CLAREMONT INDEPENDENTVOLUME XXI, NUMBER 2 APRIL 2012

© Friends of the Claremont Independent. All rights reserved.

3 PUBLISHER’S NOTE Micheal Koenig, PO ‘12

4 ALTERNATIVE SPRING BREAK: A REFLECTION Amelia Evrigenis, CMC ‘15

5 REGULATION GONE OVERBOARD Colin Spence, CMC ‘15

6 ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING Julio Sharp-Wasserman, PO ‘13

9 TEACH FOR AMERICA: UNTAPPED POTENTIAL? William Mitchell, CMC ‘14

10 STILL THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITY Christina Noriega, SC ‘13

12 EPISTEMOLOGY IN FACEBOOK Catherine Tung, CMC ‘14

14 CIVILIZATION AND THE GDP FAIRY Chris Gaarder, CMC ‘15

CLAREMONT INDEPENDENTtable of contents.

Editor in ChiefEvan Lind

PublisherMichael Koenig

Layout EditorsLynsey Chediak

Tess Sewell

Managing EditorWill Mitchell

Associate EditorsMarina Giloi

Christina Noriega

Editors EmeritiHannah Burak

John-Clark Levin

Publisher EmeritaJustine Desmond

Web EditorParth Padgoankar

IllustratorsHeidi Carlson

Aliza Kellerman

Staff WritersEliot Adams, Janet Alexander, Travis

Athougies, Joanna Chavez, Breanna Deutsch, Amelia Evrigenis, Aiden Fahnestock, Chris Gaarder, Paul Jeffrey, Linden Schult, Julio

Sharp-Wasserman, Jason Soll, Colin Spence, Matt Taylor, Catherine Tung

3editorial

PUBLISHER’S NOTEby Michael Koenig Publisher

The inner machinations of think tank governance are rarely discussed. Unlike PACs, the non-profit status of think tanks requires that they remain divorced from endorsing politi-cal candidates. It is easy to forget, however, that think tanks aren’t ivory towers of policy divorced from political concerns. Think tanks are owned and controlled by benefactors, and their membership is dictated by the concerns of their governors. In recent weeks, it is likely that you have heard about the Koch brothers and their attempts to take majority ownership of the Cato Institute (and thus total control of the Institute’s board of governors). Cato was initially founded as the Charles Koch Institute. The Koch brothers, both founders, hold two of the four equal ownership shares of the Institute. The existence of one of the non-Koch shares came into dispute recently when its owner, William Niskanen, passed away. The Koch brothers argue that the fourth share should dissolve, while Niskanen’s estate argues that his share has passed to his widow. Dissolving Niskanen’s share would give the Koch brothers a controlling interest in the Institute, and ultimate control over who works for Cato.

The Cato Institute has been a bastion of libertarian thought for decades. Cato funds the work of libertarian think-ers and writers. Cato is also famous for publishing and distrib-uting pocket copies of the Constitution (in fact, I have a copy in my desk). Their work has left an indelible mark on right-wing thinking, and I hope they continue their work. The recent scuffle for control of the institute, however, may hurt Cato’s image as an unbiased source for libertarian thought. Some

ex-Cato writers like Julian Sanchez have complained that the Koch’s are stuffing Cato with GOP operatives and want to use it as a political tool. It is easy to see how this is bad for the im-age of an institute in which many members pride themselves on distance from established political parties. The irony is that the Koch brothers and their money have been responsible for making Cato the cornerstone of libertarian policy long before this current publicity fiasco. The Koch brothers have had a ma-jor say in the selection of Cato board members for decades. If majority control of the institute falls to them, it is unlikely that they will pick board members differently than they already have. Rather, the only substantive difference would be in the public’s perception of the Institute, and it would undoubtedly be a negative change.

The argument over control of such organizations has re-minded me how easy it is to take independence for granted. During my time as a writer here at the Claremont Indepen-dent and during my tenure as publisher, I have recognized how valuable it can be. Our non-profit organization, the Friends of the Claremont Independent, is structured rather differently from the Cato Institute. Our board of directors is not controlled by any owner, but rather by the directors themselves. The pub-lishers and editors of the Claremont Independent can vote with the board, and their approval by the board ensures a healthy leadership and oversight relationship. As you peruse the opin-ions expressed in this issue, I hope you are reminded of our single, driving editorial policy: to uphold truth and excellence at the Claremont Colleges.

The Claremont Independent is an independent journal of campus affairs and political thought serving the colleges of the Claremont Consortium. The magazine receives no funding from any of the colleges and is distributed free of charge on campus. All costs of production are covered by the generous support of private foundations and individuals. The Claremont Independent is dedicated to using journalism and reasoned discourse to advance its

ongoing mission of Upholding Truth and Excellence at the Claremont Colleges.

CI

4 feature

ALTERNATIVE SPRING BREAK: A REFLECTIONby Amelia Evrigenis Staff Writer

This March, Claremont McKenna College launched its Alternative Spring Break (ASB) program. The Center for Civ-ic Engagement sponsored two spring break service trips, one to Johnson City, Tennessee, the other to Costa Rica. When I heard about the program, I readily completed my application and marked “Johnson City” as my trip preference. I was one of only four people to list Tennessee as my preference—four of nearly sixty applicants.

Johnson City is located in east Tennessee, near the Vir-ginia and North Carolina state borders. It’s at the heart of Ap-palachia, region known by some for its poverty and “socially backward” inhabitants. I had never visited the Appalachia, but was aware of the stereotypes associated with “mountain people.” I wanted to test those stereotypes on my service trip. I wanted to experience a culture radically different from my own, yet similarly American.

Come March 10th, I departed for Johnson City with elev-en other CMC students and two staff leaders, Jessica Briggs and Adam Pruett. Our trip was hosted by the Appalachia Ser-vice Project (ASP), a Christian organization which sends vol-unteers into low-income Appalachian homes to perform much-needed repairs. The organization housed us at a Methodist church just outside the city. They split CMC students into two work groups, and sent us to respective homes for the week.

