My Stuff

https://umass-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/rwolff_umass_edu/EkxJV79tnlBDol82i7bXs7gBAUHadkylrmLgWbXv2nYq_A?e=UcbbW0

Coming Soon:

The following books by Robert Paul Wolff are available on Amazon.com as e-books: KANT'S THEORY OF MENTAL ACTIVITY, THE AUTONOMY OF REASON, UNDERSTANDING MARX, UNDERSTANDING RAWLS, THE POVERTY OF LIBERALISM, A LIFE IN THE ACADEMY, MONEYBAGS MUST BE SO LUCKY, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE USE OF FORMAL METHODS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.
Now Available: Volumes I, II, III, and IV of the Collected Published and Unpublished Papers.

NOW AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE: LECTURES ON KANT'S CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON. To view the lectures, go to YouTube and search for "Robert Paul Wolff Kant." There they will be.

NOW AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE: LECTURES ON THE THOUGHT OF KARL MARX. To view the lectures, go to YouTube and search for Robert Paul Wolff Marx."





Total Pageviews

Wednesday, November 6, 2024

When I went to college, seventy-four years ago, five percent of adult Americans had four-year college degrees. This meant that aside from doctors, most lawyers, dentists, college professors, most [but not all] high school teachers, and such, virtually no adults had college degrees.  I cannot recall whether universities offered MBAs.  My first father-in-law made it to the rank of Vice-President of Sears, Roebuck without the benefit of a college experience, let alone a degree, and there were more private than public tertiary institutions.


America was a severely economically stratified country, although corporate presidents made twenty or thirty times the salaries of workers, not a thousand times.  But because of the relative rarity of college degrees, the economic mobility of working-class American men [I will come to women and African Americans later] was less obvious. 


Today, three-quarters of a century later, a third of American adults have college degrees. Sixty percent of young Americans start college, but since only 55 percent finish, the college educated portion of the population is still only at one third.


I have spent the last four months, lying in bed and watching television. During that time, I have watched hundreds of hours of commentary on the political situation. I cannot think of a single commentator who does not have a college degree. I should like to try and experiment and that has almost never been attempted. Let me ask what America looks like to one of the two thirds of the population without a college degree. To such a person, most of the good jobs are closed off. Without a college degree in America today, an ordinary American cannot be a doctor, a lawyer, a dentist, a nurse, a college professor, a high school teacher, a middle school teacher, an elementary school teacher, an FBI agent, a Wal-Mart store manager, and in most large cities, a police officer, or a management trainee. It matters not how ambitious or hard working such a person is, he is simply denied those opportunities for lack of the educational credentials. 


The truth is, even fifty or seventy-five years ago when the minority of workers had any real shot at the good jobs in this country but because access to such jobs did not require such credentials, it was possible to conceal that lack of access from view. 


Today, there are more than 3,000 college and university campuses that offer a four-year degree. And I'm not talking about those elite institutions that virtually guarantee their graduates of the upper middle-class jobs with salaries over $100,000 a year, with pensions, benefits, paid holidays, and the like. The United States is the third largest country in the world. Only China and India, each with well over a billion residents, or larger, because the United States has so large a population, it is possible to make the mistake of supposing that the concerns of the one-third with college degrees, especially when being discussed by people who have college degrees, constitute a totality or at least the preponderance of the concerns of Americans. But even that enormous population is only one-third of all the adults in America. 


The obscene character and performance of Donald Trump and his characterless followers make it easy to dominate our attention. But the real question is how such a desperate group of protofascists could command such support of virtually of half the voting population. Once we recognize the real character of America's population, the answer becomes obvious. The democratic party in the recent decades has become the party of the educated third of America. Because of the complexity of America's history with slavery, and the almost self-destructive embrace by the republican party of anti-abortion politics, the democratic party has been able to conceal from itself it's lack of commitment to the interest of the non-educated two-thirds of the population (one of the many ironies of the education of the electoral fiasco that has just played out before us is the fact that Joe Biden is the most genuine supporter of the interests of the non-college educated class). If we managed to survive the next several years, a survival that will be made more probable if Hakin Jefferies manages to gain control of the house perhaps, we will finally begin to ask whether the interests of the two-thirds of the AMerican population without college degrees should be made central to the concerns and mission of the democratic party. 


(Dictated from my bed in the skilled nursing facility at Carolina Meadows with the invaluable assistance of Erika Hamlett)



207 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 207 of 207
LFC said...

Istm one could argue that all physical advantages are in a sense unfair and aim to keep them to a minimum. The argument would be that by allowing all trans-women to participate in women's sports, one is introducing additional sources of unfair advantage, i.e., in addition to the advantages that a particular cis-woman athlete might have over another one. I can see reasonable arguments on both sides of the question. Not sure where I would end up on it. Fortunately it's not a decision I have to make (or one that will personally affect me when made by others).

LFC said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LFC said...

It might possibly have undermined the stance if (1) a significant number of voters had been aware that it was the official policy, or (2) Harris had ever been asked directly to define "woman." I don't think either (1) or (2) applied.

Michael said...

"In sports like wrestling and boxing, male competitors are routinely segregated based on weight and age--it seems to me that if risk of injury is a real concern in certain sports, the same kind of approach could be used in women's sports."

Right, I'm glad you brought this up.

I've wondered (but rarely out loud) if it will start occurring to more people that the least dissatisfying compromise may be to (someday) abolish gender-segregation in sports - not to abolish athletic segregation in general, of course, but just to segregate whenever doing otherwise would predictably create "unfair" disadvantages or "excessive" injury risk.

There'd sometimes have to be some serious conversation as to how we understand the terms in quotation marks, but according to trans advocates for one, we'd be well off the mark if our understanding implied that gender qualifies as one of the predictors: All else being equal, it doesn't seem correct to say that Competitor A's being male and Competitor B's being female would create unfair disadvantages or excessive injury risks for B - at least, not in a way we'd call overwhelmingly predictable from the standpoint of science or educated common sense.

How to interpret "unfair" in light of the Victor Wembanyamas and such? I'm not sure, but maybe the thing to note is: Wembanyama's signing with the Spurs doesn't "practically ensure" a championship (much less undefeated) season for the Spurs, even if we suppose he's always on the floor, never sidelined by injury, etc.; basketball is the sort of sport where team ingenuity can offset what would be "no-contest" factors in one-on-one situations.

james wilson said...

To change the subject, but in keeping with Prof. Wolff’s post, a review of a book

https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/lulas-triumph/

Whuch concludes as follows:

“It is impossible to read this biography without concluding, at the end, that the world needs more Lulas. As one country after another falls to the seductions of right-wing bigotry, it is clear that opposition parties need something more than a technocratic defense of the status quo or appeals in defense of institutions that, for so many, don’t work. What they need are leaders who can speak plainly to the needs of ordinary working people, who can articulate a progressive, pro-democracy project in a way that always broadens the umbrella, as Lula has done. That he emerged in such difficult circumstances, and endured so much along the way, certainly speaks to his gifts; anyone who has ever heard him speak or been in his presence will tell you that his charisma is disarming. The way Lula himself would prefer to see it is that anyone can lead.”

Eric said...

LFC: one could argue that all physical advantages are in a sense unfair

One could argue that, but it would be the kind of argument that only a philosopher would make. I don't think anyone in the real world believes such a thing.

GJ said...

They're unfair because the sport in question is divided by gender in the first place. As a result, you're breaking the rules – and thus doing something unfair – if you compete against those who are of a different gender. Shaquille O'Neal's height gave him advantages over his less physically gifted rivals, but he didn’t break any rules.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 207 of 207   Newer› Newest»