Member Posts

According to the Census, You Live at College

Kay — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:55:37 EDT

Pew Research has some information up today about young people and the census this year.

According to census rules, people should be counted ("enumerated," in census-speak) at a residence if they:
Live or stay at the residence most of the time.
Stayed there on April 1, 2010 and had no permanent place to live.
Stay at the residence more time than any other place they might live or stay.
That means most college students should be counted at their college address, either on campus or off campus. They should be counted at their parents' home only if they live and sleep there most of the year.

In other words, the census is taking a side in the age-old debate of where students who attend college "live." This last came up during the elections, when many students were confused about where they could vote.

The biggest conflict came up during the Democratic primaries and caucuses, when students in a small state like Iowa could have a big impact on the election results.

Often, during primaries and during the general election in 2008, individuals decided whether they should absentee vote in their home state or whether they should vote in the district where they attend college.

The census seems to be indicating that congressional representation will be determined based on populations of schools, not where students count their permanent address to be.

Conservatives Pay Well for Vague Internships

Kay — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:11:26 EDT

Today those of us on the Young America's Foundation listserv got notification that they're still accepting applications for their internship program this summer (now in "2 great locations"!)

Although their "Top 10 Reasons" (published in full below) were pretty hokey and often vague (what does "organizing programs" mean anyway?), but I have to admit their most compelling argument -- unless you have a weird affinity for Ronald Reagan -- was that they pay their interns a sizable stipend. YAF advertises that they're willing to pay $1,000 a month in stipends to each intern. It's nothing close to a salaried wage, but it's often better than many progressive organizations can pay.

After all, Campus Progress has written about the increasing number of unpaid internships that go to more and more qualified people in the midst of an economic recession. When I was an unpaid intern in 2005, the New York Times reported that the Heritage Foundation (often perceived as the ideological opponent of our parent organization, the Center for American Progress) not only pays a bigger stipend than YAF, $2,500 per month, but also provides a subsidized living space, "complete with a fitness room" and "walk-in closets."

The cost of Heritage's internship program? $570,000, according to the 2005 article. That amount is often more than the entire operating budgets of many progressive organizations.

Although the left is perceived as more powerful today than it was in 2005, it's important to remember that investing in young people might be the key to controlling the future.

Calling Immigrants ‘Third-World Gold Diggers’ Was Just ‘Colorful Language,’ Anti-Immigration Group Assures

Erin Rosa — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:42:49 EDT

Embattled by numerous reports of its ties to white nationalists, The Center For Immigration Studies (CIS), a Washington D.C.-based think thank that strongly opposes immigration reform, lashed out today against advocacy groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the National Council of La Raza for participating in “smear” attacks and “manipulating the press” on the immigration issue.

But in the end, it was CIS executive director Mark Krikorian who justified his own smears, defending his groups’ labeling of immigrants as “third-world gold diggers” by calling such rhetoric “colorful language that was too colorful.”

The CIS event, held this morning in Washington, was organized to premiere CIS’s newest report, “Immigration and the SPLC,” a quasi-investigative look at the watchdog group’s research and financial records.

It’s no secret why CIS had dedicated a 27-page report to disparage the SPLC and other entities like the NCLR, a Latino advocacy organization. Both of the targeted organizations have been steadfastly producing research that ties the Center and other anti-immigration groups to white nationalism and racist rhetoric.

But rather than actually responding to anything said about CIS, the report focuses on times when SPLC allegedly took quotes from other anti-immigration groups out of context. The report also blames the media for being too “cooperative” when citing SPLC, and questions the objectivity of the watchdog group for working with pro-immigration groups like the NCLR.

In an effort to get to the bottom of some of these claims, I asked Krikorian a question, about an instance, cited by SPLC, where one of CIS’s reports (no longer on the Web site) referred to immigrants as “third-world gold diggers.”

