On Sunday, thousands of men will gather at Temple University’s Liacouras Center as part of the new “10,000 Men” initiative. The program, offered in response to Philadelphia’s rising homicide rate, will train a predominately African American group of men as “Peacemakers” who will enter “designated communities and deter unwanted and illegal behavior.”

In many ways, I am encouraged by the renewed commitment to protecting our own communities. As opposed to Mayor John Street’s “Safe Streets” initiative, which attempted to transform the ‘hood into a de facto police state, 10,000 Men wisely recognizes the benefits of community involvement. In addition to offering us a much-needed dose of responsibility, the initiative provides a tangible alternative to armchair activism and sideline complaining. After all, how can we complain about senseless violence and police incompetence if we are unwilling to come up with a reasonable alternative?

The problem is that this strategy is far from reasonable.

If we’ve learned nothing from the historic Million Man March –where African American men became the first group of people to launch a protest march against themselves– we found out that the government and mainstream Americans will never stop large numbers of Negroes from confessing their collective sins in full public view. The problem is that, instead of inspiring policymakers to support our efforts, such actions reinforce the absurd notion that violence and poverty can be eliminated by embracing a gospel of individual responsibility. In this case, by agreeing to “take back our neighborhoods” we concede the point that we lost them solely due to our own personal failings.

The last time I checked, joblessness and crack had something to do with it too.

Rather than demanding higher wages, better schools, and stricter gun laws, the current plan absolves the government of its responsibility to protect our most vulnerable  citizens. For example, even if we are to accept the quixotic idea that ten thousand unarmed civilians can make peace within inner-city war zones, couldn’t we expect even greater results from ten thousand trained officers? Unfortunately, the current initiative makes no such demands from the State.

Of course, this doesn’t have to be an either-or proposition. There is no reason why African American men (and women!) cannot take control of their communities and fight for social justice at the same time. Unfortunately, I have yet to hear how breeding newschool Guardian Angels will produce political education, protest, or even voter registration. Until we focus on these and other issues, even ten million men won’t help us.

President Bush fancies himself to be a man of the Christian faith. Famously, in a primary debate prior to the 2000 presidential election, the President declared that "[w]hen you turn your heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as the savior, it changes your heart. It changes your life. And that's what happened to me."

In the third presidential debate in 2004, the President reiterated that "[my] principles are derived from who I am. I believe we ought to love our neighbor like we love ourself . . . . And so my principles that I make decisions on are a part of me. And religion is a part of me."

These are merely illustrations of the President's repeated invocation of faith as a seminal part of his identity and his policy-making. By his own reckoning, his Christian faith is an indelible part of who the President imagines himself to be.

So I ask: Would Jesus have vetoed the SCHIP bill?

Of the over 43 million Americans lacking health insurance, about eight million are children. Not only does this mean that millions of children are unable to access the care they need to treat debilitating illnesses, it also means they cannot obtain the preventive care and counseling that protects against sickness and promotes wellness.

The State Children's Health Insurance Program ("S-CHIP) is one effort -- albeit incomplete -- to address this problem. S-CHIP, a partnership between the federal government and the states, provides health coverage to poor families who are not covered by Medicaid but who also cannot afford private insurance. The program currently covers about 6 million people -- most of whom are children -- and is credited with having reduced by one-third the number of uninsured children.

As you know by now, Congress, with bipartisan support, passed a bill seeking not only to extend S-CHIP but to expand it. The congressional bill would have added $7 billion to the program in each of the next five years, enabling S-CHIP to cover an additional 4 million children.

This, evidently, was too much for the President to bear. He vetoed the bill, claiming that it would cover too many middle-class families, would encourage those with private coverage to switch to S-CHIP, and would represent an unjustifiable step toward government-managed health-care.

