In a couple of my classes here at Marquette, I’ve heard ridiculous accusations of racism. I’ve been told that anyone who does not support affirmative action is a racist. I’ve been told that the criminal justice system in America is racist because a greater percentage of blacks are in prison than whites. Many times though, calling someone a racist is simply a liberal way of “refuting” a solid argument by a conservative. For those of you who are not juniors or seniors, you may not know about one of the biggest race and social justice issues in Milwaukee: school choice. I want to open your eyes to the fact that it’s possible that Democrat Gov. Jim Doyle may be a racist.

Beginning in the fall of 1990, the Wisconsin State Legislature passed a modest form of school choice that accepted 1.5 percent of the students in Milwaukee into the program. School Choice is when the government gives families a credit that can be used to place their kids at any school in the area. This way, parents could decide that a child who would normally be placed in a bad school could take the money that would have been spent on him or her at that school and use it at a different school of their choice. This program is good because it makes schools compete with each other for students, raising the overall quality of education.

In the late 1990s, Wisconsin expanded the program, allowing for 15% of Milwaukee Public School students from low-income families to participate. In 2005, due to the program’s popularity, the need existed to “lift the cap” on the number of students allowed to participate. The Legislature passed a bill that would’ve done just that – all it needed was the Governor’s signature.

It would seem like a no-brainer; Gov. Doyle’s re-election relied heavily on the votes of poor blacks from inner city Milwaukee. So, when it came to increasing school choice, you should be thinking of course he’d “lift the cap”- something polls showed 80 percent of inner city blacks desired. But Doyle didn’t- he vetoed the bill that would’ve allowed for poor blacks to send their children to richer public or private schools.

At this point, you should be asking yourself why Doyle would do something so heartless. As a liberal Democrat, it would make sense to sign the bill since they claim to be the champions of the poor and disenfranchised. But it came down to money. Of course Doyle believes school choice is good for the poor. But, one of his biggest campaign donors is the Wisconsin Education Association Council (the Teachers’ Union), a group adamantly against the choice program. You see, WEAC realizes that by bringing choice into education, they’d be held accountable for actually providing a decent education – something they don’t want. So instead of embracing competition, they decided to buy a politician who would veto the bill.

I don’t know what’s inside of Gov. Doyle’s heart. Maybe he’s not racist, but then he’s surely guilty of pandering to the demands of WEAC in order to gain their monetary support at the cost of blacks. You see, he takes the black vote for granted, and once in office ignores a big issue for most inner city blacks. So I ask you, is Gov. Doyle a racist? A greedy politician? Or can only a conservative be a racist?

Marquette prides itself on being all about social justice and welfare. Prove it. Many liberals say the “education gap” is the biggest problem in the United States. School choice should be the number one social justice issue at Marquette. Or can only a liberal idea be that progressive?

Popularity: 8% [?]

Paramount Pictures is causing an uproar within the online community. The controversy stems from the GI Joe movie that is slated to start production in 2008. Unfortunately the “Real American Hero” is no longer American at all. GI Joe will stand for Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity, and it will be a co-ed group that answers to the UN and is based in Brussels. The enemy of GI Joe will be a “doublecrossing Scottish arms dealer” according to Paramount.

The reason Paramount gave for this change is that it is too hard to market a film about the U.S. military during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Never mind that the original concept of the GI Joe was the American serviceman who fights for freedom, sacrificing his life for others to live a better life. These days though, that freedom is infringed upon by the overly politically correct and overly greedy climate that dominates our current culture. Because the movie would not market as well in other countries, patriotism is sacrificed; pride in one’s country doesn’t hold a candle to the power of the dollar.

Political correctness and anti- Americanism are going too far. Why is it no longer OK for the U.S. military to be portrayed as the heroes they truly are, but it is perfectly fine to make the villain Scottish? Is offending the Scots allowed? GI Joe’s enemy’s origin used to be pretty ambiguous and now the enemy is being labeled as belonging to one specific group. And what about all the real soldiers who were honored by having one of these toys modeled after them? Our world should concentrate less on offending people and more on treating everyone equally; the only way to eliminate hate and prejudice is to eliminate taboos and to judge the individual not the group.

About now you are probably asking yourself this exact question: “What does this really have to do with me?” The answer is that communities like Marquette are the places where change must start. Marquette students need to be part of the solution by not perpetuating the status quo.

