Planet Harvard

It’s a truth universally acknowledged that, with the exception of, like, Bob Jones University, institutions of higher education are generally more progressive than the world outside their gates. But all the idealistic hippie students who came of age in the ’60s and later became idealistic hippie professors are now retiring. The younger professors replacing them still disproportionately vote Democratic, but they are “less ideologically polarized and more politically moderate”: 17.2% of the 50-64 age group define themselves as “liberal activists,” versus 1.3% of professors 35 and younger. Sara Goldrick-Rab, a 31-year-old professor, told the New York Times, “My generation is not so ideologically driven” and the article credits the rise of civil discourse over fractious infighting.

But is this civility or apathy? The Times points out that, “When [Professor] Michael Olneck was standing, arms linked with other protesters, singing ‘We Shall Not Be Moved’ in front of Columbia University’s library in 1968, Sara Goldrick-Rab had not yet been born.” The underground tunnels that connect many buildings on Columbia’s campus are still shut down to avoid another 1968-esque student takeover. But that seems less likely to happen than, say, scratching through your skull into your brain while you sleep (oh, wait). Last year, when a small group of students staged a hunger strike against a variety of perceived wrongs on the part of the university, they were almost universally mocked, even by people who sort of supported their cause. And the one professor who actively supported them just retired.

Sure, tens of… dozens of students protested Ahmadinejad’s visit (during which, remember, we learned that there are no gay people in Iran) and in support of Madonna Constantine, which proved, ahem, misguided in retrospect. In 2006, twenty Harvard Law students rallied against the administration’s “torture memo.” Oh, and in 2007, fifty Cornell students joined tens of thousands of normal people rallying against the Iraq war.

Maybe that fightin’ spirit is not lost after all! To the trenches, folks! Right after this “Top Chef” marathon.

The ’60s Begin to Fade as Liberal Professors Retire [New York Times]

by Nina Shield at July 04, 2008 03:22 PM

According to research by Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Prize-winning behavioral economist, quoted in an article in the Washington Post, "being wealthy is often a powerful predictor that people spend less time doing pleasurable things and more time doing compulsory things and feeling stressed."

People who make less than $20,000 a year, for instance, spent more than a third of their time in passive leisure, like kicking back and watching TV. By contrast, those making more than $100,000 a year (I would call them affluent, not wealthy), spent less than a fifth of their time in passive leisure.Source.

by Greg Mankiw (noreply@blogger.com) at July 04, 2008 09:14 AM

Last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine featured an interview with Columbia religion professor, Dalai Lama friend, and famous person spawner Robert Thurman. Thurman, who was the first American ordained as a Tibetan monk (and a Harvard man himself), is on university leave this year but normally teaches classes on Buddhism.

At first, the interview seems to be standard fare — thank you, New York Times, for hard-hitting journalism along the lines of:

As a Buddhist, how do you reconcile your pacifism with the roles your daughter Uma has played in films like Quentin Tarantino’s bloody “Kill Bill”?

But then something really fascinating and bizarre emerges. Follow the jump for an image that will sear itself into your brain.

What do you think about when you meditate? Usually, some form of trying to excavate any kind of negative thing cycling in the mind and turn it toward the positive. For example, when I am annoyed with Dick Cheney, I meditate on how Dick Cheney was my mother in a previous life and nursed me at his breast.

You mean you fantasize about being breast-fed by Dick Cheney? It’s a fantasy of releasing fear and developing affection. It’s a way of coming back to feeling grateful toward him and seeing his positive side, finding the mother in Dick Cheney.

Life is suffering indeed.

UPDATE: Looks like The Bwog got an intrepid reader to Photoshop a picture of Thurman suckling at Dick Cheney’s teat. If you would like to have nightmares forevermore, you can see it here. (Also, why have we never noticed the resemblance between Dick Cheney and Bill Gates?)

Robert Thurman in the Magazine of Record [The Bwog]
Uma Thurman [IMDb]
Questions for Robert Thurman: Seeing the Light [New York Times]

by Nina Shield at July 03, 2008 01:15 PM

A former ec 10 student alerts me to evidence that the stimulus package appears to be working:

An unforeseen and surprising beneficiary of the Economic Stimulus Plan, a plan that George Bush contends will "boost our economy and encourage job creation," has surfaced this week. An independent market-research firm, AIMRCo (Adult Internet Market Research Company), has discovered that many websites focused on adult or erotic material have experienced an upswing in sales in the recent weeks since checks have appeared in millions of Americans' mailboxes across the country.

According to Kirk Mishkin, Head Research Consultant for AIMRCo, "Many of the sites we surveyed have reported 20-30% growth in membership rates since mid-May when the checks were first sent out, and typically the summer is a slow period for this market."

by Greg Mankiw (noreply@blogger.com) at July 03, 2008 10:26 AM

In my idyllic suburban hometown of Wellesley, Massachusetts, the police shut down a brothel a few days ago. According to the Wellesley Townsman, one of those arrested for running the business was a man named William Eastwick.

The paper also notes that six months ago the Wellesley police shut down a similar operation nearby. That police action was based on a tip from the same William Eastwick. Oddly, when referring to the Eastwick tip, the town paper says "it is unclear why he did that."

His motive seems clear to me: Like any businessman, Mr Eastwick prefers to have fewer competitors. Some businessmen lobby Congress for trade restrictions. Others alert the police to the brothel down the block. And when using the power of the state to thwart competition, they can both pretend to be acting in the public interest.

by Greg Mankiw (noreply@blogger.com) at July 02, 2008 04:10 PM

“The true story of two best friends- geeky outsiders at a prestigious Ivy League University- who wanted nothing more than to get into one of the elite fraternities on campus, so they’d have an easier time getting laid.”

Thus poetically begins Ben Mezrich’s proposal about creating Facebook with Mark “I Just Want to Help” Zuckerberg as “dorky,” fencing-loving, Adidas shower shoes-wearing Harvard undergrads.

Gawker warns,

The book may not be the most rigorously factual account, as Mezrich’s Bringing Down The House… was debunked by the Boston Globe as “not a work of ‘nonfiction’ in any meaningful sense of the word.”

Rolling Stone’s recent profile of Zuckerberg is a bit more specific about his motivations. Facebook began as so many other brilliant ideas do, with drinking alone on a Tuesday night (ah, college). Recently dumped and feeling bitter, Zuckerberg wrote on his blog, “Jessica A— is a bitch.” (Does anyone know who Jessica A. is?) That night, he created Face Mash, a site for students to compare their classmates’ pictures with those of farm animals and rank them in terms of attractiveness. Charming!

Then he allegedly stole a bunch of code from another student networking site and launched Facebook while telling the creators he was still working on their programming. They wrote to Zuckerberg and Harvard President Larry Summers, claiming an ethics violation, and sued. Zuckerberg countersued.

Then Zuckerberg allegedly stole some stuff from Aaron Greenspan, another Harvard student with whom he had collaborated. Greenspan had started a website with a networking feature called TheFacebook a month before Zuckerberg launched Facebook. Way to be subtle there, Mark. Greenspan has since written in his “self-published autobiography” (awesome), “Mark was inarticulate and naive.”

Then Eduardo Saverin, the main source for Mezrich’s book, and Zuckerberg sued each other after a “mysterious falling out.”

Rolling Stone further confirms what we all feared — Zuckerberg’s ultimate goal is world domination: “‘I kind of want to be the new MTV,’ he declared.” Hm, MTV sort of sucks these days, Mark. But we take your point. Now Harvard is honoring the man with an Entrepreneurial Company of the Year Award. Hey, remember the halcyon days of yore when you could break up with someone without everyone getting a little broken heart on their minifeed, adding the element of humiliation to what had been simple, straightforward pain? We mourn for those days.

