Another wrestling team has fallen to Title IX. In this article, Tim Powers does a good job of summing up what happened with the Commission Rod Paige appointed to investigate reforming Title IX, which bans discrimination based on sex in any federally funded education programs. What Mr. Powers highlights that I find particularly frustrating is how few resources the Right had to fight this particular battle in comparison to the Left. NOW, the National Women's Law Center and the Women's Sports Foundation definitely won the PR fight over the Commission, portraying it as stacked with anti-Title IX conservatives, who think a woman's place is in the home not on the playing field (an accusation I've discussed previously). Who was fighting the good fight for our side? Well, not much of anyone. The Independent Women's Forum has done fantastic work on Title IX in the past, but they simply don't have the resources to counter the feminist organizations. Neither did the few athletic organizations, like the National Wrestling Coaches Association, who have something at stake in this issue. Ultimately, the Commission made some decent recommendations, which were ignored by the White House because of how feminists had framed the issue. And yes, the President could have had a little more backbone, but those of us who advocate for Title IX reform could also have helped to prevent the feminists from controlling the way this issue was presented to the public. Liberals complain a lot that conservatives have taken over the media, are framing all the issues, etc, etc, and maybe we are for some issues, but there are many times we don't even seem to be able to get our voice heard.

Amy has helpfully drawn up some commonsense dating tips below, which, if followed will certainly lead to more prudent dating. Prudence is certainly a virtue we could all do with more of, but while we're on the subject, why not be a little more ambitious and consider how one might date wisely? While you can use dating as a means to your own ends, I would suggest that it actually has a purpose of its own, although I recognize this is terribly old-fashioned of me. Ultimately, the point of dating isn't to get laid or have fun or even to discover yourself, but to find a suitable marriage partner. And while I don't think this means that you have to treat every first date with some sort of future-focused gravity, it does mean that dating well requires reference to this end point.

So, for example, Amy's last heading "Affection" answers the question of whether or not to engage in physical intimacy on the first date, "Go with what feels right to you." Now, there may be a situation in life where "go with what feels right to you" is the best guideline for virtuous behavior, but I have yet to encounter it. Similarly the definition of gentlemanly behavior does not seem to me to be merely a question of "your theory of manners," but a question of what it means to be a man or a woman.

But let me backtrack a little. I think I'm getting ahead of myself, since I actually more or less despair of convincing most people that dating ought to lead to marriage and be directed with that endpoint in mind. Let me at least try to make the case for why we should ask these questions and think about these things rather than just going with whatever feels right to us. These are questions that matter, however you answer them. Abandoning gender roles will affect the course of your relationships and what you expect from relationships and, eventually, from marriage, as will choosing among possible gender roles. Maybe the only question you need to answer when it comes to sex is whether or not you're compatible, in which case I suppose you might as well get that settled on the first date, but maybe not. Maybe sex is special, or, more accurately, maybe sex ought to be special. Maybe none of these questions matter and Amy's right that you should just go with the flow, but we really ought to investigate before we go off engaging in relationships that fundamentally shape our expectations of ourselves and other people.

What with the dating advice going around in the blogosphere, I thought I'd offer up a piece of advice from P.J. O'Rourke's The Bachelor Home Companion

Turn your place into a female's idea of a mess, which is to say clean it. Women know we can't take care of ourselves, and they think this is adorable. But that doesn't keep them from blanching at the sight of soap scum. Now muss your home with boyish clutter. Hang neckties from cute places like the refrigerator-door handle. Stick your hat on top of a lampshade. Leave a half-empty wineglass on a table next to a burned-down candle and sheets of stationery covered with crossed-out lines of poetry. (Steal them from Rupert Brooke.) Toss your tuxedo on the floor. And use a wastepaper basket for an ice bucket. This is what women mean when they say, "His place was a fright." If your place is really a fright, they won't stay long enough to talk about it.

(Via Tyler Cowen): This is very, very, cool.

"Chuck," at "You Big Mouth, You!" links to the oath that naturalized citizens are required to take, and says:

I think the naturalized citizens are luckier. . . . How many natural born citizens would refuse to take this oath?

