Popularity of "Rap" and "Hip Hop" as Words

Goolge has created a new tool that allows researchers and law people alike to chart the frequency of word usage in books. (Here is a NYT article describing it: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/books/17words.html?hp)

Goofing around with it (http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=hip+hop&year_start=1970&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=0), I did searches for "rap" and "hip hop"


Here is some of what I learned about "Hip Hop"

• Hip Hop begins to enter books with a spike in 1984 (probably because of Run DMC).
• Hip Hop trails off as a term until 1987 (probably because of the birth of the Golden Age with PE, A Tribe Called Quest, Dr. Dre, etc).
• It trails off again until 1990 and then spikes higher than ever before in 1991 (when sampling and obscenity cases hit)
• Hip Hop slowly rises until 1994, plateaus through 1996.
• It dips in 1998, then rises to new heights in 1999.
• Dips in 2000-2004 and then shoots back up in 2005 and shoots higher in 2007.

Here is what I learned about "rap"

• Unlike Hip Hop, rap has regularly been employed in the English language
• The term increases in popularity (although at modest levels) between 1970 and 1975
• It slides in popularity until 1991 but with peaks in 1981, 1984
• It increases in popularity between 1991 and 1997, dips for a year and then plateaus until 2003.
• Rap spikes in popularity in 2004 and has been decreasing ever since.
• Rap, as a term, is much more popular than hip hop. The only problem with this comparision is that rap can be used in ways that don't reference the music or hip hop culture.

I am not sure what this all teaches us but I found it interesting. Can't wait to see what people do with it!

Things I Have Learned So Far

Today was the last class period for two of my classes. I wanted to give my students a parting gift of wisdom, or the closest thing to it that I could muster.

Here is my list of "Things I Have Learned So Far"* -

1. Follow your passion. Do what gets you excited to get out of bed each day.
2. Be curious about the world.
3. Always bring something to read on a plane.
4. Cultivate only the habits that you are willing to have for the next 30 to 40 years.
5. Balance work and pleasure.
6. Learn to enjoy solitude and peace.
7. Don’t eat lunch at your desk.
8. Save 20% of what you earn, starting as soon as possible.
9. Be nice to everyone. But first, learn what they like or need before assuming that you are being kind to them.
10. Be positive. Try to find the positive at least some of the time.
11. Shopping is not a form of patriotism.
12. Walk as much as possible. You will enjoy the exercise, fresh air, and the perspective of the pedestrian.
13. Integrity (or your reputation) is easy to lose but hard to re-gain.
14. Have pride in your work, but be willing to admit when you have done average or below average work.
15. You should have an opinion but do listen to other people’s point of view and reconsider your opinions based on their perspective and new evidence.
16. Understand your roles (mother, son, employee, student, etc) in life and what they demand from you.
17. Have standards. Live up to them even when you think no one is watching.
18. Being likable can get you farther than being smart or talented .
19. Figure out how you want to live and then do a few things each day that helps you create that life.
20. Whenever possible, take the stairs.
21. Spend some time each day reading or thinking about ideas, morality, and spirituality.
22. Two phrases to avoid: “I don’t care” and “I’m bored.”
23. You are what you do, not what you believe.
24. Technology doesn’t always set you free or make your life easier.
25. When tired, get a good night’s rest.
26. Homework helps the student learn, not the teacher teach. If you don’t do it, you are not harming or hurting the teacher!
27. True freedom means making difficult or unpopular choices.
28. You will not be comfortable with other people until you are comfortable with yourself.
29. A sweater vest is not just an article of clothing, it is philosophical statement.
30. Guidebooks and lists about how to live a better life are usually wrong.

* Knowing these things does not mean that I actually do them . . . yet

The Poetics and Politics of Integrative Learning

Liberal Education, a magazine published by the Association of American Colleges and University, (see http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/index.cfm) has recently published an issue dedicated to "Integrative Learning at Home and Abroad." Carol Geary Schneider, in her President's Message, criticizes what she sees as the Cold War Curriculum with its focus on breadth and its heavy reliance on distribution requirements. She also laments the recent philanthropic focus on degree completion and the effort to rely on this Cold War Curriculum to facilitate transfer between institutions. Schneider points out this curriculum and recent reform efforts only exacerbate "the fragmentation of knowledge." She, along with other articles in the issue, call for a more integrated learning experience.



As someone who has spent the last 10 to 15 years dedicated to this proposition and general education, I welcome the conversation and Schneider's critique of recent educational reform efforts (frequently funded by high profile philanthropies). I also applaud Bill Newell's article in which he explains that "the challenge of integrative learning is to make sense of the contrasting or conflicting insights by integrating them into a more comprehensive understanding of the situation in its full complexity" (8). I think he articulates precisely what a good education should accomplish.



This being acknowledged, I am growing increasingly skeptical about the rhetoric behind integrative learning and the ability for general education to achieve these lofty goals. More specifically, I wonder who benefits from this kind of paradigm shift and whether these are general education goals or something that really is the province of the major.

The turn toward integrative learning seems to focus increasingly on learning for a particular professional purpose. In his conclusion, Newell argues that "the best undergraduate education asks students to go back and forth between disciplinary and interdisciplinary courses, since interdisciplinary courses need disciplines for depth and disciplinary courses need interdisciplinarity for real-world application" (11). Hidden beneath this rhetoric or perhaps a key element of it is that learning for learning sake is not really the goal of higher education any longer. Education is not an end in itself, but a means to achieve other ends: specifically getting a job and making money. His model supports and makes more valuable disciplinary learning and helps it find a market for its graduates. I get why this is the goal of business and why perhaps politicians would embrace this model of education. I am not sure why AACU or humanities faculty should apply such market logic to their curricula. If education is merely about job training, I suspect that we can train people for jobs much more cheaply than universities and colleges do. We might even want to go back to the old master-apprentice model.

My philosophy of education emphasizes asking critical questions, exploring ideas, gaining insight into myself, and using what I have learned to gain greater autonomy in my life. It does not simply prepare for a career, but multiple careers (I am paraphrasing Andrew Mills's "What So Good About College?" here). I fear that the rhetoric of integrative learning is abandoning these goals in favor of something that is more politically expedient. That rhetoric may extend the life of some programs or universities or few years but may very well lead to contribute to the ongoing demise of universities in American culture and society

Book Store Nostalgia

Do you remember when we fretted about how the big box bookstores were killing independent book shops? Now, it seems like Barnes & Nobles and Borders will be inevitably gobbled up by Amazon, who also seems to be leaving the book business for the greener pastures of electronics and apparel.

This evening, my wife and I visited our local Barnes & Nobles to look at books and sip some coffee/tea. I must admit that the scene there depressed and disappointed me. Rows of toys, e-readers, music, and comic books captured my attention. I went looking for a few books but after passing the self-help section and that paranormal teen romance section, the selection of "good books" was rather paltry. When we found our way to the cafe, most folks had books but not history, literature, or current events. Rather, self-help books or magazines ruled the coffee-house crowd.

I remember when I would visit the small, overcrowded bookstores (Crown,Walden's, and B. Dalton's) of my suburban youth. Piles of books dominated the horizon, and my teenaged brain was amazed by the wealth of knowlede and erudition contained by those strip-mall walls. Every once in while, I would get to visit an independent bookstore in Chicago or NYC and be blow away by all the good books I had been missing.

I remember walking into my first Borders bookstore sometime in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Covering what seemed like a football field, the store held more books in philosophy than my local public library. More cool new novels thann those independent bookstores. And more music than the biggest stores in the mall. The store was also brightly lit, had comfy chairs for perusing books, and a cafe to drink those fancy new drinks called lattes and capuccinos. I was hooked. I knew that the stores were probably hurting the hip, independent bookstores but I just didn't care because I gained access to a world of knowledge that I did not know existed. Even better, this was a cool place to hang out with friends. The hours even fit my early-twenty something life-style, allowing me to look at books until 11 pm, much longer than the bookstores of my childhood and even later than the local library. In Borders and Barnes & Nobles, I scribbled my hopes and dreams in journals. I also made decisions about attending law school, leaving law, marrying my wife, and attending graduate school. I wrote big chunks of my dissertation in those bookstores. There were spaces for reflection and growth.

Now, I don't have so much time to hang out in bookstores. Heck, I rarely have time to read or think. I even buy many books online. But, I am still struck by how those same bookstores have fallen on hard times. They seem like dinosaurs on the verge of extinction. The book business is dying and the very model of enterprise they brought to the business is doing them in. You just cannot sell that much jazz, Plato, or Monet's in that amount of square footage. So, they increasingly sell things to a wider audience. The only problem is the wider audience doesn't want the very books that drew me to the place initially. Consequently, the selection of books is getting smaller.

With the independent booksellers hurting and the publishing industry in disarray, I guess I am left with nothing but the nostalgia for the promise of bookstores and the hope that some brilliant entrepreneur will figure out a new way for the bookstore, and those they love them, to thrive.

