Obama, ASU, and ASU's Mistake

To borrow from Elizabeth Browning, How do I love President Obama? Let me count the ways. As this is only a blog, I will focus on two aspects of who President Obama is with the Arizona State University’s decision to invite him as a speaker but not confer on him an honorary degree as background. First, he is the President. Hmmm. I think that Huffington Post’s coverage of this ordeal has been pretty sound and fair up to this point. I do not intend to rehash President Obama’s many accomplishments including his first historical appointment as editor of the Harvard Law Review, his days teaching some of the greatest lawyers practicing today at the University of Chicago Law School, his community leader days in South Side Chicago, and the rest of the activities that surely populate that amazing resume. But it goes without saying that he is the President of the United States. Second, he, following Marshall Gans’ philosophy and style of community engagement both at the local and national level, effectively made the lives of pockets of the population better while getting them involved in the democratic process. Some may say that these accomplishments and apparently those not mentioned are too local, too small, too insignificant to receive an honorary degree for “works of merit.” Hogwash. Geoffrey Canada’s Harlem Children’s Zone: is that too local? Joe Klein’s leadership in New York? Too Local? I think not.

With that said, what really annoys me about the process is the way that ASU is handling it since Sneed broke the story, effectively announcing to the world that President Obama will not receive the honorary degree from ASU. I know how the conferring honorary degrees work. They are pretty much decided at the beginning of the year by a selected committee of students, faculty, and administrators. And for whatever reason, ASU did not choose Barack Obama. Ok. But let’s think about how they are basically saying now, to save face, let’s give him one anyway. In my opinion, if your initial decision was to not give this amazing individual an honorary degree, stand by that decision. For, to basically say, “Oops, we dropped the ball” a month before graduation and after saying he was too inexperienced, (if this is true I have no hope of ever receiving an honorary degree even with the real ones I have and trying to get), is wrong, unethical, wrong, and degrading. Did I mention wrong? To me, that degree, if President Obama is to accept it, has been sullied and now is worth less than what an honorary degree is worth normally.

Let’s think about it. The reports are now saying that University President Crow is now forcing a degree for Obama through causing people to place a horrible preposition phrase that would cause me to put that honoris cosa back on the shelf: after all. Barack Obama is not an after all. Nothing he has done deserves such a phrase behind it. It is adding insult to injury, not necessarily to Obama but to their institution and the entire process as a whole. Additionally, ASU has effectively disgraced the process of conferring honorary degrees in my mind; it should be a group decision from the beginning to the end and the president ought not to force that decision on others, no matter how right he may be.

This is, in no way, a show of President Obama’s character or his ability to serve. However, this incident does show how we still have a way to go in coming to grips with what it means to have Barack Obama as the President of the United States. No I am not talking about his race. I speak to the assumed resume that a president should have and how Obama has literally started to redefine what that resume should look like. Thankfully, this is not a nationwide thing. I know that my alma mater would offer (or already has) offered President Obama an honorary degree. Notre Dame seems to be thinking on the same page. Other will surely follow. Michele, the girls, grandma, and, of course, Barack should plan to be visiting colleges and universities in May and June for some years to come because I am positive other schools will not make the same mistake that ASU did, and worse, is doing.

Rugrats, Dora, and Race in America

Yes. I am talking about Rugrats, the early 1990s Nickelodeon cartoon that we all feel in love: Tommy, Chucky, Phil, Lil, Angelica, Dill, and the rest of the gang. Yes, I am talking about Dora the Explorer. Why? Because in looking at the two allows for a discussion about race in America, past, present, and future without staying in the stratosphere of theory and big words.

Two months ago, I asked my niece if she wanted a Dora shirt for her 5th birthday. She said no. Asked why, she replied “Dora’s grown,” meaning that Dora acts and dresses beyond her years. I had to stop and think why someone who loves Dora would abandon her. I got my answer that night while watching the news at dinner at the Queen’s Head Pub: Dora was getting a makeover. This made headline news. The silhouette of Dora shows longer hair, new shoes, and a dress that looked a little short. Again, this was the silhouette. The discussion that followed accuses Dora of being, like my niece said, “too provocative for little kids.” These were claims that the new Dora was too sexy. However, in looking at the picture above, there is nothing “grown” or “sexy” about Dora. Hell, she couldn’t stay a little girl with a backpack forever.

