The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: columbia university
Clinton Calls For End To ‘Mass Incarceration’ As Riots Become Campaign Issue

Clinton Calls For End To ‘Mass Incarceration’ As Riots Become Campaign Issue

By Evan Halper, Tribune Washington Bureau (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton focused her presidential campaign Wednesday on the unrest in Baltimore, vowing to work to upend the criminal justice system by ending the “era of mass incarceration” and equipping every police officer on the street with a body camera.

Her speech at Columbia University in New York City marked the unveiling of Clinton’s first major policy proposal as a presidential hopeful, coming as candidates are under pressure to confront racial disparities in the criminal justice system highlighted by the violence in Baltimore.

“What we have seen in Baltimore should, and I think does, tear at our soul,” Clinton said. “The patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable….We have to come to terms with some hard truths about race and justice in America.”

Baltimore erupted in rioting Monday night, following the funeral of Freddie Gray, an African American man who was mortally injured while in police custody.

Clinton’s plan also stems from the “listening tour” she has been on since launching her campaign this month. In round-table meetings with residents in the early ­voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, the issue of drug abusers whose troubles were compounded by mental health problems played prominently.

“Our prisons and our jails are now our mental health institutions,” Clinton said. “I was somewhat surprised in both Iowa and New Hampshire to be asked so many questions about mental health.”

Clinton is joining a chorus of politicians demanding that police officers everywhere be equipped with body cameras.

“For every tragedy caught on tape, there surely have been many more that remained invisible,” she said. “This is a common-sense step.”

The sentencing reforms Clinton will champion focus on nonviolent offenders. She said they will include shifting people found guilty of such drug crimes from lockups to treatment and rehabilitation programs. Other alternative punishments would also be explored for low-level offenders, particularly minors, a Clinton campaign aide said.

Sentencing reform has broader political appeal than it once did. Tea party Republicans concerned about government overreach have joined Democrats in raising concern about inequities in the criminal justice system. Sen. Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican running for president, is among those pushing for sentencing reform. Paul, whose ideology leans libertarian, argues the United States locks up too many people for minor offenses for too long a time.

Clinton alluded to the idea’s inter-party appeal in her speech Wednesday.

“There seems to be a growing bipartisan movement for common-sense reform,” she said. “Without the mass incarceration that we currently practice, millions of fewer people would be living in poverty.”

Clinton repeatedly returned to what she says is racial injustice at the core of the existing policies, citing statistics that highlight how much harder the criminal justice system is on blacks than whites.

“We have allowed our criminal justice system to get out of balance,” she said. “These recent tragedies should galvanize us to come together as a nation to find our balance again.”

Photo: Utility, Inc. via Flickr

Fundraising Ability Key To Winning Obama Library

Fundraising Ability Key To Winning Obama Library

By Dahleen Glanton, Chicago Tribune (TNS)

CHICAGO — While Chicago has been engaged in a heated debate over the use of public parks for President Barack Obama’s library, his selection of a host university may have more to do with which institution can offer the most financial support than which offers the best piece of land.

Obama’s library and museum will be a monument to his eight years in office and the base from which he will launch future initiatives. The university that he partners with must have a solid track record of fundraising and be committed to working with his foundation to raise millions of dollars — not just to build the library but to help fund its long-term programs.

With past presidential libraries, it has been a high-stakes game. Take, for example, the George W. Bush library.

When Bush began the push to build his library in 2004, Texas competitors faced off in a fierce bidding war. The city of Irving, a suburb of Dallas, pledged $50 million if he chose the University of Dallas. Baylor University in Waco offered more than $100 million. And a West Texas coalition of local officials and other supporters topped that with a $500 million pledge if he built it at Texas Tech University in Lubbock.

And those were the losers. The library went to Southern Methodist University in Dallas, a private institution with a $1 billion endowment and where first lady Laura Bush earned her bachelor’s degree. SMU officials have never disclosed the details of their bid, but officials acknowledge that the university’s capacity for fundraising was a strong asset.

