Policy Diary

How Much Can I Improve My LSAT Score?

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 01:36:00 +0000

By Ryan R.

LSAT test-takers often ask how much they can improve their LSAT score? The answer is unequivocal: with the right preparation you can significantly improve your LSAT score.

What is the LSAT testing?

The LSAT tests a set of skills such as critical reading ability, deductive logic and inferential reasoning in addition to fluency with techniques such as formal logic and assumption recognition. While these skills are to a large extent critical for any successful law student or attorney to have, they are not innate and can be developed through practice.

How many point can your score increase?

It is not uncommon to become intimidated by the LSAT after your initial practice test. If you were a successful student in college then the idea of having just scored 60% on a test can be humbling. However, it should be noted that this score that would normally translate to failure on a college exam actually corresponds to the national average.

With a dedicated regimen of taking practice tests, studying specific question types and remaining devoted to your prep course, tutor and/or self studying, one can improve your starting LSAT score by more than 20 points.

Remember that you cannot assess your max potential strictly based on your starting score alone, but rather on how quickly this score improves.

Many people who start off by scoring in the 150s do wind up scoring in the 160s, and in some cases, even the 170s as these individuals have strong enough reading, writing and analytical skills when they first begin their prep, and once they develop the logic skills they never needed before prepping for this exam are able to achieve scores at the very top of the US population.

What about those starting with particularly low scores?

On the reverse end of the spectrum, individuals who start in the 130s and 140s do often improve their scores into the mid-150s. However, their ability to achieve a truly elite score may be hampered by their reading ability. Most people taking the LSAT believe that they have great reading skills, but when one is expected to have elite reading skills, scanning through the Sunday paper may not be enough practice.

If you’re starting with a low score approach, it is most prudent to consider investing a significant amount of time into studying, and not rushing into taking the test. It is also best to consider doing a lot of reading, as your score potential may be limited by your reading comprehension abilities.

Final Thought

In my experience as an LSAT tutor, I have found that those starting with particularly low scores are also the most likely to start their LSAT preparation particularly late as well and/or study less than their competitors. In this, they commonly create an additional disadvantage for themselves.

Like other standardized tests, the LSAT not only examines your aptitude, but also your work ethic. The amount you improve will be directly correlated with the amount of time you put into preparing for the LSAT.

Ryan R. offers LSAT Tutoring with Parliament Tutors, a New York Tutoring and Test Preparation service. He was raised in Long Island and graduated from New York University's Tisch School of the Arts in 2009. After scoring in the 99th percentile on his LSAT, he joined Parliament Tutors over 2 years ago. Ryan will be attending University of Virginia School of Law in Spring 2012.

Think GOP Infighting Is Ugly? Check Out The Democrats…Of 2008

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 01:32:00 +0000

I'll no longer be contributing to NewsOne on a weekly basis. I may however write there for special projects on occasion. Good news is I'll be contributing to Mediaite weekly. Today I had a piece regarding the GOP infighting and how overblown it is.

People forget how contentious the Dem primaries were because it was 4 years ago, plus Hillary is working for obama now. So it's very easy to forget. But the minute you pull those old debates on YouTube or start reading the mudslinging back and forth, it all comes back.

I mean, it's hilarious folks are suggesting GOP primary should end first week of Feb. when Hillary didn't suspend her campaign until June! On top of that, she still was suggesting that her delegates be seated at the convention in Aug. So it almost came down to the wire.

Read it here: Think GOP Infighting Is Ugly? Check Out The Democrats…Of 2008

The Only Two Arguments Democrats Need On Mitt Romney’s Taxes

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:31:00 +0000

My latest in Mediaite looks at Romney's taxes from a different perspective. How should Democrats go after him? What's really the most effective strategy?

Mitt Romney has bank accounts flung across the globe; The Washington Post noted a few countrieswhere he has them, including Luxembourg, Ireland, Cayman Islands, and, until 2010, Switzerland, which is a notorious tax haven.

I’m not suggesting that Romney has done anything untoward when it comes to his taxes. On the contrary, it looks as though he has toed the legal line extremely well. But therein lies his problem:

(1) If the system as is benefits people like Romney so much, what is the motivation for him to change the tax code? Clearly he’s doing just fine.

(2) How exactly will Romney make the argument that the average American is overtaxed? He’s not one of them. And most wealthy people in his position are paying a similarly low effective tax rate. How can he help the middle class with tax woes?

Am I Playing the Race Card?

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:33:00 +0000

Since my article "Red Tails Could Set Black Film Back" came out all kinds of discussion has taken place. I'm glad. I think the film as well as George Lucas's comments on it are worthy of a candid conversation. That that conversation appears to be happening (not just do to this particular piece but in general) is a very good thing.

What I find peculiar though is this: Some readers have asserted that I'm playing the race card. How so? It wasn't me who broadcast to the nation that Hollywood wouldn't support this movie due to its all-black cast. It also wasn't me who said that the movie "was made for black teenagers." So while it may be easier to assert that the writers sparking commentary about the film are "pulling the race card", it's really just lazy and flat wrong.

Lastly, if I was wrong and the typical audience for black films wasn't predominantly black, then why would Hollywood have such strong misgivings about their ability to market an all-black film? Wouldn't they jump at the opportunity if they felt everyone would want to see it, especially considering George Lucas was behind it?

See the problem here isn't just Hollywood, it's also the fact it's still hard for society to have candid conversations about these kinds of subjects.

“Red Tails” Could Set Black Film Back

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:14:00 +0000

Over at NewsOne, my newest outlet for writing opinions of all kinds, I've sparked a discussion about the movie "Red Tails," the all-black film produced and marketed by George Lucas. Below is an excerpt. Check out the full story here.

Red Tails, an all-black film, is opening January 20 at a theater near you. If you happen to see it, do me a small favor: take a gander at the rest of the audience and see if they resemble the thespians on film. Chances are, they will. Supporting black films, and black art in general, should be a tenet of the African-American community. And frankly, it’s usually the African-American community that Black films are accustomed to relying on. What makes Red Tails unique in this regard is that it was produced, financed, and marketed by George Lucas, the billionaire creator of the “Star Wars” and “Indiana Jones” franchises, who is white.

SEE ALSO: Brandy, Monica Reunite For Record
Red Tails tells the story of a crew of African-American pilots who are called to service while in the Tuskegee Airmen training program during World War II. Lucas is to be commended for truly believing in this story — he started working on it in 1988 — to bring it to the big screen and to do so with his own money. Sure, he has plenty, but Red Tails cost $58 million to produce and another $40 million to market — that’s not chump change. And Lucas also gave us a candid bird’s-eye view into how Hollywood thinks.

While appearing on the John Stewart Show, he said he was shocked not only at the fact Hollywood wasn’t willing to get behind the film but also by the reason he was given: they didn’t “know” how to market a film with an all-black cast, Hollywood said.

Red Tails is a universal story of integrity, leadership, perseverance, and values. There’s little doubt that everyone should watch it. I wish for it to be successful and spawn more faith in the creation, promotion, and patronage of black film, but chances are it won’t achieve any of that.

And George Lucas is to blame.