These criticisms of being too sexy or too grown did not pop up when the Nickelodeon finally aged the Rugrats and adopted the “Rugrats All Grown Up” theme. Angelica, the spoiled brat of the show, grew up too. She was not considered too grown or depicted as sexy after creative maturation. And she actually has make up on her face, while Dora goes o’ natural.

What was one of the main differences? Race. Dora was seen as being depicted as sexy because she is, I argue, Latina. Angelica, even though constantly in a horrible mood and doing evil things to the kids (yes, I watched the show) was white. These discussions did not happen around making Angelica look older but for Dora to be aged just a few years instantly makes her an object that is no longer a children’s cartoon character but rather has relegated her to category of sex object. I think it interesting as even something as innocent as growing up transformed Dora, with the help of mainstream media, from a cute and cuddly character adored by all to an object demeaned and degraded because of stereotypes placed upon her ethnicity and gender.

Now, please excuse the lack of sociological theory about effects of the transmission of images, stereotypes, and perception dealing with race and gender. That is for a paper, not the blog. What I just wanted to bring one’s attention to is the reality of race, gender, and the media with the background of America’s history of race relations, the political and the social. In many ways, comparing the Rugrats to Dora and the backlash over the aging of the characters is like rereading the footnotes of Brown v Board of Education again: Clark’s famous Baby Doll test. Using these two example, yes of two different time periods, yes of two different type of cartoons, shows the ways in which race still places constraints (or removes them depending on the race of the subject) for how one speaks, acts, and particularly in this case, dresses. Am I taking this too far? I don’t think so. How else would you explain the criticism launched against the new Dora when her fan base is as dedicated and as large as (or at least was) Hannah Montana’s with kids of a certain age group?

University Publishing In A Digital Age

University Publishing In A Digital Age / July 26, 2007

Report on University Publishing Released

Scholars have a vast range of opportunities to distribute their work, from setting up web pages or blogs, to posting articles to working paper websites or institutional repositories, to including them in peer-reviewed journals or books. In American colleges and universities, access to the internet and World Wide Web is ubiquitous; consequently nearly all intellectual effort results in some form of “publishing”. Yet universities do not treat this function as an important, mission-centric endeavor.

The result has been a scholarly publishing industry that many in the university community find to be increasingly out of step with the important values of the academy.This paper argues that a renewed commitment to publishing in its broadest sense can enable universities to more fully realize the potential global impact of their academic programs, enhance the reputations of their institutions, maintain a strong voice in determining what constitutes important scholarship, and in some cases reduce costs.

NOTE:

In partnership with the Scholarly Publishing Office of the University of Michigan Library, we are experimenting with a "commentable" version of our paper.

To Access The Report / Read Comments / Add One's Comment(s) / Read News Coverage / Visit ...

Source

[http://www.ithaka.org/strategic-services/university-publishing]

JEP: Talk About Talking About New Models Of Scholarly Communication

Talk About Talking About New Models of Scholarly Communication

Karla L. Hahn / JEP: Journal of Electronic Publishing / vol. 11, no. 1 / Winter 2008 /

Abstract

Although many new forms of scholarly exchange have reached an advanced state of adoption, scholars and researchers generally remain remarkably naïve and uninformed about many issues involved with change in scholarly publishing and scholarly communication broadly.

It is increasingly important that dialogue at research institutions involve a much wider group of researchers and scholars. Only active engagement by those undertaking research and scholarship can ensure that the advancement of research and scholarship takes priority in the development and adoption of new models.

Research libraries have led in educating stakeholders about new models and are expanding their outreach to campus communities. In considering the effects of recent change, and looking to emerging trends and concerns, six dangers of the current moment are considered along with six topics ripe for campus dialogue.

[snip]

[Conclusion]

The Point of Dialogue

The goal of effective and useful dialogue is the discovery of new knowledge, new perspectives, and new strategies for action. Its object ultimately is action by all stakeholders. It is natural to quail before the scale of outreach to researchers and scholars and the need to make conversations personal, but there is overwhelming agreement in the library community that the most effective way to engage scholars and researchers in change in the scholarly communication system is through one-to-one conversations (Newman, Blecic, and Armstrong 2007).

