Tweet
'Nature vs, nurture' used to be a philosophical topic. These days, it's a political topic. Bear with me, on this one.
A few months back, I happened across a podcast from Mike Rowe, best known as the TV reality star in 'Dirty Jobs', as well as the narrator on a number of documentary/reality shows like 'Deadliest Catch'. He is engaging, personable, and superb as a host of these shows, with an exceptional voice and speaking tyle.
Rowe is also a huge advocate of education in the trades, as an alternative to careers requiring a four year degree... and for this, I commend him. I believe he is absolutely correct; not everyone is suitable for a formal academic career, and trade education can often lead to good jobs with surprisingly high remuneration, as anyone who has recently hired a plumber or electrician may be able to attest. He has testified in front of Congress in support of trade education on a number of occasions.
On the other hand, Rowe is also a very conservative guy, politically. While I don't regularly listen to his podcasts, I know that most of them are apolitical. On the occasion I listened to him a few months back, his show consisted of an interview with Vivek Ramaswarmy, a little known candidate for the Presidency, with a very conservative (or more appropriately, radical) agenda, depending on your point of view.
The interview piqued my interest, because one aspect of the discussion involved Ramaswamy's objection to DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) and ESG (environmental, social, governmental) movements, arguing that they are inherently racist in nature. This is by no means the most extreme of his views; he also advocates changing the voting age to 25, except for those in the military, first responders, or those who can pass a civics test. In short, he endorses the notion that college admissions should be based exclusively on academic merit.
To be fair, there's hardly any question that Ramaswamy is a very intelligent person. He graduated Harvard summa cum laude, was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, and has a law degree from Yale. He founded a successful biotech company, followed by an asset management firm, and is worth an estimate $600M today.
The interview aroused my ire, mostly because indirectly, he endorses the well known myth of the 'self-made man'. There is, of course, no such thing; every one of us is mostly the product of our upbringing, experiences, and, for want of a better word, our 'privileges'.
Just to illustrate the point, let's consider a few of the most successful people in America... if success is defined as financial performance, power, and influence. Ramaswamy knows little of 'bootstraps'. His father was an engineer and patent attorney, and his mother was a geriatric Psychiatrist. I think it's pretty fair to presume that Ramaswamy isn't paying off any student loans. But it is also pretty clear that his parentage and upbringing were profound influences (and probably motivations) to succeed.
Jeff Bezos? His father was an engineer for Exxon, and his maternal grandfather was a regional director for the Atomic Energy Commission. Bezos eventually became his high school valedictorian and was National Merit Scholar. He graduated from Princeton with an engineering degree, summa cum laude.
Bill Gates? His father was a prominent lawyer, and his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way of America. Gates's maternal grandfather was J. W. Maxwell, a national bank president. While he built Microsoft in a 'ground up' low end environment, his successful partnership with IBM (who chose to use MS-DOS on the first PC) was greatly assisted by his mother introducing her son, to IBM's CEO.
Warren Buffett? He was the son of a congressman.
I am NOT arguing that all of these icons of American capitalism were bereft of talent and merit; quite the opposite is likely to be true. There are undoubtedly plenty of individuals with similarly advantaged upbringings who never managed to achieve their own dreams, despite the potential assistance of their growing years. Ramaswamy, Gates, Buffett, and Bezos leveraged their privilege to the max, and succeeded beyond probably even their own dreams.
But one has to wonder about the missed potential of all the individuals who might have excelled just as much, if only they had the same sort of background, especially the influence of parents and family. It is true that we can anecdotally point out people who grew up in impoverished circumstances and became very successful. As Milton Friedman once remarked (and I'm paraphrasing a bit here), "In America, success is largely a matter of luck.. the luck to be born to the right parents."
It is in this context, that the argument about 'merit' as being the exclusive criteria for admission to a good college and a career path, really burns my ass. Things like DEI and ESG are not racist or discriminatory... they are just acknowledgements that academic merit alone is a poor predictor of the future success of potential candidates... nor is it fair to those who were not born to privilege.
Everyone has their own anecdotal evidence, and I'm no exception. Purely as an example, my younger daughter graduated Tuft University cum laude, is now the CEO of a $20M public relations firm, and she's barely over 40. To what can I attribute her success? I'd like to think that it has been entirely her ambition and drive to achieve her goals...
...but I'd be a fool not to acknowledge that I encouraged her to achieve academically, fully paid for her education, because I believed it was my responsibility to do so.. and even more than that, the generosity of her grandfather (my father) who lived well below his means in order to establish educational accounts for all his grandchildren. It didn't hurt that her parents were similarly educated, and had successful professional careers. Yes, she was privileged... and I make no apologies for that.
But in light of the above, we would be simply wrong not to acknowledge that lack of this kind of privilege, while not exclusively precluding academic or career success, is a massive stumbling block for millions of Americas. Yes, there are exceptions; my college roommate, for a very poor family without and role models, relied on scholarships to earn first a bachelors degree, a masters degree from Stanford, and a doctorate from the University of Rhode Island... and has had a successful career as a professor of mechanical engineering and the head of the ME department. You won't find very many young black men with a similar background who achieved as much.
In perhaps a few months, The Supreme Court will probably drive a stake through the heart of any remaining affirmative action programs... and with it, kill off the hopes and aspirations of every student born without privilege.
So, when told to 'check your privilege', it doesn't mean that it's something to be ashamed of. The shame is that we let so many, without such privilege, see their hopes and aspirations thwarted.
