Seeking Diversity in the Supreme Court

In the last few weeks, there have been numerous articles and interviews published on Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court. I read with pride and excitement the news and having known Sonia from college, I swelled with pride that a fellow Princetonian had been nominated for this prestigious position. It was even more of an accomplishment knowing that she was the first Latina to be considered. But within minutes of the announcement I witnessed a shameless attack on her integrity and ability to render a fair, unbiased decision because she identifies as a Latina. We all expect the political posturing to occur - Republicans to attack Democratic nominees and so forth but what makes this different is the accusation that she is a racist.

While I may not have the audience of a Rush Limbaugh, I feel more than qualified to speak up as a Princeton graduate who attended college in the 70’s and who also happens to be a minority - African American. Interestingly, the arguments as to whether or not Sonia is qualified to serve have not come into question, given that she is a graduate of Princeton which has had, to my knowledge, 10 graduates who served on the court. What has come into play is the ludicrous notion that she is racist because she identifies herself as a woman of Latino descent. Her identification as a Latina has become the sole point of contention around the discussion as to her ability to serve on the court. If she identified herself as something other than what she is, would that have said more about her capabilities?

But this is not a new criticism. I remember the close scrutiny paid to Michelle Obama’s senior thesis during the election because she suggested that the experiences of minority students at Princeton were not ideal. The truth is the truth whether you choose to sugar coat it or not. Many Princeton graduates report similar experiences while attending Princeton. These views have been documented in numerous articles, interviews, videos and in discussions amongst alumni and faculty and comes as no surprise to both Princeton faculty and administrators who continue to look at ways that they can ensure that the educational experience at Princeton is one of mutual respect and inclusion for all of its students.

For many of us who attended Princeton in the early 70’s, Princeton was just becoming acclimated to the presence of women and minorities in larger numbers. While the university had successfully recruited and admitted freshman classes that were diverse, attracting African Americans, Latinos from the East and West Coast, Native Americans, Asian and foreign students from around the world, the old tradition-laden systems of Princeton were slow to catch up. Most minority students who came to Princeton found themselves on a campus that, while accepting them as enrolled students, treated them as second class citizens and found ways to exclude them from the full Princeton experience.

Princeton like many colleges in the 60’s and 70’s saw the value of having a diverse student body. Intellectual discourse that includes a variety of voices, perspectives and experiences enables all students to gain a richer understanding of the world. Princeton believed that these voices could not only be found in the hallowed halls of Exeter and Andover but also in inner city public schools, urban parochial schools, suburbs and rural schools across the nation. And in fact, by these measures, Sonia’s story is not just her success story but that of all of us who used our opportunities to reach goals we might not have reached under different circumstances. Many of us believe that our opportunity and success does not preclude us from reaching back and helping lift up those we left behind in our families, communities and country. Many minority graduates who attended college in the 60’s and 70’s share a passion to use their education to make a better world for everyone. We can no more forget our humble beginnings than we can forget our social security number.

Our accomplishments make us proud of what we have accomplished in spite of our humble beginnings. Since when is pride in family, culture or heritage racist? The assertion that she is a racist is sheer projection. Racism implies power, not attitude. When one group believes themselves to be superior to some other group and denies them the rights, respect and fair treatment they accord themselves because of that person’s race…then you have racism. The power to deny employment, access to education, or equal protection under the law is what we cannot allow. To assume that a person who expresses pride in their heritage is exercising power over someone else is erroneous and reflects a projection of the critics’ own beliefs. Nothing in Sonia’s history of employment suggests that she is anything but fair.

The critics of Sonia Sotomayor do not understand the true value of diversity. It is not about quotas or numbers, but rather about the diversity in experience, background and perspective which helps us understand each other. The value is that a more inclusive contribution of ideas and perspectives and talents renders an outcome far richer than one based on similar ideas and perspectives.

Defining what is American is difficult. We are a country of people - those native to the land, slaves brought here as property, immigrants looking for a better life. We come from every corner of the world. We represent the best and sometimes the worst in American history. We struggle with intolerance, racism, discrimination and all that ails society. But out of that we are a nation of peoples. This diversity is what truly defines American. No other nation has such a rich fabric. The Supreme Court should represent this fabric.

Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination represents change. An outspoken, intelligent Ivy League educated Latina, born in the slums of Bronx, challenges the notion of what makes a good Supreme Court Justice. Sonia Sotomayor is an American success story. She reflects our experiences, hopes and dreams for a society that is inclusive in spite of gender, ethnicity or class. Whatever decisions are ultimately rendered by the court must represent all Americans. Anything less will diminish the court’s respect and its value to our nation as we struggle with challenges of the 21st century.

President Obama’s Stimulus Bill: Are We Dummying Down our Children?

In our rush to ensure that the US remains competitive with the rest of the world in having a highly trained workforce, I am concerned that we may be doing a disservice to the next generation of “degreed” workers.

The number one topic in many political circles is the enormous “Stimulus Funding” coming out of Washington. Billions of dollars have been allocated to fund education, green projects and job retooling programs. As local politicians, school boards and colleges gear up for this influx of “much anticipated funding”, the debate begins on what programs or training approaches will be funded. To meet the need and demand, many schools are expanding short-term certificate programs and online studies circumventing many of the traditional liberal arts and basic skills requirements. Part of the reason is to provide less expensive ways of training individuals with a quicker turn around period. Online training reduces the need for classroom space and allows large numbers of students to enroll and learn at their convenience. Many of the programs, offered through proprietary schools, continuing education programs and community colleges, require minimum education and assume the student will have access to a computer as well as have the motivation and drive to study independently.

I can appreciate the demand for skilled workers, especially if we are going to compete globally. I also know that every student is not looking for a college degree. But, I believe that we are overlooking the fact that college has become for many students the “finishing school”, preparing them to take on the demands and responsibilities of full time employment. A number of formal surveys of Human Resource managers have found that few companies in corporate America believe that the average high school graduate is adequately prepared to work for them right out of high school.

The policies supporting “No Child Left Behind” required schools across the nation to divert educational funding for remedial courses that would prepare students to meet the minimal competencies required statewide. If physical education, music and art programs, enrichment courses and AP budgets were reduced, so be it. Schools faced with losing their accreditation and independence were forced to focus their efforts on seeing that their students pass these tests. The schools that suffered the most from having high percentages of poor achieving students and high drop out rates were the same schools that had to stop alternative programs that addressed teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol awareness, gang violence and college prep initiatives that worked to keep students in school and out of trouble.

Across this nation, there are high school grads who have reading levels and math levels that fall significantly below grade. While students may be more computer literate, reading comprehension and writing skills are deficient. Problem solving and logic has been supplanted by rote learning and an inadequate foundation in literature, history and the sciences. Many of these students know little about government and would have difficulty identifying countries on a map. While they may have learned the fifty state capitals, they may be unfamiliar with the location of the fifty states.

Although, many of these topics may not come up in the midst of doing a job, education is supposed to give individuals information and the background to think and adequately problem solve based on the information they have on hand. Often, we have to extrapolate that information from other sources and be able to identify when there is a discrepancy. This can only happen if the person has been sufficiently exposed to a wide variety of information. Reading becomes extremely important when we need to gain new information. How does a person build on their knowledge if they are unable to gain that knowledge through written material? Training methods tend to focus on learning the job by rote memorization of a procedure or series of steps without understanding the science or technology behind it.

Have you ever gone into your favorite fast food store and confused the cashier by either giving them change to get back a bill or asked for something not preprinted on one of the keys? Have you ever called customer service and had a confused person on the line reading a script and unable to understand your questions? Did you ever read a memo or email that didn’t make sense?

That type of training may be sufficient on paper and in the classroom, but in the real world, it falls short. Of course, you can put the responsibility for trouble shooting on the supervisor, but in every day work environments, employees are often asked to improvise, take on new jobs or supervise others with little to no supervision.

If it were just a matter of work performance, I could leave the problem to the employers who will need to weed out those workers barely competent. But as an educator, I believe this trend is short-sighted and has the potential to create more long-term problems.

Regardless of the training program employed, the most important factor is the effectiveness of the teaching approach. Most recently, the most popular trend for education and training has been via online course instruction. The approach not only offers convenience to students who can study from the comfort of their homes but is fairly inexpensive to the school and is able to accommodate large numbers of students. This approach appeals to both entering freshmen, part-time working students and adults returning to school. The question is whether or not this is the most successful way of teaching students. Although the upside is the convenience and availability, learning outside of a classroom environment poses its own unique challenges. Most courses require that the student complete a number of required online modules that may or may not be accompanied by programmed testing. This work is completed independently and then submitted to the instructor for feedback. In order to keep up with course requirements the student must possess a great deal of self discipline and structure. While there is usually opportunity to ask questions, it is often not in real time when the student needs to understand what he/she is reading or working on.

Compare this to the more traditional lecture hall college experience. The professor lectures as the students take notes. This lecture may be presented with straight lecture, demonstration, visual display or class discussion. Students are encouraged to ask questions and the student present has the benefit of asking questions and listening to other questions and explanations. Class discussion or debate affords further analysis of the material and alternative ways of understanding the material. Class also affords opportunity to meet and work with other classmates, to work on group projects, form study groups or continue discussions outside of class. Access to the library, labs and other sources of support and assistance further the student’s understanding of the material. This is not the case when a student studies at home. There are many distractions at home and most students find it hard to dedicate as much time to their studies as needed because of competing priorities. Students are far more likely to drop out of class if they are having problems because of a lack of support.

So how does this dummy down our kids?

Here is an opportunity to put some real money behind education and training programs that will ensure that our kids are competitive with the rest of the world. Right? But, in our rush to do this, we are looking for quick fixes and ignoring the deficiencies we have in our system. This funding is not going to be used to address the discrepancy in educational funding in inner city and suburban school districts. It is not going to address the complex systemic problems that plague the poor and inner city resident. It is not going to fund comprehensive programs that will truly encourage a P-16 educational approach. Because we are looking at making an impact now, that will expediently turn out a workforce for the future, training programs and community college programs will receive the lion’s share of the funding. Rather than address the increasing cost of a college education, alternative, shorter term programs will be offered, especially to those students who cannot afford the more expensive liberal arts education. (Interestingly, many of these programs, while shorter in duration, lasting on average 6 to 18 months, are more expensive on a “per credit” or “hour” basis.)

I also am concerned that this two-tier system of education, job training versus traditional liberal arts education, will cause further stratification of workers and class. The college-educated individuals will earn significantly more money than job-specific trained individuals in the same way that vocational education prepared individuals do jobs that are now being phased out, outsourced or replaced by technology. This form of education would not contribute to the growth of a more inclusive upwardly mobile work force, but rather reinforce some of the old distinctions between the elite and working class.

I believe that President Obama’s vision that ensures that all citizens have access to higher education is not reflected in the emphasis on training. His own story reflects that of being the son of two students who believed that education was the means to achieve in this society. When he went to college, he did not have a clear vision of the job he would end up with or the specific skills he would need. He used his education to broaden his knowledge base and understanding of the world and his experiences to forge career goals. And along the way, he realized that he could achieve what few people with his background would ever have thought they could have achieved.

Education is a lifelong process. It is a right that many slaves and immigrants and women fought for with the belief that education could be the great equalizer. While it is important that education always be relevant and meaningful, it is more than just a “means to an end.” Every society has made enormous strides once it made education available to all of its citizens. The greatest thinkers, inventors, entrepreneurs and leaders have benefited from learning, not just in how to do business or perform a procedure or understand complex science but in their understanding of the world, its history, culture and science. To remain competitive, we must not abandon our traditions of a liberal arts education, but rather broaden its scope, make it affordable and ensure that all students are able to gain access to it.