My town of Palatine, all 68,000 of us as of the last census, home to (as far as I know) Illinois' only dual funeral home/mini golf course, is rarely in the news. It's the standard idyllic, upper-middle class suburb, and most people are easy-going enough. Granted, along with Barrington, it's one of the only townships in Cook County that votes consistently Republican (it went by a margin of 10% for Bush in '04), but as much as people gripe about "the machine," Cook County administration, and the Daley family, we've never been the confrontational sort.

Desperate times, however, call for desperate measures. The latest hike in the Cook County sales tax will bring the rate to 10% in Palatine, as opposed to 7% in communities just across Lake Cook Road, in Lake County. The long-suffering Palatine Chamber of Commerce sprang into action, and started protesting publicly to anyone who would listen. Now, Palatine, along with several other townships at the border, hopes to secede from Cook County and form Lincoln County. Failing that, the rebels split into two camps: those willing to join Lake County, and those opposed to Lake County's higher property tax rate.

So far neither option looks likely. A majority of Palatine residents may, in fact, be persuaded, but they'll have a tough time persuading the rest of the County. So, for now, the Jaycees gripe on.

Labels: Anna, local, politics

Rich Miller over at the great Capitol Fax has asked his question of the day in response to some local communities pushing to ban people from wearing baggy pants, "Question: Do you think the government - any government - should have the right to tell people how to wear their pants in public?"

Here's my answer, what's yours?

It is true, as some commentators have already noted, that the style looks ridiculous and callow.

But, as Mr. Miller has aptly stated, that is not the question. The question is whether the offense of having to "see someone's behind" outweighs society’s interest in allowing individuals to express themselves through clothing.

What kind of an expression is this? People, especially young people, express themselves through clothing as an instant notice to strangers as to what class or social dynamic that person belongs to. Politicians wear suits to gain instant respect and credibility and to signal to people that they are a serious or important member of society. Young people in Danville wear baggy pants, perhaps, to express their dissatisfaction with the social norms of their parents and to signal to strangers of comparable age that they are not a “prep” or a “jock” or a “nerd,” but instead that they belong to whatever class of people wear baggy pants. So clothing serves at least two functions (1) signaling to other members of society what class or niche you belong to and (2) as a social critique of people who do not dress that way.

We can draw a fair analogy between this situation and freedom of speech cases that have reached the Supreme Court. Since Holmes' great dissent in Abrams v. U.S., opinion after opinion has emphatically stated that our country's interest in freedom of expression greatly outweighs any comparatively trivial offense that members of society might feel. This is not to say that anyone has a fundamental right to wear baggy pants, but wearing certain clothing is certainly a form of expression and many forms of expression are protected by the 1^st Amendment. A good analogy in case law comes from a famous case, Cohen v. California, in which “Paul Robert Cohen, 19, was arrested for wearing a jacket with the words ‘Fuck the Draft’ inside the Los Angeles Courthouse.” The Court held that Cohen’s interest in free expression greatly outweighed the vague and general state interest in preventing him from disturbing the peace.

I am also concerned that this kind of a law will have a disparate racial impact, because from my experiences African-Americans tend to favor the baggy pants style more than whites. I suspect this would be less of an issue in Danville, but a significant issue in Louisiana.

To be more eloquent and succinct: this is absurd.

Labels: Billy Joe Mills, free speech, local

Today University of Illinois College of Law Dean Heidi Hurd announced to the College of Law that she will be stepping down as Dean in August.

What will Dean Hurd's legacy be?

She was a tenacious fundraiser and an eloquent champion of the college. However, her tenure marked a dramatic change in the faculty rolls, with several of the college's most beloved teachers taking positions elsewhere. Under Dean Hurd, the College of Law's approach to admissions seems to have shifted from a comprehensive view of individual candidates to a more LSAT driven approach to admissions, playing to the U.S. News rubric, instead of holistically looking for the best potential lawyers and leaders.

From everything we've heard, Chancellor Herman considered Dean Hurd one of his most effective Dean's. Also, it's a safe assumption that Professor Michael Moore will be leaving with her. For some, this is an even bigger loss than the Dean.

