Source: WashingtonMonthly.com
1 University of California—San Diego (CA)
2 University of California—Los Angeles (CA)
3 University of California—Berkeley (CA)
4 Stanford University (CA)
5 University of California—Riverside (CA)
6 Harvard University (MA)
7 Case Western Reserve University (OH)
8 University of California—Davis (CA)
9 Jackson State University (MS)
10 University of Michigan—Ann Arbor (MI)
11 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MA)
12 University of North Carolina—Chapel Hill (NC)
13 University of California—Santa Barbara (CA)
14 Syracuse University (NY)
15 Texas A&M University—College Station (TX)
16 University of Notre Dame (IN)
17 Cornell University (NY)
18 South Carolina State University (SC)
19 University of Texas—Austin (TX)
20 Johns Hopkins University (MD)
A few months ago, the Obama administration completed a remarkably successful run of sticking it to large corporations that make a profit in higher education. First, as part of the omnibus legislation that produced the Affordable Care Act in 2010, Obama pushed through a wholesale reform of the student loan industry, taking away tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to private banks and using the money to increase financial aid for low-income students. Then, in 2011, Obama stamped down on the excesses of for-profit colleges that have been raking in billions of dollars from federal financial aid programs while leaving students with low-value degrees and crushing debt. Under the administration’s controversial “gainful employment” rules, finalized in June, colleges whose graduates don’t earn enough money in the job market to pay back their loans will lose federal aid, a penalty that will effectively shut those colleges down.
These are exactly the kind of progressive, pro-student reforms Obama was elected to enact. But they also lead to a question: What’s next? In his first address to Congress, the president set a bold goal of regaining the international lead in college graduation by 2020. But only 10 percent of students attend for-profit colleges, and Obama’s loan reforms, while admirable, aren’t going to have a significant effect on the number of people who ultimately earn a college degree. Meanwhile, the latest research suggests that many students in traditional colleges aren’t learning very much, even as tuition is rising out of sight.
For a Democratic president, battling big business is the easy part. If Obama’s 2020 goal is going to become more than an empty slogan, he’s going to have to do something considerably harder: take on the entrenched interests in the traditional public and nonprofit higher education sector and get them to do more on behalf of students and the public. That means defining what, exactly, a public-minded college should do.
We believe that the Washington Monthly college rankings provide an excellent answer to that question. Conventional rankings like those published by U.S. News & World Report are designed to show what colleges can do for you. Since 2005, our rankings have posed a different question: What are colleges doing for the country? Higher education, after all, isn’t just important for undergraduates. We all benefit when colleges produce groundbreaking research that drives economic growth, when they offer students from low-income families the path to a better life, and when they shape the character of future leaders. And we all pay for it, through hundreds of billions of dollars in public subsidies. Everyone has a stake in how that money is spent.
That’s why one-third of each college’s score on our rankings is based on social mobility: How committed are they to enrolling low-income students and helping them earn degrees? Our second category looks at research production and success at sending undergraduates on to PhDs. Finally, we give great weight to service. It’s not enough to help students look out for themselves. The best colleges encourage students to give something back...
Public universities have been battered by state budget cuts in recent years even as the most elite private institutions have been insulated by admissions selectivity and endowments containing vast piles of taxpayer-subsidized cash. Since the U.S. News rankings are mostly a matter of wealth and exclusivity, it’s not surprising that there is not a single public institution among their top twenty universities. But despite their financial woes, twelve of our twenty highest-rated universities are public, including the top-ranked University of California, San Diego. Six of the eight campuses in the UC system land among our best-ranked universities, a testament to California’s historic commitment to institutions that combine world-class research and access for low-income students. While the UC system’s continued dominance shows that it takes a while to grind a great university system down, we fear that the Golden State’s ongoing disinvestment in higher education (the UC budget has been cut by hundreds of millions of dollars since 2007) will eventually diminish the best public universities in the world...
A Different Kind of College Ranking
September/October 2011
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/septemberoctober_2011/features/introduction_a_different_kind031630.php
Showing posts with label Harvard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harvard. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Between a Rock and a Hard Place
http://www.newsweek.com/id/237701
Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Although it won't prevent her confirmation, Elena Kagan is about to be attacked from both sides.
Stuart Taylor Jr. | Newsweek Web Exclusive
May 10, 2010
It's a pretty safe bet that the Democratic-ruled Senate will confirm Solicitor General Elena Kagan, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, by about Aug. 6, with more than 60 votes. But that's not to deny that many conservatives—and some liberals—will raise passionate complaints that the 50-year-old Kagan is unfit to be a justice. Indeed, they've been attacking her for as long as she has been the consensus frontrunner for the nomination.
Conservatives and others have pounded especially hard on her efforts to exclude military recruiters from Harvard Law School's ca-reer-services facilities as a protest against the exclusion of gays from the military.
Few if any critics doubt that Kagan is extraordinarily intelligent and accomplished, or that she demonstrated great skill as a consensus builder as dean of Harvard Law School, where she calmed the troubled ideological waters and won the admiration of conservative and liberal colleagues alike, from 2003 through 2008. But critics do claim that Kagan—who spent most of her career as a law professor and Clinton White House official, with very little courtroom experience before becoming solicitor general—has less experience relevant to being a justice than any nominee in decades. Indeed, unlike all nine current justices, she has no judicial experience at all.
The New York-born Kagan would increase the high court's domination by establishmentarians who attended Harvard and Yale law schools—six and three justices, respectively—and its remoteness from the struggles of ordinary Americans. But what really animates most critics is hostility to a nominee whom they consider too liberal or too conservative.
Kagan gets it from both sides. Although she has been extraordinarily careful to keep her views on issues such as abortion, race, and religion to herself, most conservatives—convinced that Obama would never have chosen her had he not been confident of her positions on the big issues—suspect that she's too liberal. And some left-liberals warn that she's not liberal enough.
The conservatives' main strategy will be to portray her as representative of the academic left's hostility to the military—the nation's most popular major institution—and even (conservatives say) to America itself. This was the basis for the 31 Republican votes against confirming her as solicitor general.
Kagan has taken pains to praise the military, with apparent sincerity. And her denunciation of the law excluding openly gay men and women from the military—as "a profound wrong" and "a moral injustice of the first order"—might win her more applause than condemnation.
The focus of the criticism has been her passionate effort as dean of Harvard Law School to continue a longstanding ban on use of campus facilities by military recruiters along with any other employers who discriminate against gays. Kagan backed down when the government threatened to use the federal Solomon Amendment, designed to deny federal money to institutions that discriminate against military recruiters, to end Harvard University's more than $300 million a year in federal funding. But then she joined dozens of other Harvard professors in a Supreme Court friend-of-the-court brief seeking to emasculate the Solomon Amendment by strained interpretation, and thus to enable law schools and others to ban military recruiters without losing any federal money. The court rejected Kagan's position by 8–0, saying that it would render the Solomon Amendment "largely meaningless." The justices also rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the Solomon Amendment was unconstitutional.
Kagan's stance on this issue was the path of least resistance in the legal-academic world. But it may not play well in Peoria. Indeed, even one moderate-liberal commentator, Peter Beinart, called Kagan's stance a "stupid and counterproductive" surrender to "the left-wing mindlessness that sometimes prevails on campus."
