ARE MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS A THREAT? an historical comparison

A significant number of Americans find Muslim immigration frightening. They see these newcomers as culturally incompatible, dangerously intolerant and potentially larcenous. Moreover, they imagine they are flooding into this country in unacceptable numbers. What should we make of this? Let’s look at it historically.

In the 19th century many Americans were similarly concerned about Roman Catholics, mostly Irish, pouring into an essentially Protestant America. One major worry was that these immigrants were obedient to a foreign monarch, the Pope. He directed an authoritarian and anti-Protestant institution that Protestants found especially threatening. They also asked how a people accustomed to tyranny and intolerance could ever learn to live in democratic America? Wouldn’t these Catholics band together and become another America altogether? 

Then there was the sheer numbers of Irish Catholics immigrants. At the dawn of the Civil War the Catholic presence in America already exceeded the total population of the U.S. just 70 years prior. And their number quickly swelled to five million. That was a lot of culturally different people to absorb so quickly. But Irish Catholic immigrants, despite strident opposition, proved so capable of blending in to the fabric of the nation, understanding, embracing and even exploiting democracy, that a third generation Irish-American, John F. Kennedy, became the 35th President of the United States.

How have the Muslims done in contrast? Well there has never been an America without Muslims. But most of them arrived as slaves and soon lost this religion. Contemporary Muslims arrive in very different circumstances. Coming, as they do, directly from Muslim lands. These new arrivals pledge no allegiance to the equivalent of a Pope, nor even a unified religion. In fact in many areas there still are bloody disagreements among them about what it takes to even be a Muslim. But the one thing they aren't, is Christian. And that makes a decided difference in their reception.

First of all, there is not always a happy coexistence with Christians or the Western way of life. The most fanatical among them, a minority to be sure, want to convert all of the United States to Islam — if necessary, by the sword. And to institute their version of Sharia Law in place of current law. 

Of course internationally a comparatively small number of Muslims have proven to be murderous terrorists. Those who crashed passenger planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon being the most prominent But these perpetrators were foreign nationals. However, in many American’s minds terrorism links to Muslims. That’s certainly not fair. But it is still true. And that means a sizable segment of Americans will oppose more Muslim immigration.

That fanatical variety is certainly dangerous. But keep in mind that Muslim immigrants constitute a tiny fraction of the 19th and early 20th Century flood of Roman Catholics. In fact, the entire Muslim population of the United States amounts to less than 1% of America’s total population. Plus less than 5% of all immigrants currently entering the U.S. are Muslims. Of course, the dangerously fanatical among them is very small indeed.

What about present-day Muslim immigrants fitting in? Will they, unlike the Irish Catholics, prove durably alien? Will they become something of a separate America? Or will these Muslim immigrants prove to be solid American citizens, just like the Irish. We shall see.

Recently some Somali-Americans defrauded Minnesota and the United States government out of multiplied billions of dollars. This massive fraud is causing some Americans to link criminality and lousy citizenship to Muslims collectively. That’s certainly unfair. But if people believe it to be true, it will be true in its consequences.

Besides, the Irish-American experience suggests Muslims have no corner on immigrant criminality. Some immigrant Irish were gangsters of the first magnitude. In fact the Irish Mob once was one of the nation’s most notorious organized crime gangs. Later arriving Italian-Americans proved even more capable of organized criminality. So the Somali’s have no patent on that kind of behavior. 

However, a substantial number of Americans, especially those in the Bible Belt, regard the United States as a Christian nation For them, non-Christians are, ipso facto, un-American. A substantial number of these true believers even maintain that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. (A false belief constantly reinforced by right wing preachers.)  This despite the fact that some of America’s most influential founders like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine, were deists or rationalists. Plus the great majority of founders agreed that the United States should  NOT to have a state religion. However, this reality gives no pause for those who believe, or at least promote, the Christian American myth. 

 Looking back, though, many Americans once thought Irish-American Roman Catholic immigrants were a distinct threat. That has faded away. Does that mean Muslims will also attain, even desire, the same degree of integration? That remains to be seen.

