Category: Uncategorized

Saddle up the Messenger Hoss:
4 Million Children Might be News

By

GREG MOSES

CounterPunch 9-16-

2004

(7 a.m. Central Daylight Time)–The morning after
Texas district judge John

Dietz ruled that the state’s
school system fails to satisfy criteria set forth in
the Texas

constitution, I’m browsing some of the “top
headline” sources on the internet to see how the

fate
of 4 million Texas schoolchildren rates on the
national news scale.

“More

than 130 years after Alferd Packer ate his five
companions to survive a Colorado winter, a

museum
curator is making a case that the notorious cannibal
was innocent of murder,” reads a

report from the
Associated Press that I find seven stories from the
top at Yahoo’s US National

News. But no news of Texas
education in the total of twenty stories that are
either listed as

“top” or “more.”

“Three men shot to death in a Willowbrook parking lot
apparently were

victims of a planned ‘hit’ that by a
fluke occurred just as a village police officer drove
past,

law enforcement sources said Wednesday,” reads a
story out of Chicago that gets number seven billing

at
Google’s US news page.

“The Times Fills 2 Editing Posts,” reads headline
number

six under New York Times national headlines.
The Education section also finds other things to

talk
about.

With Hurricane Ivan consuming three of the top dozen
stories at USA

Today’s “Nation” page, it’s Southern
weather that rules the day.

Maybe we can find the

headline at CNN US? Nope. But
if you look under local news from the US Southwest you
will find

this number one headline: “Former anchorman
out of prison.” Or this headline, ranked second:

“Henna tattoos cause family pain.” The Education page
leads with a story about college

affordability.

As the school buses pass my window here in Texas,
taking kids to their

unconstitutional destinations,
I’m reading parts of the US Supreme Court decision in
1973 that

set the precedent for not putting Texas
education on the national agenda. The Rodriguez

case,
which was the first of the “Edgewood” cases to be
filed—-way back in the summer of ’68—-set

the Supremes
to fidgeting over the prospects of “wealth
equalization.” They said they could

handle a lawsuit
where folks were completely deprived of some good
because of poverty, but the if

the High Court started
getting involved in cases where relatively poorer
people were only

relatively deprived of such things as
education, well you know, the great black-robed

scions
might have to stop taking summer breaks!

The dissenting judges in 1973 were

Thurgood Marshall
and William O. Douglas, not bad company to keep on a
morning such as

this.

“The Court today decides, in effect, that a State may
constitutionally vary the

quality of education which
it offers its children in accordance with the amount
of taxable wealth

located in the school districts
within which they reside,” wrote Marshall (with
Douglas

concurring). “The majority’s decision
represents an abrupt departure from the mainstream

of
recent state and federal court decisions concerning
the unconstitutionality of state

educational financing
schemes dependent upon taxable local wealth. More
unfortunately, though,

the majority’s holding can only
be seen as a retreat from our historic commitment to
equality of

educational opportunity and as
unsupportable acquiescence in a system which deprives
children in

their earliest years of the chance to
reach their full potential as citizens. The Court does
this

despite the absence of any substantial
justification for a scheme which arbitrarily

channels
educational resources in accordance with the fortuity
of the amount of taxable wealth

within each district.”

“In my judgment,” continued Marshall, “the right of
every

American to an equal start in life, so far as
the provision of a state service as important

as
education is concerned, is far too vital to permit
state discrimination on grounds as tenuous

as those
presented by this record. Nor can I accept the notion
that it is sufficient to remit

these appellees to the
vagaries of the political process which, contrary to
the majority’s

suggestion, has proved singularly
unsuited to the task of providing a remedy for

this
discrimination. I, for one, am unsatisfied with the
hope of an ultimate ‘political’

solution sometime in
the indefinite future while, in the meantime,
countless children

unjustifiably receive inferior
educations that ‘may affect their hearts and minds in
a way

unlikely ever to be undone.’ Brown v. Board of
Education, 347 U.S. 483, 494 (1954). I must

therefore
respectfully dissent.”

But it was the refusal of Marshall’s peers that

sent
the issue of equalized education back to the Texas
courts and a series of state-level

rulings known as
the Edgewood cases of the early 90s. Texas courts
today are doing the work that

national courts refused
to do thirty years ago, and in the process historical
contributions are

being made to the human rights of
children everywhere.

For these reasons and others

that might be given with
more time and space, can we please ask the editors of
the national desks

to dig a little deeper into their
Associated Press dispatches and post the ones about
Texas

education? After all, attention to the human
rights of 4 million children today will bring you

so
many more avid readers tomorrow.

via email, Feb. 18, 2004

Texas A&M’s December 2003 Admissions Policy

Decision

For the sake of Texas A&M’s reputation among Latinos and blacks of Texas and

the nation, we hope that “Gains in minority enrollment will come through enhanced outreach, not

[through] changes in admissions policies, requirements and standards,” as the administration contended

in December, 2003.

