Keep up the good work — and that’s an order!

Cheers,
Craig

From Jamaal Green:

I consistently find the your columns and others on Citistates to not only be fascinating and engaging, but generally, right on and well thought out. It is with dismay that I read your recent column on ideas for strapped state budgets that focused heavily upon cutting government services and continuing privatization schemes in key public sectors. While I recognize the dire straits that are state governments are in, how does it help them to cut out those services that it already does well.

While shifting more students to online education may be laudable, not investing in sound university infrastructure and,”…only paying for research” would destroy what we know of as the American university system. It not only has the potential to kill off already weak humanities and arts departments but it would severely bite into social science programs and eliminate the physical environment of the university that helps to spur innovation. In addition, it discounts the cultural effect of having thousands of young people living in a new environment, being exposed to new ideas, and meeting new people. Not to disparage online education, but it is next to impossible for students to gain such an enriching experience if they remain at home working on a computer. For a columnist who prizes the importance of public space and social capital, it is disappointing that you would echo an idea that would weaken one of the most innovative spaces in American society, its colleges and universities.

Also, while some charter schools have shown success, their effectiveness across the board has been mixed. I’m from Washington DC and while there are some very good charter schools, there are many that perform as poorly as the public schools they were designed to replace. While we must do more to reform and change our system, simply shifting more resources to the private sector is not the way. That money could be better spent on improving our existing schools instead of calling the entire system a wash.

Finally, while bringing in private sector workers into state government for extended contracts could bring in fresh blood and new ideas, I believe it is harmful in the long term to make government work as contingent as the private sector is already becoming. The contingent worker phenomenon has helped to gut middle management positions throughout the private sector and has eliminated traditional ideas of job security and firm loyalty. We already see too many promising government-led initiatives abandoned because there is a change in leadership. You would only accelerate these tendencies by having a revolving door of private sector workers brought in for a few projects or fixed time period. Government is in the business of governance. And governance is not a 3-5 year commitment, as much as we want to believe it. Let’s bring in qualified people but making a mass shift to such a system is harmful in the long run. Yes, we do need to do more to reign in pension costs but shifting employees over to a 401-k plan is a cruel way to go about it. The private sector has largely abandoned the pension but why? Because it was better for managers and their shareholders and not their employees. This ongoing economic and financial crisis has shown us how incredibly vulnerable workers are where the majority of their possible retirement funds are tied up within the equity markets. The 401-k exists purely to offload employee pension payments from management and it is a poor system for guaranteeing retirement funds.

Even disagreeing with you on these areas I still found the column fascinating and I definitely agreed with the suggestions on imprisonment and treatment and I hope more governors are taking a hard look at it. I felt the need to write you because I respect your opinion and I felt the need to voice my disagreement with some of the policy prescriptions given. I pray you have a good day.

And my response to Jamaal:

I appreciate your kind reference to most of my columns. And it’s true — the latest one does seem to diverge from my normal humanistic approaches (supposedly reinforced in a lifetime of scholarly interests, sparked by four years at Princeton in a “Special Program on the Humanities” in the 1950s). I do believe a lot less university-based building is necessary– but still the personal interchange of students, professors, etc., is very important. Yet I’m torn — If states can’t or won’t finance higher learning as they used to, how do we find ways to open advance skills learning to the masses of a growing country (including many lower-income folks who are lucky to make it into a community college, not a UNC-Chapel Hill or Princeton).

On the workers in government issue, I think the ideal would be a balance — a coterie of professionals for institutional memory, but constantly refreshed by folks coming in from the private sector to reinvigorates thinking, new approaches, etc. … Thanks again for your input!

RE: the prisons vs money for education…when parents have a choice to either tax Michael Phelps and Willie Nelson or lose the AP teacher for their teen, they will choose to tax Willie. California will have such a vote this fall. Marijuana is a no-brainer.