Stephen Kershnar
A Debate over Admissions Data
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
April 11, 2012
Recently President Dennis Hefner and I have gotten into a debate over whether over the last two decades, SUNY-Fredonia has lost ground in attracting better students relative to its competitors. This debate might be of interest to the campus and community. Here is the original article and the response.
http://www.observertoday.com/page/content.detail/id/570222/Raising-standards-at-SUNY-is-job-one.html
http://www.observertoday.com/page/content.detail/id/570356/College-president-presents-the-facts.html
My argument was that in the last two decades, SUNY-Fredonia has lost ground in attracting better students relative to its competitors. Specifically, I argued that in 1990, Fredonia was 3rd among SUNY colleges, behind only Geneseo and Oswego, in student ability (this ranking is based on SAT scores). In 2011, it was tied for 6th with Cortland. Three schools passed it (New Paltz, Purchase, and Oneonta), one school tied it (Cortland), and two schools remain ahead (Geneseo and Oswego). My measure for the more recent ranking is whether a school is higher than another in two or more of the following three categories: SAT scores for the middle 50%, ACT scores for the middle 50%, and high school grade point average.
I do not take a position on whether the lost ground is anyone’s fault or due to factors outside of anyone’s control. Such factors might include demographic or economic changes in Western New York.
Hefner rejects this argument. He provides two arguments to the contrary. First, from 1996 to 2012, Fredonia’s incoming class improved. Second, were comparable data to be used, Fredonia would be ranked higher than the schools that passed or tied it and the distance between it and the schools that are ranked ahead of it would have narrowed (or some weighted combination of these claims). Comparable data include scores from all of the students.
Hefner argued that the SUNY-wide data is non-comparable in part because of “SAT inflation” tactics that are sometimes present in the industry. This is also in part because Fredonia has the lowest “exceptional admit” percentage. “Exceptional admit” students are students who have lower SAT scores and are excluded from the calculation. Because not counting “exceptional admit” students moves us away from comparable data, Hefner is claiming that Fredonia provides non-comparable statistics, but to a lesser degree than its competitors.
The first argument is irrelevant. Even if from 1996 to 2012 Fredonia’s incoming class improved, this does not show that over the last two decades, SUNY-Fredonia did not lose ground in attracting better students relative to its competitors. We would need to know whether our competitors improved even more.
The second argument depends on the following implicit claims based on comparable data: (1) the schools that were ahead of Fredonia (Geneseo and Oswego) are now less ahead and (2) the schools that were behind Fredonia (New Paltz, Purchase, Oneonta, and Cortland) have not tied or passed it but are farther behind it. Hefner does not explicitly state these claims. I do not know why.
Hefner does not cite a source or make it clear on what comparable data he rests his claim. I was unable to locate any source, study, or publicly available data in support of these implicit claims. Perhaps my search was flawed. It is unclear if he wants us to accept these claims based on his word or on evidence that is not publicly available. In any case, for these implicit claims to be convincing, he needs to provide some evidence.
In the column, I pointed out that I do not know whether the lost ground is due to differences in loans, aid, and income. I cited data from a 2011 Kiplinger article that found that among the eleven schools (Binghamton, Geneseo, Stony Brook, New Paltz, Buffalo, Oneonta, Brockport, Plattsburgh, Cortland, and Albany) that Kiplinger ranks, Fredonia graduates have the third highest average debt at graduation and its students receive the third lowest amount of both need-based aid and non-need-based aid. Fredonia’s graduates have almost $8,000 more debt than New Paltz students, $8,000 more than SUNY-Buffalo students, and $4,000 more than Geneseo students.
Hefner claims that Kiplinger’s data is inaccurate because it is based on false and incomplete information. First, he claims that it is false because the difference between Fredonia and the other ten schools is much smaller than Kiplinger reports. Second, he claims that the data is incomplete because it excludes the parent loan category and excludes students who graduated with zero debt.
Consider Hefner’s claim that Kiplinger’s data are false. Hefner fails to provide evidence, such as a source or study, so his claim cannot be evaluated. In addition, for his argument to work, were parent-loan and zero-debt data to be taken into account and properly weighted, the ranking would vary significantly from that found in Kiplinger. I am not sure how the weighted ranking should be done. For example, should parental loans be given the same weight as student loans? Even if the weighted ranking can be done, we again need evidence that once corrected, the current ranking would vary significantly.
