Career planning

While listening to Savage Nation on the radio today, I heard the host gleefully celebrate a news report that graduates from America’s law schools were having great difficulty finding good jobs.  He noted that a law degree used to be a ticket to prestigious career, but those days are over.

A few weeks ago, I discussed the same issue with an eHarmony friend who was a journalist in Nashville.  She asked me why I went into law, and I told her that when I was planning my career in the early 70s, law was considered the most glamorous job in America.  It had high pay and prestige, in addition to being a noble professional calling with no heavy lifting. 

Shortly after I decided to go into law, however, the profession went into a tailspin from which it has never recovered.  Nixon’s Watergate conspiracy not only tarnished the legal profession, but it also created the new glamour position – journalism, and this, I suggested to my younger Nashville friend, was why she went into journalism instead of the law.             

Like the law, journalism has been in a tailspin in recent years, too.  Public opinion surveys list both of these professions as unworthy of respect because their practitioners are more and more likely to be controlled by greed instead of integrity.  Glamour and professionalism are not very compatible.

So, what would I do today if I were heading off to college like my youngest son Jimmy?  Jimmy is planning to study business, and I think I would give that option a lot of thought.  Whereas my Cold War generation was directed toward science & math to help America compete with Russia, Jimmy’s generation realizes that American businesses need to be able to compete in the global marketplace with Europe and Asia, especially China.  The thing I don’t like about business is that it is highly practical and doesn’t put a premium on intellect.

Another option is medicine.  One of my sons, Mikey, recently obtained his M.D. and is working at the Mayo Clinic as an E.R. resident.  Although health insurance companies have dramatically altered the economics of medical practice and ObamaCare threatens to do more damage, Mikey is reasonably confident that the economics will remain relatively favorable.  Furthermore, various specialties within the profession offer highly interesting, challenging work.  And of course, there is still a huge need in the American economy for scientists and mathematicians.  The problem with these fields, however, is that they are numbingly boring. 

I guess that at heart I remain a social scientist who enjoys the humanities.  And that is why the law and journalism remain my favorite career choices.  Both focus on public policy, and I can’t imagine anything more interesting.  The only possible exception would be teaching.  Although there is little glamour associated with teaching, it does fully engage the brain and provides unparalleled satisfaction.

So, if I were setting off for college this fall, I suspect I would be again be a pre-law student, but instead of majoring in political science, I would study public policy.  The practice of law may not be exciting, but the J.D. can be a springboard to all sorts of interesting careers – just ask Obama and Romney.

Bryan Garner’s usage – jealousy vs. envy

Last Tuesday evening, I was sitting on a patio with friends, discussing the issues of the day while enjoying some libations.  One of my friends said something about being jealous and the words weren’t even out of his mouth before my other friend suggested that the appropriate word is “envious,” not “jealous.” 

See, my punctilious friend had the distinction between jealous and envious branded on his brain by a similarly punctilious high school teacher more than 40 years ago.  According to this teacher, many people not only confuse the two words, but they also overuse jealous because envious is a bit highfalutin for them.  Thus, whenever you hear the word jealous, there is strong likelihood that the speaker should have said envious.    

What is the difference between jealous and envious?  According to Merriam-Webster, jealous means to be intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness.  That definition is essentially what my friend was taught more than 40 years ago – i.e., it meant a fear that someone was stealing the affection from another person that you want. 

By contrast, Merriam-Webster defines envious as resenting the advantage possessed by another.  My friend was taught that it means wanting what someone else has, except as applied to the affections of a third person.

A dictionary often is all that is needed to determine what word best communicates what you are thinking.  For years, I have kept one dictionary alongside my reading chair and another alongside my bed.  Lately, however, I get more enjoyment out of referring to usage manuals, which provide in-depth discussions of term(s), much of which is based on tradition or custom.