NDAA's Critics are Wrong

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:22:00 +0000

By CJ Louis

Many people have somehow gotten the idea that certain sections of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) stifle our civil rights by allowing for the indefinite detention of American citizens on the mere suspicion that they are loosely affiliated with Al-Qaeda or if citizens simply decide to openly oppose the government. This is not true.

The NDAA for people who don’t know anything at all, is a law passed annually for the past 50 years. At its core, it’s a piece of defense legislation that simply details the spending budgets and authority of our Defense Agencies. Sometimes, things are added in to detail specific projects or initiatives that the Federal Government is taking on at the time. This year is the first time it has received such widespread international attention from the masses. Why? I won’t make any unfounded assertions, but it’s no mystery that the President has been on thin ice ever since he was sworn into the White House because of this and every move he makes is under intense scrutiny, and with good reason, because our nation is in a very delicate state.

The National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2012 is controversial among the general public mainly for the following two portions of the legislation:

Subtitle D – Counterterrorism: Section 1021: Affirmation of the Authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

Subtitle D – Counterterrorism: Section 1022: Military Custody For Foreign Al-Qaeda Terrorists.

A little context: three days after the attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress passed a joint resolution known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which was signed into law by then-President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001. The AUMF granted the use of our military against those found to be responsible for the September 11th attacks on the United States and granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The 2012 NDAA narrows and explicitly defines the scope of those people responsible and refer to them as “covered persons” in the following text:

A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

Section 1021 restates authority already granted to the President through the passage of AUMF 10 years ago in “affirm[ing] that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force…includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons…pending disposition under the law of war.”

The 2012 NDAA grants no authority regarding detention of terrorists and terrorist suspects not already in play several years before President Obama was elected. Critics have argued that theoretically a portion of this expands detention authority because it allows for people to be held on the basis, not of membership in an enemy group, but mere support for one; they are rightfully concerned about this language. Yet, as stated earlier, this was already possible under AUMF and subsequent broader interpretations of it by district courts since then.

So, at this point, I’m sure you have comprehended this well thus far and have been wondering, “If these powers were already in place 10 years ago, why would Congress include this seemingly repetitive language in the 2012 NDAA now?” The answer to that is this: the most important thing to note about Section 1022 is the Congressional approval of indefinite detention of “covered persons” without charge. When the AUMF was passed, Congress’s stance on indefinite detention was ambiguous at best. The power of indefinite detention was solely the President’s decision.

Yet, in placing this legalese in a congressional defense bill, Congress has given the practice of indefinite detention more meaning than just discretion granted to the Executive Branch, but also an extremely solid and explicit statutory basis by their endorsement which makes them as fully accountable in this area as the President. In essence, Congressional legal backing made indefinite detention less vulnerable to legal scrutiny and possibly a more permanent practice going forward.

As for Section 1022 of the 2012 NDAA, it requires mandatory detention of foreign al-Qaeda terrorists.

The part in question is Part B (Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident
Aliens), Points 1 & 2 which state:

UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

It is good that critics are keeping a watchful eye on legislation and their concern is somewhat warranted due to the justified lack of trust in government and the tricky wording in Point 2; however, Section 1022, Part B, Points 1 & 2 do not apply to any American citizen or legal resident of the United States. There are skeptics who say that outside of the US, citizens are more vulnerable to the scope of this law; they are not totally incorrect. Nevertheless, the focus of Section 1022 is clearly terrorism, as defined in the bill, and not conflict, armed or otherwise, with American citizens. Section 1022’s use of the word “requirement” has been interpreted by some critics as allowing U.S. citizens to be detained, but this provision does not in any way create this authority. Both sections explicitly cover Al-Qaeda members and members of groups that act in coordination with or under the direction of Al-Qaeda and cannot in any way be misconstrued to include innocent American citizens.

Admittedly, this bill does indeed trek a slippery slope; however, the government does not have to use military detention for anyone and when considering the provisions within, it provides enough legroom for the Administration to come up with a thorough, streamlined, legitimate and somewhat transparent process to accurately determine whether or not a person qualifies as a “covered person.” In case you couldn’t tell, that is good news.

In summary, I’m sure that after reading this some of you may still feel that President Obama should’ve just vetoed the bill in its entirety. I mean, who wants to walk on the mile high, quite lean tightrope between civil rights and human rights? Well, frankly, vetoing it would not have made any good political sense. The 2012 NDAA contains a lot of other measures besides these two sections; as I stated earlier, it is first and foremost a defense spending law. Vetoing the bill would’ve delayed government stipends to veterans, widowed military families, and etcetera as well as crippled our military operations domestically and in areas all over the world. And for what: political backlash? Because the bill would’ve certainly gone back to Congress and undoubtedly receive the two-thirds vote it needed to override the President’s veto. Except, things would be much different the second time around, in that the President would not be able to attach a signing statement. Without the statement, President Obama wouldn’t have any control of 2012 NDAA’s execution as a signing statement can be used as an executive directive of sorts. Having signed it into law and attaching his signing statement, the President can direct the controversial parts of the law to a standard according to his interpretation of the law. The signing statement is quite relevant in that it helps to create a format for the execution of the law during his Administration which without the entire world would be subject as is without any sort of discretion whatsoever. To make a long story short, the fact that it was signed is good news.

About the Author

CJ Louis

What's going on with AIDS Activism?

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:56:00 +0000

With all the Occupations taking place around the country, it is disappointing to see that the best the HIV/AIDS activists can come up with is to latch on to a “treatment as prevention” campaign. This is in response to a highly-publicized study showing that getting people with HIV on treatment decreases HIV-transmission in heterosexuals by 96%. This study has been seized on as the opportunity to really envision an “AIDS-free generation” (as promoted by people such as Hilary Clinton, despite the fact that they really mean an “HIV-free generation”, a sign of the need for education).

While this study is good news , the idea that we are going to simply treat our way to the end of the pandemic has serious flaws. First, treatment is not prevention. Treatment – in this case, taking pills – neglects to address the individual and societal transformations necessary if we are to truly have an HIV-free generation. We need education that overcomes stigma and fear. Consider this simple fact: currently, many of the highest-risk people do not get tested for HIV because of stigma, fear, and denial. Merely replacing a test with treatment is not going to get people in the door. In addition, there are these considerations:

While treatments decrease transmission risk, there is a false sense of security that we need to be on alert for.
There is an upward trend in the prosecution of people with HIV not telling their partners of their HIV-status; will this trend continue, or will a person on treatment be less responsible for communicating his/her status.
There are growing waiting lists for treatment already. Merely demanding more money seems to be in denial of what is going on in the fiscal world, especially when the commitment to treatment needs to be open-ended.
Ignored in all of this are studies that indicate self-testing for HIV can reach those higher-risk folks, can be done more cost-effectively, and when done in conjunction with digital education, can be very effective in both educating and encouraging testing, but activists and HIV/AIDS organizations stay silent on this while demanding more funding for treatment.