On a side note, the rejection of Kiplinger’s data is odd. Here is the title of an article in Fredonia’s Campus Report dated January 3, 2012, “SUNY Fredonia named a Kiplinger's "Best Value" once again.” Apparently, their data used to be reliable.
Hefner asserts that Fredonia’s admissions approach works very well as evidenced by Fredonia’s consistently strong graduation rates, even though it does not maximize the reported SAT scores. This claim does not conflict with my argument. Perhaps it was not meant as a criticism.
Consider recent data from the New York State Education Department (2010). It indicates that the following is a list of some of the SUNY universities and colleges with a higher six-year graduation rate (a standard measure): Albany, Alfred (College of Ceramics), Binghamton, Buffalo, Brockport, Environmental Science & Forestry, Geneseo, New Paltz, and Oneonta. Fredonia’s graduation rate is not in the top ten of SUNY colleges. In a 2009 study by the American Enterprise Institute (based on 2007 data), the six-year graduation rate at Fredonia (62.3%) was worse than 35 colleges and universities in New York (out of 105 whose graduation rates are reported) and barely better than the state average (59.6%). On this study, the top ten competitive schools nationwide (I’m guessing this is Fredonia’s comparison class), all have graduation rates that are at least ten percentage points higher, although to be fair, these include private colleges and universities. I do not see how we can be confident that Fredonia’s admissions approach, which does not maximize reported SAT scores, works very well.
Hefner also claimed that my argument contained false and misleading information, contained glaring errors, was appalling to him, and was written by “one of our own.” He did not present evidence in support of these claims. Also, I am unsure how to interpret the scare quotes.
This debate is part of government transparency. In general, it is important that state institutions be transparent. Part of transparency involves allowing current and potential students and taxpayers to have access to the data concerning state colleges and universities. Also, on some accounts, the faculty should have access to the data in order to help govern their institutions. Perhaps Fredonia should be public about double-booking admissions data and should publicize its true admissions data, including “exceptional admit” students, along with its sanitized data.
Hefner and I agree on the most important claim: SUNY-Fredonia is a strong college with a lot to be proud of and its academic standards should reflect this.
05 April 2012
Fredonia: Losing Ground Relative to Competitors
Stephen Kershnar
A Job for the New President: Raise Academic Standards
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
March 29, 2011
With the appointment of a new President to SUNY-Fredonia, Virginia Horvath, one of the most important jobs she will have is to promote academic excellence at Fredonia.
Over the last two decades, SUNY-Fredonia has excelled in getting new buildings and expensive renovations. According to SUNY-Fredonia’s alumni magazine, Statement, Fredonia had the following built: Natatorium, University Commons, Rosch Recital Hall, University Stadium, Sound Recording Studio, Campus and Community Children’s Center, Technology Incubator, Robert and Marilyn Maytum Music Rehearsal Halls, and the Science Center. There have also been a number of major renovations on campus. The total construction spent on these and other capital construction projects has been at least $360 million. This construction boom is an outstanding accomplishment and has significantly benefitted the campus and community.
Let me also mention that many Fredonia students are unbelievably smart and talented. For example, I’ve had students attend an incredible array of elite law and graduate schools, including Penn, Duke, William & Mary, Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Illinois, Ohio State, and Indiana. Many of these students are equally successful in their personal lives as in their professional ones. Many of these students were better than the Ivy League students who were my classmates.
Also, faculty that taught them includes many incredible people who excel at both research and teaching. The students were lucky to learn from such outstanding talent and I am lucky to work with them.
That said, in the last two decades, SUNY-Fredonia has lost ground in attracting better students relative to its competitors. In 1990, Fredonia was 3rd among SUNY colleges, behind only Geneseo and Oswego, in student ability. In 2011, it was tied for 6th with Cortland. Three schools passed it (New Paltz, Purchase, and Oneonta), one school tied it (Cortland), and two schools remain ahead (Geneseo and Oswego). My measure here is whether a school is higher than another in two or more of the following three categories: SAT scores for the middle 50%, ACT scores for the middle 50%, and high school grade point average.
Consider New Paltz and Purchase. In 1990, Fredonia’s average SAT scores for freshmen were 70 points higher than New Paltz’s freshmen and 50 points higher than Purchase’s. By 2011, Fredonia’s freshmen (1040-1200 SAT/22-26 ACT) scored much lower than New Paltz’s freshmen (1110-1300 SAT/24-29 ACT) and slightly lower than Purchase’s freshmen (1060-1210 SAT/24-29 ACT).
