Immigration and the Soul of a Nation

Stephen Kershnar

Immigration and the Essence of a Nation

Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer

December 27, 2021

 

            Large numbers of immigrants have recently come to the United States. This will change the country.  

            Using Census Bureau numbers, the Center for Immigration Studies reports that in the US there are now 46 million immigrants (legal and illegal). This is the largest number ever recorded. Immigrants are now 14.2% of the population. Roughly, this percentage has tripled since 1970 and doubled since 1990. It is nearly the highest percentage ever. The highest was in 1890 when 14.8% of the population were immigrants. By 1910, the percentage of immigrants began to drop precipitously.

            This flood of immigrants ratcheted up the country’s population. Using Bureau of Labor numbers, roughly 86 million people – 26% of the US population – are immigrants and their children. This makes the country considerably more crowded than it was in the 70’s and 80’s.

This flood of immigration is not only new but differs from the rest of the world. In 2015, the US had a larger immigrant population than any other country. It had 19% of the world’s immigrants despite having 4% of its population. Currently, no other country has even a quarter the number of immigrants we do.

            The Biden administration is on track to let in more than 2 million illegal aliens. There were already more than 22 million illegal aliens in the country. On one estimate, the average illegal alien and her children cost taxpayers $8,000 per year. As a group they cost taxpayers more than $100 billion per year. These estimates are controversial and other estimates are far lower. Still, on most estimates, illegal aliens pull money out of citizens’ wallets.   

            The question is how this flood of immigrants will change the US. One important issue here is whether the United States is constituted by a people, a set of ideas, or both. Many countries are constituted by a people or a limited number of peoples. Consider, for example, China, Denmark, Israel, Japan, Norway, and South Korea.

It is often thought that the US is not constituted by a limited number of peoples - despite its Western European and African heritage - rather it consists of a set of ideas. These ideas include economic and political freedom, specific Constitution-based content and structures, and individualism. This is what allows the US to persist despite incorporating 86 million new people. The question arises whether the new peoples accept this set of ideas.

Currently, the politically freest countries in the world are European and some East Asian countries (Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan). The economically freest countries largely follow roughly the same pattern. It is not obvious that immigrants from countries that are currently and historically unfree will support the American set of ideas. As George Mason’s economist Garrett Jones argues, immigrants tend to bring their worldview with them and change the country they move into to be more like the country from which they came. If this is correct, we can expect immigrants who come from countries with less of a history of freedom to be less likely to support this set of ideas than those from countries with better histories.

This is not merely an economic finding. Consider whether the historic American people – that is, current Americans minus immigrants and their children - would have voted for the Biden administration and Democratic Party that continues to try to cut back on freedom, engages in political corruption, and considers destroying long-standing American institutions. For political freedom, consider free speech on university campuses, gun ownership, and social media censorship. For economic freedom, consider attempts to jack up taxes and regulations, monitor people’s bank accounts, and push affirmative action and quotas. For corruption, consider immigration policies that run roughshod over the law, Obama-era IRS corruption, the Russia Hoax, and unconstitutional Covid policies. For attempts to change long-standing American institutions, consider attempts to add DC and Puerto Rico as states, eliminate the electoral college, nationalize election procedure, and pack the Supreme Court. Consider, also, the administration’s indifference to inflation. Were the 86 million new people not here, most, if not all, of these changes would not have occurred and the proposed changes would not get serious consideration.

This is not to say that immigrants do not bring plenty to the nation. They clearly do. But it is to say that they will greatly change it. This is especially true with regard to immigrants who are not from Western or East Asian nations. Part of the problem here might be cultural diversity. The most culturally diverse countries in the world are poor – consider India - and often unfree – consider, Cameroon, Chad, Congo, and Nigeria. Economist Erkan Gören found that cultural diversity is inversely related to per capita income. Still, one might doubt whether cultural diversity causes poverty or unfreedom. Some of the worst nations in the world lack diversity. Consider Haiti and Rwanda.