Tell-All Book: Zuckerberg Set Up Facebook To Get Laid [Gawker]
Who Founded Facebook? A New Claim Emerges [New York Times]
The Battle For Facebook [Rolling Stone]
SXSW: Mark Zuckerberg Keynote [Techipedia]

by Nina Shield at July 02, 2008 01:49 PM

Guerrero, one of Mexico’s most forgotten states, is finally getting a little bit of the attention it deserves. Guerrero is not Mexico’s poorest state, but this is largely due to the fact that Acapulco and a few other resort towns awash in cash skew the state’s average income upwards. Poor people living in rural Guerrero are as poor as the poorest Mexicans anywhere. Maternal mortality in Guerrero’s most neglected region, the hard-scrabble mountains that border Oaxaca, is four times the Mexican average. Dispersed populations often have to walk hours to receive education or health services.

Last year, the community of Mini Numa, in what has long been one of Mexico’s poorest municipalities (and Guerrero’s poorest), Metlatónoc, decided they had had enough. The municipality of Metlatónoc has never had a proper health clinic. The Fox administration made some advances on this front, donating a few trailers which have served as the health clinic for the last few years. Last year, when I visited the region, plans to build a US$100,000 clinic were finally under way.

However, people living in the small community of Mini Numa still have to walk as far as two hours to get services in the municipal capital. And they often find the clinic closed when they arrive. At least five preventable deaths occurred last year as a result of the combination of long distances and closed clinics. Arguing that the lack of a clinic in their community violates their right to health (and life), the community is making waves by filing a suit against the government, with the help of the widely recognized NGO Tlachinollan.

Guerrero’s poor are finally front page news in national newspapers, and the President has even been forced to respond by pledging to send doctors southward. But now what? The state of Guerrero argues that the community of Metlatónoc is too small to place a clinic there; the Secretary of Health only places clinics in communities of a certain size and distance from other clinics. Although this argument has tended to be dismissed, it is not without merit: there is no sense in building clinics in every tiny community or throwing up a new clinic every 5 feet. Doing so implies a huge resource investment and ambiguous payoffs.

The community of Mini Numa does not have a right to a health clinic. Nor does any Mexican. They do, however, have a right to decent health care. The question is how to provide it. It would be too bad if this case turns into a silly argument about whether Mini Numa deserves a health clinic. Mexico has many dispersed communities like Mini Numa. They cannot all have health clinics. A better solution to the problem of providing services to such communities would be to create a reliable, public, subsidized transport/ambulance system that could respond quickly to emergencies and transport families to the nearest clinic. This implies improved road and vehicle infrastructure. It is not cheap. But, unlike building a clinic in every backyard, it might be effective.

However, the rot, of which Mini Numa’s unfortunate deaths are a symptom, runs deeper. Even if families in Mini Numa could get to the clinic in Metlatónoc in a split second, there would often not be anyone there. This too happens all over rural Mexico. Why? Because Mexico has a faulty labor relations system and many doctors do not show up for work in poor rural communities. No one pays much attention to what these doctors do, and if anyone dares to question them, the union usually backs them up. Furthermore, health clinics in these areas often fall quickly into disrepair. Doctors don’t work to keep them up, and municipal presidents are busy buying off voters and investing in church bells. Mexico’s decentralized health system allows everyone to pass the buck when people die, as they have in Mini Numa, as a result of these failures.

The President can send a doctor. He can even promise to build a clinic in Mini Numa. These are band-aid solutions. Mexico, like many other countries, needs deep-rooted labor reforms, centralization of key health goals and responsibilities, major investments in infrastructure, and a creative set of regulations to deal with dispersed communities. Mini Numa’s brave attempt to use the courts to change Mexico is a golden opportunity. Let’s hope it isn’t squandered.

by Jason Lakin at July 02, 2008 01:56 AM

Recent graduates heading off to B-School take note: the smartest move right now is buying a car you can’t afford. America’s next top business executives have quickly learned that emptying your bank account earns you a much bigger financial aid package and basically scores you a new set of wheels. Now we know how the Enron guys got their start.

Well Harvard students may be clever enough to fudge some financial aid documents, but are they smart enough to BATTLE ZOMBIES?

That’s right, you spent four years developing that brain, and now someone (something?) else wants it for lunch.  There’s not too much information out there about producer Warren Zide’s “Harvard Zombie Massacre“, but something tells me the plot is not very difficult to figure out.

According to the Crimson’s interview with executive producer Ryan Lewis:

So, the world’s smartest college students have to battle the world’s smartest zombies…Usually you get serial killers and ghost stories and stuff with college kids. There hasn’t been a college zombie movie yet. It will have that great cheekiness, some great horror moments—it’s really a great blend.

After the jump: Zide’s battle with Harvard’s real monsters: the administration
Zide plans to film on campus, but the administration is not likely to grant his request since very few commercial films have ever been shot in the Yard. (Love Story, anyone?) But this guy produced the American Pie and Final Destination series, so I doubt anyone who thought those movies needed sequels is going to give up so easily.

I say this movie deserves to be filmed here solely on the basis of its awesomeness. Check out some pictures from Boston’s annual zombie walk here and here. If this is what dungeons and dragons nerds can pull together when they need sunlight once a year, imagine how cool it would be to see some big budget blood and guts all over campus as you walk across the Yard.

by Charleton Lamb at July 01, 2008 09:42 PM

I recently re-discovered Neil Young's Harvest for myself this week . . . (gchat conversation) SJimO: what is it w/ guys and wanting girls to make them a sandwich?? Me: its important Me: its a mommy quality Me: boys like to be babied. SJimO: so in gay relationships, do you take turns or one is the designated sandwich-maker? Me: . . . Me: the fag-hag makes it. Me: obviously. SJimO: right, of

by Kameron (noreply@blogger.com) at July 01, 2008 07:36 PM

• Columbia: 5000 students’ social security numbers were Google-able. Whoops.
• Dartmouth: Students realize that gas is expensive, drive less.
• Harvard: Stereotype confirmation alert! A quarter of Harvard students don’t have sex, and those with more sex partners have lower GPAs.
• Yale: “Ivy League Egg Donor Wanted.”
• Yale: Professor’s sexual abuse victim sues the university.

by Nina Shield at July 01, 2008 04:05 PM

The LA Times reports:

As Gas Prices Climb, So Do Scooter Sales

Scooters...are selling as fast as their little wheels can carry them from showroom floors. Sales have jumped 23.6 percent in the first quarter of 2008 compared with the same period in 2007.

Click here the the previous installment in this series.

by Greg Mankiw (noreply@blogger.com) at July 01, 2008 12:53 PM

by wannatakethisoutside (noreply@blogger.com) at July 01, 2008 08:59 AM

You know how the world is sort of going to pieces, what with expensive gas and rice, and related famines and genocides? As it so happens, even Manhattanites living the kind of charmed existence familiar to fans of Gossip Girl are not immune to tragedy. There’s a terrible affliction plaguing prep schools far and wide (from the Upper East Side to, um, the Upper West Side): “Harvard drought.” This year — for the first time ever — not a single student from the elite Dalton School was admitted to Harvard.

It’s no Darfur, but you wouldn’t know it by the way some of these parents are acting. They are unhappy indeed.

At Dalton’s graduation earlier this month, one mom was heard muttering, “I won’t send my grandchildren here, that’s for sure.”

Oh, snap.

A Dalton graduate told another sad tale:

My best friend had his heart set on Duke, but got rejected. He’s going to Johns Hopkins, but people going to their backup schools, like Wesleyan or Hopkins, are acting like it’s a fate worse than death.

