FLYWEIGHT MAINSTREAM PRESS! Is Sonia Sotomayor a lightweight? A flyweight newspaper asked: // link // print // previous // next //
MONDAY, JUNE 8, 2009
Is Harold O. Levy the rational animal: Man [sic] is the rational animal, Aristotle is said to have said. In fairness, he hadnt read the column which sits atop todays New York Times op-ed page.
The piece was penned by Harold O. Levy, former chancellor of New York Citys schools. Reading the piece, we got an idea why Levy served just two years in that post.
The column appears beneath a misleading headline: Five Ways to Fix Americas Schools. In fact, Levy is talking about ways to improve higher education, as his first paragraph makes rather clear. Well assume this is an editors erroras was the decision to print this column at all.
In his first paragraph, Levy says he wants to offer a few radical ideas to improve matters in higher education. (In this case, a few means five.) What follows is Levys fifth idea, presented in full. No, we arent making this up:
Lets see if were following Levy here. According to Levy, we need to do a better job preparing students for college! Public schools should do a better job. But parents could do better too!
To describe this as twaddle would be too kind. To refer to it as an idea leaves us just this side of insanity. Yet this is one of the five radical ideas Levy presents today. And the New York Times thought his piece was so sharp that it sits at the top of todays op-ed page. Its headline spans four columns (out of five). It contains the pages lone illustration. (For the record, Levys first four ideas are quite underwhelming too.)
Regarding that second question, well take a guess: A dollop of High Manhattan Courtesy may have been involved here. (We picture Charlie Rose pretending that this is the worlds most fascinating idea.) But then, this education piece in this mornings Post is a fairly weak piece of cheese too.
If a student fails Virginias statewide tests in reading and math, should he get credit for passing anyway, based on a portfolio of his work through the year? In some cases, that might make perfect sense. In other cases, this could become a transparent attempt to avoid the (rather unfortunate) logic of high-stakes testing.
Its hard to tell whats happening in Virginia, in part because reporter Michael Alison Chandler never tells us what percentage of Virginias students are now getting passed in this manner. (He only gives us absolute numbers. These numbers doubled last yearand state officials predict another jump this year, Chandler says.) But do the states procedures make basic sense? This passage is not reassuring:
Gack. If the state has created a sensible year-end test of its third-grade math curriculum, it shouldnt matter if a child passed a quiz on some topic or concept at some earlier point in the year. In all candor, it doesnt really matter if the child briefly understood some topic in October if he no longer understands it in June. On a sensible test, students will be required to get a sensible proportion of test items right, displaying a sensible degree of mastery of the material. Except in unusual cases, wed have to say this: If a student doesnt know the material in June, its hard to see why it should matter if he managed to pass a bunch of short-term quizzes at various points in the year.
Is Chandler describing a sensible procedureor is this just the latest scam? In a world where Levy counts as the rational animal, trust usyoull never find out. On several key points, though, we all can agree. We need to do a better job preparing students for the fourth grade. Public schools should do a better job. But parents could do better too!
FLYWEIGHT MAINSTREAM PRESS: Even as it sinks into oblivion, the mainstream press, at its highest levels, is often stunningly unintelligent. Consider this Bloggingheads discussiona discussion which was prominently featured by the New York Times on its web site this Sunday.
At the Times web site, tape of the discussion appeared beneath a striking headline. Lightweight Sotomayor? the Times headline said. This headline was prominently featured on the sites front page. It also appeared above the video if you foolishly linked and watched.
Presumably, it would always be slightly strange to ask if a person with Sotomayors credentials is, in fact, a lightweight. It takes a special tone-deafness to keep pushing this framework when the (distinguished) person in question comes from an ethnic minority which has been sneered at in such ways for decades.
But to see how dumb your dying press corps will be, even at its highest levels, you have to consider the groaning discussion which generated that headline. Its stunning to think that the New York Times would link to such abject nonsense at all. It takes a very unintelligent paper to present it beneath such a headline.
The discussion involved a pair of youthful pundits: Matt Yglesias (Center for American Progress) and James Poulos (Postmodern Conservative). In the segment displayed by the Times, Yglesias quickly says this: Conservatives have gone after Sotomayor on a lot of sort of really tangential notions, including an idea that somehow she is dumb.
Poulos, a rather callow lad, soon offered this acknowledgment: Obviously, shes sort of credentialed in the right ways and hasnt made a fool of herself on the bench. He then said that, Gosh, if Earl Warren was allowed to be on the Court, then Sotomayor was probably ready for prime time too. But then, the young flyweight offered this thought. It formed his central critique:
That last comment was an attempt to mention Sotomayors legal rulings. Five of her rulings have been reviewed by the Court; three have been overturned. (Those are very small numbers.)
It would be hard to offer a dumber analysis than the own Poulos dished. For what its worth, we have reviewed Sotomayors statement that day, and we dont think its clear that she meant to say inspiration. She seems to be saying that she has aspired, throughout her life, to be as good a person as her mother. (Well agree that her meaning wasnt perfectly clear on this one very tiny point.)
That said, it would be hard to overstate how silly Poulos analysis actually was. One might wonder why Bloggingheads would choose such an unprepared lad for such a discussion in the first place. But once the discussion had been recorded, why on earth would our most important newspaper recommend such nonsense to its readers? Worse: How foolish must that newspaper be to run this abject nonsense beneath that insulting headline?
Rarely has The Cult of the Offhand Comment offered such a moronic analysis. But so what? The New York Times thought you should ponder it wellthat you should ask yourself if that single word marks Sotomayor as a lightweight.
This is the way your press corps keeps behaving at its upper end as it sinks beneath the waves.
But then, we came to this abject nonsense after reading this analysis piece in Sundays Washington Post. In this report, Jerry Markon attempts to examine Sotomayors complex approach to race, discrimination and the law. In particular, he considers eight rulings which help inform the debate over whether her ethnic identity would influence her opinions on the court.
Marksons work struck us as very weak. Examples:
But good God! We sank to the floor when Markon tried to discuss a particular casethe discrimination case which has attract[ed] perhaps the most attention in legal circles, he says. In this case, Sotomayors dissent did favor a group of minority plaintiffsand her dissent was blunt! This looks like a perfect case for examining charges of bias! Surely, this is the case where Markon will get right to his subjects soul:
Wow! Surely, this is the perfect case! Does Sotomayor follow her ethnic biases, thereby favoring minorities? In this case, she offered a blunt dissentsaying "it is plain to anyone reading the Voting Rights Act" that her view was right! The ladys claim was perfectly clear. But so was Markons haplessness as he proceeded from there:
Good God. If Markon simply showed us the Voting Rights language in question, we could judge Sotomayors claim for ourselves. Instead, he took a familiar route. He quoted a conservative saying Sotomayor was wrongand a White House spokesman saying different. What does the actual Voting Rights language say? Markon doesnt bother with that. (He also glosses the fact that Sotomayor was part of a fairly narrow 8-5 split in this particular case.)