Massive immigration - especially from non-European and non-East-Asian countries – will likely change the set of ideas that are part of the American identity and affect Americans’ wealth. Even if this were not true, it is unclear that a nation is merely a set of political institutions or a way for citizens to become wealthier. Arguably, it is a people who have a shared history and identify with one another. This explains why no leading figure supports admitting 20 million third-world immigrants a year even if doing so would make us freer and richer. Similarly, almost no one wants Americans to be citizens of ten or more countries and, thus, have little connection to the American people. It also explains why almost no one wants her small town to be flooded with Hasidic Jews or strictly observant Muslims regardless of how they vote and regardless of whether they are pleasant and supercharge the business community.

As the US takes in a massive number of immigrants it will change the country. This change is worth considering before we let in another 46 million.  

The Left Dominates the Professoriate

Stephen Kershnar

The Left Ratchets Up Its Control of Academia

Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer

December 14, 2021

 

            The left has a chokehold on universities. This will shape the America for years to come.

Americans are roughly evenly split between liberals and conservatives. Here I use party affiliation as evidence of political orientation. The Pew Research Foundation found that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans is 1.1 to 1, that is, roughly equal (2020 data). Specifically, 33% of registered voters identify as Democrats and 29% identify as Republicans.

First, consider top universities. Brooklyn College’s Mitchell Langbert and Heterodox Academy’s Sean Stevens found that in 2019 at top universities - specifically the best private universities, public universities, and liberal arts colleges in each state - the ratio of Democrat to Republican professors is 9 to 1. The drift to the left appears to be increasing as the ratio among younger tenure-track professors is 11 to 1. Among female professors the ratio is an incredible 16 to 1.

In some fields, the ratio is even more skewed. Langbert and Stevens found that the Democrat-to-Republican ratios for some departments are as follows: anthropology (42 to 1), English (27 to 1), and sociology (27 to 1).

Second, consider the Ivy League. In 2016, The Washington Times’ Bradford Richardson reported that Columbia and Princeton had 30 Democrat professors for every Republican professor. In 2020, The Yale News’ Madison Hahamy reported that Yale professors gave less than 3% of their political donations to Republican candidates and affiliated groups.

The elite schools matter. Six of the last ten presidents graduated from Ivy League schools and another two graduated from the Ivies’ peers (Duke and Naval Academy). Seven current Supreme Court justices went to the Ivy League or Stanford for both undergraduate and law school. Ditto for the senate majority leader. The Ivies and their peers produce a significant portion of the leadership of Silicon Valley, U.S. military, and Wall Street. The faculty’s ideas likely explain - at least in part - the nearly homogenous public views of the leaders of these fields concerning affirmative action, Big Tech censorship, illegal aliens, interventionist wars, transgenderism, vaccine mandates, voter IDs, etc.   

            Third, consider top tier liberal arts colleges. Examples include Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore. Langbert found that the ratio of Democrat to Republican professors at these schools is 10 to 1. Incredibly, 39% of the colleges – 20 of the 51 - did not have a single Republican professor. In New York State, these schools include Colgate (19 to 1), Hamilton (25 to 1), and Vassar (35 to 1).

            Lest one thinks this is just a feature of the faculty, Sarah Lawrence University’s Samuel Abrams points out that university administrators skew even further left than the faculty. Their liberal-to-conservative ratio is 12 to 1. In contrast, Abrams points out, most occupational categories have more conservatives than liberals. As a result, the administrators will not be keeping the faculty’s political biases in check.

            The University of Colorado’s Spencer Case argues that the lopsided ratios are in part the result of discrimination. He cites research from several sources. The University of Toronto’s Yoel Inbar and the University of Cologne’s Joris Lammers found that 38% of social and personality psychology professors said that they would hire a liberal over a conservative if forced to choose between two equally qualified candidates. A significant minority said they were willing to discriminate against conservatives regarding grant review, paper review, and symposia invitations. In 2010, University of North Texas’ George Yancey found that roughly 30% of sociologists would be less likely to support a job seeker if they knew that he was a Republican. Cambridge University’s Uwe Peters et al. found that a significant minority of surveyed philosophers were explicitly willing to discriminate based on political orientation. The further to the left a philosopher is, Peters et al. found, the more she is willing to discriminate. Case points out that this willingness to discriminate aligns with conservative professors’ perception of hostility. Nearly half report censoring themselves.

There is no clear solution to this problem.