The trash talking continues: “A lot of my friends who expected Ivies are ending up at Tulane and Vanderbilt instead.”

Even worse, some guidance counselors appear to be “lowballing” students, recommending that they apply to less prestigious schools to reduce the chance that some won’t be admitted anywhere. One upset parent said, “They encouraged one girl who later got into Brown to shoot for Syracuse University.” The indignity!

We’d be mad too if we paid $30,000 a year, plus $46,000 for “independent college admissions counseling” starting in seventh grade.

Wait, how much? Joke’s on them now that some Ivies are actively recruiting from public schools in the name of economic diversity. We posted the other day about Lukasz Zbylut, the son of Polish immigrants and graduate of Brooklyn’s New Utrecht High School, who was accepted by every Ivy to which he applied, and is going to Harvard (which only admitted 7.1% of applicants) in the fall. Congrats, Lukasz. Represent.

A ONE-MAN IVY LEAGUE [New York Post]
Private School Rejects [Page Six]

by Nina Shield at July 01, 2008 01:53 AM

Cass Sunstein and Justin Wolfers say we don't really know whether or not capital punishment deters crime.

Maybe so, but it does solve the problem of recidivism.

by Greg Mankiw (noreply@blogger.com) at June 30, 2008 12:41 PM

Larry says we are at a dangerous moment.

by Greg Mankiw (noreply@blogger.com) at June 30, 2008 10:54 AM

So you’re a few hundred grand in debt and fresh-faced in the big city — or, if you’re a Columbia grad, just happy to get out of Morningside Heights — with a B.A. in Comp Lit and, I don’t know, hopes and dreams. Even if your semesters reading Baudrillard don’t have any practical application, you figure that your degree must at least carry some weight, right? Right?

Erroneous, my friends.

Doree Shafrir’s Observer article, “Ivy League Slaves of New York,” is pretty self-explanatory by its subtitle: “America’s best and brightest are unpacking their gilded diplomas and getting to work as assistants in New York’s media dens, pinching themselves at their good fortune. Suckers!”

It appears that many graduates are coming to New York with visions of a swift ascent in a shiny media universe, but are quickly shot down. In fact, a certain brand of diploma might actually work against you:

Ms. Marcus explained that her former place of employment had a policy about not hiring anyone who had gone to an Ivy League school, because ‘they didn’t want people whom they could perceive as a threat.’ (The evidence bears this out somewhat: Ivy League grads do seem partial to cashing in via book deals; Lauren Weisberger, the author of The Devil Wears Prada, graduated from Cornell, and [Bridie] Clark is a Harvard alumna…)”

Well, if your Ivy League credentials are holding you back, you know our favorite fallback option: nepotism! Kidding(ish).

The boss-assistant relationship is truly a special brand of strange. As one former assistant describes it,

My first boss told me she loved me, which was incongruous with the way she treated me—I was both her best friend and slave.”

This is a subject particularly close to my heart, as I recently left an assistant position. The most frequent response I got when I mentioned my job was, “Oh, like in The Devil Wears Prada?” Carrie Bradshaw apparently has a label-whoring, romantic, BBF assistant in the Sex and the City movie, because people recently started saying, “Oh, like in Sex and the City!” instead.

Eh, maybe. Someday I’ll be ready to talk about it. Part of what makes these positions worthwhile is the sheer amount of material that those who push through get out of the experience, both for the self-satisfaction of martyrdom and the thought that perhaps I, too, will someday be lucky enough to publish “assistant lit.”

And praise Shiva for blogs like Save the Assistants, where allies in the trenches can commiserate.

Have you been an assistant? Share the pain and tell us your stories.

Black Women: Wise Best Friends To White Women Everywhere [Jezebel]
Ivy League Slaves of New York [Observer]

by Nina Shield at June 29, 2008 05:05 AM

Bob Shiller concludes that the recent fiscal stimulus is not enough:

The reality of the subprime situation, augmented by the energy crisis, at least suggests that we’d better get ready for another round of rebates. There is little talk of it now, but we should be putting in place another stimulus package like the current one, and stand ready for another after that, and another.

Sounds a bit like a permanent tax cut.

by Greg Mankiw (noreply@blogger.com) at June 29, 2008 05:11 AM

In an utterly ludicrous turn of events, Dunkin' Donuts has been forced to pull an advertisement it was running with Rachael Ray, a Euro-American (Sicilian-Cajun, whee!) celebrity female chef, because crazed Christianazis felt her neck scarf was too "Islamist".

Let me be utterly clear about this: Rachael Ray is a Christian white woman and a celebrity chef. She was wearing a black and white scarf with a fringe that resembles the kufiyyah, a typically North African and Near Eastern article of clothing whose name is related to the Arabic word for a napkin. This item of clothing is worn by Arabs, particularly men, everywhere, and in Palestine it was made famous because Yasser Arafat wore one on his head that was supposed to represent the Occupied Territories.

Let me take a page from Wikipedia to clarify:

The keffiyeh (Arabic: كوفية‎, kūfiyyah, plural كوفيات, kūfiyyāt) is also known as a shimagh or yashmagh (شماغ, šimāġ), a ghutrah (غترة, ġutrah), a ḥaṭṭah (حطّة) or a mashadah (مشدة) and is a traditional headdress of Arab men, made of a square of cloth, usually cotton, folded and wrapped in various styles around the head. It is commonly found in arid climate areas to provide protection from direct sun exposure, as well as for occasional use in protecting the mouth and eyes from blown dust and sand.

This item of clothing is worn by Westerners, especially military forces, in many areas: it is issued to British troops and is widely worn by US troops in Iraq as well.

Let's also be clear that there is an association made in the American mind with support for Palestine and the wearing of the kufiyyah, although honestly the degree to which this is known is unclear and has become very muddled since the US has been heavily involved in war in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last however-many-years the War on Error has been happening.

Let's conclude by examining the evidence: do we honestly believe that Dunkin' Donuts was attempting to slip some kind of dog whistle into their ad? Do we think that Rachael Ray and Dunkin' Donuts was secretly attempting to show their support for the Palestinians by sticking a paisley scarf around Rachael Ray's throat? Maybe they were trawling for that huge body of people who would wink slyly, in the know, and buy lots and lots of D&D coffee after seeing that ad - brown people and misguided Jewish youth, perhaps?

I roll my eyes. This is on par with Bush apologising for a US sniper in Iraq using the Qur'an for target practice when nobody even knows how many HUMAN BEINGS have died in Iraq. He is in charge of a military that is gangbanging Iraq like it is going out of style and he hasn't apologised for civilian deaths, an invasion based on pretext, or any of his other equally fucked-up notions.

Muslims all around are in agreement: the Qur'an is a revelation, not a book. Fuck that sniper, actual people die every day because of Bush's policies - Americans and non-Americans alike.

And we're kvetching about Rachael Ray wearing a goddamn scarf while she peddles a beverage that is, to misquote a great author, almost totally, but not entirely, unlike coffee.

by emily0 (noreply@blogger.com) at June 28, 2008 01:08 AM

I have long argued that the United States should welcome more skilled workers from other nations. A reader sends in an article reminding us that "skills" need to be broadly defined:

Around 1,000 additional tech workers may get visas to work in the United States next year, and they may have fashion models to thank. That's because foreign-born models and programmers will no longer have to duke it out for the same visa slots if a New York congressman gets his way.

Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., has introduced a bill in the House that would create a new, nonimmigrant classification reserved exclusively for the catwalkers. Currently, foreign models who want to work in the United States require H-1B visas, which are normally used by computer programmers and other high-tech workers.