Good Books

The semester is killing me but I wanted to give a quick shout out to Christopher Weingarten's Public Enemy: It Takes a Nation of Million to Hold Us Back. It is nice to read a well-written book about hip-hop that is not "scholarly." Even though it frequently strays from Public Enemy, it, with all of its asides into James Brown and Parliament, is interesting. A good quick read!

Also, I am really enjoying Zadie Smith's WhiteTeeth. I cannot figure out why I did not pick it up when it come out!

The Punishment of Jammie Thomas-Rasset

Jammie Thomas-Rasset is a name you should remember. She is the "mother of four" who shared 24 songs over the internet and a jury has ordered her to pay a $1.5 million fine (or about 62.5K per song) after her third trial. (See ).

While she is not the most sympathetic defendant, it is not entirely clear if posting songs to a website is exactly what Congress had in mind when it prohibited the distribution of copyright material.

I want to focus here on the logic behind the huge fines associated with copyright infringement. The U.S. Code authorizes juries to fine infringers as much as 150 K per infringing act, so Thomas-Rasset might have gotten off kind of "light." Compare this to the maximum fine of $5000 for involuntary manslaughter or second degree rape in Missouri or $100,000 for the same crimes in Wisconsin. It makes one wonder why the penalty of copyright infringement is so much stricter than for manslaughter or rape that the U.S. Code punishes much more harshly.

Ironically, if she had been charged with stealing 24 cds from her local store, the maximum fine would have been 1,000 per cd. (See Sec 609.52 Minnesotat Statutes).

Something tells me that we will hear more about this case before it is finallly settled!

Anthology of Rap

The (long-awaited) Anthology of Rap, published by Yale University Press, is finally out. As this slate article discusses (http://www.slate.com/id/2272926/), there is a controversy that a number of the lyrics contain errors and that those errors make it appear that the editors merely copied the lyrics from a number of websites.

Because I am still waiting to get my copy in the mail, I cannot quite speak to every aspect of the controversy. However, I do think the slate article and the many comments to it miss some key issues:

• The editors and scholars more generally are not simply printing the lyrics but "translating" them. Most rap songs are oral texts, not written ones. This means that there is not an authoritative text as in a poem or a short story. In addition, many rappers and emcees, such as Jay Z and Kanye, intentionally don't write things down.
• As I have argued elsewhere, hip-hop is full of irony and ambiguity. As some folks note in the comments, one of the pleasures of hip-hop is how it can be impossible to figure out exactly what the rapper's intended meaning was. Sometimes the meaning might be "both".
• Frequently, hip-hop is extremely local. This, combined with it being an oral form, means that many listeners - myself included - have only been hearing the "incorrect" lyrics because we miss the local context/meaning. While I agree that this kind of collection ought to be more precise, it does raise the question about a form that intends to create such interpretative barriers.
• It also seems like the problem with the transcriptions is overshadowing a more crucial question about whether the editors picked the right songs to include. Should this collection follow popular taste or embody a scholarly consensus of the most important hip-hop songs? What kind of rubric ought they have followed to determined either or both of these lists?

I am still excited to get my hands on the book and to use it (eventually) in my classes!

The problem with philanthropy . . .

This article at gawker (http://gawker.com/5657220/ivy-league-schools-are-the-worlds-worst-charity) speaks to something that has been bugging me for awhile. This piece questions the wisdom of a $100 million dollar gift to Columbia's Business school (for adding space - not scholarships) as something that is truly worthy of being called philanthropy or charity.

While most of the comments focus on gifts to Ivy League institutions, my thoughts have been more focused on things like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet's "Billionaire's Pledge Club" where billionaires pledge to give more than 50% of their wealth to charity. This has gotten lots of good press and suggests that so much good will inevitably flow from these acts.

I guess I am just a wee bit cynical. While Bill Gates may know how to dominate the operating system market and Buffett may know how to invest money in stocks and bonds, I guess I am less optimistic that they know how to solve complex social and political problems. While choice is generally good, I am not sure why we should be thrilled when people are making choices in areas about which they are fairly ignorant or at least don't have a history of success. As economists have pointed out, consumers make good choices when faced with choices they regularly make (e.g. buying toilet paper) but generally don't do so well when faced with once in a lifetime decisions (e.g. picking a college or picking a heart surgeon). If Philanthropists are dedicated (like Gates), perhaps they become good decision-makers over time. But, it is not clear to me when or who their professionally honed judgment gets transferred to this new realm.

Even if billionaires can train themselves to become good decision-makers in this realm, this leads to the democracy problem. As individuals or their charities gain so much wealth, they gain the power to substituted their judgment for the majority. In other words, philanthropy is profoundly anti-democratic because an individual or relatively small and unaccountable group can determine which social problems, or in the case of Columbia what majors/buildings, will be fixed and improved.

Is philanthropy a good thing? If my arm was twisted, I would probably say it is. However, I guess I am not quite ready to strain myself in congratulating these folks until I am more confident that they are making good choices and folks can hold them accountable for their decisions.

Where Have all the Dangerous Ideas Gone?

I have been thinking a lot about banned books and the world of ideas lately.

Recently, I participated in Drury's Banned Book Celebration by reading a selection from Toni Morrison's Beloved. In reviewing the list of "Banned" Books, I noticed that relatively few books have been banned outright in recent years in that it was illegal to sell them.

Rather, the battle has turned to school curricula. Many books have become part of the curriculum wars, mostly for mentioning "forbidden" topics or words. Rarely if at all was the actual message or thesis of the book the problem.

Just today, I read the heart-breaking story of Risha Mullins at http://rorr.im/reddit.com/r/wtf/comments/dmzok/9b52fde5785125f3a0ebc44caca66852.html. She was accused of promoting "soft pornography" because the award-winning books she had chosen for students dealt with "dangerous" topics. As her blog outlines, Mullins ultimately lost her job but she stood tall for the idea that students should read books that matter. (Similar battles have been fought in the areas outside of Springfield, including Republic and Stockton)

For one of my classes tomorrow, I will be teaching Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience." It is a great essay but one that will, I suspect, perplex my students because he was willing to go to jail rather than violate the dictates of his conscience by supporting the state.

All these things seem to inform or set the context of the recent national conversation about higher education and the many ideas to change or abolish tenure. In a commentary posted at chronicle.com, Cary Nelson (the president of the AAUP) argues in support of tenure largely on the practical reason that parents should want their children educated by full-time professionals who devote their complete energy to teaching a reasonable amount of classes and have the employment safety to experiment with teaching and delve deeply into their subject matter. (See http://chronicle.com/article/Parents-Your-Children-Need/124776/?sid=wb&utm_source=wb&utm_medium=en) As a tenured faculty member, I am pretty partial to Nelson's argument (regardless of some of its flaws). The comments to the article echo, however, the broader national conversation that questions the competence of teachers and cost of tenure.

What links all of these topics for me is that feeling that ideas have lost their power. Tenure was created at a moment in U.S. history when holding the wrong idea was scandalous and was connected with a form of treason. Nonetheless, everyone agreed that colleges and universities were in the "idea" business. Thoreau, a national literary treasure, went to jail on principle.

Somehow, I doubt that contemporary Americans take ideas that seriously. Certainly, the critics of higher education and tenure seem to suggest that colleges and universities ought to get out of the business of reflection and ideas and more involved in practical skills training. Many defenders of tenure, I think, have missed that the real attack is not so much on the employment practices of higher education but the entire purpose of the modern university. If professors are "just" teaching job skills, then there are no dangerous ideas and tenure is not needed or so the argument appears in the mainstream media.

Risha Mullins may be the exception to this general picture, but one that proves the general rule. She lost her job because she thought education should be about ideas. While a number of authors lined up behind her, most of her colleagues did not or if they did, it was not in the way that Thoreau would have suggested. Rather, her critics associated with her controversial topics and succeeded in getting her removed.

I worry about all these things because I fear that we are forgetting how powerful ideas have rocked the world. The American, French, and Russian Revolutions transformed societies and toppled monarchies. The invention of monotheism and the prophesies of Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad have inspired religious traditions and caused tremendous wars.

Ideas don't seem to scandalize anyone these days. No one objected or was outraged at Drury's Banned Book Celebration. Sure, we might object to kids hearing dirty or inappropriate words, but ideas seem to be some sort of quaint artifacts of an earlier, more naive period. Rather than having revolutionary potential, we view ideas as forms of intellectual property we can accumulate or leverage for more stuff.

While I don't want to return to the Spanish Inquisition or the Communist Scare of the 1950s, I am saddened by how ideas don't seem to matter. I suppose I could now begin ranting about the evils of commercialism and consumerism and how economics has trumped everything else, but that may not be the real problem. Postmodernists, post-structuralists, and post-colonial thinkers were so successful in undermining the grand narratives and big ideas that modernity brought us that we no longer believe in anything. As a supporter of many of these positions, I do believe their criticisms were necessary to create a more democratic society. Unfortunately, their/my attack on ideas and idealism has been too successful and now we are all postmoderns whether we want to be or not. And all that may be left is shopping or the consumption of our niche goods.

