Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts

Monday, April 2, 2012

Best and Worst Run States in America

A must read article that discusses the best and worst run state in America. To generate these rankings, they analyzed the level of: debt, unemployment rate, quality of government services, standard of living, crime, educational outcomes, etc.To view the ranking and detailed analysis of your state, click on the following link. Not surprisingly, California and Illinois were at the bottom of the list.

Because economic and social questions involve a multitude of interrelated factors, in which cause, effect and correlation are not always clear, its challenging to determine the more relevant causes of a state's general welfare.But, in general (with some exceptions): the states that fared the best were: low population, northern states with relatively homogeneous (white) populations and fiscally conservative governments. Worth noting is that 8 out of the 10 states were red. Conversely, the states that fared the poorest were (for the most part): southern, ethnically diverse, fiscally imprudent and had experienced the brunt of the rupture of the real estate bubble. I believe that 6 out of the 10 states were solidly blue.

I am inclined to believe that a good portion of a state's general welfare is the product of its people. But, again, it's challenging to determine where people, policy and uncontrollable factors start and end. For example, to what extent are Vermont's impressive (and West Virginia's poor) educational outcomes a result of the predominant culture and values of its people and to what extent have the people been shaped by good (and bad) policies? Comparing these two homogeneous states is already a complex and contentious matter, while exploring the role (if any) that demographic change played in California's notable decline treads upon dangerous taboos that few are willing to discuss.


Best and Worst Run States in America


How well run are America’s 50 states? The answer depends a lot on where you live.

For the second year, 24/7 Wall St. has reviewed data on financial health, standard of living and government services by state to determine how well each state is managed. Based on this data, 24/7 Wall St. ranked the 50 states from the best to worst run. The best-run state is Wyoming. The worst-run state is California.

Comparing the 50 states can be a challenge because they are so different. Some states have abundant natural resources while others rely on service or innovation. State populations also can be more rural or more urban. Some had booming industries that are waning or that have disappeared altogether. Border states with large immigrant communities have populations that are growing rapidly. Many states in the Northeast are not growing at all. All of these factors affect the finances and the living conditions in a state.

Despite these differences, states can do a great deal to control their fate. Well-run states have a great deal in common with well-run corporations. Books are kept balanced. Investment is prudent. Debt is sustainable. Innovation is prized. Workers are well-chosen and well-trained. Executives, including elected and appointed officials, are retained based on merit and not politics.

To determine how well -- or how poorly -- a state is run, 24/7 Wall St. weighed each state’s financial health based on factors including credit score and debt. We also evaluated how a state uses its resources to provide its residents with high living standards, reviewing dimensions such as health insurance, employment rate, low crime and a good education. We considered hundreds of data sets and chose what we considered to be the 10 most important measurements of financial and government management.

This year, as a new component of our analysis, 24/7 Wall St. obtained additional budget data for each state. Examining the state’s revenue and expenditures, and what each government opted to spend money on, allowed us to determine if a state overspent limited resources, failed to devote funds to an urgent need of its citizens or spent a great deal of money but with poor results. While we did not use expenditures or revenue in our ranking, these numbers reflect how a state is managed. Together with other budget data, living standards and government services, it provided a complete picture of the management of each state. A fuller accounting of our methodology can be found at the end of the article.

The 24/7 Wall St. Best and Worst Run States is meant to be an analysis that will focus the debate about state management and financial operations. The analysis should also serve to empower and inform citizens who want who want to better understand the impact government decisions have on each state.

Best Run States: 

1. Wyoming
State debt per capita: $2,452 (18th lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 14.9% (21st highest)
Pct. below poverty line: 10.3% (7th lowest)
Unemployment: 5.8% (6th lowest)

Wyoming comes in first place in 24/7 Wall St.’s Best Run States for the second year in a row. The state has high marks in many categories including high school graduation rate. A whopping 92.3% of state residents age 25 or older have at least a high school diploma — the highest rate in the country. The state also has the fourth lowest rate of violent crimes and the sixth lowest unemployment rate. Wyoming has the smallest population of any state in the country.