What do usage manuals say about jealous and envy?  One of my favorite usage manuals is Bryan Garner’s A Dictionary of Modern American Usage.  Garner has taught several seminars that I have attended, and I enjoy him immensely.  (In fact, he edited the most recent Black’s Law Dictionary and allowed me to submit comments on about 10-15 pages of words; I believe he even credited me in the Acknowledgement.)

According to A Dictionary of Modern American Usage:

• “jealousy; envy.  The careful writer distinguishes between these terms.  Jealousy is properly restricted to contexts involving affairs of the heart; envy is used more broadly of resentful contemplation of a more fortunate person.” 

Doesn’t that hit the spot?!

Garner’s first usage manual was titled A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, and it is what turned me on to Garner.  Each entry in the book is so polished that it seems a talented person spent hours on it, although that was obviously impossible.  Because of its narrower focus (the law), it is not as useful to non-lawyers.  In looking at my copy today, I noticed that Bryan inscribed it, “For Michael A. Kueber, May you always find just the right words.  Bryan Garner.”  A beautiful thought, and I have to remind myself that he didn’t actually create the expression for me. 

Just today, I sent an email to a friend who had described the stress and frustration in preparing for a complicated litigation.  Although I am generally familiar with the distinction between empathize and sympathize, I wasn’t certain which was more appropriate, so I used both – empathize/sympathize.  If I’d checked with Garner first, he would have told me, “Empathy is the ability to imagine oneself in another’s position and to experience all the sensations connected with it.  Sympathy is compassion for or commiseration with.”  That is consistent with my general understanding, but technically I probably shouldn’t have said “empathize” because I haven’t taken a chair in litigation in over 30 years and my other similar experiences probably don’t compare close enough to be able to fully empathize.    

My all-time favorite usage issue is infer vs. imply.  Like my friend with jealous and envious, whenever I hear either infer or imply, my usage antenna goes up and I immediately analyze to determine whether the usage was correct.

Of course, many of us have a shared experience regarding our first lesson on usage, and Garner tells a funny story about it in the Preface to A Dictionary of Modern American Usage:

• Not long ago, while I was standing at a rental-car counter in Austin, a young clerk told me that a free upgrade to a Cadillac might be available.  She would have to see whether any Cadillacs were on the lot just then.  Two minutes passed as she typed, got on the phone, twirled her hair around her index finger, and then typed some more.  Finally I said, “Can I get the upgrade?”  “You mean, ‘May I get the upgrade,’ she responded.  As it happens, I had been working on the manuscript of this book only minutes before, so I couldn’t help thinking how surreal the experience was.  I felt a twinge of indignation on the one hand – the kind that anyone feels when corrected.  But I also thought that her remark was charming in a way.  She was doing her best to uphold good English.  But she was wrong and I gently told her so: “I’m not asking for your permission.  I want to know whether you have a Cadillac on the lot.  I want to know whether it’s physically possible for me to drive one of them.  So: ‘Can I get the upgrade.’”

Do you remember asking your teacher whether you can go to the bathroom?  And she would invariably respond that she doesn’t know whether you can go, but that you may go, if you want.

If you ever have a chance to look at some of the entries in Garner’s books, I encourage you to do so.

Pell Grants

Have you ever wondered what Pell Grants are?  Me, too.  Until today, all I knew was that they were the most prominent form of federal assistance to kids wanting to go to college.  Then today, after returning from the gym, I noticed my youngest son had received a response to his 2012-2013 financial-aid application – the so-called FAFSA or Free Application for Federal Student Aid.  According to the federal response, my son was not eligible for a Pell Grant.  Although the result did not surprise me (during my later USAA years, my level of compensation seemed to keep me from participating in any federal program worth participating in, especially the Roth IRA and personal tax exemptions), I decided to learn who was benefitting from the federal largesse of the Pell Grants.   

