The Kennewick Man controversy has possibly altered the landscape of American archaeology and anthropology like nothing has before. It has exacerbated the already turbulent relationship between the archaeological community and Native Americans. In the realm of archaeological finds, it has impacted the American public more quickly and more profoundly than almost anything previous. It seems to be a sort of archetype of current American archaeology. Yet it is but one example of the U.S. Government’s and the American archaeological community’s interactions with the Native Americans. The history of American archaeology has been plagued with ‘racial science’ and disregard for the Native Americans, their desires, and their needs as peoples. The Umatilla Indians have struggled with the Kennewick Man controversy directly, including the detrimental effects of media distortion on the issue. On the other hand, there are increasing examples of American-Indian groups that could be said to be abusing powers granted them by the government where archaeology is concerned.¹ Media spin, unclear language in NAGPRA law, and inflammatory language and actions from both the Umatilla indian Tribe, and James Chatters, the initial forensic anthropologist to study the skeleton ‘Kennewick Man’, have served to make the Kennewick Man issue far more complicated than it had to be.

Before the introduction of NAGPRA (the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act), the various attempts of the government (and others) at protecting the Native Americans were largely ignored, thwarted, forgotten, or just plain ineffective—with the exception of the Indian Reorganization Act, which effectively dismantled the previous Dawes Act, and attempted to give the Indians some tribal autonomy and land base.² And although NAGPRA hasn’t ended all the difficulties—it has given the Indians some powerful federal backing. NAGPRA in a nutshell states that Native Americans have a right to a proper burial—mandating that all Native American remains and burial artifacts in government museums must be cataloged and available for repatriation to appropriate tribal organizations. Also, any remains or burial artifacts found on federal land that may be connected to a tribe must first be offered to said tribe. This is where Kennewick Man comes in.

Kennewick Man was discovered the 28^th of July of 1996 on the banks of the Columbia River during the annual hydroplane races. The discovery of a human skull on the bank of the river was brought to the attention of the local police, and eventually to James Chatters, a forensic anthropologist³. Chatters searched the area and found a very nearly complete skeleton. His first impression was that Kennewick Man was a settler from the 1800′s, based on the remains of an early homestead among the bones.⁴ However, as he examined the bones, Chatters found a spear point in the man’s hip. Such is unusual—especially for an 1800′s settler—so he sent some samples of bone to a facility to have radiocarbon dating done. The results showed that the bones were ancient—about 9,000 years old. This gave Chatters mixed feelings; this was an amazing find and there was a great story to tell that could be had from studying the remains, but it may not be told at all, considering that local Indian tribes might want to bury the remains, and could be granted that right by NAGPRA.⁵ Chatters was right; The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation made a claim for the remains—as did several other groups, including the Nez Perce tribe.⁶ The legal logistics became complicated very quickly, and the lack of clarity in NAGPRA became apparent.

Many voices were speaking about the ancient skeleton, and not many were very clear. Of course, the news media listened to all of them—as generally it should, but often enough, put it’s own spin on things to attract attention. They drew some conclusions that, upon a closer examination, were ridiculous. A great example of this was the oft-quoted statement from James Chatters, “I’ve got a white guy with a stone point in him.”⁷ Chatters was often frustrated by the twists the media gave to the story, and repeatedly attempted to correct the notion of the remains being called ‘European’ or ‘Caucasian;’ he insisted that it wasn’t the case.

The Umatilla Indian tribe has ended up dealing with quite a hassle, and perhaps they were a bit of a hassle themselves. There are only two repatriations they’ve been involved in, and one has taken thirteen years, and has finalized in the repatriation of some human remains, and a number of funerary artifacts from the former Maxey Museum, now known as the Northwest Museum. ⁸ The other is Kennewick Man—which, as of 2012 is still in the Burke Museum in Seattle. They have the problem of skepticism toward their religion and their oral history and its validity. This is compounded by different voices, including scientists, politicians, white supremacists, and bad media confusing the issue. Even the Asatru, a Norse pagan group, claimed that Kennewick Man was their ancestor. The issue was blown so out of proportion and distorted by the media so quickly, that clear, relatively unbiased sources have been scarce.

A prime example of these distorted sources is found in National Review in July of 1997. There was an article published entitled “Devolution,” which stated, “Scientists believe that Kennewick Man may represent a people who migrated from Europe over a North-Atlantic land bridge, only to be later subsumed by Indian latecomers. (Might the Indian-style spearhead lodged in Kennewick Man’s side be a clue?) The Umatilla Indians would rather we not know.” This doesn’t present the Indians request in a fair way—instead of telling us why the Indians disagree with the scientists desire to study the bones. Instead they present the Indians solely as opposers of scientific inquiry. It may be granted that the National Review is not peer reviewed—but little that reaches mainstream audiences is, and such is part of the problem. We live in a world that is shaped and presented by the media—often very poorly. The aforementioned article continues, saying, “Although Kennewick Man is clearly unrelated to any American Indians, the Umatillas nonetheless may have a case under a post-modernist provision of NAGPRA.” It can claim such based mostly on ‘caucasoid’ traits forensically determined by the aforementioned anthropologist Chatters. But there are problems with forensics and morphology (study of bone structure) relating to the age of bones.

Scientists have also told us that skull shape and bone structure vary greatly from generation to generation.⁹ The idea that morphology can help determine a person’s origins or relatives has long been associated with racial typology—a touchy subject for this case.¹⁰ And although such does not have to be the case, and morphology can be useful, the terms used can lead back into racial typology again. In addition, morphology tends to apply best within the last couple hundred years, and by a thousand years, it can be pretty uncertain.¹¹ So the idea that such information tells us that Kennewick Man is unrelated to modern day Native Americans is fairly inconclusive—although it may point us in some interesting directions. Instead, it is more likely that Kennewick Man is related to a great many modern day tribes.¹²

According to the popular opinion, the inconclusive scientific evidence weighs in more heavily than oral tradition. It would appear that we have inconclusive evidence on both sides—until we look at the wording of NAGPRA.

