The Kids Are All Right

A notion that’s become somewhat common among the left in recent years is that American conservatives are demographically doomed. Very often, this is discussed in terms of race and age—an allusion to the declining share of the non-Hispanic white American population and the accompanying erosion of its political sway, as well as the fact that conservatives tend to be older.

On its face, this seems like a tidy theory. But under the surface, I think it’s a great deal more complicated than the (sometimes wishful) theorizing of liberal pundits allows.

First, as I wrote a couple of weeks ago, the American concept of race, whiteness in particular, is a moving target. I think there’s a solid chance it will look quite a bit different in a couple of decades. But a more interesting foil, I think, to the liberals-own-tomorrow theory manifests itself in fertility rates.

People are having fewer children the rich world over, causing consternation among governments of countries whose economic futures depend on population growth. The political implications of this alone are fascinating, but the general trend obscures another interesting story: the intranational ideological disparity in fertility.

Liberals, it appears, are having fewer children than their conservative counterparts. Combing through General Social Survey (GSS) results from the last 10 years provides a clear view of this phenomenon. Among heterosexual men between the ages of 35 and 50, those who identify as “extremely liberal” had on average 1.79 children, whereas those describing themselves as “extremely conservative” had 2.43. For women, the difference was even starker: “extremely liberal” women had 1.69 on average to “extremely conservative” women’s 2.63.

Conservative have more kids

Many factors contribute to this disparity—most of which concern liberal women’s increased preferences for family planning. Anecdotally, liberals are later to marry, more likely to pursue advanced degrees, less religious, and, among women, more likely to pursue careers—the confluence of which makes for fewer babies. This trend seems to have gotten stronger over the past few decades.

Widening Child Gap
Note: Data for this graph are inclusive of all respondents 18 and older, meaning there’s probably some bias toward conservatives having more children, as they tend to be older. It’s also possible that causality flows both ways: having families might make people more conservative.

All this is significant because there’s at least some evidence that, most of the time, children end up inheriting their parents’ political views. This makes sense whether you view political ideology as a product of nature—differences in brain structure that give some a proclivity for novelty and others an aversion to risk—or nurture. Either way, if liberals are bearing and raising fewer children, it could mean fewer liberal adults down the line.

There are a few signs this might already be happening. One study found that after decades of decline, high school students’ support for traditional gender roles in the family has been rising steadily since 1994. Goldman Sachs pegs the ascendant Generation Z as especially fiscally conservative. Finally, a survey by the Hispanic Heritage Foundation of 50,000 14 – 18-year-olds found—shockingly, in my view—that the majority identified as Republicans and would support Donald Trump in the 2016 election. (An important caveat to this survey was that nearly a third of those polled would have declined to vote, had they been able.)

The policy preferences of an increasingly conservative nation are one thing—and obviously ideology colors one’s assessment of how good or bad that would be. But what really worries me is the thought of an even more politically segmented society; one in which an increasingly liberal minority of elites maintains control of the nation’s cultural power centers and an increasingly conservative majority grows frustrated with its obsolescence in the new economy, which, intentionally or not, places a premium on educational attainment, city-living, and delayed entry into family life.

Whether it comes to pass or not, we shall see.

Advertisements

Business Is Getting Political—and Personal

As anyone reading this blog is undoubtedly aware, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the current White House Press Secretary, was asked last month by the owner of a restaurant to leave the establishment on the basis that she and her staff felt a moral imperative to refuse service to a member of the Trump administration. The incident, and the ensuing turmoil, highlights the extent to which business has become another political battleground—a concept that makes many anxious.

Whether or not businesses should take on political and social responsibilities is a fraught question—but not a new one. Writing for the New York Times in 1970, Milton Friedman famously argued that businesses should avoid the temptation go out of their way to be socially responsible and instead focus on maximizing profits within the legal and ethical framework erected by government and society. To act otherwise at the expense profitability, he reasoned, is to spend other people’s money—that of shareholders, employees, or customers—robbing them of their agency.

Though nearing fifty years of age, much of Milton Friedman’s windily and aptly titled essay, The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Profits, feels like it could have been written today. Many of the hypotheticals he cites of corporate social responsibility—“providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution”—are charmingly relevant in the era of automation anxiety, BDS, and one-star campaigns. His solution, that businesses sidestep the whole mess, focus on what they do best, and play by the rules set forth by the public, is elegant and simple—and increasingly untenable.