Not surprisingly, the information that I was looking for was not easily accessible.  Most sites, instead of providing understandable information, provided only general guidance, such as eligibility depends on financial need, which is calculated by comparing the cost of attendance at a specific college (CoA) vs. the expected family contribution (EFC).  Depending on the results of that comparison, a qualified student could receive between as much as $5,000 a year to as little as $500 a year.  An unqualified student (my son) would receive $0.       

Some sites actually provided an extremely complicated calculator to determine the most critical factor – the EFC.  Way too complicated for me.  But eventually I found an article that gave me exactly what I was looking for.  According to this article provided by U.S. News:

• “Those with EFCs above $4,041 will be disqualified for Pell grants. Almost all Pell grants go to students whose families have incomes of less than $50,000 a year.

Because I am not interested enough to analyze the inner workings of EFC calculation, I have no opinion on its merits.  But Republicans might argue, as its presumptive nominee Mitt Romney has already suggested, that the federal government seems to be concerned only about the rich and the poor, whereas the middle class is neglected.  Kids of the poor have the government stand in for their parents to provide just as much financial support as the government has calculated a middle-class family should be providing to their kids, and kids of the rich don’t have any money issues because of the generous tax loopholes granted by government.  As Mitt Romney says, no one cares about the middle class. 

Although we live in a democracy, I think Romney is right.  But I am also willing to make an exception in this case because there are few things as important in this country as encouraging motivated poor kids to go to college.  And because the federal government doesn’t have unlimited amounts of money (in fact, it has no money), a cut-off for Pell Grants has to be somewhere, and perhaps $50k is the appropriate cut-off.  Personally, I think the cut-off is a bit low, and if I were in Congress, I would push for Pell Grants to kids with parents making up to $100k a year. 

Assisting kids to go to college is one of the most important things the federal government should be doing.

Re-thinking creationism

Conservative America seems to be in the mood for re-thinking controversies that I had been taught were resolved.  The best example of this is the separation of church & state.  I actually included this as a no-brainer in the first edition of my congressional-campaign brochure until one friend and many constituents said, “Not so fast.”  They suggested moving this issue from resolved to controversial. 

Other examples of this rightward tilt are abortion (Roe v. Wade), limits to federal regulation of commerce (ObamaCare), and global warming.

Just last week, a new item was added to the list – creationism.  A headline USA Today proclaimed, “Debate over evolution now allowed in Tennessee schools,” and the associated article reported that a new law – the so-called Teacher Protection Academic Freedom Act (attached below) – would “reopen a decades-old controversy over teaching creationism to the state’s schoolchildren.” 

Ironically, Tennessee was also the venue for the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial.  Although the Scopes trial was not, as generally portrayed, the devastation of creationism as scientific theory, it was a landmark in public opinion on the issue.  As stated in Wikipedia:

• The trial was thus both a theological contest, and a trial on the veracity of modern science regarding the creation-evolution controversy. The teaching of evolution expanded, as fundamentalist efforts to use state laws to reverse the trend had failed in the court of public opinion.

The official summary of the new Tennessee law provides:

• This bill prohibits the state board of education and any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or principal or administrator from prohibiting any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught, such as evolution and global warming.

But the USA Today article explained that, although the new law in Tennessee was technically directed toward encouraging critical thinking, there were significant fears within the scientific community in Tennessee that it was intended to encourage the teaching of creationism:

• Instead, it encourages students to question accepted scientific theories — listing as examples evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming and cloning — and it protects teachers from punishment if they teach creationism. Proponents say it will encourage critical thinking and give teachers license to discuss holes in scientific theories if they choose to do so.

The Republican governor of Tennessee, by refusing to sign or veto the bill, seems to agree with the scientific community:

• “I have reviewed the final language of HB 368/SB 893 and assessed the legislation’s impact.  I have also evaluated the concerns that have been raised by the bill.  I do not believe that this legislation changes the scientific standards that are taught in our schools or the curriculum that is used by our teachers.  However, I also don’t believe that it accomplishes anything that isn’t already acceptable in our schools.  The bill received strong bipartisan support, passing the House and Senate by a three-to-one margin, but good legislation should bring clarity and not confusion.  My concern is that this bill has not met this objective.  For that reason, I will not sign the bill but will allow it to become law without my signature.”

