You are currently browsing Angus Johnston’s articles.
Regular readers will remember that a few weeks ago an administrator at CUNY’s Queensboro Community College threatened to eviscerate the college’s English Department — eliminate composition courses at the college, terminate all adjuncts, halt all job searches, fire full-time faculty — in retaliation for the department’s refusal to scale back its comp courses to comply with Pathways, a controversial new CUNY-wide curricular scheme. It was bizarre, and scary.
The administrator in question eventually apologized in the face of criticism from this site and a bunch of other good folks, and the president of QCC walked back — but didn’t quite close the door on — her threats. The story has been simmering on campus ever since, but there haven’t been any big public developments until now.
Last night the Queensboro Academic Senate met and made it clear that they’re standing by the department and will resist any attempt to go forward with the administration’s threats. I’m still working on getting all the official details out of the meeting, but here’s what I’ve been told so far.
First, in a “nearly unanimous” vote, the Academic Senate passed a resolution affirming Queensboro’s non-negotiable obligation to continue to offer composition courses to its students. “It shall be the official policy of Queensboro Community College,” the resolution declared, that the college “must not violate state law or regulation … jeopardize its accreditations … [or] violate its agreements … by failing to offer courses in sufficient number required for its degree programs.” It further declared that “these obligations must be honored, irrespective of whether Queensboro’s course listings adhere to the specifications of the CUNY Common Required and Flexible Cores.”
Queensboro needs to offer composition, in other words, and as far as the Academic Senate is concerned the college will continue to offer composition, whatever happens with the Pathways fight.
An additional resolution saw more debate, a little more opposition, and a few amendments, and I don’t yet have a precise picture of how that discussion turned out. But in its original form, the second resolution noted the CUNY administration’s lack of attention to “the objections of faculty across CUNY” to the Pathways plan, and called the proposal to scale back composition and similar courses a “particularly problematic” change to “already flawed … schema.” Reviewing showdown between the English department and the QCC administration the resolution declared its “strong support” for the department’s “academic freedom … to render their best academic judgments” on such issues.
In a meatier, forward-looking passage the resolution — again, as originally proposed — declared that “no further review” of Pathways course specifications “can proceed … until and unless the academic judgment and academic freedom of the faculty are fully respected, and guaranteed, in a written document” and the threats to cut course offerings and faculty “is formally retracted” in writing.
Finally, the resolution declared that “no curriculum, adopted by the faculty under pressure and constraint, should ever be interpreted by Administrative personnel … or any media organization as denoting any degree of faculty support for the Pathways initiative, which is overwhelmingly rejected by members of our faculty as harmful to our students and poor educational practice.”
I’m told that this resolution passed by a margin of about four-to-one after unspecified amendments. As soon as I have the exact details I’ll pass them along.
For an hour this morning, starting at eleven o’clock Eastern Time, the US Supreme Court will interrogate lawyers representing the state of Texas, the federal government, and a young woman who recently graduated from Louisiana State University. That woman, Abigail Noel Fisher, is suing the University of Texas in an attempt to recoup a $50 application fee and a $50 housing deposit that she forfeited when she was denied admission to UT several years ago.
It’s a weird case, and it gets weirder. The Supremes last addressed affirmative action in college admissions — the issue at the heart of today’s case — just nine years ago, with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor fashioning a narrow compromise that allowed campuses to consider race (but not in any quantifiable way) in order to promote campus diversity (but not as redress for past discrimination). Many observers consider it unlikely that Justice Anthony Kennedy will be persuaded to completely abandon that standard, particularly so soon after it was implemented.
Complicating things even further, the newest member of the Court — Elena Kagan, herself a former university dean (Harvard Law, 2003-2009) — won’t be participating, having recused herself due to her involvement in the case during her brief tenure as President Obama’s first Solicitor General.
The Court is deeply divided on the issue of affirmative action right now. In a 2007 opinion Chief Justice Roberts — joined by the Court’s other three staunch conservatives — wrote flatly (and famously) that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” That doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room.
On the other side, Kagan is as noted sitting this one out, and two of her liberal colleagues are on record in support of affirmative action in college admissions. The third, Obama appointee Sonia Sotomayor, hasn’t written on the subject yet as a justice, but she seems an unlikely defector on this issue.
Given all this, and barring any truly bizarre surprises, there are three ways this decision could come down:
First, Justice Kennedy could join with the Court’s four most conservative justices in a decision striking down affirmative action in college admissions entirely. Many observers consider this unlikely, but others note that Kennedy has never cast a vote on the Court in favor of an affirmative action policy.
Second, Kennedy could join with the Court’s conservatives in a decision that preserves campus affirmative action, but limits it even further. Considering the narrow scope in which admissions officials currently operate, and the fact that it was Kennedy himself who established the present framework, this is likely to result in a head-scratcher of a decision.