Ironically, Kagan also has forceful critics in the same left-wing circles that Beinart faults her for appeasing. They are especially unhappy with her failure to compile a record of aggressively advocating liberal causes over the years, with her hiring at Harvard of two or three conservative, white male professors—and too few women and minorities—and with her arguments as solicitor general in support of Obama terrorism policies similar to those of the Bush administration.
But Kagan's many liberal champions point out that in defending Obama's policies, she has just been doing her job, not advocating her own views. And even the liberals who are unhappy with her won't try to defeat her.
A poised oral advocate, Kagan also seems likely to dodge with ease thrusts thrown by Republican senators during her confirmation hearing while deftly ducking demands to state her views on the issues, as have all recent nominees. The Republican senators surely know this. Their game is not to defeat her, or even to pin her down. It is to paint Kagan, her president, and their party under the confirmation-battle klieg lights as effete liberal elitists, to fire up the conservative base, and to win over independents.
And part of Kagan's challenge will be to show that while she may hail from Harvard, she has the heart of an empathetic, all-American patriot.
Taylor is a contributor to NEWSWEEK and National Journal.
Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Although it won't prevent her confirmation, Elena Kagan is about to be attacked from both sides.
Stuart Taylor Jr. | Newsweek Web Exclusive
May 10, 2010
It's a pretty safe bet that the Democratic-ruled Senate will confirm Solicitor General Elena Kagan, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, by about Aug. 6, with more than 60 votes. But that's not to deny that many conservatives—and some liberals—will raise passionate complaints that the 50-year-old Kagan is unfit to be a justice. Indeed, they've been attacking her for as long as she has been the consensus frontrunner for the nomination.
Conservatives and others have pounded especially hard on her efforts to exclude military recruiters from Harvard Law School's ca-reer-services facilities as a protest against the exclusion of gays from the military.
Few if any critics doubt that Kagan is extraordinarily intelligent and accomplished, or that she demonstrated great skill as a consensus builder as dean of Harvard Law School, where she calmed the troubled ideological waters and won the admiration of conservative and liberal colleagues alike, from 2003 through 2008. But critics do claim that Kagan—who spent most of her career as a law professor and Clinton White House official, with very little courtroom experience before becoming solicitor general—has less experience relevant to being a justice than any nominee in decades. Indeed, unlike all nine current justices, she has no judicial experience at all.
The New York-born Kagan would increase the high court's domination by establishmentarians who attended Harvard and Yale law schools—six and three justices, respectively—and its remoteness from the struggles of ordinary Americans. But what really animates most critics is hostility to a nominee whom they consider too liberal or too conservative.
Kagan gets it from both sides. Although she has been extraordinarily careful to keep her views on issues such as abortion, race, and religion to herself, most conservatives—convinced that Obama would never have chosen her had he not been confident of her positions on the big issues—suspect that she's too liberal. And some left-liberals warn that she's not liberal enough.
The conservatives' main strategy will be to portray her as representative of the academic left's hostility to the military—the nation's most popular major institution—and even (conservatives say) to America itself. This was the basis for the 31 Republican votes against confirming her as solicitor general.
Kagan has taken pains to praise the military, with apparent sincerity. And her denunciation of the law excluding openly gay men and women from the military—as "a profound wrong" and "a moral injustice of the first order"—might win her more applause than condemnation.
The focus of the criticism has been her passionate effort as dean of Harvard Law School to continue a longstanding ban on use of campus facilities by military recruiters along with any other employers who discriminate against gays. Kagan backed down when the government threatened to use the federal Solomon Amendment, designed to deny federal money to institutions that discriminate against military recruiters, to end Harvard University's more than $300 million a year in federal funding. But then she joined dozens of other Harvard professors in a Supreme Court friend-of-the-court brief seeking to emasculate the Solomon Amendment by strained interpretation, and thus to enable law schools and others to ban military recruiters without losing any federal money. The court rejected Kagan's position by 8–0, saying that it would render the Solomon Amendment "largely meaningless." The justices also rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the Solomon Amendment was unconstitutional.
Kagan's stance on this issue was the path of least resistance in the legal-academic world. But it may not play well in Peoria. Indeed, even one moderate-liberal commentator, Peter Beinart, called Kagan's stance a "stupid and counterproductive" surrender to "the left-wing mindlessness that sometimes prevails on campus."
Ironically, Kagan also has forceful critics in the same left-wing circles that Beinart faults her for appeasing. They are especially unhappy with her failure to compile a record of aggressively advocating liberal causes over the years, with her hiring at Harvard of two or three conservative, white male professors—and too few women and minorities—and with her arguments as solicitor general in support of Obama terrorism policies similar to those of the Bush administration.
But Kagan's many liberal champions point out that in defending Obama's policies, she has just been doing her job, not advocating her own views. And even the liberals who are unhappy with her won't try to defeat her.
A poised oral advocate, Kagan also seems likely to dodge with ease thrusts thrown by Republican senators during her confirmation hearing while deftly ducking demands to state her views on the issues, as have all recent nominees. The Republican senators surely know this. Their game is not to defeat her, or even to pin her down. It is to paint Kagan, her president, and their party under the confirmation-battle klieg lights as effete liberal elitists, to fire up the conservative base, and to win over independents.
And part of Kagan's challenge will be to show that while she may hail from Harvard, she has the heart of an empathetic, all-American patriot.
Taylor is a contributor to NEWSWEEK and National Journal.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Anne Hathaway riding high at Harvard
http://www.boston.com/ae/celebrity/articles/2010/01/29/anne_hathaway_riding_high_at_harvardAnne Hathaway riding high at Harvard
Mark Shanahan & Meredith Goldstein
January 29, 2010
A snowy motorcade through Harvard Square. A bawdy drag queen show. A brass pot to put on the mantel. It all added up to one memorable afternoon for actress Anne Hathaway as she received the Hasty Pudding Theatricals’ 60th Woman of the Year. In time-honored Pudding tradition, Hathaway, 27, was brought onstage at Harvard’s New College theater for a 30-minute roast hosted by Pudding pooh-bahs Clifford Murray and Derek Mueller. Playing merrily along, Hathaway was lauded and teased by an all-male cast portraying Julie Andrews, Liza Minnelli, Meryl Streep (decked out in silvery “Prada’’ couture), and Puff Daddy the Magic Dragon, whom Hathaway pretended to slay. In homage to her roles in such films as “The Princess Diaries’’ and “Brokeback Mountain,’’ there were plenty of groan-worthy jokes about gay cowboys, Hathaway appearing topless onscreen, and her being “the second most famous Anne to keep a diary.’’ But Hathaway gave as good as she got, showing off her skills at arm-wrestling, sword-wielding, singing, and even defending some of her weaker screen credits (“Excuse me,’’ she barked at one point, “I won a Teen Choice Award!’’). Hathaway capped the roast with an acceptance speech composed in rhymed couplets (sample: “I feel warm and gooey inside / My rump is swollen with pride’’). Her main theme? She expects some serious help when her kids grow up and apply to Harvard. Hathaway sat through a preview of the forthcoming Pudding Theatricals show “Commie Dearest,’’ a ribald satire on the 1950s, and held a brief press conference afterward, saying she felt “lovingly skewered’’ by the whole experience. She also said a network of Harvard-alum friends, one being director Edward Zwick, had helped prepare her to become what she smilingly called “roast pudding.’’ Confessed Hathaway, “I’d always hoped to be a Woman of the Year someday,’’ an honor for which she felt “surprisingly touched.’’ That pudding pot? She just might fill it with potpourri, Hathaway said, or maybe fortune cookies. As for last night, she said, she’d be drinking out of her new trophy - “whatever they’re pouring.’’
