Archive for May 2009

Do No Harm

May 29, 2009

Only public education, James Bryant Conant said in 1942, could restore the key American ideals of opportunity, democracy, and classlessness.

These ideals were also Horace Mann’s goals for the Common School. Public education was intended to establish equality of opportunity, promote democratic ideals, and, although not right at the beginning when the country was still divided between slaves, native populations, and free men, do away ultimately with divisions of class, race, and ethnic origin.

How much of Mann’s and later Conant’s ideal vision for the schools has been realized? Probably very little, if anything. Equality of opportunity is still far away. Divisions of race and class have been lessened, but only through constant and fierce civil rights struggles, even shooting wars, pretty much on the outside of the schools.

The main result of the common school movement has been to make school buildings and classrooms, along with the home, the principal physical environment of young people during the first 18 years of their lives. It has kept kids out of the economy and off the streets.

Having most everyone (not everyone because of the private school movement) share the same learning environment, even though what was being learned was different for everyone, is probably as close as we have come to creating equality of opportunity.

In regard to the promotion and strengthening of democratic ideals it would now appear that the public schools have done little or nothing. Take just one ideal, one citizen, one vote. More than half of the people, most of whom have attended the public schools and are U.S. citizens and eligible to vote, don’t vote. Furthermore both voters and non voters reveal, when asked, little or no confidence in their elected representatives, in the State capitals as well as in Washington.

And all this is not to speak of what our public school attendees and graduates know of their own country’s history and structures of government. Have the public schools turned them into Thomas Jefferson’s “well informed people who can be trusted with their own government,” and who, “whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice,… may be relied on to set them right.” The answer is clearly no.

However, finally, and on the other hand, we have now, in spite of our schools’ failure to make us well informed citizens, and in spite of what was for Jefferson not possible and never to be, we have somehow managed to establish a state of civilization, and have remained free, while being mostly ignorant.

It would seem that the role of the schools is not to make us into better people or good citizens. Or if it was they have failed at this. Or at least they have not done this up until now. So what is their role?

Probably to take us as we are, provide us for some 18 years with a warm and secure and mostly comfortable environment until it’s time for us to leave and go out into the world and do something on our own. At best the schools are following, although unconsciously, the precept, do no harm. We are probably fortunate that that this is so, for we know the harm that schools, that would change the world by changing the young people in their power, can do.

Latina Women and White Men

May 28, 2009

Is the Sotomayor Berkeley 2001 statement that’s now being bandied about racist? Here’s what she said, not in the context of her full talk (for that you can go here):  “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Well in my case I wouldn’t call her, or her words racist, as have Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Tancredo and others of their ilk (all of whom should have remained dumb), but she is clearly implying that certain life experiences are somehow “richer” than others (those of the Latina woman vs. those of the white man), at least in regard to the amount of “wisdom?” to be drawn from these experiences.

But wouldn’t we all agree that some lives are “richer” in regard to the variety, depth, and the kinds of experiences that one can have on this earth? And perhaps that’s all the underlying meaning we should give to her words. What she says if properly understood could simply be a truism.

There are certainly life experiences that do, or should, make us wiser. Wouldn’t you allow a Holocaust survivor to see herself as a better judge of human behavior in extreme conditions, even though in a given case it might not be that way? Better judgments do not necessarily come from greater depth of experience, but they may, and my own experience, as that of Judge Sotomayor, tells me that they often do.

Sotomayor’s own story is now well known. She grew up experiencing poverty and deprivation (her father died when was just eight) in a single parent (her mother) family in the Bronx. She did well in catholic school and went on to Princeton, actually a long time bastion (much less so today, of course) of white male supremacy.

At Princeton during the 1970s Sotomayor probably looked at her white male classmates and felt that her own experience set her apart, gave her knowledge of things of which they were ignorant. Is anyone surprised by this not unreasonable conjecture? To some extent we all do this. Attribute a specialness to what we have learned, and that others, who have not had our experiences, have not learned.

And she probably experienced more of the same kinds of feelings while attending Law School at Yale where she went following her graduation Summa Cum Laude from Princeton. For even in law school, immersed in legal precedent and theory, one doesn’t, one can’t give up what one is and what one knows based on one’s own life experiences.

