f there is one thing Barack Obama got absolutely right, it is that race is an extremely complicated issue in the United States; and it is complicated for a multitude of reasons.  One of these reasons is what I call racial profiteering.  We have racial profiteering when a minority either (a) makes race an issue when it is not or (b) a minority assumes that she or has a measure of immunity given her or his race.  I engage in racial profiteering, for instance, if because I am black I fail to perform my professional responsibilities knowing full well that out of fear of being called racist my administration or colleagues will not criticize me for my irresponsibility.  If I am right, then, the problem is not just that racism still exist, but racial profiteering has become ever so fashionable.  Obama saw the former, but not the latter. 

It is sometimes said that blacks cannot be racist, which is an absurd view if racism is understand as having a distorted and woefully unwarranted view of another ethnic group.  Being black does not give one immunity in this regard.  Moreover, being black hardly gives one deep, deep insight into all other minorities.

Human beings make lots of mistakes; and a mistake need not flow from racism at all, even if the object of that mistake is a minority.  Sometimes we make a mistake because we are transiting from one context to another, and we unwittingly bring a little of the previous context to the new context.  Supposing I am talking with one friend about kissing a French male friend of mine on each cheek and I turn to talk to an American female friend of mine about people kissing in public: I might unthinkingly use the example of me kissing her in public and this causes her to think that I am in some way inappropriately flirting with her or trying to come-on to her.  

Am I sexist?  Absolutely not.  And I would hope that if I explained what was going on to my female friend, she would understand how I ended up making that faux pas.  There is all the difference in the world between a faux pas and either racism or sexism.  The difference is incredibly real even if it takes great skill and insight in order to determine whether we have one or the other.

Racial profiteering, then, can be defined as insisting what one has every reason to believe is a faux pas into a charge of vicious racism.  Here is a nice example.  There is the word “schmuck”, which is Yiddish for the word “dick”.   

Now, people use the word schmuck all the time.  Just so, a non-Jew calling a Jew a schmuck can be a little awkward.  Not quite on a par with a white calling a black a “nigger,” but sufficiently close.  So suppose that a black guy says to his Jewish acquaintance, Schlomo, “Those three Jews were really schmucks”.  This could make Scholomo feel uneasy.  Yet, it would be important for Schlomo to understand that his black acquaintance was using the term in the usual way that people often do when expressing anger about someone.  Would Schlomo understand this?

This question holds even more so when it comes to the issue of racism and blacks.  What can a white person say?  Way too often, a white person finds himself between a rock and a hard place.  The white is either being stereotypical or failing to appreciate black culture.  For instance, try being white and saying that “Blacks dance particularly well’ or that “There is too much violence in the black community”.  One is very likely to be attacked as a deep, deep, deep racist, no matter what one has done on behalf of blacks.  That is racial profiteering. 

One consequence of racial profiteering is that the charge of racism has become rather empty of its moral significance.  Instead, it has become none other than a weapon of convenience.  And for this, everyone pays a heavy price.

Social interaction at its best is all about individuals displaying enormous sensitivity to the nuances of their social interaction.  Thus, when a male student says to me, as has happened, “I love you,” I should be sensitive to the nuances of the moment.  The male student is not “coming on” to me.  Rather, he is merely expressing a measure of fondness for the kind of person that I am.  No more, but certainly no less. 

How do I know that?  Well, the location of the utterance “I love you” tends to be a dead give way.  Recently, this has been said at the Campus Copy Center at Marshall Square Mall and at the end of a lecture when conversing with a number of students.  So what we do not have, at all, is an intense eyeball-to-eyeball moment where we both are alone together.  And that is hardly a trivial factor.

Universities, I believe, have contributed to racial profiteering in that more often than not minority students are painfully aware of their power vis à vis white professors.  It takes nothing to accuse a white professor of racism and an awful lot for the professor to clear her or his good name of that charge.  And universities have created that reality.

Alas, that reality is not good for universities and it is not good for minorities.  Commonsense makes this much clear.  But, alas, it would seem that there is more to Lord Acton’s saying than I would like to admit: “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”.  We can be so besotted with our own power that we in fact undermine ourselves.  This was true of Hitler and this can be true of minorities. 

Hitler refused to listen to his advisors about the kind difficulties that his soldiers faced in this or that battle.  This is why he lost some major battles.  Minorities can be an impediment to their own learning precisely because racial profiteering permits than to wallow in mediocrity, since they can always accuse the professor of racism should the professor dare to call them to excellence.