Friday, January 29, 2010
Jay Leno triumphs over what's cool
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-leno-demographic23-2010jan23,0,158827.storyJay Leno triumphs over what's cool
NBC's logic-defying decision to replace him with Conan O'Brien was based on misguided demographics.
January 23, 2010
Neal Gabler
January 23, 2010
Every high school in America has its cool kids, the smart, snarky ones who sit in the prow of culture, and its dorks, the plodding if amiable ones who sit in the middle of the boat and try not to make waves. One needs to be reminded of this in assessing what was really at stake in the headline-making Leno-O'Brien war that ended Thursday with an agreement to pay $45 million to O'Brien and his staff.
Celebrities and critics are still taking sides -- the younger, hipper ones decrying how shabbily NBC had treated poor Conan; the older, statelier ones backing Leno -- giving us a clear demonstration of just how much this was a function not so much of money or ratings but of demographics. O'Brien and Leno stood across a cultural and generational divide: young vs. old, cool vs. uncool.
The origins of this battle actually go back to 2004 when NBC decided to boot Leno to the curb five years down the road and replace him with Conan O'Brien, 13 years Leno's junior, after Leno had been helming "The Tonight Show" for 17 years. Aside from Leno, no one seemed particularly startled by this succession, though it turned television logic on its head. Leno was drawing huge ratings, regularly beating the pants off of his CBS competition, David Letterman. By the time he left, he was attracting 5 million viewers a night, and "The Tonight Show" was one of NBC's most profitable franchises. And though Leno's ratings, like all ratings on broadcast television, had declined in his last year, he was still unassailable.
Which was precisely what NBC had expected when Leno took over "The Tonight Show" in 1992 after being tapped over Letterman. Everyone agreed then that Letterman was edgier than Leno, more iconoclastic, and, to a lot of people, funnier. Letterman wore the self-deprecating dork's mantle, but it was a ruse. He was the cool, droll kid who had reinvented late-night television, and NBC decided he might not be the best fit for the square "Tonight Show," where middle-American Johnny Carson had held forth for 30 years.
As it turned out, NBC was right. Leno had been an edgy -- and very funny -- comedian once, but he had gradually drifted to the center where the larger audience was. If that meant blunting his comedy, Leno was willing. By the time he took over "Tonight," Leno's basic commodity was not his humor, which had become toothless, but his likability. He was your grandmother's comedian -- the comedian of the Silent Majority.
Meanwhile, Conan O'Brien was handed Letterman's vacated spot after Leno. O'Brien had never been before the camera. He was a writer. But he was a great idea for a late-night show host: Harvard-educated, then trained at the writers' tables on "Saturday Night Live" and "The Simpsons." It didn't get any cooler than that. Even if he was as jittery as a nervous Chihuahua and milked his handful of jokes for everything they were worth by shameless mugging, he was young and different -- a hipster.
More important, he was the beneficiary of a sea change in television. Over the 16 years from O'Brien's first appearance on late night to his taking over "The Tonight Show," Leno didn't change his nice guy persona and O'Brien didn't get any more comfortable on stage. They remained pretty much the same. It was the culture that changed around them. And that's where demographics came in.
Few people alive today remember that television was once measured, reasonably, by how many people actually watched a particular program. You either had the most viewers or you didn't, and advertisers paid accordingly. The problem with this system was that year in and year out, actually 20 out of 21 years from 1955 through 1976, CBS got the highest ratings. ABC and NBC couldn't make a dent. So ABC, typically mired in third place, devised another strategy. It got the brilliant idea of finding a slice of the audience in which it could compete with CBS -- never mind that the choice was arbitrary. That's how ratings suddenly got divided into demographic segments -- which was like a football team saying that while it lost the game, it outscored its opponent in the third quarter and that ought to count for something. ABC boasted that it got younger viewers than CBS.
All of this is relevant to Leno and O'Brien because of the way ABC and NBC justified this magical and nonsensical confabulation. Younger viewers, they said, were better viewers. They were more susceptible to advertising blandishments. They were more likely to decide on a product and maintain loyalty to it for life. And they were harder to reach and therefore more desirable. Whatever the excuse, the result was that older viewers -- and old meant over 50 -- were suddenly worthless in television terms. Losing Conan O'Brien, should O'Brien have gotten restless and decided to leave NBC when his contract was up, wouldn't have been much of a loss on its face. Even if he had gone to Fox or syndication, there was no way he could have competed against Letterman, much less Leno. He would have been the Irish Arsenio.
But Conan was young and hip; and, astonishingly, he had over the years gotten increasingly favorable reviews and growing cachet, especially as Leno was denigrated by the press for having gone mainstream. O'Brien became a critical darling. Reversing the logic that had prompted it to reject Letterman, NBC apparently concluded that O'Brien was the pompadour of the future. If it lost him, it would lose his cool.
Leno, for all his ratings prowess, was just too square for NBC in the age of the almighty 18-to-34 demographic that everyone now lusted after. In a way, NBC, like an aging suitor, was addled by youth.
There was just one complication. Leno, unlike O'Brien, actually could take his Silent Majority elsewhere, uncool or not. When NBC at the eleventh hour offered Leno the 10 o'clock slot, it wasn't because it expected him to reap great ratings against dramatic shows or even because it wanted cheaper programming. It was a defensive maneuver to keep him from defecting to another network and demolishing O'Brien on "The Tonight Show," its cash cow. NBC didn't really want him, but it didn't want to have to compete against him either.
What NBC didn't seem to have reckoned was just how much its desire to play with the cool kids would cost them -- not in terms of ratings at 10 where it knew Leno would be swamped, but in the weak lead-ins to the local news that sparked an affiliate revolt and in sagging ratings for "The Tonight Show" itself. O'Brien's supporters may think he is the neatest kid in class and that he is therefore entitled to occupy the host's chair, but he is pulling half the ratings Leno got and recently is even down from Leno in the coveted demo. And O'Brien isn't doing any better than Letterman.
In his defense, O'Brien claimed he needed time to build his audience, though detractors could parry that he had 17 years to build an audience. Put less charitably, O'Brien may have been modish, but he wasn't funny.
But this was never about funny -- if it was, neither O'Brien nor Leno would have inherited "The Tonight Show." This was about image. In the great high school of life, NBC opted to follow the siren call of cool. And now, for what may be the first time since 18 to 49 became the American grail, the system has blown up, so much so that NBC was willing to pay O'Brien tens of millions of dollars just to get rid of him and restore Leno to "Tonight."
And that is the real significance of the Leno/O'Brien smackdown. Say what you will about Leno, his return is a cultural milestone.
As O'Brien faded into the evening last night with bundles of cash and newfound martyrdom, the baby boomers have finally gotten some small measure of revenge, however old and dorky and undesirable they may be.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Ig Nobel winners beat each other with beer bottles
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/44168/181/
Ig Nobel winners beat each other with beer bottles
General Sciences
By Emma Woollacott
Friday, October 02, 2009
So much more fun than next week's boring Swedish version, the winners of the Ig Nobel prizes were announced last night.
Rewarding research that "cannot, or should not, be repeated", the awards are hosted by the Harvard journal Annals of Improbable Research.