Dean Hurd's gracious annoucement is below:

-----Original Message-----
From: Hurd, Heidi M.
Sent: Mon 6/4/2007 8:39 AM
To: * College of Law Community
Subject: Announcement

Dear Friends and Colleagues:

I have been honored to work with you during the past five years to advance the agenda of excellence that has long characterized the University of Illinois College of Law. I am grateful for the valuable lessons I have learned as the College's 11th dean and for the opportunities that the role has given me to partner with entrepreneurial faculty, bright students, dedicated staff, visionary university leadership, and committed alumni in building a vibrant intellectual community. However, I am writing to tell you that while Provost Katehi has very kindly encouraged me to renew the leadership pledge that I made to the College five years ago, I have decided to return to my roots and resume the projects that inspired me to become an academic in the first place. I will serve in the deanship through August 15th so as to allow the Provost time to name interim leadership and to staff a committee to seek a permanent replacement, and then I will join my colleagues on the faculty in dedicating my energies to scholarship, teaching, and public engagement. In the Fall I will teach two sections of Criminal Law as I resume work on the book project that I set aside five years ago, and in the Spring, Michael and I will seek out new adventures by returning with our children to Australia where we will spend six months as research fellows at the Australian National University in Canberra.

I am confident that the ambitious trajectory that faculty, staff, alumni, and university leaders have set for the College will be advanced by fresh leadership. I know that both the interim dean and my permanent successor will be grateful for the help of all those who are anxious to capitalize on the gains of the past years, and I urge each of you to provide unwaning support and encouragement to those who assume leadership of the College during the transitional months to come and over the years of certain growth and change that lie ahead.

My thanks to all of you for the extraordinary experience you have given me over the past five years.

Sincerely,

Heidi M. Hurd
Dean
David C. Baum Professor of Law and Philosophy
Co-Director of the Illinois Program in Law and Philosophy
University of Illinois College of Law

Labels: academia, Augur, education, law, local, philosophy, U of I

My new column's up this week: "An Open Invitation to Save a Life in Darfur." Probably only of interest to those living in the U-C area.

Labels: Brian, DI, foreign policy, local

My column this week is up: "Vote Wisely in Coming Student Elections." Might not be of much interest to this crowd, but there you have it.

On a far, far, far more interesting note, Lally's column is up today as well: "Leave the Science to the Scientists: How Politics and Religion Are Ruining Education." I suspect it will provoke more discussion than mine, so I include it here for your edification.

Labels: Brian, DI, Lally, local, religion, science and technology

...is up: Critiquing the Critics.

Labels: DI, local, media, race

New DI column's up: "Calling All Students: Ousting the Bad Seeds from ISS."

Labels: Brian, DI, local, race

is up: Chuck Hagel: The Hero Who Wasn't. Enjoy.

More importantly, the Daily Illini ran this editorial today telling students to stay home instead of attending a forum titled "Racism, Power, and Privilege at UIUC" organized by a group called STOP (Students Transforming Oppression and Privilege) which was formed in response to the "Tacos and Tequila" ZBT-TriDelt exchange which I wrote about here. The website has received, at this typing, 15 comments on the editorial, almost all of which are negative, and I join their ranks here. The Daily Illini ran not a single story announcing that the forum existed despite press releases being sent to it and now runs an editorial criticizing the event because "[a]side from mass e-mails sent out by the Chancellor, the only source of information openly available to students and faculty has been a poster." The editorial goes on to assume, without foundation, that the event is likely to "degenerate into a shouting match that will produce no progress and leave the campus community as divided as ever." Shame on the Daily Illini for this sad and cynical editorial.

Labels: 2008, Brian, DI, foreign policy, local, media, politics, race

The DI's Point-Counterpoint today is about Global Campus, the University's plan to allow students to receive degrees through online courses. Lally is in favor of it, I oppose it.

Labels: Brian, DI, education, local

The DI has this new policy where people who write for it can't republish things that have been printed in it elsewhere (well, it's not so much a new policy as it is that they're starting to actually enforce it). So, instead of posting my column in full, I will merely link to it here. This week, it is a discussion of the Illinois gubernatorial race and whether or not a protest vote is a good idea.

Also, Eric Naing and I are featured in this week's Point-Counterpoint, discussing whether marriages should be recognized by the government or we should just stick with civil unions.

Keep posting your predictions in the previous post. Seven days away...

Labels: Brian, DI, LGBT, local, politics

An Update on Sudan Divestment Efforts

This column was printed today in the Daily Illini.

Last semester, I wrote a column titled “How This University Funds Genocide,” urging the University to follow in the footsteps of Harvard, Yale, Stanford and the University of California by divesting endowment funds currently invested in companies that support the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan.

I wrote that your tuition dollars are indirectly funding the massacre of hundreds of thousands.

I wrote about the Sudanese village of Donki Dereisa, where men and women were slaughtered by militias on horseback and children were thrown into raging fires and burned alive.

