The New York Times recently reported on Barack Obama’s long-standing support for affirmative action that gives preferential treatment to members of disadvantaged minorities. While still a student at Harvard Law School , Obama readily admitted that “I undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action,” but the deeper question is how he could justify that advantage. Apologists for preferences explain these policies as a remedy for long family histories of discrimination, but Obama’s background features no such legacy of oppression.

His mother was white and his father’s family, in Kenya , had never been enslaved or subjected to American “Jim Crow” laws or segregation. Both parents earned graduate degrees, so his only basis for preferential treatment would have been skin color, not family disadvantage. That’s typical of affirmative action, which treats people differently based on pigmentation alone, not their origins or experiences.

The new head of the national teacher’s union describes a dream for education that sounds more like a socialist nightmare.  

Randi Weingarten, incoming president of the American Federation of Teachers, wants schools to become community centers for medical care and social services as well as classes. She called for a “federal law” promoting “schools that are open all day and offer after-school and evening recreational activities, child care and preschool, tutoring and homework assistance”, plus “medical dental and counseling clinics.”  

In other words, she sees schools as big city versions of all-encompassing collective farms, with students their prize crop. Maybe such schools should also offer barracks for the kids, eliminating any need at all for parents or home. Ms. Weingarten forgot to mention that her vision involved a huge expansion of government and a crushing burden for taxpayers.

There is actually a lot going on this week – nothing to cut the costs of rising gas prices; but a lot of other pretty important legislation is being considered.  First, however, I want to get you caught up on an historic bill that passed late last week. We finally passed a supplemental funding bill to support our troops and it contained long-overdue reforms of the Montgomery G.I. Bill, providing expanded educational benefits to veterans and their families.

In terms of what’s happening on the floor this week:  Democrats are rehashing their blame-game price gouging legislation and bringing a tax hike bill in the guise of an Alternative Minimum Tax relief bill.  I'll be sure to keep you in the loop as it happens.

Among the 12 nominees of the two major parties in the past 20 years, Obama (Harvard Law, '91) becomes the 10th to have graduated from one of the nation's two oldest, most prestigious major universities. All winners since 1988 have held a degree from Yale (George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush) while their opponents featured a mix of more Yalies (Bush Sr., John Kerry) and Harvard Johnnies (Michael Dukakis, Al Gore). In that 20-year span, the only major party nominees without a credential from Yale, Harvard or both (as with George W.), have been war heroes Bob Dole (Washburn Municipal University in Kansas) and John McCain (U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.). This year, even the principal runners-up in each party bore the requisite credentials: Mitt Romney holds degrees from Harvard's law and business schools, while Hillary Clinton graduated from Yale Law (where she was my classmate).

Hi Hugh, I sent this as a letter to the editor for the Honolulu Advertiser hoping to get at least a favorable portion published...

I attended my wife's graduation ceremony this Sunday from the University of Hawaii at Manoa.  As a full-time, active duty officer in the U.S. military, it was a proud moment for her.  I sat next to her Dad, who was glowing with pride at how his little girl had set off on her own from a little farm in Colorado to achieve his equal in the realm of academics: a Master's degree.
Read More...

Here's Lindsay Boyd's last report from Grove City College ...

"The Religious Case for Seperating Church and State"

 Dr. T. David Gordon

 

Just as we hit the ground running this morning here in Grove City, Pennsylvania, so we will end the day (or at least my time here) in the same fashion. The events of the Center for Vision & Values' "Church & State 2008 Summit will continue into the evening, but regretably I must catch a plane in just a few hours so I conclude with this final report.

 

Remember the good ole' (and generally very wise) advice of steering clear from the topics of religion and politics at the dinner table? I think most would generally recommend this approach to those looking for invitations to dine at that same table in the future. But where's the fun in that?

 

Dr. T. David Gordon, an ordained minister in the Presbyterian (PCA) tradition, decided to "bring the fun". 

 

Given Dr. Gordon's religious background, one would probably expect a staunch defense of religious influence in state matters. However, as Dr. Gordon upheld, it is his faith and loyalty to it that prevents him from advocating the blending of these two institututions.

 

Since the Protestant movement began, Dr. Gordon reminds us, men and women of faith have advocated for the protection of the church from the state. He recalls the doctrines of the Honover Presbyterians of the 18th Century, the Scottish traditions, and the Westminster Confession of Faith- all of which argue against using coercive powers of the state to advance religious agendas.
Read More...