Posted on 12/11/2001 8:43:43 AM PST by watsonfellow
“Abolish CSAP!”
The right reaction to the Sommers CSAP outrage.
Mr. Kurtz is also a fellow at the Hudson Institute December 11, 2001 9:20 a.m.
The reaction to " Silencing Sommers," my last piece for NRO, has been overwhelming. This story of Christina Hoff Sommers, a nationally respected critic of feminist excess, being silenced, grossly insulted, and effectively ejected from a government conference at which she had been invited to speak, has been posted and reposted — with outraged commentary — all over the web. The National Association of Scholars has issued a statement condemning the treatment of Sommers, and many people are asking what can be done to redress this wrong. This incident seems to have crystallized the widespread feeling that both free speech and academic standards have been sacrificed to multiculturalist and feminist orthodoxies, not only in academia, but in all of our ruling institutions.
The uproar over the silencing of Christina Hoff Sommers has been such that Charles G. Curie, the Bush administration's newly appointed administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in the Department of Health and Human Services has sent a letter to National Review Online formally responding to the controversy. That letter contains much that deserves praise. Yet Curie's response to the Sommers incident raises warning flags as well.
To his great credit, Charles Curie says that he was appalled to learn what happened to Christina Hoff Sommers, and forthrightly acknowledges that she was both "censored" and "silenced" by government officials. Curie also lets it be known that he has personally apologized to Sommers for the behavior of his agency. For all of this, Curie deserves praise. It's a rare day indeed when a victim of "political correctness," however egregious, receives a formal public apology and an admission of guilt. Of course, it doesn't hurt that Curie is a brand-new Bush appointee, now forced to deal with the misbehavior of the Clinton-appointed officials who have been running his agency.
But Curie's letter also raises the disturbing prospect that those who have perpetrated this outrage will get away with a mere slap on the wrist, and that the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), (the division of SAMHSA whose shoddy programs Sommers was criticizing — and whose managers silenced her) will continue to waste literally hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on silly, unproven — and even counterproductive — ideologically driven programs.
In his letter, Curie says that "corrective action is being taken in this case," but fails to specify what that action is. True, Curie says that he has "made it clear to the staff involved in the incident that I expect them to treat all guests with dignity and respect, and ensure comity among meeting participants." But that hardly rises to the level of what is needed to redress the egregious wrongs of this case. More important, Curie bemoans the fact that "incidents such as this can overshadow the valuable work being accomplished at SAMHSA."
It may well be that valuable work in stemming the tide of drug abuse is being accomplished at SAMHSA, but the truth is that the CSAP division of SAMHSA (the division where Sommers was silenced) is a disaster and ought to be abolished. At a minimum, CSAP's current administrators must be replaced, and rigorous procedures for evaluating program effectiveness need to be instituted. If NRO readers want to know how they can help to right the wrong that was visited upon Sommers, convincing the Bush administration to abolish CSAP is the way.
Last Friday, in response to the Sommers incident, Sally Satel, (author of the recent and important critique of political correctness in medicine, P.C. M.D.) published a piece called, "The Sorry CSAP Flap: It's Worse Than It Looks." Satel's article exposes the sham of an agency that CSAP has become. Serious academicians, Satel says, regard the CSAP as a laughing stock — both for the scientific illiteracy of its administrators and for the agency's refusal to seriously evaluate its own programs. Many scholars avoid projects sponsored by CSAP, just because they don't want to be tarred by its third-rate intellectual reputation. Projects can consume thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours without ever seeing the light of day, and other programs actively avoid gathering data that would permit an evaluation of their effectiveness.
Worse, CSAP's projects are guided by a highly questionable multiculturalist orthodoxy, deeply hostile to the very idea of science. Satel tells of a million dollar project meant to stem the tide of drug addiction in African-American youth. In addition to transmitting to African-American boys a series of extremely contestable claims about the origins of Western intellectual and cultural traditions in Africa, the program's evaluation was written at the level of a high school science project — without the pre-tests or post-tests that would have made it possible to judge whether an Afrocentric curriculum actually does reduce drug abuse among African-American boys.
