This morning I thought I would make a comment on the fact that today is MLK day, but all I could think of was trite, so I posted nothing. However, some of what I have read in regards to the Ahmad Al-Qloushi business made me think about the fact that many folks have a hard time criticizing the US, and the Civil Rights movement was very much about criticizing the US, which is why it made (and still makes) some people itchy. However, the movement was about trying to make the US (its government and citizenry) to live up to own our proclaimed ideals. Hence, comes the linkage to the essay.
It seems to me a settled issue that the fact that the essay in question wasn’t very good (myself, James Joyner, “Leopold Stotch� (in comments at OTB and PoliBlog) and Chris Lawrence, all non-Marxist political science professors (or former ones) of non-left persuasions have all noted that the essay deserved a very poor grade as has AP Government teacher Betsy Newmark). Now, the issue of what Dr. Woolcock allegedly said is another issue, which I won’t deal with here. The part of that story that is relevant to MLK is to be found in the question Dr. Woolcock asked of his students and that some bloggers have reacted rather negatively to:
Dye and Zeigler contend that the constitution of the United States was not “ordained and established� by “the people� as we have so often been led to believe. They contend instead that it was written by a small educated and wealthy elite in America who representative of powerful economic and political interests. Analyze the US constitution (original document), and show how its formulation excluded majority of the people living in America at that time, and how it was dominated by America’s elite interest.
The reaction of many who are Rightwardly oriented is to see that question as an unfair critique of the United States and is intended to indoctrinate students against the US. For example: a commenter at Betsy’s Page , several comments at WizBang, and the statement at Watcher of Weasels that “I find the nature of the assignment itself to be incredibly disturbing”. And while I concur with Cassandra at Villianous Company that professors should not use their classrooms to indoctrinate their student to the professor’s opinions, it is also the case that there is nothing about the question that was asked that actually required the student to have a particular point of view of the US. Now, I will grant the way the essay is graded may reflect bias, but we really don’t have enough evidence to render an opinion on that topic. All we know for sure is the question itself and the response given.
There is little doubt that the question, and the assertion contained in it are a critique of the dominant view of the Founding. It is likely that the professor was even trying to make a point by asking this question. My response is: so what? While I am not in favor of indoctrination by any stretch, I find nothing wrong with challenging the entrenched beliefs of students. Being able to defend one’s beliefs is a skill we all need, and one of the best ways to do that is to have to deal with alternative arguments—especially those which directly challenge one’s own.
First off, Dye and Zeigler are correct (facts are stubborn things): it is more myth than reality that the US Constitution of 1789 was ordained and established by the people, if by that one means the literal mass of persons living in the United States at the time. This really isn’t a controversial statement if one knows even a little bit about US history. There are clear philosophical linkages to concepts of popular sovereignty in our founding, and it is further true that the process patently rejected aristocratic governance, but the “people” really weren’t involved en masse int he founding. Even to say that the document was radically democratic for its day doesn’t change these facts.
When compared to current conceptions of democracy, let alone the very abstract ideals espoused at the time, the Constitution and it application at the time of the foudning failed on many levels. There is no denying, as I noted yesterday, that the vast majority of persons living in the US at the founding were excluded from participating in the governmental process (e.g., blacks, women, non-propertied white males). By no objective standard of democracy can we say that Woolcock’s question, or Dye and Ziegler’s assertions are unfair to the Founders or to the US in general. Further, the electoral college as originally conceived, the Senate and the Supreme Court were all designed to be insulated from the power of the general populace. In the original conception of our government, only the House of Represenatives was wholly democratic as we currently understand the term.
Further, it is absolutely, rock-solidly the case that specific economic interests were represented in the Philadelphia Convention. While I do not wholly subscribe to Charles Beard’s economic interpretation of the founding, I also cannot wholly dismiss the profoundly important influence of those interests on the entire affair—including the reasons for the Revolutionary War itself.
