WUPR 24.1 Education

Washington University

political review 24.1 | February 2016 | wupr.org

EDUCATIOn

TABLE OF CONTENTS 4

22

Inequality: Normandy

EDUCATION

Victoria Johnson

6

NATIONAL

St. Louis Education

8

24

10

Krista Galleberg

Assessing State

A Verdict on Backfiles

25

26

28

17

Teacher Salaries

18

Standardized Testing and Public Education

Is College Worth It? Eli Scher-Zagier

Hannah Waldman Staff Editors: Rachel Butler Sam Klein Bisma Mufti Dan Sicorsky Features Editors: Max Handler Serena Lekawa Finance Director:

32

The 5555 Percent Drug Price Hike: Who’s to Blame?

Suhas Gondi

34

The GOP’s About Face on Drug Addiction

35

36

Katie Rial

20

Executive Director:

Andrew Eichen

US Public High Schools Changes in Average

Minimum Wage, Maximum Disadvantage

The Legacy of No Child Left Behind

The Ten Most-taught Books in

Political Theory and Electric Cars Sabrina Wang

Anand Chukka

16

The Real Cost of National Security Syrus Jin

The Liberal Arts Can Work Sam Klein

14

Secretary Arne Duncan: “One of the

Alexander Sanchez

Aitan Groener

12

Billie Mandelbaum

President’s Best Appointments”

Education Systems

INTERNATIONAL

Editors-in-Chief:

Dan Sicorsky

Aryeh Mellman

on a Global Scale

9

The Return of Segregated Schools

The 28th Amendment?

American Students’ Scores

EDITOR’S NOTE

37

Lauren Berger Director of Design: Andrew Kay Assistant Directors of Design: Nikolai Laba

Dear Reader, As you settle into another semester at Wash U, we bring you a seemingly familiar topic: education. For most of us, going to school and doing schoolwork has been a constant part of our lives. Yet for a topic that occupies the focus of so many young people and their families, education is usually overlooked by the mainstream media. While sensational coverage about terrorism and the economy gobble up news headlines, stories about America’s schools are often relegated to the back pages of newspapers (for those who are solely computer literate, this means you have to scroll down very far).

In this issue, our writers take a close look at the state of education in America today. Victoria Johnson examines the vast educational disparities that exist between white and black students in St. Louis. In an interview with Arne Duncan, Krista Galleberg asks the former Secretary of Education to reflect on his tenure and the future of education. Aitan Groener takes a hard line against students using backfiles (past exams and coursework) to prepare for exams. Alexander Sanchez argues for establishing a constitutional right to education. These articles, in addition to others in the magazine, shine a light on where our writers see the current state of education, and where they would like it to go.

With the start of a new semester, we hope you consider adding WUPR to your list of activities. We are always looking for writers and graphic designers to join our staff. If you’re interested, feel free to email us at editor@wupr.org. Regardless of your WUPR involvement, we hope to see you on Thursday, February 18 at 7pm in Graham Chapel as we welcome David Axelrod to campus.

Billie Mandelbaum

Ezekiel Saucedo

Happy Reading!

Is There Really a War on Women?

Director of New Media:

Billie Mandelbaum and Aryeh Mellman

Dan Martin

Tomek Cebrat

The Modern Loss of Empathy

Digital Media Strategist

Reuben Siegman

Sabrina Wang

HONY Humanizing Political Conflicts Bisma Mufti

Programming Director: Reuben Siegman Front Cover: Ezekiel Saucedo Theme Spread: Bohao Zhang Back Cover: So A Ryu

Editors-in-Chief

EDUCATION

EDUCATION

political review | EDUCATION

political review | EDUCATION

St. Louis Education Inequality: Normandy Victoria Johnson

N

orth St. Louis received national coverage following the death of Michael Brown.

Since then, however, the area has been largely ignored by the national media. This area includes the St. Louis County city of Normandy, which contains the school district that Brown graduated from. The district had lost its accreditation in 2013, before the shooting, as the Missouri State Board of Education deemed the school unfit to provide instruction to its students.

According to the New York Times, even before becoming unaccredited, Normandy had some of the most segregated, poor-performing schools in the country. This stems from St. Louis being one of the most racially segregated metropolitan areas in the United States.

Due to a history of restrictive covenants and public housing troubles, St. Louis has become racially polarized and still faces the problem of de-facto residential segregation. In the mid20th century, before segregation was officially prohibited in the city, there were policies in St. Louis that prohibited resale of white-owned property to, or occupancy by, African Americans.

This history, in addition to other factors such as failed urban renewal policies, led to St. Louis’ current problem with residential segregation, and created school districts with a large majority of either white or black students.

This segregation in schools would not necessarily be a problem if they were all receiving equal education. However, as was shown during the civil rights movement, separate but equal does not exist. This was showcased in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case, where the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren declared that “in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”

This disparity in St. Louis schools is further shown by their allocation of resources. The

4

Washington Post ranks Missouri as the third worst state in the country when it comes to the allocation of state and local funding between affluent and poor school districts. St. Louis follows the state trend with districts like Ladue and Clayton receiving more state funding than Normandy and Ferguson. Missouri stands in contrast to their neighboring state, Arkansas, where more money is allocated to poorer districts than wealthy ones.

Another reason that St. Louis educational allocations vary so much is that most of the districts’ money comes from taxes within their own localities. This means that wealthy districts will bring in more money for their schools.

For example, if the median home value in one district is $100,000 and another is $50,000, if they both allocate 1% of their property taxes to schools that means that one district is getting $1,000 per household while the other is only receiving $500. Thus, one school district is receiving twice as much money, even if households are taxed the same.

In St. Louis, 44 percent of black children attend unaccredited schools compared to four percent of white children.

This allocation difference means some schools receive ample resources and children are pushed to excel, whereas other less funded schools lack resources and teachers have

lower expectations for student achievement.

In St. Louis, 44 percent of black children attend unaccredited schools compared to four percent of white children.

Normandy, whose score on its 2014 performance report was only 7 percent, has a majority of black and low-income students.

State Board of Education member Victor Lenz visited Normandy High School and reported to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that he “saw classes where kids were milling around and the teacher was just sitting there.”

The inadequate teaching was further exposed by the comments of high school student Cameron Hensley, who told the Post-Dispatch about his permanent substitute physics teacher who rarely teaches, and his uncertified AP English teacher. Well-qualified teachers are scarce in the Normandy School District and classes are inefficient at teaching students what they need to know.

The Normandy School District stands in stark contrast to the Clayton School District, which is just five miles away. Clayton is predominantly white and has a very low poverty rate. Its schools rank within the top 10 percent of the state. Five miles is the difference between receiving one of the best educations in Missouri and attending one of the worst schools in the entire country.

Over thirty years ago, St. Louis attempted to address segregation in its school systems. In 1983, under a court order, St. Louis began a huge inter-district desegregation initiative. It was one of the most successful in the United States. This initiative allowed thousands of black students to obtain a better education.

One of these students was Michael Brown’s mother, who rode a bus from St. Louis to the affluent Ladue School District as an elementary school student.

This initiative did not last. Politicians deemed it too costly and it was slowly abandoned until

Five miles is the difference between receiving one of the best educations in Missouri and attending one of the worst schools in the entire country. it was all but forgotten. In fact, Jay Nixon, the current governor of Missouri, was one of the politicians who helped abolish the court order completely—an action that increased inequality and segregation in St. Louis.

In an attempt to help fix these inequalities, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that children from any unaccredited district, such as Normandy, could transfer to higher performing schools. While this may seem like a push in the right direction, it has actually hindered both the Normandy School District and its students.

Normandy faces financial collapse as a result of the large number of students transferring.

Due to a legal loophole created by naming Normandy a “state oversight district,” Normandy, instead of the state, is forced to pay tuition to schools that take in their students and provide transportation. This school year, one in four students applied to transfer to other schools, costing the district $1.3 million per month. Allocating this money to transfer students has led to increased teacher layoffs and school closures.

By becoming a “state oversight district,” Normandy is not only forced to pay for transfer students, but is controlled by the state instead of a local school board. Immediately after the state came in, they fired and replaced half of the teachers with new, inexperienced ones who were unable to control their classrooms.

While it was an attempt by the state to improve classroom conditions in Normandy, it backfired.

Many students look to escape these conditions by transferring. However, they are disadvantaged if they choose to attend another school as they are forced to travel long distances and face uncertainty as to whether or not they will be able to return to the same school the following year. If they are unable to transfer, then they are trapped in a failed district.

Children that are forced to remain in poor segregated schools are severely impacted. In her December 2014 New York Times article, investigative journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote, “students who spend their careers in segregated schools can look forward to a life on the margins. They are more likely to be poor. They are more likely to live in segregated neighborhoods as adults. Their children are more likely to attend segregated schools, repeating the cycle.”

This trend will most likely continue unless the state addresses these problems. While legislation no longer exists that allows segregation, racial isolation is still prevalent and in need of fixing. Along with looking at desegregation efforts , officials should attempt to fix the issue of resource allocation to different districts.

funding to struggling schools. Also, officials should turn to the Jennings School District as an example of how to revive a district.

Jennings is located next to Normandy and was about to lose accreditation back in 2013.

It didn’t, however, and instead the district’s superintendent, Tiffany Anderson, made many decisions that have increased attendance and improved test scores. Some of these include cutting office staff to create money for classrooms, an accelerated middle school program, and more experienced teachers.

Anderson also spends her mornings and afternoons on crossing guard duty across the district to connect with the community. Her philosophy is that schools and communities must have a strong relationship to in order for both to prosper, and it seems to be working. While it may not be as simple as copying the Jennings school district, Missouri has to start somewhere.

Many challenges lay ahead for Missouri.

However, if the state does not begin to address its inequalities and assist struggling school districts like Normandy, black children in unaccredited districts will be faced with even more hardships before they leave elementary school.

While state officials recognize that they have a problem with racial inequality in their school systems, they aren’t trying to desegregate.

Instead, they are attempting to make these segregated schools equal. This is the exact philosophy that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against in Brown v. Board of Education.

There is not an easy solution to the problems that Missouri faces. Instead of attempting to do the impossible, however, officials should instead try to tackle the issue of racial segregation in schools. While many steps and policies may be needed, they may want to start by implementing a stronger version of their desegregation initiative that took place in the 1980s. Even though some believe that “forced busing” of students to desegregate failed, it didn’t. In fact, at the height of school integration during the 1980s, racial achievement gaps were the narrowest they’ve ever been.

To attempt to fix struggling school districts, the state can pass legislation to increase school

Victoria Johnson is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at tori.johnson@wustl.edu.

5

political review | EDUCATION

political review | EDUCATION

The 28th Amendment?

Alexander Sanchez | Image courtesy of WikiMedia Commons

T

he quality and efficiency of education within the United States is a controversial topic, but data from various crossnational tests consistently underscores the fact that United States students are lagging internationally. One of the biggest crossnational tests, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), placed the United States 24th, 28th, and 36th in reading, science, and mathematics respectively out of 65 countries. In addition, in 2012, the education company Pearson—using a variety of global data from cross-national studies and individual country data—ranked the United States 14th in education; Finland ranked first. Furthermore, only one year of arts education is required in the United States in comparison to three and four years for “core” subjects like English and mathematics. This leads to even lower outcomes for fine arts education, reducing students’ opportunities to explore other areas and achieve well-balanced lives through creative and emotional expression. There is clearly an issue within the United States education system that needs urgent reform.

Interestingly enough, when differences in countries’ social class demographics are taken into account during the analysis of crossnational tests, the performance of students in the United States rises significantly. If only the results from students of higher socioeconomic status are used in analysis of the PISA test, then the United States rankings would rise to 6th in the world in reading and 13th in mathematics.

PISA rankings in the United States are low partly because a proportion of the students taking the test are at a disadvantage due to hardships associated with growing up in a lower social class. In addition to a variety of other factors, I believe this academic divide exists in part due to a lack of a common standard for education within the United States Constitution.

The word “education” is found in 187 country constitutions, yet it is completely absent from the U.S. Constitution. This reflects the lack of any constitutional right to education in the United States, which is not inherently negative because individual states can still

6

enact their own rights to education. However, every country that consistently beats the United States in standardized education rankings has some form of constitutional or statutory guarantee for the right of education.

Although correlation does not equal causation, nationwide laws on educational rights seem to benefit the education system of the nations that enact those laws. Finland’s constitution, for example, asserts, “Everyone has the right to basic education free of charge.” By including education as a focus of the state, a country establishes requirements that set the frame for educational policy challenges and reform.

These requisites contribute to what the Pearson report calls a “culture” of education where “the cultural assumptions and values surrounding an education system do more to support or undermine it than the system can do on its own.”

Based on this, I propose an amendment to the Constitution that mandates that every child in the United States deserves a right to educational equality and adequacy. I believe this would help increase governmental support to decrease educational disparities within the United States and would give a stronger federal backing for educational reform propositions and research.

Although the need for a constitutional right to education in the United States might seem like common sense, there are opposing arguments that deserve mention. In the article “Education and the Constitution,” David Boaz argues that there should not be a constitutional right to education. He explains that the constitution was created by the Founding Fathers with the intention of allowing local governments to make statewide decisions based on the individual needs of each state. Basically, education is a matter reserved for the states and federal involvement would be detrimental to education because the needs of each state are different.

However, including a constitutional right to education does not mean that all control will be stripped from local governments. Policies such as the Every Student Succeeds Act, which allows individual states to regulate standardized testing and the evaluation of their schools, can be used in conjunction with and in support of a constitutional right to education. The goal of a

constitutional shift is not to restrict the control of the states, but rather to shift the priorities of the United States to include educating its children as a basic necessity for the prosperity of the nation.

