Today is the 40th Anniversary of the King assassination. Here is his last speech ("I just want to do God's will . . . .").
Friday, April 4, 2008
MLK R.I.P
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Bill Stuntz's Cancer
This is worth reading--and pondering: here. Bill Stuntz's faith is such a gift, not merely to him, but to us all.
"God Denied Tenure; Low TCEs Cited"
Story here. =-)
Culture and Academic Success
In the New Republic, Brink Lindsey explores why low-income Americans tend not to go to college. Based on his review of the relevant studies, it's more about culture than money:
A lack of money is the most common explanation for why lower-income children don't go to college, and it's the impetus for proposals, like those put forward by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, to increase tuition subsidies. But James Heckman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist from the University of Chicago, is convinced that additional subsidies would do little good. Heckman recognizes the strong correlation between family income and college matriculation, but he argues that income is just a proxy for more fundamental differences in family and environmental conditions — like parental education — that ultimately show up in test scores and scholastic achievement. In a 2001 study co-authored with Stephen Cameron from Columbia University, Heckman tested the attendance gap between blacks, whites, and Hispanics, controlling for academic ability using scores from the Armed Forces Qualification Test (afqt), and found that family income did not really matter when it came to getting kids into college. In fact, "at the same afqt level Blacks and Hispanics enter college at rates that are substantially higher than the White rate," regardless of how much money their families made. The problem was that relatively few blacks and Hispanics reached a sufficiently high afqt level in the first place. In other words, the main reason fewer African Americans and Hispanics go to college isn't that they can't afford it. It's that they lack the skills to do the work.
And here's where culture comes in:
To put it in a nutshell, the upper-middle-class kid grows up in an environment that constantly pushes him to develop the cognitive and motivational skills needed to be a good student; the low-income kid's environment, on the other hand, pushes in the opposite direction.
Child psychologists Betty Hart and Todd Risley have tested the effect of class on the differences in how parents interact with their young children. After observing several dozen families with toddlers over the course of a couple of years, they were able to document dramatic differences in the intensity and nature of the verbal stimulation the kids were getting: Professional parents directed an average of 487 "utterances" per hour toward their children, as compared to 301 for workingclass parents and only 176 for welfare parents. The quality of those utterances was also very different: Among professional parents, the ratio of encouraging to discouraging utterances was six to one; for working-class parents, the ratio slipped to two to one; and welfare parents made two discouraging utterances for every encouraging one. The consequences were predictable: By the time the children in the study were around three years old, the ones from professional families had average vocabularies of 1,116 words; the working-class ones averaged 749; the welfare kids, 525.
There is a lot more -- read the whole thing here.
Fetal Subtraction
William Saletan discusses new evidence that sex selection is occurring in the United States:
What's old is sex selection. What's new is the combination of ease, safety, and privacy with which you can now do it. This is a fundamental dynamic between technology and culture: Technology can coax cultures one way or the other by making it easier to do what you want to do, with less difficulty and without other people knowing about it.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Larmore on Taylor
Charles Larmore' has a review, in the latest New Republic, of Charles Taylor's "A Secular Age." Larmore finds the book "deeply disappointing". Larmore is, no doubt, smarter and more learned than I am, but I was not "disappoint[ed]" (even if I was exhausted) by Taylor's book at all. It is fascinating and provocative read.
Now, Larmore criticizes Taylor for writing a "book written by a Catholic for Catholics." But, A Secular Age is not such a book. (Though, even if it were, so what?). I'm not even sure what Larmore is getting at by labelling Taylor an "ardent" Catholic (I don't know anything about the "ardor" of Taylor's faith), but I'm pretty sure that (contrary to Larmore's suggestion) Taylor's attention -- which Larmore contrasts with Weber's approach -- to the connections between our world and that of medieval Christianity is not merely a function of this "ardor".
Larmore also points out some "slip-ups" in Taylor's book, but then proceeds to report, matter of factly -- but incorrectly -- that the "separation of church and state" "emerg[ed] in the seventeenth century after one hundred years of religious war in Europe."
Anyway . . . here is a link to a bunch of posts, over at the "Immanent Frame" blog, on Taylor's book. Check it out.
Another "torture memo"
In 2003, John Yoo, then of the Office of Legal Counsel, sent a memo to the Pentagon in which he asserted that federal laws prohibiting assault, maiming, and other crimes do not apply to military interrogators given the President's commander-in-chief authority. The memo was finally released yesterday. (HT: Lederman) Yoo told the Washington Post that his successors at the OLC have "ignored the Department's long tradition in defending President's authority in wartime," and that legal advice set forth in the memoranda that have subsequently been withdrawn was "near boilerplate."
I have not yet read the memo released yesterday, but I've written elsewhere about Yoo's previously released 2002 "torture memo," and it's quite a bit of a stretch, to say the least, to call it "boilerplate."
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
In Gratitude.... for C.U.A.'s Symposium
I want to echo Patrick's praise of the incredible conference organized by Bill Wagner's Center for Law, Philosophy and Culture at Catholic University last week. I am, frankly, still reeling from the experience of hearing, seeing, and learning from so many of the brilliant writers & theologians whose work I've been reading for years now, all addressing different aspects of one of MOJ's central questions -- IS there a "common morality", is there a language or mode of thought in which persons of different or no faiths can even argue about fundamental issues of morality?