I wrote of a massive and inescapable problem, and of my hope that tangible progress could be made by the University of Illinois even if the international community continues to act with limitless sympathy but limited sacrifice.

In many ways, things have either stayed the same or gotten worse.

The state of Illinois, which has divested, or withdrawn investments from, its pension funds, is now the subject of a lawsuit filed by the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC). NFTC, some of whose member companies are themselves targets of divestment, claims that divestment is an act of foreign policy, and thus Illinois is acting unconstitutionally by trampling on the powers of the federal government. The case will likely come before the United States Supreme Court. In 1990, NFTC won a case against the state of Massachusetts, which had banned contracts with companies operating in Burma. It is unclear whether their efforts will be successful this time around.

Five states, Illinois included, have passed binding legislation mandating that the state withdraws at least some foreign investments in Sudan and in companies operating there. Four states have anti-terrorism divestment legislation for countries sponsoring terror, Sudan included. In three other states legislation exists that is non-binding, and in Massachusetts, binding legislation is pending. That leaves 30 states where no action has been taken, though in roughly half of those states, campaigns have been initiated.

Illinois' junior senator, Barack Obama, when he is not staving off hopeful speculation that he will run for president in 2008, has spoken frequently on the need for a strong United Nations presence in Sudan and stronger leadership from President Bush to stop the genocide. President Bush, meanwhile, who in 2001 wrote in the margins of a report on inaction in the face of the 1994 Rwandan genocide "not on my watch," who in 2004 declared the actions in Sudan a "genocide," continues to do nothing.

And here on campus, despite mounting cries from students, the University has not divested its endowment. Since my column last semester, the Illinois Student Senate unanimously passed a resolution calling for the University to divest and the student organization Action Darfur has grown more active, working with administration officials and sending out newsletters to students with updates on progress both here and nationwide.

Meanwhile, the Sudanese militias known as the janjaweed ride into villages just like Donki Dereisa, raping mothers in front of their husbands and children before shooting them all down with machine guns. Meanwhile, 2.5 million Sudanese civilians live displaced from their homes in refugee camps, another 1.5 million dependent on humanitarian aid for survival. Meanwhile, humanitarian organizations which cannot assure the safety and security of their members in the absence of a peacekeeping force must pack up and leave the area. Meanwhile, the terrified screams of an entire people go unheard and the tears of those who have suffered unimaginable loss go unnoticed.

The pressure on universities, including this one, must escalate. The pressure on governments nationwide must escalate. Or else, as I wrote months ago, we will not merely be inactive in the face of this atrocity. We will be culpable.

To learn more about the actions being taken on campus and to get more involved in this effort, contact the president of Action Darfur, Katie Flamand, at actiondarfur@gmail.com. To urge University administrators to dispossess its endowment funds, you can contact President B. Joseph White at bjwhite@uiuc.edu, Chancellor Richard Herman at rhh@uiuc.edu, Provost Linda Katehi at provost@uiuc.edu, or the Board of Trustees at uibot@uillinois.edu.

Labels: Brian, DI, foreign policy, local

Why A Racist Fraternity-Sorority Exchange Deserves a Campus-Wide Response

This column was printed today in the Daily Illini.

Imagine for a moment that the headline on the front page of today's Daily Illini declared that a fraternity and sorority had held an exchange in which attendees came in blackface and ate watermelon and fried chicken. Now, back off from that just a tad, and you'll have the actual headline, declaring a "Mexican Exchange" held recently by the Delta Delta Delta sorority and Zeta Beta Tau fraternity with the theme, "Tequilas and Tacos."

At this exchange, participants hit piñatas, wore sombreros and wife-beaters, dressed as gardeners, and had fake bellies to pose as pregnant Mexicans. Pretty hilarious, huh?

A response to the event quickly mobilized. Cultural organizations and houses expressed their disgust, the president of the Panhellenic Council condemned the event, the Illinois Student Senate's Cultural & Minority Affairs Committee began formulating a response, and the presidents of both Delta Delta Delta and ZBT, Emma Miller and Brandon Keene, issued letters of apology.

Patty Garcia, the president of the United Greek Council, wrote a letter to administrators, faculty, cultural house directors and student leaders calling for ideas on how to "address, correct, and educate" students about this matter, saying "I feel that it is only right that something at a larger level gets done."

This is not the first event like this. For years fraternities and sororities have held ghetto-themed parties that play off racial stereotypes just as this exchange does.

