Am I Thinking Like a Liberal?
I am torn, confused, and worried. Doubts grip me. Is my thinking messed up? Am I embracing what I dislike? Am I going over to the dark side? I have been tormented by certain thoughts recently on a certain subject. I can see strengths to both sides of the argument. Yet I find myself leaning toward a side I would have rejected in earlier years. Why is my thinking shifting? Is it a sign of encroaching darkness? This is kind of scary. Perhaps someone will be able to rescue my poor wayward soul. If you think you can, make the attempt. Or just come over to the dark side with me, if you are convinced by my thinking.
My thoughts revolve around the issue of college scholarships. Specifically, who should get them? On what basis should they be distributed? Is there a system that is the most just? Obviously if someone has money they want to give away, they should be free to choose the criteria. So a better question should make it more personal. If I had a million dollars to set up a scholarship fund, how would I determine the criteria? Who are the most worthy candidates?
At the risk of mischaracterizing the classic positions, I will at least attempt to sketch what I perceive to be the classic conservative and liberal views. Perhaps my agony revolves around a misconception of these views. But this is roughly how I see them:
Conservative view: Scholarships should be awarded however the owner of the money wants them to be awarded. This could be controversial. Aid could target whites only, for example. But because things work best in a free market system, where competition thrives, scholarships are ideally awarded based on academic merit alone. This allows for the greatest amount of competition, and pushes people to achieve on their own. It does not preclude someone from aid simply because they are from a wealthy background, or simply because they are not black, or whatever. In short, individualism and personal achievement trumps the social state and efforts to target aid away from the wealthy and towards the lower class (i.e., wealth redistribution).
Liberal view: Aid should be targeted to the most needy. There is no need for scholarships based on merit alone, as those would allow the rich who can already afford college to take away aid that might go to help those who can't otherwise afford college. An assessment of one's ability to attend college without the applied for scholarship should be made with the application. Aid might target the bright but poor, or other groups traditionally underrepresented in academia.
My thoughts about scholarships were first stirred up in early June, when I attended a scholarship night at my school. That evening hundreds of thousands of dollars were given out to many worthy candidates. Most of the awards had multiple criteria. This was usually some sort of combination of two or more of the following: academic merit, community service, financial need, talent in some area, etc. etc. These are the usual kinds of things you expect to see in scholarships. One thing that stood out to me, however, was the awarding of some of the juiciest scholarships. There were a number of them for something like 5000 dollars each. What struck me was the parental occupations of many of these students. While each was certainly deserving academically, they mostly came from affluent backgrounds. That student's parent is a lawyer. Oh yeah, that student's parent is also a lawyer. Oh yeah, that student's parent is also a lawyer. Ok, that student's parents have their own business in town. Etc. I believe most of these scholarship recipients have parents making six figures or more.
So I thought some more about this. And I have started to think, why do it that way? Why give money to someone who doesn't need it?
Freeze for a moment. I will now play devil's advocate, and counter with the classic conservative view that would make the likes of Rush Limbaugh proud:
Who can really say that this student doesn't "need" it? Who are you to make such a judgment about someone else's life? And why is that relevant? The scholarship is based on academic achievement, not based on financial need. What the parents will do with the extra money in their pocket is their business.
Another thought, from the liberal side: gifted students are lucky. They've simply inherited the genes of their smart parents, who are in high paying jobs because of they're natural ability. So why should you award students for genetic inheritance, over which they had no control?
Limbaugh/other conservatives response: Genetic ability is irrelevant, because they still had to work hard and put their genes to good use and earn those good grades. It may or may not have been easier to achieve academic success, but you shouldn't punish them and deny a scholarship for things over which they have no control. Each person faces unique challenges in their life that they have to work hard to overcome. You shouldn't simply chalk up academic success to wealth.
Back to my thoughts. Could giving money based on financial need be more compassionate than giving it simply based on achievement? While theoretically I thought I was a strong proponent of having a level and open "playing field" on which everyone can participate and get scholarships, I recognize there are limits to this. Someone who is living in the state's care because they were sexually abused by a guardian (as has been the case with at least one of my students) is facing a greater uphill battle to achieve academic success than a student who has two parents in the home and a 2006 Ford Mustang convertible to drive themself to school (I also have had a student in this situation).
I also recognize that I can't stick to the "let everyone compete openly" philosophy too strongly without being a bit of a hypocrite. For I benefited greatly from getting a scholarship targeted on the basis of geographic location AND need. Many of the rich were essentially shut out. And I went to college!