Weiner wants Congress to amend current visa rules to allow 1,000 foreign models into the United States each year under their own immigrant classification.

By the way, I believe that Congressman Weiner is single.

by Greg Mankiw (noreply@blogger.com) at June 27, 2008 12:41 PM

George Will hits the nail on the head:

Two-thirds of doctoral candidates in science and engineering in U.S. universities are foreign-born. But only 140,000 employment-based green cards are available annually, and 1 million educated professionals are waiting -- often five or more years -- for cards. Congress could quickly add a zero to the number available, thereby boosting the U.S. economy....

Barack Obama and other Democrats are theatrically indignant about U.S. companies that locate operations outside the country. But one reason Microsoft opened a software development center in Vancouver is that Canadian immigration laws allow Microsoft to recruit skilled people it could not retain under U.S. immigration restrictions. Mr. Change We Can Believe In is not advocating the simple change -- that added zero -- and neither is Mr. Straight Talk.

by Greg Mankiw (noreply@blogger.com) at June 27, 2008 12:40 PM

A conversation, sparked by Bill Gates, with some big names contributing.

by Greg Mankiw (noreply@blogger.com) at June 27, 2008 07:56 AM

All the hoopla in recent months over fashion designers using too many women on the runway who were dangerously skinny and painfully white, and yet we all seem to have forgotten -- as is typical -- that many male models may also be a bit too pale and skinny for the public good. As if, you know, men don't have body or race image issues. Funny how that works. Examples from Milan (c/o the Times):

by Kameron (noreply@blogger.com) at June 27, 2008 04:13 AM

Whee! We're excited! You can watch the live webcast here (or just read my brilliant commentary below - keep refreshing the page). More about the hearing and witnesses here. This is historic, exciting, and we are here to keep you in the loop, even if you're secretly reading us at work. ;-)

1:45: This concludes your liveblog of the first-ever congressional hearing on trans rights in the workplace. I think it was generally awesome, and the witnesses did an amazing job. Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below! Now, I should really go eat some lunch. And maybe do some work.

1:42: As the hearing wraps up, Sabrina Taraboletti goes over to Mr. Lavy. He says that he hopes she finds a job soon. She says, "I do too. And on a personal note, I am a practicing Catholic -" And then the feed cuts out. I sure would like to have heard the end of that conversation.

1:39: Rep. Andrews is wrapping things up. He stresses "job ability and work ethic." He promises a vigorous debate about these issues, and how to "accommodate reasonable concern of employers in the workplace" and religion issues. But he doesn't think it's that complicated - if the person is the best for the job, they should get the job. He notes that "progress in this country is glacial" but encourages optimism, given progress made in terms of rights for women and people of color. He notes that when Rep. Payne was born, that he might serve in the House was unthinkable. He said that he had gay classmates who killed themselves. Things will change over time. Hearing is adjourned.

1:37: Ms. Miller is angry because someone suggested she didn't understand the link between discrimination against trans people and the discrimination against women! She knows about sexual harassment! But she also had mentors who were men! She went to a women's college!

1:30: Rep. Hare takes issue with Mr. Lavy. Excellent. He reminds Mr. Lavy about this guy from a long time ago who hung around with those people who no one wanted to associate themselves with. I think you know who that is. He also believes we can legislate "what is right, what is just and what is fair."

1:28: Diego says that part of it is to "consider us a partner" and work together across the country. Help "make it safe for us to be with you in communities." Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti mentions that the National Center for Transgender Rights, the Task Force and others are available to help out.

1:25: Rep. Payne wants to reassure everyone that there was no "conspiracy" to start the hearing late. There was voting that didn't get finished yesterday. Now he forgot what he wanted to ask. Laughter. Oh - how can we educate Americans?

1:23: Shannon Minter is annoyed by all these restroom questions. C'mon, let's listen to "medical protocol and common sense." Transgender men and women are men and women, and coworkers will quickly come to recognize that. This is a straightfoward issue. Ms. Miller says that maybe it would be a good idea to look at policies about bathrooms that already work. What a novel idea!

1:20: Rep. Payne is here! He is "opposed to all forms of discrimination."

1:18: Colonel Schroer says that this is a similar situation to gays in the military, where a very qualified pool of people are passed over. She notes that such discrimination is common, both in blatant and more "obtuse" forms. We need to send a message that being transgender is "not abnormal or abhorrent."

1:13: Rep. Linda Sanchez is NOT scared of litigation! She thinks people should be protected from on-the-job abuse and harassment. She asks Shannon Minter to elaborate. He notes that laws "make it perfectly clear to everyone...that we as a society condemn discrimination on these basis because they are completely unrelated to someone's abilities..." In the absence of such laws, we have "blatant, shocking" discrimination, like the type described on the panel today. Rep. Sanchez thanks Colonel Schroer for her service to the country and asks her what the country misses out on by denying her job opportunities.

1:07: Time for Rep. Kline. He notes that Mr. Andrews has really enjoyed trying to determine which is the best law school. He wants Ms. Miller to tell him about the distinction between "regarded as" and "perceived as." "Perceived" is "vague language" that can cause "a great deal of confusion" among "managers and human resources people" and of course, litigation. Litigation! How scary! We can't legislate people being nice to each other or their internal thoughts and processes. Um. What? I thought we were talking about not being fired for being trans.

1:03: What about white supremacists? Should they have the right to refuse to hire a person of color, if they held deeply held religious beliefs about white supremacy? Lavy says no. Hypocrisy! The Chairman wants to know why, if we do not allow religious beliefs to excuse racial discrimination, we should allow religious beliefs to excuse discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression. Mr. Lavy says the issue isn't that simple. It's about "deeply held religious beliefs." The "race issue" is something that has been determined already, apparently.

1:02: What about pacificists? Could they refuse to hire a Marine Corps veteran? The Chairman is getting a little out there with the hypotheticals. Levy says the pacifists should be able to refuse to hire the Marine Corps guy.

1:00: Apparently Mr. Lavy thinks that accommodating a transgender person is like "making an Orthodox Jew eat pork." The Chairman wants to know if an Orthodox Jew could refuse to employ a Catholic. Mr. Lavy says no. One point for Rep. Andrews.

12:59: The Chairman thanks all the witnesses. He also introduces a letter about fair business practices and notes attendees from Garden State Equality. Now, he's going to take on Mr. Lavy. Exciting!

12:54: Shannon Minter, Legal Director for National Center for Lesbian Rights, is the last witness. He is testifying about the "urgent need for a federal law to protect transgender persons." He talks about workplace discrimination, citing the case of Susan Stanton. He says that we "need more than a patchwork of state and local laws and policies." In most parts of the country, transgender people who are fired or harassed at work for being transgender have no legal protection. This leads to transgender people being forced into "persistent, chronic poverty and homelessness." We need Congress to "take action to protect us."

12:48: Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti, Former Space Shuttle Engineer, is the next witness. She was fired in 2003 after announcing she was transitioning from male to female. She was told the investigation and subsequent firing was the result of an "anonymous" phone call. She was the fourth transwoman she knew of who was either fired or forced out before leaving. One of those women took her own life. There are no standard policies or procedures on these issues at the Space Center, because there are no federal laws on them, so things were left up to the whims of supervisors. She felt humiliated, and was fired with no severance pay after 20 years of employment. She still has not been able to find a new position in the space program, the field that she loves. Sabrina says that "being transgender is something you are born with." She notes that being fired also made it difficult for her to provide for her family, and her loss of self-esteem affected them too. "It needs to stop," she says.

