education

Of Course the Press Is Biased!

~ thefiddler@cox.net

[This entry was also published in  the Huffington Post Blog on December 28, 2016.]

Fake news. Biased reporting. Commentators and pundits everywhere are wringing their hands predicting the fall of the fourth estate, and with it the end of American democracy. They are blinded by the myth of objective journalism and, consequently, they all miss the point.

In fact, all press is biased and we should not expect it to be otherwise. Today’s crisis is not the demise of journalism, but our failure to educate citizens. American citizens are not critical enough, analytical enough, or investigative enough to evaluate information, conduct an open honest debate with each other, and discern a viable path for the collective future.

We humans are shaped by life experiences—our interactions with each other. There is nothing objective about that human experience, especially when it comes to making decisions in our social and cultural interactions. The human condition requires that we express a bias when we interact with the world. Each woman and man trudges forward in life lugging a host of unique individual experiences that inform each and every step we take. Reporters, news editors, producers, managers, corporate officers, the corporations who own them, and the individuals who consume the news are all part of this human process. It is not possible to live otherwise.

Historians have long understood this aspect of humans and their expressions. As we unravel the past, we constantly identify the bias of our evidence. The author of the letter, the composer of the music, the craftsman who created the table, the laborer in the field, all left evidence of their life. The historian examines that evidence trying to uncover the life of those past individuals and extract meaning from it. But we understand that when a slave owner wrote a letter lauding the institution of slavery, they did so with the bias of an individual whose life experience affirmed that they had a right to own other human beings as property. We know that the patron who commissioned the symphony biased the work of a composer. We understand that the table expresses its maker’s lifelong synthesis of creativity, style, form, and practical use. And we know that the marks and artifacts people leave on the landscape are a product of their circumstances as well as their choices. Just as important, we also understand that our own life experiences influence which stories of the past we choose to tell and color how we tell those stories.

The history of free press in America is a study in humanity—in bias and partisanship. Our country was created because colonial American printers articulated a biased view of the world to American patriots. We are proud of that heritage. In the 1760s, Virginia legislatures worried that the single printer publishing in the colony was biased, owing his allegiance to the royal governor. They sponsored a rival printer, William Rind, whose masthead motto was “Open to all Parties but Influenced by None.” But it was not long before Rind too was subject to accusations of bias.

Federalist and Jeffersonian presses were rife with bias and outlandish accusations. Jeffersonian plots to confiscate Bibles, close down churches, and bring the horror and spectacle of the French Revolution’s guillotine in the public square were the grist of the Federalist press. In 1800, the Jeffersonian press tagged John Adams—who in 1776 was a member of the committee to draft the Declaration of Independence—as a secret royalist hoping to ascend the throne of America and pass it along to his son. It was fake news and biased reporting.

The 1820s and ’30s were no better. Jacksonians attacked the “corrupt bargain” and Nicholas Biddle, President of the Second Bank of America. And Jackson’s opponents, too, accused him of monarchical tendencies. Partisan press railed against immigration in the 1850s and saw the rise of the American or “Know-Nothing” Party, with their secret oaths and pledges to vote only for “American born” candidates. Nor should we forget how partisans employed the press to demand the immediate abolition of slavery while at the same time the Southern press, just as vehemently, insisted on the continued enslavement of African Americans. It was biased reporting to influence people’s political opinions and it was a staple throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries—through muckrakers and Jim Crow and Cold War McCarthyism and civil rights protests and the counter-culture. It continues today.

But sadly, most Americans are ignorant of this history because we don’t teach it to our children. We don’t teach our children that the issues shaping America are hard-fought battles about ideas. We don’t teach students that generations of patriots used biased partisan press to convince other patriots that one or another idea was best for America’s future. Perhaps worst of all, we no longer cultivate the crucial skill of critical thinking in our future citizens. We no longer teach them to evaluate evidence and make critical judgments. They, consequently, do not understand that it is their responsibility to examine the news carefully, critically, and from all sides. And because we don’t teach these basic skills of citizenship, they are susceptible to fake news and biased reporting. Worse, too many Americans are so stupid that they read fake news and biased reporting as objective fact.

