Berkeley Blues
The young man in charge of checking people’s identification cards as you enter the University of California, Berkeley library noticed my faculty card. He stopped me.
“Say professor,” he said, “could I ask you a question?” I looked at his serious face. His eyes were deep brown, his skin even darker. His smile was warm and appealing. “Sure,” I answered, knowing that I was early for a two-hour library class to teach my students how to do electronic research.
“Do you think this country is ready for a black or a woman?” He asked as if he really cared, so I took his question seriously. “I don’t really know,” I answered honestly, “because Americans tend to lie to pollsters in public and vote differently in private.”
“Wouldn’t it be wonderful if a black man could overcome all the terrible stereotypes about men in prison, violence men, and urban gangs? "
“It sure would,” I said. “And I have been very impressed by Obama so far. It’s remarkable to see a white woman and a black man compete—thirty or more years after we struggled for basic civic rights.
“Yea,” he said. “But you know what?” I don’t think a woman should ever be president.” Looking down at the book he was reading, he told me how the bible insisted that a man should head his household. “So a man should rule the country.”
Memories of working in the civil rights movement flooded me. “So I believe in racial equality,” I said, “but you don’t believe in gender equality?”
He hesitated and said, “Look I think it’s okay for women to do important things but men must rule the home and the country. They each have important but different things to do in this world. That’s what I learned from the bible.”
I paused, knowing that I needed to meet my students at the library computer lab. “Well,” I said, “do you realize you’re proposing a kind of “separate but equal” solution which was outlawed for blacks in the 1950’s? We discussed this a little more and then I said, “I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. We clasped our hands in friendship, rather than shaking them, I met my class, all of whom wondered why I had been talking so animatedly with the guy who checks your identification card.
I told them about our conversation. And, it was at that moment that I understood what I have intuitively felt for a very, long time--that women of all races and ethnicities will probably have far more difficulty, in this nation, running for president than will black men.
Comments (52)
Yikes.
I think we need Christian clergy who believe in equal rights for women to start saying in no uncertain terms that nothing in the Bible argues that women should not be President.
Surely a substantial number of major Christian religious leaders believe that women are not second-class citizens.
March 8, 2007 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
What struck me from that conversation is the statement, “because Americans tend to lie to pollsters in public and vote differently in private.” I have been wondering if the Democratic Party is headed for disaster in 2008. The Republicans are as weak right now as at any time that I can remember. And, the type of person the voters like to vote for is not a front runner in the race for the Democratic Party nomination. Sure, the polls say the front runners are, front runners - favored by the majority. But, a little voice keeps telling me the people being polled are lying.
I support Obama, and am working very hard to get him elected. My second choice will probably be Hillary. But, I keep wondering if our party is on a road to suicide in 2008. I just wish that quote above weren't true.
Hoppy in Sacramento
March 8, 2007 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems that women themselves are part of the problem:
A third of all women believe that men are more likely to be good leaders while 16 percent think women are.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17345308/
March 8, 2007 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps. But I don't see how the anecdotal evidence you present supports that statement.
The fact remains that Geraldine Ferraro ran for VP and got 41% of the popular vote -- about the same as Clinton in '92. No black politician ever got anywhere near that.
March 8, 2007 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. Ahem, well I'm sure all those good 'ole boys down South will vote for a woman before they vote for a black man. As will most racists. Margaret Thatcher was a Torrie, Angela Merkel is a Christian Democrat.
March 8, 2007 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like you and I are having similar feelings in the pit of our stomachs. Right now Democrats are searching for the soul of the party, hoping one or more of our candidates will show us the way. That may be a way to define what a Democrat is, but that's no way to pick a president.
If, in 2000, we had had any hint of the challenges the next president would face within a year, would we have voted differently? And not just in the general election, would we have picked different candidates? Would we have been less hung up on each candidate's policies and philosophy, instead looking more for wisdom, depth of character, quality of intellect? Would we have been better served to ask how each candidate deals with complexities, with crisis, with doubt? Your comment "the type of person the voters like to vote for is not a front runner in the race" rings true. But I think (hope) that voters this time will be looking for qualities that we've not seen front and center in an election for many years.
I like what Obama has to say. I could listen to him for hours. But then I can listen to my old collection of Dylan tunes for the same reason. I'm no more likely, at this point, to put Obama in the Oval Office than Bob Dylan. The same is true for Edwards, he just can't carry a tune as well as Obama.