First, at least some of the leftist bent among faculty is due to demographics and self-selection. Writing in The Atlantic, Adam Harris points out that in the 2018 election, college-educated white voters were noticeably more likely to cast their votes for Democrats than white voters without a degree. Demographic and self-selection factors are difficult to disentangle from discrimination. 

Second, there is no way to prevent this discrimination without having outside people hire and promote faculty. The willingness to discriminate is too strong to be voluntarily set aside. Outside people would lack the expertise to make these decisions or would come from the same class as current discriminators.   

Third, affirmative action for conservatives would come at the expense of merit. Conservatives would end up underperforming. This would result in people looking askance at conservative faculty just as they do regarding current affirmative action faculty.  

The problem here is Robert Conquest’s second law of politics. It states that, “Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.” If this is correct, then conservatives will have a significant presence at a university only if it is explicitly right-wing. There are some universities that have such an identity – for example, Brigham Young, Hillsdale, Liberty, and SMU – but they lack the national importance of the elite universities. In addition, they are often sectarian and, thus, lack broad-based appeal. The elite schools continue to have the best faculty and students. A conservative attempt to capture an elite university would be prohibitively expensive (the schools have large amounts of money that would be used to fight the capture) and, if successful, would likely endanger its elite status.  

The best alternative is to offer alternative programming. Conservative organizations try to do so. Perhaps the most high-profile instance of this is the Federalist Society, which provides a vital counter to the left in law schools (Disclosure: I was a member). Still, it is unclear if this alternative programming does much to counteract the leftist programming.

How the Supreme Court Should Approach Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

Stephen Kershnar

The Constitution Does Not Protect Fetuses

Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer

November 29, 2021

 

            This Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization concerning Mississippi’s abortion law.

Mississippi banned abortions performed after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. The law does not permit abortion in the case of rape or incest but permits it when there is a medical emergency or severe fetal abnormality. The 15-week period is odd. A fetus begins to have a heartbeat after 6 weeks, forms a brain after 6 weeks, and – on one influential account - does not become conscious until 24 weeks. It is unclear what happens at 15 weeks.

            Other states have also passed other pro-life laws. The Texas Heartbeat Act prevents abortions after fetal heartbeat, which usually occurs 6 weeks after conception. Georgia banned abortions after 6 weeks. The three states’ laws conflict with Roe v. Wade (1973), a landmark Supreme Court case that held that a woman has a right to an abortion up to 24 weeks because fetuses up to that time are not viable. A fetus is viable when it can survive outside the womb.

            One issue is whether the Constitution protects fetuses. There are two provisions that someone might think protects the fetus. The Due Process Clause says, “[No state shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Equal Protection Clause says, “[No state shall] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Emphasis added. The issue here is in part whether “person” refers to fetuses. Oxford University’s C’Zar Bernstein argues that the Due Process Clause is less relevant because, in the context of abortion, the life-takers are private citizens rather than the state. He also notes that the argument over abortion does not concern procedure.

            The most plausible way to way to interpret the Constitution involves originalism. Originalism asserts that the meaning of a Constitutional provision was set at the time it was passed. The idea is that Constitutional provisions have meaning, and this meaning persists over time. This can occur only if the meaning is set when it was originally passed. On different interpretations, the meaning of a provision is fixed by the authors’ or ratifiers’ intention, the ordinary meaning of the language to the public when it was passed, or its inherited common-law meaning. On this last view, the law incorporated the common law – specifically, English-judge-made law – because it used common-law words and phrases.

            The meaning of “person” should be understood in common law terms because it – along with other terms such as “cruel and unusual punishment” – was intended and understood to be a term of art, that is, a word whose meaning tracked specific legal meaning rather than ordinary meaning. One reason for this is that the Constitution’s authors and ratifiers thought about and wrote the Constitution with common-law meanings in mind. Another reason for this is the way in which language works in specialized fields. Consider, for example, how commerce, science, and sport use terms of art.

            Bernstein argues that the common law set the meaning of person according to the Born Alive Rule. This rule states that a human being becomes a person only after live birth. This can be seen in English common law regarding homicide (homicide applied only to the killing of a born human being), tort law (no liability for pre-natal injury), and inheritance (a human being may inherit only if he is born). This matters because the 14^th Amendment’s Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses used some of the same language as the 5^th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, language that came from the British common law.