My group was assigned a trailer home in Bloomingdale, TN, about a half hour drive from Johnson City. The home was damaged by a fire last November. We spent the week doing ev-erything we could to patch it up. While a team from Lake For-est College in Illinois replaced the floors inside the home, our CMC team repaired a destroyed portion of the outer wall and constructed a new front porch. Monday through Friday from 9-5, we whipped out our hammers, crowbars, shovels, power drills, and electric saws to perform our repairs. On Tuesday afternoon, we met the property owner, a woman in her mid-sixties. Breathing with a respirator, she walked up the steep hill to her home, accompanied by her grandnephew and grandniece every step of the way. They had lived with her in the trailer before the fire occurred. The owner was such a kind, humble woman, and I was humbled by her. With a Southern twang, she expressed her thankfulness for our efforts to repair her home. She became emotional when she talked about the loss of her “church goin’ clothes,” clothing she could never replace. I felt honored to serve this woman during her time of great need.

My ASB experience led me to reflect upon the criticisms and mockeries of Southerners that I’ve heard all my life. A

northern California native, I’ve been preached to about the im-portance of open-mindedness and tolerance more than enough times. After experiencing Appalachian culture first-hand, I’ve become more aware of the great hypocrisy in political discus-sions of “tolerance.” And frankly, I find it offensive.

Liberal political discourse preaches one thing, but prac-tices another. The liberal media proclaims a message of cultur-al and religious tolerance, yet shamelessly mocks Southerners’ right-wing values and Christian convictions. While liberals emphasize the importance of using politically correct speech in reference to other minority groups, they express no concern over derogatory terms that refer to Southerners—terms such as “redneck,” “Bible-thumper,” and “hillbilly.” Liberals often nullify Southerners’ religious and conservative values as the result of social isolation and inadequate education. If you dis-agree with a liberal, it’s because you are ignorant.

I do not by any means suggest that the South is perfect. I do not deny that discrimination, racism, and intolerance re-main prevalent issues in the region (even though I did not wit-ness anything of the sort on my trip). However, after serving in Johnson City, I’ve found myself more and more offended by mockery of the conservative South. I find myself insulted by liberals’ declarations of open-mindedness and tolerance, which only mask their incredible intolerance of Southerners.

To assume that progressive values and lifestyles are su-perior to those of “backwards” Southerners and Appalachians is arrogant. One cannot assume that what is progressive is nec-essarily better, nor assume that social change and moderniza-tion always yields improvement. The South has its flaws, but I still find great value in its culture. I admire Southerners’ strong Christian faith and their trust in a higher power. I admire the strength the poor find in God. I admire the slower, calmer pace with which Southerners lead their lives, and I respect their generosity and hospitality practices. The people I encountered in Johnson City carried themselves with a sense of peace and contentment that I seldom witness in California.

Tolerance is defined as freedom from bigotry. It involves understanding and respecting people’s cultural contexts, and it requires that we rid ourselves of self-righteousness. Liberals cannot claim a monopoly over tolerance and simultaneously ridicule “intolerant” Southern conservatives, because true tol-erance makes no room for selectivity. True tolerance requires that we demonstrate respect and understanding towards all, in-cluding those with whom we disagree. CI

5current events

REGULATION GONE OVERBOARDby Colin Spence Staff Writer

The debate surrounding the issue of global warming has been enduring and multi-faceted. Fifteen years after the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty aimed at hindering the prog-ress of climate change, people still debate whether the warming is happening, whether it is man-made, and what to do about it. For the sake of this argument, let’s accept that global warming is happening and that it is man-made phenomenon. Accepting these two ideas still leaves the problem of what, if anything, can be done to correct the trend. Currently, the prevailing wisdom seems to hold that the best way to cope with global warming is to allow the government to deal with it, through a series of regulations and subsidies. Unfortunately, the US gov-ernment has a track record of being far too slow in responding to problems, of implementing regulations that are shortsighted and based on political considerations that do not necessarily line up with economic ones, and providing subsidies to com-panies or industries based on political reasons and not on how such action would affect the market. A better solution may be to significantly scale back government intervention in the market by streamlining regulation and eliminating, subsidies thereby promoting more market freedom, competition, and in-novation of alternative energy sources.

In the past, the US government has often been slow to re-spond to problems, while the market has been able to respond smoothly and rapidly. A good example of this is the 1973 oil embargo crisis and the resulting CAFÉ legislation. By 1975, Congress had passed its Corporate Average Fuel Economy law, which mandated higher fuel economy standards for auto companies. By comparison, let’s take a look at what happened to what is potentially the most iconic American vehicle ever produced, the Ford Mustang. Up until 1973, the Mustang had been a V8 sports car, achieving generally low mileage figures. In 1974, the new Mustang became a small, fuel-efficient com-pact vehicle, capable of achieving 34mpg at the time. It was the antithesis of its original namesake, but it was the right car for the times. It was also not alone, as all of the Detroit Big 3 began discontinuing powerful, inefficient vehicles and increas-ing production of efficient compacts from 1973 onward, two years before Congress could pass relevant legislation. This rapid response to market pressures demonstrates the feasibility of allowing more freedom in the auto market. This downsizing trend would have potentially continued if the price of oil had not been subsidized, which reduced the demand for efficient

vehicles and allowed for the reemergence of high-polluting models.

The second problem with letting the government han-dle the issue of global warming is that the two tools generally available, regulation and subsidization, both frequently have unintended consequences, especially when applied improp-erly. First, let’s address regulation. Regulation, especially in the energy market, is designed to improve safety and protect natural resources. Unfortunately, when regulation goes over-board, it can hurt competition and stifle innovation. Take, for instance, the California emission standards that effectively pre-vented diesel-powered vehicles from being sold, making any business’ case for selling them in the United States that much more difficult. These vehicles passed Western European emis-sion standards and were generally capable of providing greater economy than normal vehicles; some were even capable of providing better economy than high performing hybrids. The opportunity for competition and subsequent innovation was stifled by superfluous regulation that was stricter than both the US federal policy and the policy of the environmentally con-scious Western Europeans. Removing superfluous regulation, and allowing for increased exploration and streamlined permit

This downsizing trend would potentially have continued if the price of oil had not been subsidized, which reduced the demand for efficient vehicles and allowed for the reemergence of high-polluting vehicles. ”

CONTINUED ON PAGE 15

6 current events

ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMINGby Julio Sharp-Wasserman Staff Writer

There has been much circulation in political discourse in recent years of the doctrine of natural rights, largely because of the growth of the “Ron Paul Revolution.” A combination of a number of recent developments, offers an explanation, if not, as I believe it does not, a justification for why this doc-trine used to oppose tyrannical royalty in previous centuries was given new life in the political rhetoric of our generation. These developments include increased federal surveillance of U.S. citizens; the revival of major military commitment on the part of the U.S. government, after a relative lull in militarism following the fall of the Soviet Union; the passage of a law that marks a major step toward nationalized healthcare; and demands for and attempts at major environmental regulation in the face of global warming. The doctrine of natural rights is in its basic structure a simple one, and its apparent simplic-ity is what has made it rhetorically useful to so many popular movements in our history as an ideological tool of opposition to oppression . However, the doctrine’s implications are not always adequately fleshed out by its adherents, in particular by its modern libertarian adherents. Philosophical rigor in drawing out the conclusions of the libertarian version of natu-ral rights, combined with an adequate appreciation of the ac-cumulated scientific knowledge supporting the anthropogenic theory of global warming, reveals that libertarianism justifies government intervention on a massive scale in response to the threat of global warming. But, more importantly, it does so in a way that reveals both the profound practical shortcomings and the self-defeating nature of the natural rights doctrine in its libertarian form.

The doctrine of natural rights proclaims that every indi-vidual has a right, derived from nature or God, and thus prior to all established authority and relevant in all places and times, to be free from interference by any person or institution, in the conduct of his life, except in defense of the natural rights of another to live freely. The doctrine has been articulated, with varying intensions and emphases but nevertheless retaining this general form just outlined, by many philosophers and pub-lic figures, from John Locke and Thomas Paine to abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, to Martin Luther King and libertar-ian presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. It has been used, among other cases, in the context of the revolution against the British crown, of the abolitionist movement, and of the civil rights movement’s opposition to physical violence and discrimination from government and private sources. But one

vein of the natural rights tradition, one derived partly from Lockean philosophy and partly from America’s little-known individualist anarchist tradition, and finding its modern culti-vation in post-war libertarianism, is distinguished from other manifestations of the doctrine in placing special emphasis on the right to private property.

According to modern libertarian natural rights philoso-phy, as developed by philosophers such as Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick, and perhaps most importantly the Ron Paul associate and seminal libertarian activist and thinker Murray Rothbard, there are two fundamental natural rights, themselves so inti-mately related that a libertarian might call them two compo-nents of the same single fundamental right. These rights are the right over one’s body and the right to one’s private prop-erty. In Locke’s words, one can use one’s body to “mix one’s labor” with some un-owned piece of nature, and thus acquire this thing for oneself, almost as it if were an extension of one’s body. As Nozick argues in his discussion of what he calls “his-torical justice,” once one has acquired some piece of the world for oneself, he can voluntarily gift or exchange it away, and so can the person who receives it, creating a chain of just property holdings beginning with the original acquisition and leading up to the last person who receives a piece of property in some type of voluntary transaction.

According to this school of thought, the only instance that calls for coercion from the state or some other enforcer for purposes of restituting victims or punishing perpetrators, is when this sacred chain of property acquisition is violently broken by, as the saying goes, “force or fraud” against some legitimate property holder, force being specifically physical force. So we are justified in interfering with someone’s right to their body or property if they use one of those things to damage or claim wrongful ownership over another person’s body or property. Well, what if my factory emits pollutants into the air that damage your body or property, say by giving you some medical condition or destroying your crops? What if, as in the case of global warming, my emitting greenhouse gasses contributes to increased temperature levels that give various people medical problems related to higher temperatures, or causes sea levels to rise, destroying property at lower eleva-tions or forcing property holders in vulnerable regions to pay for climate mitigation measures, through taxes or otherwise, in order to protect their property from destruction?

We can find a libertarian sort-of answer to this question

7current events

in Murray Rothbard. Murray Rothbard is one of the people primarily responsible for interpreting for a modern audience the old texts of the natural-rights based “Austrian econom-ics” and for detailing the libertarian political philosophy from which this economic theory is inseparable. Rothbard is one of the main thinkers behind the Ron Paul movement; Rothbard’s economic and philosophical teachings are applied to a vari-ety of the movement’s policy demands, such as its demand to abolish the Federal Reserve and to radically scale down U.S. military activity.

Rothbard actually gives a very clear answer to the ques-tion just raised about pollution, in the libertarian classic For a New Liberty. Those who pollute, he says, are to be brought to a court of law and compelled to pay appropriate compensation to those physically harmed in their body or property by pol-lution. He argues that the main reason why the western world since the Industrial Revolution has been plagued by pollution is, contrary to what many people concerned about pollution might say, insufficient attention to the natural rights, particu-larly the property rights, of the victims of pollution. Putting aside the question of whether such a method of dealing with pollution is practical, it seems to be a consistent application of libertarian natural rights theory.