"WOKE" RHETORIC AND THE SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY

Over emphasis on injustice backfires. It discourages the personal responsibility that is essential for meaningful growth. Become convinced you are a powerless victim and you will be. For instance, African-Americans have dealt with profound injustice in immoderate amounts for centuries. But hammering on this injustice, by excessively "woke" educators, for instance, can trigger the self-fulfilling prophecy. 

This Thomas Theorem — well known among sociologists — explains how that works. Put simply, when a situation is defined as true, it is true in its consequences. That's because outcomes depend as much on the individual’s perception of the situation as they do on the situation itself. Should a person believe that they are a hapless victim, they will behave accordingly. 

Human behavior is not defined by objective facts, but by how people view and make sense of those facts. As "helpless" victims, they discount their own agency; their own ability, even their own degree of responsibility, for what happens in their lives. When that happens no oppressor is needed. The "oppressed" become their own oppressor. Seeing themselves as powerless, they impatiently await salvation. And that can be interminable. 

I spent over 50 years as an educator. And one of the saddest and most disheartening aspects was watching the above happen over and over again. Instead of availing themselves of the opportunity a free education offered, too many kids turned their backs. And in doing so they destroyed the very best life chance many of them will ever have — whatever color they might be. 

In 2025 providing this opportunity to all of America's kids cost the public an average of $17,000.00 per student per year. That's one hell of a gift. And it's made repeatedly over 12 long years. Perhaps so many do so because accepting that gift has been made compulsory — probably a critical mistake. But whatever the reason, a dispiriting number of kids turn up their noses at a gift worth over $164,000.00 — actually far more considering inflation. 

Yes, school curricula, policies and procedures can be out of step with the world many of these kid's live in. But however imperfect it may be, schooling still provides them with a precious means of life enhancement. 

It's especially ironic that many of the kids I saw rejecting this opportunity are African-American. Are these kids aware that slave owners rigorously opposed any and all attempts to school "their property?" Do they know that enslavers also stifled any attempts by that "property" to learn on their own? Their enslavers knew that an education was potentially liberating. Too many of their descendants do not. 

Whatever our school's shortcomings, and there are many, they still offer one of the best opportunities for advancement many kids of whatever color will ever have. But that opportunity can only by seized by youngsters who stay clear of self-pity, focus sharply on their own agency, and take full responsibility for their own behavior. And, ironically, the well meaning sympathy of the excessively "woke" undermines all of that. In trying to be helpful, they do these kids a profound disservice.

 

PUBLIC SCHOOLS: who's really in charge?

Until the 1920's America's public schools were chiefly a local responsibility. In the 1920's, for instance, some 162,800 local school districts were governed by locally elected lay people who raised the bulk of the revenue, enjoyed considerable autonomy and were responsive to local pressure. These days, state imposed consolidation, has reduced that number by 88%, to a total of 13,598. Consequently local autonomy, control and sensitivity to local pressures have shrunk dramatically. 

At the same time school funding gradually shifted from the local to the state level — although the proportion varied from state to state. These days Vermont provides the most: 87%. Utah the least: 58%. The remaining balance of the funding falls mainly on local school districts. The federal government provides just 8%. 

Here's why this matters. Whoever pays, usually sets the rules. With state funding predominating, most key decisions are made at the state level. And when the federal government has gotten more and more involved. Local authorities often are not consulted in any meaningful way. Just told what they must do. These local authorities also are often required to pick up some, sometimes all, of the tab. (State and federal law-makers are fond of enacting one requirement or another then imposing much, sometimes all, of the cost of accomplishment it on local school districts.

There was a brief increase in federal funding beginning most markedly with the administration of George W. Bush — the self-styled "Education President." At this time the federal government increased education spending about 33% to 12% of the total. This further diminished state and local power by adding federal rules that went with the funding. As time when on, enthusiasm for education spending diminished and with it all the increased federal funding. Their rules, however, are still around. Consequently parents and local communities find themselves further and further removed from meaningful influence.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Another source of community and parental disempowerment is the ever decreasing number of schools and a concomitant  increase in the number of students per remaining schools. In 1920 there were some 190,000 public schools, k-12, with an average of 100 students per school. By 2020 there were only 131,000 public schools serving an average of 528 students per school. That's five times more students per school than in1920.  

