Author Archives: Peter Levine

what Obama could say about the “celebrity” charge

(The following is an imaginary speech by the Democratic nominee): “John McCain has been running ads associating me with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. He has been criticized for those ads, but I believe they reflect a deep concern that I share with him.

“Modern celebrity culture is a terrible thing. I can hardly believe that my daughters, growing up two generations after the height of the women’s movement, should be exposed to relentless news about someone who happens to be thin, blond, rich, deliberately uneducated past high school, without any apparent interest in a regular job, and who intentionally acts dim and vapid in order to appear attractive. I sometimes feel as if we have slipped 50 years backward.

“And I can hardly believe the appetite for news about Paris and Britney–and now Angelina and Beyonce–when there are wars going on, and the earth’s climate is shifting dangerously, and our people are losing jobs and health coverage. Not only are there serious problems to read about; there are also wonderful people doing amazing things to solve our problems. They work together at the grassroots level, leading organizations, cleaning up the environment, mentoring kids, creating art and culture. But these real, active citizens get one thousandth of the attention of a single Hollywood star breakup.

“The celebrity culture is sexualized to a point that threatens anyone who tries to raise children to be responsible and caring human beings. It is superficial and wasteful. It is spiritually bankrupt. It is fundamentally undemocratic in its fascination with heiresses and moguls. It is obsessed with personal behavior, especially sexuality, to the exclusion of social issues and institutions; and it sets ridiculously low standards for personal ethics.

“I recognize that my family and I are in some danger of being sucked into the celebrity culture. By definition, the presidential nominee of a major party is famous. In today’s climate, becoming famous means that suddenly the public is interested in our personal lives. I was never a celebrity until I ran for president. It is exciting for us, but also troubling. At some fundamental level, it feels wrong. I know from years of community organizing, college teaching, and working in a legislature that what really matters is not what celebrity gossip is about. Real work is done by serious people working together out of the limelight, not by a few people who have become famous for being rich and sexually active.

“The government cannot ban or censor celebrity culture. It can support local civic engagement, education, and arts as alternatives. And our leaders can speak out against the culture. In this, I would gladly join my Republican opponent.”

[I have written before, in my own voice, about celebrity culture and politics, and about Princess Diana as a case study.]

studying discrimination

I’ve come across a fine small college with this requirement: “The race and ethnic studies requirement assesses the systematic discrimination and exploitation of African Americans, Latino Americans, Native Americans, and Asian Americans that have figured so critically in the history of this country. This requirement is met by taking one course that focuses primarily on one or more of these four groups in the United States.”

I’m glad when students study the history and cultural contributions of minority groups in the United States. I’m not so happy when the lens with which we study their contributions is discrimination and exploitation. The injustice has been very severe (taking the form, indeed, of mass murder as well as mere “discrimination”). But to study a topic like African American literature to satisfy a requirement related to injustice seems to make the authors into victims rather than creators and leaders.

Furthermore, this requirement is somewhat parochial. If the issue is discrimination and exploitation, there are many cases to pick from that lie outside of the borders of the US or that involve class, religion, and ideology rather than race/ethnicity. Probably, however, the motive behind this requirement is what I would call “civic.” In other words, graduates of this college are expected to become active members of the United States as a political community (voters, advocates, volunteers); and the college is especially eager that citizens reflect on racial discrimination.

I too want American citizens to understand discrimination. But I also want them to understand voting, alternative forms of civic participation, the rights and powers they have under the Constitution, real and possible political institutions, and mechanisms of social change. Surveys typically find very low levels of such knowledge even among students at selective universities. Thus I’d only support a requirement to study discrimination as part of a civics curriculum if students also had to study democracy, citizenship, and law.

I find myself falling between the ideological stools here. I’m more enthusiastic about racial and ethnic diversity than most conservatives are (although I see such diversity as an asset, not just as a stimulus to guilt). At the same time, I’m less inclined than most campus lefties to emphasize discrimination as the essence of civic education.

the importance of young voters

We study and promote young people’s participation because engagement is good for young people and the political system. But it also affects who wins. It turns out that the Gallup poll from last week that showed McCain ahead of Obama included youth as only 10 percent of the sample, when they represented 16-18 percent of voters in 2004. This is because Gallup includes only “likely voters” in its results. Young people are truly less likely to vote, but they are especially unlikely to make it past Gallup’s screen for “likely voters,” because they cannot say that they have voted in many previous elections.

This is partly an issue of measurement: Gallup probably needs to count more young voters. But it is also relevant to campaign strategy. If young people actually vote at the rate Gallup predicts, McCain is ahead. If they vote at a higher rate, he loses–unless he persuades them to vote for him. Game on.

who should advise the next president about civic engagement?

If the next president were willing to hire one person–and also perhaps an advisory board–to help him to engage citizens, who should that be? Provide your answer in a survey, and the November Fifth Coalition will publicize the results. I think “civic engagement” requires changes in federal law and policy, not just good public relations. Therefore, in my opinion, the presidential adviser should be able to push for changes in election law, federal communications, HUD, No Child Left Behind, and many other legislation and programs.

classrooms never change, part ii

“In mathematics during Hussein’s rule, students learned multiplication tables by calculating the casualty count of shooting down four planes with three US pilots in each plane.” (Tina Wang, Harvard Educational Review, January 1, 2005)

A 7th Century (AD) exercise for Armenian schoolboys: “In the times when Armenians were fighting the Persians, Zarwen Kamsarakan performed memorable feats of prowess. Attacking the Persian army, he killed half on the first attack…a quarter on the second…and an eleventh on the third. Only 280 Persians survived. How large was the Persian force before he laid them low?” [Peter Brown’s The Rise of Western Christendom, quoted in a review by Robin Lane Fox.]

It seems that the math was harder in 7th-century Armenia; and the casualty counts were higher.

(I’m collecting these examples of the remarkable persistence of educational approaches over millennia.)