In this regard see the remarks of Charles Ogletree, who had this to say regarding the controversy: “it is obvious that people’s life experiences will inform their judgments in life as lawyers and judges because law is more than ‘a technical exercise,’ and I cite Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s famous aphorism: ‘The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.’”

Nor can one (give up what one knows) at a later point in one’s life. It was such a later point in her life, some 25 years after graduation from Princeton, when Sotomayor addressed a group of her peers in Berkeley at a ceremony commemorating the 40th anniversary of the first judicial appointment of a Latino to a federal court, that she made the now too famous “wise Latina” remark.

That she felt this way is unremarkable. However, she now does have a problem (she shouldn’t have, but she does) because she said this in public, and at a time when she was a sitting judge on the federal Appeals Court in New York. This fact does, perhaps, raise the need for a closer look at her candidacy, although it doesn’t justify the racist remarks of Gingrich, Limbaugh et al.

All of this leads me to ask if somehow judges are supposed to have gone beyond their own life experiences when they make court judgments of the lives and actions of others. Are their decisions not supposed to stem in part or in whole from their own life stories, no matter how “rich” these may have been as in Sotomayor’s case, but rather are they supposed to stem entirely from their deep and wide knowledge of the Law?

We probably don’t even need to ask Sotomayor herself about the meaning she would give to the “Latina woman” remark. Whatever she meant by the remark I’m sure she didn’t believe that her own experiences as a Latina and woman made her judgments somehow wiser that those of white male judges who clearly had not had anything like her own life experiences.  Only if I’m wrong about that (and how would I know if I were) and if public opinion turned against her for this or for something else, would her confirmation by the Senate not be a sure thing.

My hope is that we move quickly beyond all this. And that the President be allowed to have his first choice. Furthermore, the President was right in his remarks about empathy. For (and especially) in the austere person of a judge on the highest court of the land empathy, or being able to feel, and not only intellectually grasp, the positions of the opposants in a case, is an especially desirable quality  for the judge, and a person, to possess.

The Public Good, who now speaks for it?

May 25, 2009

George Will, in an op ed piece in Sunday’s Washington Post, while critically assessing Zephyr Teachout’s  argument (“The Anti-Corruption Principle,”) for emancipating government from First Amendment restrictions on its powers to regulate political speech, has this to say:

Congressional Democrats want to kill a small voucher program that gave some mostly poor and minority students alternatives to the District of Columbia’s failing public schools, and the Obama administration spent additional billions to avoid a declaration of bankruptcy by General Motors. Some people think both decisions represented disinterested assessments of the public good. Others think the decisions represented obeisance by Democrats to the teachers’ and autoworkers’ unions, respectively.

Now it’s true that both interpretations are possible, even reasonable. On the one hand some of us would like to think that the two decisions did represent “disinterested assessments of the public good.” I would like to think that, but I’m probably in a minority, perhaps joined by the editorial writers of the New York Times.

The second interpretation is probably much more prevalent. That, in the case of the D.C. vouchers the teachers’ union got its way, and in the case of a General Motors bankruptcy the automotive workers got what they wanted.

The liberals would spin both decisions as being good for the public and the country, while the conservatives, not getting what they wanted, would spin the decisions as one more instance of the government going along with the wishes of a powerful constituency, in disregard of what was best for the country.

Probably most of us who voted for Obama still hold onto the belief that his government does care about the public good, does make decisions, as in these two instances, with that good in mind.

But we are going to be labeled naive. Furthermore, is it clear, ever, what is in the best interests of the public, what is best for the country? In any case the public good, whatever it is, probably has no important constituency, and in the absence of such, government actions, even those of Obama, will inevitably appear to go along with one pressure group or another, because that’s all there is.

John Gardner’s Common Cause in the 1970s did try to address this situation head on, did try to speak for the public, did try to give the public good position a constituency. But although the Cause is still alive the voice is no longer heard.

Is this because there can be no constituency for the public good? In government, as in life, perhaps there can only be interested positions, the promotion and defense of whatever it is one may want for oneself and one’s allies, although in the best of cases while doing so trying not to trample on the wants and interests of others.

