Escaping Accountablity: selecting the "right" scapegoat.

It is ironic that the United States should have been founded by intellectuals, for throughout most of our political history, the intellectual has been for the most part either an outsider, a servant or a scapegoat. -- Richard Hofstadter Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (1963)

Not many years ago I heard an interview on National Public Radio during which the guest, to the apparent delight of the host, expressed the view that it was time to "hold colleges and universities responsible for the failure of their students to graduate on time."

"Public colleges," he explained, "have never been held accountable for, that is, given state appropriations in proportion to, the success of their students. The have received funds merely on the basis of the number admitted." Things had to change!

Excuse me! Is this a person who has ever worried about grade inflation? Or about "empty diplomas?" Should "party-school" graduates number among the most successful? Will medical schools, in the long run, also, be held to this notion of accountability?

The provost of a local college in Philadelphia, strapped for funds, recently informed the faculty that all their classes will begin to be "bimodal." What is this? Well, in the past, there were two groups of students identified by the admissions committee: those who met admissions standards; and, those who failed to meet them. The former group had, on the average, higher high school and SAT averages than the latter.

To increase university income, both groups will now be admitted. It is up to the professors to "individualize instruction according to the unique needs of the student" in order to that No Student (tuition payment?) be Left Behind.

Professorial reaction has been muted to the point of indiscernibility, much as that of many public school teachers was, when No Child Left Behind was vaunted as a "school reform."

I learned from my mentors many years ago when I was pursuing licensure as a school principal that the first, the Primary, Rule of Administration was CYA, Cover Your Asse(t)s. You practice the first rule by putting to use the Second Rule of Administration.

The Second Rule of Administration -- I have learned through experience -- is, Theorem: "Pick on the quiet, the long-suffering. Otherwise, "Never Scapegoat the Squeaky Wheel."

Lemma: "Dump on the Humble, the Self-sacrificing and the Patient, but not if they are protest-prone." (Also, available for bullying are those stupid enough to believe that it is "unprofessional" to protect their own interests.)

For references and to examine these issues further, see Buffering: Enhancing Moral Hazard in Decision-Making?"



Cordially, EGR

Usurping the Rights of Others

Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
-- Lord Acton

Does power tend to corrupt? How exactly does this happen? Power does so by changing our perceptions of the people over whom we have power or who have power over us. This tempts us to deal with them in ways that may undermine both our personal and our common values.

Long ago John Dewey argued that democracy perfected itself the more its members communicated freely with one another. This jibes with what many researches indicate it is that brings people to mistreat others: communicating on a "need to know" basis.

Those who arrogate knowledge to themselves, who believe they have the right to define other people's needs, tend to see them as mere tools to serve either the personal ends of the arrogators; or, more important, to serve what they understand to be their organization's mission.

To examine these issues further, see Leadership as Usurpation

-- EGR

Bigotry: A Cheap, Traditional Analgesic for Extremists.

re-edited 11/10/20

Everything in moderation. -- Kleovoulos o Lindios (6th century BC.)

From Mother's Milk to Hate-Monger's Bile. Bigotry promotes ideas of inferiority: moral, mental or physical. Bigotry develops from an almost universal, natural predisposition for affiliation into often extreme ideologies and practices of exclusivity, suppression and abuse.

A child's natural attachment to its mother can, under certain circumstances of upbringing, develop into the participation in the abuse of other human beings because Mother or family didn't "like" them. As the song from Rogers and Hammersteins South Pacific goes:

You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!

Hate, in itself, may not be an evil. It is often a natural, understandable emotional response by those who suffer mistreatment. Hate gets to be morally suspect when it overgeneralizes to innocent people on the basis of characteristics common to both innocents and miscreants. But it is important not to treat every case of hatred, where inter-group relations are involved, as bigotry.

Extreme Group Antagonism: A root of evil? We grow up into groups often bound together by little more than habits of association built on fond hopes that, on occasion, may disregard bitter experience.

In many a society around the world, where people experience inequality, suppression and alienation, there will be those -- giving merely lip-service, say, only to equality, liberty or fraternity -- who believe they have found soul-mates merely because they all spout the same slogans.

Unscrupulous leaders can exploit such misapprehensions of fraternity among potential bigots. (See Masks: Words that Hide Agendas)

Groups maintain their very existence through antagonism, competition, if not for survival needs, then for the attention of would-be members. So long as their participation is tolerable, these soul-mates look to build their self-esteem in friendly company pursuing what they take to be common concerns. (See SLOGANS: junkfood, dead-weight or poison? )

Provided, that is, that the cost of their membership is tolerable. The leadership gains in self-esteem, and very often in substantial benefits at the likely cost of its followers. (See A Leader's Primary Pursuit: Incumbency) The task of leadership, of providing motive for the organization, and for its continuation, is made easier, the more they can convince members that there is a threat from competing groups.

Enter, the Heroes? However, there are not a few who see this competitive dynamic as a primal evil. They seem to believe that doing away with all forms of competition would usher in peace and prosperity, as well as equality, liberty and fraternity the world over.