Rather than labeling people and groups and worrying about offending people, we need to learn to see individuals for who they are. We also need to stop the anti-American sentiment that is plaguing our country. It is far too often I hear people who claim to hate being American, and that is a terrible thing. There is pressure to be against our own country coming from within. The youth of this nation needs to return to patriotism and feeling good about our country. That means changing popular culture, which will bend to the will of the people, and supporting politicians who care about our American identity and making our government something to be proud of. So there you have it fellow students, this all boils down to changing our attitudes.

Popularity: 6% [?]

Every year, the Office of Student Development sponsors a Leadership Summit that brings Marquette students together to discuss a pressing issue or theme. I have attended several in the past and found them a mixture of generating productive ideas and kumbaya handholding.

This year’s theme is built around “civic engagement and how leadership makes a difference in modern day issues of civil rights, social justice, and equality.” Breakout sessions will focus on race relations, housing, education and poverty. That’s all fine, good and frankly to be expected at Marquette, but the list is incomplete. Where is building a Culture of Life where every child is welcomed in life and protected in law? Where is fighting for marriage and families against an onslaught of hostile societal forces?

Often times we hear liberal Catholics, good, well-meaning, faithful people, who say that we must represent “the whole of Catholic Social Teaching.”

Liberal Catholics level this phrase against conservative Catholics, both lay leaders and bishops, who they accuse of focusing so substantially on fighting abortion and same-sex marriage that they ignore issues like poverty and access to health care. Conservative Catholics respond, rightly I think, that certain policy issues are more morally pressing than others, and certain policy questions are less open to prudential judgment than others (i.e. faithful Catholics can disagree about whether the Iraq War met just war criteria; they cannot disagree about whether abortion is moral).

It is also fair to argue, though, that liberal Catholics “ignore the whole of Catholic Social Teaching” when they get to set the agenda. This conference is a perfect example of that reality: contending for the sanctity of life and for one man-one woman marriage are absent from the program, which focuses instead on big-government solutions to other social issues.

Several years ago, the United States Jesuit Conference promulgated “Standing for the Unborn,” a social statement that tied the fight against abortion into the larger Jesuit message of contending for justice.

The Jesuit Provincial Fathers wrote, “[O]ur common calling is to stand in solidarity with the unborn, the ‘least of our brothers and sisters’ (Matthew 25:40), through prayer and political activism.” A summit on civic engagement should take that calling seriously.

In response to my column last week, a helpful staff member of the Haggerty Art Museum points out that the Museum will be sponsoring an exhibition of photographs by awardwinning photojournalist Reverend Don Doll, S.J., incumbent of the Wade Chair next semester. The exhibition, “The Grandeur of God,” will feature images from Fr. Doll’s missions around the world. I encourage you to visit the Haggerty between January 31 and April 13 to see this exhibit and to show your support for Catholic art on campus.

Popularity: 14% [?]

Over a year and a half after Hurricane Katrina leveled the Gulf Coast region from New Orleans to Alabama, the cleanup effort and rebuilding process remains as daunting as ever. Nearly 250 students from Marquette and over one million students from around the nation gave up their spring breaks to help with Hurricane Relief. I was one of those students.

It may seem strange that the Gulf would still need volunteers this long after the hurricanes, but the fact is the devastation is as prolific now as it ever was. Instead of flooded cities, there are abandoned cities. Once thriving neighborhoods are now rust-stained graveyards of crumbling brick.

The first question is, why after this long, has the region not recovered? The media has all but given up on covering the story, but it is a story that nonetheless needs to be told. It is a story of mismanaged government finances, a lack of will and creativity and an economic disaster.

The first part of the equation is government financing. When the hurricane first hit New Orleans, the federal government pledged over one hundred billion dollars to rebuild the city. Most of that was dribbled through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and was wasted on useless projects. Massive amounts of government aid have done and will do nothing, though. Private sector volunteering has done much more good than the billions spent by Congress, but there is no unified coordination overseeing that work.

Economies are built from the ground up through supply and demand based private enterprise. Government intervention only creates dead weight loss in the economy. Ideally, a city grows naturally by following that model. But that entire process was short circuited by the hurricane.

Take New Orleans as the example. After Katrina hit, 90 percent of the population left the city. Today, only half have returned. That number is far lower in poorer neighborhoods. Developers aren’t rebuilding because there is no demand for new houses. And people are not coming back because there are no houses.

The houses that still exist in certain areas of the city are unlivable. Even if someone wanted to return to their own home, there is nothing left. The problem is that the population residing in “temporary housing” in Houston or in other shelter cities, still have to pay property tax and even mortgages on homes that may or may not be still standing.

A poignant moment for me came during a tour of New Orleans. We stopped at a corner with four houses. One of them was destroyed. The other was gutted, but no one had returned to fix it. Another was demolished. The fourth had a FEMA trailer sitting in front of it, the owner of the house trying to rebuild his life.

The picture highlights the lack of planning put forth by the city. New Orleans cannot survive if only one in four houses is rebuilt. It’s just not feasible, restoring all the electricity and water services

for such small density residential areas.

What the city should do is take extreme measures and bomb abandoned neighborhoods. Invoke eminent domain, pay the former residents fair market value by taking out federally subsidized loans and demolish miles and miles of New Orleans. Reduce the destroyed areas to flat land and start fresh. Make it a fireworks show even. Give it a catchy name like “New Orleans: Phoenix from the flood.” It’s a

developers dream come true.

This plan would free former residents from the burden of property taxes and mortgages. It puts choice back in the hands of the people, and allows for brand new low and medium density residential

neighborhoods. It would also create jobs.

Is this plan absurd? Of course. Will it ever happen? Of course not. It’s too politically incorrect and far too controversial. But it’s the kind of creative problem solving and solution finding not going on in the government. This is where you can help. Go on a mission trip this summer to the gulf coast with MARDI GRAS. Make a difference where the government has failed. This is your country too. Take responsibility for it.

Popularity: 6% [?]

Get out the vote!” Campaign managers sing the same tune every election cycle: phone banks, lit drops, mailings and more. Don’t forget the cranky and underpaid campaign staffers, temperamental members of the Press Corp, sleep-deprived volunteers and, of course, the never-ending supply of Papa John’s pizza. Continue Reading

Popularity: 6% [?]

On Aug. 28, philosophy teaching assistant Stuart Ditsler posted the following quote from acclaimed humor columnist and well-known Libertarian, Dave Barry, on the door of his Coughlin Hall office: “As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”Ditsler, who holds an undergraduate philosophy degree from Bellarmine University, said that he tacked Barry’s words to his door simply because he “agreed with the sentiment and just put it up.” The quote “was not,” in his opinion, “patently offensive.”

Upon returning to his office a week later, however, Ditsler noticed the quote had been removed from his office door. In its place was an email from the department chair, Dr. James South, explaining the posting’s absence. In the message, Dr. South explained that he had received, according to Ditsler, “multiple complaints from members of the department.” After consulting with colleagues, South decided the quote was inappropriate and asserted that office doors are not “free-speech zones.” South proceeded to tear down the quote.

Ditsler was stunned by the actions of those in the department, calling their decision to go to South before expressing their feelings to Ditsler himself “juvenile.”

“If I were to run to the department chair every time I’ve been offended,” said Ditsler, “I would always be in his office.”

He thought the Barry quote was nothing more than a humorous way of warning citizens against government expansion. “It was hyperbole and not, in any way,” added Ditsler, “meant to be offensive.” He pointed out that others on staff often post political cartoons or opinionated articles, but never illicit such negative reactions. Unsure of how to handle the situation, he contacted a friend who forwarded his story to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a nonprofit group that investigates restrictions of free speech, particularly in college settings. FIRE expressed great interest in the case and wrote a letter to Marquette’s administration. Officials did not respond promptly, and FIRE issued a press release that set off a firestorm of debate across the country.

Ditsler said he got into philosophy after reading several works by Ayn Rand, the famous twenteith century objectivist author and proponent of capitalism. Although he considers himself a Libertarian by label, he prefers using the term “capitalist” to describe his political philosophy.

After choosing Marquette’s graduate philosophy program almost solely on the basis of a university financial aid package, he expressed significant discontent toward the program. Even though he said he cannot speak for the university as a whole, he described the philosophy department as “intellectually boring” and suffering from “a symptom of academia everywhere being overtaken by political correctness.”

He also felt that “we have to be careful about everything we say in discussion,” and that some faculty members “feel we should be protected from unique or non-politically correct viewpoints, and I disagree with that.” Ditsler asserted that “the culture of academia is such that, regardless of a complaint’s merit, we must crack down on free speech.”