Schooling and Education, 3

May 24, 2009

Schooling is easy. Education is hard. Schooling takes place in a school, when a classroom, teacher, and kids are provided, usually at tax payer expense. Education, aka learning, may take place anywhere, but only if the learner is interested and excited either by the teacher or the subject matter, or, best of all, by both.

Schooling and education are not the same thing, but, unfortunately the distinction between them is rarely if ever made.  And instead the one word education is regularly used to include both, resulting in an absolute confusion accompanied by a plethora of opposing opinions among educators, and educational writers, regarding what steps might be taken to improve — what? well the schools.

Because schooling, as opposed to education is easy, that is what we spend most of our time tinkering with. And in fact reforming “education,” that is really schooling, has become an inevitable and unending process, no less certain than death and taxes.

Furthermore, whereas schooling has an infinite number of variations or forms, education has only two, like an electric light bulb. It’s either on or off, or by means of a dimmer, the talent, the ability of the learner, somewhere in between.

Schooling, and in particular what takes up so much of our time and money, the place, the physical environment of the school, can be made almost perfect, as say in Kansas City, when, subject to a earlier court ruling, the school leaders had to agree that by the mid 90s they would have made the changes necessary in order to considerably improve the educational outcomes for the kids.

As ordered by the courts improvements were made. There was no doubt about that. Large amounts of new money bought higher teachers’ salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal.

To read more about all this go here, from where the above description was taken.

But did more learning (education) take place? The conclusion, now some ten years later, is that no, it didn’t, and still isn’t. But, at least, one might ask, as a result of this experience, has the constituency for throwing more money at the schools been seriously weakened, if not done away with?

No, not at all. For, in fact, under the current surplus spending plan of the President, some $100 billion has now been set aside, targeted for the schools. And never once during the discussion of this plan as far as I know, was the distinction made between schooling and education. For our representatives in the Congress the two are the same.

Educators, more famous than I, and certainly more well read, have made the distinction I’m referring to. Although in the case of one of them, the Chicago philosopher and Great Books proponent, Mortimer Adler, the distinction he makes is a bit different from mine.

Adler distinguishes between schooling which is for kids, and education which is for grown-ups. Schooling for him is a kind of training. Forget about getting the kids to think for themselves while in school. It mostly doesn’t happen.

I conclude this entry with Adler’s own words in response to his interviewer when he makes clear the difference between kids and adults in regard to education, and what is possible and not possible for the ones and the others. How many educational reformers have read Adler? From their words about the subject I’d say few if any.

(Go here to read the entire interview.)

Weismann: I have heard you say that schooling is not education. This is at least a very provocative statement, particularly today when all over America parents are screaming about the poor education their children are receiving in schools. Please explain and help us to understand what you mean by that statement?

ADLER: I am going to begin my answer with an even more provocative statement, or should I say “fact,” and that is “only adults can be educated.” So before I answer your question, we must first discuss “adult education.” Let me explain. The word “education” has come to have so restricted a connotation that it is misleading. When most people think of education, they tend to think of the development of their children, not of their own development; they think of learning in school, not outside of school. A serious result of this is that the phrase “adult education” is generally misunderstood. Because we think of education as something done primarily with the young and in school, “adult education” comes to be a queer kind of thing, some-thing which you usually think of, if you think of it at all, as for the other person, not yourself.In years of thinking and working in the field of education, the insight that I am going to try to communicate to you is one which is basic to the whole theory of education. It not only changes our conception of what should go on in the schools, and what should be done with children, but it also changes our conception of what each adult must do for himself to sustain his own life of learning.

I can hardly remember what I used to think when I had the mistaken notion that the schools were the most important part of the educational process; for now I think exactly the reverse. I am now convinced that it is adult education which is the substantial and major part of the educational process — the part for which all the rest is at best — and it is at its best only when it is — a preparation.

WEISMANN: We know only too well that words can be mischievous and treacherous. Those of us who are engaged in adult education have been thinking for some time of how to avoid using the words “adult education,” because in the minds of the general public they have such an unfortunate connotation. How can we correct this misconception?

ADLER: You are quite correct about words, and if by issuing an edict, I could get everybody to use words the way I would like them to, I would try to set up the following usage: use “schooling” to signify the development and training of the young; and “education” (without the word “adult” attached to it) to signify the learning done by mature men and women. Then we could say that after schooling, real education, not adult education, begins. This is my main point.