Rosa: I’m certainly not here to defend the SPLC as an organization. I guess I’m more interested in some of the things they’ve said about the Center for Immigration Studies that I didn’t see in the report, and I just wanted to get some context on it. I know in the report there are some quotes that are used and kind of taken out of context in relation to [the Federation for American Immigration Reform], but one of the quotes that they take from a December 2008 report authored by the Center that dealt with fraud—marriage fraud to get green cards for undocumented immigrants—one of the things the SPLC and other groups have cited. And I just wanted to get your response to it and to understand the context. The quote goes, this is from the report, “if small time con-artists and Third-World gold diggers can obtain green cards with so little resistance, then surely terrorists can (and have) done the same.”
Krikorian: Well, this was written by a Foreign Service officer who had worked on visas in much of the world actually. It’s a, ya know, we actually cut out a lot of the colorful language in that—that one got by us. But the concept is correct, I mean in the sense of people on the make using marriage fraud as a way to get into the United States. The point is, if that’s possible, then people with different motives, security related, terrorist related motives, can also get in. The point is valid.
I don’t know. Would I have worded it that way if I had written it? Probably not. But it doesn’t invalidate the point. In fact, I gotta say, now we’re talking copy editing. This is a very different thing from being you know, equivalent to the Aryan Nations. If you wanna deal with copy editing and how many angels should be described as dancing on the head of a pin, well that’s fine. But we’re talking about minutiae here, rather than the legitimacy of voices in a fundamental national debate
Rosa: Well, just to follow up, with the “Third World gold diggers” kind of comment, I mean, do you think that kind of incendiary rhetoric that insinuates that all immigrants are from the Third World, or that they’re all interested in money, do you think that works to foster, what [the panelists] were talking about, a “healthy debate?”
Krikorian: Like I said, I wouldn’t, I mean, uh, looking back over it, I would have cut that out as well or reworded it. But, ya know, it was colorful language that was too colorful. Um, but, is it beyond the pale, I would say no.

Fire kills 21 workers at H&M garment factory

Kim Leung — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:22:59 EDT

My last clothing purchase was a pencil skirt from H&M. On Feb. 25, 21 workers died and 50 others were injured from a fire at a factory in Bangladesh that makes clothing for H&M and other major apparel companies. What is the relation between these two events?

It's not cause and effect. I didn't set the fire. And it's not a trick question--my purchase and the 21 deaths and 50 injuries are indeed related because my skirt was produced in that factory, or one much like it.

The fire was not a freak accident. It was the factory's second fire in the past six months. According to the International Labor Rights Forum, it was preventable and predictable:

A government-authorized probe into the cause of the fire said the fire was started by an electric short-circuit on the second floor of the factory. It quickly spread to the other floors filled with inflammable materials such as wool threads and other goods. Lasting nearly two hours, the fire created a thick black smoke and consumed the oxygen in the air, suffocating the workers. The smoke could not escape because of poor ventilation and the presence of unauthorized sheet metal structures that were being used for storage of highly inflammable materials on the roof of the building. Workers could not escape because exits were locked and materials blocked the stairways. The factory’s fire-fighting equipment was "virtually useless", according to the Dhaka Fire Service and Civil Defense, and reportedly none of the security guards on duty knew how to operate fire extinguishers and hydrants.

Despite overwhelming evidence that the deaths and injuries from the fire resulted from structural problems and inhumane labor practices, H&M maintains that, “as far as [they] know, this terrible accident was not caused by poor working conditions or safety measures.”

Families of the deceased and injured receive meager monetary compensation, but they will never get justice so long as those responsible continue to characterize the deaths and injuries as a mere accident, rather than a result of poor labor practices that demands reform.

Workers from the factory are calling on H&M and other apparel companies it produces for to respect their labor rights, and guarantee that health and safety standards be followed. International Labor Rights Forum and the National Labor Committee have organized letter writing campaigns in support of the workers’ demands.

H&M is the college student’s answer to nice looking clothes for a low price. The skirt cost me 25 bucks. For the invisible individuals that make the clothes I and many college students wear, it costs their livelihoods, and sometimes their lives.

Is your spring break green, or just your St. Patrick's day beer?

Tristan Fowler — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:52:17 EDT

It’s well beyond cliché to say that Spring Break is about drunk, high and horny college students partying on sunny beaches. And every year we see MTV showing their beach parties, news media reporting on the latest accident, but now the latest trend is greening your spring break.