(e) Evidence. Evidence of a kin or cultural affiliation between a present-day individual, Indian tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization and human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony must be established by using the following types of evidence: Geographical, kinship, biological, archeological, anthropological, linguistic, folklore, oral tradition, historical, or other relevant information or expert opinion.

(f) Standard of proof. Lineal descent of a present-day individual from an earlier individual and cultural affiliation of a present-day Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization to human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Claimants do not have to establish cultural affiliation with scientific certainty.¹³

Noticing the specific statements “geographical … folklore, oral tradition,” “preponderance of evidence” and “do not have to establish cultural affiliation with scientific certainty,” it can be concluded that such evidence is likely to be taken lightly in court, and dismissed—as it has been for the last 200 years—hence the specific inclusion herein. There are scientists today, who examine with great curiosity the folk tales and oral traditions of many tribes, finding clues to the past there, although this approach isn’t typical.

Religious claims are generally not considered as seriously as other, more analytical or science based claims are, for the simple reason that they often aren’t provable by in court, or in the lab. But when the Umatilla Indians ceded their lands to the U.S. Government, nowhere in such treaties did they cede their rights to their dead, or their rights to a proper burial for them—or their ancestors.¹⁴

It’s possible that Kennewick Man came from somewhere else—and thus is not ‘native,’ and so wouldn’t be subject to NAGPRA, but Chatters himself in an early interview said that he was probably born within 200 miles of where he died, and that he is very probably an ancestor of modern American Indians (assuming he had children).¹⁵

The Umatilla Indians claim their legal rights to the skeleton. Found on their website is some of the history of their legal struggle. One of their religious leaders, Armand Minthorn, says “…(NAGPRA)… as well as other federal and state laws, are in place to prevent the destruction of, and to protect, human burials and cultural resources.” He also claims the support of four other tribes in the northwest area, all of which have similar religious beliefs. The Umatilla Indians worry about destructive tests in particular and seem to feel that scientific testing in general is a ‘desecration’ of the remains.¹⁶ Many other tribes have made similar claims across America, but it is unusual for such an instance to provoke such heated debate among those in mainstream America—it is usually left to the scientists and scholars to sort things out with the tribes.

However, there are those in the scientific community that claim that many Indians are overzealous, vengeful, and/or unreasonable with their claims and requests.

So there are other parts of the story. The Haida tribe, of British Columbia wasn’t satisfied with the usual. From a publication in ‘Politics and Life Sciences’:

…museum workers and officials were required to participate in Native American rituals on the museum grounds for the spirits of the skeletons, as well as to attend a “Feast to Show Respect.” Another request of the Haida was for the destruction of casts made of some of the bones. No scientist will ever be able to study this large collection again.¹⁷

These sorts of seemingly vengeful acts may be what some scientists fear– the idea that their profession will come under increasing attack by Native Americans and supporters until the life is choked out of it entirely. Perhaps such is an extreme example– but their have been such clamps on science before in the United States—the Milgram and Stanford experiments in the 1970s. Both of these were also judged based on human rights. Such a position is supported by David Walker, ethnographer.¹⁸
The magazine Preservation, claims that “Chatters nearly lost his forensic consulting business because of tribal pressures.”¹⁹ If the Umatilla Indians felt that Chatters was threatening their way of life—they apparently weren’t entirely above threatening his. In fact, the first contact Chatters had with the Umatilla Indians after the discovery was a phone call from the cultural resources office of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. It was an irate Jeff Vanpelt, who had been presumably informed by the Army Corps of Engineers.²⁰ Jeff seemed ready to tear Chatters to pieces when he had hardly had enough time to know what he was working with. Jeff continued to exacerbate the situation in other ways by being generally uncompromising and disagreeable, as well as by attempting to discredit Chatters and destroy his reputation with the Coleville tribe of eastern Washington, at which he was somewhat successful (Chatters had worked with the Coleville tribe cooperatively for years).

And interestingly enough, when it was granted that the Asatru could perform their rituals—it was demanded that they in no way alter the state of the bones, yet the Umatilla Indians had been allowed access to the bones, “Scientists complained that the bones were being tampered with in the federal storage facility; and, indeed, various ritual items had been placed among the bones and some bones were missing.”²¹ The concern here was that the cedar boughs in with the bones would ‘damage’ them, or change moisture content and make studies of the bones more difficult. The Indians also worried about destructive studies—and in putting cedar boughs in with the bones, it’s possible that they could ‘damage’ the bones—skewing information future studies—so it seems ‘damaging’ the bones is defined differently by each side.

It is interesting to note the lack of comparison from the media with regard to other ancient skeletons, or which there have been discovered 3 dozen or more in North America. References to comparable archaeological finds seem not to make it out of the peer-reviewed journals. One of these was discovered after Kennewick Man and is virtually unknown. The site was known to a few as “On your knees Cave,” and is in Alaska, on Prince Edward Island. When compared to the Kennewick Man discovery, the remains found in Alaska have been treated far differently. David Thomas uses the discovery in Alaska to provide a model for a hopeful future in relations between tribes and others in his book, Skull Wars.²² In stark contrast to the discovery in Washington, the scientists who discovered the remains in Alaska chose immediately to notify and work directly with the local Indians, even having natives as interns to help them with the study process. After DNA studies as well as other analysis, the skeleton was turned over completely to the tribes involved. Recently, Timothy Heaton, professor and department chair of Earth Sciences at The University of South Dakota, was invited to a reburial ceremony in Alaska.²³ >Such isn’t a far cry from what James Chatters had done for some time when dealing with the Coleville tribe.

There are many things that went wrong to make the Kennewick Man case such a problem. Many hope that the Kennewick Man case will be the last of it’s kind, but that isn’t necessarily likely. There are problems with NAGPRA’s vague wording, and lack of specific instructions in some areas. There are those Native Americans who now have political power, and will not seek to use it for useful and just ends—but may instead use it for retribution on those they consider usurpers to their lands, and desecrators of their ancestors. There are scientists that are becoming more aware of the Native American groups, and their needs, and desires, but struggle with how to compromise with them. And then there’s the media, who aren’t concerned with the resolution of the issue, nor an accurate record of what went on, but instead are trying to be as catchy as possible—even if it puts the wrong spin on things.