I like the way Hillary has framed her campaign with the "restoring the middle class bargain" theme. And if given an opportunity, it could redefine the political divide in America in her favor. But it's too bad we don't get a chance to vote for Speaker of the House, it's a platform that belongs at that level of government, it's not a qualification for dealing with the Middle East going up in flames, or for preventing the Middle East from going up in flames. Hillary would make a great president, in a different time. Though I think Hillary could "do the job", I don't think she could lead.
If we hired our presidents by their resume, Bill Richardson would already have this thing sewn up. I don't believe in my lifetime anyone has thrown his hat in this ring who was more qualified, and had a track record to prove it. If Bill catches fire - and that's a big if - I think he'd win with a 60%+ margin. Of all the candidates so far Richardson is the only one I can imagine pulling off a late night meeting with the Joint Chiefs and a select handful of Senators that begins with "We're going to make some decisions tonight. They don't pay us to make wrong ones. Let's do this right the first time, we don't get a second chance." Then picks up the phone to begin the conversation with that guy over on the other side of hell.
But this election is going to be unlike anything we've experienced. First of all it has started far enough out that all of these folks could be burned out, or burned up, by January. This crowd's task is to inspire the electorate early and then keep us all on the verge of an orgasm for 21 months. Either that or to wear us down to pitifully pleading, "Please, please, just do it and get it over with already". One thing's for certain, they will have all painted themselves into small corners by then. The more a politician talks, the fewer options they have left open. And, we don't even know if things like MoveOn will be any kind of player along the way or be left muttering to itself as a wave of spontaneous events flood into our community consciousness from UTube, and other venues not yet known. Remember that little old lady who kept asking "Where's the beef?" Her grand daughter is down stairs in the family computer room tonight learning how to edit a home made 30sec commercial and her friend Jane is working on the script.
I half expect that by next Christmas we wont have any clear frontrunners who we would want to elect in November. Exhausted and unable to close the deal, this crop of candidates could be eclipsed by a new face, someone like Kathleen Sebelius. If you don't know who she is, she's the governor of Kansas, and she's awesome. Like Hillary, Kathleen is a wiley politician with a great grasp of what needs to be done. Unlike Hillary, Kathleen is a leader. But Kathleen is just one of many dark horses who could come galloping onto the field this time next year to run like a thoroughbred through the ribbon at the finish line. We have a lot of great talent in this party, and the dealer's still shuffling the cards and hasn't yet dealt any cards on the first hand. It's going to be a long night. And the wisest player in the house may just want to watch the dealer for an hour or so before filling one of those vacated seats at the table. Let's hope so hoppy.
March 9, 2007 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Kindasleezy Rice is a facist pig. What's your point?
March 9, 2007 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can relate to what you and Hoppy say, but two things comfort me -- the first is that while our candidates have vulnerabilities, look at theirs. Good grief is all I can say. Unless Hegal runs I sometimes think we could run someone drawn randomly out of the phone book and win. The second thing is that the library checker aside (a sample of one who is pretty unlikely in the end to vote for any Republican over any Democrat) the young are on the whole open to either possibility and those who aren't are in the 30% that would vote for any Republican no matter what. I think we should go for it: Obama-Sibelius (or vice versa) '08.
global citizen
March 9, 2007 6:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
“Wouldn’t it be wonderful if a black man could overcome all the terrible stereotypes about men in prison, violence men, and urban gangs? "
What did Colin Powell teach the world? Or OJ Simpson? That even black men with "high positions" can be violent, gangish and a good candidate for jail. Of course women, whites, etc... have all demonstrated the same traits...
I told them about our conversation. And, it was at that moment that I understood what I have intuitively felt for a very, long time--that women of all races and ethnicities will probably have far more difficulty, in this nation, running for president than will black men.
Only because women were traditionally thought to be "morally stronger" than men but that's changing. For example, Madeline Albright noted that "killing 500,000 Iraqi children was worth the price," Condelezza Rice earned the nickname Kind-a-lies-a Rice, Hilliary decided to spend too much money on war, etc...
My prediction: when women "get into power," we'll see that women are just as self-serving and self-centered as men and we'll have more proof that "human nature is invariant of skin color or gender." Enjoy your "halo" while it lasts!
March 9, 2007 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The key point of the interaction seems to have been overlooked - that someone was checking ID's at a public university. This shows that fear mongering has become so internalized that no one even sees anything wrong with this activity.