As school populations grew, individual student differences became less and less important. The chances of a principal even knowing the name of every student, much less anything about them, shrank to nearly zero. Their knowledge of individual parents also shrank dramatically. 

So where does this leave us? With public schools that are less and less responsive to individual differences and more and more indifferent to community values. Who's really in charge? State and federal bureaucrats who are in the hire of state and federal legislators, that's who. Whether or not that's what we want, that's what we've got.

CATHOLIC v. MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS: a comparison

A significant number of Americans are concerned about Muslim immigration. They worry that Muslims are culturally incompatible and that some are even dangerous religious fanatics. Moreover, they worry that Muslims are flooding into this country in record numbers. What are we to make of this? 

Let’s look at it historically. In the 19th century many Americans were concerned about the large number of Roman Catholics, mostly Irish, who were arriving in an essentially Protestant America. A major worry was that these immigrants were obedient to a foreign monarch, the Pope. The head of an autocratic and anti-Protestant institution that they found especially threatening. How could a people accustomed to dogmatism and intolerance  of Protestantism, ever learn to live in America? Wouldn’t these people band together and create their own Catholic anti-America? 

Then there was the sheer numbers of Irish Catholics immigrants. As early as 1860 Catholic presence in America exceeded the total population of the U.S. just 70 years prior. Their number rapidly reached five million. That was a lot of very different people to absorb so quickly. But Irish Catholic immigrants rather quickly proved so capable of embracing democracy and blending in that a third generation Irish-American, John F. Kennedy, became the 35th President of the United States.

Unlike the 19th Century Irish, contemporary Muslim immigrants do not pledge allegiance to a single autocrat nor even to one cohesive religious institution. None pledge common allegiance to a single leader. In fact there often is bloody disagreement among them about what it takes to even be a Muslim. 

On the other hand, the very most militant among them want to convert all of the United States to Islam, if necessary by the sword. And institute their version of Sharia Law. Those who refuse conversion are to be enslaved or annihilated. 

Muslim immigrants constitute only a tiny fraction of the 19th and early 20th Century flood of Roman Catholics. In fact, the entire Muslim population of the United States amounts to less than 1% of America’s total population. Moreover, less than 5% of all immigrants currently entering the U.S. are Muslims.

The trouble is a substantial number of Americans see the United States as exclusively Christian. So non-Christians are, ipso facto, Un-American. This view is embraced by many. Some even claim the United States was founded as a Christian nation. To be sure, this claim is inaccurate. Some of America’s most influential founders, such as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine, were not Christians so much as deists or rationalists. They preferred facts over beliefs and were determined to separate church from state.

What about these present-day Muslim immigrants? Will they, unlike the Irish Catholics, prove durably alien? Will they come to constitute a separate America? Then again Muslim immigrants might prove to be solid American citizens just like the Irish. That remains to be seen.

Recently some Somali-Americans defrauded Minnesota and the United States government out of multiplied billions of dollars. This massive fraud is causing some Americans to link criminality and faulty citizenship to Muslims collectively. That’s certainly untrue. But if people believe it, it’s true in its consequences.

The Irish-American experience proves immigrant Muslims have no corner on immigrant criminality. Some immigrant Irish became gangsters of the first magnitude. Indeed the Irish Mob was one of the nation’s most notorious organized crime groups. Then later arriving Italian-Americans proved even more capable of organized criminality. So the Somali’s have no patent on that. 

Of course a comparatively small number of Muslims have proven to be murderous terrorists. Those who crashed passenger planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon being the most prominent These perpetrators were foreign nationals. But in many American’s minds their terrorism is linked to all Muslims. That’s certainly not fair. But when a situation is defined as true, it is true in it’s consequences. And that means a sizable segment of Americans oppose Muslim immigration. (Including home-home grown converts.)

