported that Matthew had been "crucified" when in reality he was found on the ground.
Over 1,400 members of the LGBT community are victims of a hate crime every year, which includes violent attacks as well as harassment. Why, then, is Shepard the "face" of gay rights? The implication is that all the other candidates weren't quite right: not urban New Yorkers dying of AIDS in the 1980s, not inner-city black adolescents whose parents kicked them out of the house, not leather daddies marching on Washington. The pictures of other gays, lesbians, and transgender people did not prove sufficiently salable to make it onto rally placards.
At worst, anointing Shepard the "everyday" face of gay rights is a concession to other types of bigotry -- against trans men and women, racial and ethnic minorities, gay men with AIDS. At the very least, it demonstrates a willingness to appeal to mainstream tastes in order to earn political capital. It's the type of pragmatic bargain that organizations like the Human Rights Campaign and Equality California make all the time: You give us rights, and we'll hide the drag queens.
The "perfect icon" problem is not exclusive to the gay-rights movement. We revere Martin Luther King Jr. -- a peaceful reformer who couched his calls for civil rights in terms of brotherhood and Christian values -- instead of Malcolm X, a secessionist and Muslim who blamed whites for slavery and black oppression. There is also a reason the long-haired and beautiful Gloria Steinem is a better known feminist than Judith Butler, the androgynous queer theorist. All these figures have similar messages, but we choose to elevate those who are less threatening. Cast as a small, good-natured kid who loved everybody, Shepard is the epitome of nonthreatening.
This deification is part of what happens when a personal narrative turns political.
Judy Shepard calls comparisons of her son to Christ "inappropriate," but that framing has helped make him the patron saint of hate-crime legislation. The fight for this legislation is at least part of the "meaning" of Matthew. The Matthew Shepard Act is currently under consideration in the House after being stymied under George W. Bush, who threatened to veto it. If it passes, gay-rights groups can declare a victory. But what will have been vanquished? Even his mother acknowledges that "a dyed-in-the-wool and determined bigot isn't about to log onto the Internet to check state or federal statutes before bashing someone's head in."
What hate-crime laws do provide are stricter sentencing guidelines, feeding a criminal-justice system that has imprisoned more than 1 percent of the U.S. population and unfairly targets minorities. The courts imprison blacks at six times the rate of whites, and Hispanics, at more than double the rate of whites; the rate of black incarceration under President George W. Bush was higher than it was in South Africa during apartheid. If the face of anti-gay violence were a racial or ethnic minority, would we still be pushing for hate-crimes legislation that props up the criminal-justice system?
As Jos Truitt at Feministing.com points out, activists' energy would be better spent on empowering victims and combating the homophobia that motivates hate crimes. Groups like the Human Rights Campaign, which are spearheading the effort to get the Matthew Shepard Act passed, should focus instead on education programs and passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Harsher murder sentences can't bring back the dead, but nondiscrimination laws and education programs can help LGBT Americans who are still living. It's hard to see how Shepard's memory is "honored" by a legalistic redefinition of federal sentencing guidelines or how this accomplishes anything concrete for gay rights.
Judy Shepard is entitled to remember her son however she likes. The rest of us have no such excuse. In an objective sense, the "meaning" of Matthew is not to be found in the passage of legislation, candlelight vigils, or passion plays. The real tragedy of Matthew Shepard's death is that it was senseless: He did not die for hate-crimes legislation or to become a martyr. The public can craft a narrative in which trauma finds redemption in politics, but ultimately the meaning we find in Shepard's death says more about the gay-rights movement than it does about Judy Shepard's son.
Reposted from The American Prospect Online
Gay Rights Organizations Barred from Federal Marriage Case
Today, Judge Vaughn Walker denied a motion by various gay rights organizations -- including Lambda Legal and the ACLU -- to intervene in the federal challenge to Prop. 8. He did, however, allow the City of San Francisco to join, saying its interests were not already represented by other parties. This decision leaves former Bush v. Gore foesDavid Boies and Ted Olson at the helm of the broadest legal case for gay rights to date.
Major gay legal rights organizations, which have taken a more incremental approach to securing gay rights in court, were quick to warn Boies and Olson about the danger of bringing the case to the Supreme Court too soon, then asked to join the suit once it became clear Boies and Olson intended to continue despite their reservations. The question of whether it's the right "time" to bring gay marriage to the Supreme Court was subject of a New York Times debate forum today, but the point is really moot.
The decision today locks Lambda Legal and the ACLU out of the case, which is just as well: There was bound to be bad blood between these organizations and the pair of lawyers who wrested the reigns from a movement that they've been managing for decades. Whether or not it's a wise decision to strike now, it is better to make a good case than a bad one beset by infighting and conflicting interests.
As Boies and Olson move forward, it is becoming apparent how broad the legal case will be. Based on the "case management" proposals filed by both sides yesterday, Perry v. Schwarzenegger is set to address questions as wide-ranging as whether being gay diminishes one's contribution to society, affects one's ability to raise children, impairs judgment, or constitutes a mental disorder. The state challenge, on the other hand, only dealt with the narrow legal question of whether the measure constituted an "amendment" or a "revision" to the state constitution.
From these documents, it also appears that Boies and Olson are going to take aim at the "Yes on 8" campaign directly. To show that the intent of Prop. 8 was discriminatory, they plan on issuing subpoenas for "documents relating to Prop. 8's genesis, drafting, strategy, objectives, advertising, campaign literature, [Yes on 8 members'] communications with each other, supporters, and donors." They also want to depose Frank Schubert and Jeff Flint, the P.R. moguls who managed "Yes on 8."
In another strange glimpse of what's to come, the defense plans on showing homosexuality is a choice by seeing how many people registered as same-sex domestic partners, broke it off, then got married.
The fact that a court is considering questions such as these is almost farcical. I just hope that when the case goes to trial, the comedy comes through.
-- Gabriel Arana
Reposted from TAPPED, the group blog of The American Prospect.
Boies and Olson to Go After 'Yes on 8' Campaign
I have been following the federal challenge to Prop 8, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, and thought I would give BTB readers an update (there’s not much in the rest of the LGBT press).
As you might remember, former Bush v. Gore foes Boies and Olson sparked controversy among gay legal rights groups after teaming up to file a federal challenge to Prop. 8 in California District Court. Organizations like Lambda Legal, which have spent years focusing on incremental legal wins are afraid it’s not the right time to put all the movement’s chips on the table, but seeing as Boies and Olson are going ahead anyway, they want in on the action and have asked to join the suit.
Judge Walker is set to hear opposing arguments tomorrow over whether they should be allowed in, a motion Boies and Olson have opposed. My guess is that the judge will allow Lambda Legal, the City of San Francisco, and similar organization to join the suit, or at least that’s what I hope; these organizations have been fighting the good fight long before the fame-mongering pair came on the scene.
Today, all parties to the suit filed another round of “case management statements,” proposals that outline what the trial will cover, what legal questions will be addressed, and which sort of evidence will be gathered and presented. What is interesting about these statements is that the case is shaping up to be much broader than the state challenge to Prop. 8, which hinged on the technical distinction between an “amendment” and a “revision.”
Crucially, the plaintiffs plan to go after the Yes on 8 Campaign to show that they were motivated by anti-gay animus. This will involve having the Yes on 8 people testify and hand over documents relevant to the campaign.
If some gay rights groups were frustrated by the legal language and fine lines involved in the state challenge, this is looking like it will be the big fight they wanted.
Stay tuned.
As you might remember, former Bush v. Gore foes Boies and Olson sparked controversy among gay legal rights groups after teaming up to file a federal challenge to Prop. 8 in California District Court. Organizations like Lambda Legal, which have spent years focusing on incremental legal wins are afraid it’s not the right time to put all the movement’s chips on the table, but seeing as Boies and Olson are going ahead anyway, they want in on the action and have asked to join the suit.
Judge Walker is set to hear opposing arguments tomorrow over whether they should be allowed in, a motion Boies and Olson have opposed. My guess is that the judge will allow Lambda Legal, the City of San Francisco, and similar organization to join the suit, or at least that’s what I hope; these organizations have been fighting the good fight long before the fame-mongering pair came on the scene.
Today, all parties to the suit filed another round of “case management statements,” proposals that outline what the trial will cover, what legal questions will be addressed, and which sort of evidence will be gathered and presented. What is interesting about these statements is that the case is shaping up to be much broader than the state challenge to Prop. 8, which hinged on the technical distinction between an “amendment” and a “revision.”
Crucially, the plaintiffs plan to go after the Yes on 8 Campaign to show that they were motivated by anti-gay animus. This will involve having the Yes on 8 people testify and hand over documents relevant to the campaign.