But the most revealing thing about this CSAP boondoggle (the "Rights of Passage Primary Prevention Program") is its claim that "scientific colonialism" is part of what is responsible for oppressing African American men to the point where they must turn to drugs. Not coincidentally, as Christina Hoff Sommers was put upon by the crowd at the CSAP conference (most of whom were CSAP agency, staff, invited consultants, and CSAP grantees) the charge hurled against her was that her demand for scientific studies of CSAP program effectiveness was racially insensitive. So the Sommers affair is not a single isolated incident of misbehavior. It is part and parcel of the ideology that governs CSAP — merely a symptom of the profound intellectual and ideological rot at the agency. It is high time that the Center for Substance Abuse and Prevention was abolished. CSAP is, even now, wasting $484 million dollars of the taxpayers money on useless, quite possibly counterproductive, programs that have little or nothing to do with drug use and everything to do with indoctrinating America's youth with multiculturalist and feminist orthodoxies. Whatever is of worth at CSAP can easily be transferred directly to SAMHSA. The rest must go. Charles Curie's forthright apology and public admission of agency wrongdoing in the Sommers affair is praiseworthy indeed, but an apology and a slap on the wrist to the administrators in question doesn't begin to get at the problem.
The newest spin on the war against terrorism is that it is restoring America's faith in government. To a degree, I am sympathetic to that view. When it comes to combating terrorism at home and rooting it out abroad, aggressive and well-financed government action is necessary. I have even broken with some conservatives in giving qualified support to the President's faith-based initiative. To a degree, we need to acknowledge that government is larger now than in decades past. If we allow it to subsidize secular radicals without also aiding cultural traditionalists, we will simply be institutionalizing the immense financial advantage currently enjoyed by the cultural left.
Yet having said all that, we need to remember the power of the conservative critique of big government-even in the midst of this war. The Sommers affair is a salutary reminder of exactly that. Here, under the guise of preventing drug addiction, a government agency is doling out literally hundreds of millions of dollars, simply to purvey the highly contested and questionable cultural ideologies of Afrocentrism and androgyny. No wonder the public doesn't trust the government. The truth is, the public is in fact being lied to. Ideologically driven bureaucrats are hiding their tendentious cultural agendas behind uncontroversial public rationales-spending our money to indoctrinate America's youth in the left's favorite orthodoxies. And as scholars like Christina Hoff Sommers and Sally Satel have long documented, the problem is pervasive at both HHS and at the Department of Education. The days of calling for the abolition of the Department of Education may be gone, but surely we can demand that irredeemable agencies like CSAP be done away with.
In the wake of the Sommers incident, many have asked what they can do to help. Some are apparently writing to Fordham University to protest the outrageous conduct of Professor Jay Wade, who publicly insulted and silenced Sommers at the CSAP conference on "Boy Talk." So long as the protests remain forceful, but also within the bounds of civility, that's all to the good. But to really stop this sort of incident from happening again, people need to contact the Bush administration itself. Charles G. Curie, the new Director of SAMHSA (which includes CSAP) can be reached here. Tommy Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services, can be reached here. The White House can be reached here.
This campaign is anything but a shoe-in. Just this Thanksgiving, Tommy Thompson announced major new initiatives in the Girl Power! program. Obviously, whether he realizes it or not, Secretary Thompson has already been captured by the feminist ideologues at CSAP. The harsh truth is that, if something like the Sommers incident cannot bring about the abolition of Girl Power!, CSAP, and allied government programs — under a Republican administration, no less — then conservatives will never be able to rein in intrusive and culturally tendentious government boondoggles at all. So this is a test of our mettle. Let our rallying cry be, "Abolish CSAP!"
And what makes you think we want him back?
You don't have a clue what you're talking about or how the Federal bureaucracy works. Where do I begin?
Firstly, about Thompson -- have you ever seen the man speak? I have, and frankly, he's one of the best informal speakers this side of the President. You don't get elected governor of your state four times by being dull and lifeless. I suspect you've sat through a whole sound bite with him.
The suggestion that he "let" postal workers die is utter idiocy on your part, and you should be ashamed for saying such a thing.
The idea that he "allowed" his employees to insult Sommers is similarly stupid. You clearly have only a vague idea of how the civil service functions. Let me clue you in: it's like a union job times six. It's well-nigh impossible to fire someone. The bureaucracy is huge and moves slowly, if at all. If Thompson has inherited an organization shot through with liberal-leftists, that's hardly his fault. It is ignorant and obtuse of you to suggest that he simply clean out the stables in one fell swoop. He can't.
Finally, it's evident that you haven't paid much attention to the direction Thompson is trying to take HHS in. He is slowly moving toward a model of government supplementing, rather than directing, community efforts. Yes, he is in charge of many intrusive social-engineering programs -- but guess what? They're almost all Congressionally-mandated, and he has no choice but to administer them. He has done a fine job of doing what he can with what latitude he has. Walk into the main HHS building on Independence Avenue, and tell me what office you see right there on the first floor. Well, I'll tell you: the office for faith-based initiatives.
