Telling the Truth About White Privilege

It was 2012, and I was doing some volunteer work as a Big Sister.  My Little Sister was a truly adorable African-American ten year old. She was somewhat shy, very polite, and really appreciative of anyplace I took her.  One afternoon, I took her to a shopping mall so we could find a birthday gift for her mom.  She asked me if she could first look at the DVDs (I took her to a lot of movies, and she was eager to see if any of them were out on DVD yet), and I said that would be fine. I told her I needed to go over to the pharmacy department to get something for my allergies, and I said I'd meet her where the DVDs were.  But as soon as she walked away from me, I noticed something interesting:  a store security person began to follow her.  I found this puzzling, since the kid was not doing anything out-of-the-ordinary.  There were other kids (all of whom were white) looking at various things in the store, but the store detective was focused on my Little Sister.  I quickly headed in her direction and asked the security guy if there was a problem; I also told him she was with me, which for some reason, seemed to reassure him.  I, on the other hand, found the entire experience really troubling.  It certainly seemed like the store security person had made the assumption that a black kid looking at DVDs must be a potential shoplifter, whereas white kids doing the exact same thing did not cause any suspicion. 

Lest you think I am reading too much into one incident,  I can assure you these sorts of things happen far too often, and not just to adorable ten year olds. They happen to black people of all ages, and from all walks of life-- members of the clergy, lawyers, business executives, and athletes.  And they've been happening for years.  One event I still remember occurred in 1990, when Boston Celtics first-round draft choice Dee Brown was house-hunting with his fiancée in a wealthy (and mostly white) suburb.  The couple had found what they thought was the perfect home, and were about to get into their rental car when something went terribly wrong:  they were surrounded by seven police officers, five of whom were armed. Brown and his girlfriend were told to get on the ground. They had no idea why.  As it turned out, the manager of a nearby bank had recently been robbed, and he called the police, saying he thought he saw the robber getting into a car.  What he saw, of course, was one of the few black faces in that town. There was NO resemblance between the bank robber and Dee Brown, nor was Mr. Brown armed or threatening.  Yet he was confronted by officers with guns, and told to lie face down on the sidewalk like a criminal while police checked his ID.  They ultimately concluded it was a case of mistaken identity (all black people look alike?), but needless to say, this was not the welcome to greater Boston that Dee Brown had expected.     

I know there are some people who will insist that the police and mall security have every right to be suspicious when they see black people, especially black young men.  Recently, I've also seen an increase in Facebook and Twitter memes about how blacks are inherently violent, often quoting exaggerated statistics about black criminality, and expressing the need for a return to law and order  (for whatever it's worth, these memes are usually sent to me by Donald Trump supporters).  I've also heard various pundits on conservative media outlets asserting that the reason black young men get into trouble is they refuse to "comply" when police give them an order.  Unfortunately, compliance is not the only problem.  In all too many cases, it appears that prejudiced assumptions play a role.  For example, there are numerous studies showing that blacks and whites are treated very differently by law enforcement, and the same is true when it comes to the criminal justice system-- if a black defendant and a white defendant are convicted of the same crime, the black defendant tends to receive a substantially longer sentence (sometimes as much as 20% longer).  More about some of these studies can be found online at
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/141027_iachr_racial_disparities_aclu_submission_0.pdf 

And it's not just black defendants who endure unequal treatment-- how about black three year olds?  Over the past several years, a number of news articles have noted that black children in preschool are being suspended for a wide range of offenses, from wetting their pants to refusing to put on their shoes-- misbehavior that white children are not being suspended for.  Studies have also found that black boys are far more likely to be expelled from preschool for behaviors that, while annoying, are certainly not unusual in young children... and once again, behaviors that do not cause white children to be expelled. http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/12/why-are-so-many-preschoolers-getting-suspended/418932/  Agreed, kids who don't behave can be frustrating, and teachers have every right to apply appropriate punishment.  But I find it troubling that some preschools are giving up on black kids at the age of three, whereas white kids are given far more chances to learn to behave.  

