This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Supreme Court strikes down Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan:
The amusing thing here to me is that we got two major SCOTUS rulings in two days that are, on the face of it, not directly related to each other in any obvious way (besides the fact that they both deal with the university system). One could conceivably support one ruling and oppose the other. The types of legal arguments used in both cases are certainly different. And yet we all know that the degree of correlation among the two issues is very high. If you support one of the rulings, you're very likely to support the other, and vice versa.
The question for the floor is: why the high degree of correlation? Is there an underlying principle at work here that explains both positions (opposition to AA plus opposition to debt relief) that doesn't just reduce to bare economic or racial interest? The group identity angle is obvious. AA tends to benefit blacks and Hispanics at the expense of whites and Asians. Student debt relief benefits the poorer half of the social ladder at the expense of the richer half of the social ladder. Whites and Asians tend to be richer than blacks and Hispanics. So, given a choice of "do you want a better chance of your kids getting into college, and do you also not want your tax dollars going to people who couldn't pay off their student loans", people would understandably answer "yes" to both - assuming you’re in the appropriate group and that is indeed the bargain that’s being offered to you. But perhaps that's uncharitable. Which is why I'm asking for alternative models.
The quickest and imo most accurate answer is that it's teams, not principles holding the two groups of support together.
But for a more effortful reconciliation, I don't think you need to go all in on race or bare economics. Support or opposition to both rulings can cleave rather nicely into a broader philosophical disagreement of social responsibility and the purpose of education for democratic equality & social efficiency. The argument for both is a collectivist view that goes:
Education is a public good, which should provide broad social benefits. Universities and the government should maintain the right to press on the scale to ensure democratically available and efficient outcomes.
In other words, both are united by a philosophy of social responsibility to both sides of the college as a public good bargain: "access" and "outcomes".
The anti-side of both is one about individual / meritocratic fairness. In both cases someone is getting to skip the benefits line, not based on personal merit, but on a collectivist effort to balance some measure. Education is a private good, and proper democratic access is one of equal, unbiased cost/availability, not collective equal access.
EDIT: Other replies below are even more parsimonious about a dichotomy between clear interpretation of existing rules and activist creep. But the most parsimonious in terms of popular opinion, remains teams.
Old post of mine at the old place, but I want to reiterate my objection to referring to education as a public good:
On student debt forgiveness, I'm seeing the emergence of a new framing that seems almost completely nonsensical to me. In a recent Voxsplainer, this quote is included from a policy person:
I want to emphasize the use of "public good" there - this doesn't mean something that's good for the public, this is a specific economic term used deliberately. The meaning is:
...
...
This is not at all what university educations look like. Not only are degrees both rivalrous and excludable, they're also positional goods that convey signaling benefit to their recipients. To make them non-rivalrous and non-excludable would substantially remove their value to the individuals receiving them. We can imagine a world that looks like that, where Harvard offers all of its classes online to anyone that would like to take them and anyone that signs up and passes receives that Harvard degree, but that looks nothing like the world we actually live in.
From my perspective, student loan forgiveness would be one of the worst policies in American history. It would:
Reward irresponsible people that had no plan to pay debts freely entered into.
Reward universities that conferred expensive degrees that don't have an actual return on the investment.
Reify moral hazard and perverse incentives related to the above.
Continue to inflate college costs due to the expectation that no one actually has to pay for anything.
Further the class/social war by explicitly choosing to extract from non-university labor to reward the formally educated.
Almost all of the upsides seem to me to be incredibly short term and ignore normal human reactions. To me, the justifications all look like sophistry in service of smash-and-grab politics.
As an addendum to the above, even if I were to take a less formal definition of "public good" as just meaning something that has positive externalities, I would need an explanation for why the value of an education isn't primarily captured by the educated individual and instead accrues more broadly. Sure, there is going to be surplus value from some educations, but it's going to be pretty hard for me to understand how a Harvard-educated attorney or financier isn't actually capturing the majority of the economic value produced by their skills.
I think there’s a problem in the sense that not all education has positive effects. Which is something that’s almost always missing from such debates. I can teach everyone Swahili — that’s education, but it doesn’t really give much of a positive externality. It probably would end up being a net negative if the public were paying for it. Having science, math, and logic literate voters is a set of positive externalities in the sense that they’re at least likely to be able to understand science and make sound decisions on science and technology. Having lots of people with good science and engineering skills means being able to invent new technologies that the public generally benefits from.
I’ve less of a problem with paying for genuinely useful education. Science, tech, finance, mathematics, computing, that kind of stuff. I get the need to create engineers. Where the entire thing gets silly is when it’s stuff that really doesn’t create value to the rest of society. French literature is useless as a skill. What’s the actual benefit to the rest of society that you’ve read Proust? Or speak Latin?
More options
Context Copy link
And I think most people wrongly believe degrees represent human capital (with the idea that human capital creates spillover benefits which is an empirical question always just assumed in these discussions) whereas I believe education is more a signaling and therefore more akin to Tulips in Holland.
More options
Context Copy link
Particular College education, but primary education is a public good, and I think the people is support of affirmative action take the same framing and extend a position of what college ought to be. Even if not economically a true public good, college as part of education collectively as a public good, not in the "benefits the public way", but in a way that is somewhat more abstract.
(tbc this isn't actually my opinion)
Suppose one claims that water should be a public good, in the technical sense. In economics, "both non-excludable and non-rivalrous." However, particular water fountains and taps can't themselves be accessed non-rivalrous or excludable due to their limited availability adn disproportionate desirability or pressure. One solution could be truly truly treat water fountains themselves as public goods with completely even lotteries for access.
Another solution could be to maintain that 1. water is a public good, that 2. access to particular water fountains isn't, and yet that 3. laissez-faire access to water fountains collectively leaves access to the public good unfulfilled. They could make an argument that targeted affirmative access to water fountains is a tool for keeping the water publicly accessible, while allowing the specific taps to be excludably regulated in their availability.
I'm not saying this is correct or has no holes in it, but it is a way of squaring the abstract concept of education as a public good with universities not being so, without resorting to a 'good for the public' definition.
I think that if we buy this argument, the solution would be for the government to directly run its own public supply with 0 or controlled nonprofit tuition costs, the same as they do with the water supply and public schools, not subsidize the costs of private universities. If the government just says "every college student gets $50k towards their tuition" and applies this equally to all schools, then the long term result is that all colleges raise their tuition by almost $50k, because that's where the new market equilibrium lies.
If instead the government has its own free universities, then all of the fancy ones need to offer a better product with cheap enough tuition in order compete.
You can't just subsidize profit-maximizing companies and naively expect them to divert all of the extra money towards the customers. That's like trickle down economics fallacies but worse.
This wouldn't work either.
Adding a free college option means that a college education is the new high school education. Students will have to waste 4 (or more) years in another poorly-run government institution or be forever marked as suitable for only the lowest employment.
Billions of person-years, and trillions of dollars, will be wasted by low IQ people struggling over book reports while the labor shortage gets even worse.
We need to stop spending government money on positional goods, and yes that means drastically reducing existing spending on post-secondary education:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positional_good
In countries with government provided free higher education there is a contest for limited number of places in specific programs. In Russia people who get free college are generally smarter than those who pay for it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link