Yet there is hope for a more cooperative future, as demonstrated by the Maxey repatriation, and the dig at ‘On Your Knees Cave.’ There must be a compromise, and there must be forgiveness. James Chatters was mercilessly attacked from almost the very start, and it only served to inflame the situation. There were poor choices of words—one Chatters’ part, and more especially on the part of the media—in describing Kennewick Man, who later has been stated to be morphologically similar to any groups living today,²⁴ and finally there was confusion between the Army Corps of Engineers and those more directly involved in the NAGPRA legislature.

He entitles this post:

“How to Stop Money and Partisanship from Ruining Our Political Process.”

The Problems

Political parties

The politics surrounding the recently passed health care bill has brought public attention even more to a problem that has been steadily growing. Political parties have been growing stronger and generally less willing to compromise since the mid-nineties. This leads to politicians voting and acting in ways that appeal to various political parties rather than the general public. In addition, appealing to a party does not necessarily imply appealing to party moderates. Those seeking political office need to appeal to those who will vote in their party’s primary election, which is not representative of the whole party (not to mention the general public). We see the influence of political parties reflected in the party line votes that so often come out of Congress. When one party doesn’t hold a filibuster-proof majority in Congress (or if a party has a few defectors) we often end up with gridlock and no bill gets passed at all. This unfortunately means that our political system is more like a football game with a red team and a blue team, invoking all the hysterical behavior that football fans can muster.

Money in politics

Another problem we face is the influence of money on political campaigns. Those running for office spend large amounts of money on their campaigns, and those with less money seem to have less of a chance of winning office. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can contribute to political campaigns,ⁱ leading President Obama to comment that this gives “the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington.”ⁱⁱ

How much money is spent on political campaigns? According to a story by Politico.com, “the 2008 campaign was the costliest in history, with a record-shattering $5.3 billion in spending by candidates, political parties and interest groups on the congressional and presidential races.”ⁱⁱⁱ At the time of the writing of this article, Barack Obama had already raised over $86 million and Republican candidates had raised a total of more than $80 million for the 2012 presidential election cycle.^iv

The Solution: Publicly Funded Debates

We can weaken the influence of political parties and fix the problem of money in political campaigns at the same time. I propose we move to a system of government funded debates. Following is an example of how this would work for an election of the president of the United States. At the beginning of the debate cycle, people will meet at town meetings throughout the nation. At this meeting, anybody who wants may come to the front and explain why he or she would make a good president. People at the meeting can ask them questions and they can debate with other potential candidates as well. At the end of the meeting, everybody present votes for someone at the town meeting. The top two winners will go on to the district level.

A subsequent, larger, meeting will be held at the district level and those who won the town meetings will participate in a debate. After the debate, the people at the meeting vote again to select a candidate to go to the state level. By the time the debates are at the state level they will be broadcast on T.V. and voting will occur at polling stations. From the state debates, winners will go to regional debates, and finally about four or five candidates will appear in series of televised national debates. These debates will be followed by a (ballot) vote and the winner of the vote will become the next president.

Along the way, candidates will also have the opportunity to give 30 minute presentations of their ideas without facing interruptions or immediate questions from other candidates. (They will be facing plenty of that during the debates.) These presentations will have rules: the candidates will have equal time for their presentations, and equal resources available for preparing them. They will not be allowed to play music. They will not be allowed to merely slander their opponents.

Notice that this process says nothing about party affiliation of those who enter the debates.

Anybody with any point of view may enter the debates at the lowest level. Those who do enter the debates are required to follow certain rules. They will not be allowed to direct an organized campaign. If other people want to put signs in their yards saying vote for so-and-so, they may, but the candidates themselves communicate with the public only through the official debate process. This would be a temporary restriction of the candidates’ free speech which they would knowingly and willingly agree to so long as they choose to remain in the debate cycle. They are allowed to say whatever they want in the debates of course, but they won’t be able to call corporations or other politicians and promise political support in exchange for campaign support.

These rules governing candidates in the debate cycle will be enforced by an election committee. The purpose of this committee will not be to make subjective decisions about what people can say during a debate, but rather to set up and organize debates according to predetermined rules. As for questions put to the candidates, they could come from the general public, but the system by which questions are selected, among so many being entered, will have to be designed and planned, and so that may be left to an election committee as well. This choosing of questions should follow an orderly and transparent process.

Recent debates between Republican presidential candidates are a step down from traditional debate formats and could be described as “antagonistic press conferences.” The debates proposed here should be better designed. Candidates should be given adequate time to explain their positions, including complex positions. They should be given time for rebuttals and cross-examinations.

Analysis

Not every problem solved

The campaign system proposed here leaves many problems unsolved. In the first place, democracy has always had the problem that a candidate can make many fair promises to the electorate in order to gain votes only to do something different. Candidates would try to win votes based on good looks, good speaking skills, and emotional appeals. The public will have difficulty understanding the technical details which must necessarily be considered in order to make good policy decisions. Without technical details, political debates are often more about persuasively appealing to people’s ideologies, rather than a careful cost/benefit analysis of all available options. We already have these problems in American politics, and they are probably too hard to solve right now. The publicly funded debate system described here does solve some problems however, and it may be worth switching.

No more money in campaigns

The problem of money in campaigns would be almost completely solved. Whether or not you had a lot of money to contribute to a campaign would matter little. An average American could potentially become the next president of the United States. (This would be unlikely however, because other candidates would probably point out your complete lack of political experience.)