 Looking back, though, many Americans once thought Irish-American Roman Cathoics immigrants were a distinct threat. But that has faded away. Does that mean Muslims attain, or even desire, the same inclusion. We shall see.

LEARNING WHAT THEY LIVE: not what they're told

Years ago the famed educator John Dewey tellingly observed that children "learn what they live." Teachers can gabble on and on about democracy, for instance. But if they run a despotic classroom, the kids learn to adapt to despotism. Possibly even learn to need it. Dewey was precisely right. Children learn what they live.  

It's hard to overemphasize the importance of this "hidden curriculum." It is powerful, yet very often overlooked. Lessons "taught" in this way can last a lifetime. The person who taught me the most about tyranny and abuse of power, for instance, was my fourth grade teacher, Miss Weast . (Behind her back we kids called her: "Miss Weast, the big fat beast.") Feared by all, this angry, frustrated woman extorted compliance by means of threats and violence. A ruler across the knuckles of your out-stretched hand, for example. 

Eventually, she did go too far. She held a youngster against a hot steam radiator as punishment. His relatively minor burns did not get her fired, as you might expect. But she was transferred to another school. Not before she had unintentionally taught me about the abuse of power, however. I still remember that lesson well even though it was many, many years ago. 

Here's another example. This one concerning Catholic parish schools of the 1950's. In those days a number of overworked and under appreciated nuns bullied, slapped and otherwise mistreated the children in their charge. This taught the kids some unfortunate lessons. For instance, the little girl who lived next door to me developed severe school phobia even though she was never touched herself. She learned school was dangerous. 

I'm not sure what these nuns thought they were doing. Making 'better' Catholics, perhaps. But in this girl's case they taught her that the sermonizing about Christian love, mercy and forgiveness, was all talk. She also learned that it's not what people say, but what they do that counts. Valuable lessons, to be sure. But hardly included in the official curriculum.

Here's still another instance involving an entirely different circumstance. As a professor of education I visited a lot of inner city schools. Most were chaotic. In some the turmoil was so bad that learning was nearly impossible and personal safety doubtful. Evidently those in charge lacked the power and/or will to impose meaningful consequences for gross misbehavior. What did youngsters learn while enduring this chaos? That bullies rule? That might makes right? That there is no point in even trying to learn? That the real world is not even close to what it's supposed to be? Take your pick. 

Do children learn what they live? Count on it. So what did you learn from the "hidden curriculum" you experienced?

COMPULSORY EDUCATION: a colossal mistake?

Is compelling kids to go to school a colossal mistake?  That essential question remains oddly largely unaddressed. This is most peculiar, given the serious  school problems that unmotivated, disruptive, sometimes openly hostile, kids create when compelled to attend. They learn little waste prodigious amounts of taxpayer's money and disrupt the entire process. 

To learn, ya gotta wanna. And those who must be compelled to attend, generally don't wanna. They're the kids "graduating" from high school who still can barely read. Moreover, those requiring coercion are frequently truant. In fact truancy rates in many, perhaps most, inner-city schools, are comically high. 

Wouldn't it be far better if these "students" weren't there? Better for whom? Better for those who want to learn, certainly. And better for their teachers as well. But there seems to be little concern about the fate of the motivated kids, or their teachers,; both of whom pay an unacceptably high price for the disruptive presence of these others. The worry is typically about the disrupters. Those whose behavior causes serious problems, sometimes physical danger, for everyone around them.  

We waste enormous amounts of tax money continuing this process. The latest 2022-2023 data shows the average cost of "educating" a youngster in a U.S. public school is some $163,000.00. Now, imagine giving a child a gift worth about $13,600 per year for twelve or more years and have them refuse to open it, or possibly destroy it. Not just their own gift, mind you. They often ruin other's gifts as well by making it impossible for them to learn. This is what we've been doing, year after year, decade after decade, for well-over a century. 

When "students" are compelled, educators must at least try to force-feed them. Sure, some of unwilling kids can be coaxed to learn. But this coaxing is so time consuming and costly that it is impractical in a typical classroom. After all, our public schools are, for cost control purposes, run like factories. And factories run very poorly when the raw material is uncooperative, even hostile. Painstaking efforts to seduce uncooperative learners disrupts the production process and consumes vast quantities of scarce resources better used educating the willing. Nevertheless, we  pretend that compulsory education is working — or at least should be working. So we go on forcing kids to attend, then pretending they are learning.

Meanwhile legislators, safe in their capital offices, have stripped teachers of any ability to impose meaningful sanctions for misbehavior. So they can't even coerce a semblance of civilized behavior from the disruptive. Worse, a similarly emasculated school administration offers besieged teachers little or no help. Some of these administrators, out of self-regard, even side with the malefactors. So it goes, with turmoil and wastage rolling on and on. 

Folks worry that if we abandon compulsory education, menacing kids will be roaming the streets threatening the peace. That has some validity. Although a lot of disruptive, potentially dangerous kids aren't in school to begin with — especially when the weather is nice. But it is NOT  the school's proper businesses to conduct part-time incarceration. The school's distinctive function is to educate, not incarcerate. And it is way past time to face up to the fact that when educators try to do both, they oftenn do neither?

In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017) ruled that schools must provide educational services that are reasonably designed to enable students to make progress appropriate in light of their circumstances. But what counts as "reasonable design?" Suppose, for instance, a student is failing to make educational progress because his mother is a crack whore who is abusively neglectful and the absent father's identity is a multiple choice question? There are tens of thousands of kids facing similar situations in what passes for their home. And, of course, they are often among the kids who reject and disrupt the educational process. Is there any "reasonable design" possible for them, given available resources and a factory style setting? 

Let's take a fresh look at this and ask why we continue to spend billions upon billions of dollars every year trying to force-feed knowledge to kids who not only resist and resent it, but often also prevent their classmates from learning. Isn't it time to consider public education to be a privilege rather than a right?  After all, the public is providing these youngsters and their parent(s) with free expensivn services.

Of course day care is another largely unacknowledged function of public schooling. Teachers spend an average of 7 hours a day providing that service. Given a class of, say, 25, that means an elementary school teacher is providing day care 175 hours a day or 875 hours per week. That's 31,500 total hours of day care per school year. If the teacher were paid $15 an hour per child, he or she would have earned $472,500.00!

Ignoring the difficulties created by compelling attendance, school districts adopt truancy prevention programs. They are, in effect, encouraging the attendance of potential troublemakers. A major justification of these programs is that truancy breeds broader social problems. It's asserted, for instance, that 95% of juvenile offenders started as truants. We're told that truants are more likely to:

• join a gang running the risk of disease, injury or death; 
• use marijuana, alcohol and hard drugs; 
• become pregnant and drop out of school; 
• have low self-esteem, low aspirations, and educational failure; 
• be illiterate or have serious trouble reading; 
• engage in violent and criminal activities. 

But every one of these assertions suffers from the same fatal flaw. Just because these things correlate, does NOT mean the one causes the other. All juvenile offenders start out as babies, for instance. But does starting life as a baby cause a youngster to become a juvenile offender? Of course not. Correlation is NOT causation. 

Why assume, for instance, that gang membership begins with truancy? Isn't it more likely that gang membership encourages truancy?  The same applies to marijuana, alcohol and hard drug use. Sure, truants are more likely to engage in these behaviors. But why assume that it is truancy that causes them to do so? Are truants more likely to become pregnant and drop out of school? Sure they are; but is truancy the cause? 

As for low self-esteem, low aspirations, and educational failure, isn't it more likely that these things provoke truancy, rather than cause it?  The same applies to serious reading difficulties. And as for kids that engage in violence and criminal activities, don't blame truancy, blame lousy parenting, dysfunctional families, broken homes, poverty, violent neighborhoods, the illicit economic opportunities created by making certain intoxicants illegal, ad infinitum.

