Press "Enter" to skip to content

Romney Campaign Selectively Edits My Report On School Spending

Ulrich Boser 2

I never thought my work would be featured in presumptive 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s campaign literature. But the education policy white paper released by Romney earlier this week included a quote from a study of mine on educational productivity, saying that:

Even the liberal Center for American Progress acknowledged in a recent study that “the literature strongly calls into question the notion that simply investing more money in schools will result in better outcomes,” and reported from its own research that most states showed “no clear relationship between spending and achievement ” even after adjusting for other factors like the cost of living.

While the quotes are accurate, Romney’s paper misses the central point of my study and the overall role of funding in schools. It’s not that school funding does not matter. Rather, spending on education makes a difference only when it’s spent wisely.

In other words, if we want to reform our nation’s system of public education, we need to invest smartly in our schools and boost academic achievement. We should not be spending less; we can’t forget that many high-poverty schools don’t get their fair share of education dollars. As I wrote in the paper — right after the words quoted by the Romney campaign — “the literature also makes plain that school spending can make a difference in achievement; a large body of research shows that certain inputs such as teacher quality can significantly impact student outcomes.”

As Romney tours the nation talking about education reform this week, he is getting heckled, and it should come as no surprise. Observers understand that you can’t talk about education being a civil rights issue but also support the House Republican budget plan, which would cut federal education funding for disadvantaged students by as much as $2.7 billion dollars.

Boosting school productivity is not about slashing funds. Given the lackluster performance of many schools that would be a suicide pill for our nation’s future. We are already lagging behind in key indicators of academic success, and a federal report released earlier this month found that less than one-third of middle schoolers are performing at grade-level in science. Instead, we need real resources and real reform.

We need to transform our education system so that all schools produce students ready for college and the modern workplace. Or as Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said: “It’s time to stop treating the problem of educational productivity as a grinding, eat-your-broccoli exercise. It’s time to start treating it as an opportunity for innovation and accelerating progress.”

This post first appeared on ThinkProgress in May 2012.

The Sorry Legacy Of The Founding Fathers

Ulrich Boser 0

In 1784, five years before he became president of the United States, George Washington, 52, was nearly toothless. So he hired a dentist to transplant nine teeth into his jaw--having extracted them from the mouths of his slaves.

That's a far different image from the cherry-tree-chopping George most people remember from their history books. But recently, many historians have begun to focus on the role slavery played in the lives of the founding generation. They have been spurred in part by DNA evidence made available in 1998, which almost certainly proved Thomas Jefferson had fathered at least one child with his slave Sally Hemings. And only over the past 30 years have scholars examined history from the bottom up. Works by Gore Vidal, Henry Wiencek, and Garry Wills reveal the moral compromises made by the nation's early leaders and the fragile nature of the country's infancy. More significant, they argue that many of the Founding Fathers knew slavery was wrong--and yet most did little to fight it.

More than anything, the historians say, the founders were hampered by the culture of their time. While Washington and Jefferson privately expressed distaste for slavery (Jefferson once called it an "execrable commerce"), they also understood that it was part of the political and economic bedrock of the country they helped to create.

For one thing, the South could not afford to part with its slaves. Owning slaves was "like having a large bank account," says Wiencek, author of An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America. The southern states would not have signed the Constitution without protections for the "peculiar institution," including a clause that counted a slave as three fifths of a man for purposes of congressional representation.

And the statesmen's political lives depended on slavery. The three-fifths formula handed Jefferson his narrow victory in the presidential election of 1800 by inflating the votes of the southern states in the Electoral College. Once in office, Jefferson extended slavery with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803; the new land was carved into 13 states, including three slave states.