How does this relate to MLK and civil rights? Well, it relates because part of the critique that Dye and Ziegler are leveling is that the US was not conceived in perfection and despite a preponderance of wonderful language in various documents, we have not always been the beacon of democracy and rights we want to be. We are far closer today than we were in 1789 to be sure, although I would argue we still have work to do.
We have committed national sins and we are still dealing with the consequences of those sins. Slavery was a betrayal of the fundamental tenets upon which our country was founded, and when one betrays one’s fundamental beliefs, there is a price to pay—and it is often a deep, complex and long-lasting price. We did deal with slavery over 100 years ago, but its legacy–Jim Crow, segregation and racism–persisted after that. Indeed, it is not a stretch to state that we did not have true universal suffrage in the US until the late 1960s/early 1970s (and some would argue we still don’t, although I have yet to see evidence that convinced me of that fact).
It is also the case that the problems of the segregationist politics of the past continue to plague current race relations. I certainly see it here in Alabama, not to mention on the national stage.
On this Martin Luther King, Jr. Day we should acknowledge that all is not healed, all is not fixed, and solutions to these divisions remain in the future. It is important for conservatives to at least realize this fact and be willing to say that we, collectively as a nation, did make massive mistakes (even if we personally did not committ these acts, it is inescapably true that our government did, and we therefore bear some level of responsibility). However, liberals must recognize that there is only so much that can be made of these facts. The past is gone, and those who directly committed many of these sins are dead and buried. While conservatives must acknowledge that the past happened as it did, liberals cannot live in that past.
An easy example of what I am talking about is the Rebel Battle Flag, which I have blogged on before (here, here and elsewhere). The bottom line is that the flag was flown over Civil War battlefields wherein in the root cause of the war was the right of southern states to hold slaves (one can argue all day long that it was about states’ rights, but the right in question was to hold slaves, so the war was about slavery—period). Not only that, the flag became a prominent symbol of recalcitrance against desegregation in the 1950s—so to say that it is simply a symbol of “heritage� is to ignore what heritage one is claiming.
The Amendment 2 vote in Alabama last year also underscores the kind of thing I am talking about.
Liberals, however, have to acknowledge that when one looks at the poorer strata of most cities one find it populated by an alarming number of very young African-American females who are having a number of children out of wedlock—such a situation is a sure ticket for those children to remain in poverty. While it is true that in many cases the poverty in question can be traced to slavery or discrimination (although by no means all, as there is a growing African-American middle class in the US, so failure is not pre-ordained) it is also true that there are behaviors in many of these communities that perpetuate the problem rather severely.
And, as Bill Cosby has rightly noted: there are responsibilities within the African-American community itself. And he also correclty note that education is the key to solving these problems. That means that in some cases conservatives are going to have to be willing to commit more resources to public education, which in some localities (like almost all of Alabama) means more tax revenue. Is more money the solution? No: but adequate funding is a requisite for public education, and in many places in the US there is a lack of adequate funding.
One wonders as to whether some of the current black leadership is fully appreciating the significance of King’s legacy. For example, I am not sure that today’s commemoration should be used to attack Bush’s Iraq policy, as, for example, Representative John Lewis did today. Not only do I think it inappropriate, to put it mildly, to put words in the mouths of the dead, I am not sure that if King had one message to share with the US today that it would be about Iraq, but more likely about educational attainment and family stability.
Clearly, we all have a long way to go.
Sphere: Related Content
YOu don’t mention the native americans (nee INdians), who were also among those who didn’t have the right to vote, and are still being screwed by the US government to this day.
Comment by bryan — Monday, January 17, 2024 @ 2:26 pm
Just to clarify, I didn’t see the exam question, per se, as unfair. In fact, when I first wrote about this a week ago, I said Prof. Woolcott should have given the student an I or F (with proper documentation) if the paper was unsatisfactory.
I was relying on the student’s statement regarding how the class was conducted, as well as a comment on another forum from a student who studied under Prof. Woolcott, when I spoke of “keeping the prof’s opinions out of the classroom”.
