To start us off, let’s talk about this piece by Josh Marshall on the Park51 “mosque” controversy that’s been so prominently reported on these days.  Marshall points out that there’s been an “odd confluence of interest” between far-right conservatives and radical secularists – people like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris who go beyond liberal pluralism and express an intense hostility to religious faith in general.  Lately, both groups have taken up the banner against Islam in particular, singling it out as an especially nasty religion that needs attentive “taming and domestication,” as Hitchens puts it.  Understandably, Marshall sees this unlikely alliance as a threat to the tradition of religious pluralism in America:

Vandalizing the construction site of a new Mosque in Tennessee ain’t going to do jack to brush back whatever sleeper cell is planning an attack right now in Los Angeles. And the same is unquestionably the case for organizing another ‘we hate Muslims’ rally down at Ground Zero. This just seems so obviously the case to me that I don’t even see how you can debate it. However, I can very much see how a pervasive climate of hostility to Islam in the US can up the population of angry Muslim youth who are open to the seduction of violence and terrorism. So quite apart from what our values mandate, our interests seem to point in the same direction.

And I’m suspicious of this odd confluence of interest — radical religion and radical secularism — that seems to leave little room to the sort of accepting pluralism that I think our society is based on.

Marshall is right to bring attention to this “confluence of interest,” and, in a way, it’s not without precedent.  There’s a small but noticeable tradition of Lefists jumping ship to join the other extreme of the ideological spectrum: Irving Kristol, originally a Trotskyist Communist but later the “godfather of neoconservatism,” is a good example; Benito Mussolini is a more infamous one (not to suggest that either America’s Christian Right or radical secularists are Mussolini-esque).  I can’t put my finger or exactly why this is, but for some reason the extremes of the political spectrum sometimes come full circle and find points of contact with each other, and it is often troubling, as Marshall points out.

But I think this phenomenon obscures a more immediate concern raised by the whole Park51 controversy.  It’s easy to criticize the dogmatic intolerance exhibited by the far right and the radical secularists, but we should also remember that there are important dilemmas that we run into when trying to decide what gets protected as free religious exercise.  Some traditional religious practices are, in fact, directly intolerant or violent, and many of these ought to be excluded from the umbrella of “freedom of religion.”  The fact is that, even in a pluralistic society, civil law takes precedence over religious traditions, and religious groups will often have to make some compromises for the sake of the greater community.  It’s one of the more uncomfortable aspects of living in liberal societies, in that it conflicts with the liberal value of cultural neutrality.

I don’t want to get into this too much, though, because you should keep an eye out for an upcoming Consider issue on France’s recent burqa ban, which will also touch on this subject.  Be excited!

–Aaron Bekemeyer

Increasingly, neuroscientists, psychologists and educators believe that bullying and other kinds of violence can indeed be reduced by encouraging empathy at an early age. Over the past decade, research in empathy — the ability to put ourselves in another person’s shoes — has suggested that it is key, if not the key, to all human social interaction and morality.

Without empathy, we would have no cohesive society, no trust and no reason not to murder, cheat, steal or lie. At best, we would act only out of self-interest; at worst, we would be a collection of sociopaths.

Although human nature has historically been seen as essentially selfish, recent science suggests that it is not. The capacity for empathy is believed to be innate in most humans, as well as some other species.

I think this last point is especially important.  Economics and political science often assume that individuals are inherently rational actors, and many go so far as to say that economic and political society are essentially founded on competition between self-interested parties.  This article points to an alternative way of thinking about this – rather than selfishness and competition, empathy and cooperation ought to form the cornerstone of a good society.  The human mind is endlessly flexible, with the potential for both cruel selfishness and expansive empathy.  Which tendency predominates depends on what we cultivate in childhood.

I also want to say that the article seems to be based on very good science.  I personally believe that some of the best psychology comes out of social psychology.  We’re all really just nodes in an enormous network of relationships with other people, and the best way to understand who we are is to study these relationships and how we interact with others more generally – hence, my penchant for social psychology.

–Aaron Bekemeyer

Schmidt doesn’t hide his grand vision. When he speaks, he comes off as a professor rather than a businessman, a guy who’s far less interested in consumer electronics than in big ideas. In October 2008, the week the U.S. economy had ground to a halt and Congress was poised to pass a $700 billion bailout plan, the Google CEO was talking up Google’s sprawling renewable-energy stimulus plan, which Schmidt believed could “solve all of our problems at once.” He didn’t seem the least bit worried that the crashing economy would sour his own company’s fortunes (and in fact, Google’s revenues barely slipped). Schmidt gives such big-idea talks all the time. He holds forth on the future of information with people in the newspaper industry; on the future of tech innovation with systems administrators; on the future of the country in his numerous chats with Barack Obama. (Schmidt endorsed Obama during the election and now sits on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.)