This is most likely a forlorn hope. The very virtues many of us pursue, e.g. respect for individuals, justice, rights, equity and the like rest on the idea of some basic competition among individuals, e.g. children for their parents attention, families for community status, personal self-esteem in comparison with friends and acquaintances.

This is an important conceptual point. Lacking some competition, i.e. desire plus impediment to access between groups or individuals, there would be no issues to be raised with respect to equality, or justice; nor any issues of liberty or fraternity.

The moon belongs to everyone
The best things in life are free
The stars belong to everyone
They gleam there for you and me

Lyrics by J. Harris, T. Lewis, and M. Bivins

Because groups often facilitate, or more important, restrict access to desired scarce objects or situations, membership becomes important in and of itself, both for followers and leaders. The values of belonging, group-membership, are inculcated not only within families, but in informal children's groups, in schools, through sports, in political parties, and, especially, in religions

The common sanction for deviants who resist the blandishments of belonging is love-withdrawal in one form or another. The common reward is an increase in esteem for the adherent. (A religious person might deprecate all of these as Sins of Pride, committing, ironically, the very sin he or she is criticizing.)

Would-be reformers require the existence of violators. The virtues they seek are to bring balance, fairness, to the competitions we cannot avoid. But there is a critical ambiguity in our notion of fairness to be taken into consideration: fair share vs fair play. (See Fair Share vs. Fair Play: Two Competing Conceptions of Justice )

A persistent confusion about the distinction between fair share and fair play confuses many attempts to compensate for past prejudices, particularly in policies of affirmative action. Another dilemma faced by uncareful reformers is that cures for the effects of discrimination are offered that threaten to spread the disease. (See Positive Discrimination )

Languages of Contempt. Almost every group uses words which help them celebrate themselves or, more usually disparage possible competitors. Social class or other in-group distinctions are expressed by such terms as mouth-breathers, not our kind, unhip commuter-student, hill-billy, redneck, townie, hippy, suits -- not to mention a whole host of words I will -- for the sake of not confronting readers with obscenities and vulgarities -- forego mentioning.

Ethnic differences, often thought of as racial differences, can be treated derogatorily with such terms as polak, wop, slant, spic and the like. Such terms can be very upsetting. When I taught in a junior high school many years ago I had a Puerto Rican colleague who formed a multi-ethnic club for students called SPanish , Indian and Colored. Parents found the acronym, SPIC, to be objectionable. They would not accept the teacher's explanation that he deliberately named the club SPIC in order to de-sensitize his students to the words being used as insults, inculcating, instead, pride of belonging. The parents thought such theoretical benefits to be unlikely, considering the insult potential that actually existed.

Political Correctness is an attempt to suppress the derogatory use of certain words in the hope that prohibiting the expression of inciting words will quench the contempt that might underlie them. So it is that no one -- in a public school, at least -- can be referred to as crippled, or stupid, or even ignorant. They are (merely) challenged. But so long as social practices of contact and association -- and funding thereof -- remain unchanged, word play is empty incantation.

The likely greatest influences on reducing some (while increasing other) kinds of social group conflict in the United States of America, I suspect, might well NOT have been policing, schooling, revivals, churches, or famous graduation speakers; but, rather MTV, new musical fads, sit-ins, and a general obstreperousness on the part of young people in challenging tradition, all this sound-bitten as sexndrugsnrocknroll. (Even so, the same kinds of debauchery their parents and grandparents indulged in can still be enjoyed but for a different content in a different manner.)

It is important to note that conflict may produce benefits as well as costs. The important question, however, is, Who benefits from the conflict and who pays the costs? (This idea may be followed up on here: The Functions of Conflict, )

Immorality and Extremism. Any intended intervention into peoples lives that might be based on possible untruths or misperceptions demands prior careful examination. This is so not only to make such intervention effective, but to forestall injustice. Proceeding with such an intervention is not only likely to be ineffective, but immoral, in the eyes of many. (See Intervention: helping, interfering or just being useless? )

Bigotries of all kinds support such flawed interventions. They are most most objectionable, not as individual hidden, inner seethings of hatred toward some target group, but as open action based on questionable assumptions of fact and biased perceptions of motive.

It is exhilarating for the bigot to feel contempt for others; it gives the illusion of raising the spirit, and invigorating the soul.

Nonetheless, bigotry is the curdled, rotted residue of in-group-love, socially fermented in falsehood and contempt that serves as a cheap, easy fix for diseased or underdeveloped self-esteem.

For examples and to examine these issues further, see Philosophy, Race and Language

Cordially
--- EGR

The Worm Turns: Testing the Candidates

The current governmental infatuation with one-size-fits-all standardized testing is a concern of many. But there is a remedy for this illicit love affair. Require every candidate for political office to take a battery of standardized tests. Then we will widely and repeatedly publicize the result. And to make sure no deserving individual escapes the net, we will also require aspiring high level government appointees, such as candidates for Secretary of Education, to also take the tests.

We could require every aspiring office holder to take the same tests he/she prescribes for others. Before being allowed to run for President, for example, Dubya would have had to pass the self-same tests he championed for high schoolers. Imagine him sweating and scratching his noggin.