I am looking for that one scandalous idea that will cause sufficient outrage to restore our faith in ideas and their power.

Jason Moran, MacArthur Fellow 2010

Huge shout out to Jason MacArthur for being selected a MacArthur fellw for 2010. Here is the link to his bio: http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.6241261/k.84C3/Jason_Moran.htm.

He is a great jazz piano player and probably the most innovative person in jazz for the past decade. His album Same Mother is simply brilliant. The song "I'll Play the Blues For You" is my most played song on my Ipod. (can be found at http://new.music.yahoo.com/jason-moran/tracks/ill-play-the-blues-for-you--14293929). If you have never understood how jazz musicians improvise by tinkering with the elements of a melody and rhythm to break it down and build it back up again. Just listen to this track and here how he adds and subtracts elements, notes, and beats. It really is an amazing song.

Modernistic and Bandwagon are phenomal too. Artist in Residence shows his range and his ability to take tremendous risks. "Artists Ought to be Writing" is a great example of call and response in that Moran's piano is having a conversation with a recorded interview or performance piece by Adrian Piper. It also shows his creativity and his willingness to reshape jazz music. I also think, via his sampling of Piper, that Moran suggests the linkage between jazz improvization and bricolage and hip-hop deejaying.

Mixed Tapes and the Law

Great editorial by Cedric Muhammed at allhiphop.com: http://www.allhiphop.com/stories/editorial/archive/2010/09/14/22386152.aspx.

His discussion about the demise of the mixed tape provides yet another angle to consider how standard intellectual property law and recording industry contracts failed to nourish hip-hop. Rather hip-hop artists have regularly been forced to operate outside of the typical industry practices and in the shadows of the law. This obviously has effected the growth of artists, the relationship between the underground and more commercial forms of hip-hop, distribution deals, etc. While most IP scholars (myself included) have focused on the controversies and cases around sampling, mix tapes suggest how copyright doctrines tended to work against new and up-coming artists. The interesting thing is that many artists not only had to challenge fair use challenges but also how the system for distributing music worked in concert with copyright to limit the market for their work. Muhammed also suggests how the interlocking of copyright law and music distribution networks were designed to hurt small African American record stores.

Sampling Lawsuits Continue

As reported in a number of places, Drive-In Music has been bringing copyright infringement suits related to songs produced and distributed in the early 1990s. Overviews of the situation can be found at http://www.allhiphop.com/stories/news/archive/2010/09/13/22385540.aspx.

For the suit against Leaders of the New School, the conplaint can be found at
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/07/HipHop.pdf.

The complaint in the case against Cypress Hill can be found at http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/13/Tunes.pdf.

What interests me in this case - and is probably interesting more generally - is Drive-In Music is claiming that they were not aware of the infringement for nearly 20 years. The statute of limitations in copyright infringement cases is three years from the date of the infringement. (See 17 U.S.C.A. sec 507). Recent cases about sampling disputes, such as Williams v. Curington 662 F. Supp 2d 33 (DDC 2009) have held that diligent copyright owners have a duty to protect their rights. Courts, however, have allowed copyright owners to re-coup damages from the previous three years before filing. I suspect that the court will eventually limit any damages to the last three years.

I do wonder if Apple or Amazon (co-defendants in these cases) will be able to find success in that they that had relied, in effect, on the "tolling" of the statute of limitations and should be protected against any lawsuits.

For hip-hop studies, these cases are reminders the extent to which hip-hop, and the role of deejays, was forced to change radically because of how copyright get applied to hip-hop.

For those interested in intellectual property law, it shows how the current IP regime actually harms innovation and rewards copyright trolling rather than creative activity.

Homework as an end in itself

Because I increasingly believe that college ought to be as much about instilling certain habits of mind as it is reaching levels of proficiency or knowledge, I find myself assigning and grading more homework assignments than ever before. I like written homework because it forces students to keep up with the reading and come to class prepared. Class discussions are better and students tend to say all or most of the interesting things that I was planning on saying. My job then is more about organizing their analysis and/or supplementing their comments with additional and background information.

Homework also allows me to provide some regular feedback about progress. While this feedback cannot be too detailed, I can save students from significant errors and give them lots of positive encouragement.

I have come to believe that regular homework might be more important than tests or papers. The one challenge with this is helping students understand that the homework is for them, not me. What I mean by this, is students occasionally want to turn in the homework late (after we have had class discussion), submit it by e-mail (rather than bring it to class), or turn it all in at once. In these conversations, they sometimes suggest that the most important thing about homework is that I get to grade it. I try to tell them that homework is their way to see if they are getting the gist of things and heading in the right direction. It also allows them to formulate their ideas so that class is more meaningful and their paper ideas can germinate longer.

In other words, homework is not really a "means" for me to grade their progess, but an end itself. Doing it, being prepared for class, askig questions by yourself, formulating your opinions before class discussion and creating good work habits is the "end." I have come to realize that by my grading it, I increas the likelihood of instilling the habit.

Justin Bua

Justin Bua is featured at The Source this month. See the article and the slide show at http://www.thesource.com/articles/20250/Groundbreaking-and-Internationally-Known-Artist...Justin-Bua/.

It is great to see his work getting featured. I like how the article focuses on his work in design and advertising, in addition to his canvas work. Bua's work really brings a hip-hop sensibility to a wide range of visual arts. I hope that some art historians and other visual culture types begin looking at his work and considering how he blends realism and irony in his work. I think he fits within the post-soul aesthetic and he shares some traits with Kehinde Wiley, Kerry Marshall, and Ellen Gallagher.

The Allegory of the Cave Re-visited

One of the nice parts about being a college professor is that I get to re-read Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" every fall with my freshmen class. While the selection we read is fairly short (only about 7 pages), it remains such a provocative piece. I am looking forward to what the class has to say tomorrow.

What really struck me today is how Plato is both deeply committed to truth and the obligation to share that truth with your fellow citizens. This idea remains revolutionary (and such a popular metaphor) because it refuses to accept popular, easy, or conventional answers. Moreover, the Republic is anything but sentimental, romantic, or patriotic as it places truth and wisdom above a fake or illusory common sense consensus. I wonder how our factured poliltics would look (e.g. the Mosque controversy or the Glenn Beck rally) if folks really applied Plato's approach.

Do yourself a favor and re-read it!

Mosque Controversy

I have not really waded into the NYC mosque controversy because I don't really know all the facts. It does seem like there are a couple of potential critical thinking problems with the reasoning of those opposed to the mosque (This is not say that the other side is not making some of its own errors).

First, it seems like that many commentators and people are equating Al Queda with all Muslims. While Al Queda claims to be a Muslim group, a very small percentage (less than a percent) of Muslims are connected with Al Queda. In a related vein, many are confusing the fact that some (again a very small percentage) Muslims advocate for a version of Jihad that is defined by political and violent confrontations with the idea that ALL Muslims hold similar values. The Imam in the center of this controversy is a Sufi. I don't claim to know everything about this form of Islam but I do know that it is distinct from the Sunni, Shiite, and Wahabism. It seems like critics of the mosque out to demonstrate some familiarity with the immense variety of versions of Islam.

Second, it seems like many folks who oppose the mosque do so on the grounds that it is an affront to "American" values and the memory of the victims. From what I have read, 10% of those who died in the WTC disaster were Muslim. For some reason, their memory does not seem to part of this discussion. Also, it seems like somehow people are forgetting that Muslims can be "Americans." Again from what I have read somewhere between 2.5 and 8 million Muslims are live and are citizens of the U.S. On its face, it seems contradictory to somehow suggest that these folks do not possess "American" values.

Third, just because an individual - in this case Al Queda terrorists - does something, it does not necessarily follow that they did so for religious reasons. For example, just because Christians or Jews regularly commit murders, rapes, and thefts in the U.S., it does not follow that these individuals did so out of religious reasons. While Al Queda frequently relies on religious symbols and rhetoric, Al Queda is much more of a political organization than a religious one. Its leaders are not called imams because they are not really focused on religious per se but pursuing a particular political projecte (albeit a very dangerous and violent one).

Fourth, as the picture above notes, there are many other potentially more demeaning buildings and businesses around the WTC than this mosque. I am not sure how pubs, strip clubs, fast-food joints, and lingerie shops help memorize the victims of this tragedy. It seems a bit idiosyncratic to attack this mosque if you are not going at these other businesses as well.

Fifth, I keep hearing that the Imam has potential radical ties with and/or has not been critical enough of certain groups (e.g. Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood). After doing some web searching, I cannot imagine someone who has a greater history of inter-faith dialogue and a geniune connection to Lower Manhattan. Given his extensive political ties to both parties, he seems like precisely the kind of Islamic leader than many politicians have been asking for! I believe I read that he has led services for something like 20 years in that area. This is not some "fly by night" operation, nor does he appear to use this space to be anti-American or to some denigrate the memories of the WTC bombings. Things are not adding up for me here as I would think that some folks would like that "moderate Islam" is trying to challenge "radical Islam" and present a model for how to be good "Islamic Americans."