Have there been any instances of outsiders causing mayhem at a university? Haven't most of the case of violence both at schools and workplaces been from people who are supposed to be there, that is students and workers?
Why should someone need to show an ID to stroll around a public university in the first place? It's one thing if you wish to use the services (say the library), but have we now acquiesced to having every institution treated as an armed fortress? Just try to get into an office building in Manhattan and you'll be made to feel like you are trying to get into San Quentin.
Add unjustified spying to the social conditioning that ID checking has caused. There is no longer any expectation that a person can travel around without their actions being recorded by cameras. The right to be ignored has been eliminated without anyone protesting.
Sorry, the terrorists have won.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
March 9, 2007 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm throwing the bullshit flag on this story. 10 yard penalty, repeat first down.
Let me get this story straight.
1. You are at Berkeley.
2. A student who checks cards at the library stopped you.
3. He stopped you because you are a faculty member.
4. For the sole purpose of asking you your opinion about the presidential race.
5. He used the term "black" as a noun and not an adjective.
6. And happened to be a conservative christian.
7. Who had his bible in his hand.
8. And referred to it to justify his position.
9. You leave on a feel good note.
10. Your class cared why you were talking to someone.
and, last but not least,
11. You "learned" from this encounter that women have it harder than black men.
Riiiight. Of course.
March 9, 2007 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can certainly understand Rosen's suspicions about the voting public. My every day experience suggests that it is more socially acceptable to be racist than sexist. On the other hand, just because you can't cop to being a racist doesn't mean you aren't. Women are running nations all over the globe; how many ethnic minorities are elected to their nations' highest political office? Meanwhile, here in our own country, there are sixty-on women serving in Congress, thirteen in the Senate, and eight female governors. While there are forty-two blacks in congress (twenty-one are women), Obama is the only black person in the Senate. Deval Patrick is the nation's only black governor. At the very least, the numbers suggest that Americans are more accustomed to women in positions of power than blacks.
I think it's kind of a shame that Hilary and Obama have to compete against each other the first time either of their respective minority groups has a real shot at the White House. It reminds me of conflicts from the civil and women's rights era I've heard about.
I also fear that the chances of either one of them securing the nomination has been overblown. I am afraid that by the time the primaries arrive, we'll have an election day surprise. What if primary voters decide that there is no way either of them can win in the general election and cast there vote for the safe candidate--the white one with the penis? I can't help but think the Edwards campaign is counting electoral gut check.
But maybe I'm just a cynical pessimist.
March 9, 2007 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
My God, what a stupendously moronic post.
I happen to be a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, class of 1987. Long before there were terrorist threats, there were ID checks at that remarkable institution. I can remember the sense of privilege I felt when I got a sticker on my student ID that allowed me access to the graduate stacks at Doe Library so I could do research for my senior thesis.
The point is that the facilities of the university are meant for students and faculty, not the general public.
March 9, 2007 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do we get past the larger problem here: that there are otherwise rational people who believe their religion's holy text is the best authority on the qualifications for President of the United States?
Maybe the best authority is, I don't know, Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. frickin' Constitution?
* Natural born citizen
* 35 years old
* Resident for 14 years
Would it be "uncivil" of me to suggest that this dip to stop turning to millenia-old, hodgepodge goatherder scribblings for advice on modern politics, pick up a newspaper, and start formulating his own opinions on the wisdom of the candidates' policy positions?
March 9, 2007 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if we take our instructions from the bible, slavery will return as a way of life, and any man who notices that his wife did not "save herself for him" on their wedding night should kill her. And the list goes on...
There is plenty of stuff that has to be overlooked in the bible if you want to use it as a blueprint for a civilized society. The big problem is that there are people who want to use the bible as a blueprint for a civilized society at all. Then they pick & choose to justify whatever suits their own motives and sensibilities.
Jan Knaus
March 9, 2007 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The comment preceding this one is probably right. I suspect that it's not about terrorism, it's about limiting access to the school's--valuable resources. In 1992, my undergraduate institution didn't have door check, but they had monitors who wandered around the computer areas and ensured that ever user had a school ID clipped to the monitor. The point was to ensure that some random person off the street wasn't using the facility's Internet connection or the journal databases (which schools pay very hefty fees to access). It's not a public library.
March 9, 2007 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the mid-80's they checked ID's at my University's libraries - the problem was not terrorism, it was rape, property theft, and the usual concerns of an urban campus.
March 9, 2007 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aside from the polling statement noted above, I think the fact that the Bible was used to justify inequity (not inequality) is a major point.
