Another Constituency Thrown Overboard

The incendiary Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez started a firestorm this week when she compared the detention centers that are holding immigrants awaiting hearings to concentration camps and followed up with a reference to “never again” in her Instagram broadcast. 

After a backlash led principally by conservatives and Jews, AOC fell back to explaining that the “consensus among academics” is that these detention facilities meet the technical definition of “concentration camp.”  The MSM leapt to her defense and Bloomberg and even pollster Frank Luntz supported her word parsing.   Getting your defenders to defend you by technical hairsplitting is a standard New Left/Clintonesque tactic.  Unfortunately, it didn’t work for me.  AOC clearly used the words “Never Again” to draw the unmistakable comparison. 

Ilhan Omar jumped in, saying that these were camps and there were concentrations of people so they are concentration camps.

Conservatives blistered AOC and as usual, going after her for her lack of intelligence and education on the matter.

Polish lawmaker Dominic Tarczynski even invited her to Poland to educate her on “real” concentration camps (https://twitter.com/D_Tarczynski/status/1141704905436160001)

Most of what the Right gets wrong about AOC is that she is stupid.  She knows EXACTLY what she is doing and exactly what she is saying, and why she is saying it. This entire controversy was carefully designed.

The message about the concentration camp is merely a sideshow. 

The message is, and has always been, “TRUMP IS HITLER, “ supported by “See, we even have concentration camps.”  This is the overarching message.   And she was successful.  She was able to get people caught up in the semantics of the term. The MSM leapt to her defense.  Even some Jews nodded in agreement. 

Perhaps because I personally am indebted to so many Jews that have enriched my life in so many ways, that I am appalled by AOC’s false comparison.  My education owes itself to many Jews.  Jews taught me how to study.  I dated some wonderful, smart, studious and funny Jewish girls in college and afterwards.  A Jew gave me my first job opportunity. 

It is this long history and connection that lead me to spend a fair amount of time over the past five years studying the Holocaust in books and in film to try to get my head around what happened and why.  And I’ve written several blog posts on the topic—some of my most widely read posts. 

The detention centers for illegals are NOTHING like the systematic destruction of a peoples that was perpetrated by the Third Reich.  Not even close.  AOC and her two partners would do well to view Memory of the Camps (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy_xWKJubuY)—the actual narrated film put together by Alfred Hitchcock that was taken after liberation.  Of course, there was Schindler’s List, but Son of Saul was also a very good film that I reviewed a couple of years ago.  And, while there are many books on the Holocaust, with Night by Elie Wiesel as an indispensable work, The Holocaust: A New History by Laurence Rees is very, very good.  A sampling of any of these books or films would destroy her grotesque distortion.  ICE acts nothing like the SS—nothing like it.  To suggest such is an absolute falsehood.

This latest hand grenade by AOC (with her supportive accomplice, Ilhan Omar) has convinced me that AOC is NOT an idiot bartender.  She is either very smart and/or is being managed very carefully and deliberately.  Even Daniel Pipes, who I have a high regard for, gets AOC wrong.  He (along with other conservatives) believe that if conservatives would stop responding to her, she would diminish in importance.  That’s simply not true.  She is a creation of the media and has some very dark forces behind her.  You don’t go from bartender to media star overnight without a lot of money and people in the right places behind you.  She is smart.  She is dark.  And she is very, very dangerous.

This latest message was too well orchestrated.  It accomplishes three things that the New Left seeks to persuade Americans to believe.  First, Trump is Hitler.  Second, it minimizes or even denies (see comments by Alan Dershowitz (https://www.dailywire.com/news/48765/holocaust-denier-dershowitz-slams-ocasio-cortez-ryan-saavedra) the Holocaust.  And finally, most convincingly,  and what will be most difficult to accept by my Jewish brothers and sisters---the New Left has made it clear that you are not part of the Democratic party.  It refused to censure Omar for her anti-Semitic comments (and rationalized them).  Democrats refuse to categorically isolate themselves from Louis Farrakhan.   And by not speaking out against AOC’s outrageous analogy and her use of  the phrase “never again,” she is telling Jews that they are the new Deplorables; they are no longer welcome in the Democratic party.  Face it, my Jewish brothers and sisters-- they’re just not that into you anymore.