Few of us will be excellent without the exhortations of others.  And to this truth, minorities will not be the exception.  The problem, alas, is that they are often too besotted with the power that racial profiteering accords them to grasp and be animated by this reality.

We cannot be the society that we ought to be if we ignore the difference between a faux pas and an act of racism.  If this is right, then universities need to take a more subtle approach in their just fight against racism in distinguishing the faux pas from racism.  That is the morally responsible thing to do.  And that truth used to be a great source of moral and psychological motivation.  That is no longer the case; and that is a very poignant sign of the time. 

No society can flourish if it is ideologically committed to ignoring real and profound differences.  And in this regard, minorities are the ones who can make the greatest difference; for with regard to matters of racism, minorities are the ones who have the greatest power. 

n a classic fiery sermon, The Honorable James David Manning asked the following question: What would make a black man go into his mother’s pocketbook and steal her very last quarter and shoot dope with it?  His answer: a lack of honor.  Of course, insofar as Manning’s point holds, it holds across all races.  Yet, there is something about his point that has quite a sting to it. Manning’s deep concern is that there is precious little honor among black men, and that rap music has contributed to the demise of honor among black men.  Here is the YouTube link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7diAnTSn9o&feature=related

Manning’s fascinating example is that of Puff Daddy using a plethora of profanity in front of his mother.  While it is marvelous that Puff Daddy bought his mother a house, the Honorable James David Manning’s point is that using plethora of profanity in her very presence is utterly dishonorable. 

To be sure, it would be dishonorable if any male so behaved in front of his mother.  But Manning’s point is that how has it come to pass that a black man so behaves in front of his mother.  And we cannot have it both ways.  We cannot have it that (i) blackness has its own moral orbit which nurtures mutual respect among blacks and, at the same time, have it be true that (ii) blacks continually engage in behavior that shows a serious lack of respect for one another, above all, their parents, especially the mother. 

Manning is drawing upon a very simple point, namely that from the outset a mother points her life on the line for her children in a way that has no equal on the part of the father.  Indeed, a mother can say to a child “I gave you life”, whereas it is sort of silly for a father to say such a thing. 

The idea, then, is that genuine honor for a mother should be second-nature.  And what concerns Manning is that among black men it is not respect but a lack of respect that is prevalent. 

Is it possible to respect one’s mother and utter a slew of profanity in her very presence?  It is difficult for me to see how that it is possible. 

Now, there was a time when mothers in the black community were much respected.  So what happened?  My sense is that white guilt is part of the problem. 

It goes with saying that owing to racism whites have had rather excoriating things to say about the character of blacks.  And it is an important measure of progress that whites have seen that such assessments were utterly misguided.  But from the truth that (a) some critical assessments regarding the black character were utterly misguided, what simply does not follow that (b) any and all negative assessments of a black person’s character are misguided because such assessments are necessarily tainted by racism. 

With white guilt, (b) is wholeheartedly embraced.  And that has been bad for both blacks and whites alike.  There are standards of excellence that have nothing whatsoever to do with skin color.  Besides, while expressions of excellence can very across cultures, the excellences themselves may not do so at all.  Deep friendship amounts to pretty much the same across all cultures.  Nonetheless, the expression of deep friendship can vary across culture.  In the United States close male friends do not faire la bise (the kiss on each cheeck) whereas in France, doing so is not an option among many close male friends. 

Honesty and respect are not different forms of excellences in the black community.  However, it is none other than white guilt that would have whites accepting the idea that a Puff Daddy uttering a slew of profanity in front of his mother is not a form of disrespect because, after all, doing so is a “black thing”. 

Nothing has been more damaging to the black community than the claim that blacks subscribe to different values.  Accordingly, white guilt has done nothing other than contribute to the demise of the black community. 

What happened, of course, is that the idea of black pride became a twisted notion.  There are two senses of the word pride.  The good sense of the word pride pertains to having a proper appreciation for one’s strengths.  The bad sense of the word pride is when pride amounts to none other than a form of arrogance.  Pride as a form of arrogance is always a vice and never a virtue.  Pride as a proper appreciation for one’s strengths is always a virtue and never a vice. 

Black pride may very well have started out as having a proper appreciation for the strengths of black people.  However, the idea of black pride became twisted to mean arrogance.  Whites compounded the problem by supposing that the racism of the past made it unacceptable for them to be critical of blacks.  They were wrong: the racism of the past simply made it unacceptable for whites to be racist.  Nothing more; nothing less. 

