Part-Time Pundit

Why Normal People Don’t Run for Office

I decided to run for the Champaign Unit #4 school board because I was tired of complaining in my columns and to others of my dissatisfaction with Unit 4. I ran to try to be part of the solution, not to be another pundit engaging in a blog B&W session. For this, I have been rewarded with being accused of 83 felonies that carry a maximum penalty of 457 years in prison and that’s not even counting the misdemeanors.

It’s not that I have a problem with Mr. Brayfield challenging my petitions. It’s not a problem that he sees problems with the school board and is trying to do what “one man can do” to help fix it. It’s that his attacks are personal, destructive, and undemocratic.

Despite claims to the contrary, these challenges are not democratic. Democracy entails the freedom to choose when voting. That freedom is not enhanced by one person showing up in a hearing in which the public can witness but not participate (except for public comment which has no bearing on the objections themselves). That freedom is not enhanced by attempting to take away people’s right to choose from a variety of diverse candidates and making sure they are only presented with candidates that fit some preconceived ideological mold. These objections aren’t democratic, they are undemocratic and they are an affront to everyone who has fought and died for democracy to suggest otherwise.

I will criticize no one for attempt to contribute constructively to Unit 4. Even if I disagree, I will welcome any participation. If you have ideas, I will make sure you have the resources to bring solid and complete proposals to the Board, even if I disagree with them. However, that does not give license to individuals to contribute destructively by disparaging people in the press and in objections for running massive criminal enterprises just to get 50 or more signatures to run for the unpaid position of school board member.

I, and the other 4 candidates, have been accused of fraud, perjury, forgery, and conspiracy and on that basis we should be removed from the ballot. These accusations are not presented with any factual basis whatsoever. One candidate, a bank executive, has had to explain to his superiors and co-workers the nature of these allegations of fraud. Fraud, for a bank executive, is a career-ending proposition.

All that Mr. Brayfield has accomplished with this stunt is to discourage honest people running for school board in Champaign. Why would anyone submit there name to have the Brayfields of the world run to the press and start accusing them of being criminals? It has been said that there is something about running for and holding office that will turn honest people into felons (ok, I said it), but this is a little off the mark. The biggest threat to democracy is that only a certain class of people runs for office, and Mr. Brayfield is part of the ongoing actions that discourage all but the most pathological from running.

It is clear from his selection of candidates that he objected to, that he has an ideological agenda and has engaged in a radical smear campaign to destroy the integrity of the people he disagrees with. If he has a problem with a candidate, then those issues can be addressed on April 17th in the ballot box. Exactly the way democracy is supposed to work.

February 24th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Chambana, Education, Politics, Unit 4 Race | 3 comments

My views on the Chief

Because I’m in the Daily Illini today with a soundbite, I’m going to clarify my views on the Chief matter. My views have largely not changed since I said retire the Chief in 2003. However, I would not consider myself Anti-Chief. The Peoria, the descendants of the Illini Confederation, have asked us to retire the Chief. Since it represents them, I think they and only they have a say here. Not the Lakota, not the Sioux, not the Cherokee, or any other tribe. Hundreds of years ago they spent time kililng each other and it is stupid to lump all of those very disparate cultures under one umbrella as “Native American” and then say they are all the same. That would be like saying the Irish and Italian are of the same culture… European.

In 1995, it is true, the Chief of the Peoria said they were honored by Cheif Illiniwek and they wanted him to stay. The controversy should have died there. In 2000, they had a private vote without comment and changed their position. Regardless of their reasons, it is their heritage and they can do with it as they want. If Bertie Ahern called up Notre Dame and wanted them to drop the Fighting Irish, I think they should do it too.

That said, I am more opposed to the Anti-Chief movement than I think the Chief should be retired. It’s obvious the Peoria know they have bigger problems. I think the Chief would have been retired years ago if it weren’t for the obnoxious, stupid, and sometimes violent activities of the Pro-Chief movement. Making this a “Native American” thing is beyond stupid and exposes the absurdity of the racist claim. They don’t even know the basics about the race they are talking about. How the Chief dance metaphysically creates an oppressive environment for minorities, I have no idea. Of course, the overt hostitilty towards conservatives and Christians actually in the classroom is not only unimportant, it’s “the way things are supposed to be.” Likely, if the Anti-Chief movement would have likely approached the Board in a constructive way, I have full confidence that they would have retired the Chief awhile ago. Instead, it took the NCAA having to pay off the University. And while that is my conjecture, based on the timing and the letters, it is a reasonable conclusion that the NCAA has given the University something to do this. Which leads me to my last point.

The Open Meetings Act requires business to be done in the open. No backroom votes, no secret deals, nothing. The law is VERY clear on this point. There are only very narrow exceptions to the Open Meetings Act, and not only do none apply, but if Eppley wants to claim one he had to do it in a public announcement before the fact. If it was truly urgent, and it is hard to see why an issue that has been going on for 15 years suddenly became urgent, he could have declared an emergency meeting of the Board. The law allows for that. However, dealing with this under a shroud secrecy has clearly violated the Open Meetings Act, is apparently a Class C Misdemeanor, and the decision could be voided in a court of law by anyone who wanted to file suit.

The University, the public, and the alumni deserved for this decision to be made in public. This is the biggest decision the Board has made in decades. It deserved to be made legally.

February 19th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Chambana, DailyIllini, Law / Legal Issues, University of Illinois | one comment

Acceptable Bigotries: ASU Perpetuates Negative Christian Stereotypes

Imagine a mandatory training exercise on a college campus for new Resident Advisors. During the course of this training the following image was spoken: black residents all listen to loud rap music, hold licentious parties and are probably dealing drugs out of their dorm rooms. That individual would be dragged in front of disciplinary committee after disciplinary committee. If they were lucky, they’d get off with sensitivity training.

Now, let’s change the stereotype. Let’s say the image presented is this: Christians are hateful homophobes who run around telling everyone they are going to hell. They are largely a punch of rich white kids who get a free ride from society because they are white. What would the reaction be? Most of the cognoscenti in the academy would nod their heads in agreement. If a conservative student manages to break the code of enforced silence for a moment to complain, at best, he’d be ignored, at worst, he’d be told that the stereotypes are true. After all, these same stereotypes are present in the classroom being taught by these same professors.

The same image above was recently taught as part of a sensitivity exercise at Arizona State University. The training exercise was modeled on one developed for national leadership conferences. In short, this wasn’t one campus’ bad idea.

Of course, there are Christians who fit the mold above. Every stereotype needs its poster child. Surely one can point to Fred Phelps as an example of such a hateful and judgmental Christian. However, it should also be noticed that the attempts to keep him from funerals come from the right not the left. In fact, it is the ACLU not the ACLJ that is defending his free speech rights. In this case, unfortunately, the ACLU is right. Free speech does allow one to lack all sense of social decorum.

However, there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 50,000 Christian denominations running the gamut from the United Church of Christ, to the Quakers, to Roman Catholics, to Mormons, to Southern Baptists. Some denominations have no problems with gays such as the Anglicans. Other denominations say that homosexual behavior is wrong but still try to reach out in human understanding, such as Roman Catholics. Others are outright judgmental preaching homosexuals as the harbinger of death and destruction, such as Fred Phelps and his gang. The problem with stereotypes is that it takes one case and then shrinks all others and forces them into a box. As is usual, reality is much more complex.

In a bizarre attack on language and common sense, such bigotry is justified in the name of diversity and tolerance. The idea that social harmony is brought about by relentless attacks on the perceived “majority” are novel and interesting, but unconvincing. Far from building a sense of community, it entrenches a reality of division. There is an “us” and a “them”, and they are at war on campus.

To be fair, minorities do face a variety of injustices perpetuated against them. However, by attacking the perceived majority as a suspect class only turns off those who would be most likely to help. Christians, at least the serious ones, do care about the poor and down-trodden. However, when they face constant attack from the public square as being “all that is wrong with the world”, all but the most charitable respond with “to hell with you and your problems.”

Diversity and tolerance do not require cookie-cutter people thinking prefabricated thoughts. It requires an attitude of “I disagree with what you say but respect you’re right to say it.” That attitude certainly isn’t shown when someone presents a “disfavored” idea and the response is an immediate ad hominem. Capricious charges of racism are not designed to encourage debate, they are tools to shut one down and force ideas.

No sense of community can ever be created until all ideas, ethnicities and people can be respected. Even Christians.

February 12th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Education, Politics, Religion | 7 comments

Censorship in the Name of Inclusion: The Case of the Wren Cross

The prevailing mantra in higher education is being sensitive to other cultures and religions. Schools fall over themselves trying to prove that they are inclusive to a diverse background. Instead of “Merry Christmas” it is “Happy Holidays” so as not to leave out those who celebrate other holidays such as Hanukkah.

The battle of the Wren Cross at William and Mary is just another episode in the diversity wars. In the name of welcoming a diverse student body, President Nicol of William and Mary decided the Wren Cross must go from a Christian chapel overtly labeled as such.