The Veterinary Medicine prize went to Catherine Douglas and Peter Rowlinson of Newcastle University, UK, for showing that cows who have names give more milk than cows that are nameless. Catherine Douglas was unable to travel because she recently gave birth; she sent a photo of herself, her new daughter dressed in a cow suit, and a cow.
The Peace prize was awarded to Stephan Bolliger, Steffen Ross, Lars Oesterhelweg, Michael Thali and Beat Kneubuehl of the University of Bern, Switzerland, for determining — by experiment — whether it is better to be smashed over the head with a full bottle of beer or with an empty bottle. The answer is that while empty bottles are sturdier, both are pretty bad.
The Economics prize went to the directors, executives, and auditors of four Icelandic banks — Kaupthing Bank, Landsbanki, Glitnir Bank, and Central Bank of Iceland — for demonstrating that tiny banks can be rapidly transformed into huge banks, and vice versa — and for demonstrating that similar things can be done to an entire national economy.
Donald L Unger, of Thousand Oaks, California, won the medicine prize for a 60-year attempt to prove his mother wrong, and that cracking his knuckles would not cause arthritis. Showing remarkable determination, he diligently cracked the knuckles of his left hand only, every day for six decades. Result? Mother didn't know best.
The Physics prize went to Katherine K Whitcome of the University of Cincinnati, Daniel E Lieberman of Harvard University and Liza J Shapiro of the University of Texas, for analytically determining why pregnant women don't tip over.
Ireland's entire police service shares the Literature prize for writing and presenting more than fifty traffic tickets to the most frequent driving offender in the country — Prawo Jazdy. The name in Polish means "Driving License".
Elena N Bodnar, Raphael C Lee, and Sandra Marijan of Chicago scooped the Public Health prize for inventing a brassiere that, in an emergency, can be quickly converted into a pair of gas masks, one for the brassiere wearer and one to be given to some needy bystander.
The Maths prize went to Gideon Gono, governor of Zimbabwe’s Reserve Bank, for giving people a simple, everyday way to cope with a wide range of numbers — from very small to very big — by having his bank print bank notes with denominations ranging from one cent to one hundred trillion dollars.
The Biology prize was awarded to Fumiaki Taguchi, Song Guofu, and Zhang Guanglei of Kitasato University Graduate School of Medical Sciences in Japan, for demonstrating that kitchen refuse can be reduced more than 90 percent in mass by using bacteria extracted from the feces of giant pandas.
Ig Nobel winners beat each other with beer bottles
General Sciences
By Emma Woollacott
Friday, October 02, 2009
So much more fun than next week's boring Swedish version, the winners of the Ig Nobel prizes were announced last night.
Rewarding research that "cannot, or should not, be repeated", the awards are hosted by the Harvard journal Annals of Improbable Research.
The Veterinary Medicine prize went to Catherine Douglas and Peter Rowlinson of Newcastle University, UK, for showing that cows who have names give more milk than cows that are nameless. Catherine Douglas was unable to travel because she recently gave birth; she sent a photo of herself, her new daughter dressed in a cow suit, and a cow.
The Peace prize was awarded to Stephan Bolliger, Steffen Ross, Lars Oesterhelweg, Michael Thali and Beat Kneubuehl of the University of Bern, Switzerland, for determining — by experiment — whether it is better to be smashed over the head with a full bottle of beer or with an empty bottle. The answer is that while empty bottles are sturdier, both are pretty bad.
The Economics prize went to the directors, executives, and auditors of four Icelandic banks — Kaupthing Bank, Landsbanki, Glitnir Bank, and Central Bank of Iceland — for demonstrating that tiny banks can be rapidly transformed into huge banks, and vice versa — and for demonstrating that similar things can be done to an entire national economy.
Donald L Unger, of Thousand Oaks, California, won the medicine prize for a 60-year attempt to prove his mother wrong, and that cracking his knuckles would not cause arthritis. Showing remarkable determination, he diligently cracked the knuckles of his left hand only, every day for six decades. Result? Mother didn't know best.
The Physics prize went to Katherine K Whitcome of the University of Cincinnati, Daniel E Lieberman of Harvard University and Liza J Shapiro of the University of Texas, for analytically determining why pregnant women don't tip over.
Ireland's entire police service shares the Literature prize for writing and presenting more than fifty traffic tickets to the most frequent driving offender in the country — Prawo Jazdy. The name in Polish means "Driving License".
Elena N Bodnar, Raphael C Lee, and Sandra Marijan of Chicago scooped the Public Health prize for inventing a brassiere that, in an emergency, can be quickly converted into a pair of gas masks, one for the brassiere wearer and one to be given to some needy bystander.
The Maths prize went to Gideon Gono, governor of Zimbabwe’s Reserve Bank, for giving people a simple, everyday way to cope with a wide range of numbers — from very small to very big — by having his bank print bank notes with denominations ranging from one cent to one hundred trillion dollars.
The Biology prize was awarded to Fumiaki Taguchi, Song Guofu, and Zhang Guanglei of Kitasato University Graduate School of Medical Sciences in Japan, for demonstrating that kitchen refuse can be reduced more than 90 percent in mass by using bacteria extracted from the feces of giant pandas.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Hedonics Continues to Gain Science Cred
http://www.hplusmagazine.com/editors-blog/hedonics-continues-gain-science-cred
Hedonics Continues to Gain Science Cred
RU Sirius
August 23, 2009
Harvard has its Hedonic Psychology laboratory (the term was first used by former Harvard professor Timothy Leary in a 1971 Psychology Today article, although he is not acknowledged by the current Harvardites). Now two neuroscientists -- Morten Kringelbach of Oxford and Kent Berridge of the University of Michigan hit the pleasure spot with a new book called Pleasures of the Brain.
From Scientific Blogging:
" 'A sense of pleasure generated by the brain’s hedonic neural systems is fundamental to daily life and it's been essential for evolution and the survival of humans and most animals,' say Morten Kringelbach and Kent Berridge, editors of a new book to be published by Oxford University Press in October 2009 called Pleasures of the Brain."
Hedonics Continues to Gain Science Cred
RU Sirius
August 23, 2009
Harvard has its Hedonic Psychology laboratory (the term was first used by former Harvard professor Timothy Leary in a 1971 Psychology Today article, although he is not acknowledged by the current Harvardites). Now two neuroscientists -- Morten Kringelbach of Oxford and Kent Berridge of the University of Michigan hit the pleasure spot with a new book called Pleasures of the Brain.
From Scientific Blogging:
" 'A sense of pleasure generated by the brain’s hedonic neural systems is fundamental to daily life and it's been essential for evolution and the survival of humans and most animals,' say Morten Kringelbach and Kent Berridge, editors of a new book to be published by Oxford University Press in October 2009 called Pleasures of the Brain."
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Cop Accidentally Arrests Henry Louis Gates Again
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/cambridge_cop_accidentally
Cambridge Cop Accidentally Arrests Henry Louis Gates Again During White House Meeting
July 31, 2009 Issue 45•31
WASHINGTON — Upon arriving late to his meeting with President Barack Obama and famed African-American intellectual Henry Louis Gates, Cambridge police officer James Crowley once again detained the distinguished Harvard scholar after failing to recognize the man he had arrested just two weeks earlier, White House sources reported Thursday. "When I entered the Oval Office, I observed an unidentified black male sitting near Mr. Obama, and in the interest of the president's safety, I attempted to ascertain the individual's business at the White House," Crowley said in a sworn statement following the arrest. “The suspect then became uncooperative and verbally abusive. I had no choice but to apprehend him at the scene for disorderly conduct.” Witnesses said that Sgt. Crowley, failing to recognize Gates on their flight to Logan Airport, arrested the tenured professor in midair, once again at the baggage claim, and twice during their shared cab ride back to Cambridge.