This brings me back to the sermon of the Honorable James David Manning.  Few things make the difference in our lives like the fact that others expect us to be excellent.  In the oddest of ways, things are worse than they were before.  Before, there were standards of excellence and white refused to believe that blacks could live up to those standards.  Blacks, however, endeavored to live up to those standards as best they could under the circumstances. 

Today, in the name of being open-minded and free of racism, standards of excellence have been jettisoned across the board.  And this, unfortunately, has been called progress.  Well, there is a perverted sense in which it is; for trust has receded from social interaction across the board.  Blacks cannot trust blacks; whites cannot trust whites; and blacks and whites cannot trust one another.  With this we have none other than vapid equality.

Pastor Manning preached that honor is independent of social standing and that it occasions self-discipline in the face of temptation.  He is not a philosopher, and the words “self-respect” and “respect” more naturally come to mind.  But there is nothing to be said for being pedantic here.  For the spirit of his point is manifestly clear.  There are things that persons will not do to themselves if they have basic self-respect; and there are things that persons will not do to others if they have basic respect for them. 

Nothing other than moral corrosiveness would have anyone believe otherwise.  And the fact that some blacks now think so and whites cheer them on (lest they, the whites, be called racist) should stand as a vivid reminder of the human capacity for self-deception. 

For the harm that we are doing to ourselves and to one another is manifestly obvious (as when people are afraid to walk down the street in their own neighborhood); yet, we insist upon maintaining that there is no right and wrong.  At the rate we are going, there will be no one left to make that utterly asinine assertion. 

ur loyalties are not trivial.  Barack Obama is right about his parents.  We do not choose our parents; and it is an unvarnished truth that insofar as our parents loved and cared for us, we accept them in spite of their faults.  Likewise for our grandparents.  So, of course, I expect Barack Obama to love his parents and grandparents even if regarding the matter of racism or gender equality, both his parents and grandparents miss the moral mark in important ways.  For it is possible to miss the mark in these ways and yet be quite some distance from being a vicious person. 

Still, Obama has some explaining to do. 

I begin with simple observation that the Reverend Jeremiah Wright hardly has a lock on Jesus.  So, insofar as Obama had an interest in worshipping Jesus, Mr. Barack Obama has always had a potpourri of churches from which to choose.  Thus, the fact that Obama continued to worship Jesus at the church pastored by Reverend Jeremiah Wright requires an explanation, given that Reverend Wright has been more than a little vituperative in his attitude towards whites. 

You see, Pastor Wright’s views about whites do not constitute a minor aspect of his thought.  Quite the contrary, Pastor Wright's views about whites have center stage in his thinking.  So a man who made a point of maintaining an associating with Wright, including having Wright as a major campaign advisor has much to explain. 

How seriously should we take Obama’s condemnation of Wright’s views when it would seem to be as clear as the night follows the day that this condemnation on Obama’s part would not have happened had there not been public pressure to do so.  And this is a fundamental point.

It is a fact that people change.  The late governor George Wallace stands as a marvelous case in point.  But moral change must come from the heart; otherwise, it does not count.  The change cannot be for the sake of public convenience.  Everything that we know about Wallace makes it clear that his transformation from a dyed-in-the-wool racist to a true friend of blacks was absolutely a genuine change. 

There is no evidence, by contrast, that Obama’s condemnation of Wright’s views and Obama’s distancing himself from Wright are occasioned by anything other than blatant political expediency. 

In 2007, Pastor Wright’s Trumpet Magazine gave Mr. Louis Farrakhan the Trumpet Award for epitomizing greatness.  Farrakhan is the man who referred to Jews as gutter people.  Needless to say, there is nothing on the face of this earth that is inclusive about that award.  And it is very difficult for to make sense of anyone remaining in a church where the pastor did such a thing if that person believed in racial inclusiveness—as Barack Obama claims he does. 

Here, it seems to me that the saying “What is good for the goose is good for the gander” is most applicable.  If a white belonged to a church where the pastor’s views and behavior parallels Pastor Wright’s, I would not be friends with that white person.  I would not trust that person in matters of race.  There are certain things that a person cannot do or say if the individual truly believes that all people are equal.  And with the exception of family members, there are certain associations that a person cannot have if the individual believes in equality for all.  Obama does not get a moral pass in this regard because he is black or have mixed race or whatever.