Many would argue that a right to education is already an unwritten federal agreement, or that many states already have their own standards for including education as a universal right.

Although this is true, a constitutional right is needed to support educational rights of children in any court hearings that might arise related to the matter. If education is not included as a constitutional right, then the Supreme Court can legally veto any appeals that argue that a group of children are not properly receiving educational equity and adequacy, such as in the San Antonio v. Rodriguez case, which will be reviewed shortly. This top-down approach in reforming education is necessary because although certain states could successfully foster educational excellence, disparities can still arise between the educational qualities of different states if there is no set standard for education. In addition, partial federal control of educational funding within states could also help eliminate the strong disparities observed when comparing schools with members of contrasting socioeconomic statuses.

It can also be argued that the proposal for a constitutional right to education in the United States would simply be a continuation of concepts in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction “equal protection of the laws.” This clause was the basis for Thurgood Marshall’s 1954 victory in Brown v. Board of Education—the Supreme Court decision that helped dismantle racial segregation in schools in the United States. However, the 1973 Court opinion San Antonio v. Rodriguez reflected the fact that the public education system was, and still is, separate and unequal. In this court case, a group of poor Texas parents argued that the state violated the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment by allowing great disparity in school resources, many of which were

The Constitution of the United States was drafted to establish guidelines for maintaining a democratic nation, yet possibly the most critical aspect of fostering democracy remains completely absent from it. determined by the value of local property taxes.

Even though a state court agreed, the Supreme Court stated that the appellants did not prove that education is a fundamental right that textually exists in the Constitution, and, thus, the appeal was rejected. As a result, states were only required to provide “basic minimal skills necessary for the enjoyment of the rights of speech and full participation in the political process.” This statement violated the earlier Brown v. Board of Education decision, which declared unanimously that education, “where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.” The Supreme Court in San Antonio v.

Rodriguez also stated that “though education is one of the most important services performed by the state, it is not within the category of rights recognized by this Court as guaranteed by the

Constitution.” If it were, the majority concluded, “virtually every state will not pass muster.”

Thurgood Marshall responded to the latter remarks by writing about the irony of such a statement. A disconnect exists between the fact that the Court recognizes education as an essential element of society’s well-being while simultaneously concluding that public education is not constitutionally guaranteed.

Lack of a right to education opposes democracy itself, Marshall writes, because education “directly affects the ability of a child to exercise his First Amendment rights and prepares individuals to be self-reliant and self-sufficient participants of society.” The Constitution was drafted to establish guidelines for maintaining a democratic nation, yet possibly the most critical aspect of fostering democracy remains completely absent from it. A guarantee for

educational equity and adequacy is crucial for American youth to lead the country in the future.

The quality of education children receive should not be determined solely by their ZIP-codes, nor should systems exist that allow for a further divide between high and low-achieving students.

Many people may argue that the Constitution should remain stagnant and should be followed in the strictest way possible, and that amendments to the Constitution, such as including a new right to education, are seen as disruptive to an organized democratic society. However, the U.S Constitution itself was written as a living document—that is, the Founding Fathers enacted it with the intention of having it altered in response to changing political and social aspects of the United States. Thomas Jefferson himself believed that “Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years.

If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.” By challenging the most fundamental part of the United States’ political and sociological system—the Constitution— measurable and positive changes within our education system could actually occur.

Alexander Sanchez is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at alexander.sanchez@wustl.edu.

7

political review | EDUCATION

political review | EDUCATION

American Students’ scores on a global scale Data from the Center for the Learning and Teaching of Literature

Assessing State Education Systems Data from the Education Week Research Center

OVERALL SCORES

C

National Grade (74.3/100) Scoring Scale: 1 – 1000

Mathematics Literacy UNITED STATES

WORLD AVERAGE

SHANGHAI CHINA

481 494 613 [1st Place]

Science Literacy UNITED STATES

WORLD AVERAGE

SHANGHAI CHINA

497 501 580

B First Place: Massachusetts

C33rd Place: Missouri

[1st Place]

Reading Literacy UNITED STATES

WORLD AVERAGE

SHANGHAI CHINA

498 496 570 [1st Place]

8

D Last Place: Mississippi

Chance for Success National Grade:

C-

First Place: Massachusetts

A-

Missouri: 28th place

C+

Last Place: Nevada

D

School Finance National Grade:

C

First Place: Wyoming

B+

Missouri: 33rd place

C-

Last Place: Idaho

F

K-12 Achievement National Grade:

C-

First Place: Massachusetts

B

Missouri: 39th place

D

Last Place: Washington D.C. / Mississippi

F

9

political review | EDUCATION

political review | EDUCATION

A Verdict on Backfiles Aitan Groener

S

tudents learn from a young age that cheating in school is a cardinal sin, and the penalties are there to prove it. In writing essays, taking tests, working problem sets, and doing research, students know it is of the utmost importance they avoid plagiarizing, cite their sources, meet expectations of group work, and avoid the appearance of cheating during exams. Class syllabi and course evaluations remind students at the beginning and end of every semester of the importance of academic integrity. Students caught plagiarizing on papers or collaborating on work not intended for groups can expect extremely harsh punishment ranging from zeroes on assignments to failing marks to expulsion.

And these punishments carry weight: A mark of academic dishonesty can mar a student’s professional record for life.

But none of these warnings are preventing what is perhaps one of the worst-kept secrets on college campuses: various degrees of cheating are constantly flying under the radar at universities across the country. Some students share their answers on homework and problem sets to help out friends in need. Others take prescription amphetamines illegally in order to give themselves a competitive advantage during stressful times. In total, according to one informal and nonscientific online poll of 30,000 students by the website College Humor, 60.8 percent of respondents admitted to cheating on tests and assignments. Some see these incidents as the understandable side effects of a highly competitive academic system, while others shun cheaters for choosing the easy path of dishonesty. However, because of the harsh punishments issued for cheating, many students will choose not to inform on their peers.

University administrations claim to take integrity very seriously, yet under the surface lies a startling reality which undermines their aspirations of fairness.

This startling reality comes in the form of backfiles, or catalogs of tests, quizzes, problem sets and homework questions that are collected by students and distributed through social

10

networks. Backfiles allow students to prepare for exams by studying from past tests given by their professors. This allows them a competitive advantage as many professors use the same or similar questions from year to year.

University administration claims to take integrity very seriously, yet under the surface lies a startling reality, which undermines its aspirations of fairness.

Backfiles are widespread at Washington University, although large lecture-based classes are more susceptible to them than others.

They are not simply a Washington University problem; students at universities across the country report having access to past exams through their social networks.

Officially, almost all universities including Wash U condemn the use of such archives. In its official policy, Wash U instructs students wishing to avoid cheating to never “refer to, study from or copy archival files that were not approved by the instructor.” This shows that the administration is aware that such archives exist.

But their use continues to be widespread.

Many students approach the subject of backfiles nonchalantly. They assume that professors know about them and don’t really care. Some even insist that using backfiles isn’t “really cheating” although the university’s official policy says otherwise.

The administration’s halfhearted response and lack of enforcement has implied that it doesn’t really matter. Students understand that the university's policy discourages backfiles because they have to say that, but often

argue that the lack of university response to the widespread phenomenon points to its harmlessness. They argue that if backfiles were really wrong and the university really had a problem with them, then they would crack down, considering the extent of the problem.

Moreover, students and professors alike argue that the advantage of studying from backfiles is small and that students who use them mostly harm themselves. However, student rumors suggest that certain classes with an abundance of backfiles are favored by those looking for an easy A. But the high scores of students who study from backfiles can tilt class grade curves, harming those who choose to abstain with integrity.

When large-scale cheating scandals at elite universities have been publicized in the past, the public has responded with outrage. In 2012, Harvard University erupted in scandal after 125 students were found to have unfairly collaborated on an Introduction to Congress take-home test. After a New York Times piece was written on the incident, the University announced that “somewhat more than half” of the students were forced to withdraw.

With the precedent of mass public outrage in response to cheating, it is shocking that elite universities across the country remain silent in response to the massive unfairness that backfiles create. Washington University as well as all others should make clear whether backfiles are acceptable and respond accordingly. If the University insists that they are unacceptable, then it should engage in a widespread investigation into which student groups are disseminating the archives. And if it decides that they are fine to use, then it should allow students to access the files legitimately by making them accessible to the full University body. This would promote fairness by erasing the competitive edge some students get from studying off hard-to-find backfiles.

The university’s choice is not an easy one. If it decides that backfiles are unacceptable, it commits itself to a massive investigation which could implicate hundreds of students and

Washington University as well as all others should make clear whether backfiles are acceptable or not and respond accordingly. dozens of student organizations. This would be a major blight to the University’s public name and could have extensive ramifications.

If the university decides that backfiles are acceptable, then it must expend major resources to create a public archive. This

wouldn’t need to cover every single exam, but any test which students are allowed to take home after completion (opening the possibility of scanning and copying) should be included in the public archive in the name of fairness. This is already done in certain classes, like calculus, where old exams are archived through the department’s website.

Proliferating an open exam database would considerably complicate professors’ work in creating and administering tests and exams.

Writing good exams that properly cover course material can be difficult. Many professors rely on databases of questions to save time and energy in writing test questions. Professors who want to allow students to take home exams to study for their finals would need to exert substantial effort in writing new tests every subsequent year.

However, if we intend and aspire to be part of a world-class institution that truly values the virtue of integrity, then the prospect of hard work and allocation of resources should not prevent us from doing the right thing. The University should make its policy clear and cease to tolerate the rampant cheating that abides.

Aitan Groener is sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at a.groener@wustl.edu.

11

political review | EDUCATION

political review | EDUCATION

The Liberal Arts Can Work Sam Klein

S

“

upport science and the arts—especially the arts,” advised the documentarian Ken Burns during his commencement address to Wash U Class of 2015. “They have nothing to do with the actual defense of our country. They Just Make Our Country Worth Defending!”

As a historian, Burns was probably referring to the liberal arts, not simply the traditional fine arts of painting, dance, music, and so on. They, too, have little to do with the defense of our country, though there is no consensus on what academic disciplines actually compose the “liberal arts.” Some who concern themselves with such classifications, generally with skin

more and more Americans are viewing their college education as a “money in, money out” investment. By many estimates, US college costs have risen at a rate more than twice as high as inflation, rendering the experience more expensive and perhaps less valuable than in the past. The annual cost of a private college education, on average around $30,000, is more than half of the median American household income. In-state tuition at public schools isn’t much better, at around $10,000 per year. To make matters worse, student loans generally have high interest rates and are not easily refinanced, meaning these costs are often quite burdensome.

It’s no surprise that high school graduates are growing less concerned with earning a wellrounded (read: liberal arts) higher education. in the game, interchange the term with just the humanities disciplines: history, English, philosophy, and so forth. Others incorporate social sciences like psychology, political science, and economics, though professionals with backgrounds in these subjects often prefer to market themselves away from the lofty confines of academia. Still others count mathematics and the natural sciences among the liberal arts.

I don’t have the definitive meaning sorted out, but for simplicity’s sake, I like to think of the concept in contrast to a vocational, pre-professional education—“liberal arts” are, collectively, the academic fields of which a general literacy in most renders one a holistically educated, upstanding member of society. A liberal arts education is interdisciplinary and demands a diversity of coursework by its very nature. But while STEM and business tracks are growing in popularity at Wash U and across the country, the liberal arts are struggling to keep up.

As the cost of education goes up and the relative value of a bachelor’s degree declines,

12

Furthermore, as more college grads go on to pursue postgraduate education, the power of a “mere” bachelor’s degree in the job market is weaker than ever before. There are countless stories of adults with complete college educations unable to find employment that pays the bills. It’s no surprise, then, that high school graduates are growing less concerned with earning a well-rounded (read: liberal arts) higher education. There’s a growing trend among this demographic (and its parents, who often ultimately call the shots) of pragmatically seeking the most efficient preparation for a specific career trajectory. And it less and less commonly involves the liberal arts.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, because the integrity of our workforce is the perennial dominant issue of contention for voters, politicians from both sides of the aisle have attacked or mocked the liberal arts. Even Barack Obama has stooped for the low-hanging fruit. “Folks can make a lot more, potentially, with skilled manufacturing or the trades than they might with an art history degree,” the President remarked before

apologizing in jest. It should be noted that Obama himself attended a liberal arts college for two years before transferring to an Ivy League university, where he in turn received a liberal arts degree. A couple of months ago, Senator and presidential candidate Marco Rubio said on the GOP debate stage that “we need more welders and less philosophers.” His pithy (and grammatically incorrect!) comment was clearly not off-the-cuff, and was received warmly by his audience.

Likely a less receptive audience would be a graduating class of semi-employed collegians, which brings us back to a man who addressed such an audience— Wash U commencement speaker Ken Burns. His own alma mater, Hampshire College, is so buried in the liberal arts that not only do its students not declare a major, they also don’t receive grades on their work. Their studies, like those of liberal arts students nationwide, largely exist in the vacuum of the material they are studying, the skills they gain sometimes more nebulous and less overtly transferrable than at more careerdriven institutions. It is clear that the liberal arts do not directly contribute to the defense of our country. However, the liberal arts certainly are capable of informing or misleading the public and mobilizing popular support for something like a war. Propaganda is certainly art—the Kemper Art Museum ran an exhibit about its use in World War I last year. But, perhaps more compelling than that bit is the end of Mr. Burns’ proclamation: how do the liberal arts make our country worth defending? What trait of pure intellectualism, free of any agenda but a deeper understanding of everything, is so inherently consequential?