These rationales, however, are unsupportable. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 84% of new children covered by the bill would come from families eligible under current S-CHIP income guidelines -- so the argument that the bill targets well-to-do families is simply untrue. This also undermines the claim that the bill encourages families to switch from private coverage to S-CHIP: almost all of the children covered by the bill -- because they would be eligible under current S-CHIP standards -- cannot afford private coverage in the first place. These families would be going from no coverage to S-CHIP -- not private coverage to S-CHIP.

Finally, the government-managed-health-care trope is both meritless and stale. S-CHIP subsidizes private health care coverage, not a system of government-controlled care.  And, in any case, the premise underlying this scare tactic -- that government-managed care would preempt private choice -- is simply inapplicable where people have no coverage to begin with. Simply put, S-CHIP provides coverage overwhelmingly to people who cannot afford it; and it is this moral imperative that drives the broad public support for this bill.

So what would Jesus do? I think the answer is clear: "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of the least of these, you neglected to do unto Me."

The Immigration law professors blog will post an interview with Senator Obama on Tuesday at 11am eastern time zone. They prepared a list of questions for him on a range of difficult immigration issues, including immigration reform, undocumented immigration, family immigration, deportation and immigration raids, local (anti-)immigration ordinances, integration of immigrants into U.S. society, the deaths along the U.S./Mexico border, and his vote in favor of the Secure Fence Act.  They are actively seeking other 2008 Presidential candidates to answer the same immigration questions that were posed to Senator Obama.

Check it out at

As many of you know, my colleague, Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/chemerinsky/ , was recently offered the deanship at a soon-to-be-established law school at the University of California Irvine.  On Tuesday, less than a week after he signed a contract, UCI Chancellor Michael V. Drake flew to North Carolina and withdrew the offer apparently due to conservative opposition. See http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/09/12/the-oc-law-school-edition/ or http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ucilaw13sep13,0,5893599.story?coll=la-homecenter  

A similar dynamic occurred last winter at Duke Law School, where Chemerinsky was one of three finalists for the deanship.  As was the case nine months ago, I find myself struggling with a number of observations and questions: 

First, have we kissed academic freedom goodbye? Is the ability of a professor to express ideas openly, to dissent from prevailing norms, no longer valued or desired?  Are public universities now in the business of policing viewpoints, of punishing those who engage in public debate? Surely history has taught us that this is dangerous to achievement of the free and democratic society to which presumably we still aspire.   

Second, how do liberal beliefs render irrelevant almost three decades of outstanding service as a gracious colleague, prolific scholar, committed advocate, generous mentor, and engaged public citizen?  Why is being progressive presumptively disqualifying (especially for those with stellar credentials) while being conservative is presumptively qualifying (especially for those with mediocre track records)?  

Third, where then is all the support for the ubiquitous claim that the academy is run by - and “ruined” by - left-wing radicals?  Could it be that conservatism rules in an atmosphere that insists the opposite is true?   

Fourth, what is the going price for a law school? a university?  Is the financial cost of critical thought too expensive for a law school devoted to the public interest? 

And, finally, how can any senior administrator lead a candidate, whose liberal views did not appear overnight, to the point of actually signing a contract only to “discover” that the candidate would be politically controversial, polarizing, and a lightening rod for conservatives?  Does anyone believe the Chancellor was not subject to outside influence?  Surely this kind of incompetence does not augur well for the future legal program at UCI.  In addition to academic freedom, there is a fundamental question of integrity at issue here.   

The law school at UCI was to be devoted to the public interest.  Yet, Chancellor Drake rejected a candidate with a lifetime of demonstrated commitment to serving the public.  It appears the Chancellor acted out of fear - a fear that the appointment of someone with Chemerinsky's record, someone with stated and expressed views, would stir up too much debate, stimulate too much dialogue, and incite too many people to action.  In other words, he seems to have feared that UCI law school, from its inception, would do precisely what academic institutions are supposed to do - encourage us to think critically and to engage in robust and spirited debate.   

