New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

Recently I wrote a letter to the editor of the Greenwich Time regarding administrative regulation of student media at my high school, but especially of the student newspaper. Here’s a fraction of it:

The systematic, bureaucratic censorship of The Beak (the name of the paper), as well as all other student media at GHS, severely hamstrings the intellectual and informational quality of its product. A myriad of regulations are enforced on a whim by a single faculty adviser who has the pressure of school administration on his shoulders. Similarly, other publications, such as the satirical Weekling, and any organization wishing to disseminate information are unilaterally censored by the overbearing student activities office.

In the three years that I have written for the paper I have had three editorials censored–one on abortion, one on Islam, and one criticizing a myriad of invasive laws including bans on steroids, prostitution, marijuana, and the drinking age. In addition, I have witnessed a list of columns not published because of the whimsical regulations on what is “appropriate” for young adults.

The case I am trying to make is not one a moralistic, first amendment one. To the contrary, I do not think that the first amendment holds much weight in this situation. Thus, I am not disputing the Supreme Court decision from Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, which essentially says that because the school is essentially the property of the government, the school administration has the right to regulate student speech to their liking.

However, whether the school can and whether the school should regulate speech are two different issues. Call me a romantic, but I thought that the goal of a school was to maximize the body of knowledge and curiosity of students (although I think that makes me more rational than romantic). I do not see how schools could at once be promoting an intellectual environment when they are systematically stifling various issues and opinions.

Take the issue of teen pregnancy, for instance, which was the disputed topic in the Hazelwood case. Few would dispute that it is a touchy subject. But what audience better to address it with than teens? The article in question contained primary sources discussing the reality of the issue. I don’t see how talking about the matter in an open and honest manner could hurt students. To the contrary, I can only imagine that talking about it would inform students and prevent pregnancy for those who are informed by the newspaper article.

Similarly, one of my censored columns was a critical examination of certain aspects of Islam. While conventional wisdom tells us not to discuss religion in public, not discussing religion freely and in a philosophical manner does nothing to reduce “intolerance” (which is what my editorial was labeled). The more informed and rational people are and the more they understand that it is okay to disagree even on matters as fundamental as religion, the more rounded and tolerant our educational institutions will be.

The saddest part about the censorship, which I should also mention is not practiced nearly as much as it is practiced in colleges, is that it muffles the creativity of students. While schools should be attempting to teach their kids as much about the world as possible, they only have so much time. The greatest reflection on educators is when they can foster the creativity and passion of individual students. Such initiative is manifest in students who examine fringe and risque issues in a scholarly manner. And while these cases are rare, the last thing that should be done by in response is censor them.

Popularity: 55% [?]

Bill Buckley, the conservative writer, commentator, and founder of National Review, died yesterday at the age of 82 in the town neighboring my own. I have subsequently spent time reading more on the man and watching more of him. His prominence is owed to his unfettered defense of conservatism throughout the post-WWII era when the Left really dominated the zeitgeist and moderates, in the mold of Nelson Rockefeller, had a hold of the Republican Party. Today, American politics is centered noticeably further to the right in part because of Buckley’s promotion of figures from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Regan. And the fact that it is now hard to imagine the Nixons and Rockefellers of the world leading the GOP is a tribute to Buckley’s way with words.

In the second-ever issue of his brain-child, the National Review, he declared the magazines mission statement, which included its famous vow to “stand athwart history yelling, stop.” While this represents my own fundamental discontent with the philosophy of conservatism–for no philosophy can have merit by virtue of being the status quo–it appeals to both my romantic sense, by unequivocally promising to fight for a successful tradition, and my rational one, by standing for limited government and individualism at a time when collectivism was rising to the top of the intellectual order.

The doctrines of conservatism, which today is often cast as a three-legged stool consisting of aggressive national defense, traditional social values, and economic libertarianism, was different in many ways from what it was in 1955. Perhaps the biggest change from early Cold War conservatism, was the relative rise of the third prong, economic libertarianism, which Buckley was particularly known for. As a matter of fact, he claimed that he floated between the self-label of conservative and libertarian for some time during the latter part of his career. Additionally, he came out against the war on drugs later in life, but at the same time his reasoning was rooted in the impracticality of the fight rather than individual rights–hardly the essence of a true libertarian.