And third, Kennedy could join with the Court’s three liberals in affirming the status quo, or something similar. This would mean a four-four tie, which would, given the Court’s rules, leave the Texas admissions setup intact without creating new precedent. If that happens, the Court may well call a do-over with a new case — and Kagan’s participation — in the fairly near future.
If I had to bet, I’d bet on number three. But I wouldn’t bet much. (For a deeper analysis of all this from someone who knows much more than I do, check out this detailed analysis from SCOTUSblog. For my own take on the moral and practical issues at stake in the case, read this rant from yesterday.)
Oral arguments are at eleven o’clock this morning. Transcripts should be made available this afternoon, and audio at the end of the week. (The Supreme Court does not permit video recording or livestreaming of oral arguments.) Expect lots of wild guessing and speculation by the end of the day about what the arguments mean (including from me), and look for an actual decision to come down sometime next spring.
Tomorrow the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Fisher v. Texas, addressing the constitutionality of affirmative action in college admissions. I wrote a piece on the history of the case and how the Court might rule back in July, and I’d encourage you to go take a look at it if you’re not familiar with the background. But this morning I want to talk about something a little less technical.
Here’s how the case’s plaintiff, rejected University of Texas applicant Abigail Fisher, described what’s at stake in today’s New York Times:
“I’m hoping that they’ll completely take race out of the issue in terms of admissions and that everyone will be able to get into any school that they want no matter what race they are but solely based on their merit and if they work hard for it.”
For better or worse, that’s not remotely on the table.
Colleges accept and reject candidates for all sorts of reasons that have little or nothing to do with merit. They take legacies — relatives of other graduates — because those admissions are good for alumni donations. They accept football players because bowl games and shirt sales are good for the bottom line. Many private colleges consider a student’s wealth in admissions decisions, and many publics are pumping up out-of-state admissions to enhance tuition revenue. None of this has anything to do with merit.
And all of it is completely legal.
That’s worth underscoring. It’s not illegal to discriminate on the basis of non-academic factors in college admissions in the United States. There are no barriers to rejecting students because they’re not rich, or went to crappy high schools, or studied the piccolo instead of the oboe in a year when you’ve already got enough piccolo players. Unfair, arbitrary, and venal admissions standards are part of the fabric of every selective college’s decision-making process.
And there’s something truly twisted about the argument that all of that is okay but affirmative action — precisely because it’s intended as a remedy for the country’s long history of racial discrimination, a history that didn’t end in 1865 or 1954 or 1963, but continues to this very day — is not.
When we as a country say that it’s right and just to accept one student because her high school had a great gymnastics program or her parents are big donors or her grandfather was a dean while while we simultaneously recoil at the “racism” of giving a boost to another student who, as a result of the nation’s persisting inequities, had no chance to acquire any of those advantages, we aren’t saying we want to move beyond our history of racial discrimination.
We’re saying we want to lock it in.
Folk singer Phil Ochs’ first album was 1964’s All the News that’s Fit to Sing. Only it wasn’t.
Sometime in the next few months we’re going to sail unknowing past the 50th anniversary of the recording of Ochs’ real first album, a record he appeared on anonymously and kept secret until his death. Released in 1963 — nobody knows when in 1963 — under the name of a non-existent band called The Campers, “Camp Favorites” was a cheap quickie album of kids’ camp songs that Ochs recorded for hire with a (still anonymous) female singer, a banjo player, and a small kids’ chorus.
Ochs biographer David Cohen first stumbled across the existence of the album in 1998, and wasn’t able to actually confirm its existence until two years later. If you’re an Ochs fan it’s a great story, told in full here. And now that it’s 2012, most of the tracks on the album are up on YouTube.
Which brings me to this next bit.
Cannibal King is a camp song I’d never heard of before, though Googling shows that it’s still kind of popular. It can be found in a variety of different versions in a variety of different places online, but here are the lyrics from the Ochs version:
A cannibal king with a brass nose ring fell in love with a beautiful maid
And every night by the pale moonlight across the lake he came
Oh a hug and a kiss for the Zulu miss in the shade of the old palm tree
Every time they met they sang a duet and it sounded like this to me…
Kiss kiss … kiss kiss … kiss kiss dah dee dah doh-oh-oh
Kiss kiss … kiss kiss … because he loved her so
Now a guy named Jim who was mighty thin fell in love with a stout young maid
Each afternoon they’d sit and spoon when nobody else was home
Oh a hug and a kiss for the sweet young miss in the shade of the old pine tree
Every time they’d meet it was oh so sweet and it sounded like this to me…
Kiss kiss … kiss kiss … kiss kiss dah dee dah doh-oh-oh
Kiss kiss … kiss kiss … because he loved her so
Oh a Congo chief who had false teeth fell in love with a Congo maid
And every dawn just as sure as you’re born he’d stop to say hello
Oh a hug and a kiss for the Congo miss in the shade of the yum-yum tree
Every time he came it was just the same and it sounded like this to me…
Kiss kiss … kiss kiss … kiss kiss dah dee dah doh-oh-oh
Kiss kiss … kiss kiss … because he loved her so
An Indian brave began to rave when he saw an Indian miss
He built a new canoe for two and paddled her every night
Oh a hug and a kiss for the Indian miss as they sailed across the sea
They both got wet but they sang a duet and it sounded like this to me…
Kiss kiss … kiss kiss … kiss kiss dah dee dah doh-oh-oh
Kiss kiss … kiss kiss … because he loved her so.
Ah, 1960s kid culture. Not hard to see why Phil didn’t tend to brag about it.
In April the Associated Press published a story that’s gotten a lot of attention from education activists. According to the AP, a quarter of all recent college graduates are unemployed, and another quarter are “underemployed” — working part-time jobs, or jobs that don’t require a college degree. Mitt Romney has incorporated this talking point into his campaign speeches, in a highly distorted version that claims — as he did in Wednesday’s debate — that “fifty percent of college graduates this year can’t find work.”
It’s a huge leap from 25% to 50%, of course, but the claim hasn’t gotten a lot of pushback — in part because a few weeks ago the Politifact website rated Romney’s version of the stat “Mostly True.” I wrote all this up yesterday, and concluded that while Romney was misstating the facts, the AP had screwed up too and Politifact had made a bad call.
Yesterday afternoon I reached out to the AP’s main source, a Northeastern University economist named Andrew Sum who Politifact had also cited in their coverage of the issue.
He wrote back a few hours later, and said that both the AP and Politifact had bungled the story. Here’s how:
The total adult population of the United States is about 250 million, and the total employed population of the country is about 60% of that. But we don’t go around saying that 40% of the population is unemployed, because that wouldn’t make sense. Some people are retired, others are in school, and others are raising kids or hitchhiking cross-country or choosing not to work for any of a hundred other reasons.
And in compiling at their unemployment statistics for young college-educated Americans, the AP apparently made exactly that error.
According to Professor Sum, the employment rate for young college graduates is “in the high 70s,” within striking distance of the AP’s 75% estimate. But as he points out, that figure includes people who are out of the workforce voluntarily — if you add those who have chosen to go to grad school, for instance, the figure rises above 80%.
I haven’t seen Professor Sum’s data yet (I asked late last night, and haven’t yet heard back), so I can’t say for sure what his figures on college-educated youth unemployment are. But they’re clearly more in line with the 6.8% to 9.4% range that I reported yesterday than the 25% the AP implied (and Politifact endorsed), never mind the 50% in Romney’s attack.
And this stuff matters. It matters because for all the flaws in the American university system, higher education is still a tool for social mobility in this country. Unemployment rates are lower in every age and gender and race category for who have college degrees than for those who don’t, and income averages are far higher. If wildly exaggerated claims of college-grad unemployment have the effect of pushing students out of higher ed, most of those students will suffer. It’s just not right.
And that brings us back to the AP, and to Politifact. Professor Sum says the Associated Press “misrepresented” his findings, and that Politifact “ignored” the corrections he presented to them. In so doing, both news organizations have disseminated false information, provided ammunition to wrongheaded attacks on higher education, misled the nation’s students and policymakers, and given cover to repeated blatantly false statements made by the Republican nominee for the presidency of the United States.
Like I say, it’s just not right.
October 7 Update | Still no correction from Politifact, and I’ve noticed another, more egregious version of the error elsewhere on their site.
Back in August, a few weeks before they took on Mitt Romney’s version of the 50% unemployment rate claim, Politifact devoted an article to addressing a near-identical assertion in a presidential election ad put together by a group called the Republican Jewish Coalition. Like Romney, the RJC made the false claim that “one out of every two kids who are graduating college right now can’t find a job.”
Unfortunately, Politifact took the same “not having an ideal job is pretty much the same as not having any job at all” tack here that it would later take with Romney’s claim, and judged the assertion “Mostly True.” Even worse, they misrepresent Professor Sum’s findings even more baldly in this piece than in the September one, claiming — in flat contradiction with what Professor Sum told me about his conclusions — that “according to Sum’s research, about a quarter of recent college grads literally can’t find a job.”
October 16 Update | Still no correction, update, or acknowledgment from Politifact, though I reached out individually to each of the writers, researchers, and editors on the story a week ago today. I sent them all a link to this post via Twitter just now — we’ll see if that helps.
studentactivism.net 
Recent Comments