I think that’s up to the individual to decide, and it’s often competing against paying the bills.

Previously, I had asked Jen Smith, dean of the College of Arts & Sciences, what her thoughts were on the matter. “We want you to be doing things that you care about and living lives that are fulfilling,” she told me. “I worry that if college becomes a means to an end, we’re going to lose that.”

If a society whose members are cerebrally fulfilled isn’t one worth defending, I don’t know what society would be. But Dean Smith, whose school has hemorrhaged students to the engineering and business divisions, has been forced to reconcile those ideals with a degree (pun intended) of pragmatism. “It’s such a hard line to walk,” she said with the same sincerity as before, “without minimizing the very real amounts of money.”

And is that money real! After room and board, the cost of attending Wash U for the class of 2019, the current freshmen, is $63,373 per year. By comparison, a vocational education to become, let’s say, a welder, is a poetic

“to gain a general education and appreciation of ideas.” But both are possible—schools like Wash U that facilitate cross-enrollment in courses from the varying academic divisions help to promote a mix of liberal arts and more technically-oriented educations. Almost every course at Wash U, regardless of the undergraduate school running it, is open to students in the other schools; this, Vice Chancellor for Admissions John Berg told me, differentiates our university. “Some schools lock you into a college,” he said, emphasizing the ease of transferring schools and taking individual classes in many schools within Wash U. “We know students are going to change their minds.”

Both job security and intellectualism for its own sake are possible—schools like Wash U that facilitate cross-enrollment help to promote a mix of liberal arts and more technically-oriented educations. tenth of that—$6,350 at the comprehensive welding program at the Lincoln Electric School in Cleveland. It’s hard to argue against those numbers, especially when the entry salary for Wash U Arts & Sciences grads will probably be significantly lower than the cost of one year of their education. From a purely economic standpoint, the welding job might be a better option—and besides, we actually do need more of them.

Of course, this is a false dichotomy. There are undergraduate education plans that don’t involve vocation or much of the liberal arts; these days, more and more students are choosing majors and schools that are in technology, business, or other pre-professional fields. According to the 2012 CIRP American Freshman report from UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute, which surveyed incoming college freshmen across the country, more students now attend college in hopes of eventually making more money, rather than

After talking to many adults in and out of academia, the general consensus I’ve heard has been that jobs requiring an undergraduate education teach most of the technicalities of what you need to know on the job. They don’t rely on a college education to have provided the specialized skills for the job, but rather the foundational knowledge, adaptability, and readiness to learn them. For jobs requiring graduate-level educations, most of that specialization happens in grad school, not in the first four years. So who says the liberal arts aren’t a strong preparation for a money-making job? In the liberal arts, adults tell me, the majors we choose probably won’t matter all that much in the scheme of things. Wash U culture idolizes picking up a second major or third minor, when the people who will be hiring its students probably won’t care beyond a certain threshold of curricular relevance. The finer distinctions don’t really matter. All roads in a diversified liberal arts education, at least in theory, lead to the acquisition of intangible skills like critical

thinking and breadth of knowledge.

Is this an intelligent strategy? That is, spending four years not overtly advancing along a discrete career path. I don’t know. I say all of this, of course, as a sophomore; all of the above is a regurgitation of advice I have received, and my plan is to optimistically and unswervingly roll with it. By the time I graduate, I will (allegedly) be equipped with the liberal arts and (allegedly) be intellectually fulfilled, whatever that means. I will (allegedly) have a broader appreciation for the world in which I live, and in which I spend much of my time working at a job I learn to do as I go. If that job isn’t my thing, I’ll probably be able to change it. Those are the assumptions that I, an undergraduate liberal arts student, am running on. I hope I’ll be worth defending, or at least worth employing.

Sam Klein is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at klein.s@wustl.edu.

13

political review | EDUCATION

political review | EDUCATION

The Legacy of No Child LEFT Behind

correct many of the issues with NCLB by handing out waivers to states that showed considerable progress but did not meet the NCLB standards. ESSA looks to build on these waivers by limiting federal control and returning much of the power to the states. Though during passage it was viewed as a victory for conservatives, the law passed through both the House and the Senate with large bipartisan support – unusual in our current political climate.

Anand Chukka | Image courtesy of WikiMedia Commons

A

fter years of intense public pressure to improve the quality of education, on January 23 of 2001, President Bush proposed a plan to Congress to improve the standards of America’s failing primary and secondary education systems. The plan would reauthorize Lyndon B. Johnson’s, Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) with a forceful new piece of legislation. Fast-forward a year, and on January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into law No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the largest and most far-reaching piece of federal education legislation of the young twenty-first century. With bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate, the country was optimistic that its children would finally receive the education they deserved as citizens of the world’s leading power.

On December 10, President Obama signed a new reauthorization of ESEA into legislation, known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This law was met with great fanfare and press coverage, known as the act that replaced the failed No Child Left Behind. The questions remain of what the United States has learned from the failure of NCLB, and how ESSA will correct these shortcomings.

To begin, one must examine the legislative history of No Child Left Behind. The story of modern education policy in America begins with Lyndon B. Johnson’s storied “War on Poverty.” As a tenet of this metaphorical war, K-8 education became one of the focuses of the Johnson administration, ushering in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Every five years or so, the U.S. Congress would continually renew, or reauthorize, this legislation, relegating Johnson’s education policy to a backburner of obligatory renewal.

Fast-forward to 2001 – the Bush administration – during which it became crystal clear that the education situation in the country was dismal.

No Child Left Behind was conceived in the wake of public outcry over the poor state of education and flew through both the House and Senate with rare levels of bipartisanship. The main objectives of NCLB were to guarantee that

14

Unfortunately, the disproportionate focus on standardized testing introduced a host of issues that degraded the already failing school system. our students were performing above average in three major subjects: English, mathematics, and science. To confirm that students were indeed learning these subjects, federal legislators placed an inordinate amount of focus on standardized testing for grades 3-8. Schools were required to demonstrate “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP), a diagnostic measurement designed to reveal which schools were in most need of resources and were not performing at national standards. Each year, schools were required to show that at least 95 percent of the students performed at national standards, or that there was significant improvement from one year to the following. Schools were required to demonstrate progress if they wished to be eligible for federal funding for further education measures. The Federal Department of Education, with access to the $55.7 billion dollars allocated for education spending, provided that funding.

It is widely believed that the few positive aspects of NCLB were limited to specific schools and did not create broader change.

NCLB increased accountability significantly within individual schools, mainly through the use of regular reporting of standardized testing scores and report cards for the parents. In addition, through centralizing the academic standards, it held the federal government, specifically the Department of Education, responsible for the successes or failings of the project. NCLB also contained a provision on quality of educator that required all teachers, tenured and not tenured, to have both pedagogical knowledge and subject knowledge.

Teachers were also evaluated against the test scores of each group of students, required to demonstrate progress. While this aspect itself was viewed as a flaw of NCLB, the concept of evaluating teachers against federal standards was lauded as a worthy goal.

ESSA mainly focuses on correcting the “onesize fits all” model of NCLB by asking states to develop individual standards for their students and focus on developing the schools that each state decided were most in trouble. In addition, it allows to states to pull back on the standardized testing pressure by increasing the involvement that the states have in creating the standardized tests while also viewing other non-testing data, such as graduation rates and workforce readiness equally with test scores. State-held accountability for education also allows for the regulatory mechanism of parent networks and teachers to more easily hold local and state officials responsible for individual schools.

Overall, however, NCLB was viewed as a decisive failure, most often because of its focus on standardized testing. Understandably, legislators decided that to measure standards on a national scale, a quantitative method of measuring academic progress would be the only way to regulate schools. Unfortunately, the disproportionate focus on standardized testing introduced a host of issues that degraded the already failing school system.

Critics cite the main issue that NCLB created was the concept of “teaching to the test.”

A part of the act regarding AYP reads, “(iii) results in continuous and substantial academic improvement for all students” and “(iv) measures the progress of public elementary schools, secondary schools and local educational agencies and the State based primarily on the academic assessments described in paragraph (3)”. The assessments referred to in “paragraph (3)” are those that each state designed to be the markers for the success of their students. Many school officials and board of education directors interpreted this to mean that federal funding would only be allocated to schools that demonstrated AYP, and by extension, progress on standardized testing. School administrators and state officials deemed that any subjects that were not tested on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and other standardized tests were unimportant to general education. Across the board, funding was cut from subjects such as art, history, and foreign languages because of the pressure to show higher standardized testing scores. Even within the core subjects, certain topics were cut out of school’s curriculum to maximize time in the classroom preparing for the national exams. In one extreme case of standardized test pressure,

eleven school officials in Atlanta were convicted in 2014 of fabricating standardized test data to pass the federal standards.

The rigorous federal standards also caused many schools, especially in urban neighborhoods, to close down because they failed to demonstrate the yearly progress required for federal funding. Though many schools showed considerable progress throughout the duration of NCLB, due to the fact that they didn’t meet the quantified “acceptable” mark according to the legislation, many of these schools were closed. Students in the area were then required to be bussed to schools much further from their residences, creating more problems within the urban education system. Many of the schools that lost funding were viewed in their respective communities as bastions of primary education; others were some of the few high schools that kept students going.

The largest criticism, however, came from many state educators after viewing the results of NCLB. Viewing the rate of progress before NCLB in comparison to the rate during NCLB, it is clear that there was minimal change between the educational progresses of each school.

Viewing the legislation through a critical lens, the libertarian political scientist Charles Murray stated, “The United States Congress, acting with large bipartisan majorities, at the urging of the President, enacted as the law of the land that all children are to be above average.” The law was doomed for failure from the beginning because instead of measuring progress as improvement, the federal government viewed progress as a blanket statement that required all students to meet a certain threshold.

Obama’s new legislation, the Every Student Succeeds Act, looks to correct many of the failures of NCLB, namely the centralized educational standards. In 2011, Arne Duncan, under the Obama administration, looked to

Comparing the two legislative bills, it’s clear that ESSA looks not to replace NCLB, but rather build on the mistakes of centralized educational standards. The Every Student Succeeds Act is not perfect, but by returning much of the power to the states, the Obama administration demonstrated understanding that improving the education system requires more than a one-size-fits-all option – it is a nuanced issue better handled by individual states than a large federal piece of legislation.

Anand Chukka is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at anand.chukka@wustl.edu.

15

political review | EDUCATION

political review | EDUCATION

The TEN Most-taught books in US public high schools Data from the Center for the Learning and Teaching of Literature

A

B

C

D

E

changes in Average Teacher Salaries Data from the National Center for Education Statistics

Average Annual Salaries for Public School Teachers [In constant 2012-2013 dollars]*

F

G

H

A Macbeth (1611)

F The Scarlet Letter (1850)

B Romeo and Juliet (1597)

G Of Mice and Men (1937)

C Huckleberry Finn (1884)

H Hamlet (1603)

D Julius Caesar (1599)

I Lord of the Flies (1954)

E To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)

J The Great Gatsby (1925)

By William Shakespeare

By William Shakespeare

By Mark Twain

By William Shakespeare

By Harper Lee

16

I

By Nathaniel Hawthorne

J

All Teachers

By John Steinbeck

Bachelor's Degree

By William Shakespeare

By William Golding

Master's Degree

*Constant 2012–13 dollars based on the Consumer Price Index, prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.

After adjustment for inflation, teachers’ base salaries were 2 percent lower in 2011–12 than they were in 2003–2004. There was no measurable difference in the average salary for all teachers for 1990–91 and 2011–12, but the average salary for teachers with a bachelor’s or master’s degree was lower in 2011–12 than in 1990–91.

By F. Scott Fitzgerald

17

political review | EDUCATION

political review | EDUCATION

Standardized Testing and Public Education Katie Rial | Image courtesy of Flickr

I

n recent decades, the United States has shifted its approach to schooling to incorporate neoliberal ideals. Traditionally, schools were regulated and funded by local governments. More recently, federal and state governments devoted programming and funding to efforts to reduce educational inequality caused by differences across communities such as income and tax revenue.

However, rather than responding to the true needs of communities, large-scale government involvement has rendered education just another asset in the United States’ domestic agenda to compete in an increasingly globalized world market. This increased competition on a global scale, among other factors, has resulted in the adoption of neoliberal policies that advocate for schools that emphasize skills necessary for future participation in the workforce, and contribute meaningfully to America’s economy. Some examples of neoliberal reform include the increased number of charter schools, the hiring of corporate CEOs to head larger urban school systems, and the growth of the now multimillion dollar standardized testing industry.

While many supporters of neoliberal education reform claim that competition in the free market improves quality of education, in reality it has resulted in the proliferation of corrupt practices within America’s education system.

One of the most controversial reforms to accompany neoliberal education policy is the introduction of standardized testing. Legislation such as President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which was first implemented in 2002, spearheaded the movement to use standardized testing as the primary measure of a school’s quality by requiring that public schools test their students each year. Although some states have taken it upon themselves to develop their assessments independently, the task of manufacturing and scoring the exams is often passed off to third parties, usually large for-profit companies. Today, the testing industry is an extremely profitable business that

18

continues to grow as private and government interests become increasingly intertwined. In 2014, NCLB allocated $378 million dollars to state assessments in addition to the regular funds granted through the annual Department of Education budget. Funds from the budget are siphoned off into contracts between the Federal Government and four major companies that dominate 96 percent of the standardized testing industry: Harcourt Educational Measurement, CTB McGraw-Hill, Riverside Publishing, and NCS Pearson. Competition for these contracts is steep, and for good reason. Standardized testing is a lucrative business that is on the rise: today the market is valued at anywhere between $400 to $700 million dollars, as compared with a mere $7 million dollars in 1955.