We must improve the education of our citizens—children and adults. This thing we call the “American experiment” cannot continue without work and investment. Dedicated citizenship is the required investment—citizens dedicated to self improvement and education, to investigating the news, learning from diverse opinions, engaging in civil civic debate with those who disagree, divining a course through critical analysis.

The founding generation understood that a free press provided information both accurate and inaccurate, partisan and impartial, inflammatory and calming, divisive and unifying. We see the same thing today today. Still, men like Thomas Jefferson believed free press with all its flaws was essential because the people were the depository of “ultimate powers.” The people held in their hands the “true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” In 1820, Jefferson wrote, “If we think them [the people] not enlightened enough to exercise their controul with a wholsome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.”

Consequences of Freedom

~ thefiddler@cox.net

 

[This entry was first published in the Huffington Post Blog on June 30, 2016.]

Blog 160629 imageWith Independence Day looming, we hear a lot about “freedom.” The holiday is our national celebration of freedom and the word echoes through our consciousness like no other. But this year, I hope we stop and really consider the meaning of freedom. We need to, because mostly our national conversation echoes with shallow regurgitations of trite expressions. Most of these voices believe in an irresponsible absolute freedom, an unimpeded freedom to do and say and be anything. In fact, that has never been the case. Freedom is not absolute. Freedom is the essence of responsibility. Exercising freedom is risky. Those who exercise freedom often suffer consequences. The real heroes of freedom we celebrate on the 4th of July are responsible risk-taking citizens.

Mary McDowell was a well-qualified New York City teacher in 1917. She had a degree from Swarthmore, had studied at Oxford University, and boasted a master’s degree from Columbia. Remember, this was a time when the vast majority of people did not attend college. Few women held college degrees. McDowell had accomplished much. She was a twelve-year veteran teacher. Her record was exemplary and her evaluations confirmed that she was dedicated and effective. She was also a Quaker and a pacifist, though many testified that she never proselytized about her religion or her pacifist views. Still, as Dana Goldstein describes in her book The Teacher Wars: A History of America’s Most Embattled Profession, McDowell’s decision to exercise the freedom of speech and conscience had significant personal consequences.

With the advent of U.S. involvement in World War I, the school district demanded that every New York City teacher sign a loyalty pledge. That pledge required a declaration that the individual support the military policies of the national government, the president, and Congress, “making the world safe for democracy.” It’s important to notice here that teachers were specifically required to swear loyalty to the president and the Congress. Not even soldiers of the U.S. military were required to do that. Instead, members of the armed forces swore first to protect and defend the Constitution and then to obey the military orders of their superiors.

Mary McDowell could not reconcile the loyalty oath with her religious views and she refused. In an administrative trial by the New York City Department of Education in May 1918, despite a host of support and testimony from the community and colleagues, McDowell lost her job. So did other teachers. The public applauded the move. The New York Times encouraged the Board of Education to “root out all the disloyal or doubtful teachers.” Mary McDowell exercised her freedom of speech and conviction, but it was not without consequences. She is only one small example in American history.

In 1765-66, Americans protested by refusing to pay the stamp tax. Local courts did not meet and thus it was impossible to collect a debt, probate a will, or record a deed of sale. Merchants and ship captains could not register a manifest, so ships sat idle in the harbors. No goods were shipped in or out of the colonies. Colonists exercised freedom—the freedom to ignore a tax—and many suffered the economic consequences.

In antebellum America, thousands of enslaved men and women attempted the risky escape to freedom. Most didn’t succeed. Some never survived the journey. Of those who did, most never again saw their family—spouses, children, parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, or cousins. Many spent the rest of their lives one step ahead of the slave-catcher. It was a life without any legal status. Yet, they risked everything for the freedom to provide for themselves and make their own decisions, to be free of slavery’s depravations. Freedom requires sacrifice, and it has consequences.

Every decade of American history has similar examples.