Critical thinking is wonderful, but it’s troubling that scientific theories are often challenged by conservatives whenever there is any component to the theory than cannot be definitively proven, while by contrast conservative doctrines are supposed to be given deference in American education unless they are definitively disproven.  (How about this canard – to raise government income, you simply cut tax rates.) 

Many Christians argue that intelligent design should be taught in schools as a scientific alternative to evolution.  Most scientists object that intelligent design has no place in a science class because it has nothing to do with science.  Rather it is a Christian attempt to reconcile evolution with the Bible.

There is nothing wrong with reconciling the Bible to science.  The Catholic Church has been doing that for years.  But this reconciliation has no place in a science classroom.  That’s as clear as the separation between church & state.

 

Teacher Protection Academic Freedom Act 

SENATE BILL 893 – HOUSE BILL 368

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to teaching scientific subjects in elementary schools.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, is amended by adding the following as a new, appropriately designated section:

(a) The general assembly finds that:

(1) An important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to becoming intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens;

(2) The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy; and

(3) Some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.

(b) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues.

(c) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

(d) Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

(e) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

An open letter to State Board of Education member Ken Mercer

Dear Ken,

Hope things are going well for you at work.  Have you heard that Rebecca Cervera is running for Congress in the Valley – District #15?  I think she has the Right Stuff.

Regarding your avocation – the Texas Board of Education – I have a suggestion that I wish you would consider.  While reading a new book about decision-making called Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, I was intrigued by the author’s suggestion that high school students should be taught the generic subject of decision-making.  I use the term “generic” because I am referring, not to a particular subject-matter like making financial or personal-relationship decisions, but rather to a way of thinking that identifies and overcomes common decision-making flaws like having too little information, too much information, stereotyping, etc.  This is the kind of education that will benefit our high school graduates for the rest of their lives.

Of course, teaching decision-making as applied to particular subject-matters would also be helpful.  I suspect that there already are classes to help kids make intelligent financial decisions.  If there aren’t, there should be.  I would be surprised, however, if there are classes to help kids in making relationship decisions, and I can’t think of anything that would improve their lives and help them avoid mistakes more than a class on developing and maintaining good relationships and avoiding or ending toxic ones.

One of the goals of a high school education should be to prepare our kids for a productive and satisfying life.  And making good decisions, especially concerning money and personal relationships could serve as a cornerstone.

Sincerely,

Mike Kueber

Diminished equal opportunity

Other than freedom, equal opportunity is probably the most cherished attribute of the American way.  A major difference between these two attributes is that assaults on freedom are more direct, and Americans can decide whether they are willing to sacrifice a bit of freedom to attain some other benefit, usually security.  But that is not the case with equal opportunity.  Assaults on equal opportunity move in a stealthy way and the effect is so incremental that it is hardly noticed.  Then suddenly one day – today – there is a recognition that opportunity in America has significantly diminished for the lower socio-economic class, and we don’t know what to do to fix it. 

The latest example of class stratification was reported in an op-ed piece in the NY Times titled, “The Reproduction of Privilege” by Thomas Edsall.   According to Edsall:

• “Seventy-four percent of those now attending colleges that are classified as ‘most competitive,’ a group that includes schools like Harvard, Emory, Stanford and Notre Dame, come from families with earnings in the top income quartile, while only three percent come from families in the bottom quartile.”

Edsall approving quotes Anthony Carnevale, “The education system is an increasingly powerful mechanism for the intergenerational reproduction of privilege.”

Isn’t it ironic that the reputed bastions of equal opportunity, with their proud, loud efforts toward diversity, are actually redoubts of class stratification?  Reminds me of the old saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

I continue to believe that education is the key to equal opportunity, but taking affirmative action in favor of the daughter of two African-American lawyers does not make a campus as diverse as admitting a son of white single-mother maid.  Too bad there is no special interest group lobbying in favor of the bottom quartile.