As a media historian, I can tell you that much of this is not new.  There have been stereotypes about minorities for centuries, often articulated by supposedly educated white "authorities," including professors, doctors, and preachers.  These stereotypes have been both useful and necessary to the majority culture, because if a certain group (in this case, African-Americans) is labeled as inherently dishonest, if their kids can't behave properly by age three, if they refuse to comply with authority in the right way, well then, who came blame society for discriminating against them?  The concept of "white privilege" is often misunderstood because it seems to say that white people have it easy-- they're privileged.  But that's not what it means. It means that there are negative assumptions that most white people never encounter... and all too many black people face on a regular basis.  Few people assume the average white guy is a criminal when they see him walking down the street. A number of my white friends have had broken tail-lights on their car but none of them have been pulled over and subsequently shot by police.   Few people assume that the average white person in a store is a thief.  And even fewer people assume that a three year old white kid is hopeless and needs to be expelled from preschool.

Please don't misunderstand me:  I am not saying that all white people are racists, nor am I denying that some black people do in fact commit violent crimes (as do some white people).  But my study of history tells me that certain racist beliefs are woven into the fabric of our culture.  Many of us who are white don't want to believe that; but rather than denying the existence of racist stereotypes and myths, it might be useful to begin telling the truth about them.  No, we do not live in a post-racial society.  No, racism is not a thing of the past.  And while we have absolutely made progress, there is much more we can and should be doing to make sure that everyone, no matter their race, receives an equal opportunity.  If you haven't seen it already, I strongly recommend watching an excellent 2013 documentary called "White Like Me: Race, Racism and White Privilege in America."  You may not agree with it, but I promise it will make you think: https://vimeo.com/ondemand/whitelikeme/70803132. And during these difficult times, when accusatory rhetoric (from people on both sides of the racial divide) is far too prevalent, I hope there are still enough of us who want to move beyond blame and continue these difficult conversations.  Communication is the most powerful thing we have.  But we need to use it wisely, and use it well, so that the end result will be greater understanding, rather than just the same old myths and the same old memes.

A Few Thoughts at the End of June

One of the most challenging aspects of recovering from surgery is being stuck at home for days, even weeks, with lots of time on your hands. And while having nothing to do (and all day to do it in) can be nice for a little while, it can quickly get really, really boring-- especially when you're still in pain and the only break from sitting around is going to doctors or going to physical therapy.  I've tried to use all of this free time productively.  I've done a lot of reading, engaged in some conversations on social media, Skyped with a couple of my students, but I have to confess that I miss being at work. I feel like there's an entire world of activity going on out there, and I'm not a part of it.

On the other hand, it's not difficult to keep up with the latest news, and there's been plenty to talk about-- or in the Twitter & Facebook world, plenty to argue about. A lot of the conversation is remarkably similar to how it's been for months:  Donald Trump is (pick one) a racist and a bigot, the only person who can rescue our economy, the man who knows how to keep us safe, or the guy who wants to start World War Three.  Hillary Clinton is (pick one) somewhere between Lady Macbeth and Satan, an inspiration and the most qualified to be president, someone who knows how to lead during a time of crisis, or someone who never tells the truth.  And President Obama is (pick one) the worst president in the history of humanity, the man who overcame the mess Bush left us with, a secret Muslim, or someone who seldom gets enough credit for his many accomplishments. 

One thing I'm noticing from the messages sent by my conservative friends (and yes, I really do have some) is their strong belief that things are going downhill and our country is in dire straits. Many tell me with certainty that only Donald Trump can turn things around, and they trust him to both keep us safe and fix what's wrong with our country.  As I've stated previously, I continue to be mystified by why anyone would trust Mr. Trump, a man with a long history of making claims that are demonstrably false.  And yet, no matter how many times his claims are refuted or debunked, the response from his supporters is that the media are against him, that fact-checkers are biased, and that anyone who disagrees with him must be a "liberal" (or perhaps a commie or, worse yet, a terrorist sympathizer).

Similarly, every time there's a terrorist attack (even if, as in Turkey, many of the victims were Muslims; or even if the attack occurred in a country where the terrorists were not Muslim at all), I still see the memes about how every terrorist is a Muslim; or lately, I see the return of the memes with the fake quotes claiming President Obama supports radical Islam (a claim Osama Bin Laden would have found puzzling), or that Obama promised to "stand with the Muslims" (he never said or wrote that; but as president, I would hope he would stand with all Americans who want a peaceful and safe country, whatever their religion).  And then, there's the return of the double standard-- when President Bush said that our enemy is NOT Islam and that most Muslims are peaceful, few conservatives were outraged.  But when President Obama says the same exact thing, suddenly it's disgraceful, and talk show hosts cannot express enough contempt. (And please don't tell me Obama "bowed to the Saudi king"-- something that President Bush also did, but again, when Bush did it, there was far less anger from conservatives.)