But why does Rothbard insist on a court of law as op-posed to a regulatory agency as a dispenser of justice in the case of violations of property rights? The reason, I believe, is that regulation is utterly imprecise with respect to enforcing and respecting natural rights, applying restrictions and man-dates generally and often preemptively, as, for example, in the case of setting emission standards for all emitters in some po-litical jurisdiction, regardless of whether any specific cases of injustice against the natural rights of particular victims have been identified. Also, State regulation on a large scale requires a large active state with an extensive bureaucracy, which seems to be impossible to make consistent with the libertarian doc-trine of natural rights.

So now we must ask, does global warming constitute a violation of natural rights, and if so, can the violations entailed be redressed in a court of law and without major growth in the size of the state? If the answer to the first question is no, then no existential crisis arises for natural rights libertarianism. If the answer to both questions is yes—likewise. However, if the answer to the first question is yes and to the second no, major problems arise for the doctrine that call into question its truth as a theory of the morality of political coercion. Let us exam-ine what the case is.

The answer to the first question is yes. The effects of global warming are not uniform across the globe. For instance, the relatively constructive and moderate global warming skep-

tic Bjorn Lomborg points out that while increased tempera-tures will increase the number of deaths tied to heat (deaths like those witnessed in the European heat wave of 2003), whether or not these deaths will be outweighed by the num-ber of averted cold-related deaths in any particular region de-pends on the beginning temperature of the place affected by a global warming-induced temperature rise (taking into account that, according to Lomborg, cold-related deaths tend to be pro-portionately greater than heat-related deaths). Specifically in terms of deaths related directly to temperature increases, like asthma and heart problems, as opposed to indirectly related deaths caused by, for example, decreases in agricultural pro-ductivity, effects are variable.

Incidentally, most of Europe, where there is more to gain from averting cold-related deaths, would probably be posi-tively affected, and much of Africa, where temperatures are already high and deaths from, for example, asthma and heart problems, would only increase, the effects would be negative. The same is true of agricultural productivity: developed coun-tries in temperate climates like the United States are likely, though not certain, to largely benefit in terms of agricultural yields, while less developed nations in tropical climates would probably lose productivity as they surpass favorable growing temperatures. Furthermore, poorer nations have fewer re-

Global warming must be addressed even according to the doctrine of natural rights, and the only way to do so is by doing something that runs counter to natural rights: enacting generalized, preemptive legislation to reduce global warming. ”

8 current events

sources and are thus less adaptable in general to the changes brought about by global warming: they are less able to do ev-erything from purchasing air conditioners to building barriers to sea level rises, to treating medical conditions caused by in-creased heat.

In short, we are seeing a picture develop where those countries which are so far most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions will suffer the least from global warming and those countries who have contributed the least will suffer the most. And the manner of the latter’s suffering seems to constitute a rights violation by the former. Deaths from increased tempera-tures, destroyed property caused by sea level rises, and dam-aged crops all seem to qualify as the types of events over which one could take emitters from developed countries to court and demand redress; that is, they are all physical harms to body and property caused by human activity.

So can these harms be redressed in a libertarian way, in court and without dramatic growth in the size of the state? The answer is no for two reasons. First of all, global warming is caused by what is called non-point source pollution. This means that as opposed to a case in which, for example, the factory in my town starts spewing noxious black clouds from its smokestacks and the residents of the town subsequently notice that their crops and lungs are all turning black, global

warming is, to the extent that it is caused by humans, caused by pollution emanating from too many sources to identify or count, and is harmful cumulatively, as it is caused by green-house gases from many polluters large and small over many years. So it is unclear who the defendants would be, other than, generally speaking, the population of the developed world, and more specifically larger industrial polluters of the developed world. Furthermore, it is difficult to resolve global warming in court because it is an international problem, and there is no international authority with sufficient power to compel all perpetrators, such as particular industrial polluters, to come to court and pay restitution to victims. The method through which such an end would be accomplished is through agreements like the Kyoto Protocol, which, as we have been told, constitute big government interference in our economic lives.

So, unless the optimal solution to global warming is sim-ply mild adaptation measures to its effects without any sort of control on emissions, which is unlikely, even the thinnest, most libertarian of standards of justice seem to require inter-nationally-coordinated, large-scale state intervention, such as the implementation of a carbon-trading system, which would internalize the third-party costs of pollution. Additionally, natural rights justice seems to also require that people of de-veloped countries pay aid to poorer nations for the purposes of funding adaptive measures like those mentioned. Thus an exis-tential crisis is posed for the libertarian natural rights doctrine. Unless libertarians choose to deny the fact of anthropogenic global warming, which is becoming more of a losing stance every day, they must affirm the consequences of principles that, despite the actual intentions behind the people who es-pouse them, imply a dramatic growth in state power. Global warming must be addressed even according to the doctrine of natural rights, and the only way to do so is by doing something that runs decidedly counter to natural rights, which is enacting generalized, preemptive legislation to reduce global warming. This constitutes a kind of reductio ad absurdum* objection to libertarian natural rights. This should cause small-government advocates of this particular Ron Paulian strain to reconsider the grounds for the right to private property, and perhaps de-vise a defense of the institution that recognizes its merits while delimiting its boundaries in a more thoughtful and nuanced way.

*In its most general construal, reductio ad absurdum – reductio for short – is a process of refutation on grounds that absurd – and patently untenable consequences would ensue from accepting the item at issue. This takes three principal forms according as that untenable consequence is:

a self-contradiction (ad absurdum)a falsehood (ad falsum or even ad impossibile)an implausibility or anomaly (ad ridiculum or ad incommodum)

Unless libertarians choose to deny the

fact of anthropogenic global waning...they

must affirm the conse-quences of principles that imply a dramatic

growth in state power.

“

CI

9opinion

TEACH FOR AMERICA: UNTAPPED POTENTIAL?by William Mitchell Managing Editor

Some see it as a miracle drug, part of the cure we’ve all been waiting for. Others see it as a Band-Aid, a “solution” that solves nothing. What could be so controversial? Teaching.

Every year, dozens of graduates from the Claremont Colleges joined Teach For America. Last year alone, 43 Cla-remont Colleges students, 18 from CMC entered the program. After just five weeks of summer training, they are now teach-ing in some of America’s toughest, most under-served schools.

Energetic, motivated and idealistic, they are trying to make a difference. Yet is the program they’re entering really making the most of them? Is it maximizing the opportunities before it?

Short answer: No.Long answer: It’s complicated.For all its many successes, TFA is far from a perfect pro-

gram. Its execution, its outcomes, and to some extent its con-cept, have numerous flaws. Yet these shortcomings only reveal a potential for further promise and progress.

An oft-voiced concern regarding the program is one of preparation. Regardless of its rigorous reputation, the five weeks of summer school training Corps members receive is small preparation for the challenge of controlling a class, much less teaching it. Strategically, this short prep period is a logi-cal move on TFA’s part. Passionate college graduates sign up to teach. The prospect of spending months in tedious training might well frustrate highly-qualified applicants eager to get in the classroom as soon as possible. Secondly, it’s worth noting that Teach For America, in comparison with most states, actu-ally prepares its teachers far more rigorously and effectively. If a five week crash course is superior to a year-long certifica-tion pathway, America really does face a larger crisis in teacher preparation.

Another criticism points to Teach For America’s high turnover rate. While Corps members are only required to spend two years in the program, a 2008 study by Harvard’s Graduate School of Education found 60.5% of Corps members taught for more than two years, and 35.5% taught for more than four. As encouraging as they may seem, these turnover numbers suggest that Teach For America may not be realizing the full potential of its teachers.

Recent research by Science found that teacher effective-ness (measured by student test score improvements) in the all-important subjects of math and science improved with time. For example, Physics teachers with five years of experience were substantially more successful than those with two or even

three years of time on the job. With its short commitments and significant turnover, Teach For America doesn’t guarantee that its teachers (and by extension, its students) will fulfill their full potential.

Despite these issues, it’s worth noting that Teach For America has enjoyed meaningful successes. As important as turnover and training are, they are ultimately secondary to stu-dent achievement. The most reliable evidence shows Teach For America is succeeding in this regard, as many Corps members outperform more traditionally-selected educators. Still, Teach For America cannot afford to rest on its laurels. Like any ambi-tious organization, it must adapt and self-evaluate.

Teach For America really is all about teaching. But at the end of the day, the teachers are the real students. In theory, giv-ing an elite group of graduates first-hand experience in class-rooms will hopefully invest these future leaders and opinion makers in educational policy for the rest of their lives. Yet TFA has potential to be more than just a short-term inspirational teaching stint.

Teach For America has untapped potential. At the end of the day, experience counts. Teach For America would unques-tionably benefit from a more extensive and intensive teacher training program. To supplement its summer “boot camp,” Teach For America would benefit from preparing its teachers before they even graduate college. Students in their last senior semester could take a TFA-created teaching strategies course as an elective. It certainly is not a silver bullet, but such a mea-sure would ensure Corps members are truly prepared to face classroom challenges on their own.

Secondly, Teach For America needs to strive to keep ex-perience within its ranks. TFA has not historically placed prior-ity on creating career teachers, to which I say, why not? The goal of investing future leaders in education via a short stint in the classroom is a laudable one; but creating and keeping good teachers is equally vital. By providing economic and career incentives for high-performing educators, both from Teach For America and from teachers at large, American education needs to keep excellent individuals at the front of the classroom for longer. Waves of eager rookies can make a difference, but the data shows it’s often the veterans who make the difference.

Teach For America is a program which has, for all its shortcomings, done exceptional work in American education. Today, it can build upon these successes, making small chang-es to reap large benefits and tap into its true potential. CI

10 opinion

STILL THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITYby Christina Noriega Associate Editor

Upon returning from my semester abroad, one of the most frequent questions I received from inquisitive friends and family was, “What do Europeans think about America?” I can proudly and honestly say that everyone I spoke with while studying in Rome and traveling about the continent spoke well of our nation, still holding it to be something of a place of opportunity. Though many expressed pointed views about certain American politicians and policies (of both camps), I experienced no disdain for America in general, despite the anti-American sentiments against which I was warned before my departure. Not only do we presently maintain more oppor-tunities for work respective to many European nations, but our education model and job market are shaped in ways that allow for greater flexibility and personal transformation.

In the American education system, and particularly in the general concept of a liberal arts education, we have the freedom to invent ourselves and, just as importantly, reinvent ourselves.

One of the main differences between our system and many in Europe is the level of education at which one is ex-pected to specialize. In the Italian system, students who are barely 13 years-old are divided between the istituti tecnici or istituti professionali (technical or vocational schools) and the licei (more similar to our idea of high school in the emphasis on academics). Even the licei are divided further, usually hav-ing a set focus on such subjects as the sciences, modern lan-guages, or the classics.

It is easy to see how this bifurcated model might be ap-preciated by students who are more hands-on, seeking to start

career-oriented training earlier. Further, the student who does enjoy academics and knows exactly what he or she intends to pursue would also do well in such a system. But it seems the undecided student, or simply one who has a variety of inter-ests, may be shortchanged in being forced to conform to such specialization so early on. It’s as if in the eighth grade you were told to pick a major that would, if not determine, at least heavily influence the rest of your education and future career. Thinking back to my junior high years, I clearly remember still believing math was fun, a sentiment I have not shared since. What’s more, at 13 years old I had not even had the opportu-nity to discover my love of government and philosophy.

Parents often have a disproportionate influence on a young person’s educational path after the primary grades in this model. Of course much depends on the dynamic of the individual family, but it is not uncommon for a student to be forced into a discipline solely for its prestige. The parents of one of my professors while in Rome encouraged her to attend a liceo classico which she did. But after a few years of bore-dom in translating ancient texts from Greek and Latin, she dis-covered her fascination with economics. And so, without any formal coursework in economics, she went on to study this new-found interest at the university level.

This example demonstrates that it is not impossible to change one’s focus in the Italian system—my professor re-ceived her degree in economics in the same time as the rest of her class. However, she would have been much better-pre-pared had she known her interest at an earlier age, or had had the opportunity for a broader education to prepare for a variety of educational and career pursuits. There might be a downside to having a broader education if one is certain of their interests and career path; one develops less expertise in a given field, and may be forced to study some subjects in which he or she has no interest. However, in the event that a person’s interests do change, as in the case of my professor, a broad education allows for the flexibility that would facilitate such a transfor-mation. For this reason, the Italian model and ones like it seem to require greater initiative on the part of the students to spe-cialize early on, and discover subjects of interest to which they may never be introduced in the classroom.

While visiting family friends in Germany, I was fortu-nate to learn much about the German educational system as well. It was not long before I discovered the relative ease with which we can change careers in America even without a back-ground that is perfectly related to a potential career. This fam-

In the American educa-tion system...we have the freedom to invent ourselves and, just as importantly, reinvent

ourselves.

“

Agree? Disagree? Write to editor@claremontindependent.com

and we’ll print your letter and a response in the next issue!

11opinion

ily friend in Germany is not quite 40 yet, but finds that her de-gree in education is already outdated. At the time she attended school, her program in education was the highest offered in the German system and for a while she had no problems finding work. But since a higher level of study was introduced specifi-cally for the area of education, she finds herself disregarded by employers. Even after explaining the particulars of the situ-ation, few bother to consider her application and many now cannot because of government regulations. In frustration she described the German system as “elitist,” explaining that for the past few years she has been confined to teaching preschool or working as a private nanny. Because everyone going to uni-versity participates in the public program and so virtually the same curriculum within a given area, it is typically expected that you receive the very highest possible degree in your rel-evant field. With the additions made to the education curricu-lum, my friend’s only option at this point is to start over from the very beginning (none of her old credits would transfer) or to move on, contented with her current situation.

Whether it is truly “elitist” or simply reflects the ever-competitive nature of the job market, the German system in this case seems quite stringent. Though our own educators also have certain standards to meet and credentials to attain, it seems that there is a greater variety of paths that might lead to a career in education in our university system (e.g. one need not necessarily major in education at the undergraduate level to go on to teach later). In speaking to people while abroad, for example, it seemed unlikely that anyone would ever major in something like art conservation for their undergraduate degree with the intention of pursuing medical school after, a path a friend of mine at Scripps is following unconcerned that her unique course of study will put her at a disadvantage in the admissions process. From what I have learned of these other

models, there is frequently a set educational path for each ca-reer to which, it is assumed, one will conform.

In reflecting on the many conversations I had while abroad last semester, I think it’s safe to say that many still see America in an idealized light, and not without reason. One of the researchers with whom I worked at my internship in Rome completed his doctorate in International Security on full schol-arship, has since held government positions, and yet does not anticipate he will ever manage to break into the ivory tower that is academia. Attaining a professorship in Italy is largely based on connections, even for the most qualified of candi-dates. Though we must deal with similar politics in our own workforce, those people with the highest degrees in America can usually aspire to positions higher than researcher. In fact, even with his PhD in International Security, for the foreseeable future this coworker felt confined to the position of researcher, a position many of us at the Claremont Colleges have before receiving our undergraduate degree.

Though our systems are not perfect and we too face great economic difficulties, I discovered that ours is still the land of opportunity in many ways. Of course, in discussing the in-stitutions of different nations, it is important to consider the diversity of values across cultures. There are many possible ways in which one could effectively pursue a single goal; and so, cultural contributions are capable of playing a large role in determining how a society builds institutions of education and work. At the same time, I feel quite fortunate not only for the flexibility and relative health of the American job market, but for the broad foundation of my education. Many abroad still ardently believe America is a good place to be, and as long as this is the case, it is impossible for me to be anything but grateful for opportunities of the present and for the hopes of the future.

Agree? Disagree? Write to editor@claremontindependent.com

and we’ll print your letter and a response in the next issue!

CI

12 opinion

EPISTEMOLOGY IN FACEBOOKby Catherine Tung Staff Writer

I remember when everyone’s MySpace posts became “FIND ME ON FACEBOOK,” and the online social network-ing scene suddenly moved to Facebook. I was confused by all the hype when I joined Facebook. It seemed equivalent to MSN Messenger, especially since all my friends on Facebook were my MSN contacts, except with photo tagging. Oh, and the “Relationship Status” feature was pretty cool; now you get to make sexual availability even more obvious. Since then, Facebook has transformed into something much more expos-ing, but it has always been driven by one motivating factor: mapping. The fundamental concepts of epistemology (to honor my high school IB teacher I’m calling it Theory of Knowledge, ToK) are reflected in the structure of Facebook and its purpose, which is why it has surpassed MySpace, probably won’t be topped, and has gotten you to spend hours browsing and stalk-ing instead of writing your CI article (or paper for class).

In the first class in ToK, my teacher, Mr. Fox, presented us with a quote from Alfred Korzybski: The map is not the ter-ritory. At first I took this concept literally. Well, yeah it isn’t physically the territory. Mr. Fox, put a typical world map on the screen and asked us, “What’s wrong with this map? And the answer isn’t ‘it’s missing Luxembourg’.” At first we strug-gled to come up with an answer because we took it literally – what was wrong with the map? Was it that the shaky outlines weren’t really what the actual land would be like? Was it miss-ing a random island of Indonesia?

Mr. Fox proceeded to show us different maps – ones with China in the center, the citrus-peel map, a map with Ant-arctica as the centered, coherent landmass, and my personal favorite – the upside down map (who said there was up and down in space?). We soon realized that all these maps were just abstractions of the territory, and that their derivation is based heavily on our reaction to the territory. We were then asked to draw maps of the room. We sketched some boxes on graph paper as desks, a line with a swinging arrow as the door, boxes for cabinets, the projector, etc. Mr. Fox asked us to evaluate how well our maps represented the territory. We didn’t notice many problems. Mr. Fox walked over to a cabinet and held the lock on the cabinet.

“Is this on anyone’s map?”“No.”“Why not? Is it not part of the territory?”Our maps were serving a specific purpose – to show

where the bigger pieces of furniture were so that if someone wanted to get around the room, they could use our map. But our maps didn’t do justice to the territory, they served a limited purpose. It was our selective view of how we perceived the room that gave rise to our maps, but it is only a reaction to our conception of maps and the room, not the room itself. We pick up structure based on what we’re used to and what we are ca-pable of perceiving and create a map of it for the specific pur-poses for which we need to use them. Given that our ways of knowing are limited to finite information from sensory percep-tion, logic, emotion, and language, there are countless things that are part of the territory that we don’t pick up on. The world we take as reality can be seen as a map we made in our minds, which merely serves our purposes. As the saying goes, “We see things not as they are, but as we are.”

This does not mean to say the map is useless, nor that we should reject all maps because they are lies and partial repre-sentations. Pilots use “false” world maps to fly me from LAX to TPE. I can use a street map to get from my dorm to Trader Joe’s. Maps can definitely be extremely useful. But it is impor-tant to acknowledge that the map is just a useful fiction, and not the territory.

What does Facebook have to do with mapping? As I stated earlier, Facebook is motivated by finding the best way to map our social lives, and it has been extremely successful at doing so. Every additional feature of Facebook was created to better plot our lives in a social context. Photo tagging, for

We have tendencies to believe some with

fewer tagged pictures has a less vivid social

life...this is why we tend to compare our lives to the lives of

others through Face-book photos.

“

13opinion

instance, creates a visual of the events an individual has been attending and what an individual has been up to. The more pictures an individual takes, the more it seems like he/she has been around and going to events compared to an individual with less photos. We have tendencies to believe someone with fewer tagged pictures has a less vivid social life or pass upon any other judgments we personally have associated with pho-tos (this is also why we tend to compare our lives to the lives of others through Facebook photos – we take seeing as believ-ing).

Another example is News Feed, an attempt to map our encounters with people in real life, where you pick up on a few small pieces of information about the person. Facebook selectively prioritiz-es updates based on some unreleased al-gorithms that include things like profile visits and number of photos together as a way of mapping out the people you prob-ably run into more in real life. But that is the key – it is only a map, and not the true representation of your social life. That said, Facebook got this mapping of a social life nailed down pretty darn well. The friends with whom you have more pictures and the profiles you visit most often (if you are not a devout Face-book stalker) are probably people you know better in real life, and are the people you want to stay connected to and receive updates about. Additionally, Facebook has done an incredible job at mapping out the territory in a way you enjoy. If you spend hours stalking someone’s photos and profile, Facebook will take the hint and show him/her more often on your News Feed, pleasing you in being connected with this person. We have been taught to accept, believe in, and use maps as a truth so much that Facebook, through a series of clicks and posts, has made us happy by merely being a map of our social life.

Timeline is a perfect example of Facebook’s ongoing attempt to map out your life with a socially-driven purpose. Now, the statement “For New Year’s Eve I was bartending at Lili and creating awesome new drinks,” is mapped out on my timeline – just click on “January” and see the photos of the

drinks I created and the celebrating I did with my coworkers. With Facebook it’s not our territory being mapped on paper, but our social lives being mapped out on a screen, and we’ve bought into it because of the way we’re so used to mapping for our convenience, and our human need for structure. Whenever we stalk people on Facebook and feel like their lives are awe-some and we don’t measure up, we’re buying into the lie that the map is the territory and there’s something real, something substantive, to feel bad about. The pictures, status updates, posts, etc, aren’t the person – they are just a biased representa-tion Facebook has created. We like to believe that pictures and images are “empirical evidence” (our brains work in pictures), but it’s just selected, partial information.

As I said before, the map can be a practical, useful fic-tion, but it’s when we hold our maps as our compass for guid-ance for truth too literally that there is a problem. The primary concern with Facebook mapping is that Facebook is mapping something so integral to humanity and human needs – connec-tion. Connection is something we need firsthand, to nurture us in times where everything is so fast-paced and we tend to dismiss the things that are important in life. Human contact and interaction can be well mapped, but once we begin to lose our sense for how genuine human contact and interaction feels, it’s going to be hard to regain later on. It’s fine to spend lots of time on Facebook, but don’t let it sell you the lie that it is the territory. You’ll miss out too much on what life is really about without realizing it (because like I said, Facebook does a super good job at mapping), and experiencing genuine human contact is something so integral that we need to take measures to make sure it won’t be replaced by a map. CI

14 opinion

CIVILIZATION AND THE GDP FAIRYby Chris Gaarder Staff Writer

Crescit cum commercio civitas“Civilization prospers with commerce.”Such is an assumption under which America has implic-

itly operated for more than a century, with its generally pro-business record. Look around, and you can see the evidence of this link between prosperous, evolving civilization and successful business. Americans profitably developed smart-phones, software, wired and wireless Internet, produced the modern assembly line, and made huge leaps in agricultural technology. Our country code is dialed 001 for a reason.

How civilization expands, how we improve the world, how we can have better, longer lives is through robust growth, which comes from lightly-fettered commerce. Many of Amer-ica’s strongest industries began in a culture that promoted trial and error, and went on to give rise to other, unexpected major industries that are still growing, and improving civilization. However, a congenial posture toward business from govern-ment is under threat from a rapidly expanding regulatory state. Growth is not guaranteed. Development depends on our re-claiming that spirit. Now.

Growth is good. Growth is great. Growth is no zero-sum game; it creates. As the last century has shown us, growing the

economy ultimately helps all people. After basic precautions are in place, rich and poor both benefit. In a growth-centered economy, the incentive system means industrious are rewarded more; lazy, less.