In an e-mail to me, Keene, who attended the event, said that the leadership of his chapter "did not have reservations prior to the event, nor did we see it as offensive." He continued by saying that "a few individual members of the fraternity and sorority involved did engage in insensitive stereotyping," and said the chapter would "work with the counseling department to increase awareness so that a situation like this can be prevented in the future."

Many will be tempted to use this event to paint the Greek system with the same brush, much the same way this exchange painted the Latino community with the same brush. But the Greek system is an all too easy scapegoat for what is in reality a campus-wide and nation-wide problem. Be it this exchange, the unthinking "humor" of Carlos Mencia, or the minstrel show that is VH1's "Flavor of Love," our society has come to celebrate racism by labeling it irreverence. In the widespread national outrage over "political correctness," we defend negative stereotypes as "jokes" and can thus claim anybody who doesn't like them simply doesn't have a sense of humor.

But where is the joke? Where is the biting satire, the witty observation, the clever pun in a group of privileged, predominantly white college students playing "dress up like a person with darker skin than you"? How exactly can that be interpreted as funny?

And yet, as Garcia put it in her letter, "I just don't think that the campus community completely understands why it is wrong to make money and entertain yourself through a culture."

And so the University must respond. The answer is not merely inflicting punitive wounds on those who organized and participated in this embarrassment. Some have called for the Delta Delta Delta and ZBT houses to be shut down. Such a solution would do nothing but foment more anger and resentment and would lead the University down a slippery slope of regulating what students think and how they express themselves.

A better solution is available. A broader campus-wide educational campaign should be undertaken. Far too many students will laugh this event off and roll their eyes at those who have been offended. But the behavior engaged in here was not a joke, it was an insult.

This is not an overreaction by the PC-police coming to stifle the free exchange of ideas and turn everybody into humorless automatons. Part of this University's obligation to educate and enlighten is to persuade students of the fact that this kind of behavior is deeply wrong. Anything less would be negligent.

UPDATE: Two letters to the editor on this subject were printed today, here and here, both blaming the event on the racist atmosphere promoted by Chief Illiniwek. I specifically avoided mentioning the Chief in my column so as to avoid starting that debate up, but if you want an excuse to scream at each other about him, here's your chance.

Labels: Brian, DI, education, local, race

This column, printed today in the Daily Illini, is part of a Point-Counterpoint on the proposed ban on cell phone use while driving. Lally Gartel provides the counterpoint here.

Recently, a graduate student named Matt Wilhelm was riding his bike and was struck by a car and suffered injuries that ultimately ended with his death. The driver of the car that hit him was talking on her cell phone when the accident happened.

An isolated incident like this should never be a reason to enact a law. Hasty governmental reactions to tragedies have often led to some of the worst laws in history.

But when this isolated incident gets multiplied across the country and demonstrates a pattern of public endangerment, the government not only has a right to act but a responsibility.

A 2005 study conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reported that drivers who use cell phones while driving are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves. Another 2006 study by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that almost 80 percent of crashes involved some form of driver inattention within three seconds of the event, the most common distraction being the use of cell phones.

This evidence soundly indicates that if fewer drivers used cell phones while driving, there would be fewer accidents, fewer injuries and fewer deaths.

Some opponents of a law against cell phone use while driving argue that such a law would be unenforceable and regulates personal behavior beyond the scope of what the government should be doing.

But the law would be no harder to enforce than laws against drunk driving, which requires some outward sign of reckless driving to give an officer reason to believe the driver is drunk (and sometimes the only sign of such driving that will occur is a fatal accident).

The idea that the government is overextending its bounds is simply an unconscionable and paranoid reaction to a simple public safety measure. Plainly put, sometimes it is the government's job to regulate personal behavior.

Do we live in an Orwellian, totalitarian regime because we do not allow those with a blood alcohol level above .08 to drive a car? Of course not, and just as driving under the influence is illegal because it increases one's risk of causing an accident, driving while talking on a cell phone should be illegal for the exact same reason.

We cannot regulate everything that drivers do that can cause them to be a danger to themselves or others. But a specifically tailored law against an act that is clearly discernible to a police officer will lead to less police abuse than a broader law and will counteract behavior that puts drivers and pedestrians at a greater risk.

The inconvenience of not being able to use a cell phone is a small price to pay for increased safety for drivers and pedestrians. We should all be able to agree that of all the things government should be concerned with, public safety should be high on the list. This law would save lives by letting the government do its job.

Labels: Brian, DI, local, role of government

This column was published in the Daily Illini today.