12:46: We're back to restrooms. People have "genuine privacy concerns." He says there are "men who are are allowed to use women's restrooms before having gender reassignment surgery." No, those are actually WOMEN. Restrooms pose a risk to employers. He doesn't want the committee to make a "moral judgment" on "transgendered people," but he doesn't want them to make the moral decision for other people. Or something. OK, he's done. Thank you.

12:44: Some employers might not be able to accommodate people in restrooms. Now he's talking about "actual or perceived" discrimination. How problematic! Employers could be sued at any moment! Gender identity is a "subjective category." Unlike race, which the employer can "simply tell by observation." More about religious beliefs.

12:43: Glen Lavy, Senior Counsel for Alliance Defense Fund, is gently hassled for not having gone to Cornell Law before proceeding to tell us why trans people shouldn't have protections under non-discrimination laws. He's already used the word "immoral." Right on schedule. Some employers have "deeply held religious beliefs about these issues."

12:41: DOW's policies emphasize good communication between transitioning employees and their supervisor, as well as training for coworkers and updating company documents. He says "on the whole, our program has gone remarkably well."

12:38: Dr. Hendrix is up! DOW has 4,300 employees. Diversity "underpins our workplace." He knows that "creating a respectful, inclusive working environment" actually "gives us an advantage." He says that his LGBT employees often have more protection under DOW's policy than under state laws, and that his policies improve retention and commitment of LGBT employees and allies. They first added "sexual orientation" in 2000 and "gender identity" in 2005, and this has been implemented globally for the company.

12:36: Men might be looking through holes in the women's bathroom! I was wondering when that would come up. We need to "have some sensitivity to the employer." OK, she's done. But still concerned.

12:33: Unclear statutes can cause lawsuits! You better be careful. Gender identity and transgender are unclear terms. "Mannerism" is a disturbing term! She's "concerned" about "perpetuating stereotypes." Haha! Like, what if someone gives a firm handshake. Mannerisms can be changed but "intrinsic characteristics" can't. Um.

12:31: After some banter with the Chairman about whose law school is the best, JC Miller, Partner at Thompson Hine, is here to tell us about "unintended legal obstacles" that "cause a disruption in the workplace." You know what that means.

12:29: He talks about a friend, Ethan St. Pierre (who runs the Remembering Our Dead web site), who lost his job for being transgender, about friends who have to show IDs that do not match their gender. He talks about growing up in the South where he was not allowed to swim in public pools because he was not white. This, he said, "feels like a flashback." He asks people to treat others as they would want to be treated and concludes his testimony. Yay Diego!

12:26: He talks about living as a transgender Latino man, about growing up in a military family in Georgia, and about his family supporting his gender identity. He worked in many corporate companies, including Coca Cola, Holiday Inn and others worldwide. He waited to transition because he was afraid of being who he was: "Diego Sanchez, an honorable man." He said that he "struggled to have self-respect in a world that would seemingly never allow someone like me...I could be honest about everything except myself."

12:25: Diego!! AHH! An amazing guy.

12:24: The Library made many claims why she could not be hired, all of them clearly false. Colonel Schroer says that she hopes every day that the Library will call and tell her they made a mistake, and she can continue serving her country as she has so well.

12:22: Colonel Schroer applied for a position at the Library of Congress working on CRS reports, while in the position of transitioning from male to female. She was hired almost immediately. She had lunch with her future supervisor, and told her of plans to transition from male to female. Her supervisor called her the next day and said that she was "not a good fit" for the library.

12:19: Diane Schroer, Retired Colonel, US Army, is the first witness. She is talking about her vast military experience, including humanitarian de-mining operations in Southern Africa, Special Operations work and programs all over the world. She has done basically every homeland security, counter-terrorism, classified, top-secret military thing ever.

12:17: The Chairman is reading the list of witnesses. He also notes that Cornell Law School is the best in the country, although he may be biased. The speakers will have a green, yellow and red lights to signal their time to speak.

12:15: We're back!

11:48: Still recessed. Hang in there. How is everyone's Thursday going? Leave me some comments.

11:32: The Chairman thanks Rep. Frank and says that he tries to determine the content of hearings by the "depth of the grievance suffered." The committee is adjourning briefly for some people to go make votes on the Floor. Stay tuned.

11:29: Barney notes that if you are uncomfortable, how do you think trans people feel?! He's not asking for you to take anyone to the movies. Just "let em work!"

11:26: Barney says some stuff about how sometimes stuff need to happen incrementally. I think this is about that ENDA thing. The burden of proof is on the person charging discrimination and the disruption argument "just doesn't work." When he first realized he was gay, he made himself uncomfortable. But he got used to it! And so did other people!

11:24: He notes that he doesn't buy the "redundancy" argument (that trans people are already covered under other legislation). He notes that his colleagues are rarely reluctant to use a few extra words. And he also doesn't buy the "it could be disruptive" argument.

11:23: He notes that his colleagues often feel "trapped in the wrong body" when their legislation goes to the Senate. Laughter.

11:22: Barney Frank. He thanks the Chairman for making this hearing a priority.

11:21: She says that it is "high time" that American "declared discrimination based on gender identity and expression to be unlawful." Did I mention we love her?

11:18: She notes that hate crimes against trans Americans are "tragically common" and that trans people also face discrimination in the "mundane and everyday." She talks about having to choose in her own life to live "with truth and integrity" as an out lesbian, and the way that Wisconsin's non-discrimination law made a difference for her. She says, "the importance of non-discrimination laws cannot be overstated." They tell people to "judge your fellow citizen by their integrity, talents...rather than their sexual orientation or gender identity...that irrational fear, irrational hate, have no place in our workplaces."

11:15: Tammy Baldwin is speaking. We love her. She wants to clarify why people want workplace protections that do not "leave behind the smallest and most vulnerable part of our community." She defines gender identity, and explains how it differs from sexual orientation. She notes that there are thousands of trans Americans who lead "incredibly successful" lives, as parents, community organizers, defense contractors and much more.

11:14: Barney Frank is on the first panel. The Chairman notes that he has a great sense of humor. Tammy Baldwin (!!!) is also on the first panel. The Chairman says she is a great listener in "divisive" situations. I believe that was an ENDA reference.

11:13: Rep. Kline says he's looking forward to the hearing. He wants his statement recorded.

11:11: He also notes that ENDA was passed without protection for transgender people, and that he believes it should, and then says some nice things about minority leader Rep. Kline.

11:10: Chairman Rep. Andrews notes that someone's "presentation" is an "irrelevant prejudicial criteria" and that it has nothing to do with how someone "writes code...or fixes someone's car" and that people should be judged on their performance at work. Rock on!

11:09: Chairman Rep. Andrews thanks everyone for coming. He says, in all likelihood, someone today will apply for a job and be denied because an employer does not like the way they look. He says that someone will be denied a promotion because an employer is uncomfortable. He notes that this is legal under federal law.

11:08: The hearing is starting!

11:01: The video feed says:"Will begin shortly." And the most recent liveblog updates will now appear at the top of the post.

11:00: OK! Exciting news. The video feed now says: "Committee on Education and Labor, Health Employment and Labor Subcommittee Hearing on "An Examination of Discrimination Against Transgender Americans in the Workplace."' We're getting started!

10:56: The amendment does not pass. A substitute is agreed to. Now there's another roll-call vote. Stay tuned.

10:51: The clerk is calling the roll on the price amendment. He tells Chairman Miller to settle down. Laughter.

10:48: Now they're voting on a fox amendment. Or something. But we're still excited! The people sitting behind the clerk look sleepy.

10:46: Ah, they are voting on a price amendment. Exciting stuff.

