Brian D. Silver, Professor Class meets: T, Th -- 3:00-4:50
Department of Political Science 218 Bessey Hall
337 South Kedzie Hall Course website:
Office hours: M, W: 11-12 or by appointment www.msu.edu/~bsilver/pls420-02.htm
E-Mail:
Office Phone: 355-2237
Political Science 420
“Population and Politics”
Purpose of the Course
This class will focus on the politics of how and why governments classify and count people, and to how issues of justice and representation hinge on accurate and fair counting, whether it be in censuses, elections, or other government efforts. Special emphasis will be given to classifications by race and ethnicity. The fundamental issues are: Why do governments count people? Why do they classify people by nationality, race, and ethnicity? What is fair or unfair (just or unjust) about how the government does these things?
The answers to these questions require consideration of constitutional law, human rights, and the practical requirements of governing a large and complex society. Many of them are also controversial. For example, many people object to the government=s use of ethnic and racial categories or to the specific categories that have been used. Also, many people consider the census as a whole to be an invasion of privacy, and feel that they should not have to provide information to the government. At the same time, it is a practical requirement of a democratic government to provide a system of elections. Seats in the legislatures are typically apportioned on the principle of “one person, one vote.” Implementing such a system requires a regular counting of the population and the periodic reapportionment or redistricting of seats in accordance with population changes. But beyond the principle of “one person, one vote,” other considerations of equity in representation may come into play, in particular that districts be apportioned “fairly” so as not to reduce the effective vote of minority groups. Furthermore, as we have seen in the 2000 Presidential election, whether “every vote should be counted” is not a simple or straightforward matter in either constitutional law or electoral practice.
Because of the historic developments in the year 2000 Presidential Election in the United States, we will devote one section of the course to the issues surrounding the recounting of votes in the state of Florida. There are valuable lessons concerning the issue of equality, and the constitutional basis for “counting” people, to be gained from a careful consideration of the legal arguments and decisions in the Florida and U.S. Courts. As we will see, the issues are both fundamental (they relate to basic civic rights) and political (partisan interests B and the determination of winners and losers B are also at stake).
The course will begin with the U.S. national census of 2000 and controversies over racial and ethnic classifications and the method of data collection, in particular the issue of “sampling.”
A secondary, but important purpose of the course is to help you to become resourceful in finding information on the Internet as well as learning how to assemble this information in useful ways. You will spend a fair amount of time cruising the net, but hopefully in constructive ways!
Instructional Model
The class sessions will operate primarily as a discussion/seminar and will focus on evaluating textual materials and the main issues at hand. It will also be important for students to share source materials with other students in the class.
-1-
However, at least three times during the semester, each student will present arguments in the form of debates on opposing sides of issues. In preparation for those debates, students will work in teams to write briefs and arguments. They will submit the briefs in writing, to be graded. They will also present arguments orally during the debates; their contribution to the debates will also be graded.
In addition, in the case of debates in which the students are not participating, they will become debate judges. As judges, they will be required to write a “judgment” or “opinion” that weighs the arguments and evidence presented by other students as well as the literature (court cases and other documents) that has been assigned, and then, much like a court opinion, both summarizes and reaches a conclusion in favor of one position or the other. These “judgments” or “opinions” will also be submitted to the instructor for grading.
All written materials must be submitted in electronic form, i.e., as an e-mail attachment. You can use either MS Word (.doc), WordPerfect (.wpd), Rich Text Format (.rtf), or Portable Document Format (.pdf). No other formats will be accepted.
Grades
Grades will be based on performance during the debates (40%), briefs submitted for each debate (by debaters) (20%), and judgments (“opinions”) submitted for other debates (20%). Another 20% will be based on the instructor’s assessment of the student’s contribution to class discussions.
Debate Topics
Students will be assigned to 4-5 person teams for each debate. One team for each debate will take the “affirmative,” and the other will take the “negative.” A simplified format of policy debate will be used. Students not participating in a particular round of the debate will serve as “judges.” I provide 6 topics here but in all probability we will debate 4 or 5 of them (enough to assure that each student participates in three debates). We will decide in class which of the last two listed topics we will cover, and then I will add material to the syllabus in accordance with that decision.
Please note that the fact that a given resolution is stated in the affirmative or negative does not indicate my personal preference or conclusion, nor is it intended to “slant” the conclusion in any way. These issues are controversial. Smart people, sincere people disagree about them. Your job will be to take a position and defend it effectively, and to analyze your opponent=s position and attack it.
Round 1. Resolved: That the U.S. Census Bureau should use sampling techniques to develop the most complete and accurate “single count” of the population in the Census.