The irony is that by promoting inclusion in this way, they are insisting on exclusion of Christianity from a Christian chapel. It’s quite paradoxical that in the name of “diversity” and “tolerance” certain ideas and populations are being run out of the public square. In fact, it is usually the same ideas and people that are excluded in the name of promoting diversity.

It is hard to view such behavior as anything other than revisiting the same slights on the group usually thought to have historically carried them out. In response to centuries of alleged Christian persecution, the modern response is to return the favor. The only thing a “tolerant” and “diverse” society cannot tolerate is mainstream Christian belief and practice.

From President Nicol’s State of the College address, he states, “The College of William & Mary strives to be a place where people of all backgrounds feel at home, where diversity is actively embraced, and where each individual takes responsibility for upholding the dignity of all members of the community.”

Diversity is the inclusion of all persons, not the exclusion of some disfavored group. How the cause of diversity is furthered by institutional censorship is beyond rational cohesion. In no small part it has resulted in much of the racial tension that exists on many campuses today. Instead of bringing people together as a unified community, it artificially creates camps of competing interests at war to protect their own. Far from promoting inclusion, it solidifies segregationist attitudes.

The removal of the Wren Cross sent a clear message to those who take Christianity serious… “You are not welcome at William and Mary. Your heritage is unimportant.” Rewriting the history of an institution to whitewash it in the name of inclusion is not diversity, its deception.

The days of censorship in the name of diversity need to come to a close. No real community can be accomplished when members are singled out and told to keep their ideas, beliefs, and heritage to themselves. Either support real tolerance or be honest about what the real goal is. Academic honesty still matters, doesn’t it?

February 7th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Culture, Education, Politics, Religion | 2 comments

The Greatest Day in Football Becomes Underwhelming

I am not a big sports fan. I will occasionally watch a game or two, but my following of sports entails looking at the standings in the NFL or Major League Baseball maybe once a month. When the White Sox or Chicago Bears are in contention for a title, I pay a little more attention.

However, the Super Bowl I invariable watch. The joke has usually been that I watch the Super Bowl for the commercials. This year the commercials ran about $4 million a spot. It appears that from the amount of repeats and plugs for CBS’ shows, few took up the offer. Those that did apparently spent all their money on the spot and nothing on making a creative commercial.

The Masterlock Super Bowl ad, for instance, was obviously missing. CBS must have aired about 20 to 30 spots for their own shows, most were repeated ever quarter. The GoDaddy ad was repeated twice. As expected there were car commercials and beer commercials but that was about it.

A few commercials registered a chuckle, such as the CareerBuilder.com commercials (which take on an even more amusing bent for a government employee). Most were rather stupid. In fact, it’s hard to say which performed worse, the Super Bowl commercials or Rex Grossman.

There was nothing overtly clever about any of the ads save one. GoDaddy’s use of eye candy is lame and played, but as the saying goes, “sex sells.” Budweiser’s commercials were typical, though the face-slapping ad was amusing. The Sierra Mist Comb-Over ad was kinda stupid really. The GM Robot ad was the only one that was in any way clever.

Once you could count on the Super Bowl being entertaining, at least for the commercials. Alas, those days are over.

February 5th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Misc | one comment

Statement Regarding the Arrest of an Urbana Teacher on Suspicion of Child Molestation

See story in the News-Gazette.

The arrest of a second grade teacher in Urbana is a disturbing event. While the facts of the case remain unclear it is too soon to rush to judgment. However, in the light of these events it serves as a reminder to the schools in their responsibility to provide a safe environment for children.

The purpose of public schools is to provide a sound education for our community’s children. Part of that responsibility is to ensure that the teaching environment is free from harm. Allegations of sexual assault must be seriously investigated and policies put in place to make sure that the likelihood of such assaults is extremely low.

To be clear, this is not an allegation of insufficiency of policies that are currently in place. However, every policy should be routinely reviewed to make sure they still meet the needs and goals of the community and the schools. This event is a reminder to take such a review to ensure policies regarding sexual assault and allegations of such assaults both ensure that, as far as legally possible, the risk to our children is low and that teachers are protected to the greatest possible degree against capricious or false allegations of sexual assault.

I call upon both the Urbana and Champaign school districts to review their policies to make sure that the risk of sexual abusers gaining employment is low, that policies and procedures regarding investigating allegations are fair yet thorough, and that the schools take prompt action to both remove predators from the schools or clear the teacher of wrong-doing.

February 2nd, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Chambana, Politics, Unit 4 Race | no comments