March 9, 2007 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? My point is simply that Rosen is telling a pretty story to that appeals to a lot of general lefty sentiments in order to sell the idea that women have it harder than black men. But that's what it is--a story. This is fictional, and I am not going to treat it like it's real, or argue about the bible based on this story, or start attacking conservative Christians, or whatever she's expecting. Because it's BS.
Or to put it another way, this a post that too easily and obviously follows a lot of left wing narratives in this country, and it is completely uncritical. I'm not going to justify or support it by falling into the corresponding response narrative, which would be something like, "Oh those crazy Christians! They're so stupid for believing in the Bible. If only the didn't use the Bible to justify inequity."
Whatever. Ask yourself this: Do you think Rosen is telling a story that actually happened? Or do you think she made it up in order present her point in a way that satisfied our lefty world view?
I'm betting on the second.
March 9, 2007 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Walking around campus is not using resources. When I visited a decade ago I had no problem strolling around taking pictures. I don't know where you live, but here in NY the paranoia is very obvious. We have random bag checks on the subways (soon to be expanded to the commuter rail lines), armed National Guard troops standing in Penn Station, concrete blockades in front of public spaces and a hyper sensitivity to people with cameras (including tourists).
How many "terrorists" have been caught by means of all this surveillance? Even London which has many more cameras in public has seen that these fear mongering tactics do nothing to prevent attacks. They may assist in capturing people after a crime is committed, but since the vast majority of cameras are not monitored they don't prevent anything.
Just today there is a report out about the misuse of surveillance by the FBI. When countries go down this road history shows that a loss of civil liberties is not far behind.
Here's my little (historical) essay on what happened when these types of actions were undertaken in the past.
Surveillance vs Civil Liberties
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
March 9, 2007 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You aren't cynical at all. You just remember 2004. Politics is a heart-breaking endeavor. But, like teenage romance it is a thrill to experience up until the end.
Hoppy in Sacramento
March 9, 2007 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most red-state University libraries are open to the public, including the University of Texas in Austin. Of course that probably reflects, ultimately, the relative cost of real estate, and I would hope that the other top-tier California schools not situated in such densely-populated areas have a more open policy.
Still there is an irony that the library at an institution so identified with progressivism is closed to the community, while the libraries at places like Texas A&M "serve the community as well as the university", a phrase that routinely appears in the mission statements of university libraries in flyover country.
Of course most other cities haven't allowed themselves to become a mecca for runaways and hobos the way the Bay Area, has, so we're really talking about irony on top of irony. In short: the area is overrun by the recreational homeless, so progressive institution can't let the cab driver improve himself after his shift is over.
(on edit) to be sure, at the above institutions, you still have to produce ID to use the computers, or check out books. But anyone can read the books there.
March 9, 2007 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"she made it up in order present her point"
It doesn't matter. In either case she is making a general statement out of a single anecdote. And she did it well -- it is a very memorable (and well-written) anecdote.
March 9, 2007 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
So the truthiness of the story is all that counts? Its truthy memorableness? Boo on that.
The actual veracity of a story always matters.
March 9, 2007 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno, it seems perfectly believable to me. I've spoken to black people who fit the guard's general description in terms of background and views, and a number of times saw security guards at the Princeton library sitting at the ID/bag checking stations reading their Bible. Ditto for all the other things you find incredible.
March 9, 2007 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, it's schlock. No one acts or speaks like that.
March 9, 2007 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you start with the presumption that everything your interlocutor says is a lie because it coheres with their worldview, you have seceded from the realm of human conversation and society, and laid the groundwork for civil war. "It sounds liberal, hence it can not have happened" is the rhetoric of militias and mobs.
March 9, 2007 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Collectively, it's unbelievable. The single most unbelievable aspect of it is that her students cared why she was talking to someone. Also, this line:
As if belief in equality is something we trade off for mutual gain. "If I as a woman believe in racial equality, then you blacks better return the favor and believe in gender equality." F- that.
March 9, 2007 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats don't need the gold ole boys down south to win the presidency. Democrats only need a plurality in enough states for a majority of the electoral college. If obama weren't black and hillary weren't a woman, those good ole boy down south still wouldn't vote for either of them because Obama and Hillary are Democrats.
Democrats need to stop trying to get every vote and start trying to get enough votes to win. To do that will require changing the way we think, and the post above about the south is emblematic of the thinking that leads democrats down blind alleys.