But if more minorities do not enroll at Texas A&M in the next 2

years, we will have no choice but to consider race as a criterion, as the Supreme Court allowed on June

23, 2003 in Grutter. When Hopwood outlawed race as a factor in March 1996, Texas A&M was even then

enrolling a lamentably low number of freshmen minority students: 230 blacks out of 528 acceptances, 713

Latinos out of 1,432 acceptances, and 177 Asian Americans out of 510 acceptances. Since then we have

consistently failed to recoup even these numbers.

During the 7 years that Hopwood shaped

admissions policy, Aggie campus administrations repeatedly said that Texas A&M was “hamstrung” and

“hampered” from considering race. If only they could consider race, they would say by way of

deflecting criticism, we would have more minorities on campus.

But, since June 2003 the

Supreme Court’s Grutter decision at the University of Michigan has allowed colleges to consider race as

one of several factors. Texans and the nation had all been waiting to see if Texas A&M would consider

race as Rice and the University of Texas are doing.

This is not to say that we are

urging “race-based admissions,” as the media constantly claim and as many people believe. What we are

saying is that race ought to be taken into account–along with all of the other regularly considered

college merit admissions factors.

After all, Latinos and blacks who have earned high

grades, already have the test scores and can demonstrate a good number of the other merits that Texas

A&M looks for, thereby having proven themselves. In minority students, as in white students, such

merits are recognizable accomplishments that speak for themselves. Such applicants can rightfully

claim being special, to being exceptional applicants. That is why we say that race should be an added

diversity factor, one, among others, of the actual manifestations of what is variously known as

diversity.

In the wake of campus events caused by different attitudes toward race, no

one can be persuaded any longer that people are “color-blind” or “race neutral,” as some people want to

believe; and, apparently, neither is the Supreme Court convinced.

The $40,000 family

income cut-off qualifying a student for the new $5,000 a year Regents scholarships, we also need to

point out, is too low. We understand money is tight. And, yes, a student, of any race and background,

with a monthly family gross income of $3,333 who maintains high grades, takes the right courses and has

the needed test scores is a walking miracle and deserves financial support. But even a student with

two custodial parents at Texas A&M are likely earn more than the minimum $40,000 that is required for a

son or a daughter to earn such a scholarship.

During the question and answer session of

the December 3, 2003 meeting with President Gates, one student asked for financially more competitive

presidential and honors scholarships while another brought out that even families earning $100,000 a

year are now “struggling” to meet tuition, rent and other college expenses. If this is so, will

students with the Regents scholarships be able to put together financial packages that will allow them

to stay in school for 4 or 5 years until they graduate? Again, that would require another miracle.

For these reasons, it is difficult to believe that minority enrollment can be achieved

only by enhancing outreach efforts. We have unsuccessfully tried that approach since the early 1980s,

as former Professor Ruth Schaffer brought out month after month, year after year during the meetings of

the Minority Conditions Committee of the Faculty Senate.

Convincing accepted minority

students now to attend Texas A&M in the face of events that we continue to see and that have

traditionally kept minorities from enrolling here appears insurmountable. We are, nevertheless,

willing to be proven wrong. Hopwood has already hurt another wave of minority students and faculty

recruitment as well as campus diversity efforts for more than 7 long years. After 128 years, the next

2 years should tell us whether Texas A&M is capable of attracting more minority students without

including race as an admissions factor.

The Republican-led attempt to unseat from the Texas Legislature newly elected Democrat

Hubert Vo, will require more voter intimidation, says a source close to the Vo campaign. In order to

prove that Vo does not deserve to keep his narrowly won seat, Republican attorneys will have to produce

alleged “illegal voters” in west Houston precincts, drag them into public view, and then compel them

to testify under oath who they voted for.

“Conceptually speaking,” says our source, “asking

people who they voted for has a lot of implications. The easy part of voting is knowing that no one

will ever know who I voted for. If this assurance is violated, then people may never vote against a

powerful person again. Making people disclose their votes is the ultimate form of

intimidation.”

Intimidation before, during, and after elections is the Republican way.

It is what connects Florida 2000 to Ohio 2004, and now to the Republican-led challenge against Hubert

Vo. For this reason you may stay tuned to the Texas Civil Rights review for further updates. We will

not be intimidated out of our civil rights.

The Texas Civil Rights Review is taking an

interest in the Republican-led effort to unseat newly elected Democrat Hubert Vo. As argued in a

recent article on the “Whitewashing of Election Fraud” (see below) we see the struggle to maintain

Vo’s seat as part of a national civil rights struggle.

Despite the intensity of the

Republican challenge so far, our source reports that “things are going well–so far all the signals

are in our favor.” Yet that seems difficult to believe this week.