On a side note, Fredonia’s student body also has noticeably lower scores than SUNY’s major university centers and doctoral degree granting institutions, although this might be a long-standing difference. Here are the 2011 SAT ranges for the middle 50% of students at the university centers: Binghamton (1180-1340), Stony Brook (1170-1310), Buffalo (1120-1270), and Albany (1110-1250). Note that it is possible for a SUNY college to beat the university centers. Geneseo (1290-1370) beats all but Cornell’s public colleges and they’re a whole different animal.
It is unclear what accounts for changes in ranking. One college ranking reported that Fredonia admits a higher percentage of students. In a January 201l article in Kiplinger that rates the best values in public colleges, Fredonia’s admission rate (49%) is higher than several of its competitors, including: New Paltz (34%), Geneseo (35%), Oneonta (39%), Cortland (39%), and Brockport (48%). Perhaps these other schools have an advantage because they are closer to large populations or populations that are doing better economically.
It is also unclear what is going on with loans, aid, and income. Among the eleven schools (Binghamton, Geneseo, Stony Brook, New Paltz, Buffalo, Oneonta, Brockport, Plattsburgh, Cortland, and Albany) that Kiplinger ranks, Fredonia graduates have the third highest average debt at graduation and its students receive the third lowest amount of both need-based aid and non-need-based aid. Fredonia’s graduates have almost $8,000 more debt than New Paltz students, $8,000 more than Buffalo students, and $4,000 more than Geneseo students. I do not know what accounts for these differences.
Data compiled by The Wall Street Journal indicates that Fredonia students also make less money (mid-career median salary) than those at other SUNY university centers and colleges. Fredonia graduates make $66,000 (mid-career median salary). This is less than its elite SUNY competitors: Binghamton ($96,000), Stony Brook ($93,000), Albany ($92,000), Buffalo ($82,000), and Geneseo ($81,000). They also make less than students at other competitors: Oswego ($78,000), Oneonta ($77,000), Plattsburgh ($76,000), and Potsdam ($70,000). This might be due to the lower pay in the Buffalo area, the fields Fredonia emphasizes (for example, education and music), or the gender balance at Fredonia, but I’m guessing. Given these possible explanations, there is no obvious need for Fredonia to address this gap.
It is unclear whether the majors that Fredonia emphasizes affect the student body’s competitiveness and their average salary. According to one study by Wake Forest economist Kevin Rask, two of the majors that Fredonia emphasizes (education and music) are fields that give out some of the highest grades. In contrast, chemistry, math, and economics, give out the lowest. This pattern can be seen on Fredonia’s campus. In 2010, the two education departments at Fredonia gave out A’s or A-‘s to 55% and 76% of its students. Music gave these grades to 58% of its students. In general, the majors with some of the lowest grades seem to have students with the highest IQs (see blogger Steve Sailer’s estimates of actual college majors using GRE scores). I should disclose that I also give out lots of A’s.
Let me state the obvious here: there are many music and education students and professors who are incredibly smart and talented and significantly better thinkers and people than most other people (including one overly opinionated philosophy professor).
Consider drug and alcohol use. On The Daily Beast’s ranking of druggiest colleges, Fredonia was ranked 10th nationwide. I doubt that the rankings were scientific and don’t know what produced Fredonia’s impressive ranking. Given this, I doubt drugs affected Fredonia’s numbers. On a side note, because drug use like alcohol use is often harmless fun, I don’t think this is something to worry about.
The academic performance of the minority student population at Fredonia is an area of concern. The undergraduate graduation rate for minority freshmen is low for four years (average rate: 28%, 1999-2005) and low for six years (average rate: 43%, 1999-2004). It is unclear if this is due to students dropping or transferring out. With a push to admit more minority students, this area warrants discussion. I’d also like to make two quick points. First, I doubt this area of concern affects the above numbers. Second, many of the minority students in my class are superb students and a pleasure to have in my classes.
The new President might consider trying to increase student competitiveness in a manner similar to what was done by Geneseo and New Paltz in the last few decades. SUNY-Fredonia is a strong college with a lot to be proud of and its academic standards should reflect this.