I’m torn on this one; as a conservative adult student, I did have a Western Civ teacher who gave out 10 pts on the final if you attended a radical speech. I still believe that to be inappropriate.
First, the pts awarded raised the student’s grade an entire letter grade - quite a hefty return for attending a 1 hour speech. Secondly, the subjects of the speech never had anything to do with the class. Halfway as a joke, I asked the prof if I could attend a conservative speaker (also speaking on a subject totally unrelated to the syllabus).
What do you think his answer was?
Comment by Cassandra — Monday, January 17, 2024 @ 2:37 pm
Cassandra: not hard to guess the response
Indeed, I agree that that sort of thing is unacceptable in my mind. Indeed, I am no fan of giving points for attending an event for any reason unless it was somehow directly related to class.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Monday, January 17, 2024 @ 2:41 pm
MLK Day Traffic Jam
I’ve got the day off for the King holiday. Since I’m not actually stuck in Beltway traffic as a result of this occasion, I hereby dedicate the daily linkfest accordingly:
Steven Taylor reflects on the day in light of the U.S.’ spotty history of i…
Trackback by Outside The Beltway — Monday, January 17, 2024 @ 2:58 pm
Nice article.
Comment by Steven L. — Monday, January 17, 2024 @ 3:06 pm
Why is it you write 1000 wonderful words and some wise-guy will come and pick a nit with just a few of them? lol
Is more money the solution? No: but adequate funding is a requisite for public education, and in many places in the US there is a lack of adequate funding.
I still haven’t seen a school system that was genuinely underfunded. Keeping in mind that when you take the building fund off the table as it is in most municipalities, I think 4500 a kid for 9 months of school is plenty with acceptable being about 3600. Problem is, we spend over double that in most areas and get no return. OK OK soapbox for another day.
My “real” reply will probably be on Wizbang. (time permitting today)
Comment by Paul — Monday, January 17, 2024 @ 4:03 pm
Dr. Martin Luther King: January 15, 1929- April 4, 1968
On April 4, 1968 I was an Amity High School senior, sitting up in my room in Woodbridge, Connecticut writing a history term paper on conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. I was then, as now, a
Trackback by The Moderate Voice — Monday, January 17, 2024 @ 4:05 pm
Thanks for the link, but I notice that you spelled my blog’s name wrong… don’t make me reach for the red pen!
Comment by Watcher — Monday, January 17, 2024 @ 4:21 pm
Paul,
It is clear that per pupil expenditures isn’t the best measure of a school system–look at DC. Indeed, some of the problems are linked to the out of wedlock births I noted in the piece. However, after moving to Alabama I am now utterly convinced that there is such a thing as an inadequately funded school system.
And that comes at a cost for the economic development of the state as well as damaging the individual development of a large number of citizens.
And Watcher: sorry about that: it’s fixed!
Comment by Steven Taylor — Monday, January 17, 2024 @ 5:53 pm
Re: underfunded schools.
If you look at funding on a system-wide level, the figures are misleading. I can point out some suburban schools that somehow have all the music and extracurricular programs they want while inner city schools in the same district are scraping by. Coming from a school district that had forced busing, I can speak from experience. Until the busing was approved, our suburban high school had a working planetarium. The school on the other side of town had a working metal gate at the entrance.
And as for professors playing politics, I’m a little bit slower to draw the line, because I just witnessed a fall semester on our campus that saw professors laying it on pretty thick for Bush, and some students fearful of saying anything who were opposed to Bush or the war. This is a private school, of course.
Comment by bryan — Monday, January 17, 2024 @ 7:44 pm
Steven- That wold be an interesting post. While I’ve never posted on it that I recall, it is one of the greatest areas of policy interest.
I’ve never seen a school system where the total spending (fed, state and local) did not reach $4,500 per pupil for a 9 month year.