So what’s going on here? As usual, it seems one need only follow the money trail and its influence. Gilead Sciences is the maker of Truvada, one of the highly-touted treatments. Investment firms are saying that Gilead will be a profitable stock because of, according to this LA Times columnist, its HIV-therapies and “shrewd partnerships”. Gilead is one of the biggest sponsors of HIV/AIDS conferences such as the recently-held US Conference on AIDS. Gilead also has a long reach (both directly and through lobbying arms) of making contributions to politicians such as both Bill and Hilary Clintons, GW Bush, and Rep. Barbara Lee, all of whom are very vocal about supporting “treatment as prevention”.

I am not suggesting any sort of broad conspiracy here, so much as the fact that “AIDS, Inc” (a conglomeration of politicians, pharma, HIV/AIDS organizations and activists) are participating in a sort of “group-think” that only looks at the system in place as the vehicle for ending the pandemic, and promoting campaigns that feed the system. Left out are new ideas and creative brainstorming that integrate such things as social networking and self-testing – both of which research shows are very effective as well.

UPDATE: Just after this was posted, UNAIDS released its annual World AIDS Day Report. In it, on page 21, the case is made for home self-testing for HIV. It will be interesting to see if perhaps an organization like this can help open eyes and minds. See more here.

How Siri could revolutionize the 911 system

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:09:00 +0000

It's been awhile since my last post, for that I apologize. However I've been writing a lot in various places and will update the blog this week.

This piece appears in GigaOM and is focused on how Siri can completely change emergency care, especially how we interact with first responders. Here's an excerpt.

In health care we face numerous challenges. One that is being tackled by the FCC, Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation is the limited nature of our emergency 911 system. Currently, if one is dialing from a cellphone, chances are that 911 cannot automatically find their location. And the only way to contact 911 is the traditional way — by telephone.

All of that is about to change. Next Generation 911 will allow for communications to be made by voice, video or text. Location will automatically be appended to voice calls, saving time and confusion when the caller doesn’t know where they’re location is — or isn’t able to verbally communicate it.

As someone who analyzes health policy (with a focus on long-term services and supports), I believe that Siri, Apple’s recently introduced natural language voice technology, has the potential to change not just our 911 system, but also to be one of the biggest consumer-facing technologies in health care that we’ve seen in decades.

Emergency health care today

Imagine this scenario: an elderly person is having a cardiac event. She is having trouble breathing and is unable to complete a sentence. Dialing 911 is possible, but if the caller is unable to narrate the condition, first responders would still be in the dark until they arrive.

Even after they do arrive, information still eludes them: some critical — including prior medical history, current medications and allergic reactions to medicines — and some logistical, such as health insurance and next of kin...

Medicaid's Patients Need Better Access to Care

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 17:05:00 +0000

By Elaine Hirsch

Recently New York Times reporter Robert Pear highlighted one of Medicaid's greatest problems: access to health care providers. Pear interviewed residents of Louisiana enrolled in Medicaid, several of whom expressed frustration at the fact their Medicaid cards didn't automatically ensure access to the care they needed. One patient had three herniated discs in her neck, but couldn't find a surgeon who would accept patients on Medicaid. She angrily referred to her Medicaid card as a "useless piece of plastic."

Some physicians are unwilling to take Medicaid patients because they view them as unreliable. Even if they attended school online, most health care professionals are aware that Medicaid patients are less likely to show up for appointments and take responsibility for personal health, and more likely to have complicated health issues. As such, many patients will struggle to find doctors willing to treat them.

Since its inception in 1965, Medicaid has provided essential healthcare to millions of low-income families. The program can be credited for keeping people off the streets and serving as a safety net for society's most vulnerable citizens. However, although Medicaid has proven successful in many ways, it is far from perfect.

The hardship Medicaid patients face in finding primary care physicians leads to a smaller percentage of patients receiving preventative care. In fact, according to Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, Medicaid patients don't fare much better than the uninsured. They are less likely to receive mammograms and pap smears than those with private coverage. As such, Medicaid patients are more likely to have cancer and other fatal conditions that could be treatable if caught in the early stages. Instead, they only receive care in the emergency room when it may already be too late.

Often the gaps in coverage are caused by insufficient numbers of specialists in the managed care system. With managed care, the government selects a private plan to provide coverage for those enrolled in Medicaid. Patients are required to visit professionals within the network of the plan they're assigned to. This differs from traditional pay-for-service Medicaid coverage, in which patients are allowed to visit any doctor willing to accept Medicaid.

Managed care has proven a boon for many private companies, but it often complicates things for patients, who may end up having to drive over two hours to reach an in-network specialist. Nevertheless, managed care remains far less expensive than the fee-for-service system. With state budgets shrinking, managed care is becoming a reality for more and more Medicaid patients.

One of the greatest problems surrounding Medicaid is lack of funding. As health care continues to grow more expensive, so does the cost of providing Medicaid. The financial problem is worsened by the economic recession and high levels of unemployment. Fewer patients are covered by employers, and many are unable to pay for private insurance. Over 58 million patients are on Medicaid, and the number is rising. In a time of economic uncertainty, paying for more and more patients to be put on Medicaid puts a strain on the entire tax base. However, many politicians fear the consequences of cutting back on coverage would be severe.

Although Medicaid has been an important program for the last several decades, it is not without problems. Medicaid is very expensive, and attempts at reducing the cost through managed care plans often lead to compromised care for patients. Still, the program's benefits outweigh its problems, and it would be worthwhile for politicians to think outside the box for ways to fix the current issues.

Why Can't the Congressional Black Caucus Be More Like the Tea Party?

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 15:00:00 +0000

(Excerpt from The Loop)

The Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Conference began this week in Washington, D.C. celebrating its 41st year. President Obama is scheduled to speak, as he did last year, at the closing dinner. One thing is for certain, and that's Obama’s audience at this dinner will be one of the most approving, and least challenging, crowds he’s faced all year. And that probably shouldn’t be the case.

It’s a sincere question to wonder why the Black Caucus isn’t the Democratic equivalent of the Tea Party. Few other Congressional caucuses can lay claim to having a singular voice that represents Democrat strongholds throughout the country and puts the disenfranchised -- including minorities -- at the forefront of their agenda.

Like the CBC, the Tea Party's power isn't really in numbers. Poll after poll has shown that the Tea Party’s popularity ebbed a long time ago and mainstream America doesn’t support them. Instead, the Tea Party has focused on something far more effective: intimating to legislators the power they have at the primary ballot.

The Tea Party's power can be attributed to three things: simple messaging, unwavering leadership, and being a disruptive force in political landscape. And here’s three reasons why the Black Caucus isn’t measuring up in the same way...

Please read the rest here: http://loop21.com/content/why-cant-congressional-black-caucus-be-more-tea-party

GOP Voter ID Tricks Nothing New

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:50:00 +0000

(Excerpt of my weekly column at The Loop 21)

For a Party that is concerned about winning the next presidential election, the GOP is sure making it hard for all people to vote at the polls. In Wisconsin, the latest state to enforce voter photo identification, the move is being criticized by The League of Women Voters who are working on a lawsuit against the state. According to the League, the new requirement doesn’t pass muster with the state constitution, nor the federal constitution. GOP politicians who drafted and helped pass the state bill claim they are in line with constitutional law.

Don't be alarmed. The Republicans claim of so called fraudulent voting has been going on for years. However, their push to do something about this "problem" has strengthened due to Obama's possible re-election in 2012.