            If this common law interpretation is correct, then the Constitutional term, “person,” does not refer to a fetus. It still might be the case that as a matter of constitutional law, states have a compelling interest in protecting fetal life and that the ban on abortion is a necessary means by which to do this, but this involves the sort of moral reasoning that originalists hesitate to engage in.

            Consider the moral debate over abortion. It comes down to three issues. (1) Is the fetus a person in the metaphysical sense? That is, were we ever fetuses? (2) Does the fetus have a moral right to inside the woman? (3) If the fetus does not have a right to be inside the woman, may the woman kill it as a way of protecting her body against invasion? That is, is an unwanted pregnancy a body-invasion similar to a rape? These philosophical issues are outside of the Supreme Court’s expertise and ones that it botched in the past. Perhaps the court must address these issues in deciding what the Equal Protection Clause means, but then it seems to blur the distinction between interpreting and making law. That is, addressing (1) to (3) appears to be legislating.

            If the common-law interpretation is correct, then professors – for example, Oxford University’s John Finnis – who argue that the Constitution requires that abortion be made illegal because the Constitution protects “persons” - are mistaken because fetuses are not Constitutional persons. In addition, if the common-law interpretation is correct, then the Justices should be wary of putting too much weight on precedent - especially Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) - because the Court decided these decisions without acknowledging that a fetus is not a Constitutional person and because it did not show its moral reasoning, particularly with regard to issues (1) to (3). In addition, its focus on viability is best seen as a political compromise rather than a good faith attempt to interpret the Constitution.

            Instead, the Court should do one of two things. It should engage in explicit moral reasoning regarding women’s and fetuses’ rights. Alternatively, it should declare that such reasoning is legislating and hold that Constitution does not address the issue. The issue would then get kicked back to the states.

SUNY Fredonia at the Crossroads

Stephen Kershnar

Standing at the Crossroads

Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer

November 12, 2021

 

            The State University of New York at Fredonia appears to be standing at the crossroads.

            First, the school’s enrollment is dropping. The school currently has roughly 3,800 students. By way of contrast, it had roughly 5,800 students in 2010. According to the Democrat & Chronicle, from 2011 to 2021, Fredonia’s enrollment fell 33%. In general, during this period, SUNY enrollment fell by 20%. Still, with the exception of Potsdam, Fredonia’s enrollment fell noticeably more than its comprehensive-college peers. In addition, SUNY’s elite (non-specialized) research universities did not lose enrollment. Some significantly increased enrollments. Consider Binghamton (+26%), Stonybrook (+13%), Buffalo (+12%), and Albany (0%).

            Second, in response to Fredonia’s shrinking enrollment, the school sharply increased the percentage of students accepted. In 2013, it accepted 53% of applicants in 2013. In 2020, it accepted 72%. Recently, it is alleged that the acceptance rate for first-time-first-year students is at roughly 90%, although this is likely a different category than the overall acceptance rates listed in the preceding sentence. The college is thus moving in the direction of open admission. Part of the reason for moving in this direction is that the yield rate – the number of students whom Fredonia accepts and who then accept Fredonia – dropped from 35% in 2013 to 18% in 2020.

A few years ago, President Ginny Horvath allegedly dropped the SAT floor by 100 points and made recruiting NYC students a priority. It is unclear how this affected the numbers.

            Despite the increase in acceptance and decrease in yield, the reported average SAT score increased from 1080 in 2013 to 1110 in 2020. The percentage of students in the top quarter decreased slightly (-9%) and the percentage of students in the top decile increased significantly (+46%). It is unclear how much, if any, of these reported changes result from the 35% of students for whom a class rank is not available (2020 number).

Despite the reported caliber of students holding steady or improving, the graduation rate is dropping. The four-year graduation rate decreased 10% between 2006 and 2016 (the latest available number). The above changes occurred even as the school diversified its student body. Over the last decade, the percentage of minority students more than doubled, going from 12% to 26% of the student body. This figure leaves out students whose race or ethnicity is unknown.

            As a result of these changes in enrollment, the school has a $16.4 million structural deficit. The administration says that it expects to make up most of the structural deficit up with federal and state money but has called for $1.5 million in salary savings from unspecified sources. These problems are not new. A few years ago, Horvath said that the school had a $12-million-dollar structural deficit and largely exhausted its reserves, and, so, things would have to change . Note that a structural deficit is not an actual deficit and so we should be wary of putting too much weight on these deficit-numbers.