10:45: Rep. Bishop wanders in late and is gently chastised for his tardiness and told not to push his luck. He votes.

10:35: Dennis Kucinich is involved! We love him! They are voting on something. Everyone is voting no. Now they are voting "ay" and "no." I'm not sure what this is about. Hopefully things will get more exciting.

10:30 am: The video player says we are recessed.

by icarus (noreply@blogger.com) at June 26, 2008 11:27 PM

That certainly seems to be the opinion of a few journalists recently. Wait,  seems to be? With a headline like “The Disadvantages of an Elite Education,” you just know the author is not too keen on the Crimson. The author is none other than our old friend Cockmaster D (William Deresiewicz for our forgetful readers). Goold ol’ Cockmaster D recently discovered that he was too elitist to interact with a plumber, so obviously the rest of us are just as bad.

Because we’re coddled with extensions on papers and rampant grade inflation, we grow up to be the worst people ever. Also, it’s because we have gates:

The physical form of the university—its quads and residential colleges, with their Gothic stone façades and wrought-iron portals—is constituted by the locked gate set into the encircling wall. Everyone carries around an ID card that determines which gates they can enter. The gate, in other words, is a kind of governing metaphor—because the social form of the university, as is true of every elite school, is constituted the same way. Elite colleges are walled domains guarded by locked gates, with admission granted only to the elect.    

He’s right. Gates might be cool when every other college does it, but how dare we use them to keep people out!

He also points out that George Bush went to Yale, so take that, Ivy League! Yeah that’s right one of the dozens of presidents who went to elite universities isn’t so awesome! Clearly we have no defense to these accusations, but are we really that bad?

No, we’re worse! After the jump, Harvard is destroying the world (and bruising the butts of old ladies).

An article in the upcoming August 2008 Trumpet Magazine tells us that part of the Harvard faculty is a “shamefully destructive force in education” and that “the existence of civilization is at stake.” But what harm can come from teaching? 

It is time for the great minds of this day to face facts. World evils are increasing as fast as knowledge. Why the paradox? Can the increase in knowledge and the skyrocketing evils possibly be connected?

Again, no defense!

By way of evidence to support these claims, Harvard demonstrated just how detrimental it is to society when a man went on a “kicking spree” in Harvard square, just outside the gates. He kicked several people in the butt before police were able to remove the boot he turned into a shocking weapon.

So to the Class of 2012 I warn you: enjoy these last few months of innocence, because soon you’ll join the ranks of an organization whose sole purpose is to destroy the world.

by Charleton Lamb at June 26, 2008 07:27 PM

On CNN today, Glenn Beck has defined what he thinks a "Conservative" is.

Some of his definitions I expected; others floored me with their pure ignorance. Here's the list and my responses. I considered trying to put together a definition for "Liberal", but decided to forgo that because: a) It's hard and time consuming; and b) I doubt everyone could agree on one unifying definition. So in the meantime, share your own insights on this list:

A conservative believes that our inalienable rights do not include housing, healthcare or Hummers.
Yes my friends, that is Glenn Beck equating Hummers with "housing" and "healthcare." Apparently all you people who are homeless and suffering from treatable diseases due to lack of money should suck it up; not all of us can own Hummers.

A conservative believes that our inalienable rights DO include the pursuit of happiness. That means it is guaranteed to no one.
I don't think this is an "inalienable" right so much as a simple fact of human existence. People generally try to do things that make them happy. The fact that happiness it is not "guaranteed" though suggests that he is really just saying: "Nobody has a right to be happy. You can all just exist though."

A conservative believes that those who pursue happiness and find it have a right to not be penalized for that success.
Who exactly is "penalizing" people who are happy? Who is going around telling happy people to be sad? Maybe pundits; but I'm not sure who else. Thoughts?

A conservative believes that there are no protections against the hardship and heartache of failure. We believe that the right to fail is just as important as the chance to succeed and that those who do fail learn essential lessons that will help them the next time around.
Apparently we should do nothing to help people who are threatened by "hardship" or "failure" and should instead use that as a learning experience for next time. So the next time that somebody loses their job, cannot afford their rent, is kicked out on the street, and cannot get a new job or home due to their lack of housing/eviction on the record, they should be happy because that was an "essential lesson" that will help them the next time around. I'm not sure when the "next time around" is, but Glenn Beck says you've learned something. Congratulations.

A conservative believes in personal responsibility and accepts the consequences for his or her words and actions.
I believe in personal responsibility too. Except not everything is about "personal responsibility." When teenagers are getting pregnant because they aren't getting adequate sex ed programs, and because condoms are not available to them, etc., that isn't just about "personal responsibility" but rather about how society raises and takes care of their youth. It is a systematic failure, and poor Glenn Beck would rather just blame everybody else rather than himself.

A conservative believes that real compassion can't be found in any government program.
I'm not sure what this means. Government programs cannot be "compassionate"? Firstly, I'll agree that government programs don't have feelings. But if a group of Catholics can get together and start a charity to help poor people, so can a group of average people form a government program to help poor people. Either way, it's fairly compassionate. I'm just not buying this other than: "I hate government."

A conservative believes that each of us has a duty to take care of our neighbors. It was private individuals, companies and congregations that sent water, blankets and supplies to New Orleans far before the government ever set foot there.
Wow. Yes, we should all be kind enough to take care of our neighbors. But sometimes that also comes in the form of helping them through our government. More importantly, this is putting the carriage before the horse. The reason private individuals, companies, and congregations sent supplies to New Orleans before the government ever set foot there was because of our Conservative President! If you hadn't noticed, by shrinking the government and failing to make it accountable, it failed. So he criticizes the government for being big, then here he criticizes it for being small. Hello?

A conservative believes that family is the cornerstone of our society and that people have a right to manage their family any way they see fit, so long as it's not criminal. We are far more attuned to our family's needs than some faceless, soulless government program.
Did anybody else just read this and say: "You're right; I want to manage my family the way I see fit. With two male parents/two female parents/two transgender parents/etc."? I think Glenn Beck favors gay marriage!

A conservative believes that people have a right to worship the God of their understanding. We also believe that people do not have the right to jam their version of God (or no God) down anybody else's throat.
YES! Wow, something I agree with him about. Too bad Conservatives are doing much more shoving God down our throats than vice versa. And, for the record, I'm a flaming liberal who believes in God; but I would never force anyone to see the world my way. Sorry hon; conservatives don't own this one.

A conservative believes that people go to the movies to be entertained and to church to be preached to, not the other way around.
Translation: The First Amendment is wrong. I know how speech should be: Movies should be comedies and Churches should be boring and critical. Any other way is a violation of Glenn Beck's "Order of the Universe."

A conservative believes that debt creates unhealthy relationships. Everyone, from the government on down, should live within their means and strive for financial independence.
Therefore, Conservatives believe that people should not have mortgages, borrow money to attend college, etc. Rather, everyone should be homeless or rent; people should not go to college (or college should be free); etc. Too bad he also believes that the government should not provide housing or education. Ooops; hypocrisy again?

A conservative believes that a child's education is the responsibility of the parents, not the government.
Another one of those odd moments for a conservative. The next one says every human being has a right to life, as if all humans should have equal opportunity to live. Unfortunately, he is saying here that all humans should suffer from socioeconomic position of their parents. Research has PROVEN that people who start in poverty often stay there; those that start in luxury stay there too. Social mobility is more fiction than fact. So if your parents can afford education and already value it; good for you! You'll get your education. If not; too bad you lost the "birth lottery" and ended up with poor parents.

