Off The Air

Joe Biden's daughter DAREs to be different

This summer, I wrote an article with my boss Ken Silverstein about then-Senator, now-VP Joe Biden's cheerleading for the war on drugs, with a particular focus on this weird little earmark Biden, Chuck Grassley and Ted Stevens tried to gin up for DARE, the anti-drug program that has won accolades from the surgeon general ("does not work") and Perspectives on Psychological Science, the journal of the Association for Psychological Science (which in a 2007 article listed DARE as among "potentially harmful therapies").

Now it turns out that Biden's daughter, Ashley Biden, is in a bit of hot water for past instances of drug use (some proven, some alleged). The problem here is not the fact that Ashley Biden took drugs, or got arrested for possessing them, but rather that her father has been a major advocate for the kind of legislation that has thrown large numbers of low income and minority Americans in prison for many years over a few grams.  That his daughter managed to avoid any serious repercussions from her marijuana arrest is good for her, but also evident of an extreme double-standard that exists in the United States when it comes to the prosecution of drug law violations.

Vanity Fair has a nice post up that says just about as much and then some. The roots of the war on drugs run beneath the surface of the current Mexican instability and America's huge prison problem-- that we have more incarcerated citizens here than in any other country on earth, more than China, more than Russia, more than all the countries of the Axis of Evil put together, not per capita, but total, says something.  That President Obama and Robert Gibbs have to stifle their laughs when talking about drug legalization says something too.  Perhaps it is a sign of the times that we have our first president who freely admits to having used drugs in the past (as opposed to the predecessor who denied his cocaine use and another who didn't inhale), but it looks like when it comes to one of America's most shameful and costly problems, "change" isn't worth a dime.

Keepin' it classy

From The Daily Princetonian:

The University will continue its merchandising relationship with Russell Athletic despite allegations that the apparel giant took anti-union actions, Vice President and Secretary Bob Durkee ’69 said in an interview Wednesday.

Russell Athletic, one of a number of firms which the University has contracted to produce Princeton-branded merchandise, is facing criticism from workers’ rights organizations for its decision to close one of its factories in Honduras. More than 10 universities — including Harvard and Cornell — have ended their relationships with the company in response to the decision.

Also worth noting is a recent Princetonian editorial on the issue of Princeton's investment ethics (or lackthereof).  For what it is worth, you've yet to hear the last on that issue.

Bailouts and Endowments: Miracle Edition

In late January, I half-jokingly asked when Princeton and other universities would line up to start requesting bailouts.  What a difference a month makes. From The Daily Princetonian:

The $787 billion stimulus measure that President Obama signed into law on Feb. 17 may pour a significant amount of money into science research at the University, even as administrators impose budget cuts across all departments, Dean for Research A.J. Stewart Smith GS ’66 said.

In an earlier New York Times article, Dean Smith calls the money "a miracle."  Considering how much of the endowment billions are tied up in things like real estate, it probably is.

Meanwhile, Business Week suggests abolishing university endowments based on an interestingly corporatist set of rationales.  While it is hard to buy parts of BW's argument, they do dig up a rather interesting article from 1990 written by Yale Law Professor Henry Hansmann called "Why Do Universities Have Endowments?". From BW:

The article runs through 14 justifications for endowments and raises questions about all of them. For example, it's often said that endowments help future generations of students, and that's true. But Hansmann points out that by saving donations rather than spending them now, universities are giving advantages to future students at the expense of current ones.

For those interested, the full Hansmann article is available here.