It is a well-known, long-standing, oft-complained of fact that Lincoln Hall is in a state of disrepair. Its status as a historic landmark has not kept its degradation from continuing. Recently, after several lobbying attempts, the General Assembly voted to provide funds to renovate the building. The state has provided a total of $5 million and University President B. Joseph White has announced plans to renovate the building.

But we shouldn't renovate Lincoln Hall. We should destroy it. And we should do it because it would truly honor Lincoln's noble legacy.

Were the building demolished, it would of course lose its historic landmark status and there would be an outcry from historic preservationists in the state. In 2005, the building was placed on a list of the ten most endangered historic landmarks in the state by the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois, which campaigns for its preservation.

The main priority for the University has been to restore the learning conditions within Lincoln Hall while still retaining everything that makes it a historic landmark. In other words, the cost of the improvement and the quality of the end result both stand as a lower priority than maintaining the building's history.

But if we set Lincoln Hall's history aside, what would the University's options be? The building could be demolished and rebuilt as a state-of-the-art structure, not merely renovated and returned to what it looked like when it was built in 1911. A new building could take into account the changing needs of a modern student body, taking advantage of advances in technology and putting itself on par with the more incredible buildings the University enjoys on the engineering Quad.

Most importantly, the building could be built to take into account the growing energy crisis in this country. A green, energy-efficient structure would better protect the environment and save money in energy costs. An energy efficient Lincoln Hall would celebrate the legacy of our sixteenth president better than the retention of a historic landmark.

According to a University publication on Lincoln Hall's renovation, the project is estimated to cost a total of $55.8 million. For the astronomical costs that both taxpayers and students must incur, the improvements to the building ought to reflect that cost.

But the cost of demolishing and rebuilding Lincoln Hall would likely come at a much greater value. Because demolition has not been seriously considered, nobody knows how much it would cost, but the recently built Siebel Center on the engineering campus cost roughly $25 million more to construct than it would cost to renovate Lincoln Hall. Also, the Siebel Center is filled with technological wonders used for an engineering education, most of which would be unnecessary for a new Lincoln Hall, and therefore would drive down costs dramatically. And in exchange for whatever the extra costs would be, the University would be able to enjoy a completely new building on the main Quad. The added costs would eventually pay for themselves anyway, thanks to lower energy costs.

Let's examine Lincoln Hall's history for a moment. The building was erected in 1911. This was not the site of a Lincoln-Douglas debate. It wasn't built in the wake of the Civil War. It has historic qualities, to be sure, but none that can't be retained in a brand new structure. The sandstone murals along the outside of the building, the bust of Lincoln in the entrance; all of that can be incorporated into a new Lincoln Hall.

An Illinois Student Senate resolution written by Jason Webber, the Vice President of External Affairs, will be put to a vote this Wednesday about this very issue. If the student voice grows loud enough, the University might begin to consider demolition a viable option.

The degradation of Lincoln Hall is a disgrace to Lincoln's name and to this University. But renovation falls short of a solution the University can be proud of. A new building designed for a new generation of students and a new era in American history would be the most fitting tribute of all.

Labels: Brian, DI, local

This column will be printed tomorrow, Monday the 25th, in the Daily Illini.

If you live in an apartment, you’ve probably dealt with your fair share of broken stuff. Maybe the interior lights in the hallway go out, maybe your smoke detector doesn’t work, maybe the toilet leaks, maybe the window in your room is cracked.

And maybe you call up your landlord, and, if you’re lucky, they come and fix it right away. But if you’re not so lucky (and pretty much everybody I know who lives in an apartment falls in this category), it takes them weeks to finally come out and address the problem, or they don’t come out at all.

One of the few methods in place to ensure that your building is up to code is for an Urbana inspector to come inspect the premises. At the moment, Urbana has only enough inspectors to inspect a building once every seven years. This places a heavy burden on tenants to complain to the Tenant Union for an inspection, which many tenants are reluctant to do for fear of creating an adversarial relationship between tenant and landlord.

At an Urbana City Council meeting tonight, a proposal will be discussed which would increase the inspection team to ensure inspections every three years.

Landlords will argue that your rent will increase dramatically as a result of this. But if you do the math, the rent will go up about one dollar a month per unit.

They will also argue that your privacy rights will be infringed upon by snooping inspection teams (the same landlords who objected to a 1994 proposal that required landlords to give advance notice before entering a tenant’s apartment). But the ordinance requires 72 hours notice to both tenant and owner before an inspection team can come, which, by the way, most tenants would enthusiastically welcome if it means that broken window in the bedroom will get fixed.