Some of you may disagree with me, but I do not believe America is going downhill, nor do I believe (as some Republican candidates want me to) that America is no longer great.  In fact, I don't even believe America is in grave danger and only a strongman who talks tough can save us (President Bush talked tough, and yet we still had 9/11, and yes, there were embassies that were attacked under his watch too).  That said, of course there are problems that need to be resolved: for example, the economic recovery has been both slow and uneven, and there really is a lot of evidence that only the top 1% have prospered (including Mr. Trump).

But over all, as the grandchild of immigrants, I sincerely believe that America is a pretty great place to live; and for all of its faults, I can't imagine living anywhere else. So, as we approach the 4th of July (Independence Day, plus it's my husband's 70th birthday), I would hope the fear-mongering and the anti-immigrant rhetoric could stop for a while.  I wrote about this a few weeks ago, and it's still on my mind, especially each time I hear more angry political rhetoric about blaming "them" for our problems.  But finding the right group to hate (or ban) has never worked long-term; it's a temporary way for some folks to feel better, even though in the end, it solves nothing.

I keep thinking about how our Founders didn't agree on everything, and in fact, history tells us they had some intense debates.  Yet they were still able to collaborate when it mattered most, and as a result, we have our country and our constitution.  As I see it, that's an example of true patriotism:  working together for the greater goal, being willing to commit to making America even better than it already is.  Here's hoping we can rediscover that spirit of collaboration-- if it was good enough for our Founders, should we settle for anything less?

Too Much Blame, Too Few Answers (Again)

I know I haven't blogged much these past several weeks, and believe me, it's not because I had nothing to say.  Part of it, as some of you are aware, is I'm still enduring a difficult recovery from recent surgery, and I just haven't had much energy.  But a larger part of it is that I just don't know where to begin, given all of the tragedy and senseless violence that has dominated the headlines:  a terrorist who claims to belong to ISIS, and who has expressed a hatred for gay people, attacks a gay nightclub, killing forty-nine.  A crazed fan shoots a popular singer dead while she is signing autographs after a concert.  A family on vacation at a Disney resort watches in horror as an alligator attacks and kills their two-year old son. And those are just the events that occurred in Florida. 

Whenever there is a tragedy, it's often accompanied by demands that "something" be done, or that "someone" be held accountable.  In many cases, the "something" is pretty obvious:  if you run a hotel in an area near where there are alligators, shouldn't you have signs up to warn the patrons?  But in other cases, the situation is more complex:  many entertainers love their fans, and while it's impossible to spend time with every one of them, a meet-and-greet or an autograph-signing provides some closer interaction between the public and the performer.  But it also provides an opportunity for obsessed fans to get much too close to the object of their obsession.  It's a dilemma:  should all meet-and-greets and autograph-signings be banned, to keep the performer safe? Or, if you still have these events, perhaps metal detectors should be in place, and everyone who wants to meet the performer must first go through screening.  These days, increased security is becoming as important as enjoying the show.

And then, there's the massacre at the Orlando nightclub, which almost immediately became fodder for politicians from both sides of the political aisle.  For Republicans, the fact that the killer had sworn his allegiance to ISIS meant the rhetoric could quickly shift away from bigotry against gays (something few Republicans had protested over the years) and shift almost entirely towards the dangers of "radical Islamic terrorism"-- a magical phrase that GOP politicians insisted must be said frequently in order to combat it. (Given the number of times it has turned up in talking points on the campaign trail over the past several years, one would expect the problem to have been solved by now. But alas, it has not.)  And for Democrats, the fact that the killer committed his crimes using an assault-style weapon meant the conversation could return to issues like closing the so-called "Gun Show Loophole," preventing people on the terrorism watch-list from buying guns, and restoring the ban on assault weapons.