Fredonia College Council President Frank Pagano said, “We had the same amount of people working when we had 5,700 (students) as we do when we have 3,700 students.” He also said, “[S]ome programs will also have to be cut or eliminated. It will be tough to do with tenured professors, but it will have to be done if the campus wants to shore up its finances.”

President Stephen Kolison promptly contradicted Pagano’s statement. He said, “[T]here are no existing plans for reducing programs or eliminating tenured faculty positions.” In addition, the administration recently approved a plan to hire 11 new, tenure-track faculty next academic year. Hiring these faculty will likely eat up 40% of the planned $1.5 million in salary savings. The statement and approval are hard to square with the supposedly dire financial state of the college. Last year, Kolison announced the college would hire 9 new permanent administrators. This also suggests that the financial situation is not terrible. So far no one has publicly explained the conflict between Pagano’s and Kolison’s statements.

            The tension between the administration and faculty is building. A few years ago, some faculty proposed a no-confidence vote in President Ginny Horvath. The university senate never voted on the proposal, but there was a good chance it would have passed. The UUP recently filed suit against the college because it allegedly used an improper procedure to increase the humanities faculty’s yearly teaching load from six to seven classes.

            Problems arise if the federal government does not give millions of dollars to the college and its students as it did last year. The problems can be addressed in a few ways: retiring faculty and staff might not be replaced, programs with low enrollment might be cut, or programs unrelated to the campus’ identity – its identity includes the arts, education, and science – might be cut.

The first option – refrain from replacing retirees - would avoid the loss of morale that would accompany program elimination and layoffs. On the other hand, it would make faculty and staffing shortfalls depend on who retired rather than prioritizing what is important to the campus. It would also likely result in some programs heavily relying on non-tenure-track faculty. These faculty are on average, less competitive than their tenure-track peers, although their lower salaries make them cost effective.

The second option – eliminate programs with low enrollment – aims at selling programs students want similar to how Walmart sells products customers want. The third option – promote programs tied to the campus’ identity - would allow the college to develop a clearer identity in the competition for students. The third option would lessen the need to compete with the larger, more prestigious university centers – for example, Buffalo – and some comprehensive-college competitors – for example, Geneseo. These last two options come at a cost. They would involve fewer programs, lowered morale, and, perhaps, a fight over the college’s identity.

In deciding how to proceed with program cuts and layoffs – if in fact they must be made –  the college will have to balance market niche, student preferences, and faculty morale. It thus faces the crossroads.

Disclosure: I am a tenured faculty member at Fredonia.

The Bleeding Southern Border

 Stephen Kershnar

The Bleeding Southern Border

Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer

October 31, 2021

 

            The Biden administration is moving the country toward an open Southern border. This is disgraceful.   

This year, the country will let in roughly 2 million illegal aliens. This is based on internal government estimate of 2 million illegal aliens who will be encountered at the border. Many will be let in. In addition, there are 400,000 who will likely sneak past border patrol. The number of illegal aliens is thus larger than the population of San Diego. It is the equivalent to letting in a population equal to Atlanta, Kansas City, and Miami in one year. 

            The loathsome Biden administration did it through a massive across-the-board effort. It stopped building the Southern wall. It tried to put in place a 100-day freeze on all deportation. This applied even to those found guilty of assault, drunk driving, and manslaughter.

The Biden administration then tried to end the “Remain in Mexico” policy. The policy held that asylum seekers from Central America should apply in Mexico or the first safe country. Common sense demands this rule as the vast majority of Central American asylum seekers are ineligible under American law. It also ended a related agreement with El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras that – following international law - asylum seekers must file for asylum in the first safe country they get to rather than breaking into the US and filing there.

Having opened the Southern border, the Biden administration then put in place the Obama administration’s idiotic “catch and release” policy. This policy allows illegal aliens who broke into the country to stay subject only to a notice to appear before a judge far into the future. Many do not do so. Some illegal aliens were even released without a court date. The Biden administration then – at taxpayers’ expense - bussed or flew many illegal aliens to different parts of the country in the dead of night and without telling local authorities.