Not even a year into the Administration, and you're already shrieking failure, because you don't have the patience to wait and see.
And please tell me Thompson has the power to FIRE all of those hippie leftists the Klintoon administration appointed.
And I write that he was responsible for letting those postal workers die because HE HIMSELF SAID PRIOR TO THE ANTHRAX SCARE that he would take full responsibility for an anthrax outbreak if it did occur. I gather that he was well protected, but those poor postal workers were not. When that first guy in Florida was infected, he had the GALL to indicate that it could be a "natural" case of Anthrax...A NATURAL CASE OF ANTHRAX...that is laughable.
Second, given his support for "GIRL POWER" and other clearly leftist programs, he has become a joke among conservatives...
He is a has-been and should go find a job selling cars in the MidWest.
Thanks for the welcome.
Thompson can only fire the political appointees (speechwriters, top-tier admin people, etc.). And mostly, he has. It's a rare thing to continue from one administration to the next. However, the civil servants (everyone up through mid-to-top-tier management) are permanent employees, and cannot be fired except for egregious misconduct. And, to make things worse, they're all part of the Federal employees' union, which means that the standard for "egregious misconduct" is set appallingly high.
So you have a bureaucracy that is essentially permanent (and for this, you can really thank the civil service reforms of the late 1800s that replaced the spoils system). At a place like HHS, you can guess how many conservatives choose to make a career as an entrenched welfare administrator.
All of which inclines me to give Thompson a great deal of sympathy and support as he wrestles with this beast he's been given, rather than scream bloody murder when some of his nominal underlings misbehave.
Herein lies the problem.....
Oh, I see. You just don't like his tone, even though a majority of his constituents did time after time after time after time. You know, there's someone you should meet. She also forms strong political opinions based solely upon superficial impressions. Her name is Maureen Dowd.
And I write that he was responsible for letting those postal workers die because HE HIMSELF SAID PRIOR TO THE ANTHRAX SCARE that he would take full responsibility for an anthrax outbreak if it did occur.
And so, because he faced up to his job as guarantor of public health, you hold him morally culpable for people's deaths. This is a thoroughly infantile view of government. ("They didn't protect me, so I hate them!") Are you sure you're a conservative?
I might also add that, in your hysteria, you fail to note that the measures he put in place effectively contained and stopped the attacks in a few short weeks. Given that the anthrax delivered could have killed thousands, we should be thankful that only a handful died. But no, you're afraid, and you're going to lash out. Meet Maureen Dowd.
When that first guy in Florida was infected, he had the GALL to indicate that it could be a "natural" case of Anthrax...
Gall? Do you even remember what happened, here? He suggested that it might be a natural case (they happen, you know); and then, once more evidence was available, he acknowledged that it was not. But you're going to be indignant because Thompson is not an omniscient superman? Meet Maureen Dowd!
Second, given his support for "GIRL POWER" and other clearly leftist programs, he has become a joke among conservatives...
I'll say it again -- you have no clue how the bureaucracy operates. I submit that you're a whiner. Maureen, meet watsonfellow.
Give the Bush administration a chance. They have been in office for less than a year, have fought and won many domestic skirmishes, and are currently spending a lot of time on a little matter of a world war. They have done this with mostly Clinton leftists in charge of many departments while fighting the media and the Democrats.
Second, when Tommy says the buck stops here, the buck stops here. I am not saying he should have been omniscient, but when Argentina invaded the Falklands in the very early eighties, the English defence establishment resigned, because the buck really did stop there. If TOMMY SAYS "Hold me responsible" isn't it the real conservative who does, and not someone who makes excuses for him?
Tut tut tut...poor Tommy can't control his unionized and civil service minions...poor Tommy. So in seven years from now when the Bush Admin. is packing up, and Tommy is vacating his office, while the leftists, feminists etc at HHS are still comfortably ensconced in his, you can reconcile yourself to the fact that conservatism has barely made a dent in his department.......Oh well you will say, poor Tommy gave it his all, those nasty nasty civil service laws and union regs. prevented him from doing anything really! All the while those minions enact their agenda, undisturbed by the presence of a Republican, supposedly conservative boss.
Yes it is very hard to tame a bueracracy (I misspelled that)..but it can be done, it takes hard work, courage, and creativity. A case in point.
Some years ago, a newly installed President of a small liberal arts college in California (not CMC!) decided that the presence of one conservative professor on campus (in the phil. department) was too much to bear. The aforementioned professor had tenure though (if you think civil service laws and union regs are bad, you should try to fire a tenured professor!)...so the President scheduled the professor for zero classes that semester, and then the semester after that, etc etc etc....