One reason for this is that businesses and the governments Friedman imagined would reign them in have grown much closer, even as the latter have grown comparatively weaker. In sharp contrast to the get-government-out-of-business attitude that prevailed in the boardrooms of the 1970s, modern industry groups collectively spend hundreds of millions to get the ears of lawmakers, hoping to obtain favorable legislation or stave off laws that would hurt them. Corporate (and other) lobbyists are known to write and edit bills, sometimes word for word.

You could convincingly argue that this is done in pursuit of profit: Boeing, for example, spent $17 million lobbying federal politicians in 2016 and received $20 million in federal subsidies the same year. As of a 2014 report by Good Jobs First, an organization that tracks corporate subsidies, Boeing had received over $13 billion of subsidies and loans from various levels of government. Nevertheless, this is wildly divergent from Friedman’s idea of business as an adherent to, not architect of, policy.

As business has influenced policy, so too have politics made their mark on business. Far more so than in the past, today’s customers expect brands to take stands on social and political issues. A report by Edelman, a global communications firm, finds a whopping 60% of American Millennials (and 30% of consumers worldwide) are “belief-driven” buyers.

This, the report states, is the new normal for businesses—like it or not. Brands that refrain from speaking out on social and political issues now increasingly risk consumer indifference, which, I am assured by the finest minds in marketing, is not good. In an age of growing polarization, every purchase is becoming a political act. Of course, when you take a stand on a controversial issue, you also risk alienating people who think you’re wrong: 57% of consumers now say they will buy or boycott a brand based on its position on an issue.

This isn’t limited to merely how corporations talk. Firms are under increasing social pressure to hire diversity officers, change where they do business, and reduce their environmental impact, among other things. According to a 2017 KPMG survey on corporate social responsibility, 90% of the world’s largest companies now publish reports on their non-business responsibilities. This reporting rate, the survey says, is being driven by pressure from investors and government regulators alike.

It turns out that a well marketed stance on social responsibility can be a powerful recruiting tool. A 2003 study by the Stanford Graduate School of Business found 90% of graduating MBAs in the United States and Europe prioritize working for organizations committed to social responsibility. Often, these social objectives can be met in ways that employees enjoy: for example, cutting a company’s carbon footprint by letting employees work from home.

In light of all this, the choice between social and political responsibility and profitability seems something of a false dichotomy. The stakes are too high now for corporations to sit on the sidelines of policy, politics, and society, and businesses increasingly find themselves taking on such responsibilities in pursuit of profitability. Whether that’s good or bad is up for debate. But as businesses have grown more powerful and felt the need to transcend their formerly transactional relationships with consumers, it seems to be the new way of things.

A Political Future for Libertarians? Not Likely.

When it was suggested I do a piece about the future of the Libertarian Party, I had to laugh. Though I’ve been voting Libertarian since before Gary Johnson could find Aleppo on a map, I’ve never really had an interest in Libertarian Party politics.

Sure, the idea is appealing on a lot of levels. Being of the libertarian persuasion often leaves you feeling frustrated with politics, especially politicians. It’s tempting to watch the approval ratings of Democrats and Republicans trend downward and convince yourself the revolution is nigh.

But if I had to guess, the party will remain on the periphery of American political life, despite a relatively strong showing in the 2016 Presidential election. A large part of this – no fault of the Libertarian party – is due to anti-competitive behavior and regulation in the industry of politics. But a substantial amount of blame can be attributed to the simple and sobering fact that the type of government and society envisioned by hardcore Libertarians – the type that join the party – is truly unappealing to most of America.

Unless public opinion radically shifts, it feels like the Libertarian Party will mainly continue to offer voters a symbolic choice. Don’t get me wrong: I’m happy to have that choice, and it really would be nice to see people who genuinely value individual freedom elected to public office. But political realities being what they are, I’m going to hold off on exchanging my dollars for gold and continue paying my income taxes.

So that’s the bad news for libertarians. Here’s the good news: the cause of advancing human liberty isn’t dependent on a niche political party. The goal of libertarianism as a philosophy – the preservation and expansion of individual liberties – has no partisan allegiance. Victory for the Libertarian Party is (thankfully) not requisite for libertarians to get more of what they want.

Advancing their agenda has, for libertarians, proved to be more a question of winning minds than elections. While “capital-L” Libertarians remain on the political margins, aspects of libertarian thought are appreciated by people of all political persuasions and often receive appeal for support. Although no Libertarian Party member has ever held a seat in Congress, moved into a governor’s mansion, or garnered more than four percent of the national vote, many long-held libertarian ideas have enjoyed incredible success, and others are still gaining momentum.