Some students are looking for the whole package – volunteering to help save the planet, while remaining eco-friendly. Others are looking for a few products and fixes to relieve their guilt from their week-long self-indulgent behavior. Here are a few examples of students going green, and tips to make your trip a little greener.

Many eco-spring break trips consist of volunteers clearing trails, planting trees, and cleaning parks for other eco-tourists. The Student Conservation Association is sending spring breakers to the Grand Canyon to camp and clean graffiti. The Cumberland Trail Conference and the El Yunque National Rain Forest are having students clear trails in Mississippi and Puerto Rico, respectively. And CALPIRG is having students clean the coast of California. While it seems incompatible for students do manual labor over spring break, it’s actually a perfect escape from the mind. Rather than concentrating on texts, numbers, theories and analysis, students can get outside in the fresh air, work their hands, body and mind in ways that haven’t been worked in months or years or ever, and bond with friends and strangers by tacking a challenging group project.

Mountain Justice is going beyond the work boots and shovels during their spring break.

Campus Informer: UCLA Cleans up Coastline, Notre Dame Faculty Speak up on Homosexuality

Rebecca Foerg-Spittel — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:15:17 EDT

UCLA students involved in CALPIRG’s Wave of Change Spring Break Tour will be cleaning up the California Coastline next week. [Daily Bruin]
Slam poet Carlos Andres Gomez kicked off Latino History Month at Brown University Monday night, sharing poems about identity and his days as an inner-city public school teacher. [Brown Daily Herald]
The American Graduation Initiative seems to be dropped from the Student Aid Bill being folded into health care reform. Community colleges are disappointed, but hopeful that the developments and attention of the last year could still lead to improvement. [Inside Higher Ed]
In the wake of controversy over a homophobic comic at Notre Dame, faculty members gave a presentation on homosexuality from different academic perspectives last night. [The Observer]
After a spate of suicides at Cornell, the university is partnering with Cornell Minds Matter, a student-run group dedicated to the mental health of students, in order to focus on student healing and outreach. [Cornell Daily Sun]

Fox, Cameron to Campaign for 'Avatar" Release on Earth Day

Andrew Bluebond — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:11:11 EDT

After a month of rumors and speculation, Fox has confirmed that Avatar will be released to DVD and Blu-ray on Earth Day, April 22. This version of film (the first of three), will include no special features and will be formatted for 2-D viewing, which is disappointing because the movie held up for over four years while researchers developed the 3-D technology that became the hallmark of the film.

The decision to release on Earth Day was deliberate. Movies are usually released on Tuesdays, but Earth Day is a Thursday this year. Moreover, Director James Cameron has been more than frank about the not so subtle environmentalist message of the movie and his views on climate change:

“I'm not trying to make people feel guilty... I just want them to internalize a sense of respect and a sense of taking responsibility for the stewardship of the earth, and I think this film can do that by creating an emotional reaction.”

The Plaza: Immigrants Marching For Their Children, To Keep Families Together

Erin Rosa — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:46:48 EDT

CampusProgress is proud to present The Plaza, a blog that brings news from Spanish-language media outlets to an English-speaking audience.

Today the daily Hoy Nueva York interviews two families who are planning to participate in the March for America on Washington this Sunday, as part of a personal struggle support immigration reform and to keep their families from being torn apart.

As map, from Reform Immigration For America's website, shows who is traveling to Washington DC for the massive "March For America" mobilization taking place Mar. 21.

