Radley Balko makes a good point...

One of the things I appreciate most about Radley Balko's writing is his libertarian consistency. Principles rather than political positioning guide his analysis. In a recent post Balko asks what conduct is Senator Craig actually guilty of committing? This is a great question.

For those not following the news, Senator Craig was arrested in a mens room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport back in June of this year. He was charged with (and plead guilty to) disorderly conduct. But he was arrested for lewd conduct (specifically, trying to pick-up an undercover deputy). The arresting officer wrote wrote in his report that Craig peered into his stall, then occupied the next stall and...

Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct.... I saw Craig swipe his hand under the stall divider for a few seconds....Craig swiped his hand again for a few seconds in the same motion...

. The report goes on to document that Craig did this for a while, leading the officer to believe that he was trying to solicit a sexual encounter. He arrested the man, only later to learn that Craig is a United States senator. Later in the report, the officer indicates what Craig said in a post Miranda interview (meaning, after the Senator had been reminded of his 5th and 6th amendment rights.

Craig stated the following

• He is a commuter
• He went into the bathroom
• He was standing outside of the stalls for 1-2 minutes waiting for the stall
• He has a wide stance when going to the bathroom and that his foot may have touched mine
• He reached down with his right hand to pick up a piece of paper that was on the floor

.
These are all plausible (if creepy) bathroom behaviors. However, that's not Balko's point. While not condoning the actual engagement of sexual activity in a public bathroom, he asks:

Is it really illegal to try to find a sexual partner in a public bathroom using code? How would that be any different than looking for a sexual partner at a dance club, be it using code, pick-up lines, or any thing else in your singles arsenal?

.
I'm inclined to agree. While I agree with public decency laws prohibiting of sexual behavior in public places, Craig wasn't arrested for that. He was arrested for trying to pick someone up. And, he didn't try to pick someone up in an overt, offensive way. Had he walked up to someone with a wink and a nod and explicitly said... "hey, how about it?" I would support a charge of Harassment. But he was using an obscure code that effectively keeps those of us who are blissfully ignorant in that state.

Yeah, it's creepy. (Of course, I find many of the heterosexual mating rituals in the bar scene to be equally creepy). And, there's a perverse pleasure in seeing a hypocrite called to task. But at the end of the day, one has to wonder if we should be allowing the state to criminalize mate selection.

Like OMG? Overheard at the coffee shop

Young lady standing in line behind me yapping conversing on her cell phone:

Like... it was ridiculous. I mean, like, I couldn't even take notes, y'know. My teacher said um, like 364 times during her lecture. No... like, I counted them because she's like soooo obnoxious. I mean, like oh my gawd, how are you even a teacher? Sheesh, you should, like, think about what you're going to say and then say it.

My thought: Like, I wish I could get some of my students to pay such close attention to what I say in class. I'm going to try saying um more often.

Well at least we're #1.

Dead Sociologist Quote for August 27, 2007

A commitment made on the basis of an unexamined ideology may allow us to feel a manly righteousness, but it leaves us blind.
- Alvin W. Gouldner (1968) "The Sociologist as Partisan: Sociology and the Welfare State." The American Sociologist. 3:103-116. Pg 105.

This essay also has one of the strongest lead-in sentences that I've encountered in a sociologist's writing:

Sociology begins by disenchanting the world and it proceeds by disenchanting itself (pg 103).

.

Alvin Gouldner (1920 - 1980)was one of Sociology's brightest lights. A clear writer with acerbic wit, Gouldner challenged the orthodoxy of grand theory building sociology in the 1950s and 60s. But, while he critiqued the mainstream fairytale of scientistic sociology, Gouldner also recoiled against the self-congratulatory liberal activism which claimed the title of scholarship in the 60s. As he wrote in the quote above, we may vociferously proclaim our convictions, but that doesn't automatically make them thoughtful. In "Sociologist as Partisan" Gouldner put Howard S. Becker firmly in his sights.¹.

Becker was the president of the Society for the Study of Social Problems and delivered a presidential address asking, "Whose Side Are we On?" Becker goes on to develop what Gouldner calls, the metaphysics of the underdog and the underworld. While this seems reasonable, even admirable, on its surface. Gouldner (who shares the sympathy) begins to pick apart the logical conundrums of such a metaphysics. I won't go into this in any detail here (though I am working on my own essay applying Gouldner's criticism of Becker to the principles of public sociology as outlined by Michael Burawoy in his 2004 Presidential address to the American Sociological Association.

I don't quite know where I'm going with this yet; my friends in sociology know that I harbor deep reservations about the public sociology project. Part of me worries that public sociology is nothing more than a new lingo thrown over the partisan sociologies of old. But there seems to be something worth considering in Burawoy's project. So, I slog along on an essay that will be difficult to publish and probably won't be read if it finds its way into print. Yet, it's been fun to re-read this essay that I first encountered in Gerry Markle's Advanced General Sociology seminar a decade ago.


=====
1. As any of my graduate students will attest, I am a Howard Becker fan boy. That is a testament to the power of Gouldner's position. I didn't want to like Gouldner's essay, but was persuaded by the power of the writing.

why I still dislike elementary school

I spent the better part of this evening filling out forms for my daughter as she begins a new school year in a new State. Having been an absentee father for the past two years, I missed out on the administrative joys of getting a child off to school in our modern world. There are the multiple forms requiring duplicate entry of information; sternly worded dress code notices; explanations on the importance of homework; release forms and permission slips (no, we will not let the school give my daughter fluoride treatments), and a byzantine bus schedule that took me the better part of the evening to decipher. [I'm pretty sure we've got her on the right buses, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if I get a call tomorrow from Cheat Lake or Scott's Run, telling me that I misunderstood the schedule and I need to drive out 40 miles to get her].

I never liked elementary school. I wasn't good at the cutting, pasting, coloring, or following directions. I was a lousy reader (particularly given the boring drek that they put into the phonics readers) and was worse at math flashcards. I spent the better part of 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade in the hall (where the bad kids go). I started making smart-ass comments in the second grade to make other kids laugh. But this also gave me some sense of power or control in that situation. Of course, that didn't fly with Mrs. Berry. She warned the other teachers about me... and they remembered. I didn't know it at the time, but I was a poster child for labeling theory. In second grade, my teacher dumped my desk all over the floor and told the girl sitting next to me to organize my stuff at a big table at the side of the room. I actually kind of liked that arrangement and proudly told the Principal about my cool big desk. He came to visit that afternoon and on the next day they moved me back to a regular desk. Then there was the hubaloo that I caused by coloring in more than one bubble on the Stanford Achievement Test. I thought our teacher said that we should color in more than one right answer. Apparently, the canned instructions that she read out loud were, "there is only one right answer." When the test scores came back, the teacher announced to the class (with a measurable tone of disgust) "since Corey didn't follow directions, our class will retake the test." Yeah, I got sucker punched in the gut over that one. I was eight freaking years old; couldn't they cut me some slack? In a word, no. That screw-up was enough to get me labeled as "slow" Severn Elementary School. I suppose my current position in life is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this test's predictive validity for measuring achievement is about as useful as the pieces of corn in a pile of decomposing poo. To this day, I'd still like to take my 2nd grade teacher (who I believe died several years ago) and kick her in the ass.

Anyway, filling out these forms dredged out the memories. My daughter (who generally adjusts better than I do) appears to not have inherited my dread for elementary school; I hope that this can be sustained. Perhaps educators have learned a thing or two since 1980.