This summer, the New York state legislature passed a peculiarly rationalized plan to increase the attention to African-American studies in the US history curriculum. Without citing any evidence for his claim, the bill's sponsor, Brooklyn Democratic Assemblyman Clarence Norman, contended,"We feel there is, indeed, a void in our education curriculum in New York state when it comes to the issue of slavery and the de-humanization of Africans at that time" and of subsequent racism that African-Americans have experienced. Norman added that this could be the first of many such laws to demand increased attention in US history courses to oppressed racial and ethnic groups."Commonalities of struggle," he said," create a common bond."

This afternoon, a Brooklyn jury convicted Norman on three felony counts and one misdemeanor count regarding the solicitation of illegal campaign contributions. He had to immediately resign his Assembly seat. The cause of insufficient attention to the oppressed in the contemporary curriculum will apparently need a new champion.

Louis N Proyect - 9/28/2005

Maybe Tom DeLay can take over for Clarence Norman.

Jim Williams - 9/28/2005

Chris:
I agree with your criticism of the post but not with your ad hominem comments bashing KC. The left wing at Brooklyn College "mugged" KC because of his intellectual integrity. KC had the temerity to fight back and win, always using responsible tactics (unlike his opponents). This experience, understandably, sensitized a political liberal to the excesses committed by the far left.
KC has the integrity to go to bat for freedom of speech when it is challenged, even when situations have little or no relevance to him personally. Have you "put your neck under the guillotine" and faced similar situations? If not, then criticize him when he goes too far but don't take cheap shots!

chris l pettit - 9/28/2005

really KC, you are like a 4 year old sometimes...

I know you take pleasure in somehow connecting the ideological errors made by certain politicians to the causes which they support that you have no way of possibly making a coherent argument against, but even you can see that one has nothing to do with another in this case, and that you are being your usual credibility barren self. This politician is another ideological wacko, that much we agree on, but you commenting on his ideology and mistakes is the utmost of hypocrisy given your own lack of any scholarly integrity.

I'm embarrassed for you...

CP