Prison Paradigms

David:
I'm reminded of a story.

Jesse Jackson had been arrested at a protest, and as he sat in the local jail, he looked around and noticed all of the other "guests" were young men. He rose up, and got their attention. "Do you young men want to shut this jail down?"  They all rallied behind Reverend Jackson and shouted "Yes"!  He then calmly told them, "then don't come back here any more".

The jail system in this country is not bursting at the seams because of racism, police brutality, or income inequality.  Jails are full of people who committed crimes in a culture that celebrates criminal activity.

Doug:
What culture celebrates crime? Are you talking about "Ocean's 11" where George Clooney leads a band of criminal masterminds to steal large sums of money?

David:
Currently, one of the most popular and successful movie franchises (as well as the video game) deals with stealing cars, and all of the violence that goes along with that. I don't think they even have plots anymore, just violent crime and car chases, and young people pay a great deal of money to watch it on screen, and participate on-line.

Doug:
You don't believe that racism has anything to do with the racial imbalance in prisons? Don't you think that there are far more poor people in prison than rich people?

This is systemic racism. White-collar crime rarely results in jail time.  On the other hand carrying a couple of marijuana cigarettes can result in years in prison.

David:
You've touched on a great many issues with very few words, there. 

There is a racial imbalance in prisons. And I do believe for petty crimes, you are more likely to be arrested if you are a minority. But you only go to jail if you are found guilty of a crime. However, African-Americans make up around 12% of the general population, but are responsible for half of murders in this country (www.FBI.gov statistics).  There is a racial imbalance of violent crime, and prisons reflect that. It's not a statistic you can walk away from.

White-collar crime is not a racial term. If a black man commits a white-collar crime, he's as likely to walk as a white person. And that is the one thing you said that is absolutely true: money talks. If you can afford a high-priced private attorney, you have a much better chance of avoiding a guilty verdict, and jail time. (Remember O.J.Simpson?) Justice is slanted against poor people. I think this is why many feel that there is no true justice, just a gamed system. The only place race comes in, is minorities are disproportionately represented among the poor, but that's a discussion for another blog(s).

The drug wars may be another topic for later discussion, but clearly, making marijuana possession a felony was a terrible idea.

But again, you get arrested when you commit a crime. As Reverend Jackson says, if you don't want to get caught up in the justice system, then stay out of the justice system.

Doug:
In your worldview then, there is no system, just individuals deciding to be good or bad? If only it were that simple. The system is full of racism, and you are really going to hate it when you are on the other side in the system. But as long as you can imagine what it will be like, you can have some empathy now.

Do me a favor: go take the test on race here: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html and then let's talk. It will take about 10 minutes, but you need to be able to focus on the questions (quiet space, no distractions).

David:
Unfortunately, the program couldn't be completed on my Mac due a computer error. From the portion I completed, it appears the questions are supposed to see how you weigh the inherent contradictions within the questions (showing disdain / support for the government AND the church (as though they are the same), "crushing" opposition, or taking care of "troublemakers").

I'll admit my own bias towards "soft" sciences, like social science or psychology, because I believe the "data" is too easily manipulated. Changing a word or the phrasing of a question can have a huge impact on how a person might answer. And the interpretation of the answer is biased by the examiner. Too often the paradigm of the tester determines the outcome of the study. This looks just like another one of those tests.

Doug:
Wow, I find your dismissal of this science to be shocking. Science isn't "soft" or "hard" because of the topic... science is science. It is the analysis of an experiment or hypothesis, testing exactly what variables are at play, and retesting to see if the results hold up. There is "good" science and "bad" science, and science has a built-in method of differentiating between those: more science. If a study doesn't hold up to peer-review and replication, then it gets revised (or retracted).

If you can make it through those tests, you'll find the results. The short of it is that almost all of us are all biased, and in the way that the majority leans. As the website says: "...you may believe that women and men should be equally associated with science, but your automatic associations could show that you (like many others) associate men with science more than you associate women with science." That means that even the most ardent, feminist, woman still associates men with science. Similar results for race, age, and weight. These "implicit biases" surely have implications on decisions that we make everyday. This is a glimpse into systemic biases.

David:
Math, physics, and chemistry don't change with societal changes. Popular culture doesn't affect gravity. Two plus two equals four, whether gay marriage is legal or not. There is a difference between different "sciences".  Across all college campuses, essentially everyone passes introductory psychology classes, but an average 21% fail introductory physics. Not the same.

In my little world, there is a system, the legal system, and I believe it unfairly favors those with money. But to say that the system is racist based on outcomes alone fails to consider a huge plethora of variables.  Apparently, you believe the justice system is rotten to the core? Everyone involved is racist? Even in a town like Baltimore, where everyone distributing the justice is African-American?

Doug:
The justice system needs to be aware of the biases and limits of humans. As I mentioned, implicit bias will affect you in the same way, regardless of your race.

David:
If you make a choice to commit a crime, then your likelihood of entering into the justice system increases dramatically over the person who chooses not to commit a crime.

Doug:
And I think this is our main point of contention: I believe that individual choice has little to do with the population of prisons. It has more to do with systemic choices and beliefs, such as "which activities are crimes?", "how much time in prison should we incarcerate you?", and "you are probably guilty of something."

David:
Hmmm. We may actually disagree with what it is we disagree about.

I think that our main difference of opinion is one of responsibility. I say you make your choices in life, and you bear the responsibility for those decisions. It appears you believe people are trapped in a biased system, and therefore have no responsibility for what happens. It's no wonder they need an all-powerful government to save them.

But beware, because Big Government is in control of that very system…..biases or not! Where's the justice in that?

Doug:
Well, I think we can agree that we need to strive to make the system as fair as we can make it.

Memorial Day

David:
Growing up here in Indianapolis, Memorial Day has always been flavored with the roar of race car engines, and checkered flags. The Indianapolis 500 will celebrate it's 99th running on Sunday. We always spent the day listening to the race on the radio, and cheered for our favorite drivers. Mine was Al Unser, Sr.  As a kid, I wanted to grow up to be either a race car driver, or an astronaut. (Don't tell my wife, but I still harbor those dreams.)

Doug:
That's funny, I grew up in Indianapolis, too! We could hear the racecars from our backyard (they are loud!) as we listened to the race on our little AM radio, and ate corn on the cob and fresh tomatoes. I was just telling your niece that I think the Indy 500 would be be more fun if they were electric cars driven by robots. It's funny how we ended up having so different dreams.

David:
Memorial Day is full of traditions for many. Most of us will spend the holiday with family, enjoying a picnic, and relaxing on lawn chairs in the sun. But for many military families, there will be empty chairs.

I'd like to say thank you to all of our veterans for their service, and to their families for the sacrifices they make every day. And my family will say a special prayer for you, and for those who have sacrificed their lives to keep us free.

Doug:
Memorial Day is a complex day full of a range of emotions here. But we can discuss those on another day. For now, you are right: we can all pause and thank our veterans who gave their lives for our country.

Will Common Core education standards leave more children behind?

David:
Common Core (CC) is just the latest in Federal intrusion into education, but promises to be just as ineffectual as it's predecessors. Even with Jeb Bush as it's top salesman this year, its unpopularity is increasing. Common Core may be the undoing of the Bush candidacy. The big bucks supporting CC nor the cash supporting Bush can provide any salvation to this wayward over reach from the Feds.

Education is a responsibility for the states, not the Federal government.

Doug:
My house is full of educators (well, there are two of us), and you won't find much love for the ways that the US educational system has been run here. But it is a complex problem.

1. Kids can't learn if they are hungry.
2. All kids in the US should be able to get a good education.
3. Bad teachers should be fired; good teachers should be rewarded.
4. Corporations should not be allowed to make money off of the educational system.