Assuming 25 kids per room that is $112,500 per class per year. (every year) assume the teacher gets paid $32,500 (probably generous) that leave $80,000 A YEAR left over. The building is capital (bond) money so there is no rent. Janitors don’t cost that much. And schools get a break on electricity.
There is the special ed costs but most schools only have 1 or 2 special ed teachers. Books are pricey but they use them for years. The library is a legitimate use of funds but they don;t cost that much to run.
AND this does not include grant money. Most computers are purchased via one grant or another so that is not where all the money is going.
Mind you that is the cheapest I have found. In (I think it was) Kanas City they average 44 THOUSAND dollars per kid per year. In a classroom of 25 kids that is 1.1 million bucks per classroom. You could pay the teacher 100K per year and STILL have a million bucks left over!
OK so I’m rambling.
What is the lowest number you can find in ALA?
Comment by Paul — Monday, January 17, 2024 @ 9:23 pm
Fact checking in the blogosphere
I am as conservative as they come. So I take comfort in the fact that others in the right half of the blogosphere are also beginning to ask hard questions. Steve Taylor at PoliBlog has looked over the original essay, and gives it a “D.” James Joyner …
Trackback by Trolling in Shallow Water — Tuesday, January 18, 2024 @ 2:04 am
First, on the essay question - if I was a student, I would get the impression from the way the question is worded that it would be graded based on the conclusion, not the reasoning or strength of my arguments. Challenging questions are fine, but that question left me with the impression that only one answer would even be considered. Perhaps, ex post, I’d learn otherwise, but I would have to risk my grade to find out.
That school district in Kansas City is the perfect example that money alone doesn’t fix everything. A judge ruled that it was discriminatory to underfund a poor school district and basically ordered unlimited funding. The State was ordered to keep an account for the school district with (I think it was) $1 million in it at all times. Every time the school district spent money, the State had to top up the account so that there was no chance that the school would ever face any financial constraints. They had a Russian fencing instructor that didn’t speak English, which also meant a full time translator. I think the situation has lasted for well over a decade, and test scores still aren’t that great. Of course, it’s hard to imagine why unlimited funds would ever be good for any organization.
In addition to better funding for education, the U.S. needs to provide all children with a safe neighborhood, free (relatively, at least) from crime and violence. I’m a conservative that believes that the government should focus more on equal opportunity than on equal outcomes. But it’s outrageous that any child in the U.S. would have to grow up in a dangerous neighborhood, having to worry about drive-by shootings or other violent crimes. Even with a well-funded school, we’re not giving a child a decent chance in an environment like that.
Comment by Ann — Tuesday, January 18, 2024 @ 7:30 am
On the Constitution, there’s no question that it was written by wealthy white males, a small unrepresentative fraction of the population. But the part about the Constitution being “dominated by American’s elite interest” is less clear. It established certain rights that didn’t depend on economic status (and laid the groundwork for later expansion, although it undoubtedly discriminated based on race and gender when written).
More importantly, the Constitution enshrined the principal of checks and balances. This was rare at the time and was a huge step forward that many governments around the world are still reluctant to take. Yes, our laws weren’t perfect from the very first day, and they’re still not perfect now. But establishing the rule of law, and maintaining that people had certain inalienable rights, was far beyond most other parts of the planet, at the time, and it set the stage for future progress in truly extending rights to everyone.
Comment by Ann — Tuesday, January 18, 2024 @ 7:57 am
The Ongoing Saga Of Al-Qloushi v. Woolcock
The Ahmad Al-Qloushi incident, which I discussed yesterday, is in danger of descending into the realm of partisan hackery.
Most bloggers have now come to realize that the essay in question was very poorly written and did not even come close to ans…
Trackback by The Big Board — Tuesday, January 18, 2024 @ 2:20 pm
What, an MLK day posting from Alabama and NO mention of Robert E. Lee day? For shame.
Comment by scottorrell — Tuesday, January 18, 2024 @ 6:38 pm