Same-sex marriage is now the law of the land, as has been interracial marriage. Support for legalizing marijuana is at an all-time high (pun intended), and ending the larger ‘war on drugs’ is an idea gaining currency, not only in the US but worldwide. The draft is a thing of the past; the public is growing wary and weary of interventionist foreign policy. A plan to liberalize our immigration system, though stuck in legislative limbo, remains a priority for most Americans, and the United States remains a low-tax nation among countries in the developed world, especially when it comes to individual tax rates.

And not all the good news comes from the realm of politics. Americans have maintained and expanded on a culture of philanthropy, per-capita giving having tripled since the mid-1950s. The rise of social media and the internet has made it easier than ever for people to exchange ideas. Technology of all sorts has lowered prices for consumers and helped people live more productive lives. Even space exploration – until recently exclusively the purview of governments – is now within private reach.

None of this was or will be passed with legislation written or signed into law by a Libertarian politician. But that’s not what really matters. What really matters is that people are freer today to live the kinds of lives they want, peacefully, and without fear of persecution. Yes, there is still much that might be improved, at home and certainly abroad. But in a lot of ways, libertarians can rest happily knowing that their ideas are winning, even if their candidates are not.

This article originally appeared on Merion West.

In Defense of the Center

The mushy center never inspires passion like ideological purity. The spectacle of radicalism puts asses in the seats. It’s hard, on the other hand, to imagine rebellious, mask-clad youths taking to the street in the name of fine-tuning marginal tax rates.

Oh sure, you may see a protest here and there, and practically everyone grumbles about this or that issue in which they have an interest. But as the great philosopher Calvin once said: a good compromise leaves everybody mad.

calvin

Some more so than others. Opining in the New York Times, Senator Bernie Sanders suggests Democrats can reverse their political fortunes by abandoning their “overly cautious, centrist ideology,” and more closely approximating the policy positions of a Vermont socialist.

I suppose this could be sound political advice. Everyone has an idea of the way they’d like the world to work, and Sanders’ ideas are appealing to a great many people. You could argue–as Sanders does–that Republicans have had some success with a similar strategy following the Obama years. But, as they’re finding out, ideological purity makes for better campaign slogans than successful governing strategy.

Here’s the thing: We live in a big, diverse country. People have very different wants and needs, yet we all live under the same (federal) laws. Our priorities must sometimes compete against each other, which is why we often end up with some of what we want, but not everything. Striking that balance is tough, and by necessity leaves many people unhappy. We don’t always get it right. But when you’re talking about laws that affect 320 million people, some modesty, or if you prefer, “caution,” is in order.

Alas, Bernie is not of a similar mind. In fewer than 1,000 words, he offers no shortage of progressive bromides without mention of the accompanying price tag. It’s one thing to form a platform around medicare-for-all, higher taxes on the wealthy (their “fair share”), aggressive clean energy commitments, a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan, or free tuition at state universities and lower interest rates on student loans. But all of them? At once?!

Sanders should remember the political and economic lessons of Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin’s foray into single-payer healthcare: Government spending–and thus government activity–is constrained by the population’s tolerance for taxation (And on the other side of things, their tolerance for a deficit of public services. Looking at you, Kansas). Go too far and you risk losing support. And unless you’re willing to rule by force, as extremists often must, that will cost you your ability to shape public policy.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think the Senator’s advice would do the Democrats any favors. The Democrats didn’t move to the center-left because there was widespread and untapped support for endless government programs in America. They did it because they collided with the political and economic reality of governance in our country. Americans are willing to pay for some government programs, but not at the rate Europeans pay to have much more expansive governments. The left, therefore, shouldn’t play an all-or-nothing game, but instead think about what it does well and how it can appeal to, rather than alienate, the rest of the country. That’s going to involve compromise.

Update: Following Jon Ossoff’s narrow defeat in a Georgia special election, there’s been a lot of discussion about whether a more progressive candidate would have fared better. Personally, I find it hard to believe centrism and fiscal conservatism worked against Ossoff in a historically Republican district. Much more believable is Matt Yglesias’ related-but-different take that Ossoff’s reluctance to talk policy left a void for the opposition to exploit, allowing them to cast him as an outsider.

One thing seems certain: the rift within the Democratic party isn’t going away anytime soon.

What’s Up with U.S. Public Education?

*I wrote this a while ago, but didn’t publish. I was on vacation–sue me. I know the internet has the attention span of a five-year-old, and people aren’t really talking about DeVos anymore, but I’m hoping this is still interesting to someone.