            The Biden administration also eliminated accountability. It ended the “public charge” rule that required that those who were likely to become dependent on welfare were ineligible for permanent residency (green card). It announced that families or employers who sponsor aliens would no longer have to sign an affidavit of support. Such a promise of support would have made them financially responsible if an immigrant went on welfare. And, of course, the administration ended any financial penalty for sanctuary cities. It is even considering a roughly $1 million dollar payment to families separated while breaking in.

            Many of the above policies are illegal. Like the Obama administration’s criminal use of the FBI, IRS, Justice Department, and NSA, open-and-notorious lawbreaking is now the norm.    

            On average, each new legal immigrant sponsors 3.5 other immigrants. Immigrant women have on average 2.9 children (immigrant women without an education have even more). Thus, letting in and amnestying 2 million illegal aliens in effect adds 10 million people. By way of contrast, Pennsylvania has 13 million people.

Most households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico are on welfare (73%). This is more than twice as high as the native population (30%). The economic problems of these immigrants continue to a second generation. Specifically, the children of Hispanic immigrants have much lower incomes (including median household income), are much less likely to be proficient in math and reading when in school, and are much less likely to graduate from college.

One of the reasons this matters is that most taxpayers – 61% - pay no federal income tax and, so, we are importing generations of people who ride in the wagon rather than pushing it. If the country wanted immigrants who – both initially and via their children - would perform better than average in terms of crime, education, income, marriage, and welfare, we could easily get them by admitting immigrants from Asia. Such successful immigrants would even come with an obesity rate less than half of current Americans.

Instead of selecting immigrants similar to how an Ivy League school selects its students – which we easily could do – the administration is hell-bent on doing the opposite. Even if the country were committed to admitting Hispanic immigrants, the country could mimic affirmative-action admission in the Ivy League and admit the best Hispanic applicants, thereby ensuring quite talented immigrants, even if not the very best we can get.

None of this is good for current citizens. It is not good economically. See above. This is true whether we compare the illegal aliens to no immigrants or merit-based immigrants.

Nor is it good politically. People who depend on the government for the basics – education, food, housing, and medicine – are much less likely to care about freedom or vote for it. They are also less likely to be bothered by warmongering or gross criminality – see the Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations– and more on keeping the gravy train moving down the tracks.  

This is not even good socially. Most Americans do not want unskilled-and-uneducated illegal aliens as their neighbors or dating their 17-year-old daughters. Such preferences have nothing to do with an American’s race or ethnicity. It makes little sense to import people who Americans, on average, do not want as lovers, neighbors, sons-in-law, or spouses.

What is the justification for opening the Southern border? As noted above, it is not economic, political, or social. It is not even the most charitable thing we could so. If we want to let in the poorest and most desperate, we could admit 2 million from the Congo, Niger, Malawi, etc. They live in far worse conditions than Central Americans. We could also admit 10 million immigrants rather than the 3.2 million immigrants – legal and illegal – that we will probably admit this year. In any case, a country facing a debt 130% of its economy, Social Security and Medicare insolvency, a social fabric increasingly being torn apart (see abortion, Antifa/BLM, Covid-mandates, and school board fights), and possible conflict with China, does not have the luxury of this nonsense.

Against University Vaccine Mandates

 Stephen Kershnar

University Vaccine Mandates

Dunkirk Fredonia Observer

October 11, 2021

 

            Many American universities have Covid-vaccine mandate. There are two purported justifications for government schools requiring students get vaccinated. First, they want to prevent the unvaccinated from harming themselves. Second, they want to prevent the unvaccinated from harming other people.  

            Consider whether we should pressure college students in order to protect them against harming themselves. As George Mason economist Bryan Caplan points out Covid poses little danger to them. The Covid infection fatality rate (death rate per infection) for college age students (specifically, 25-year-olds) is 0.01% (1 in 10,000). If the college student is vaccinated, his infection fatality rate is 90% lower. The rate is now 0.001% (1 in 100,000). So far one in three Americans have gotten Covid. So, the numbers should be discounted by the chance that the student does not get Covid. Let us arbitrarily set this at 33%. Crudely, then, the chance of death by Covid, then, is 0.003% (3 in 100,000) for the unvaccinated student and 0.0003% (3 in 1 million) for the vaccinated student.