For all stakeholders the goal of dialogue is not a convert, but a conversation. True dialogue evolves over time as the topics that began the conversation are reshaped by the exchange, and new ideas, perspectives, and frameworks emerge. Yet action is inherent in the process as well, and also alters the conversation over time. Research institutions should lie at the heart of scholar and researcher dialogue.

They are the places researchers and scholars create new knowledge. They provide the infrastructure that underpins most research and scholarly communication. They are the locations where researchers and scholars gather daily. They are the center of graduate education, the process of training the next generation that will generate new knowledge.

The library community has taken the lead in the campus environment in interpreting and responding to change in scholarly communication systems. It is also important that librarians play a leadership role in the dialogue needed to develop new and richer perspectives on issues, perspectives that are scholar-centric rather than library-centric. Ultimately, research and scholarship cannot be well served without the contributions and actions of their practitioners.

Source

[http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0011.108]

Sports Stadiums and Urban Revitalization

Two coinciding events have put the city of Detroit, at least temporarily, back in the national spotlight: debates over the auto industry bailout and Michigan State University’s ascent to the Men’s College Basketball Championship Game, held at Detroit’s Ford Field. In the above clip from ESPN, a few former Michigan sports stars reflect on changes in the city and the impact of sports on civic pride.

The clip points to a very interesting relationship between sports and the economic vitality of a depressed city. There was some talk in the week leading up to the National Championship game about what an MSU win would mean for the spirit of Detroit, a city boasting a 12% unemployment rate leading up to the game. The implicit assumption is that the magical power of sports can uplift a city, inspiring poor urban dwellers to pick themselves up by their bootstraps as they find redemption, solace, and joy in their team’s victory.

This sports euphoria certainly has some merit. The scene at Shea Stadium in New York after 9/11 was an important moment that inspired a nation. More generally, the common love for a home team can cross racial, ethnic and class lines at precisely the times of greatest racial, ethnic, and class strife. However, the business of sports doesn’t exactly help the economic vitality of urban centers. In the clip, Detroit mayoral candidate and former Detroit Pistons star Dave Bing makes the astute observation that people rarely visit Detroit unless it’s for a sporting event. Such is the case for many cities facing dramatic economic decline--take Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Baltimore as just a few examples. The presence of a sports stadium does little to bring in sustained resources to these cities. Their spatial proximity to highways makes parking manageable and efficient, but it also makes fans’ stays brief. The fact that it’s easy to get to Comerica Park in Detroit also makes it easy to leave when the game’s over.

Some sports arenas, like The Palace at Auburn Hills where the Detroit Pistons play, aren’t even in the cities they represent. What about when a new corporate sponsor takes over the rights to house a sports team, what happens to the old stadium? We don’t even need to leave our example of Detroit to answer that question. When I was an undergraduate at the University of Michigan, two groups of urban planners spoke to my Urban and Community Studies course. They were discussing the fate of Detroit's Old Tiger Stadium, the now vacant stadium that became obsolete after the construction of Comerica Park. The first group of urban planners proposed a center for cultural activities and youth baseball leagues, while the second group wanted to use the space for high-end boutiques and shops. Each made a solid case for how the vacant sports stadium could aid in urban revitalization efforts. In the end, neither proposal fully came to fruition, as the city decided instead to demolish the entire site.

As much as one can argue that sports can lift the spirit of an economically depressed city, so too is their a strong argument that sports stadiums only add to the marginalization of America’s most needy cities.

Sarah Palin, Eminem, and Misogyny in Hip-Hop

Eminem’s new music video for the song, “We Made You” has caused somewhat of a stir in the blogosphere. Most hip-hop focused blogs have blasted Eminem, calling the song a lame, commercially driven gimmick. From a strictly objective hip-hop head perspective, this song is corny, trite, outdated, and painfully superficial for an emcee as talented as Eminem. However, the video has also raised some eyebrows among, shall we say, casual hip-hop listeners. Eminem’s references to former Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin has caused the politics-focused media—from the Huffington Post on the left to Hotair.com on the right—to take notice.

In the above clip from The O’Reilly Factor, hip-hop’s number one fan Bill O’Reilly waxes philosophical about rap music, left-wing politics, and misogyny. And by waxes philosophical I mean misinterprets and grossly misconstrues a rap song I doubt he even attempted to listen to. With guest Tammy Bruce, O’Reilly makes three key points, all of which are largely politically motivated and unsubstantiated by the video in question:

1) Eminem, as an artist, “means nothing” and no one over 25 cares about his music at all.