2. Nebraska
State debt per capita: $1,407 (4th lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 11.5% (14th lowest)
Pct. below poverty line: 11.9% (tied for 14th lowest)
Unemployment: 4.2% (2nd lowest)

The state of Nebraska had the 21st lowest revenue per capita in the country in 2009 yet managed to spend more per capita that year than all but seven states. The state has the fourth lowest debt per capita, and it is one of 13 states with a perfect AAA credit rating. Besides being financially sound, Nebraska also has an unemployment rate of 4.2%, the second lowest rate in the country. The state also has relatively low poverty, high graduation rates and the seventh lowest rate of foreclosures last month.

3. North Dakota
State debt per capita: $2,721 (20th lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 9.8% (9th lowest)
Pct. below poverty line: 12.3% (17th lowest)
Unemployment:  3.5% (the lowest)

One of the best measures of North Dakota’s success is its unemployment rate of 3.5% — the lowest in the country and one that has n0t been above 5% in over 20 years. While the state has relied on a stable agriculture sector to keep unemployment low, the booming oil industry has created a $1 billion surplus in the past three years. From 2009 to 2011 Montana was the only other state to report a surplus, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

4. Minnesota
State debt per capita: $1,790 (8th lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 9.1% (4th lowest)
Pct. below poverty line: 11.0% (10th lowest)
Unemployment: 6.9% (14th lowest)

Minnesota moved up in the ranking from fifth to fourth due to its improvement in several categories, including violent crime rate and health insurance coverage. In 2010, just 9.1% of state residents were without health insurance coverage — the fourth best rate in the country. The state also continues to excel in the areas it did last year. Some 91.5% of the state’s adult population has graduated high school — the second highest percentage in the country. The state also has the eighth lowest debt per capita.

5. Iowa
State debt per capita: $2,117 (13th lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 9.3% (6th lowest)
Pct. below poverty line: 11.9% (tied for 14th lowest)
Unemployment: 6% (8th lowest)

Iowa’s greatest assets are its rates of educated and insured residents. Some 90.6% of residents 25 years and older have at least a high school diploma and only 9.3% of residents do not have health insurance. These are among the best rates in the country. Iowa also has an exceptionally lowunemployment rate and the highest credit rating available, demonstrating its healthy economy.

6. Utah
State debt per capita: $2,274 (15th lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 15.3% (20th highest)
Pct. below poverty line: 11.5% (12th lowest)
Unemployment: 7.4% (17th lowest)

Utah kept the same rank it had in our last survey. The state has the fifth-lowest violent crime rate in the country, as well as the seventh-highest graduation rate in the country. However, Utah had one of the higher foreclosure rates in the country in October, and 15.3% of the population — an above-average rate — is without health insurance.

7. Vermont
State debt per capita: $5,514 (9th highest)
Pct. without health insurance: 8% (3rd lowest)
Pct. below poverty line: 11.7% (13th lowest)
Unemployment: 5.8% (5th lowest)

Vermont does extremely well in a number of areas considered for this list. Residents are highly educated. It has the second lowest rate of violent crime in the country. It has the third lowest percentage of uninsured residents. However, the state has saddled its citizens with debt. Vermont’s debt per capita is more than $5,500, which is the ninth highest in the country.

8. Virginia
State debt per capita: $3,100 (22nd lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 13.1% (20th lowest)
Pct. below poverty line: 10.7% (8th lowest)
Unemployment: 6.5% (10th lowest)

Virginia is the highest-ranked state in the southern U.S., largely because it does not suffer from many of the problems that plague the rest of the South. The state has a median income of $60,674, the eighth-highest in the country, as well as a poverty rate of 10.7%, which is the eighth lowest. The state also has the sixth-lowest violent crime rate in the country, with just 213 incidents taking place in 2010 for every 100,000 people.

9. Kansas
State debt per capita: $2,086 (10th lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 13.9% (24th lowest)
Pct. below poverty line: 12.8% (tied for 21st lowest)
Unemployment: 6.7% (12th lowest)

Kansas has the 10th-lowest state debt per capita in the country. However, the state’s ranking may change as its debt grows. According to The Hutchinson News, borrowing by school districts has increased over 800% since 1990. Kansas has a relatively low unemployment rate of 6.7% compared to the national rate of 9.1%.