The confirmation of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education was perhaps the hardest-won victory of President Trump’s nascent administration. Opposition to the DeVos ran deep enough to require Vice President Pence to cast a historic tie-breaking vote.

To hear it from those on the Left, DeVos is uniquely unqualified for the position. Her lack of personal experience with the public school system, coupled with her one-sided approach to education and purported ignorance of education policy make her unsuited to the position, they argue.

On the Right, the response has been to call into question the political motivations behind opposition to DeVos. Teachers’ unions, after all, are some of the biggest spenders in U.S. politics and their economic interests are threatened by the kind of reforms DeVos’ appointment might foreshadow.

It’s hard to know if either or both sides are being overly cynical. I don’t pretend to have any deep knowledge of DeVos or her new mantle. But one thing seems empirically true: the status quo of public education isn’t above reproach.

More Money, Same (Math, Science, Literacy) Problems

According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), per pupil spending on public education has increased roughly 1.7% annually since 1980. Student performance, however, has largely stagnated over the same period by various metrics. To somewhat immodestly quote myself:

The statistics are damning: Literacy rates among 17-year-old Americans peaked in 1971. Standardized testing reveals that math scores peaked in 1986. Test scores show a lack of improvement in math, science, and reading, in which respectively 25%, 22%, and 37% of American students are proficient.

This kind of stagnation isn’t typical among other nations; the United States showed much smaller levels of inter-generational improvement than other OECD nations. Up until about 1975, Americans were scoring significantly higher in math and literacy than Americans born before them. Since 1975, scores have plateaued, even adjusting for race and foreign-born status of students. As [Gallup’s] study states, this implicates the entire US school system.

Test scores aren’t the only indicators of educational dysfunction. Fully 60% of first-year college students need to take remedial courses in either math or English (to be fair, you might attribute this in part to college admission policies). Companies are also reporting longer vacancies for STEM positions and increasingly are forced to delay projects or look outside the U.S. for workers.

To be clear, it’s not that US public schools are producing particularly terrible outcomes (though they’re admittedly middling among the developed world). The real problem is spending on public education is becoming increasingly inefficient; we’re putting more and more resources into it and receiving little or no additional benefit. This is a long-term trend that should be addressed immediately to avoid throwing good money after bad.

In fairness, I have to point out that speaking of public schools in national terms risks obscuring that some public schools–usually found in high-income neighborhoods–perform incredibly well. However, unequal educational outcomes are often considered a bug, rather than a feature, of the public school system, which charter schools have in some cases been able to address with varying degrees of success (though there are charges that this is only possible because charters are given greater latitude in selecting their students).

The Status Quo Is Hard on Teachers, Too

There is a perception among some that public school teachers are profiting hand over fist as a result of teachers’ unions, to the expense of students. But the truth is a little more complicated.

On one hand, strong teachers’ unions have engendered some policies that arguably favor educators over students. Teacher firing rates, for example, are extremely low. This is especially true for tenured teachers, of which an average of 0.2 are dismissed per district for poor performance annually, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

This is made possible (at least in part) by what effectively amounts to state-sanctioned local monopolies on education. Constraints on demand impede normal market mechanisms from weeding out inefficient suppliers (at least, that’s the theory embraced by school choice advocates). This isn’t illogical, and it explains the somewhat rare rift between black parents and the Democratic party line on school choice.

Consider a thought experiment: Imagine families were forced to shop for food only in their own neighborhoods. What might we expect to happen to the quality of food consumed by people in poor areas? What if we put limits on the amount of new stores that could open?

In this light, it might be accurate to say that policies that require students to attend schools in their district prioritize the school system over the scholars.

On the other hand, a lot of teachers are being harmed by the current system–particularly the young and good ones.

Under current agreements, teacher compensation rates are in large part determined by longevity, both within the profession and teaching district. Young teachers–especially women teaching young children–are often underpaid relative to other professions.

screen-shot-2017-02-15-at-1-43-59-pm
Source: No Recovery, Gallup 2016

Additionally, collective bargaining agreements have led to pay compression (a narrowing of the pay gap between high and low performers) among teachers, which penalizes high performing teachers and benefits low performing teachers. Correspondingly, there has been a detectable decline in standardized test scores of new teachers since the 1960s.¹

The combination of longevity-driven pay and salary compression has made teaching a less attractive profession for the best candidates, who can earn more in other comparable fields. A 2014 survey by the American Federation of Teachers revealed merely 15% of teachers report high levels of enthusiasm about their profession, despite 89% feeling highly enthusiastic at the beginning of their careers.