Weakened influence of political parties

The Constitution says nothing about political parties. They came into existence on their own. They are held in place by candidates’ need for campaign support. If campaigns were publicly funded, and anyone were allowed to enter the political debates and potentially show up on the ballot, regardless of party identification, political parties would be greatly weakened. Candidates could still say their political philosophy matches that of Republicans or Democrats (or Libertarians, or Socialists, etc.) but because candidates’ points of view would not be held in place by the need to appeal to a party base, these distinctions would become blurred. Without the need to identify with a party in order to appear on the ballot, the mechanism for keeping party ideologies uniform would disappear. Political parties would fade away. Few things could be better for our government than this.

“Third party” representation

There would be no “third party” candidates because parties would disappear. Nevertheless, those who hold a point of view that would, under the current system, be considered a “third party” point of view would have a much better chance of being elected. Right now we say that a candidate is “far-right” or “center-left,” etc., but under the public funded debate system, a candidate can have views from both the left and the right, and from things that don’t fall well into that dichotomy.

Taxes

In order to fund debates, some tax money will need to be used. Overall, the total amount spent on political campaigns would be far less, but it would come out of taxes rather than from individuals choosing to donate. Spread out over so many people, the tax burden per taxpayer would be very small, probably less than five dollars per year. It is worth this cost if it will solve the problems with our current system.

Need to appeal to everyone at once

Right now a candidate running for president can go to Iowa and tell the Iowans that he or she considers nothing in this nation more sacred than the right to receive corn subsidies. Then he or she can go to Utah and explain why nothing stands out more prominently in the Constitution than the right to personally own an AK-47. In the publicly funded debate system, the whole nation would be watching nationally televised debates. What the candidates say to one they say to all. While it is true that voters can find videos of what candidates are saying throughout the nation, most Americans do not have the time to follow all the candidates so closely. Nationally televised debates provide a good setting for Americans to listen to candidates’ positions explained in full in one sitting.

Change in media coverage

Should we implement this system of federally funded debates, the nature of media coverage of the candidates and their platforms would change. We would not see a series of sound bites from the candidates on the news every day. Candidates often play an image game where they try to make their opponent look bad by making fun of something dumb their opponent said, or digging up some third grade essay that their opponent wrote. The media loves to cover these entertaining antics, but what is good for T.V. ratings is not always good for understanding candidates’ views on the issues.

Sometimes people complain that the media picks a winner in elections. Indeed, more media coverage can lead to better name recognition and a better shot at winning. A publicly funded debate is a controlled setting wherein candidates get roughly equal time. Based on the way televised debates occur now, it seems more like a forum where arguments are actually made. By making candidates respond to questions they will have to address issues rather than merely play the image game. Furthermore, as explained earlier, debates could be better structured than the style already shown on T.V., to improve the quality of arguments made.

No more campaign slogans

Candidates will have to package themselves differently. Politics now is full of slogans possibly because it works as something simple that candidates can use to flood the media. Under the debate cycle campaign rules, candidates won’t be allowed to organize some massive distribution of a slogan. They have to look good in debates. Slogans would have to be mixed up with complicated arguments, rendering them less effective.

Higher turnover

This process will likely result in much more turnover, which could be a good thing. Incumbents would face a tough battle every election against the newbies. In other words, the value of political experience to winning an election would be weakened. Some might see this as an advantage because they don’t like the idea of having career politicians. Others might see this as a bad thing. Right now, members of the House of Representatives, who face an election cycle every two years, are incentivized to prefer policies with short term gains even when they are bad in the long term because they are worried about the upcoming election cycle. If we consider it a bad thing to threaten incumbents so greatly, because that threat will lead to shortsighted behavior in office, we can give them an advantage by not requiring incumbents to enter at the lowest level, but giving them an automatic bid to the debate at their level. They would still face a significant challenge at this level. This is an issue that could be further explored later.

Fewer people paying attention to politics

Because debates are more boring than sound bites, fewer people will pay attention to what candidates are saying. Right now, there are so many signs in people’s yards, sound bites on news programs, T.V. commercials, etc. that it is almost impossible to be unaware that campaign season has come. In the publicly funded campaign system, candidates will be restricted to the controlled debate cycle, resulting in less media coverage. Nothing will necessarily prevent political commentators from talking about the candidates all they want. Nevertheless, because the whole thing will be less festive, political commentators would not be able to find an as large an audience as they would during a traditional campaign season.

Fewer people voting

Because campaigns would not be as well advertised, fewer people would vote. We might expect those who are public spirited to vote however. These voters would be better informed about the candidates, because the debate system makes forces candidates to answer questions rather than play the image game (compared to what we have now). We would be trading a larger number of voters for better informed voters.

No pre-filtering

One might make the argument that candidates would be more technically competent under our current system. Part of gaining a party’s nomination is appealing to party elites, and these elites may have better political savvy than the general public. These elites want their party to win in the short-term and long-term. If party elites are partially responsible for selecting candidates, they will filter out those who appeal to the general public but lack true political skill, because they realize that a poor politician from their party will threaten the party’s standing in future elections. Individual non-party system candidates don’t face this kind of peer assessment.

Implementing the Publicly Funded Debate System

Implementing the publicly funded debate system will not be easy. Unfortunately, creating such a system would almost surely require an act of Congress, and no group would feel more threatened by such a system than Congress. In order to implement the debate system, the idea needs to gain widespread public support. Then the public would need to pressure Congress to make it happen. Since this still hasn’t been tried, it might be a good idea to try it in elections for local government offices first and work out the kinks. Once the system is working well, the public will be able to point to positive results as an argument for implementing the system nationwide. Right now, there is more dissatisfaction with the political process than ever before. This gives us an opportunity to change the system for the better. We should use this widespread dissatisfaction to improve the process for future generations.

Details need to be worked out

The above describes the basic idea of how a publicly funded debate system would work. At the same time, some details still need to be filled in. For example, what should be the rules for people entering the debates at the lowest levels? At a low level, an influential businessman could organize many friends to come to the debate and vote for him. This might make the low level debates into a competition to see who can get the most friends to show up. Also, possibly so many people would want to be part of the debate that none of them would have sufficient talking time. It might be a good idea to impose some kind of rule that ensures that only those really serious about contending for office would be part of the lowest level debates. Readers of this paper are thus invited to contribute their ideas for improving the system described here.