“Whenever any entity proposes to be the site for a presidential library, they have to demonstrate that they can raise sufficient funds to build it,” said David Jones, a Houston-based presidential library consultant. “Private universities typically have more history and success in fundraising than do public universities. If the University of Chicago has more than 100 years of fundraising history, it’s not a big stretch for them to say, ‘We can raise this money.'”

This could place the public University of Illinois at Chicago at a disadvantage compared with private institutions such as the University of Chicago and Columbia University in New York, whose billion-dollar endowments are proof of their fundraising prowess.

The University of Hawaii is also a public school, but its bid was set up in a way that relieves the university’s financial pressure. Though the university is leading the bid, it is a joint partnership among the city of Honolulu, the state of Hawaii and local business and civic leaders combined under a nonprofit called Hawaii Presidential Center.

For months, the four universities have been engaged in behind-the-scenes discussions with the Barack Obama Foundation, which is led by Obama’s close friend Martin Nesbitt. He has been charged with overseeing the site selection process and raising money to build the facility. By the time the foundation announces a winner next month, officials likely will know exactly how much fundraising assistance they can expect from the winning university.

Except for UIC’s, the bids have been kept secret, in part because of the competitive nature of the offerings but also because the institutions were required to provide delicate financial information. The foundation required them to include details of the capital commitments they would make to the development and construction of the library, as well as funds available to support its annual operations.

“What the foundation looks for is not just ‘will you give us a good site’, but ‘what kind of support will you give us ongoing?’ That means program support and financial support,” said Anthony Clark, author of The Last Campaign: How Presidents Rewrite History, Run for Posterity & Enshrine Their Legacies. “What kind of symposia will you offer? What kind of financial support will you provide for exhibits?”

While the U. of C. says it has not offered a cash donation, it is unclear whether it or Columbia has committed to raising a specific dollar amount.

That kind of commitment is impossible at UIC, whose $265 million endowment pales in comparison to the U. of C.’s $7.5 billion endowment. In addition, Gov. Bruce Rauner has called for a 31.5 percent budget cut across the University of Illinois system in 2016, amounting to about a $60 million loss to UIC.

UIC librarian Mary Case, who heads the university’s bid, acknowledged that there are limitations. The university would be willing to establish a tax-exempt group that would raise funds to support the institute and academic programs, she said, but no public funds could be spent on the project.

“It will depend on what the president and first lady are trying to achieve and what kind of statement they want to make,” Case said. “We feel like we offer them a very different choice in terms of institution and community that tries to live out the mission and values of what we feel are his goals and policies.

“Will it come down to money or values? We don’t know. It’s something we have to contend with,” she said.

With Honolulu’s distance from the mainland being a serious drawback for landing the library and museum, the university there has made it clear it would accept a consolation prize, such as a presidential center that would complement a library and museum built elsewhere.

After the site selection, the main job of the Obama foundation will be fundraising and developing programming. The foundation already has established a fundraising arm, collecting between $2.9 million and $6.2 million in its first year. Still, the university that is selected as the host is also expected to lend support, from academic expertise to fundraising to sharing its donor list.

With a price tag estimated at up to $500 million, library experts said, Obama’s library is on track to become the costliest so far.

That, in part, is because a new law signed by Bush requires libraries built after his to include an endowment equal to 60 percent of the construction cost — 20 percent more than he and President Bill Clinton were required to provide. The money is used by the National Archives and Records Administration, the federal agency that oversees presidential libraries, to offset the costs of maintaining them.

Obama set fundraising records in his two campaigns for the White House, garnering nearly $750 million in 2008 and $722 million in 2012. According to experts, his ability to raise that kind of money for his library will depend on how willing he is to get out there and ask for it.

Unlike previous presidents, Obama has said he and the first lady will not personally raise funds for his library until he leaves office in early 2017, a decision that library experts said places additional pressure on the foundation — and the host institution — to raise money.

“For a lot of (the presidents), it’s a necessity. At this point, they can’t expect someone to raise it for them,” said presidential library historian Benjamin Hufbauer, author of Presidential Temples: How Memorials and Libraries Shape Public Memory. “They might not like it, but they grit their teeth and do it.”