Of course, the devil is in the details. No, wait, god is in the details. In any event, the details matter. The Federal government could help in a number of ways. First, they can help spread the costs of the educational system over the entire population. It wouldn't be fair if California and New York students got a better education simply because there were more people available to pay for it. And a good educational system costs money. 

But how do you determine whether a teacher is good or bad? Using testing for this purpose is not the way. I just watched a great French movie with my 15-year old daughter called "The Chorus." The story is about a school for troubled boys, and the triumph of a teacher who uses music to bond with the students, and give them a reason to not hate their lives. But teachers can't just be passionate---they also have to be able to teach. Learning is a philosophy of life, and teachers need to be able to impart that desire and process to the students.

There is a general anti-intellectual mood in this country today. We don't value teachers, and we don't value education.

David:
Although some money is needed for a quality educational system, the question is how much. When the recession was just getting started, Mitch Daniels, who was then governor of Indiana, cut the education budget. This was based on necessity, not politics. However, during the next two years, all of the markers used to score the quality of education improved in the state. Higher test scores, more kids graduating, better satisfaction from parents, and every other measure you might look at; They all improved. Less money in education equaled a better educational system. In other words, more spending does not equal better outcomes, smart spending does.

Doug:
Necessity not politics? That sounds like a false dichotomy. Couldn't they raise taxes, and then there would be enough money?

I'd like to see a study suggesting that spending less money on education improved anything. I don't believe any causal effect could be possible.

David:
You can't raise taxes when the economy is crashing around you. It was the loss of jobs and the loss of tax revenue that forces these decisions. Illinois raised their taxes to cover their losses, instead of cutting expenditures, and now they're on the verge of financial collapse.

Cutting spending doesn't necessarily improve education, but it is true that education can improve even if spending is cut. Spending does not equal education improvements. Some of the biggest spending districts in the country (per student) have the worst educational outcomes.

At the same time we cut spending, Indiana instigated the largest charter program in the country. By encouraging competition, and providing parents some choices, quality improved.

As to good and bad teachers, there are some who are more capable in every field and every job market.

I think a lot of "bad" teachers would be better if they only had 10 - 12 kids in their classrooms, rather than 30 - 40. Hiring more teachers does cost more money. If there is to be an increase in spending, that is where I feel the money needs to go.

Doug:
I agree that smaller class size can help.

David:
But I'm not too keen on spending Hoosier dollars for failed educational programs in other states. Every state has the duty to provide education to its own students in their own Constitutions. No where in the US Constitution is education in any form listed as a prerogative of the Federal government. It is helpful for the DOE to collect data and pass it on, so states know how they compare to other states, and to the rest of the world, but nothing else.  The problem is they have tied this information to money. Any teacher will tell you they hate "teaching to the test", and yet when finances are tied to testing, that is what you get. All states would be better off funding their own educational policies, and leave the Feds out. It would save us all a ton of tax dollars, too, if the DOE ceased it current over reach.

Doug:
Would your opinion change if you lived in a state that couldn't afford to educate its own kids? I want every child in the country to have a good education. Actually, I'd like every child in the world to have a good education.

David:
I'd move.

I would assume your answer should be for those states that need more money to tax their citizens to pay for their own children's educations. Why rely on the federal government to take money from citizens in one state, and distribute it to a state that is failing it's citizens. Then, people can choose where they want to live. Again, Illinois and California are examples. Bad spending policies have put them into devastating debt, despite having more resources than other states. They've raised taxes, and people and businesses are leaving.

Common Core is only the most recent attempt for the Federal government to completely take over American Education. And it's a mistake.

Doug:
If the Federal government can help raise the bar in education, I'm all for it. The problem is that the Common Core doesn't. I'd be in favor of a national program to actually help.

David:
Then we agree. There should be no national programs that aren't proven to help the problems they are addressing. And we should eliminate all of the ones that don't.

Whew, it's about time you came around…..