These assessments were originally implemented to objectively track and compare American schools’ progress, but in reality they are counterproductive to creating an environment that is conducive to learning, exploration, and intellectual curiosity. While it is true that standardized testing undermines the very meritocratic structure it seeks to strengthen, the most profound, and often less discussed, consequence of federally mandated assessments are their stratifying effects across lines of race and socioeconomic status in America.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, there are significant achievement gaps between white students and students of color, as well as between upper- and middleclass students and those who live in poverty.

David Berliner, an established educational psychologist, claims that poverty, which is tightly bound to race and ethnicity, “restricts the expression of genetic talent at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale.” Most children living in poverty in the United States lack access to basic medical care, safe housing, and adequate nutrition, major obstacles that severely impede their ability to maintain strong attendance, succeed in a classroom setting, or perform well on standardized tests.

Achievement gaps are rampant in America across both school subjects and grade levels.

For example, in 2007 all 46 states that provided test data to the National Center for Educational Statistics revealed an achievement gap in the fourth grade mathematics exam. Nationally, white students scored an average of 248 points and black students scored an average of 222 points on the assessment designed to test their knowledge of topics covered over the course of the school year. Similar data exists for almost all minority groups across age and geographical region. These gaps do not appear to be narrowing anytime soon: only 15 out of the 46 states that demonstrated achievement gaps in mathematics have seen a statistically significant decrease in the discrepancy between white and black students’ scores since 1992.

NCLB emphasizes school accountability as one of the main objectives for increasing standardized testing, and assesses public schools on their ability to educate their students by the percentage of students who pass the exam. This is a dangerous policy, as statistics suggest that schools that are diverse both racially and socioeconomically will have discrepancies in performance on standardized tests that correlate with race and class. Accountability measures provide powerful incentives for schools to find ways to rid themselves of lower performing students, often students of color or low-income students, or take alternative measures to avoid failing marks. The stakes are also high for schools that serve entirely minority or low-income populations because they stand an even higher chance of termination due to unsatisfactory standardized test results.

The implementation of state-mandated testing in Texas is an example of how standardized testing may lead to the implementation of superficial changes that present the illusion of academic success. One way that schools may improve test scores without making any changes to the school’s structure, staff,

or curriculum is by prohibiting students with the lowest test scores to advance onto the next grade, which is directly correlated with increased dropout rates. As of 1990, tenth graders in Texas are required to take the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), a reform that is incorrectly credited with decreasing dropout rates and increasing overall achievement. This practice only creates the illusion that schools are responding to the educational needs of its students by demonstrating higher test scores, when in fact they are simply relying on the same tactics at the expense of lower-income and minority students.

In his study of education reform measures in Texas, Walter Haney, a professor of education at Boston College, found that “only 50 percent of minority students in Texas have been progressing from grade 9 to high school graduation since initiation of the TAAS testing program,” and there has been a spike in high school dropout rates across Texas. Some states offer cash awards for high ratings, and Texas is one of them. Introducing financial incentives for high test scores, a fundamentally neoliberal ideal, prompts schools to function like parties in the free market as they seek out ways to increase their share of capital being doled out by the government and compete amongst one another to receive the highest possible ratings.

Meanwhile, students who are struggling to grasp the material are simply pushed aside.

Rather than incentivizing schools to make changes that truly help students learn to the

best of their ability, the neoliberal approach to education shifts the emphasis from learning and growth to a competition for increased funding. Although the check may come from the government, it is ultimately the students who pay the price of “achieving excellence.”

Conversely, the government punishes schools that fail to perform by transferring students to other districts or providing them with alternative educational opportunities. In practice, these changes, which have deep roots in the neoliberal model, do little to improve educational opportunities of students.

For example, as David Hursh, a professor of education at the University of Rochester writes, “adding the option of transferring to another school…intensifies market competition between schools.” In the neoliberal model of education, schools and their students are analogous to companies and their products.

Similarly to how its product determines a company’s success in the market, students determine their school’s success in the larger education system. Failing schools are either offered government bailouts, swept away in the current of the market, or swallowed up by larger, more established institutions. Finally, the threat of school privatization by third parties (for-profit companies) is the most blatant nod to neoliberal ideals. As a result, students are commoditized and made subject to the demands of the market, which offers little protection for their educational rights.

The negative consequences of poor test scores are far-reaching for those living in “failing” districts. Many of the accountability measures the federal government imposes on struggling schools do more harm than good.

The neoliberal model of education does not properly account for larger socioeconomic factors that may prevent reforms from being fully realized. Instead, it fosters an environment in which corrupt practices that disenfranchise students are not only made possible, but rewarded. Ironically, despite the fact that one of neoliberalism’s main objectives is to grow the economy and implement structures that work to everyone’s benefit, neoliberal education reforms do just the opposite. Rather than promoting social and economic prosperity, policies such as standardized testing further disenfranchise already alienated populations through harmful accountability measures that decrease opportunities to learn. As a result of failing neoliberal educational policy, students with the potential to contribute to society in a meaningful, mutually beneficial way continue to slip through the cracks of our education system.

Katie Rial is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at krial@wustl.edu.

19

political review | EDUCATION

political review | EDUCATION

Is College Worth It? Rising Costs, Falling Benefits Hamper Higher Education

graduates attended vocational school, they might do better due to training for high-demand careers and because vocational education experiences are often shorter.

Eli Scher-Zagier | Graphic courtesy of The College Board

A

t the Republican primary debate on November 10, 2015, presidential candidate Marco Rubio called for “more welders and less philosophers.” Fact-checkers quickly pointed out that this statement was based on comparing starting salaries of philosophers to mid-career salaries of welders, but the sentiment is far from Rubio’s alone. Last year, President Barack Obama was pressured to apologize after he “promise[d] you folks can make a lot more, potentially, with skilled manufacturing or the trades than they might with an art history degree.”

These statements have brought a flood of attention to the question of whether attending college makes sense financially. At least for some students, it appears not: a recent report from investment bank Goldman Sachs showed that the time required to break even on a college degree is steadily rising. In 2050, Goldman Sachs estimated, college graduates will need to work 15 years on average to break even on their tuition investment. While the report did not appear to be publicly available, CNN writes that Goldman Sachs found students often lose money by attending schools “that rank in the bottom 25 percent of all universities.”

The bad news continues. Students are paying much more for education: net tuition, fees, and room and board nearly doubled for in-state students at public four-year universities (see chart) and increased 40 percent at private non-profit four-year universities—and that’s just in the last decade. With students paying so much more even with financial aid, we expect universities in the United States to graduate higher-skilled workers. But these rising costs, often attributable to universities spending ever-growing sums of money on facilities, dormitories, and other perks to attract students, have failed to prepare graduates, at least by some measures.

For example, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) discovered in 2005 that college

20

graduates’ scores on various measures of literacy declined substantially from 1992 to 2003. Further, only 25 percent of college graduates were “document literate.” That means that three in four college graduates did not have “the knowledge and skills needed to search, comprehend, and use information from noncontinuous texts in various formats.”

Most of the 1,000+ university presidents that the Pew Research Center polled agreed that quality is falling; only a minority said that the U.S. higher education system is the best in the world, and even fewer said so when asked about the situation in 10 years.

Surprisingly, given rising costs and falling quality, the so-called “wage premium” between college graduates and high school graduates has continued to widen. However, college graduates’ wages have not risen—they have fallen over the last few decades. Instead, workers with only high school diplomas have watched their wages plummet at an even greater rate. In 2013, the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “high-skilled workers have moved down the occupational ladder and have begun to perform jobs traditionally performed by lower-skilled workers…pushing low-skilled workers even further down the occupational ladder and, to some degree, out of the labor force all together.”

Essentially, workers without college degrees must increasingly compete with college graduates for low-paying, non-technical jobs. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman pointed out, a “college graduate serving lattes at Starbucks is a cliché, but he reflects a very real situation.” The numbers back this up—the Federal Reserve found that underemployment in recent graduates, a measure of how many graduates do not have jobs that utilize their skills, rose from 31 percent in 2001 to 44 percent in 2012.

Turning to economic theory provides an explanation. In education economics, there are

Unfortunately, these are only stopgap measures. Even if we presume that these options would work, they fail to address what is causing the underlying problems: technology moving many (especially vocational) careers toward automation and costs becoming unsustainable. Politicians, of course, favor easy, predictable solutions to more unpredictable but ground-breaking ones. Yet the same groundbreaking technology which led to falling wages for high school and college graduates alike has created new possibilities for changing the future of education and solving these problems.

two positions on college payoff. One posits that students are in fact gaining skills that allow them to produce more, the “human capital theory.” By contrast, the “screening theory” argues that the returns to education are not due to increased productivity or skills—rather, the bachelor’s degree helps employers identify good applicants, since college graduates had the discipline and drive to finish college.

While both human capital and screening theories are empirically supported, screening may be playing a bigger role. In what Burning Glass Technologies, a job analytics company, calls “upcredentialing,” companies have increasingly required bachelor’s degrees for a swath of jobs. For instance, “65 percent of postings for Executive Secretaries and Executive Assistants now call for a bachelor’s degree.

Only 19 percent of those currently employed in these roles have a B.A.” Other jobs, such as entry-level IT help desk employees, require skills rarely taught in bachelor’s programs, Burning Glass notes. These jobs are also the ones that “serve as the first step on the career ladder to better jobs” for the two-thirds of the labor force who do not have bachelor’s degrees. Burning Glass argues for increasing certifications for different industries as a way to better fit skills to jobs, but this illustrates the striking point that as companies use college degrees more and more as a screening device, the value in such degrees increasingly becomes avoiding the shrinking market for workers with less education.

It is important to realize, however, that there are myriad benefits from a college education beyond pure economic effects. As Victor Hugo put it, “he who opens a school door closes a prison,” since education decreases the propensity for crime. UC Berkeley economist Enrico Moretti said that each year of schooling reduces murder and assault rates by nearly 30 percent. Further, students make connections and friends who can last a lifetime. Facebook found that 28 percent of marriages listed on

Average Published and Net Prices in 2015 Dollars, Full-Time In-State Undergraduate Students at Public Four-Year Institutions, 1995-96 to 2015-16

the social network were between members who attended the same college. These are likely better marriages as well: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that many more first marriages survived to 20 years among those with bachelor’s degrees than those with less education.

In addition, learning is valuable in itself, beyond the more tangible benefits. Washington University in St. Louis touts its goal of “discover[ing] and disseminat[ing] knowledge, and protect[ing] the freedom of inquiry through research, teaching, and learning.” There is little doubt that higher education for everyone is a worthy goal. It would produce citizens able and willing to engage in our democracy, who have the skills and drive to launch businesses and develop new ideas in an age of falling entrepreneurship where business closings outnumber business startups.

The problem is the high cost and time required—and not just the ticket price and rising debt graduates face. The opportunity cost of lost earnings is staggering, growing larger and larger each year that a student

remains in school. The time required to graduate is rarely the four years that many expect. Even after 6 years, only 58 percent of “first-time full-time bachelor's degree-seeking students at 4-year institutions” receive their degrees, according to the DOE. This graduation rate is even lower for many minorities and men, meaning that the cost of attending college is much higher on average for groups who are underrepresented in higher education.

What is the solution to this problem of rapidly rising costs and stagnating benefits of higher education? Some, such as Rubio and President Obama, argue that at the very least, the United States should encourage students to pursue less time-consuming and more in-demand careers by choosing higher-paying majors or attending vocational schools. Perhaps this is true. Certainly if more college-bound high school seniors chose to pursue careers in information technology and security, engineering, and healthcare, then college would be a good deal for them—but much of that benefit exists because those careers are currently in high demand, and thus graduates draw higher salaries. And if more high school

As online education moves away from massive open online courses (“MOOCs”) toward courses and schools that lead to degrees at low costs, many more people will pursue this option as an alternative to four-year brick-and-mortar universities. Although physical colleges are not going anywhere, online education will provide an avenue for low-income and non-traditional students, as well as people who do not want to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on higher education, to pay less and learn more.

In a sign of what is to come, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced in October that its Supply Chain Management (SCM) program—often ranked #1 in the country—would begin allowing students to take a semester of classes online and earn a “MicroMaster’s.” Those students who do well on an exam will be admitted to the full on-campus SCM program and earn credit for their online courses, allowing them to spend a single semester on campus to receive a master’s degree. MIT’s president, L. Rafael Reif, pledged that the inverted admission model would “democratize access.”

For universities’ sake, let’s hope so because with student debt over $1.2 trillion and graduates unable to find good jobs, students will only keep paying so much for college.

Eli Scher-Zagier is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at eli.scher-zagier@wustl.edu.

21

political review | EDUCATION

political review | EDUCATION

The Return of Segregated Schools Dan Sicorsky | Graphic courtesy of the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

T

here’s nothing like coming home for the holidays to news that your high school is in the midst of being resegregated.

Despite what spell check may think, I didn’t mean to type ‘desegregated.’ I say resegregation, and I mean resegregation, because that’s precisely what many teachers, students, and parents at my North Miami Beach, Florida alma mater say—with good reason—will happen when a controversial public high school is built within short distance of our school, the 2,700-seat Michael Krop Senior High (or Krop for short).

Many anticipated the new school, though its segregating effect wasn’t immediately apparent.

