N.Y Times (This is old news, but it was new to me):
Funny:
In the satirical issue of the Harvard Law Review, the editors wrote in Obama's voice "I was born in Oslo, Norway, the son of a Volvo factory worker and part-time ice fisherman," a mock self-tribute begins. "My mother was a backup singer for Abba. They were good folks." In Chicago, "I discovered I was black, and I have remained so ever since."
Obama demonstrates his political skills, and wins the rodent vote while showing tolerance for even the nuttiest arguments:
"Another of Mr. Obama's techniques relied on his seemingly limitless appetite for hearing the opinions of others, no matter how redundant or extreme. That could lead to endless debates — a mouse infestation at the review office provoked a long exchange about rodent rights — as well as some uncertainty about what Mr. Obama himself thought about the issue at hand."
And hints of youthful radicalism: Derrick Bell, then a professor at Harvard, demanded that Harvard immediately offer a tenured position to Regina Austin, a black visiting professor, solely on the grounds that Harvard didn't have any black women on the faculty, and despite a firm rule that visitors would not be voted on while visiting. Bell, of course, is prominent critical race theorist, most famous for his rather ridiculous assertion that the lot of black Americans hasn't improved since Jim Crow days, and for his "convergence theory" that white Americans only have, will, and do support civil rights when it serves their self-interest, narrowly defined. He also, based on a speech I saw him deliver, is a strong proponent of race-consciousness (not just with regard to affirmative action, but that white people should walk around thinking of themselvs as white people, to better recognize their role as oppressors)--or at least was at the relevant time period. Obama's verdict? "At a rally for faculty diversity, ... he compared Professor Bell to Rosa Parks."
Related Posts (on one page):
- One More Post on Obama at Harvard:
- Barack Obama and the Presidency of the Harvard Law Review:
In any case, I think the evidence of "radicalism" here is pretty thin. Rosa Parks is not noteworthy for being a pathbreaking social or political thinker. She is noteworthy for helping to pave the way in the struggle for racial equality. I believe Bell was the first black law professor at Harvard. That makes the comparison apt, without any need to read it as somehow expressing a "verdict" on Bell's various social and political beliefs.
Could we get his actual words?
Except: Is it really accurate to characterize Bell's stand as a specific demand that Harvard hire Prof. Austin? I don't know the particulars. But this article from the 4/24/90 New York Times reports that Bell "requested a leave of absence without pay until Harvard appoints a tenured black woman to its law faculty." I read this to mean any tenured black woman, not Prof. Austin in specific. The article quotes Prof. Bell as being "particularly disappointed over the case of Regina Austin," but from the article, the subject of his protest appears to have been the faculty's lack of even one black woman professor. So if it's the request for a leave of absence that Obama may have been commenting on, again the comparison would seem apt, with no evident basis for an inference that Obama intended a "verdict" on all of Prof. Bell's opinions.
Harvard itself, by the way, apparently perceived the absence of black women from the faculty demographic as a problem. The article quotes an associate dean to the effect that Harvard Law was trying to recruit black women faculty. The article also says that the rule against appointing visitors was "sometimes broken."
I should add, by way of full disclosure, that Prof. Austin taught at Penn Law, where she is now tenured, when I attended. I didn't have the pleasure of taking her classes. But by reports, it was Harvard's loss. I don't know that I agree with every opinion she may have. I don't even profess to know what all of her opinions may be. But I don't need to agree with her in all particulars to respect her and speak highly of her.
The comparison with Rosa Parks is apt only if you think "willing to be confrontational to stick up what he believes in" and not "civil rights hero fighting for justice." If the former is all Obama meant, there's not much to it. But if the thought Bell had a similar moral status to Parks, the one demanding a race/sex quota and the other fighting de jure segregation, that would be a lot more interesting.
David Bernstein is really into guilt by association. Which is kind of pathetic for an educated individual.
Maybe he could learn something from John McCain, who has asserted in a forthright manner on Hannity and Colmes that both Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama have integrity and refusing to use guilt by association. Bernstein could really learn something from the far more honorable John McCain.