CUA has generously posted streaming video of the entire conference in their electronic calendar. You can see the program for the conference here, and choose the date and time for whatever talk you'd like to watch.
Some of my personal highlights were (of course) Patrick Brennan's elegant and trenchant response to Kathryn Tanner's talk about socio-cultural practices that keep us open to moral insight; listening to and watching the interaction between Gilbert Meilaender and Stanley Hauerwas; Robert George's defense of a natural law theory of human rights; Jean Bethke Elshtain's exploration of the application of the just war theory under Christian theology's claim that the distinction between justice owed to those inside the "polis" differs from justice owed to those outside ought to be abolished; and the contrasts and commonalities in Michael Sandel's arguments about the morality of engineering children and Hadley Arkes' comparison of the intellectual move to define "personhood" to exclude slaves in the 18th century with the current application of the concept of personhood to fetuses and disabled infants.
I found the most fascinating thread running through so many of these talks to be the theme of the Conference's subtitle: "In Gratitude for What We Are Given." Thomas Hibbs' exploration of the connection between Aquinas' metaphysics of creation and his account of the virtue of gratitude laid out for me most clearly what I think is a very serious question about the project of the conference (and MOJ). Underlying the most robust notions of justice and equality is some element of gratitude -- some recognition that all we have is a GIFT, that we've done nothing to earn the most significant aspects of our particular situations in life -- the age or country or family into which we are born, our genders, our capacities, our races, etc. But, (paraphrasing Hibb's account of Aquinas, from my hastily-scribbled notes) in the absence of some understanding of the "giver", it is hard to talk about gift. My question is, if we don't share some common notion of that giver -- of God -- can we really share an understanding of our lives as gift? If not, what does that mean for some of our equality-based theories of justice?
These papers will be an extraordinary resource, but if you have some time, do yourself a HUGE favor and make some time to watch some of those talks. This was really an incredible conference.
The Pope Should Be Pleased
Before being elected pope, Joseph Card. Ratzinger invited three Catholic Universities in the United States to convene conferences to study the question of the possibility of a common morality in this global age, and last weekend -- or, rather, from l;ast Thursday through Sunday -- The Catholic University of America rose to the challenge. CUA, acting through its new Center for Law, Philosophy and Culture, which is under the direction of our friend William Wagner, hosted a standard-setting conference on the theme "A Common Morality for the Global Age: In Gratitude for What We Are Given." The principal papers will be published in the Center's Journal of Law, Philosophy and Culture. We are all in the debt not only of Bill Wagner but also of CUA President Fr. David O'Connell and CUA Law Dean Veryl Miles for warm hospitality and both scholarly and ecclesial vision. To name the list of heavy-hitters is only a beginning: Stanley Hauerwas, Sir John Polkinghorne, Kenneth Schmitz, Nicholas Boyle, Michael Sandel, Jean Porter,Gilbert Meileander, Kathryn Tanner, Thomas Hibbs, Robert George, Paul Weithman, Hadley Arkes, Francis Oakley, Richard Helmholz, Kenneth Pennington, Jean Elshtain, William Schweiker, Brian Tierney, David Hollenbach SJ, Kevin Hart, Robert Wilken, Mahmoud Ayoub, Rabbi Barry Freundel, Robert Burt, and many others. It was, as Lisa Schiltz said to me in conversation during a break on Saturday, the feel of the event -- the way in which the conference theme of "gratitude for what we are given" animated and disciplined the hard discussion of pluralism, terrorism, disagreement, "rights," etc. There was a palpable sense throughout the conference that it has become exigent for Christians to come together with others to give witness to the reality of moral norms that should guide and protect us all. I found particularly insightful the papers by Jean Porter and Frank Oakely; Porter spoke to the theological basis of natural law and the need for Christians to witness by sharing natural law norms even with those who cannot affirm the theological premises, and Oakley mapped out the voluntarist and rationalist strains in the natural law tradition from Plato to 18th century.
There's much more to say about this, but I'll end for now by congratulating CUA on a most successful, and hope-generating, gathering. It's apt that Pope Benedict will visit CUA only weeks after the university hosted the conversation he inspired.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Garvey on "Institutional Pluralism"
In his address at the January 2008 Annual Meeting of the AALS, the new AALS President, Dean John Garvey (Boston College) discussed "institutional pluralism." Here is a bit from a Boston College Law School-affiliated site:
In a speech in January at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Association of Law Schools (AALS) in New York Dean of Boston College Law School and AALS President John Garvey talked about shifting the axis of the legal academy’s discussion over diversity. Instead of focusing on diversity within law schools, Garvey talked about cultivating the differences among them. . . .
. . . “Its not clear that Mill’s argument entails protection for dissent at every level,” Garvey said, adding that “a distinctive institutional culture is not inconsistent with individual freedom of inquiry.”
“Collaboration is not control,” he stressed.
In conclusion, Garvey acknowledged the “uncertainty” in his voice about his suggestions. Still, he said that he believed that thinking more about institutional pluralism would be healthy, both for students and for the intellectual life of the academy.
Garvey concluded, “Schools don’t need to compete on the same track to succeed.”
I have not been able to find a link to the full address, but it is reprinted in the March 2008 issue of "aals news." In the full address, Garvey spends a good bit of time discussing the distinctive mission of Catholic and other religiously affiliated law schools.