History News Network

Departments

Print this Page

Entries by Jonathan J. Bean

(View All Entries)

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Long live the RFC!

Crossposted from my Beacon blog:

http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=210

Posted on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 at 2:51 PM | Comments (0) | Top

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

"Diversity" versus Freedom: The Tragic Case of Southern Illinois University

This is a cross post to blogs discussing how liberty loses to power on one college campus--my Midwestern university. But liberty doesn't always lose -- FIRE and others have won important legal victories for religious and racial freedom on my campus. All it takes is a few concerned citizens, and the backing of groups like FIRE and NAS.(Disclosure: I am an officer of NAS).

http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=202

http://freesiu.blogspot.com/

As Frederick Douglass put it,

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."

Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 7:29 PM | Comments (0) | Top

Saturday, September 13, 2008

The Academic Gulag: Are You Politically Correct, Comrade Professor?

Crosspost from my Beacon blog:

http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=190

Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2008 at 11:52 AM | Comments (1) | Top

Friday, August 22, 2008

School Choice: Really Free, Semi-Free, or Flee as Fast as You Can?

Crosspost from my Beacon blog:

http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=169

Posted on Friday, August 22, 2008 at 9:30 AM | Comments (0) | Top

Monday, September 10, 2007

Economists versus Smoot Hawley

A remarkable post at econjournalwatch.org discussing, then posting the petition of the 1,028 economists opposing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.

Main site: www.econjournalwatch.org

Document:

http://tinyurl.com/3yku2m

Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 at 11:07 AM | Comments (2) | Top

Saturday, August 11, 2007

The Scary Origins of the Dissent in the School Race Decision

There is a tustle over at another HNN site concerning the alleged racist, conservative, knuckle dragging origins of Chief Justice John Roberts and those who supported his decision to rule school race quotas as unconstitutional:

http://hnn.us/articles/41501.html

I have a "dog in this fight" because I include the opinions of Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Thomas in a work sponsored by the Independent Institute, _Race and Liberty: The Classical Liberal Tradition of Civil Rights_ (forthcoming). Scholars such as Angela Dillard and Nancy Maclean lump 1950s racists, conservatives, Republicans, libertarians and segregationists all together. David Beito, Robert Collins and I have responded to the idiocy of Nancy MacLean's approach: Roberts is a "conservative," William F. Buckley was a conservative, Buckley opposed civil rights laws and was thus a racist, ergo Roberts and his ilk are also racist. Never mind Roberts' birth date of 1955!

Justice Thomas does address the "scary origins" of that recent decision as existing in the dissent: Justice Breyer culls up some of the same arguments of those who opposed Brown v. Board in '54. I'm appending an excerpt from Thomas's opinion. In my view, the Roberts and Thomas opinions are squarely in the mainstream of a longstanding classical liberal civil rights tradition. No decision is perfect, and it is sad that classical liberals--not "scary" conservatives--must resort to the courts to strike down government sponsored discrimination. But that's the world we live in.

For the full decision, see

http://tinyurl.com/33hdt5

Here is the excerpt from Thomas's opinion. Paralleling Maclean's piece, it might be titled "The Scary Origins of the Dissent in the School Race Decision":
*****
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, et al. 551 U.S. _____ (2007).

Thomas (concurring):

Most of the dissent's criticisms of today's result can be traced to its rejection of the color-blind Constitution. The dissent attempts to marginalize the notion of a color-blind Constitution by consigning it to me and Members of today's plurality. But I am quite comfortable in the company I keep. My view of the Constitution is Justice Harlan's view in Plessy: "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." And my view was the rallying cry for the lawyers who litigated Brown. ("That the Constitution is color blind is our dedicated belief"); ("The Fourteenth Amendment precludes a state from imposing distinctions or classifications based upon race and color alone"); see also In Memoriam: Honorable Thurgood Marshall, Proceedings of the Bar and Officers of the Supreme Court of the United States, X (1993) (remarks of Judge Motley) ("Marshall had a 'Bible' to which he turned during his most depressed moments. The 'Bible' would be known in the legal community as the first Mr. Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson. I do not know of any opinion which buoyed Marshall more in his pre-Brown days"). . . .

The segregationists in Brown embraced the arguments the Court endorsed in Plessy. Though Brown decisively rejected those arguments, today's dissent replicates them to a distressing extent. Thus, the dissent argues that "[e]ach plan embodies the results of local experience and community consultation." Similarly, the segregationists made repeated appeals to societal practice and expectation. The dissent argues that "weight [must be given] to a local school board's knowledge, expertise, and concerns," and with equal vigor, the segregationists argued for deference to local authorities. The dissent argues that today's decision "threatens to substitute for present calm a disruptive round of race-related litigation," and claims that today's decision "risks serious harm to the law and for the Nation." The segregationists also relied upon the likely practical consequences of ending the state-imposed system of racial separation. And foreshadowing today's dissent, the segregationists most heavily relied upon judicial precedent.

The similarities between the dissent's arguments and the segregationists' arguments do not stop there. Like the dissent, the segregationists repeatedly cautioned the Court to consider practicalities and not to embrace too theoretical a view of the Fourteenth Amendment. And just as the dissent argues that the need for these programs will lessen over time, the segregationists claimed that reliance on segregation was lessening and might eventually end.

What was wrong in 1954 cannot be right today. Whatever else the Court's rejection of the segregationists' arguments in Brown might have established, it certainly made clear that state and local governments cannot take from the Constitution a right to make decisions on the basis of race by adverse possession. The fact that state and local governments had been discriminating on the basis of race for a long time was irrelevant to the Brown Court. The fact that racial discrimination was preferable to the relevant communities was irrelevant to the Brown Court. And the fact that the state and local governments had relied on statements in this Court's opinions was irrelevant to the Brown Court. The same principles guide today's decision. . . .