“From the beginning

the Texas Speaker of the House has been sending signals that he doesn’t want to proceed with this

challenge,” reports our source. “But the process keeps moving forward. How can the process keep

moving forward without the Speaker wanting to proceed?”

So why does the source think

that signals are good? For one thing, the deadline for producing a complete list of alleged illegal

voters has been set for early next week. If the Speaker were more sympathetic to the challenge, he

might be giving the anti-Vo camp more time to collect their case.

So far, the allegations

include claims that 14 people voted twice, once via mail, and then again on election day. But our

source tells us that the 14 people in question happen to live on the same block. This leads our source

to believe that a “keying error” is a more likely explanation for the double count. (Frankly, we have

to admit that we don’t know enough about the “keying” process to make an independent assessment

about this.)

Here’s the tactical schedule:

• Dec. 14

  (Tuesday): Deadline for submission to Vo campaign of complete list of alleged “illegal

  voters.”

• Dec. 15 (Wednesday): Conference call between

  parties.

• Early January: Completion of discovery

  phase.

• Early February: Formal hearing on election contest in Texas

  legislature.

webposted Dec. 11–

gm

Sold American:
Cowboy Nation
Gets Ready to Vote

If tragedy is

the name we use for a drama in which the
protagonist falls on his own character, then tragic

is
the shape of public opinion in America.

Headlines Monday claimed that three-

fourths of
Americans already have their minds made up about
presidential candidates, but the poll

suggests more
than that. On the issue of who we are, the poll
reveals that Americans have had

their minds made up
for many, many years. Taking up the question of sincerity, for instance,

a
majority of Americans tell pollsters that Bush says
what he believes (51 percent), but an even

greater
majority report that Bush exaggerated to build support
for war on Iraq (59 percent). So

what are Americans
saying about Bush? That he believes his

own
exaggerations.

Again, on the sincerity question, a majority (57
percent)

believe that Kerry does not say what he
thinks, yet American voters rate Kerry higher than
Bush

for caring about us, for being able to deal with
economic decisions, make sure social security

is
solvent, and increase jobs. What do Americans think
about Kerry? That he does not believe in

his own
capabilities.

On the fundamental question of sincerity,

therefore,
Americans have nothing new to say. As a nation, we
prefer sincere liars to insecure

competents. Look for
a Reagan-Carter repeat. Or, for that matter,
Reagan-Dukakis, Clinton-Dole,

Nixon-McGovern. When it
comes to the question of sincerity, America loves a
salesman best.

And where do we find the qualities of a great
salesman? Not in the product, but in

the pitch.

And what is Bush pitching these days? That we are a
culture at war. More

important than care, economy,
social security, or jobs, is our ability to conserve
our way of

life against subversive forces. It’s an
exaggeration, as we fully know. But it’s

an
exaggeration that creates purpose.

Meanwhile, a mid-week editorial from the

Boston Globe
reminds us what Bush is selling to the rest of the
world. Scan the headlines coming

out of Santiago,
Chile during Women’s History Month. Bush
Administration Opposes 40 Latin

American Nations.
Countries of the Americas, Except US, Reaffirm
Reproductive Health Accord. US

Lone No at Chile
Meeting .

“The United States was the only country to

disagree
with a declaration linking poverty eradication to
greater access to services for family

planning, safe
motherhood and HIV/AIDS prevention,” reports the
United Nations.

A

simple Google search for “Bush opposes treaty”
yields the following: Bush opposes ratifying

nuclear
test ban treaty; Bush Administration Opposes UN
Children’s Treaty; Bush Tries to Weaken

Tobacco
Treaty; US Abandons Environment Treaty; Bush Opposes
Kyoto Global Warming Treaty. That’s

page one.

Our embattled way of life is indeed at war with the
world. Bush is right

about that. But he is only our
most recent cowboy-in-chief, pushing the frontiers,
shredding the

treaties, and sending in the cavalry to
secure the outposts.

So, of course, Americans

feel more comfortable with
Bush than Kerry when it comes to handling an
international crisis and

protecting the country from a
terrorist attack.

On three questions Bush tops the

charts absolutely.
Seventy five percent believe Bush has a vision for the
country. Seventy

eight percent believe that we would
have a good economy today were it not for the
disruption of

the massacre of Sept. 11.

And 75 percent of Americans believe Bush shares the
moral

values most Americans try to live by.

So the poll numbers demonstrate that Kerry and

Bush
are placeholders in a cowboy nation that is nearly 80
percent unified.

So

bring on your Nader, if you will. Or point out
that America is isolating itself in the eyes

of
others. What we have here is a mature culture acting
out its character in ways that are as

predictable as
they are tragic.

If the poll numbers hold up, whoever wins in

November
will be the top cowboy candidate. In this drama of
Cowboy Nation, is there an

alternative ending at hand?

Greg Moses
Site

Editor