WEISMANN: From my own long experience I am sadly aware of the misconceptions in the minds of almost everybody which prevents this basic proposition from being understood. Would you indicate for us the major misconceptions that must be rectified.

ADLER: Most of us, and most professional educators, hold a false view of schooling. It consists in the notion that it is the aim or purpose of the schools — and I use the word “schools” to include all levels of institutional education from the kindergarten to the college and university — to turn out educated men and women, their education completed or finished when they are awarded a degree or diploma. Nothing could be more absurd or preposterous. This means that young people — children of twenty or twenty-two — are to be regarded as educated men and women. We all know, and no one can deny, that no child — in school or at the moment of graduation — is an educated person.

WEISMANN: Yet it seems this is the apparent aim of the whole school system — to give a complete education. At least this is the current conception which governs the construction of the curriculum and the conduct or administration of the school system; it is also the conception of most parents who send their children to schools and colleges.

ADLER: That is correct. This error about education being completed in school is widespread…

Kids are human capital

May 23, 2009

The problem is usually not a lack of knowledge. There is enough knowledge out there to solve most of our problems. The problem is getting the people in power to drink of the knowledge that is available. A case in point is our system of public school education.

Claudia Goldin, in a June 2001 article. “The Human-Capital Century and American Leadership: Virtues of the Past,” written for the Journal of Economic History, showed clearly how the United States in the early 1900s led all other developed countries in the development of its own human capital. The United States was first, and for a long time alone, to make a four year high school general education available to all.

Goldin enumerates a number of what she calls the “virtues” that characterized this development of the country’s human capital. Such things as public funding, openness, gender neutrality, local (and also state) control, separation of church and state, and an academic curriculum.

These “virtues,” she said, then gave rise to corollary virtues such as the use of property taxes, competition among school districts, and permitting students to repeat grades (what she refers to later as a kind of “infinite forgiveness”).

All this took us up to the 1950s, at which time the US lead in making a public school education available to all young people was indisputable. The lead was short lived however. The other developed countries quickly caught up with us, and now, today, the United States is no longer first and may even be well down the list of developed countries when it comes to making comparisons of the academic achievements of school kids up to and through high school.

What happened? Was it simply that others would inevitably catch up, and that there was nothing we could do to keep our lead? Or was it, as Goldin clearly implies, that the “virtues” were not longer virtues, but were now holding us back? And that we hadn’t adapted to the new times and new circumstances?

Each of the characteristics she lists — open, forgiving, small fiscally independent districts relying on local property taxes, academic, secular — was once a virtue, and most still are  to some extent, but the changing circumstances of our lives have made some considerably less virtuous, and others now appear to be vices. Not holding students more accountable for their own achievement, for example.

Instead of acknowledging the new situation, admitting the changed circumstances, instead of acting on what they surely must know, on the fact that things are no longer the same, our leaders continue to support an open, forgiving, and an academic or college preparatory education for all, when it’s clear that some 30% of our public school students (some 50% in the inner cities) are not going along and are dropping out of school, creating thereby enormous problems for themselves and for this country’s social safety net.

Instead of setting impossible goals, as in the proficiency requirements of No Child Left Behind, we should stop pretending that we can ever recover our educational leadership position of the past century. We can’t. There are no reforms that will enable us to do so. And as proof of this we have one very long history of failed reforms.

We need instead to question our original assumptions, in particular, that equality of outcomes was ever even possible. When it comes to education it’s not, unless of course the bar is set low enough for everyone to make it over. Or unless we make “infinite forgiveness” the general policy of all our schools. Or we define equality is just having everyone together in class, that which at one time may have been enough.

The knowledge that we have and that our educational leaders, including the teachers’ unions, the administrators, and even the kids, teachers, and parents themselves, ought now to acknowledge and admit, is that no education worthy of the name is appropriate for everyone.

What kids learn is different from day one, and first parents and then schools need to realize this. If they do they will quickly see that accepting inequality of methods and outcomes  is liberating, and that imposing equal methods and outcomes is stifling, let alone impossible.