Still, Jefferson freed Hemings's children--though not Hemings herself or his approximately 150 other slaves. Washington, who had begun to believe that all men were created equal after observing the valor of black soldiers during the Revolutionary War, overcame the strong opposition of his relatives to grant his slaves their freedom in his will. Only a decade earlier, such an act would have required legislative approval in Virginia. He suspected the country would eventually come to its moral senses and find the notion of owning other human beings repugnant, says Joseph Ellis, author of the bestselling Founding Brothers. "He knew his legacy depended on it. He knew that we were watching."

Yet how should we view other framers of independence such as signer of the Declaration of Independence Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry, who traded and whipped their slaves? Or James Monroe, who, as governor of Virginia in 1800, after rushed trials, executed nearly 30 slaves after an attempted revolt? For some historians, such actions cloud their legacy. "The other founders resisted emancipation, not because it was a mad scheme but because they did not want to relinquish the wealth which slave sales poured into their coffers," says Wiencek.

Other scholars believe the Founding Fathers can best be seen squarely within their time. "To contextualize is not to excuse," says Rutgers University historian Jan Lewis. "It's to show the complexity." Understanding the early leaders' severe lapse in judgment over slavery, say Lewis and other historians, makes their ability to found a new and democratic nation all the more incredible.

This story first appeared in the January 12, 2004 edition of US News and World Report.

The Scottsboro Travesty Of 1931 Did Not End Scapegoating Of African-Americans

Ulrich Boser 0

"Didn't some white man in Boston shoot his pregnant wife and then shot hisself, crying, `Oh, niggers did it'?" goes a routine by veteran African-American comic Paul Mooney. "That's why I'm gonna start 900-Blame-a-Nigger. When white folks get in trouble, just call my agency: `I just pushed my mother down the stairs. Send a nigger over here.' "

Mooney's tart barb is based on an ugly truth. Since the days of slavery, white Americans have falsely accused black men of crimes, playing off the racist stereotype of the black male as a criminal and an insatiable sexual beast. Legal scholars call this kind of accusation a racial hoax, and the Boston case of Charles Stuart is one of too many. In 1989, Stuart killed his pregnant wife, shot himself to make it seem he was a victim, too, and blamed a black man. Police even apprehended a suspect. When they began to believe that Stuart was the killer, he committed suicide.

No excuse. Perhaps the most notorious racial hoax centered on the "Scottsboro boys." Two white women charged nine blacks with raping them on a freight train on March 25, 1931. The charges wrecked the young men's lives, though they escaped the vigilante's noose. In the heyday of racial hoaxes, unproven allegations strung up some 5,000 African-Americans, says historian Fitzhugh Brundage of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. "Whites didn't need an excuse to kill blacks."

Gangs of young blacks and whites were sneaking a ride that day, chasing jobs and looking for fun. A white boy's shoe trod on a black teen's hand, a fight broke out, and nine blacks were arrested, ages 13 to 20. Then a sheriff caught two more riders, Victoria Price and Ruby Bates. Fearful they'd be jailed for hoboing, the white women spun a rape story and fingered the black arrestees, says Dan Carter, author of Scottsboro: A Tragedy of the American South. "Making these accusations placed the girls on a pedestal," he notes. The Huntsville Times wrote: "Death Penalty Properly Demanded in Fiendish Crime of Nine Burly Negroes."

"Burly" was an overstatement. One of the nine was nearly blind, another walked with a cane. Doctors found no sign of rape, but the trial went on. The defendants' attorneys, a known drunk and a rusty 70-year-old, gave no closing argument. And the young men turned on each other. "They all raped her," testified Clarence Norris, claiming he was innocent. Roy Wright, 13, also accused the others. Jailhouse beatings prompted their accusations, they later said. After several days of testimony, the jury decided the "Scottsboro boys," named for the Alabama town where the trial was held, were guilty. All were sentenced to the electric chair, except young Wright.

After the first trial, Ruby Bates recanted, saying the sheriff pressured her. "If I didn't tell the story about these innocent Scottsboro boys," she declared in 1933, "I'd be lynched myself." But Price never wavered, and juries kept believing her, rejecting all appeals. The "boys" spent years in prison, often beaten by guards. A sheriff shot handcuffed Ozie Powell in the head after he had assaulted a guard.