For more than a decade, parents and officials in Aventura, an affluent, overwhelmingly white suburb of Miami, have expressed their concerns about the “safety" and urban location of the school their children are zoned to—Krop. It was never a secret that the ‘A’-school’s demographic makeup, 42 percent black and 56 percent economically disadvantaged, stands in sharp contrast to Aventura’s: 90.4 percent white (including of Latino descent) and a median household income of $60,150, a figure much higher than the state and national averages. For years, however, the school board largely ignored requests by Aventura’s elite that the county open a high school in their own community.

Recently, though, a swing of high-profile cases tainted Krop’s exceptional academic reputation (not least of these was the nationally-covered story of Trayvon Martin, a black Krop junior who in 2012 was shot and killed by a white community watchman.) So when the district superintendent, the 2014 winner of the National Superintendent of the Year award, took the podium at a town hall meeting on December 3, few were surprised when they heard his big news: citizens of the self-proclaimed “City of Excellence” succeeded in their demands, and a new school is currently on its way.

But many of Krop’s students and teachers grew concerned once a school board member listed the school’s entrance requirements. It became clear to them that Aventura’s residents would

22

easily meet the conditions for enrollment, but Krop’s poor minority students would have more difficulty doing so. Much of the Krop community now feels their school is being divided along racial lines.

The superintendent and others in the community disagree. They argue the new school will ease overcrowding at Krop and allow its existing students to choose an alternative, technology-centered education.

They assure that resegregation is not the objective. That a district like ours, one that has been nationally recognized for its minority student success rate, is all for diversity.

But even though the school may be built with good intentions, and the objective allegedly isn’t resegregation, this inherent side effect can’t be ignored.

In fact, it would make Krop just another school among the thousands that have already been resegregated nationwide. Yes, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” and that classrooms must be integrated. And for some time after that, schools saw record enrollment of minority (and particularly black) students.

But that’s the extent of what high school history textbooks cover.

The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University explains that since at least 1990, the Supreme Court and other courts have ruled in case after case that the integration programs introduced after Brown v. Board were intended to be only “temporary.” Judges for these cases reasoned that since schools are integrated now, officials can be trusted to keep them that way. So they proceeded to strike down mandatory integration programs in several districts— including in Miami-Dade County, where Krop is located, in 2001.

Since then, time has proven that the trust judges placed in officials’ morals was misguided and repercussive.

Studies and statistics compiled by ProPublica investigative reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones point to the indisputable fact that segregation is ripping through classrooms in Miami, St. Louis, New York, and nationwide at an alarming rate.

The numbers speak for themselves. By 1988, years of federally mandated integration programs lowered the number of “apartheid schools”—those with a white population of 1 percent or less—to 2,762. But by 2011, that number shot back up to 6,727. More stomachcringing statistics from the ProPublica report include that 53 percent of black students in districts freed from desegregation mandates attend schools where 9 out of 10 students are minorities. Even worse, more black children attend majority-black high schools in the South now than at any point in the past four decades.

Branching out to other minorities, nearly 75 to 80 percent of black and Latino students go to schools that are more than half minority.

The disconcerting evidence goes on, but Hannah-Jones summed it up: many “black students attend a school that looks as if Brown v. Board of Education never happened.”

The same conservative politicians and lawmakers responsible for modern segregation are doing something else to dishonor the historic 62-year-old ruling: they’re playing the separatebut-equal card to justify racially divided schools.

Not surprisingly, this reasoning is just as flawed and untruthful today as it was in 1954.

Segregated schools with high levels of poverty are anything but "equal." In fact, these schools too often see half of their students not graduate. Though lower funding and more inexperienced teachers (compared to heavily white campuses) are partially to blame for this, the shortcomings of schools serving minority students are more deeply rooted.

Contrary to the racist fallacy misinforming some of today’s populace, black, Latino, and other non-white students don't have lower scores and less-advanced coursework because they are “dumb,” “lazy,” or “sluggish.” What isn’t considered enough when making that

assumption is that in many oppressed families and communities, education tends to take a backseat to the pressures of the volatile, lowincome life. This is why the children of minority families often perform worse in school — it’s not that success for them is undesirable, but rather that it is harder to come by when so many obstacles stand in the way.

This reality highlights the importance of a school’s socioeconomic composition (SEC), which serves as a crucial determining factor of students’ future success. When children from low-income families are placed in high-SEC schools, which tend to be academicallyconducive environments, their chances of attending college increase. The paper which reported this trend, published in the American Education Research Journal, explains the importance of this early success window: “Because educational attainment is associated with several important life outcomes—access to careers, income, and even health—this finding suggests that attending a low-SEC high school may have lifelong negative consequences.”

For poor minority students who are zoned to underfunded and academically unstimulating schools their whole lives, these consequences include having their potential capped at a near-ground level, which essentially stymies them through adulthood.

This is why many of Krop’s progressive students, teachers, and parents are frustrated about the technology-rich, $11.8 million, 500seat iPrep Academy—its curriculum, facilities, and potential are promising, but they will be more accessible to Aventura’s population than to the rest of Krop’s demographic.

True, nowhere have officials in Florida, or anywhere in the U.S., expressly segregated entrance to school to any race. That would bring swarms of civil rights advocates and lawyers to their towns, schools, and white havens, demanding justice. No, instead, to avoid legal trouble, orchestrators of modern school segregation in the United States rely on zoning laws and entrance requirements that favor high-achieving students with the resources and tradition of excellence needed to succeed.

These requirements, which often come after school officials have already gerrymandered their districts into white and black communities, vary county by county. In Miami-Dade, for example, students who want to attend the

Concentration of Black Students in St. Louis County School Districts. Source: Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

<30%

72.9%

30-60% 60-90%

79.9%

33.1%

>90%

97.8% 98.8%

39.8%

97.5%

82.7%

83.5% 15.2%

16.7%

18.8% 25.7% 30.8%

15.9% 17.9%

9.4%

7%

23.2%

13.5%

4.1% 17.2% 9.7%

new iPrep must have passed Algebra 1 and Physical Science during middle school. Though the school board argues that these advanced courses are being taken before high school in record numbers, a look at the freshmen enrolled in either of those subjects at Krop today reveals mostly blacks and Latinos.

Another stipulation holds students to no more than five absences or five tardies per semester—a disqualifying blow to low-income students who have difficulty getting to school for a variety of reasons, such as when they must take a day off to care for a sibling since a single parent had to stay home sick from work.

The students within Krop’s attendance boundary who meet these and other discriminatory requirements are disproportionately white and affluent—and often residents of Aventura.

Facilitating access for mostly higher-income white students to attend institutions that “produce students who have acquired the necessary skills and knowledge to become responsible, successful citizens,” as the new iPrep Academy promises to do, is propagating the racist tactics that set some races behind others for most of this country’s history. It is undoing the achievements of generations of activists,

lawmakers, and school officials who wanted to reverse the damage done by these very tactics.

The next time I visit my high school, I’ll be smiling. I’ll walk past the lunch patios and remember smelling and sometimes sampling ethnic foods from Haiti, Colombia, and Mexico. I’ll sit in on current meetings of academic and social organizations I was part of, and witness students sharing a spectrum of experiences, stories, and opinions. I’ll visit my old newspaper staff, and reminisce about articles that addressed Krop’s success despite its students’ low socioeconomic status. I’ll recall a high school experience that in many ways epitomized Maya Angelou’s message: “In diversity there is beauty and there is strength.”

But soon enough I’ll remember that all those experiences will no longer be, that segregation is not a thing of the past. I’ll remember that my graduating class was one of the last to attend a truly integrated, mixed, and multicolor Krop.

And at that point, my smile, much like diversity in classrooms across the country, will fade.

Dan Sicorsky is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at dan.sicorsky@wustl.edu.

23

political review | EDUCATION

political review | national

Secretary Arne Duncan: “One of the President’s Best Appointments” Krista Galleberg

A

t the beginning of winter break, I had lunch with the then-incumbent United States Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, in his office in Washington, D.C. The meeting was an amazing opportunity, so I used it as my impetus to complete an independent research project about the Department of Education and Duncan’s life and impact during his time there.

When Duncan, the Secretary of Education since 2009, announced he would step down from his post a year before President Obama’s second term ends, he received an outpouring of support from both his traditional allies and his usual opposition. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, one of Duncan’s frequent critics, said in a press statement that “Arne Duncan was one of the president’s best appointments.”

Dennis Van Roekel, a union leader for the National Education Association and with whom Duncan often disagreed, told the Washington Post that he and Duncan “agree on where we ought to be going as a nation, to fulfill the promise of public education so that every kid has a shot…it’s good to fight over these issues.” In an interview with me, Keith Webster, Duncan’s friend since college, called him “revolutionary,” a “tireless worker,” and “one of the most humble people you will ever meet.”

From a young age, Duncan lived in two worlds.

Duncan and his siblings attended kindergarten through twelfth grade at the University of Chicago’s elite private school, the Chicago Laboratory School. His family was stable and supportive, and his father was a respected professor of psychology. But Duncan spent every afternoon and summer vacation on the South Side of Chicago. His mother ran a community center there for at-risk youth, and every day, Duncan and his siblings learned alongside their mother’s inner-city students. Sue Duncan organized her youth center by age group and matched each child with an older mentor.

24

“She was tough as nails—an amazing woman,” Arne Duncan told me. “She is the reason I work in education.”

Yet, during our meeting, Duncan was quick to acknowledge the Sue Duncan Children’s Center’s shortcomings. He compared his mother’s approach to that of Jeffery Canada, a contemporary Harlem-based social activist, educationalist, and author.

“Growing up, we didn’t do everything perfectly.

We made a lot of mistakes. We accepted the state of the surrounding community and focused on providing a sanctuary for the kids.”

Duncan said. “Look at what Geoffrey Canada’s doing with the Harlem Children’s Zone – he’s transforming the city block by block.

We should have done what he is doing. We shouldn’t have accepted the insanity.”

After graduating from both high school and his mother’s youth center, Duncan went to Harvard University, where he played varsity basketball and majored in sociology. After his third year, Duncan took a year off to finish his thesis, The Values, Aspirations and Opportunities of the Urban Underclass. During this time, he also worked at the Sue Duncan Children’s Center.

Duncan then returned to Harvard, where he co-captained the varsity basketball team with Webster. According to Webster, “Duncan was one of the best passers I’ve ever played with.

He set a lot of picks for other people so they could get open. He did a lot of dirty work. Got the rebounds. Dove on the ground to get the ball. He was selfless. He was concerned about the whole team doing well.”

Duncan’s personality on the basketball court is similar to his attitude toward his career. He eventually returned to Chicago and became Superintendent of the Chicago Public Schools, during which time he met Obama, then a state senator. The two played basketball together on the weekends and became close personal

friends. Duncan told me, “I never thought I wanted to be Secretary of Education. But then my friend became president. And that’s not something you expect! If someone had told me that I would be able to accomplish half of what I’ve been able to do as Secretary, I would have said ‘Sign me up!’”

“I know poor kids can succeed. I’ve seen it.

I’ve lived it. Education reform is noisy, but good things are happening.”

True to his roots, during his tenure as Secretary, Duncan was committed to improving education for every student in America, especially poor minority students. Under Duncan’s leadership, an estimated 350,000 teaching jobs were saved by directing $100 billion in stimulus money to public schools; Congress replaced No Child Left Behind with Every Child Succeeds, a change which attempts to assuage NCLB’s over-testing in low-performing schools; national graduation rates rose to an all-time high; and pre-K and early learning have received more federal attention than ever before. Duncan is hopeful about the state of education reform. “I know poor kids can succeed,” he said. “I’ve seen it. I’ve lived it. Education reform is noisy, but good things are happening.”

Krista Galleberg is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at krista.galleberg@wustl.edu.

The Real Cost of National Security Syrus Jin

I

n the United States, politicians and statesmen continually remind the public that America is the greatest country in the world. However, in spite of these pervasive beliefs, the United States consistently lags behind European and Asian countries in education, public health, infant mortality, and other standards of social and economic strength, exposing the stark contrast between political rhetoric and reality. But instead of these and other signs of economic and public wellbeing, “American greatness” and national strength are being measured by politicians through the size of defense spending.

The main reason for this self-deception perpetuated by politicians is the immense power of the United States’ military. Ever since the beginning of the Cold War, the efforts to preserve national security have led to the United States having the highest military spending, more aircraft carriers, and more troops stationed overseas than any other nation in the world. As a result, the Department of Defense annually receives over 50 percent of presidential discretionary spending. So in terms of conventional military power, the United States really does seem to reign supreme.

But the cost of maintaining the supremacy of the American military has not come without negative consequences for the country. On a basic level, the governmental focus on defense funding has turned other social utilities, such as education, infrastructure, and health, into secondary concerns. Military spending has subsequently taken funds away from other government services, drained the economy, and put unhealthy burdens on taxpayers.

Beyond increasing national debt and taxes, profligate military spending also lowers economic productivity and innovation, and decreases the ability of the United States to compete internationally in trade. This is because the bloating of defense-related spending and an emphasis on big budget military projects have led to federal money being inefficiently spent. This has a direct effect on the funds and human talent available for

nonmilitary projects. In 2011, the total federal funding set aside for research and development was $144.4 billion. Of that sum, defense research and development accounted for $83.2 billion, or more than all nonmilitary research and development spending combined. With more scientists, engineers, and physicists being employed by the military and fewer people being employed in the economically-promising areas of science and technology, it is no wonder the United States is losing its industrial advantage to European and Asian nations.

One common defense of military spending is that it creates jobs, which is true to an extent.