Many in opposition to the quote defended the actions of the philosophy department, pointing out that a private institution has every right to remove material that is inconsistent with its identity and mission. Additionally, Ditsler was quick to point out “it’s not fair to judge Marquette as a whole based on this one incident.” He also defended the “unfairly portrayed” actions of Dr. South. “I understand,” added Ditsler, “that he was in a difficult position and he consulted with others. He did what he felt was right.”

Marquette has since issued a statement regarding the controversy which Ditsler feels is “very dissatisfying,” but not surprising given “political correctness here is enforced with such a heavy hand.”

Popularity: 15% [?]

On Nov. 9 and 10, Marquette will host two lecture events presented by the 2006-2007 Phi Beta Kappa Visiting Scholar Dr. Margaret Levi. The Marquette Chapter of Phi Beta Kappa: Zeta of Wisconsin, the Political Science Department and the College of Arts and Sciences Student Council are sponsoring these events.Levi will speak about two different topics. On Nov. 9, the topic is “Transforming Self-Interest and Developing Pro-Social Preferences,” and the lecture is open to the public. The next day, Levi will be talking about “Global Justice Campaigns,” an event open to only the Marquette community.

Levi is a highly decorated political science scholar who is currently the Jere L. Bacharach Professor of International Studies and the Director of the Comparative Historical Analysis of Organization and States at the University of Washington, Seattle. She has also authored a number of books including Consent, Dissent and Patriotism and Of Rule and Revenue. She served as the President of the American Political Science Association in 2004-2005.

“Dr. Levi is a role model who embodies what many students would like to achieve,” said Dr. Steven Millen Taylor, President of the Zeta Chapter and Associate Professor of French.

Levi also holds several community commitments. According to the University of Washington Web site, she has served on the Jobs for Justice Workers’ Rights Board and was a member of the first coordinating committee of Scholars, Artists and Writers for Social Justice. In an email interview, Levi has studied and written about a number of social justice issues that interests her, and in which she has been involved. This includes AFL-CIO protests at the 1999 WTO Ministerial in Seattle and fair trade coffee and living wage campaigns.

“Occasionally my involvements directly influence my research. They also affect the way I teach the Introduction to Labor Studies,” said Levi. “I address these campaigns and encourage students to do research on them or to do Service Learning with them or labor unions.”

She said she encourages students to do this also through Service Learning and has created a class to learn how to do campaign-oriented research. For that, she won the Public Service Teaching Award at the University of Washington.

Taylor stressed that, although Levi is a political science scholar, her lecture topics are relevant to students who are studying other disciplines as well. He said that her work and community involvement relate to the values and mission of the Marquette community. The Marquette Chapter of Phi Beta Kappa sponsors such events regularly and brings in scholars from various areas, including English, Classical Languages and the hard sciences.

“We have done this on a regular basis since we were given our charter,” Taylor said. “As faculty and administrators, we feel that visiting scholars are important. They show what Phi Beta Kappa stands for. This is why we invest time, effort and money to bring them to Marquette.”

The primary sponsor of these lecture events, Phi Beta Kappa, is the nation’s oldest and most prestigious academic honors society. Only ten percent of the country’s collegiate institutions have Phi Beta Kappa, and only ten percent of arts and sciences graduates of these “distinguished” institutions are invited to join. Some famous Phi Beta Kappa members include NFL quarterback Peyton Manning, author Michael Crichton and founder of Amazon.com Jeff Bezos.

All Phi Beta Kappa members have a wide array of backgrounds, interests and achievements. For Levi, she said her experiences with these groups influenced her research, teaching and opinions.

“I feel that I have an obligation to bring a critical eye to the social movement organizations and causes that concern me,” Levi said. “I see my role as raising hard questions about the effectiveness or organizations and the extent to which they are accountable to rank and file.”

Members of the Marquette community, from faculty to administrators to students, are always very excited to host scholars like Levi.

“We’re very much looking forward to hosting Dr. Levi next week and encourage the Marquette community to attend her public lecture on November 9,” said Dr. Stephani Richards Wilson, Phi Beta Kappa member and Assistant Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. “Dr. Levi is a distinguished scholar and we’re hoping her talk will generate a rich discussion and exchange of ideas.  Anyone interested in social justice, good government, or how individuals can make a difference will most likely benefit from her remarks.”

Popularity: 14% [?]

WASHINGTON D.C. – To the unassuming observer, the Capitol bears its usual mid-January ambiance. Congress is not in session, the ground is a mix between wet and cold and tourists make their way up and down the streets that are the foundations of our nation.
Continue Reading

Popularity: 10% [?]