Eventually, Price's hoax sputtered to an end. Alabamians grew weary of endless demonstrations for justice and began to doubt her word. By the mid-1940s, all the Scottsboro defendants were paroled, except Haywood Patterson, who escaped in 1948. He was caught in Michigan, but the governor refused to hand him over to Alabama.

Victoria Price "always believed she was raped," says Raymond Fraley, who handled her 1976 libel suit against NBC for depicting her as a whore in a docudrama. "But I think now [her testimony] was probably a falsehood." James Goodman, author of Stories of Scottsboro, goes a step further. "Their story was fabricated out of whole cloth," he says, stressing the lack of physical evidence.

But Price has plenty of disciples. Katheryn Russell, a criminal justice professor at the University of Maryland, collected over 40 reports of a white person falsely accusing an African-American from 1987 to 1996 alone. Today's deceptions tend to be short-lived, says Russell, mostly because of better law enforcement and a wary public.

Blacks have pointed to white fall guys as well, although much less frequently and far less successfully. In 1987, Tawana Brawley, 15, accused six white cops of rape. A grand jury later concluded that she lied to deflect her stepfather's wrath when she missed her curfew.

This story first appeared in the August 26, 2002 edition of US News and  World Report.

Shopping For Groceries, I Saw A Man’s Final Moments

Ulrich Boser 0

I saw him three times before he died. The first was when I was striding across the parking lot of Giant Food on Brentwood Road NE last Tuesday night. I heard him rapping quietly to a beat inside his head and turned around and saw him walking behind me. He was young, with dark skin, bright hazel eyes, and a plump face. He wore a puffy black parka and a dark stocking cap.

I saw him again in the bakery aisle when he grabbed a box of chocolate-covered Krispy Kreme doughnuts from the top shelf. I remember seeing his blue jeans then; they were loose and sagged low around his waist.

The third time I saw him, I was moving slowly through the express lane with my six-pack of Beck’s, 2 percent milk, and a box of Special K. Shouting erupted behind me, and I watched as security, including two thick-chested D.C. police officers, followed the man toward the exit. The man hurled curses and angry shouts as he stomped indignantly out of the store. The officers trailed a few feet behind him, with a “this shit again” look on their face.

Once they were outside, Ebony, the teenage checkout clerk, said, “That’s the third time.”

“Third time?”

Ebony explained how a few months earlier a guy was shot in the face as he walked out of the supermarket. She also claimed another man had recently died there, apparently of natural causes.

The two men behind me had their groceries lined up on the belt, separated from mine by a plastic divider. “Great, and we just moved into the neighborhood,” the younger of the two said.

Ebony and I looked at him and didn’t say anything.

“See,” the younger man said to his friend, “you shouldn’t mess with your neighbors in this area. They’ll mess you up.”

That’s when we heard the shots. A few quiet pops.

“They’re shooting out there! They’re shooting,” a person yelled.

The store became quiet, and then a few people rushed to the window.

“Call 911! Call 911!” someone else yelled.

Ebony went on with business, however. And so did I, even as I watched a stream of police cars, sirens blaring, pull into the parking lot. I punched in my Giant BonusCard number, slid my credit card through the machine, and then signed the receipt over the line “You’ve got a Giant on your side.”

I wondered what I would do next.

The manager came out of his glass-enclosed booth. “If you want to leave, leave now,” he said. “They gonna have this place on lockdown.”

I stepped outside with my plastic bags of groceries and saw the man for the fourth and last time. He was at the far end of the parking lot, sprawled next to a grassy curb. Two police officers stood next to him, waiting for the ambulance. The streetlights bathed the man’s body in a soft yellow glow, and I could see his black parka, his white shirt, and the round curve of his belly. He lay perfectly still.

