Categories
education and schooling

Gaming a Newly Rigged System

Education is important. I want my young adult offspring to get into a great college or university.

Sadly, my bribery fund is empty.

Must she, then, rely only upon working hard for good grades and preparing for the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)? 

No. There is a workaround: find a way to improve our family’s Adversity Score.

“The College Board plans to assign an adversity score to every student who takes the SAT,” The Wall Street Journal reports, “to try to capture their social and economic background, jumping into the debate raging over race and class in college admissions.”

This year 50 universities, including Yale, used these scores; next year, 150 will do so. Students are assessed on 15 not fully disclosed factors, things such as the level of crime and poverty in one’s high school and neighborhood, “the educational level of the parents,” and “family stability.” 

“An adversity score of 50 is average,” notes the Journal. “Anything above it designates hardship, below it privilege.”

Hmmm, how to climb (or descend) the “Overall Disadvantage Index”? What sacrifices to make?

My wife and I could divorce. Coming from a single parent household would improve our daughter’s opportunities in higher education.

We won’t sink her chances by upgrading our own educations. That’s obvious.

And crime-​free homeschools certainly place kids at a distinct disadvantage in being disadvantaged. I guess we could move to a more dangerous neighborhood. 

Heck — what am I thinking?! — we can stay put and just commit crimes ourselves. Show some entrepreneurial initiative! Don’t be dependent on others, for heaven sake! Be the change we wish to see in our world.

On that one, though, I better check my exuberance with my wife … if our divorce hasn’t yet been finalized.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


SAT, college, racism, race, fairness,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
ideological culture partisanship

In Lieu of Good Judgment

Politicians often dare … too much. 

But what did Rep. Ted Lieu dare to be last week?

Candace Owens’ appearance before the House Committee on the Judiciary caused quite a stir. The subject was hate crimes and white nationalism, and she offered a wider perspective: “We’re not talking enough about political hatred in this country, we’re not talking enough about conservative activists being attacked.…”

Needing to undermine that message, the Representative from California’s 33rd congressional district dared do the dirty deed. 

“Of all the people the Republicans could have selected” to appear before the hearing, Rep. Lieu said, “they picked Candace Owens. I don’t know Miss Owens; I’m not going to characterize her. I’m going to let her own words do the talking.”

By now you’ve almost certainly listened to what he did*: play a 30-​second clip from a long interview of the conservative activist then ask some other hearing invitee to explain how dangerous her statement was. The 30 seconds completely elided the original context, implying, absurdly, that the African-​American activist was a supporter of Hitler and white nationalism.

Ms. Owens responded in justified high moral dudgeon. And Rep. Lieu came out looking … as Owens put it, “unbelievably dishonest.”

What was he thinking?

Scott Adams saw only two possibilities: “What Ted Lieu attempted (and failed) to do Candace Owens is not politics, it’s just despicable.” Lieu is either “one of the worst people who’s ever lived” or he is, in line with so many other #NeverTrumpers, “experiencing actual hysteria.”

Unfortunately, Washington partisans regularly make evil and insanity hard to distinguish.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* “The most-​watched C‑Span Twitter video from a House hearing ever,” says Rush Limbaugh.

PDF for printing

Rep. Ted Lieu, Candace Owens, TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome, racism, Hitler

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
folly ideological culture media and media people moral hazard Popular

Systemic Refocusing

Everyone comes into this world with advantages and disadvantages. 

In the last century, public morality focused on the disadvantaged. Government policy changed dramatically, aiming to help those lacking many obvious advantages. But that focus got fuzzier and fuzzier as the ranks of disadvantaged people remained, even grew larger. Progress was made on several fronts, sure, but not on all — especially not on the ones most targeted.

We even “lost ground.”

Maybe because of this, the political focus shifted to “privilege” — which often merely means “advantaged” and sometimes means a special license granted by custom or law, which is said to be “systemic.” 

White males, we are told, have the most of it. 

So they must be attacked.

But does “white [heterosexual male] privilege” really exist?

Sure, in some contexts. But so do other “privileges.” Here is a better question: Are there privileges so built in that people try to horn in on them?

When there really was white privilege, “passing for white” was a thing. Now, we see other directions of racial “passing.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, 99 and 44/​100ths pure white, for example. If white privilege were really systemic, would she have pretended to be a native American? 

If white privilege were significantly at play in the academic world, the issue of Asian students qualifying for (and being accepted into) the country’s most prestigious universities wouldn’t even come up.

And if white people actually enforced their privilege, would the charges against Jussie Smollett for perpetrating a fake racial/​ideological hate crime have been dropped

Seems unlikely.