A few months back, I happened across a podcast from Mike Rowe, best known as the TV reality star in 'Dirty Jobs', as well as the narrator on a number of documentary/reality shows like 'Deadliest Catch'. He is engaging, personable, and superb as a host of these shows, with an exceptional voice and speaking tyle.
Rowe is also a huge advocate of education in the trades, as an alternative to careers requiring a four year degree... and for this, I commend him. I believe he is absolutely correct; not everyone is suitable for a formal academic career, and trade education can often lead to good jobs with surprisingly high remuneration, as anyone who has recently hired a plumber or electrician may be able to attest. He has testified in front of Congress in support of trade education on a number of occasions.
On the other hand, Rowe is also a very conservative guy, politically. While I don't regularly listen to his podcasts, I know that most of them are apolitical. On the occasion I listened to him a few months back, his show consisted of an interview with Vivek Ramaswarmy, a little known candidate for the Presidency, with a very conservative (or more appropriately, radical) agenda, depending on your point of view.
The interview piqued my interest, because one aspect of the discussion involved Ramaswamy's objection to DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) and ESG (environmental, social, governmental) movements, arguing that they are inherently racist in nature. This is by no means the most extreme of his views; he also advocates changing the voting age to 25, except for those in the military, first responders, or those who can pass a civics test. In short, he endorses the notion that college admissions should be based exclusively on academic merit.
To be fair, there's hardly any question that Ramaswamy is a very intelligent person. He graduated Harvard summa cum laude, was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, and has a law degree from Yale. He founded a successful biotech company, followed by an asset management firm, and is worth an estimate $600M today.
The interview aroused my ire, mostly because indirectly, he endorses the well known myth of the 'self-made man'. There is, of course, no such thing; every one of us is mostly the product of our upbringing, experiences, and, for want of a better word, our 'privileges'.
Just to illustrate the point, let's consider a few of the most successful people in America... if success is defined as financial performance, power, and influence. Ramaswamy knows little of 'bootstraps'. His father was an engineer and patent attorney, and his mother was a geriatric Psychiatrist. I think it's pretty fair to presume that Ramaswamy isn't paying off any student loans. But it is also pretty clear that his parentage and upbringing were profound influences (and probably motivations) to succeed.
Jeff Bezos? His father was an engineer for Exxon, and his maternal grandfather was a regional director for the Atomic Energy Commission. Bezos eventually became his high school valedictorian and was National Merit Scholar. He graduated from Princeton with an engineering degree, summa cum laude.
Bill Gates? His father was a prominent lawyer, and his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way of America. Gates's maternal grandfather was J. W. Maxwell, a national bank president. While he built Microsoft in a 'ground up' low end environment, his successful partnership with IBM (who chose to use MS-DOS on the first PC) was greatly assisted by his mother introducing her son, to IBM's CEO.
Warren Buffett? He was the son of a congressman.
I am NOT arguing that all of these icons of American capitalism were bereft of talent and merit; quite the opposite is likely to be true. There are undoubtedly plenty of individuals with similarly advantaged upbringings who never managed to achieve their own dreams, despite the potential assistance of their growing years. Ramaswamy, Gates, Buffett, and Bezos leveraged their privilege to the max, and succeeded beyond probably even their own dreams.
But one has to wonder about the missed potential of all the individuals who might have excelled just as much, if only they had the same sort of background, especially the influence of parents and family. It is true that we can anecdotally point out people who grew up in impoverished circumstances and became very successful. As Milton Friedman once remarked (and I'm paraphrasing a bit here), "In America, success is largely a matter of luck.. the luck to be born to the right parents."
It is in this context, that the argument about 'merit' as being the exclusive criteria for admission to a good college and a career path, really burns my ass. Things like DEI and ESG are not racist or discriminatory... they are just acknowledgements that academic merit alone is a poor predictor of the future success of potential candidates... nor is it fair to those who were not born to privilege.
Everyone has their own anecdotal evidence, and I'm no exception. Purely as an example, my younger daughter graduated Tuft University cum laude, is now the CEO of a $20M public relations firm, and she's barely over 40. To what can I attribute her success? I'd like to think that it has been entirely her ambition and drive to achieve her goals...
...but I'd be a fool not to acknowledge that I encouraged her to achieve academically, fully paid for her education, because I believed it was my responsibility to do so.. and even more than that, the generosity of her grandfather (my father) who lived well below his means in order to establish educational accounts for all his grandchildren. It didn't hurt that her parents were similarly educated, and had successful professional careers. Yes, she was privileged... and I make no apologies for that.
But in light of the above, we would be simply wrong not to acknowledge that lack of this kind of privilege, while not exclusively precluding academic or career success, is a massive stumbling block for millions of Americas. Yes, there are exceptions; my college roommate, for a very poor family without and role models, relied on scholarships to earn first a bachelors degree, a masters degree from Stanford, and a doctorate from the University of Rhode Island... and has had a successful career as a professor of mechanical engineering and the head of the ME department. You won't find very many young black men with a similar background who achieved as much.
In perhaps a few months, The Supreme Court will probably drive a stake through the heart of any remaining affirmative action programs... and with it, kill off the hopes and aspirations of every student born without privilege.
So, when told to 'check your privilege', it doesn't mean that it's something to be ashamed of. The shame is that we let so many, without such privilege, see their hopes and aspirations thwarted.
Comment