March 9, 2007 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its not what you think with your head, its what you know with your heart.
March 9, 2007 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is not a right wing attack on a lefty. This is a left wing attack on a lefty. She's telling you (us) what we want to hear, it's uncritical, and it's unhelpful. But if you want to sit there an lap it up like a good little dog, then feel free.
March 9, 2007 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, Reece, you are saying Rosen is a liar? She hasn't presented this a piece of fiction, but rather as something that happened to her, so taken at face value, that's the only takeaway from your post that makes sense.
She also didn't say that black men have it better than women of any ethnicity or belief system, she said that a woman will have a more difficult time becoming president - the leader of this nation.
And yes, the story certainly does play into lefty sentiments.
But then, lots of lefty sentiments are based in reality.
Is it not possible that the story occurred exactly as she related it? What would YOU take away from such an encounter? Would you not take away the words spoken by the young black man? That does not mean that his words are any more telling than someone elses words - but they are HIS words, and they were meaningful to Rosen. Are you saying that Rosen should not share her thoughts, and stories from her life, if they don't comport with your view of the world?
What a strange thing to contemplate, that someone should stfu because you don't agree with them, or believe them.
Jake
March 9, 2007 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where has that occurred in this thread?
Reece's response has been more "the story sounds implausible, and we should be wary because it conforms to leftwing expectations, therefore it might be agitprop" instead of "it sounds liberal and hence it cannot be true."
My response has been to explicitly tell you I believe the story to be full of truthiness as opposed to facts. Further, it behooves everyone to avoid truthiness. This isn't a matter of textual interpretation for you. You do not have to divine my meaning because I am telling you my meaning.
March 9, 2007 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you haven't seen the recreational homeless in Austin, then you're either blind or blindfolded. Between the drag worms and Leslie, they're hard to miss.
The difference may be that UT is rather willing to file criminal trespass charges against people who come on campus and are disruptive.
UT also seems to have a strong culture of "serving the community," and that may just be missing in Berkeley.
March 9, 2007 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's harder for women. It might be harder for Hillary, but that's not a gender thing, it's a policy thing and a personality thing.
Given the positives and negatives of Obama and Clinton, I don't think we can generalize about race and gender issues based on who wins. They have differing views on the war and differing levels of charisma and experience.
I'm still undecided between the two. But I won't be picking based on gender or skin tone.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
March 9, 2007 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will assume, for the sake of argument that her story is true.
That being the case, the conclusion that it will be easier for a black man than a woman to be president doesn't follow.
This is one encounter with one person and provides us no indication of the willingness or tolerance of the broader society to support a woman or a black man as president. Speaking with my local voodoo priestess confirmed for me what I long felt, that a person who doesn't practice voodoo will have a harder time winning the presidency that someone who does. (this did not actually happen, but is used as a device to reveal the problem with single source anecdotal generalizations). At best we know that this one ID checker would be less likely to vote for a woman than a man.
On another note, I personally find the way that Rosen introduces the ethnicity of the id checker to be racist. Rather than come out and say that the guy was black, although I guess he could be hispanic or Indian, she states
Why leave us guessing? What point does this race avoidance have, other than to reveal her own discomfort with the topic. Frankly, I don't know why the ethnicity of the id checker matters. Are there conservative black people who follow the bible literally? sure. But would the aggregation of that vote be large enough to make a woman's path to the white house more difficult than a black man's path? I don't know, but I do know that this anecdote doesn't tell us anything at all about that situation.
Lastly, the problem with Rosen's description of the ethnicity of the id checker goes to a greater problem with the veracity of the story as a whole. Am I supposed to believe that someone who is too scared to write "I was talking with a black guy" had enough chutzpah to say to that person's face "I believe in racial equality, but you don't believe in gender equality". Please.
March 9, 2007 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I brushed my teeth this morning. Then I couldn't decide which sweater to wear. I finally chose the red one."
Every recounting of an incident is highly selective. There are always many details left out, and those included are combined in such a way to communicate a PERCEPTION, not a fact. That perception will be more or less compelling to each of us.
So I thought Rosen's "perception" was clearly communicated in her post. Others disagreed. OK.
I do agree there is a real issue about veracity of an anecdote. If Rosen had named the student, then the details had better be real. If she had named his church, then the details had better be real. So there is a line somewhere here, but IMO Rosen's anecdote is firmly on the "story" rather than "event" side of the line.