In The March For Their Children – Hoy Nueva York
By Cristina Loboguerrero
WEST PATERSON, N. J. — Evelyn and José Villalobos will be parents within 7 months, and they are deciding to participate in the pro-immigration reform march on March 21 in Washington D.C. because they want to fight for a change that will allow them to keep their family together.
Evelyn, a 23-year-old Salvadoran who has lived in the United States for 16 years, is now an American citizen. That’s contrary to her spouse, José, who is under a Temporary Protected Status, and can’t legally stay in the country if immigration reform is not approved.
“Now I’m going to have a child, and it’s hard to know that some day they can deport me back to El Salvador and I won’t be able to return and see my baby,” said the 29-year-old, who arrived in New Jersey a decade ago.
“We know that unity is strength,” noted Evelyn. “We are going to wear white and carry an American flag.”
“We want to tell politicians that we exist,” added the young woman, who works in a nursing home.
At 6 am on March 21, the couple will leave Union City and travel a route spanning approximately 226 miles in one of more than 50 buses that will carry hundreds of participants to the so-called March For America.
Twenty miles away from the Villalobos, in Morristown, also located in New Jersey, the Castros, an Ecuadorian family with three small children, have also enthusiastically enlisted to participate in the march.
On immigration reform, Laura [Castro], a 33-year-old who works cleaning houses, states: “It’s the only way to be certain that in the future I won’t be alone, and my children will not be left without a father."
Sergio [Castro], her husband of five years, was arrested by immigration agents at the end of last year, and now he is in danger of facing a deportation order.
Laura came to live in Morristown 15 years ago and has already become a citizen, but she hasn’t been able to submit a petition for her husband.
“The only option that we have now is reform,” she reiterates. “Every member of my family, 7 total, will be going to the march, because we understand that our voices should be heard.”
The bus that will take the Castro family to Washington will leave from the headquarters of an organization called Viento del Espíritu in Morristown, where they will depart with other vehicles that will be providing transportation for 250 people.
A study published by the Pew Hispanic Center last year estimates that New Jersey has the fifth largest undocumented immigrant population, after California, Texas, Florida, and New York. It’s calculated that the state has a undocumented population of half a million.

Tips? Know a good newspaper to read en español? Tell me about it on Twitter.

MTV: CNN Wrong, No Ban on Lady Gaga's 'Telephone'

Andrew Bluebond — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:37:43 EDT

CNN’s crack news team has done it again. It has brought you the most up to the minute news about today’s most important stories, including MTV’s decision to “ban” Lady GaGa and Beyoncé’s 10-minute long video for “Telephone.” The problem? MTV never banned the video, and CNN has yet to remove the segment from its website or issue a correction.

The CNN clip started a chain of misinformation spreading to Mediaite and Jezebel, but it didn’t take long for a few people stop and think, “Wait, I already saw that video on MTV.” Mediaite issued a correction yesterday, and MTV offered an official refutation this morning. "MTV did not ban Lady Gaga and Beyoncé's 'Telephone' video — in fact, we premiered it on Friday, March 12, on-air and online at MTV.com, two days before this story was falsely reported," said MTV Executive Vice President of Music and Talent Amy Doyle.

A Quick Note on the Census

Emily Rutherford — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:51:20 EDT

I'll be writing in more reported detail about the Census and how it impacts young people before too long, but for now I wanted to briefly offer some of my own thoughts.

I am so excited about the 2010 Census, which is going to be hitting the mailbox of every single person in America in the next couple weeks. The Census is critically important: it only happens once every ten years, and it documents what America looks like in that decade. It allocates funding to the communities which need it most, it determines Congressional representation, and it's a repository of democratic data. It tells us that our country is racially and ethnically and economically diverse. And for many undergraduate and graduate students, and other young adults, it's our first Census! Those of us who spend most of the year away from our permanent addresses are counted as separate households and must file our Census forms individually—even if we're considered our parents' dependents in the eyes of the IRS and other agencies. So get ready!

Another reason to get excited about the 2010 Census is that this is the first Census in which LGBT couples in same-sex relationships will be counted. Box Turtle Bulletin has just posted a very clear and comprehensive FAQ about how members of the LGBT community should confront the Census; the most exciting and salient point is that married same-sex couples can indicate that they are married, regardless of the jurisdiction in which they were married and regardless of whether same-sex marriage is legal in the state in which they reside. If you're living with but not married to your partner, you can indicate that too, which I think is wonderful. The 2010 Census is based entirely on self-identification, and it's not going to unmarry you the way that the IRS does. This is very good news indeed, and part of why the Census is so, so important this time around: unlike most other aspects of the federal bureaucracy, the Census will hopefully provide an accurate count of how many LGBT Americans are in same-sex marriages, civil unions/domestic partnerships, or committed relationships, which is obviously very relevant data in the fight for marriage equality and other forms of legal recognition. This is information we really want the government to have if we want to stop being second-class citizens in the eyes of the state.

