SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
affirmative action
Woke Is the New Red
In the 1950s “communist” was the slur of choice to attack those focused on equity, particularly for people of color.
Aug 20, 2023
Over half of Republicans agree that “fighting woke ideology in our schools and businesses” is more important than protecting Social Security and Medicare, finds a recent Wall Street Journalsurvey.
“Florida is where woke comes to die,” brags the state’s governor Ron DeSantis, “woke” is “basically a war on the truth.” Under the banner of anti-woke, he enacted sweeping limitations on what can be taught in public schools, a six-week abortion ban, and America’s cruelest anti-trans policies.
For DeSantis, the “woke” are “cultural Marxists” who are to blame for what’s broken in America.
We’ve endured a long history of labels that mislead, divide, and hinder us. So, let’s stop the name calling, listen to the actual agenda of those with whom we think we differ, and engage in real conversation.
Merriam-Webster defines “woke” first as being “aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice).” The term took off in 2014 after Michael Brown was shot in Ferguson, Missouri, and then came to be used in the Black Lives Matter movement.
Today, “woke” is a sweeping, ill-defined insult making it harder to find common ground essential to reforms benefiting most Americans, such as lifting the minimum wage.
For those who lived through the 1950s it rings painful bells. Back then, “communist” was the slur of choice to attack those focused on equity, particularly for people of color. The McCarthy-era witch hunt caused as many as 12,000 people to lose their jobs.
Growing up in Fort Worth, Texas, in the early ’50s my parents helped found the first Unitarian church and to integrate it. The FBI took notice. I’ll never forget an agent knocking on our door as part of the agency’s investigation of our church. The inquiry was scary enough to shrink our membership. It didn’t shut us down but did lead to several members being fired from their jobs.
As a kid, I thought that we were suspect in the eyes of the FBI because Unitarians were seen as atheists, and atheism was associated with communism. Only recently did I learn my storyline was wrong.
With access to church archives, I discovered a letter from someone in our congregation to J. Edgar Hoover complaining that a member of our church had been questioned by two FBI agents at his home. The letter stated that “Among other questions, this man was asked what he thought of racial equality for Negroes, would he marry a Negro, and whether or not he attended the Unitarian Church.” He added: “I think you will agree these questions are completely out of line.”
Hoover’s response? “No questions were asked by representatives of this Bureau such as are alleged in your letter.”
At about the same time I uncovered these documents, someone in my extended family shared with me his related experience with the FBI. During the Korean War, the army had called him to serve. But when the recruiter learned he was a member of the NAACP, my relative was told that he was no longer qualified because that affiliation meant he was likely a communist.
Today, “woke” as a put down is similarly worrying. The term is derived from African American Vernacular English, meaning to be “alert to racial prejudice and discrimination.” It could have become a rallying cry for a better America. Especially now, as the Supreme Court has rejected affirmative action, facing racism’s deep and painful harm becomes even more urgent.
We’ve endured a long history of labels that mislead, divide, and hinder us. So, let’s stop the name calling, listen to the actual agenda of those with whom we think we differ, and engage in real conversation. We might discover common ground on which we can all advance.
We would then be able to tackle the long-standing, anti-democratic economic and political rules that generate income inequality more extreme than in 109 countries—including all of the Western, industrial world—and wealth so tightly held that the top 1% control almost as much as the bottom 90%. Such unequal economic power harms us all, as it is linked to poorer health and education, greater violence, and other social ills. Its effects also infuse our political lives, twisting policies to further favor the few and undermining democracy itself.
Together we could in fact wake up to what truly harms us and thus become eager to join hands for the benefit of all.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressive Senators Urge Education Department to End Legacy, Donor Preferences in College Admissions
"Colleges and universities are a path towards opportunity, but this opportunity should not be locked behind an ivory tower."
Aug 15, 2023
A trio of progressive New England senators on Monday called on U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to use his powers "to even the playing field for college applicants by helping to end preferential treatment" for higher education aspirants who are the children of alumni and donors.
"In its June decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the United States Supreme Court once again overturned decades of settled precedent, this time gutting the use of affirmative action in college admissions," Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote in a letter to Cardona made public Tuesday.
"The court's decision strikes a blow against diversity in higher education while keeping intact harmful practices that advantage the wealthy and well-connected," the senators asserted. "The U.S. Department of Education must respond."
The lawmakers implored Cardona to "immediately take steps to mitigate the impact of this Supreme Court decision, including by using your advisory and enforcement authority to help effectively end preferential treatment given to children of alumni—legacy admissions—and donors and help ensure a more even playing field for students applying to college."
