Education Reform as Politics as Usual

Few things upset conservatives as much as unions and school reform.  Put those two variables together and you end up with a fight in your hands.  This is why I found Sarah Mosle's recent review in the New York Times so maddeningly frustrating.  She was reviewing Steven Brill's Inside the Fight to Fix America's Schools.  As Mosle underscores, Brill is not a big fan of teachers unions, which he blames for all that ails public education in the United States.  

The frustration stems not from Mosle's conclusion that "his case is not airtight, and reasonable doubts remain about his subjects’ prescriptions for reform."  Such can -- and must -- be expected from so complex and sensitive a topic.  One need not be a fan or critic of unions to know that they are neither solely responsible for all that ails in public education nor all that is good about them.  They reside in the gray area where most difficult issues reside.

Instead, it appears that Brill chose instead to take sides, even when the evidence far from warranted it.  Even worse,supportive evidence was given extensive discussion, whereas research that runs contrary to his thesis is referred to "obliquely" and "in half a sentence," or else it is altogether ignored. Brill clearly had an agenda, and fair-minded reporting was not it.

This reminds me of our political culture, and the inability of those in positions of influence to work together towards common goals.  Hence the frustration: education reform, not to mention the national debt or the economy, affirmative action or majority-minority district, are serious, and seriously difficult, questions.  

Until the grown ups in the room begin to treat these questions accordingly, we will remain in the morass we find ourselves today.

What Obama Might Learn from Chris Christie?

In a column on why New Jersey's Republican Governor will not run for President, notwithstanding the fact that some Republicans are clamoring for him, George Will remarked on Christie's aggressiveness as Governor.  Will observes:

Understanding the first rule regarding political power — “use it or lose it” — he has flexed his institutional muscles. “I don’t want to leave my political capital in my desk drawer to frame when I leave.” A legislature, he says, “is almost genetically predisposed to inaction.” To get it to move on his combative agenda for taming public employees unions, he held 30 town meetings in nine months — almost one a week.

Has President Obama been too passive with Congress?  Should he have been more combative or aggressive?  Or is this an apples to oranges comparison?

The End of the NCAA?

College athletics are a mess.  While select schools reap tremendous economic rewards, the student athletes must take whatever the NCAA determines they are worth.  This is a remarkable system, especially if you are the one in control of the means of production.  I don't need to quote Marx here.  The point is too obvious for words.

Here's the problem, in the words of Michael Rosenberg:

But college sports, at their core, have nothing to do with amateurism. I mean that in a very practical sense. Players choose schools for education or playing time or because they like the coaches or the helmets. They work out and practice and study and party. Coaches watch film and recruit and put together game plans and punt on fourth-and-1 when they should go for it.

Nobody gets into sports because they have a passion for players not getting paid. They are certainly players who believe in following rules, but that doesn't mean they believe in the rules themselves.

This why all these scandals are not terribly surprising.  There is a market for elite college athletes, and there is also a need to win.  Put those two impulses together and you get exactly what we see in Miami and North Carolina; in Oregon and Southern California; in Auburn, Alabama, and Ohio State.

Anybody who thinks bad things only happen at other schools in not living in the real world.

Part of the problem is that the rules make no sense.  They address different questions for different times, and are established by people who lead comfortable lives and make more money than they probably deserve.  Case in point: Terrelle Pryor quarterbacks his OSU team to victory over hated arch rival Michigan and is given a pair of funny looking pants.  They are given to him because he had, as a student athlete, the opportunity to represent Ohio State.  This is an opportunity that other students do not have.  The pants themselves are immaterial, for the student population does not have access to them, irrespective of whether Pryor decides to sell them or not.  Of course, when Pryor decides to sell these pants, he violates an NCAA rule that does not allow him to benefit in ways other students cannot.

Not sure how that makes any sense.

This is why, to Guy's question whether disclosure would work, the answer depends on your goal for college athletics.  Clearly, disclosure only works once we disabuse ourselves of the quaint idea that  elite athletes go to college to get a top-notch education. Some do, I am sure.  But too many come to college to prepare for "the league."  And there is really nothing wrong with that.

It is time to turn back the clock to 1905 and blow up the system.  The NCAA exists only because a lot of fat cats want it to exist. 

Were I NCAA czar, I would begin my reform project with three basic ideas.  First, I would stop pretending athletes have no value.  They do.  And they know it. Pretending otherwise is not really working.  This reminds me of Nancy Reagan's abstinence program. Makes plenty of sense in theory, even if impractical in the real world.  Amateurism no longer makes any sense.  Big time college athletics are big business.  We should treat the athletes accordingly and stop pretending otherwise.

Second, I would punish schools for their indiscretions.  Heavily.  This might force them to monitor their coaches.

Third, I would also punish the head coaches.  As matter stand today, coaches walk away while their schools are left behind to pick up the pieces.  It happened at Indiana University with the mess left by Kelvin Sampson, and at USC with Pete Carroll, who went on to a $33 million contract with the Seattle Seahawks.  This also makes no sense.  To ask schools simply to show cause in hiring these coaches is not enough.  Restitution might be a much better option.