The police quickly put up yellow crime-scene tape and corralled us. We began talking. According to Carolyn Ward, a middle-aged woman dressed in a parka, four cops had chased the man out of the store. “They told him to put the gun down,” she said. “Then they started firing.”

“Did they just kill him?” I asked.

“All I’m saying is that I didn’t see a person in the middle.”

Another woman, older with large bug-eye glasses, refused to give her name but said: “Just be glad you weren’t a witnesses,” she said. “’Cause you could have been a dead witness.”

But it was Robbie Lewis who knew the most—and a crowd of other witnesses soon surrounded him. “It was my daughter who was in there. She works there,” he said.

He explained that his daughter had dropped some cheese in the produce section when the man came up behind her and rubbed himself against her. She had called security. She had also called her father, who came running across the parking lot when he saw the killing.

“[The man] was brandishing the gun outside the store,” Lewis said. “He took the first hit, and then he fumbled. He didn’t put the gun down, though....The police, yup, they killed him.”

Over the next few days, I continued to follow the story in the Washington Post. The two articles the paper devoted to the incident were small—a few hundred words each. According to the first story, the man had fired a shot at the police with a sawed-off shotgun. The cops had fired back and killed him.

The first story didn’t identify the man. But I had spent the last few moments of his life with him, and I wanted to know who he was. Two days after the incident, on Page B10, the paper printed his name: Charles M. Gaines, 18, of the 1300 block of Bryant Street NE.CP

This article first appeared in the Washington City Paper on March 25, 2005.

Q and A with Randolph Roth about his new book American Homicide

Ulrich Boser 0

For an academic book, Randolph Roth's new book American Homicide has received a ton of press. Newsweek, The New Yorker, and the Washington Post have all written reviews. In many ways, it's not surprising. Roth's book--published by the Belknap Press of Harvard--is one of the most definitive comparative studies of homicide in the United States ever published, looking at murder from colonial times to the present. The book looks particularly at the why why the United States has become arguably the world’s most homicidal society.

Roth's book has received good reviews. "A vast investigation of murder, in the aggregate, and over time," wrote the New Yorker. I emailed a few questions to Roth before the holidays. His answers are below.

Why did you decide to write this book?

I initially set out to write a book on northern New England’s nonviolent culture, to understand why northern New Englanders were virtually non-homicidal. As I gathered data beyond the time period I first studied, however, I discovered that they were not: by the mid-nineteenth century they had become more homicidal than their counterparts in England, Canada, and other Western nations.

However, when I separated by type the homicides I had found in New Hampshire and Vermont, I discovered that there were distinct patterns of homicide that made sense in terms of New England’s history. Murders of children by adult relatives or caregivers followed a long, smooth curve that was the inverse of the birth-rate: high fertility meant a low child murder rate and low fertility meant a high murder rate. Marital homicides and romance homicides jumped suddenly in the 1830s and 1840s: decades in which jobs opened to women in education and industry and in which the ideal of companionate marriage took hold. Homicides among unrelated adults peaked during periods of political turmoil: the Revolution, the Embargo crisis, and the sectional crisis. It appeared (as I put it in a grant application in 1997) that “state breakdowns and political crises of legitimacy produce surges in nondomestic homicides and that the restoration of order and legitimacy produces declines in such homicides.” The same pattern was evident on the national level in the twentieth century. It appeared that the stronger sense of national unity during World War II and the Cold War may have reduced homicide rates through the 1950s, wheras the political crisis of the 1960s and 1970s may have contributed to soaring homicide rates.

Thanks to support from the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities, I was able to study other places in the United States to see if the patterns I found in northern New England were typical and if patterns elsewhere coincided with similar political events. They were, and they did. That is how a book on northern New England became a comparative, interregional history of homicide in the United States from colonial times to the present.

What was the biggest surprise?