For Donald Trump, it was of course another opportunity to claim he was right about how dangerous Muslims are, and to once again insist the answer was to ban them-- of course, the killer was American-born, and while he may indeed have gravitated towards ISIS at some point, he also worked legally as a security guard and owned a number of weapons; thus, none of Mr. Trump's solutions would have had any effect.  Meanwhile, Mr. Trump was busy hinting that President Obama was somehow to blame for the carnage, and that Mr. Obama might have secret sympathies with the terrorists.  Even some Republicans, not known for defending this president, found that assertion both tasteless and inappropriate, but they did not withdraw their support for their presumptive nominee.

I took to Twitter a couple of times, noting that there are extremists in all religions (a Christian minister even said the victims in the night club murders deserved to die, as their punishment for the sin of being gay), noting that Mr. Trump's claim the president has allowed millions of Muslims from violent countries to come pouring into the US was demonstrably false (and had been debunked by fact-checkers repeatedly, as had his claim that there is no vetting of the immigrants who come here). And I also noted that my congressman, Seth Moulton, a decorated combat veteran from the Iraq War, had spoken out against assault weapons-- he said what many law enforcement personnel also believe:  you can be pro-Second Amendment without allowing easy access to AK-47s. In fact, I have never understand why the NRA defends the "right" to own a weapon of war.  If the Orlando killer did not have such a weapon, many more lives might have been saved.

But every time I wish for a serious conversation about the easy availability of guns, it rarely goes well.  With a few exceptions, I was sent memes that called liberals idiots, fools, and traitors, accusing us of protecting/coddling terrorists, of not supporting the Second Amendment, and of course, of not understanding the "real threat"-- Muslims. Believe me, as a Jewish person, I do not always agree with my Muslim friends, especially about the Middle East.  But I also know from first-hand experience that American Muslims care deeply about America, and they have made important contributions as doctors, scientists, professors, and small business owners.  Yes, we can all point to some religious zealots, but the Muslims I know are 100% in favor of their daughters getting a good education, and the degree of piety in the Muslim community is NOT monolithic:  I know some Muslims who are deeply religious and others who rarely go to the mosque.  It is also worth noting that American Muslims are quite patriotic (many have served our country with distinction, in fact).  But you wouldn't know any of that from the talking points I keep seeing, equating every Muslim with ISIS or claiming that Islam is incompatible with being an American.  Totally untrue, but widely believed. 

And so, here we are again.  Another series of tragedies, another series of outraged responses, another example of both sides retreating to their corners, each determined that only they are right.  And once people decide they are right, then no further action is needed, even if the resulting stalemate has not worked out well for us as a nation.  My favorite rock band, Rush, once said "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."  I hope people will decide to move beyond their certitude and their anger (and their talking points) and start seeking out opportunities to collaborate, even if it means (gasp) working with the folks from the other side.  Otherwise, I fear we'll see this all repeat itself again in the months to come, with equally disastrous results.     

There's No Place like Home

Two weeks ago, I had knee replacement surgery.  I was warned by others who have had it that it's a very painful operation, and they were certainly right.  In fact, I've never been in so much pain in my life.  The doctor gave me prescriptions for painkillers, but I'm very reticent to take them.  Maybe that's silly, but given all the stories in the news about people who never expected to get addicted to opioids, the idea of taking narcotics (even at low dosages) makes me nervous. It seems all too easy to get accustomed to them; and having avoided addictive substances all my life (I've never even tasted alcohol), I don't want to get into any kind of dependency. On the other hand, there's only a certain amount of excruciating pain the average person can endure, and thus far, that's my dilemma.

Having been unable to blog for the past couple of weeks, I wanted to at least write a few words-- I know I'm not a famous blogger, and I know that most people do not hang on my every word, but blogging is often really good catharsis, and there were a number of things I wanted to discuss.  In no particular order, here are a few of them:

Nurses aides are some of the most under-appreciated (and underpaid) folks in society today.  In Massachusetts, they tend to be immigrant women from Haiti, doing jobs that are rarely glamorous-- yet extremely necessary (emptying bedpans, bathing patients who are too ill to bathe themselves, answering repeated calls for water, providing clean bedding, etc).  Few hospitals could function well without them.    

