An “Indelicate” proposal of “Just Say NO.”

President Barack Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan are trotting about the country touting a federal government policy that the goal of all public schools is to prepare students to be college and career ready. Toward this aim, substantial funds are directed to support beleaguered public schools if they buy into the Administration policies. Further, penalties and threats to deny or take away funding are brandished if schools do not embrace this policy.

To be clear, as a holder of undergraduate and advanced degrees, I am not in any way opposed to the pursuit of college and higher education. As a former school district board member and advisor, I am also well aware of the aspiration to provide students with the educational services best designed to help student maximize their intellectual development and curiosity. At the same time, my experience tells me that not every student is suited for or prepared for the demands of higher education at the time of graduation from high school. Keep in mind that the notion of immediate entry into university from high school has not always been the norm. So while I agree that public schools should strive to provide a foundation for each student who wishes to build an academic career, I am not in agreement with a federal policy that drives a system to force students into modes and paths for which they are indisposed, ill suited and ill prepared. But that is not the gravamen of this essay.

Recent reports suggest that the average undergraduate education in the United States now has a price tag of around $80,000. Some of that cost is covered in grants and scholarships but a substantial part is covered by loans and indebtedness. The average college graduate has at least $24,000 in remaining debt, and many have six figure obligations. In perspective, graduation from college mortgages the future of our youth more heavily than would purchase of a home. A mortgage on a home can be discharged in bankruptcy while a student loan cannot be discharged for the student or the parent who co-signs.

In an economy where a very large portion of graduates do not have jobs to go to that will enable them to pay these mountainous debts, the exhortation and federal pressure that pushes college education as the "norm" is a cruel hoax. Absent federal government allocation of funding and reform of predatory lending programs and practices, the Administration should rethink and rescind its policy. I am not suggesting abandonment of efforts to improve the quality of public school instruction. It is not the goal, but rather the methodology that is unsound. There is an old challenge from the streets: “put your money where your mouth is.” And the challenge applies to the federal government and its policy of college readiness.

Young people should not be forced into college at the expense of their future economic health simply to advance a slogan. Unless the college opportunity and experience is made economically viable, the policy lacks balance and coherence.

Of course this simply exposes the class division in the country. The wealthy have always been able to purchase college educations for their children. Unless demonstrably talented enough to merit large grants and scholarships, by white middle and upper class standards, poor and minority students have been denied equality of opportunity. The middle class has been under increasing pressure and attack, and these are the ones who suffer the ironic deception of graduating from college with a pile of debt in one hand and a useless resume in the other.

So the indelicate suggestion to the federal government should be to take the policy of “college readiness” for all students and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. Until the same federal government is prepared to enact measures that provide reasonable financial support that makes a college education economically viable, it is guilty of the same type of irresponsible predatory tactics that induced home buyers and owners to take out unaffordable mortgages that led to the housing bubble and subsequent economic tragedy from which the country is still suffering. Pressuring youth with the message that a college education is essential when seeking such a degree can lead to financial indentured servitude or ruin is simply wrong.

One more point might be added. The “trickle down” theory does not work. One would imagine that wealthy business owners who depend upon a well educated workforce would act in their own self interest by providing endowments for colleges and universities with the tax breaks that are served up by Congress and the Administration. If the theory worked, talented students should have financial support available so that going to college would not result in a huge loan obligation. But the reality is not so. Employers could also offer to pay the equivalent of up to one year’s salary toward a new hire’s student loans for each position filled which requires at least an undergraduate degree, with a substantial tax deduction for doing so. Such a targeted proposal would be far more beneficial to the economy than extending tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% in the nation. It would also be a coherent strategy that would help make the policy of universal college readiness rational. But no such proposal is on the table or even being considered. So when the federal government comes knocking with demands to change public education programs to require college readiness for every student…..Just Say NO.

Wikileaks and the Big Bad Wolf

A good doctor seeks to determine and reduce or eliminate the cause, not just treat the symptoms.

Why is it that no on seems to consider the strategy that the US government should stop lying to its citizens and engaging in a policy that creates more terrorists and terrorism?

We are supposed to take as a "given" that the terrorist fear and hysteria is a "way of life." But it clearly has not always been so, even under the Reagan Administration, and he was the darling of the Right Wing. Bill Clinton warned of GWB's foreign policy ineptitude by saying that: "you cannot kill enemies as fast as you can make them, so it is better to try to make friends." Bush never listened and declared a "Crusade" against Islam and the Arab culture. To consolidate his domestic power, Bush sought the Patriot Act to take away civil liberties and create a climate of fear and hysteria. Obama has done little to change this climate, despite mild push back from the public in the form of objections to airport "security" measures.

I do not condone all that Wikileaks has done, but this is something [like the Pentagon Papers] that the government has brought upon itself. Everyone knows that diplomats make candid and derogatory comments about their counterparts. The list of critical sites could probably be developed by any college student with a computer and Google Earth, just like information about military installations of any country, so I think the reaction is deliberately overblown. For example, we know exactly where and at what pace North Korea and Iran are building facilities that may or may not contain work on nuclear projects. Is it reasonable to think that other countries do not know about US installations? seriously? But the volume of disclosure runs the risk of being indiscriminate and releasing a couple of things that could actually be damaging.

The government insists on a culture of deception and concealment of information the public has a legitimate interest in knowing. If national security were actually used as a claim or complaint when national security was really at issue, people would be more respectful of government claims. But knowing what books people check out at the local library is a long stretch from any legitimate claim of national security. So no one believes or respects the government complaints anymore. They have lied and cried wolf too many times in order to maintain a climate of fear about "terrorism." They can threaten to prosecute Wikileaks, but that will not alter the deep distrust that exists about government integrity and transparency. A wise man once said that trust cannot be obtained at the end of a barrel of a gun, it must be earned. Does the US government want to be just feared, or respected?

True journalism [whose duty is as a watchdog to keep the government honest] has died or been sold to corporate greed. The youth of today have abandoned "mainstream media" as a source of credible information. Sadly, no one respects the media [Fox, MSNBC, etc] as a source of credible information any longer. Weather reports, to the extent that one could ever rely on them, are about the only thing people take seriously at all anymore.

That opens the door to a form of citizen action or vigilante justice [depending upon your viewpoint] that is Wikileaks. Prosecuting Assange may give the appearance of control, from the storm trooper perspective, but it is just symptomatic treatment. It will only deepen the distrust and disrespect toward a government that lies to its people, and crushes anyone who threatens to expose the deceit.