When almost no one went to school it was apparently enough just to get everyone into a school and classroom. That we did well and in that respect, for fifty years, we led the world. Now however this is no longer enough, as anyone who has visited a public school classroom, and not only in the inner city, can clearly see.

For getting everyone into the school and classroom was only a first step. It may even have been a misstep. In any case we’re still struggling with second and third steps, let alone what comes afterwards, such as college, career, work experience, etc.

The result of all this is, of course, schooling. And we have a lot of that, more and more as our population grows. But in our public schools, if we look closely, there is very little education, or at least what was meant by education (math, history, foreign language etc.) taking place.

To use the language of Claudia Goldin we need a new list of virtues, many of which are already in sight and struggling to become established, such as accountability, no excuses schools, longer school days and longer school years, substantial place for vocational and technical education. And also there are any number of past reform efforts that were never given enough support, such as no school at all, home schooling, apprenticeships etc.

In short, we need to think more about learning, and less about schooling. When we successfully do that we may even once again take the lead.

Optimism goes away but hope remains.

May 22, 2009

In an interview published in The Journal of American History in March of 1994, the historian and social critic, Christopher Lasch, had this to say in response to a question about the distinction he made between hope and optimism.

[Lasch was interviewed by two of his former graduate students in the summer of 1993. At the time Lasch had taken a leave of absence from the history department at the University of Rochester in order to undergo cancer treatment. The treatment was not successful and Lasch died in his home in Pittsford, NY, on February 14, 1994.]

“Optimism is a kind of investment in the future. It can’t, therefore, survive disappointments. In the face of disappointment, it tends to become cynical and bitter, resentful. God knows, American politics and life are full of examples of curdled optimism.

“Hope, on the other hand, isn’t tied to a vision of the future. It’s more like what Erik Erikson and other psychoanalysts mean when they talk about ‘basic trust.’ It’s a trusting attitude toward life, as opposed to the attitude of mistrust and resentment and despair that so many of us carry around with us, which is a constant temptation — in fact, it’s the temptation for the thinkers I enjoy and admire most deeply, starting with Jonathan Edwards and Emerson and continuing with Niebuhr and Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Hope is the rejection of envy and resentment and all that invites them. It’s not difficult to see why those would always seem to be compelling moral postures, because we live in a world that doesn’t seem arranged for human convenience. It’s a world in which human happiness is not the overriding goal, and our plans go awry, and there are terrible limitations on what we can know and understand and control.

“And in any case our lives are very short. The fact of death is always there, haunting our imagination. All of which  seems to justify a renunciation of any belief in the possibility that the world, in spite of all these facts, is good, just, beautiful. Hope is a grateful disposition that acknowledges everything that justifies its absence. None of this, of course, implies that this is the best of all possible worlds or that the struggle against injustice ought to be suspended  on the grounds that whatever is, is right.”

Nation building? Forget it. Not in our power.

May 21, 2009

Today, on Anderson Cooper’s Blog site I read this comment from Christiane Amanpour:

President Obama’s biggest challenge will be Afghanistan and Pakistan. He wants to beat back the militants, but all the U.S. commanders and officers I have talked to say that cannot be done by bombs and bullets alone. It must happen in tandem with development and promise of a decent life for ordinary Afghans.

What’s your response to this? Mine was, “of course,” but did it need to be said yet once again? For there is no force in the world, let alone the force of arms, that will subdue a people when the threats to the people’s security and livelihood are not removed or substantially diminished by that force.

Haven’t we learned from our own experiences, especially those of Vietnam and now Iraq, that when the people are not convinced that by our superior military forces we are bringing them a better life, that we are making them more secure, haven’t we learned that these people will go rejecting our usually well-intentioned overtures, and turn away from us until we have no other option, as earlier in Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia et al., and perhaps soon in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the NorthWest Provinces of Pakistan, than to turn away from them.

The amazing thing to me is that we, or at least our leaders, and in this instance one of our stellar foreign correspondents, seem to actually believe that it is within our capacity to bring the peoples of these countries a secure and decent life.

It’s not. Why, it’s not even in our power to do this for the youth of our impoverished and otherwise disadvantaged inner city populations. The United States desperately needs to take a course to learn what is in its power and what isn’t. The harm that it does in the world, but perhaps most of all to itself, stems directly from its not knowing.