Obama and Black Voters: Beginning of the End?

The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart has this post about Representative Maxine Waters asking black voters at a job fair in Detroit the permission to put pressure on the President.  As reported by Capehart, Representative Waters said:

We don’t put pressure on the president. Let me tell you why. We don’t put pressure on the president because y’all love the president. You love the president. You’re very proud . . . to have a black man [in the White House] . . . First time in the history of the United States of America. If we go after the president too hard, you’re going after us. . . . When you tell us it’s all right and you unleash us, and you tell us you're ready for us to have this conversation, we’re ready to have the conversation. . . . All I’m saying to you is, we’re politicians. We’re elected officials. We are trying to do the right thing and the best thing. When you let us know it is time to let go, we’ll let go.

Caphart reports that she received permission, at least from those at the jobs fair in Detroit.  The President has lost some support from the black community, but not too much.  Are black voters starting to take defect?  Is the high-profile criticisms of the President by Dr. Cornel West and Tavis Smiley starting to soften the President's support in the black community?

UPDATE: See this article in Huffington Post.  There seems to be a concerted effort by black political leaders in Congress to be more vocal and public about their criticism of the President.  It might be that these leaders are feeling increasing pressure from their constituencies and thus pointing the finger at the President.  But this is definitely something to pay attention to.

Miami Hurricanes NCAA Violations: Disclosure as Remedy?

My colleague James Boyle brought this article to my attention, which details various and multiple NCAA violations by the University of Miami.  Basically one of the boosters provided millions of dollars of illegal benefits to basketball and football players. The question that many have asked is whether this type of activity can be stopped.  Can a player who comes from difficult circumstances really refuse $10,000 from a booster just so he can maintain his NCAA eligibility?

One solution is to allow boosters to buy players but to compel the school to disclose the benefits both to the players and to the boosters.  Luis, since you're a big sports guy, what do you think of disclosure as a remedy?

Mis-using Racism

I'm particularly skeptical of cries by racism from white liberals against white conservatives.  Too often those accusations simply use race to discredit a political perspective.  MSNBC commentator Ed Schultz got caught doing exactly that here.  He accuses Texas Governor Rick Perry of racism after Perry said that there was a black cloud hanging over America.  Schultz states that Perry is referring to the President, when Perry is clearly referring to the economy. Schultz is clearly attacking Perry's political position, but as an aperitif to the political attack, he first accuses Perry of racism.  This is clearly a mis-use of race and the folks who will pay for it ultimately are folks of color when they object to legitimate acts of racism.

Two From the Randy Kennedy Department: His New Book and Expelling Clarence Thomas from the Black Community

First, Professor Kennedy's new book, "The Persistence of the Colorline: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency," is out and has been reviewed in the NY Times here.  I can't wait to read it and after I do will post.

Second, Kennedy recently reviewed Toure's book at The Root.com here.  The most arresting paragraph of the review follows a discussion  of whether the black community should police the boundaries of belonging (determine for itself who is or who is not black to belong to the community).  Kennedy says yes and here is his example:

Some folks ought to have their racial credentials lifted. Consider Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas -- the most vilified black official in American history, a man whose very name has become synonymous with selling out. Many organizations, including scores of law schools, refuse to bestow any semblance of prestige or support through association with him. He is being massively boycotted. And like all boycotts, this one is coercive. It applies pressure to the target.
It also applies pressure to third parties, threatening with disapproval those who might cross the boycotters' picket line. The boycott of Thomas is largely monitored by blacks who detest his reactionary politics and rue his paradoxical success in exploiting black racial loyalism. Remember that but for his appeal for protection against a "high-tech lynching," he would probably have failed to win senatorial confirmation to the seat once occupied by Thurgood Marshall.
Is it right for blacks to cast Thomas from their communion? Is it appropriate to indict him for betrayal? These questions have arisen on numerous occasions. In confronting them now, I conclude that I have erred in the past. Previously I have criticized Thomas' performance as a jurist -- his complacent acceptance of policies that unjustly harm those tragically vulnerable to ingrained prejudices; his naked Republican Party parochialism; and his proud, Palinesque ignorance. But I have also chastised those who labeled him a sellout.
I was a sap. Blacks should ostracize Thomas as persona non grata. Despite his parentage, physiognomy and racial self-identification, he ought to be put outside of respectful affiliation with black folk because of his indifference or hostility to their collective condition. His conduct has been so hurtful to and antagonistic toward the black American community that he ought to be expelled from membership in it.

 This is a tough call for me.  First, is Clarence Thomas the most vilified black official in American history?  Hmm.  Is Clarence Thomas' jurisprudence so outrageous that he should be shunned?  If we boycott Thomas why not boycott Scalia and Roberts?  Should we boycott Thomas because as a black man he ought to know better?  Does that mean that Scalia and Roberts get a free pass.  Randall Kennedy is one of my intellectual role models, but I am not convinced on this one.