SUICIDAL TOLERANCE

The most “woke“ among us are advocating suicidal tolerance. Why is it suicidal? Because what they urge will eradicate tolerance itself. Whence springs this wooly-headed tolerance? A main source is their conviction that values are mere “social constructs.” Value free in and of themselves. None better, none worse. Except that some cultures are so violently intolerant, advocating tolerance will get you killed.

Paradoxically, women are among the most vocal boosters. Indeed the worst offenders are academic women. One wants to ask these females, so you don’t think it wrong to have some crone excise village girl’s clitoris’s with a razor blade? How about forbidding women to vote? Requiring them to be absolutely obedient to their husbands? Or to suffer death by stoning if thought to be guilty of adultery? Should these ladies disapprove of any such things, they cannot logically insist that cultural practices are value free! But, they do, of course.

In the real world, cultural practices often have weighty moral content. Attitudes regarding individualism provide one example. The fact that individualism has moral content is precisely why some cultures suppress it. They disapprove of the underlying value it places on individual perceptions, judgements and choices. The Taliban, for instance, permit nothing of the kind. For example, these zealous fanatics punish any individuals who question the smallest details of their very narrow interpretation of Islam. These true believers even forbid listening to music and flying kites — the later a very popular past time with Afghan children. Why? Because they perceive such enjoyment as having negative moral enjoyment as having negative moral content.

Of course cultural practices can have weighty moral value. And that is exactly why they do NOT have equal value. Just the opposite. In fact, that’s why cultures are more or less dysfunctional. Because of what they will or won’t tolerate and the human happiness or misery this spawns. 

The Taliban are a sterling example of a dangerously dysfunctional culture. Of course it’s intolerant to make such a claim. But, tolerance is not always desirable. After all, some practices, rape, honor killing, and genocide, for instance, are plainly intolerable. Even a Harvard professor should be able to see that. But some don’t.

Let’s dig a little deeper into cultural relativism’s implications. A major one is that relativism opposes any rankings based on merit. Do you want your favorite baseball team to acquire a highly skilled pitcher; or prefer having your heart surgery performed by a highly skilled surgeon? Well, according to these true believers, you are supporting existing racial and socioeconomic hierarchies. But so does insisting these “woke” individuals be able to tell their ass from third base. And apparently they can’t.

A recent protest by Harvard students illustrates how far this silliness has advanced. Concerned that A’s now make up 60% of all Harvard course grades — up from 24% in 2005, it’s proposed that A course grades be capped at 20%. This prompted a student petition asserting that assigning grades on the basis of performance creates “a system of ranking and sorting that mirrors and reinforces existing racial and socioeconomic hierarchies.” So does identifying the best structural engineers. But if we stop doing that, crossing a bridge or occupying a high rise, will become a whole lot riskier.

Clearly such an approach tumbles into Lala land..So let’s be intolerant of the judgement free tolerance advocated by the most “woke” among us. Remember, these folks aren’t really woke at all — they’re dreaming! But their dream is becoming our nightmare.

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.