A lot of people worry about Google becoming too big and turning into an information hegemon, but as this article points out, the scarier people and firms are probably the nastier and more aggressive ones (like Apple and Steve Jobs, though don’t get me wrong – I love Apple).  In fact, the author of the article doesn’t think we really need to worry about Apple at all.  He thinks that while Apple is off worrying about the (relatively) narrow concern of cornering the mobile devices market, Google’s broad vision will carry it on to bigger and better accomplishments – which, surprisingly, I’m okay with.  Nothing against Steve Jobs, but I’d rather have a professorly nice guy running the world any day.

–Aaron Bekemeyer

As for me and the rest of the Conversationalist regulars, we’re going on an extremely relaxed schedule till the fall. You might see a post up here or there but finals are fast approaching and this chief blogger, for one, is pooped. So we’re going to slow the blogging schedule down, but don’t worry, we’ll be back.

Thanks for reading!

–Daniel Strauss and the Consider Staff

I was meaning to get to this earlier today but Economix has a list of the top ten private, public, and liberal arts schools average full-time professor salaries and Michigan is fourth behind Berkeley (of course. Wah.) and before North Carolina (woot! Take that Tar-Heels!). But keep one thing in mind: the University may not be spending its money wisely. One of the most popular professors is paid well below the average here. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

Now, that’s not entirely fair. Plenty of my favorite professors are paid more than a fair salary and one also has to consider for, say, Business School professors, they have to be paid a lot because otherwise they could just leave their job and go join Bain Capital or the Caryle Group instead. At the same time though, there are plenty of good professors out there you could get relatively cheaply and instead use that money on the professors that make the university exceptional. It seems to be more a question of what kind of university Michigan wants to be.

–Daniel Strauss

A while back I posted a similar map comparing bars to grocery store. This one compares where pizza stores, gun stores, and strip clubs are most common. It’s a pretty unremarkable map EXCEPT in southern Nevada. Catch that? That’s right, there are more strip clubs than pizza. I would usually suppose that wherever there are people there’s a plethora of pizza offering eateries. I guess southern Nevadans want strippers more than a slice…

–Daniel Strauss

(h/t: Chicagoist)

Many are now familiar with Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s ‘Confederate History Month,’ announced in a proclamation which failed to mention slavery. After the ensuing backlash from pundits and bloggers, the Governor managed to offend antiracist observers a second time with his retraction, which excused the omission by suggesting that in crafting the original proclamation, he had “focused on the ones [he] thought were most significant for Virginia.” Slavery, one must suppose, did not make the cut.

Like previous Civil War controversies, from history textbook entries to the display of the Confederate flag, this most recent outburst has given rise to a flurry of controversy which is virtually incoherent to those unfamiliar with Southern culture. The Civil War ended one hundred and forty-five years ago. No one who was alive during the Civil War is still alive, and most that fought in it were ancient during the childhood of our generation’s grandparents. Yet, somehow, the memory of the Confederacy remains a live issue, re-appearing out of nowhere to shock a wide variety of groups across the political spectrum and leave the rest of us wondering: didn’t we already settle this?

There are many theories why, try as we might, the Confederate hangover refuses to fade. One, put forward by John Meacham, editor of Newsweek, examines how the narrative of the Confederacy has perennially resurfaced during times of social unease among Southern whites, writing that the selective memory of the heroic Lost Cause “…is one way for the right — alienated, anxious and angry about the president, health care reform and all manner of threats, mostly imaginary — to express its unease with the Age of Obama, disguising hate as heritage.”

The problem with slavery, from the perspective of contemporary populist conservatives, is that it interferes with their mythical notion of the Founder’s “liberty” and “freedom” as “inalienable rights.” While many conservatives are only too happy to compare Obama’s health plan to human bondage, when the topic turns to the actual historical antecedents for their comparisons, the right has little to say. Those who will protest and throw teabags to valorize the individualism of the Sons of Liberty on this coming Tax Day will likely not mention that the heroic authors of the Constitution considered other humans as disposable, beat-able, rape-able property. Slavery is always getting in the way of the myth.

Few have come to the myth’s aid as vocally as Haley Barbour, the conservative governor of Mississippi, who responded to the controversy with glib savagery, an untroubled derisiveness almost begging to be taken as folksy. Dismissing the proclamation as irrelevant, he defended McDonnell’s omission of slavery from Confederate heritage, pointing to similar resolutions passed in his own state and others. Commenting on the event as a whole, he drawled “…it is not significant. It’s trying to make a big deal out of something that doesn’t matter for diddly.”