Do not underestimate AOC.  She has been chosen.  She is the messenger of the New Left and she (and her sisters) will set the agenda for the Democratic Party for the next couple of decades.  And the message is very clear—just as the white working class was jettisoned, its reliable Jewish constituency has been told where it stands.

Biting Back

I seem to be writing a great deal about higher education lately.  In the decade since Jonathan Cole published his book The Great American University, which extolled the superiority of the American system of higher education, much has changed.  Cole correctly assessed that the American university system is by far the best in the world.  It is the one industry in which public and private organizations run parallel and make each other better.  And among American universities, he singled out Columbia and The University of Chicago as the finest, particularly because of their common core requirements.

The Gibson’s Bakery verdict against Oberlin College under which the bakery was awarded $33 million plus legal fees for the actions of its administrator that falsely accused the bakery of racial profiling and whipped up a boycott of the bakery after 3 black youths attempted to steal merchandise and then assaulted a store employee.  The bakery was accused of racial profiling, the dean helped organize a boycott of the bakery and the university canceled its longstanding contract with the bakery.

The jury found that the bakery had engaged in no such profiling behavior.

Since his work was published in 2009, we have had the emergence of “safe spaces,” “trigger warnings,” the emergence of segregated dorms for African-Americans, white shaming classes, and a “rape crisis” on college campuses which precipitated sexual assault allegations to be handled not by trained law enforcement officers and subject to a judicial process, but by a tribunal of university administrators.

The Gibson’s Bakery case is just the latest instance of a university having to pay the price for its role in advancing false claims in order to advance a narrative.

A number of schools have suffered the pain of large settlements after wrongfully expelling male students because of false accusations of sexual assault.  Most notorious was the Amherst case in which the woman (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/campus-sexual-assault-policies-are-unfair-to-the-accused-this-case-shows-how/2017/08/16/2ab6781e-7de0-11e7-a669-b400c5c7e1cc_story.html?utm_term=.bee104cedb9b) filed the case 18 months after the incident occurred and was the actual perpetrator.  The college excluded evidence that would have exonerated the young lad. Similarly Columbia ended up shelling out a handsome sum to the male student accused of assaulting the infamous Mattress Girl (later photographed at a BDSM club) that walked around campus with a mattress on her back (https://nypost.com/2017/07/14/columbia-settles-with-student-accused-of-raping-mattress-girl/) 

That this attack by a university on a bakery is even more egregious.  I know a little about the bakery business.  This was not just some large, faceless, monolithic corporation.  Gibson’s, like many bakeries, is a family owned and operated place, passed down from the previous generation.   The family members work hard, often getting up at 3 a.m. to bake goods.  Margins are very thin and they employ people at or near minimum wage.  It’s a hard life and a labor of love.

But the New Left cares not about that. 

Scholarship should be an endless, relentless and iterative search for truth.  The judgment and jury award levied against Oberlin is an unambiguous message that the university abdicated its responsibility to that mission.  The search for truth has become subordinate to the advancement of an agenda and the indoctrination of youth in the foundations of that agenda.

In the world of the social justice warriors, oppressed and  oppressor designations are assigned merely by belonging to a certain category.  In the Gibson’s Bakery case,  as in the Amherst and Columbia sexual assault cases, that distortion was taken a step further.  Not only was truth abandoned, but inverted.  The accused perpetrator of a wrong was actually a VICTIM.

While universities may have abandoned their mission to search for truths, judges, juries and our system of jurisprudence have not.  And they are not taking kindly to the politics of personal destruction.  Hopefully, the sting felt by Oberlin and some of these other universities will begin to disincentivize them from engaging in this irresponsible and destructive behavior.

Et Tu, UChicago?

I should have seen this coming.  A couple of months ago, Professor Geoffrey Stone, chief architect of the Chicago Principles, a fundamental doctrine of free speech and free inquiry that has been adopted by many universities, caved to pressure when a number of students demanded that he stop using the “N” word in one of his examples in his 1^st Amendment class.  An Iranian student wrote an impassioned letter about how offensive he found that word and many students demanded that he be stripped of his position (leaving one to wonder if he would have been similarly offended if Stone had used a derogatory word for an Irish-American, Italian-American or Polish-American) .  Stone, of course, has used that word as an example of vile and demeaning speech but did not direct it at anyone.   Stone agreed to stop using that example.  Of course, it’s a terrible word.  That’s why it is used as an extreme example.  But Stone buckled.  He failed to realize—as we have seen with abortion in Illinois, Virginia and New York, the New Left never stops.  They will be back for more from Mr. Stone.

About ten years ago, I started the practice of returning to The University of Chicago for Reunion Weekend each year.  Of course, there is always a bit of nostalgia, but it is also the case that I run into people I know, meet new interesting people and attend lectures and presentations on a wide variety of topics.

Two years ago, I sat in on a panel discussion consisting of three Nobel Prize winning economists, and actually had an opportunity to meet Lars Peter Hansen.  Last year, I heard Casey Mulligan speak and attended a presentation on the Becker Friedman Center.  Not once did I hear the words “inclusiveness” or “diversity.”   I heard words of “world class,” “excellence,” and “innovation.”

But the winds of change may be blowing.

Just before Reunion Weekend, The University of Chicago Magazine published its spring issue with the first article entitled, Toward A More Diverse and Inclusive UChicago.

I did attend a panel at the Institute of Politics that was moderated by David Axelrod that was fairly balanced.  But then I trotted off to hear Tom Ginsburg talk about his book, “How to Save a Constitutional Democracy,” and emphatically declare that, “the U.S. is definitely not exceptional.” When Ginsburg started using the word “patriarchy,” the auditory nerve automatically disconnected from my brain and I stopped listening.

The SJW’s clearly picked the afternoon programming.  On Saturday afternoon, alumni had a choice among “Legal Passing: Navigating Undocumented Life and Local Immigration,” “Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America,” and a 2 ½ hour tribute to Ed Asner with an Ed Asner speech.  Asner’s politics are to the left of Cher’s and his time at the podium would most assuredly be taken with 60 minutes of anti-Trump vitriol.  So this year, instead of Eugene Fama or Lars Peter Hansen in economics or Eugene Parker in astrophysics, we got Ed Asner.

Faced with those choices, I skipped the afternoon and zipped off to the Printers Row Lit Fest instead. 

The University of Chicago has always been the gold standard of academic excellence.  “Diversity” takes a back seat to actual substantive research and discovery in the pursuit of new knowledge at the highest level.  Free speech and free inquiry are unchained at that place.   Last year, President Zimmer sent incoming freshmen a letter saying basically that if you think you need a safe space, Chicago is not the place for you.

None of the little things above are enough to convince me that the UChicago is making a radical turn.  UChicago is no Oberlin.  But these signs taken together are like seeing a little water seepage into your basement.  It’s something to be watched and it’s best to start checking for prices of sump pumps.

D-Day Anniversary

I couldn't let today go by without a short post to honor the men that landed at Normandy 75 years ago today.  I spent most of my commuting and lunch time today viewing tributes, tweets, posts and film clips.

I am still awed by the events of that day, the courage and fortitude of the allied soldiers that faced withering German fire.  I have probably seen Saving Private Ryan 8 times and have read Stephen Ambrose's D Day.  Many of the scenes in Saving Private Ryan are taken from the oral histories chronicled in Ambrose's book.  Most amazingly, much went wrong that day.  The pre-invasion bombings didn't hit their targets.  The airborn divisions were dropped in the wrong places.  The supported armor foundered in the water. Yet, our boys improvised and prevailed.

I also heard Donald Trump's magnificent speech at Normandy.  It was eloquent, gripping and full of emotion.  Trump in moments like today is every bit as good as Reagan.  Like Reagan, he likes to single out D-Day participants to tell their individual stories.   The highlight of the day was when he walked over and hugged one of the D-Day veterans.  He echoed Eisenhower's reference to the Great Crusade and emphasized national sovereignty.  Unlike his predecessor, Trump was unafraid to draw a stark moral distinction between nations, "Their mission is the story of an epic battle, and the ferocious, eternal struggle between good and evil."  Trump delivers his best speeches when away from our shores, and today was no exception.

Their numbers are dwindling rapidly and the numbers of men that were there and survived the horrors of that day are small, and most that are left are old and frail, but the older I get the more I revere them for what they did for us that day.

Reflecting on the events of that day triggers two fundamental questions.  How would you have held up on that day?  Could America undertake such a bold, costly and uncertain challenge today?

