Ken Miller's Testimony Before California Court on Homosexuals and Their Progress

We knew this lawsuit in federal court was coming when we the voters affirmed that marriage was between a man and a woman and that homosexuals, deserving of the same treatments that civil unions' afford, could not lay claim to an institution that has predated the state itself.

Obviously, a big part of the effort to invalidate Proposition 8 is to somehow show that homosexuals have been the victim of widespread and systemic discrimination. To correct the record, CMC Professor Ken Miller is there to correct the record. From today's New York Times,

The first defense witness, Dr. Kenneth P. Miller, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California, said that while the state’s voters had twice defined marriage as between only a man and a woman — with Proposition 22 in 2000 and Proposition 8 in 2008 — they had not invalidated other laws that extended benefits, like domestic partnerships for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender residents.

“It is true that in 2000 and 2008 the L.G.B.T. community, gays and lesbians, lost ballot measure contests” over same-sex marriage, Dr. Miller said. “However, California voters have not used the initiative process nor the popular referendum to repeal or limit the Legislature’s other broad expansions of L.G.B.T. rights.”

During a sharp cross examination, however, David Boies, a lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, peppered Dr. Miller with questions about discrepancies between his testimony Monday and earlier sworn depositions he had given. At one point, Mr. Boies asked whether Dr. Miller’s knowledge of pro-gay political gains came from his own research or had been told to him repeatedly by defense lawyers.

“Some of them were provided for me by counsel,” Dr. Miller said, “but most of them I found myself.”

. . .

The defense sought to show that claims of bias against gay men and lesbians were overblown. In particular, Dr. Miller testified, gay men and lesbians in California could count on a deep and varied contingent of allies, including the Democratic Party, organized labor, corporations, newspapers, celebrities and some church groups. Some of these groups also contributed heavily to the “No on 8” campaign, Dr. Miller said, which spent $43 million.

“There is no social issue that has ever involved this kind of money,” he said. “This is exceptional.”

A Few Thoughts On The Dorm Fundraising Drive for Haiti

An email came from the Dorm Affairs Chair today regarding an effort to donate to a Haitian relief fund set up by ASCMC and going to the American Red Cross. Having spent a lot of time with Haitian immigrant waitstaff teaching English at my high school, I have long known how miserable Haiti is and yet how determined its people are. God knows the people of Haiti could use every ounce of support they can get at this time.

Still, it strikes me that if ASCMC is going to organize a dorm by dorm effort to raise money for Haiti, there might be a better way to do it than through the process outlined by the Dorm Activities Chair of having the "Dorm Presidents/RAs/Community Service Representatives" go dorm to dorm with the old tin can. As an aside, it strikes me as more than a little silly that the prize would be awarded by participation rate, rather than say, the amount of money raised. Some dorms have more students that are cash poor than others and so it doesn't make sense to penalize those students who give a lot.

Here's my vision of a better way:

If the Claremont dorms are going to give ASCMC money with the purpose of giving it over to the Red Cross, ASCMC could help students get tax breaks (or deductions) for every dollar they give over. That way, they'll be more inclined to donate. A receipt for each donation handed to the person raising the money will help guarantee that the financially leaky ASCMC keeps its house in order and help keep track, down to the penny, of just how much money was raised.

The Forum, technically a part of ASCMC, could also organize an online drive for funds as people will more likely hand over the money via secure electronic link than to the door to door community service representative. The drive could go on for days and each dorm could compete. Dorm residents could encourage their family members to donate through ASCMC and contribute to the total dorm challenge. Raising a lot of money could also positively affect the school's image among prospective students and among the general public. The alumni community's support could also be enlisted.

Of course, having such a means of raising funds online where everyone can see the total would be good for ASCMC, even when it is not raising the money on behalf of Haiti relief efforts.

Dean Spellman's Record for Sarah Lawrence: Hope For Conservatives?

Although I felt that former Dean of Student Dean Huang was often feckless, I appreciated that I was getting to know him. Many conservative students on campus thought that even if Huang was not sympathetic, at least he wasn't damaging. "Better the devil I know than the one I don't," or so the saying goes. But now Mary Spellman is that new Dean of Students, what do we know about her? And is she really a devil? Might she be even better than Dean Huang? For conservatives, there might be some good news as our college lurches still further to the left: Ms. Spellman is one of us. As dean of St. Mary's College, she gave $2000 to President Bush's reelection campaign in 2004. At Sarah Lawrence, she gave $250 to John McCain in 2007. She also gave two political contributions to Republicans in 2005.

Here's what I could find out about her record from back at Sarah Lawrence College. This article is from The Sadie Lou Standard, December 3, 2007 edition and written by an anonymous senator. (I typed it up, so please excuse any typographical errors and the emphasis is mine.)

Mary Spellman is a kind, intelligent and thoughtful person when you interact with her0 person to person as opposed to student to administrator. I have actually been boggled many times to note the difference in her when she is in “business” mode. While Mary would never overtly discriminate or judge someone, it is very clear that she handles Student Affairs very moralistically and has a clear sense of what this campus “ought” to be. Many students complain on a near-daily basis about the change in, namely, the atrophying of creative and chaotic energy on this campus. I think that this loss of a queered joie de vivre can actually be traced back to Mary’s entrance on this campus. Her disdain for sexually-imbued or alcohol-containing events on this campus is notorious.