A conservative believes that every human being has a right to life, from conception to death.
A conservative also believes that the government should do nothing for you during that life; should force you into unwanted homes; and has the right to kill you if they see fit (see Capital Punishment). Also, Glenn Beck should consider reading Freakonomics, which has shown that one of the biggest things to reduce crime in the 90's was ABORTION. Yep; fascinating stuff, and highlights a lot about the unfortunate reality of unwanted pregnancy.

A conservative believes in the smallest government you can get without anarchy. We know our history: The larger a government gets, the harder it will fall.
I'm sorry; I must be reading different history books than you. The fact of the matter, and this is hard for conservatives to hear, is that no government lasts forever. And no government sits on top of the world forever. But shrinking a government to near nothingness doesn't save it from falling; it stops it from existing altogether!


Unsurprisingly, the tag line at the end of the article reads:
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

True. So true.

by The Mirrorball Man (noreply@blogger.com) at June 26, 2008 06:42 PM

From Tim Kane:

we should aim to tax the bad things (noise, gasoline, trash, violent crime, evil foreign dictators) and untax the good things (homegrown profits, employment, innovation).

by Greg Mankiw (noreply@blogger.com) at June 26, 2008 12:01 PM

The first Congressional Hearing on transgender issues is happening at 10:30 a.m. EST today and is titled: "An Examination of Discrimination Against Trangender Americans in the Workplace."

There is a live webcast here (you may have to click on the link and then refresh the page to launch the player).

The people testifying are:

• Shannon Price Minter, Legal Director for National Center for Lesbian Rights (founding member of NCTE)
• Diane Schroer, Retired Colonel, US Army (member of NCTE)
• Diego Sanchez, Director of Public Relations and External Affairs for AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts (Founding Board of Directors for NCTE) - and MTPC member!
  
• Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti, Former Space Shuttle Engineer (founding member of NCTE)
• Bill Hendrix, Chair of Gays, Lesbians, and Allies at Dow (GLAD) for Dow Chemical Company
  

The minority party has called the following witnesses:

• JC Miller, Partner at Thompson Hine
• Glen Lavy, Senior Counsel for Alliance Defense Fund
  

More information is available here.

I think I may just live-blog this. ;-)

by icarus (noreply@blogger.com) at June 26, 2008 11:33 AM

This was going to be a comment, but it got way too long ... so a response post it is.

First, a little clarification, since there seems to be some confusion here. I'm not a consultant. I did actually go straight from college into the stereotype of genteel penury, which is to say graduate school in the humanities. I make $18,000 a year, share a one-bedroom apartment in one of the poorest neighborhoods in the United States, and have a health insurance plan with a prescription-benefit cap that only covers me for about half the year. Most of the people in my program are married and live primarily on their spouses' income; those who aren't, generally receive supplemental money from their families. I'm lucky in that I'll start receiving domestic partner benefits next year ... from a consulting company.

So, yes, despite the fact that I had the luxury of choosing grad school over immediate cash - or rather because of that fact - I'm pretty darn familiar with what actually goes into consulting, and the decision to become a consultant. So I wanted to take this time to dispel a few persistent myths.

Myth #1: People who go into consulting do so mindlessly/by default/because they lack the ambition or imagination to do anything else/because it's what everyone expects of them.

Reality: First of all, consulting companies don't hire people who lack ambition or imagination. It's actually a rather intellectually challenging and creative job, and the people who tend to get hired (out of all those who get interviewed) are precisely those bright, motivated, ambitious people who are likely to leave the company in a few years in order to use the skills they've acquired to do something else (like, um, run a non-profit).

In fact, let me introduce you to the four people from my current university who are joining the major consulting firms next year. "Shane" has coached an inner-city debate team since arriving at college - in her free time, which is to say, when not coordinating efforts to distribute anti-retroviral drugs, clean needles, and condoms, both in our city and in the sub-Saharan African country where the university sent her to study for a semester. "Max" has been volunteering for (and later working for) queer organizations since puberty, organizing more conferences and successful awareness campaigns than can be counted, and (at age 18) producing original legal research that has since been cited by, among other folks, Dean Spade. "Charlotte" spent her summers in a war-torn Eastern European country helping draft their new constitution. And "Stanford" (whom, admittedly, I don't know as well as the others) has been an active member of the ACLU practically since birth.

Let me tell you - none of these people were expected to become consultants. In fact, most if not all of them agonized over the decision and received precisely the same kind of shit from their peers as people are now dishing out here. And at least two of them do intend to make their careers in the non-profit sector; one, I believe, plans to serve the public by working in the government; one, again, I don't know well enough to predict. Each of them chose consulting for different reasons (though there was some overlap), and each of them weighed their options carefully, including the potential they would ultimately have to do good if they accepted one job or another (or if they went straight to school).

It's also not easy to become a consultant. Sure, perhaps it's easy to post your resume on the recruiting website; but by the time you're even halfway through the interview process, anyone who thinks consulting is the easy way out has had to put some serious thought into why they're still hanging in there. And anyone who gets a job offer has been chosen out of a pool of thousands of graduating seniors from the nation's top colleges - for less than 100 jobs a year. Seriously - it's harder to get a consulting job than to get into Harvard.

Myth #2: Consulting drops you straight into the lap of luxury.

Reference Kaya's comment that "the issue we're discussing is ... extreme wealth vs moderation."

Reality: I would love to live in a world where a mid-five-figure salary (for a job where you're working up to 80 hours a week and must live in some of the most expensive neighborhoods/cities in the world*) is "extreme wealth." Now, obviously, it's nothing to sniff at ... but streets paved with gold, it is not.

*hint: if you're working that late and need to commute to cheaper lodgings, you quickly discover that most cities' public transit systems - especially the lines that run to poorer neighborhoods - often stop running before you'll be ready to leave. options? get a car - and spend in gas and workday parking approximately what you're saving on rent - or live close to work, which is to say in the financial district. this is one reason you're getting more money.

Myth #3: The "non-profit world" and the "corporate world" are actually two different worlds.

Reality, point 1: most non-profits are, in fact, corporations. Learning how corporations work is thus actually a useful skill for someone who wants to work for a corporation for the rest of their life, whether it be of the for-profit or non-profit variety. Knowing how to skillfully and efficiently manage an organization with limited resources is not a sin; it's an asset.

Reality, point 2: non-profit money is corporate money. If you take a $22,000 administrative-assistant job at the Task Force, your salary is probably coming out of Wells Fargo's pocket. If you want to work for Planned Parenthood, get used to taking money from the dirty capitalist swine at Bank of America, Prudential, Wachovia, and Disney. If the ACLU can afford to give you a paycheck, it has less to do with the revenue from Anthony Romero's book sales and more to do with Ford, Hewlett-Packard, Merck, Verizon, and Progressive Insurance. (And, um, RJ Reynolds and Playboy. Just sayin'.)

Ah, but what about individual donors? Well, there are folks like me who give small amounts regularly to a few non-profits which are important to us; but honestly, we barely cover the cost of the mailings we get asking for our next donation. The rest of the donors are the big-ticket donors, the folks who simultaneously make enough money to give very large sums of it away and care enough about progressive causes to give it away to us. In other words, if you have a non-profit job, you can thank someone who doesn't. Your money isn't any purer or nobler or more infused with the perfume of justice than theirs; it's the same money.

A corollary - if you're benefitting from a loan forgiveness or loan repayment assistance program (other than those administered by the federal government), your ability to go into a non-profit job without worrying about student debt is directly funded by major corporate donors and wealthy alumni (who are by and large employed by major corporations). Fabulous for you - but don't pretend you're morally superior to the people who are giving you that opportunity.