What's less good news is that there are still only two boxes on the "sex" line. Box Turtle Bulletin reports that "Transgender respondents should select the sex with which they identify," I presume regardless of whether that's the sex on your legal documents—but that still leaves out plenty of people who identify as neither male nor female, which is frustrating and problematic and won't provide an accurate count of anything. I hope that by the 2020 Census, the bureaucracy will be well-educated enough to allow individuals to self-identify on sex/gender the way that we can on other parts of the form.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is running a campaign called Queer the Census, which is pushing for the recognition of queer people in the Census. The Task Force is distributing stickers for people to put on their Census envelopes with the following text:

Attn: U.S. Census Bureau
It's Time To Count Everyone!

Are you (check all that apply):
_ Lesbian
_ Gay
_ Bisexual
_ Transgender
_ A Straight Ally

Everyone deserves to be counted. It's time to QueertheCensus.org

Now, some of my Princeton colleagues are participating in the campaign, and I support their efforts. But I nevertheless have very mixed feelings about this language, and about the idea in general. In the first place, many queer people do not identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, and only including this set of boxes (no fill-in, unlike the Census's own race question) does not allow people to self-identify. This is not in the spirit of the Census. In the second place, if the aim is to encourage a count of queer Americans, why is there a "straight ally" box? I love straight allies. Some of my best friends are straight allies. And I very strongly believe that queer activists need not alienate their straight allies, who may be some of the most active and influential members of their movement. But the option's presence on this list is confusing, and makes me wonder what the Task Force is actually trying to do. Are they advocating the accurate collection of data, which is the purpose of the Census? Or are they advocating a more general statement of support for queer Americans? If so, perhaps that statement of support would be more effective somewhere else.

This leads me to my biggest question: is the Census the right place for "we're here, we're queer"? It's a sentiment that has become one of the guiding principles of my life, whether advocating for activist causes or working to write the narratives of queer people's and queer cultures' contributions to our common history. But if there's anything I'm learning in working towards writing those narratives, it's that identity is fluid and mutable and hard to classify. I think we could come up with a more accurate, fairer, and more inclusive sex/gender question on the Census. But could we ever design language that accurately records what sorts of people a person is sexually attracted to? And would we want to do that? Is it really in accordance with the aims of queer activism to classify and pigeonhole American sexualities? Is whom you sleep with a data point that belongs on a government form? Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe sexual orientation is a demographic more analogous to race—that it's something we would want to know about our country, that when people self-identify, it can produce accurate data, and that it's possible to put enough options down on the form that we can gain a close-to-accurate understanding of the demographic composition of this country. But to me, "we're here, we're queer" is not about demographics, it's about political and cultural identity—something that's hard to sum up in volumes upon volumes of academic literature, much less in a single question on a government form, and something which a significant number of LGBT people don't even believe exists.

I think that if we are going to record sex in the Census, we need to count trans people accurately. I think that if we are going to record marital status in the Census, we need to count same-sex couples, married or unmarried, accurately. But no one has yet made a good case to me why I should make my sexual identity (which is as political and cultural as it is personal, and which is to me so much more fluid and incomprehensible and unclassifiable than my race and ethnicity, my marital status, or my biological sex) fit easily into a box on a form. No one has made a good case to me why the government needs to know whom I want to sleep with. Yes, I know that they need to know we exist if we expect them to stop discriminating against us, and I certainly invite you all to explain why a sexual orientation question on the Census is a better idea than I think it is. But I can't help thinking that a question about sexual orientation like the one the Task Force proposes is going to lead to some pretty damn inaccurate data.

(cross-posted)

The Far-Right Flips Out: Immigrant Marchers Will ‘Wave Flags’ In ‘Whatever Language Is Known by Them!’

Erin Rosa — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:29:18 EDT

Anti-immigration group NumbersUSA, routinely quoted by mainstream media outlets, has finally lost it.

As if discussing the idea of turning women with Mexican heritage into “the new welfare queens” in the United States wasn’t enough, we now have Exhibit B, an E-mail sent to supporters last week disparaging the March For America, a pro-immigration reform rally that will take place in Washington on Mar. 21.