            These risks are too small to protect students against themselves. By contrast, the chance of dying in a car crash is 0.01% each year. Yet, universities do not, and should not, push college students to cut their driving way down in order to reduce their chance of death. A safety proponent might argue that it is better for a college student to drive than to be unvaccinated because while the expected cost of being unvaccinated is smaller than the cost of cutting driving way down, the benefit of driving is much larger. That is, driving is a better decision – understood in terms of costs and benefits – than being unvaccinated. Perhaps so.

Still, we should allow people to make imprudent decisions. On average, it is imprudent for an adult to be obese, drop out of high school, have children out of wedlock, or smoke. At non-elite universities, some majors are poor investments, financially and intellectually. Consider, for example, art, education, social work, and theater. Yet we allow adults to major in these subjects. In fact, we subsidize their doing so.

            Second, consider whether we should protect college students in order to protect them from harming others. Let us assume that the chance of an unvaccinated college student getting Covid is 1 in 3. The chance of a Covid positive student passing it onto another person is hard to estimate. Let us assume that the student shares a household with a vaccinated 65-year-old, the vaccinated 65-year-old has an infection fatality rate of 0.14% (1.4 in a 1,000) and there is a 20% chance the college student will transmit it if he is Covid positive. The unvaccinated college student has increased the 65-year-old’s chance of death by 0.009% (very roughly, 1 in 10,000). Is this enough risk to require someone get a medical treatment he desperately doesn’t want? Without a general argument, we can’t answer this question. If we can’t answer it, the default position should be against the requirement because, other things being equal, less regulation of our lives is better.  

By analogy, if each gun owner were to increase another’s chance of death by 1 in 10,000 – whether by accident, murder, or suicide - this intuitively does not seem high enough to justify taking guns away. The cost-benefit analysis might differ here because people get more out of owning guns than being unvaccinated. More importantly, though, there is something odd about government requiring us to do things on the basis of an economic consideration, at least when it involves our body, and the odds of harm are very small. We do not want the government prohibiting alcohol, fast food, guns, or SUVs, even if it were efficient to do so. We do not want the government requiring poor women who get welfare benefits - for example, cash, food, medicine, or housing - to have to get birth control shots because it is efficient to require that they do so. If divorce, obesity, and transgenderism were contagious – evidence suggests they are – we still do not want such individuals banned from campuses, pressured, or taxed in order to slow the spread of these things. This is true even if such policies are efficient. Perhaps these requirements infringe fundamental rights and Covid vaccine shots do not. Again, though, we need an argument as to why this is so.

There is also the issue of whom we are trying to protect. We might be trying to protect the unvaccinated. However, they assumed the risk and it is hard to see why they deserve protection. We might be trying to protect the vaccinated. This raises the issue of whether there are enough unvaccinated people who have not had Covid and whether the threat these people pose is serious enough to justify the vaccine mandate. If the threat they pose is an additional 1 in 10,000 in chance of death by Covid, this looks similar to the gun-ownership case.     

An objector might argue that the vaccine mandate is an offer rather than a threat. He might claim that no one has a right to attend college and so in return for the benefit of doing so, the college may require students do certain things. Universities may require a student pass most of his classes, pay tuition, and not walk around naked. The claim is that the vaccine mandate is like these requirements.   

One problem with this objection is that if the offer-not-a-threat argument were to succeed, the college could also require students be celibate, refrain from drinking, or stay thin and attractive. That is, there is no stopping point to this argument. Intuitively, universities may not require students or faculty waive fundamental rights  - consider those related to free speech, religion, and search and seizure - in return for attending the university. If the right against being vaccinated is a fundamental right, and this is unclear, the mandate would be similarly problematic.

The Myth of White Privilege

 Please see link here.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/10/the_myth_of_white_privilege.html

The Ivy League Racializes

 Please see link here. 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/10/ivyleague_antiwhite_racism_will_destroy_the_united_states.html

Rethinking the High School Curriculum

Stephen Kershnar

Rethink the Curriculum

Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer

March 29, 2021          

 

            For decades, the curriculum in American middle and high schools has remained the same. It should be revised.  

            The curriculum in public high schools is a serious matter because it is funded through state coercion and because the taxpayers pay through the nose for it. When you hold a gun to someone’s head to make him pay for something and then charge him an arm and a leg, the money should be well spent.  