In place of the color-blind Constitution, the dissent would permit measures to keep the races together and proscribe measures to keep the races apart. Although no such distinction is apparent in the Fourteenth Amendment, the dissent would constitutionalize today's faddish social theories that embrace that distinction. The Constitution is not that malleable. Even if current social theories favor classroom racial engineering as necessary to "solve the problems at hand," the Constitution enshrines principles independent of social theories. Indeed, if our history has taught us anything, it has taught us to beware of elites bearing racial theories. See, e.g., Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) ("[T]hey [members of the "negro African race"] had no rights which the white man was bound to respect"). Can we really be sure that the racial theories that motivated Dred Scott and Plessy are a relic of the past or that future theories will be nothing but beneficent and progressive? That is a gamble I am unwilling to take, and it is one the Constitution does not allow.

Posted on Saturday, August 11, 2007 at 7:12 PM | Comments (3) | Top

Friday, August 3, 2007

Abuse of Power: Civil Rights Initiative in Missouri

http://www.missouricri.org/pr_072607.html

This is the worst abuse of public office when it comes to approving a constitutional ballot initiative. Unbelievable. Regardless of a person's stance on race preferences, the "rewrite" is a combative response to the original ballot language. Voting for such language is to vote AGAINST what the civil rights initiative is all about. When people cannot petition their government for reform without having the government rewrite their petition to mean the opposite, then we live in an Orwellian world.

Note the original language of the ballot:

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prohibit any form of discrimination as an act of the state by declaring:

• The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting?"

Pretty simple and easy to understand.

Now, see if the following "redraft" by the State official conveys the meaning of the above and is "impartial":

"Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

1. ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities in public contracting, employment and education; and

2. allow preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to meet federal program funds eligibility standards as well as preferential treatment for bona fide qualifications based on sex?"

Posted on Friday, August 3, 2007 at 9:10 PM | Comments (5) | Top

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Branch Rickey and the Voluntary Integration of Baseball

For all you baseball fans out there, a piece by Independent Institute Research Fellow (and Judge) George Nicholson:

http://tinyurl.com/2ow6lf

OR

http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1949

It has run in NY Sun, SF Chronicle, Human Events and elsewhere.

Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 at 4:48 PM | Comments (0) | Top

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Banned Books: What Castro Won't Let His People Read

From Nat Hentoff:

http://tinyurl.com/26ql7a

Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 at 4:55 PM | Comments (0) | Top

Friday, February 23, 2007

Christianity and Freedom

As part of my ongoing research into the roots of classical liberal thought on race, I came across William Wilberforce. Correction: David Theroux, the well-read head of the Independent Institute, taught me about Wilberforce and I've since learned more on my own. If you aren't awake, the media is writing quite a bit about Wilbeforce and the film "Amazing Grace."

Here is an op-ed that I wrote on the topic:

http://tinyurl.com/2ql8lq

On the more general issue of classical liberalism and Christianity, see Leonard Liggio's piece, "Christianity, Classical Liberalism are Liberty's Foundations." Liggio states: "I would not be a classical liberal if I had not been a very active Christian."

Available at http://tinyurl.com/37c5b2

Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 at 5:07 PM | Comments (9) | Top

Saturday, February 3, 2007

WG Sumner and Minority College Admissions

In Muccigrosso, _A Basic History of Conservatism_, the author claimed that WG Sumner favored admitting women and minorities to Yale University, where he taught sociology and other subjects.

I am trying to track down primary sources to that effect. Most secondary literature attributes the racism of the era to Sumner because of his philosophy that stateways cannot easily change "folkways." This is a caricature of the man's views, of course, so all the more important to explore his views on race.

In "Conquest of the United States by Spain," he makes several references to the barbaric treatment of blacks, Indians, Chinese and what could the Filipinos expect, he asked, based on our record at home?

Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2007 at 6:25 PM | Comments (1) | Top

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Kate Winslet's Breasts

I teach a course on conservative and libertarian intellectuals in U.S. history (yes, the students learn the differences from day one).

Here is a group email I sent to my students, who invariably are a very bright bunch, regardless of politics (probably due to self-selection after the others see the heavy reading list):

Subject: HIST 455: Kate Winslet's Breasts: Libertarian and Conservative Guides to Movies, Etc.

I hope the subject line passed your spam filter. :-)

Several of you discussed pop culture and conservatism/libertarianism with me out of class.

For those interested in libertarian film reviews and libertarian themes in TV/movies, check out:

http://www.missliberty.com/

As for the conservatives, they had cleanflicks online until a Supreme Court case ruled that such companies could not take Hollywood movies and cover breasts, etc. (the Supreme Court actually discussed Kate Winslet's breasts before ruling that such bowdlerizing violated intellectual property rights!). If you don't know bowdlerize, it is your word for the day. LOL CleanFlicks et al. v. Kate Winslet's Titanic Breasts. [They aren't so titanic; this is a reference to the movie]

BTW, in case you think I make this stuff up, go to

http://www.reason.com

(Reason is the most popular glossy libertarian magazine).

As for other conservative guides, National Review (the glossy conservative magazine) has periodically come up with NR's Guide to Rock Music, Top 100 Conservative Films, TV Shows, etc.

see, e.g., http://www.nationalreview.com

or http://tinyurl.com

(Tinyurl is a great firefox extension that takes long web site addresses and makes them "tiny" and permanent).

Posted on Wednesday, January 31, 2007 at 10:37 PM | Comments (3) | Top

Saturday, January 27, 2007

Libertarian syllabi?

Dear L&P folks,

I'm interested in developing a course, "The Libertarian View in U.S. History," as a counterpart to our department's "Radical View" and "Conservative View" courses. Are there syllabi online? Anyone willing to share? The focus will be on intellectual history, although that could be broadened.