*

What might we say about an education system that grows increasingly expensive without improvement for students or teachers? We might say that it needs work and we should be open to new ideas, in whatever form they might come. It might also be wise to proceed with caution; for better or worse, this is the system we have right now.

I don’t know if Mrs. DeVos’ agenda will result in improvements. The divergent problems of climbing spending and poor teacher incentive could prove difficult to address simultaneously, especially in the current political climate. But we should all remember the true goal of an education system–public, private, or somewhere in between–is to efficiently increase human capital. How that happens should be of secondary concern.

  1. The study I cited found these results to be true only among female teachers. For some reason, scores of incoming male teachers improved slightly over this period. If anyone has any theories as to why this might be, I’d love to hear them.

Racial Gerrymandering (The Other Type)

Race, however nebulous a concept, is typically thought of as static among individual human beings. And yet, millions of Americans may wake up on Census Day, 2020 as a member of a different race–at least, on paper.

The proposed changes are meant to help align census definitions with the way Americans think about race. It’s an incredibly difficult, if not quixotic, task, due in no small part to the census’ historical ambiguity on the issue.

A little background

Since its inception in 1790, the United States Census has tracked racial data. The federal government uses this data to track health and environmental outcomes across populations, promote equal employment opportunities, to redistrict, and to inform federal policy with regard to civil rights.

Because the decennial census data are used for redistricting purposes and inform race-related social policy, you can count on a lot of advocacy and politics influencing every step of the process.

The Census Bureau collects data in accordance with the guidelines set for it by the Office of Management and Budget. This data is self-reported (though it has only been this way since 1960) and is acknowledged to adhere to social, rather than scientific, definitions.

Here’s what’s happening

A proposal by the Office of Management and Budget suggests creating a new racial category, MENA (Middle East and North Africa), and combining the ethnicity and race questions. Together, both changes could affect the way over 60 million Americans racially identify.

Under current guidelines, people with “origins” in the Middle East and North Africa are considered white. Critics, notably the Arab American Institute, claim this categorization is an inaccurate vestige of anti-Asian immigration law from the 19th century that led Middle Eastern immigrants to advocate for white status. Creating a separate racial category will allow for better data collection and confer upon “MENA-Americans” the same legal protections and privileges granted to other minority groups, they argue.

Hispanics, on the other hand, are not currently considered a race by the census, but rather an ethnicity. In fact, the only two options given to Americans for ethnicity are “Hispanic or Latino” or “Not Hispanic or Latino.” This has meant that Hispanics have been free to self-identify with any race they feel accurately describes them–a choice that has produced some confusion. Given that freedom, a slight but increasing majority of Hispanics have chosen to describe themselves as white (53% in 2010, up from 47.9% in 2000).

screen-shot-2016-12-19-at-6-03-14-pm

But by collapsing the ethnicity and race questions into one general question, the next census may change that.

screen-shot-2016-12-21-at-3-55-23-pm
Possible 2020 census question for race/Hispanic origin.

Having Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin appear next to other race options may encourage Hispanics who had previously considered themselves white to simply identify as “Hispanic”–after all, Spain is notably absent from the countries listed under “white.” As Mike Gonzalez writes for National Review:

The proposed census form defines “white” as “German, Irish, English, Italian, Polish, French, etc.” For “Hispanic, Latino or Spanish,” the definition is “Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Salvadoran, Dominican, Colombian, etc.”

Now, if you’re a Mexican American who has always considered yourself white because of your Spanish ancestry, you have one choice. You would never check a box designated for persons of German, Irish, or other origins north of the Pyrenees, because that doesn’t describe you. So the only choice you have is Hispanic.

Social definitions of race are neither static nor universal…nor immune to bureaucracy

This is far from the first time bureaucratic lines around race and ethnicity have been redrawn. Different federal policies and amendments thereto have led people to alter their racial and ethnic identities for hundreds of years in America.

The most obvious example would be the term “Hispanic,” which was first officially used in the 1970s. It’s more of a political and bureaucratic convenience than a valid anthropological grouping, and is rarely used outside of the United States. Yet today many Americans celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month, listen to “Hispanic music”, and identify as Hispanics.

Another example would be Indian Americans’ historical flirtation with different racial categories. In the early 1900s, there were several court cases in which individual Indian Americans were determined to be white and non-white, depending on the case. In 1930 and 1940, the census listed “Hindu” as a race, but in 1970 Indians were instructed to self-report as “white.”