I wish the debate between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump could have taken place-- in fact, I'd have paid money to watch it.  And yes, even in the hospital and the rehab facility, people were discussing and debating politics.  One day, I was in physical therapy with a really sweet 86-year old woman-- let's call her Marie. She was deeply religious (I often saw her in her room praying the rosary) and she told me she has been a Republican all her life.  Marie's favorite politician was Paul Ryan, she said, and she was no fan of Hillary Clinton.  So, I asked her about Mr. Trump, and she said, "I could never vote for him. He gets me aggravated."  Her choice for president surprised me-- "I like Bernie Sanders. He cares about the poor people."  Evidently, that was the wrong answer for some in her family:  I overheard her in a debate with one of her sons, who kept insisting, "But you have to listen to what Trump is really saying. He's telling the truth!"  Marie was not impressed. "He's not telling the truth," she replied. "He just wants to start a war."

Unless you have a private room (which I did not), you may not get much sleep. In addition to getting woken up at all hours by hospital personnel who needed to get assorted blood tests or to take vital signs, there were other obstacles: for example, I had one roommate who, nice person though she was, got up about every hour to use the restroom; and I had another roommate who spent long periods of time on the phone arguing with various family members.  I was never so glad to get home-- where I can once again have privacy, good food, and a wider range of cable channels on TV (I had no idea how bad daytime television was, nor how many hucksters and televangelists are still on the air).

So that's how the past couple of weeks went.  So far, it's been really hard, but I'm hoping the worst is behind me.  When a person is going through a difficult time, it's nice to know there's folks out there who care.  So before I conclude, let me thank those who got in touch on social media and sent me good wishes, as well as those who sent prayers or positive energy.  As I've said many times, we ALL get by with a little help from our friends. And now, I'm going to try to catch up on my emails and read the Sunday paper:  peace and quiet is a beautiful thing...

I Wish You Good Health (and Good Healthcare)

I probably won't be able to blog for much of next week, since I'm going into the hospital for knee surgery-- it's my third surgery in three years, and believe me, I'm really tired of spending time in hospitals (rehab isn't a ton of fun either). But I remain eternally grateful that I have health insurance, and glad that I live near good doctors and good hospitals.  Several of my friends aren't so fortunate.  They didn't have health insurance from their jobs, and now they are unable to work.

No, it's not that they are unwilling to find another job, and it's not that they are lazy-- in fact, both worked hard all their lives. But their jobs did not provide any benefits (one worked as a home health aide, one worked in a factory); and when they were left with permanent disabilities, they both ended up on fixed incomes-- which are quite low.  After the Affordable Care Act was signed into law (and please note-- neither of them is a fan of President Obama), they were encouraged when they learned about the Medicaid Expansion, which would make them both eligible for health care they could not afford up to that point.

But alas, determined to make a point about their dislike of the president and their opposition to "Obamacare," the Republican governors and legislatures of their states refused to accept the Medicaid Expansion, even though doing so would have been such a blessing to a large number of poor people, who would have been covered at a relatively minimal cost.  (In fairness, a few Republican governors DID accept the Medicaid Expansion, showing a willingness to help people who desperately needed it; but most Red State governors did not.)

This should not be political.  Like it or hate it, studies show the Affordable Care Act has been a major benefit for millions of Americans; some have even credited it with saving their lives-- one Wisconsin Republican named Brent Brown, who acknowledged he never voted for President Obama and had even made hateful remarks about him, completely changed his mind once he got sick.  Unable to get health insurance before the ACA, due to a pre-existing condition, he was now able to gain access to good healthcare, and have his serious illness treated.  He wrote to the president and thanked him.

Okay fine, "Obamacare" isn't perfect, and yes, it has some flaws.  Since it relies on working with the private, for-profit insurance industry, there have been been challenges in achieving lower costs; procedures and medications in the US remain outrageously high, especially when compared to other countries.  Bernie Sanders and others have suggested a Medicare For All plan, but in our current political environment, there's little chance such a plan will be given a fair hearing any time soon.  Meanwhile, the subject of why healthcare costs in the US are so high (and no, it's not always because of "waste, fraud, and abuse") is worth a serious conversation, one that should go beyond partisan rhetoric and talking points.

The fact remains that for all its flaws, the ACA has given many Americans coverage for the first time, and that's a step in the right direction.  And yet, my Republican friends continue to express their disdain for it,  and every Republican candidate for president has pledged to repeal it-- even though there is NO Republican plan to replace it, and lord knows, the GOP has had plenty of time to come up with one.  I truly wish they would.  Meanwhile, some of the problems with our current healthcare system could be remedied if only congress would act-- like, why can't Medicare negotiate for lower prices on prescription drugs? It was congress that forbade this back in 2003, as a concession to the pharmaceutical industry (once again, we see the power lobbyists have; those who contribute to campaigns get the ear of the candidates in a way that ordinary citizens do not).

