A Common Plight of Academics and The Obama Administration

There are many attacks being wielded against the Democratic Party, but one of particular interest is the complaint that Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama himself are “elitist.” At the root of this attack is the idea that the Obama administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress are not listening to the opinions of the majority and exhibiting the arrogance and pride characteristic of an elitist party. This is a criticism frequently heard from the self-proclaimed anti-elitist Sarah Palin and even rational conservative thinkers such as David Brooks (as I cited in my post on the health care debate).

While reading Save the World on Your Own Time by Stanley Fish, I realized that the plight of the Democratic Party is similar to that of academic institutions. The essence of the conservative attack on colleges is that college professors are left-leaning (and radical liberals at worst) and unpatriotic and that colleges are essentially money pits that have little value in improving society and the county at large. The essence of the criticism against both groups is that they are out of touch with majority opinion and the lifestyle of common man and woman.

In regards to colleges, Fish offers two explanations as to why academic institutions are ineffectual at quelling such criticism: “it won’t work to explain the academic world to nonacademics” and “neither will the attempt to translate it into (the public’s) terms by retelling it in the vocabulary of business.” The value of academic world cannot be explained because, quite simply, “it takes four or more years to initiate students into the pleasures of the academic life… why should anyone think that the lessons could be taught and accepted in twenty minutes?” And the essence of the academic world cannot be translated into business terms because while “colleges and universities surely must observe good business practices in relevant areas… (they) are not businesses.” Yet, this is the strategy taken by academic institutions despite how ineffectual that strategy has been, and consequently, the criticism has not quieted much.

The elements of the counter-attack of academic institutions can also apply (to some degree) to the plight of the Obama administration. The policies and actions of the administration and policy-makers in Congress are difficult to describe to the general public in a short, easy-to-digest manner. The minds behind the stimulus package, the bank bailouts and takeovers, and health care legislation are, in many cases, brilliant, well-experienced minds. How can the administration explain the rationale of Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers, and Paul Volcker to the average citizen, a citizen who most likely has never gone to college, and consequently, never taken a single class in economics. Although part of Obama’s job and criterion for success is explaining his policies to the public, it isn’t feasible for him to explain esoteric and at times counterintuitive economic principles to the general public. Ideally, this should be the function of the media, but the news sources consumed by many citizens are questionable and probably do not explain said principles in an unbiased, lucid manner.

Explaining these principles to the general public is impractical and perhaps impossible, and although Obama is lauded for his sporadic ability to explain difficult concepts to American citizens, explaining principles in terms that relate to business is not valid for the same reason it isn’t valid for academic institutions to do so: the government isn’t a business. The government conducts business and must follow basic business principles to some degree, but it isn’t, by definition, a business. A business takes inputs and produces outputs in hopes of making a profit. Certain products such as public goods (roads, parks, public transportation) aren’t attractive to businesses because they won’t create enough profit, thus the government must provide these goods. This is one example of why the government isn’t a business, and there are, of course, myriad more.

Thus, at least to some degree, the situation academic institutions and the federal government experience are similar in some regards. Does that mean that they may utilize similar strategies to quell criticism against them? Fish’s advice for academic institutions is to accept their inability to explain their worth to the public and own up to their elitist characterization. He states (addressed to academic institutions), “instead of trying to justify your values… assume them and assume your right to define and protect them.” It might work because “it will be surprising and disconcerting… and (detractors) quite possibly will like it, will like being challenged rather than toadied to, will like being taken seriously enough to engage with, will like being party to conversation of the kind that fills our days, will like, in short, being spoken to as if they were academics.”