Now, I do not l want to trivialize the pain of racism.  But Mr. Barack Obama is no more entitled to go on and on and on and on about the pain of racism than I am.  The successes of his life surpasse those of the life of many individuals, be they black or white or whatever.  His life does not epitomize what it means to be a victim of racism any more than mine does.  As I have always maintained, I live a life that would be a veritable fantasy for many people, whatever their ethnic composition might.  I have certainly experienced racism.  Indeed, some of the most painful moments of racism in my life have been as a professor at Syracuse University, where way too many white liberals of my generation seem to think that they know better than I do what I should think and do and believe. 

At qutie some cost to myself, I have fought against the nonsense that my white liberal colleagues get to define me.  But I am able to fight this battle from a position of strength and security and success that many people in life of whatever ethnic composition do not have.  And it would be wrong of me not to be mindful of that truth.  The same holds for Obama, perhaps even more so.  Likewise for his wife—a Princeton and Harvard graduate. 

What is more, no one’s moral pain entitles that person to harm others and to ignore the moral decency that others unfailingly exhibit in their lives.  My moral pain does not; Obama’s moral pain does not.  Just as it is horrendously wrong for feminists to intone that all men are sexist (if only in their hearts), it is equally wrong for Pastor Wright to intone that all whites are racists.  And it is quite wrong for Barack Obama to have an allegiance to Wright, given that Wright holds such views.  And since it was only until yesterday that Pastor Wright had a key advisory role in Obama’s campaign organization for the President of the United States, there can be no doubt about Obama’s allegiance to Pastor Wright. 

They say that actions speak louder than words.  Barack Obama’s actions overshadow his words.  Like the chameleon who changes colors according to the environment in which the creature finds itself, Obama has now privileged inclusiveness in precisely the way that he should have done so from the very start.  That is, he should have distanced himself from Pastor Wright because it is quite possible to serve Jesus and have black pride in a church where the minister does not spew out the venom about whites that is characteristic of Pastor Wright’s views.  Indeed, isn’t going to church supposed to be about spiritual edification—and not about learning how to indulge and reinforce one’s anger and hostility towards this or that ethnic group? 

Christianity claims that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.  In the spirit of George Orwell's novel Animal Farm, Wright and Obama have a re-intrepretation of that passage: All have sinned, but some (namely white people) are worse sinners than others.

There is simply no better measure of the true moral metal of a person than the kind of individuals whom the person is comfortable being around and whose ties the person voluntarily cultivates and forges.  By this measure, Barack Obama is simply not the man of moral inclusiveness that he would now like us to believe that he is.  To suppose otherwise is rather like supposing that a white person could regularly attend KKK meetings and voluntarily cultivate personal ties with members of the KKK without having any racist tendencies.  Only a fool would think that such a thing is a possible.  Similarly, only a fool would think that Barack Obama does not embrace an ideology that far is closer to Farrakhan’s than not.  Precisely what Obama is counting on is that there are lots of fools out there.  And, alas, he is quite right about that. 

uite simply, the Sexual Identity Agenda and the Diversity Agenda are at cross-purposes.  The Sexual Identity Agenda tells us that it is simply a mistake to suppose that so small a biological feature as a penis or a vagina should count as defining a person’s sexual identity.  Accordingly, it is oppressive to use the vagina is a criterion for insisting that someone is a female or the penis as a criterion for insisting that someone is a male.  The Diversity Agenda, by contrast, turns a person’s skin color or the like into a sine qua non of the individual’s existence. 

So while a person born with a penis or a vagina is free to have just about any sexual identity he or she pleases, and it is utterly oppressive to think otherwise, a person born with white or black skin is trapped with an ethnic identity that is not of her or his choosing. 

It is a mystery to me how it is that people can have so very much freedom with respect to the choice of sexual identity and so very little freedom with respect to the choice of ethnic identity.  No one has explained this possibility—not even Senator Sheila Kuehl, one of California’s state senators.  Her bill SB 777 seems to think that it is quite oppressive to impose the female-male grid, but not at all oppressive to insist that people are members of this or that ethnic group. 

I would love for someone to explain to me just how this is supposed to work.  So there is this child with a penis who insists upon being called a female, because the person feels like a female.  Acknowledging this is called showing respect for differences. 

Now, imagine a child born in a family that speaks Arab, which has just immigrated to the United States.  The “problem” is that this child insists that he is Hispanic.  Indeed, it is stunning just how well he has mastered Spanish; and with a few adjustments here and there he can in fact pass for being Hispanic.  So would someone explain to me why this child would be considered a traitor to his people—a sell out?  Perhaps Senator Kuehl could explain this to me, since she is very supportive of ethnic diversity. 