SMU officials said they never promised a specific dollar amount, but after they were awarded the site, SMU President Gerald Turner joined the foundation’s fundraising coordinating committee, and the university and the foundation collaborated on reaching out to donors.

As a result, Bush raised an unprecedented $500 million before his library opened in 2013, double the $250 million it cost to build it. Clinton had raised only a portion of the cost of his $165 million library by the time it opened in 2004 in Little Rock, Ark.

“We knew that SMU has a strong tradition of support from our constituents and a strong record of fundraising campaigns, and we clearly felt that was an asset,” said Brad Cheves, who coordinated SMU’s bid. “We were already in a billion-dollar campaign separate from the Bush center. We said we felt like this would create energy around our supporters who would want to participate in the library effort.”

Meanwhile, Baylor conducted an unrelenting six-year campaign for the Bush library. In addition to the $114 million fundraising pledge, the Waco university, 20 miles from the Bush family ranch in Crawford, purchased a 150-acre site along the Brazos River to offer for the library. Baylor envisioned a complex that would have included a little league stadium designed for a president who loves baseball, plus a marina, an amphitheater and a lagoon for fishing.

Baylor also hired a fundraising consultant who encouraged the university to reach out to alumni before the finalists were named. It even landed commitments from George and Laura Bush’s friends in the Waco area.

“We left no stone unturned,” said Tommye Lou Davis, the administrator who headed Baylor’s library bid. “Our consultants felt like — and rightfully so — that we needed to prove we had lots of support, not just for building but for maintaining the continuous operation of the library. The fundraising component would never really go away, and we felt strongly that we needed to show we could do it.”

In the end, it came down to Baylor and SMU. That expensive chunk of land on the Brazos River? It’s now the home of Baylor’s new football stadium.

(c)2015 Chicago Tribune, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC

Land to the north of the South Shore Cultural Center, a landmarked building at 70th Street at the lakefront, is one of the University of Chicago’s three proposed locations for the Obama presidential library. (Michael Tercha/Chicago Tribune/TNS)

Weekend Reader: ‘Unreasonable Men: Theodore Roosevelt and the Republican Rebels Who Created Progressive Politics’

Weekend Reader: ‘Unreasonable Men: Theodore Roosevelt and the Republican Rebels Who Created Progressive Politics’

In his engaging new book, Unreasonable Men: Theodore Roosevelt and the Republican Rebels Who Created Progressive Politics, Michael Wolraich provides a meticulously researched look into the power struggle that created the progressive movement and changed the history of America. At the turn of the century, Republican rebels such as Governor Robert La Follette of Wisconsin confronted President Roosevelt and railed against the corruption of the federal government. Initially, Roosevelt saw leaders like La Follette as a nuisance. But he would soon embrace La Follette’s tactics, and use them to wage war against the conservatives who controlled Congress.

What follows is an excerpt of Unreasonable Men. You can purchase the full book here. 

WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 30, 1904

From Theodore Roosevelt’s point of view, Governor La Follette was a nuisance. Roosevelt’s eyes were fixed on the next election, six months away. Winning was not just a political goal; it was a point of honor. His accession to the White House had been a fluke, an accidental consequence of President McKinley’s assassination. He wanted to prove that he could win the presidency in his own right.

The schism in Madison threatened this prize. His friend Nicholas Murray Butler, president of Columbia University, advised him that the Wisconsin situation was dangerous. If one of the factions bolted the national Republican ticket, he might lose the state’s 13 electoral votes. Butler blamed La Follette for the turmoil, adding, “He is more or less of a fanatic and cannot be conciliated by any ordinary methods.”

Roosevelt concurred. “I absolutely agree with you that the Wisconsin situation is very, very ugly,” he replied. “I am at my wits’ end how to keep out of it. In my judgment you read La Follette exactly right . . .” He did not oppose Wisconsin’s political reforms. To the contrary, he had established a reputation for taking on corrupt political bosses and powerful corporations. But he neither liked nor trusted Governor La Follette, whom he regarded as unbalanced and dangerous to the Republican Party.