So, it is without surprise that the fate of our democracy ultimately rests on Republicans pushing laws in Wisconsin, Kansas, Texas, Ohio, Missouri, and South Carolina -- just a few of the growing list of states attempting to mandate citizens to present photo ID in order to vote. Such a premise is belied by both facts and common sense.

First the facts: There is little to no evidence that voter fraud is being perpetuated on a wide scale.

Please read more here: http://theloop21.com/content/gop-voter-id-tricks-nothing-new

John S. Wilson

Founder and Editor-in-Chief

Connect with me:
john [at] policydiary [dot] com

A proud graduate of Virginia Commonwealth University, John is currently a Master's of Public Health candidate at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University where he is studying health policy & management. He is also a weekly contributor to The Loop 21, frequent contributor to theGrio, and founder of Policy Diary, a leading blog on health policy, management and reform.

Areas of interest include health care reform and education reform, particularly: access to health care, health care exchanges, and Medicare and Medicaid; in addition, charter schools, K-12 funding, and educational equality.

John is wholeheartedly determined to contribute to the rapidly changing dialogue in the health care and education communities. He has made continuous contributions by conducting research, publishing articles, interviewing practitioners and professors, and engaging students through on-campus organizations.

John's publishings have also appeared in fora such as: The Orlando Sentinel, The Daily Voice, Wiretap magazine, Black Web 2.0, The Daily Californian, NewMajority.com, Club Relaford, HipHopRepublican.com and Policy Net.

Previously, he served as a legislative fellow in the offices of the Honorable David Englin (D) and David Bulova (D) of the Virginia House of Delegates, in the 2009 and 2010 legislative sessions, respectively. John also interned in the office of the State Attorney General of Virginia, and completed a Governor's Fellowship in the Office of Gov. Bob McDonnell where he worked with the deputy secretary of health on projects regarding aging, HIT and disability.

GOP Lacks Education

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:03:00 +0000

As Michelle Bachmann wins the Ames Straw Poll and Governor Rick Perry enters the Presidential race, there remains one bit of policy unaccounted for: educational. Sure, it’s early in the race, and candidates care more about talking points than policy points, yet I remain concerned about the lack of discussion around educational policy. Could it be that education has gone the way of the tape cassette?

This could, in fact, be a positive issue. Let the Department of Education continue to do “its thing.” They don’t need to be politicized more than they already have. Then again, the fact that potential candidates, like Perry, promise to make Washington the least of one’s worries, my educational sensitivities wince a little.

If anything, Washington ought make us be concerned about education, of all things. They are needed to focus the future, which improves through education. Illiteracy runs rampant, and mathematics declines, yet potential Presidential nominees say nothing of education. Should we be surprised?

With a Texas Governor, who might as well be the textbook publisher of the year, and Michelle Bachmann, who cannot seem to understand history, education will surely suffer. In the whole lot of confused GOP candidates, it’s Romney who understands education best (read: better than the other two). Yet Romney has also been quite silent on the educational front.

I suspect, however, that the larger populace bears some brunt of the blame. We have directed our focus away from children and onto our childish, politicking ways. We are more concerned about speaking rhetorically than teaching rhetoric. We are more concerned about counting campaign contributions than teaching children how to count. We are more concerned about exposing misquoted material than teaching children how to use quotation marks.

Rebuilding America, whatever that means, requires more than job creation and economy boosting. While they are necessary aspects of the future, there is no future more precious than our children. If we want to demonstrate how much we care for the future, let us act like it and rebuild education in America. Rampant re-segregation of schools and slashed funding for lack of performance will not equate a better America.

For those of us on the Left, and those on the Right, let’s get our priorities straight. If we want to have a future, let’s improve education today. Education is not a political point, but a point of reality that will, undoubtedly, determine the future of our country. Perry and Bachmann don’t get it, I’m sure, but that doesn’t mean we can’t educate them on the finer points of the future.

About the Author

Connect:
Zac's articles on Policy Diary

Zac Bailes is an ordained Baptist minister with native Kentucky roots. A second-year student at the Wake Forest University School of Divinity, he earned his bachelor's in Philosophy at Georgetown College in Georgetown, KY.

Passionate about social justice, Zac is intimately involved with the Institute for Dismantling Racism, an organization which seeks to create an anti-racist identity and culture that affects individuals and institutions. As a white, straight male, he constantly seeks to engage and question his privilege. It is a journey that is continually traveled on his blog Libs and Cons, and in life.

The Debt Ceiling: Obama's Game to Lose

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:30:00 +0000

When it comes to the debt debate, Obama is both on the sidelines and overbearing. Huh? That's what the GOP, and funny enough, The NY Times want you to believe. But that just doesn't pass muster. In an article this morning, journalist Jackie Calmes says:

Having already deployed the heavy weapons from the presidential arsenal, including a national address on Monday night and a veto threat, Mr. Obama is in danger of seeming a spectator at one of the most critical moments of his presidency. Having been unable to get the grand bargain he wanted — a debt limit increase and up to $4 trillion in debt-reduction through spending cuts and taxes — Mr. Obama’s challenge now is to reassert himself in a way that produces the next-best outcome, or at least one that does no harm to his re-election hopes.

Meanwhile on Morning Joe Wednesday morning Carl Bernstein implicated that Obama was being overbearing and falling for the D.C. mindset of 'I'm the president and people will follow my lead.' What Ms. Calmes and Bernstein are misunderstanding is that: 1) the president's best leverage is time, and as the time winds down the GOP has no choice but to deal. 2) The longer the debt limit has dominated the discussion, the more voters have grown to trust Obama and Democrats to deal with it. Think that's a coincidence? The GOP have proven themselves to be feckless and have added nothing but drama to the debate.

Take a look at this Gallup poll done back in May:

Contrast those results with a Washington Post poll taken on July 26, just two months later, where "34 percent of those asked said they "strongly" trust Obama (14 percent say "somewhat") while 28 percent say the same about Republicans, with 11 percent saying "somewhat" for the GOP." So basically voters' trust in the GOP on the deficit ceiling dropped by 40%...in two months.

So what has Obama done right since May that turned around voters? In any negotiation it's important to know which side has time on their side. Obama knew from the beginning that time rested with him. After all, would the GOP really be prepared to let the nation fall into default and allow their party be seen as political and petty minded? Probably not. But then again, what if they were? What would that mean? If the GOP were that diabolical and beholden to the Tea Party (who represent the majority of those pushing there shouldn't be a deal) then Obama would have increased leverage with voters and with Congress.

Clearly, Obama doesn't want default. Interest rates will rise, U.S. treasuries will decrease, the U.S will lose its triple A rating for the first time in its history, and a host of other unintended consequences will come down the pike, the full extent will have yet to know.

However, the president knows two things: 1) He literally tried his all to avoid it, even going so far as to give the GOP everything they wanted -- a deal composed of no revenue increases (read: tax hikes or closing of tax loopholes - you know, the kind that allow GE to reap $14 billion in profit and receive a $19 million refund last year) and cuts to social programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Word also got out that the president was willing to raise the minimum age to receive Medicare from 65 to 67. That's something Democrats wouldn't even consider during the health care debate. Think about that.

