Fri 7 Mar 2008
The proposed committee passed CC, with a vote something like 10-1-1. Only students can vote, though there will still be a student chair. Faculty will be appointed by the Dean of Faculty or steering committee.
The name now says Community Interactions, and it will be included in the usual CC appointments process. There were a few other minor changes I’m not sure of.
Also, Robert D. Putnam, who wrote Bowling Alone, came to visit campus and speak last night. He predicts that our generation will be the successors of the Greatest Generation, voting in high numbers and being engaged in civic life much more so than our parents.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Putnam, Putnam, Putnam. I’m not the biggest fan of Putnam’s work (and I’m kinda tired of it). He is an interesting guy and definitely framed his stuff well; he’s widely read, gets huge grants, and so on. That said, I don’t think he’s actually got a solid theoretical base for his interpretation of what is social capital and how it works and how to measure it and/or its causal role.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
“…voting in high numbers and being engaged in civic life…”
From his lips to God’s ears. And which I hope will be the case regardless of the disappointing behavior in this primary, and the possibility of yet one more election with questionable results.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
In 50 words or fewer what is(are) the basis(es) for Putnam’s thesis?
March 7th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
As a term, social capital comes from James Coleman who looked at why private schools seemed to be more successful than public schools at educating students in the 1980s. It also comes from Pierre Bourdieu who looked at inequality in France via social and cultural capital (who you know and how you interact with them, in short). As bases, those are two strong foundations, I just thik Putnam went a little bit further than those foundations really support.
Not under 50, but at least under 100.
March 7th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
What reasonable logic, if any, does Putnam have for projecting that we will rebuild our “social capital”, at least in substantial part and at least over a term not far distant?
March 7th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Voting patterns since 2002, the first election since 9/11, or one thing.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
“Social capital,” “social capital.” All I hear is “social capital:” “Kentucky has so much untapped social capital;” “We need to develop our social capital…”
What Bourdieu said was precise, if bounded by his viewpoint– one that was far more extensive than resource inequality (habitus, anyone); Coleman at least had an interesting, “operationizable” theory that certain kinds of knowledge produced success; Putnam Putnam Putnam has reduced the idea to pure, pointless accumulation on the one hand, and a near-meaningless buzzword on the other.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:01 am
voting in high numbers and being engaged in civic life much more so than our parents.
Not if Hillary Clinton gets her way.
March 8th, 2008 at 4:51 am
What do the stats show?
March 8th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Frank,
In Texas, although Hill won the primary, Obama won the caucus, so at this point he is ahead in delegates.
Wyoming is next…with I believe, 12 available.
However, if neither gets enough delegates, then Florida and Michigan will become questionable because an agreement had been made to not campaign there. Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan.
So, Dean may have some very tough decisions coming up.
And then there are the super-delegates… a potential wild-card.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:37 am
It’s obvious. The Democrats need reruns in FL and MI, damn the expense - thereafter they can’t allow the superdelegates to take it away from the frontrunner. If they do otherwise, they cover themselves with political do-do and probably assure a McCain victory. Of course, all this means that the DNC may have to swallow hard and make itself look weak and confused - which in fact it will then have been and about which the Republicans will grin, and nonetheless the voting stiffs will be categorically indifferent.
March 10th, 2008 at 8:59 am
i’ll disagree with the “need” for reruns. They were punished for disobeying the party…their reward will be being the two states that end up controlling the nomination? Talk about rewarding the fools!
As for voting patterns since 2002, I don’t quite see where his excitement is coming from. To be fair, I haven’t looked very closely.
Ken–amen!
March 10th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Exactly, Rory!
Gee, let’s go back on our original agreement because now it behooves us… spend millions of dollars and endless time because we have ‘changed’ or minds…
What a mess already…with no satisfying solution possible.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Such reruns are not about principle, deservedness or other human virtues or vices - they would be about the pragmatism of maximizing the likelihood of the Democrats’ “winning” the election. The Democrats would be defecating on their own doorstep should they fail to conduct them - but of course they have similarly defecated before.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:17 am
How about this, Frank?
Let the fat-cats who are supposedly going to fund this fiasco, instead donate the $30 million (or so) to their favorite charity, and then divvy up the two states fifty-fifty.
And as far as the youth vote? I don’t get where Putnam’s reasoning comes from either. This particular election could have served to give his argument substance… But my fear is that, given recent circumstances, it might, instead, put the kibosh on that recent enthusiasm…especially if Clinton triumphs.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:24 am
I would be absolutely LIVID as a voter in a different state if Michigan and Florida ended up choosing the candidate, especially if they turned the election to the candidate who would otherwise be losing. That scenario would be tough for the candidate who won via Michigan and Florida to overcome.
How many voters would really begrudge the candidate for not getting a chance to vote in the primary? honest question.