Thanks in advance.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Bean

Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 at 9:43 PM | Comments (7) | Top

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Black, White, and _Brown_ II: "With No Deliberate Speed"

I did some fact checking on Hunter College's graduation rates overall and by race and gender. The problem of low graduation rates is across the board at Hunter, at my institution (Southern Illinois) and nationwide. Women, who now make up a majority of college students, also have higher graduation rates. Hunter seems to be much more female-dominated than most schools, however, with 70 percent of students women.

Here are the numbers for Hunter College (available from www.collegeresults.org and based on government's IPEDs six-year graduation rates; every school in the country is required to report this data -- look up your own school to see for yourself). Graduation rates are over six-years:

Overall: 39%

White Female: 48%
White Male: 27%

Black Female: 37%
Black Male: 28% (actually higher than the white male figure).

Women have much higher graduation rates across other ethnicities as well. These numbers are very close to my institution's (SIU).

Clearly, there is a "male" crisis that is not limited by race. What is at the bottom of this? Christina Hoff Sommers has a book on the topic but it's on my "to read when I finally get time" list.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Bean

Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 at 10:31 PM | Comments (3) | Top

Black, White and _Brown_

In a post below ("Hunter is Hunting Black Males"), Ralph Luker takes me to task for seeming to be indifferent to the plight of black males in higher education. My response below is to correct any misconception and raise the issue of "where do we go from here?" with the stunning educational gap between black males (in particular) and other groups? In my view, the constant obsession with "diversity" has blinded us to the problem of black male underachievement which Ralph raises. My short response follows. I'd be interested in what others have to say about solutions to this gap?

Jonathan Bean
Professor of History, Southern Illinois University
*****
Dear Ralph,

Your comment was apt and I did not mean to write off black males -- indeed, there IS a crisis and I empathize. The National Urban League has listed the black male shortage among college graduates (2:1 gap between women and men) as one of black America's top problems.

I am not one of those who thinks we can gloss over this terrible educational gap between young black students and others. I have long criticized racial preferences, for example, not simply because of moral or constitutional reasons, but because they take our focus off the K-12 disaster. (I know because many of my former History-Ed students have gone off to teach in the "war zones" of Chicago school district. Moreover, I have witnessed it in my own community). With reservations, I'm an advocate of school choice and radical educational reform.

I also see a place for HBCs--note that I termed them a success. On this point, I think Clarence Thomas may be right: You can get a good education in an all-black HBC. That is partly why Thomas criticized the Brown decision -- because of this condescending attitude that black success in education _necessarily_ requires interaction with whites in all cases. Thomas believed the Court should have struck down the principle underlying segregation, declare our constitution color blind, and leave neighborhood schools alone. If they are mixed, fine. If they are predominantly black, that's OK too. Zora Neale Hurston had the same reaction to Brown when it was announced, and she was no apologist for Jim Crow.

My point, which was a bit flippant because of the nature of the story, is that here we have Afrocentric professors teaching diversity theory when we ought to be doing the basics. God knows our Colleges of Education need a major overhaul in this and other respects (I spent two solid years on a task force to "reinvent" teacher education at SIU. The problems are so insoluble they require cutting some Gordian knots).

On HBCs (Ralph taught at one, Morehouse)*:

I had a student, and now good friend, who came from an HBC in North Carolina, and he said that there was more openness, and less nonsense (e.g., "diversity theory") at his HBC than at SIU and UNC (where his wife attended). Ralph, did you find that there were advantages to HBCs? Are they less prone to some of the fads that afflict the rest of higher education?

So, if I came off flip, it's because of the silliness that attracts attention, while a Bill Cosby, the Thernstroms (_No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning_), and others are demonized by the academic "deep thinkers" for trying to address the problem you and I care about.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Bean
Visiting Scholar (Summer 2006)
Social Philosophy and Policy Center
Bowling Green, OH
419-372-8673
jbean@bgnet.bgsu.edu

*Morehead was a slip -- my sister-in-law went there in Kentucky. Of course, I meant Morehouse.

Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 at 10:54 AM | Comments (2) | Top

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Hunter is Hunting Black Males

From NY Amsterdam News (on declining graduation rate of black males, rising rate of black females).

"One professor from CUNY’s Hunter College tells AmNews that he can attest to the diminishing Black male presence, specifically in his school, and begs to have at least one Black male in his classes each semester.

“In my classes alone, if I have a Black male - one a whole year, I’m happy - I am serious,” declares Henry L. Evans, who teaches Diversity Theory and Philosophy of Education at Hunter College.

BEGS?

One black male a year and "I'm happy." Whoo. Throw a party. I suppose teaching "diversity theory" is not possible if the human objects in the room don't match the rainbow plot in the professor's mind?

Ironically, the article goes on to praise all-black schools for benefiting black males. But, wouldn't the racial homogeneity hurt "diversity?" Are they happy if they get one white male each year in a "Diversity Theory" class at Morehead? Do they even have such ridiculous courses at HBCs? Perhaps that is the key to their success.

Multiculturally yours,

Jonathan Bean

Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 at 6:39 PM | Comments (2) | Top

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Labor Exchanges

I read a review of Karen Olson's _Wives of Steel_ in _Enterprise & Society_ (June 2006 issue). The book's theme is also captured in this publisher's blurb:

http://tinyurl.com/nxghu

The review inspired the following imaginary exchanges on a college campus in the middle of Utopia (nowhere), Illinois:

Feminist: "Deindustrialization was great for women."

Jane Doe: Why?

Feminist: Because all the patriarchical working-class men lost their high paying jobs and couldn't support their families.

Jane Doe: That's good?

Feminist: Yes, and even better, their "unliberated" marriages broke up and the women went to work, thus destroying the "feminine mystique."

Jane Doe: Really? (Puzzled look)

Feminist: These liberated young women found "meaning" in their lives and no longer needed men. Long live forced labor, it will free you!