2) The president knew the GOP, if they rejected such a sweet deal, would have gone overboard. By striving to get the perfect bill (one Grover Norquist, Rush Limbaugh, and other conservative Gods legislators pray to would bless) the American people, you know, the folks legislators are actually beholden to, would see the debacle for what it was -- political suicide by the GOP.

When you have Republicans like Tom Coburn (OK), one of the most conservative members of Congress who has held up bills by himself over a few million dollars, calling for a deal - the jig is up. Veteran GOP members see the writing on the wall, and it ain't pretty.

Don't Have a Job? Need Not Apply

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:32:00 +0000

What's that old saying about banks - 'They're only willing to lend money to those that don't need it.' Companies seem to be doing something similar. The NY Times found that more often than not companies specifically asked for the employed or recently employed to apply. So where does that leave the rest of us?

That is the message being broadcast by many of the nation’s employers, making it even more difficult for 14 million jobless Americans to get back to work.

A recent review of job vacancy postings on popular sites like Monster.com, CareerBuilder and Craigslist revealed hundreds that said employers would consider (or at least “strongly prefer”) only people currently employed or just recently laid off.

Worse than that is the fact there is little Congress can actually do about it. The article notes that being jobless isn't a protected class that affords standing for a discrimination suit, and discrimination is hard to prove regardless.

So why do companies ask for such a particular applicant? Mostly to winnow down the hiring pool. With so many Americans out of work recruiters are being inundated with applications.

Hispanics Reeling From Effects of the Recession

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:39:00 +0000

Hispanics hurt hardest during recession? According to the Pew Center, that's the unfortunate reality. The NY Times digs deep into the numbers, but as you can see they are far from pretty. While the recession officially ended in 2009, it would have been nice to see numbers that included 2010 considering black unemployment is still rising and as of now eclipses 20 percent.

These numbers should also give the GOP pause considering all 5 presidential candidates invited to speak at the National Council of La Raza's annual conference didn't show. Not one. Never mind that La Raza is the largest Hispanic organization in the country, or that the GOP recently started an initiative to increase the amount of Hispanics running for office.

That isn't to say that La Raza speaks for all Hispanics. Clearly, they do not. However if a GOP candidate were willing to speak at the conference and clarify their views on how their policies can strengthen Hispanic communities across the country, it couldn't hurt.

Government Is Working, Ask South Bronx

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:27:00 +0000

Good op-ed in the NY Times about what government can do to help revitalize urban neighborhoods.

The Bronx (and many neighborhoods of Brooklyn, Queens and Manhattan) stands as arguably the greatest public rebuilding achievement since World War II, a resurrection begun by Mayor Edward I. Koch and continued with great vigor by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg today.

The Bloomberg administration will, in the end, have poured more than $8 billion into building and preserved 165,000 apartments — more than enough to house the population of Miami.

Will Higher Taxes Kill Small Businesses?

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:13:00 +0000

House Speaker John Boehner surely thinks so. It's a fear he repeated last night in his speech following Pres. Obama's. Obama, as part of the debt ceiling negotiations, would like to end the Bush tax cuts in 2012 and raise tax rates for those making over $250,000 back to Clinton-era levels.

Boehner's claim, along with the GOP's, is that increasing tax rates during an economic downturn is foolhardy. First, because it'll recede economic growth. And second, it'll hurt the engine of recovery -- small business owners.

Notice Boehner's sleight of hand? No one is talking about raising taxes during an economic recovery. Obama is proposing to end the Bush tax cuts next year. Granted we do not know what the economy will look like in the future, but for Boehner to imply it'll take place now is disingenuous at best. So what about small business owners? Will they be crippled by this tax increase?

After all, Boehner's reasoning comes from the conservative theology that most new hires come from small businesses, and they in turn drive us back to recovery. There's little doubt small businesses contribute immensely to our country's economic growth. But I think Boehner has his facts mixed up.

So how much does the typical small business earn? Far less than $250,000. Back in 2008, McCain claimed the same thing Boehner is saying now: increasing taxes will kill small businesses. Obama said (then) that only 2% of small businesses would be affected (a claim he repeated last night). Politifact had the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center verify Obama's statement and found it to be true. Remember we're talking profits here (what small businesses make after paying employees, expenses, and debt), not revenues (total gross receipts).

Also, numerous studies have concluded that small business, while accounting for half of U.S. jobs, do not create more jobs than large firms (those with 500 or more workers). So it looks like Boehner is 0 for 2. Voters didn't buy when McCain said it, so why does the GOP believe the American people will fall for it now?

About the Author

John S. Wilson

Founder and Editor-in-Chief

Connect with me:
john [at] soeducated [dot] com
John's Articles on So Educated

Beyond the Debt Ceiling

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:33:00 +0000

The debt ceiling discussions have taken all our focus, and demand much of our legislative energy. Not only have we stopped focusing on each other, we’re rapidly losing sight of the other difficulties plaguing our country.

There’s Afganistan. Sure, the draw down is supposed to begin, but the reality is that our forces are deployed across the globe. The War Machine marches on, but our morality is left standing still.

There’s Healthcare. While we discuss the debt ceiling we discuss cutting healthcare for seniors. Simple fact is that millions of Americans could care less – they don’t have any healthcare to worry about losing.

There’s Immigration. The DREAM Act, secret detention facilities, and families torn apart still remain up for discussion.

I could continue, but I’m sure my point is made. These are issues, no doubt, but they are about people. There’s no such thing as an “asocial” issue. Every issue focuses upon people throughout government. We’ve lost sight of the humans that constitute our countries, and until we are willing to reclaim our humanity progress will seem a distant dream.

The debt ceiling must be raised, that’s an absolute fact. How we do that varies, and is, quite obviously, a source of great contention. Beyond the raising of the debt ceiling human lives await change, await hope. Our identity will not be judged based on whether or not we raise the debt ceiling, but what we do after that.

Will we bring all our troops home? Will we make peace during times of peace?
Will we bring healthcare to the least of these?
Will we remain faithful to immigrants? Will we make good on our promise of opportunity?

I hope, but I will not rest on my laurels. Let’s make change a reality. Let’s get to work.

About the Author

Connect:
Zac's articles on Policy Diary

HIV Treatment, Testing and the Debt Ceiling

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:29:00 +0000

By Brad Ogilve

The on-going saga about the budget, deficit and debt-ceiling seems to have everyone clamoring for their piece of the pie either in terms of programs, money or power. HIV/AIDS organizations are no exception. The big noise now coming out of “AIDS, Inc.” is that, on the first anniversary of the release of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy, President Obama is proposing some changes and cuts to Medicaid as part of the negotiations, and that these negotiations could “halt progress against HIV/AIDS”.

It’s hard for me to get too worked up about this, and to jump on any AIDS Advocacy/Activist bandwagon. The reason is simple: “AIDS, Inc” has become way too reliant on government funding and playing where the money is that it seems to have no vision of how to engage new ideas that may actually call for less funding, or to see other emerging trends that are problematic. When any politician says that, as a part of these negotiations, we need to look at wasteful spending and wasteful practices, a lot of HIV/AIDS bureaucracy comes to mind. Basically, anything that calls for treatment and counseling gets the activists attention; anything related to testing or questions the system gets neglected.