By 1980, that had changed again and Indian Americans were grouped under “Asian.” However in 1990, 10% of respondents with Indian origins self-identified as “white” and 5% self-reported as “black,” despite being specifically instructed to check “Asian” by the census. Non-Asian identification rose in generations removed from immigration. Among US-born South Asians, the portion that identified as white rose to 25% in 1990.

Allowing greater leeway in racial reporting has also yielded significant demographic changes.

A change to census policy beginning in 1960 allowed respondents to self-report race, rather than require verification from a local enumerator. As a result, the Native American population has since exploded in a way that can not be explained by birth rates or immigration. A 2000 change that allowed respondents to select multiple races furthered this trend.

em_spring15_2_1
Taken from HUD website

Tilting at windmills

The best lesson is that race in America has nothing to do with biology and is as informed by politics as much as it informs them. Racial identities are more idiosyncratic and plastic than we tend to think of them as being. The census doesn’t–and cannot–tell us about the actual genealogical diversity of America; what it actually measures is our collective perception thereof. That perception and the metrics by which we assess it are constantly changing.

The great irony here is that the OMB and the Census Bureau are both causing and reacting to changes in perceptions of racial identity in America! In order to ask questions the way they think respondents want to hear them, they inadvertently place their thumbs on the scale. Even though racial and ethnic data are self-reported, they will always be influenced by the definitions put forth by the OMB.

The Lost Art of Debate

This recent election cycle has been nothing if not revelatory. Who would have guessed that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were the harbingers of a populist revolt that would leave both major parties in the throes of identity crisis?

But enough punditry; those are considerations for the political class. While they meet behind closed doors in Washington, We the People should revisit the ancient and sacred art of civil debate and contemplate why so many of us abandoned it.

This isn’t to say that people haven’t fought for what they believe in. Indeed, part of the problem is that many of us confuse fighting with debate. Debate requires patience, empathy, clarity, and above all, an open mind. Fighting requires very little beyond the hubris to mistake conviction for virtue (for examples, visit Facebook, YouTube, or twitter).

To debate someone you have to respect them enough to let them finish a sentence. You have to be willing to let them construct an argument against you under the assumption that you will later be able to successfully challenge its premise. You must also open yourself to the idea that there are realistic limits to your own knowledge and perception.

The bravest thing you can do is give someone time to speak against you. Conversely, resorting to ad hominem, laying waste to innumerable straw men, and shutting out dissent are the strategies of cowards: the easy way out.

Too often these days we lack the bravery to face our ideological opponents. We go online and read news sources that confirm our opinions; we shame our detractors into silence; we withdraw to be with our own kind. Consider that this year over 1,700 counties voted with margins 20 points different than the national vote while only around 250 voted within 5 points of the national vote. At the Washington Post, Phillip Bump writes that two thirds of Clinton and Trump supporters had few to no friends supporting the other candidate. The lukewarm comfort of our echo chambers keeps us content to ignore that ours is a big world.

Nowhere has this tendency become as evident as on college campuses, which have sadly become ideologically homogeneous to the point of enfeeblement. Recently, colleges have developed a disturbing trend of turning away controversial speakers at the request of students. Between 2015 and 2016, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education counts 52 attempts to disinvite speakers based on student opposition, of which 24 were successful.

Following the election of Donald Trump, there was a widespread and embarrassing exhibition of incredulity. The dangers and consequences of the echo chamber were made apparent.

Rather than take this as an opportunity for introspection, some have chosen to double down. More than a few colleges granted accommodations to their students, ranging from postponing exams to providing “breathing spaces”—rooms containing pets and coloring books—to students who felt stressed by the results. Many smart people took to social media to excoriate others they’d never met, or tried to understand. Is it any wonder that those who have shied from ideological opposition wither in its face?

A closed mind cannot aspire to persuasion. A theory is not made stronger without facing resistance. If you want people to listen to you, as presumably we all do, you should be willing to hear them out. That means reading news from sources that make you uncomfortable and trying to engage people who aren’t like you without writing them off as bigots. It means reaffirming the value of unpopular speech, denouncing censorship, and moving past identity politics. It won’t be easy, but it will be worth it.

For the good of our society, it’s time to revive the art of debate and put aside the intellectual lethargy that precludes it.

The Political Impoverishment of America

We’re coming off one hell of a Friday. Released material of both the Democratic and Republican nominees confirms the fears of their respective less-than-fervent supporters: namely that Clinton is an opportunistic liar and that Trump exhibits a moral deficiency that should and will render him unelectable.