But what is important is the nature of the jobs which military spending creates: mostly skilled technical work in military-related fields that does not touch the large pool of semiskilled and professional workers in the United States. A number of studies show that a far greater number of jobs are created for every $1 billion spent in education, health care, and clean energy fields compared to every $1 billion spent within the military. Any prospect of greatly cutting unemployment relies on the government funneling more resources toward development in civilian—not military—goods and services. There is little reason to believe that military Keynesianism can be a cure for America’s economic ailments, especially since military spending does little to help the declining U.S. trade position in the world. But this is made difficult as military spending expands and cuts into non-defense discretionary spending, which is estimated to drop to an all-time low in 2016. With military spending considered by many the only way to achieve security, fewer and fewer funds are being used for spurring economic innovation through nonmilitary research.

However, massively cutting military spending, too, runs its risks. The military-industrial complex plays a central role in American society, as millions of jobs and the lifelines of some communities are entirely dependent on the military budget. Interlocking government agencies, military services, and private industries depend on each other for research,

What is important is the nature of the jobs which military spending creates: mostly skilled technical work in military-related fields which does not touch the large pool of semiskilled and professional workers in the United States. planning, manufacturing, testing, and selling.

This has made it so that sweeping budget cuts would mean immense losses of profit and jobs across the board. This leads major industries and specific constituent districts to have every reason to pressure congressmen for more and better weapons, regardless of actual military need.

Immense military spending has been justified again and again by the need to achieve national security, which remains an elusive goal.

Yet, even if each and every new, excessively expensive weapon and equipment program could be quantitatively justified as having secured American interests overseas, there is little reason to believe that the American “lead” on the rest of the world has been achieved as well. And even if these programs could be justified as having secured American interests overseas, achieving “national security” continues to redirect vital human and material resources away from other facets of American security. After all, obtaining national security for the United States lies not just in the weapons unveiled by the Pentagon, but in our industrial productivity, public wellbeing, technological advancements, and funding for education and civilian research.

Syrus Jin is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at jin.s@wustl.edu.

25

political review | national

political review | national

Political Theory and Electric Cars Sabrina Wang | Image courtesy of WikiMedia Commons

Q

iong Liu’s office—located on the top floor of the North Las Vegas city hall—is bright and comfortably neat, scattered with rocks gathered from hikes in the nearby Red Rock Mountains and pictures of her friends and family. We begin to talk almost immediately.

Liu is friendly and efficient, not the type to beat around the bush. She fits her job: North Las Vegas is a city of transplants, and as a both a Chinese native and an engineer-turnedpolicymaker, their city manager is one as well.

As a small community growing out of the side of the much larger and more infamous Las Vegas, North Las Vegas (NLV) may hardly seem a likely setting for political drama. Yet, the city is a verified underdog. Particularly hit hard in the 2008 recession—during which it went from the second fastest growing city in the country to one with the highest foreclosure rate—NLV is doing its best to get back on its feet. Chief amongst the priorities of its leadership is developing vacant land for commercial use in order to generate revenue and spur city growth. Out of the half-dozen districts targeted, one in particular—which NLV officials have deemed APEX Industrial Park—is fraught with political tension. The territory was annexed from the surrounding county seven years ago, a transfer of land indicative of NLV’s expansion at the time and the simultaneous decrease in the county’s power.

Attracting investors to the APEX region and returning hope to North Las Vegas was extraordinarily difficult. When local businesses and landowners were told about NLV’s hopes for APEX, Liu said, “Most people were excited that the city had a vision [for the area], but they were skeptical.” She paused and smiled sheepishly. “Even we were unsure of what we could make out of this [land], but we knew we had to try. We had to make an effort, or else nothing would improve.”

Thus, in 2010, North Las Vegas began courting companies to develop in APEX. The majority of companies that invested came and went; Liu humorously recounts an attempt at establishing a jumbo shrimp farm in the middle

26

of the Mojave Desert. But there were a few lasting progresses—the most notable of which was the UNEV pipeline, a 400-mile long oil pipeline crossing through Utah and Nevada.

Despite earlier wins, however, the first really big opportunity for success came in 2015 with a Chinese electric car company, Faraday Future, hoping to build and manufacture an electric car that would rival Tesla’s Model S. The potential benefit that could be brought by Faraday was significant; in addition to the revenue, it was also an investment that could diversify the economy of the entire state.

The process of attracting the attention of a company like Faraday was long and arduous, especially for a city like North Las Vegas.

NLV leadership was first made aware of the company through a newly acquired acquaintance of the mayor, who, by chance, mentioned he knew a Chinese company looking for a place to establish a manufacturing plant.

NLV leaders jumped at this opportunity, and Liu set to work translating the APEX brochure into Mandarin. When the mayor’s acquaintance returned to Beijing the next week, he would present the brochure to the company NLV leaders would later discover was Faraday.

When asked to recall the beginning of the courting process, Liu grimaces a little. “It was pretty slow,” she says, with a wry laugh. The already difficult process of attracting such an investor was made even more difficult because NLV entered at such a late stage in the game.

By the time NLV began contact with Faraday, the company had already narrowed the 200 some sites they had originally targeted to a short list of about a dozen—and North Las Vegas was nowhere near the list.

But the city is nothing if not persistent, and they kept pursuing Faraday—sending updates about the events and projects in Nevada, as well as detailing the strengths of the state. These strengths included tourism, the collaborative nature of local governments, and the state’s customer service emphasis. Finally, NLV officials took a trip to Faraday’s research and development facility in California where they

were scheduled to speak with Faraday for ten minutes. “They weren’t prepared for a group so passionate about our dream and the potential they could have in APEX,” Liu said, a quiet shine of pride in her eyes. “We ended up talking to them for two hours.”

W

hen Faraday announced that they were choosing to develop in North Las Vegas in December 2015, it seemed state leadership was at last recognizing the city for its worth. But NLV was not yet at the finish line, and without legislative approval of the company’s tax abatements, the deal with Faraday would not be finalized. Going into the special legislative session in mid-December, NLV leaders were anxious but excited, optimistic but understandably afraid that the project they had put so much work into would not turn out.

Ironically, though NLV spoke at length to Faraday about the collaborative nature of their state’s government, the conclusion reached by state legislators and manufactured by multiple groups vying for attention in Nevada politics, undercut NLV’s efforts. After unsuccessfully reclaiming land already annexed by the city, the county worked to prevent more of their land from being annexed. Thus, the county allied with labor unions, which greatly influence the outcome of state elections, in order to persuade legislators to allow the county to take over construction and operation of the water pipeline necessary for operation of the Faraday factory. This move greatly hinders the further growth of the city, as the pipeline will supply water for not only APEX but for surrounding regions as well; and, if these surrounding plots of land utilized city water from a NLV controlled pipeline, they would be annexed. Beyond city growth, the revenue and jobs generated from the maintenance of the pipeline—the benefits of the deal NLV worked so hard to make— would go not to the city, but to the county.

N

orth Las Vegas sees this as a poaching of their deal and as one action in a trend of unfair treatment. When I spoke both to Liu and City Councilman Isaac

Barron, both mentioned the city receiving a disproportionately small portion of the consolidated tax (c-tax) compared to other municipalities in the valley, and having few outside allies to fight for NLV. “Other municipalities have even said that they know we are getting shortchanged on the amount of c-tax [we should be receiving],” Barron said, shaking his head. “But when it comes to fighting for North Las Vegas, we don’t really have anyone.

With 31.2 percent of its population identifying as non-Hispanic whites, NLV’s status as a minority-majority city, Barron argued, is one of the reasons the city is unfairly treated.

“We’ve had to battle this negative view of our city all the time,” Barron said. “If something [bad] happens in North Las Vegas, right away, you’ll hear the racial comments. [People] will contribute it [sic] to blacks or Hispanics, when frankly North Las Vegas crime is not much different than the rest of the valley.”

For Barron, the ruling was an insult—a statement that others did not believe NLV could handle the construction of the pipeline despite its capability. It also cemented his perception of the power structures existing in Nevada government. “I think [our status as a minoritymajority city] is one reason we don’t have the same clout as other jurisdictions in the valley,”

he said. “They still see us as ‘that part of town you don’t want to get caught in late at night.’”

Pluralism is fair because it’s unfair to everyone.

T

he democratic, pluralist nature of our government makes mini-dramas like these common; local political battles are won and lost every day. Though this makes change slow and clunky, there is a balance in this process—pluralism is fair because it’s unfair to everyone. With more than one body vying to assert their agenda, citizens are insulated from tyranny; the outcome of each conflict is far less dramatic for the people than it is for the politicians. Speaking specifically, the residents of NLV may have to pay higher taxes for the construction of this pipeline, but the unionized workers employed by the county will be better paid and will come from around the Vegas Valley. The complexities of the conflict—the county’s fight against annexation and the city’s struggle against what seems like all the odds— remain hidden from the average voter’s view.

The frequency of these battles requires policymakers to swallow the disappointment and frustration of defeat and move onto the next one. According to their city attorneys, North Las Vegas has grounds to sue, but the chances that they will do so are slim, considering the time, energy, and money that goes into a lawsuit—and the ongoing projects, including the construction of the Faraday factory, they must oversee. This means the deep injustice they believe has been committed will never be righted. “It almost [feels] like it’s us against the rest of the world,” Barron said.

“But the people here are tough; they’re resilient.

They always find a way to make it happen.”

This resiliency is perhaps most apparent in a brief exchange I had with Liu. “Our finance director wanted to quit after the ruling,” Liu said, near the end of our interview.

“He said he ‘totally lost faith in government.’”

“Did he end up quitting?”

“No. I told him he couldn’t.

We still have work to do.”

Sabrina Wang is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at s.d.wang@wustl.edu.

27

political review | national

political review | national

Minimum Wage, Maximum Disadvantage Andrew Eichen | Image courtesy of Flickr

T

he phrase “living wage” is often thrown around in progressive political circles. As it is described, a living wage allows the earner to afford adequate shelter, food, and the other necessities of life. It then follows that any individual working in the U.S.—surely those working full time—should be able to earn this wage so that he may maintain some basic level of sustenance. The resulting conclusion is that minimum wage in the U.S. should be raised to this level, forcing employers to pay hourly rates at least as high as the “living wage.”

Progressive favorite Bernie Sanders has been one of the largest proponents of significantly raising the federal minimum wage to a whopping $15 an hour, up from the current rate of $7.25. Could helping struggling families in the U.S. really be that simple?

Unfortunately, economics aren’t that straightforward. Political scientists and economists have debated minimum wage hikes for years. Ultimately, the largest consideration in raising the minimum wage is its effect on nationwide unemployment. Human labor is an economic good like all others. As such, raising the price for labor will theoretically result in a drop in demand, i.e. higher unemployment.

This is by no means a revolutionary argument.

Dissenters are quick to fairly point to various studies that display no significant growth in unemployment following marginal raises in minimum wage. Unfortunately, a marginal increase in the minimum wage is not the policy Sanders or the increasingly popular "Fight for $15" movement are advocating for. Instead, supporters are asking to double wages.

While small minimum wage hikes may not leave lasting unemployment effects, who can argue that no workers would be laid off if employers are asked to more than double their employee’s salaries? If the belief is still that companies will eat the increase in costs, what then of a wage hike to $50 or $100? At some point, even the most ardent supporter of a high minimum wage must concede the negative economic effects of an increase.

While most discourse on minimum wage emphasizes big corporations such as

28

McDonalds or Walmart, it would be the small businesses that are damaged most by these increases. In an effort to maintain profit margins, prices would have to rise, or more likely, employees be laid off or replaced with automation. If an adequate profit margin already exists and the owner is willing to absorb the additional expenses, only then could a raise conceivably have little or no effect on a small business. In general, however, small businesses do not have the resources to absorb these large increases in costs since most earnings go back into supporting their company. For owners of small business already struggling to compete with larger corporations, a more-than-doubling in the minimum wage will only serve to hurt them the most.

How then, can a local mom-and-pop shop possibly be asked to eat these massive increases in cost? Supporters of an increase will point out that raising minimum wage can have positive effects for the employers as well. After all, higher hourly rate could reduce the expense of employee turnover, increase productivity and foster positive attitudes.

However, when deciding on an appropriate wage, the employer has likely already taken into account these factors. If employee turnover or low productivity is damaging a company's profits, surely it is the company’s—not the government's—job to make these decisions.

At the end of the day, small businesses do not have the profit margins necessary to eat these increased costs without significantly raising prices or firing workers. Can it really be argued that an increase of such magnitude would have no effect on these owners? A doubling in the minimum wage would no doubt have devastating effects on the economy.

I propose ending the federally mandated minimum wage. Unfortunately, minimum wage only hurts the exact population it attempts to help. While it’s hard to make ends meet with a minimum wage job, what is often missed is that even these jobs aren’t inevitable. Minimum wage laws set a price floor for employee wages—in effect, pricing unskilled workers out of the market. Those incapable of producing

as much output per hour as the minimum wage requires, will simply not be hired. Take, for example, a poor, non-English speaking immigrant with few marketable skills. He is unlikely to be economically employable at $7.25 an hour, let alone $15. A minimum wage essentially makes it illegal for him to accept any job paying less than that wage, making him legally unemployable. Unfortunately, minimum wage has the effect of removing the bottom rung of the economic ladder. How can someone with few marketable skills be employable at $7.25 if he is legally prevented from receiving any work experience at his currently employable wage? Would it not be more beneficial for him to work for a short period of time at a lower wage, receiving training and valuable work experience in the process? As minimum wage laws don’t take into account the invaluable experience received from employment, these individuals are prevented from taking jobs that may help them climb the economic ladder. Instead, they stay stuck at the bottom.