Victor Hugo, le 21 août 1849

May 21, 2009

Le 21 août 1849, un congrès de la paix se réunit a Paris. Vicor Hugo en était le président et il y fit un discours où le grand poète se montre aussi un grand prophète. En voici la partie la plus célèbre:

Un jour viendra où les armes vous tomberont des mains, à vous aussi ! Un jour viendra où la guerre paraîtra aussi absurde et sera aussi impossible entre Paris et Londres, entre Pétersbourg et Berlin, entre Vienne et Turin, qu’elle serait impossible et qu’elle paraîtrait absurde aujourd’hui entre Rouen et Amiens, entre Boston et Philadelphie. Un jour viendra où la France, vous Russie, vous Italie, vous Angleterre, vous Allemagne, vous toutes, nations du continent, sans perdre vos qualités distinctes et votre glorieuse individualité, vous vous fondrez étroitement dans une unité supérieure, et vous constituerez la fraternité européenne, absolument comme la Normandie, la Bretagne, la Bourgogne, la Lorraine, l’Alsace, toutes nos provinces, se sont fondues dans la France. Un jour viendra où il n’y aura plus d’autres champs de bataille que les marchés s’ouvrant au commerce et les esprits s’ouvrant aux idées. – Un jour viendra où les boulets et les bombes seront remplacés par les votes, par le suffrage universel des peuples, par le vénérable arbitrage d’un grand sénat souverain qui sera à l’Europe ce que le parlement est à l’Angleterre, ce que la diète est à l’Allemagne, ce que l’Assemblée législative est à la France ! (Applaudissements.) Un jour viendra où l’on montrera un canon dans les musées comme on y montre aujourd’hui un instrument de torture, en s’étonnant que cela ait pu être ! (Rires et bravos.) Un jour viendra où l’on verra ces deux groupes immenses, les Etats-Unis d’Amérique, les Etats-Unis d’Europe (Applaudissements), placés en face l’un de l’autre, se tendant la main par-dessus les mers, échangeant leurs produits, leur commerce, leur industrie, leurs arts, leurs génies, défrichant le globe, colonisant les déserts, améliorant la création sous le regard du Créateur, et combinant ensemble, pour en tirer le bien-être de tous, ces deux forces infinies, la fraternité des hommes et la puissance de Dieu ! (Longs applaudissements.) Victor Hugo

The United States and Russia, is it over between them?

May 21, 2009

[from everything2.com]

Alexis de Tocqueville only spent one year in the United States before he wrote “Democracy in America” (1835), which is still one of the best books about that country. The last page of the first volume describes the future evolution of the Russians and the Americans. The English translation is mine, so don’t blame its weaknesses on Tocqueville.

Il y a aujourd’hui sur la terre deux grands peuples qui, partis de points différents, semblent s’avancer vers le même but : ce sont les Russes et les Anglo-Américains.

Tous deux ont grandi dans l’obscurité ; et tandis que les regards des hommes étaient occupés ailleurs, ils se sont placés tout à coup au premier rang des nations, et le monde a appris presque en même temps leur naissance et leur grandeur.

    There are today on Earth two great nations that come from different points and seem to go forward to the same goal: the Russians and the Anglo-Americans.

    Both have grown up in the shadow; and while everybody’s attention was diverted, they suddenly set themselves up at the first rank among the nations, and the world became aware almost simultaneously of their birth and of their greatness.

Tous les autres peuples paraissent avoir atteint à peu près les limites qu’a tracées la nature, et n’avoir plus qu’à conserver ; mais eux sont en croissance : tous les autres sont arrêtés ou n’avancent qu’avec mille efforts ; eux seuls marchent d’un pas aisé et rapide dans une carrière dont l’oeil ne saurait encore apercevoir la borne.

    All other nations seem to have nearly reached the limits that nature has set to them, and only need to maintain their current condition; but those people are still growing: while the others are stopped in their course or only advance with strenuous endeavor, only those walk quickly and easily on a path which term cannot be seen yet.