It is questionable, which Fish acknowledges, if this strategy will work for academic institutions, and it is even less likely that it will for the Democratic Party. The significant difference between academic institutions and the federal government is public perception. There is a tradition of anti-intellectualism in America, but “anti-intellectualism has its flip side in an abiding fascination with those who devote themselves to what is called… the life of the mind (Fish).” The federal government, however, doesn’t fair as well. In fact, public trust in the government is at a historical low, and this is exactly the element required for the Obama administration to say, “I can’t explain this to you, you just have to trust the right people are here, they incredibly intelligent and have worthy experience, and they are working for the public good.” Still, it may be a worthwhile venture for the Obama administration to own up to its so-called elitism and attempt to change the public perception of Obama’s meritocratic administration (See He's a Yuppie, a TNR article on Obama's difficulty connecting with working-class voters)

Failure in Mathematics

In general, my experiences in high school (and I mean in high school, taking classes, partaking in clubs and such) were educational and enlightening. Quite simply, the reason for this was I had outstanding teachers, teachers that transformed a timid, self-conscious adolescent into a timid, self-conscious adolescent interested in taking a path (that my teachers helped pave) towards meaning. My teachers recognized my natural abilities and weaknesses and helped bring the innate good in me to fruition while helping me (explicitly and covertly) work past my bad characteristics.

My appreciation of my high school experiences is augmented by two elements: the lack of extraordinary professors I encountered in college and statements such as this from the press release of an MSU study on mathematics instruction:

“We must break the cycle in which we find ourselves… A weak K-12 mathematics curriculum in the U.S., taught by teachers with an inadequate mathematics background, produces high school graduates who are at a disadvantage. When some of these students become future teachers and are not given a strong background in mathematics during teacher preparation, the cycle continues.”

It seems obvious that the key to educating children is employing good teachers, but conversations on the effectiveness of teachers are obscured by talks about funding in education and other elements that may or may not correlate with student performance. Yet, the focus seems to be changing. The effectiveness of Teach for America and administrators such as Michelle Rhee and the findings of recent studies have helped bring attention to hiring good, effective teachers. Teacher performance is also an integral element of Obama and Arne Duncan’s proposed education reform.

This change in focus is necessary. This can be discerned from many recent studies, and I can attest to the need based on my own experience observing in high schools. Our teachers lack sufficient knowledge to teach their designated subjects. (Note: Indiana has recently passed legislation changing the educational requirements of prospective teachers. It will be required that they major rather than simply minor in the subjects they teach). This is true in all subjects but let us focus on math since that is the focus of the study quoted above. Most students have learned formulas and equations, but have they really encountered the essence of mathematics? I’m enthralled by Steven Strogatz’s weekly contribution to the New York Times exploring the world of mathematics, and I really mean that word: world. I first encountered the world of math, not in a high school or college math class, but rather through my studies in philosophy, Plato in particular. As anyone interested in philosophy will say, mathematics has been invaluable aspect of philosophy since, well, philosophy became a rigorous school under Plato. I’ll leave the exploration to Strogatz, but my personal exploration of math through philosophy has been more fascinating than anything I ever encountered in a math class.

This relates to the initial discussion because our high school math teachers lack the knowledge to teach our nation’s children the way Strogatz can teach readers of the New York Times. Expecting a Strogatz in every classroom is unreasonable, but there should be more than there are now. Right now (as the above quote suggests) we have math teachers who learned the math of equations and formulas teaching the math of equations and formulas to their students, some of whom will teach that math of equations and formulas to their future students. We need a change because the education system is obviously not functioning to the degree it should (according the study above, Polish and Russian students beat out American students). Perhaps Indiana is on the right track, and the Obama education initiatives will cause a sea change in education. It will be interesting to see the data in the next decade after these teacher-focused initiatives have taken hold.

Beard Day on the Web

Respect My Authoritah! - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

So men with beards have more credibility. What about men with patchy beards? Am I less credible and less effective at selling underwear? Disappointing.

At least Slate's photos of the day give me something to aspire to.

Niebuhr- The Relationship Between Virtue and Prosperity

I would like to revisit an idea I entertained while thinking about health care reform:

"There are many myths behind the anger roused by health care reform debates, and one of the myths at the heart of the conservative unconsciousness is that the upper and middle classes deserve more because they work harder while the poorer classes are in an economically and socially inferior position because they are lazy and choose not to work to improve their lot in life. This fallacious idea, heavily influenced by America’s Protestant background, merits a lengthy discussion debunking such a noxious idea. This is not that discussion."

This now is that discussion or, at least, a partial discussion.

Reinhold Niebuhr expounds upon the relationship between virtue and prosperity in American thought in his book The Irony of American History:

"From (the Puritan day) to this it has remained one of the most difficult achievements for our nation to recognize the fortuitous and providential element in our good fortune. If either moral pride or the spirit of rationalism tries to draw every element in a historic situation into rational coherence, and persuades us to establish a direct congruity between our good fortune and our virtue or our skill, we will inevitably claim more for our contribution to our prosperity than the facts warrant. This has remained a source of moral confusion in American life."

This moral confusion was felt in 1952 (when Niebuhr book was published) and is certainly felt today, for instance, in the health care debate. I attributed America's Protestant background as the major influence on this confusion, which, Niebuhr suggests, is partly true. There is, however, another influence, and that is Jeffersonian ideology:

"Our American Puritanism contributed to our prosperity by only slightly different emphasis than Jeffersonianism. According to the Jeffersonians, prosperity and well-being should be sought as the basis of virtue. They believe that if each citizen found contentment in a justly and richly rewarded toil he would not be disposed to take advantage of his neighbor. The Puritans regarded virtue as the basis of prosperity, rather than prosperity as the basis of virtue. But in any case the fusion of these two forces created a preoccupation with the material circumstances of life which a more consistent bourgeois ethos than that of even the most advanced nations of Europe."

Thus, this moral confusion is part of the fabric of American culture. This erroneous belief seems so obvious, yet it permeates our debates and, consequently, greatly influences the American political process. Niebuhr summarized the quoted section more articulately and thoughtfully than I could ever hope to:

"Our difficulty as a nation is that we must now learn that prosperity is not simply coordinated to virtue, that virtue is not simply coordinated to historic destiny and that happiness is no simple possibility of human existence."

I would add more to the discussion, but Niebuhr is a better and more enthralling guide than I, one whom I will be quoting from often.

Obstacles to Smoking and French Perseverance

Despite the enactment of a smoking ban in public places and a sharp increase in the price of cigarettes, the French are actually smoking more.

The story isn't clear on whether the study mentioned took into account population increase or not. If not, a 2.7% increase in the number of smokers is not significant, but it is surprising that, taking into consideration that smoking is becoming more expensive and less convenient, there has not been a decrease in the number of smokers.

I am far from a scholar on French culture, but I feel comfortable arguing that smoking is an important part of the French culture. What I do know is that the French cherish conversation. Their meals are protracted and lighter than American meals partly because conversation is an inherent part of dining. Smoking and conversation also seems to go hand-in-hand thus smoking may be viewed differently in France (much as they view food differently than us Americans).

I looked up some statistics to see how French smoking habits differ from those of Americans. For one, deaths due to lung cancer are lower in France yet, according to UNECE, a larger percentage of the French population smokes. In 2000, 29% of French citizens over the age of 15 smoked compared to 19% of Americans. The percentage difference was even greater amongst citizens between the ages of 15 and 24 (41% of French citizens compared to 21% of Americans).

From this, it can assumed that, while more French citizens smoke, the French smoke fewer cigarettes per person. Another way of stating this is that the French are more moderate in their smoking habits.

There was a recent New Yorker article on the drinking habits in different cultures. The relevant argument was that many cultures are much more moderate in their drinking habits than Americans. At least relative to the French, Americans seem to have more excessive smoking habits as well.

I'm not making an argument that cigarettes aren't bad. I just found this news and the cited statistics interesting and worth sharing.

Bertrand Russell Appreciation

A BBC Interview With Bertrand Russell | The New Republic

Russell was tenacious in his pursuit of truth. His intellectual curiousity and brilliant mind lead him to the limits of mathematics, through the history of philosophy, and to the forefront of logical analysis. Though he is what many would consider an "ivory tower" philosopher, his persistent message of tolerance made him one of the most important public intellectuals of the 20th century.