If some gay rights groups were frustrated by the legal language and fine lines involved in the state challenge, this is looking like it will be the big fight they wanted.
Stay tuned.
Reposted from Box Turtle Bulletin.
Waiting for Rights in California
Equality California, the gay rights organization that spearheaded the failed No on 8 campaign, announced today it would shoot for 2012 instead of 2010 to try to repeal California's new constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. They reason -- correctly, in my estimation -- that waiting will give gay rights supporters more time to win people over and allow more youth, who overwhelmingly support gay rights, time to enter the voting pool. It also makes getting donations easier, if the effort is seen as more likely to be successful.
Other advocates are impatient for change and afraid the trend toward legalizing gay marriage will lose momentum. But this fear is unfounded: Over the past few decades, statistics show a consistent trend toward support for gay rights -- especially since the nineties, when an entire generation of youth grew up seeing openly gay public figures on TV. These are future voters.
I have reservations, however, about Equality California's campaign, given its relentless succession of faux pas last time. Equality California spent millions on a consulting firm with little political experience, only to fire them weeks before the vote. The campaign refused to produce ads that featured gay couples, fearing that seeing them would make undecided voters uncomfortable, and rebuffed the efforts of gay rights leaders to collaborate on the effort. And there was also that disastrous commercial that compared the fight for the designation of the term "marriage" to Japanese internment camps and the Civil Rights Movement -- rhetoric that, as one strategist told Rolling Stone, just "pisses minorities off."
Equality California marriage director Mark Solomon's video statement launching the Win Marriage Back campaign -- as well as the decision to wait until 2012 -- gives hope that the effort will be better organized and more deftly run this time around, if only because we've learned the hard way. But Equality California has been loath to acknowledge its mistakes -- "it's the Mormons' fault," has been their line -- and has not outlined how this campaign's message will be substantially different from the last. Until that happens, I'll remain a skeptic.
-- Gabriel Arana
Cross-posted from TAPPED, the group blog of The American Prospect.
Immigration Detention Centers to be Overhauled
The New York Times reports that the Obama administration will announce an overhaul to immigration detention centers across the country. Details are sketchy, but the plan will include a review of over 350 detention centers currently run by private companies and municipalities. It will also shutter Texas' T. Don Hutto Residential Center, which has been the subject of an ACLU civil rights suit. The Huffington Post adds that 23 federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials will be stationed at detention facilities across the country to monitor how illegal immigrants are housed and treated.
One can only hope that the plan will standardize what is a patchwork system and prevent abuses like those committed by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has detained illegal immigrants in tents in 100-plus-degree weather; reinstituted chain gangs; forced detainees to wear pink underwear; separated mothers from children; and created a task force charged solely with ferreting out illegal immigrants in broad "sweeps" at businesses and traffic stops. Most recently, he has defied the federal government by refusing to cease the detention of immigrants who have committed no crime other than entering the country without documentation. He has also failed to consult with federal officials when he conducts raids.
But thus far, the Obama administration has largely toed to Bush's anti-immigrant line. It is stepping up enforcement by conducting audits of employers' paperwork, encouraging local officials to act as immigration regulators, and helping identify illegal workers who apply for jobs via an electronic system called E-Verify.
Most importantly, the Obama administration has refused to create legally binding standards for immigrant detention centers; any of its guidelines are merely suggestive. With immigration officials able to violate federal detention center guidelines with impunity, legal groups like the ACLU will have to score piecemeal victories for immigrant detainees' basic rights. The move today is an important toward centralizing federal power over a fractured system, but it does little to take power away from rogue local enforcers like Arpaio.
-- Reposted from TAPPED, the group blog of the American Prospect
The Conservative's Dream: A Colorblind Society
There is an interesting article in the latest issue of the New Yorker by Kelefa Sanneh about the term "racism," which Sanneh says has been co-opted by conservatives like Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich, and Pat Buchanan.
The reality is that, of course, things don't work that way. Because of our national history, blacks, Latinos, and other racial minorities are at a disadvantage from the get-go. They attend worse schools, live in more dangerous neighborhoods, are more likely to be frisked by police, etc. When Sonia Sotomayor talked about being a wise "Latina," this -- as opposed to her genetics -- is what she was referring to; like growing up poor, being a minority in America gives you a certain perspective, one that does much to dispel certain ironclad platitudes about merit and justice. Liberals are willing to acknowledge the realities of race. When they call for a colorblind society, they mean one in which the American Dream actually works, which requires acknowledging and addressing the issue. This means confronting police officers who use racial epithets, educating those in power on how to treat groups with respect (i.e. the sensitivity training that conservatives deride), and instituting programs that seek to give opportunities to talented minorities. Conservatives call this whining, or racist. They reiterate that race shouldn't matter, but what they mean is that race doesn't matter.