That is the type of creativity we need (not that what she did was right, but her means were something that conservatives in charge of federal agencies should emulate!) in our Republican leaders. Not complaints about hands being tied, but rather courageous, creative actions to tame these civil servants etc......Give them nothing to do, busy work, ship them off to reservations in Alaska..
Tommy could clear his department of these dregs if he wanted to and had the courage to, it has been done before......I doubt he will do it because I think he lacks real political courage...
Tut tut tut, poor Tommy.
If that's all you have to offer (and hey, you did), then yes it does.
I am not saying he should have been omniscient, but when Argentina invaded the Falklands in the very early eighties, the English defence establishment resigned....
The situations aren't even comparable. The invasion of the Falklands was a clearly foreseeable event, and there were several points at which the Argentine moves could have been mitigated or turned away. It was just to demand resignations in that case, because performance was so poor. You're oversimplifying for the sake of your analogy, and it doesn't work. Thompson's response to anthrax, by contrast, was swift and comprehensive (unless you're a Salon writer, in which case you hate him for not nationalizing Bayer).
If TOMMY SAYS "Hold me responsible" isn't it the real conservative who does, and not someone who makes excuses for him?
watsonfellow, he never said "Hold me responsible, because I'm promising that no anthrax attacks will occur." That seems to be your reading of it. He was saying, "Hold me responsible for our response to the attacks should they occur." And, by any reasonable standard, he did just fine. Call it making excuses if you want. I call it being rational. Real conservatives don't expect that their government will give them money when they're jobless, raise their kids, or protect them 100% from terrorist madmen
Tut tut tut...poor Tommy can't control his unionized and civil service minions...poor Tommy.
Of course, you're free to make a fool of yourself mocking the very people up top who are trying to give conservative boneheads like you a voice in running the country. It must be vast fun to indulge in the essentially childish exercise of screaming, "If he REALLY wanted it, he'd do it!" However, believe it or not, rules and regulations exist, and must be followed. If you'd like to selectively break or ignore them to get your way, then there's a position in the Florida Democratic party for you.
All the while those minions enact their agenda, undisturbed by the presence of a Republican, supposedly conservative boss.
You have no idea as to what battles are being fought in HHS right now. You really do speak from a position of profound ignorance.
Yes it is very hard to tame a bueracracy (I misspelled that)..but it can be done, it takes hard work, courage, and creativity. A case in point.
Oh, by all means, e-mail Tommy and give him your anecdotes. I'm sure he'll be struck by the novelty of it all. "Of course! I haven't been creative enough!"
Tommy could clear his department of these dregs if he wanted to and had the courage to...
Of course. It's all a failure of will. Clearly. If I want it hard enough, Santa will bring it.
You seem to think that Tommy is a genuine conservative who can bring about needed conservative reform in HHS....I do not.......and clearly many many many influential conservatives in Washington (and no not just Weekly Standard conservatives) think he is not up to the task either...In fact from what I can tell, Tommy is on everyone's shortlist of those being tossed out in a Cab. reshuffle...him and O'Neill.....No one except perhaps you, gives him good marks for his handling of the Anthrax crisis, so go chase your windmills and bay at the moon for your beloved, incomp. Tommy.
Tut, tut, tut.
Oh, come on. Suddenly your tone changes and the righteousness oozes. Low class. Shocking. Will Tina Brown still invite me to her parties? So you didn't personally attack me (until now, of course, when you nullified your own reproach by doing so); but you did personally attack Thompson. Considering that you've never had a one-on-one conversation with Thompson, you've far better grounds for assaulting me thus than him. The fact that you didn't hesitate utterly belies your put-on indignation.
You seem to think that Tommy is a genuine conservative who can bring about needed conservative reform in HHS....
Oh no. I've said nothing about my own estimation of Thompson's conservative credentials. Mostly I want to point out that you are alternately wrong and premature in your estimation of him.
clearly many many many influential conservatives in Washington (and no not just Weekly Standard conservatives) think he is not up to the task either...
Well, if lots of other people think it, it must be right. Weren't they braying for the head of General Franks back in mid-October, too?
No one except perhaps you, gives him good marks for his handling of the Anthrax crisis
Your critiques of that are facile at best, and don't reflect anything more substantive than what the aforementioned Dowd managed to choke out. The fact remains that he has the confidence of the one man who counts -- the President of the United States. Maybe you won't give him the benefit of the doubt in his estimation. I will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.