Some examples:

A recent training/lobbying event held in DC to support funding for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program received a lot of underwriting from the very same pharmaceutical companies that would get the money. “AIDS, Inc.’s” activist wing was silent on the funding.
HIV-testing programs are being cut in different parts of the country. Recommendations for testing are to go to an MD, or to the ER. Both of these are extremely expensive and even unreasonable options, but the option of a $10 test that someone can take at home remains mired in bureaucracy. Again, the activists are silent, but when the thought of going to the ER for treatment comes up, the shrieking begins.
A recent study found that teen girls with HIV were 7 times more likely to get pregnant after knowing their status. Did this really need to be studied using public funds? And, more problematic, this should call into question the effectiveness of all this counseling for people with HIV that people say is needed, but again the activists are silent.
A study found that putting HIV-negative people on HIV-medication decreases HIV-transmission rates. The fact that US universities ran this study with public funds but in Uganda and Kenya reinforces a global message that the world can be our guinea pig. But here in the US, we can’t even give people the more affordable option of self-testing because we can’t handle it.

The big players in the HIV/AIDS arena have become so entrenched that simple connections cannot be made. Instead, like the little chick in the nest, they only seem to be able to scream for more. And, sadly, these are also the only one’s that the Obama White House on AIDS is listening to. So, Obama is right to say we need to all learn to do more with less, but unfortunately he is surrounded by people who don’t speak that language. Until there is some serious talk about some of the fundamental flaws of 3 decades of "spend it or lose it", and chasing the virus with treatment and the stigma that is "identity-driven" policy, I maintain that too much money has been a part of the problem and fostered a co-dependent relationship that is unhealthy and downright deadly. Or to put it another way, as long as the only thing that "AIDS Inc." seems to scream about is treatment while committed to maintaining their turf on testing, I say what we are seeing now has been in the works for years.

Your Health Info is Going Online

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:49:00 +0000

At least if you live in the UK it is. A pilot National Health Service (NHS) project will start storing patient records 'in the cloud,' meaning medical personnel and patients will have full access to it over the Internet. According to The Daily Telegraph:

Flexiant said that the project “could be used to integrate all phases of health-care treatment, from assisted living to primary and secondary healthcare, so that the same data can be used throughout”. The company said that it would allow services to be accessed from a range of devices, including computers linked to the web and mobile phones, but that “multiple identification methods” could be used.

Clearly security will be a primary criticism and ongoing concern of such a system. To confirm identities the system will use a range of protocols, including "mobile phone identity checking, as well checks through Facebook or the Paypal secure online payment system." Hmm...not sure about the Paypal or Facebook defense. Too often both are about as helpful as a comatose arthritic German Shepherd. But mobile phone two factor authentication is pretty nice. Pretty much works like this: enter password info to log into a site, and before you can gain access you are sent an additional password by text message or phone call to a predetermined number. So the scammer would need both your initial password and your phone at the same exact time.

I'm intrigued to see the development of this.

3 Reasons Michelle Bachmann Isn't Gonna Make It Out of Iowa

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:19:00 +0000

Yesterday I got into a little Twitter debate (as I am wont to do) about Michelle Bachmann's chances of earning either the GOP nomination or being asked to come aboard as VP. My fellow debater presented some good analysis and even was kind enough to point me to some interesting stats Nate Silver had blogged about, namely that Bachmann's favorability rating in Iowa is high, second highest in fact, and she's also the most popular second choice.

All of that would mean a whole lot - that is, if we weren't talking about Iowa. There's nothing wrong with Iowa, of course, but the caucus is dominated by evangelical voters that do not have as much sway in other caucuses. It's the reason Huntsmann is skipping Iowa altogether. When is the last time you heard of a major presidential candidate completely skipping one of the initial caucuses? Huntsmann is betting on two things: (1) Being a Mormon doesn't play well in corn country (and it's not a slam dunk nationally for that matter, with 22 percent of voters saying they wouldn't support a Mormon), and (2) he'll have enough money and momentum (they usually go hand in hand during primaries) to weather the storm. And I think he's right.

As far as Bachmann is concerned, she should downplay Iowa and pretend to be the underdog. To a small extent she still is as she trails Romney by 1-2%, according to various polls. A Bachmann win would make history - first woman, and first Tea Party candidate to win a caucus. But a Bachmann 'upset' could provide some well-needed wind beneath her sails. Could it spark what my fellow debater expressed was a strong likelihood she would get the VP nomination? I don't think so for three reasons.

(1) Bachmann isn't as popular as she seems. Even in MN (her own state, and among registered Republicans) only 35 percent feel she is qualified to become president.

(2) Bachmann's negative ratings will increase. The favorability ratings Silver used were from a poll of Iowa voters, that's Bachmann's bread and butter. But how does she fare on a national scale? Hard to say. I haven't really found any reliable polling data on her national favorability. It's surely lower than Palin (who's around 50/50), however I think it will increase as time goes on.

(3) Bachmann has one core constituency: evangelicals. Yes, she appeals to the Tea Party, some independents, and female voters. However, evangelicals is where she has a competitive advantage over her opponents. And even that can be widdled away at if Romney or the frontrunner treads carefully. Endorsements from leading Christian organizations, Mike Huckabee, and others could pull that support elsewhere.

Lastly, Bachmann has a knack for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. May seem simple. After all, politicians talk so much these days that every one has said a whopper or two. But one day Bachmann is trying to woo black voters by pointing out how high black unemployment has been under Obama (which I covered previously), and the next day she wants to repeal minimum wage laws because she thinks that'll end unemployment. Doesn't make sense. As the Washington Post covered, no presidential candidate - no matter how conservative - has ever advocated minimum wage repeal.

4.4 million people earn the minimum wage, and while roughly half are under 25 many are working second and third jobs. The working poor would be affected the most, and with that minorities of all hues. How Bachmann didn't put that together I'm not sure. And as for her age-old (and perennially debunked) reasoning for repealing minimum wage laws - they kill jobs - it's been proven false. Research by John Schmitt and David Rosnick at the Center for Economic and Policy Research showed that increases in the minimum wage does not cause unemployment.

GOP & Black Voters

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:34:00 +0000

I ran into this interesting comment about Michelle Bachmann mentioning courting black voters (yes, that Michelle Bachmann) at a recent campaign event. I thought the larger context, not just Bachmann's intentions, were very interesting. So I'll start with there and get back to Bachmann and the comment a little later.

For starters - it wouldn't be that hard for the GOP to woo 20-30% of black voters. Seriously, I'm not kidding. Yes, Democrats average around 90% of the black vote but that could change if the GOP did what they seem to find so abhorrent: act like they want blacks to vote for them. Seems simple but it's true. Blacks aren't a monolith, and I would wager typically vote for Democrats for a number of reasons: affinity for the party due to their upbringing; particular interest in the candidate and their take on issues; affinity for a candidate who has experience with their community and the social issues that mean so much to them; and finally, a candidate and frankly a party that supports other minority candidates.