So despite the strong argument that can be made for refraining from judging who "needs" a scholarship, I find myself returning to the thought that many of those students who got those scholarships shouldn't have. Or at least it would have been better if the scholarship had included need as a factor in judging who was awarded one. For the reality of the situation is that most of the recipients were going to whatever college they wanted to go to, regardless of the scholarship they won. They made their parents proud by getting it, but also happy because they could now spend that 5 grand on an extra mortgage payment for their vacation home in Bermuda. Put another way, it might have been a little payback for the 5 grand the parents spent on private music lessons so the student could earn that A in band. But either way, it wasn't something that enabled a student to attend college who couldn't otherwise afford it. And another student, who had a fractionally lower GPA, may now be saddled with that much more college debt they will struggle to pay for half of their adult life, because they lost out on a scholarship they desperately hoped to get. Isn't that a cheery thought?
There is a balance to this. I think that there is definitely a place for academic merit-only scholarships. Take colleges themselves, for example. It's in their best interest to attract the brightest and best to their school, so it makes sense for a college to provide some healthy scholarships to lure that bright student in, regardless of their financial background. But an individual who sets up their own scholarship fund? If I had that kind of money, I would prefer targeting it to those who might not be able to go to school without it. It seems a waste to do otherwise.
So am I thinking like a liberal? And should my thinking be corrected?
My thoughts revolve around the issue of college scholarships. Specifically, who should get them? On what basis should they be distributed? Is there a system that is the most just? Obviously if someone has money they want to give away, they should be free to choose the criteria. So a better question should make it more personal. If I had a million dollars to set up a scholarship fund, how would I determine the criteria? Who are the most worthy candidates?
At the risk of mischaracterizing the classic positions, I will at least attempt to sketch what I perceive to be the classic conservative and liberal views. Perhaps my agony revolves around a misconception of these views. But this is roughly how I see them:
Conservative view: Scholarships should be awarded however the owner of the money wants them to be awarded. This could be controversial. Aid could target whites only, for example. But because things work best in a free market system, where competition thrives, scholarships are ideally awarded based on academic merit alone. This allows for the greatest amount of competition, and pushes people to achieve on their own. It does not preclude someone from aid simply because they are from a wealthy background, or simply because they are not black, or whatever. In short, individualism and personal achievement trumps the social state and efforts to target aid away from the wealthy and towards the lower class (i.e., wealth redistribution).
Liberal view: Aid should be targeted to the most needy. There is no need for scholarships based on merit alone, as those would allow the rich who can already afford college to take away aid that might go to help those who can't otherwise afford college. An assessment of one's ability to attend college without the applied for scholarship should be made with the application. Aid might target the bright but poor, or other groups traditionally underrepresented in academia.
My thoughts about scholarships were first stirred up in early June, when I attended a scholarship night at my school. That evening hundreds of thousands of dollars were given out to many worthy candidates. Most of the awards had multiple criteria. This was usually some sort of combination of two or more of the following: academic merit, community service, financial need, talent in some area, etc. etc. These are the usual kinds of things you expect to see in scholarships. One thing that stood out to me, however, was the awarding of some of the juiciest scholarships. There were a number of them for something like 5000 dollars each. What struck me was the parental occupations of many of these students. While each was certainly deserving academically, they mostly came from affluent backgrounds. That student's parent is a lawyer. Oh yeah, that student's parent is also a lawyer. Oh yeah, that student's parent is also a lawyer. Ok, that student's parents have their own business in town. Etc. I believe most of these scholarship recipients have parents making six figures or more.
So I thought some more about this. And I have started to think, why do it that way? Why give money to someone who doesn't need it?
Freeze for a moment. I will now play devil's advocate, and counter with the classic conservative view that would make the likes of Rush Limbaugh proud:
Who can really say that this student doesn't "need" it? Who are you to make such a judgment about someone else's life? And why is that relevant? The scholarship is based on academic achievement, not based on financial need. What the parents will do with the extra money in their pocket is their business.
Another thought, from the liberal side: gifted students are lucky. They've simply inherited the genes of their smart parents, who are in high paying jobs because of they're natural ability. So why should you award students for genetic inheritance, over which they had no control?
Limbaugh/other conservatives response: Genetic ability is irrelevant, because they still had to work hard and put their genes to good use and earn those good grades. It may or may not have been easier to achieve academic success, but you shouldn't punish them and deny a scholarship for things over which they have no control. Each person faces unique challenges in their life that they have to work hard to overcome. You shouldn't simply chalk up academic success to wealth.
Back to my thoughts. Could giving money based on financial need be more compassionate than giving it simply based on achievement? While theoretically I thought I was a strong proponent of having a level and open "playing field" on which everyone can participate and get scholarships, I recognize there are limits to this. Someone who is living in the state's care because they were sexually abused by a guardian (as has been the case with at least one of my students) is facing a greater uphill battle to achieve academic success than a student who has two parents in the home and a 2006 Ford Mustang convertible to drive themself to school (I also have had a student in this situation).
I also recognize that I can't stick to the "let everyone compete openly" philosophy too strongly without being a bit of a hypocrite. For I benefited greatly from getting a scholarship targeted on the basis of geographic location AND need. Many of the rich were essentially shut out. And I went to college!