But just in case there was a concern with privacy issues, I asked Colin Bishop, the chair of the Illinois Student Senate’s Committee on Student Rights and the President of the Student ACLU (an organization of which I am a member), about it. “I strongly favor increased enforcement of housing safety regulations,” he told me, “especially in a college community where many tenants are first-time renters and don't know what to expect from landlords. It may even be the first time they've ever signed a contract." And when the ACLU can’t find a privacy rights issue buried somewhere, you can rest assured that no such issue exists.

The most contentious provision of this proposal has nothing to do with inspections, though. The provision imposes fines on landlords who do not correct code violations by the first deadline given by the city. As the system works now, a landlord goes unpunished for violating code violations until the case escalates to the point of prosecution and conviction, which means the violation could go unaddressed for half of a tenant’s lease.

Esther Patt, the coordinator of the Tenant Union, calls this the most important provision of the proposal. “If there are no fines, my enthusiasm for this ordinance would disappear,” she told me. “The city fines tenants and homeowners for numerous violations, [including] noise, failing to cut grass, leaving trash on the curb—it's ridiculous that landlords violating city codes get away with no fines.”

Especially when the issue comes down to a matter of safety. When a broken interior light results in an injury, or a broken window enables a robbery, or a fire goes undetected until it is too late due to a faulty smoke detector, landlords will have to fall back on sturdier arguments than minimal rent hikes and nonexistent privacy issues.

The city council meeting is tonight at 7:00 at 400 S. Vine Street. If you’ve got the time, and if you live in an Urbana apartment, go there and speak out. Your roommates will thank you, even if your landlord doesn’t.

Labels: Brian, DI, local

This column will be published in the Daily Illini this Tuesday, September 19th.

A political science professor I respect a great deal once told me the Republican Party can be divided into three equal, highly divergent groups: Christian conservatives like Jerry Falwell, libertarians like John Stossel, and secular conservatives like Rudy Giuliani.

The Republicans of our generation will be the ones deciding how this battle turns out. I am thankfully not among their ranks, but I can at least announce with pride that Republicans on this campus are definitively outclassing Republicans at both the University of Michigan and Michigan State University.

Events planned at the University of Michigan by Morgan Wilkins, a Republican strategist who stood at the College Republicans booth at Festifall (their equivalent of our Quad Day), were going to celebrate “Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day” and hold a “Fun with Guns” event in which cardboard cut-outs of prominent Democrats were to be used for target practice. Michigan’s College Republicans distanced themselves from Wilkins after news of these planned events broke, though Michigan State University’s College Republicans issued a press release defending her.

This university’s College Republicans, by contrast, recently held elections for their executive board and chose Justin Randall, a junior in political science, as their president. Randall is a secular, fiscally conservative Republican who is pro-choice and favors gay marriage. I recently sat down with him so he could explain his view of the Republican Party.

“I would like to see the image of the party change,” he told me. “Republicans are not all heavy-set, old, Caucasian men.” He went on to say that “policy-making should be secular and not based upon religion. I would like to see our party reach out more to the moderate voter.”

Randall had harsh words for the organizers of the Michigan events. “This is exactly the type of event that gives the Republican Party a bad name. We are not the party that oppresses minorities, much to the dismay of liberals, and an event like this only propagates that stereotype.”

Thus, while Michigan’s planned events have effectively reduced Republicans to the heartless, gun-toting, ultraconservative caricatures that liberals like myself so easily and eagerly mock, Illinois’ College Republicans have made themselves into far more intimidating opponents.

I stress to the skeptical reader that it is genuine moderation Randall possesses. John McCain, the frontrunner for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, has made a name for himself developing a reputation as a moderate, despite his pro-life, anti-gay marriage stances, and also despite his recent appearance at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University.

But Randall and his ideological brethren are moderate by any measure, while still upholding what they believe to be the true roots of conservative thinking. He defends the war in Iraq as a “necessary war” and passionately advocates the privatization of Social Security. He calls a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage “unnecessary governmental regulation,” and believes true conservatism means believing in “smaller government and fiscal responsibility.”

Democrats reading this column will likely chastise me for celebrating Randall’s Republicans. A Republican Party like his could stand in the way of genuine progress, they will argue, since it will take moderate votes away from the Democrats. And I agree with them. I believe the Democratic Party offers more for the American people than a moderate Republican Party.

But I also recognize the possibility that I’m wrong, and if this university’s Republican Party outlives Michigan’s, then I can at least look forward to a stimulating debate of ideas that will have some hope of ultimately pointing the country in the right direction. No longer would the predominant ideological struggle of our time be dictated by issues pandering to hatred and fear.