Nevermind the fact that Em is 36, and one of the most respected emcees of all time. Nevermind the fact that original hip-hop pioneers are damn near in their fifties, and still get involved with every new development in the mainstream (just ask Ice-T). Nevermind the fact that it’s been 10 years since the Slim Shady LP was released, meaning that kids who were in college when Em first hit the scene are now 28 years old. If we accepted O’Reilly’s math skills at face, we’d have to pretty much chuck away any relevant facts about age and hip-hop consumption in 2009.

2) The left-controlled media never voices outrage when a figure from the left maliciously criticizes a conservative leader.

So Eminem is a leader of the left-wing, eh? I’m calling shenanigans; how can you call him a leader of the left when he never even cut an Obama track?!? But in all seriousness, this argument comes off uncomfortably awkward as O’Reilly attempts to connect a tangentially related political agenda to a strikingly a-political rap music video.

3) Kids will see this crude misogyny and learn to disrespect women, especially conservative women that “challenge the status quo.”

The direct causal link here is pretty weak. The cultural influence of individual artists does not occur in a vacuum; there is certainly a greater context of misogyny in our nation of which Eminem’s records are only one small slice. Moreover, I question the egregiousness of the video itself, at least in respect to the Palin scene. Does it treat Palin as a hyper-sexed object of lust? Sure. But has Palin subjected her female body to objectification since the moment she entered the national spotlight, selected as the vice-presidential candidate as an exploitative ploy to attract black-fearing white women voters? YES. Sarah Palin’s popularity and rise to fame was made possible by the objectification of her body by her own party. When Palin’s gender is exploited and objectified by the Right for political gain, O’Reilly and other conservative talking heads are perfectly content. We cannot forget the basis for her body’s objectification, and bringing hip-hop and Eminem into the discussion only presents a red herring that ignores how all of us—irrespective of race, gender, class, political affiliation or any other descriptive characteristic—are ultimately culpable for her body’s objectification in pop culture by accepting the exploitative process that created her celebrity status.

Of course, this does not excuse Eminem’s objectification of women, nor should it leave him immune to criticism. Whereas it’s painfully obvious that O’Reilly and his esteemed guest Tammy Bruce barely listened to snippets of “We Made You,” I took four minutes out of my busy day and viewed the video in its entirety. In doing so, I noticed that Eminem does not simply degrade women as sexual objects; the overarching thesis of this song actually endorses one of the most egregiously false and extraordinarily misinformed arguments about female sexuality.

The central claim of “We Made You” is that all women—particularly and especially lesbian women—are defenseless and helpless when faced with Em’s manhood. They just can’t control themselves. This power-of-the-penis arrogance is most evident as Em physically battles Lindsay Lohan’s now ex-girlfriend, Samantha Ronson, for Lohan’s sexuality. The implicit assumption is that Em can, and eventually will, prevail over the butch, gender-norm-defying lesbians that control the women he wants.

It’s the classic “She won’t be a lesbian after me” lame and pathetically misinformed argument made by penis-obsessed men with little understanding of human sexuality. Look dudes, some women are simply not sexually attracted to the male sex organ, period. Get over it. It doesn’t make you less of a man. And it doesn’t give you the right to belittle them when they just aren’t into dudes sexually. It’s not just Eminem that’s misinformed here—it seems to be a huge misunderstanding in American culture. Take mainstream lesbian pornography, which is neither produced for, nor consumed by actual lesbians. Somehow lesbians, whom by definition are not sexually attracted to men, have become a major object of male lust. Eminem’s video, corny as it is, plays into this awkward and contradictory misconception.

I’m not sure what policy could correct these culturally-based misunderstandings, but I do know that videos like these certainly aren’t helping.

The "Innaugural" First Post

Welcome to Social Science Lite, a collection of our thoughts and positions on a variety of public issues and debates. Often polemical and frequently provocative, we plan to use this blog to weigh in on politics, culture, hip-hop, and other social scientific-lite topics.

Our thoughts are always works in progress, and we post largely to spark conversation and engage with the public discourse. Social science is a collaborative effort, and we invite your perspectives as we give you ours.