This paper contains a survey of areas that any campaign reform proposal might have on society, including what issues need to be thought about when implementing such a system, and how the change could benefit (or possibly harm) government decision making. One proposal for diminishing the influence of money on politics through publicly financed campaigns has been discussed, but many of the observations made here would also apply to other ways of publicly financing campaigns. Plenty of room is still open for discussion.

-Ben Warner

The author takes some time in getting there, but he reconstructs the frustration over the restriction of available time and resources for primary and secondary teachers alike – and he does so with remarkable concision, encompassing the issues and providing analysis based on statistics. However, he does so only after reminding the readers of the various criticisms of the act. He quotes historian David McCollough, who asserts that history as a core subject has fallen by the way side because of the heavy focus on English and math. Others referenced by the auther claim that civic education is also markedly lacking, and even President Obama was quoted, saying that the liberal arts education his generation enjoyed is rapidly becoming non-existent for our youth today.¹

These reflect the common statements heard in newspapers, classrooms, and staff room discussions all over the US today, but Manna continues, explaining that these conclusions, although anecdotal, are actually well supported by most of the quantitative data available. Most school districts showed decreases in art classes as well as science and social studies, commonly dropping an entire hour or more per week in those subjects. He also details the exceptions to the general support of that quantitative data. He details the achievements of the Osmond A. Church Elementary and Middle School, showing the reader that it is possible to focus on a new, NCLB driven curriculum that is both geared toward improving English and math skills, while maintaining gains in all areas, and serving a typically disadvantaged student population.

Manna’s observations aside, the ramifications for teachers are enormous – lesson planning by itself was already a difficult task. Pedagogy as a context is never addressed within his work, but such is important to fully grasp the nature of the struggle not only in the bureaucratic circles, but in the classroom. Teachers struggle to include all students, and remember to ‘teach students and not lessons’ is complicated by these new restrictions and pressures. From a pedagogical perspective, one can note that the solution lies in complex approaches to lesson planning and presentation, as well as grading programs and individual attention to students. This raises the bar, not only for students, but for teachers. Teachers who have traditionally had the freedom to design their own lesson plans must be clever to maintain what freedom in that realm they can. If one knows anything about pedagogy at all, it is hard to avoid these conclusions, despite Manna never addressing pedagogy directly.

Manna also points out that despite many conflicts and “tensions” generated by the legislation, NCLB has also driven some positive changes, assisting the reader in understanding complex political and educational interconnections. The positive benefits from NCLB include a focus on what has been called in educational circles ‘the achievement gap’. It has been tackled again and again, but students from lower socioeconomic positions have consistently scored poorly on tests, done poorly in school, and often fail to continue their education after high school. Central to NCLB’s attempt to narrow this gap in performance is the requirement for states to divide their reports on testing results into student categories, including minority groups, students with disability, students from low-income homes, and ESL students.² This allows various government agencies, as well as local administration and educators, to monitor this achievement gap closely. Various looming consequences for failing to improve all (or the vast majority) of these groups from year to year (the term used here is Adequate Yearly Progress, or AYP) ensures quite a focus on the achievement gap, although that focus may or may not be effectively utilized toward improving student performance. His writing indicates that the legislation and the accountability measures in particular are flawed, but that the overall effect is a tension is generated within the educational system that is slowly changing our attitudes about how to go about education, testing, pedagogy, and administration.

Manna explains some of the nature of educational bureaucracies. These state and local administrative components to our educational system are varied across the nation, and examining the impact of NCLB requires that one look at each state individually. The act’s requirement for AYP meant that each state had to have a new accountability system, either in addition to, or as a replacement or adaptation of, their original system. Each state chose their own plan, and most, in seeking a way to measure this progress, actually contracted out that process. This complicated matters, because the testing agencies, while paid to do this, are certainly not perfect, indeed, they may not even be considered experts. This caused many school districts and states concern when inaccuracies in testing materials or grading processes resulted in problems with NCLB, namely inaccurate sanctions or poor ratings. Despite all of this, or rather because of these problems originating within state bureaucracies and their adjuvant contracts, the states have taken closer looks at how they measure performance, and who is doing the measuring. Most states concluded that their own systems were disconnected, disparate pieces, with little effective capacity for “tracking and integrating sometimes even basic information about their students and teachers.” Manna says that 39 states reported better data tracking systems because of NCLB’s influence. Some of these changes came with difficulty, as administrative and policy changes often do. This point, with connections throughout the book, is perhaps the best illustrated point, and the most necessary of discussions, if NCLB is continue in any effective direction.

Policy changes and administrative changes were also goals, for schools whose educational ‘culture’ was ‘broken’. On pages 85 and 86, Manna relates the common ‘restructuring’ moves made by many schools: replacing a principle, and occasionally other administrative staff, along with various teachers and other employees. He notes that the attempts made at restructuring were varied, some schools attempted very little, but others were able to use Federal backing to push through big changes. The explanation follows about a school shutdown and restart in Michigan. Manna draws a heavy contrast between schools’ typical actions (or lack thereof), and what NCLB actually seemed to call for – which few school districts utilized. Bureaucracies and state employees are notoriously difficult to change, or fire, yet NCLB attempts to change that. Manna is effective in explaining how NCLB makes that possible, primarily through the use of these anecdotes.

Smooth transitions and clear connections, here and throughout the work, exemplify Manna’s ability for tying examples and stories to the theoretical framework and interactions at the policy level itself. To create his framework, assumptions about human nature are made, but are never clearly articulated in a broad, philosophical sense; rather, they are exemplified through the various anecdotes utilized. The stories are wide and varied, and range over a variety of human behavior, pointing to a view that says humans are flexible and varied. Such is integral to his analysis, as discussion of human nature never enters the conversation. Instead, his analysis tells us that the way we structure accountability systems, conflict and confrontation, education and the classroom, not to mention testing for proficiency, all can have marked impacts not only on the students in the education system, but on the adults administrating it and teaching within in it.