Cambridge Cop Accidentally Arrests Henry Louis Gates Again During White House Meeting
July 31, 2009 Issue 45•31
WASHINGTON — Upon arriving late to his meeting with President Barack Obama and famed African-American intellectual Henry Louis Gates, Cambridge police officer James Crowley once again detained the distinguished Harvard scholar after failing to recognize the man he had arrested just two weeks earlier, White House sources reported Thursday. "When I entered the Oval Office, I observed an unidentified black male sitting near Mr. Obama, and in the interest of the president's safety, I attempted to ascertain the individual's business at the White House," Crowley said in a sworn statement following the arrest. “The suspect then became uncooperative and verbally abusive. I had no choice but to apprehend him at the scene for disorderly conduct.” Witnesses said that Sgt. Crowley, failing to recognize Gates on their flight to Logan Airport, arrested the tenured professor in midair, once again at the baggage claim, and twice during their shared cab ride back to Cambridge.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
White Men Can't Judge
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-boykin/white-men-cant-judge_b_244358.html
Keith Boykin is a CNBC contributor and editor of The Daily Voice.
July 24, 2009
White Men Can't Judge
The most disturbing aspect of the news coverage about Henry Louis Gates' arrest has been the running commentary by white men about appropriate decorum for black men.
Of course, it was no surprise that blowhards like Rush Limbaugh would jump in to defend the white police officer and impugn Professor Gates. Nor that the conservative radio talk show host would turn his attack to President Obama after the president labeled the Cambridge Police Department behavior "stupid."
Limbaugh's an easy case. More troubling is the commentary from Sergeant James Crowley himself, an "expert" on racial profiling who still doesn't understand why a black man would be upset to be accused of breaking into his own house.
"From the time he opened the door it seemed that [Gates] was very upset, very put off that I was there in the first place," Sergeant Crowley told Boston sports radio station WEEI this week. "Not just what he said, but the tone in which he said it, just seemed very peculiar -- even more so now that I know how educated he is."
So educated people can't get upset?
I'm a Harvard graduate, and I reacted angrily just a few days ago when a New York City police officer stopped me Sunday inside a Manhattan subway station and accused me of jumping the turnstiles, which I clearly had not done. I made a scene, much like Professor Gates probably did, because I felt I was being unfairly singled out.
After I proved that I had entered the station legally, an unknown black woman standing nearby came to my defense. "Do you know who he is? He worked in the White House," she said, much to my surprise.
In fact, it's the "educated" and "successful" black men who are most likely to become indignant in racial profiling situations. Many younger black men I know suffer through random police stops on a regular basis and have grown accustomed to the procedure. But older, middle-class and upper-income blacks are often shocked when the police come for them, too. Yet in the eyes of the police, a black Harvard professor is just another potential suspect.
The officer in the Gates case wrote in his police report that the professor exhibited "loud and tumultuous behavior, in a public place." Actually, the professor was in a private place until the officer -- who admitted in the report that Gates "appeared to be a resident" -- asked him to step outside. But even in public, why can't a black man be loud when he's angry about real or perceived police harassment?
And why wouldn't an expert in racial profiling understand the long history of police abuse of African American men and consider that in evaluating Gates' response to the situation? After everything black men have been through in this country, from slavery to segregation to racial denialism, it's a wonder that well-educated black men like Gates and Obama are usually so controlled.
That's what CNN anchor Lou Dobbs seemed to miss Thursday night on his show when he asked CNN contributor Roland Martin to calm down in responding to the ridiculous charges about Barack Obama's citizenship. "You're yelling and you're getting awful excited about something that doesn't require this level of remarks," Dobbs scolded Martin.
Dobbs had just finished expressing his doubts about Professor Gates in a segment with CNN's Soledad O'Brien when he expressed sympathy with those who questioned the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. So let me get this straight. We're supposed to believe a lone white police officer in Massachusetts but not believe the entire state of Hawaii about Obama's birth?
Yes, in our society, white men are considered believable and those pesky people of color (Hawaiians or African Americans) are not. That's why all the evening news anchors on every news network (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC) are white, and nearly all of those are men. And that's why a 42-year-old cop is more credible than a distinguished 58-year-old Harvard professor.
No matter how much progress we've made, black men still don't have the right to get upset and indignant, even in their own homes. Crotchety old white guys like Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs can foam at the mouth on radio and television all day about immigrants and blacks, but a black male public figure can't complain too loudly. That would be ungrateful and undignified.
And it doesn't matter what your status if you're a black man. A black TV personality can't get upset with a white guy on CNN. A black White House veteran can't get upset with the NYPD on the subway. A black Harvard professor can't get upset with the Cambridge Police in his house. And apparently a black president can't get upset in his house either.
She won't say it, but Judge Sonia Sotomayor was right when she spoke about a wise Latina judge often reaching a better decision than a wise white man. Many white men still can't judge these situations fairly because they don't understand what it means to be black in America.
Whether you're a pundit, a professor or the president, if you're a black man you better know your place.
Follow Keith Boykin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/keithboykin
Keith Boykin is a CNBC contributor and editor of The Daily Voice.
July 24, 2009
White Men Can't Judge
The most disturbing aspect of the news coverage about Henry Louis Gates' arrest has been the running commentary by white men about appropriate decorum for black men.
Of course, it was no surprise that blowhards like Rush Limbaugh would jump in to defend the white police officer and impugn Professor Gates. Nor that the conservative radio talk show host would turn his attack to President Obama after the president labeled the Cambridge Police Department behavior "stupid."
Limbaugh's an easy case. More troubling is the commentary from Sergeant James Crowley himself, an "expert" on racial profiling who still doesn't understand why a black man would be upset to be accused of breaking into his own house.
"From the time he opened the door it seemed that [Gates] was very upset, very put off that I was there in the first place," Sergeant Crowley told Boston sports radio station WEEI this week. "Not just what he said, but the tone in which he said it, just seemed very peculiar -- even more so now that I know how educated he is."
So educated people can't get upset?
I'm a Harvard graduate, and I reacted angrily just a few days ago when a New York City police officer stopped me Sunday inside a Manhattan subway station and accused me of jumping the turnstiles, which I clearly had not done. I made a scene, much like Professor Gates probably did, because I felt I was being unfairly singled out.
After I proved that I had entered the station legally, an unknown black woman standing nearby came to my defense. "Do you know who he is? He worked in the White House," she said, much to my surprise.
In fact, it's the "educated" and "successful" black men who are most likely to become indignant in racial profiling situations. Many younger black men I know suffer through random police stops on a regular basis and have grown accustomed to the procedure. But older, middle-class and upper-income blacks are often shocked when the police come for them, too. Yet in the eyes of the police, a black Harvard professor is just another potential suspect.
The officer in the Gates case wrote in his police report that the professor exhibited "loud and tumultuous behavior, in a public place." Actually, the professor was in a private place until the officer -- who admitted in the report that Gates "appeared to be a resident" -- asked him to step outside. But even in public, why can't a black man be loud when he's angry about real or perceived police harassment?