Moreover, minimum wage laws make it harder for low-skilled laborers to compete in the market. As anyone who has taken an introductory economics course can tell you, artificially setting price floors above the equilibrium price not only leads to less goods being purchased, but more sellers wishing to offer said good. The employment market is no different. High minimum wages attract more people to enter these low-skilled industries than would otherwise, thus flooding the market with a surplus of workers. Considering most of these additional workers are likely overqualified for the job, low-skilled workers are forced to compete with higher-skilled workers.

This results in overqualified laborers being employed in low-skilled jobs, and even more unemployment for low-skilled workers.

Another key issue with minimum wage is that it disproportionately hurts young people and minorities, as it creates huge barriers to entry for two demographics that have historically experienced high unemployment rates. From 2002 to 2007 when the minimum wage was

$5.15, teenage unemployment exceeded the national jobless rate by about 11 percent on average. After an increase to $5.85 per hour, it jumped to 13 percent, and again to 15 percent following the next hike to $6.55 per hour, and finally up to 17 percent following the last increase to $7.25. For most young workers, the value of their first job isn't the income they earn, but rather the development of their human capital: the accumulated skills and experience.

In a similar way, minimum wage laws negatively impact minorities. As minorities are already disproportionately employed at minimum wage, they will inevitably be laid off in large numbers following wage hikes. Moreover, these laws make it more difficult for minorities growing up in inner city communities with already subpar public schooling to find employment. With a poor education, how can those less fortunate be expected to climb the economic ladder and earn a “living wage” if they cannot first be employed at a low-paying job in order to gain experience? Ironically enough, minimum wage laws have historically been used to prevent minorities from being employed. In apartheid South Africa, white unions attempted to raise the minimum wage to price out less educated black workers. As one white union leader put it, “… I support the [minimum wage] as the second best way of protecting white artisans.”

The empirical evidence supports these claims as well. During 1940s and 1950s, when real

A minimum wage essentially creates a society in which it is illegal for [one] to accept any job paying less than that wage, making him legally unemployable. minimum wage was much lower than its current level, teenage unemployment among blacks was actually lower than among whites.

In addition, blacks were more active in the labor force. Since then, economist David Neumark of University of California Irvine found that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage decreased employment for black and Hispanic teens by 6.6 percent. It is unfortunate that policies attempting to help minorities achieve economic prosperity have had and continue to have the opposite effect.

Minimum wage laws ensure that no American works for less than a predetermined wage.

Unfortunately, these laws merely conceal the problem they are supposed to solve. While instituting a minimum wage to ensure everyone is paid a “living wage” sounds nice, it has disastrous effects on both unskilled workers and the economy as a whole. The higher minimum wage will result in fewer low-skilled jobs, as they are either replaced by automation or eliminated in order to cut costs. Further, the

higher minimum wage will cause more higherskilled workers to compete for these low-skilled jobs. The net result is that low-skilled workers are priced out of the market at a high minimum wage, left unemployed, and prevented from climbing the economic ladder. Even the few unskilled workers who will be employed and receive pay higher than their production, are hurt. Given that low wage positions generally experience high turnover rates, while an employee may receive higher pay for a short period of time, they will inevitably find themselves back in a flooded job market unable to find work at all. Ultimately, the mistake in instituting a minimum wage is in the hubris of believing one can be created in the first place. True, those lucky enough to still have a job will make more with an increase.

However, those who are laid off or unable to find an entry-level job will receive the only real federally mandated minimum wage: $0.

Andrew Eichen is a sophomore in the Olin Business School. He can be reached at aeichen@wustl.edu.

29

WUPR presents:

David Axelrod Chief Strategist for Obama’s Presidential Campaigns; CNN Senior Political Commentator

AMERICA’S FUTURE: Insights from Iconic Presidential Advisor February 18, 7:00-8:00PM in Graham Chapel “I’m a kibitzer with a broad portfolio.”

political review | national

political review | national

The 5555 Percent Drug Price Hike: Who’s to Blame?

stockholders.” He goes on to describe outrage at companies or their leadership as “shortsighted finger pointing,” his point being that we as Americans need to take responsibility and recognize that our system is set up in a way that encourages such price gouging due to our unique tolerance of free market reign.

In the current system, we subsidize the cost of R&D for the rest of the world and allow pharmaceutical executives to price where they please, and if that is not okay with us, we ought to change it.

Suhas Gondi | Image courtesy of Flickr

I

n August 2015, Turing Pharmaceuticals acquired the rights to Daraprim, a decadesold, lifesaving drug used to cure a rare parasitic infection. Shortly after this acquisition, CEO Martin Shkreli announced that the drug would retail for $750 per tablet, a 5555 percent increase over the previous price of $13.50. For weeks, this story dominated the headlines of news networks and newsfeeds on social media, causing biotechnology and pharmaceutical stocks to dip and prompting intense public outrage. 32-year-old Shkreli, a former hedge fund manager, faced blistering criticism from almost every sector of society, including patients, providers, advocates, celebrities, and political candidates across the spectrum—from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump, who called the increase “a disgusting thing” and Shkreli “a spoiled brat.” Insisting that the price hike was necessary because “[w]e need to turn a profit on the drug,” Turing faced what was perhaps one of the worst public relations crises in the industry. But the criticism towards Shkreli is simply shortsighted finger pointing, ignorant of the structures that allowed his perceived transgression.

patients. As is often the case, this drug is most needed by traditionally marginalized groups that often face barriers accessing care. Toxoplasmosis is a relatively minor disease burden in the US; it causes about 4,400 hospitalizations each year and an estimated 327 deaths, according to the CDC. Only about 2,000 Americans are prescribed Daraprim every year, but, in those cases, it can be life-saving.

The drug received FDA approval in 1953, and GlaxoSmithKline, its original owner, made and sold it for decades. After the patent expired, generics were not developed as no drug manufacturers were interested in offering Daraprim for a lower price—primarily because the market was so small that it could not justify going through the expensive and arduous process of obtaining FDA approval for manufacture. Since the 1950s, manufacturing and marketing rights for Daraprim switched hands many times before landing with Turing, which bought Daraprim for $55 million.

As executive chairman of Turing, Shkreli swiftly decided to increase the price of Daraprim and

But the criticism towards Shkreli is simply shortsighted finger pointing, ignorant of the structures that allowed his perceived transgression.

Daraprim was discovered in the 1950s and was originally used for its antimalarial properties.

However, researchers found it could be used to cure infections which lead to toxoplasmosis, a disease that can cause symptoms ranging from flulike symptoms to brain and eye damage. The more severe symptoms predominantly affect individuals with already weakened immune systems, such as the elderly and HIV/AIDS

32

appeared on a number of television talk shows to justify his decision. His main defense was that the drug delivered a significant amount of value and ought to be sold at a price that allowed the company to make a profit. He often presented the metaphor that “[i]f there was a company that was selling an Aston Martin at the price of a bicycle, and we buy that company and we ask to charge Toyota prices, I don’t think that that should be a crime.”

The other major defense provided was the necessity of pricing drugs such that the profits can fuel future research and development. In fact, many pharmaceutical companies justify their pricing decisions by explaining that surplus revenues are needed to cover the cost of R&D, in addition to manufacturing costs. In this case, however, Turing did not conduct any R&D for Daraprim, but simply bought the rights from another company. Shkreli focused instead on the enormous amount of investment that is needed to fund the development of new and innovative therapies that Turing is working on.

Many are outraged by this justification regarding future R&D costs because they believe patients should be paying for the drug they need, not for the drug and the costs associated with the development of drugs in the future.

From a purely business perspective, Shkreli believed the price charged before Turing acquired Daraprim was extremely low and was not a wise business decision given the drug, its utility, and the market size. As a privately held entrepreneurial company, Turing bought Daraprim with the explicit intention of profiting from its sales. Indeed, Shkreli has a fiduciary obligation to investors and other stakeholders in the company to generate as much value as possible—a core tenant of corporate business in capitalist America. The price increase is, after all, completely legal and within the bounds of regulatory statutes governing the pharmaceutical industry, begging the question that Shkreli may have just been fulfilling his duty as CEO. Patients suffering from toxoplasmosis are clearly impacted by the price hike. Although some of the most needy patients receive the drug at reduced or no cost, many patients— including those with employer-based insurance, private insurance, and Medicare—pay significant co-pays for prescription drugs. For these patients, the price hike made the drug much more expensive. Beyond the affordability at an individual level, the price hike has also

decreased accessibility to the drug by making it prohibitively expensive for many hospitals, clinics, and other medical centers to obtain and provide Daraprim. Specifically, medical centers that serve primarily low-income patients have found themselves struggling to provide the drug to their hospitalized patients. For these reasons and the lack of an alternative to Daraprim, many have labeled Shkreli as an unscrupulous and money-minded businessman.

A number of professional organizations and patient advocacy groups have also denounced the price hike. For example, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the HIV Medicine Association sent a joint letter to Turing calling the price increase for Daraprim “unjustifiable for the medically vulnerable patient population” and “unsustainable for the health care system.” Many HIV/AIDS advocacy groups have been similarly engaged in the controversy, as patients with HIV/ AIDS comprise a large fraction of severe toxoplasmosis cases.

Although Shkreli’s price hike has been the subject of such public attention, it’s important to realize that Daraprim is not an isolated or unique case. Prescription drugs cost significantly more in the U.S. than in any other developed country. According to the International Federation of Health Plans, Americans pay anywhere from two to six times more than the rest of the world for brand name prescription drugs. Reuters London recently reported that, on average, US prices for the twenty top-selling drugs are three times higher

than in the UK. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is that pharmaceutical companies can set US prices wherever they please, largely free of government regulation or bargaining. In some ways, Shkreli and Turing Pharmaceuticals are taking the heat for a systemic flaw in the American healthcare system. The price increase was completely

Decreasing the price simply addresses a symptom of a flawed system without treating the underlying cause of loose governmental regulations.

Anger is often directed at people like Shkreli and companies like Turing, but that energy could be much better spent if it were used to reform the structures which allow greater than 5000 percent price hikes. Shkreli and his team performed well within the goalposts that our government has set up for them. Personally, I disapprove of the price hike, but I prefer to focus more on where the goalposts are and how we should move them, rather than whether or not Shkreli made an unethical decision or whether or not the profit motive should be abolished in healthcare. Turing did announce their price would be decreased, so the public backlash did have an effect, but this should not satisfy us. Decreasing the price simply addresses a symptom of a flawed system without treating the underlying cause of loose governmental regulations. I would much rather see new policies that allow direct regulation and bargaining of drug prices, as exist in the UK, Canada, Norway, and most other developed countries, so that the profit motive and free market can still exist, but within more reasonably placed goalposts. Moving these posts, though, is no easy task, as the powerful pharmaceutical and insurance industries benefit immensely from the status quo.

legal and, if we are truly as angry and disapproving as the public backlash suggests, we ought to change existing laws so as to disallow a Daraprim-like price hike.

Rafi Mohammed, a thought leader in the area of pricing, writes in the Harvard Business Review that “it’s easy to blame pharmaceutical companies.But pharmaceutical companies aren’t to blame. They’ve executed well on the rules set by the US government as well as the ‘make the most money’ dictum set by their

Suhas Gondi is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at suhasgondi@wustl.edu.

33

political review | national

political review | national

The GOP’s About-Face on Drug Addiction

Is There Really a War on Women?

Billie Mandelbaum

Dan Martin

S

eated on a floral upholstered couch in the White House’s West Hall in September 1986, President Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy, delivered a nationally televised address on the ills of drug abuse. Holding hands and speaking in an admonishing tone, the President and First Lady portrayed addicts as social deviants. Near the end of the speech, the president said, “Drug abuse is a repudiation of everything America is. The destructiveness and human wreckage mock our heritage.”

Thirty years later, Americans are addicted to heroin at epidemic levels, and the Republican Party’s 2016 presidential candidates are speaking of drug abuse in a far different tone than that of President Reagan. Along the campaign trail, candidates including Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and Carly Fiorina have spoken of providing addicts with treatment rather than lengthy prison sentences. During a visit to a drug addiction treatment center in New Hampshire, a state where heroin overdoses have risen precipitously, Christie called addiction “a treatable problem” that should be handled “like an illness, and not like some moral failure.”

As evident by candidates’ stump speeches, politicians on the right are increasingly acknowledging that the war on drugs, and subsequent crime legislation introducing mandatory minimum prison sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, have failed. This change in policy position can be linked to a recognition of the huge economic cost the drug war has born—the U.S. spends over $40 billion annually on drug prohibition.

However, chalking up Republicans’ new attitude on drug policy to their fiscally-conservative economic platform overlooks an important racial dynamic of the country’s most recent drug epidemic: those addicted to heroin are now primarily white suburbanites. No longer able to paint drug abuse as an issue rooted in a stereotyped pathology of the black ghetto, Republicans, with their largely white party base, have been forced to address a drug problem that plagues their own constituents.

34

No longer able to paint drug abuse as an issue rooted in a stereotyped pathology of the black ghetto, Republicans, with their largely white party base, have been forced to address a drug problem that plagues their own constituents.

According to a 2014 JAMA Psychiatry study, 90 percent of people who began to use heroin in the last decade were white. Such a figure stands in stark contrast to the demographics of the heroin epidemic of the 1970s and the crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980s. For example, in the 1970s, over 50 percent of heroin users were nonwhites. While whites were also using drugs, policymakers and the media portrayed these older epidemics as problems afflicting poor, black, inner-city communities.