In a clear attempt to fill its coffers with money that will no doubt later be used to flood Congress with phone calls and faxes, the group’s vice president, Jim Robb, writes the following (bold formatting not added by me).

“We're Facing Pro-Amnesty Invasion March 21,” the title of the E-mail reads, in a ginormous 54-pixel font. “A week from Sunday, on March 21, our opponents say they will be busing as many as 100,000 pro-amnesty protestors to Washington, D.C., to march on the Capitol.”

“Did you read that carefully? 100,000 pro-amnesty protesters!” the mailing reads. “Remember the illegal alien marches of three years ago. American flags being burned. Angry speeches and ugly scenes. They are not asking for an amnesty, they are demanding one.”

Of course there’s no evidence for any of these claims. Although since calling Mexican-American women the “new welfare queens” isn’t considered to be a problem for NumbersUSA, I’d really hate to know what they mean by “angry speeches and ugly scenes.” But the E-mail continues.

“Frankly, this is the time to break the piggy bank and send us a gift. Today! Right now!” reads the message, which claims to need $75,770 to oppose the March. “They can turn out a giant crowd to wave flags and shout slogans in whatever language is known by them.”

Do they mean people like this guy, who was one of the millions across the nation who marched for immigration reform on May 1, 2006?

The horror! The horror!

It’s at this point that one wonders how many would give NumbersUSA money just to get the yammering messages to stop?

The Optimistic Argument for Health Care Compromise

Pema Levy — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:27:50 EDT

One problem with passing health care reform is not about bypassing Republican obstructionism, but getting liberal Democrats on board. To answer liberal hesitation, Kevin Drum at Mother Jones posted this optimistic portrait of health care reform over the weekend:

Look at virtually every other advanced economy in the world. They started off with small programs and grew them over time. Germany spent over a century getting to universal healthcare. France started after World War II and didn't finish until 1999. In Canada, national healthcare started in Saskatchewan in 1946, spread to the other provinces over the next couple of decades, and became Medicare in 1984. The trend here is pretty obvious: once people get a taste of universal healthcare, they like what they see and they don't stop until the job is finished...Take a look at social programs in the United States. Social Security provided meager benefits and only modest coverage when it was first passed. Over the course of the next 40 years it became a full-fleged universal pension plan. Medicare passed in 1965 with a limited payment structure and has been improved ever since...(Why do you think [Republicans are] resisting it so rabidly? They know perfectly well that entitlement programs practically never go away once they've been passed.) Then, down the road, future congresses will start to make changes... It won't happen overnight, but within 20 or 30 years the current bill will almost certainly turn into de facto national healthcare.

So here's the problem as I see it: Even if historically, this is a big achievement that will open the door to universal care in the future, politically, a lot of people feel let down. Progressives went from advocating for single-payer to a public option, to hoping inadequate subsidies for mandated health care won't bankrupt them. Polling shows that if those oppose health care reform because it doesn't go far enough are counted as pro-health care reform, a clear majority of almost 60 percent want reform (enough to break a filibuster). I get emails every day from liberal groups trying to keep the public option alive.

This is partly a problem with political messaging. Politicians don't get elected by promising mediocre reform and a bill weakened with compromise. But that's the reality. Similarly, the grassroots and people outside of government get really excited about reform before a bill is hashed out, and in doing so set high expectations that aren't met. But given the lessons of history that Drum optimistically uses to defend the bill, health care reform should have more backers.

How do we minimize this letdown? How do we get everyone thinking like Kevin Drum? First, Democrats numbers will go up after the bill passes. That's what triggered Republicans' last ditch attempt at reverse psychology. But Democrats will help their cause by amend the Senate bill, reminding liberals that progressive change can come in one big package, followed by a few little ones. Earn back liberal distrust. Maybe Drum has a better idea, but the rest may be left to history.

Gallery of Lesbian Couples at Prom

Kay — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:47:44 EDT

Via Miriam at Feministing, Autostraddle is gathering photos of lesbian couples who go to prom. The photo below comes from a lesbian couple that went to prom in 2008 in Ontario.

You can view more adorable photos (and submit your own) here.