A third, fourth, or fifth voice in tomorrow’s debate would be pretty nice right about now.

Unfortunately for We the People, that’s not really up to us. The decision falls solely within the purview of the Commission on Presidential Debates: a non-profit run by the Democratic and Republican parties–because why not? The CPD sets a threshold of 15% that a prospective candidate must reach in 5 national polls, which are conducted in part by some heavily partisan organizations and may not include third party candidates’ names at all.

Somehow, in the same country where we have more types of shoes and deodorant than Bernie Sanders can shake a stick at, we’re left with a binary choice (in practical terms) when it comes to electing a national leader.

For those of us who equate choice with wealth, it’s no shock that severe barriers to entry have left us politically poorer than we should be. Most Americans, after all, are not members of either major party and probably hold an eclectic set of views. Neither candidate is viewed favorably by the public.

But alas, this is life under political duopoly where the players are also the referees. It’s understandable that the two major parties wouldn’t be excited about the prospect of ceding some of their influence. What’s less understandable is the willingness of American “intelligentsia” to play along.

The New York Times has gone into full attack mode to dissuade voters from seeking alternative presidential options. From the opinion section, Paul Krugman and Charles Blow submit missives that malign voters whose opinions diverge from their own (infuriatingly, Krugman’s column, entitled “Vote as if It Matters”, tells voters that “nobody cares” if they use their votes in protest).

Less forgivably, writing in the Politics section can be found using discredited scare tactics to frighten voters away from making their own choices:

And, in what is one of the most difficult barriers for Mrs. Clinton to break through, young people often display little understanding of how a protest vote for a third-party candidate, or not voting at all, can alter the outcome of a close election.

The vast majority of millennials were not old enough to vote in 2000, when Ralph Nader ran as the Green Party nominee and, with the strong backing of young voters, helped cost Vice President Al Gore the presidency.

Hypothesis easily turns to axiom in a feedback loop. Instead of looking inward (300,000 registered Democrats voted for Bush in Florida in 2000), partisans choose to punch down at political minorities (Nader had 90,000 votes in Florida, only 24,000 of which were from registered Democrats) because that absolves them of the responsibility to produce better candidates.

Like any cartel, the political establishment excels at serving itself while being unresponsive to clients (voters). As long as the electorate is willing to swallow the idea that they must choose between the options laid out for them by Democrats and Republicans, that isn’t going to change. The truth is we do have a choice; it’s just a matter of exercising it.

Smith College Protests: Beneath Outrage, Statistical Confusion

Two leaked letters between staff and administrators at the Smith College School for Social Work have led to mass student protests of perceived institutional racism.

Professors alleged that admissions staff were doing a disservice–particularly to minority students–by admitting unprepared students to the program, despite “overwhelming data that demonstrates that many…students, including white­-identified students, cannot offer clients a social work intervention that is based upon competence, skills and ethics.”

The unnamed source of the leak, as well as students, took umbrage over some of the terminology and implications of the letters, citing “violent, racist rhetoric.”

Protests at Smith College are somewhat of a perennial occurrence, but this case is particularly interesting because it deals in part with matters that can be verified through existing data. Moreover, arguments from the students present good opportunities to debunk common fallacious assumptions and underscore the importance of viewing statistics in proper context.

The first such assumption is that members of differing groups should be expected to achieve similar results and outside factors are to blame when this isn’t the case.

Contemporary politics are inundated with references to various forms of inequality. Why would we expect that there would be huge differences across people of varying (ethnic) groups except when it comes to academic performance? Indeed, racial achievement gaps are a widely acknowledged phenomenon.

For this reason, student Chris Watkins’ statement that a “disproportionate amount of black and Latino students” are under review, which can endanger their chances of graduation, isn’t enough to indicate racism. There’s no reason to assume that black and Latin students as a group would do as well as whites or Asians besides that we might find it ideologically appealing.

The second assumption is that multivariate groups of people can be divided neatly by single variables. Speaking of black, Latino, and white students assumes that the students that fall into these categories share all other variables that might affect educational performance.

Students could just as easily be separated by family income or some other variable that correlates to academic success. We wouldn’t expect black students from poor, single-parent households and upper class black students whose parents are Ivy League alumni to succeed at the same rates, even though both are black. Any discussion of racial outcomes that doesn’t take other factors into account is too blunt to deserve much weight.