While there might be a debate about its location (Are four or ten blocks a better "buffer"than 2?), I guess I am having hard time to see any nuanced argument why a pretty moderate Muslim group shouldn't be able to build a community center in Lower Manhattan. The arguments against the mosque don't seem to add up, especially when I consider that much of this criticism has come from folks who tend to want the United States to endorse or support religion more frequently. Frankly,I would think most Americans would prefer a community center/house of worship there - no matter the religion - more than the New York Dolls Strip Club or an Off-Track Betting Site. (BTW, I believe there was a Dunkin' Donuts across the street or within 2 blocks from the Holocaust memorial in Berlin in 2006!)

I also think that the fact this Imam has held services there before and after the WTC attack - with little fanfare or controversy - leads me to believe that this controversy is probably more manufactured than anything else and more an artifact of other partisan debates in American culture than anything else.

Innovation and its Inverse Relation to Intellectual Property Law

A friend forwarded me an interesting article from Spiegel Online, which can be be found at http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,710976,00.html. It basically argues that German innovation exploded in the 19th century because its relative lack of copyright allowed ideas to flourish and grow, enabling its industrial revolution. The article contrasts Germany with Britain whose relatively strong copyright laws allowed printer monopolies caused books to cost more. If the author would have included the United States in his analysis, he would have likely noted how the American Industrial Revolution was highly dependent on that relative laxity of copyright and trademark in the young republic.

I also think there is something interesting here in relation to the Ipad, the kindle, and other e-book readers. I have wanted to buy one but I have hesitated because I am not sure which format will work best for my combination of scholarly, textbook, and pleasure reading. As content (i.e. books) gets cheaper, it seems like there is a greater corporate investment in intellectual property law regimes that confer monopolies to their owners. The result is that picking an e-reader limits your reading rather than unleashing it. It seems like the growth in I.P. law might be hindering the flourishing ideas. Of course, I am not the first person to oberve this. Nonetheless, I just keep seeing the negative effects of IP laws expansion!

Analysis and Application vs. Critical Thinking

Students, faculty, administrators, critics of higher education, and its proponents all seem to be questioning everything about higher education from its cost and public funding to the future of tenure and shift toward more professional majors. While many things underlie these debates, one unspoken issue is whether universities should be teaching students to become skilled in applying or analyzing a fairly narrow range of issues or problems that relate to a particular field (sometimes called a major) or become good communicators, critical thinkers, and engaged citizens (what Andrew Mills calls the swiss army approach to education - see http://faculty.otterbein.edu/Amills/MillsCollegeEssay.html).



Of course, by framing things in this way, I have created a false binary. The reality is more complex than this simplistic either/or. However, the public dialogue seems to also rely on this binary when approaching the question of the purpose of higher education, mostly because the graduates skilled in certain kinds of analysis or application possess identifiable and relatively easy to market skills.



Consider professional majors, such as accounting, architecture, or education. These majors claim to provide students with the ability to apply basic principles in those fields. While many folks have tried to get these fields to focus on communication, citizenship, and critical thinking, the meat and potatoes classes in these majors are focused on how to solve concrete problems facing practitioners and function as members of the profession. Moreover, based on what I have heard from my traditional-aged students is that they like this kind of "hands on" focus. To succeed in these programs, students need to learn how to analyze problems and how to apply. From my own experience in law school, developing the ability to "think like a lawyer" was probably the most difficult academic task I ever experienced and made graduate school relatively "easy" by comparision to law school.



Yet, this is not the same thing as becoming a critical thinker. A critical thinker goes beyond analysis or application and interrogates the existing categories, structures, paradigms, and procedures. (I don't want to rehash all the great stuff about critical thinking at criticalthinking.org/. Their stuff is great - you should check it out). A critical thinker respects the immense value of being able to apply a concept or engage in a specific kind of analysis, but also explores the limits of a given paradigm or approach. Critical thinking considers the approach's assumptions and consequences. It looks for what gets omitted or neglected. It also asks questions about who benefits from the standard approach.



My own journey to a Ph.D. in American Studies, I think, reflects my allegiance to a broad area of inquiry over a specific disciplinary allegiance. In other words, by choosing an interdisciplinary program, I explicitly rejected the idea that only one method, discipline, or paradigm can produce adequate knowledge. For better or worse, this has left me a "jack of many trades but master of none." I realize that not everyone shares my assumptions or my values, so I hesitate to foist it upon the masses.



That being said, I find it odd that many partisans in the debates about higher education want higher education to become an either/or kind of place where students either analysis/application or critical thinking. From my point of view, the application/analysis seems to be winning this debate, but I think at a huge cost. I am not sure that we can afford to focus only analysts or folks specializing in application. On the other hand, focusing on critical thinking or citizenship without some sort of specialized skill or knowledge does not produce the kind of creativity, entreprenurial sprirt, or engage citizens we need. It seems like we need to create institutions of higher education that can do both and do both well.

For students, I think this means coming to grips with the fact that college is both about learning employable skills and the awareness about their limitations and/or flaws. As I tell my students, high school is about identifying the difference between "black" and "white," while college is about navigativing in the "grey area."

For professors, administrators, and pundits, embracing the difference between analysis and critical thinking and valuing both is probably the only way to strengthen our institutions and help students achieve their goals.

Pleasure Reading vs. Academic Reading

The beginning of the new school year is almost upon us. So, I thought it might be useful to remind students and colleagues that not all reading is the same.

Reading for pleasure is not the same thing as reading for learning, intellectual development, critical thinking, and/or application. For most folks, pleasure reading is defined by enjoying a plot, identifying the main character or (in the case of non-fiction) learning some cool facts. Pleasure reading rarely entails note-taking or even doing anything with the text other than stacking on a shelf.

Academic or professional reading is different. First off, you need to determine the expertise of the writer, the book's likely audience, and the nature of the book (is it a romance novel or a scholarly treatise?). Next, you need to identify the book's goals, its topic, its main thesis, and its general structure. Once you have a good overview of the book, then you need to evaluate the evidence (how was it collected and evaluated), analyze the writing quality, identify the writer's assumptions, and consider if the evidence and the assumptions support the general conclusion. You also might need to look at how the ideas developed and how the author relies on tradition.

To get the most out of an academic or professional text, most folks need to take notes, highlight key passages, jot down how to apply an idea to an example, note important phrases or quotations, and even identify places where you have questions for the author and/or disagree with him/her. There are a range of academic books and a similar range of goals when reading academic/professional books. You may need to evaluate the idea it presents or apply the idea to future examples or cases. For many humanities classes, evaluating an idea is a key skill. For social science, natural science, and professional courses, much time is spent on learning to apply concepts and skills to the field.

Whether reading a philosophical treatise or textbook on accounting, students will need to "read with a pen" and highlight key parts of the text by putting them in your own words. Increasingly, I am encouraging students to "brief" readings or learn how to summarize them in a page for future use. No matter one's job or profession, one will need to keep updated on the literature and it will be crucial to possess the reading skills to get and apply new concepts and facts. Teachers focus on reading because it is a key way to develop the intellectual, analytical, and critical thinking skills and habits students will need once they leave the university.

The longer I am involved in teaching the more I think that we need to develop a new word to describe academic or professional reading. The lack of specificity makes what we do in education unclear and confuses folks about what we are asking our students to do. Moreover, it breaks the link between reading the kinds of habits of mind we are trying to foster among our students. Academic or professional reading is not the idle passing of eyes over words but engaging in critical and analytical thought.

By differentiating between pleasure and academic/professional reading, students and their professors are more likely to meet their goals this semester.

Regional vs. National Tastes in Hip-hop

I have spent the summer reading a few books on Southern Hip-Hop, including Roni Sarig's Third Coast and Ali Neff's Let the World Listen Right. Last spring, I got a chance to read some books about West Coast style too. One thing that comes out in those books is the intense regionality of hip-hop and how local sounds shaped artists in particular places. None of this will be surprising to hip-hop fans. It is interesting to see how scholars and writers mimic this regional debate as Sarig and Neff spend considerable time defending Southern hip-hop to show that hip-hop has always been deeply connected to the South via rapping and other vernacular practices and how crunk has come to dominate hip-hop in the last decade.

My own journey in hip-hop started out pretty traditionally with an East Coast bias in the 1980s and 1990s (while living in Chicago) and then slowly shifting toward a more academic approach as my research into hip-hop required me to listen more broadly than ever before. While hip-hop itself has "always" been a way for folks to articulate regional/local identities, I realize that this has not been my situation or my interaction with hip-hop. Listening to hip-hop has never been a local or regional affair for me. As a result, I guess I am less interested in reading or arguing about the origins of hip-hop or deciding which region is more authentic or better. Rather, I am curious about how scholars can usefully approach these dividing lines. The first waves of hip-hop scholarship has been intensely local, defending regions, artists, and labels.

I am wondering if Jazz studies and the competing claims of New Orleans, KC, Oklahoma City, Harlem, Chicago, and later LA. in regards to jazz will prove a useful analogy for hip-hop studies. From my vantage point, it seems like Jazz has transcended some of its original regionality as the music became less popular and the audience aged. What happens to hip-hop and hip-hop studies when the historical, cultural, and socio-economic forces that shaped it no longer hold? What will happen to the regional lens we currently use to view hip-hop? By the end of Sarig's book, for example, the artists of some locations - particularly Virginia Beach - move around so much that I am not sure how regional the music remains. The same could be said for the journey began in Atlanta by Outkast, Goodie Mob, and other folks from the ATL. Is regionality an essential feature of hip-hop or something that will go the way of Adidas shoes and Kangol hats?

What Music Goes Best with 100 Degree Heat?

After walking/jogging 3.5 miles in the 100 degree Missouri heat and humidity, I have determined the following artists work well in the heat and humidity:

• Aceyalone
• Aesop Rock
• Blitz the Ambassador
• Jason Moran
• Steely Dan
• Immortal Technique
• Shy D

I am only luke-warm (sorry for the pun) about the following artists:

• Dinosaur Jr.
• Van Morrison
• Barry White
• Indie Arie
• Brother Ali
• Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five

These artists CANNOT handle the heat and the humidity:

• Bruce Springsteen
• Talking Heads
• Kanye West
• Red Garland
• Wynton Kelly
• Jeff Watts

Don't say I did not warn you!

Critical Race Theory, Nelly, and How Law Still Aids and Abets Racial Bias

Nelly has created controversy before with his "Tip Drill" video but a recent controversy in Branson shows how folks can use law and other administrative maneuvers based on what appears to be racialized motives. According to a local news story (see http://www.news-leader.com/article/20100728/NEWS01/7280441/Appeal-for-outdoor-Nelly-show-rejected), the local government rejected a number of permits to have the outdoor concert. From what I can tell reading the articles while this drama has unfolded, the main issues under discussion are noise, traffic, parking, and space. There may also be an issue regarding non-union musicians here as Nelly and his band are not members of the local musician's union. However, it certainly appears that hip-hop, the likely age and race of the audience, and people's preconceived notions about hip-hop also seem to be playing the biggest part.

There are three salient points that critical race theorists have been making for a while-

(1) Hip-hop acts still struggle to negotiate the business end of live music and there is certainly a much greater cost for them to do business than other music acts. Everything from getting insurance to getting permits seems to cost more money for hip-hop acts.

(2) It appears that hip-hop is being used as a proxy for race. Many participants (especially the comment section to the article) seem to assume that a hip-hop concert will bring in a primarily or even exclusively black audience and that this audience will likely cause trouble.

(3) It appears that local business leaders are using facially race-neutral rules to enforce a de facto ban on hip-hop and to attack what they presume will be an unusually racially mixed crowd for Branson.

While none of this is surprising, it is disappointing to see this happening in my own backyard.

Recent DMCA ruling & Electronic Frontier Foundation Victory

A recent Fifth Circuit ruling held that circumventing technological protections does not violate the Digital Millenium Copyright Act if the user was engaged in otherwise permissible things with the text/object, such as time-shifting or educational use of quotations. (See http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/23/29099.htm for an article about the case). Because I have not yet read the full opinion, I am skeptical that - despite the optimistic headlines - that the Supreme Court will agree. I certainly would anticipate that this ruling will be appealed and the copyright industries will do whatever they can to lessen the impact of it.

I would urge similar caution to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's victory regarding jailbreaking and video-remixing. (See http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26). Again, we will see if these victories are permanent or only temporary. I am skeptical that there will not be some sort of lobbying effort to overturn this decision. In the meantime though, I urge all you film makers to get out there and get your critical documentaries out now while you can!

Adult Contemporary Hip-Hop?

There is a thought-provoking article at allhiphop.com (http://www.allhiphop.com/stories/features/archive/2010/07/22/22306569.aspx) about the rise of "Adult Contemporary Hip-Hop." I like it as I think it speaks to how hip-hop and its audience is evolving. Even if the early days of hip-hop were not how people like to imagine them, they are quite different than today. For one, folks like Jay Z and Eminem have way too much market power and too much of a built-in audience to simply fade away as did earlier generations of hip-hop artists. Plus, they can spend some of their millions to record and distribute albums even if they tank. Same thing with the Roots, now that they have their perch on the Jimmy Fallon show, they are simply too well-known and too commercial to be anything other than adult contemporary hip-hop (and I really like the Roots). Even groups like A Tribe Called Quest and/or Q-tip can count a pretty hard-core nostalgic following (I know I bought Tip's latest cd). It also doesn't hurt that a large number of their audience are now in the late 20s and early 30s (if not older) and likely have more disposable cash (even with the recent recession) than those same people did 20 years ago. All the recent retrospectives on hip-hop at Vibe, VH1, BET, and other places certainly help create/solidify a middle-aged audience.

While article does not mention it, the fact that the second wave of hip-hop stars have turned 40 also matches with how a number of hip-hop icons, from Chuck D and Harry Allen to KRS One and Ice-T have been talking at college campuses for over a decade. I remember seeing Ice-T in the late 1990s and noting how his ground-breaking moment has past. Similarly, hip-hop has completely infiltrated the academy with lots of books and courses about it. Certainly, hip-hop or anything changes once that happens.

Given my own argument that much in hip-hop is ironic, I hope that the growing recognition of hip-hop's adult contemporary audience (of which I am probably a member) produces a shift of sorts about how scholars, journalists, and even the stars themselves talk about the music and the culture. It's a good piece, check it out!

The Purposes of General Education?

Because Drury has been engaged in a revision of its general education curriculum for awhile, I have been thinking on and off about the purposes of "general education." Without doing a thorough literature review, it seems like there are (at least) three competing ideas about general education.

The first concept is focused on achieving intellectual excellence. To me, this seems to be the oldest form of general education (probably borrowed from the Greek philosophers among others) and one that is focused on critical thinking, communication, finding one's place in the world, and developing the traits and habits of an educated person. Some might be tempted to term this the wisdom approach to general education. If this still exists in the contemporary university, it seems to exist in required seminars for students.

A second concept seems more rooted in the Enlightenment and modernity and is focused on possessing the requisite knowledge of the world. I think of this as a more modern approach because it assumes a fairly stable and masterable amount of knowledge in the world. I also think this version dominates universities and has shifted from common curriculum to a more menu-drive approaches.

The last approach is focused on the skills that students need for the careers (or what Andrew Mills calls the can-opener approach to education). This is frequently tied to service or experiential learning programs as they both "engage" students and provide marketable skills for students. While such experiential and service projects contain the rhetoric of active and applied learning, I guess I am a bit skeptical how much can be achieved if students lack wisdom or knowledge.

In a nutshell, the concept of general education seems to be on a journey from wisdom to knowledge to professional skills. I am not sure what to make of this evolution. Philosophically, this certainly bothers me as I like the concept of universities teaching wisdom and the right kind of habits or dispositions. However, as a practical matter, that does not seem what students or employers want. If colleges (like any other business) do not give people what they want, we cannot force people to pay for and attend the "right" kind of college and then the more traditional colleges will simply go financially bankrupt.

I am beginning to think that if general education merely becomes associated with basic professional skills, then we might need to abandon the concept altogether.

On the bright side, most decisions at colleges and universities are more political than philsophical. As a result, we will likely to see hybrid models that try to do a bit of each of these things. I guess I will need to focus my energies on the parts that focus on wisdom or knowledge

Irony and Eminem

I finally got around to checking out Eminen's latest and was a bit surprised to see how he has embraced a more ironic mode of storytelling. Songs like "Talking 2 Myself" & "Going Through Changes" seem like the complete opposite of some his earlier boasting and bragging. I do think it is interesting to see that Eminem has moved almost completely away from his earlier personas to reveal them as a mask or mere artifice. "Talking 2 Myself" really helps lift up the mask and show the limitations with his earlier form of presentation. It is an interesting turn of events! Along with the changes in Jay Z's lyrics, I think somebody needs to write a book about the lifecycle of rappers and how their rhymes change over time!

RS

Celebrate Freedom this Fourth of July!

Some classic things to add to your Fourth of July Celebration:

• Frederick Douglass "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July" http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=162

• Immortal Technique "Freedom of Speech" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcUJQCykXLU

• Dead Prez "Propoganda" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psdgRH_p3XI

• Bruce Springsteen "This Land Is Your Land" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX0nFo0bqAM

• Bob Marley " Redemption Song" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFGgbT_VasI

• India Arie "There's Hope" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NHjUEdiebE

• Jimi Hendrix "Star Spangled Banner" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCSS1Xy6kfE

RS

end of the semester

The end of the semester has finally arrived and it is time to finish up some projects that have been hanging over my head and relaxing a bit!

How Paying Taxes Help Everyone

In honor of tax day (when most of us are depressed about our tax liability), I thought that it might be useful to remember how paying taxes does contribute to our own quality of life and that of others in our community. The folks "Government is Good" do a great job exploring how government internvention and your tax dollars improved your day. Check it out: http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=1!

