From Nelda Brown at the National Service Learning Partnership earlier today:

The U.S. House of Representatives failed to pass the GIVE Act (H.R. 5563), which would have updated and reauthorized the national service programs, including Learn and Serve America–the only federal program dedicated to supporting service-learning in local schools and communities.

The vote was 277 in favor and 140 against, but passage required a two-thirds majority because of the parliamentary situation. It was tantalizingly close and a real blow to lose this bipartisan bill that would have supported positive, civic opportunities for our young people.

Gay marriage is currently before the California State Supreme Court as a constitutional issue. News coverage of the case has made me think that there might be three ways of addressing the issue:

1. Allow state legislatures (or voters in referenda) to deny to gay couples all the traditional rights of marriage. I believe that policy is discriminatory and counter to the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection.” I would like to see courts intervene against this policy even if they must defy popular opinion.

2. Require states to offer marriage licenses–by that name–to gay and straight couples. That would be full equality. But it would be deeply unpopular, and it would block public participation and deliberation about an important issue. It would substitute the expert judgment of a few judges for the political process.

3. Require states to offer all the traditional benefits of marriage to gay and straight couples, but allow states to reserve the word “marriage” for heterosexuals. That is not completely and absolutely “equal” treatment. But this third policy has the great advantage of offering a possible compromise. Besides, I’m not keen on courts’ dictating what governments must say (as opposed to what they may do).

For one thing, we should avoid abridging the collective speech rights of the people or their legislatures. In my view, not only individual people, but also “the people,” should be able to say what they want (even if it’s wrong). The remedy to bad public speech is to rebut or criticize the majority’s view, not to ask a court to strike it down. One can also simply ignore what the government says by, for example, calling gay people “married” even if the state won’t.

Further, I think we should be careful about striking down state language or expression that treats citizens differently, even when the differences are invidious. That opens the door to all kinds of litigation about governmental expression. Do we want courts to decide the content of textbooks in public schools, the meaning of public statues and monuments, or statements made on the job by teachers and police officers? The state can do wrong by speaking offensively, but lawsuits are not the best remedy.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate for people between ages 16-19 was 18 percent in January, 2008. I’m looking at a table that goes back to 1998, and this is the highest rate shown. (It was 13.9 percent in January 1998). For ages 25 and older, the unemployment rate was 3.8 percent in January, and that’s below where it was for most of 2001-5. In other words, the current weak employment market is mainly a problem for our youth.

Why don’t we hear more about this on the campaign trail? Although “young people” are now voting, young voters are mostly (79%) college students or people with some college experience. The other half of young people–those with no college experience–are not part of the campaign. Therefore, we hear some talk about the cost of college and some discussion (albeit not enough) about issues that especially concern idealistic college students, such as climate change. But there is silence about the serious plight of working-class youth.

If you run a speaker series, edit an editorial page, produce a broadcast show, or manage a journal, you give numerous people opportunities to express their views, but you also exclude many potential guests. Attracting a diversity of speakers or writers is usually desirable, although the appropriate range varies depending on the circumstances. For example, an environmental round table seems to need a narrower range of speakers than the op-ed page of a major metropolitan newspaper, which would be “unbalanced” unless some of the contributors were critics of environmentalism.

Choosing a list of contributors is hard. If balance is a criterion, around what center point should the list be balanced? If diversity is desirable, what kind? And what views are beyond the pale? Does President Ahmadinejad belong at Columbia? Does William Kristol strengthen or weaken the New York Times editorial page? Does an environmental series need critics of the greenhouse gas theory? Does a biology series need creationists?

For what it’s worth, I would propose these principles:

1. Never give a voice to someone you believe is flatly wrong. That’s patronizing, and it renounces your own judgment. If you have been chosen to make decisions of quality, you shouldn’t decide against your own assessments in the interest of balance. But …

2. Make sure that your definition of wrong isn’t too broad. I am a critic of libertarianism and of Marxism. Both views, I believe, dismiss the potential for beneficial collective action within a system like ours. But certainly neither view is stupid. On the contrary, I do my best thinking when I have to grapple with strongly argued libertarian or Marxist ideas. Thus, if I were running a series, I would bend over backward to have those two perspectives well and skilfully represented.

(Cambridge, MA) I have spent the last two days reviewing, editing, and occasionally creating test items for the National Assessment in Education Progress (NAEP) in Civics, which will be given to a large and representative sample of American students next year. The NAEP is an evaluation of our school systems, not of our kids–no scores are calculated for individual students. I am on the NAEP’s “background variables” committee (which choses demographic measures) as well as its Civics committee. Producing questions for a civics test raises all kinds of interesting issues: moral, methodological, statistical, developmental, factual, political, and practical. However, I am somewhat constrained by test secrecy–and very mentally tired–so I’m not going to be able to comment tonight.