From her hand in the final death of the Coming Out Dance to her hawk-like presence at the recent Nancy Pants Barn Dance, it is clear that she seems to judge the collective maturity of the Sarah Lawrence Campus on the basis of how sober we appear on the weekends. Responsible, periodic, socially-endorsed drinking seems to be a concept that completely eludes Mary. This was abundantly clear when she asked Student Senate to justify the “need” for alcohol at Senate-funded events. There are dozens of sociological and psychological accounts for the role of alcohol in college socialization; I think it would be more appropriate for her to have consulted these sources and the alcohol policies of other like-minded schools to determine this answer as opposed to challenging Senate on the spot to defend age-old methods of youthful socialization. The way Senate was questioned made us feel infantilized, judged, and radical for proposing a very simple beer garden concept for the Halloween events sponsored by Senate. Her judgment was both demoralizing and infuriating. She has succeeded at creating a school-generational change on this campus, putting students on the defensive for events and behaviors that occur unquestioned at other campuses nation-wide. We were the avant-garde, we are now cloistered in bedrooms devoting more time to being angry at the school’s oppression than creating the new edge of possibilities, as our venerable predecessors did for decades. I would be fascinated to poll the student body and find out how many students know that the Pub used to be an actual pub, serving beer and providing an actual social epicenter for the campus, as opposed to the mostly-vacant and dismal place it now is.

As a Senator, I feel as though Senate as a whole is being put in a position of advocating for things that once were. We are trying to restore a sense of lightness and socialization to the campus that has been purposefully extinguished by administrative policies since the late 1990s. The administration wants us to fit the pictures that appear in our admissions materials, which I think is a marked difference from the Sarah Lawrence of old, which was a beacon, a safe haven for the marginalized and brilliant who needed firm ground to explore their unique minds on a campus that was safe and pedagogically stimulating. I think it is extremely disconcerting to come to this campus now and feel as though it is stifling and subtly conformist, as I fear it must be in order to expand the ever-discussed endowment. The fact that graffiti art, temporary art installations, and banners now need to go through the Committee on Student Life is indicative of the censorship and loss of confidence the school has in its students to make innovative and provocative statements. Making a statement is no longer encouraged.

The epicenter for this Sarah Lawrence sanitation overwhelmingly seems to radiate from Mary Spellman’s office, as Student Affairs asserts itself more and more as the place that students must run to in order to seek endorsement to do anything extracurricular on this campus. How free is the Free Speech Wall? How innovative or penetrating is Student Affair’s[sic?] programming? How many people do you know who have felt personally misunderstood, judged, or stepped on by Mary Spellman?

While Ken Schneck was just as moralistic as Mary was, at least when he was here, the school had semi-competent drug, alcohol, and sex- educational programming. Thank God for David Moyer, who is now the only stop-gap measure for incoming first year classes to be socially educated.

Even then, however, David said that he was coerced by Mary to insert abstinence education into his routine. Students don’t need to be taught abstinence from sex or alcohol nearly as much as they need to be taught how to incorporate these very human elements into their lives when they feel they are ready. How dare administrators on this campus enhance that message on a campus that is full of people trying to overcome this negative programming to create good, vibrant, and productive lives?

The generations of students who came before us fought hard to self-create this campus as a place free of judgment and full of innovation. We are backsliding in the hands of administrators more gifted at paperwork than appreciating and actively enriching the full diversity of the students of Sarah Lawrence. We come here because the pedagogy allows us to self-create our education, ourselves, and the world in which we work, live, and learn. It makes me utterly sick to think that the freedom to self-create is slowly and seemingly-purposefully being eroded by administrators like Mary Spellman, who are shepherding a confused-but-apathetic student body closer and closer to a contrived vision of Sarah Lawrence prestige.

Jesse Jackson Sr.'s Connection to the Obamas

Much is made about how Barack Obama is a different kind of black candidate than Jesse Jackson Sr. The whole connection to the Reverend [sic] Jeremiah Wright was an effort to link Obama to that old-style Alinskyite Chicago pol that he actually is. I have my doubts about Obama being a new kind of black candidate,

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theory nut, I happen to think that the whole "off mic" moment was deliberate on the part of Jesse Jackson. If it weren't, why did Jesse Jackson Sr. cry when Obama was elected and why does his support for the Obamas exist long before Barack Obama ran for president?

The Obamas were very well connected to the Jacksons, going back to his U.S. Senate run. On page 185, of Obama: From Promise to Power, author David Mendell describes it thus [my emphasis is in bold]:

As he officially set out on the campaign trail, Obama charted a course to shore up his two core constituencies, African Americans and liberals. Among key liberals, he won the support of Representative Jan Schakowsky, who represented a lakefront district on Chicago's North Side . . . Also officially coming on board was the Reverend Jesse Jackson Sr., the best-known black leader in the country. Jackson, whose Rainbow/PUSH organization was headquartered in Hyde Park, had been an informal adviser to Obama for several years. This was an example of Michelle helping to ingratiate her husband with Chicago's African-American network; she had been friends with Jackson's daughter, Jacquelien, while they grew up on Chicago's South Side. As a teenager, Michelle had even babysat young Jesse Jr.

Still think the Obamas are a new face in politics? Think again.