Consider the cost of public-school education in New York. The Empire Center’s E. J. McMahon points out that in 2017-2018, relative to personal income, the state spent an eye-popping $51 per $1,000, second only to Alaska. That year, the state spent an incredible $24,000 per pupil per year, easily the highest in the country. No other state spent more than $21,000 and only two topped $20,000. New York City spent a whopping $27,000 per pupil, by far the most among the country’s 1,000 largest school systems.

University of Colorado philosopher Michael Huemer argues that there should be test for when a subject is offered. Here is my three-part test – a variant on his - for whether a public school should offer a subject. A subject should be offered only if it is (1) practically useful, (2) important to understand the world, or (3) necessary to preserve freedom or the American way of life.

First, consider classes that are required and should not be. Huemer argues that foreign language does not satisfy the criteria. Even if it were practically useful, and it is not, it is so ineffectually taught that it probably should be dropped from the curriculum altogether. Kate Palmer at YouGov notes that in 2013, only 25% of Americans spoke a foreign language. Given that 14% of Americans are immigrants, foreign-language instruction accomplishes little. Foreign language – with the possible exception of Latin - should probably not even be taught as an elective.

Gym is neither central to understanding the world nor necessary to preserve American freedom. It does not require thirteen academic years to figure out how to exercise. Many students participate in school sports and large numbers of adults figure out how to exercise on their own. Even if getting students in shape were practically useful, schools fail at it so miserably that it should be removed entirely from the curriculum. Writing for Wisconsin Public Radio, Gretchen Brown points out that 27% of American young people are ineligible to join the military because of obesity and another 37% are ineligible due to other health problems, such as asthma or joint problems.

Art, home economics, and vocational education fail the three-part test, although the more flexible requirement regarding them – for example, you need take only one of them – makes any requirement less wasteful. The art requirement is poorly thought out in that studying fine arts (drawing, filmmaking, playing an instrument, pottery, etc.) is less important to understanding the world than studying art’s great masters. Consider, for example, Bach, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, and Martin Scorsese. Studying the great masters in K-12 should be taught, if it is taught at all, through classes in the history of art, film, and music.

Social studies – in cases in which it is distinct from classes on history or American government and law (for example, the Constitution) – likely also fails the three-part test, although it is a closer call.

Second, certain subjects should be required. Consider math. If certain topics in math – for example, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, and statistics - are practically important or central to understanding our world, then there should not be a loosely structured requirement that students take a math class but no class in particular. Instead, all students should be required to take particular math topics and likely to take them in a particular order. It is mystifying how it could be crucially important to one’s education to take math, but any old math-topic will do. This is even stranger at the university level. A similar thing is true of science. If it is central to understanding our world to understand biology, chemistry, and physics, then these classes should be required as should the order in which they are taken.   

Third, certain additional subjects should be required. Consider finance and investing. Given the importance of finance to Americans’ well-being these days, no one can reasonably argue that classes in cooking, pottery, or Spanish should be prioritized over this subject. In terms of protecting American freedom, classes on law – especially the Constitution – and economics should likely be required.  

Kiplinger’s Craig Hawley points out that less than one-third of American adults are financially literate by age 40. The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania points out that 37% of Americans  cannot name any of First Amendment rights. Only 26% can name all three branches of government. This is bad for Americans and bad for American freedom.    

Subjects that pass the three-part test are hard sciences, history, literature, math, and writing. Eliminating subjects that fail the three-part test would have several advantages. First, it would allow students to focus on more important topics. For example, a student who takes a gym class instead of European history, physics, or an additional writing class has lost a valuable opportunity.

Second, eliminating these requirements would allow the school day (or year) to be shortened. This would pay dividends as it would allow students to work at jobs, thereby picking up valuable work habits, and reduce antipathy toward school. A 2020 Yale study found that roughly 75% of students have negative feelings toward school. A shortened school day might lessen this number. Reducing the number of administrators, staff, and teachers would put the brakes on public schools’ skyrocketing costs.  

Third, making these changes would help schools focus on their core mission. Schools provide so many diverse services (for example, athletic teams, daycare, free food, and mental health services) and subjects that they have lost their way. A renewed focus would help.