Why do people participate in venues like this? Why do I write? Why do you read? Why do we enter into conversations through comments?
It seems to me to be too cynical to view blogs as interactive art: seductive, but ephemeral. No, I think we participate because we hope to learn, but even more to teach. We hope to be entertained, but even more to entertain. We seek community, but perhaps even more to establish our individuality. But we can become destructive when we get frustrated. Then we seek to sow confusion rather than knowledge, anger rather than entertainment, and to tear down others when we cannot build up ourselves. If I can't get what I want, then at least I can keep you from getting what you want!
Incivility is a consequence of frustration. Where does this frustration come from? I doubt there is a single cause, but it seems to me that a sense of powerlessness to meet our particular goals in debate is often a primary cause.
For example, we might enter a discussion hoping to convince the other participants of the rightness of a position we are strongly committed to. But the other participants come with their own experiences, their own prior beliefs, their own bound commitments. It may be the case that no matter how well informed our arguments are, or how artfully we've constructed them, no matter how passionately, how eloquently we argue, the other guy is not going to be budged. It is often at this point that we get frustrated. We realize that our goal—convincing the other guy—is not achievable, even in principle. What happens next is often not pretty. But does it need to be inevitable?
Tolerance matters. It is perfectly reasonable and appropriate to hope that our arguments will prevail; it is unreasonable to assume that when they don't, it is due to some character flaw in our opponents. It is often suggested by members of the left that intolerance is a characteristic of the right, and vice versa. Let me suggest instead that tolerance is a characteristic of maturity, and that immaturity correlates with both extremism and youth. The passing of youth is inevitable, but the passing from immaturity to maturity is not. Good examples, from both allies and opponents can help form maturity. We should aspire to be good examples.
I think we need to learn to accept secondary goals. If we cannot convince, then perhaps we can inform. Understanding isn't the same as agreement, but achieving understanding is rare enough and valuable enough to be a worthy goal in its own right. But there is a two way obligation here—if you want to be understood, you should be willing to understand the other guy's position too. You can understand without agreement, and there is nothing wrong with saying so. I understand your position, but I do not agree with it. Let us be at peace.
And I think that while we do well to understand differences, we do better when we acknowledge those things that hold in common: our humanity, our integrity, and our willingness to engage constructively with one another.
Peace
48 comments:
Also, tolerance is a mark of either secure power or opposition. Insecure power is marked with intolerance.
This is why intolerance was seen from Bush supporters (especially during the first administration) and why it is seen from Obama supporters now -- and why we see it from Scientologists, Anthropogenic Global Warming Truthers, Darwinists, Catholics during the Reformation, etc.
It's why we see so much ecumenism now (and since the 60s) in the face of growing "world religions" and Gaia worship and atheism (which often was a combo of the previous two), most of the Christian churches put away their major differences (like who could & couldn't take communion together, etc -- just look at To Kill a Mockingbird -- children were aware of who was an "okay" church and who not -- this still happens in some more ultra-conservative congregations) in order to show a more united front against entropy.
My guess (and the best guess of others) is that folks who are intolerant have weak points in their systems of belief. And in order to shore up those points they react with negativity and violence.
Which means the only converts you're going to get are the ones with much better armor -- requiring the caliber of your arguments to be much higher.
Unfortunately, it's difficult online to exclude the mean folks from the conversation (though restricting anonymous comments seems to help) -- and any exclusion tends to make a group homogeneous -- which is often bad for discussion, creativity, and new ideas -- especially when that homogeneity deals in control and praise. See: current state of poetry in the US.
I realize this is a different venue that Kirby's "Lutheran Surrealism," and I'll try not to abuse the privilege of appearing on it.
Know too, that it's not a matter of mere commenting on a site faute de mieux ("for want of something better," stu), but that it was my intention to comment here quite soon anyway, for I find your commentaries salutary. Without the adolescent provocations regularly provided by the likes of semi-literates like Tom and brett (though I'll confess my attraction to exchanges in classical agonistic rhetoric, genteel, but, um, vigorous), perhaps my long personal history of battling leftists (Kirby should be able to inform you of our past battles with, e.g., Berube [at Penn St], Protevi [LSU], and their many minions (as I've said--in political exchanges I stung Berube [we called him "Broob"] so badly that he resorted to the foulest personal attacks [accusing me on several academic sites of taking on another academic's name as my blogging name--Jacques Albert--which I've used for thirty years as a writer--and trying to get me banned from several academic blogsites). At any rate, it's for others to judge the contest, but I was satisfied that "Broob" got much more than he first fancied--his boot-licking henchman Protevi, too, as I think Kirby could testify to. "Martyr?"--or else, along with his 23 year-old blogging "gun-moll" wife, Emmy (who has the two elements of a good writer--ingenium ["creative imagination"] and copia ["abundance"]), a kind of right-wing "Bonnie and Clyde" act, to be sure. You'll recognize that some of this commentary is in lieu of a personal introduction I've not yet gotten to on your email site.
Nevertheless, I'll try to accord my comments with your more eirenic approach to discussion.
Continued:
Nevertheless, as the lawyers say, ad rem (or "to the matter at hand"). I remember our exchanges on how President Obama could possibly qualify to teach at UC as a part-time lecturer for twelve years without a single academic publication to his credit. I remember also suggesting (among a flurry of questions I had for you, and I realize that you're not of that dept) that
Obama's "professional" experience at the time seemed to have been that of a virtually non-practicing lawyer and would-be state politician (with a background in community agitation--er, organizing)--what of this experience do you think commended him as a successful candidate for "senior lecturer" at UC? In comparison with Judge Richard Posner's record I should think him pretty paltry stuff as a candidate for a UC senior lectureship, but perhaps he had "special" qualifications (perhaps you might suggest just one or two). And, as I said, doesn't a UC academic candidate have a responsibility to contribute to the field he presumes to teach in and risk the refereed judgements of those in the field at large? Or do big-reputation schools like UC arrogantly flip a "Spanish fig" to those at-large, whether even at Cambridge the Lesser or in the case of one of my four dissertation examiners, a Cambridge the Greater Irishman who headed the U of Washington's classics dept--and the 3rd ed Oxford English Dictionary's chosen Ovid expert (sniff), Stephen Hinds? Or then there's my diss reading chairman and another of the four, Ernst Behler—now, and sadly, departed--for many years translator from English-German and German-English and for some years chairman of both Germanics and Comparative Lit depts--with his fifty-page bib and his editorship of the thirty-five vol works of Schlegel. I should think UC also collects such impressive scholars, but know there are a FEW scattered experts at other schools in the world capable of assessing the work of a candidate whether in comp lit or law. You've assured me that "affirmative action" concerns could have nothing to do with Obama's selection, though this concern came up IN EVERY INSTANCE of when I sat on various faculty recruitment and selection committees (after all, universities must justify their programmes to favour--er, encourage racial minorities to the feds), and there is an embarras de richesse of evidence that this is a major concern everywhere. Whence comes the surety with which you dismissed the POSSIBILITY that "affirmative action" concerns might have figured in Obama's selection?
Know that I AM sceptical about Chicago politics (which are corrupt beyond even what can be imagined) having a part in all this, and I shall continue to consider UC (I've been there for conferences as well as to Newbury Library) a flower growing on top of a very--er, "aromatic" dunghill that is the political topos of Chicago (in contrast, among other visits to the symphony--or the art institute--there, our last is still the most memorable to date for the stunning renditions of the Dvorak "New World" and Beethoven 3rd piano--my favourite piano concerto along with the Mozart 20th). I'd like to think that Obama's connexions formed during his privileged education at Columbia and Harvard weighed in mightily in his selection, for among those at such prestigious institutions there must be considerable intercourse--er, "mutual understanding" that ensure mutually agreed-upon placements of candidates exhibiting (it is to be hoped) sterling acadermic qualities along with sound bone development. Quid verbis? (or "what need of more words?"), at least on my part 'till I receive your reply on the matter.
