IN LIEU OF LIBERAL POLITICS! A remarkable tape from 1997 shows us the shape of our world: // link // print // previous // next //
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
The insults of the high professorial class: Over the weekend, observers mocked the complaints of an already-infamous whining Chicago [law] professor who appears to be near the 99th percentile but feels poor. The professor in question seems to have a household income around $450,000 per yearbut he feels that he and his wife just cant afford Obamas proposed (modest) hike in the marginal tax rate.
Above, we were quoting Paul Krugman; to start exploring this topic, click here.
Brad DeLong and many others have battered this pampered professor around. Today, well suggest that you consider the world-view of a second high-ranking professorProfessor Susan Engel, a senior lecturer in psychology and the director of the teaching program at Williams College. Engel wrote this op-ed column in yesterdays New York Times.
For starters, we will assume that Engel is a good, decent person. In her head shot, she displays a bright, winning smile; her research interests include such high-minded, all-encompassing topics as children's play, teaching and learning in schools, and the development of curiosity (click here). She graduated from Sarah Lawrence in 1980; she has taught all ages from preschool through graduate school, most recently at Williams, Smith and Bennington Colleges (click this).
She has also written an op-ed column which strikes us as insultingly other-worldlyone of the worst such columns weve ever read in the Times. People who are upset with the attitudes of that Chicago law professor might also consider Professor Engels well-intentioned column.
Like so many of her class, Engel just hates all that standardized testing! Without question, there are many flaws with the way the public schools conduct such testing programs today. But we were struck by Engels opening paragraph, which didnt seem to be describing the world as it exists. Well include the columns rather incoherent headline, which the professor may not have written:
The children are laboring once again in the shadow of standardized tests! But is it true that, in a typical standardized test, students are quizzed on the specific formulas and bits of information they have memorized that year? In most grade school reading tests, children are asked to read various types of written materials and answer various types of questions about them. When are they asked about the specific formulas and bits of information they have memorized that year? We were puzzled by that description, and our puzzlement only grew as the professor continued:
The professor turns up her nose at the fact that standardized tests are relatively easy to administer to every child in every school, easy to score and easy to understand, though these are remarkably important characteristics of these tests (more below). But we were most struck by the highlighted passage. Are annual standardized tests mainly designed for the purpose of punishing schools with low test scores and rewarding schools with high ones? Such clatter sounds good to certain types of Western Massachusetts ears. But is that what transpires in the actual world?
Well admit it: We dont know when weve read a column which seemed so disengaged from the worlddisengaged in ways which made us think of that Chicago professors disengagement. Having quickly established her straw man, Professor Engel is soon imagining a loftier, better world. In this world, lofty child development experts replace the concerns of the hoi polloi, testing for things that really matter:
Perhaps grudgingly, Professor Engel is willing to test children for the ability to understand what they readbut she can imagine testing the youngsters for so much more! (We can even test the children to see if they have a dynamic working knowledge of the society in which they live!) Why, developmental psychologists can even use recordings of childrens speech to calculate two important indicators of intellectual functioning: the grammatical complexity of their sentences and the size of their working vocabularies!
Why not do the same in schools? the professor asks. The answer to that question seems rather clearbut by now, this extremely high-minded professor is imagining wonderfully pretty outcomes. If youre living in the real world, try to believe that she wrote thisand that the New York Times published it without editorial challenge:
We could have children talk with a trained examiner; the oral reconstruction could be analyzed for evidence of their narrative comprehension! But where would all these trained examiners come from? Who would guarantee the success of their training? And who would pay for these trained examiners, who would listen to children one at a time? Such questions dont intrude on this fairyland columnthough at this point, a serious person might begin to understand the advantage provided by tests which are relatively easy to administer and relatively easy to score.
Duh. At Sarah Lawrence, Bennington, Williams and Smith, pretty things can be imagined. But in the real world, costs obtain, and so do real concernsabout the skill of examiners trained by the likes of Engel, to cite just one example. Engel imagines a fairyland in which lofty people of her high class test for the things which really matter. But when we read her two penultimate paragraphs, we wondered how long it has been since Engel encountered that world:
Well be honest: As someone who taught for years in the Baltimore schools, we were struck by the language of that proposed prompt, in which children are asked to choose something you are good at, thus allow[ing] each student to draw on his area of expertise. What a pretty notion! Unfortunately, many kids who reach the fifth grade no longer believe theyre good at anything; this is a lesson theyve painfully drawn from years of frustration and failure. (In a tougher mood, one could say that this is a lesson they have been painfully taught.) We were struck here by Engels lofty language, but we were appalled by what came next, when Engel rolled her eyes at the idea of track[ing] every child every year.
Its true, of coursewe dont need to exhaustively track every child every year in order to monitor how schools are doing. If we only want to monitor schools (or school systems), we can do as good a job, perhaps a better job, by testing samples of students. But each of those individual children belongs to some individual parent or grand-parent. Especially in low-income settings, schools and school systems will endlessly lie to those parents about those children if they arent forced, on an annual basis, to provide some sort of objective measure of the childs basic skill at the basic processes of basic subjects like reading and math. Something like that has recently occurred in the state of New Yorks non-scandal scandal, a scandal with which lofty people like Engel dont dirty their beautiful minds.
Do you recall the following moment, recorded by reporter Karen Zraick in the New York Times? (See THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/23/10.) Zraick recorded a tumultuous meeting after the state of New York admitted that its statewide tests had been producing inflated, fraudulent test scores in recent years. Deceived parents shouted at Joel Klein, chancellor of the New York City schools:
Evelyn Feliciano lives in the Bronx; she hasnt been to Williams. She had been told that her son was doing well in school. But now, the state of New York had thrown away years of fraudulent test scores, and it turned out that her son wasnt doing that well after all! Note to Engel, up in Williamstown: Parents like that will always be lied to if there is no annual, individual measure. (Indeed, in this recent non-scandal scandal, we see that states will sometimes find ways to lie to these parents even when theyre required to test.) They will have no way of knowing if their child is making basic progress in basic skills. Rating schools can be an important task. But guess what? These low-income parents actually care about their own son or daughter!
In reaction, Professor Engel suggests that we could give Felicianos son a book to read, and then have him talk with a trained examiner. The oral reconstruction could be analyzed for evidence of his narrative comprehension.
Aint life in the high professoriate grand? At the University of Chicago, $450,000 isnt enough. At Williams, we will simply ignore statewide frauds when it comes to conducting the most basic measures. Instead, we will imagine a prettier world, a world full of trained examiners who enact the wondrous vision of child development experts.
Evelyn Feliciano deserves basic information about her child. Engel, kicking her low-grade type to the curb, dreams of something much grander.
People who dream and imagine this way may well be very good people. But in their effect on the world, they can be quite destructive. Theyre part of the modern American class arrangement, an arrangement built in the past forty years, an arrangement which supports the rule of the top one percent of the top one percent. The New York Times is very eager to publish their consummate twaddle.
One last point: Liberals are angry at that law professor, because he earns too much money. We liberals care about moneybut we wont be discussing Professor Engel. You see, we liberals dont care about low-income kids, and that is who Engel is mauling.
We liberals quit on black kids about 35 years ago. At roughly that same time, a massive rise in inequality was starting to form. This rise has led to the views of that Chicago professorand to the lofty views of his social class-mate, who wrote that remarkable column.
Extra-credit essay question: In recent years, the state of New York conducted a massive fraud in its statewide testing program. Have you seen a single professor write even one word about that matter? What does their silence tell us?
PART 1E. J. DIONNES SILLY QUESTION (permalink): A remarkable piece of videotape has surfaced in the wake of Christine ODonnells nomination. Somewhat predictably, we liberals have failed to notice the more remarkable part of the tape.
We refer to an episode of Bill Mahers Politically Incorrect program from March 1997. To watch two full segments from the program in question, you can just click here.
(Full disclosure: We ourselves guested on this program four times, rather clearly distinguishing ourselves as Bills best, favorite guest.)
Semi-predictably, we liberals have thrilled to this programs first segment, in which ODonnell engages in sexy sex talk. But good lord! For those who would understand modern politics, the second segment is much more instructive. In this deeply demented segment, Maher raises the question of Bill Clintons possible impeachment, saying that, like Nixon before him, Clinton has FBI files that he shouldnt have gotten. (Billy! Bill! Billy! No!)
Once again: This program aired in May 1997, eight months before the Lewinsky matter broke in the national press.
The invitation to talk about Clinton touched off a remarkable tumult. Leading the chaos was Republican nitwit Star Parker, though actor Rick Shroder embarrassed himself badly during this sad seven minutes. (Avert your gaze when he speaks.) After only 56 seconds, Shroder says, I think Clinton could be impeached for several different reasonsand Parker takes over from there. By the 1:25 mark, she is saying, I think hes a Communist, I really do, referring to former Democratic fund-raiser John Huang. By 3:30, she is talking about arms dealers in the White Houseand she refers to Vince Fosters death for the first of two times. Before the segment is done, Parker is screeching that the Chinese government is going to be making our airplanes, while at the same time they are buying Long Beach Naval Base. (The alleged loss of CIA files was also part of her rumination.) As the session nears its end, Parker, Shroder and ODonnell are excitedly talking over each other about a certain late-term abortion procedure.
In our view, Al Franken was a hero of the 1990s. But to see a liberal approach which failed quite badly during this era, just watch his attempt to repel these three true-believers with a series of jibes and jests.
Another thread is worth mentioning. At the 2:30 point, the deeply pitiful Shroder recites a script which would become historically important:
Bill Clinton, a compulsive liar, will do and say anything! Shroder had the script down cold, as would many others like him. Two years later, in March 1999, the mainstream press corps redirected this script in its pursuit of Clintons preferred successor, Candidate Gore. They would repeat Shroders script for the next two years, sending George Bush to the White House.
Al Gore will do and say anything! They yelled it for two solid years.
This program was taped in May 1997, a mere four months into Clintons second term. The liberal world largely sat and started as this lunacy unfoldedwith Bill, our own long-time favorite, tickling the keys with that talk about Clinton-as-Nixon. When the lunacy was later transferred to Gore, the liberal world continued to stareexcept for the many powerful liberals who actively worked to advance this sick war.
For those of you who may not recall what the Clinton-Gore era was like, this seven-minute tape may serve as a potent refresher. For those who never knew what this era was like, let this tape serve as your primer.
And nothe lunacy didnt begin with talk about Obamas birth. (For the record, ODonnell is much less nutty in this segment than the aggressively stupid Parker or the painfully pitiful Shroder.)
Yesterday, we watched this tape, then read this column by E. J. Dionne. Politely, Dionne kept his liberal trap shut tight all through the Clinton-Gore years, as President Clinton, then Candidate Gore, were savaged by the nuts of the world, and by his mainstream press colleagues. Today, he writes a column in which he proudly asks the worlds most clueless political question. In this column, Dionne announces that he doesnt understand what that past eras lunacy wrought.
In his column, Dionne is trying to understand President Obamas current tax proposal. Obama has proposed extending most of the Bush tax cuts. Why doesnt he propose extending his own tax cuts, Dionne asksthe tax cuts he himself created as part of the stimulus package? As he starts, Dionne tracks his question to John Podesta:
E. J. doesnt understand it! The Bush tax cuts are skewed to the wealthy. The Obama tax cuts are skewed to the middle-classand to the poor, though Dionne wont say the word. So why would Obama propose Bushs cuts? E. J. just doesnt understand!
As he closes, Dionne says again that he doesnt get the presidents strategy. Lets quote him again, so we can see that Dionne has truly become the worlds self-confessed Dumbest Man:
Why cede attention to Bushs ideas? The question answers itselfunless youre a man like E. J. Dionne, a man who refused to fight in the Clinton-Gore years, when the lunacy on display on that Bill Maher tape took control of the political and journalistic worlds, producing Bushs ascension to power.
Unless youre a man who wont explain where that lunacy left us.
Simple story: American discourse was stone-cold nuts even by May 1997, when that Politically Incorrect program aired. By the time that remarkable tape was made, stone-cold loons like Parker and Shroder were screeching and yelling for Clintons head. In March 1999, with impeachment defeated, they and the scripted hacks of the mainstream press corps would start demanding the head of Gore. The loud noise heard on that old Maher tape announced the death of anything like a liberal politics. It explains why Obama is running with Bushs ideas, not with ideas of his own.
Why would Obama push Bushs ideas? Duh! Only a fool, or a press corps Potemkin, would feel the need to ask. Tomorrow, well spell out the answer just a bit moreand well start to see how liberals campaign in lieu of a liberal politics.
Tomorrowpart 2: What happens when liberals lack politics