Then there is the opposite "spin" of the leftist labor scholar who constantly bemoans "deindustrialization":

Labor leftist: Where have all the jobs gone in my father's home town?

Economist: This isn't your father's economy. The expanding service sector has meant that Marx's prediction of mass unemployment never came true. Incomes are higher and working conditions far better.

Labor leftist: Yes, but what about "deindustrialization; it is the greatest tragedy of the past half-century!"

Economist: Deindustrialization has been going on for one hundred years as workers became better educated and provided new services to others. This is a reskilling of the labor force. Three cheers for deindustrialization.

Labor leftist: Yes, but what of the uneducated; they are left behind.

Economist: So?

Labor leftist: Deindustrialization creates good jobs for those who graduate from high school and college, but what of the high school dropout? If this trend continues, there will be no work at all for those with an 8th grade education! This is the fault of globalizing capitalism and "neo-liberal" policies in the advanced corporatist states. (Veins starting to pop). "Remember Seattle! You have nothing to lose but your hot coffee!"

Economist: What of the high school drop-out? There aren't that many and, well, they should have stayed in school.

Labor leftist: You are a blood-sucking, greedy, uncompassionate servant of the right-wing conspiratorial corporate elite. Probably a "neo-con" to boot.

Economist: My paycheck at Podunk U. doesn't reflect it, but I'll be sure to tell the wife.

Labor leftist: Some day the workers WILL unite and throw you out of the ivory tower.

Economist: But you live in an ivory tower too...

Labor leftist: Yes, but these uneducated hoo-has with their 8th grade educations will follow ME because I will grant them GEDs and admit them to No Standards U. I am the vanguard. I am the future. I am TENURED!! First, Podunk University, then Mega-University, then the world!! (Raving body language, eyes bulging, arms flailing)

Economist: Remind me to park on the other side of campus. . . and wear Kevlar.

Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 at 8:53 PM | Comments (2) | Top

Sunday, March 5, 2006

Republicans Were on the Right Side of Civil Rights History Long Before Democrats

The following speech, “The Ship and the Sea: ‘The Party of Lincoln’ and Civil Rights,” was presented to the Jackson County Republicans Lincoln Day Dinner (keynote address) (March 4, 2006). Professor Bean teaches History at Southern Illinois University; his web page is here

A member of that other political party, Harry S Truman, once said that "The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know.”

My book-in-progress, Right on Race: Conservative Voices for Racial Freedom offers the “history we don’t know” about conservatives, the Republican Party, and race. My goal is simple and radical: To turn our concept of the civil rights movement upside down, and place the Republican Party and conservatives at the center of a 150 year movement for racial freedom.

We need this book more than ever. Since the 1960s, young Americans have been taught to equate the Democratic Party with civil rights, while being taught that the Republican Party was on the “wrong side” of history. The media and our schools have drummed this myth into our heads so that Republican politicians fear to even deal with civil rights because, as they say, “you can’t fight the race card.” This is bad history, betrays our proud party tradition, and offers no vision for the future. By looking backward at the Republican Party record on race, my book offers ammunition for those willing to “fight the race card” and promote colorblind justice.

For 150 years, the Republican Party held high the banner of civil rights. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party defended slavery, segregation and allied itself with the Ku Klux Klan to take the vote away from black and white Republicans and terrorize them into submission. Little wonder the Democratic Party was known as the “party of the Klan” well into the 20th century. When Democrats finally embraced the cause of racial freedom in the 1960s, they were the “Johnny come latelys” of the civil rights movement, simply undoing the damage their Party had inflicted on racial minorities during the prior 100 years. We, the Party of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass and Ward Connerly, have a far better claim to civil rights but we have forgotten our own history.

Here are a few of the forgotten voices I reclaim in my book:

Lewis Tappan took the lead in defending the slaves who mutinied on the Amistad – a court case made famous by Steven Spielberg’s film. Tappan was an evangelical Christian and conservative businessman. He used his network of antislavery men, including Abraham Lincoln, to create a credit reporting system–Dun & Bradstreet--that covered North America.

Another early Republican leader, Salmon P. Chase, earned the nickname “Attorney General of Fugitive Slaves” for defending runaway slaves.

The most famous runaway, Frederick Douglass, was the Martin Luther King, Jr. of the 19th century. Douglass said "The Republican Party is the ship and all else is the sea."

Then there was Abraham Lincoln, who gave his name to “the Party of Lincoln.” He not only emancipated slaves, but spent his late political career calling slavery “a relic of barbarism” and advocating its “ultimate extinction.”

After the Civil War, a Republican Congress advanced a “Second American Revolution” by passing Civil Rights Acts and three constitutional amendments: abolishing slavery, guaranteeing equal protection of the law and securing voting rights. This Congress also asserted the individual right to bear arms as needed for blacks (and others) to protect themselves from the Ku Klux Klan.

Republicans were equally concerned with the rights of other racial minorities. For example, a conservative Republican Senator, Joseph Hawley, was the chief opponent of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which barred any Chinese from entering this country.

Republican civil rights advocates also used the courts to advance a colorblind vision of America. Thus, it was Republican Justice Harlan who dissented from the “separate but equal” ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), declaring that “our Constitution is colorblind.” This became the rallying cry of the NAACP in its later battles to undo the segregation imposed on the South by the Democratic Party.

In fact, Republicans were also influential in the NAACP. The group’s first president, Moorefield Storey, denounced Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s segregation of the federal government and also won the first Supreme Court case ruling residential segregation unconstitutional – in 1917 (37 years before Brown v. Board).

During this same period, Republican businessmen used their philanthropy to improve the lives of African Americans in the South. Julius Rosenwald, the head of Sears & Roebuck, was a staunch advocate of laissez-faire and a great philanthropist. One of the notable expressions of his “give while you live” charity was the creation of 5,000 “Rosenwald Schools” in the South for poor black youth.

During the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan arose again as a national force. Republican presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge denounced KKK violence and supported a federal anti-lynch law, which passed the Republican House before repeatedly dying in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Continuing through the 1930s and 1940s, when Franklin Roosevelt refused to have pictures taken with blacks, the Republican Party called for desegregation of the military, antilynching laws, and the right to vote. Furthermore, while FDR sent Japanese Americans to internment camps, a conservative newspaper chain denounced this violation of civil rights, as did the influential black conservative George Schuyler.

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson passed the landmark Civil Rights Act only after Republicans introduced their own bill and overcame a Democratic filibuster. 89% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act–a far greater percentage than the Democrats, who mustered a bare majority.

Almost immediately, however, the Democratic Party returned to its tradition of racial discrimination by instituting racial preferences that judged people by the color of their skin. In this era, I include excerpts from George Schuyler, Ronald Reagan, Thomas Sowell, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Linda Chavez, Ward Connerly, and Jorge Mas Conosa.

To return to Truman: His supporters said “Give ‘em hell, Harry.” For all the Harrys of the Republican Party who are afraid to speak their mind on civil rights, afraid to fight the “race card” and the race hustlers of the Democratic Party, I say: Read my book and “Give ‘em hell.”

Posted on Sunday, March 5, 2006 at 7:10 PM | Comments (68) | Top

Saturday, November 26, 2005

What Color Are You? Count the Drops

Presently I am working with a brilliant young graduate of Harvard University who is writing a dissertation on the history of interracial dating and marriage, from 1833 to the present. She focuses on the politics, internal and external, of groups such as the AME Church, the Anti-Slavery Society, NAACP, National Negro Business League, and organizations representing "multiracial" individuals.

Meanwhile, I am compiling a reader _Right on Race: Conservative Voices for Racial Equality and Freedom_ that includes classical liberals (F. Douglass, Mencken, Moorfield Storey, Milton Friedman) and conservatives (Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, George Schuyler, Linda Chavez, Ronald Reagan). Suggestions are welcome!

In both our projects, the "mulatto" (or miscgenation) issue is one that shows up constantly in the late 19th and 20th centuries. Conflict between lighter and darker-skinned "blacks" was sometimes open, more often a subtext. Plessy was chosen because he was very light-skinned and one of the rights he sought was to self-describe himself as "white" if he so desired. The grand irony of the civil rights movement is the tension between this right of self-description (embedded in law) and efforts to offer affirmative action to "visible minorities" (to use the Canadian term). Thus, affirmative action, as presently practiced, has not only retained the "one drop" rule but extended it to other groups--most ludicrously, Hispanics. Indeed, one can "pass" as Hispanic by marriage and not have a single "drop" of "Hispanic blood" (whatever that is). Yet your married name is Rodriguez and, per the self-description rule, who is to argue? Actually, given all the fraud associated with some minority contracting programs, the Bush administration has implemented a regulation that would require one to prove, by paper trail, one's racial or ethnic character (see Roger Clegg link below). I find this as appalling as the "degree of Indian blood" cards now used by "progressive" Indians to limit benefits to "real" Indians (a cynic might argue that this is a typical side effect of any rent-seeking).

These are the complexities of race today, with present-day practices opportunistically drawing upon past racist practices. Curiouser and curiouser.

Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 at 12:58 PM | Comments (10) | Top

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

"The Conservative Sixties"

Below is a review of yet another work on conservatism since World War II. Ever since Alan Brinkley kicked off an American Historical Review on the need to study conservatism (and classical liberalism), there has been a steady stream of works. My post includes a list of suggested readings and a call for readers' suggestions.

David Farber and Jeff Roche, eds. The Conservative Sixties. New York: Peter Lang, 2003. vi + 211 pp. ISBN 0-8204-5548-2. Notes, list of contributors, index. $29.95 (paper)

Reviewed by Jason M. Stahl, Department of History, University of Minnesota.

http://tinyurl.com/77e5w

My response:

I agree with the reviewer that intellectual and social histories of conservatism ignore the business stream of conservatism. I confronted this first hand in my research on small business lobbying, which joined hands with corporate elites from the 1970s onward, because they were "mad as hell" about government regulation and taxes. Although a bit
dated, Vogel's assessment that business has remained economically conserative for 125 years remains true (Vogel, "Why Businessmen Distrust Their State: The Political Consciousness of American Corporate
Executives." _British Journal of Political Science_ (January 1978): 45-78) and backed up by more recent polls (Kirkland, "Today's GOP: The Party's Over for Big Business." _Fortune_, 6 February 1995, 50-62.
Kirkland found that 69% of CEOs were Republicans and 98% favored reductions in government spending, 82% for deregulation).

Of course, liberal human resources professionals continue to promote "social responsibility" and racial preferences (see Lynch, _The Diversity Machine: The Drive to Change the White Male Workplace_), yet we cannot ignore this core identity among businesspeople, large and small. Some of these entrepreneurs and cashed-out CEOs funded think
tanks, which are also treated separately from "studies of conservatism." This is odd, because think tanks were necessary "idea brokers" given the near total exclusion of conservatives from campus
faculty (amply documented by David Horowitz, NAS, and others).

Lastly, I agree with David Horowitz that this is the first social movement that does NOT include movement activists as a wave of scholars poring over its past. Movement conservatives may be biased, but they
are well-versed in what movement cons were actually reading and doing -- and not given over to the presumed triumphalism of liberal historians who see Republican victories as the Rise of the Right, while
movement activists saw defeat in the Reagan Revolution and the "Republican Revolution" of 1994. Read Frum, Niskanen, Stockman, Rector.

Brinkley, Ribuffo, Thomas Frank are certainly not conservatives. I don't believe Andrews was a conservative. Flamm begins his dissertation by describing how he is (or was?) a liberal. I don't know McGirr, Roche or the others but can only identify two historians of conservatism who
are actually conservative. This situation leads to a lot of nonsense about "backlash" and "triumph," ignoring the fatalistic streak in the conservative movement. These themes are the ones trumpeted in college history textbooks, where most "educated" Americans get their recent history. As a movement con myself (yes, I'm outed), I joke that the best I can hope for in my lifetime is repeal of the low flush, low-flow water law. Give me pounding showers, or give me death! That's the level of success libertarian-conservatives have achieved, rendering us "dead"
and the Beltway in the hands of "Big Government conservatives" (Fred Barnes' apt term).

SUGGESTED READINGS (for more see my syllabus of recommended readings at http://tinyurl.com/3xp72). NOTE: Focus on the 1960s and early 1970s.

Anderson, Martin. The Federal Bulldozer (1964)
Cornuelle, Reclaiming the American Dream: The Role of Private Individuals and Voluntary Associations (1965)

Banfield, The Unheavenly City Revisited (1974)

Bean, "'Burn, Baby, Burn': Small Business in the Urban Riots of the 1960s," The Independent Review (Fall 2000)

Critchlow, Phyllis Schlafly and the Rise of Grassroots Conservatism (2005)

Decter, Midge. Liberal Parents, Radical Children (1975)

Edwards, Goldwater: The Man Who Made A Revolution (1995)

Edwards. The Conservative Revolution (1999)

Evans, M. Stanton. Revolt on the Campus (1961)

Farber and Roche, ed. The Conservative Sixties (2003)

Friedman, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom (1962)

Gerson, Mark. The Neoconservative Vision: From the
Cold War to the Culture Wars (1996)

Glazer, “The Campus Crucible: Students Politics and the University,” Essential Neoconservative Reader, 41-63.

Goldwater, Barry M. The Conscience of a Conservative (1960)

Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (1960)

Horowitz, David. Radical Son (1998)

Judis, John. William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives (1988)

Kelley, Bringing the Market Back In (1990?)

Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement Since 1945 rev. ed. (1996)

Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974)

O’Rourke, “Second Thoughts about the Sixties,” Give War a Chance (1992), 90-97

Rand, Ayn. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1967)

Rothbard, Murray. Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature and Other Essays (1974)

Rothbard. For a New Liberty: A Libertarian Manifesto (1973)

Schneider, Gregory. Conservatism in America since 1930 : A Reader

Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 at 2:08 PM | Comments (5) | Top

Friday, May 13, 2005

Update on SIU

Michael Davidson has written at HNN and elsewhere about my case. Curious, since we are yards apart yet he never has contacted me. Here is my response, keeping in mind that I cannot provide you "with all the facts" at this time:

*******************
At InsideHigherEducation.com Davidson writes "this article gives a badly slanted version of less than half of the story. I find it disturbing that many comments are being made here based on a poor secondary source -including some from professional historians who should know better. I would love to be able to add some substantive detail, but legal restrictions prevent me.

The impulse here is to sound off, but given the poor state of public knowledge on this matter, it is ill-advised.

Dr. Michael R. Davidson
Lecturer in HistorySIU Carbondale"

My response:

For someone who does not want to "sound off," Davidson has done an extraordinary amount of it--without saying anything but "you don't have all the facts." The facts which I can state here would include the clear grievance procedures which the TA (who was the unknown accuser at the beginning), the chair, the dean, and the letter signers ALL violated. The dean drew up bogus "hostile environment" charges in dismissing my TAs -- a legal term that means nothing outside of civil rights law and there are procedures to follow there, too. (In her rush to judgment, she was apparently not receiving legal counsel). There is much that I cannot reveal but it would only make the "story" starker than even that which has appeared in the press.

Curious that Davidson has invested so much on the blogosphere concerning my case. We share the same corridor, he and I, along with a number of the letter signers. Since he has never contacted me, I must ask whether his considerable web activity is an expression of his support for the other side's version of events? Why has he not contacted me? How can he criticize journalists for "not getting the facts," when he (so interested in my case) has not done so either?

Elsewhere, he has corrected Boston Globe columnist Cathy Young: My Lord, he is a Republican (or was in Maine), although only a non-tenure track lecturer at SIUC. So, in a half century there has been one "conservative" Republican or Libertarian in a rather large department! Whoa. Be still, my evenhanded heart. Conservatism run amuck at SIU! A true Millian "marketplace of ideas." I rest easy now with a comrade at arms just 30 feet from my door. (I will correct myself if it appears that we are 42 feet apart).

Jonathan Bean

Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 at 10:41 PM | Comments (3) | Top

Friday, August 27, 2004

Same Sex Benefits Retort

There is a short and long-term POLITICAL problem here that libertarians, comfortable with theory, are wont to tackle.

In the long-term, we (even Horowitz intimates this), may want the State out of the "marriage business," but in the short-term we live in the real, nitty-gritty world of state-governed rules that tightly bind state institutions in particular (note to Horowitz: your point concerning the latitude of private firms is well-taken but I, and most professors and students, teach or attend State universities or colleges. Perhaps I should have made that clear).

I don't see how we achieve, or advance our libertarian state-less marriage goals by simply extending current state rules to gays (because they have a lobby), but not to polygamists or others. What is the point? Sounds like mundane interest-group politics to me. More of the same. Libertarians aren't particularly good at this type of game.

As for this being a "small number of people," it is difficult to tell, as the "movement" has only just begun. Once attached to State rules or court decisions defining "equal rights" to mean gay marriage or same-sex benefits (but not polygamy), the door will be open to affirmative action of all sorts. As a long student of that area of civil rights, I know that activists take a victory in one area and use our judicial oligarchs, or friendly bureaucrats, to extend it in another.

Finally, Horowitz repeatedly states that marriage is a "desirable social institution." Perhaps this is so, though serial monogamy now seems to be the norm, and that institution has been under attack, or not as solid and "desirable" to those people who leave it (divorce) choose something else (cohabitate, remain single) or live "make-do" marriages. And, you skirt the issue of monogamy entirely: The classic argument is that monogamy makes for social stability (no unhappy mate-less males or females, as in polygamous societies). Another argument is that it is better to have two parents raise children; this is supported by social science research.

Interesting how everyone dodged the polygamy question. I searched a database of polls and found that polygamy is even less popular than same sex marriage (92% think it is morally wrong) even though major world religions (e.g., Islam) sanction it. A strong majority actually think a husband with more than one wife ought to be arrested but no one wants to enforce the sodomy statutes ("consenting adults" and all that). Love to see the gender breakdown of that poll!

Here is a strong argument for polygamy: It would help break down the temptation to "stray" into adultery (thus breaking the bonds of contractual marriage), protect the rights of religious groups to practice their "victimless" tenets, and halt the current discrimination against them too.

But there is that political reality again: The gay lobby overcame 92% opposition to gay marriage by working through friendly courts (damn the public!) but libertarians have yet to find a way to win victories of any sort. Whither the movement, should we deserve such a label. This whole debate shows how irrelevant we have become.

Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 at 8:47 AM | Comments (0) | Top

Thursday, August 26, 2004

A Libertarian Interpretation of Same Sex Benefits

NOTE: My campus is currently roiled by our Chancellor's refusal to extend various benefits to "domestic partners" (a euphemism for homosexual partners). By state law, he or the college board CANNOT extend the same benefits to homosexual couples as to married ones. Some libertarians defend this as an expansion of "liberty," but leaving aside the question as to whether the State should be involved in the first place (moot: it is), libertarian supporters of same-sex benefits are "useful idiots" to a crowd that does not normally respect libertarian contractual thinking. Here, in an open letter to the Chancellor and the campus newspaper, I defend his position on non-religious grounds. (He did get into deep doo-doo by answering a reporter's question that--yes, as a Christian, not as Chancellor, he believed homosexual activity--not 'orientation'-was 'sinful behavior,' noting that we are all sinners. That sent the emotional Gay Lesbian Transgender and Simply Confused crowd into a foam).

Any thoughts on this issue?

J.B.

***************************************
Dear Chancellor Wendler:

You are undoubtedly under a lot of "heat" right now for failing to do the politically correct thing and fall into line with other college presidents who are afraid of being called "homophobic." The legal status of "partner" is dubious at best. The entire same-sex argument (for marriage or benefits) falls apart because it is based on a libertarian contractual model (disclosure: I AM a libertarian conservative). This model is appropriate in many circumstances but not in this one.

First, the people proposing the same-sex model as an analogue to heterosexual marriage don't normally respect the model (if they did, our welfare state would be much smaller!).

Moreover, the contractual model need not limit itself to two people; polygamy certainly has a stronger historical, contemporary, and legal grounding than same-sex anything. It is practiced worldwide. This is not a hypothetical: Congress, drawing upon its constitutional powers to admit States into the Union, denied Utah entry until it repealed its polygamy laws. The people screaming loudly today might call this a violation of church/state separation, except they don't give a hoot for Mormons. In short, their beliefs are based on prejudice, not rational thought. Or, take a contemporary case: Muslims in Africa (and elsewhere) often are prevented from coming to the USA unless they divorce one of their 'excess' wives because that religion allows polygamy. (I've spoken with African Muslims who had to choose what to do because they wanted to come to the USA so badly). So, our immigration laws have a disparate impact ("discriminate") against people based on their religion.

SIUC's recent move to "add in" homosexual benefits by making them sign an affidavit testifying to their (monogamous?) relationship is well-intentioned. Yet, it occurred to me that this "progressive" policy leaves out heterosexual 'domestic partners' (cohabitators). Why can't they sign an affidavit, too? If we juxtaposed the last census figures of long-term heterosexual domestic partners and same-sex partners, the number of the former would be much larger than the latter (the most reliable statistics for sexual orientation were gathered by U. of Chicago researchers in the early 1990s). I know the counterargument: Cohabitators have the option of getting married but obviously this entails much more commitment, legal risk and responsibility, etc. than signing an affidavit. Moreover, there is an end-to-marriage document called a divorce decree that again involves much pain and cost. When does an affidavit end? If the couple splits, why give up benefits? There is an obvious incentive for underreporting. As I always say, don't tell me your good intentions, tell me the incentives you are creating....

The bottom line is this: The State (government) defines what type of people (man and woman, man and man, etc.) and how many people may be married. The State of Illinois has spoken. Illinois has defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This institution and others have given benefits to married people, as currently defined by the State. If those who object to your policy have a problem, they ought to take it up with their state legislators.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Bean
Professor of History
Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 at 9:03 PM | Comments (3) | Top

Tuesday, May 25, 2004

Bill Cosby and the Problem of Black Dissent

As many blog subscribers may have read, Bill Cosby addressed a NAACP dinner and took the African American community and its so-called leaders to task for failing to speak out against the ghettoization of language, schooling, and the general deterioration of bourgeois values once considered valuable in the "uplift" of black individuals. The response to his comments--clearly within the mainstream of African American opinion judging by polls--was fierce. How DARE he say such things in a public forum? Well, Mr. Cosby did not back down and reiterated his points at Stanford University commencement speech this past week. See the editorial page of the _Wall Street Journal_ for his main points, 25 May 2004: http://tinyurl.com/27hqf

For an excellent discussion of the problem of the black dissenter in this post-Civil Rights era, I highly recommend Stephen Carter's Part II, "On Being a Black Dissenter," in _Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby_. Written by a Yale Law professors who is NOT a conservative or libertarian, Carter finds it distressing that intellectual discussion is so circumscribed by the "party line." This is NOT what the original civil rights movement was all about, needless to say.

"A mind is a terrible thing to waste," indeed...

Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 at 4:20 PM | Comments (0) | Top

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

Seabiscuit and the Great Depression: It's Not About FDR, Stupid!

As an instructor of a course entitled, "The Great Depression," I have the liberty to explore this fascinating decade in depth and detail (www.siu.edu/~histsiu/faculty/bean/DepressionSyllabus1.pdf ). I find distressful, however, the bastardized pro-New Deal version of history that is handed down by popular writers and Hollywood screenwriters since--well, since the New Deal propaganda machine revved up! On the latter, see Gary Dean Best, _The Critical Press and the New Deal: The Press Versus Presidential Power, 1933-1938_ (Praeger, 1993).

Part of this received wisdom--Big Business baaad, New Deal gooood--is handed down through the oft-required text _Grapes of Wrath_, written by John Steinbeck. For a libertarian critique of this socialistic novel (i.e., why it is good entertainment, but bad economic history), see Nicholas Varriano, "The Trouble with Steinbeck," _Liberty_, March 2004, 41-44.

Another irritating example of the New Deal gospel can be found in the entertaining, yet historically jarring movie _Seabiscuit_ (2003). The movie is about a private entrepreneur--a highly successful Ford dealer--who has lost his son through a tragic car accident and his wife through a resulting divorce. In his search to find a new life, he takes risks on men (a jockey and horse trainer) who are "down and out" but who have the untapped potential to turn the horse "Seabiscuit" into a legend. In short, the movie is all about risk-taking, individualism, taking chances, and the rough trade of horse-racing. Instead, the creators of this otherwise endearing, if sappy, movie periodically insert monologues from David McCullough ("The American Experience" voice) about how the New Deal saved poor figures like those in the New Deal. Thus, when the jockey (played by Tobey Maguire) dips into a bowl of tomato soup at his mentor's house, the film cuts to New Deal soup lines "giving hope to the masses." It is this kind of political drum-beating that gives Hollywood, and academia, their well-deserved reputations for statist liberalism, because the New Deal had nothing to do with the characters in _Seabiscuit_.

A more proper context would be the manic pop culture of the era, documented so well in Gary Dean Best's short survey _The Nickel and Dime Decade: American Pop Culture During the 1930s_. People paid to watch horse-racing, just as they did for roller derby, six-day bicycle races, dance marathons, flag-pole sitting, and so on. But doing right by history would not allow Hollywood producers to grind their political axes against the past and present.

Fortunately, I have the time (fifteen weeks) to inform students of the broader aspects of American culture during the 1930s. Many people experienced "hard times," during the Great Depression, but many did not (real wages actually _increased_ fifty percent, though this caused higher unemployment, one of the unintended consequences of New Deal labor policies). Moreover, there was so much more going on than the New Deal, including horse races won by individuals who were not turning each corner for the ol' WPA or CCC, Hollywood notwithstanding.

Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 at 8:16 PM | Comments (1) | Top

Monday, February 16, 2004

Calvin Coolidge: Civil Rights Defender

In honor of Black History Month, it is important to remember the forgotten legacy of the Republican Party and its contribution to African American civil rights. Most Americans today, including GOP politicians who should know better, assume that Republicans of the past "were on the wrong side of history," yet the black vote did not disappear until 1964, and only then because presidential candidate Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act on libertarian grounds. Significantly, however, MORE Republican members of Congress supported the act than did Democratic members.

In short, this is an historical topic that deserve much greater consideration from U.S. political historians. How did Republican politicians approach the black votes from 1865 to the present? Why have Republican presidents, from Nixon onward been such strong supporters of affirmative action once in office? (See Clint Bolick's critique of GOP hypocrisy on racial preferences: "The Republican Abdication," chap. 8 in __The Affirmative Action Fraud_ (Cato, 1996).

At a recent Liberty Fund conference--put on by an organization that does much to stimulate discussion of diverse topics related to "Liberty and Power" (www.libertyfund.org)--we read essays by Calvin Coolidge defending the civil rights of African Americans and Catholics. Coolidge wrote and published these letters or addresses at the height of the Ku Klux Klan's popularity. Readers may be interested in the excerpts from his letter "Equality of Rights," dated 9 August 1924, and published in Coolidge, _Foundations of the Republic: Speeches and Addresses (1926):

"My dear Sir: Your letter is received, accompanied by a newspaper clipping which discusses the possibility that a colored man may be the Republican nominee for Congress from one of the New York districts...you say:

'It is of some concern whether a Negro is allowed to run for Congress anywhere, at any time, in any party, in this, a white man's country.'

"....I was amazed to receive such a letter. During the war 500,000 colored men and boys were called up under the draft, not one of whom sought to evade it." [As president, I am] "one who feels a responsibility for living up to the traditions and maintaining the principles of the Republican Party. Our Constitution guarantees equal rights to all our citizens, without discrimination on account of race or color. I have taken my oath to support that Constitution...."

Yours very truly, etc.

Calvin Coolidge

*********************

I'd be interested in more citations to the Republican party and race. There is, of course, Nancy Weiss's _Farewell to the Party of Lincoln: Black Politics in the Age of FDR_ (1983) and Robert Burk, _The Eisenhower Administration and Black Civil Rights_ (1984). There is also a fast-growing literature on Nixon and civil rights; see, e.g., Kotlowski, _Nixon's Civil Rights_ (2001) and my own book, which devotes several chapters to his pioneering efforts at affirmative action: _Big Government and Affirmative Action: The Scandalous History of the Small Business Administration_ (2001). On Reagan, the best-researched work I have come across is Nicholas Laham's The Reagan Presidency and The Politics of Race: In Pursuit of Colorblind Justice and Limited Government (Praeger, 1998).

Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 at 9:40 AM | Comments (0) | Top

Home Newsletter Submissions Advertising Donations Archives Internships About Us FAQs Contact Us All Articles