And why wouldn't an expert in racial profiling understand the long history of police abuse of African American men and consider that in evaluating Gates' response to the situation? After everything black men have been through in this country, from slavery to segregation to racial denialism, it's a wonder that well-educated black men like Gates and Obama are usually so controlled.
That's what CNN anchor Lou Dobbs seemed to miss Thursday night on his show when he asked CNN contributor Roland Martin to calm down in responding to the ridiculous charges about Barack Obama's citizenship. "You're yelling and you're getting awful excited about something that doesn't require this level of remarks," Dobbs scolded Martin.
Dobbs had just finished expressing his doubts about Professor Gates in a segment with CNN's Soledad O'Brien when he expressed sympathy with those who questioned the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. So let me get this straight. We're supposed to believe a lone white police officer in Massachusetts but not believe the entire state of Hawaii about Obama's birth?
Yes, in our society, white men are considered believable and those pesky people of color (Hawaiians or African Americans) are not. That's why all the evening news anchors on every news network (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC) are white, and nearly all of those are men. And that's why a 42-year-old cop is more credible than a distinguished 58-year-old Harvard professor.
No matter how much progress we've made, black men still don't have the right to get upset and indignant, even in their own homes. Crotchety old white guys like Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs can foam at the mouth on radio and television all day about immigrants and blacks, but a black male public figure can't complain too loudly. That would be ungrateful and undignified.
And it doesn't matter what your status if you're a black man. A black TV personality can't get upset with a white guy on CNN. A black White House veteran can't get upset with the NYPD on the subway. A black Harvard professor can't get upset with the Cambridge Police in his house. And apparently a black president can't get upset in his house either.
She won't say it, but Judge Sonia Sotomayor was right when she spoke about a wise Latina judge often reaching a better decision than a wise white man. Many white men still can't judge these situations fairly because they don't understand what it means to be black in America.
Whether you're a pundit, a professor or the president, if you're a black man you better know your place.
Follow Keith Boykin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/keithboykin
Statement on the Arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr.
http://www.theroot.com/views/lawyers-statement-arrest-henry-louis-gates-jr
Lawyer's Statement on the Arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Charles Ogletree gives Gates' side of the story in controversial arrest of The Root's editor-in-chief.
July 20, 2009
This brief statement is being submitted on behalf of my client, friend, and colleague, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. This is a statement concerning the arrest of Professor Gates. On July 16, 2009, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., 58, the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor of Harvard University, was headed from Logan airport to his home [in] Cambridge after spending a week in China, where he was filming his new PBS documentary entitled “Faces of America.” Professor Gates was driven to his home by a driver for a local car company. Professor Gates attempted to enter his front door, but the door was damaged. Professor Gates then entered his rear door with his key, turned off his alarm, and again attempted to open the front door. With the help of his driver they were able to force the front door open, and then the driver carried Professor Gates’ luggage into his home.
Professor Gates immediately called the Harvard Real Estate office to report the damage to his door and requested that it be repaired immediately. As he was talking to the Harvard Real Estate office on his portable phone in his house, he observed a uniformed officer on his front porch. When Professor Gates opened the door, the officer immediately asked him to step outside. Professor Gates remained inside his home and asked the officer why he was there. The officer indicated that he was responding to a 911 call about a breaking and entering in progress at this address. Professor Gates informed the officer that he lived there and was a faculty member at Harvard University. The officer then asked Professor Gates whether he could prove that he lived there and taught at Harvard. Professor Gates said that he could, and turned to walk into his kitchen, where he had left his wallet. The officer followed him. Professor Gates handed both his Harvard University identification and his valid Massachusetts driver’s license to the officer. Both include Professor Gates’ photograph, and the license includes his address.
Professor Gates then asked the police officer if he would give him his name and his badge number. He made this request several times. The officer did not produce any identification nor did he respond to Professor Gates’ request for this information. After an additional request by Professor Gates for the officer’s name and badge number, the officer then turned and left the kitchen of Professor Gates’ home without ever acknowledging who he was or if there were charges against Professor Gates. As Professor Gates followed the officer to his own front door, he was astonished to see several police officers gathered on his front porch. Professor Gates asked the officer’s colleagues for his name and badge number. As Professor Gates stepped onto his front porch, the officer who had been inside and who had examined his identification, said to him, “Thank you for accommodating my earlier request,” and then placed Professor Gates under arrest. He was handcuffed on his own front porch.
Professor Gates was taken to the Cambridge Police Station where he remained for approximately 4 hours before being released that evening. Professor Gates’ counsel has been cooperating with the Middlesex District Attorneys Office, and the City of Cambridge, and is hopeful that this matter will be resolved promptly. Professor Gates will not be making any other statements concerning this matter at this time.
Lawyer's Statement on the Arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Charles Ogletree gives Gates' side of the story in controversial arrest of The Root's editor-in-chief.
July 20, 2009
This brief statement is being submitted on behalf of my client, friend, and colleague, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. This is a statement concerning the arrest of Professor Gates. On July 16, 2009, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., 58, the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor of Harvard University, was headed from Logan airport to his home [in] Cambridge after spending a week in China, where he was filming his new PBS documentary entitled “Faces of America.” Professor Gates was driven to his home by a driver for a local car company. Professor Gates attempted to enter his front door, but the door was damaged. Professor Gates then entered his rear door with his key, turned off his alarm, and again attempted to open the front door. With the help of his driver they were able to force the front door open, and then the driver carried Professor Gates’ luggage into his home.
Professor Gates immediately called the Harvard Real Estate office to report the damage to his door and requested that it be repaired immediately. As he was talking to the Harvard Real Estate office on his portable phone in his house, he observed a uniformed officer on his front porch. When Professor Gates opened the door, the officer immediately asked him to step outside. Professor Gates remained inside his home and asked the officer why he was there. The officer indicated that he was responding to a 911 call about a breaking and entering in progress at this address. Professor Gates informed the officer that he lived there and was a faculty member at Harvard University. The officer then asked Professor Gates whether he could prove that he lived there and taught at Harvard. Professor Gates said that he could, and turned to walk into his kitchen, where he had left his wallet. The officer followed him. Professor Gates handed both his Harvard University identification and his valid Massachusetts driver’s license to the officer. Both include Professor Gates’ photograph, and the license includes his address.
Professor Gates then asked the police officer if he would give him his name and his badge number. He made this request several times. The officer did not produce any identification nor did he respond to Professor Gates’ request for this information. After an additional request by Professor Gates for the officer’s name and badge number, the officer then turned and left the kitchen of Professor Gates’ home without ever acknowledging who he was or if there were charges against Professor Gates. As Professor Gates followed the officer to his own front door, he was astonished to see several police officers gathered on his front porch. Professor Gates asked the officer’s colleagues for his name and badge number. As Professor Gates stepped onto his front porch, the officer who had been inside and who had examined his identification, said to him, “Thank you for accommodating my earlier request,” and then placed Professor Gates under arrest. He was handcuffed on his own front porch.
Professor Gates was taken to the Cambridge Police Station where he remained for approximately 4 hours before being released that evening. Professor Gates’ counsel has been cooperating with the Middlesex District Attorneys Office, and the City of Cambridge, and is hopeful that this matter will be resolved promptly. Professor Gates will not be making any other statements concerning this matter at this time.