For someone who grew up in a small town on the U.S.-Mexico border where 41 percent of those under 18 lived in poverty, it is odd to hear someone like Pat Buchanan -- the son of an accountant and a nurse who went to private school, then Georgetown; married a White House staffer; and whose sister became U.S. Treasurer -- cry "racism." When conservatives like him brandish the term "racism," that's whining.
Some who are skeptical of affirmative action, and of other programs designed to advance non-whites, consider reverse racism to be so pervasive, and so well entrenched, that it can only be described as systemic. ... In fact, the “reverse” has largely been dropped from “reverse racism”; in today’s mainstream political discourse, “racism” regularly refers to anti-white racism. Meanwhile, many politicians and commentators concerned with the brutal legacy of old-fashioned racism have learned to speak about it in less abstract, less inflammatory terms: they talk about too-high incarceration rates, or the need for better communication between police officers and the communities they serve.
While either minorities or whites can levy the accusation that "the system" unfairly distributes opportunities based on race (under this definition, neither group holds exclusive rights to the term), it means something different when the accusation comes from above. Conservatives want a society in which we literally ignore race. At heart, their response to affirmative action, the Gates affair, and Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination evince the belief that we live in a perfect meritocracy. Work=success is the central myth of the American Dream and, more importantly, its inverse: if you've succeeded, it's because you earned it. Any attempt to intervene in this free market of opportunity -- with affirmative action programs, for instance -- constitutes an unfair advantage.
The reality is that, of course, things don't work that way. Because of our national history, blacks, Latinos, and other racial minorities are at a disadvantage from the get-go. They attend worse schools, live in more dangerous neighborhoods, are more likely to be frisked by police, etc. When Sonia Sotomayor talked about being a wise "Latina," this -- as opposed to her genetics -- is what she was referring to; like growing up poor, being a minority in America gives you a certain perspective, one that does much to dispel certain ironclad platitudes about merit and justice. Liberals are willing to acknowledge the realities of race. When they call for a colorblind society, they mean one in which the American Dream actually works, which requires acknowledging and addressing the issue. This means confronting police officers who use racial epithets, educating those in power on how to treat groups with respect (i.e. the sensitivity training that conservatives deride), and instituting programs that seek to give opportunities to talented minorities. Conservatives call this whining, or racist. They reiterate that race shouldn't matter, but what they mean is that race doesn't matter.
For someone who grew up in a small town on the U.S.-Mexico border where 41 percent of those under 18 lived in poverty, it is odd to hear someone like Pat Buchanan -- the son of an accountant and a nurse who went to private school, then Georgetown; married a White House staffer; and whose sister became U.S. Treasurer -- cry "racism." When conservatives like him brandish the term "racism," that's whining.
Reinforcing Stereotypes about Men and Women in the Workplace
Today's New York Times’ "Room for Debate" forum asks Are Women Better Bosses than Men? Perhaps not unexpectedly, the responses are littered with stereotypes. According to Joanna Barsh, a McKinsey executive, "Women bring emotion to the workplace" and "are natural relationship-builders," while "men are risk-takers.”
Susan Pinker, a pop psychologist who writes for Canada's Globe, chimes in with selected physiological evidence:
Women are often better communicators because their brains are more networked for language. The majority of women are better at “mind-reading,” than most men; they can read the emotions written on people’s faces more quickly and easily, a talent jump-started by the vast swaths of neural real estate dedicated to processing emotions in the female brain.When discussing gender differences, this line of argumentation is common: Take what you think to be a social phenomenon and invent a biological or evolutionary backstory. It is by no means established that women are better communicators than men. And as a linguist, I can tell you that in no way are women’s brains more “networked” for language. Yet the author takes these precepts as a given. She goes on to cite a single study to substantiate her claim, even though the finding has been summarily discredited in the scientific community.
Arguments such as Pinker's are not scientific confirmation of gender difference; more often, they are simply a reflection of our prejudices. The fact that one has many exceptions to these gender stereotypes -- emotional men and strong women -- should give pause. These counterexamples show that these traits are not an immutable feature of “man” or “woman”-hood, but are at least in some part largely socially ingrained. I am not saying that no gender differences exist (some, like muscle mass, are easily observable), but it's tough to tease apart which social behaviors are learned and those for which we have a biological predisposition.