I will support and defend . . . the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

This post has attracted a lot of email, none of it good. It's also attracted a response from "You Big Mouth, You," himself, who writes:

This is an oath of loyalty. Loyalty is a forgotten virtue in this day and age. The oath recognizes that there is a contract between the citizen and the nation, and that citizens owe something to their nation, not just the other way around. It also goes to the current lefty loon meme that patriotism means being negative, protesting, disrupting, wrecking. An oath of loyalty says to the oathtaker that you are vowing that you will support the country, through your labor and through your practices and beliefs. You are vowing to act in a positive way, for the good of the nation, and that you will set aside all former loyalties. The obligations in this oath for service all contain the phrase when required by the law, hardly an unbearable demand in exchange for the benefits that the United States is providing you...
So, the question I have for Will and everyone else who declines to take the Oath is: If American can't count on you, why should you be able to count on it? Loyalty goes both ways. Right now, you get all the protections and benefits of citizenship without having to accept or obligate yourself to any of the responsibilities. Sweet deal, that.
I'm glad, on the other hand, that hundreds of thousands of people every year choose to take the Oath and voluntarily become citizens of the United States. I know I can count on most of them in a pinch. Will and his friends, I'm not too sure of.

Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Inquisitor: "You swore to support the laws of the United States, but here you are, opposing all of the drug laws of the United States!"

Me: "Well, yes, your honor, but I thought that 'laws' didn't mean the laws per se but rather the Platonic concept of the laws as a whole."

Inquisitor: "So what did you think the 'support' clause required you to do?"

Me: "Oh, you know, not rise up in rebellion, engage in civil disobedience, all that sort of thing."

Inquisitor: "But wouldn't all of that have been foreclosed by the other parts of the oath? Doesn't a basic canon of statutory construction declare that there's an assumption against redundancy, especially when the common usage of the words would not be redundant?"

Me: "Err . . ."

So Patrick Belton thinks that Oxford/Princeton poet Paul Muldoon is "the most significant living poet writing in English" (Josh Chafetz disagrees, and tentatively awards the honor to Seamus Heaney).

Well, all right, I thought to myself, but is "significant" the same as "good" or it a euphemism for its opposite? I stopped by G David's to grab a book of Muldoon's poetry and find out.

The results, I think, are mixed, but tentatively positive. Some of the poems fall so deeply into "I don't get it" territory that they cross over into "I don't think I want to." Take, for example, the closing stanza of "The Frog":

There is, surely, in this story
a moral. A moral for our times.
What if I put him to my head
and squeezed it out of him,
like the juice of freshly squeezed limes,
or a lemon sorbet?

IV

Not that I care who's sleeping with whom
now she's had her womb
removed, now it lies in its own glar
like the last beetroot in the pickle jar.

VII

I would have it, were I bold,
without relish, my own lightly broiled
heart on the side.

Would you be an angel
And let me rest,
This one last time,
Near that plum-colored beauty spot
Just below your right buttock?

You're altogether as slim
As the chance of our meeting again.

Not that they made it as far as his place.
They would saunter through the Botanic Gardens
Where they held hands, and kissed,
And by and by one thing led to another.
To cut not a very long story short,
Once he got stuck into her he got stuck
Full Stop.
They lay there quietly until dusk
When an attendant found them out.
He called an ambulance, and gently but firmly
They were manhandled onto a stretcher
Like the last of an endangered species.

The Train
I've been trying, my darling, to explain
to myself how it is that some freight train
loaded with ballast so a track may rest
easier in its bed should be what's roused

us both from ours, tonight as every night,
despite its being miles off and despite
our custom of putting to the very

back of the mind all that's customary
and then, since it takes forever to pass
with its car after car of coal and gas
and salt and wheat and rails and railway ties,

how it seems determined to give the lie
to the notion, my darling,
that we, not it, might be the constant thing.

Kissing and Telling

Or she would turn up The Songs of Leonard Cohen
on the rickety old gramophone.

And you knew by the way she unbound her tresses
and stepped from her William Morris dresses

you might just as well be anyone.