Politics aside, what remembrances seem to have concentrated on are the style of the man himself and his unmatched way with words. Watching him and hearing him and reading him, I gained a sense of an aura of refined elitism–and I mean that in only the best way–that arose from his able mind and own rebelilon against the liberal intelligentsia. His quick wit and sesquipedalian vocabulary were second to none and made his writing unmistakable.

Of all the obituaries I read today, here are the links to the five best:

from The New York Times

from Ann Coulter

from The Nation

and from the the two most Buckley-esque journalists left: Peggy Noonan and George Will

While the sources of these articles generally mix as well as water and vinegar, all of their memorials include great recollections of the man and are well done. The irony of the timing of Buckley’s death is that it coincided with the nomination of a Republican presidential candidate who is out of favor with self-proclaimed conservatives and who appeals to the center of politics, while the Democrats may be running on their most liberal platform in decades this year. The question remains: did Buckley die alongside the modern conservative movement for which he served as a fountainhead? I think that is probably overly-simplistic, but the question has been asked and is well worth asking. I anticipate that the American conservatism is still politically strong despite an unpopular president and will remain more like the party of Ronald Reagan than that of Gerald Ford in the years to come.

Popularity: 54% [?]

The economic blogs have been buzzing about the recent column in the NYT by Dallas Reserve Bank economists Michael Cox and Richard Alm regarding economic inequality. They’re article argues that consumption is a better unit of measure for economic inequality, because it is a more accurate measure of living standards. As the tittle says, “you are what you spend.”

My reaction is that when we compare the economic conditions of people within an economy we should be looking at consumption figures, because they most accurately reflect a person’s quality of life at any given point. Given the marginal propensity to consume, it should not come as a surprise that inequality is less stark under this type of measurement (see first image below), and that savings/investment makes up the difference.

More importantly, however, is that consumption comes closer to taking into account innovative technologies which enhance standard of life across the board. These innovations are not reflected in monetary representations of income, or even consumption, which ultimately represent each individual’s “slice of the pie.” Improvement in technology does not only make everyone’s life better but it also makes living standards more equal as the changes are mass-produced and rapidly become social norm. Even Paul Krugman agrees with this point:

Yes, over the centuries economic progress has reduced some gross disparities — modern Americans are relatively unlikely to simply starve to death (though it can happen), so in that sense the gap between rich and poor has narrowed. But the question isn’t whether society is, in some sense, more equal than it was in 1900. It’s whether it is radically more unequal than it was in 1970.

Krugman, of course, holds that inequality has grown since that time. I would assume that is true, if one is to go by income distribution, or even consumption distribution since 1970. But once again, distribution is not always the best way to go about making these assessments. Keep in mind all of the advancements since 1970, and their speedy dissemination among consumers (bottom graph below). Goods like the microwave, VCR, cellphone, home computer, and internet all hit the market since that point in time, reaching between 60% and 95% of the population by the present. For instance, the microwave has made cooking food far more efficient for those who otherwise could not spare the labor and time, while internet access makes any type of information imaginable far more accessible, especially on the net, for those whose resources are otherwise more limited.

Ultimately, to answer Krugman’s question about equality since 1970, we need to weight the effects of technological advancements against the climbing inequality in monetary distribution. Such a task is difficult to exact, however, to to which Tyler Cowen proposes an alternative conclusion:

We do not know how inequality of welfare in America is faring over say the last thirty years. This is a point of overriding importance. Just in case you missed it, let me repeat: when it comes to the kind of intra-nation inequality that we should really care about (if we are going to worry about intra-nation inequality at all), we “do not know.” As in “know” and “not” put together.

Until and unless I know more, I am inclined to side with Cowen. Consequently, I think we are better off concentrating economic policy on how to raise productivity, rather than how to equal economic ends, because what we do know is that, as a former teacher of mine often cited, “a high tide does indeed raise all boats.”