Campus Informer: Hip-Hop Blog at Brown University Makes Waves, Mike Huckabee Complains at NYU

Rebecca Foerg-Spittel — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:23:41 EDT

Former Poet Laureate, Billy Collins, read his poetry and discussed writing for a packed audience at Cornell Thursday night. [Cornell Daily Sun]
Two Brown University students have a popular blog that explores both commercial and underground hip-hop culture. [Brown Daily Herald]
Former presidential candidate and Fox news host Mike Hucakabee spoke to the College Republicans about his disappointment in the media and his 2008 run for the presidency at NYU Wednesday. [Washington Square News]
The University of Texas held its first human rights fair Thursday afternoon. It brought together campus human rights groups for common goals. [Daily Texan]
After the popular traditional “Undie Run” at UCLA, where students race in their underwear, was cancelled last spring, students are organizing their own underground versions, and the administration is looking for a similar alternative.
[Daily Bruin]

School Makes Bad Move In Lesbian-Prom Case

Erin Rosa — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:06:54 EST

Since Campus Progress was one of the first media outlets to report on the case of Constance McMillen, a high school student in Mississippi who was banned from going to her senior prom because she dared to bring a same-sex date to the event, the case has garnered mountains of media attention—especially since the school recently decided to cancel the entire prom rather than risk being sued (and losing).

Here’s what I said on Mar. 2:

But the funny thing about this case, and all similar cases like it that inevitably get reported around prom season, is that it’s the school administrators who are always found to be in the wrong. You would think after numerous legal threats and subsequent cases won by LGBT students on this very issue, school officials would be more nuanced with their bigotry, but apparently in this Mississippi town they haven’t gotten the memo yet.
…
Your move, Itawamba Agricultural High. Your move.

So, knowing they couldn’t win in court by discriminating against the student and her partner, they cancled the entire prom as an act of retaliation.

But that hasn’t stopped them from being sued , and now various people from Louisiana and around the region have stepped up to offer students travel and lodging for a privately organized prom that will be LGBT friendly.

Kudos to Constance McMillen, who had the courage to not only stand up for herself, but also to stand up for every other student at the school who won’t be getting a prom because of old-school hate.

Progress in LGBT Health Care

Lisa V. Gillespie — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:16:25 EST

The organization Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays is offering a new guide designed to help healthcare providers offer more effective care to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender patients.
The guide, “Straight for Equality in Healthcare,” is a first step in acknowledging that patients can even be LGBTQ. The guide offers “case studies” where nurses and doctors express unease when suspicious that a patient may be LGBTQ. They don’t know how to ask, don’t want to assume and don’t know how that patients issues may different from a straight person.

Scenario: a young boy is in the coming out process and wants to know what he should be doing to be safe (teaching heterosexual safe sex in school is still a huge hurdle, my hunch is that it’ll be a while before LGBTQ sex is explored), but he doesn’t want to out himself to this doctor, who knows his family. It’s an uncomfortable situation. Unless the doctor has it in his/her head to ask, the boy probably isn’t going to bring it up. And will not know the implications of detrimental actions. He gets all his info from friends or does not get it at all.

It is a first step. The likelihood of LGBT people having appropriate messengers and/or messages is rare within traditional settings, given societal assumptions of heterosexuality and the fact that most health professionals are poorly informed about the health care risks of LGBT patients. A 1998 survey of all U.S. medical schools found an average of only 2.5 hours devoted to this topic in the 4-year program. Beyond communication, there is a lack of knowledge about LGBTQ health over all and how it might differ from heterosexual health. Should a lesbian use a dental dam (female condom)? Can a lesbian get an STD through sex? If a doctor does not know these questions, what is a patient to do?

Heterosexuality is still assumed in most medical settings. This guide is a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done to change the institution.