That is, she  is very supportive of one form of imposition from the outside, namely the imposition of ethnic identity, but very much against another form of imposition from the outside, namely sexual identity. 

Now, I do not deny that people have all sorts of feelings.  Why, I myself sometimes feel like someone who is truly retarded and sometimes I feel like someone who is a genius.  The evidence, however, makes it clear that I am neither.  Sometimes I feel as if I am amazingly handsome and sometimes I feel as if I am utterly hideous.  Once more, the evidence makes it clear that I am neither.  The point of these utterly boring observations about myself is that there are some aspects of my reality that are not at all determined by my feelings.   

Indeed, Senator Kuehl surely agrees with me, since she thinks that a person’s ethnic identity is not at all determined by how the person feels about herself or himself.  Accordingly, she cannot simply declare without argument independent argument that a person’s sexual identity is not defined by her vagina, on the one hand, or his penis, on the other. 

Of course, how a person goes on to conduct her or his life is another matter entirely.  But anyone with a vagina who feels like a man has to contend with the issue of becoming pregnant; for if nothing else, there is the issue of rape.  And that is the reality of the matter, no matter which bathroom the person wants to use and regardless of the fact that the person never ever wears a dress. 

By contrast, anyone with a penis who feels like a woman has to contend with getting an erection from time to time and the ejaculation of semen.  And that, too, is the reality of the matter, no matter which bathroom the person wants to use and regardless of the fact that  the person only wears dresses. 

While biology is not destiny, it does impose some limits.  Senator Kuehl is a lesbian.  That means she has a rather immutable preference for women.  I have no issue with that at all.  But the issue of getting pregnant was not a non-issue for her; nor was the issue of menopause.  And so it would have been if were she to have insisted that she is a man or that she is beyond the very boundaries of sexual identity. 

Quite simply, then, it is sheer hypocrisy to insist that it is oppressive to hold that genitals bear mightily upon a person’s sexual identity all the while imposing ethnic identity upon folks based upon their skin color and the like.  For surely skin color and the like are far more amorphous than genitalia.  After all, some Arabs are Muslim and some Arabs are Christian.  And that difference is hardly trivial.  Either neither form of identity is anchored in some well of facts over which a person has no control or both are.  Actually, I think that there is an asymmetry here.  But that is another topic.  In any case, there is simply no way at all to suppose that sexual identity has nothing whatsoever to do with facts that are independent of a person’s choices and behavior, but that ethnic identity has everything to do with facts that are independent of the person's choices and behavior.

Another way of putting the point is as follows: Sheila Kuehl is an oppressive person.  She is oppressing individuals by imposing an ethnic identity upon individuals that is based upon facts that they did not choose.  Of course, this charge will no doubt come as a surprise to her, since she almost certainly takes herself to be the very bastion of open-mindedness.  But the facts speak for themselves: The hallmark of Nazi and KKK behavior is that they straight-jacketed people on the basis of such ephemeral features as skin color and the like.  Of course, Senator Kuehl’s excuse might be that such straight-jacketing is commonplace among those who advance the Diversity Agenda.  After all, why one on earth would anyone expect a lesbian promoting complete freedom in terms of sexual identity to see a problem with the Diversity Agenda of imposing stringent restraints in terms of ethnic identity?  That would be expecting way too much in tems of either commonsense or critical thinking.

ew things are more painful than having a beloved student fall from grace owing to utterly despicable behavior on the student’s part.  Surely, this is the case with Alan Dershowitz and his former student Eliot Spitzer.  Dershowitz describes Spitzer as a brilliant student; and I have no doubt that this was the case.  Everything that we have seen about Spitzer suggests that he is a man of quite considerable intellectual ability. Just so, Derhowitz’s defense of Spitzer is most disconcerting. 

The claim is that he called MSNBC to offer some comments about Spitzer.  It would have been far more prudent morally if Dershowitz had remained silent.  Now, Dershowtiz’s major claim is that the United States is simply out of step with the times, because prostitution is common place throughout the world. 

Well, let us suppose for the moment that Dershowitz is right.  It then follows that Spitzer’s very own behavior as attorney general was woefully inappropriate and out of step with the moral reality of things.  As we all know, it is not just Spitzer prosecuted prostitution rings, he did so with a zest and vigor that had no equal among attorney generals.  Not only that, Spitzer did so with an extraordinary sense of righteousness and moral piety. 