10. South Dakota
State debt per capita: $4,485 (12th highest)
Pct. without health insurance: 12.4% (18th lowest)
Pct. below poverty line: 13.8% (25th highest)
Unemployment: 4.6% (3rd lowest)

South Dakota rounds out our list of the 10 best-run states in the country. While the state is slightly below average in median income and poverty, otherwise things are going quite well in the state. South Dakota has the third-lowest unemployment rate in the country. It is also one of the few states to truly avoid the worst parts of the housing crisis. Just one in 4,352 homes was foreclosed in October — the fourth lowest rate in the country.

Worst Run States:
50. California
State debt per capita: $3,660 (21st highest)
Pct. without health insurance: 18.5% (8th highest)
Pct. below poverty line: 14.5% (tied for 21st highest)
Unemployment: 11.9% (2nd highest)

California has moved down one slot on from last year to earn the title of the worst-run state in the country. In the fiscal year 2009, the state spent $430 billion, roughly 14% of all the money spent by states in that year. Compared to its revenue, the state spent too much — California had the 10th lowest revenue per person, and spent the 15th most per person. California is the only state in the country to be rated A-, the lowest rating ever given to a state by S&P. Despite the huge amount the state spends each year, conditions remain poor. California has the second-lowest percentage of adults with a high school diploma in the country, the second-highest foreclosure rate and is tied for the second highest unemployment rate in the U.S.

49. Illinois
State debt per capita: $4,424 (13th highest)
Pct. without health insurance: 13.8% (23rd lowest)
Pct. below poverty line: 13.1% (25th lowest)
Unemployment: 10% (10th highest)

Illinois has fallen from 43rd last year to the overall second-worst run state in the country. The state performs poorly in most categories, but is worst when it comes to its credit rating. Illinois has a credit rating of A+, the second worst given to any state, behind only California. The state has been on credit watch since 2008 because of budget shortfalls and legal challenges against then-governor Rod Blagojevich.

48. Michigan
State debt per capita: $2,963 (21st lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 12.4% (18th lowest)
Pct. below poverty line: 15.7% (15th highest)
Unemployment: 11.1% (3rd highest)

Michigan has arguably suffered more than any state in post-industrial America. The state is one of just four with a credit rating of AA-, although its debt per capita is actually below average. The state ranks among the worst in the country for violent crime, unemployment, foreclosures and home price decline.

47. Arizona
State debt per capita: $1,882 (9th lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 16.9% (16th highest)
Pct. below poverty line: 16.3% (tied for 13th highest)
Unemployment: 9.1% (18th highest)

Arizona’s housing market was one of the worst hit in the country during the housing crisis. Home values have dropped 28.6% since 2006, the fourth worst rate in the country. In October 2011, one in every 259 housing units were foreclosed upon, which was the third worst rate that month in the U.S. Arizona also has one of the lowest credit scores in the country after its downgrade to AA- in 2009.

46. Nevada
State debt per capita: $1,690 (6th lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 22.6% (2nd highest)
Pct. below poverty line: 13.0% (24th lowest)
Unemployment: 13.4% (the highest)

Nevada has dropped five places in our rankings. This drop is due primarily to its credit downgrade this year from AA+ to AA. Surprisingly, the state has one of the lowest debts per capita in the country, at just $1,690 per person. However, it has other financial woes that make it a long-term risk. Nevada properties declined 44.5% in value between 2006 and 2010, the worst decline in the country. In October alone, one in every 180 homes was foreclosed upon, easily the worst rate in the country. The state also has the second lowest percentage of residents covered by health insuranceand the highest unemployment rate in the country.

45. South Carolina
State debt per capita: $3,379 (24th highest)
Pct. without health insurance: 17.5% (13th highest)
Pct. below poverty line: 17.1% (8th highest)
Unemployment: 11% (4th highest)

Fiscally speaking, South Carolina is relatively sound. It takes in the 27th most in revenue per capita and spends the 24th most in total expenditures per capita. Its state debt per capita is slightly below average. However, the state has the eighth highest poverty rate and the fourth highestunemployment rate. It also has the fifth highest rate of violent crime, with 597.7 crime committed per 100,000 people. This is actually an improvement from last year when the state’s violent crime rate was 731 per 100,000 -- the worst in the country.

44. Kentucky
State debt per capita: $3,107 (23rd lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 15.3% (20th highest)
Pct. below poverty line: 18.2% (4th highest)
Unemployment: 9.7% (13th highest)

Last year, 24/7 Wall St. named Kentucky the worst-run state in the country. The state saw slight improvements in the percentage of its population with high school diplomas and poverty rate. Violent crime dropped significantly -- now the 10th-lowest rate in the country, compared to the 17th-lowest last year. Despite these improvements, Kentucky remains one of the poorest states in the country, ranking among the five worst for median income and poverty rate. It is also one of just four states to be awarded an unfavorable AA- credit rating, the third worst score awarded to any state.

43. Rhode Island
State debt per capita: $8,716 (3rd highest)
Pct. without health insurance: 12.2% (16th lowest)
Pct. below poverty line: 12.8% (tied for 21st lowest)
Unemployment: 10.5% (7th highest)

Rhode Island has many positive attributes, including low violent crime rate and a relatively lowpoverty rate. However, the state’s spending is exceptionally high, and it has accumulated $8,716 in debt per capita. Nearly 20% of expenditures are for public education, yet compared with other states it has the 10th lowest percentage of adults who have graduated from high school.

42. Louisiana
State debt per capita: $3,914 (17th highest)
Pct. without health insurance: 17.8% (10th highest)
Pct. below poverty line: 17.8% (5th highest)
Unemployment: 6.9% (13th lowest)

Louisiana remains in our bottom 10 again this year, although it has improved since last year, primarily because of decreases in unemployment and violent crime rate. In all, however, the state ranks poorly in most of the metrics we considered. Louisiana has the fifth-highest poverty rate in the country, the 10th-highest percentage of residents without health insurance coverage and the fifth lowest percentage of adults with a high school diploma.

41. New Mexico
State debt per capita: $4,004 (16th highest)
Pct. without health insurance: 19.6% (6th highest)
Pct. below poverty line: 18.7% (12th highest)
Unemployment: 6.6% (11th lowest)

New Mexico has a relatively low unemployment rate of 6.6% compared with the national average of 9.1%. This is down from 8.6% one year ago. Other statistics are not as promising. At 18.7%, the state has the second highest poverty rate in the country. Worst still, almost 20% of New Mexicans do not have health insurance. The state also has the highest rate of violent crime in the country.

Methodology

24/7 Wall St. considered data from a number of sources, including Standard & Poor’s, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the U.S. Census Bureau, the Tax Foundation, Realty Trac, The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Conference of State Legislators. The Bureau of Labor Statistics provided unemployment data, Credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s provided credit ratings for all 50 states.  The Tax Foundation provided state debt per capita for the fiscal year 2009. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report provided violent crime rates by state. Realty Trac provided foreclosure rates. A significant amount of the data we used came from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. Data from ACS included percentage below the poverty line, high school completion for those 25 and older, median household income, percentage of the population without health insurance and the change in occupied home values from 2006 to 2010. These are the values we used in our survey.  Once we reviewed the sources and compiled the final metrics, we ranked each state based on its performance in all the categories.

Friday, January 27, 2012

In Mayor Rahmulan Emanuel's Chicago...


Pictured Above: Rahmulan Emanuel's Top Advisors

It appears that in Mayor Rahmulan Emanuel's Chicago, support for questionable policies has to be manufactured and paid for. Wonder went on behind closed doors when he was President Obama's Chief of Staff? 

Two say they got paid to protest, back closing Chicago schools

Story Image
Thaddeus Scott poses for a photograph outside the HOPE organization, 6921 S. Halsted, Friday, Jan. 20, 2012, in Chicago. | John J. Kim~Sun-Times
Updated: January 24, 2012 8:42PM


Always contentious hearings on whether to close failing Chicago schools have taken a bizarre twist this year with charges that cash-strapped residents were hired as “rent-a-protesters” and given pre-made signs and pre-crafted scripts to support school shakeups.
Two men told the Chicago Sun-Times they showed up to apply for financial help with their energy bills at the Englewood office of the HOPE Organization headed by Rev. Roosevelt Watkins III, only to be offered money to attend school-related “rallies” held Jan. 6. Watkins denies they were paid to protest, saying money paid was for training.
Both protesters said they didn’t realize until the last minute that they were supposed to support school closings. One said he was promised $50 to speak at a rally “for schools,” but was stiffed $25 after Watkins complained he had publicly revealed at the hearing he was “compensated” for speaking.
“I don’t want the $25 he owes me,” Thaddeus Scott, 35, told the Sun-Times. “He can keep his dirty money. You can quote that.
“Why am I speaking out? Because I am in support of Crane [the high school whose closure he says he was supposed to support]. . . .
“They thought for a few dollars they could get us to say whatever they want. . . . We were preyed upon.”
Stipends for ‘training’
Watkins, pastor of Bethlehem Star M.B. Church and founder of Pastors United for Change, acknowledged he organized busloads of people to attend the Jan. 6 school closing hearings.
Yellow buses delivered people from 69th and Halsted, where HOPE’s Englewood office is, to at least three closing hearings on that date. The hearings concerned Crane High, Guggenheim Elementary and Reed Elementary, hearing participants told the Sun-Times.
Scott said he was offered $50 to speak at a hearing from what turned out to be scripted remarks.
But Watkins said protesters were supposed to be paid to attend “training” first on “community organizing” and how “to be aware of what’s taking place in the community.”
“What we do — so you can hear it from the horse’s mouth — we provide training because we engage community activists to participate in things such as health care, affordable housing, education, safety. Those things. So we do training on community organizing,” Watkins said.
A “small stipend” helps “offset their car fare” or “babysitting,” Watkins said.
Of the Jan. 6 protesters, Watkins said, “Those that did not receive the training should not have received a stipend.”
A day after the Sun-Times asked Watkins about the payments, at least one protester said he received a call from organizers asking him to attend a meeting first if he wanted to attend the next rally.
Chicago Teachers Union Vice President Jesse Sharkey called the busloads of hearing participants “rent-a-protesters.” He likened them to “paid stooges” who “make a mockery of what public participation is about.”
Said Sharkey: “It’s a new low.”
Cash-filled envelopes
Scott and a second man, a Guggenheim Elementary alum, said they were paid after the Jan. 6 hearings at the HOPE Englewood office by a woman who pulled envelopes holding $25 in cash from a container full of envelopes. Scott said Watkins was in the room when the woman told him he had done them a “disservice” and handed him half the promised amount, but Watkins insisted he was not there. Watkins also denied he ever chided anyone for using the word “compensated” at the hearings.
“Absolutely not,” he said. “There are people saying we pay them. We provide training. We’ve always done this. And they receive a stipend for their time.”
Watkins said he used neither church nor HOPE funds for the stipends. The money came from a “coalition of clergy” who have “money set aside for outreach in the community,’’ he said.
“This is money from clergy. Clergy have money,” Watkins said. “We used private money.”
Initially, Scott said, he thought he would be joining “an act of activism. … They wouldn’t say what the rally was about until we got there.”
Only at the last minute, Scott said, was he asked to choose from a list of prepared remarks and told not to support Crane.
“If he calls that training and that’s what I was paid for, fine, but that’s not training,” Scott said.
The Guggenheim alum also said he received no training before he boarded a bus outside HOPE’s Englewood office at 6921 S. Halsted on Jan. 6. He said he, too, was seeking assistance with energy bills when he was offered $25 to attend a rally.
He said he was told the rally would be about “longer school hours” — an issue pushed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who announced last year that a long list of ministers supported his stand.
A woman at HOPE’s Community and Economic Development Association outlet for energy assistance “asked me did I want to go to a rally,” the Guggenheim alum recalled. “I said no. She said they will pay $25. She said they were rallying for longer hours in the school day. I said ‘I have no problem with that.’ ”
To his surprise, he said, a bus filled with people delivered him instead to a hearing about closing Guggenheim Elementary, where he had graduated. There, he was given a sign saying “something about ‘I cannot support failing schools.’ ”
“That’s how I knew I was on the wrong side,” he said. “I was on the ‘close’ side. I wanted to be on the ‘open’ side. . . . If I knew it was about closing Guggenheim, I never would have gone because I went to Guggenheim. . . . I never would have been in favor of closing Guggenheim.”
Watkins said people were not paid to take a specific side at the hearings, and if they were reading from scripts, “I’ll check into it.”
“My position is, we want [schools] fixed,” said Watkins, whose HOPE Organization offers after-school programming and won nearly $1.47 million in Chicago Public School contracts since 2010.
“We’re not siding with CPS or the Chicago Teachers Union. . . . We’re siding with the children. We don’t want the message to get faded in this.”

Sunday, October 16, 2011

The Expansion of Entitlement / Death of Common Sense



The majority of "heartless conservatives" recognize the need for a safety net to protect our poorest and most vulnerable citizens. But, without vigilance, it is the nature of the welfare state to expand, addicting and enfeebling an ever greater portion of the populace, pushing the state closer to financial dissolution. An example of this is seen when the Detroit Public School System decided that all students, regardless of income would receive free breakfast, lunch and snacks, courtesy of the US Department of Agriculture's Community Eligibility Option Program. To feed the hungry is noble act, but to provide free meals to all students makes zero social and economic sense. It clearly constitutes a misallocation of limited resources that should be directed towards general school improvements or towards those who are unable to care for themselves. So, what could the motivation for this policy possibly be? According to Makr Schrupp, the Detroit Public School's Chief Operating Officer "one of the primary goals of this program is to eliminate the stigma that students feel when they get a free lunch..." So, now a student is entitled to have his well off neighbor fed at tax payer expense, so that they will not risk feeling stigmatized?!? The idea of fostering dependency and entitlement among students from self sufficient families defies common sense on so many levels. And although I draw no pleasure in having any human being feel shame for receiving public assistance, to entirely eliminate that stigma will prove to very costly to the public. Fear of stigma and sense of shame are strong social motivators, which for much of American history deterred a great many people from being too quick to turn to and remain on welfare. This provided a non-coercive, non-bureaucratic deterrent that moderated the use of the welfare state and encouraged self sufficiency. To intentionally eliminate it will result in a costly expansion of the entitlement state that we can scarcely afford during this deep economic downturn.




Sunday, September 25, 2011

Less Academics, More Narcissism?


Fantastic article by Heather MacDonald shows that even as the University of California stands to slash $650 million from their budget and substantially raise the cost of tuition, their vast diversity bureaucracy is growing in size and cost. Even in the face of systemwide budget shortfalls, the University of California at Berkeley's Vice Chancellor For Equity and Inclusion earns $194,000 per year and employs a staff of 17. The University of California at San Diego determined that it could not afford their Masters in Electrical and Computer Engineering and various literature courses, while at the same time "mandated a new campus-wide diversity requirement for graduation" meant to cultivate a "student’s understanding of her or his (ethnic, gender, sexual, etc.) identity." This is shocking for several reasons. First, to remain competitive in the global economy, the United States desperately needs more skilled computer engineers. Second, as Heather MacDonald correctly points out, historically, the purpose of a liberal arts education was not a narcissistic, narrowing study of one's own racial and gender group, but the quest to expand one's knowledge of the larger world via the study of the great writers, philosophers and artists.