And so, here we are:  I will get to go to a good hospital, see well-respected doctors, and get the treatment that will (I hope) relieve some of the pain I've been dealing with over the past few months.  But my two friends, by virtue of where they live, are not able to get the care they need, and there is no relief for either of them in sight.  That geography should determine the quality of one's health care, or how much (or how little) access one has to much-needed medicines seems unfair to me.  I want to hear answers from the candidates about how they will solve our healthcare problems, but thus far, I don't see both sides sitting down to come up with some solutions.  And there continues to be a system  of haves and have-nots while politicians in congress (and make no mistake-- both sides helped to create this mess) act as if there's nothing they can do.  But there is. And it's sad that too many of them lack the political will to even make the effort.    

Are Conservatives on Campus an Endangered Species?

When I entered college in the early 1960s, most campuses were still very conservative; at Northeastern University, boys were expected to wear jackets and ties to class, and girls were expected to wear dresses.  Professors too were expected to wear "businesslike" attire, and most maintained a very formal (and somewhat aloof) manner when talking with students.  I was never taught anything positive about Marxism, nor was I taught anything negative about McCarthyism.  The war in Vietnam was necessary, I was told; and those who protested it were just anti-American (or worse yet, hippie Marxists).  Most of my professors were white men, and they were in charge:  students could discuss the course material, but the professor was always right, since he had much more knowledge than we did.

As for the courses, I was studying liberal arts, but there was nothing "liberal" about it.  We rarely if ever analyzed the work of poets or authors who were non-European-- the curriculum revolved around the so-called DWMs ("dead white males"). History courses utilized the traditional historiography of the "Great Man Theory"-- we mainly studied famous kings, presidents, and generals; and when the story of immigrants was mentioned, it often focused on how quickly they abandoned their "old country" ways and assimilated into the majority culture.   Courses like Western Civilization focused on the important contributions of European Christians (Muslims were warlike and trying to conquer by the sword; and Jews were an afterthought-- or as the historian Arnold Toynbee called us, fossils of history, a people who didn't quite fit anywhere).  I was taught about the "Protestant work ethic," but I was rarely taught about why poverty existed-- it was common knowledge that if you worked hard, you would get ahead, and if you were poor, you must be lazy.  Girls were still being taught that while it was okay to attend college, the real reason for being there was to find a potential husband; and of course, no self-respecting girl wanted to enter a profession other than teaching, nursing, or secretarial work.  

For some of my conservative friends, those traditional attitudes are much needed, and sadly lacking, on college campuses today.  As I am told on a regular basis, colleges have become hotbeds of radicalism, where innocent students are being taught to hate America, where History courses teach that Europeans were nothing but brutal colonizers, and where white kids are taught to be ashamed of being white.  If you get your news and commentary from conservative media, there seems to be genuine nostalgia for the (alleged) good old days, that era when everybody knew their place and nobody complained about it.  There is also a dominant belief in right-wing media that conservative professors are not getting hired at most colleges-- or if they somehow do get a job, they are told to keep their retrograde views to themselves.  As conservative media tells it, college has become a liberal, multicultural paradise, and conservatives are not welcome unless they know when to keep quiet.

So, I was both surprised and disappointed when this popular (but, in my opinion, flawed) right-wing discourse was recently reinforced by an article in the New York Times, in which columnist Nicholas Kristof claimed that yes, liberals on campus do have contempt for conservative points of view:  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?_r=0

Needless to say, I disagreed with large parts of the article:  for one thing, the comment section of Facebook postings is rarely a reliable measure of the average person's attitude. As I've noted in previous blogs, the internet often brings out the worst in people, so finding some rude posts about conservatives does not prove "liberal contempt," any more than finding rude posts about liberals proves "conservative contempt."  I also disagreed with other points Mr. Kristof made, and I said so in the comment section.  Soon, I ended up in a brief Twitter war with a number of conservatives who came at me with "See? Even the liberal New York Times admits that conservatives aren't welcome on college campuses."