 

College graduation rate

My first two sons graduated from college in four years.  With all the talk about four-year graduations being a thing of the past, I grew a little smug.  Then my third son took seven years – standard reasons such as switching majors and light loads.  As Judy Collins sang, “I’ve looked at life from both sides now,” and finishing in four in better. 

For several months, the Texas Tribune has been reporting on the state of Texas’s efforts to address its perceived problem with its universities’ failure to graduate its students in a timely manner.  (I say “perceived” because the six-year-completion rate in Texas is 49%, which places Texas in the 17^th position nationwide.  Since when is placing 17^th a problem with Texas education?)

According to the most recent article in the Tribune, UTEP in El Paso has the worst rate of all the public schools in Texas, with only ten percent of its students graduating within four years.  My alma mater, UT, has the highest four-year rate at 53%. 

Based on those numbers, you might think that UT would be resting on its laurels while UTEP would be scrambling to catch up, but such thinking would be wrong.  Instead, UT has already instituted a wide-ranging program to improve its already-best rate while UTEP has proffered justifications for its low rate.  Among those justifications are: 

• UTEP has virtually open admissions, with a 97% acceptance rate, and such an admissions policy will naturally allow in unprepared students.
• UTEP has an exceptionally large percentage of low-income and first-generation students.

I’ve always been a proponent for holding managers responsible for their fundamental results while criticizing those who manage to superficial, albeit sometimes informative metrics (or are adept at explaining away their unsatisfactory results).  The question is whether UTEP’s graduation rate is a fundamental result or merely a superficial, informative metric that can be explained away. 

I think University of Texas System Chancellor Francisco Cigarroa has it just right when, according to the Tribune article, he “wants all institutions in the system to raise four-year graduation rates, and indicated they will be held accountable if they fail. While he thinks such data points are important, he said they should be measured in a nuanced way that reflects the reality of an institution’s student population.”

Based on Cigarroa’s statement, I suggest that the president of UTEP needs an attitude adjustment.  She needs to get busy at improving UTEP’s graduation rate instead of justifying it.  Perhaps its open-admissions policy has to go. 

Lat year, my fourth son encountered the absence of an open-admissions policy when he attempted to enroll at some selective public colleges in Texas.  He was told that his academic preparation was inadequate for admission and that he would be better off attending a junior college.  I think that was sound advice.  El Paso has a large junior college, too.  Maybe that’s where more of the UTEP students need to go.

Saturday Night at the Movies #12 – “Waiting for Superman” and “Bowling for Columbine”

A couple of weeks ago, I signed up for streaming Netflix based on the glowing recommendations of a friend.  My experience, however, hasn’t been that good because most Netflix movies (over 90%) are available only by DVD, not streaming.  I had thought 90% were available for streaming.  As Bogie said in Casablanca, my bad.

But streaming Netflix has a good selection of documentaries that I have been interested in watching, although not interested enough to pick up a DVD.  Two of those documentaries were “Waiting for Superman,” which was released in 2010 and won several prestigious awards, and “Bowling for Columbine,” the Michael Moore movie that was released in 2002 and won an Academy Award. 

“Waiting for Superman” focuses on America’s failing public-education system.  I have read (and blogged) extensively about this problem, and the documentary accurately reflects the widely-accepted consensus – i.e., (a) teacher unions are the cause of the problem, and (b) charter schools, school choice, and testing/accountability are the answer.  Michelle Rhee (reformer) wears a white hat and Randi Weingarten (union boss) wears a black one.  Bush-43’s No Child Left Behind program was fundamentally flawed, but a step in the right direction.