Continued:
One final matter, stu. I respect your candidness about your belief that our Iraq adventure is "criminal." And for crimes to be committed there most often are criminals to commit them. Is that the case here? Who then? And what should be done to ensure justice is served and the perps punished, if nothing else to discourage future crimes? On the other hand, know that there are (Gentile even, comme moi, though I must admit to some Jewish ancestors, some of whom were wiped out by Stalin's Ukrainian genocide in the 30s) partisans defending the recently-expressed concerns of former Vice-President Cheney, whom you doubtless, like so many other academics, loathe. On the contrary, I applaud his candidness as well as yours, though my agreement with his recent views must be "ektos ton elaon" ("beyond the line of olives" or too far) for those of your convictions. A mon avis (in my opinion) it is the Democrats in Congress (along with a few wayward Republicans--just as they did in the Vietnam War) who've undercut our efforts in Iraq, sapped public confidence, and abused the brave efforts of our military, all of which gives our resolute and fanatical enemies courage to continue to spread terror and violence about the globe. This view must be alarming to many sleek academics who've never been shot at (BTW: I shot back, too), but it behooves those on our side fairly to consider legitimate objections to the war, just as it behooves your side not to make puerile references to Bush-Hitler, Cheney-Haliburton, right-wing talk radio, "fundie, Bible-totin' ultras, far-outs, extremes, Palin as porn-star," "Israel-lobby," neo-con chicken-hawks, etc. as the abyss of all evil. And I'd like to know whence comes the "street" excesses of the right you paired with those of the left (e.g., ACORN voter fraud, website or radio attacks (as Stanley Kurtz suffered when on a Chicago radio show and Obama fanatics jammed the caller venue with coordinated hateful denunciations of Kurtz's person and report to prevent others from hearing or speaking; disclaimer: I'm a veteran of the Washington and Michigan equal rights movements inspired by the most honourable Ward Connerly--in Michigan, headed by Carl Cohen, joint professor of law and philosophy at the U of Michigan--and we faced disruptive and violent intimidation attempts by the aptly-named "BAMN"--"By Any Means Necessary"--hey, no prob for me, I'm used to it, though I'll admit, my boxing days are decades behind me, I've a bad left flipper as you know, I'm sorely nearsighted, I smoke, and I'm more than a bit out of shape at 6'2, 205lbs at last month's VA weigh-in--I should weigh about 180-85 or so, though my Jr AAU weight was that of a middle, or under 160, my small-college basketball weight at 17-18 yrs was about 165-70; BTW, Kirby, the best boxing movies made were "The Set-Up" with Rob't Ryan--an actual Dartmouth intercollegiate boxing champion--and John Huston's "Fat City"--with Stacey Keach--one irony is that a former world middleweight champ--Curtis Cokes—who appears as a fearful (of Keach) non-boxer in the movie). Sorry for the digressions, but I thought perhaps in addition to my questions and comments, I'd add a few introductory personal comments in lieu of an email intro, as you so graciously sent me.
And this leads me conclude on a happy, congratulatory note for you, your wife, and your daughter, who is to be married (Saturday?). I think back to my own last (yes, I was married twice before, as I alluded to in my comments on Kirby's site) marriage (Em and I are in our third year, though we're in our sixth together) that we arranged at my VFW post (#1224); since Em's papa (excursus: a bit my junior and a district court judge in the Detroit area--and don't get him started on Detroit political corruption and systematic voter fraud!--BTW, he was rejected for admission to the U of Michigan Law School, as he found out, due to "affirmative action" considerations--he finished in the top 2% of his law class elsewhere--he's also the most principled man I've ever known and thus a hard act to follow, as I averred at the wedding before our guests; at any rate Emmy's papa not only gave her away, but turned round, donned his robes, and married us as well). At any rate, the best to you and your family on that day and after, and again accept our congratulations for that blessed occasion.
Off to take me mum to hospital--she's due to get stents for her several aneurisms Aug 13th--don't know where her care would be with "Obama-care," but I'd deeply resent any suggestion that she undergo "end-of-life counseling" by Obama's "pro-choice" medical bureaucrats. We'll all be in Canada next year (BTW, a correction: Huet conferred with rabbis in Amsterdam, not (quelle bete!) Jerusalem, and so let me end this note on an apology for the error. Cheers,
James Albert DeLater
I think another goal of debate (generally, at least, my goal) is to find out what you think, and why, as a kind of self-examination. I often have no idea how I've arrived at the positions I've arrived at, but some of it is geographic, and accidental, and can be changed, or at least tinkered with.
Since we are social creatures (whether we are closer to chimps or to orangutangs is still a question, isn't it, in terms of whether we need to spend lots of time alone, or would rather hang with others), it does seem that just shooting the breeze is fun, but there is also the spider monkey aspect -- have you seen those in the Chicago zoo? If not, go and take a look.
They spend the entire day knocking each other off their branches, and doing it apparently merely for fun, swinging, and running, taking each other's food, and zinging past.
It reminded me of the comments boxes on many blogs.
It may be that there are some people who take the whole thing too seriously. It seems to me that the Spider Monkeys don't want to hurt the other players, for the most part, since that would mean the "argument" couldn't continue.
Like playing cops and robbers as kids, the positions are interchangable, and the fun is, like in Kick the Can, getting in a point, or having a point scored on you, it's mainly ludic and ludicrous to a great extent.
And yet, to a larger extent, since we have to live inside of a larger framework of meaning (politics matters!), we also must constantly fret and worry about the underpinnings, since we don't have zookeepers, but in fact are our own zookeepers, and faulty thinking can get us all killed, or lead to the end of our particular society.
So there is something quite serious in debate, too.
If we think purely about Luther and his antics, it wasn't solely playful. He saw serious deficiencies in Rome (particularly during his trip there) and was incredibly incensed by the waste, even on things we now take to be great -- wasn't he mindful of the expense of the Michelangelo expenditures, for instance, when his people were starving back home?
So he wanted a simplified aesthetics without church patronage for idols (he nevertheless didn't want the idols smashed as the Anabaptists and some of his colleagues did).
And of course from Rome's viewpoint there was power and money. This was also what Luther himself saw. He wanted the power and money to remain in Germany, which is why he backed Philip of Hesse, and why the German princes in general back Luther in the first place.
I think the left is generally made up of people who want handouts for the poor. They may think of this as theologically correct (I think this is your sense of it), but there are others who actually need it.
The right generally wants work ethic and a sense of entitlement through hard work and business sense to run things (this is Limbaugh's sense, as he keeps saying, why should I pay for the lazy?).
I am generally with the right because as a system I think hard work should be encouraged, rather than laziness.
I have sympathy for children, and for illiterate or people with low IQs or barely functioning minds, but think that those who keep their families in one piece, and show some kind of sexual restraint, and keep off drugs, should rise, and that this is good for the whole community.
If we enable the lazy and the outrageous to have crazy sex and then bail them out, it undermines the whole society.
At any rate, I don't think the differences in debaters are just personal. There is a political side to debate having to do with how people view the whole structure of society, and what is good for us.
As for Iraq, I don't know. I go both ways, but this comment has gone long enough already.
James—
Your notes are a bit shot-gun, so please allow me the luxury to pick and choose.
I've never seen Mr. Obama's appointment file, and therefore do not know what qualifications he had to be senior lecture in Law. I think it likely, as you suggested, that strong recommendations from Harvard (he did edit the Harvard Law Review, which is indicative of considerable ability) played a role. Mr. Obama was also a civil rights lawyer in Chicago, and his work in this regard—researching cases, preparing briefs, etc.—seems to have been highly regarded.