L’Américain lutte contre les obstacles que lui oppose la nature ; le Russe est aux prises avec les hommes. L’un combat le désert et la barbarie, l’autre la civilisation revêtue de toutes ses armes : aussi les conquêtes de l’Américain se font-elles avec le soc du laboureur, celles du Russe avec l’épée du soldat.

    The American struggles against natural obstacles; the Russian has to do with human beings. The former fights desert and wildness, the latter contests with civilization and all its arms. So the conquests of the American are made with the the countryman’s plow, the conquests of the Russian with the soldier’s sword.

Pour atteindre son but, le premier s’en repose sur l’intérêt personnel, et laisse agir, sans les diriger, la force et la raison des individus.

Le second concentre en quelque sorte dans un homme toute la puissance de la société.

L’un a pour principal moyen d’action la liberté ; l’autre, la servitude.

    To fulfill his goal, the former relies on personal interest and unlooses individual force and reason.

    The latter concentrates more or less all social power in one man.

    One makes use of freedom primarily; the other makes use of constraint.

Leur point de départ est différent, leurs voies sont diverses ; néanmoins, chacun d’eux semble appelé par un dessein secret de la Providence à tenir un jour dans ses mains les destinées de la moitié du monde.

[from  CAIRN.info]

Les deux messianismes, américain et russe, pouvaient-ils coexister sans se heurter ? Alexis de Tocqueville n’avait que trente ans quand, au retour d’un voyage aux États-Unis, il écrivit en 1835 la page célèbre de la Démocratie en Amérique dans laquelle il exprimait sa conviction qu’un « dessein secret » de la Providence amènerait chacun des deux peuples à « tenir un jour dans ses mains les destinées de la moitié du monde » [25]. Mieux, il prévoyait que l’un y parviendrait par les moyens de la servitude, l’autre par ceux de la liberté. Mais il s’en tenait là, ne se risquant pas à prévoir quelles pourraient bien être les relations de ces deux superpuissances en devenir. Napoléon était moins prudent qui, de Sainte-Hélène, prédisait que le monde serait un jour « république universelle américaine ou monarchie universelle russe » [26]. Bien d’autres, du baron Grimm qui, à la veille de la Révolution française, renseignait les cours européennes sur l’état du monde, à Michelet ou au Russe Ivan Kireievski, avaient eux aussi annoncé le partage de la planète entre deux empires que Thiers voyait voués à « se heurter dans des luttes dont le passé ne peut donner aucune idée, du moins pour la masse et le choc physique, car le temps des grandes choses morales est passé » [27].  Andre Fontaine

Richard Thompson Ford, The End of Civil Rights

May 17, 2009

Well, I do wonder if President Obama has seen the op ed piece by Richard Thompson Ford, The End of Civil Rights, in today’s Boston Globe. For Ford makes it clear that the problems confronting Blacks — poverty and unemployment, educational achievement gaps, drug addiction, children without fathers, high rates of imprisonment, and other such — are no longer the results of racial discrimination, but rather the results of the severely impoverished and otherwise disadvantaged situations in which too many Blacks are now living.

Ford correctly points out that the Civil Rights movement did much to severely diminish, if not do away with altogether, racial discrimination. But with all its laudatory emphasis on non discriminatory public policies it has done little to improve the living situations of too many Blacks, still heavily burdened with the emotional scars of earlier discriminatory eras.

Yes, inequality, meaning unequal life situations and opportunities, is still very much with us and yes, new policies and actions, something other than the civil rights movement of the past, are now needed.

But although we may agree with Ford we still do not know what to do. And if we have done little or nothing up until now it’s not because we have not been aware for a long time of the situation that Ford describes.

Busing was one failed attempt to change the actual “unequal” circumstances of the schooling of young Blacks. And we talk more and more about moving Blacks into desegregated, middle class suburban neighborhoods in order to improve the circumstances of their lives. But we don’t know how to make this happen, especially given the entrenched opposition on the ground, from both elected officials and neighborhood residents, to our doing so.

So is there anything that might we do? Make-work jobs? That which really means more government programs and more taxes? Inject more money into the inner city community centers, schools, and other organizations? But isn’t this the sort of thing we have been trying to do, at least since President Johnson’s War on Poverty in the 1960s.

Ford is correct in his diagnosis. But so far, neither he nor anyone else has come up with a realistic treatment.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.