Truancy prevention stops being a problem if we quit compelling school attendance to begin with. We've grown used to kids rejecting, even actively destroying, the extremely expensive educational opportunities taxpayers provide. In fact, this sort of behavior is so commonplace in some schools that the educational process is largely a pretense. Teachers pretend to teach and administrators pretend to running a school. Meanwhile standardized testing proves that the whole thing has become a farce. Isn't it time to ask if this very expensive endeavor has failed and, instead, concentrate on effectively teaching those youngsters who are willing to at least try to learn?

 

ARE YOU SUFFICIENTLY SENSITIVE TO ADMINISTRATIVE INTENT?

I was an assistant professor aspiring to become associate; and had to prove my teaching, publications and service met the mark. My "course evaluations" were quite good. (Actually they were my customer satisfaction ratings — but it is unwise to call them that.) My publications also met muster. The problem was my "service."

 

In this institution, "service" was defined by service on college committees. Here I was drawing a blank. Despite regularly volunteering, in writing, mind you, for whatever committee slots were available, I received no assignments. 

Favored faculty, who often had been educated by the religious order running the school, got the great majority of the key committee assignments. They even garnered these coveted assignments when they hadn't filled out the requisite areas of interest form. In contrast, I filled mine out regularly. I indicated preferences, but even expressed willingness to serve on any committee, Nevertheless, I got zero assignments.

An absence of committee work would doubtless sink my prospects for promotion. So I decided to inquire into this situation. Assignments were made by our faculty senate's "Committee on Committees. It largely consisted of old boy faculty who were alums of the formerly all male school. Oddly, though, this committee was chaired by a woman. What distinctive qualities won her this position? It seemed to me there were two. First, she was a co-religionist. That seemed to be an unwritten qualification. Second, and of far greater importance, she demonstrated slavish servility to every administrative power holder. 

I requested an appointment with this woman, and was in no mood to genuflect. So I opened the meeting abruptly by boldly declaring that I had repeatedly volunteered for any committee assignment, but got nowhere. I noted other faculty had received one assignment after another. What, I asked, was going on? Her reply? It had somehow been determined that I was "insufficiently sensitive to administrative intent." 

Perturbed, I reminded this academic weather vain that my promotion was at stake. I told her that I had kept a careful record of all my futile efforts to volunteer and, as well, those who had received them instead. Then I suggested that if I failed to get promoted because of any alleged "lack of service," she and the other committee members might find themselves legally liable.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 I never again had any trouble getting committee assignments. And my promotion followed in due course.

Care to guess what subsequently became of this weather vane chair of the Committee on Committees? It wasn't long before she was appointed, perhaps "anointed" is a better word, Dean of Arts and Sciences. And once in this exalted office, she continued to manifest her finely-tuned sensitivity to administrative intent. Of course, the consequences of her newly-acquired influence frequently disadvantaged the very faculty whose interests she supposedly represented. Before she rise to power this gal was a professor of English, not meteorology. Nevertheless, she always knew which way the wind blew.

What can be learned from this story? 

1. That course evaluations actually measure customer satisfaction. 
2. That there are irreconcilable, though unmentionable, tensions between the interests of the administration and those of the faculty. 
3. That a surprising number of faculty are craven lick-spittles. 
4. That brown-nosing pays — at least in terms of promotion.
5. That one's alleged colleagues might not be collegial. 

What else, more generally, can be learned from this? That there are covert academic realities reminiscent of the often missing genitalia on human anatomical illustrations. Genitalia are obviously critical components of human anatomy. Nevertheless they frequently get “disappeared” on such illustrations. But mentioning their absence is risky.

Are there times to confront the academic equivalent of those anatomical illustrations, point to the blank crotch area and ask, “What the hell happened here?" Apparently there are. But when should one do that? Only when you have more to lose if you keep pretending you don't notice the absence. 

Pulling the sheet off these covert realities can produce a sobering effect on academic power holders when all else fails. It can cause them to stop and weigh potential costs and benefits before messing with you further. But remember, breaking the silence will forever change your status both with the power holders and your colleagues. For good or ill, neither will ever view you, or treat you, in the same way again.