Supreme Court Nominees

With the announcement of Justice Stevens retirement begins the forecasting season for who the next nominee will be. Slate.com offers a nice list of possible nominees at http://www.slate.com/id/2250251?obref=obinsite. While I don't have any special insight, my suspicion is that Obama will go for someone like either Sunstein or Warren. They both possess the academic credentials that Obama seems to like and seem like relatively centrist picks (based on what I read on slate). I just cannot imagine that Obama wants to repeat the battles he faced with Sotomayer. I am curious how other folks interpret the situation.

Finding the Right Mentors

A few weeks ago, my graduate department held a party for a retiring faculty member, who just happened to be one of my mentors. What is interesting is that I never took a class from him but he was one of the biggest influences on my career. He taught me about higher education, administration, research, and teaching. There is not a week that does not go by where I don't rely on some morsel of wisdom he shared with me. I had also had the good fortune of having another 3 or 4 other faculty from PhD department who helped in significant ways as well. (For what it is worth, I graduated with law school without having any faculty mentors on the law faculty. I did manage to find one in the English Department even though I was in law school but that is a long story)

I write this post for two reasons. First, it seems like the national conversation about teaching and higher education seem to forget advising and mentoring as a key element of teaching. I realize that part of this is because mentoring doesn't really fit the requirements for tenure at most R1 institutions. On the other hand, I think that we, as a country, will continue to "waste" money in higher education if we keep thinking that the all that matters about college degrees is "value added learning". I am particularly concerned that all the talk about reducing costs in higher education will make it more difficult for other student to find the kind of role models and mentors they need for professional and personal success. This, at least from my point of view, is where the turn to adjuncts hurts the most.

This leads me to my second reason for sharing this. I want to encourage all my current students to find not one but a couple of mentors. Obviously, not every faculty member wants to become a mentor or has the ability. While it may take time to do this and get used to having a mentor, the benefits are simply huge. Mentoring, however, is a two-way street. The "mentoree" needs to do his/her homework about faculty and take the time to cultivate these relationships. It is not easy but a key part of having a successful college career. Certainly, a mentor can write letters of reference, help you pick classes, and aid in finding internships. The biggest benefit, however, is the wisdom and guidance you will receive.

"Keeping it Real"

Because I am teaching it, I had the pleasure of re-reading Imani Perry's Prophets of the Hood. I had forgotten just how good the book is and her effort to do justice to the full complexity of hip-hop styles. I am also reminded that her thesis - hip-hop lyrics engage in a systematic critique of American life from an African American political location via African American Vernacular English - is an important given I still encounter many friends, families, and acquaintances that are baffled by my scholarly interest in hip-hop.

One part that really jumped out at me was her take on "realism" in hip-hop. I found her take interesting because I currently writing something about authenticity in contemporary African American literature. Perry defines realism as assertion of "allegiance to black youth populations, or subgroups within the community." She further states that being real is "a political rather than purely sociological stance that gives testimony to the emotional state resulting from the experience of poverty, blackness, and the crises of urbanity" (87). For Perry, realism is about staying connected to one's community (94), avoiding sanitized and stereotypical versions of African American life (95), and speaking truth about one's experience in a way that reveals greater and/or communal struggles (96). I thought that she really nailed it.

The flipside of her approach is that many of the commercial rappers are not socially connected or merely in the game for their own personal economic benefit. Unfortunately, these folks are not "keeping it real" no matter how frequently they reference guns, drugs, or sex.

Definitely a good book. I highly recommend it!

Random Music Suggestions

Now that my Spring Break is here, I am getting a chance to re-acquaint myself with my Ipod and music. I highly recommend the following "new" tunes (or at least they are relatively new to me):

Blitz the Ambassador "Ghetto Plantation"
Blitz the Ambassador "Dying to Live"
K'naan "Waving Flag"
Sollilaquists of Sound "Property and Malt Liquor"
Sollilaquists of Sound "Mark It Place"
Kid Cudi "Up, Up Away"
Immortal Technique "Mood Music"
Sene & Blue "Press Pause"
Aceyalone & RJD2 "All for You"
Viktor Vaughn (aka MF Doom) "Saliva"
Boycott Blues "Got Beef"
Aesop Rock "Daylight"
Atmosphere "Yesterday"
Q-Tip "Won't Trade"
"Moving at the Speed of Day"


Two bonus recommendations are "Hurt Me Soul" by Lupe Fiasco and "Dynamite" by the Roots. I have long loved these tracks and I am surprised that they have not gotten more attention.

And what is up with Mos Def's "Quiet Dog" on that commercial?

The Creativity of Deejays

In re-reading Joseph Schloss's Making Beats for one of my classes, I was reminded just how much creativity, knowledge, and work goes into deejaying and producing hip-hop music. Anyone who thinks either hip-hop is mere copying or that it isn't music must engage with Schloss's book. He tries to show just how much goes into producing hip-hop. Another element of his argument is that many critics of music assume that live performance is the exemplar of what music is. While that may have been true, it may not be so true anymore. Schloss, I think, demonstrates that the studio is much more significant to the music that folks listen to today. I even got the impression that Schloss hints that technology has affected blues, jazz, classical and even folk than most people realize.

I also think that Schloss's interviews with a pretty wide range of producers and deejays is really great model of what hip-hop or cultural studies scholarship should be like. Check out his book!

A Bad Book

The American Book Review has asked a number of pretty famous professors to identify a "bad book" (See http://americanbookreview.org/PDF/Top40BadBooks.pdf for their list). A number of the writers made it clear that a "bad book" has to be good enough to be worthy of getting angry with. In other words, they mean books that frustrate the reader because the writer could have clearly had the ability to do better and the topic warranted a better treatment.

My two nominees would be Percival Everett and James Kincaid's A History of the African American People [Proposed] by Strom Thurmond and Philip Roth's A Plot Against America. Both of these books began with fantastic, rich premises, but the authors seemed to get bored in the middle of the books. Because I love Everett and Roth, these were very disappointing to me.

The Place of the Lecture in Higher Education

A recent article in the Chronicle (http://chronicle.com/article/More-Professors-Could-Share/64521/#comments) discusses whether professors or institutions should record lectures and make them available online.

Hidden in the conversation about who owns it, public access, and how students might use and benefit from such recordings is a key assumption about the nature of teaching and learning. While it is unstated, it appears that the article and the debate assume that higher education is primarily about knowledge transfer, ostensibly from faculty to student. Based on this assumption, the lecture is one method for facilitating that transfer. Further relying on this assumption, the next question is whether we need universities at all if students can simply "listen" to the lectures on their own.

Despite the framing of the issue around new technology, this is really part of an ongoing debate about the nature learning. Are teachers engaged in a form of banking in which we deposit knowledge into brains that will be accessed at a later date or are we more like fitness coaches who are helping people develop "healthy habits of the mind"?

As I get older, I am realizing that I view teaching through the lens of creating good intellectual habits. I just don't have much faith in the banking theory of education, especially as knowledge expands and changes. Moreover, the internet is really good at reminding us of names, dates, and definitions. On the other hand, the internet is not so good at helping us figure out how to evaluate information or apply that information to discrete contexts. This is where you need to talk to an actual human being and engage in a conversation. This is where "hands on" and experiential learning kick in. This is also why students need classes to jumpstart the processes of reflection and analysis. I guess this is why I don't really lecture, but try to hold discussions with my classes. As my friend, Chris Panza, says, education is not so much about knowledge but relationships and wisdom.

From what I can tell, much of the conversation around online lectures relies on the banking theory of education. So, I really don't have much of a problem with posting online lectures, but I don't think that is really a substitute for higher education though either.

Right now, there are tons of books in libraries that possess more information than I ever could ever relate to my students. However, they are not a substitute for actual classes even if the books could be made more widely accessible. The information is not enough. Online lectures, while probably better than many books, still are not engaging, experiential, or conversational enough to serve as the primary basis for teaching and learning for most students.

Oddly, after reading the article and thinking for a bit, I remembered why I don't lecture so much. I just don't believe in information transfer as the key element of learning. The key is dialogue and feedback. All this talk about online lectures speed up and/or increase the productivity of information dissemination, but it does not really revolutionize how individual feedback and guidance is handled. When someone figures out how to dramatically improve the productivity of my grading and working with students on formulating and editing papers, then we will have a real revolution in education!

Avatar and Authenticity

My wife and I were probably the last people in the United States to watch Avator when we got a chance to catch the film last night. I had read that the movie relied pretty heavily on metaphors of colonialism and that seemed all-too accurate to me. Building on this theme, what struck me was how the main character, Jake Sully, learned how to become one of the indigenous people. My father-in-law compared it Dances With Wolves and again I would heartily agree. It definitely seems odd to me that this film, which seems to offer a major critique of the European and American conquests of the "new world," would be so popular. When academics raise the very critiques developed in the film, we are generally castigated for our "weird" ideas.


The only spin that I would want to add to all this commentary is that Avatar has a pretty interesting representation of authenticity. In the field of hip-hop studies (one thing I write about), artists, critics, listeners, and scholars endlessly debate the authenticity of artists. In the film, Sully was able to shed his human skin and become like one of the "natives." So much so, that he manages to become their leader. I could not help to think of white folks like Eminem, Beastie Boys, Brother Ali or even socially conscious rappers like dead prez or Arrested Development. All these acts, even if they attain significant popularity, must engage the authenticity question. I do wonder how Avatar comments on this situation. It seems like a lot of Americans enjoyed watching Jake Sully gain entry into the indigenous society and become an "authentic" member of the community.

On the other hand, it seems like white audiences in hip-hop tend to prefer more "authentic" (i.e. gangsta) forms of rap. I wonder why the film found commerical success but that same kind of success eludes many middle-class and/or white rappers. Obviously, Eminem is the exception here but perhaps his own career might help explain the popularity of Avatar. Eminem and Jake Sully perhaps make whites feel that they could cross-over this seemingly impossible racial/species barriers and be on the "right" or "moral " side of history. Their ability to cross these boundaries suggest that we too might be exception who can escape the rigid nature of racial divides. Perhaps, it is that fantasy that helps catapault both Avatar and Eminem to their stratospheric commerical success.

College Completion Shortfall

In 2009, College Complete America was organized by folks like the Lumina Foundation, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Ford Foundation to help increase the number of students who complete college in a timely manner.

They identify a number of problems that are contributing to the problem:

To name only a few of the many reasons: inadequate academic preparation, poorly designed and delivered remediation, broken credit transfer policies, confusing financial aid programs, a culture that rewards enrollment instead of completion, and a system too often out of touch with the needs of the today’s college student. (http://www.completecollege.org/completion_shortfall/)

Their hope is to change state policies to focus on graduation (not enrollment) and knock down impediments to graduation.

It is hard for me to be too critical of this kind of agenda as I want all of my students to succeed. I don't really quibble with their general strategy even for accomplishing this.

I do want to note a few curious items that tend to get omitted from their discussion:

(1) America is pretty anti-intellectual. Having more college graduates who don't read and lack curiosity and critical thinking skills are not going to help us compete economically. I think (although I am not supporting it here) that a college degree is much more than a mere device to improve employment possibilities or earning power. It is about critical thinking, innovation, and being a good citizen. We really need to change America's understanding about college. I just don't see this group succeeding in this when they adopt essentially corporate rhetoric about education. They seem to be viewing the degree as the end, rather than the importance of the habits of mind developed and the relationships nourished during a college career.

(2) Many students struggle to graduate because they can't afford it - either in monetary terms or opportunity cost. Between the economic, family, and health care catastrophes I regularly hear about, the problem is not always government red tape.

(3) I wonder if the increase in overpaid and overworked adjuncts play any role in why graduation completion rates remain a problem. Folks with little connection to their institution, teaching too many students, and little job security probably are not the best people to respond to this crisis. (This is not to say that adjunct instructors are not good at what they do, they just can't always create the kind of relationships that many students need to help them graduate).

I like where this organization is heading and some of the steps they are taking. I just wish they were tackling some of these other challenges as well. When education is generally de-valued and students are not healthy or safe, we will struggle to succeed in our educational goals.

Judicial Activism Antonin Scalia-style

In Maryland v. Shatzer (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-680.pdf), Antonin Scalia and the Supreme Court engage in some good old fashioned "legislating from the bench." The Court had decided that a request for legal counsel (in response to question per the Miranda warnings) only should last 14 days. Here is what Scalia writes:


Confessions obtained after a 2-week break in custody and a waiver of Miranda rights are most unlikely to be compelled, and hence are unreasonably excluded.

The question here is how did the Court arrive at this conclusion. It appears that they pretty much just made it up. I thought the legislative branch was supposed to do fact-finding and engage in these kind of political judgments . . .

Politics and the Commodification of Hip-Hop

In his 1993 essay "Rap, Race, and Politics," Clarence Lusane argues:

On the one hand, rap is the voice of alienated, frustrated and rebellious black youth, who recognize their vulnerabiliy and marginality in post-industrial America. On the other hand, rap is the packaging and marketing of social discontent by some of the most skilled ad agencies and largest record producers in the world (351)

While Lusane made this observation nearly twenty years ago in the last days of Hip-Hop's golden age, it still seems remarkably accurate for today. The growth of the "underground" clearly reveals the latent tension between corporate hip-hop and independent record companies. Ironically, it is frequently the artists signed on the most major label who appear the most authentic and connected to the street, while independent label rappers can seem more intellectual and political but not really grounded in contemporary urban realities.

While there is a lot of desire for hip-hop to be political, I wonder if that hope places a greater burden on hip-hop than other musical forms. (E.g. When was the last time someone criticized country or classical for lacking political consciousness or not representing the interests of its listeners?)

Certainly, African American musical history is filled with musicians and songs that carried strong political messages inside their music. The sorrow songs and 1950s-1960s jazz certainly qualify as overtly political forms of music, but what about other greats, such as Louis Armstrong, Jelly Roll Morton, Fats Waller, Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, Lester Young, or Charlie Parker? Some of these musicians possessed considerable personal criticisms of how racism in American culture, yet that is not the primary way how they are remembered today.

This has left me wondering whether having a healthy dynamic or debate between socially conscious musicians and those who are more commercial is enough. Or should we ask more of our musicians and, in turn, their corporate sponsors? While I tend to listen mostly to the underground and socially conscious rappers and would love for them to get greater distribution and radio-play, I guess I am skeptical that the major record labels would be successful in putting out socially conscious rap. In addition, I somehow think that it is precisely the marginal status of many underground rappers that give their music power. What troubles me about these very tentative conclusions is that it dooms socially conscious rap to a more marginal place. But, perhaps that is just how culture works: those working for social reform and change become part of the status quo once they gain access to dominant institutions (in this case, the major labels).



(You can find the Lusane essay in That's the Joint! The Hip-Hop Studies Reader (2004), edited by Murray Forman and Mark Anthony Neal and published by Routledge.)

Intellectual Bashing

Russell Jacoby just reviewed Thomas Sowell's Intellectuals and Society at http://chronicle.com/article/Skewering-Intellectuals/64113/. The review and the comments it elicited aroused my curiosity, so I read the first chapter on amazon.com to see how he sets up his argument.

While I can't quite endorse Jacoby's review based on this limited reading, Sowell's analysis appears to suffer from a number of potential critical thinking errors.

First, he defines intellectuals in a curious way. He argues that intellectuals is an occupational career for people whose career requires them to deal with ideas (Sowell 2). Then, in a footnote, he observes that many intellectuals do not earn their living from selling their ideas. This is strange because you have an economist defining an occupation in terms that do not include compensation for the work they do. Nor do intellectuals receive ownership interests in their ideas either (as an entrepreneur would who opens a business). So, they don't economically benefit if they are right, nor do they loose money if they are wrong. What they can do is benefit from their copyrights, trademarks and/or patents!

There must be some reason for this odd occupational definition of being an intellectual and this leads us to the second difficulty. By page five, Sowell wants to examine "Ideas and their Accountability." And this is where the critical thinking errors begin to multiply. In this section, Sowell wants to create a system for evaluating the quality of the ideas generated by these intellectuals and make judge intellectuals whether there ideas are "right."

And this is where Sowell has made his greatest analytical error (This may not shoot down his general critique of intellectuals but his methodology for doing so). By most accounts, the measure of an intellectual is his or her effect, not whether he or she is correct. This is even more true by the kinds of economic analyses Sowell tends to favor and employ. Intellectuals, even the most Marxist of intellectuals, do not own their ideas but they do write books and essays, make films, give lectures, and teach classes. From what I understand of traditional market economics, economics ought to frame intellectuals as in the business of selling the material products that result from their ideas, much like Walmart is in the business of selling low-cost goods. While Sowell wants to define them as non-market actors (hence his strange definition based in the language of occupation), most if not all market intellectuals are selling a brand. Books by Foucault, Derrida, and even his beloved Milton Friedman mostly sell because of the brand these guys (or their admirers) have created, not because of their truth. One would think that a free marketer like Sowell would understand this!

What I find ironic here is economists are typically not all that bothered by mistaken judgments as they are part of the market mechanisms. If a company errs in their understanding of the market and plans to sell a product at too high of a price, free marketers don't mind if they go out of business. Or conversely, if a business misunderstands what the public wants, they ought to go out of business even if there product is good. Consider the case of the mom-and-pop hardware store getting run out of business by a big box store, like Home Depot. Free marketers will argue that customers merely preferred lower prices to personal customer service or something like that.

The issue that really appears to be bothering Sowell is that intellectuals, particularly left intellectuals continue to make movies, write books, and give lectures even if many of their central arguments turn out to be wrong. He seems to be suggesting that the market is wrong and should not be purchasing their books. But how can markets be wrong? If you are a free market economist, they are not. Perhaps the market values the moral outrage, the theoretical language, and hearing tales of corporate greed and injustice.

In response to this apparent failure of the market to act rationally, Sowell trots out the truth standard as some sort of verification mechanism. The problem with this methodology (like much economic analysis) is you cannot evaluate a prediction about the future until the future arrives and you know all the contextual data. By then, it is too late to change course. (Consider how many economists -right or left- predicted it in its full misery). It is this point that Jacoby really grabs onto. What Jacoby and Sowell seem to miss is that intellectuals do a lot more than offer predictions about the future. Sowell appears to reduce intellectuals to mere political pundits. Most intellectuals ideas are way too nuanced to get fully enacted even if they can provide some of the general scaffolding for government action. So, what do intellectuals do best? Intellectuals ask provocative questions and examine our moral responsibility. I think many intellectuals leave the question of verification and experimentation to others (whom Sowell does not define as intellectuals).

Now, I am not disagreeing with Sowell's observation that intellectuals have been wrong a lot and those errors probably have social consequences. He is probably correct about this and, who knows, he might even be correct that left intellectuals are wrong more frequently than right intellectuals. However, this cannot save the form of his argument. Intellectuals are both market actors and interested in generating more ideas and in evaluating the morality of our current habits and social structures. We cannot merely evaluate them as intellectuals based on their predictions about the future (especially if you promote free market economics like Sowell).

As for Jacoby, I think he too readily takes the bait and tries to refute Sowell's attack on past left positions. For a supposed leftist, I also thought he missed an obvious opportunity to explain why someone like Antonio Gramsci relied on the figure of the intellectual as an antidote to the rise of modern capitalism and totalitarian dictatorships. I have not read his Prison Notebooks in a long time, but I always thought this metaphor was to remind workers that they were not mere cogs but human beings with minds and morality.

Sowell's form of economic thinking seems to find wisdom and morality in markets but not individuals, certainly not "experts or intellectuals". As a result, he appears to want to severely curtail the rhetoric of wisdom and morality in political discussions of markets and/or government action. I would think that Jacoby would have been more effective if he stayed focused on this disagreement with Sowell (are markets or individuals the locus of moral insight and wisdom?) and would have identified the real consequences in Sowell's efforts to rely on his brand of economic thought to evaluate the work of intellectuals.

Hip-Hop Olympics

Like many folks, my attention has been focused on the Olympics but especially all the snowboarding events. They have been fun to watch and help break down some of the traditional stodginess of the Olympics.

I could not help but notice, though, that these new sports seem to cater to middle/upper class white Americans and Europeans. (BTW - has anyone else noticed how various tribes are on display at these Olympic Games but relatively few native peoples appear to be participating in the actual events?) This got me thinking that hip-hop might be as old as snowboard and mogul skiing. Why not include some hip-hop related events? Certainly, b-boying is athletic and could be incorporated. A turntablist competition would probably draw some real interest as well. With all that new construction in Vancouver, there would be a lot of opportunities for graffitti as well.

Tupac, Biggie and the Academic Library

I am beginning to prepare for my next session of my "Hip-Hop Nation" class. I was hoping to talk about Tupac and Biggie among other things. Because their image is a key element of their connection the hip-hop nation, I tried to find a video or documentary about either in my university's library, especially something discussed their respective legacies and how their deaths affected hip-hop.

So, I searched the electronic library and found that the library did not have any sources no books or videos, related to the pair. I had to admit that this stunned me, even if it is not completely surprising. Tupac and Biggie are among the most significant figures from hip-hop and African American culture over the past fifteen to twenty years. Their absence from the library reveals the potential disconnect between academic knowledge and how cultural operates, circulates, and signifies. Over the past decace, I have participated in more conversations than I can count about the relative merits and value of Tupac and Biggie. However, my library does not provide evidence of that spirited debate. Certainly, many libraries do contain books, films, and articles about the pair. Nonetheless it did make me wonder about how libraries represent contemporary cultural debates and how libraries fail to record them.

The End(s) of General Education?

Drury, like many institutions, is in the midst of reviewing and revising its general education curriculum. The conversation is intense and as someone who has been deeply involved in the current curriculum, I have participated in many of these discussions. I do think the conversation is progressing even if I am not sure exactly where it is leading. (Curricular reform is kind of like sausage, you don't want to watch it being made . . . . )

This whole conversation, however, has left me feeling rather conflicted between the vocabulary of general education reform and my own approach to teaching and learning. The key words in general education reform - assessment, learning styles, pedagogy, student engagement, global learning seem to miss the point.

I find my confusion is the greatest after teaching a "good" class. It seems to me that the best class sessions are pretty narrowly focused affairs in which students and faculty really grapple with some text, evidence or problem. While we may hit a whole host of general education outcomes, the bland goal or outcome statements just don't do justice to the detailed conversation in which I just participated. Learning is not always predictable and it can be a challenge to figure out what will work with a given group of students and where classroom conversations lead. Moreover, it was the preparation and the participation in an intellectual conversation that seemed to be the point more than the subject-matter or the intellectual products produced. While the claim of general education is that helps "educated people" share an intellectual universe, the reality is that sometimes learning alienates us from the supposed intellectual and popular universe for which we are supposedly preparing!

As a result, I want to say that the goal of general education is to create a structure where students might have a wide range of intellectual experiences and develop their thinking and communication skills. This is it - nothing more and nothing less. But, how do you quantify that? How do you know when a student is done? How do you do that in an era in which students get dual-enrollment in high school, transfer frequently between institutions, and change majors every semester? How about curricular structure, advisement, and the relationship between departments and general education? In addition, the assessment gurus will tell you that merely having a handful of good learning experiences does not necessarily translate into broader improvement in writing, critical thinking, etc.

But I think that is the problem. Education, following the ancients, is probably more about cultivating certain habits of the mind than it is becoming a repository of facts or reaching a particular level of attainment. I increasingly view education as a process or a way of life, but the trend in higher education administration is to view it through the lens of products, assessments, portfolios, and measurements.

So, where does this leave general education reform? I am not too sure other than to note that the tenure of national conversation about general education seems very modern and/or progressive. The irony is that most of us (especially university professors) have adopted a postmodern worldview and possess a deep skepticism about our disciplinary knowledge. Rather than a neutral or objective rhetoric, the whole concept of general education seems to carry with it a set of assumptions that may, in fact, be hostile to classical notions about learning and wisdom. The concept of general education also seems to conflict with contemporary assumptions about culture, sustainability, globalization, diversity, etc. The rhetoric of general education may be more attuned to the 1950s (or a caricature of the 1950s) with its neatly defined career paths, finite disciplinary boundaries and the confidence in academic knowledge to master and improve the world.

This all leaves me to wonder if general education is kind of like a rotary phone - at one point a great advance, but no longer a current technology. I am getting the sense that the "Age of General Education" may be passing. I just don't know what the next age will bring. Probably one version of this new world are places like University of Phoenix where general education is a checklist of sorts and something that can be infinitely transferred across borders and boundaries. The question is how places like Drury and other traditional liberal arts institutions will respond.

"Never Drank the Kool-Aid"?

In reading Toure's numerous interviews and bio pieces, I am struck by the tension between his claim to being a skeptic of hip-hop's public face ("I never bought into the philosophy of the rappers, singers, and celebrities I wrote about") and his many articles that appear to sell his subjects and help them move records.

For me, "Never Drank the Kool Aid" presents the challenge of sources and evidence in the burgeoning field of hip-hop studies. Toure certainly has possessed an access to hip-hop artists that I (and my students) could only dream about. He literally has experienced the hip-hop lifestyle in a way that most academics who write about hip-hop never will. And I love his writing, especially his fiction (Check out his website: http://www.toure.com/). He is one of the best hip-hop journalists (but don't forget Nelson George, Joan Morgan, and dream hampton) All that being said, journalism and interviews still seem to rely heavily on the public image that the artists, producers, etc. are trying to sell. The hip-hop artists and producers are not objective sources as they want consumers to purchase their records and to view them as the most innovative or original artists in the genre.

It should also probably be noted that the very publications where these articles appeared (Rolling Stone, Playboy, The Village Voice, and The New York Times) are in the business of marketing themselves (and their own images) as well.

So, what role does someone like Toure have in the budding world of hip-hop studies? Is he a primary source? If so, what kind of source is he? Does he provide insight into audience response or the marketing approaches for hip-hop? On the other hand, is he a valuable resource for looking at the creative process behind hip-hop?

At a slightly different level, what do we make of the fact that Toure's book only occasionally references the "Golden Age of Hip-Hop"? Toure clearly knows this history, but is there something about the form that causes minimizes the history and context of hip-hop? Does the emphsis on contemporary hip-hop stars elide our understanding of the hip-hop nation? Also, hip-hop pretty much gets reduced to music here. Why has hip-hop journalism focused so much on rap, rap lyrics, and politics? What has happened to deejaying, b-boying, and graffiti?

I really like Never Drank the Kool-Aid, but I get the sinking feeling it is getting me to drink the very Kool-Aid Toure has supposedly refused.