What about “the 1%” pop culture warred against recent-ly, who are labeled the only beneficiaries of economic growth, making growth appear overrated? According to the St. Louis Fed, from 1996 to 2005, 57% of them fell below that bracket. The report went on to say that in that period, 58% of house-holds in the lowest quintile moved to a higher quintile, and 50% of those in the second lowest also moved up. As Thomas Sowell put it, “Most of the 1% are in there for one year only. You sell your house in California... and then your income goes back down again.”

Unlike what the Greeks apparently thought, there is no GDP fairy that sprinkles growth around. Firms founded after 1985 created 40% of America’s current wealth. While that is a pretty stunning figure, that was just one of many illuminat-ing points Carl Schramm, the former head of the Kauffman Foundation brought forth in his talk at the Athenaeum at CMC on March 22. His talk is reminiscent of a Salvatori Center lun-cheon several weeks back, where Christopher DeMuth, former leader of the American Enterprise Institute, spoke about the perils for society from the modern regulatory state.

Entrepreneurship is how Schramm sees our movement toward a better future for humanity. Unfortunately, govern-ment threatens the entrepreneur. Many entrepreneurs don’t go forward with their plans because they fear the hostile environ-ment government creates. Others who try, Apples of tomorrow, fall off the economy under the burdens imposed by regulatory compliance, litigation, taxation, and uncertainty about future regulations scaring away investors.

Nowadays government prefers a steady path, with low, regular growth, but huge costs to maintain that stability (see: stimulus), rather than promoting entrepreneurs to take risks that, as tech companies have shown, produce wealth and im-prove societal well being. In a system where proper bouts of Schumpeterian creative destruction are denied, we don’t elimi-nate weak firms and free their resources for new projects. So-cial programs benefit individuals today, but in the long term, they are not stepping-stones for the civilization’s advancement like entrepreneurship. Unlike private entrepreneurs who pro-duce public benefits too, social programs have a public bill.

Both Schramm and DeMuth spoke of how the biggest

Americans profitably developed smart-phones, software,

wired and wireless In-ternet, produced the

modern assembly line, and made huge leaps

in agricultural technol-ogy. Our country code

is dialed 001 for a reason.

“

15opinion

hindrance to the economy is government’s growth into ev-ery aspect of our lives. Severe environmental and consumer protection regulations, often enacted without oversight, are proclaimed with alarming regularity, and aren’t studied thor-oughly for effectiveness. Under penalty of fine or imprison-ment, entrepreneurs must bow down to the bureaucrats. Start-ups lack the resources to fight Uncle Sam’s bureaucrats, for whom it is safer to just say no, or to regulate when uncertain. DeMuth spoke in favor of a piece of legislation, the REINS Act, that would help curb excessive regulation by reasserting the congress’s role in lawmaking, requiring regulations costing $100 million or more be passed by the congress. REINS came from a view to the explosion of such regulations lately. States should study similar legislation.

If in 2000 years, after we continue on our current path, where business is demonized, and entrepreneurship not worth bothering, and the gains of a millennia of civilization are squandered? Look how much we have accomplished… we mastered the electron, we can see to the edge of the universe and time, we sent men to the moon—as a consequence of war, as Neil deGrasse Tyson points out in Foreign Affairs (Yet to-

day sending men there is absurd, ridiculed!). Computers freed millions of people from working at menial jobs, like tabulating social security checks. How great for mankind! Now a hand-ful of highly skilled people oversee the machines. The cost of entry to man’s great ideas has been reduced to walking to a library or purchasing a Kindle and filling it with a fraction of the free or cheap books available online.

We have mastered the atom, but is that it for man? Is that the endgame for civilization? I hope not, but unfortunately, it does seem like our civilization is, from the situation today, doomed.

In the 21st century and beyond, if we are to realize poten-tial advancement of our civilization and improve livelihoods, growth must be our focus. Growth is what this upcoming elec-tion and every election must be about, as growth and its inputs, like science and technology research, do more to advance civi-lization in the modern era than anything else. It must not be ex-pected, but fought for, because positive growth is not enough. We must maximize growth. It’s the moral thing to do.

I sense growth won’t be the focal point of the election. How sad… now, where’s that GDP fairy…

ting processes can help increase competition between compa-nies. What would also help is the removal of subsidies from these energy companies. Subsidies are far too often awarded for political reasons, rather than the viability of a firm or tech-nology. Subsidies can also help an inefficient company crowd out a stronger one, by virtue of its government given capital. In today’s world, with uncertainty surrounding current energy sources and growing consumer dedication to sustainability, it seems unlikely that a company purely based in old forms of technology would thrive. On the other hand, it is also unlikely that a company that lacks large-scale feasibility, like the ill-fated Solyndra, would survive. A more open market would al-low companies to compete effectively and force companies to diversify into new technologies as old techniques become too expensive without subsidies and with dwindling resources.

It comes down to the fact that the US government can-not react as quickly as the market to issues, especially global

ones like climate change. Lightening regulatory burdens and removing subsidies would force companies to compete and al-low market forces to choose the winners and losers. While it may seem as if freeing up the market may allow the larger more established traditional energy companies to outcompete startup alternative companies, it does not preclude the growth of alternative energy sources, vehicles, and related technology. This is because the market does not exist in a vacuum. It re-sponds to the demands of consumers and as long as there are informed consumers, the demand for alternative energy will exist, and someone will try to fill that need. Freeing up trade by removing subsidies that overwhelmingly benefit traditional power companies to allow for competition is just the first step in fighting global climate change. The next step is for informed consumers to demand ethical and sustainable power sources and products.

Regulation gone overboard, cont. from page 5by Colin Spence

CI

CI

at the new Claremont Independent blog for original content, campus news, and more at:

claremontindependent.com

visit us online!