Neo-confederate symbolism is a bellwether for the contemporary Right, lost adrift a sea of clashing ideologies, desperately trying to find their foundational Truth in tradition of all stripes. Governor Barbour’s apathy is symptomatic of his larger movement’s lack of interest in finding the barest semblance of coherence; freedom, slavery, patriot, traitor; the words all run together in revisionist double-speak. The contradictions are certainly manifold; between upholding Confederate heritage and militant patriotism, between demanding freedom and honoring slave-owners, between defending “war on terror” national security and fondly recalling the terrorism of the Ku Klux Klan, between valorizing unity and celebrating secessionism. Consider CNN Political Analyst Roland Martin’s editorial titled “Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?”, which directly compares the rhetoric and arguments for jihadist terrorism against the West (“they imposed their Western values on us, invaded our land and so on”) with arguments supporting the racist violence of Confederate soldiers (“they imposed their anti-slavery values on us, invaded our land, and so on) .

After years of bombastic Manichean rhetoric of good and evil, us versus them, it is somewhat revelatory, if only in a twisted way, to see those conservatives who defended the concept of ‘America’ to the exclusion of all else, once again take up the mantle of the secessionist enemy. Those who once demanded wiretaps and secret detention to keep America safe have now returned to the narrative of justified treason to destroy and overthrow the once unquestionably pure and necessary federal government. The irony would be delicious, if it weren’t so obviously pathetic.

–Edmund Zagorin

The Pulitzer’s were announced today and Pro Publica, the online investigative enterprise, snagged one. It’s being hailed as a triumph of online journalism which…makes absolutely no sense. Here’s why: even though Pro Publica itself is an online institution that often publishes its content at its website, this particular piece of journalism was published in The New York Times magazine. So what makes that different than a writer for, say, Slate magazine, who publishes some serious piece of journalism in The New Yorker? Furthermore, the report at the Times pretty much admits that this isn’t a pure online journalism win:

Over the last few years, the Pulitzer Prize board has relaxed the eligibility rules, allowing news sites to submit work published only online; this year there were many such submissions, though none of them won.

(emphasis mine) Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think this makes Sheri Fink (the author of the Pro Publica/Times magazine article) any less deserving, but she is not the person that broke into otherwise unexplored territory for online investigative journalism or online journalism for that matter. When an online news outlet wins a Pulitzer, it will be without the help of a major print newspaper like the Times. That hasn’t happened yet.

–Daniel Strauss

Photo by Katerha used under a Creative Commons license.

This study is incredibly revealing to the state of our seemingly equal opportunity education. As a math major here, the gender gap and its implications are a reality to me. Though there are great affirmative action math programs sponsored by the University, like Project Algebra and Women in Science and Engineering (WISE), the UM Math department chooses to ignore structural inequalities or address disparities head on. 

Hopefully this study will force UM and all higher level educational instutions to shift focus to the importance gender equality in math as a social justice. It should be the goal of every department to recognize their ability to make an impact in structural barriers that are easily written off as the inevitable status quo.

I acknowledge that I may be biased in my perspective of the gravity of this problem. Do you think gender gaps will always exist in certain academic fields and professions? Do you think this is something that needs to be changed? There’s soon to be an open seat on the Supreme Court, should any amount of deliberation be with respect to closing that gender gap?

–Lexie Tourek

You mentioned that this was remarkable for Poland and Polish democracy, could you elaborate on that?

My main point was that basically twenty years after its founding, polish democratic institutions are proving to be very resilient so as soon as the news hits of President Kacznski dying, there was a complete continuity of governance. Basically you had the president pro-tempore take place, the chiefs of staff are replaced by their next in command and so on and that’s a basically a sign of consolidated democracy. It’s one that’s resilient enough that it can take this tragedy and not be susceptible to a coup or some kind of extreme destabilization or anything like that. If you look at what’s happening in Kyrgyzstan or Thailand, for instance, those are much weaker states where the institutions just aren’t resilient enough and can’t recover from these crises.

Were you surprised by this resilience?

It wasn’t so much that I was surprised, I think, it’s just a point that’s worth pointing out only because there were several other democracies where the military, for example, stepped out of its barracks in times of national crisis and asserted control. There’s a lot of talk about Poland being unstable and highly fractious and yet despite all that the democratic institutions turned out to be really consolidated.

So what happens next for the Polish government? How does this change the next elections? What’s the new dynamic?

Well the first of the significant changes is that the presidential elections that were going to be held in the fall are going to be held in June and within 60 days of the president’s death and that means the president’s party, Peace, doesn’t really have a lot of time or personnel to come up with an alternative candidate. Basically, they’ve been decapitated so there really isn’t another candidate for Peace. His brother has indicated that he doesn’t want to run, there isn’t an obvious second-in-command so they’re going to, on the one hand, enjoy a great deal of public sympathy, but on the other hand, have a great deal of trouble finding another candidate.

What does this say about democracy in the region?

I think it says two things. One, is that these are established democracies with very resilient institutions for the most part. Secondly, what this is also suggesting is that relations with Russia which have been very fraught in the region can take a turn for the better. There’s a great deal of regional solidarity and Polish newspapers keep reporting how sympathetic Russians are to the tragedy and the Poles right now and that actually means an improvement of East European/Russian relations.

Further insights here and here.

–Daniel Strauss