As for the consideration of race and gender in academic appointments, you're right, it is always on the table. At Chicago, there are both carrots and sticks when it comes to considering candidates from (statutorily defined) underrepresented groups. The sticks ensure that we advertise the positions to maximize diversity within the pool. The carrot is that certain appointments may not count against head counts. But an absolutely non-negotiable stipulation is that we do not relax University standards to appoint candidates from underrepresented groups.
As it is, it is implausible to me that Mr. Obama would have contributed to redressing a hypothetical deficiency in the Law School, since senior lecturers constitute a distinct track. This is where my confidence comes from that your affirmative action hypothesis is false: appointing him as senior lecturer wouldn't have helped the Law School meet a hypothetical target.
Know that I AM skeptical about Chicago politics (which are corrupt beyond even what can be imagined)
True, but you know perfectly well that inferring aggregate properties of a group to all of its individuals is unsound inference. And Obama as a legislator did not attempt to push through the legislature the kind of preferments that are indicative of someone who's "playing the game."
I respect your candidness about your belief that our Iraq adventure is "criminal." And for crimes to be committed there most often are criminals to commit them. Is that the case here? Who then? And what should be done to ensure justice is served and the perps punished, if nothing else to discourage future crimes?
I believe that the US Administration (Mr. Cheney in particular) manipulated the analysis of raw intelligence to justify war. An alternative possibility is that Ahmed Chalabi pulled the con job of the century on him. Either way, the legal justifications for war, as expressed by Colin Powell in the United Nations speech, proved false, and the best construction that can be put on this is a culpable failure of due-diligence.
I also believe that the "torture memos" and the actions they were intended to justify were violations of the Geneva Convention, and therefore crimes. I believe that Mr. Cheney was involved in policies that lead to the use of torture, and that both he and Mr. Yoo were involved in writing the memos.
I would hope that there would be a complete and fair investigation of these and other matters, and if persecution is warranted after investigation, that it take place, giving those accused all proper opportunity to make their defense. Justice can only be served if the investigation is complete and fair, and any subsequent trials are fair.
Off to take me mum to hospital--she's due to get stents for her several aneurisms Aug 13th--don't know where her care would be with "Obama-care," but I'd deeply resent any suggestion that she undergo "end-of-life counseling" by Obama's "pro-choice" medical bureaucrats.
Question: Isn't your mother covered under Medicare? If so, doesn't she already have government health insurance? I've certainly heard of people having battles with Medicare over coverage, but my sense is that senior citizens think well of it on the whole. I've certainly had my battles with Blue Cross-Blue Shield!
Kirby—
I think the left is generally made up of people who want handouts for the poor. They may think of this as theologically correct (I think this is your sense of it), but there are others who actually need it.
The right generally wants work ethic and a sense of entitlement through hard work and business sense to run things (this is Limbaugh's sense, as he keeps saying, why should I pay for the lazy?).
I am generally with the right because as a system I think hard work should be encouraged, rather than laziness.
I believe we are called, among other things, to create a just society. Part of this involves caring for people who cannot care for themselves (the sick, the elderly, the young), and part consists of structuring society so that people who can care for themselves have the opportunity to do so.
You see, I too favor the idea that people should work—even work hard. I just dispute the notion that everyone in our society has the opportunity to support themselves through productive work. In short, just as individuals have responsibilities towards society, society has responsibilities toward individuals, and both sides have conspired to drop the ball.
I have sympathy for children, and for illiterate or people with low IQs or barely functioning minds, but think that those who keep their families in one piece, and show some kind of sexual restraint, and keep off drugs, should rise, and that this is good for the whole community.
And this is the problem in a nutshell. Do you think that people who keep their families together, and show all kinds of laudable constraint will necessarily rise? I don't. And indeed, after having made great strides since WW II in creating a more equitable society, I think we've seen big steps backwards more recently.
A particular concern for me is the underfunding of urban schools. I believe that a quality education is essential for both economic and civic reasons, but that many students aren't getting a quality education. In Illinois school funding is largely provided by local property taxes—so rich kids go to schools funded by rich parents, and poor kids go to schools funded by poor parents. In practical terms, this means that rich parents pay a much smaller proportion of their incomes to schools, but their kids enjoy much higher per-student funding, and typically get a much better education. The effect is an educational system that tends to solidify, rather than break down, class divisions, and therefore does not really encourage hard work by anyone.
Stu -- I don't know of any married couples with children who are drug-free with career-based jobs that are not at least at or above median income and own their own house.
So yes, I think, with Kirby, that they will rise.
I don't know of any married couples with children who are drug-free with career-based jobs that are not at least at or above median income and own their own house.
"With career based jobs" is a rather significant addition, don't you think? Good luck if dad's a janitor, and mom's trying to find work waiting tables. Is it your contention that there are career based jobs available for everyone who wants one, subject only to being drug free and chaste? If so, you should move to Michigan, because they need you now.
The right keeps pointing to Asian-American, Caucasian-American, and African-American statistics as evidence that families that stay together prosper.
Asian-Americans have a 2% fatherless rate.
African-Americans have an 80% fatherless rate.
Caucasian Americans have a 40+ percent fatherless rate.
And this seems to follow in terms of breakdown of family incomes, prison rates, etc.
There are almost no Asian-Americans in prisons. And they make on average about ten thousand dollars more per family than whites, and about twice as much per family than blacks.
There does seem to me to be a strong correlation.
The next question is just because parents make bad choices should the children suffer?
But the counter-question is whether families that aren't doing anything right should be enabled by those who are?
Let's look at a worse-case scenario. Minimum wage of 7 dollars and change from working at McDonald's nets about 11 grand per year. That's a paltry sum for a single parent. Barely enough to pay the electricity. But now let's say there are two parents doing that job, and you have 22 grand. Plus, you bring home a few sandwiches at the end of your shift for the kids.
After a few years, one of the two is likely to be promoted to Assistant Manager, and now it's about 30 grand.
That's a low salary in the cities, but because of public housing, many people have three-room apartments for less than 500 dollars. Which is only about 6000 per year.
Asian-Americans coming from absolute nests of stupidity like Vietnam and Laos come here unable to speak English, and yet within one generation are middle-class or better. Same is true for people from Korea. Of course they are working 15 hour days, or more.
But simply by keeping the family in one piece, not using intravenous drugs, and remaining monogamous, they are able to make it to the middle class and send their kids to the best colleges.
So I think Cosby is right that keeping the family together and staying out of crime is the biggest keystone in improving the lives of African Americans. even Obama has occasionally said a few things along those lines.
But if you relax the standards and say, we will enable you, these bad patterns will never be fixed.
And instead, providing a net seems to not only enable, but to encourage, wickedness.
Poor whites are beginning to do similar things, and then depend on the handouts of the government, which further weakens the ability of the functional entrepreneurs to make a go of it. Add ten new layers of socialist bureaucracy, and you have even more taxes to pay, further burdening the functional members of the community.
If we believe in the separation of church and state, as Lutherans GENERALLY do, then the state should not be EMPATHETIC.
It should be devoted to functionality, and to encouraging functionality, and competitiveness.
Otherwise we'll end up like Myanmar.
At least that's my center-right take.
I do think that the government should help aquacephalics and the like, and shouldn't just murder the retarded, as Peter Singer seems to think.
It's very hard to think about these things. Too much empathy on a parents' part can keep the parent from wanting their kids' knees to be skinned, so they catch the kids instead of letting them fall. Falling is however a part of learning to walk.
If the government is constantly keeping one group from falling, then they will never get on their feet.
Stu,
I don't know any married folks with kids who are janitors and waitresses.
Note, I do not mean people with kids from other marriages, baby-mommas, baby daddies, etc.
Perhaps I'm lucky to live in Florida. But even growing up, the only people I knew who were poor (including, often, myself) were people whose parents weren't married and who had dead-end jobs/used drugs. It's still true.