Chemerinsky is Jewish and today is Rosh Hashanah, a time when Jews are called upon to reflect upon the recent past and to contemplate the new year.  I am not Jewish, but I have engaged in my share of reflection and introspection today.  And, I have come to agree with the conclusions of a fellow blogger (Neil), who wrote “UC Irvine’s position is indefensible and intellectually bankrupt. The school deserves condemnation from every person who respects academic freedom and respects the notion of free-flowing political discourse, whether they be conservative or liberal.”  I invite all persons who share these viewpoints to voice their concerns to Chancellor Drake and the UC Regents, and to boycott any future efforts to build a law school at UCI.   

--Professor Trina Jones, September 13, 2007  

As always, the truth tends to lie in between the archetypes anchoring mainstream media.  But, after coming across this report, Booker seems to have given fodder to his critics.  Booker, apparently, spoke recently at a ritzy fundraiser, attended principally by Whites, in which he described a recently deceased Black, female Newark activist as "portly," toothless, and profane.  This, in an apparent attempt to recognize the depth of her contributions to the city.  Several members of the Newark City Council sharply criticized Booker's remarks as racially insensitive and inflammatory, suggesting his rhetoric evoked the the image of a Black "mammy" -- precisely the sort of image, claimed the City Council members, that many Whites are disposed to identify with Black women.

Unfortunately for Booker, this episode reinforces the concerns of many Newarkers that he seeks to exploit some of the worst stereotypes about Black folks for political gain.  He seems often to play up the most negative images of Black folk and Black communities to White audiences, in ways that feel uncomfortably like those late-night infomercials about Sudanese children who can be fed for $1 a day.  His appearance last year on Oprah is another conspicuous example.  Maybe this sort of messaging is the best way to engage a White majority largely disinterested in the plight of poor folk of color.  But the ends don't justify the means.  This approach reinforces the very racial stereotypes that Booker's politics purportedly transcends. 

Maybe Sharpe James had a point.

The previous day some white colleagues asked me about Obama and I shared that I was cynical that he could actually win. So many African Americans share cyncisism. People from various quarters and classes don't think Obama can actually win. I likened it to the feeling I had had that Don Imus would never get fired (I was completely surprised that he was and want to be wrong again). What I am speaking to is the general cyncism and resignation among some blacks that it's too soon for a black man to seriously contend and actually win a US election.

My activist friend, currently sitting at the table with the likes of George Soros and other billiionaires supporting Obama's campaign, shared a much different reality and he has the data to back it up, he says. He said the latest poll numbers he say actually indicate that 1) Obama is likely to win the election (esp. if Hilary puts her foot in her mouth on any subject) and 2) Obama has all the money he needs for a serious election to be won. What he actually is missing is a show of support from the black community. Even hundreds to thousands of $25 donations would register the numerical support from the black community that is missing in his campaign. 

ABC News ran an online piece linked under BARBERSHOP BUZZ suggesting that "Polls show many black voters torn between Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., left, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., right." Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and the Black Vote. How do we get our friends and families as well as our students and even our enemies engaged in making the possibility of black support visible from small donations and get them inspired about the possibility that it really is possible? I'd love to hear others thoughts.

 My friend also shared that it is not the black vote turnout that is the real concern or heart of the matter in elections. Black turnout is actually quite strong contrary to belief, he said. He insisted that is was the white vote that actually made a difference. Only 35% of whites vote democratic, he said. And we need their turnout to be strong for Obama to actually win. 

What I loved about what we shared was the emphasis on whites being accountable for their democratic and/or liberal politics and insuring the soccor moms and dads turn out to vote.

Still collecting my own data on all this and will see about specifics from my friend, but I was inspired and intend to send my $25 or so asap. The Obamas are making the rounds here in NYC this week. Keep your eyes peeled for their campaign. 

And the man seemingly has no shame.  Now the Vice-President claims that his office is not governed by a presidential order concerning the protection of classified information, and that therefore he need not produce or permit inspection of certain classified information his office possesses.  The order, issued by his boss, apparently applies to all offices of the executive branch of the federal government.  Cheney claims that his office is not a part of the executive branch and that therefore the order doesn't apply.

I didn't think it were possible, but the Vice-President has sunken to a new low.  As is often the case, perhaps there is a narrow, technical basis for Cheney's argument.  I'm not a con-law scholar, but the only duty specifically assigned to the VP by the Constitution, as I recall, is the responsibility to serve as President of the Senate.  This obligation is contained in Article I of the Constitution, the legislative article, so perhaps Cheney does have a technical argument that his is not an executive-branch office.

But Cheney's contention fails miserably when one considers the role the Office of Vice-President has played in modern times -- particularly the role he has played in the Bush Administration.  The contemporary office of the Vice-President is generally delegated responsibility for a broad range of executive-office functions.  In the Bush Administration, of course, Cheney has handled everything from intelligence gathering to war planning to policy-setting on a wide diversity of foreign and domestic matters.  On virtually all of the Bush Administration's major policy decisions, the fingerprints of the Vice-President are indelible.  Given the actual role his office plays in the development and implementation of policy on unquestionably executive-office matters, the Vice-President's claim that his is not an executive office seems strained, at best. 

But, of course, we shouldn't be surprised: What else would one expect from our Vice-President?

    The Duke Rape allegations are instrumental in analyzing the role that race and gender play in the handling of rape cases.  It is a great case study because it shows how catalysts like rape allegations can cause dormant racial/gender wounds to erupt to the surface in an already polarized community. The racial dichotomy and rivalry existing between North Carolina Central University (NCCU) and Duke University became apparent in the types of comments made, at the time of the investigation, by students from North Carolina Central University as compared to comments made by Duke University students.  For example, during the investigation, a student from NCCU was quoted as saying: “If it was a Duke Student and it was Central’s football’s team, the situation would have been handled totally differently (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/05/national/main1476021.shtml) while a Duke University Student stated, in the same spirit, “that the allegations … put a new strain on the already delicate relationship between the school and the community in Durham” (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/05/national/main1476021.shtml) Almost immediately after the rape allegations were made, it became evident from student comments submitted to the media, that for the Durham community, the rape allegations represented not just one isolated incident, but a culmination of slights and abuses of privilege that the community hoped would finally be punished.  The very fact that a team of 43 young Lacrosse players considered the hiring of two African American strippers as an acceptable form of sexual entertainment corroborated this feeling of exasperation.  It is also interesting that, in the midst of the mass obsession with the culpability or non-culpability of the three players, no one took the time to ask the obvious question: Why did the Duke administration offer no remonstrance against the Duke Lacrosse team for hiring black strippers at a team’s party?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18369623/site/newsweek/.

Amy Scholder has edited a collection entitled Dr. Rice in the House (Seven Stories Press). The latter includes pieces by Amiri Baraka and Jill Nelson.

Do you believe Condie accomplishments have been a “credit” to the race or to the gender or to the race/gender?  Will history treat her kindly? See if these books affect your views.  Perhaps one of you will be involved in a more long term  assessment after her term is finished. Do you think she will write her own candid book as some others formerly affiliated with the Bush administration have done?  What’s a potential next job for someone with her credentials/expertise?

Many of us are against a war in Iraq. Some of us may even have been against the war from the start. Understood. Still, it’s not a (huge) stretch to see the similarities between Iraq and an argument for a military effort in Darfur. In Iraq, an oil-rich country of mostly Arabs, hundreds of thousands were killed under Saddam Hussein. We intervened militarily. In Darfur, hundreds of thousands have been killed in this oil-rich country, with a significant Arab presence also. In Iraq, we quickly toppled our adversary and in Darfur it reasons that we would likely be able to do the same. So, should we intervene militarily in Darfur? Is Darfur a better use of American might than Iraq? Is it hypocritical to be against one intervention, but not the other?