Even if racism were a factor in determining which students are put on review, as Watkins seems to allege, the proportion of students on review by race wouldn’t tell us that, which brings me to my third point: Gross statistics are easily digestible, but can rarely be trusted to convey the nuances of a situation. Discrimination could be inferred statistically, but Watkins is looking in the wrong place for evidence.

In 1991 the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston found that after adjusting for several factors, blacks loan applicants were rejected about 17% of the time, compared with 11% for white applicants. The Boston FED felt that this was enough to infer racial discrimination on the part of lenders, which confirmed an existing belief held by the researcher.

It was only later that a writer at Forbes pointed out that racial discrimination would be evidenced not in the percentage of rejected applicants, but in the default rates of the borrowers. Lower rates of default among black borrowers would indicate that their applications were being held to tighter standards than comparable white applications. Since black and white default rates were even, it appeared that race was not a deciding factor in the lenders’ decision-making process.

We can apply the same logic to this accusation of faculty racism at Smith College. It’s not enough to demonstrate that a higher proportion of black and Latino students are placed under review; we need to know they’re outperforming white students who are also placed on review, or inversely, if among students not under review whites had a lower GPA than black and Latino students.

Similarly, we can evaluate the complaints of Professor Dennis Miehls and the “Concerned Adjuncts.”

If, as the letters from staff seem to imply, unqualified students were being admitted because of an administrative predilection for non-academic qualities,[1] we would probably find some evidence of that in the incoming GPAs (or other metric of gauging academic preparedness) of students under review relative to their successful peers. Since the Smith College MSW program doesn’t require applicants to take a GRE, work experience, undergraduate GPA, and SAT scores might be the best such indicators.

In a school so often embattled by protests and accusations of racism, students and faculty should take this chance to quantitatively assess whether or not racism is affecting the performance of minority students on campus. With any luck, someone with access to the right data will perform a competent analysis.

[1] It would hardly be the first time a university admitted based on preferential characteristics that had nothing to do with academic success. Among students admitted to medical schools between 2013 and 2016, black and Latino students have lower median GPAs and MCAT scores than white applicants, who are similarly behind Asian applicants. Among applicants with comparable MCAT and GPAs, black and Latino students are far more likely to be accepted, indicating an admissions preference.

 

No, Voting Third Party Isn’t a Waste

Given the historically unpopular candidates presented to us, 2016 should be the year Americans are encouraged to expand our political horizons.

Instead, people interested in a non-binary choice this election face a litany of derisions and insistences that their political preferences should take a back seat to a greater mission of ensuring that either Clinton or Trump not take the White House.

Underneath it all is the accusation—outright or implied—that voting for a third party candidate is a waste of time: a selfish, brazen gesture best left for a less pivotal year.

This is a terrible argument. There’s no such thing as wasting your vote if you’re doing what you want with it: it’s yours! Vote for candidate A, B, or C; don’t vote; write in your uncle’s name. It doesn’t matter. The only real way to waste your vote is to let someone else tell you how to use it.

Once you’ve been dutifully informed by some clairvoyant pundit that you’re wasting your vote by using it the way you want to, the dismissal of third party candidates based on their remote chances of victory is never far behind. This is profoundly confused; a vote isn’t a bet. There’s no prize for picking the candidate that ends up winning.

The point of a representative democracy–other than to elect leaders–is to convey national preferences to politicians (does anyone believe Ralph Nader’s relative success as a Green Party candidate had no impact on the Democrats’ current environmental stances?). The best way to do this is for everyone to vote for candidates and ideas that appeal to them. The worst thing voters can do is reward unresponsive parties with loyalty: that only begets more unresponsiveness.

Increased interest in third parties let’s Democrats and Republicans know they’re off track. In that sense, and especially to anyone interested in the integrity and evolution of our political discourse, third parties have an important role as the barometers of American political attitudes, if not yet heavyweight contenders for the presidency.

Remember: only a very small minority of our country has actually voted for Clinton or Trump at this point! There’s no reason for the rest of us, who have actively or passively declared our disinterest in both, to feel pressured to line up behind either of them. Some will, and that’s fine if it’s what they want at the end of the day; in fact, I’m happy they’ve found something they can believe in. But it’s not unreasonable for the rest of us to pursue options that we find more personally appealing.

Pluralism and diversity are, at least ostensibly, integral to the American political experience. I can think of nothing worse for our nation than a fear-driven dichotomy whereby we are encouraged to re-imagine second worst as synonymous with best. If we want to be happy with the results of our electoral process, we should start by being more honest about what we want from politicians. The best way to do that is in the voting booth.