James Crowley Lied in his Police Report
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/25/757783/-James-Crowley-Lied-in-his-Police-Report
James Crowley Lied in his Police Report
by BigBlue
Sat Jul 25, 2009
I have read all the back and forth about the controversy with Skip Gates and James Crowley, the Harvard Prof and the cop who arrested him. The media loves it, because it gives them an opportunity to go on and on about race, and all the stuff that goes with it. But the fact is, this isn't (primarily) about race. It's about the power cops have in situations like this, and the abuse of authority that occurs. And, in this case, the evidence that the cop, James Crowley, lied in his police report. Why do I say that, you ask? Well, read on...
Keep in mind that most media accounts take the police report as the truth, without a grain of salt. Consider these passages from the police report (which have been taken as fact by the media):
Gates opened the door and exclaimed "Why, because I am a black man in America?
While yelling, he told me that it was none of my business and accused me of being a racist police officer.
Gates continued to yell at me.
My reason for wanting to leave the residence was that Gates was yelling very loud and the acoustics of the kitchen and foyer were making it difficult for me to transmit pertinent information...
Gates continued to yell at me...
The gentleman shouted "You don't know who your [sic] messing with!"
Notice the many references to Gates yelling, shouting, exclaiming, etc. This is important, because the yelling is the basis of the arrest, which was for "loud and tumultuous behavior". Gates's own account has none of the yelling, and we are left with one guy's word against the other. In this situation, many believe the cop by default.
However, look at the following from Gates's account:
HLG: The police report says I was engaged in loud and tumultuous behavior. That’s a joke. Because I have a severe bronchial infection which I contracted in China and for which I was treated and have a doctor’s report from the Peninsula hotel in Beijing. So I couldn’t have yelled. I can’t yell even today, I’m not fully cured.
See also Charles Ogletree (his lawyer) on MSNBC, saying the same thing.
Now, if this is the case, Gates has a doctor's report, as well as many witnesses who would have heard him over the course of the last few days, having difficulty speaking, much less yelling. So it isn't something he is likely to just make up. This is especially true after talking to his lawyer, who would not have signed on to using this storyline, if it were not true, considering how easily it would be refuted if it were false. So I'm convinced that this is the case, that he couldn't have yelled. This makes the police report false.
And while the media considers there to be a difference between a statement containing "falsehoods", and the person giving that statement having "lied", I have no such qualms with the "L" word, so I'll say it again: the police officer lied in his report.
You may want to see more evidence that the things in the report are wrong, but keep in mind that the yelling key to the officer's story. It's the only thing that could justify an arrest (for "loud and tumultuous" behavior) in this situation. And though this is only one piece of evidence, I think the police report being wrong is the more likely situation, than Gates and his legal team stupidly clinging to a easily-refutable story about bronchitis.
Some people may dislike the claim of a police officer lying, but consider the following:
-Everyone in the justice system will believe a cop over a normal civilian, if there is no other evidence.
-Often confrontations between cops and civilians have no record, and the only evidence is the account of the two people involved.
-In a line of work such as being a police officer, any mistake likely has legal implications. It is probably easy to find yourself in violation of the law, if you are a cop and the situations you face every day are in a legal grey area.
-The police have a habit of arresting people for being jerks, for what is apparently called "contempt of cop"; the charges are often for something like "disorderly conduct", and quickly dropped, once the person has learned his or her lesson.
Forget that this guy is a cop for a moment, and remember that he is human. As a cop, he has a tough job; his mistakes carry big consequences, but he can most likely escape them by lying about what happened, and nobody will ever doubt him. Is it a huge surprise what happens?
I am not saying we should crucify the guy, but we should use this as a catalyst to call for changes in how our police works. We have the right to expect more from our police, and we also should offer more to people working in the often thankless job.
And we should stop hearing about what a terrible person Skip Gates is, how he verbally abused this cop, how he felt entitled due to being a Harvard prof, and how he got what he had coming to him. Because what we are hearing in the media, which is based on the police report, is not what happened.
James Crowley Lied in his Police Report
by BigBlue
Sat Jul 25, 2009
I have read all the back and forth about the controversy with Skip Gates and James Crowley, the Harvard Prof and the cop who arrested him. The media loves it, because it gives them an opportunity to go on and on about race, and all the stuff that goes with it. But the fact is, this isn't (primarily) about race. It's about the power cops have in situations like this, and the abuse of authority that occurs. And, in this case, the evidence that the cop, James Crowley, lied in his police report. Why do I say that, you ask? Well, read on...
Keep in mind that most media accounts take the police report as the truth, without a grain of salt. Consider these passages from the police report (which have been taken as fact by the media):
Gates opened the door and exclaimed "Why, because I am a black man in America?
While yelling, he told me that it was none of my business and accused me of being a racist police officer.
Gates continued to yell at me.
My reason for wanting to leave the residence was that Gates was yelling very loud and the acoustics of the kitchen and foyer were making it difficult for me to transmit pertinent information...
Gates continued to yell at me...
The gentleman shouted "You don't know who your [sic] messing with!"
Notice the many references to Gates yelling, shouting, exclaiming, etc. This is important, because the yelling is the basis of the arrest, which was for "loud and tumultuous behavior". Gates's own account has none of the yelling, and we are left with one guy's word against the other. In this situation, many believe the cop by default.
However, look at the following from Gates's account:
HLG: The police report says I was engaged in loud and tumultuous behavior. That’s a joke. Because I have a severe bronchial infection which I contracted in China and for which I was treated and have a doctor’s report from the Peninsula hotel in Beijing. So I couldn’t have yelled. I can’t yell even today, I’m not fully cured.
See also Charles Ogletree (his lawyer) on MSNBC, saying the same thing.
Now, if this is the case, Gates has a doctor's report, as well as many witnesses who would have heard him over the course of the last few days, having difficulty speaking, much less yelling. So it isn't something he is likely to just make up. This is especially true after talking to his lawyer, who would not have signed on to using this storyline, if it were not true, considering how easily it would be refuted if it were false. So I'm convinced that this is the case, that he couldn't have yelled. This makes the police report false.
And while the media considers there to be a difference between a statement containing "falsehoods", and the person giving that statement having "lied", I have no such qualms with the "L" word, so I'll say it again: the police officer lied in his report.
You may want to see more evidence that the things in the report are wrong, but keep in mind that the yelling key to the officer's story. It's the only thing that could justify an arrest (for "loud and tumultuous" behavior) in this situation. And though this is only one piece of evidence, I think the police report being wrong is the more likely situation, than Gates and his legal team stupidly clinging to a easily-refutable story about bronchitis.
Some people may dislike the claim of a police officer lying, but consider the following:
-Everyone in the justice system will believe a cop over a normal civilian, if there is no other evidence.
-Often confrontations between cops and civilians have no record, and the only evidence is the account of the two people involved.
-In a line of work such as being a police officer, any mistake likely has legal implications. It is probably easy to find yourself in violation of the law, if you are a cop and the situations you face every day are in a legal grey area.
-The police have a habit of arresting people for being jerks, for what is apparently called "contempt of cop"; the charges are often for something like "disorderly conduct", and quickly dropped, once the person has learned his or her lesson.
Forget that this guy is a cop for a moment, and remember that he is human. As a cop, he has a tough job; his mistakes carry big consequences, but he can most likely escape them by lying about what happened, and nobody will ever doubt him. Is it a huge surprise what happens?
I am not saying we should crucify the guy, but we should use this as a catalyst to call for changes in how our police works. We have the right to expect more from our police, and we also should offer more to people working in the often thankless job.