Goat's-milk cheeses, Navajo rugs,
her reading aloud from A Dictionary of Drugs

she made wine of almost everything.

How many of those she found out on the street
and fetched back to her attic room--

to promise nothing, to take nothing for granted

how many would hold by the axiom
she would intone as though it were her mantra?

I could name names. I could be indiscreet.

Somebody isn't happy with Pejman Yousefzadeh's answers . . .

UDATE: And Pejman thinks it's my fault. Which it might well be . . .

Unlearned Hand asks, inter alia:

But what I've been wondering is whether opponents of affirmative action would also be opposed to recruiting and marketing drives that clearly target minority groups. Here's a hypothetical, for argument's sake: Firm A is a very prestigious firm, ranked high in all the various lists, and normally recruits only the cream of the crop from the top schools. But it has a problem with racial diversity, having only a handful of minority attorneys. So this fall, the firm decides to interview not only at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Chicago, as they do every year, but also at Howard. They make it a policy to hire at least one person from each school. Have they done anything morally and/or legally wrong?

First, a semi-disclaimer: My answer to this question is based on my summer interning for the Center for Individual Rights, which strongly opposes affirmative action (much more strongly than I do, for example), but nothing in my answer should be taken to actually represent the views of the Center for Individual Rights. It's my composite impression of what their views on this question have been and should be.

There. That's said. The people at CIR all talked very enthusiastically about outreach programs, though they tended to focus more on economic outreach than on racial outreach. To some degree, affirmative action opponents try to be enthusiastic about such programs even if they don't really like then, because they think it's a lesser evil than affirmative action and thus could hopefully constitute a "less restrictive alternative," though it's not clear that would matter much to the Court.

But Unlearned Hand's hypothetical is a little more troubling because A: it involves particular racial outreach, and B: it involves a quota. I think that an affirmative action opponent (or at least the ones I talked to) would tentatively accept racial outreach as being not-great, but better than a lot of alternatives, and probably not illegal (outreach is less of a zero-sum game than admissions are).

But I think they'd be bothered by a law firm's combination of a policy of always taking one student from each school, and putting a school on that list because of its race. (There are degrees, of course. What if the firm picks not Howard but Michigan, while specifying that it thinks Michigan is "much more diverse and that's good"?)

So I think hardcore opponents of racial preferences would (and often should) treat racial outreach as a second-best option. They'd rather that schools recruit heavily in minority areas but then leave the "race" checkbox off of the application, although they still find distasteful (and possibly immoral) the practice of treating different people differently because of their skin color (this is the race-blindness ideal).

I'm not a diehard opponent of affirmative action myself, but I don't particularly approve of Mr. Hand's hypothetical firm. Using college as a proxy for race in order to admit more minorities seems like a waste of time and effort to me. If they simply interviewed at those five colleges, though, and then took the best applicants available at any school, I wouldn't mind at all.

As I'm sure Sara will be pleased to note, pseudo-bio-ethicist Leon Kass will be among this year's Bradley Prize recipients (which means a quarter of a million dollars), along with Thomas Sowell, Mary Ann Glendon, and Charles Krauthammer.

Letter to the Editor of The Economist

SIR –“Canada enjoys a free ride in defence from the United States” you insist. Please advise us of the countries that would attack Canada were it not for the might of the United States military.

Roy Palmer
Quebec

Yesterday I posted on how Eugene Volokh's Slippery Slopes piece applied to the partial birth abortion ban. I finished reading his piece today, and have come across a couple of brilliant footnotes. Here they are.

First, Volokh on frogs:

Libertarians often tell the parable of the frog. If a frog is dropped into hot water, it supposedly jumps out.[232] But if a frog is put into cold water that is then heated, the frog doesn’t notice the gradual temperature change, and dies. Likewise, the theory goes, with liberty:

232: I have not checked this myself, nor do I intend to. Some sources suggest that real frogs don’t behave this way. See, e.g., Next Time, What Say We Boil a Consultant, Fast Company, Nov. 1995, at 20. But consider the discussion as referring to the metaphorical frog—a creature much like the metaphorical ostrich, which (unlike a real ostrich) does bury its head in the sand when danger looms, and which is thus far more useful to us than a real ostrich can ever be.