If the results of focusing on advantage and privilege have been so dismal and dismaying, maybe it’s time for a refocus: on simple justice.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

white priviledge, Jussie Smollett, Elizabeth Warren, Rachel Dolezal

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
ideological culture Popular

Pigment Politics

“VOTE LIKE YOU,” read the Election Day sign from last November, pictured above Dan Balz’s Sunday Washington Post column about identity politics.

The implication is clear: one should vote for the candidate with the same skin color, of the same race as your own.

Uh, really?

We do want our elected officials to be “like us.” But in terms of values. Not pigment.

Race is completely meaningless in judging a prospective candidate. I want my candidate to think like me, not win the Paul Jacob Lookalike Contest.

On the other hand, those seeking a new cultural revolution — like the Chinese Cultural Revolution, but based on racial and gender and sexual orientation grievances — think it’s fine to push race-​based voting, so long as you aren’t pushing whites and … it helps Democrats.

The latest real “culprit” in Hillary Clinton’s 2016 defeat appears to be a lack of enthusiasm and turnout among black voters. Black turnout dropped eight percent from 2012, when President Obama was running for re-​election as the first black president, to 2016, when Hillary Clinton, a white woman, was the Democratic standard-bearer.

Balz looked at the 2018 gubernatorial races in Florida and Georgia, where Democrats Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams, respectively, both African American, lost but performed far better than Democrats have in recent years in those states in such races.

“Would a white candidate have done better?” he asked.

Perhaps not. But the whole approach stinks. Identity politics is openly the politics of division. Surely “e pluribus unum” must not be replaced with “ex uno plures.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


N.B. For the Latin, which is not straightforward, see Google Translate.

PDF for printing

e pluribus unum, democracy, racism, collectivism, individualism

Photo Credit: detail from US Capital Building Dome

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
incumbents political challengers term limits

Old Dominions

A photo, found on Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s 1984 medical school yearbook page, went viral. It was of a person in black-​face next to another in a Ku Klux Klan sheet. In almost no time at all, Democrats and others quickly demanded that the governor resign.

Why the speed? 

The already-​started presidential campaign? 

Or the likelihood that Democrats would experience no disadvantage should their governor step down?

Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, an up-​and-​comer in the Democratic Party, would take Northam’s place. And under Virginia’s gubernatorial term limits, Fairfax could run again for a full term after finishing the rest of this current term. 

With Virginia’s one-​term limit, it would allow a rare option to run as an incumbent.

There’s a speed bump, though. Not necessarily the sexual assault allegation lodged against Fairfax, which he denies … and about which we know little. What’s certain? Fairfax is positioned far to the left of Northam — in a state that is still more purple than blue. 

A bitter feud with Laborers’ International Union of North America illustrates the problem. Mr. Fairfax has long opposed two pipelines that the union desperately desires. The union — a donor of $600,000 to Democrats in 2017 — demanded that candidate Northam remove Fairfax’s name and picture from mailers to union households. 

Northam complied

And got hit by charges of racism.

You see, Fairfax is black. 

Playing down the dis, Fairfax called it a “mistake”; others chose “mindboggling,” a “slap in the face,” and a signal that blacks “are expendable.”

Northam still won … with 87 percent support from black voters.

Should Northam finish his term, Lt. Gov. Fairfax would remain well positioned, but the race would be wide open. If Fairfax becomes governor, however, no Democrat will challenge him for fear of splitting the party.

Yet, come 2021, Fairfax is too far left to defeat a decent Republican … should one appear.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
education and schooling ideological culture

Why Fire the Dean?

Students and faculty at the University of Southern California are upset because a popular dean of the Marshall School of Business, James Ellis, has been fired by interim USC President Wanda Austin. Hundreds have rallied in protest and petitioned for his reinstatement.

Why the ouster? 

The administration has offered a vague indictment about “lack of diversity” and problematic handling of racial- and gender-​bias complaints. There’s apparently a commissioned report, the Cooley report, about the complaints. But few have seen it.

 “Jim has not been allowed to see the Cooley report, despite repeated requests to do so by him, his legal counsel, a trustee, and me,” says donor and USC board member Lloyd Greif. “Nobody has seen it.” 

Greif argues that no complaint dealt with by Ellis’s office “alleged any egregious conduct, and none of them involved inappropriate behavior by Jim.”

Was old white male Ellis expelled for presiding over a too-​little-​diverse student body (and perhaps for being inadequately “diverse” himself), as determined by an arbitrary standard?

Without transparency or due process, who could know? 

But lack of any official accountability suggests some warped notion of “diversity justice” is being applied here, a notion that dismisses rational goals and relevant facts to focus only on whether the ethnic/​gender/​other-​unchosen-​trait makeup of a sub-​population sufficiently mirrors that of the general population. 

If so, is this a standard that should be applied universally? 

No matter how you answer that question, note what is not being focused upon: providing a good education.

This is not Common Sense. 

I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Dean Ellis, diversity, racism, quotas, protest, blacklisting

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts