Saturday, March 30, 2019

Nationalize (private) higher education

Last week's college admissions scandal, in which a number of rich and famous persons were convicted of paying bribes for test scores and athletic recommendations, came as little surprise to informed commentators. For years, elite private universities have privileged the progeny of the 1 percent in admissions through so-called "legacy preferences" which give an assist to the children of alumni as an incentive for alumni donations. Such favoritism not only rewards a demographic that is much wealthier and whiter than the general college-aged population but encourages "pay-to-play" contributions, in which generous donations by alumni billionaires are rewarded in kind by a child's admission.

In the words of education scholar Richard Kahlenberg, legacy preferences are nothing more than "affirmative action for the rich." As a policy that rewards money over (even the pretense of) merit, legacy preferences are grossly unfair and unjust.

And yet, despite coming under attack from voices across the political spectrum, colleges have made clear that legacy preferences are unlikely to go away anytime soon. The reason is simple: many private colleges (with the exception of scientific research institutions, like MIT and Caltech) rely on alumni donations for long-term financial stability.

As long as private universities remain private, untethered from permanent public support (or accountability), they'll have every incentive to indulge in a form of admissions apartheid, that they perceive to fulfill their bottom line.

Therefore, ending legacy preferences, and other preferences for the wealthy elite in university admissions may ultimately may require a more far-reaching policy: nationalization of private universities by the federal government.

Under government control, universities would gain a reliable funding source that would obviate universities' donations-driven groveling at the whimsy of wealthy alumni. As public institutions, the universities would likely receive greater scrutiny for employing policies that reward an inheritance (linked with privilege) over merit or need.

Nationalizing private universities would also make it easier for the federal government to implement the tuition-free higher education policies that have become the darling of Democratic presidential candidates. Acquiring control over some of the wealthiest non-profit endowments on the planet could provide a steady funding stream to offset a reduction in tuition revenue. Furthermore, both the government and universities would not need to bear the (monetary and transaction) costs of hiring "middlemen" to administer a government-funded tuition program.

I propose a takeover of private universities by the federal government, rather than the states (which currently manage public higher education), because only the former could achieve such a feat in a one-off event. A state-by-state process would require the buy-in of 27 Republican governors, loath to undertake any policy that smacks of socialism. Moreover, a federal takeover would produce the first national public university system in the country's history, eliminating current geographic disparities in students' access to higher education. While some state colleges (e.g. the UC and UofM systems) have a status comparable to the Ivy League, many fall far below the elite universities in terms of educational quality and research opportunities. Since most state colleges only offer reduced tuition to students from within the state, access to affordable, quality education is currently a lottery based on one's residence. A national university system, with subsidized or free tuition, would do away with this arbitrary stratification.

Finally, and less tangibly, nationalized higher education would diminish any prestige dividends perceived from private college attendance. Wealthier parents in the know could have less incentive to use their money and networks to finagle their kids' entry into "Ivy League" or "Ivy Plus" schools,

Just as the United States is an outlier (among the industrial economies) when it comes to the cost of higher education, its an outlier in terms of its extensive private education structure (even foreign universities as prestigious as Oxford are public). Progress on the latter front can lead to progress on the former, while reducing class and race-based segregation.

Sunday, March 17, 2019

Asian-Americans: the Glaring Omission in Progressive Politics

Politicos on both the left and the right have traditionally assumed that middle-class Asian-Americans boast a status akin to whiteness.

While right-wing billionaires sue Harvard on the grounds that affirmative-action programs for disadvantaged minorities discriminate against both asians and whites, many left-wing publications ignore asian-americans altogether when discussing issues of racial justice. Those that do frequently note the diversity of the "AAPI" (Asian-American Pacific Islander) community, separating "privileged" middle-class demographics, like Chinese-, Japanese- and Indian-Americans from working-class Filipino- and Vietnamese-Americans.

However, although middle-class East Asians tend to enjoy incomes comparable to or higher than the white majority, they experience subtle but pernicious discrimination in the social and cultural spheres of American life.

Asian-Americans of all stripes are under-represented in film, cable and broadcast TV, comprising as few as 3 percent of film roles and 2.5 percent of cable Television roles in 2016. Those Asians that do manifest on the Silver Screen tend to be shown as either crafty foreigners, sexually-incompetent dweebs or a combination of both (look no further than the Hangover's Mr. Chow).

Asian-American youth are the demographic most likely to be bullied in school. Asian-American adults are the least likely to be promoted to corporate management positions (despite being over-represented in the professional fields). And Asian-American males are the least-likely to "match" with a partner on both gay- and straight- dating websites.

The last fact hits particularly close to home. I have spent days at a time on Tinder "swiping" right (on profiles of all races) without getting a single match. The infrequency with which I match on Tinder or Bumble heightens the stakes for each match I do get, so that my anxiety acts up when I finally land a date. My lack of success in online dating, has caused tremendous personal frustration in the last 5 years.

All of these forms of racism speak to an enduring typecast of Asian-Americans as effeminate foreigners, who are good at math but poor at people-skills, leadership, decisiveness and other traits that define the heterosexual "man's-man". While stereotypes about African-Americans and Jews (though still pervasive) must at least be coded for utterance in polite society, jokes about Asian's "tiny dongs" and accounting skills get a pass in the (ostensibly-) most progressive corners of America.

Despite embracing an attitude of #resistance to the Trump presidency, many progressives have showed ignorance or indifference to the revelation of Harvard's racist "personality" rankings of Asian-Americans (which admittedly came about as part of a lawsuit that had a reactionary agenda, but still...). The Democratic Party's minority outreach efforts ahead of the 2018 midterm election focused primarily on Latino voters, despite the fact that Asian-Americans are a principal demographic in the suburban swing districts crucial to Democrats' success. To date, I can find no example of a progressive policy focused explicitly on the concerns of the Asian-American community.

Indeed, rather than confront Trump's racially-coded China-bashing, the Democratic party's most liberal politicians have-in many instances-piled on. Even if the protectionist tarriffs Democrats propose are primarily economic in focus, they lend credence to an agenda that is as much about nationalism as about restoring trade deficits.

Although Trump has (with a couple exceptions) avoided overt racial animus towards Asians until now, his record on race indicates that he is more than capable of stirring up anti-Chinese, if not anti-Asian sentiment, say, if a crisis erupts with a China or if his poll numbers falter.

Can progressives be counted on to defend the rights of Asian-Americans, as participants in the American social contract rather than as foreigners deserving mere "respect", when the time arises?

I would hope so. But the evidence so far suggests otherwise.

Sunday, March 3, 2019

Bojack Horseman Review

I finally caught up with the Bojack Horseman craze last night when I watched the first episode of season 1 (courtesy of my free Netflix subscription, that's right!). I had heard many positive reviews from friends and other acquaintances, so I began watching with eager eyes. The episode began in an uneven fashion but held out hope at the end for a more promising trajectory. 

At first glance, Bojack Horseman comes across as Family Guy 2.0, updated for 2010s hipster sensibility. There's the loutish, alcoholic middle-aged slacker (in this case, a celebrity horse, who had a TV show in the 90s). There are anthropomorphic animals (of course, more of them and more central to the plot). And there are the ubiquitous flashbacks to events that explain a particular reference or suit his/her whimsy. 

The subtext is more serious, however. Bojack needs to get his novel out to fulfill terms of indenture (a flailing penguin publishers--run by actual penguins). Lacking self-discipline, he can't. HIs part-time girlfriend/agent breaks up with him, after a contentious date.

The animals, the sex/drugs and the level drama almost make it feel like one giant effort at irony.  Look guys (my imaginary studio exec would say): its Charlie Sheen he's a horse (almost in "War Horse"), he barfs cotton candy and has a publishing contract. Won't that crack up the youngster's in Williamsburg? 

Halfway through, Bojack was trying too hard and not making me laugh. 

Fortunately, the repetitiveness of the gags (e.g. the party requests, Peanut Butter crossover jokes) made me a laugh after a little while. Some playful absurdity at work. Nice! 

I'll be watching seasons 2 or 3 and getting back afterwards.