I was surprised that people’s views about the legitimacy of government and about their fellow citizens correlate so strongly with how often they kill unrelated adults—much more strongly than other factors such as guns, poverty, drugs, race, or a permissive justice system. The predisposition to murder really does appear to be rooted in these feelings and beliefs. Although they seem impossibly remote from murder, they appear to hold the key to understanding why the United States is so homicidal today.
I was also surprised that the patterns of different kinds of homicide were so distinct: that marital homicides, romance homicides, and child homicides follow such different patterns from homicides among unrelated adults. Only homicides among unrelated persons correlate with feelings and beliefs about government and society.

Finally, I was surprised to learn how different murder rates in the past were from present-day murder rates. For example, in the early nineteenth century the North and the mountain South were among the least homicidal places in the Western world. Prior to the twentieth century blacks were less homicidal than whites. I had no idea, either, that marital homicides and romance homicides were so rare in the colonial and early national period. That’s the great thing about historical research: more often than not, it confounds our expectations and forces us to rethink our assumptions about the past and present.

What's it like studying murder? As I read the book, I found myself getting numb to homicide. Does that happen to you? How do you prevent it? 

I have a lot of friends and colleagues who deal with violence: homicide detectives, trauma surgeons, forensic pathologists, toxicologists, firearms experts, prosecuting attorneys, family advocates, and scholars. Homicides never really become routine. We each know thousands of cases by heart, and we run through them over and over, trying to figure out what could have been done to prevent them or to convict perpetrators who escaped justice. And there are cases that shock even the most experienced people. It is difficult to discuss the force it would take to snap the flexible backbone of a two-year old child, or how a suspect revealed he was a deer hunter by the way he cut up a young woman’s body. I try to remain mindful of what I am dealing with by remembering that almost every murder is the source of unimaginable pain to someone who cared about the victim or the perpetrator.

In the New Yorker's review of your book, they write: "The implications of Roth’s argument are, as he realizes, distressing. Democracy requires dissent. If a high American murder rate is a function of not placing our trust in government, are we doomed to endure a high murder rate?" How would you answer that question? Does the answer really go all the way to the White House?

Dissent and debate can be compatible with low homicide rates. America was probably the least homicidal society in the Western world in the 1830s and early 1840s, despite the fact that Jacksonian politics were extremely combative. The reviewer for the New Yorker missed that point.

But when a dedicated minority challenges the legitimacy of government and of fundamental social institutions, as happened during the Revolution, the struggle against slavery in the mid-nineteenth century, and the civil rights struggle of the twentieth century, the homicide rate among unrelated adults will increase, at least in the short run. Political struggles that destabilize government, polarize political debate, delegitimize institutions, and turn citizens against each other can have devastating effects, as the Revolution, the Civil War, and Reconstruction, and the upheavals of the 1960s attest. In the long run, however, such political struggles can lead to lower homicide rates, as the Revolution did in the North and the mountain South, by creating a more cohesive, legitimate, democratic, inclusive, and stable society.
Democracy requires dissent, but it also requires a commitment to democratic ideals. Introducing those ideals into societies bound by caste and class is profoundly disruptive. But in the long run, overcoming caste and class distinctions can make societies more democratic, stable, and non-violent.

The subhead to the final chapter is: "Can America's murder problem be solved?" And while the book is some 475 pages long, you only devote a dozen or so pages to a potential solution. Why? And do you really think America's murder problem can be solved?

I’m a social science historian, and my primary goal was to identify and understand patterns of human behavior in the past. In talking about a potential solution I only wanted to point out that if the past is any indication, homicide rates will fall when we have what Richard Hofstadter referred to as comity—a moral and social cohesiveness that transcends differences over politics, religion, gender, class, race, ethnicity, etc. I do think politicians can play a role in promoting comity. Obviously, centrists who eschew polarization are more likely to be able to do that than those who demonize their opponents. But when political divisions run deep, even great leaders like Abraham Lincoln may be unable to change the feelings and beliefs that cause violence.