A Job for the New President: Raise Academic Standards
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
March 29, 2011
With the appointment of a new President to SUNY-Fredonia, Virginia Horvath, one of the most important jobs she will have is to promote academic excellence at Fredonia.
Over the last two decades, SUNY-Fredonia has excelled in getting new buildings and expensive renovations. According to SUNY-Fredonia’s alumni magazine, Statement, Fredonia had the following built: Natatorium, University Commons, Rosch Recital Hall, University Stadium, Sound Recording Studio, Campus and Community Children’s Center, Technology Incubator, Robert and Marilyn Maytum Music Rehearsal Halls, and the Science Center. There have also been a number of major renovations on campus. The total construction spent on these and other capital construction projects has been at least $360 million. This construction boom is an outstanding accomplishment and has significantly benefitted the campus and community.
Let me also mention that many Fredonia students are unbelievably smart and talented. For example, I’ve had students attend an incredible array of elite law and graduate schools, including Penn, Duke, William & Mary, Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Illinois, Ohio State, and Indiana. Many of these students are equally successful in their personal lives as in their professional ones. Many of these students were better than the Ivy League students who were my classmates.
Also, faculty that taught them includes many incredible people who excel at both research and teaching. The students were lucky to learn from such outstanding talent and I am lucky to work with them.
That said, in the last two decades, SUNY-Fredonia has lost ground in attracting better students relative to its competitors. In 1990, Fredonia was 3rd among SUNY colleges, behind only Geneseo and Oswego, in student ability. In 2011, it was tied for 6th with Cortland. Three schools passed it (New Paltz, Purchase, and Oneonta), one school tied it (Cortland), and two schools remain ahead (Geneseo and Oswego). My measure here is whether a school is higher than another in two or more of the following three categories: SAT scores for the middle 50%, ACT scores for the middle 50%, and high school grade point average.
Consider New Paltz and Purchase. In 1990, Fredonia’s average SAT scores for freshmen were 70 points higher than New Paltz’s freshmen and 50 points higher than Purchase’s. By 2011, Fredonia’s freshmen (1040-1200 SAT/22-26 ACT) scored much lower than New Paltz’s freshmen (1110-1300 SAT/24-29 ACT) and slightly lower than Purchase’s freshmen (1060-1210 SAT/24-29 ACT).
On a side note, Fredonia’s student body also has noticeably lower scores than SUNY’s major university centers and doctoral degree granting institutions, although this might be a long-standing difference. Here are the 2011 SAT ranges for the middle 50% of students at the university centers: Binghamton (1180-1340), Stony Brook (1170-1310), Buffalo (1120-1270), and Albany (1110-1250). Note that it is possible for a SUNY college to beat the university centers. Geneseo (1290-1370) beats all but Cornell’s public colleges and they’re a whole different animal.
It is unclear what accounts for changes in ranking. One college ranking reported that Fredonia admits a higher percentage of students. In a January 201l article in Kiplinger that rates the best values in public colleges, Fredonia’s admission rate (49%) is higher than several of its competitors, including: New Paltz (34%), Geneseo (35%), Oneonta (39%), Cortland (39%), and Brockport (48%). Perhaps these other schools have an advantage because they are closer to large populations or populations that are doing better economically.
It is also unclear what is going on with loans, aid, and income. Among the eleven schools (Binghamton, Geneseo, Stony Brook, New Paltz, Buffalo, Oneonta, Brockport, Plattsburgh, Cortland, and Albany) that Kiplinger ranks, Fredonia graduates have the third highest average debt at graduation and its students receive the third lowest amount of both need-based aid and non-need-based aid. Fredonia’s graduates have almost $8,000 more debt than New Paltz students, $8,000 more than Buffalo students, and $4,000 more than Geneseo students. I do not know what accounts for these differences.
Data compiled by The Wall Street Journal indicates that Fredonia students also make less money (mid-career median salary) than those at other SUNY university centers and colleges. Fredonia graduates make $66,000 (mid-career median salary). This is less than its elite SUNY competitors: Binghamton ($96,000), Stony Brook ($93,000), Albany ($92,000), Buffalo ($82,000), and Geneseo ($81,000). They also make less than students at other competitors: Oswego ($78,000), Oneonta ($77,000), Plattsburgh ($76,000), and Potsdam ($70,000). This might be due to the lower pay in the Buffalo area, the fields Fredonia emphasizes (for example, education and music), or the gender balance at Fredonia, but I’m guessing. Given these possible explanations, there is no obvious need for Fredonia to address this gap.