So if the GOP looked at that list and were able to scratch off 75% I can almost guarantee that they would see a surge in black voter support. A typical retort to this premise of mine is 'But that's pandering!' Nope, not really. It's only pandering in the sense that a politician should care about everyone who resides in his/her community and be fully acquainted with the issues important to that particular constituency. So you see I'm just asking that they merely do their job. Nothing extra. No overtime needed.

Now back to Bachmann. The blog writer said the following:

If she [Bachmann] is instead making the point that Obama's liberal policies don't work, are not working in minority communities, thats the winner argument. If she wants to hit the homerun, she'll need to take it to the next level and spell out concretely HOW Obama's policies are not working for these communities (not difficult). If she does that convincingly in front of black/latino audiences and does it effectively, she will become a breakout T-Party candidate with a real potential to peel critical percentages of the minority vote away from Obama.

I've argued many times that the GOP and the conservative movement writ large consistently blow its opportunity to effectively communicate with blacks as a political constituency. Bachmann has the chance to redeem this error. The metaphorical phrase "Only Nixon could go to China" refers to the ability of a politician with an unassailable reputation among their supporters for representing and defending their values to take actions that would draw their criticism and even opposition if taken by someone without those credentials. Its possible that only Bachmann can take the T-Party message to black America and win with it.

Gingrich has a facile but dangerous attack line; Obama is the food stamp president, Gingrich says, whereas he wants to be the paycheck president."Think of the social catastrophe of 41% of a community not being able to find a job. But we have to have the courage to walk into that neighborhood, to talk to that preacher, to visit that small business, to talk to that mother. And we have to have a convincing case that we actually know how to create jobs....I will bet you there is not a single precinct in this state in which the majority will pick for their children food stamps over paychecks,'

Deployed correctly, this has the makings of an effective attack, notwithstanding the fact that it undercuts itself a bit by playing off imagery of blacks as food stamp recipients. Like Bachmann, Gingrich will have to take this to the next level and articulate the HOW of this argument. He doesn't have the credibility of a Bachmann making that case, but he does have the intellectual heft to articulate the argument properly.

This is very smart take away from Bachmann's statement and one her campaign (as well as the GOP) should take notice of.

Should Rep. Giffords Resign?

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:54:00 +0000

This op-ed in CNN today is very interesting. A professor suggests Rep. Giffords should resign because her constituents deserve representation. It intrigues me what the response to this will be for a number of reasons, most of all because when I expressed my thoughts on this issue back in Jan. I was labeled 'soulless,' 'a republican,' (which is far worse in some folks' books), and pretty much dismissed (see video below). Yes, the timing was sensitive, that I understand. It had only been a couple of weeks after Gifford was tragically shot and nearly killed. But that was the point of my writing in the first place: We need to to have a protocol on how to deal with members of Congress who are medically incapacitated before passions run high and, quite frankly, all hell has broken loose.

A democracy can't afford to have its leadership hamstrung, not even by tragedy. Congress should show some leadership and create a protocol.

NCCA Needs to Make Coaches Pay

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 14:46:00 +0000

The college sports world was rocked over the weekend upon hearing that Jim Tressel, coach of The Ohio State University football team, had resigned. Due to his actions in not reporting unethical behavior among five of his players and lying about when he knew what, Tressel decided to hightail it and run before the NCAA started handing out sanctions and asking questions he would rather not answer. How upstanding of Coach Tressel, a former author of two books on faith and integrity. Maybe he was planning to be a case study in his third book. He'll have plenty of time on his hands to write it.

If Tressel's behavior could be attributed to a single character flaw residing in a single big time college sports coach, the issue would be minor at best. But that isn't the case. The pressure brought to bear on Tressel, who who had the third most wins (106) and the second highest win percentage (88.2%) in Ohio State's history, was caused primarily by two things: people fed up with college programs turning a blind eye to inappropriate athlete behavior; and advocacy groups and sports fans angry at the NCCA for dishing out slaps on the wrists to rulebreakers like burnt hot dogs at a bad Memorial Day cookout. The NCAA had yet to rule in Tressel's case, and to their credit, sports journalists were anticipating the that they would hand out a bevy of sanctions and conduct an exhaustive review going all the way back to Tressel's years at Youngstown State University, his previous coaching gig.

Few relationships are as complicated as the one which exists between the black community and big time college sports programs. On one hand, it is these programs, particularly football and basketball, which grant hundreds of black athletes full-tuition scholarships (to universities that would otherwise be unaffordable for the majority of them) and coveted media attention that can propel star athletes to the pro ranks, bringing forth millions of dollars in salary and endorsements; yet on the other hand, there is the parasitic nature of these programs which far too often break nearly any rule as they track and “recruit” kids younger and younger every year. After athletes are enrolled they are hustled through a broken system where the priority is on university coffers and corporate balance sheets not athletes. Of course in Tressel's case it wasn't so much a recruiting problem that brought his downfall as it was turning a blind eye to the clear and convincing NCAA violations his players were racking up year after year.

While the two problems are different, they stem from the same mindset: college athletes are disposable and their value is strictly appraised based upon their performance. But a coach is not just a mini sports agent shuffling college athletes from an unpaid forum in which to exhibit their talents to a paid one (the pro ranks). Instead, a coach should help model appropriate behavior to these young men and ensure they follow the rules and get their education. Or is that asking too much?

In Tressel's case and unfortunately too many coaches like him, it is. Sports Illustrated (SI) has uncovered numerous violations among Tressel players dating back to the 1990's. In one particular case “he claimed not to know that his star quarterback had received a car and more than $10,000 from a school trustee and his associates -- even though it was later established in court documents that Tressel had told the player to go see the trustee.” In a more cynical case, when Tressel was an assistant coach at Ohio State back in the 1980's he helped run their summer camp. Most of the kids who attended weren't Ohio State material but a few were clearly prospects. At the end of camp a raffle was conducted and kids would buy tickets hoping to win cleats and Ohio State gear. Turns out, according to a fellow assistant back then, Tressel would rig the raffle so that the recruits Ohio State wanted would win. Not only is this a possible N.C.A.A. Violation, it's Jim Tressel at his best. His assistant tells SI, "in the morning he would read the Bible with another coach. Then, in the afternoon, he would go out and cheat kids who had probably saved up money from mowing lawns to buy those raffle tickets. That's Jim Tressel."

NCAA infractions plague all big time college sports programs. A recent review by Inside Higher Education found “53 of the 120 universities in the NCAA's top competitive level, the Bowl Subdivision, were found by the Division I Committee on Infractions to have committed major rules violations from 2001 to 2010.” It's a pervasive problem the NCAA has yet to properly address. That same review also uncovered that “fifteen of the 64 major cases involving Bowl Subdivision universities from 2001 to 2010 pertained to academic fraud or other academic violations.” And who is hurt the most? It isn't the coaches. Sure, fans of Jim Tressel are crying crocodile tears for him now but how long will it be before he is on the sidelines of another big time coaching program? Not long. He'll be coaching again before Ohio State comes off their sanctions, that's for sure.