And we should stop hearing about what a terrible person Skip Gates is, how he verbally abused this cop, how he felt entitled due to being a Harvard prof, and how he got what he had coming to him. Because what we are hearing in the media, which is based on the police report, is not what happened.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Gates chastises officer after authorities drop charge
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/charges_to_be_d.html
Gates chastises officer after authorities agree to drop criminal charge
July 21, 2009
Police led Henry Louis Gates Jr. away in handcuffs after his arrest on Thursday at his home in Cambridge.
By Tracy Jan, Globe Staff
Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. chastised a Cambridge police officer today and demanded an apology after authorities agreed to drop a disorderly conduct charge against the renowned African-American scholar.
Gates accused the officer who arrested him at his Cambridge home of having a "broad imagination" when he summarized last Thursday's confrontation in police reports, and he denied making several inflammatory remarks.
“I believe the police officer should apologize to me for what he knows he did that was wrong,” Gates said in a phone interview from his other home in Martha’s Vineyard. “If he apologizes sincerely, I am willing to forgive him. And if he admits his error, I am willing to educate him about the history of racism in America and the issue of racial profiling … That’s what I do for a living.”
Gates, 58, was handcuffed and booked last Thursday following a police investigation into a suspected burglary at his Ware Street home near Harvard Square. A passerby spotted Gates and his driver, who had dropped him off from the airport, trying to push the front door open and called the police. The door had been jammed. Police responded and arrested Gates after they said he became belligerent.
Earlier today, the Middlesex district attorney's office announced plans to drop criminal charges against Gates. The City of Cambridge and the police department recommended today that prosecutors not pursue charges in a joint statement from authorities and Gates that called the confrontation "regrettable and unfortunate."
"This incident should not be viewed as one that demeans the character and reputation of professor Gates or the character of the Cambridge Police Department," the statement said. "All parties agree that this is a just resolution to an unfortunate set of circumstances."
Cambridge Mayor E. Denise Simmons said in a statement that the controversy illustrated "that Cambridge must continue finding ways to address matters of race and class in a frank, honest, and productive manner."
The imbroglio elicited reactions from across the country about race relations and profiling. Representative James E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina, said today on MSNBC that even though "we've elected an African-American president … these kinds of profiling do, in fact, take place."
"We're a long way from putting this issue behind us," said Clyburn, a Democrat and former chairman of Congressional Black Caucus.
This afternoon in an interview, Gates said he never yelled at the officer other than to demand his name and badge number, which he said the officer refused to give. The officer, Sergeant James Crowley, said in the police report that he did state his name. He also said Gates unleashed a verbal tirade, calling him racist, telling him that he did not know who he was messing with, and threatening to speak to his “mama” outside.
“The police report is full of this man’s broad imagination,” Gates said in response to a question on whether he had said any of the quotes in the report. “I said, ‘Are you not giving me your name and badge number because I’m a black man in America?’ . . . He treated my request with scorn. . . I was suffering from a bronchial infection. I couldn’t have yelled. . . I don’t walk around calling white people racist.”
Gates continued, “I’m outraged. I shouldn’t have been treated this way but it makes me so keenly aware of how many people every day experience abuses in the criminal justice system ... No citizen should tolerate that kind of poor behavior by an officer of the law. . . This is really about justice for the least amongst us.”
Because of his arrest, Gates said he plans to make racial profiling and prison reform central intellectual and political issues he wants to explore. He’s also considering a new documentary on racial profiling.
“Because of the capricious whim of one disturbed person . . . I am now a black man with a prison record,” Gates said. “You can look at my mug shot on the Internet.”
Gates chastises officer after authorities agree to drop criminal charge
July 21, 2009
Police led Henry Louis Gates Jr. away in handcuffs after his arrest on Thursday at his home in Cambridge.
By Tracy Jan, Globe Staff
Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. chastised a Cambridge police officer today and demanded an apology after authorities agreed to drop a disorderly conduct charge against the renowned African-American scholar.
Gates accused the officer who arrested him at his Cambridge home of having a "broad imagination" when he summarized last Thursday's confrontation in police reports, and he denied making several inflammatory remarks.
“I believe the police officer should apologize to me for what he knows he did that was wrong,” Gates said in a phone interview from his other home in Martha’s Vineyard. “If he apologizes sincerely, I am willing to forgive him. And if he admits his error, I am willing to educate him about the history of racism in America and the issue of racial profiling … That’s what I do for a living.”
Gates, 58, was handcuffed and booked last Thursday following a police investigation into a suspected burglary at his Ware Street home near Harvard Square. A passerby spotted Gates and his driver, who had dropped him off from the airport, trying to push the front door open and called the police. The door had been jammed. Police responded and arrested Gates after they said he became belligerent.
Earlier today, the Middlesex district attorney's office announced plans to drop criminal charges against Gates. The City of Cambridge and the police department recommended today that prosecutors not pursue charges in a joint statement from authorities and Gates that called the confrontation "regrettable and unfortunate."
"This incident should not be viewed as one that demeans the character and reputation of professor Gates or the character of the Cambridge Police Department," the statement said. "All parties agree that this is a just resolution to an unfortunate set of circumstances."
Cambridge Mayor E. Denise Simmons said in a statement that the controversy illustrated "that Cambridge must continue finding ways to address matters of race and class in a frank, honest, and productive manner."
The imbroglio elicited reactions from across the country about race relations and profiling. Representative James E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina, said today on MSNBC that even though "we've elected an African-American president … these kinds of profiling do, in fact, take place."
"We're a long way from putting this issue behind us," said Clyburn, a Democrat and former chairman of Congressional Black Caucus.
This afternoon in an interview, Gates said he never yelled at the officer other than to demand his name and badge number, which he said the officer refused to give. The officer, Sergeant James Crowley, said in the police report that he did state his name. He also said Gates unleashed a verbal tirade, calling him racist, telling him that he did not know who he was messing with, and threatening to speak to his “mama” outside.
“The police report is full of this man’s broad imagination,” Gates said in response to a question on whether he had said any of the quotes in the report. “I said, ‘Are you not giving me your name and badge number because I’m a black man in America?’ . . . He treated my request with scorn. . . I was suffering from a bronchial infection. I couldn’t have yelled. . . I don’t walk around calling white people racist.”
Gates continued, “I’m outraged. I shouldn’t have been treated this way but it makes me so keenly aware of how many people every day experience abuses in the criminal justice system ... No citizen should tolerate that kind of poor behavior by an officer of the law. . . This is really about justice for the least amongst us.”
Because of his arrest, Gates said he plans to make racial profiling and prison reform central intellectual and political issues he wants to explore. He’s also considering a new documentary on racial profiling.
“Because of the capricious whim of one disturbed person . . . I am now a black man with a prison record,” Gates said. “You can look at my mug shot on the Internet.”
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The Harvard Classics Online
The Harvard Classics & The Harvard Classics Shelf of Fiction Online
http://www.bartleby.com/hc/
The most comprehensive and well-researched anthology of all time comprises both the 50-volume “5-foot shelf of books” and the the 20-volume Shelf of Fiction. Together they cover every major literary figure, philosopher, religion, folklore and historical subject through the twentieth century.
http://www.bartleby.com/hc/
The most comprehensive and well-researched anthology of all time comprises both the 50-volume “5-foot shelf of books” and the the 20-volume Shelf of Fiction. Together they cover every major literary figure, philosopher, religion, folklore and historical subject through the twentieth century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