March 9, 2007 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
"... And, it was at that moment that I understood what I have intuitively felt for a very, long time--that women of all races and ethnicities will probably have far more difficulty, in this nation, running for president than will black men."
Apparently at Berkeley there is not a lively scholarly appreciation among the faculty about the importance of sample size. How one come to "undertand in a moment" an alleged broad social truth about America on the basis on one solitary encounter with one individual black man is beyond me.
Perhaps next week the work study student will be a white woman who will say, "I could never vote for a black man because of the way they oppress women", or a white man who says "I just can't trust black people ever since those black jurors let O.J. off" or an Asian woman who says "we should never let immigrants of any kind run this country" or a Jewish man who says, "It says right here in the National Review that Obama went to a madrassa!" Imagine the earth-shifting reversals of "understanding" that will occur!
My guess right now is that by the time the primaries roll around, a lot of Democrats are going to be so sick of this petty "Does race trump gender or gender trump race?" crap that they will vote for one of the white guys. One might say I can't be sure of this, but after reading this one post, I have now received unshakable understanding and cognitive assurance of something I have "intuitively felt for a long time".
March 9, 2007 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, wmd, she shouldn't write poetically, or maybe even theatrically, because that detracts from your understanding of her story? I imagine we all write to others in ways that are compelling to us. And we are all different. That's the way it is with lefties - our differences are often our most apparent feature set.
And it's not a bug, either. It's a good thing.
Rosen spoke from her life and the fact that this encounter precipitated the concrete formation of a belief out of a series of intuitions. It is her story. I don't think she says or implies that everyone else would come to the same beliefs - just that SHE did.
I don't know if I agree with her, or even if I disagree with her, but I can certainly understand how she might come to hold that belief.
Jake
March 9, 2007 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously? You have to show ID to get into the library of a UC school? That must be a Berekely thing as I didn't when I attend UC San Diego. Folks don't have to here at Indiana University either. In fact, any Indiana resident is allowed to check books out of the library as we receive significant funding from the state.
Bizarre. Truly bizzare.
March 9, 2007 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Walking around campus is not using resources. When I visited a decade ago I had no problem strolling around taking pictures.
You can still walk around the Berkeley campus without ID. She's talking about showing ID when you enter the library, which has long been standard operating procedure at most universities...
Edit: well I dunno if it's "most" -- I just know that every one I've been in, going back to the late '80s, you had to either have a university ID or go get a day pass of some kind.
March 9, 2007 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is that the facilities of the university are meant for students and faculty, not the general public.
What happened to "life long learning" and allowing the public to access what they paid for?
March 9, 2007 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
in my opinion, she was reenforcing one of the stereo types that are dished out at universities.
and, to me, her "seperate but equal" comment made me think that she didn't view married couples as economic teams. of course, not all married couples create synergies but stories in the bible and elsewhere, about marriage, talk about them.
many woman, just like men, value economic independence over marriage and that's freedom speaking.
March 9, 2007 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
But maybe I'm just a cynical pessimist.
It depends on what you're shopping for... In general, I'm not a Hilliary fan and I'm luke warm about Obama.
I worked on Dennis Kucinich's campaign last time and the media black listed him.
I worked on Keith Ellison's campaign, but he won.
March 9, 2007 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
if we take our instructions from the bible, slavery will return as a way of life,...
I don't think that slavery went away! Hillary, not my favorite candidate, Clinton noted that we have a "plantation economy."
Million of men and women around the world are essentially slaves (read sweat shops) and make our "way of life" possible.
March 9, 2007 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
two weeks ago, I went to a diversity workshop-- led by a "university type," at a church, and I mentioned "we're all brothers and sisters..." and she looked disarmed since her "let's understand latinos as victims" message lost some impact.
after my comments, others started to note that they too enjoyed their experiences with immigrants.
sometimes, it's far too easy to make a mountain out of a molehill.
March 9, 2007 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
David Weigel did a little research on the polling issue and believes the "Wilder effect" is a myth.
DC Drinking Liberally
March 9, 2007 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've just confirmed my preconceived notions of "Diversity Workshops." And it only took one post to make me realize that I was intuitively right all along!
Jan Knaus
March 10, 2007 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it's what you say with your mouth.
March 10, 2007 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was actually leaning more toward "schmaltz"
March 10, 2007 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll agree to that. =)
March 10, 2007 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Ms. Rosen chose to make up the scenario out of whole cloth because she's a pre-boomer who grew up with childhood friends who were red diaper babies...
~OGD~
March 10, 2007 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink