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.

The Continuing Need for Black History Month

Black History Month is here and that means there will be plenty of opportunities to attend speakers, presentations, films, and activities related to African American history, literature, culture, and art. I strongly encourage folks to attend these events as there is still considerable ignorance about African American culture.
I frequently teach courses in African American literature and culture and am regularly reminded that, despite 20-30 years of multiculturalism in our public schools, many elementary and high schoolers are not exposed to African American writers, artists, or musicians. I also find that few of my students have been provided opportunities to consider the rich and complex legacy that is African American history. So, get beyond Martin or Malcolm and read about Washington, Du Bois, Fannie Lou Hamer, or Thurgood Marshall. Do yourself a favor and check out a film, a speaker, or an event related to Black History Month. (You know PBS will hav a new documentary every night!) Or, take the time to read some African American authors. I know that bookstores and libraries will have many dispalys devoted to Black History Month. If you already "know" African American history, then check out a "new" author like Victor LaValle, Martha Southgate, Toure, or Paul Beatty. Buy a jazz cd and check out some of the contemporary talent like Jason Moran, Christian McBride, Jeff Watts, and Greg Osby. You'll enjoy it and you'll probably learn something too!

Happy Black History Month!