It is unclear whether the majors that Fredonia emphasizes affect the student body’s competitiveness and their average salary. According to one study by Wake Forest economist Kevin Rask, two of the majors that Fredonia emphasizes (education and music) are fields that give out some of the highest grades. In contrast, chemistry, math, and economics, give out the lowest. This pattern can be seen on Fredonia’s campus. In 2010, the two education departments at Fredonia gave out A’s or A-‘s to 55% and 76% of its students. Music gave these grades to 58% of its students. In general, the majors with some of the lowest grades seem to have students with the highest IQs (see blogger Steve Sailer’s estimates of actual college majors using GRE scores). I should disclose that I also give out lots of A’s.
Let me state the obvious here: there are many music and education students and professors who are incredibly smart and talented and significantly better thinkers and people than most other people (including one overly opinionated philosophy professor).
Consider drug and alcohol use. On The Daily Beast’s ranking of druggiest colleges, Fredonia was ranked 10th nationwide. I doubt that the rankings were scientific and don’t know what produced Fredonia’s impressive ranking. Given this, I doubt drugs affected Fredonia’s numbers. On a side note, because drug use like alcohol use is often harmless fun, I don’t think this is something to worry about.
The academic performance of the minority student population at Fredonia is an area of concern. The undergraduate graduation rate for minority freshmen is low for four years (average rate: 28%, 1999-2005) and low for six years (average rate: 43%, 1999-2004). It is unclear if this is due to students dropping or transferring out. With a push to admit more minority students, this area warrants discussion. I’d also like to make two quick points. First, I doubt this area of concern affects the above numbers. Second, many of the minority students in my class are superb students and a pleasure to have in my classes.
The new President might consider trying to increase student competitiveness in a manner similar to what was done by Geneseo and New Paltz in the last few decades. SUNY-Fredonia is a strong college with a lot to be proud of and its academic standards should reflect this.
21 March 2012
Against Patiotism: No Love for an Abusive Nation
Stephen Kershnar
Patriotism and the Criminal Justice System
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
March 19, 2012
With Memorial Day, July 4th, and Major League Baseball approaching, we’ll soon see an outpouring of patriotism. The problem with the outpouring is that it doesn’t make a lot of sense when directed at a country that damages millions of people for no good reason.
Here’s the argument. If a country puts large numbers of its people under the control of the criminal-justice system and does so via demeaning dragnet searches, then it is not a free country. If a country is not free, then it is unworthy of its people’s love. The U.S. puts large numbers of its people under the control of the criminal justice system and does so via demeaning dragnet searches.
First, consider the criminal justice system. A 2011 Department of Justice study (using 2010 numbers) found that the U.S. has about 3% (more than 7 million people) under the control of the criminal justice system. This includes people who are locked up in federal or state prisons, or local jails and those who are on probation or parole. Roughly, a third of those under the control of the criminal-justice system are locked up. 3% is a staggering number. By analogy, this is equivalent to discovering that that 30 out of every 1,000 people at a Bills game are under the control of the criminal-justice system.
Being under the control of the criminal-justice is a major roadblock in life. Felons are not allowed to vote or serve on juries. They are locked out of mainstream society by being denied licenses to a wide range of professions and having to check the “felon box” on applications for employment. They are discriminated against by private landlords, ineligible for food stamps, banned from public housing, and subject to numerous restrictions on their travel and behavior. In her book, “The New Jim Crow,” Ohio State law professor Michelle Alexander points out these roadblocks make it unsurprising that in 2000, more than one-third of prison admissions were for parole violations.
Consider next incarceration. Writing in the New York Times in 2008, Adam Liptak points out that the U.S. locks up roughly 1 in 100 adults (about 2.3 million people). Liptak further notes that the United States clearly loves incarcerating its people. The United States has less than 5% of the world’s population but about 25% of its prisoners. We have 700,000 more people imprisoned than China despite its having four times more people. We incarcerate people at roughly 5 times the rate of Great Britain, 8 ½ times the rate of Germany, and 12 times the rate of Japan. In fact, the U.S. imprisons people nearly 6 times more often than do other nations. Even with all this incarceration, the U.S. still has higher rates of murder and assault.