[243] Cf. Socrates in the Phaedrus dialogue:

Soc. . . . When will there be more chance of deception—when the difference is large or small?

Phaedr. When the difference is small.

Soc. And you will be less likely to be discovered in passing by degrees into the other extreme than when you go all at once?

Phaedr. Of course. . . .

Soc. And when men are deceived and their notions are at variance with realities, it is clear that the error slips in through resemblances?

Phaedr. Yes, that is the way.

This also illustrates the authentic Socratic method, which, fortunately, law schools do not use: The teacher gives the answers in the form of questions and the student responds “Yes, Socrates.”

Or perhaps the truly authentic Socratic method is for someone to ask people tough questions, until they kill him.

(Via Another Rice Grad): Clint Bolick has a piece in Reason on Justice Brown's nomination. He discusses why Brown shouldn't just be lumped in with all of Bush's other nominees, (whether you think those other nominees should be filibustered or not). An excerpt:

Justice Brown is not a typical Republican judicial nominee. She understands the crucial role of courts in a constitutional republic: She is deferential to the elected branches when they act within their prescribed boundaries, but zealous in the defense of individual liberties against majoritarian tyranny. (Read the whole thing)

So a lot have readers have (rightly) criticized the idea of giving contingency contracts to heart surgeons, particularly on the grounds that Heart surgeons are probably already inspired by malpractice suits, reputation and even conscience to put forth the optimal level of effort already.

But that's all right, I've got a much better idea. Why not give performance-related pay to teachers? Not classroom teachers, mind you, who would be given incentives to cheat, teach the wrong materials, and so on, but on one particular kind of teacher-- the Kaplan test prep teacher.

You know the courses I mean. You're looking for an edge on your SAT, or trying to improve your LSAT score to fulfill your lifelong dream of going to Chicago Law, so you give $1000 to some guys who teach you how to take the test. But why not set a different pay-scheme, where you pay based on either your final score, or on your improvement over a diagnostic test (this would have to be an official LSAT) taken at the start of the course? (You could structure this by charging a very high fee for a perfect score or complete improvement, and then remitting the fee according to a graduated schedule if the student do as well.)

As I understand it, there are four classic arguments against performance related pay for teachers (these are lifted from Paul Lewis's lecture notes on "Principal Agent Models of the Employment Relationship and Performance-Relate Pay," which I received today):

(i) Many aspects of teacher's output = hard to observe and quantify.

(ii) Teaching is a multi-dimensional job, so basing compensation on its more easily observable and quantifiable outputs distorts incentives and can lead to dysfunctional behaviour (e.g. "teaching to the test").

(iii) Much teaching involves teamwork, so use of individual performance-related pay may be counterproductive because it might underline[sic] incentives for individual teachers to cooperate with one another.

(v)[sic] Teachers may be motivated not just by pecuniary considerations but also by their commitment to norms of professional conduct, so use of performance-related pay may be counterproductive as the extrinsic motivation provided by financial incentives erodes or crowds out the intrinsic motivation generated by teachers' commitment to norms of professional conduct.

If you're a Libertarian, a Libertarian-leaner, a fellow traveller, or just curious (cute, muppet-like, or not), and at the University of Chicago, the UC Libertarian Society is having its first meeting of the year on Wednesday at 7 PM in Cobb Hall (room to be announced). There will be refreshments, and a discussion of the Free State Project, among other things.

This blog boasts two Presidents Emeriti of the UC Libertarians, but neither of us will be there. The current president, though, also has a blog (and another).

UPDATE: The meeting's been delayed until Wednesday next, at 8. I believe that's the 5th. . .

So I'm moving to New York, a city with which I am completely unfamiliar, and looking to find an apartment with the following characteristics:

1. In a safe neighborhood
2. Convenient to public transportation
3. Within walking distance of a good grocery store
4. Cheap

If any of you know of a place that has these characteristics, or if you live in New York and would like to get together, drop me a line.

Annika is asking for dating tips for women, by women. I suppose I'm as qualified as anyone to offer them, so here goes.