Campus Informer: Anti-Sweatshop Activists Evaluate Cornell Goods, Victory for Virginia LGBT Students

Rebecca Foerg-Spittel — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:45:35 EST

As dissent grows at Columbia University over issues like delaying gender-neutral housing, a student reflects upon what rights students actually have. [Columbia Daily Spectator]
In response to pressure from Cornell University’s chapter of Students Against Sweatshops, the university has created a permanent committee to investigate and make recommendations on fair work practices at companies that make Cornell goods. [Cornell Daily Sun]
A George Washington University couple became one of the first same-sex couples married in D.C. under the law on Tuesday. [GW Hatchet]
Students at Texas A&M are producing a radio show called Invisible Jungle that explores the secret world of microbes. [The Battalion]
After days of protests by students and faculty at Virginia universities, Gov. Robert McDonell (R) has issued a statement saying that colleges may, in fact, include banning discrimination on the basis of sexuality in their non-discrimination clauses, a reversal of the recent announcement by Virginia's Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II. [Inside Higher Ed]

Adam Smith: Down With The Cause?

Jake Blumgart — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:52:13 EST

You know him, you love him.

Well, you probably don't love him if you've ever bickered with a conservative friend about, well, anything. Those guys love to liberally sprinkle their conversations with Smith quotes and references. It doesn't matter if they are arguing for free trade, financial deregulation, or clubbing baby seals: they always manage to work him in somewhere.

Until now! I'm officially co-opting Adam Smith for my pro-soda tax argument. You may remember last year when the The idea of a soda tax was floated to help pay for healthcare—and then squashed by huge piles of industry money. But the idea itself is sound, and several states (California, New York) and cities (Philly) are considering soda taxes to help plug the ragged holes in their budgets. The argument is that soda isn't a food, but a luxury, and a ridiculously unhealthy luxury at that (akin to tobacco and booze). Therefore, when policy makers have to choose between cutting education or health programs for poor people and raising the tax on high-fructose corn syrup in a can, they can chose the latter.

Expect conservatives to raise their usual whinging chorus whenever any new tax is considered. But this time we can use the words of their hero against them.

Quoth the great capitalist sage of yore: "Sugar, rum, and tobacco are commodities which are nowhere necessities of life, which are become objects of universal consumption, which are therefore extremely proper subjects of taxation."

Boo-yah!

Slate.com Launches Daily Show-like Video Feature on Business News

Andrew Bluebond — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:25:22 EST

Slate.com’s debuted its newest feature this week, and it appears to be something like The Daily Show for business coverage. “The Bullet,” a daily video that takes a “fast, wry look at the biggest and funniest news stories of the day,” will be featured on The Big Money, the site’s business section and promises to inform and entertain at the same time.

The project is a joint venture with Starbucks, who is sponsoring the project. The editors want the project to be “creative, edgy, and fun” and they see Starbucks as “well-positioned to help [them] with those goals,” although it is not clear what Starbucks is bringing to the table other than cash and desire for advertising space all around the video. But hey, mention The Daily Show and Starbucks in your promotional materials and young people are bound to come clicking, right?

Citizens United and a "Third Way" for Corporate Campaign Financing

Pema Levy — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:03:59 EST

The Supreme Court's January 21, 2010 Citizens United decision was immediately decried for its tenuous legal doctrine and potential to undermine Democracy, but the possibility of corporate-sponsored elections is still up for debate. How big of an impact will Citizens United really have on elections? The LA Times has a piece out that examines one way the ruling could impact elections.

The Times profiles the recent politicking and growing influence of the Chamber of Commerce, the business association that has veered rightward in the last decade. This chart shows the increased spending of the Chamber in comparison to other corporations. Since a 2007 Supreme Court decision that ruled banning issue ads in the lead-up to an election unconstitutional, the Chamber has upped its political attack ads which endorse pro-business candidates. (SCOTUS is seriously on a roll). Now, however, organizations like the Chamber of Commerce - nonprofits which still handle vast sums of money - are in a great position to become the biggest financiers of political advertising.

Here's how it works: The Citizens United decision opened corporate coffers to political campaigns. However, the ruling left intact disclosure requirements from McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance law. Further, ads sponsored by campaigns would be forced to bear a disclaimer like the ones politicians are forced to tack on to their ads (e.g. This ad brought to you by Shell Oil). Despite these disclosure laws, the Times argues that the Supreme Court decision has gone a long way to shift the culture of political giving; corporations want to start giving, are being courted by politicians, and simply need to make sure that their political financing doesn't earn them bad publicity.