...if it reflects poorly on Obama.
I finished your statement for you.
My point about Prof. Austin was not to charge you with denegrating her, as you very plainly did not do in any way. My point was more that if a student has high praise for a professor, it doesn't necessarily imply political agreement.
As for quotas and affirmative action: Again, I don't know the particulars of the Harvard controversy. I don't think the press reports portray Bell as having advocated quotas, but for all I know, at some point he did. If he did, I'm not sure that would qualify him as a radical -- let alone hint at "youthful radicalism" on Obama's part. Affirmative action (a phrase that means different things to different people) has fallen, somewhat, from political favor since 1990. But to favor it in some form, at that time, you didn't have to have a Che Guevara poster hanging in your dorm room. Still less did you need a charter membership in the Socialist Youth League to think that Harvard Law might try to roust itself up at least one tenured black woman.
All in all, I think "hints of youthful liberalism" would be about as far as these facts could take you.
Your view strikes me as immaturely cynical.
Your view strikes me as immaturely cynical.
---
Your view strikes me as incredibly naive...
Your view strikes me as immaturely cynical.
---
Your view strikes me as incredibly naive...
I'm much more interested in the list of things Obama has earmarked than anything his minister or wife may say. (The earmarks are pretty innocuous, and much, like spending money to sequence the genomes of farm animals, strikes me as exactly the sort of thing worth spending money on.) It's also interesting that he has submitted such a list, and shows a certain amount of integrity. He also hasn't particularly favored the University of Chicago, although his earmarks, of course, do go to Illinois.
Wouldn't you like to see a complete list of all the things Robert Byrd or Ted Stevens have earmarked?
Please explain. Is it because they both have law degrees? Because they both hold elective office? Because they are Midwesterners? What exactly are you saying?
Or is that your purpose, Free Trader?
As the case approaches its May 2008 trial date, allegations of misconduct by Johnson got him removed and put on the witness list. Risen's story says there was some funny business with a company that actually did the Noorzai rendition and it was brought up by Ivan Fisher who represents Noorzai.
And then everyone forgot Johnson. Until, this week with the Spitzer call girl case. Guess who the prosecutor is? Boyd Johnson. Is this a case of what comes around goes around or something like that?
as 2006, when he taped a radio ad opposing the
Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.
Supporting AA is not the same as supporting Che Guevara,
but it is a noxious position to many people -- MCRI
passed with 58% of the vote in the same state that
re-elected a Democratic Governor and Senator by wide
margins.
Unless the "guilt by association" is involving the association with one's younger self. I think that sort of association is pretty meaningless, except as historical anecdote. If a mature person today is not today somewhat embarrassed by some of the beliefs he or she had in college, I think there is something wrong with that person now (or then).
sbron: Support for AA may be a "noxious position" to many people, but this didn't start out as a post about whether Obama had ever voiced support for AA. It started out as a post suggesting (as I read it) that a specific statement made by Obama in or around 1990 might warrant the inference that Obama endorsed certain specific views allegedly held by Prof. Bell.
I certainly do agree with you that if anybody is unembarrassed by some of the things that he or she said or believed during law school, that person has a problem.
Such an exercise is designed to make white people realize that they have a race, just like every other person has. White people tend to believe that they are the norm -- that they are just "people," and every other group somehow deviates from the standard of humanity.
Look, I'm all in favor of you speaking out about Obama if you choose to. But when you say you really aren't attacking Obama, I think you are being disingenuous.
The New York Times article goes to lengths to paint a picture of Obama "stay[ing] away from the extremes of campus debate, often choosing safe topics for his speeches." For example:
Whatever Obama said about Bell and Rosa Parks -- the Times does not say, so perhaps it was part of a on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand moment -- in the article it is an example of atypical conduct for him, his "boldest moment" in three years characterized by a different approach to things.
Characteristically, Bernstein has extracted this "boldest moment" and has tried to transform it into the telling moment, emphasizing it by placing it at the end of the post.
I might add: