A New York City high school which produces makers is under attack by looters.
No Ethnic Group Owns Stuyvesant. All New Yorkers Do.
“Admission to Stuyvesant was and remains determined by a single test available to all middle school students in the city. There are no soft criteria for admission: no interviews, no favoritism for legacies, no strings to be pulled. It’s all about whether you do well on the test, which best determines whether or not you can do the academic work.
You would think that Mayor Bill de Blasio would celebrate Stuyvesant as the crown jewel of the city’s school system. Instead, he has announced a plan that will destroy it in all but name.
This month, the mayor said he would seek legislation that would eliminate the test completely. Instead, he’d guarantee automatic admission to Stuyvesant — and the seven other specialized high schools in the city — for the top students at every middle school, regardless of their abilities.
The mayor says he is trying to address what is undoubtedly a heartbreaking problem: the gross underrepresentation of black and Latino students at Stuyvesant and schools like it. In 2016 black and Latino students constituted 44 percent of the kids who took the test (and 65 percent of the New York City school population). Yet they make up just 4 percent of Stuyvesant students and 15 percent of students at the specialized high schools overall.
But the mayor’s solution is no solution at all.
For one thing, his plan seems purposely oblivious to his administration’s utter failure to prepare students across the city for the admissions test — and for a school as challenging as Stuyvesant. In nearly one quarter of the city’s public middle schools, zero seventh graders scored at the advanced level on the annual New York State Mathematics Exam in 2017. Mr. de Blasio would send the top 7 percent of students at every middle school to the specialized high schools, but at 80 middle schools — or one out of every six — not even 7 percent of seventh graders passed the state math exam.”
Mayor de Blasio is insisting on equal outcomes for Middle School students. Never mind if there aren’t 7% of a school’s graduates who are even competent (much less excellent) in math, he’s going to insist they be placed in a group where they will certainly struggle. If the school system for which the Mayor is responsible produces innumerate graduates, he’ll just lower the definition of numeracy.
I’ll bet vanishingly few of those 44% taking the entrance exam were students at the 80 schools where not even 7% can pass the state math exam. Graduating with no math competence is the problem, and throwing those kids into an advanced program is doing them no favor.
It’s not a numeracy problem to the Mayor, it’s a melanin content problem. The breakdown of the freshman admittees at Stuyvesant:
Asian — 613
White — 151
Hispanic — 27
Black — 10
I wonder how the 37 black and brown students who passed the entrance exam feel about Mr. de Blasio’s proposal. They represent 4.62% of the freshman class. We know that 44% of the aspirants who took the test in 2016 were black and brown. That means over 10% of them passed. Will the 3% who made it based on a meritocratic exam be denied admittance in favor of the new “7% from all” social justice rules?
Before those 37 graduate from Stuyvesant, dozens of kids who don’t know what a square root is may be their classmates.
One consequence is that few, if any, outcome equal, square-rootless admittees will succeed. Another is that resources will be diverted from those who could do the work, and some of them will fail when they could have succeeded. So, how long do you think it will be before de Blasio’s Equal Outcome parameters will also be applied to Stuyvesant graduates? Stuyvesant diplomas will become certificates of participation. The equal outcome will be pre-ordained graduation, whether earned or not.
If de Blasio is successful, the vast benefit this school brings to us all – equal opportunity for everyone to become better, happier, and wealthier by standing on the shoulders of merit – will vanish.
The arc of equal outcomes bends toward the lowest common denominator. A term with which Mr. de Blasio’s new Stuyvesant students will be unfamiliar.
That’s what he wants. Any other result promotes the idea that people are not interchangable parts to be arranged in life by Government whim. De Blasio’s utopian project cannot tolerate that.
Whether political freedom or economic freedom is more important is a moot question.
The most basic property right is self-ownership. To the degree that right is compromised, so is freedom. A commenter at the linked article above noted this:
“I propose in the following discussion to call one’s own labor, and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, the ‘economic means’ for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the ‘political means’.”