Visiting that sacred place is certainly on my bucket list.  If I am still around, I would love to be there for the 100th anniversary.

The Black Hole of Illinois

About 5 years ago, I was invited to attend a roundtable of about 15 Chicago businesspeople.  The topic was the business and deal climate in Chicago.  Each participant was given about five minutes to express his or her views on local business issues.  Rather than put forward a viewpoint, I asked a question, “If your child was graduating from college and had skills that could take them anywhere, and you wanted them to have a happy and prosperous future, would you advise them to settle in Illinois?”  The question elicited laughter in the room.  “Where would you advise them to start off?”  Texas was the unanimous answer from all the participants.

So after Bruce Rauner was stymied and suffocated by the Chicago Machine for four years, gridlock has been loosened and Madigan has his way with J.B. Pritzker at the helm and Pritzker is busy strengthening Madigan’s python grip on power in Illinois.  Pritzker’s first pronouncement was to grant 15% raises to all department heads.

Illinois is a functioning democracy only in the same sense the Islamic Republic of Iran is.  There are few competitive races at all.  Mike Madigan has altered the House rules so that no legislation gets to the floor without his signoff. 

Mike Madigan is a garden variety mob boss operating the protection racket in pre-Giuliani New York.  They propose tax increases and promise that will fix the problem.  BUT THEY ALWAYS COME BACK.  And this time, they are back for good.

To get the progressive tax on the ballot, Madigan was short of a key vote.  Jerry Costello, a conservative Democrat opposed it.  So Pritzker gave Costello the job of head of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and appointed lapdog Nathan Reitz to replace him, paving the way for passage (Reitz’s father was a key vote in getting the last tax increase through).  “The fix is in,” declared Republican party Chairman Tim Schneider.  And indeed it was, as the measure sailed through along party lines.

The Illinois legislators defended their vote.  Representative Robert Martwick stated that this was “reform.”   This is a flat out lie.  There is no reform whatsoever in what Illinois is doing.  No process, no structure, no measure of accountability is changing one iota.  Nothing is being made more efficient.  Nothing is being consolidated or updated.   It is simply a grab for more money. 

The entire shenanigans reminded me of the Three Stooges skit where the three are in a rowboat that starts leaking.  Moe sees Curly bend over on the other side of the boat drilling a hole in the bottom opposite the place where the boat is leaking.  “What are you doing?,” Moe exclaims.   “I’m drilling a hole to let the water out,” answers Curly as Moe smacks him.   Such is the State of Illinois.

One of my mantras is that “Math is a very tough opponent.  Math wins every time.”  Illinois has some tough numbers to deal with.  Twenty five percent of the state’s budget now goes to pension obligations.  Yet, Illinois legislators will do nothing to fix THAT leak.   The birth rate in Illinois is down 20% since 2001.  The state is bleeding population.   Illinois has lagged all its neighbors in economic performance in this recovery.  Just wait until it gets smacked with the next recession.

The “fair tax” ignores hard realities.  The tax base is shrinking and the people that have the most flexibility to leave Illinois are the ones targeted for the highest marginal rates.  Learning nothing from New York’s experience of millionaires fleeing the state and leaving that state with a 2.3 billion budget gap, Madigan/Pritzker apparently believe things will be different here.

They won’t.  First Trust economist Brian Wesbury tweeted flatly, “Time to get the heck out of Illinois.”

I personally have had several friends depart Illinois already, and several others are actively planning to do so in the coming year or so.   Pritzker promised that he was doing this for the middle class, but it will be the folks at the highest marginal rates that have the most flexibility and mobility.  The rating agencies aren’t impressed.  Moody’s has already warned that the new tax regimen will cause residents to flee and Illinois is one of the two least prepared states to weather a downturn.  The rating agency has stated that pension contributions will climb from $8.5 billion to $13 billion.  The steady flow of outmigration will turn into a torrent.

I predict that the amendment will pass.  Instead of amending the pensions—the real source of the problem--- the Machine will be successful in getting out the vote to fleece the taxpayers of Illinois (or steal the election).  The new rates will raise about 30% of what they anticipate as more people pack up and leave.   More young people will see the writing on the wall and launch their careers somewhere else.   Older, more mobile people will figure out that the Chicago Machine is really grabbing their retirement funds and sticking them into someone else’s account.

Along with getting the graduated tax on the ballot the Illinois legislature legalized pot and is pushing to legalize sports gambling.  If they are going down those paths, why not go for the trifecta and legalize and tax prostitution and go all in on a strategy to smoke, gamble and screw our way out of this mess.

Magnificent Desolation

We are a mere 6 weeks or so away from marking the 50^th anniversary of NASA’s brightest moment-- landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth.  In my view, the successful mission of Apollo 11 was one of the three great technological feats of the U.S. government of the 20^th century, along with defeating the Axis powers during WWII (ending it with the Manhattan Project) and wowing the world by ejecting Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991 in 100 days, while taking on the world’s 3^rd largest army and suffering fewer than 200 casualties.   Of these major technological accomplishments, Apollo 11 remains the signature nonmilitary achievement of the U.S. government.  In fact, the technological prowess of the United States was so respected that simply the threat of putting the full weight of the U.S. government behind it was enough to cause the Soviet Union to buckle when Ronald Reagan announced his visionary Star Wars program (33 years later, we’re still not there yet).

The film Apollo 11 is a documentary tribute to that magical flight of half a century ago.   It is uncluttered mostly raw color footage (some new) with no narration save some news reports and chatter between the astronauts and ground control in Houston.   The color footage is amazingly clear and contrasts with how I remember these events as a boy—grainy, shadowy black and white images.

The film sticks to the journey itself and the astronauts and does not provide much historical context, except for JFK’s famous statement of goals and a background news story of Ted Kennedy and Mary Jo Kopechne.  But those of us of a certain age are aware of the turbulence of the time.  The divisions over the Vietnam War were growing.  This was only five years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.  Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King had been slain the year before.  But despite all these fissures, the nation could pull itself together and unite in this purpose.  One of the striking images of the film was the blocks and blocks of people stretched out to witness the launch, and the expressions of joy and wonderment as the spacecraft lifted into the sky.

The singularity of purpose was evident in all of communications and the role of each person was acknowledged in this team effort.   President Nixon called the astronauts and proclaimed that it was “the proudest day of our lives.” Ground control remarked to Michael Collings after re-docking, “Not since Adam has a human known such solitude as Michael Collins.”  And Neil Armstrong, upon return, gave “special thanks to all those that built the spacecraft.”

The three astronauts that made the journey—Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins largely stayed out of the public eye afterwards.  Neil Armstrong in particular was almost reclusive and contrasts with today’s celebrities and heroes that have book deals and run the talk show circuit.  Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf did book tours after Desert Storm.  Even genuine hero Navy Seal Robert J. O’Neill  (slayer of Bin Laden) put out a couple of books and went on the talk show circuit.  Michael Collins disappeared from the national consciousness almost entirely and only Buzz Aldrin has maintained a public profile (I saw Aldrin speak at the Printers Row Lit Fest a couple of years ago).

The astronauts returned to a ticker tape parade.  But soon thereafter, moon landings became pedestrian, and aside from the near disaster of Apollo 13, public interest in space waned.  The Space Shuttle program was marred 25 years later by the Challenger accident.  And then we lost another crew over Texas in Columbia.   Manned space flight ended under the Obama administration.  NASA ossified became embroiled in some controversies with climate change and Obama’s insistence on including Muslim contributions to science in its purpose.  Then last year, the film First Man, a biopic about Neil Armstrong conspicuously omitted any showing of the American flag. 

Since Apollo 11, the U.S. government has had some spectacular failures.  We lost the war in Vietnam. The War on Poverty was an expensive bust.  The War on Drugs has been largely lost.   We are retreating from the war in Afghanistan and accomplished very little despite the lives and treasure lost in the second war in Iraq. 

\

But for one shining week in July 50 years ago, the U.S. government showed the world that it could rally resources and accomplish something magnificent in the time period that JFK established.

Apollo 11 is a stunning film that will take you back to that week, raw and unvarnished and without an agenda.

More from the Higher Ed Swamp

Last week, The College Board announced that it plans to assign an “adversity score” to its standardized test scoring, using 15 factors, including crime rate, poverty levels and whether or not the individual was raised in a single parent household.  But unlike the verbal and math scores, the “adversity score” will not be available to student or parents but will only be available to schools.  This bit of social engineering has created a firestorm of controversy in a sector already rocked by the college admissions scandal, the abuse scandals at MSU and USC and the student debt crisis.