The very opportunity to exercise individual freedom is a precious thing. It is the essence of our American character. It is the legacy of men and women who, in 1776, dreamed of a world based on Enlightenment principles: that every individual—not government, and not just a privileged few—is vested with unalienable rights including “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The authors of the Declaration understood that the exercise of freedom had consequences. They risked everything. They girded themselves for the work ahead, pledging to each other, “our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Americans today are quick to claim freedom, liberty to do whatever we want to do. But when things get tough—when there are consequences—we act like children in the schoolyard, whining and blaming someone else for taking away our toy. We no longer appreciate the responsibility or the sacrifice our freedom requires. If we expect to have freedom, we must dedicate ourselves to the hard work of freedom. This weekend, like the founding generation on that first Independence Day, pledge yourself to the work ahead with the full understanding that we will—we must—sacrifice for freedom.

Business Leaders Need Not Apply

~ thefiddler@cox.net

[This entry was first published in the Huffington Post Blog on June 21, 2016.]

Blog 160622 illusOver and over again, Americans laud “business practice” and call for businessmen and businesswomen to fix our government and public institutions. A local government’s elected board congratulates itself when they hire an administrator with business experience, not local government experience. They assume that “real-world business practice” will solve the locality’s problems. People running for political office tell us that their business experience qualifies them to be the best elected officials. Public institutions—museums and other not-for-profits—hire corporate executives to “straighten out” the institution.

But “business practices,” it turns out, are volatile. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, almost half of business establishments fail within five years. There were more than 29,000 corporate bankruptcy filings in 2015. The American Productivity & Quality Center study demonstrates that nearly half of all new product launches are unsuccessful and that only 45% of those new products are launched on time. That’s what counts for success in the business world.

We don’t tolerate that rate of failure in government. A failure of national defenses is catastrophic. We don’t tolerate a 50% safety rating for our drinking water (witness Flint, Michigan). Nor is that rate acceptable for roads, public safety (police, fire, and rescue), and the other infrastructure we rely on. When the electricity goes out, we demand accountability. We don’t gamble with preservation of our national treasures. And when government fails to pay its creditors, the ensuing economic crisis impacts every citizen. We are outraged if government and public institutions exhibit the 50% success rate of the “for-profit” business world. We expect our public institutions to perform consistently and conservatively.

Most Americans believe that government and public institutions need reform. They need to improve efficiency and accountability. I agree. We cannot do that, however, by simply calling in a few businesspeople. Government and public institutions are not businesses. Government and public institutions are mission-driven—not profit-driven.

Our military forces undertake the sacred mission to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Every single member of the force swears allegiance to that mission. The mission of the local water utility is to provide the public with an adequate, clean water supply. The mission of the local government finance director is to insure that government funds are expended appropriately and with adequate oversight controls. The mission of the local museum is to preserve, display, and tell the story of the collections entrusted to its care. Each government and public institution has a public trust that they must maintain above all other considerations. They cannot cut their losses. They cannot shut down the product line. They cannot declare bankruptcy. They cannot fail.

Our school systems are a prime example. The effort to improve education through business metrics and acumen is not a “best practice” success story. A 2006 Harvard Business Review article summed up the challenge: “Business leaders . . . have been extremely generous with money and counsel for urban districts, only to be frustrated by the results. As some corporate executives are beginning to realize, urban school systems are vastly more complex than businesses. . . .” Still we persist. The charter school movement to privatize public education does not improve student education or outcomes. For-profit universities have exceptionally poor student graduation levels and leave young adults with staggering amounts of debt. And high-stakes testing analytics punish educators instead of helping teachers respond to the instructional needs of their students. We’ve lost the mission of public education—to create educated, informed citizens for our republic—in a haze of misapplied business clichés.

So let’s all stop with the trite platitudes. Just because an individual makes a profit in the entrepreneurial world does not mean that he or she can focus the mission of a government or public institution. It does not qualify them to lead the community, the state, or the nation and accomplish an essential mission. The profit/loss equation may increase the return for a corporation’s shareholders, but it will not necessarily accomplish the mission of a government or public institution. Business metrics may say a lot about the delivery of a product or service, but they do not describe the value of a mission.

The broad realization that business leaders do not hold all the answers had better come soon, because reliance on business leaders in government and public institutions is not arresting the alarming deterioration of our public infrastructure and institutions.