So despite the strong argument that can be made for refraining from judging who "needs" a scholarship, I find myself returning to the thought that many of those students who got those scholarships shouldn't have. Or at least it would have been better if the scholarship had included need as a factor in judging who was awarded one. For the reality of the situation is that most of the recipients were going to whatever college they wanted to go to, regardless of the scholarship they won. They made their parents proud by getting it, but also happy because they could now spend that 5 grand on an extra mortgage payment for their vacation home in Bermuda. Put another way, it might have been a little payback for the 5 grand the parents spent on private music lessons so the student could earn that A in band. But either way, it wasn't something that enabled a student to attend college who couldn't otherwise afford it. And another student, who had a fractionally lower GPA, may now be saddled with that much more college debt they will struggle to pay for half of their adult life, because they lost out on a scholarship they desperately hoped to get. Isn't that a cheery thought?
There is a balance to this. I think that there is definitely a place for academic merit-only scholarships. Take colleges themselves, for example. It's in their best interest to attract the brightest and best to their school, so it makes sense for a college to provide some healthy scholarships to lure that bright student in, regardless of their financial background. But an individual who sets up their own scholarship fund? If I had that kind of money, I would prefer targeting it to those who might not be able to go to school without it. It seems a waste to do otherwise.
So am I thinking like a liberal? And should my thinking be corrected?
posted by redsoxwinthisyear at 10:50 PM
3 Comments:
Let me see if I can help. First, it’s important to distinguish between private and public philanthropy.
First consider private scholarships. In the conservative world, philanthropy is a private matter. Individuals and other non-government entities should be free to distribute their funds according to whatever criteria are in their best interest or make them happiest. One philanthropist might issue scholarships based on need, another might issue scholarships based on merit. The conservative would have no argument with either of these. In fact, I think you would find “liberal” philanthropists tend to give away both kinds of scholarships, and so do conservatives. It’s a question of one’s social conscience and personal priorities, not a question of one’s conservatism or liberalism.
As for public philanthropy, conservatism asserts that the government should not be in the business of handing out scholarships, period. But since the world we live in is not perfect, the government does issue scholarships. In my opinion, the only conservative position on government scholarships is that these scholarships must provide equal protection under the law (i.e. no discrimination based on race, sex, religion, or ethnicity). Within that definition, a government scholarship based on merit is no more or less conservative than one based on need. There are both equally legitimate (or illegitimate).
In sum, I believe you’re framing your question incorrectly. Giving money based on need versus merit is neither conservative or liberal. One may be more compassionate than the other, but to say that only a liberal would prefer giving to the needy versus to the meritorious is simply inaccurate. This is precisely the way liberals want to frame the debate: liberalism = compassion, conservatism = greed. Don’t buy into that way of thinking.
John, some excellent points! Thanks for helping to bring some clarity on this issue.
I agree that compassion should not be framed as either a liberal or conservative quality, though I think the conservative view can lead to a lack of compassion if not tempered by religion. ("Let me keep my money because it's mine" versus "Let me keep it because I am a better steward of it than the government, and I would like to use it to help others," etc.)
At the same time, I think you might be too generous to liberals in suggesting that rewarding merit
is neither a liberal or conservative issue. While private, liberal philanthropists may give money based on merit, I have not heard any liberals articulate a need for the government to set up more scholarships based on merit alone. In fact, I think it could be argued that liberal ideology, at least as it plays out in public policy, tends to devalue meritorious action. (Higher taxes for the rich is just one example. Let's punish someone for their financial success!)
So my logic went something like this:
1. Liberals don't award meritorious action in their public policy. Or at least government scholarships don't help the rich (I equate "rich" with "meritorious" because, sadly, in our current public education system most of the meritorious are also rich.)
2. Liberals must not like it when private aid is given to the rich. 3. I don't like private aid given to the rich (the social conscience you referenced believes the funds could be stewarded more wisely).
Conclusion: I'm a liberal?
What you helped to clarify, however, is that my beef really is with private organizations. My critique of how the funds were given was not based on any government action, because the scholarships awarded at that ceremony were not government awards (with perhaps a couple of exceptions). And as you pointed out, how private funds are spent is not a conservative/liberal issue. So if I agree with some liberals, I probably also agree with some conservatives.
Conclusion: I guess I'm not a liberal!
I do agree with you that in public policy, including publicly funded scholarships, liberals would favor financial need over merit. After all, the purpose of government (in the liberal mind) is to remedy perceived social injustice. The conservative, and as you correctly point out, the Christian, recognizes that this an individual responsibility. Christian liberals and Christian Conservatives differ primarily in the fact that liberals want to REQUIRE everyone to be charitable (through their taxes) whereas conservatives believe charity is more appropriate and authentic when it derives from the individual.
Glad I was able to talk you down off the cliff -- you had me scared there for a minute!
Post a Comment
<< Home