Michigan’s version of the Republican Party isn’t going to disappear. That would be too much to ask for. But so long as Illinois’ version continues to outplay Michigan’s, we all have reason to be encouraged.

If only our football team could follow suit.

Labels: Brian, DI, local, politics

One of my law professors raised an interesting, practical issue the other day. She realized that many of the campus bars, including Joe's Brewery, C.O. Daniels, and Canopy Club, have dress codes. I have yet to investigate this myself, but I'm told that these dress codes are not what you might expect. They prohibit things like sweat pants, white t-shirts, athletic jerseys, and do-rags. What do all of those things have in common? They are all things frequently worn by young, African-American males.

I have yet to look into the laws regarding stores, but under the Fair Housing Act no racial factors are allowed to be considered by a landlord when searching for tenants. It is illegal to even imply a preference in advertisements or notices; the standards are harsh and severe, as they should be. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if the landlord has a legitimate, non-racist intention, he would still be violating the Fair Housing Act. So if similar laws apply, it would not matter if the bar owners had the intention of keeping out customers who were more likely to "cause trouble" or to start fights, that is if there was a high correlation between race and the people they wanted to keep out. All that would matter is what a reasonable person (and possibly a reasonable black person) would think when looking at the dress code notice. Would they think that the owners intended to keep out a particular race or class of people? It seems that here that is the case. It's likely that the owners are trying to keep out young black males who are not students, but live in Champaign/Urbana. If that is their intention then their aim would likely violate federal and state law.

There is also the question of selective enforcement. The evidence in favor of a systematic attempt to exclude young black males would be even more tangible if the bars failed to exclude a white alumni who comes in after a football game wearing a jersey and sweat pants, but then did choose to exclude a young black male wearing similar attire, perhaps just baggier.

I am considering doing more investigation on this topic for a Daily Illini column. Until then, I am curious whether anyone has any suggestions or evidence in favor of or contrary to my suspicions. I'm also curious what people would think of a dress code that intended to exclude people who are more likely to "cause trouble" when there is a high correlation between that group and race...Is that a legitimate use of a store owner's ability to exclude?

Labels: Billy Joe Mills, local, race

~Published in the Daily Illini on September 12, 2006

On Quad Day this year, I manned the student ACLU booth and shouted at passersby, asking them if they were registered to vote. Most of them avoided eye contact with me and for that they should be punished somehow. Many students came up and willingly registered. But there is a third group that would tell me they were registered "at home," as in, not in Champaign County. And it is this group of students I urge to reconsider before it is too late.

There are arguments to be made that as a student, spending at least nine months of your year in this district, you should always be registered to vote at school. I can take or leave that argument, depending on how connected one feels to one's home district.

But in this election year, the point is a lot easier to make given the existence of the state senate race in this district between Democrat Mike Frerichs and Republican Judy Myers.

Oh, yeah, and Socialist Equality Party member Joe Parnarauskis, an ultraliberal third party candidate who will likely siphon votes away from Frerichs. Way to put up a fight getting on the ballot, Joe. The Republican Party is proud of you.

Anyway, these three candidates are locked in battle over the 52nd legislative district, which since 2003 has been occupied by Republican Rick Winkel. The district is traditionally Republican, but it has always been closely divided, and Frerichs has an excellent chance at winning this time around.

That is, if students register to vote here and do their civic duty when Election Day rolls around in November. The race is going to be close, and regardless of your politics, your voice in this election will probably matter a great deal more than any local race in your home town.

The 52nd district spans segments of both Champaign County and Vermilion County, both of which are largely Republican. But in the 2002 general election between Winkel and former Champaign mayor Dan McCollum, McCollum lost by just 620 votes in a race in which over 57,000 votes were cast. That's just one percent of the vote.

Frerichs, a Yale graduate, has run for the General Assembly before, when he ran against Tim Johnson, who was then a state representative and now sits in the U.S. House of Representatives. Johnson had never received less than 61 percent of the vote until he garnered only 53 percent when Frerichs ran against him.

Without Parnarauskis in the race, one might even argue that Frerichs is the favorite to win this election. With Parnarauskis, it's anybody's race to win. And by anybody, I mean only Frerichs or Myers. If Parnarauskis wins, I will eat not only my hat but my entire wardrobe. And the wardrobes of my immediate family.

But Parnarauskis is in the race, and it's a free country, so there he should remain. It shall be left up to the voters of this district, and that's where you come in.

