Part-Time Pundit

A Portrait of a Human Rights Tragedy

Watch this video and tell me you aren’t outraged by this. I’m not particularly surprised by the treatment in Russia; they haven’t precisely been a beacon of justice and light throughout history. However, the fact that the United Nations, the supposed guardian of Human Rights, has rejected her appeal for asylum speaks more to the ineptness and failure of the entire United Nations enterprise than many other scandals they’ve been involved in. This is what we have the UN for and they don’t want anything to do with it.

As a brief background, Nader Kamalfar and her two children have been living in a transit room at the Moscow Airport for about 75 days. She is an escaped political prisoner of the Iranian regime. When they escaped, they were heading for Germany via Russia and where held up. Originally they were allowed a hotel room in Moscow until, without explanation, they were told they had to stay in the public area of the airport without access to showers or baths. Iran has demanded their return and it appears the Russians may eventually comply. At present, it looks like they may be sent back to Iran as early as November 22nd.

Several organizations are working to try to secure her asylum status in any country that is willing to take her and her children. It’s an international disgrace that it takes this much effort, and that the effort may end up failing, to keep a mother and two children safe.

November 21st, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | International, Iran, Law / Legal Issues, Politics | one comment

ACLU Against Free Speech if the Speech is Religious

As is typical for this time of year, the ACLU is shaking down towns and schools to keep them from acknowledging Christmas. Despite the fact that everyone gets off December 25th and the only holiday that is being celebrated is Christmas (sorry Kwanzaa is a joke), the Republic will crumble if that fact is acknowledged.

The latest battle took place in Berkley, Michigan where the ACLU threatened a lawsuit if the city did not remove a nativity display from public grounds. For the most part, the episode is exactly what has played out in most other fronts of the War on Christmas. One interesting anecdote, however, stands out.

One of the compromises that was suggested to the ACLU was the creation of a “free speech zone.” This would be an area outside most government control where citizens could put up holiday displays of their own choosing. The ACLU was dead set against this idea. Their rationale? Citizens would use their free expression to support Christmas. The “defenders” of the Bill of Rights stood against free speech.

The First Amendment is clear, while establishing a state religion is illegal, so is prohibiting free expression of religion. The First Amendment requires institutional separation, not public atheism.

If someone wants to put up a Hanukkah display, fine. If someone wants to put up a Kwanzaa display, they need to find a holiday that’s not a complete invention. A diverse and pluralistic society doesn’t seek to squelch cultures; it seeks to respect them all. The ACLU isn’t interested in a diverse and pluralistic society.

This nation celebrates the same holiday on December 25th, that holiday is called Christmas. As the name implies, it celebrates the birth of a person who did, in fact, exist in history. It is undeniable that this person has a profound impact on the world and history. Many people, even atheists, celebrate a secular version of this same holiday.

It is time for the ACLU to stop rewriting our institutions, our culture, our history, and our traditions. A free nation doesn’t need a band of elite lawyers to tell us how to behave in public. It certainly doesn’t need an aristocracy of lawyers and jurists using government power to keep us from exercising our freedom.

November 21st, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Law / Legal Issues, Politics, StoptheACLU | 4 comments

White Scholarship Draws Protests at Boston University

The College Republicans of Boston University are offering a Caucasian Achievement and Recognition Scholarship as a protest against racial preferences in admission.

The opponents argue that the CR’s have “polluted” reasoned discourse on this issue. It’s hard to accept this considering that anyone who questions racial preferences is immediately labeled a racist and considered a member of the KKK by the supporters of such preferences. The fact is there has been no reasoned discussion on racial preferences because ad hominem attacks are thrown the minute the subject is brought up.

One legitimate argument is that legacy admissions do tend to benefit white students and are not given on the basis of merit. It is impossible to argue against racial preferences on the basis that they don’t recognize merit and still stand behind legacy admission policies. Either admit on the basis of merit or be honest that there are more important things.

However, this doesn’t mean that racial preferences have produced any real results or any real reduction of the racial achievement gap. White students still perform better than black students in college. After 30 years of affirmative action policies, it doesn’t appear any real progress has been made.

It is time that there is a real discussion about racial preferences, or more generally, the racial achievement gap. Affirmative action simply has not worked and it is naïve to think that keeping it for another 30 years will somehow yield results. Any policy to deal with this problem must have an exist strategy.

Switching to an economic-based model where those who are poor get special consideration might appease some on the right who want to get away from race-based preferences. As long as minorities are disproportionately poor, they will still get the bulk of the benefit so you’d think they’d be happy too. However, this doesn’t solve the problem either.

Academic achievement has been tied to many other factors than just the ability to show up. For instance, family stability has been flagged as an important factor and minority communities also have a higher incidence of broken homes. Probably one of the most important factors is the quality of K-12 education, which is indisputably poor across the nation but certainly in minority communities.

If we want to address the racial achievement gap, we must address the fact that minority families (particularly poor ones) have children trapped in public schools that tend not to care about them. It is time to give those families the ability to choose something better. It isn’t a matter of school funding; it’s a matter of school accountability. If the money follows the students schools start being more responsive.

While the College Republican’s of Boston University have brought up a good discussion, it’s time to move passed inflammation to the proposal of solutions to fix the problem. Affirmative action has failed. It’s time to give school choice a chance.

November 21st, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Education, Politics | one comment