HOW EQUAL IS EQUAL?

There is a generally held myth that is very hurtful to those Americans who find themselves earning incomes in the lower two fifths of all earners. The myth is that America has a meaningful level of economic mobility that justifies it being considered a nation of equal opportunity. The myth is sustained by the relatively small number of cases that can be used to support it. That is, some poor people do become rich. But let us look at this myth and see what some of the numbers indicate is the real situation.

One thing a person who looks into this issue of persistent poverty finds out is that education is central to any chance at breaking out of the “poverty trap.” The economist, Joseph E. Stigliz,¹ reports that in the US, there is a stronger relation not only between parents' educational level and their children's educational level, but their economic and “socio-emotional” outcomes than in just about any other advanced nation. As I have already reported in this blog, the level of inequality is higher in the US than these other nations and this strong relation between parental education and their off-springs' success bodes that future inequality will only get worse. Of course, all of this brings into question: given the current economic conditions in the US, just how much opportunity exists?

Stiglitz adopts a definition of equality as a national economy in which 20% of those in the bottom fifth will not see their offspring escape that lowest level of income. The nation that comes closest to this ideal figure is Denmark, where only 25% of the poorest see their children remain poor. Reputed class-conscious Britain can boast a 30% figure. In America the figure is 42% or, stated more positively, 58% of those in the bottom fifth will see their children escape the bottom quintile level of income. But before you believe this is still a good rate in bettering their lot, let me point out that about two-thirds of those born into the bottom fifth will still live their lives in the bottom 40% of wage earners – those represent households making roughly $40,000 a year or less. These figures indicate an economy that does not provide much equal opportunity as measured either in absolute terms or as compared to other advanced economies.

Given these figures, what should civics students make of them? The first point a civics teacher would attempt to make clear is that ever since the nation's origin, we have had a concern for equality. But this promotion of equality was never one that reflected what would become associated with Marxian thought. That is, our support of equality had more to do with equal condition before the law and equality in terms of economic opportunity. It did not set equal results – people generally living within the same economic and social standing – as the aim. It simply set out to strive for a social reality in which everyone had an equal shot at making it financially and the government would treat everyone the same. For example, if you break the law you should be punished in similar fashion to everyone else regardless of how rich you are or whom you might know. This ideal is so ingrained as a cultural belief that chances are a teacher would need only to remind students of this national bias in order to provide context for what would follow. Then comes the question: what exactly does it mean to have equal opportunity? And once that is determined, how do you know a nation provides equal opportunity? The standard stated above – full equal opportunity exists when only 20% of those in the bottom quintile in income will have their children remain in the bottom quintile – is provided by the Economic Mobility Project. This project is funded by the Pew Charitable Trust and is well respected. But students might be given the challenge of devising their own way of measuring economic opportunity. They might take into account what people in general consider equal opportunity to be by devising and administering an appropriate survey questionnaire to adults they know. The next stage in an inquiry might have students apply their adopted or devised measure to American realities and see how much Americans actually believe, as indicated by the levels of economic mobility, in equal opportunity. This can be analyzed by looking at what really materializes in terms of both economic conditions in the US and how public policy functions in any national effort to establish equal opportunity. Are we a nation that simply pays lip service to this ideal? How have we done historically; have we been better in providing equal opportunity in the past than today, and does existing governmental policy really address providing opportunity or does it offer counterproductive effects? For example, recently Rush Limbaugh, a famous conservative pundit, argued that welfare provides disincentives to people working and that, therefore, acts to inhibit meaningful opportunity. A simple “Google” review indicates that a lot of scholastic and journalistic interest has been dedicated to this very controversial assertion. Again, these concerns can be used to provide questions students can research.

What we do know is that poverty rates have increased since the beginning of our most recent recession. We also know that median wage has decreased during these last few years. And we know that the fate of the middle class in America has been deteriorating since the seventies. The question of whether our nation is living up to our commitment to establish and maintain meaningful economic opportunity has become and continues to be a vibrant concern. Our students should become proficient in talking and deliberating about this important issue. As a federalist based system, equality is a vital and legitimizing ideal for how we organize our governance.

1Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today's divided society endangers our future. New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company.

WHAT SHOULD BE SAID

This posting will be relatively short. I basically want to review the evolving thinking concerning the rights contained within the First Amendment concerning free speech. I have, in previous postings, used this right and our view of it to demonstrate one of the points I have emphasized in this blog: we have moved in our constitutional thinking from one of obligation and duty to one of self-serving utility. That is, our original ideal view of our governmental system was the formulation of a federated union in which we all had equal standing, but the union called on us to be part of a dynamic collective formed to attain a certain list of goals. Summarily, the goals were to achieve a more perfect union – see Preamble of the agreement.

Michael J. Sandel¹ identifies a set of quotes that capture the original sense and the more modern view as expressed by constitutional experts. The more traditional quotes are:

• “[T]ime has upset many fighting faiths … [and] the best of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” Oliver Wendell Holmes
• “[The founders believed that in] government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary … that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.” Louis D. Brandeis
• “[The First Amendment] is to give to every voting member of the body politic the fullest possible participation in the understanding of those problems with which the citizens of a self-governing society must deal.” Alexander Meiklejohn

As opposed to the following:

• The more modern focus emphasizes “the source of the speech in the self, and make[s] the choice of the speech by the self the crucial factor in justifying protection.” C. Edwin Baker
• “[N]o other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests.” John Marshall Harlan
• “[I]t is nevertheless often true one man's vulgarity is another's lyric … .” John Marshall Harlan (Part of the opinion that found the conviction of a person wearing a tee shirt brandishing the term, “F**K THE DRAFT” – without the asterisks – unconstitutional.)
• “[The purpose of the First Amendment is] to assure self-fulfillment for each individual … .” Police of the City of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 96.
• “[Freedom of speech is] intrinsic to individual dignity … [I]n a democracy like our own, in which the autonomy of each individual is accorded equal and incommensurate respect [freedom of speech needs to be protected].” William J. Brennan
• [I]deas which are not a product of individual choice are entitled to less First Amendment protection.” Byron R. White

The shift between these two sets of quotes reflects a profound change in how freedom of speech is seen – how it is defended and how it is seen to function in our political dealings. The older view, captured in the first set of quotes, sees free speech from the perspective that speech and communication need to be free in order to protect and advance the integrity of a political system based on participation. Speech is not only a chosen course of action; it is an obligation and duty each citizen has. In contrast, the second, more modern view, not only softens the sense of obligation, but also attributes this freedom as a reflection of our right to be the individual we have chosen to be. We even get the sense, from White's quote above, that we have an obligation to be reflective in our efforts to formulate the person we are to be.

Students of civics should consider these opposing views. This issue concerning speech and our collective ideals, by which we define the constitutional protection that is extended to speech, serves to represent the whole question: is freedom a matter of one being free to do what one should do or is it a matter of being free to do what one wants to do? Is freedom of speech the right and obligation to participate in the political controversies that confront the polity at a given time or is it the right to express ourselves in whatever way we want or to consume whatever anyone else wants to express? This includes any salacious, hateful, or seditious materials. Of course, these positions are not mutually exclusive in all cases. At times, one can see that wanting to consume certain expressive materials does not interfere with one's obligation to be a participating citizen. But there are cases when these ideals can work at cross purposes. And it is in those cases that students can determine where their positions lie. For example, take the case of the offensive tee shirt cited above. A classroom study of the censorship policies associated with World War I could hypothetically juxtapose a case in which an anti-war advocate wears such a shirt or carries the message on a placard in a demonstration. Students can write a story in which they work out a scenario as to what would happen to such a person. The story would have to depict accurately the laws, the dispositions of the courts, and public opinion of that time. All of this could be followed by a discussion about what the person wanted to say and what the person should have said. Perhaps some students would conclude they are both the same and some other students might conclude that the message would be different and should be different.

1Sandel, M. J. (1996). Democracy's discontent: America in search of a public philosophy. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.