Similarly we could require every aspiring state Secretary of Education to pass the battery of tests they propose requiring of aspiring teachers. In Pennsylvania, for example, he or she would have to pass separate NTE tests in Reading, Writing, and Listening Skills, (The later would be a tough one for any politician.).

An alternate plan is to design office specific skill and knowledge tests. A candidate for President of the United States, for instance, would be tested on their knowledge of world geography test, US and world history, basic economics, the environment and so forth. We could turn to ETS or the Psychological Corporation to craft the items. And they would be finalized only after a painstaking vetting. Blue ribbon boards would appraise and reappraise every question. Then every candidate’s test results would be announced to the world.

We could also test their moral and ethical views. Admittedly, dishonest answers would be a problem and safeguards clearly are required. One possibility is to administer this particular test while test-takers are hooked up to lie detectors. Imagine a candidate sweating and squirming as the polygraph relentlessly tells the tale. “Is that your actual answer? Is that your final honest answer?” (Philadelphia’s infamous late Duce/Mayor Frank Rizzo once failed a lie detector test while trying to prove the device’s reliability. Evidently the polygraph was more discerning than voters.) Alternatively, we could inject test-takers with scopolamine, a truth serum favored by secret policemen the world over. The test would be administered orally as the subjects drift guilelessly on a tripped out cloud.

Regardless of the method, however, we would have to be absolutely certain that our subjects answer truthfully. And we should keep in mind that most of them would be unaccustomed to doing this.

That, in broad outline, is the plan. But it needs filling in. That’s where you can help. Tell us what you think. Should aspirants for public office take the same tests they prescribe for others, or should they be required to take brand new custom designed tests of character and job-related knowledge. And should we test just once, or every year the person is in office? (Longitudinal testing has the obvious advantage of measuring whether or not the subject is improving while “serving.”)

You also might like to suggest specific test items. They need not be multiple choice. All types of questions typically found on standardized tests are welcome. Rush your comments and test item suggestions to The Worm Turns Foundation, c/o Newfoundations, P.O. Box 94, Oreland, PA 19075, or post them here.

To examine these issues further, see Justice Through Testing .


Best Wishes,

--- G K Clabaugh

“Expert Advice” You Can Do Without

A bunch of kids will be playing together in a schoolyard. Suddenly, a newcomer appears and chants, “Oooooooo. Watch out or you’re gonna get in trouble! You’re gonna get in trouble.” What frequently happens next is the children who were playing stop and leave for other places.

If the children are older, one might challenge the newcomer, “How’re we gonna get in trouble?” The newcomer replies, naming a teacher, “Mrs. Smith doesn’t like people doing that. She'll find out and you’ll be sorry.” This will disperse all but the most rarely courageous – generally characterized as “obstinate” -- children.

Take note that the “what it is” that would supposedly get them into trouble was never identified. Neither was the “why” it was unacceptable. Nor was any evidence given that Mrs. Smith in fact would disapprove. And even if she would have, the mysterious “what it is” might be quite acceptable to other teachers and parents.

But these were kids, after all. We wouldn’t expect them to act like little detectives and lawyers. But do adults handle such situations any better?

In a column called “Legal Talk” in the Winter 2011 issue of Educational Horizons the columnist, co-author of a book called School Law for Teachers gives advice to teachers to report suspected child abuse. What is abuse? Physical abuse, sexual abuse and neglect are given more or less clear examples. But the category, “Emotional or Psychological Abuse” sounds more than a little bit like “Watch out! Or you’re gonna get in trouble.”

Emotional abuse “is a pattern of behavior that impairs a child’s emotional development or sense of self-esteem.” I have seen many an educator or parent sweat at the presentation of such a definition. I don’t think it was guilt. Rather, it was frustration at the prospect of having to fake a vaguely defined decision.

Is there any science behind this notion of emotional or psychological abuse strong enough and so widely accepted that a jury could determine that

1. a child’s emotional development had been impaired; and
2. the behavior of an accused individual had been the primary cause of that impairment?

And how about the child’s “sense of self-esteem?” Even children can misjudge things. Is this "sense of self-esteem" anything firmer upon which to base a legal argument? One’s “sense” of things, say, of acceptance into a group, can be inaccurate, as proven by later treatment received from members. Self-esteem fluctuates in some people depending upon the advertisements they happen to be watching on TV. Again this brings up difficulties in proving that one or more persons are primary causes of such fluctuations.

Educators are reluctant to intervene in circumstances vague or ambiguous enough to permit their own higher-ups to reverse a decision (for whatever reason.) Nor are educators trained -- as a matter of professional development -- to justify their intervention in the face of such a reversal.

Mere administrative or parental objection will disperse all but the most rarely courageous, or trained – generally characterized as “obstinate” -- teachers.

As a practicing educator, do what thoughtful consideration recommends; but, in order to learn how to construct strong reasons for your intervention, see Rationales for Intervention: From Test to Treatment to Policy


Cordially
--- EGR