For Roosevelt, balance was paramount. In any controversy, he invariably positioned himself between the poles. If he gave a speech criticizing rich “plutocrats,” he qualified it by censuring the “mob” as well. When he attacked “bosses” and “political machines,” he made sure to denounce “demagogues” and “fanatics” in the next sentence. Born into old New York money, he disdained the populist agitation that was sweeping the West. “I have a horror of hysterics or sentimentality,” he explained. “All I want to do is cautiously to feel my way to see if we cannot make the general conditions of life a little easier, a little better.”

In addition to his temperamental aversion to populism, Roosevelt also had a practical reason to be cautious. He knew the Republican-controlled Congress would never agree to radical changes. To pass legislation, he had to compromise with congressional leaders. “The reformers complain because I will not go to the absurdity of refusing to deal with machine Senators,” he protested to journalist Ray Stannard Baker, “but I must work with the material that the states send me.”

Even Roosevelt’s celebrated trust-busting exemplified his pragmatism. In the late 1800s, a rash of corporate mergers had concentrated the nation’s thriving industries into giant holding companies known as trusts. Like many Americans, Roosevelt worried about the trusts’ political influence and anticompetitive practices. Taking advantage of an antitrust law from 1890, he shocked the business community by suing the Northern Securities Company, the largest railroad corporation in the world. The pioneering lawsuit established his reputation as a legendary trust-buster, but after breaking up Northern Securities, he eased off his assault. Employing the threat of litigation as a “big stick,” he worked quietly with corporate executives to reform rather than to dissolve other large conglomerates.

Buy From Amazon.com

His interactions with congressional leaders were similarly accommodating. In return for a free hand to conduct foreign diplomacy, he refrained from challenging Congress’s purview over domestic legislation. His first term was not without legislative accomplishments, including the establishment of the Department of Commerce and Labor, but he achieved them by cooperating with recalcitrant Republican leaders, and the legislation’s impact was modest. For the most part, he left Congress to plod along as it had for years, complacently passing small-bore appropriations and other minor legislation while substantive reform bills strangled silently in committee.

Among the Republican legislators, Roosevelt held a particularly high regard for John Coit Spooner, the Wisconsin senator who led the Stalwart faction. Spooner’s wire-rim pince-nez and thick mat of hair gave him the appearance of an absented-minded professor, but Roosevelt knew him to be one of the sharpest minds and most powerful politicians in Washington. He was indebted to him for helping to pass the Panama Canal treaty and other diplomatic initiatives. “What a trump Spooner is,” he wrote. “He has done so much for me.”

One week after Wisconsin’s Republican convention, Spooner visited the White House to ask a favor of his own. The Stalwarts had elected him to represent them at the Republican National Convention in Chicago. La Follette’s Half-Breeds had selected their own representatives. There could only be one Wisconsin delegation, so the Republican National Committee would have to choose between the two factions. Spooner urged Roosevelt to stay out of the contest, arguing that presidential dignity required him to remain above the fray. Roosevelt, who was anxious to avoid entanglement in the affair, agreed.

A few days later, a Half-Breed delegation arrived in Washington, begging for his assistance. They pointed out that the Republican National Committee was biased against them. The committee chairman, Postmaster General Henry C. Payne, was a Wisconsin Stalwart, and the other members were on his side. Without presidential intervention, the committee would certainly authenticate the Stalwart delegation. But Roosevelt declined to interfere. Echoing Spooner’s argument, he insisted that the President should not involve himself in state politics.

His hands clean, he hoped that the matter would soon be put to rest. Years later, he would come to see the conflict in another light. By then, he would be a different man. And America would be a different country.

If you enjoyed this excerpt, purchase the full book here.

From Unreasonable Men: Theodore Roosevelt and the Republican Rebels Who Created Progressive Politics by Michael Wolraich. Copyright © 2014 by the author and reprinted by permission of Palgrave Macmillan, a division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC.

Want more updates on great books? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!