What is more, Spitzer was roundly admired by all for doing what he did.  No one even came close to suggesting that he should have been less zealous in prosecuting corruption.  No one—not even Alan Dershowitz—suggested that.  Dershowitz never came close to suggesting that Spitzer’s zeal in these matters represented a misguided view of morality. 

So, in defending Spitzer of the allegations being made against him, the man Dershowitz revealed himself to be a morally disingenuous person.  And Dershowitz’s eagerness to go on television in order to defend Spitzer reveals a moral vapidness on Dershowtiz’s part that I would not have thought possible and which is woefully unbefitting him. 

And if that were not enough, the simple fact is that, for political reasons, Dershowitz has chosen to ignore the bigger picture—a picture that has two parts.  One is that Spitzer was unfaithful to his wife.  And we are not talking about a one-time fling, but a calculated pattern of unfaithful behavior involving quite complicated on-going transactions.  Calculated unfaithful behavior is not sanctified in Europe.  No one seems to think “That is what we do”.  That sort of behavior is deemed morally indecent even in that much more sophisticated country, to hear Dershowitz tell it, known as Europe. 

The other consideration roundly ignored by Dershowitz is that Spitzer brazenly betrayed the public trust.  It was none other than Spitzer himself who cultivated an image of himself as an upright person in the matter of steadfastly opposing corruption.  It was on the basis of that trust, cultivated while he was New York’s attorney general, that Spitzer was elected by a landslide to be Governor of New York.  He was voted into office because he presented himself as the kind of person that New Yorkers wanted to run their state. 

Accordingly, Spitzer both egregiously deceived people and betrayed their trust.  Again, I am not aware of Europeans thinking that deception and betrayals of this magnitude are but petty forms of inappropriate behavior.  And I do not think for a moment that Dershowitz is aware of such a mindset among Europeans, either. 

Even if engaging in prostitution is itself nothing more than a petty infelicity—on the order of saying “ain’t” when one should say “is not”—there is nothing at all petty about misleading people to think that in regards to the matter of marital fidelity one is not open to criticism in any way whatsoever.  And this point holds regardless of what we think about prostitution, as the following example shows.

Suppose that Opidopo is known by everyone to be one who imbibes very little alcohol.  One drink is about all anyone has ever seen him take; and often enough he does not finish that.  This behavior is part of the public image that Opidopo has cultivated.  As it happens, however, he consumes quite a bit of alcohol on a daily basis when home alone.  This by itself is not morally wrong at all.  Yet, most of us would not like to think that he barely touches alcohol when in fact he is a heavy drinker.  For this bears upon all sorts of things that one might ask of him.  There are lots of tasks that one unhesitatingly ask Opidopo to do, given that one has every reason, thanks to how he has presented himself, to view him as a non-drinker.  Of course, if he is a heavy drinker there is nothing wrong with that in principle.  Yet, it would be woefully inappropriate of him to mislead his friends.

Now, betraying people’s trust is not a legal wrong as such.  However, it does constitute an enormous defect in moral character.  And people can have very good reasons to be morally outraged over just that.  It is utterly inconceivable to me that a man of Mr. Alan Dershowitz’s intellectual wherewithal does not grasp this point.  This means, then, that Dershowitz has revealed his own moral character to be just a little sullied. 

Finally, I understand that there times when it is possible to put a positive spin on things.  And I am willing to allow that this is what good friends do for one another or what a professor might do for someone who was a beloved student and is now a major player on the political scene.  Alas, the very problem with the Spitzer fiasco is that it does not in any way shape or form lend itself to any measure of positive spinning.  And for Mr. Dershowitz to suggest otherwise is none other than sheer arrogance on his part.  But, alas, the fact that he volunteered for the part suggests that he is not only arrogant, but that he is lacking in a substantial measure of moral integrity. 

Speaking personally as a professor: I grasp what it is like to have beloved students—students who have enriched my life beyond measure by their intellectual challenges.  But if I should brazenly falter and betray the trust of others, it is my hope that none of them will come to my defense.  And I say that because I do not think for a moment than any of them would expect me to come to their defense were they to falter brazenly and betray the trust others.  And if anyone them does, then I have not, as a professor, exhibited the kind of moral excellence in teaching and instruction that I should have exhibited. 

In my world, Mr. Alan Dershowitz: Beloved teachers and students do not give one another a free moral pass.  This is how I know that your defense of Eliot Spitzer stems from none other than ignoble motives. 

ride goeth before destruction.  What a powerful remark.  Proverbs 16:18.  To be sure, the remark comes from a book that many now consider to be outdated.  But it reflects a most profound truth.  No matter how good we are and no matter talented we have, modesty should have a place in our lives.  In particular, we should never suppose that we are above the very laws that we are engaged in enforcing—especially when we are enforcing those laws in a most public and righteous manner. 

I have, of course, alluded to the fact that Governor Eliot Spitzer, who was involved in an escort service called Emperors' Club VIP.  To many individuals, Spitzer was the very epitome of an upright attorney—someone who drew a hard line in the sand between right and wrong behavior.  I have little interest in talking about the specifics of the Spitzer scandal.  What intrigues me is the horrible moral shadow that he is casting.

As I have just noted, no one came across more righteous in terms of enforcing a certain level of public morality than Spitzer.  And when I reflect upon that truth I ask myself over and over again the following question: Who among us can hope to have the confidence of others that she or he is a truly upright person. 

The damage that Spitzer has done in the public sphere lies in the fact that he has further tainted the moral-political climate, making it yet that much more reasonable for a person to be suspicious of another’s public presentation as an upright person.  And this much is unequivocally clear to me: There is a direct correlation between an intolerable society in which to live and one in which we believe that decent people do not exist or, in any case, are few and far between.  From walking down the street to making a purchase, life becomes absolutely intolerable if we cannot assume moral decency on the part of strangers. 

Sustained moral decency requires among other things that persons are capable of exercising considerable self-command and foresight.  Exercising foresight is in fact a form of self-command; for one stops, as it were, and gives thought to how things are apt to play themselves out. 

I am no criminal.  But I am thoughtful enough to see two things: One is that nowadays it is way too easy to leave an electronic trail regarding what we have done.  The other is that when we are engaged in inappropriate behavior with people there is a possibility that they might turn on us for reasons that we think have next to no probability of coming about. 

Spitzer, as it happens, is a victim of the latter: A worker for Emperors' Club VIP became disgruntled.  But he also left a considerable electronic trail using a cell phone and withdrawing the needed money from his bank account. 

How could he not have thought that these things would not be a problem for him?  Recall the passage with which I began this essay: Pride goeth before destruction. 

Foresight and self-command does not require that we be saints, and so have absolutely pure hearts.  Rather, foresight and self-command require simply that we recognize the ways in which things can go wrong (foresight) and that we have the will-power to resist taking the course of action in question given that the ways things can go wrong are evident enough (foresight). 

Pride is an impediment to our exercising foresight and self-command.  More than anything, Spitzer is a victim of none other than his own pride. 

I think that we are social beings and this means that to a considerable extent our powers of self-command and foresight are influenced by the moral climate of the society in which we live.  There are exceptions, to be sure.  However, the exceptions are few and between.  And my worry is that increasingly it is becoming reasonable to spurn even those who are righteous.  The principle here is “Better Safe than Sorry”. 

Trust is becoming unreasonable.  And when an ever so visible and vocal person, such as Spitzer, flounders so mightily, we have an overflow of damage.  There is, of course, the damage to his personal relationship.  And that would seem rather irreparable.  In terms of the public trust, though, another major pillar in the wall of trust has been destroyed.  And that is a very bad thing for society. 

Spitzer claimed that politics is not personal.  Alas, he got that unequivocally wrong.  For no matter how personal and private he would like his wrongdoing to be, a point that holds to some extent: There is the simple and inescapable truth that Eliot Spitzer’s wrongful behavior has unavoidable symbolic significance. 

The lesson that we should all learn from the Spitzer scandal is that indeed modesty is a virtue. 

an we distinguish between the horrendous murder of 8 students in a Yeshiva and the behavior of the KKK during the Old south?  I am afraid not.  For Hezbollah, Hamas, and the like: Jews are niggers.  I shall say more about this presently.  To begin, though, let me say that if I had to offer a succinct characterization of the difference between Muslim Arabs and Jews in the Middle East, it would be the extent to which Muslim Arabs shamelessly celebrate the death of Jewish people.  There is no denying that Jews have killed Muslims Arabs and I am more than prepared to concede for the sake of argument that some of these deaths were unnecessary.  But I have never witnessed a public celebration on the part of Jews over the death of Muslim Arabs. 

It has certainly been said by Jews that the death of this or that Muslim Arab was a good thing, given the history of murderous behavior on the part of that particular person.  But the rejoicing here has always had far more to do with the relief that the person in question would not be committing any more murders of Jews than with taking delight in his death proper.  While there may be exceptions in this regard, these exceptions prove the rule.  I know this from what I seen in the media and from what I have witnessed personally, on three different continents, in one Jewish home after another. 

