Cornell’s students, professors, and administrators might have to descend from their high horses to explain this one.
University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds’ recent editorial “To reduce inequality, abolish Ivy League” backs all of the Ivy League’s liberal do-gooders and agents of express wisdom and moral authority into a corner. Where do Ivy League universities get the notion that they can address the issue of income inequality when they are among the very institutions that exacerbate it, or, in the very least, do nothing to alleviate it?
Here’s an excerpt:
The problem of “inequality” looms over America like a storm cloud. According to our political and journalistic class, inequality is the single biggest problem facing our nation, with the possible exception of climate change. It is a desperate problem demanding sweeping solutions. President Obama calls it the “defining challenge of our time.” Hillary Clinton says we’re living in a throwback to the elitist age of “robber barons.” Bernie Sanders says inequality is the result of a “rigged economy” that favors those at the top while holding down those at the bottom.
In that spirit, I have a modest proposal: Abolish the Ivy League. Because if you’re worried about inequality among Americans, I can think of no single institution that does more to contribute to the problem.
As former Labor secretary Robert Reich recently noted, Ivy League schools are government-subsidized playgrounds for the rich: “Imagine a system of college education supported by high and growing government spending on elite private universities that mainly educate children of the wealthy and upper-middle class, and low and declining government spending on public universities that educate large numbers of children from the working class and the poor.
Reynolds goes on to make some insightful arguments about the nature of the Ivy League, and proposes among other ideas a minimum endowment payout to financial aid, as Tom Reed (R-NY) has recently proposed.
As with many Reynolds pieces, his point here is not necessarily literal. It’s meant to back ivory tower liberals into a corner and watch them squirm as they try to claw themselves out. It ensnares them within the confines of their own twisted or erroneous logic, and exposes them as hypocrites for opposing their own rhetoric or policies when they are on the receiving end of the gauntlet.
One conclusion from Reynolds’ piece is the hope that Ivy League professors and students, imbued with certain privileges unrealized by the overwhelming majority of this country and world, would focus their research and studies towards ends which will help grow the economy to benefit everyone. However, many professors and their students are greatly concerned with redistributing what’s already available in vain pursuit of what they think to be “fair” and “moral”. Their intellectual prowess is wasted spinning in the Marxist mud while more and more across the country grow increasingly despondent over their economic prospects.
Another form of inequity the Ivy League really exacerbates is social inequity by creating a false class of superior citizens.
At Cornell, at least, administrators, professors, and students inculcate in each other a lavish sense of elitism over those who either never went to college or who did but not to an Ivy League or similar top school. These types of often speak of “our role to educate others” and use other condescending phrases to establish a stark “us and them” mentality between the patrician Ivy elite and the less educated plebians (who live in the real world). True, many who attend Ivy League schools are able to do so because of their own hard work and the financial sacrifices of their families, but once students come to campus, administrators and older students do nothing to impart a sense of humbleness in them. Instead, students are convinced that they are philosopher kings whose ability to pontificate aimlessly confers upon them intellectual and social high-standing (they also think it should also confer economic rewards, but if often doesn’t, and this is the origin of intellectuals’ rage against capitalism). All this is nothing more than an augmentation of the widely-referenced culture of entitlement which has to great extent damaged the moral fiber of this country.
In short, attending Cornell might mean that you are smarter, or harder working, or more talented than most others—or it might not—but it certainly does not mean you are of a new class of superior citizen.
Don’t be surprised when, in reaction to Reynolds’ piece, you see Ivy Leaguers invoking the same haughtiness, arrogance, and elitism I have but only briefly described here to justify their privileged status and flattering self-appraisal.
Described as “the Harvard of Washington [D.C.]’s private schools”, Sidwell Friends School has educated children of notable politicians, including those of several presidents.
Has anyone mentioned in Professor Reynolds’ letter sent their own children to Sidwell? Look here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidwell_Friends_School#Notable_parents
Then look down the list for Robert Reich. While you’re viewing the Wikipedia page, note also the list of Sidwell’s famous alumni. One might be familiar. Hint: he’s a “science guy”.
How much does it currently cost to attend Sidwell Friends School?
http://www.sidwell.edu/admissions/tuition-and-fees/index.aspx
When describing Sidwell Friends School, ‘elite’ is an understatement, Secretary Reich. By quoting Reich, of all people, in his letter, Professor Reynolds exposes his hypocrisy. In other news, the sun rose today.
Closing universities will not “solve” income inequality, an age-old issue that has been with us since Plutarch’s days and is not about to be eradicated in 21st century America. This wonderful article provides an analysis and compelling data that changed my view on political “solutions” for income inequality (and other social welfare issues): http://www.mbird.com/2015/10/everybody-elses-biggest-problem-pt-7-lets-blame-the-other-guy/
I agree, but as I wrote, Reynolds’ title is not to be understood as literal.
There will always be inequality but that’s not the issue. Instead, we need to focus on the incredible degree of inequality and how that came about and how it is maintained in our nation. http://killingthebreeze.com/what-is-the-nature-of-income-inequality/
KtB,
Please specify what “degree” of inequality would be, according to your standard, below the threshold of “incredible”.
Stated more simply, please define what level of inequality would be tolerable to you.
Be precise, so there is no uncertainty. Thank you.
I can answer that one. ANY level of income inequality is tolerable so long as the barriers to movement between the economic strata are not impervious against, ambition, effort, capability and even a little luck. Which brings up one of Thomas Sowell’s points about the myth of the permanent underclass. Historically, most of us move up and down through income quintiles over our lifetime. Now if we can only get the redistributionists from trying to create that permanent underclass, things will be peachy.
Maybe not “incredible” because there is historical precedent for such a thing, but a degree of inequality so great that one (or both) of the extremes desires to “eat” the other probably suffices to alarm KtB.
Sidwell Friends School tuition comes directly out of the parents pocket…. You directly work for it whether you’re a plumbing contractor or a politician. How is this relevant when talking about University endowments other than to discredit Reich as someone quoted in the original article, thereby rendering that article flawed. Excellent debate technique. Change the focus, drop the bomb, discredit the writer. Nice. Solves nothing but gives a glimpse into the very elitism that Professor Reynolds was referencing.
Boilerplate liberal hypocrisy demands redistribution of wealth, and now of university endowments. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich should have given away the money out of his pocket that he had saved for his children’s private school tuition, so that less fortunate parents in Washington D.C. could send their underprivileged children to private schools. And 20% of all his book royalties should fund struggling authors’ living expenses, so they would not have to hold down jobs, unless they wanted to.
Naturally Mr. Reich would decline such voluntary generosity, because he directly worked for it. He would rather serve as Administrator of a government agency that dictated new redistributionary regulations as well as the forced liquidation of some private universities.
Quoted from Mr. Reich’s blog dated August 31, 2015. Please note that he purposely left out ‘copyrights’:
Instead of shortening the patent period, how about giving every citizen a share of the profits from all patents and trademarks government protects? It would be a condition for receiving such protection.
Say, for example, 20 percent of all such profits were split equally among all citizens, starting the month they turn eighteen.
In effect, this would be a basic minimum income for everyone.
The sum would be enough to ensure everyone a minimally decent standard of living – including money to buy the technologies that would free them up from the necessity of working.
Anyone wishing to supplement their basic minimum could of course choose to work
Sorry . . . source = http://robertreich.org/post/128058937635