“Waiting for Superman” is interesting viewing, even dramatic, because it reveals the challenge that confronts parents who are trying to get their kids into a good school.  Simply put, there are too few such schools.  Even if a parent does the necessary research to identify a good school, there still remains a problem with admission.  Admission to most good public schools depends on living in the right community or, in the case of good charter schools, winning an admission lottery.

The movie ends with the lottery, where some kids win and most lose.  It leaves you with the feeling we need to do something so that most kids, especially those in poor neighborhoods, have more of a fighting chance to succeed.

Although “Waiting for Superman” was overtly political, I found the movie to be informative and persuasive; time well spent.  “Bowling for Columbine” was also overtly political, but uninformative and unpersuasive. 

Controversial filmmaker Michael Moore wrote, directed, and produced the movie, which focuses on violence in America, especially gun violence.  The movie was prompted by the Columbine High School massacre in Colorado in 1999, and although Moore seems to go after gun ownership, by the end of the movie the viewer is left with more questions and answers

Moore effectively argues that gun ownership is not the cause of violence in America by pointing out that Canadians have just as many guns without the violence.  When confronted with the Canadian comparison, NRA spokesperson Charlton Heston proffers two other common alternative causes – (1) Americans have a historical tradition of violence, and (2) America has so much ethnic diversity and strife.  Moore attempts to refute the first argument by describing the historical tradition of violence in other nations, but his examples consist mostly of government violence, not personal violence.  I suspect that their incidence of personal violence has always been lower than ours.  Regarding the issue of ethnic diversity and strife, Moore seems to accept that racial strife has contributed greatly toward a climate of fear that is making much of America live with a hair trigger.

(Incidentally, Moore was criticized by conservatives for picking on Charlton Heston in an interview.  Although Heston was determined to have Alzheimer’s shortly thereafter, but I thought he conducted himself admirably in the interview.)

“Bowling for Columbine” earned a score of 96% on Rotten Tomatoes; “Waiting for Superman” earned a score of 89%.  Personally, I prefer the answers provided by “Waiting for Superman” as compared to the questions raised by “Bowling for Columbine.”

Affirmative action is back in the news

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recently announced that it would review the continued use of affirmative action by the University of Texas, and this announcement has prompted widespread media coverage, both national and local, on this still controversial subject. 

Nationally, Time magazine published an interesting article that reported on the so-called Mismatch effect:      

• Since the court last reviewed college affirmative action in 2003, a body of empirical research has emerged showing that racial preferences can hurt their purported beneficiaries by catapulting them into schools for which they are inadequately prepared. Placed in classrooms pitched above their current level of knowledge, they learn less than they would if they were among peers whose academic skills more closely mirror their own. This “mismatch” effect is particularly relevant to the University of Texas case, Fisher v. University of Texas, because the university claims that it needs to admit students according to race in order to achieve “classroom diversity.” Mismatch theory predicts — correctly — that using racial preferences will have the opposite effect.

A leading columnist with the Washington Post – Esther Cepeda – made a similar argument in her column based on her personal experience:   

• I graduated from a diverse public college preparatory school and attended an equally diverse public university where no one ever felt anyone else got in because of affirmative action.  My strong undergraduate performance earned me a full-ride scholarship to a prestigious marketing graduate program at Northwestern University.  I think of it as the year I formally became a “minority.” In my classes I was the official Hispanic.  It was obvious that most of my classmates knew I was there on a full scholarship and assumed that I’d gotten into school through an official attempt at diversity.  Here’s the thing, though: that may have been exactly why I got in. And guess what? I was not academically equal to my peers and woefully unprepared for the math-heavy statistical analysis needed to complete the basic courses in data mining.  Low first-quarter grades put me on academic probation. I ended up leaving school without getting that graduate degree — another statistic showing that minority access to college does not guarantee completion.  It was painful preparation for the “real world” because since then I’ve not held a job — in teaching, government or journalism — where someone didn’t imply, or flat out declare, that I got it just for being Hispanic.