Popularity: 37% [?]

On the anniversary of 9/11, young muslim apostates are launching a campaign to make it easier for Muslims to leave Islam–which is considered an offense punishable by death according to Islamic literature. From The Times:

 The Committee for Ex-Muslims promises to campaign for freedom of religion but has already upset the Islamic and political Establishments for stirring tensions among the million-strong Muslim community in the Netherlands.

Ehsan Jami, the committee’s founder, who rejected Islam after the attack on the twin towers in 2001, has become the most talked-about public figure in the Netherlands. He has been forced into hiding after a series of death threats and a recent attack…

“Sharia schools say that they will kill the ones who leave Islam. In the West people get threatened, thrown out of their family, beaten up,” Mr Jami said. “In Islam you are born Muslim. You do not even choose to be Muslim. We want that to change, so that people are free to choose who they want to be and what they want to believe in.”

The article’s afternote sites the Koran:

Sura 4: 88-89 reads: “Whosoever turns back from his belief, openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard.”

The scary thing is that Europe faces intimidation from Islam even if they do not have the same Islamist governments as in the Middle East. We saw this from the murder of Dutch film maker Theo Van Gogh, from the massive riots and deaths from the Danish Cartoon controversy, from the (Muslim) youth riots in France, to many other instances. It demonstrates both the growing force of Islam across the world as well as Europe’s tolerance for it.

I do not really see how this amnesty movement for apostates however could work in the Muslim world. Where Sharia’a is present the teachings of the Koran are beyond question. I do however think that Mr. Jami’s campaign is valuable because it points out the danger of Islamic mysticism on a continent where criticizing the religion is politically incorrect (a crime punishable by social ostracizing). There is always a place for people to call out religion when it is used as a political tool; if nobody does so there is no stop to the havoc it can wreak.

Popularity: 72% [?]

From the LA Times, here’s something you don’t see every day:

Nelson is a former corporate executive who can afford to dine at four-star restaurants. But she prefers turning garbage into gourmet meals without spending a cent.

…

Nelson, 51, once earned a six-figure income as director of communications at Barnes and Noble. Tired of representing a multimillion dollar company, she quit in 2005 and became a “freegan” — the word combining “vegan” and “free” — a growing subculture of people who have reduced their spending habits and live off consumer waste. Though many of its pioneers are vegans, people who neither eat nor use any animal-based products, the concept has caught on with Nelson and other meat-eaters who do not want to depend on businesses that they believe waste resources, harm the environment or allow unfair labor practices.

…

Freeganism was born out of environmental justice and anti-globalization movements dating to the 1980s. The concept was inspired in part by groups like “Food Not Bombs,” an international organization that feeds the homeless with surplus food that’s often donated by businesses.

…

Adam Weissman, whose New York group Freegan.info has been around for about four years, lives with his father, a pediatrician, and mother, a teacher. The 29-year-old is unemployed by choice, taking care of his elderly grandparents daily and working odd jobs when he needs to. The rest of his time is spent furthering the freegan cause, he said, which is “about opting out of capitalism in any way that we can.”

Of course their utter disregard for morality and open opposition to the productive process is lamentable, to say the least, but I also must question the label of “wasteful” that they attach to consumerism and capitalist activity.

Economic agents measure their resourcefulness in dollars and cents. Whether they are making more money than they spend represents whether they are producing more than they spend. It’s naive to say it constitutes waste when food is thrown out or plastics aren’t recycled, etc., because that statement lacks economic perspective. Within the full context the food and the other materials that are disposed of are mostly thrown away because that is the most efficient way of dealing with them.

Doubtlessly, it would be far more costly to force people to consume everything they buy or to recycle what they do not consume. Why? Because, in addition to the fact that on an aggregate level the process of recycling is far more costly than garbage disposal, conserving and recycling imposes an added burden on the people whose time and labor it requires.

If the “Freegans” got their way and no one threw out anything there would be far more waste–waste of time and labor–which is far more consequential then the cold cuts that have reached their expiration date.

Hence, we know that the Freegan solution to “waste” would be far more wasteful because of its ridiculous opportunity cost and because it reflects negatively on people’s bottom line. I can be confident that at present people are generally resourceful when allocating all of their because the incentives are there for them to be. If they waste too much of their material wealth than they will live less comfortably, if they waste too much of their time they will make less money, if they waste too much money they will have less to buy. There is general accountability, meaning that people incur the costs and benefits of their habits so they will be less likely to be unproductive and wasteful.

I cannot say the same of freegan socialism.

ADDENDUM: Here is a link I was fed to another environmentalism movement who, although somewhat different, share the same distaste for earthly and material pleasure. They call themselves “vegansexuals”:

These people are now commonly known as vegansexuals. Alongside not eating meat, they are also choosing not to be sexually intimate with non-vegan partners whose bodies, they say, are made up of dead animals.

Its an amusing story. All I can say is that I could think of few romantic habits that could inflict greater misery. (HT: Simmons)

Popularity: 58% [?]

George Mason free market economist Bryan Caplan (thats repetitive; all GMU economists advocate for the free market) had a “funny-cuz-its-true” commentary on EconLog about what he calls the “Jock-Nerd Theory of History”. Certainly worth reading:

One of my pet ideas is the Jock/Nerd Theory of History. If you’re reading this, you probably got a taste of it during your K-12 education, when your high grades and book smarts somehow failed to put you at the top of the social pyramid. Jocks ruled the school. If the nerds were lucky, they did the jocks’ homework in exchange for decent treatment.

According to the Jock/Nerd Theory of History, most historical human societies bore a striking resemblance to K-12 education. In primitive tribes, for instance, the best hunters are on top. If the the village brain knows what’s good for him, he keeps his mouth shut if the best hunter says something stupid. The rise of civilization gave the nerds a better deal, but as long as almost everyone worked in agriculture, brawn continued to pay well.

But then something amazing happened: Nerds got enough breathing room to develop and implement amazing wealth-producing ideas. The process fed on itself, devaluing physical ability and elevating mental ability. Nerds built the modern world - and won handsome financial rewards in the process. (Yes, I’m painting with broad strokes, but bear with me).

With the Jock/Nerd theory firmly in mind, this sentence takes on a deeper meaning:

We don’t take steps to redress inequalities of looks, friends, or sex life.

Notice: For financial success, the main measure where nerds now excel, governments make quite an effort to equalize differences. But on other margins of social success, where many nerds still struggle, laissez-faire prevails.

It’s suspicious - and if you combine the Jock/Nerd Theory with some evolutionary psych, it makes sense. When the best hunter in the tribe gets rich, his neighbors will probably ask nicely for a share, if they dare to ask at all. But if the biggest nerd in the tribe gets rich, how long will it take before the jocks show up and warn him that “You’d better share and share alike”?

Punchline: Through the lens of the Jock/Nerd Theory of History, the welfare state doesn’t look like a serious effort to “equalize outcomes.” It looks more like a serious effort to block the “revenge of the nerds” - to keep them from using their financial success to unseat the jocks on every dimension of social status.

P.S. If any jocks are reading this, please don’t hurt me! I’ll do your homework!

Popularity: 57% [?]

Schools in the UK are planning to drop the required teaching of the Holocaust and the Crusades in an effort to dodge any criticism from religious parents. One school was “strongly challenged by some Christian parents for their treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict-and the history of the State of Israel that did not accord with the teachings of their denomination.”

The teachers who refuse to explain to students the seriousness of these issues, out of fear from any religion, should immediately have their teaching certificates revoked and be fired. Schools have an essential responsibility to society to provide an unbiased understanding of society and prepare children for life in the real world. This is one reason why I disagree with certain private schools, as they are allowed to bend what’s taught. However, with true “separation”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-state_separation of religion and state, there should not, in any circumstance, be the removal or addition of curriculum simply based on religion. Private schools provide a venue for religious teachings. This should not be intersecting with secular, government-run schools.

This argument is quite similar to the Kansas School Department agreeing to teach intelligent design, alongside evolution, based on the demands of local Christian parents. It’s not right to advocate a theology that completely eschews the fundamentals of science. It should not be part of the science curriculum, just as schools should not be sidestepping history in the history curriculum. Something as important to the 21st century as the Holocaust simply cannot be ignored into today’s world.

The UK Department of Education’s submission to the religious demands is simply sickening and deplorable to the fundamentals of true, transparent education. This should not be happening anywhere in the world. The people of England should be demanding that ALL of their schools refuse to rewrite history just because a few loud theologists demand it, out of respect to their religious beliefs. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

Popularity: 70% [?]

In today’s fast paced world, students are compelled to do whatever they can to get ahead. Stiff competition from quickly expanding third-world countries like India and China has motivated the US government to start new initiatives seeking to bring education to the forefront. In the process, thousands of students across the country are caught up; desperately trying to find their way in an increasingly difficult to navigate system. College admissions are on the rise, as evidenced by a recent New York Times article. The article mentions the fact that oftentimes even the most qualified students [those with either a 4.0 Grade Point Average or perfect 2400 SAT scores] are rejected from America’s top universities.

The increasing level of competition often drives students to participate in rather unsavory activities. Plagiarism, cheating, and other dishonest academic behaviors run rampant through the halls of America’s educational institutions. The new wave of perfidy has given way to a rise in organizations that combat academic deception. iParadigms, LLC, was one of the first companies to fight plagiarism. Their turnitin.com service, which originally began as plagiarism.org, has become the de facto leader in a rapidly proliferating field.

They face challenges from the law, however. Four students from across the country are suing iParadigms for copyright infringement of their intellectual property. The Washington Post broke the story first, noting that while the service is valuable to dozens of academic institutions, it may violate several US laws. The service, utilized by dozens of colleges [including Harvard and Georgetown Universities] and high schools [including the one the founders of New School Politics attend], purports to catch plagiarism. My experience with the service proves its thoroughness. Whenever I cite from an online source, Turnitin always knows where I’ve cited from. Even snippets from essays like “Bill of Rights” are highlighted because they are often used by the authors of other papers. The question is, however: does Turnitin violate the rights of students? The four students that are bringing the lawsuit against iParadigms allege that they copyrighted their papers before submitting them and explicitly acknowledged that they’d like them not to remain on Turnitin’s servers. As the service is automated, it was unable to respond to that request and archived their papers anyway. The WP cites Andrew Beckerman-Rodau of Suffolk University Law School, who notes that “it seems like Turnitin is a commercial use. They turn around and sell this service, and it’s expensive. And the service only works because they get these papers.”

I’m not an expert, but I feel somewhat qualified to comment on the case because I have some [albeit limited] knowledge of intellectual property law and experience with Turnitin’s service. There are no objections to the fact that Turnitin does archive student papers. Unfortunately for iParadigms, in this case, the papers they archived were copyrighted. Turnitin, however, seems to have their bases covered. In an online intellectual property Q&A [caution: the file is a PDF], they assert that the “legality of the services has been confirmed by our nationally recognized law firm, Foley & Lardner, and law firms throughout the world.” The upcoming trial will test their claim.

The bigger question is: should such services even be necessary? In Friday’s Wall Street Journal, an article entitled “The Admissions Police“, runs down a list of reasons for admissions counselors at America’s top universities to be vigilant. They provide several examples of students falsifying information on applications. Has the world pressured students so much that they now must lie to get ahead in life? Several of the colleges mentioned in the article are even hiring professional private investigators to do background checks on prospective students. Whose fault is this? Has society pressured students into lying…is this somehow the fault of government? The disconcerting news of dishonesty in academia should serve as a warning-bell of a nascent trend. If this tradition is to continue without structure, could academia only become an area where students learn vile habits for later life? Several have argued that, instead of vetting papers through services like Turnitin, students should have morality lessons in school. The case with Turnitin is cause for distress. Is society forcing students to distort themselves into something they’re not? As one-time students progress into the work world, their habits may travel with them, bringing a new era of dishonest and a lack of accountability in the future. Conservatives are constantly concerned with family values but few have approached the area of education [besides arguing for Creationism to be taught in schools]. Morality may start at home, but school’s an important place as well. As America’s educational system groans under the further weight of deceit and deception, it’s important to ensure that accountability in education is preserved.