The senators say those steps should include:
- Providing resources to colleges and universities to support their transitions away from legacy and donor preferences;
- Aggressively pursuing investigations of complaints regarding legacy and donor preference and other admissions policies that provide preferential treatment;
- Refusing to provide federal funding to universities that continue to preference legacy and donor admissions to disproportionately benefit affluent, white students; and,
- Commissioning a report on the detrimental effects of legacy admissions and donor preference.
"Colleges and universities are a path towards opportunity, but this opportunity should not be locked behind an ivory tower," the lawmakers stressed. "We must ensure that future generations will not be weighed down by the inequities of our past. We must endeavor to give every student the opportunity to fulfill their educational dreams."
The lawmakers' letter follows the launch last month of a Department of Education civil rights probe of Harvard University's legacy admissions program and a lawsuit filed by civil rights groups challenging the elite Massachusetts school's preferential treatment of applicants related to alumni and donors—a policy the litigants say "severely damages and harms" prospective students of color.
A recent study by economists at Harvard revealed that legacy students were nearly four times likelier to be admitted than other applicants with identical test scores.
Last year, U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) introduced the Fair College Admissions for Students Act, which would bar colleges and universities from favoring the children of alumni and donors during the admissions process.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Affirmative Action Dies, How Can Fairness Thrive?
To right the wrongs of the Supreme Court decision, let us rethink access to higher-ed from the bottom up.
Aug 09, 2023
Could the death of affirmative action stir us to face the many barriers to educational equity hiding in plain sight?
Among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries we rank sixth, just behind the U.K., in “most educated population.” Not bad, but we can do better. Standing in our way is the daunting cost of higher education combined with income inequality more extreme than in 110 nations. Such inequality most harms Americans of color: a group whose poverty rate in 2019 was more than double that of non-Hispanic white Americans.
Even our public universities require a family to come up with over $100,000 for a child’s four-year education. From 2010 to 2020 the yearly average tuition and fees at public universities grew from $7,132 to $9,349 and at private universities from $22,677 to $32,769. Of course, families must cover housing and living expenses as well.
We need to ensure more Americans can access the socioeconomic springboard that is higher-level education. We can do this by building more public universities; but without the exclusivity found today at many top-class public institutions.
One reason the cost is so high is that for years our colleges and universities have not kept up with growing demand. Over a decade, 2010 to 2020, our population grew by 23 million while the number of degree-granting institutions fell almost 15%, from 4,599 to 3,931. The number of undergraduates dropped by about 3 million.
Yet, earning an undergraduate degree, compared to only a high school diploma, has huge, life-long impacts: Without that degree you are twice as likely to be unemployed. Plus, lifelong earnings are 75% lower without a bachelor’s degree. Overall, despite the burden of college debt, the return on investment associated with getting a degree is 14%—double that of investing in stocks.
These forces have created a squeeze on upper-level education, as more potential students face fewer and fewer opportunities at universities.
As competition tightens it should be no surprise that in 2017 38 top U.S. institutions of higher education had more students from the top 1% of earners than from the entire bottom 60% of earners.
Children with stronger financial footing no doubt feel more parental pressure to go to college and are more likely to have impressive applications. Colleges are 1.5 times more likely to give wealthier students higher scores for extracurriculars than their lower-class peers. Of course, many differences give them an edge: Better-funded schools—due to their towns’ higher property values—no doubt offer superior learning opportunities. Additionally, instead of having to rush to an after-school job, children in wealthier families can pursue their hobbies and academic interests.
More than half of students with 1500+ SAT scores have parents in the top 25% of earners, and one-fifth of top SAT scorers come from the top 1%. True, 80% of schools don’t require these standardized tests. Nonetheless, a good score still gives one an advantage.
Finally, from a purely fiscal perspective, a university would rather admit a kid paying full tuition than one admitted with reduced tuition and loans.
With the number of total undergraduates falling and the share of better-prepared wealthy applicants growing, potentially outstanding students are left behind as opportunities disappear. They are disproportionately Hispanic and African American.
Driving this injustice in college admissions is the overall shortage of opportunities in higher-ed. Students suffering the most are not those who would’ve, could’ve, should’ve gone to Harvard, but because affirmative action died, will have to “settle” for Boston University. Those suffering the most are those denied the chance to go to college at all.
We need to ensure more Americans can access the socioeconomic springboard that is higher-level education. We can do this by building more public universities; but without the exclusivity found today at many top-class public institutions.
Those applying to the upper echelon of schools don’t need more options. Instead, our goal must be making higher-level education available to those now choosing the workforce when, in their hearts, they want education. We need more UMass Bostons (accepting 79% of applicants) and UC Merceds (accepting 87%)—schools that create the diversity in universities that was long the goal of affirmative action.
To achieve racial and economic justice, let us seize the sad death of affirmative action to motivate enlarging educational opportunities for all. We will then no longer fail the poorest Americans of all races.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular