Most fair-minded people believe that everyone deserves an equal chance—irrespective of race, gender, or religion. Nowadays this frequently boils down to providing everyone with an opportunity to acquire a good education.
The question, however, is how best to achieve this? Many people, especially liberals, assume that this must entail what has been called “affirmative action.” They want to make sure that minorities are not excluded from higher education and therefore they support balanced admission “objectives.”
According to the advocates of this policy, colleges should set admission targets for African-Americans—but not quotas. In practice, of course, these come down to exactly the same thing. They also say that race should serve only as a tiebreaker when candidates’ credentials are fairly close.
In fact, affirmative action has been used to admit minorities to elite colleges for which their academic preparation is wholly inadequate. The effects of this strategy have recently been chronicled by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor in their book, Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended To Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It (Basic Books, 2012).
As this work’s title suggests, the lead author’s research demonstrates that students who are admitted to colleges for which they are unprepared suffer serious injury. Many do not graduate, or if they do, they do so poorly that they have difficulty entering the job market.
Good intentions do not always produce good results. For a long time critics have been asking how it benefits a student to be admitted to a school, but then fail out? Now the data is in and it confirms the worst fears of the doubters. The supposed beneficiaries of affirmative action do less well than their peers who do not receive this presumed assistance.
Sander, who is a law professor at UCLA, has spent over a decade and a half studying the admissions policies of law schools. He finds, and this has been confirmed by other researchers, that students with low grades and test scores cannot keep up with the demands of the more rigorous schools.
He also finds that they become discouraged and drop out. Or if they graduate, they cannot pass the bar exam and therefore do not become lawyers. Meanwhile, students who are better matched with lower ranking schools get better grades and do pass the bar.
The point is that what matters is how well a student’s academic grounding fits the standards of a particular school. The better the fit; the better the outcome. Efforts to vault people into programs they cannot handle does them no good. It only leads to frustration and bitterness.
To me, one of the worst aspects of this discovery is how it has been dealt with by academics. For the most part, they are in denial. So committed are they to affirmative action that they refuse to alter their programs.
Thus, when California, by law, forbade its university system from using race to determine college admission, the professors and administrators were up in arms. They predicted complete disaster, with African-American students totally excluded for top-tier schools.
And indeed, the number of blacks admitted to Berkeley fell substantially. But the surprise was that the number who graduated increased. Since only well-prepared students were accepted, these could, and did, keep up.
So what was the lesson that the academics learned? Well, they didn’t learn. They were so determined to keep affirmative action in place; they changed their admission policies. Instead of relying on grades and test scores, their practices became more “holistic” and hence subjective.
In other words, the university officials cheated. They stacked the deck to bring back minorities in the desired numbers. As an academic, I was mortified that scholars who supposedly believe in empirical facts rejected these in favor of touchy-feely moral sentiments.
So where does this leave us? Will our colleges institute reforms that actually make things better, or will they remain in the same anti-intellectual rut?
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Conservatives Cannot Afford to Be Conservative
Football fans will know the strategy. It is called a prevent defense. When you are leading toward the end of the game, instead of trying to score more points you have your defenders drop back in an effort to make sure that the other team does not score. The trouble is this often backfires and allows them to move ahead.
By now many commentators have suggested this was a major reason Mitt Romney lost the election. He could not believe that the country would vote for a man who was both dishonest and a terrible steward of the economy. Why, after all, would anyone want a nation that was both poor and weak?
But people did vote for Obama—because they did not perceive that they were given a dynamic alternative. Mitt was a technocrat. He was an honest man with demonstrable economic skills. I still believe this is exactly what we needed; nevertheless it was not what the voters thought.
As commentators such as the economist Thomas Sowell and the newly seated Texas senator Ted Cruz have counseled, now is not the time to go “moderate.” The electoral problem was not that Republicans failed to resemble Democrats; it was that they were ashamed of being full-blooded Republicans.
Conservatives believe in freedom. Conservatives support a free marketplace. They also favor a smaller government. To these ends, they have rightly defended the constitution and sought to lower the deficit. These are noble objectives, but they are not inspirational.
Remember how Ronald Reagan called us to “greatness.” Remember how during his second presidential campaign he told us that it was “morning in America.” These are not conservative themes. They did not look backwards, but forward. They offered visions of a better world, not a return to an old one.
Freedom isn’t an outmoded concept! Nor is a market-based economy! These are the keys to unleashing the energies and genius of ordinary people. This, therefore, is what erstwhile “conservatives” need to stress; it is what will give the young and moderate a reason to vote Republican.
What I am about to say will offend many people, but I must say it anyway because I believe it is the truth. During this last election cycle Republicans put too many eggs into the evangelical basket. They expected religious conservatives to come out in huge numbers, whereas they did not.
This false assumption prompted the party to select candidates, who sounded as if they favored rape, to shape its image. As a result, social issues, rather than the economy or our future, came to the fore and persuaded moderates that Republicans had nothing new to offer.
This must change. Cruz suggests that conservatives pivot and champion an “opportunity” society. Over a decade ago Newt Gingrich came to a similar conclusion. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton, who evidently believed the same, quickly preempted this strategy.
So opportunity is a good starting point. It speaks to the aspirations of constituencies who have been drifting Democratic, such as the Hispanics and young women, and promises them a better future. Moreover, it tells them this future is in their own hands.
But we need more. We need a renewed call to greatness. Obama has been playing “small ball” and this should be used against him. He keeps on picking at small-scale grievances so as to gather a coalition of those who feel as if they are on the outside looking in.
Republicans consequently have an opening to appeal to Americans as Americans. How can ordinary people take pride in a country that is limping a long, barely keeping its head above water? How can they feel good about having an ambassador shot or about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons?
Reagan drew on the best in the American people. He told them they would succeed if they helped themselves. More than this, he assured them that they had the stuff to do so. Have we somehow grown feebler since then?
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
By now many commentators have suggested this was a major reason Mitt Romney lost the election. He could not believe that the country would vote for a man who was both dishonest and a terrible steward of the economy. Why, after all, would anyone want a nation that was both poor and weak?
But people did vote for Obama—because they did not perceive that they were given a dynamic alternative. Mitt was a technocrat. He was an honest man with demonstrable economic skills. I still believe this is exactly what we needed; nevertheless it was not what the voters thought.
As commentators such as the economist Thomas Sowell and the newly seated Texas senator Ted Cruz have counseled, now is not the time to go “moderate.” The electoral problem was not that Republicans failed to resemble Democrats; it was that they were ashamed of being full-blooded Republicans.
Conservatives believe in freedom. Conservatives support a free marketplace. They also favor a smaller government. To these ends, they have rightly defended the constitution and sought to lower the deficit. These are noble objectives, but they are not inspirational.
Remember how Ronald Reagan called us to “greatness.” Remember how during his second presidential campaign he told us that it was “morning in America.” These are not conservative themes. They did not look backwards, but forward. They offered visions of a better world, not a return to an old one.
Freedom isn’t an outmoded concept! Nor is a market-based economy! These are the keys to unleashing the energies and genius of ordinary people. This, therefore, is what erstwhile “conservatives” need to stress; it is what will give the young and moderate a reason to vote Republican.
What I am about to say will offend many people, but I must say it anyway because I believe it is the truth. During this last election cycle Republicans put too many eggs into the evangelical basket. They expected religious conservatives to come out in huge numbers, whereas they did not.
This false assumption prompted the party to select candidates, who sounded as if they favored rape, to shape its image. As a result, social issues, rather than the economy or our future, came to the fore and persuaded moderates that Republicans had nothing new to offer.
This must change. Cruz suggests that conservatives pivot and champion an “opportunity” society. Over a decade ago Newt Gingrich came to a similar conclusion. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton, who evidently believed the same, quickly preempted this strategy.
So opportunity is a good starting point. It speaks to the aspirations of constituencies who have been drifting Democratic, such as the Hispanics and young women, and promises them a better future. Moreover, it tells them this future is in their own hands.
But we need more. We need a renewed call to greatness. Obama has been playing “small ball” and this should be used against him. He keeps on picking at small-scale grievances so as to gather a coalition of those who feel as if they are on the outside looking in.
Republicans consequently have an opening to appeal to Americans as Americans. How can ordinary people take pride in a country that is limping a long, barely keeping its head above water? How can they feel good about having an ambassador shot or about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons?
Reagan drew on the best in the American people. He told them they would succeed if they helped themselves. More than this, he assured them that they had the stuff to do so. Have we somehow grown feebler since then?
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Defending Liberty on Campus
As an educator, I am quite naturally concerned with maintaining the highest academic standards we can. It is, therefore, with some disquiet that I have observed the creeping attacks on liberty on campus. Instead of an honest marketplace of ideas, we have witnessed the rise of political proselytization.
This is why I am so pleased that a ringing defense of intellectual freedom has been published to unambiguously positive reviews. I know that people are reading less nowadays, but Greg Lukianoff’s “UnLearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate” (Encounter Books, 2012) is worth the time and trouble.
Almost as wonderful as the book’s message is the messenger. Lukianoff, who is FIRE’s (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) chief lawyer an president is an unrepentant liberal. By his own testimony, he has never voted for a Republican in his life—and never plans to.
As Lukianoff himself admits, much of the demagoguery on campus is coming from the left side of the spectrum. That he too recognizes this as a threat to our democratic institutions is a wonderful sign that Americans may yet come together to defend our legacy of freedom.
If we as a nation are to move forward toward “a more perfect union,” it is essential that our colleges and universities create, and disseminate, the innovative ideas that will improve our shared circumstances. This, however, is not possible when only politically correct positions are allowed to flourish.
Almost everyone is aware of how dominant liberals are in the groves of academe. They may be less aware of how this dominance has been translated into censorship and indoctrination. Because he has been fighting these tendencies for many years, Lukianoff provides scores of chilling examples of these trends.
In one well-known instance (from 2007), a student was expelled from an Indiana university for reading the wrong book. This book was about how the KKK had its wings clipped during the 1920’s. In other words, it was aimed at exposing and resisting tyranny.
Nonetheless, an onlooker objected to the book’s cover, which showed robed Klan members, and on this basis alone accused its reader of being a bigot. Solely on these grounds, without so much as a hearing, the school refused to allow the accused to register for any further courses.
Lukianoff also documents cases where university residence halls asked incoming freshmen to reveal their sexual orientation. This was supposedly to facilitate offering special services to gays, but wound up as a device for clamping down on anyone who believed homosexuality is sinful.
Residence programs have also been in the forefront of the battle against racism. This might be applauded if it entailed treating students equally, but all too often “sensitivity” programs have required students to admit that whites are inherently racist, while blacks are incapable of racism.
Disturbingly, when such programs have been challenged in court, the administrators who created them have rallied to their defense. Even when these have been ruled illegal, they introduced subterfuges to keep them going.
In, for me, what was one of the more alarming sequences in Lukianoff’s book, the professional organization to which residence hall officials belong, held a quasi-religious service during which they congratulated themselves on their intransigence.
They lit candles, much as one would in church, to celebrate their devotion to spreading wisdom—as they perceived it. For them, forcing vulnerable students to agree with their own ideological commitments was a sacred cause. That these practices were an affront to freedom of speech and thought never entered their heads.
But it should enter ours. Indeed, it should do more than that. It should arouse us to make certain that self-righteous academics do not confuse their personal beliefs with a liberal education. Higher education should be about examining multiple sides of controversial issues, not foreclosing discussion in the name of pre-determined virtues.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University.
This is why I am so pleased that a ringing defense of intellectual freedom has been published to unambiguously positive reviews. I know that people are reading less nowadays, but Greg Lukianoff’s “UnLearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate” (Encounter Books, 2012) is worth the time and trouble.
Almost as wonderful as the book’s message is the messenger. Lukianoff, who is FIRE’s (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) chief lawyer an president is an unrepentant liberal. By his own testimony, he has never voted for a Republican in his life—and never plans to.
As Lukianoff himself admits, much of the demagoguery on campus is coming from the left side of the spectrum. That he too recognizes this as a threat to our democratic institutions is a wonderful sign that Americans may yet come together to defend our legacy of freedom.
If we as a nation are to move forward toward “a more perfect union,” it is essential that our colleges and universities create, and disseminate, the innovative ideas that will improve our shared circumstances. This, however, is not possible when only politically correct positions are allowed to flourish.
Almost everyone is aware of how dominant liberals are in the groves of academe. They may be less aware of how this dominance has been translated into censorship and indoctrination. Because he has been fighting these tendencies for many years, Lukianoff provides scores of chilling examples of these trends.
In one well-known instance (from 2007), a student was expelled from an Indiana university for reading the wrong book. This book was about how the KKK had its wings clipped during the 1920’s. In other words, it was aimed at exposing and resisting tyranny.
Nonetheless, an onlooker objected to the book’s cover, which showed robed Klan members, and on this basis alone accused its reader of being a bigot. Solely on these grounds, without so much as a hearing, the school refused to allow the accused to register for any further courses.
Lukianoff also documents cases where university residence halls asked incoming freshmen to reveal their sexual orientation. This was supposedly to facilitate offering special services to gays, but wound up as a device for clamping down on anyone who believed homosexuality is sinful.
Residence programs have also been in the forefront of the battle against racism. This might be applauded if it entailed treating students equally, but all too often “sensitivity” programs have required students to admit that whites are inherently racist, while blacks are incapable of racism.
Disturbingly, when such programs have been challenged in court, the administrators who created them have rallied to their defense. Even when these have been ruled illegal, they introduced subterfuges to keep them going.
In, for me, what was one of the more alarming sequences in Lukianoff’s book, the professional organization to which residence hall officials belong, held a quasi-religious service during which they congratulated themselves on their intransigence.
They lit candles, much as one would in church, to celebrate their devotion to spreading wisdom—as they perceived it. For them, forcing vulnerable students to agree with their own ideological commitments was a sacred cause. That these practices were an affront to freedom of speech and thought never entered their heads.
But it should enter ours. Indeed, it should do more than that. It should arouse us to make certain that self-righteous academics do not confuse their personal beliefs with a liberal education. Higher education should be about examining multiple sides of controversial issues, not foreclosing discussion in the name of pre-determined virtues.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
The Year of the Kicked Can
The New Year is upon us and it is time for predictions. No doubt, for the most part, these are like New Year’s resolutions—that is, they are issued with solemnity and with the best of intentions, but they fail to come to fruition.
Nevertheless, I am going to take a stab at reading the tealeaves. Though I too see the future only dimly, there are some things of which we can be certain. One is that taxes will go up and another is that federal spending will rise as well.
Despite all the talk about getting the deficit under control, I see the national debt growing to nearly eighteen trillion before we reach 2014. The reason is simple. Judging from the current evidence, the politicians seem intent on kicking the can down the road once again.
The Republicans have warned that the taxes Democrats are determined to impose will not raise sufficient revenue to lower the annual deficit substantially—and I agree. Yet there seems to be no stopping the liberal juggernaut. In addition to ObamaCare’s hidden taxes, there will be rate increases, even on the Middle Class.
Adding these levies to those of states like California, there is good reason to believe the wealthy will seek to protect their assets. And if they do, revenues will not rise as quickly as projected; hence unfunded spending will grow more rapidly than projected.
Since Democrats also show no inclination to reign in entitlement spending, or discretionary expenditures other than for the military, the gap between government income and outgo should get larger. This may be exacerbated if the economy stalls—as many economists expect.
Under these conditions the need to borrow will continue to mount, as will the Federal Reserve’s policy of printing money. Where this will end is hard to say, but eventually there must be a roaring inflation. The only way this cannot happen is if the laws of economics are suspended.
The reason inflation seems not to have already occurred is that foreigners, whose economies are worse than our own, continue to perceive American bonds as safe. This, however, cannot go on forever. The question is when will the kicked-can explode? It may not be this next year, but it will be some year.
Then there is the international situation. The Middle East continues to boil and Iran keeps getting closer to producing nuclear weapons. Will Obama do anything to reverse this trend? Will Israel?
Again we do not know, but as of now I predict that Barack will maintain the policy he has in the past—that is, he will do nothing. As for Israel, I am not sure it has the strength to save the day without U. S. support.
Where does this leave us? I say in a pretty pickle. There is a very good chance that the economy will slid off the edge and that a host of Islamisized nations will join in an alliance against us. If so, far from achieving peace and prosperity, we will persist in decline and insecurity.
These predictions do not cheer me. They are certainly not intended as an “I told you so” directed at politicians I do, in fact, despise. This is not something I want to happen because, like it or not, we are all in the same boat. Liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, will all be hurt if my fears come to pass.
Of course, we could survive another year. Who knows when the horrors of inflation will arrive? It could be years from now. Also, it just might be that a nuclear-armed Iran will behave itself in the short run.
But what of the long run? When will we as a nation begin looking beyond the immediate future? When will the politicians—and the voters—begin to consider the fate of our children and grandchildren?
Melvyn L. Fein
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Nevertheless, I am going to take a stab at reading the tealeaves. Though I too see the future only dimly, there are some things of which we can be certain. One is that taxes will go up and another is that federal spending will rise as well.
Despite all the talk about getting the deficit under control, I see the national debt growing to nearly eighteen trillion before we reach 2014. The reason is simple. Judging from the current evidence, the politicians seem intent on kicking the can down the road once again.
The Republicans have warned that the taxes Democrats are determined to impose will not raise sufficient revenue to lower the annual deficit substantially—and I agree. Yet there seems to be no stopping the liberal juggernaut. In addition to ObamaCare’s hidden taxes, there will be rate increases, even on the Middle Class.
Adding these levies to those of states like California, there is good reason to believe the wealthy will seek to protect their assets. And if they do, revenues will not rise as quickly as projected; hence unfunded spending will grow more rapidly than projected.
Since Democrats also show no inclination to reign in entitlement spending, or discretionary expenditures other than for the military, the gap between government income and outgo should get larger. This may be exacerbated if the economy stalls—as many economists expect.
Under these conditions the need to borrow will continue to mount, as will the Federal Reserve’s policy of printing money. Where this will end is hard to say, but eventually there must be a roaring inflation. The only way this cannot happen is if the laws of economics are suspended.
The reason inflation seems not to have already occurred is that foreigners, whose economies are worse than our own, continue to perceive American bonds as safe. This, however, cannot go on forever. The question is when will the kicked-can explode? It may not be this next year, but it will be some year.
Then there is the international situation. The Middle East continues to boil and Iran keeps getting closer to producing nuclear weapons. Will Obama do anything to reverse this trend? Will Israel?
Again we do not know, but as of now I predict that Barack will maintain the policy he has in the past—that is, he will do nothing. As for Israel, I am not sure it has the strength to save the day without U. S. support.
Where does this leave us? I say in a pretty pickle. There is a very good chance that the economy will slid off the edge and that a host of Islamisized nations will join in an alliance against us. If so, far from achieving peace and prosperity, we will persist in decline and insecurity.
These predictions do not cheer me. They are certainly not intended as an “I told you so” directed at politicians I do, in fact, despise. This is not something I want to happen because, like it or not, we are all in the same boat. Liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, will all be hurt if my fears come to pass.
Of course, we could survive another year. Who knows when the horrors of inflation will arrive? It could be years from now. Also, it just might be that a nuclear-armed Iran will behave itself in the short run.
But what of the long run? When will we as a nation begin looking beyond the immediate future? When will the politicians—and the voters—begin to consider the fate of our children and grandchildren?
Melvyn L. Fein
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Christmas and Tradition
I like Bill O’Reilly, but he can sometimes be foolish. At the moment, he has been waging a campaign against what he calls “the war on Christmas.” And while I sympathize with his motives, his arguments occasionally veer off track.
For instance, Bill has been saying that Christianity is a “philosophy.” To be sure, he admits it is a religion, but then he points to Thomas Jefferson as an example of someone for whom he claims it was a philosophy.
This, however, is sophistry. Christianity has dominated Western religious thought for nearly two millennia. As such, it has influenced many philosophers. But that does not convert the religion into a political philosophy. As for Jefferson, he was a deist who would surely admit that his governmental ideas were molded by Judeo-Christian virtues.
Nor need we in the United States be ashamed to admit our specifically Christian roots. I am not a Christian, but I honor the Christian convictions of many of our Founders precisely because these served to shape important values built into our Constitution.
Which brings me back to Christmas. Recently I was on a radio program where the host asked me how I felt about Christmas. My unhesitating response was that I love Christmas. Indeed, I have always loved Christmas—ever since I was a small boy.
You see, Christmas is a religious holiday, but it is also a secular holiday. This may sound like a contradiction, yet it is not. The holiday that we know clearly honors the birth of Jesus Christ. This does not, however, prevent it from celebrating the winter solstice or our joint humanity.
As many readers know, the Christmas tree tradition goes back to pagan times. The evergreen was, and is, a symbol that life endures even when winter has the world in its icy grip. All those decorations we add have nothing to do with Christianity per se, except to associate the religion with a miraculous birth—one many believe redeemed humankind.
And as for Santa Claus, growing up in Brooklyn I had no idea that “Santa” was another way of saying, “saint.” Actually I also knew he was called “Saint Nicholas,” but this suggested no religions connotations to me. He was simply a jolly old man who brought presents to good little boys and girls.
No, Christmas is an American tradition, not just a Christian one. Nonetheless, some people think that “tradition” is a bad thing. They associate it with slavery and the Inquisition. These people are right to believe that some customs should be jettisoned, but they are wrong to think all deserve to be.
Not long ago, my wife and I attended “Dear Santa” a chorus presented by the KSU University and Alumni Choir. It was beautiful; so beautiful that my eyes watered over. Moreover, some of the songs, like Silver Bells, were secular, while others, such as Silent Night, were religiously oriented.
Why, I ask, should I, or others, be denied this pleasure? Why, because some of this music is derived from a religious tradition, should I have to forego the emotional resonance built into compositions by men and women who were motivated by spiritual sentiments?
The same logic applies to Christmas trees, Christmas lights, and Christmas presents. Were these forced on me, I might object. But they are not forced on me, even when promoted by government entities. The fact that there is a manger scene in the public square in no way impinges on my freedom to believe what I wish.
So, to repeat myself, I love the Christmas traditions. They may sometimes be overdone, but I have even come to enjoy the commercialization of Christmas. These practices represent a communal coming together that benefits us all—if for no other reason than they promote “good will toward man (and woman).”
Hence I say “Merry Christmas to all,” and please feel free to wish me the same.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
For instance, Bill has been saying that Christianity is a “philosophy.” To be sure, he admits it is a religion, but then he points to Thomas Jefferson as an example of someone for whom he claims it was a philosophy.
This, however, is sophistry. Christianity has dominated Western religious thought for nearly two millennia. As such, it has influenced many philosophers. But that does not convert the religion into a political philosophy. As for Jefferson, he was a deist who would surely admit that his governmental ideas were molded by Judeo-Christian virtues.
Nor need we in the United States be ashamed to admit our specifically Christian roots. I am not a Christian, but I honor the Christian convictions of many of our Founders precisely because these served to shape important values built into our Constitution.
Which brings me back to Christmas. Recently I was on a radio program where the host asked me how I felt about Christmas. My unhesitating response was that I love Christmas. Indeed, I have always loved Christmas—ever since I was a small boy.
You see, Christmas is a religious holiday, but it is also a secular holiday. This may sound like a contradiction, yet it is not. The holiday that we know clearly honors the birth of Jesus Christ. This does not, however, prevent it from celebrating the winter solstice or our joint humanity.
As many readers know, the Christmas tree tradition goes back to pagan times. The evergreen was, and is, a symbol that life endures even when winter has the world in its icy grip. All those decorations we add have nothing to do with Christianity per se, except to associate the religion with a miraculous birth—one many believe redeemed humankind.
And as for Santa Claus, growing up in Brooklyn I had no idea that “Santa” was another way of saying, “saint.” Actually I also knew he was called “Saint Nicholas,” but this suggested no religions connotations to me. He was simply a jolly old man who brought presents to good little boys and girls.
No, Christmas is an American tradition, not just a Christian one. Nonetheless, some people think that “tradition” is a bad thing. They associate it with slavery and the Inquisition. These people are right to believe that some customs should be jettisoned, but they are wrong to think all deserve to be.
Not long ago, my wife and I attended “Dear Santa” a chorus presented by the KSU University and Alumni Choir. It was beautiful; so beautiful that my eyes watered over. Moreover, some of the songs, like Silver Bells, were secular, while others, such as Silent Night, were religiously oriented.
Why, I ask, should I, or others, be denied this pleasure? Why, because some of this music is derived from a religious tradition, should I have to forego the emotional resonance built into compositions by men and women who were motivated by spiritual sentiments?
The same logic applies to Christmas trees, Christmas lights, and Christmas presents. Were these forced on me, I might object. But they are not forced on me, even when promoted by government entities. The fact that there is a manger scene in the public square in no way impinges on my freedom to believe what I wish.
So, to repeat myself, I love the Christmas traditions. They may sometimes be overdone, but I have even come to enjoy the commercialization of Christmas. These practices represent a communal coming together that benefits us all—if for no other reason than they promote “good will toward man (and woman).”
Hence I say “Merry Christmas to all,” and please feel free to wish me the same.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Landslide Lyndon...er, Obama
When Lyndon Johnson won election to the presidency on his own, he obtained the landslide victory he had been denied the first time he was elected to congress. This provided him the mandate to pass the voting rights and poverty legislation that had only been proposed during the Kennedy administration.
Barack Obama seems to imagine that he has acquired an equally decisive mandate with his election to a second term. Although his margin of victory over Mitt Romney was less than that over John McCain, he appears to have decided this is enough to steamroller the Republicans.
With little over a two percent surplus and entire sections of the nation (most notably the entire south) aligned against him, he has nonetheless concluded he was authorized to transform the country.
Already it is clear that those observers who thought his reelection would have a salutary effect on our chief executive have been proven wrong. Barack is not about to become an evenhanded statesman.
Right from the opening bell, our president seems determined to demonstrate his lack of moderation. This is odd, because didn’t he, in fact, spend the better part of a year advocating a “balanced approach” to tackling the deficit; one in line with what the Simpson-Bowles Commission recommended?
Yet, as I recall, its leaders advocated a three-to-one ratio of spending cuts to tax increases. Now our president is demanding, not asking for, a three-to-one ratio the other way. And, oh by the way, he refuses to be specific about what spending cuts—if any—he would approve.
His number one non-negotiable demand, of course, is to raise taxes on the upper two percent of income earners. This is defended as a necessary step toward fiscal “fairness.” It is also endorsed as an essential tool in lowering the national deficit.
But let us look at the real possibilities. On the one hand, if income tax rates go up on those earning over 250 thousand a year, it is unlikely that revenues will increase very much. Indeed, if history is a guide, they may actually decrease. In this case, the deficit will not be reduced one whit.
On the other hand, if revenues do increase substantially, this will largely be at the expense of small business owners. In this case, hiring will be adversely affected and the unemployment rate will rise. We might even enter a renewed recession.
So what should Republicans do? Should they attempt to prevent what they have good reason to believe is bad public policy; then get the political blame for their principled stand. Or should they let the president own the consequences of his over-reaching?
In either case, with our national debt still soaring, after thirty short years, one hundred percent of the federal budget will go entirely for interest payments. My twenty something KSU students, i.e., the one’s who will be most hurt by such a development, think this is a long way off, but it is not.
Barack Obama keeps kicking the deficit disaster down the road, perhaps in the hope this will force our country to adopt his collectivist solutions. Nevertheless, the end result will probably be domestic poverty and international impotence.
Perhaps Obama is actually a reincarnation of France’s king Louis XV. This monarch was the one who allegedly said “après moi le deluge.” After all, Barack knows that in four more years whatever problems he creates will be someone else’s responsibility.