More problematic, the same broad generalizations that some of the forum's columnists make are the very ones that make it difficult for women to rise up the ranks in fields like business. The perception that women are more emotional, less willing to take risks, and are better communicators "naturally" outfits them for certain jobs and disqualifies them for others. Who wants an emotional air traffic controller? Perhaps a better question than "are women better bosses than men?" is "are women different bosses than men and, if so, why?"
--Gabriel Arana
Merit Aid: Higher Education Subsidies for the Privileged
Universities trying to boost their rankings often use merit-based scholarships -- awarded to students with high SAT scores, grades, etc. -- to entice students to enroll. The argument for this practice is that it improves the school's profile, the quality of its students, and need not take away from need-based financial aid. Supporters say need-based and merit-based aid can coexist.
But according to Inside Higher Ed, a new report shows that schools that begin offering merit-based aid see declines in the enrollment of blacks and recipients of Pell Grants, need-based grants provided by the government.
But according to Inside Higher Ed, a new report shows that schools that begin offering merit-based aid see declines in the enrollment of blacks and recipients of Pell Grants, need-based grants provided by the government.
Three to five years after colleges start offering merit aid, the percentage of Pell Grant recipients starts to drop at middle and top tier colleges (as measured by selectivity, using SAT scores as a proxy.) Six to 10 years after starting to offer merit aid, these colleges have seen their percentage of Pell Grant recipients drop by an average of five percentage points. ... In the immediate few years after merit aid starts, there is not a notable impact on the enrollment of black students.The authors of the paper attribute this to "crowding out"; the more "qualified" students are offered financial incentives to attend, taking up spots that would otherwise be taken by the less "qualified" ones, who disproportionately come from low-income and minority backgrounds.
Here lies the real problem: "merit" is often a proxy for privilege. SAT scores are better indicators of wealth than of potential for success: students whose families raked in more than $200,000 had a math score over a hundred points higher than those whose families earned under $20,000. And as Dana argued, they are also worse predictors of success than measures like grades, which are better suited to gauge how well a student has done with the institutional resources offered to her.
But there is a distinction to be made here between merit-based admission and merit-based financial aid. Whether or not SAT scores and grades are accurate measures of a student's academic potential, they should not be used for distributing financial aid. Once a school has admitted a student, it has made a reasonable determination that he or she is likely to succeed there -- even if the way in which schools determine this is problematic. Doling out funds based on merit beyond this assessment is inefficient. After a certain threshold, grades and SAT scores are simply indications of wealth and privilege. In effect, what these schools are doing is continuing the legacy of advantages for the wealthiest children, distributing finite financial aid resources to families with high incomes.
It is unfortunate that children from poor backgrounds are much less likely to be prepared for college success. But it's even more unfortunate that when they do succeed, higher education turns out not to be a "great equalizer," but the same unjust system despite which they have achieved.
--Gabriel Arana, reposted from TAPPED, the group blog of The American Prospect
But there is a distinction to be made here between merit-based admission and merit-based financial aid. Whether or not SAT scores and grades are accurate measures of a student's academic potential, they should not be used for distributing financial aid. Once a school has admitted a student, it has made a reasonable determination that he or she is likely to succeed there -- even if the way in which schools determine this is problematic. Doling out funds based on merit beyond this assessment is inefficient. After a certain threshold, grades and SAT scores are simply indications of wealth and privilege. In effect, what these schools are doing is continuing the legacy of advantages for the wealthiest children, distributing finite financial aid resources to families with high incomes.
It is unfortunate that children from poor backgrounds are much less likely to be prepared for college success. But it's even more unfortunate that when they do succeed, higher education turns out not to be a "great equalizer," but the same unjust system despite which they have achieved.
--Gabriel Arana, reposted from TAPPED, the group blog of The American Prospect
"DADT" linked to poor performance
My piece for The Advocate about a study that shows "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" hurts soldiers' physical and mental ability.
Candidates for NYC Public Advocate Court Gay Voters
My piece for the New York Blade about the race for New York City public advocate.
The Border Violence Myth
Here is my latest article for The Nation about how the media have exaggerated the increase of drug-related violence in the US: "The Border Violence Myth." Let me know what you think!
Gabriel Arana is a journalist living in Washington, D.C. and works for the 