All three have to be present, btw. I know a married couple with kids where the husband is a plumber -- but he smokes dope. Same with a married couple where the husband installs AC units -- but he's a drunk.
I'm not talking college-degree jobs -- just ones that require 40 hours a week and commitment and skill.
Also note that median income is in the mid 40s (it really depends on if you use real median or other numbers but yeah).
How many functional, non-drug using , one family member fully employed families do you know of who are poor?
Not rich, sure -- but not poor either.
We can talk a lot about job creation and how to do it -- but in a place like Michigan which has been devastated by the twin greed of CEOs and Unions, my recommendation is to GTFO.
Luggage was The Screamer's advice to Africans caught in Somalia. But it might be harder than we think to just GTFO. Passports, for instance.
Getting out of Zimbabwe is kind of hard. You get scratched on the barbed wire that S. Africa has set up.
Still, about a thousand people a day are leaving.
But you need a solid clear structure to keep people in a functional system. Empathy is not a plan, and isn't a system of clear rules.
Jesus wasn't thinking the world as it is would last very long, and so he encouraged people to give up their worldly cares. 2000 years later, we're still here.
We need to plan, and to have some goals, and some structure.
Two kingdoms is a good beginning.
Just giving stuff away makes everything into a mess.
If you have a bakery and you give away donuts every morning, no one will buy them. They will just want them for free, and you will go out of business.
Then you have to get someone else to give them for free, and they go out of business, too.
Capitalism works well, but everybody who isn't actually handicapped to the extent of total disability has to put their shoulder to the wheel for it to work.
No one in America is being worked to death. You can always work at McDonald's, and make it.
It's not pleasant, but it's not the Middle Ages, either, under those crazy Catholics.
It's not like Actual Existing Socialism, under the Khmer Rouge,
or like Actual Existing Buddhism, under the Myanmar goofups.
It's just Actual Existing Capitalism, in America. And it works well enough.
Except for Karen Carpenter, no one in America has starved to death in the last forty years.
If Karen Carpenter and Mama Cass had just shared a sandwich they'd both be with us today. . .
We're really off topic. Oh well...
Kirby—
The right keeps pointing to Asian-American, Caucasian-American, and African-American statistics as evidence that families that stay together prosper.
I don't think anyone doubts that, as a general rule, children who belong to intact two parent households are more likely to prosper than children of single mothers. That said, there is considerable overlap in the distributions, e.g., our current President was a product of a broken home. At least his mother had the support of her family.
Let me take this a different direction. What are the causes of family breakdown? I think our drug policies are insane -- we've been treating a public-health problem as if it was a criminal problem for forty years. This has resulted in huge profits to criminals, overtaxing of our criminal justice system (everything from police to prosecutors to courtrooms to jails and prisons), and it hasn't solved the problem. Its just created other problems.
I also believe that lack of opportunity has played a big role. But there are clearly other problems -- a society that celebrates youth and sexuality, a material culture that emphasizes consumption and the acquisition of wealthy/toys/conquests over responsibility. And of course, the problems that children of single mothers often lack role models for healthy couples, and don't learn how healthy couples communicate, nor have they seen the occasion storm that affects even happy marriages, so they bail too quickly when things get hard.
Asian-Americans coming from absolute nests of stupidity like Vietnam and Laos come here unable to speak English, and yet within one generation are middle-class or better.
Asian Americans, I believe, often have intact extended families—networks of cousins, uncles, second cousins, etc., who are willing to invest in family who are trying to get established. Its a huge leg up.
Also, I suspect that Asian women don't expect much from marriage, so they're less likely to be disappointed. I think that unrealistic expectations kill a lot of relationships.
I actually worry some about people like us. After graduate school, we chase a professorial position that usually lands us hundreds if not thousands of miles from our nearest relation. Our children grow up with intact parents, but without an extended family network in their neighborhood.
So I think Cosby is right that keeping the family together and staying out of crime is the biggest keystone in improving the lives of African Americans. even Obama has occasionally said a few things along those lines.
You'll get no argument from me on this. Obama's recent speech to the NAACP hit these points hard, but I thought Cosby was right too, and the reaction of some in the black community to Cosby's remarks were immature and unhelpful.
If the government is constantly keeping one group from falling, then they will never get on their feet.
I think, after 300 years of standing on their throats, and destroying their families with specific intent, it's a bit much to simply walk away from the resulting problems now. The solution, though, isn't to provide a hand-out, it's to provide opportunity. Make hard work rewarding, and you'll see people work hard.
GM—
I don't know any married folks with kids who are janitors and waitresses.
I must have a broader circle of acquaintances than you do. This surprises me.
One of the odd things in your notes is that you claim that intact families will have an income that is higher than the median. Yet even Kirby's statistics imply that more than half of all families are intact. There's a contradiction here.
How many functional, non-drug using , one family member fully employed families do you know of who are poor?
Not many, but then I don't know a lot of poor people. A few, but not enough to make statistically plausible judgments. But I suspect we encounter these people all the time -- e.g., working in retail.
We can talk a lot about job creation and how to do it -- but in a place like Michigan which has been devastated by the twin greed of CEOs and Unions, my recommendation is to GTFO.
If jobs can be created, why not create them where they're needed. GTFO looks a lot harder if your equity is in southeast Michigan real-estate.
Kirby and GM—
Except for Karen Carpenter, no one in America has starved to death in the last forty years.
If Karen Carpenter and Mama Cass had just shared a sandwich they'd both be with us today.
Hey guys, save the anorexia jokes for someone who's not the father of a former gymnast, o.k.? My daughter's fine (sub-20 BMI, but still fine...), but anorexia is a real risk in this population, and I knew daughters of other fathers who fell into it.
Clearly obesity is a greater risk today than starvation, but hunger remains an issue for many.
Sorry I crossed that line. You never know what people have worried themselves through.
Just saying that there is enough food to go around. Right now the obesity issue is killing the country. About a trillion dollars a year they say in medical care goes toward the upkeep of the obese.
I think just about anybody could eat sixty Twinkies a day if they were so minded. Unfortunately, many are.
Suffice it to say that in terms of food distribution, America has that one licked.
Single+home ownership is still tricky. And keeping people together in their marriages is tricky. Lots and lots of serial monogamy going in the poorer communities, with kids being tailed along and finding a place to sleep wherever it happens.
I admire people like you who've stuck together with your wife for 30 years.
But yes, we are in a sense transient workers. I grew up two hours south of here, so I am not too far away from home turf, but went by way of Finland for five years.
Stu (and Kirby)
Karen Carpenter's problem was drug abuse (she abused amphetamines and laxatives for most of her adult life). Having said that, mea culpa, canis.
What I meant to say is that I don't know any married couples who have never been divorced and have only their children and don't use drugs who are janitors and waitresses.
Divorce and drugs are two scourges of our society that we handle in entirely the wrong way.
You're right that the drug war is horrible. Portugal is an excellent example of what we ought to be doing.
Also, the travel aspect is one reason (of many) I decided not to pursue getting my PhD. I like living near my extended family.
Oh and Kirby, I read somewhere that porky people are actually cheaper than thin ones because they don't live as long and cost as much in the end. Hm.
People who think all inner-city schools are underfunded might be interested in a case study of Washington D.C.
What I find interesting is that D.C. is under the control of the federal legislative bodies (in D.C. they like to complain that they get taxed without having a voting representative), and they still remain the most poorly administered schools in the country (perhaps even a smidgen worse than Detroit.) This, in spite of enjoying a per-student per-year expenditure of $14,000, the third highest rate in the nation. A student in one of the public schools in D.C. could go to the best private academy in the city for $14,000, costing the taxpayer nothing extra, and ensuring a quality education.
Not that this would happen, of course.
But honestly, D.C. is ranked dead last in 4th grade reading and math evaluations, in spite of being one of the most well-funded school system in the country! Where does all the money go? Possibly they don't hire quality teachers, possibly there's a bit of skimming off the top by administrators. I don't know. What I do know is that a student in D.C. gets more than double what my high school got for me seven years ago, and get much less of an education.
If money spent were directly correlated to educational value and student achievement, $14,000 a year per student would be a good investment. Clearly it hasn't worked out that way.
Quality teachers are the main thing. Not just ones who know their subjects and are able to inspire their students to achieve, but also ones who know how to keep order in their classrooms. In my opinion, a good teacher can teach with nothing but a book, a blackboard and some chalk. It isn't anything flashy, and I know we've come to expect flashy and showmanshippery and everything new and shiny and technological, but I can't help feeling that we've been neglecting the very basics of a good education. Reading and writing, for example, are quite possibly the two most important skills a learner can possess. With these, he can not only do well in his lessons, but he can also continue his learning above and beyond what's taught in school. Teaching a student how to teach himself, I think, ought to be one of the goals of any quality education.
Of the students in Jacques' rhetoric and comp classes, about 50% of the freshmen were remedial. This is at a school that is supposedly "highly selective."
I think we can do much better with much less money. Hungary out-ranks us in testing, for goodness sake! How much do you want to bet that they don't spend $14,000 American per student or the equivalent in forints?
By the way, a statistic which might interest Kirby is that there's so much food in America the Bountiful that 40% of food on produce shelves ends up being thrown away before it can be purchased and consumed.
I loved the 40% waste statistic, Emmy.
I think we ought to find friendship as one of the goals of debate, and to be particularly happy if we find ourselves talking with someone whose viewpoint is very much unlike our own, since there we stand the most chances of learning something new.
This is one of the reasons I've enjoyed having a monarchist on my blog.
And someone from this Brethen group (G.M.).
I have no idea why everybody would want to agree in the first place. I can't imagine anything less interesting than agreement.
I haven't followed the money argument versus the quantity of education one is getting.
Results.
Some student bodies can pay attention better than others. I imagine inner city student bodies are quite undisciplined, and don't place a high value on learning for learning's sake.
This is again a matter of a shattered family structure.
If you have two parents who both value learning, and who actually read, you stand a much better chance of absorbing those values.
Kirby—
Sorry I crossed that line. You never know what people have worried themselves through.
You have absolutely nothing to apologize for. I just wanted you guys to know that this one hits a bit closer than some.
Single+home ownership is still tricky. And keeping people together in their marriages is tricky. Lots and lots of serial monogamy going in the poorer communities, with kids being tailed along and finding a place to sleep wherever it happens.
Yup.
I admire people like you who've stuck together with your wife for 30 years.
Hang in there, you'll get there.
GM—
Karen Carpenter's problem was drug abuse (she abused amphetamines and laxatives for most of her adult life). Having said that, mea culpa, canis.
As above–you have nothing to apologize for. There are landmines in everyone's life, and I think it is best for people to point them out and not take offense. Certainly, I took none.
What I meant to say is that I don't know any married couples who have never been divorced and have only their children and don't use drugs who are janitors and waitresses.
I have some examples, and not exactly in the demographic you're expecting. Think 65 year old polish and italian folk.
Divorce and drugs are two scourges of our society that we handle in entirely the wrong way.
You're right that the drug war is horrible. Portugal is an excellent example of what we ought to be doing.
Amen. I don't know enough about Portugal. Can you tell me more?
Emmy -- that's 3 times what we spend on kids. Ack!
And heck, given enough paper, I don't even need a book ;)
Kirby -- are you including me as a Monarchist, too? :)
Portugal decriminalized all drugs back in 2001 and now have the lowest rates of addiction, drug-related health issues, and drug-related crime in the Eurozone.
Emmy—
A challenging comment. I like that. I've done a bit of digging.
Here's an interesting document: http://www.21csf.org/csf-home/DocUploads/DataShop/DS_86.pdf
Here is a breakdown of DC public expenses for '08.
Instructional costs per student, in the general education population: $9,036. This strikes me as pretty typical, and should be the number that gets compared to other districts.
What hurts are the add-ons --
ESL, per ESL student: $3478 additional.
Special Ed, per Special Ed Student: $8405 additional.
For '06, there was a breakdown -- about 20% of the students were in Special Ed, and about 10% in ESL. Even so, the numbers don't square with $16K/student.
Local comparisons had DC Public Schools with significantly less funding per student than Alexandria and Arlington (and probably a harder work load), but more than Montgomery or Fairfax.
On the other hand, DCPS was highest in this group in %age of low-income students, middle of the road on ESL, and substantially the highest %age of Special Ed students.
The relatively high per student cost associated with DCPS seems to come in part from counting costs that are not counted in comparisons with other districts (e.g., capital, facilities, security, administration, which come from other budgets).
A student in one of the public schools in D.C. could go to the best private academy in the city for $14,000, costing the taxpayer nothing extra, and ensuring a quality education.
Do you really believe that DC private schools have the capacity to handle an additional 60K highschool students?! Also, the costs of private schools are often less than publics, because (for a variety of reasons -- think parochials here) they generally pay their teachers less.
And do you think those privates are going to be eager to take another 9K in special ed students? Part of the reason privates can keep their costs low is that they get to pick and chose students. Publics don't have that option.
But honestly, D.C. is ranked dead last in 4th grade reading and math evaluations, in spite of being one of the most well-funded school system in the country!
Poor academic performance in urban publics is endemic. I tend to look first to issues like lack of parental support, poor classroom behavior/discipline, drug/gang activity in the school, etc. Are there bad teachers? Of course. But there are also great teachers.
What I do know is that a student in D.C. gets more than double what my high school got for me seven years ago, and get much less of an education.
Lots of things have doubled in cost over the past seven years. Health care and education top the list.
In my opinion, a good teacher can teach with nothing but a book, a blackboard and some chalk.
That's what I use :-). And I teach computer science.
I think we can do much better with much less money.
This I doubt. If you think teacher quality is the problem, how can you get by paying them less?!
Portugal decriminalized all drugs back in 2001 and now have the lowest rates of addiction, drug-related health issues, and drug-related crime in the Eurozone.
I believe in learning from other people's lessons. It's much more efficient than having to suffer all the hard knocks yourself.
If you have two parents who both value learning, and who actually read, you stand a much better chance of absorbing those values.
Bingo! And if don't have that, pretending you don't isn't likely to fix things...
If they're paying 2x per student (or 3x on average) what we do in Jax where does that extra money go? I mean, I'd like to have double-the-salary, but I doubt teachers in DC make 80-120k.
Do they?
stu:
One of the greatest obstacles to educational reform and improvement of course are the teachers' unions, which steadfastly oppose voucher systems for poor inner-city parents who wish to send their children to safe and productive schools, preferring rather to keep their mascots in unsafe and unproductive schools so long as that gives them the opportunity to bleat out excuses that their pupils' poor performances are due to "underfunding," liberals' eternal plea. Recently we heard a radio commercial by the (wildly overfunded--as are most education-mafia administrative posts) superintendent of public schools tout Detroit schools (as opposed to private or charter schools) on the basis, not of their academic programmes, but of their Olympic-size swimming pools and NCAA-quality basketball courts! Right, "super," and thanks for sharing! Nice to know that we can praise the Detroit public schools for . . . SOMETHING! Actually, my southern California high school of nearly 3000 somehow survived without a swimming pool or student parking lot.
As a former public schoolteacher for six years, I think it's time not only to adopt a healthy pro-parental choice voucher system, but also to investigate schemes gradually to privatise K-12 education once and for all.
JDL:
Or to eliminate it greatly.
Most kids should stay home at least until they are 7 or 8. Schools should be organized by ability, not age, and -- as 85% of the population is IQ < 115, most of schooling should be focused on trades.
stu:
After reading your specious defense of the UC's elevating the accomplishment-lacking Obama to the position of "senior lecturer" I couldn't help but hear the strains of the "official" line of the well-rehearsed departmental spokesperson's public hiring justification.
How much "affirmative action," "diversity," and "multiculturalism" pc lingo has corrupted our language (and thus the morals and ethics conveyed by our language) only such language moralists as Jonathan Swift, Jane Austen, and George Orwell could tell us. For example, the state university system in Alabama can at once run ads with the usual non-discrimination disclaimers while in the same ad stating that they are seeking primarily African-American candidates for the positions posted. This prevaricative system is is so vicious and corrupt it's a waste of time to try to defend it in any way. . . . ("jes' sayin'" stu)
Right, GM, in place of the oxymoronic "free compulsory education" system under which we currently suffer.
I wonder if any sense in the beer picnic last night whether there was a debate at any point about either their goals, or any other sense of who was to blame for the "stupidity" of the prior week.
How are we supposed to learn, if we can't listen in?
Teaching moments that become mere visuals strike me as less than they could have been. I do like the moment of the three mugs together.
Biden was not in that, having perhaps less to learn?
Or perhaps he's a teetotaler? Was Biden smoking a cigarette?
PArt of the goals of debate have to do with friendship, and wanting to continue a debate with that particular person. Sometimes debate can become so fierce that it breaks the bond of friendship, and you then no longer wish to participate in the tug of war.
Thus a kind of divorce occurs.
It strikes me that many in some communities are less likely to wish to remain in a legal relationship with the others, and to instead strike out on their own, into crime, and into the anomia of drug abuse.
I think the great thing about the Crowley-Gates-Obama incident is that the three showed that they could at least continue to agree to disagree, as Crowley put it, and yet remain in the same room, even though the president had abused Crowley quite viciously.
Crowley must have considerably self-esteem to rise above the fray and extend his hand.
James—
After reading your specious defense of the UC's elevating the accomplishment-lacking Obama to the position of "senior lecturer" I couldn't help but hear the strains of the "official" line of the well-rehearsed departmental spokesperson's public hiring justification.
Mr. Obama edited the Harvard Law Review. This is undisputed, and indicative of considerable ability. You may be unimpressed with his ability, but others have come do different conclusions, based on more complete information about his qualifications than either you or I have access to.
And if I sound like a "well-rehearsed departmental spokesman," 9 years of experience as departmental chair will do that. But if pretty much all departmental spokesmen are saying the same thing, maybe the most economical assumption is that they're all telling the truth. But if you prefer conspiracies, and to offset the undeniable historical fact of white oppression of blacks in this country with some fairy tale in which the US government—still a strong majority white male institution—is oppressing whites inorder to give unearned advantages to black, that is your perogative. For my part, the carrots and sticks seem proportionate, and if we can meet the goal of a more diverse faculty without sacrificing quality, then I believe we'll be a stronger institution for having done so.
As regards teacher's unions, I suspect that your opinion of them would be much higher if they voted Republican, and made no other changes. For if they did, then you would permit them the freedom to be economic as well as educational actors. After all, no one begrudges Northrup-Grumman the right to make bids that ensure reasonable profits when it builds aircraft carriers.
stu--
but Northrop Grummond does not (to my knowledge) hide the fact that its aircraft carriers will not float -- nor does it try to silence those who try to make its aircraft carriers better,
2 things that teachers' unions are notorious for doing.
I wonder if any sense in the beer picnic last night whether there was a debate at any point about either their goals, or any other sense of who was to blame for the "stupidity" of the prior week.
I suspect that yesterday's sharing of a beer was little more than an icebreaker -- a chance for all concerned to get to see the other parties as humans first and foremost. If so, it's not the kind of experience that is improved by inviting in a curious public. I believe that there is a plan to meet again, and I'd expect something slightly more substantial then.
My take, b.t.w., on the whole Gates-Crowley affair is that all three of the main actors did things that were probably ill-advised, and they might choose to handle differently. I'd apportion the blame as roughly 50% Gates, 35% Crowley, and 15% Obama, although I am most disappointed with Obama of the three. I do think, though, that he's had by far the best recovery.
As I see things, people -- even very talented people with good instincts -- are sometimes going to have first impressions that turn out to be wrong. In a way what distinguishes quality leadership from mediocre leadership is a willingness to let a better second impression develop.
What really strikes me, though, is how weak and mediocre the beer choices were. Mr. Obama,a bud light?! You're supposed to be a man of some sophistication! Mr. Gates, a Sam Adams light? You're supposed to be a man of substance too, and an SAL is a shadow of an SA. Mr. Crowley, a Blue Moon? That's a better choice than the other two, but that is weak praise indeed. It seems to me that Blue Moons are today's trendy beer -- the kind of thing you order because you think people will think more highly of you for having done so. A good beer, but not a great beer. If you want a white beer with some bite, try a Celis.
No one asked for a Sierra Nevada or Three Floyds Pale Ale, or a Lagunitas or Dogfish Head IPA. How about a 1554? Or an Ommegang abbey. Or a Bell's Amber? Heck, the brewpub by me has an rye and barley IPA that is spectacular. I wouldn't use bud light to wash the lauter tun, let alone rinse it, and here's the President actually drinking the stuff.
It's a sad day.
GM—
but Northrop Grummond does not (to my knowledge) hide the fact that its aircraft carriers will not float -- nor does it try to silence those who try to make its aircraft carriers better,
Actually, I chose NG because I believe they do make a quality product. It's not like Blackwater or their ilk, which as near as I can tell, we pay to make things worse.
And I think you're tarring the teachers unions with a mighty broad brush. My experience with teachers is that they're generally well educated, hard working, and committed. Are there exceptions? Of course, what profession doesn't have exception?
The problem as I see it is that education is a field that is potentially highly vulnerable to political tampering. So the tenure system evolved (just as it has with judges, and for the same reason) to dampen the effect of changes in political administration. In private schools, you know the philosophy of the people in charge, and even if they change, the philosophy isn't likely to. In the publics, the folks in charge change every 4-12 years, and in unpredictable ways.
To a certain extend, tenure does what it was intended to do–it make the removal of a teacher for political reasons difficult. Unfortunately, but seemingly inevitably, it makes their removal for more legitimate purposes more difficult too.
Stu--
Thank you for taking my remarks seriously. I did mean them and did my best to provide you with some statistics I thought you might be interested in.
As a teacher of TEFL, I know that primary instruction in English can be a great drain on the school system. See, I come from two very different lines of thinking on this.
Yes, quality instruction is the main thing. If one has cast one's lot with the public school system (which I have not--I am fairly sure that a bit of competition is good for every industry, so I am a a proponent of school of choice regions and the voucher system) then there are ways to encourage people with excellent teaching skills to teach in inner-city areas. Teach for America does something rather like this.
But I didn't mean to suggest that quality of instruction is the only problem in our schools. G.M. and I have spoken many times about frivolous non-academic programs in schools. In the Detroit school system, they have a 24.9% graduation rate, and the city has a functional illiteracy rate of 47-50%. But, each school in Detroit has an Olympic-sized swimming pool and a regulation indoor basketball court, and each student in Michigan (Detroit included) are required to spend an hour a day during school running laps or doing pushups or playing touch football.
Over four years, one hour a day, five days a week really adds up. That's roughly 680 hours over four years. How could that time be better spent? Perhaps Biology could take over a nutrition module and the school could allow students to seek exercise and recreation after school hours, and have a guardian, coach, or dance instructor sign the log? It works well enough in Europe.
Consider, also, non-essential programs such as driver's ed. which is still offered at some schools using teaching hours, or classes on how to make pancakes, how to set the table, how to feed a baby, and how to mend torn socks. Do we really need "wife-training" in 2009?
Let’s assume that each of these "classes" last only one year. That's 170 hours over the course of a year for each--that's another 340 hours to add on to our total.
1020 hours. That's 42.5 DAYS worth of hours.
Let us also add a year of "study hall," which may very well serve some students who are too lazy to study or get their homework finished the night before, but which serves very little purpose other than an hour of (hopefully) quiet baby-sitting. That brings our total to 1190.
How about Sex-Ed? I refused to attend Sex-Ed, because I had ancient history in the next period and didn’t need to be distracted. I was punished for this, yet I managed to be Salutatorian. How many other things have schools taken over which would be much better left to parents?
Continued:
How many schools provide three meals a day? Who are these parents who can’t be bothered to toast a piece of bread with a smear of butter or jam, set out a single peach or plum, and scramble an egg for their child for breakfast? Who are these parents who cannot afford (or cannot be bothered to prepare) a simple, nutritious dinner for their child? Vegetables and fruits are practically free—especially frozen ones. Store-brand enriched pasta is practically free. Add a tin of salt-free black beans, and you’ve got carbohydrates, fiber, lean protein, vitamins K, C, A, and a solid dose of iron. Actually, you’ve got mine and Jim’s typical dinner (admittedly, on one of my “lazy” nights—I’m quite the good cook). Add a couple of tall glasses of low-fat milk for young bones, and it is simple to get a decently well-balanced diet for very little money.
If these items cannot be procured due to poverty, there are resources such as community food banks, second harvest organizations, and church food drives for the needy.
But quite frankly, there are very few people in America who cannot afford the above.
There are just parents who don’t care enough to get involved in their children’s lives whether that means their education, or their health. How many impoverished families have cable television? How many of impoverished children’s parents spend money on non-essentials like alcohol, tobacco, and entertainment for themselves then plead broke when it comes to purchasing milk and vegetables for their children? Probably more than a couple. That breaks my heart.
Jacques’ mother was such a brave and determined woman. In a time when divorce was more taboo than it is now, she kicked her abusive husband to the curb and was determined to make it on her own. She worked as a babysitter after his father left just to be able to put food on the table. Some nights, that meant a couple of pancakes for dinner. But Jacques and his sister very seldom went without essential nutrition, and both of them were encouraged in their academics. Both of them made it. They both have higher degrees, and Jacques became a learned gentleman after having been, essentially, raked out of the gutter.
In my opinion, we can do better with much less. It is not that teachers ought to have to take an enormous pay-cut or even a pay-cut at all. I just think we can pare off some excesses in our school programs, and use that time and money to provide more quality instruction, offer more courses in higher math, or re-tool the core curriculum to include requirements such as American history, anatomy and physiology, chemistry, trigonometry, and four years of language.
The only two core requirements in Michigan for graduation are physical education and “civics” which, I think, is taught as American government.
We can do better, yes? We might even catch up to Hungarian standards!
Stu,
Most young teachers I know don't know what they're doing and aren't helped by the system (and certainly unprepared by education classes).
The folks with "drive" often have "drive" to become administrators and get out of the classroom.
And there are the teachers that are < 10 years from retirement who are just counting the days.
Then there are the truly stupid who should not have graduated from high school, let alone college, let alone got a job in education.
My guess (from my experience) is that about 1/3 of teachers are trash, 1/3 are placeholders, and 1/3 are good teachers.
But it's usually the 2/3 that have tenure.
EB --
Many of those "non essential classes" exist to keep kids in school.
Instead of having those classes, we shouldn't require kids to be in school.
Compulsory education is a very bad thing.
my absence here has not been one of indifference but rather a factor of time i just haven't been paying that much attention to blogs lately
but i endorse the general tone of civility my only worry is that it limits goofballs like kirby
i mean when things get this serious he can't do red skelton routines
where's charlie chaplin when you need him
when strapped to the computer we are sedentary pilgrims
you're a pretty good peacemaker
but the question seems to beckon
can you still rock and roll?
j
You get the sense with the secular that there is no goal, and no rules, because the game is never over, and has no point(s). So, it just rolls on. Maybe like a frog you blow up your chin and do a dance or something, but it's for quick turnaround, rather than for the long haul of finding a common denominator, and thus, harmony, between oddballs like JH, GM, and sundry.
Such common denominators can be found.
gm
i've long been an advocate of home education or free education for kids like in montessori provide places where young people can gravitate to the things they intuitively wish to understand or express curiosity about
somehow someone has got to take on the reading thing
some kids pick it up really fast others plug along and then boom they're reading like a house on fire
some kids are totally hands on education smart
but i think reading should be taught by whomever dad mom aunt bertha or sister veronica
i don't think any kid should have to go to school before 10 yrs old if they're not too inclined
but they should be exposed to lots of reading
i find myself getting a little resentful on the part of schoolkids they the authoritarian parents and attending society manipulators keep shortening up the summers and filling the summers with all kinds of camps and special schools
americans have to learn to do nothing for long periods
we educate in distraction and consumption
stu about hard work
lay off man
you're ruining my summer
it has been relaxing
almost no work to speak of
just being a bum reading playing guitar
walking
something tells me this will change soon
but i'm diggin the waking up with very little to do routine
just let the day unfold
for the most part my leisure activities are if not completely virtuous to some extend intending toward practical virtue
doesn't it seem more practical and more naturally oriented to the human disposition to have useless work going on
and doodling i like doodling
and puttsing around what ever became of puttsing around
hard work while rewarding to some extent is no gaurantee of a good life nor is purpose
some people just shlepp through life doing little this and thats
the hardest work is raising children i would suspect
and we should have more people doing that as a primary occupation more mothers more girls going back to being nurturers with smiles
everyhing's so damn coerced these days
hardly anyone thinking for themselves
if science says it's good it must be good
i'm all for skepticism when it comes to rationalist ideology or the cognitive edifices men build
history and the unfolding of life tell us enough by way if interest for us all to pursue wisdom the ability to reflect deeply upon life while watching croquet or sitting at the kitchen table smoking a cigarette watching the birds outside
nah
too much is made of hard work
people must learn to be creatively lazy
i'm thinking of setting up a program to facilitate this
it may take awhile as you might have guessed
j
Emmy—
Thank you for taking my remarks seriously. I did mean them and did my best to provide you with some statistics I thought you might be interested in.
Indeed. But remember that DC is also an outlier, and ought not be used as representative for what's wrong or right with urban education.
In the Detroit school system, they have a 24.9% graduation rate, and the city has a functional illiteracy rate of 47-50%. But, each school in Detroit has an Olympic-sized swimming pool and a regulation indoor basketball court, and each student in Michigan (Detroit included) are required to spend an hour a day during school running laps or doing pushups or playing touch football.
Have the rules changed? I graduated from Grosse Pointe South High School in '75, and only remember having gym during my freshman and sophomore years. Of course, I was in band (and honors courses), and took a full plate of content-oriented courses, so I might have tripped an exemption in there somewhere.
One of the problems with Detroit has been the extent to which upper- and middle-class families have abandoned the city. This is a big problem for urban public education—they have to take everyone, and if the people with energy, talent, and ambition have all left for better schools, that leaves them with the educational dregs. No wonder they test badly!
Over four years, one hour a day, five days a week really adds up. That's roughly 680 hours over four years. How could that time be better spent? Perhaps Biology could take over a nutrition module and the school could allow students to seek exercise and recreation after school hours, and have a guardian, coach, or dance instructor sign the log? It works well enough in Europe.
Given the problems with obesity (c.f., Kirby's blog), I'm not altogether sure we should drop nutrition and gym. And it's not as though they actually crowd out that much instruction. I took Biology-Chemistry-Physics in this system, Math through AP Calculus, English through AP World Lit (I somehow missed the English lit course, though), History through AP US, a couple of years of German, a decent Econ course, etc.