July 18, 2011

Less Academics, More Narcissism
By Heather Mac Donald
Reprinted from City Journal.
California’s budget crisis has reduced the University of California to near-penury, claim its spokesmen. “Our campuses and the UCOffice of the President already have cut to the bone,” the university system’s vice president for budget and capital resources warnedearlier this month, in advance of this week’s meeting of the university’s regents. Well, not exactly to the bone. Even as UC campuses jettison entire degree programs and lose faculty to competing universities, one fiefdom has remained virtually sacrosanct: the diversity machine.
Not only have diversity sinecures been protected from budget cuts, their numbers are actually growing. The University of California at San Diego, for example, is creating a new full-time “vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion.” This position would augmentUC San Diego’s already massive diversity apparatus, which includes the Chancellor’s Diversity Office, the associate vice chancellor for faculty equity, the assistant vice chancellor for diversity, the faculty equity advisors, the graduate diversity coordinators, the staff diversity liaison, the undergraduate student diversity liaison, the graduate student diversity liaison, the chief diversity officer, the director of development for diversity initiatives, the Office of Academic Diversity and Equal Opportunity, the Committee on Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Issues, the Committee on the Status of Women, the Campus Council on Climate, Culture and Inclusion, the Diversity Council, and the directors of the Cross-Cultural Center, the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center, and the Women’s Center.
It’s not surprising that the new vice chancellor’s mission is rather opaque, given its superfluity. According to outgoing UCSDchancellor Marye Anne Fox, the new VC for EDI “will be responsible for building on existing diversity plans to develop and implement a campus-wide strategy on equity, diversity and inclusion.” UCSD has been churning out such diversity strategies for years. The “campus-wide strategy on equity, diversity and inclusion” that the new hire will supposedly produce differs from its predecessors only in being self-referential: it will define the very scope of the VC’s duties and the number of underlings he will command. “The strategic plan,” says Fox, “will inform the final organizational structure for the office of the VC EDI, will propose metrics to gauge progress, and will identify potential additional areas of responsibility.”
What a boon for a taxpayer-funded bureaucrat, to be able to define his own portfolio and determine how many staff lines he will control! UC Berkeley’s own vice chancellor for equity and inclusion shows how voracious a diversity apparatchik’s appetite for power can be. Gibor Basri has 17 people working for him in his immediate office, including a “chief of staff,” two “project/policy analysts,” and a “director of special projects.” The funding propping up Basri’s vast office could support many an English or history professor. According to state databasesBasri’s base pay in 2009 was $194,000, which does not include a variety of possible add-ons, including summer salary and administrative stipends. By comparison, the official salary for assistant professors at UC starts at around $53,000. Add to Basri’s salary those of his minions, and you’re looking at more than $1 million a year.
UC San Diego is adding diversity fat even as it snuffs out substantive academic programs. In March, the Academic Senate decidedthat the school would no longer offer a master’s degree in electrical and computer engineering; it also eliminated a master’s program in comparative literature and courses in French, German, Spanish, and English literature. At the same time, the body mandated a new campus-wide diversity requirement for graduation. The cultivation of “a student’s understanding of her or his identity,” as the diversity requirement proposal put it, would focus on “African Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, Chicanos, Latinos, Native Americans, or other groups” through the “framework” of “race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, language, ability/disability, class or age.” Training computer scientists to compete with the growing technical prowess of China and India, apparently, can wait. More pressing is guaranteeing that students graduate from UCSD having fully explored their “identity.” Why study Cervantes, Voltaire, or Goethe when you can contemplate yourself? “Diversity,” it turns out, is simply a code word for narcissism.
UC San Diego just lost a trio of prestigious cancer researchers to Rice University. Rice had offered them 40 percent pay raises over their total compensation packages, which at UCSD ranged from $187,000 to $330,000 a year. They take with them many times that amount in government grants. Scrapping the new Vice Chancellorship for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion could have saved at least one, if not two, of those biologists’ positions, depending on how greedily the new VC for EDI defines his realm. UCSD is not disclosing how much the VC for EDI will pull in or how large his staff will be: “We expect that [budget/staffing] will be part of the negotiation with the successful candidate at the end of our search process,” says Senior Director of Marketing and Communications Judy Piercey. Since the new UCSD vice chancellor will be responsible for equity, inclusion, and diversity—unlike the Berkeley vice chancellor, who is responsible only for equity and inclusion—the salary at UCSD will presumably reflect that infinitely greater mandate.
UCSD is by no means the only campus bullish on the diversity business, despite budgetary shortfalls hitting the UC system everywhere else. In 2010, Berkeley announced the UC Berkeley Initiative for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, funded in part by a $16 million gift from the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund. The “new” initiative duplicates existing “equity” projects, not least the Berkeley Diversity Research Initiative, established by Berkeley chancellor Robert Birgeneau in 2006. This latest initiative boasts five new faculty chairs in “diversity-related research”—one of which will be “focused on equity rights affecting the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community,” according to the press release, and “will be one of the first endowed chairs on this subject in the UnitedStates.” (Sorry, Berkeley, Yale got there first.)
The main purpose of the UC Berkeley Initiative for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion seems to be to buy for the academic identity racket the respectability that no amount of campus mau-mauing has yet been able to achieve. “Area studies such as ethnic studies, queer studies and gender studies tend to be marginalized and viewed as less essential to the university than such fields as engineering, law or biology,” glumly noted the press release. (The use of the term “area studies” to refer to the solipsist’s curriculum is a novel appropriation of a phrase originally referring to geopolitical specialization.) According to a campus administrator on the Berkeley Diversity Research Initiative’s executive committee, the new initiative will change the character of Berkeley’s area studies by “asserting [sic] them squarely into the main life and importance of the campus.”
Conferring academic legitimacy on narcissism studies is apparently a superhuman task deserving of superhuman remuneration. The salary and expense account of the likely new director of the UC Berkeley Initiative for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, John Powell—who is currently the executive director of the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University’s law school—will likely dwarf anything seen so far among diversocrats, according to inside sources.
UCLA’s diversity infrastructure has likewise been spared the budgetary ax. In the pre-recession 2005–06 academic year, UCLA’s associate vice chancellor for faculty diversity reported up the bureaucratic ladder to a vice chancellor for academic personnel, herself reporting to an executive vice chancellor and provost, who in turn reported to the university chancellor. Today, that associate vice chancellor for faculty diversity has been transformed into a vice provost position, while the vice chancellor for academic personnel above her has been eliminated. The new vice provost for faculty diversity will not be lonely; she can pal around with UCLA’s associate director for diversity research and analysis, its associate vice provost for student diversity, its associate dean for academic diversity, its director of diversity outreach, and its director of staff affirmative action.
The one observable activity performed by these lavishly funded diversity bureaucrats is to pressure academic departments to hire more women and minorities. (Even that activity is superfluous, given the abundant pressure for race and gender quotas already exerted by campus groups, every accrediting agency, and external political bodies.) Should a department fail to satisfy—as it inevitably will in every field with low minority participation—only one explanation is possible: a departmental or campus “climate” hostile to diversity, which then requires more intercessions from the diversity bureaucracy. The fact that every other college and university in the country is scouring the horizon for the identical elusive cache of qualified female and minority hires is not allowed into the discourse. Even less acceptable is any recognition of the academic achievement gap between black and Hispanic students, on the one hand, and white and Asian students, on the other, which affects the pool of qualified faculty candidates in fields with remotely traditional scholarly prerequisites. Student admissions offices are under the same pressure, which in California results in the constant generation of new schemes for “holistic” admissions procedures designed to evade the ban on racial and gender preferences that California voters enacted in 1996.
UC San Diego’s lunge toward an even more costly diversity apparatus was inspired in part by one of those periodic outbreaks of tasteless adolescent humor that every diversity bureaucrat lives for (and whose significance is trivial compared with the overwhelmingly supportive environment that today’s universities provide all of their students). But it was hardly out of character on a campus presided over by a chancellor fond of “social justice” rhetoric. And UC’s other campuses are equally committed to bureaucratic diversity aggrandizement, even without a pretext for accelerating those efforts.
This week, in light of a possible cut of $650 million in state financing, the University of California’s regents will likely raise tuition rates to $12,192. Though tuition at UC will remain a bargain compared with what you would pay at private colleges, the regents won’t be meeting their responsibility to California’s taxpayers if they pass over in silence the useless diversity infrastructure that sucks money away from the university’s real function: teaching students about the world outside their own limited selves. California’s budget crisis could have had a silver lining if it had resulted in the dismantling of that infrastructure—but the power of the diversity complex makes such an outcome unthinkable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor of City Journal and the John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.