He may even be hoping that the rescue operation is assigned to Republicans who will then bare the onus for the medicine they administer. The immediate question, however, is should the Republicans accept the current blame. Or should they stand back as Obama mistakenly implements policies for which he does not have the authority he thinks he has?
In any event, batten down the hatches. A harsh wind is blowing out of Washington; one that may flatten many houses before it subsides.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Barack Obama seems to imagine that he has acquired an equally decisive mandate with his election to a second term. Although his margin of victory over Mitt Romney was less than that over John McCain, he appears to have decided this is enough to steamroller the Republicans.
With little over a two percent surplus and entire sections of the nation (most notably the entire south) aligned against him, he has nonetheless concluded he was authorized to transform the country.
Already it is clear that those observers who thought his reelection would have a salutary effect on our chief executive have been proven wrong. Barack is not about to become an evenhanded statesman.
Right from the opening bell, our president seems determined to demonstrate his lack of moderation. This is odd, because didn’t he, in fact, spend the better part of a year advocating a “balanced approach” to tackling the deficit; one in line with what the Simpson-Bowles Commission recommended?
Yet, as I recall, its leaders advocated a three-to-one ratio of spending cuts to tax increases. Now our president is demanding, not asking for, a three-to-one ratio the other way. And, oh by the way, he refuses to be specific about what spending cuts—if any—he would approve.
His number one non-negotiable demand, of course, is to raise taxes on the upper two percent of income earners. This is defended as a necessary step toward fiscal “fairness.” It is also endorsed as an essential tool in lowering the national deficit.
But let us look at the real possibilities. On the one hand, if income tax rates go up on those earning over 250 thousand a year, it is unlikely that revenues will increase very much. Indeed, if history is a guide, they may actually decrease. In this case, the deficit will not be reduced one whit.
On the other hand, if revenues do increase substantially, this will largely be at the expense of small business owners. In this case, hiring will be adversely affected and the unemployment rate will rise. We might even enter a renewed recession.
So what should Republicans do? Should they attempt to prevent what they have good reason to believe is bad public policy; then get the political blame for their principled stand. Or should they let the president own the consequences of his over-reaching?
In either case, with our national debt still soaring, after thirty short years, one hundred percent of the federal budget will go entirely for interest payments. My twenty something KSU students, i.e., the one’s who will be most hurt by such a development, think this is a long way off, but it is not.
Barack Obama keeps kicking the deficit disaster down the road, perhaps in the hope this will force our country to adopt his collectivist solutions. Nevertheless, the end result will probably be domestic poverty and international impotence.
Perhaps Obama is actually a reincarnation of France’s king Louis XV. This monarch was the one who allegedly said “après moi le deluge.” After all, Barack knows that in four more years whatever problems he creates will be someone else’s responsibility.
He may even be hoping that the rescue operation is assigned to Republicans who will then bare the onus for the medicine they administer. The immediate question, however, is should the Republicans accept the current blame. Or should they stand back as Obama mistakenly implements policies for which he does not have the authority he thinks he has?
In any event, batten down the hatches. A harsh wind is blowing out of Washington; one that may flatten many houses before it subsides.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, December 15, 2012
A Ring of Fire
Two weeks ago when I implied that Islam might not be a religion of peace, I agitated a hornet’s nest. More than one reader came to the conclusion that I was a narrow-minded bigot. After all, only a mean-spirited racist could suggest any such thing.
Nevertheless, this is a serious question. With Israel again under violent assault, with Egypt being torn asunder by ferocious street demonstrations, and with Syrians killing tens of thousands of their own, is there something about Islam that encourages this belligerence?
Over a decade ago the late political scientist Samuel Huntington observed that there was a ring of fire surrounding Islamic lands. He noted that almost everywhere Muslim territories abutted non-Muslim ones there were violent clashes.
Today this remains true. Not just Israel, but places as far removed as West Africa and the Philippines have witnessed Muslims killing non-Muslims in the name of their religion. Indeed, the list is long one.
We can begin with Nigeria where Muslims have been burning the churches and massacring the inhabitants of Christian towns. Then we can move north to Egypt where the Coptic Christians are under attack by supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood.
If we travel even further north, we encounter the Chechnyan’s engaged in guerrilla warfare against the Russians. Now heading east we find the Chinese periodically needing to suppress the ambitions of Sinkiang Muslims. Turning south, the Pakistanis continue to harbor terrorists who intermittently cross to the border to slaughter the hated Indians.
Resuming our journey east, we discover Thai Muslims at violent odds with their central government and Mindanao Muslims defying the Christian rulers of their Island nation. Even the Indonesians have had their quarrels with the Portuguese and Australians.
Nor have I yet mentioned the Iranians who seem eager to destroy the power of the United States or Osama bin Laden of al Qaeda who wanted to re-conquer Spain and the Balkans in order to restore the Muslim Caliphate to its former glory.
It may be noted here that the enemies of Islam include not just Christians and Jews, but also Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists. Simply refusing to acknowledge the supremacy of Mohamed seems ample pretext for Jihad.
It may, of course, be argued that Christianity too has sponsored violence. And it certainly has. The Catholic Church organized crusades and inquisitions, while Catholics and Protestants butchered each other in holy wars. The difference is that that was hundreds of years ago. Modern Christianity has no such impulses.
Many Islamic lands, in contrast, are currently mired in a medieval mentality. They do not promote religious tolerance, but instead call Jews monkeys who must be killed on sight and condemn Muslim apostates to death for the sin of changing religion.
Then too there are all of those suicide bombers who cheerfully tear their own bodies to shreds on the promise that they will be rewarded with eternal glory in heaven. Yes, some Buddhists have been known to immolate themselves for religious causes, but they are few and far between.
With all this said, it must be acknowledged that many Muslims are peace loving people. Many tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions, of them are not about to become bomb-throwing jihadists. The religion to which they subscribe can be, and for many is, a force for kindness and understanding.
But what is possible is not necessarily customary. Christianity evolved from belligerence to tolerance. So can Islam. But to argue that it has already done so is to ignore the evidence. There have been too many conflicts, in too many places, to conclude that the religion has nothing to do with them.
If Islam is to become a modern tolerant faith, we must stop fooling ourselves. Most Muslims are fundamentally decent human beings, but that does not mean their religion advances the same tenets as held by most Westerners. It is especially imperative that modern-minded Muslims participate in encouraging the necessary changes in attitude.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Nevertheless, this is a serious question. With Israel again under violent assault, with Egypt being torn asunder by ferocious street demonstrations, and with Syrians killing tens of thousands of their own, is there something about Islam that encourages this belligerence?
Over a decade ago the late political scientist Samuel Huntington observed that there was a ring of fire surrounding Islamic lands. He noted that almost everywhere Muslim territories abutted non-Muslim ones there were violent clashes.
Today this remains true. Not just Israel, but places as far removed as West Africa and the Philippines have witnessed Muslims killing non-Muslims in the name of their religion. Indeed, the list is long one.
We can begin with Nigeria where Muslims have been burning the churches and massacring the inhabitants of Christian towns. Then we can move north to Egypt where the Coptic Christians are under attack by supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood.
If we travel even further north, we encounter the Chechnyan’s engaged in guerrilla warfare against the Russians. Now heading east we find the Chinese periodically needing to suppress the ambitions of Sinkiang Muslims. Turning south, the Pakistanis continue to harbor terrorists who intermittently cross to the border to slaughter the hated Indians.
Resuming our journey east, we discover Thai Muslims at violent odds with their central government and Mindanao Muslims defying the Christian rulers of their Island nation. Even the Indonesians have had their quarrels with the Portuguese and Australians.
Nor have I yet mentioned the Iranians who seem eager to destroy the power of the United States or Osama bin Laden of al Qaeda who wanted to re-conquer Spain and the Balkans in order to restore the Muslim Caliphate to its former glory.
It may be noted here that the enemies of Islam include not just Christians and Jews, but also Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists. Simply refusing to acknowledge the supremacy of Mohamed seems ample pretext for Jihad.
It may, of course, be argued that Christianity too has sponsored violence. And it certainly has. The Catholic Church organized crusades and inquisitions, while Catholics and Protestants butchered each other in holy wars. The difference is that that was hundreds of years ago. Modern Christianity has no such impulses.
Many Islamic lands, in contrast, are currently mired in a medieval mentality. They do not promote religious tolerance, but instead call Jews monkeys who must be killed on sight and condemn Muslim apostates to death for the sin of changing religion.
Then too there are all of those suicide bombers who cheerfully tear their own bodies to shreds on the promise that they will be rewarded with eternal glory in heaven. Yes, some Buddhists have been known to immolate themselves for religious causes, but they are few and far between.
With all this said, it must be acknowledged that many Muslims are peace loving people. Many tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions, of them are not about to become bomb-throwing jihadists. The religion to which they subscribe can be, and for many is, a force for kindness and understanding.
But what is possible is not necessarily customary. Christianity evolved from belligerence to tolerance. So can Islam. But to argue that it has already done so is to ignore the evidence. There have been too many conflicts, in too many places, to conclude that the religion has nothing to do with them.
If Islam is to become a modern tolerant faith, we must stop fooling ourselves. Most Muslims are fundamentally decent human beings, but that does not mean their religion advances the same tenets as held by most Westerners. It is especially imperative that modern-minded Muslims participate in encouraging the necessary changes in attitude.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