Part of the decision process was that I wanted my wife to have transportation while I was in school during the day. I began biking to school for summer block last year, in what was usually an 8 or 9-mile round trip. I often wouldn’t come straight home, but instead would visit one of the local bicycle shops, Racer’s Cycle Service. There I met Racer (that’s actually his legal name, as I understand). Racer organized a group ride on Tuesday nights, going up to Squaw Peak Landing, along a road that varies between a 9 and 14% grade. This is very steep, and none of the riders waited for anyone– it was a bit of a race. I was dead last, every time. My poor legs didn’t have the stamina to keep up the sort of monumental effort it took to move upward so quickly (these guys were fast). The trail has an elevation gain of roughly 1600 feet, over about 4.2 miles, not including the ride to the trail, which is a very gradual slope that is almost imperceptible, at least most of the way.

It took me 40 minutes the first time I went up that trail, and it took me 35-36 minutes on my best time– but it was great cross training for the Logan Marathon that I did in the fall. Coming back down that road, we would fly, traveling at speeds I’ve never reached on my bicycle anywhere else– probably close to 50 mph (roughly 80 kph). Racer and the others always beat me by at least 4 minutes. I think that Racer was impressed that I stuck with it– week after week, dead last, with the hill practically wiping me out by the time I got to the top. Here I was riding a commuter/cyclocross/touring bike, while everyone else had some high-end, sleek bike that was at least partially carbon fiber.

Toward the end of Summer, in late July, I was hit by a car. I also had an accident coming down Squaw Peak road. Both of these made me rethink cycling. I decided that despite an auto collision that could have been much worse, and a solo accident that left me with internal bleeding which formed a hard lump in my side that stuck around for about 10 weeks, that I wanted to keep biking. The solo accident that bruised my side really badly was only 6 or 8 weeks before the Logan Marathon, and I wondered if I could keep training. But I was out the next evening, running a fiver with Ben. He thought the bruise was ghastly, but I felt much better after having run– especially the following day.

Later that year, after the evening group rides were over, it got cold, and icy, and snow, and wet. I decided in the fall that I wanted to ride through the winter, and I began looking for ways to prepare my bike for the arduous activity. I needed knobby tires for my commuter– which, although a little unusual, has become far more common with the advent of Cyclocross. Racer actually just gave me an old, halfway worn out tire that he wasn’t going to use, nor likely sell, which I put on the front wheel, for better steering traction. I put my fenders on, and cleaned the bike thoroughly  (I didn’t anticipate being able to clean it until the end of winter– too busy with school/ cold outside). My first ride in the snow was intense; I went 12 miles or so, down to Provo, and back up to Orem– most of the time I had clear roads, or would avoid riding in snow on days that it was really wet.

Riding in the cold was awful. I intend that next winter I have little windshields for my hands– even gloves couldn’t keep the wind chill out. Most of the time, my 180 ear muffs and my leather jacket would do the trick– on the coldest days I had to wear a hoodie under the leather jacket. Let me tell you, leather jackets are the best for keeping out wind chill.

After Christmas break, I was working in the writing lab, and a student came in. His name was Zac, and he was studying blue collar and white collar work, Marxism, and politics in general. We looked over his proposal for a conference paper, and I found myself very interested in his views. I ran into him later in the hall, and started talking to him– I found out that he was way into bicycles and interested in education, too. Education is a big deal to me, and we talked just about anytime I ran into him for a couple of months. We’ve become good buddies at this point, and I’ve joined the Provo Bicycle Committee, which Zac organized for the purpose of promoting tolerance and awareness of cyclists of all-kinds, as well as a love of bike culture. I love the bike committee, and I really like talking to Zac and learning about what’s going on in bicycle circles, both here in Provo, and elsewhere.

Fun times. Let’s talk about the changes that happened

Change 1: Even here in Utah, I went through the winter without using the car much. Between the bus system and my bike, I got everywhere I needed to go. I now believe that year-round cycling is possible in more places than I would have before. I decided that wherever I live, I want to be within 35 minutes of work via bike.

Change 2: I spent more time exercising this winter. I run three times a week, and usually after thanksgiving and before Valentine’s Day, I have a hard time keeping it up– especially because none of my running buddies (I’ve tried running with 4 different people) want to in the winter either– so I’m less motivated. This drop-off makes it harder to get going in the spring. This spring I took even longer to start up again, because I was so busy with school and work, but that’s beside the point.

Change 3: In the winter, it’s dark a lot– I had to get lights for riding at night in Autumn, and riding in the dark with lights is an interesting experience– it makes me think about traffic and cycling in new ways, although I haven’t thought all that through. I did read an article about a guy without lights who was hit and killed in the winter, which made me even more wary.

Change 4: After my auto-collision (low-speed, probably him at 4-6 miles an hour and me at 10 or 12), I decided that it was important that I learn carefully the traffic laws, and figure out how to be safer. I think the accident was a 50/50 fault, and the guy was pretty accommodating (he volunteered to help pay for a new rim, so long as I didn’t sue him– which I really didn’t want to do anyway). I became interested in bike safety and bike culture.

Change 5: I became converted, to a full-time cyclist, after meeting Zac and learning what it was he was doing for the community, as well as what communities in various places do for bicycles and how they benefit from bicycles (Amsterdam, Portland, Boulder Colorado). As Zac says, the bicycle is a literal and figurative vehicle for change– and I’m sure he stole that from someone else, but I now know that it’s true.

I am not interested in Provo’s downtown area becoming a giant corporate shopping and business center, like Salt Lake’s city center is, and while the construction of the new conference center downtown is something with which I’m far more willing to say ‘wait and see’, Brigham book and copy, Pioneer Book and their new cafe that they just added last year, as well as several other small businesses, will either move, or possibly even disappear.

The simple fact that NuSkin is a corporate entity makes me wary of their involvement, as their building project is something over which the public has no direct say, and little recourse by other means.

Assuming that we are free entities despite these influences on our decisions, there are, as previously established, two elements to freedom. First is liberty. Liberty is the possibility of a decision in an abstract sense. For example, I am at liberty to construct a sandwich. However, if I have not the bread, or jam, or other various condiments that could be placed in a sandwich, then I have not the power to construct said sandwich. It remains beyond my reach. Freedom is a combination then, of possibility, or liberty, and available means, or power. Freedom is dearly prized, but often misunderstood. The famous and the unknown alike have attempted to explain it, as well as methods to achieve it, presumably for as long as man has pondered anything at all. Yet, for so many, it is elusive. From all gamuts of political thought, including Marxism, we find seekers of freedom. With these constructions of liberty, power, and freedom, and observing the nature of man’s decisions as primarily motivated by emotion rather than some abstract sense of rationality, one must conclude that a Marxist state’s centralization of authority will lead to the demise of liberty within said state, and hence, freedom.

Marxist thought has been oft analyzed and subjected to a great deal of scrutiny. Marx’s constructions seem concerned with the nature of man, and his freedom. But in what sense? It often seems unclear. Freedom from oppression is perhaps first and foremost. Marx can easily be said to be seeking an escape for the proletariat from economic oppression– from a system of labor and production by which he is alienated from his work, and hence, from his very self. Thus, Marxism seeks freedom as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself. Marx could more accurately be said to be seeking power, to attain freedom.

For it seems that it is in creation, in work itself, that man defines himself, and creates his or her very identity. Most artists will affirm that it is their work in which they define themselves. A mother with children to take care of is defined, and finds a large portion of her identity in the work she does for them and with them. A father could be the same, although we might often say that he should be, rather than is such. A career is often quite the defining aspect in one’s life. One might say, I am a reporter, a teacher, an entrepreneur. Yet, the choice to become any of these things is, generally speaking, dependent upon society’s constructions of methods to attain these identities, not to mention the definitions of the identities themselves. Marxist humanism then, is centered around the thought that it is through man’s work that man’s identity is found. Indeed, man’s work is inextricably intertwined with his very being. Marx’s concern for man’s opportunity, or rather, his freedom to be what he wishes to be, is a valid one.

Noting that Marxism seeks freedom as a means to an end, towards the reduction of the alienation of self, rather than freedom as an end in itself, one finds hints at the reason for the rise of the Totalitarian state. This is precisely the reason for which a centralized and socialized State will inevitably relinquish its hope of freedom as a means to the end of alienation, instead resorting to manipulation, control of information and resources, and ultimately, violence, to maintain control of the State. The legitimacy of claims of freedom then become increasingly untenable, as power is centralized and consolidated.

Marx’s approach was to advocate the establishment of a governing force— to throw off the shackles of economic oppression by seizing the means of production— by seizing power. Concentrate economic power in the hands of the State, and in controlling the State, you will control economic conditions and alleviate the oppressive circumstances. While the concentration of power in the hands of the proletariat could certainly alleviate the economic oppression the working class have endured, there are concerns as to how to accomplish this. In response to this apparent vacuum in Marx’s writings, Lenin proposed a process by which the natural leaders of the proletariat form what he called a ‘Vanguard Party’ to safeguard and promote the cause of the proletariat, who is often not trained or capable in the fields of political construction or governmental management.

This is inherently problematic, in that this Vanguard becomes a fairly exclusive club, who in most historical cases, seem to have been more interested with the maintenance of their own power than the very lack of freedom which concerned Marx. The foundational positions of Marxism cannot be propagated and freedom will not continue unless free market forces are suppressed or controlled. However, the establishment of a one-party Socialist state is then prone to the very destruction of the freedoms it seeks to create, through the intentional or unintentional abuse of the centralized power and control of the State. The intentional abuse of power is a familiar and frustrating problem, but there are other conditions under which concentrated power is problematic.

There are reasons, found within human nature and social behaviors, that those in power will attempt to remain in power. Motivations in and of themselves, can be fairly benign, or in the case of more ambitious men, rather malign. Contributing factors to the continued control of societal structures and powers are at their core, elements of human nature. The influence of individuals upon others is ultimately a matter over which institutions and societal structures can have little control.

The influential are not by nature influential only because they have position and wealth. It is because they wield with great grace and force the tools of demagoguery, persuasion, leadership, charisma, and determination. The ambition of the individual, and the liberty of the group to look to them as problem-solvers, leaders, and finally rulers, is an inevitable occurence resulting from the all too common exercise of choice without rationale and without care. Human beings are not rational— at their core, their very motivations to do any and all things are generated by emotions— such are not restrained, nor ruled, by intellect. Intellect is no superior control to emotional states— no, in it’s best form it is a pruner, a shaper. Without acknowledgement of this truth, Marx of necessity, defeats itself— for old class distinctions, once based on political power, and economic power, are now no longer ever opposed to each other. And by the very philosophical position on governmental power which Marx takes, the preservation of individual liberties takes a back seat to communal power.

Therefore, the class of political elites, of elite thinkers, organizers, problem-solvers and leaders, degenerates into a ruling, upper class once again. For these leaders can not be expected to understand and mete and measure the accountability necessary for them to maintain good leadership. Such is beyond the bounds of reasonable human expectation: we cannot expect that one man should know always and consistently what is best for another by reasoning and feelings alone, and leadership’s elevated status makes it ever more difficult for one to perceive the possible wrongs and problems that his decisions create. Leaders are distanced from the consequences of their decisions by the nature of their image in the eyes of their followers, and, through reinforcement of ideals, his image in his own eyes. In addition, the distance from the community that comes with a centralized power structure, and the nature of power over others itself, contributes to the difficulty of governance of any kind.

The nature of the Marxist conception of power and leadership by its very nature assumes a kind of leadership ultimately devoid of adequate respect for liberty, and therefore, for freedom.

—————–

Suggestions and ideas include:

The Landlocked Philosopher – Submitted by my Brother -in-law.

The Gamut – Submitted by my Sister-in-law and her husband.

Polytical (amalgamation of Political and Analytical)

Educated Wannabe Cowboy

Beyond Clarity

Subjective Clarity

Tools for Subjective Judgement

This is misleading. While there may be problematic language with what is currently on the books and what policemen should be able to do, as evidenced by three examples Handy provides, the proposed legislation is dangerous and risky. Currently policemen have authority to arrest someone upon probable cause of a Felony or a Class A Misdemeanor. These seem like relatively reasonable lines to draw, but the bill that has been proposed would change these limits. The first change is from probable cause to reasonable cause or reasonable suspicion, as it is more commonly called. This might bother me, but I’ll hold off judgement on this portion of the bill, because I haven’t studied law, and I’d have to study that and think about it for a bit to decide if that’s a reasonable change.

The other change is what troubles me– and, in the common vernacular: It is not cool. The bill “amends a peace officer’s authority to make an arrest without a warrant upon reasonable cause by providing that this authority includes any misdemeanor, rather than current law which grants the authority to arrest upon reasonable cause to class A misdemeanors and felonies.” Given what Class B and C Misdemeanors include, this makes me very opposed to the bill, because police authority could then be abused far too easily.

In the Deseret News comments section online, one ‘John C.C.’ from Payson says:

Sample Class B misdemeanors: Illegal fireworks, gambling, writing a bad check, possessing a keg of beer, retail theft, possession of marijuana, road racing, failure of public official to disclose conflict of interest, disturb the legislature, do business without a license, damage a government survey marker, damage a road sign, fornication, false fire alarm, minor graffiti, let your kids sluff school, fishing w/o license.

Sample Class C misdemeanor: speed, leave your neighbors gate open, use vulgar language on a bus, misnumber your written checks, lie to avoid jury duty, abandon your campfire and it reignites without hurting, anything, give cigarettes to a minor, public urination, public intoxication.

A website leaning toward the ‘blue’ side discusses the unacceptable risk for abuse of this law here. A friend of mine on Facebook commented on the issue, saying:

It strikes me as a misunderstanding here – Congr. Handy probably doesn’t really understand the difference between arresting someone and charging them with a crime. Nothing would stop a Utah policeman, under existing law, from issuing a citation for these minor, though unwitnessed, misdemeanors – and it’d be up to a judge to decide whether the evidence, if any, deserved further proescution. This has nothing to do with making an arrest. Making an arrest is a matter of keeping public order. There’s no reason to do it otherwise, in the absence of a specific warrant. It’s as if Handy imagines that arrest and conviction are the same thing.

While I certainly don’t expect that officers will immediately begin abusing this authority to some intolerable degree, but I’m certain that the change in law creates a tenor which requires less proof from the state– less burden on them before they can detain, arrest, and interfere with the lives of the average citizen. Where there is less requirement for proof, accountability suffers, and in this case, civil liberties could easily come under assault by individual officers who misinterpret situations, deliberately or not. In short, this bill is a subtle threat to our civil liberties and should be resisted vigorously by the population. We can and should be vocal– email your state representative today. If you live in Utah County, your rep is Patrick Painter. If not, you can find out who your Representative is by searching at www.utah.gov.

Finally, I include a sample letter, written by my friend Kevin:

With the rising cost of incarceration 2008 statistics show at about $30,594 per inmate (http://nicic.gov/features/statestats/?State=UT) and a proposed 7 percent cut in the Utah State Prison that could potentially prematurely release about 850 prison inmates along with the job loss of approximately 175 Corrections staff members (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51145440-76/cuts-proposed-budget-prison.html.csp).

According to the same Salt Lake Tribune article there would be a need to curtail DUI enforcement.  All of this at a time that the Utah Legislator is choosing to submit, HB 59 on Arrest and Requirements with or without Warrants by Stephen G. Handy.  The bill “amends a peace officer’s authority to make an arrest without a warrant upon reasonable cause by providing that this authority includes any misdemeanor. . .”

If during a time of budgetary shrinkage why on earth would we want to allow police officers the ability to arrest people for any “misdemeanor”, i.e.: J-Walking, Spiting in public, vulgar language, etc.  It seems this would require tax payers to pay more dollars for less effective government and create more bureaucracy.

Please help stop the passing of this bill.

Sincerely, ______________

One of the big questions being asked is how a regime change in Egypt will affect Israel. Egypt has been fairly friendly with Israel for awhile now, as far as I understand. In that, Egypt has set the political tone, to some degree, of the entire Middle Eastern Region.With this current instability, it’s possible that Israel could come under heavier assault, and it seems possible that Israel could find an even better ally, especially if democracy comes to Egypt. (Or at least those are the things I’m guessing– again, I’m sure I’m very uninformed, so I could be wrong)

There are concerns over the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence on the current events, and whether they will attempt to seize power. I’m not sure how well-founded these are– maybe it’s a real concern. However, the tone and style of presentation of this idea has been consistently focused on the U.S., rather than the Egyptians’ uprising in and of itself. It seems an incredibly US-centric way of looking at things, and an entirely unfair and biased way of describing them. As I read about the conflict, my brother-in-law posted a thought on Facebook, effectively wondering how these events would affect the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as the rest of the region in general.

After an argument with someone else on Facebook, he finally posted something that I feel has quite a lot of merit. I think we here in the U.S. are usually very ignorant in our views of world politics, and even when we attempt to understand what’s going on out there, we seem to have only a superficial understanding. With that said, here is the quote from his Facebook in response to his friend, and I will leave you to ponder it.

Joe: “…I studied Middle Eastern history and culture for the past four years. I’ve lived there, I have friends there, I’ve seen the conflict firsthand, and for a short time I worked for one of the most influential policy-making organizations for US foreign policy in that region. Your arguments about the Palestinians may not be false–I’m not saying that they are–but the conclusions you subsequently draw about Israel betray a willful onesidedness that is completely and utterly uninteresting to me.

I’m not interested in winning any arguments about the rightness of the Palestinian cause or the wrongness of the Israelis; I just want to have a better understanding of what’s going on. Because even after all of my studies and experiences, I still feel stunningly ignorant about the region. If you don’t, you must be blind.”