I recently noticed a group on Facebook called "If this group reaches 100,000 members, my girlfriend will have a threesome." It reached its mark in a little over three days. If such a thing is possible, then surely enough students on this campus can register to vote to ensure more than the 55 percent turnout that Champaign County enjoyed in the last midterm election year.

This is where your vote will actually count, unless you live in one of the relatively small number of other competitive districts across the country. Voter registration closes on October 10th. If you want your vote to mean something, if you want to direct the power of your voice to the achievement of some tangible goal, then register in Champaign County and vote in the race between Mike Frerichs and Judy Myers.

And that other guy.

Labels: Brian, DI, local, politics

Top Blogs Maintained by Students or Former Students of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign:

Lally Andreevna...or Gartel...or Gartel-Tkeshelashvili. Maintained by a woman of many names, but one clear voice: that of a socialist, atheist, feminist member of the Green Party. And, okay, maybe it's less of a blog than her posting the columns she writes for the DI. But I love her anyway, and you will too.

Politics and Civics: A User's Guide. Maintained by Jon Ozaksut, an incredibly bright guy who has commented here on occasion and who has shamelessly stolen our Respect Rankings. If he posted a little more often, I'd move him up on the list, no question. He has both humor and intellect, and what more could one ask for?

Part-Time Pundit. Maintained by fellow DI columnist John Bambenek. He is essentially crazy. But what makes him dangerous is the healthy dose of knowledge that accompanies his insanity. We give him eternal thanks for writing this generous review to help our nascent blog.

Entropic Order. Maintained by two friends of ours, Kevin Cukierski and the one who is known only as "Jaybandit." They write on political issues, but do so with the full force of their UIUC engineering educations. Thus, unlike us, they actually have authoritative opinions. Read this post on nuclear power and you will know why it is on the list.

The TPS Report. Maintained by Kiyoshi Martinez, former Editor-in-Chief of the Daily Illini and all around kickass guy. He does things that are actually journalistic, which is pretty impressive.

And the #1 Blog Maintained by Students or Former Students of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign...

1. America vs. the World. Maintained by Buck B. and Gordon the Gnome, et al. These cats can ball.

Labels: Brian, local

This column will be printed in the Daily Illini on Monday, August 21st, most likely in a more edited format (pretty sure you're not allowed to drop the F-bomb in the DI).

Dear incoming class of 2010,

You will hear the call of Kam’s. You will hear the call of Brother’s. You will hear the call of CO’s, and Legends, and Murphy’s, and White Horse. You will hear the call outside your dorm room. The kids you meet on your floor will be talking out in the hallway, and you will hear their call: “We’re going out to the bars tonight,” or “We’re going on an alcohol run and seeing who wants something,” or “Dance party in Justin’s room tonight!” (Justin is so obviously gay and why won’t he just admit it already, who does he think he’s fooling?)

Oh yes, you fearless young thing, you will hear the call. You will hear it so often you will wonder how exactly life held any meaning back in those dreary, dull days before you heard the call. And to you proud, hopeful, born-to-be-free, lustful, invincible wonders, I say this: answer it. Answer the call.

There will be those who tell you to resist. There will be those who say you should just go to Quad Day, and join a nice student group where you can meet students dedicated to changing the world one person at a time: Habitat for Humanity, perhaps, or might student government be interesting?

There will be others who say you should focus on your classes and study diligently and do all your reading and turn in your homework on time. Sure, you got decent grades in high school, but you’re at the grown-ups table now and things aren’t going to be so easy any more.

There is an adjective for these people: square. They are losers and stubbornly refuse to recognize it. I mean, have they ever even been to Kam’s? Do they know what it’s like to walk into a building—no, not a building: a sanctuary, a temple, a fucking cathedral, for crying out loud—and smell the stale beer mixed with vomit and feel the baseline of the music vibrating the rubber soles of your Pumas all the way up to your chest, your heart, your heart is actually beating in concert with the music, have they never felt this way before?

Answer the call, I beg you. You are young. You are sowing your oats. You are entitled. Entitled to the warm, sickening flow of Skol vodka down your protesting throat; entitled to the apartment parties so crowded that it takes a half hour to walk across the room on a floor that is sticky with jungle juice (you can barely even taste the alcohol in this jungle juice, but you can tell it’s really strong, isn’t it amazing?); entitled to live your life and seize the day and damn the torpedoes.

So go. Answer the call. I beg you. And when you wake up in a bush outside your dorm on a Sunday morning with sun-dried beer stains on your shirt and you don't know if you've been drugged or raped the night before, you will know what it is to be alive and young and free and stupid and incredibly, incredibly wasteful.

Labels: Brian, DI, local, personal