Missives from Samsara

We are looking at Congress as an institution in my AP Government class at the moment. In order to allow students to see the demographics of Congress relative to our society, I provide the official report that Congress makes available and ask student to do a bit of research. Below is a demographic summary of Congress, in all its dysfunction. Note, this does not include the recently elected Democratic congresswoman from Arizona Adelita Grijalva.

1. Party breakdown (May 13, 2025): • House: 220 Republicans (plus 3 Delegates), 213 Democrats (plus 2 Delegates and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico), and 2 vacant seats. • Senate: 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and 2 Independents (both caucus with Democrats).

⸻

2. Women in Congress: • 155 women serve (129 in the House, including 4 Delegates; 26 in the Senate). • They make up 28.65% of total membership. • Women make up about 50.5% of the overall U.S. population, so they remain underrepresented.

⸻

3. Average age: • House: 57.9 years • Senate: 63.9 years • Median U.S. age: about 39 years (U.S. Census 2024). → Members of Congress are much older on average than the general population.

⸻

4. Most common professions: • Law, business, and public service/politics. → In contrast, the most common U.S. jobs overall are in retail, food service, and office administration—showing Congress is dominated by professionals rather than service-sector workers.

⸻

5. Education: • 96% of Members are college graduates; 66% of House and 78% of Senate members hold advanced degrees. • By comparison, only about 38% of U.S. adults have a bachelor’s degree or higher—so Congress is far more highly educated than the general population.

⸻

6. Average length of service: • Representatives: 8.6 years (about 4.3 terms) • Senators: 11.2 years (about 1.9 terms) → A more experienced Congress can mean institutional knowledge and policy expertise, but can also reduce turnover and fresh perspectives. Conversely, many newcomers can bring new ideas but may lack legislative experience.

⸻

7. Religious affiliations: • 55.1% Protestant, 28.0% Catholic, 6.0% Jewish, 1.7% Latter-day Saints, small numbers of Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and Orthodox members. • Compared to the U.S. population, which is about 63% Christian and more religiously diverse overall, Congress remains more heavily Christian.

⸻

8. African American Members: • 61 in the House (including 2 Delegates), 5 in the Senate → 66 total (12.2%). • African Americans make up about 13.6% of the U.S. population, so representation is roughly proportional.

⸻

9. Hispanic or Latino Members: • 50 in the House (including 1 Delegate and the Resident Commissioner), 6 in the Senate → 56 total (10.35%). • Hispanics/Latinos make up about 19% of the U.S. population, so they remain underrepresented.

⸻

10. Asian American and Pacific Islander Members: • 24 total (21 in the House, 3 in the Senate) → 4.4% of Congress. • Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are about 7.5% of the U.S. population, so they are underrepresented.

⸻

11. Native American Members: • 4 total (3 in the House, 1 in the Senate) → 0.74% of Congress. • Native Americans are about 1.3% of the U.S. population, so they are underrepresented.

⸻

12. Military service: • 98 Members (18.1%) have served or are serving in the military. • This is down sharply from 64% in the 97th Congress (1981–82) and 73% in the 92nd (1971–72). • About 6% of U.S. adults are veterans today—so Congress still has a higher veteran rate than the general population but much lower than mid-20th-century levels.

In three of my classes today we had a Socratic seminar on an essay by historian Douglas Wilson about Thomas Jefferson called Thomas Jefferson and the Meaning of Liberty. The essay is almost 30 years old and is a bit out of date with regards to Jefferson’s relationship with Sally Hemmings. Nevertheless, Wilson makes some interesting points about how modern Americans should think about viewing figures such as Jefferson, whose lives contained such glaring contradictions.

One of the specific points Wilson makes has to do with the idea of presentism, which he describes as judging those in the past through the lens of our modern societal norms and values. It is always an interesting idea to hear teenagers discuss. Often in years past students were quick to dismiss the logic of avoiding presentism. With ‘cancel culture’ on the rise, students often self-righteously condemned imperfect historic figures such as Jefferson and James Madison. Indeed, learning of Dr. King’s infidelity was often a hard blow for many of my former students.

However, in today’s discussions I noticed students were generally more wary about judging too harshly. It wasn’t that they couldn’t and didn’t call Jefferson out. They did. However, I was impressed to see that those students who spoke often articulated a nuanced take that both recognized Jefferson’s obvious moral hypocrisy, as well as the fact that historical figures are and were regular people and always far from perfect. It struck me because such nuance was often missing from discussions of this essay in the past. Indeed, students today recognized that social media has made it easier for people to judge others, both their contemporaries and historical figures. They noted that this was not a positive development.

At the end of the day, I felt good about the conversations we had for a lot of reasons. I especially appreciated the more sophisticated reading of Wilson’s argument about presentism. Indeed, a lack of nuance is present in the debates of the adults in our society nowadays, so I was happy to see young people going there. It will help in the coming days and months as they eventually take a look at Kermit Roosevelt’s take on the Declaration, American Revolution, and Reconstruction amendments.

I am teaching a new elective class this year called American Sports History. One of the many benefits of teaching a new class is that I get to learn a lot. The early history of baseball was one of our early topics and while teaching I came across the origins of some team names that I had always wondered about. This was great because I am a huge sports fan. It was also cool because I often bring up team names while teaching history since so many names are derived from historical connections with their cities and regions. Obvious examples include; the New England Patriots, the Philadelphia 76ers, the San Francisco 49ers, and the Portland Trailblazers. When I point these out in class I get the pleasure of seeing many lightbulbs go off.

The origin stories I recently learned about have to do with the Cincinnati Reds and the Los Angeles Dodgers. I always wondered why a midwestern team would have a name associated as a political slur. Their original name was the Red Stockings, and they are considered to be America’s first professional team. They became the Reds eventually, but during the early days of the Cold War, they did actually change their name from the Reds to the Redlegs. They changed back to Reds in 1959.

Most baseball fans know that the LA Dodgers started in New York and were known as the Brooklyn Dodgers. But dodgers of what? Seems like a random team name. Apparently, before they were the Dodgers, they were the Greys, the Bridegrooms, and the Robins. In the 1930s, with trolley’s becoming ubiquitous, they were renamed the Trolley Dodgers. They eventually moved to the West Coast, and the local connection of the name became shrouded to most.

For the record, the original names (and locations) of my favorite teams are:

Athletics: Philadelphia Athletics (1901-1954) → Kansas City Athletics (1955-1967) → Oakland Athletics (1968-2024) → (Sacramento) Athletics (2025-2027, temporary while new stadium built) → Las Vegas Athletics (2028-present, planned)

Raiders: Oakland Raiders (1960-1981) → Los Angeles Raiders (1982-1994) → Oakland Raiders (1995-2019) → Las Vegas Raiders (2020-present)

Kings: Rochester Royals (1945-1957) → Cincinnati Royals (1957-1972) → Kansas City-Omaha Kings (1972-1975) → Kansas City Kings (1975-1985) → Sacramento Kings (1985-present)

Stanford Cardinal: Stanford University, Stanford, California (1891-present) - The team name changed from “Indians” (1930-1972) to “Cardinal” (1972-present), referring to the color cardinal red, not the bird.