Consider, also, non-essential programs such as driver's ed. which is still offered at some schools using teaching hours, or classes on how to make pancakes, how to set the table, how to feed a baby, and how to mend torn socks. Do we really need "wife-training" in 2009?
Here your point is stronger. I did driver's ed through the community center. No way would my parents have me give up a semester class just to learn how to drive. I can see the point to having everyone take a one-quarter home econ course, but that's a middle school class, not a high-school class.
Let us also add a year of "study hall," which may very well serve some students who are too lazy to study or get their homework finished the night before, but which serves very little purpose other than an hour of (hopefully) quiet baby-sitting.
Study hall was a complete waste of time. You couldn't work in the auditorium—there was no place to set up a book and a piece of paper. We were required to just read. Not that this was a bad thing, but I managed to worm my way out pretty quickly.
How about Sex-Ed?
We didn't have sex-ed in the early 70's. I remember that my father signed me up for a sex-ed class run through the local churches. We touched on reproductive biology in biology class, and I remember that parent could opt-out their children, but I don't remember it as having nearly as informative as the church run class.
Emmy—
Who are these parents who can’t be bothered to toast a piece of bread with a smear of butter or jam, set out a single peach or plum, and scramble an egg for their child for breakfast?
I don't know, but they seem to be all too common. Too many kids get ping-ponged around, babysat on the streets, and just neglected. Homework is work, it takes a certain amount of discipline. Discipline doesn't come naturally, it has to be learned. If there's no discipline at home, there will be none at school. How can schools who have many such children prosper? I can't imagine.
How many impoverished families have cable television?
Impoverished and cable? Not many. Impoverished and TV? I suspect the vast majority. Of course, a lot of people dump perfectly functional TVs after a few years just to get a bigger, or brighter, or better advertised set. Their old TVs get kicked down the line. You can get a second-hand set at a pawn shop or a thrift shop for a song. The trailing edge of technology in a consumer society is the next thing to free.
How many of impoverished children’s parents spend money on non-essentials like alcohol, tobacco, and entertainment for themselves then plead broke when it comes to purchasing milk and vegetables for their children?
You forgot lottery tickets, a.k.a., taxes on stupidity. Too many, way too many. So what do we do? Lament the behavior, but leave them to fend for themselves, figuring that Darwin will sort out their genes? Or do we try to find ways to intervene, and break the cycles that lead to poverty and ignorance?
Jacques’ mother was such a brave and determined woman...
I give her a lot of credit. But here is a serious question. What were Jacques' mother's parents like? Did they somehow instill in her values that enabled her to cope, and encouraged her to persevere? If she did, it does not diminish her accomplishment, and that's not my intent at all. But it does mean that her situation was quite different from the urban single mother with three kids by three different fathers, trying to escape despair one bottle and one bed at a time. Lacking good models, she may not even be able to imagine a better situation.
In my opinion, we can do better with much less. It is not that teachers ought to have to take an enormous pay-cut or even a pay-cut at all. I just think we can pare off some excesses in our school programs, and use that time and money to provide more quality instruction, offer more courses in higher math, or re-tool the core curriculum to include requirements such as American history, anatomy and physiology, chemistry, trigonometry, and four years of language.
I'm dubious. This isn't to say that I'm in favor of the status quo, which involves some serious misallocations, but I will note that the core requirements for graduation are set by the legislature, not by the teachers. Our schools are laboratories/factories for social engineering, and always have been. Our teachers work within systems that are constrained by people who are not educators: legislators, school boards, parents, etc. It is possible to set up constraints that make it impossible to teach well. No child left behind literally defines a school as being deficient unless all of its students are above average. How is any reasonable measure of success possible under such constraints?
jh—
stu about hard work
lay off man
you're ruining my summer
it has been relaxing
Hard work matters. So does play, and relaxation. I figure moderation in all things, including moderation. By which I mean, you have to stay in balance, but having a few real passions is part of balance.
If summer is your season of rest, rest. Rest can be preparation, and so a virtue.
stu:
I know we are verbally fencing in classic conservative-liberal fashion.
What is most crippling to the poor (inner-city or rural) parent(s) is the fine cultivation of victimology psychology and class ressentiment, AKA the classic sin of invidia, or envy.
What liberals often propose is a kind of formula where outcome to unearned advantages approaches identity. Qui bono, stu?
In our debate over the debacles that are "affirmative action," "multiculturalism," and "diversity" pc, what you have proposed is to give special favors or advantages to Obama's daughters over those of a white dishwasher or coal miner. Everyone knows that equal rights measures (in California, Washington, and Michigan, all "blue" states, are regularly ignored or circumvented in giving "special considerations" to select (but not all minorities.
jh—
I know we are verbally fencing in classic conservative-liberal fashion.
Likely so.
What is most crippling to the poor (inner-city or rural) parent(s) is the fine cultivation of victimology psychology and class ressentiment, AKA the classic sin of invidia, or envy.
I think that failure to take responsibility is a problem. Knowing what sort of responsibility to take is also huge. And I certainly agree with the premise that we have a very materialistic culture, and advertising plays hard on both competition and entitlement. Just in case it's not clear, I'm agreeing that the issues you identify are important, but not committing myself to the "most" part.
What liberals often propose is a kind of formula where outcome to unearned advantages approaches identity. Qui bono, stu?
I think that liberals are likely to approach matters scientifically, and as those of us on the left are wont to say these days, "reality has a liberal bias." As it is, I am indebted to you for suggesting what is in effect a testable hypothesis. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, you were to take compate the household incomes of children with the household incomes of their parents. E.g., choose 1000 randomly selected 50 year olds, and determine both their household income, and the household income of their parents in 1970. What do you think the correlation would be? Certainly not one. But also, certainly, not zero. My guess is that it would be close to one if done untransformed (just because extreme points would have a lot of leverage), but somewhere in the .85 range if done in log/log space. This translates into a persistent advantage of about 5 generations. I'd prefer 3, but can life with 5.
In any event, I do not propose that all of the advantages of birth can be neutralized. But I have argued, and will argue, that we should look for effective ways to intervene in the case of people who have "fallen off the bottom," and are not contributing members of society. Likewise, I think we need to replace ineffective strategies (like the war on drugs) with effective strategies (view addiction as a public health issue). I think this will prove more successful and more economical.
A quick, true story. My son is here, in the lead-up week to his sister's wedding. We're doing the usual things—getting him through the dentist's, renewing his driver's license, etc. One of his friends came by, and we chatted. He's spent his whole life working up towards a career in law enforcement -- he did the high school intern program, a criminal justice associates. Now, he's not so sure. He sees the war on drugs as something that he doesn't want to be a part of, something that's not working, something that's ruining lives rather than saving them.
In our debate over the debacles that are "affirmative action," "multiculturalism," and "diversity" pc, what you have proposed is to give special favors or advantages to Obama's daughters over those of a white dishwasher or coal miner. Everyone knows that equal rights measures (in California, Washington, and Michigan, all "blue" states, are regularly ignored or circumvented in giving "special considerations" to select (but not all minorities.
I don't believe I've proposed race based remedies. I have proposed intervening to support people who do not know how to live successfully, to get them on the right track.
I know that there are affirmative action considerations in faculty hiring. Most are simply common sense -- if you want the best people, make sure that you advertise in such a way that all qualified individuals who show reasonable diligence will be aware of your posting. Ideas like above head-count positions strike me as silly, because they don't grow the pool. The idea that minorities are somehow helped if they end up at Chicago (instead of, say Cornell) is one that I don't find plausible. Dealing with the tiny flow at the end of the leaky pipe isn't the solution. Finding the leaks and fixing them is.
Post a Comment