This policy wreaks havoc on blacks. Alexander points out that nearly one-third of black men are likely to spend time in prison at some point in their lives. Consider what that number means to black women.
Alexander argues that the problem is the drug war. She points out that more people are incarcerated today for drugs than were incarcerated for all reasons in 1980. Between 1985 and 2000, she notes, two-thirds of the increase in federal prisoners and more than half of the increase in state prisoners were due to drug offenses. Nor are drug offenders violent. Since the drug war began, she observes, more than 31 million people have been arrested and most arrests were for nonviolent possession. Most people in state prisons for drug offenses have no history of violence or even significant selling history.
Many arrests come about through demeaning and blatantly unconstitutional searches. The courts have in effect ruled that drug searches are not covered by the Fourth Amendment. Police regularly request to search citizens knowing that they feel coerced to consent and without informing them that they have the right to say no. One officer stated that when searching bags at bus and train stops, he had searched nearly 3,000 bags without being refused consent. One estimate of a Drug Enforcement Agency’s traffic-stop program found that 98% of the searches were based only on drivers’ verbal consent and had no other legal authorization. In 95% of these stops, no drugs were found. These are dragnet searches.
Stop-and-frisk searches are widespread and repeatedly upheld by the courts even when merely based on such a loose standard as a police officer’s “judgment and experience.” Pretext-stops allow police to stop and look over cars based on the pretext of a traffic-code infringement, even when they openly admit the traffic violation is a pretext. As Georgetown University law professor David Cole points out, because virtually everyone violates a traffic violation, police can use these stops to search whomever they want. These searches are often combined with aggressive requests to search the driver’s car. The courts have even held that the use of drug-sniffing dogs around cars or luggage doesn’t even count as a search.
One objection to my argument is that people can remain free if they merely avoid activities that society’s schoolmarms have prohibited (drugs, prostitution, gambling, open containers, and so on). Alexander cites one government study that found that 2-5% of prisoners are innocent, so the objection is problematic. Even if this were not the case, criminalizing the lives of millions of people when we know they will engage in recreational activities that victimize no one is hardly the mark of a free society.
A second objection is that the U.S. has other benefits that make up for its outrageous criminal-justice system. This is doubtful. The fact that government at all levels takes more than one out of every three dollars earned suggests that the government’s doesn’t respect economic liberty. Free countries simply don’t take away a third of what you make.
A third objection is that the U.S. is still better than other countries. This sort of argument is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Consider this analogy. A weakling prisoner lives on C-Block and is occasionally victimized by prison rapists. When he reports what’s going on to the warden, the warden tells him that he should love C-Block given the far worse treatment that weaklings get in the A- and B-Blocks. Even if other countries treat you worse, that is no reason to love your abusive country.
A fourth objection is that patriotism is aimed at the U.S. as a country and not its government. The problem is that it is unclear what is left when you subtract the government from the country. Perhaps what is left is love for the people who do not work for the government. It is unclear why our love should be directed at them rather than focused on a smaller group, such as one’s family, neighborhood, or town. In any case, it’s likely impossible to love hundreds of millions of people whom one does not know.
Patriotism toward an abusive country makes no sense. Despite the flag-waving, speeches, and salutes, the U.S. criminalizes oceans of people and is unworthy of such an outpouring of emotion.
Patriotism and the Criminal Justice System
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
March 19, 2012
With Memorial Day, July 4th, and Major League Baseball approaching, we’ll soon see an outpouring of patriotism. The problem with the outpouring is that it doesn’t make a lot of sense when directed at a country that damages millions of people for no good reason.
Here’s the argument. If a country puts large numbers of its people under the control of the criminal-justice system and does so via demeaning dragnet searches, then it is not a free country. If a country is not free, then it is unworthy of its people’s love. The U.S. puts large numbers of its people under the control of the criminal justice system and does so via demeaning dragnet searches.
First, consider the criminal justice system. A 2011 Department of Justice study (using 2010 numbers) found that the U.S. has about 3% (more than 7 million people) under the control of the criminal justice system. This includes people who are locked up in federal or state prisons, or local jails and those who are on probation or parole. Roughly, a third of those under the control of the criminal-justice system are locked up. 3% is a staggering number. By analogy, this is equivalent to discovering that that 30 out of every 1,000 people at a Bills game are under the control of the criminal-justice system.