But with all due respect to Mr. Kristof, his "liberal intolerance" theory isn't entirely true.  I've been a professor for the better part of thirty years, and I've taught all over the country.  While some campuses are indeed more liberal, that doesn't mean conservative professors don't exist, nor have I seen them being treated with either contempt or intolerance.  I've had some very interesting discussions with some conservative professors (and students) at my current place of employment, and I can assure you that no rocks were thrown; and as far as I know, we have all remained friendly with each other.  It is also worth noting that just like there are liberal campuses, there are many other universities that are quite conservative.  For example, many schools that are run by religious denominations (such as Liberty University or Brigham Young University) often display a conservative ideology; and while they may occasionally have liberal guest speakers, the dominant belief system is conservative, and the professors and students are expected to uphold those beliefs; publicly deviating from them is generally not encouraged.  Of course, none of my conservative friends ever mention this, since it doesn't fit in with their insistence that ALL universities are run by liberals.  As it turns out, the truth is more nuanced, and it often depends on who owns your school.  

And let's take a closer look at the "campuses are hotbeds of radicalism" discourse.  Here's how it unfolds:  it starts with a story on Fox News or in the conservative blogosphere about some crazy thing an ultra-leftie professor said; it doesn't matter if the person was taken out of context, or if the person is some fringe instructor that nobody on campus takes seriously.  The story immediately takes on a life of its own, with the professor being elevated to a status of "typical liberal professor."  His or her quote is sent around in outraged emails, expanded upon by right-wing talk shows, and then used in numerous social media comments to "prove" that ALL leftie professors are disgraceful. It's the ultimate in confirmation bias-- selecting material that agrees with what you already believe-- and sad to say, it happens over and over.  (And truth be told, my liberal friends do it too-- taking a totally bizarre remark from some right-wing scholar and then using that to "prove" that ALL righties are lunatics.)

I hate to disappoint my conservative friends, but the views of the extremists are NOT what's dominant on most of the so-called liberal campuses where I've worked.  What's dominant is critical thinking-- teaching students both sides, exposing them to a wide range of views, and above all, showing them how to do research, evaluate evidence, and make informed decisions.  And yes, it's true that most American History courses today are different from when I was in college. Today, we no longer present Americans as 100% right all the time (a wonderful belief, but not an accurate one); nor is the story only told through the eyes of "Great Men." But that's not necessarily a bad thing:  including the voices of women, the poor, immigrants, or minorities tells a much more factual story, one that does not negate what white Europeans accomplished.  (And teaching a more inclusive version of history is a far cry from the claim that we are teaching students to hate America.)

Where I currently teach, which is known as a "liberal university," I still find that certain departments are more liberal, and some actually lean conservative.  However, across the campus, it's accurate to say that liberal views about social issues (like marriage equality or support for Planned Parenthood) are more common-- even among the students who identify as conservative; and it's also true for our Republican governor, by the way. Thus, a student who agreed with, let's say, Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin might feel it would be unpopular to say so-- although I have no evidence that anyone has been (or would be) silenced by our college's administration.  Rather, sometimes people simply decide that certain "hot button" issues are just not worth arguing about-- it's called "self-censorship," and we all do it at one time or other.  One other thing I've noticed:  most of my students, especially the freshmen, follow whatever political beliefs they learned from their parents. Some of them will change their views as time passes, but not because I, or any other professor, tried to persuade them. Rather, they will develop their own viewpoints, some of which will mirror those of their parents and some of which will not.  As I said, being exposed to a wide range of ideas and beliefs is what college is supposed to be about.

I know that nothing I say will persuade my conservative friends that I don't spend my days indoctrinating my students.  Many conservatives remain certain that "liberal universities" are training the next generation of Marxists (I wonder how I got a job-- I've never been a fan of Marxism...); and they sincerely believe no self-respecting conservative is welcome on the average campus.  Having seen it both ways-- campuses dominated by conservatives, and campuses dominated by liberals-- I'd like to see people from both ideologies in the classroom, and I'd like to believe that there are many campuses where diversity of viewpoints DOES occur.  But then, people who get along with each other are rarely considered newsworthy, so you probably won't hear about them.  It's conflict and division that sells; and so does the myth of the liberal campus, a harsh and cruel place where innocent conservatives are being persecuted every day...