As I reviewed the availability of photos available on Yahoo News regarding the murder of 8 Yeshiva students, by Alaa Abu Dheim, I was simply not prepared to come across photos of Muslim Arabs celebrating the death of these 8 Yeshiva students.  And it is difficult to find words to express just how barbaric I found this to be.  This is the face of unqualified hatred and I compare it to the hatred of blacks that was personified by the Klu Klux Klan.  And it is this reality that makes it manifestly clear to me that folks like Norman Finkelstein are simply mistaken in their support of Hezbollah.

You will recall that the KKK took pure delight in the abuse and degradation of blacks—any black, no matter how old or young.  And no abuse or form of degradation was off-limits.  This delight had its own life and was independent of any benefits that might accrue to KKK members who mistreated blacks.

For Hezbollah, Jews are niggers.  You will recall that nothing pleased the KKK more than a good excuse to lynch a black.  And the same can be said for Hezbollah and its supporters.  And this truth that shows that Norman Finkelstein and his ilk are utterly misguided.

I understand political victories.  And I further understand that war sometimes necessitates death.  Not only that, I grasp that there is a deep, deep dispute between Palestinians and Israelis.  Alas, none of this would explain, let alone justify, taking unabashed delight in the killing of 8 young Jews at a Yeshiva.  None of this could explain unabashedly parading through the streets in glee over their deaths. 

I understand that Jewish soldiers have been accused of attacking Muslim women and children.  I also understand that Muslim women and children have been used as shields in a public relations ploy.  This is simply fact.  I have drawn attention to this because no such explanation is available for the murder of these 8 Jewish teenagers.  They were actually studying.  And the Yeshiva was not serving as a repository for weapons or a training ground for soldiers. 

The idea that for Hezbollah, and its supporters, the Jew is nothing but a Nigger is extremely illuminating; for it brings into sharp relief something that we have been overlooking, namely that for Hezbollah, Jews are to be in a subordinate position to Muslims because Jews are the apes of the Semitic peoples.  Even with the murderous attack of 8 Yeshiva students, Israel is still interested in peace talks with the Palestinians.  For Hezbollah, however, negotiating with Israel simply makes no sense because this would constitute acknowledging their humanity. 

We have been supposing that the issue is one of credibility.  But this misses the mark: Animals cannot have credibility; Jews are animals; hence, Jews cannot have credibility. Thus, killing a Jew is rather like skewering an animal, and so demands parading through the streets in celebration.  This is how KKK folks behaved when they lynched a black.  Notice that not even Nazis were disposed so to behave.  Thus, in terms of public behavior, Hezbollah is far more KKK like than Nazi like.  I do not mean to be ranking one group over the other.  Rather, I am drawing attention to structural differences between the two. 

Now, it is significant that I can make the claim that Hezbollah, Hamas, and the like treat Jews as if they are niggers without having to claim, on the one hand, that Jews are right about everything pertaining to the Middle East conflict and, on the other, Hezbollah and the like are wrong about everything pertaining to the conflict.  I suppose no such thing.  I suppose only that the moral posture of Hezbollah and the like is that of taking Jews to be the apes of Semitic peoples. 

Finally, the issue is not to discard the Nazi paradigm of evil.  That paradigm is powerful and real enough.  However, it does not exhaust the ways in which human beings can be horrendously evil.  It is a poignant fact that the way in which Arab Muslims take to the streets to celebrate the death of Jews calls to mind the lynching of blacks by the Klu Klux Klan in the Old South.  And while this may not be Nazi-like behavior, a fact which is a source of comfort for those who support Hezbollah, it is surely morally reprehensible behavior nonetheless of a most despicable kind.  I suspect that people like Norman Finkelstein are self-deceived; for they use the fact that the behavior of Hezbollah is not all akin to the Nazi paradigm as a way of excusing Hezbollah’s behavior.  I suggest that Finkelstein and the like need only open their eyes and look beyond the Nazi paradigm to the KKK model of evil in order to see that the behavior Hezbollah, Hamas, and so forth cannot possibly be excused. 

There is much in the world about which we are understandably unclear.  At this point in time, however: If there are any moral precepts, surely one of them is that there can be no excuse whatsoever for celebrating the death of 8 teenagers earnestly studying scripture, be they Muslims or Christians or Jews.  Treating Jews as niggers, there can be no question but that in the 3rd Millenium Hezbollah specializes in mocking the very idea righteousness.