Both of these aspects of Russell are present in the video. Truth cannot be tainted by specious reasoning or individual inclinations and aspirations. The search for truth was vital to Russell, but he realized the dangers of such a search, hence the second part of his message: love and tolerance. Despite our drive for knowledge, we must not let such a search render us purblind and susceptible to violence or hate. A world with nuclear weapons was dreadful to Russell, and it can be assumed that Russell has nuclear capabilities on his mind when he speaks. The increasingly interconnected world has many consequences, many beneficial to mankind, but also, as Russell must be aware, an increase in the likelihood of conflict and war, which is why, in Russell's opinion, "tolerance" and "charity" are "absolutely vital."

Petty P.R. of the Catholic Church

It appears that, in the vernacular of the Catholic Church, "allegations of sexual abuse" is synonymous with "petty gossip."

These allegations are common enough to suggest an inherent problem in the Catholic Church that warrants serious reform to alleviate. The sexual indiscretion of priests and the downplaying (at best) and blatant cover-up (at worst) of these acts by their superiors is well-documented and has been for quite some time now (The documentary Deliver Us from Evil was released in 2006, and this responded to, rather than caused, intense media coverage on these cases of abuse). In that documentary, it was clear that the Church was not intent on seriously addressing the problem. The strategy for dealing with priests accused of molestation was, quite simply, to move them from one church to another, which, of course, did nothing to mitigate the problem. It was clear that if the Church failed to deal with individual cases of molestation properly that they certainly didn't have an overreaching strategy to deal with the problem of sexual abuse of children in general.

That was then, of course, but if there was any question of how the Church plans to address these problems in the future, it has been answered by the disconcerting and juvenile comments by the Pope and his internal supporters. Maureen Dowd recognizes the improbability of any serious action being taken because the Pope has failed to even "to say anything long, adequate and sincere about the scandal and what role he has played." The initial strategy of the Church remains: sheer responsibility and treat the problem as if it is illusionary (or, as Andrew Sullivan metaphorically states, "go into the bunker").

Historically, the Church hasn’t exactly been a beacon of change, so I didn't expect the Church to announce a plan to expel priestly molestations from the Church. But labeling such allegations against the Church and the Pope as "petty gossip" is astounding; the Church took their role in the controversy to a new level of offensiveness. Actually, perhaps there was a change in strategy: what was staged ignorance now appears to authoritarian arrogance.

These problems have been going for long enough with no effect on how the Church conducts its business, and the pessimistic who believe that injustice will remain unpunished may be warranted to suggest so. Yet, I believe (perhaps naively) that the most recent allegations against the Pope are going to cause more of a stir in the Church itself (perhaps there will be more like Rowan Williams who may even decide not apologize for their remarks. I also believe that should enough followers finally become fed up and earnestly criticize the Church's handling of these events and possibly leave the Church altogether, the Church may be forced to reform (or at least, as Dowd fantasizes, require the Pope to run television ads and take part in other assuaging P.R. stunts). What is different about these allegations is that they are directed at the Pope himself. Cover ups by archbishops are rather serious and, arguably, should have been enough to initiate a sea change in the Church, but if any criticisms are going to carry weight, they are the ones being wielded now. These allegations, valid or not (though the evidence appears to be valid), are symbolic. The taboo of attacking the head of the Catholic Church may not be so taboo anymore, and dismantling the perceived authority of the Church may be what is required to alter the way the Catholic Church conducts its business (I repeat "conducts its business" because "conducting business" and "using spin tactics" are the best phrases I can think of to describe the Church leaders' sophistry).

The Church has overseen grave injustices, and reforms (whatever they may be) are necessary. If there is a time in which these reforms will become necessary in order to appease disenchanted followers and recoup support (most importantly, financial support), it is now or will come very soon. It would be a much smoother transition were the Church to accept responsibility and make the necessary reforms on its own. But if anything in this controversy is clear, it is that the Church will continue to be disingenuous and manipulative. Hopefully the requisite number of followers needed to enact change will be reached as the role of Pope in covering up abuse cases becomes clearer.