Bernie Sanders Still Gets No Respect (But He Should)

To say the least, this has been a bizarre year for politics.  I mean, who would have predicted that a brash New York billionaire, who has been married three times and has a tendency to make outrageous claims and use schoolyard taunts on his opponents, would be the presumptive nominee for the Republican party?  And who would have predicted that massive numbers of  people (many of them young, first-time voters) in both red states and blue states would become passionate supporters of a 74-year old self-identified Democratic socialist from Vermont, best known for his thunderous oratory against corporate greed?

When the 2016 election season began, many Republicans expected former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (who had a famous name, conservative credentials, and millions of dollars in SuperPac support) to quickly become the party leader.  And although some Democrats had their doubts about Hillary Clinton's electability, she too had a famous name, she had served as a senator and a Secretary of State, and few doubted that she would become her party's nominee.

Last year at this time, none of the pundits were predicting that Donald Trump would eliminate all the "establishment" candidates and win decisive victories in a majority of primary states; in fact, most of the pundits treated his candidacy as a media stunt, or even a joke.  Similarly, I can't recall anyone who took Bernie Sanders seriously when he challenged Mrs. Clinton.  The mainstream media had just about anointed her as the Democratic nominee, and nobody expected Senator Sanders to be around for very long; after all, who but a small bunch of old hippies would support some 74-year old guy from a small New England state who talked about a "political revolution"?

As it turned out, both Mr. Trump and Senator Sanders touched a chord with frustrated, angry, and alienated voters.  Their styles were very different, and in many cases, their issues were different too; but their voters were equally certain that these two non-traditional candidates were the only ones who spoke the truth.  As a result, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have each had a major impact on the presidential race.  Mr. Trump has now, for all intents and purposes, sewn up the Republican nomination-- much to the chagrin of the Republican establishment.  Mr. Sanders, for a number of reasons (some not of his making) is far behind in pledged delegates, but he has received millions of votes, raised an amazingly large amount of money from individual donors (typical donation $27, and he refuses to have a SuperPac), and won a respectable number of states.  Although Mrs. Clinton and the Democratic establishment wish he would just go away, he shows no signs of doing that.  (Note to fans of Hillary:  I have nothing against her.  I just find the case that Bernie is making much more compelling.)  Meanwhile, even in the face of long odds, Senator Sanders has vowed to fight on. 

That shouldn't surprise anyone who knows him. I've followed Bernie's career for years, and he has a long record of consistently fighting for what he believes in-- for example, he has been a champion of workers' rights, and has long railed against income inequality.  Contrary to claims by his opponents he's anti-business, he is not at all opposed to capitalism-- but he is opposed to corporations that treat their workers with disdain while negotiating huge bonuses for their executives; and he is opposed to corporations that manipulate the tax code to avoid paying their fair share, or park their assets in the Cayman Islands.  Frankly, as someone who has worked for companies where all of us consistently produced at a high level yet we rarely got even a small raise (while the company's executives got lavish salaries and perks), I can relate to his message.  And I'm not the only one.

To be honest, I never expected Bernie to get as far as he did.  And much as I like him, I never really thought Bernie would be able to win the nomination.  But I did expect that once he began winning some states and attracting large and enthusiastic crowds to his rallies, the mainstream media would cover his campaign more thoroughly.  They never did.  On a regular basis, I saw reporters and anchors either ignoring him or giving him a bare minimum of attention.  I even saw anchors mocking his stump speech, or cutting him off whenever he began to talk about corporate greed.  And more often than not, when anchors did interview him, it was to ask when he was getting out of the race.  And yet, night after night, when it came time for Donald Trump to give a speech, the same media outlets faithfully covered his every word, even if much of what he said was also his standard stump speech (with a few insults or rude remarks thrown in from time to time), and even though he had not yet come close to winning the nomination of his party.

It's fairly obvious that the mainstream media have their favorites.  Donald Trump, with skills he honed in reality TV, often provides a boost to network ratings-- or as Les Moonves, the chairman of CBS, admitted: "Donald Trump's candidacy may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS."  (Actual quote. Not an urban legend.)  Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has inspired millions of young voters, raised issues seldom discussed by traditional politicians, and run a dynamic and exciting campaign-- but he's not telegenic in the way Mr. Trump is, and he's not a ratings machine.  So he doesn't get the coverage Mr. Trump gets.  In a way, that's a sad commentary... both on the state of our politics, and on the state of our media.