– Franz Oppenheimer, The State. New York: Free Life
Editions, 1908 (1975), pp. 24-25
Beyond the unabashed wealth redistributionism of a Bernie Sanders, ‘unrequited appropriation of the labor of others’ includes all forms of rent-seeking: Regulation favoring entrenched business (from tariffs to requiring hair braiders to take hundreds of hours of training, to subsidies for solar panels, movies, art, mortgages, etc., etc., etc.); union shops; civil asset forfeiture and eminent domain; and zoning laws.
We may agree politically to give some portion of some of those freedoms to the State, but we will, by definition, be less free; and bureaucracies will always take more than is granted.
Principled resistance to the looting is a requirement of freedom.
Commenting on my Academiot roundup post, below, a friend wrote:
This one excerpt reminds me of the tax law …
Write so as to permit the greatest number of interpretations possible…..Obscurity may “protect from serious scrutiny” (Ellis 1989: 148). The idea is “to create a text without finality or completion, one with which the reader can never be finished”
Which instantly reminded me of other writings on the same concept. I replied:
And it would remind you of Tocqueville, I’d suspect.
After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
And Ayn Rand.
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
The Looters aren’t mysterious, their poisonous ideas have been around forever. They’ve been called out, but a large proportion of our young people haven’t heard about it, and they are being trained by nefarious academics.
John Galt, call your office.
Update. April 11th, 2:40 PM: Minnesota’s Great Wealth Migration
How long before these states want to impose domestic capital controls?
Their problem isn’t Koch’s philanthropy, it’s that they couldn’t just confiscate it. Looters.
In Venezuela, the government thinks electronics retailers have been charging too much, so:
[Venezuela’s] President Nicolas Maduro … sent soldiers to “occupy” one chain of electronics stores and inspectors into scores of others to check for price-gouging.
Thousands of Venezuelans have been flocking to electronics stores, hoping to take advantage of new “fair prices” the government is imposing, sometimes half the previous cost.
If you read the linked article, you’ll find “flocking to electronics stores” translates into English as “looting.”
In first world countries, like the United States, we don’t have these problems. Here, we force people to buy things they don’t want and can’t use, then we redistribute that money to people so they can buy flat screen TVs and iPhones. For example, all males under age 65 are forced to buy insurance coverage for children’s dental and vision care.
Our way of looting is much better organized. For example, we have seen neither “flocking” to the government health insurance website to be disadvantaged by “unfair prices” nor looting of Best Buy.
(Part 1 of “what happens in third world countries” is here.)
“Dr. Pritchett” speaks:
There is no such thing as a self-made man. Every businessman has used the vast American infrastructure, which the taxpayers paid for, to make his money. He did not make his money alone. He used taxpayer infrastructure. He got rich on what other taxpayers had paid for: the banking system, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and Commerce Departments, and the judicial system, where nine-tenths of cases involve corporate law. These taxpayer investments support companies and wealthy investors. There are no self-made men! The wealthy have gotten rich using what previous taxpayers have paid for. They owe the taxpayers of this country a great deal and should be paying it back.
-George P. Lakoff, PhD, Professor of Linguistics – UC Berkeley
Dr. Lakoff’s advice is important to Democrats. Speeches by Elizabeth Warren and the president have been informed by his writings.
A man who has been supported solely by taxpayers for his entire adult life, every check from the government, may quite naturally confuse his employers with the paymaster. This includes Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren.
We may debate who today has Mouch as his avatar, who plays Kinnan, who is Toohey, who is Thompson, who Boyle and who Taggart; but Lakoff is unequivocally Rand’s Dr. Pritchett.
Paul Krugman offers further proof that winning a Nobel Prize damages your brain:
What would a real response to our [economic] problems involve?… it would involve an all-out effort by the Federal Reserve to get the economy moving, with the deliberate goal of generating higher inflation to help alleviate debt problems.
It seems to me that the Fed is already doing what Krugman asks inflation-wise, but, like Stimulus One, it’s just not big enough.
One wonders what an all-out effort would look like? Weimar? Zimbabwe? THOSE were all out efforts to inflate debt away.
The Solyndra Fraud