Being under the control of the criminal-justice is a major roadblock in life. Felons are not allowed to vote or serve on juries. They are locked out of mainstream society by being denied licenses to a wide range of professions and having to check the “felon box” on applications for employment. They are discriminated against by private landlords, ineligible for food stamps, banned from public housing, and subject to numerous restrictions on their travel and behavior. In her book, “The New Jim Crow,” Ohio State law professor Michelle Alexander points out these roadblocks make it unsurprising that in 2000, more than one-third of prison admissions were for parole violations.
Consider next incarceration. Writing in the New York Times in 2008, Adam Liptak points out that the U.S. locks up roughly 1 in 100 adults (about 2.3 million people). Liptak further notes that the United States clearly loves incarcerating its people. The United States has less than 5% of the world’s population but about 25% of its prisoners. We have 700,000 more people imprisoned than China despite its having four times more people. We incarcerate people at roughly 5 times the rate of Great Britain, 8 ½ times the rate of Germany, and 12 times the rate of Japan. In fact, the U.S. imprisons people nearly 6 times more often than do other nations. Even with all this incarceration, the U.S. still has higher rates of murder and assault.
This policy wreaks havoc on blacks. Alexander points out that nearly one-third of black men are likely to spend time in prison at some point in their lives. Consider what that number means to black women.
Alexander argues that the problem is the drug war. She points out that more people are incarcerated today for drugs than were incarcerated for all reasons in 1980. Between 1985 and 2000, she notes, two-thirds of the increase in federal prisoners and more than half of the increase in state prisoners were due to drug offenses. Nor are drug offenders violent. Since the drug war began, she observes, more than 31 million people have been arrested and most arrests were for nonviolent possession. Most people in state prisons for drug offenses have no history of violence or even significant selling history.
Many arrests come about through demeaning and blatantly unconstitutional searches. The courts have in effect ruled that drug searches are not covered by the Fourth Amendment. Police regularly request to search citizens knowing that they feel coerced to consent and without informing them that they have the right to say no. One officer stated that when searching bags at bus and train stops, he had searched nearly 3,000 bags without being refused consent. One estimate of a Drug Enforcement Agency’s traffic-stop program found that 98% of the searches were based only on drivers’ verbal consent and had no other legal authorization. In 95% of these stops, no drugs were found. These are dragnet searches.
Stop-and-frisk searches are widespread and repeatedly upheld by the courts even when merely based on such a loose standard as a police officer’s “judgment and experience.” Pretext-stops allow police to stop and look over cars based on the pretext of a traffic-code infringement, even when they openly admit the traffic violation is a pretext. As Georgetown University law professor David Cole points out, because virtually everyone violates a traffic violation, police can use these stops to search whomever they want. These searches are often combined with aggressive requests to search the driver’s car. The courts have even held that the use of drug-sniffing dogs around cars or luggage doesn’t even count as a search.
One objection to my argument is that people can remain free if they merely avoid activities that society’s schoolmarms have prohibited (drugs, prostitution, gambling, open containers, and so on). Alexander cites one government study that found that 2-5% of prisoners are innocent, so the objection is problematic. Even if this were not the case, criminalizing the lives of millions of people when we know they will engage in recreational activities that victimize no one is hardly the mark of a free society.
A second objection is that the U.S. has other benefits that make up for its outrageous criminal-justice system. This is doubtful. The fact that government at all levels takes more than one out of every three dollars earned suggests that the government’s doesn’t respect economic liberty. Free countries simply don’t take away a third of what you make.
A third objection is that the U.S. is still better than other countries. This sort of argument is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Consider this analogy. A weakling prisoner lives on C-Block and is occasionally victimized by prison rapists. When he reports what’s going on to the warden, the warden tells him that he should love C-Block given the far worse treatment that weaklings get in the A- and B-Blocks. Even if other countries treat you worse, that is no reason to love your abusive country.
A fourth objection is that patriotism is aimed at the U.S. as a country and not its government. The problem is that it is unclear what is left when you subtract the government from the country. Perhaps what is left is love for the people who do not work for the government. It is unclear why our love should be directed at them rather than focused on a smaller group, such as one’s family, neighborhood, or town. In any case, it’s likely impossible to love hundreds of millions of people whom one does not know.
Patriotism toward an abusive country makes no sense. Despite the flag-waving, speeches, and salutes, the U.S. criminalizes oceans of people and is unworthy of such an outpouring of emotion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