Reality, point 3: many non-profits want things from corporations. Take, for example, all the people who want SRS to be covered by health insurance. Awesome. Now how, exactly, do you propose to convince a health-insurance company to fund SRS without an intimate knowledge of how the insurance industry works? Working in a consulting company for a few years gives you - dare I say it - real-world experience in the critical area of "talking to corporations and getting them to do things." You can only go so far on the strength of your convictions and the knowledge that your proposal comes from the moral high ground; sooner or later you have to give up on the idea that willful ignorance of corporate structures is a virtue, or give up on the hope of ever changing those structures.

Myth #4: Things that cost money are frivolous; or, anyone can live on a non-profit wage if they live "moderately."

Ok. Let's break this down. Here is a listing of 127 typical jobs within non-profit organizations, complete with their average salaries. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you enter as an "Outreach Worker" - certainly not the lowest-paid entry-level job, but you don't even want to try this exercise with the office-assistant or direct-service-provider salaries, trust me. So you're making $29,752 a year, or about $2,479 a month. (Not bad. More than I make.)

Let's also say your living situation is that of a friend of mine, who's starting work at a Manhattan non-profit in September. She's sharing a sublet apartment in Brooklyn for about $800 a month. (By "sharing," by the way, I mean "more people than rooms.") This leaves you with $1679 a month. You will also need a Metrocard to get to work; at $81 a month, you are left with $1598.

According to the State of New York, you should be able to feed yourself on $200 a month (more or less the maximum amount of food stamps they'll give to a single person). The idea that food stamps realistically cover food expenses is bullshit, but ok. You're spending $200 a month on food. Maybe you're small. Now you have $1398.

You also have student loans. Financial experts estimate that a minimum of 10% of gross monthly income should be spent paying off student loans (if you have an average amount of loans and decent enough credit to get an average amount of interest). They recommend that you pay 15% if you can, to prevent the interest from accruing too fast. But let's not even go there. Your gross monthly income is $2479; 10% of that is $248. You now have $1150 a month.

We forgot your taxes, though! Approximately 28% of your gross pay will never even make it to your bank account; 28% of $2479 is $694. $1150-694=456, which is how many dollars you now have a month.

Let's also say you have my insurance and take one of my prescription medications (the less expensive one). When your insurance covers the prescription, it costs $25 a month; when the benefits run out, it costs $120. This month, I don't have benefits any more - so neither do you. You have $336 after paying for your meds (and trust me, Bad Things Happen when you don't take them). But you also have a $10 co-pay for the doctor who prescribes your meds. So make that $326.

At this point, your apartment is still empty. By combing Craig's List, you find a futon for $60, a small table for $20, a microwave for $40, silverware and dishes for two for $20, and basic pots and pans for $20. You don't know anyone with a car, so add on a $15 cab ride each for the futon and table. Total damage: $190. In the real world, you have to pay for these when you buy them. For now, let's spread out the cost over three months, for approx. $63 a month. This means you have $263 for the next few months. You still haven't bought clothes, but we'll assume your college clothes are all workplace-appropriate and still fit you. Also, you're a monk/nun and never indulge in any form of entertainment that costs money. So you should be in the clear - $263 a month straight to savings!

Except, oh shit. You trip on a broken piece of sidewalk and break your wrist. You can't type, so you lose a couple of sick days. And when the hospital bill arrives, it's over $700 - after your insurance. If you're less than three months into your "save $263 a month" plan, you're in debt or default. If you had three months of savings, they're gone.

You want to have kids someday? Sorry, that might not be in the cards. If you're fertile (and in a relationship that will lead to childbearing without additional medical intervention), expect to pay around $30,000 to deliver your baby in a hospital, with no complications, and stay there for three days. If, like most of the people reading this, your child is going to be born via some or all of artificial insemination, surrogacy, or fertility treatments, triple that. If you want to adopt, you should know that the average cost to adopt domestically is $15,000; from Russia, $25,000-$35,000; from China, $22,000.

You want to transition medically? Hormones and surgery cost money, too. Which category are you planning on cutting back on in order to save up the tens of thousands of dollars some transwomen find their transitions costing?

Oh, and by the way? If you were paying for both my prescriptions, it would cost you an extra $350 a month. If you were a type-I diabetic trying a treatment your endocrinologist recommended but your insurance company didn't yet cover (i.e. tons of treatments), it could cost you - to take the example of the continuous glucose sensor - $1000 at the outset, and about $350 a month thereafter. If you've got a mystery condition that's looking more and more like MS, and your doctor recommends interferon, one month's prescription will cost more than my entire prescription-benefit cap (a month at standard dosage is about $1800).

These aren't random examples, by the way; these are consultants I know who took the job, among other reasons, because they are chronically ill and can't afford not to make more than $30,000 a year.

So, tell me ... where was the frivolous spending, here? What little luxuries should our hypothetical person be eliminating? Why is it so hard to believe that an entry-level wage at a non-profit is not actually sufficient for everyone's legitimate needs?

Myth #5: I want you - yes, you - to be a consultant

Reality: I don't give a flying rat's left testicle what job you take or what schooling you pursue out of college. I would, however, love it if you stopped acting as if making money was beneath your level of enlightenment; and I'd be thrilled if you didn't act as though people who choose consulting were selling out not only their own souls but the Entire Progressive Movement as well.

by maudite entendante (noreply@blogger.com) at June 26, 2008 08:58 AM

Bloomberg reports:

[Senator McCain] has shown increasing disdain for any economist who questions his policy prescriptions. Earlier this month, he lashed out at critics of his proposal for a summer gas-tax holiday.

"You know the economists?'' McCain said June 12 at Federal Hall, near the New York Stock Exchange. "They're the same ones that didn't predict this housing crisis we're in. They're the same ones that didn't predict the dot-com meltdown. They're the same ones that didn't predict the inflation that's staring us in the face today.''

Fortunately, Mr McCain's crystal ball foretold all of these events.

by Greg Mankiw (noreply@blogger.com) at June 26, 2008 04:56 AM

Oh man, our sanctified academic standards haven’t been so betrayed by a member of the ivory tower since Kaavya Viswanathan did that thing that no one cares about anymore.

Madonna Constantine, a tenured professor at Columbia’s Teachers College, was just fired for plagiarism. Background (for those of you who haven’t been following our pretty extensive coverage): Constantine became infamous last fall after reportedly finding a noose on her office door, but some folks were a tad bit suspicious because her claim emerged in the midst of the university’s 18-month investigation of her work. Constantine called out the TC community for stirring up a “conspiracy and witch-hunt” and, always down for a protest, hundreds of Columbia students and faculty rallied in her support. Anthony Kelley defended her in the batshittiest Columbia Spectator column you will ever read. In a nice Orwellian twist, Constantine’s attorney said that her accusers, two former students and a former colleague, had plagiarized from her. It now appears that Constantine mooched from the trio in a dozen separate instances.

Ay dios. She dug herself far enough into the histrionic “witch-hunt” hole that no graceful bow-out was possible, and now the whole ridiculous incident is over, unless she decides to challenge the decision before a faculty committee. Fingers crossed.

That’s not to say she can’t make a comeback from the depths of intellectual disgrace. Here’s looking at you, James Frey.

Columbia U. Fires Teachers College Professor Accused of Rampant Plagiarism [Chronicle]
Constantine Will Appeal Sanction [Columbia Spectator]
Students Call For Reform at Teachers College [Columbia Spectator]
Harvard’s Viswanathan Celebrates Fake Writer Day [Gawker]
Columbia Professor in Noose Case Is Fired on Plagiarism Charges [New York Times]
Little Pieces of Los Angeles, Done His Way [New York Times]

by Nina Shield at June 25, 2008 04:35 PM