Popularity: 52% [?]

Cigarette smoke continues to be banned across the world in restaurants, schools, offices, bars, and other public places. But, is Toronto going to far with the potential banning of smoking in rooms of all apartment buildings in Canada’s largest city?

Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman has announced that it is time for the public to begin to debate over the merits of a ban. Many highrises and apartment buildings do not have the proper ventilation systems in place to ensure that smoke does not filter into other suites. While he would like the market to take care of the situation, Smitherman said it would be interesting to have the discussion over whether any legislation should be in place.

We all know smoking causes many health problems. While the number of smokers has certainly diminished in recent decades, and a growing stigma is attached to those with cigarettes in their mouths, I do believe that more laws are required to move the situation forward. Smoking should be banned wherever it can encroach on someone who does not welcome it. Only if the area has sufficient ventilation, such as proper closed off smoking rooms in bars, or in a large park, should smoking be allowed. A certain radius around bus stops or the front of public buildings should be smoke-free by law. The smoke in such an area can travel with the right gust of wind, and it annoys anyone in its path. It shouldn’t be up to the non-smoker to move out of the way.

If smoke is leaking into the rooms of non-smokers, those buildings should be designated as “smokey.” From here, I could see two situations: either buildings are designated as smoke-free or not; or, under harsher laws, the landlords of the “smokey” buildings would be required to fix the ventilation within a certain date or face closure. With option 1, you could even provide incentives like lower property taxes in exchange for cleaner and healthier air for citizens, while a “smoke” tax could also be applied to those buildings who do not conform with the smoke-free status.

Popularity: 48% [?]

Is not welcome. The men and women chosen to run this country’s military are there for that purpose and that purpose only. This week, however, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Peter Pace went public with his feelings on the recent “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy upheaval (audio provided by Think Progress). Had he stopped there, his comments would have had merit. As the highest ranking military officer in the United States (besides, of course, our esteemed Commander-in-Chief), Pace has a responsibility to guide the military in a direction that he believes is best for the future. However, Pace took things a step further, claiming that “homosexual acts between individuals are immoral, and that we should not condome immoral acts.” Pace continues by noting that the military has a responbility to purge itself of immoral individuals.

Who determines what immoral means? Since his outburst, Pace has been publicly chastised by several prominent politicians, including Senator John Warner. The Virginia Republican “respectfully, but strongly disagree[s] with the chairman’s view that homosexuality is immoral.” Fortunately, Pace seems to have agreed with the public’s rapid judgment, noting that he did offer “some personal opinions about moral conduct.” Pace admitted that he “should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views.”

Pace’s views were scrutinized differently than those presented by Former General John M. Shalikashvili in his “Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military” article in the NY Times. Shalikashvili’s more tolerant view seemed to strike a chord with the majority of Americans. His sincerity in addressing the situation is admirable. Pace’s, however, is a whole different matter. He seems to be refusing to apologize for his actions, and, instead, notes that he should have just focused on military policy. Don’t wait for an apology. The AP reports that, despite commentary from high-profile politicans, Pace will not retract his statement. Nancy Pelosi responded, showboating the Democratic reputation for tolerance, claiming that “the military should carefully consider changing this policy….We don’t need moreal judgment from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.”

I addressed the matter of homosexuals in the military earlier in an article entitled “Do Tell, Do Serve.” Regardless of opinion on the matter of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” public backlash has made it clear that Pace’s opinions aren’t welcome in the public forum. Bloggers pounced on his bigotry, diminishing the US military’s image in the process as well. His views are his and his alone, and General Pace should not have used his position as Chairman to further his political agenda.

technorati tags:homosexuality, pace, military, jointchiefs

Popularity: 40% [?]