Policymakers, especially those in the Reagan administration, blamed the epidemics for a rise in violent crime. This justified passing anti-drug legislation that locked up addicts and paved the way for mass incarceration.

The push for a public health-oriented response to the most recent heroin epidemic differs from the reaction to earlier crackdowns. Media coverage of the spike in heroin use has focused on the “new face” of heroin addiction—a face, presumably a white one, that policymakers see as worthy of treatment instead of imprisonment. Christie, Bush, Fiorina, and Ted Cruz have all shared personal stories about how drug addiction among their friends and family members has affected their own lives.

Although such discussion would have been taboo in the morally righteous Republican Party of the Reagan-era, candidates now share these addiction stories in an effort to connect to voters.

Democratic candidates have also discussed the heroin epidemic. However, rather than share emotionally wrought stories, Democrats have talked about the spike in heroin use in the context of proposals for broader criminal justice and drug reforms. Republicans, except for the libertarian-leaning Rand Paul, have failed to

offer similar plans for reform. In fact, Chrisitie has stated he will “crack down” on marijuana use. Yet, the strict criminalization of marijuana has proven to be racially-biased given that blacks are nearly four times more likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana possession, even though whites and blacks are equally likely to use marijuana. Christie’s differing positions on heroin and marijuana use demonstrate the unspoken racial dynamic that underlies the Republican approach to tackling the heroin epidemic. In regard to drug policy, Republicans seem to hold a double standard: if whites are using, let’s treat them, but if blacks are addicted, let’s lock them up.

With the death rate from heroin overdoses now quadruple what it was in 2000, the most recent heroin epidemic is clearly a problem that needs to be addressed. Republican recognition that drug addiction needs to be treated as a public health concern is a step in the proper direction, but that it took a drug problem in white communities to result in this policy change is troublesome.

As legal scholars and activists have noted, the war on drugs and its draconian laws of the latter half of the 20th century have had a disproportionately damaging effect on black communities. One can only hope that Republicans’ heightened attention on the heroin epidemic will save lives. Yet, it’s also time that those on the right begin to reckon with the grave consequences that America’s racialized drug policy has had for African Americans.

Billie Mandelbaum is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at bmandelbaum@wustl.edu.

O

ver the past few decades, the United States has steadily moved to the left on social issues. For example, just since 2001, nearly a quarter of Americans have changed their opinions on the morality of gay or lesbian relations. Similar moral issues like divorce, premarital sex, and cloning have been trending left for decades, with one exception: abortion. The percentage of the American population that is pro-choice or pro-life has remained more or less constant since the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v.

Wade. Clearly, debates over abortion are not going away any time soon. But as with many entrenched issues, the two sides have slowly ceased having significant dialogue. They instead have waited for the courts to decide in their favor, either to overturn Roe v. Wade, or to strike down laws restricting abortion clinics. However, scientific advances, an increase in antiabortion laws, and widespread furor at Planned Parenthood’s alleged actions are making this an important time to reopen dialogue on the subject in an informed way.

Recently, Jennifer Lawrence stated in an interview that she could never be a Republican because the party doesn’t support women’s basic rights. Just last year, the media spent quite a while discussing the purported “War on Women” waged by Conservative political groups. This is nothing new. A plethora of examples of this rhetoric exist everywhere, sometimes including at our own university. I personally have often heard pro-life supporters referred to as “anti-choice,” as if somehow those supporters only cared about taking choices away from others. This attitude is unacceptable, and misrepresents the pro-life position in important ways. In order to have a significant and meaningful conversation about an issue, one must understand the opposing position. Many sources in support of the supposed “War on Women” have mentioned efforts to restrict abortions, among other reasons, as proof of its existence. However, the notion that Conservatives are waging a war on the rights of women in general is ridiculous.

Constructing the narrative that Conservatives are misogynistic supporters of reduced

freedom not only drastically reduces chances of bipartisanship, but also displays a glaring lack of understanding as to what the pro-life position even is.

What many are now unable or unwilling to accept is that pro-life positions have nothing to do with these titles. These people are not necessarily “anti-women”—in fact, many women hold opinions in line with these pro-life positions. Pro-life supporters are also fighting for a right they believe is being taken away—the right to life. To a pro-life supporter, a woman does not have a right to an abortion any more than citizens have a right to steal from their neighbors. Some may cringe at that statement and revert back to a“War on Women” mindset.

This is understandable on this divisive issue, but not defensible. Whether or not one holds this opinion is irrelevant; it is unacceptable to weigh in on this issue without considering the other side’s reasoning. Before dismissing Conservatives as “anti-choice” or “anti-women,” it is important to realize that they too are fighting for what they believe to be a fundamental right of the human person. Mischaracterizing this debate as simply a fight to take away rights only serves to prevent getting to the real questions surrounding the issue.

It is not long before medical advances will allow for a child to be carried outside the human person. It will happen slowly, but inevitably will progress earlier and earlier into pregnancy.

Regardless of the morality of such a capability, it will bring to the forefront the core issue behind abortion, which is the right to life. The question then will be what, if anything, trumps the right to life. Is it acceptable to terminate the development of a human child? If so, under what circumstances? If not, what is required of the parents? These are not easy questions, but are the ones that must be asked.

It is not long before we will have to answer these questions for ourselves. It is not acceptable to hide behind blanket mischaracterizations to avoid substantial dialogue. Pro-life supporters are not going to go away. They will not eventually realize that

they are misogynistic or outdated and suddenly switch sides, nor should we expect them to.

The debate regarding this topic is only just beginning, especially as medical advances give more information and possibilities. However, as the debate is reignited, the distorted and incorrect representations of the Conservative viewpoint must be left at the door.

Before dismissing conservatives as “anti-choice” or “anti-women,” it is important to realize that they too are fighting for what they believe to be a fundamental right of the human person.

Dan Martin is a sophomore in the College of Engineering. He can be reached at daniel.martin@wustl.edu.

35

political review | national

political review | INTERnational

The Modern Loss of Empathy

HONY Humanizing Political Conflicts

Reuben Siegman | Illustration by Sara Wong

Bisma Mufti

A

s I log onto Facebook I immediately notice the trending box on the right-hand side of the screen. I see, in blue letters, the name of a place. This is no ordinary place, but rather the site of a recent mass tragedy. Quickly scrolling down through my news feed I see that many people are sharing articles, trying to disseminate any relevant information. More common than those links, however, are the ubiquitous “thoughts and prayers.” Everyone seems to be rushing to type these words.

pain of loss, and manage to express it like that? It seems unfathomable to me that we can express our deepest feelings with a standard “thoughts and prayers.” Why do most of us conform to that standard message, when we each feel differently?

Surely we can do better in articulating our feelings.

I can’t help but wonder as I see these messages of “thoughts and prayers” on my news feed, do people really mean it?

Perhaps even more troubling is why we send our “thoughts and prayers,” but do not take substantive action. If we feel passionate enough about what happened, we should make a significant effort to prevent it from happening again. After a natural disaster there are many charities doing relief work that need donations. After gun violence, we can pressure lawmakers to craft safer gun laws. Predictably, after mass shootings, there are fervent calls to action, yet all too often this effort is not sustained. Sadly, what usually happens is a rush of people buying more guns. Their fear of having guns taken away overrides their empathy for the victims. After the Newtown school shooting, the political will was almost there, but a bill introduced to merely add some very basic (and, according to polls, very popular) gun safety laws again fell short. Time and again we let our fear of change override our empathy, and permit the status quo to remain.

Everyday around the world, hundreds of people die from senseless violence, inadequate healthcare, starvation, and disease, yet these incidents are not trending on my news feed. No one is sending “thoughts and prayers” to them, and no one is debating how to prevent these deaths, because we feel they cannot happen to us. Only when violence creeps into the places where we can picture ourselves do we feel the need to send our token “thoughts and prayers.”

This manifests itself most prominently during terrorist attacks on western civilization, places where we could very well be traveling, and mass shootings, where we very well could be standing before a bullet pierces through our body. It is only when we could have been in the same inopportune place as the victim that our online empathy is activated.

Furthermore, when we empathize, we rush to social media and post our “thoughts and prayers” to the families of the victims. Yet, I can’t help but wonder as I see these messages of “thoughts and prayers” on my news feed: do we really mean it? Have we set aside a single moment to just grieve? Shed a single tear? Pondered what it is like for a life to cease being? Can we feel the penetrating

36

Why isn’t our empathy stronger? There are many possible answers. If we scroll through any screen nowadays, whether on our phones looking at social media, or on a television watching the news, we are bound to see violence. Violence simply sells. We have become inured to the violence occurring today: it is simply background noise. We don’t even know the names of the victims, let alone their backgrounds and life stories. All of this makes it harder for us to empathize.

M

ost experiences with Humans of New York (HONY) are something like scrolling down your Facebook newsfeed and seeing a friend from high school “like” a picture about a couple whose fiftyyear marriage started out as a drunken bet at a friend’s wedding. These types of endearing, everyday posts have united 16 million followers over the universal joys and sorrows of the human experience.

It’s not just in the news. It seems violence may be ingrained in American culture. Violence is glorified in our most popular movies. In sports we often cheer loudest when a big hit happens, even though it may have devastating repercussions. Guns are increasingly seen as toys and shooting has become more of a sport.

The fact that these are deadly weapons with the power to destroy a body in mere seconds has become obscured.

I’m not calling for our news organizations to stop covering violence, our movies to cut out violence, or our sports to be non-contact. I’m merely asking that we reexamine the way we look at violence. Each human life is precious, and when one is lost, we should at least be honest about how we feel. While it may be harder for us to truly empathize with the victims when we are exposed to so much violence, we must be vigilant. The next time we are witness to a tragedy, let’s take a moment to step back and really think about what just happened.

Reuben Siegman is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at reuben.siegman@wustl.edu.

However, Brandon Stanton, owner of the website, has expanded his posts into the political realm—becoming a true agent of social change, and arguably doing better than any of our current politicians. Despite the more grave subject matter, like the uncertain future of refugees moving to America, the universality of being human is not lost in these posts. In fact, it is this very constant that has made them even more effective. By stripping away the media’s negative stereotypes of current conflicts, we are left with the honesty of pregnant mothers, scared children, and lonely fathers. Headlines are humanized and we find ourselves in their otherwise foreign stories. This is how our appointed “enemies” become our friends deserving of help.

In early December, Stanton posted a collection of his interviews with eleven Syrian refugees applying for resettlement in America. One striking story was that of Aya, a refugee whose application had been denied for “securityrelated reasons.” An onslaught of welcoming comments flooded her pictures, including this poignant one: “A month ago, I was against refugees coming to America. HONY has singlehandedly broken down that so-verywrong viewpoint.” Stanton then organized an online petition to President Obama to “Bring Aya to America,” which has reached two-thirds of its desired 1.5 million signatures. In addition, he fundraised $754,000 of a $100,000 goal, which will be evenly divided amongst the eleven families to help cushion their arrival. The fundraising efforts, put together by more than 18,000 people, reveal a selfless goodwill that seems like a rarity, but could become a norm if more such opportunities were presented.

In a paradoxical world where globalization is occurring at the same time that discriminatory barriers are being put up, HONY is a testament to the power the internet can hold if harnessed for the most basic unit of all: human compassion.

One could argue that the Facebook comments and fundraising and petitioning efforts are nothing more than window-shopping activism: a quick, effortless way to feel that you have done your part to fix a trendy problem. But what Stanton has provided—a safe, direct way to help refugees—is more than what we can say for some of our trusted government officials, especially in a harsh political climate where a House bill recently attempted to suspend the resettlement of Syrian refugees. Whatever the contributors’ motivations might be, no one can deny that tangible, effective change is being made thanks to Stanton. Furthermore, his actions have created a domino effect of individual efforts to help others. For instance, upon reading Stanton’s story about a refugee father with cancer, one Michigan resident took it upon himself to raise $12,000 to help with his medical bills.

Apart from providing tangible assistance, Stanton’s posts have accomplished the arguably harder job of changing people’s perspectives—perspectives informed by stubborn personal reservations and onslaughts of negative media stories. This past summer he traveled to Pakistan where he showed, for example, the honest happiness of a man dancing to songs he requested on the radio.

Pakistanis expressed deep gratitude towards Stanton. One commented, “You have done so so much for my people… our nation has been toppling over itself for more than a decade now but through that, we have our share of

happiness which the media fails to show.”

They were not the only thankful ones. One American wrote, “It seems like the only pictures we see of Pakistan are a war torn Pakistan. I'm surprised that everything looks so normal in this picture… Thank You Brandon for showing us the reality of these countries.” Here, with a simple picture and caption, Stanton had successfully removed the tight grip U.S. media has paid billions to fasten. In a paradoxical world where globalization is occurring at the same time that discriminatory barriers are being put up, HONY is a testament to the power the internet can hold if harnessed for the most basic unit of all: human compassion.

In a frightening landscape where president hopefuls like Ben Carson can openly equate Syrian refugees to “rabid dogs,” or Donald Trump can proudly promise to mandate Muslims to carry special identification cards that note their faith, it has become apparent that respect for humanity is disappearing in politics.

Regardless of HONY’s social media medium or its self-contained rosy field of comments, its humanization of political conflicts is a welcome deviation from day after day of detached, pessimistic headlines. HONY is a sign of what could be possible if we found ourselves in the shoes of the people we pit ourselves against. It is no surprise, then, that Stanton’s followers are nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Bisma Mufti is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at bisma.mufti@wustl.edu.

37