Round 2. Resolved: That the use of ethnic and racial categories in the US census and other official records should be abolished.
Round 3. Resolved: That the final counting of votes in the year 2000 Presidential Election in the State of Florida was unconstitutional.
Round 4. Resolved: That the University of Michigan=s new affirmative action programs for undergraduate and Law School Admissions are unconstitutional.
Round 5. Resolved: The funding of public schools (K-12) should be designed to guarantee that every child has an equal opportunity for a quality education, and should not depend on the wealth, income, or other characteristics of the parents.
Round 6. Resolved: The requirement of equal opportunities to compete in intercollegiate athletic teams for men and women, under the Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, should be rescinded.
-1-
On a given topic, students will play one of three roles: they will be on a team arguing in the affirmative, on a team arguing in the negative, or they will be a judge.
Thus, every student will have a written assignment for each debate. If they are a debater, they must submit a written brief of their position after the debate is completed (4-6 pages); if they are a judge, they will issue a 6-10 page reasoned “judgment” based on the arguments and evidence heard in the debate. The judgments should review both the issues, the core literature, and new information brought up during the oral arguments (the debates). They should take a “judicious” position, that is, deal fairly with the arguments on both sides, but they can definitely end up supporting one side or the other.
The Internet
Success in the course will require each student to have ready access to the Internet and preferably also a printer. Students who are not familiar with the web will be given some guidelines and advice but will have to find their own way through the use of publicly available lab computers or their own computer. Since the Internet is to be a major research tool, students will focus first on acquainting themselves with major sources of information about the government. On the detailed course outline, I have listed a great number of URL’s. I=ve checked them all for accuracy but it=s still possible that some will become inactive or change over time, and will have to be eliminated or updated. If you are “online” to the internet, you can use this syllabus (once it is provided in electronic form on the course webpage) directly by just clicking on any of the hyperlinks and going directly to the source on the web.
You will be able to download most information from the web by using either Netscape or Internet Explorer as your browser. To take best advantage of some of the websites, you should also have Adobe Acrobat reader installed to read documents .PDF format. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat reader on your computer, then you can download it for free: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html. Since you will be working in teams for a substantial part of the semester, you should be able to find another student who will help you to read and if necessary to download and print such files.
A list of e-mail addresses will be distributed in class so that you can keep in contact with other students in the course. Team assignments for the debates, as well as a set of “News and Notes,” will also be placed on the course webpage.
Schedule (will be updated and recalibrated)
Note: This syllabus will be updated and posted on the class webpage, so you can retrieve it there.
Week 1: J15, Familiarization with Sources B Use of Internet (see “first assignment”at end of this syllabus).
J17 U.S. Census -- Constitutional and Institutional Basis
· The Constitution (see Article I, Sec. II): http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html
· Federalist Papers (#54 & #55):http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/or go to Thomas.
Week 2: J20, What are the purposes of censuses? How are they conducted? What’s so controversial
J22 about them?
* The Year 2000 Census Questionnaires in the U.S.
The forms: http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/2000quest.html
1990 vs. 2000 census: http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/90vs00.html
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS) “Measuring a Changing Nation” (pp 7-23: “Introduction”) http://books.nap.edu/books/0309064449/html/index.html
· Census Products: http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/c2kproducts.html; also http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html
Week 3: J27&29 Issues and Problems: Accuracy and the Undercount -- Sources
and Political Implications for the U.S.
Causes and Extent of Undercount:
* Wright, “A One Number Census,” http://www.junkscience.com/jan99/sample.htm
* “Supreme Court and Adjustment of Census,”Population and Development Review, Vol. 22, (Jun., 1996), pp. 399-405.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0098-7921%28199606%2922%3A2%3C399%3ATSCOTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P
* [Henry F. Werker], “Results of 1980 Census Challenged,” Population & Development Review, Vol. 7, No. 1. (Mar., 1981), pp. 155-167. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0098‑7921%28198103%297%3A1%3C155%3AROT1UC%3E2.0.CO%3B2‑O
Implications for Apportionment:
* Schirm, “The Effects of Census Undercount Adjustment on Congressional Apportionment,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 86, No. 414. (Jun., 1991), pp. 526-541.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0162-1459%28199106%2986%3A414%3C526%3ATEOCUA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9
*Funding Formulas: M. Murray “Census Adjustment” in Demography (Aug. 1992): 319-332.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0070-3370%28199208%2929%3A3%3C319%3ACAATDO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z
*Differential Undercounts:
Choldin “Statistics and Politics: the Hispanic Issue,” Demography 23 (Aug. 1986): 403-418.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0070-3370%28198608%2923%3A3%3C403%3ASAPT%22I%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2
Passel, “1970 Census Count of American Indians,” Demography13 (Aug. 1976): 397-409.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0162-1459%28199309%2988%3A423%3C1074%3AEOPCIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J
Siegel, “Estimates of Coverage of the Population by Sex, Race, and Age in the 1970 Census,” Demography 11 (Feb. 1974): 1-23.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0070-3370%28197402%2911%3A1%3C1%3AEOCOTP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q
Brown et al.: “Statistical Controversies in Census 2000.”