Dressing up

We all know men are visual creatures, so make some effort with your appearance. However, keep the following pointers in mind.

1. Your date does not read Vogue. He has no clue if what your're wearing is ultrahip, or so last year. Therefore, you shouldn't worry either. Wear whatever makes you feel most beautiful. He will notice the self-confidence that results.

2. Of tight, short, and low-cut, pick one of three. Sexy is good. Slutty is bad.

3. When it comes to makeup, stick to neutrals and mattes. For every guy turned on by fire-engine red lipstick, there are another two put off by its obvious fakeness. Save it until you figure out which kind of guy you've got.

4. Remember, he wouldn't have asked you on the first date if he didn't think you were attractive. Remind yourself of this at regular intervals throughout the date.

Going Out

1. Learn these magic words: "How about something casual for our first date?" Nothing increases first-date anxiety like negotiating the whole fancy restaurant bit. You'll both be more relaxed ahd have an easier time getting to know each other if you're on familiar territory. Furthermore, this demonstrates your easygoing, low-maintenance nature, something the guy will surely find a plus.

2. Of course, if your purpose in dating is to dine for free at as many expensive restaurants as you possibly can, ignore the above advice. Instead, learn this phrase, "I do so adore French cuisine." He'll get the hint.

3. For guys: I may be going easy on you for the first date, but you're not off the hook entirely. Your second or third date should be someplace nice.

4. If he asks what sort of place you'd like, tell him. If you can't bring yourself to be this decisive, give him two or three alternatives. This way, neither of you will end up pretending you're thrilled to eat Indian when in reality you hate spicy food.

5. Most of all, don't be afraid to take the initiative and ask the guy out. Is it really fair for guys to bear the stress of potential rejection all the time? If this bothers him, he's either only in it for the thrill of the chase, or else he's secretly living in the Victorian era. Neither variety is a great loss.

Etiquette

1. Be ready on time. Lateness is not alluring.

2. A first date should not be a lesson on your theory of manners. Whether you think opening doors, pulling out chairs, etc. is necessary behavior in a gentleman, or demeaning to a woman's ability to take care of herself, don't take him to task on the first date.

3. Eat neatly, drink moderately, and talk quietly. But do eat, drink, and talk. Especially talk. Silence on a first date is awkward, not companionable.

3. Offer to split the check, but don't insist. And remember, some woman want the guy to pay, and some don't. Expecting him magically to intuit which you are is unfair.

Conversation

1. Lots of people have lots of lists of things you aren't supposed to talk about on the first date. Ignore these. Your date really doesn't want to know what you think about the weather this time of year. He really wants to know what you're passionate about, what political opinions you hold, and whether you're the sort of emotional nutcase who's still stuck on your jerk of an ex-boyfriend. Oblige him. It'll all come out eventually, so getting it out sooner rather than later will save you both heartbreak and wasted effort down the road.

2. That said, the unvarnished truth about you is a commodity best dispensed in moderation. Rave about the technical details of your favorite hobby, but keep it under a minute. Mention that you can't stand Bush, but don't lecture him about the vast Straussian conspiracy to rule the world. And if the hilarious anecdote you thought of involves your ex-boyfriend, go ahead and tell it. But if your ex-boyfriend is the hilarious anecdote, save it for a later date.

3. Relax. Remember that your date is probably just as nervous as you are.

Affection

1. Avoid garlic and onions, unless he eats them too.

2. Not shaving your legs as a way to prevent yourself from taking off your pants is not effective. If you feel the need to restrain yourself, you will inevitably end up taking them off anyways, and feeling massively embarassed about your stubble.

3. As to whether or not you should take off your pants, go with what feels right to you. Remember, the goal of the first date is not just to make him like you, but to find out if you like him. If your standards of sexual conduct aren't roughly similar, you will end up fighting over this very issue later.

To Recap

Perhaps it is unfair of me to put this at the end, but all of my advice can basically be summarized with the following two statements.

1. Be a slightly nicer, calmer, more confident version of yourself, but still be yourself.

2. Remember that your date cannot read your mind, and make appropriate allowances.

Happy Hunting.