If the NCAA is serious about reform and academic honesty where athletes are concerned they will make coaches and their staffs more accountable. Don Wilson, one of my brothers, recently shared a great idea with me: have sanctions applied to the university and the coach. If he leaves the sanctions go with him like a scarlet letter. And I'll go a step further. George Dohrmann, a writer at SI, was on to something a little over a year ago. Taking a hint from Wall Street, he suggested that college athletic programs use clawback clauses in coaches contracts. The clawback clauses “enable companies to recover compensations such as bonuses for a variety of reasons, including the uncovering of a scandal or if certain performance goals are not reached, said Dorhrmann. By forcing college coaches to own up to their misdeeds the NCAA will restore the integrity and faith in the process that existed before the sponsorships and TV contracts. Maybe Coach Tressel could be the first ginny pig. Now that's something he's worthy of writing about.

About the Author

Connect:
john [at] policydiary.com

A proud graduate of Virginia Commonwealth University, John is currently a Master's of Public Health candidate at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University where he is studying health policy & management. He is also a weekly contributor to theloop21.com, and founder of So Educated (www.soeducated.com), an education policy and reform blog focused on widening the debate surrounding education and empowering parents and teachers - frequently the least thought of.

John is wholeheartedly determined to contribute to the rapidly changing dialogue in the health care and education communities. He has made continuous contributions by conducting research, publishing articles, interviewing practitioners and professors, and engaging students through on-campus organizations.

John's publishings have appeared in fora such as: The Orlando Sentinel, The Daily Voice, Frum Forum (formerly New Majority) Wiretap magazine, Black Web 2.0, The Daily Californian, Club Relaford, HipHopRepublican.com and Policy Net. In addition, his commentary has been dissected on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, CNN, Think Progress, Yahoo News, and Mediaite.

Previously, he served as a legislative fellow in the offices of the Honorable David Englin (D) and David Bulova (D) of the Virginia House of Delegates, in the 2009 and 2010 legislative sessions, respectively. John also interned in the office of the State Attorney General of Virginia, and completed a Governor's Fellowship in the Office of Gov. Bob McDonnell where he worked with the deputy secretary of health on projects regarding aging, HIT and disability.

The Quest for HBCUs to be Heard

john@policydiary.com (John S. Wilson) — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:30:00 +0000

By Andre Serrette

Over the past decade or so, I have read numerous articles and arguments about whether or not historically black colleges and universities are necessary or even relevant in today’s society. From the perspective of the black community, HBCUs are extremely relevant, as they still produce the most black professionals that exist in the country today along with giving black students a strong sense of pride about their heritage.

On the contrary, much of the non-black community feels that HBCUs are not necessary anymore, as there is now more of an equal opportunity to get into all colleges and universities in addition to the fact that many of the top black students in the country choose to go to the elite schools rather than attend an HBCU. The views on HBCUs seem to be polarizing more and more as time passes. I was asked by a very well-respected individual and professor in the HBCU academic arena, Marybeth Gasman, "What can HBCUs do to get more of a voice?" As it stands now, they do not have much of a voice because they are not respected as much as other colleges and universities. HBCUs are going to have to earn more respect because it will not be given to them under the status quo.

There have been some incredible individuals that have graduated from HBCUs, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Oprah Winfrey, Spike Lee, Thurgood Marshall, Booker T. Washington, and W.E.B. DuBois. However, that is where much of the problem lies. Outside of the sports and entertainment industries, the famous alumni that we are quick to identify and use to assist in the HBCU relevancy argument graduated many decades ago when racism was a part of the norm in society and the opportunity to attend a predominantly white college or university was relatively small.

The famous alumni that have graduated in more recent decades are usually actors, rappers, singers, or professionals in sports. It does not help the argument regarding the relevancy of HBCUs when most of the more recent famous alumni are all entertainers in some sort of capacity and it certainly does not help when the more prominent black individuals in today’s society who are not entertainers did not go to HBCUs. If you do not believe me, think of some prominent black non-entertainers and or research where they went to college. I can assure you that almost everyone you think of did not go to an HBCU.

I have never been a huge fan of collegiate rankings, but look at the rankings for the top-rated HBCUs. For the sake of this article, look at the U.S. News rankings, which usually tends to be the most prestigious when it comes to a collegiate ranking guide. According to the U.S. News top HBCU rankings, the top three colleges, in order, are Spelman, Howard, and Morehouse. Once again, these are the top three black colleges. However, look at them compared to all of the other colleges and universities. Spelman is the #1 black college, yet it is ranked #59 on the rankings for the best liberal arts colleges and Morehouse is ranked #127 on the same list while Howard is #104 on the best national universities list. Compared to other HBCUs, these schools are the best of the best, but compared to other colleges and universities, these HBCUs are very, very average in the eyes of others, which also means most of the other HBCUs are not even taken seriously. And I will not even begin to list the retention and graduation rates of some HBCUs along with some of the grade point averages and test scores of the incoming classes.

While it is extremely admirable that HBCUs give underprivileged students who are not as prepared an opportunity to advance their education (similar to state colleges and universities), the standards cannot be so low to where they are not even respectable anymore when compared to the standards of non-HBCUs (the statistics are almost comical in many cases). The top HBCUs should not be on the same plateau as a state college or university and there has to be at least one or two HBCUs that are among the elite when compared to other non-HBCUs. They must reach a level to where they attract the elite black students throughout the country and to a point where a student with a 3.7 GPA is not offered a full scholarship and is not one of the best students in the incoming class, but is still vigorously competing with the other applicants to even get into the schools. They must reach a level to where they are consistently producing Rhodes Scholars, Fulbright Scholars, and other top students that show the schools are not only admitting these students, but grooming them to be extremely high achievers. Having one or two schools that are elite will prove that HBCUs are capable of competing at a high level and is the only way that the others will listen and respect what other HBCUs have to say and offer.

We take so much pride in saying HBCUs produce the most black professionals. While that may be true, it is not necessarily because we are the best. If the majority of black students go to HBCUs, it is a given that HBCUs will produce the most black professionals. In addition, most companies and universities pride themselves on being as diverse as possible. Being diverse in today’s society is similar to "going green"... it’s the "in-thing"... it’s the thing to be. If you are a company and you are looking to bring in more blacks, are you going to search a regular college where the black student population is probably less than 5% of the entire student body or would you go directly to the source and search a college where 99% of the student population is black?

Let me conclude by saying that my alma mater is the University of Southern California and I received an absolutely incredible education from there. During my undergraduate and graduate studies there, I had some of the best professors and mentors imaginable. I was a part of track and field team for four fantastic years, and I was even the captain of the team during my senior year. For all six years that I attended the school, I was also a part of Athletes in Action, which is a Christian ministry geared towards athletes. From the day I first stepped foot on the campus until today, the school has done nothing but embrace me and let it be known that I am a Trojan forever. It is almost to the point where I bleed cardinal and gold, which are the school colors. However, while I do not regret my decision to attend USC for my undergraduate coursework, I do wish I would have followed my original plan to attend Howard University for my graduate coursework. I will not go into detail about why I wish I would have gone there (I’ll save that for a different day), but I say that because I do not want anyone to feel like I am belittling HBCUs. I wrote this because I am challenging HBCUs to earn the respect... to be heard... to be better... we can do better!