http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/~census/537.pdf
Week 4: F3 Census Undercount and “The Sampling Controversy” in Year 2000
(Note: No class on February 5)
* National Academy of Sciences, “Counting People in an Information Age”: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309051789/html/ (read sections on coverage)
* Brown “Statistical Controversies”
Science News: http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/10_11_97/bob1.htm and http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/3_6_99/bob1.htm
* Congressional debates/hearings can be found on Thomas (http://thomas.loc.gov/). (search Congressional Record for 105th and 106th Congress on keywords such as “census” or “census + sampling”)
* American Statistical Association opinion on use of Sampling:
http://www.amstat.org/pressroom/ExecSummary.html
Key U.S. Supreme Court Cases (retrieve on Lexis-Nexis -- http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe)
* Dept. of Commerce v. US House of Representatives, Docket 98-404
* Utah v. Evans (01 US 714)
US Census Results B from the Year 2000
* Census Bureau Y2K Homepage: http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/2khome.htm
* Questionnaires: http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/2000quest.html
* Response rates: http://rates.census.gov/
* Preliminary results: http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html
* ESCAP: decision NOT to adjust the results: http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/EscapRep.html
* Congressional apportionment: http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/apportionment.html - t1
Week 5: F10 Race & Ethnicity in U.S. Censuses and Federal Statistics
F12
* History of OMB Directive 15:
www.census.gov:80/population/www/socdemo/race/Directive_15.html
www.census.gov:80/population/www/socdemo/race/Ombdir15.html
http://www.ameasite.org/classif.html (very useful timeline by AMEA)
* Testing Different Ethnic/Racial Questions:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0016/twps0016.html
* What is Race? Am. Anthropological. Assn.
“Statement on Race”: http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
“Response to Directive 15”: http://www.aaanet.org/gvt/ombdraft.htm
* “Multi-Racial”
http://www.ameasite.org/census/
http://csmonitor.com/durable/1997/10/14/opin/opin.1.html
http://www.multiracial.com/news/protest.html
* Another Issue B Farley, “The New Census Question about Ancestry: What Did It Tell Us?” Demography, Vol. 28, No. 3. (Aug., 1991), pp. 411-429.
* California Proposition 54 -- “Racial Privacy Initiative”
http://www.racialprivacy.org/
-- other materials to be added and linked
Week 6: F17&19 DEBATE 1: The U.S. Census of the US should use sampling and other methods to “adjust” for error in the count
Week 7: F24&26 DEBATE 2: Racial and ethnic labels in censuses and official statistics should be abolished
SPRING BREAK: MARCH 3-7
Week 9: M9&11 The Year 2000 Presidential Election and the Florida Recount
Issues in Districting and Representation:
Baker v. Carr (1962):
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=369&invol=186
Gray v. Sanders (1963):
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=372&invol=368
Wesberry v. Sanders (1964):
laws.findlaw.com/us/376/1.html
Reynolds v. Syms (1964):
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=377&invol=533
Week 10: M16&18 Background -- CNN Election 2000
Florida Recount Timeline:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/13/got.here/index.html
A source of Federal and State court cases and laws (Findlaw):
http://www.findlaw.com/
Oral arguments and court orders and opinions:
Oyez, Oyez has oral arguments, http://oyez.org/cases/cases.cgi?command=show&case_id=766
Findlaw US Supreme Court –
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html
Bush v. Gore (Dec. 4, 2000) (per curiam decision)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/00-836.html
Bush v. Gore (Dec. 12, 2000)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/00-949.html
Florida Supreme Court:
http://www.flcourts.org/sct/sctdocs/index.html
Gore v. Harris (Nov. 21, 2000)
http://www.law.ufl.edu/opinions/supreme/alpharoster/alpha0011/wk3/00-2346.htm
Gore v. Harris (Dec. 8, 2000)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/floridastatecases/12_2000/sc00-2431.pdf
Gore v. Harris (Dec. 22, 2000)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/floridastatecases/12_2000/sc00-2431-remand.pdf
US Code (laws): http://guide.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/
Reform Proposals: General Accounting Office
AFramework for reform@ Report: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0290.pdf
Factors in undercount: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02122.pdf