Cepeda concluded, “Diversity on college campuses is vital to a diverse workforce. But diversity must not be achieved through college-level quota systems that might admit students who are not as academically prepared as their peers.”

Today, the San Antonio Express-News decided to jump in the fray by publishing side-by-side columns on the issue of affirmative action.  Because the Express-News editorial page is liberal, it decided that fair & balanced opinions would consist of a far-left column vs. a far, far left columnist.

The far, far-left column was contributed by Fred Williams.  He argued that affirmative action as a form of reparations for the past sins of America was just, no matter that the people being penalized were not responsible for the sins or the people being rewarded were not harmed by the past sins.  

The far-left column was contributed by Ruben Navarrette.  He opined that whether to continue affirmative action depends on what its goal is:

• If the goal is to make amends for past injustice, then we should end it. Growing up Mexican American in the Southwest in the 1940s and ’50s, my parents routinely faced discrimination. But that should not entitle my children, who are being raised in an upper-middle-class neighborhood, to have a leg up when they apply to college.  But if the goal of the program is to produce leaders who look like America in the 21st century, we should ratchet it up. U.S. Census officials estimate that, in two decades, whites will be a statistical minority in the U.S. population. It would be self-defeating to educate mostly those people who look like the country that we used to be rather than the one we’ve become.

Navarrette conveniently fails to address directly the argument that affirmative action fails to comport with the constitutional requirement to treat all people equally.  In fact, he concludes his column with a snarky criticism of white people who have the nerve to ask for equal treatment:

• Students and parents dread going to the mailbox on spring days and finding letters that begin: “Thank you for your interest. But we regret to inform you …” When those letters come, it hurts. And it helps to blame someone. Why not the Latino or African American classmate who fared better in the admissions process?  Right about here, a good parent would resist the urge to feed his child’s newfound victimhood. Instead, he should explain that life is full of failure and that we have to learn from it and press on. Or, if you’re not up to that, mom and dad, you can always take the easy way out and hire a lawyer.

For good measure, the Express-News’ Metro columnist O.Ricardo Pimentel also decided to share his thoughts on affirmative action today.  He probably should have coordinated his thoughts with Navarrette because they both said essentially the same thing - i.e., Hispanics are a booming demographic so college admissions should be adjusted to reflect that:

•  If you’re keeping score of such things, in UT admissions (as in life generally), it’s still a blowout for whites. “Race neutral” may be in the eye of the beholder, not so neutral after all. Then there’s this: Anglo population here and elsewhere will be declining. The Latino population in particular among minorities is already booming. And they are lagging in all those important indicators. Focused attention is precisely what’s needed if the state is to prosper. How do you focus without focusing? It starts with getting Texas minorities ready for college but also key: Getting them in, realizing that even if they aren’t 10 percenters, their chances of succeeding in school and in life far exceeds that percentage.

If you understand what Pimentel is trying to communicate, your comprehension skills are greater than mine.

Most court experts expect the affirmative action practices by the University of Texas to be struck down, but there is much uncertainty regarding whether the opinion will be narrowly limited to the University of Texas practices or broadly applied the practices of public universities everywhere.  In the long-term, just as same-sex marriage is almost inevitable, I suspect that the death of affirmative action is similarly inevitable.

Valentine’s Day and love

With Valentine’s Day only a couple of days away, love is in the air, and, with the zeal of a convert, I like to say that love makes the world go ‘round.  Love brings joy and happiness to millions and motivates people to do great and selfless things.  Unfortunately, love also often leads to bad things.

For the past two weeks, the San Antonio Express-News has been reporting extensively on the murder trial of Jon Thomas Ford, 43, who is accused of murdering his ex-girlfriend Dana Clair Edwards, 32, in the early hours of January 1, 2009.  Although the couple has ostensibly had an amicable breakup only three months earlier, there was testimony that Edwards had met Ford a week earlier to exchange Christmas gifts, but the meeting that was expected to be brief turned into an emotional, crying, drinking binge for Ford.  Unfortunately, the testimony didn’t reveal what was causing the binge.      Also, unfortunately, the evidence against Ford is very sketchy because the police admittedly did a sloppy job of preserving the DNA evidence.  That explains why the prosecution is occurring most than three years after the murder.