I thought the whole point of “standardized” tests was, well, to come up with a “standardized” predictor and indicator of academic achievement.  But clearly academic achievement is no longer a primary mission of much of higher education.   “Diversity” and “inclusiveness” count more.

After I got over my initial visceral revulsion to the announcement by The College Board, I decided that mostly what the “adversity score” does is quantify what institutions have already been doing informally for a long time anyway.  Perhaps the upside is that the “adversity score” attempts to quantify factors that admissions offices have previously done by guesswork without any quantitative data behind it.

 What don’t I like most about the "adversity score"?

Nontransparency

First of all, the scores are completely opaque to students.  They will be transmitted to colleges, but students cannot see them.   Board scores are like income.  There is no need to share them publicly but keeping the “adversity score” from students themselves is obnoxious, especially at a time when some schools are moving away from board score requirements.   Especially if the “adversity scores” are based in data as The College Board suggests, there is no defensible reason to shroud these scores in secrecy. 

What, exactly, are we handicapping?

The factors that go into the mix are very narrow.  How do you know what “adversity” any individual has experienced?  What about a person from a lower class but two person working family from the south side of Chicago that happens to live in a poor neighborhood?  Is that person facing more adversity than the kid from Winnetka that comes home to a drunk mother every night? What about a kid that has been marginalized in high school because of a speech impediment?  I knew one family in a leafy suburb where one of the three children suffered from a severe mental illness that was very disruptive to family life?  How do those circumstances figure into this measure?  There are a myriad of factors that may limit academic qualifications.  Economic adversity is simply one dimension of possible adversity. 

Solving the wrong problem.

As with most social engineering attempts, the “adversity score” solves the wrong problem.   The problem is that too few African Americans and other minorities do not qualify for admission into top level schools and once they get there their graduation rates are low.

The real problem is complicated and lies primarily in our union infested K-12 public school system, in family structure in minority communities which contributes to low expectations, and in part in the violence that in endemic in some of these areas.   The College Board is attacking the wrong problem.  The problem is NOT that the bar is too high.  The problem is that we need more creative and innovative ways to intervene at a much earlier time in the cycle (think restructuring K-12, and strengthening junior colleges and HSCUs).

Worse, the “adversity score” will actually enable our substandard K-12 system to continue to do what it has been doing. Failing miserably.

One friend of mine whose father was career military said to me that despite the fact that he was professional and had a graduate degree, his actual lifestyle was no better than his parents and may be work.  I replied, “that’s because higher education and the State have conspired to scrape off the excess earnings.”  A middle income or upper middle income person does not get much, if any, in financial aid.  With higher education inflation far outpacing inflation, and increasing taxes, higher education (sometimes in consort with government) have stripped away any incremental increase in wealth from the middle class.   And now children of middle income but single earner parents will get disadvantaged even more, not because of their individual characteristics, but because they happen to belong to a certain class.

Rather than being a bridge to advancement, higher education is now weighing down the middle class, stripping them of wealth and robbing them of an ever increasing proportion of their future earnings with unsustainable debt.

Venture capitalist Peter Theil recently skewered higher education and I think hit it right on:

“The analogy that I’ve often used for universities is that they are as corrupt today as the Catholic Church was 500 years ago on the eve of the Protestant Reformation.  It’s the same sort of stuff that we are being told.  You have the priestly professorial that is very sinecured.  You have runaway tuitions that are like the indulgences.  There is a salvation story where if you get a degree from Harvard, you’ll end up in a good place.  If you don’t get a college degree you will end up in a very bad place.  This is the Atheist Church.  What I am arguing for is a 2^nd Reformation and it is not to replace it with some unitary alternative system.  I think it will be a whole range of different things.”

The “adversity score” will do little to improve the lot of minorities.  It will unnecessarily harm middle class kids.  While I’m not as hysterical about it as many conservatives, the actual effect will be to enable our broken education system to continue on its dismal path.

I’m willing to bet that paying off the student loans of Morehouse College ’19 graduates by billionaire Robert Smith will do more for young minorities starting out in life than any relative advantage conveyed by an “adversity score.”