The San Antonio Express-News is probably attracted to the case because it involves affluent Alamo Heights types who have been able to retain Dick DeGuerin, a famous Houston defense attorney.  I am interested in it because, having recently gone through a painful breakup, I am struck by how difficult it is for many people to deal with the loss (not death) of a loved one.  Usually, the reaction is depression, but rarely does a week go by when the media doesn’t report on some act of violence committed by someone who has lost a love one.

Earlier today, I was speaking to a friend about emotional intelligence and how some people are gifted with it while others experience great difficulties in life because we didn’t receive the gift.  I wonder if this is an area where our schools should do more.  There has been a movement in recent years to teach financial responsibility in the schools as many kids run into unnecessary problems in life because they know little about taking care of their personal finances.  Perhaps schools could provide a similar service by teaching kids the fundamentals of having healthy emotional relationships and avoiding those that lead to depression or violence.

Incidentally, there was an excellent article in Parade magazine today talking about the science of love.  I especially enjoyed it because it described four chemical compounds that contribute to the feeling of love – dopamine, norepinephrine, oxytocin, and serotonin.  If you read my blog regularly, you know that I was introduced to the concept of oxytocin a couple of weeks ago by a friend who explained its importance to male and female bonding.  The Parade article also describes the role played by dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin. 

Of course, love is much more than a chemical reaction.  I recently stumbled across an extensive wikiHow article that attempted to describe/define love.  The article started with a quote from a famous font of wisdom, Albert Einstein – “How on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love?”

Among the article’s other excellent insights:

1. Love is difficult to define. How do you avoid confusing it with infatuation or lust?
2. The Greeks defined love in four categories:

• Agape love is unconditional love. It is love by “choice” even if you are not pleased. A good example is “God loves us with our faults.”
• Philia love is the dispassionate virtuous love, guided by our likes or our healthy or unhealthy needs and desires.
• Storge is the word for family love and the physical show of “affection”, the need for physical touch. Sometimes the love between exceptional friends.
• Eros is the physical “sexual” desire, intercourse. It is the root word of erotic, and eroticism.

3.  Love can be broken into three components:

• Passion underlies physical desire, sexual behavior, and arousal. This is the physical side.
• Intimacy is the emotional aspect: closeness, connectedness, and warmth of friendship.
• Commitment is the decision-making part “CHOICE” of love; are couples willing to work it out?

4.  Deeply in love it is thought that one can only be really in love with one person at a time. The part of the human being that is reserved for sharing with another (which some may call the soul, or the heart) is used up while dedicating itself to that one source, and that it is impossible to feel the overwhelming feeling of love in two sources: “twice-at-once” sounds impossible.

5.  Endure for a time. Time does seem to be the only healer in the case of lost love. The full connection of two loving parties (mutually) could lead to a stronger relationship, and developments such as procreation and marriage; but in the case of a single party or the rejection of the first party by the second, or even in the case of a secret love, being in love will usually only fade after the interest is out of sight and out of mind, or gives full closure to the pursuer.

6.  Love forever (especially in literature)–it is forever. No matter how much time passes by, or what obstacles become present in the path of true and pure love, love will endure. This may be far-fetched from reality, but many find it to be a preferable way to think.

7.  Allow yourself to think so you may choose why, where and when to find your life partner not just for simple breeding or survival of the fittest, but in order for developing and choosing as human beings not just feeling beings.

8.  Share your love and spread it on through new generations, so while love lasts eternally, your mark upon humanity is also forever through your children and children’s children; you make your mark by your genetic codes, understandings and teachings continuing–passed on and developed forevermore!

Happy Valentine’s Day