Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

Occupy Ivy

League Education

They who claim to represent the 99%
should divert their efforts to the root
cause of the inequality gap: an unfair,
bias in the education system, and the
true cause of the disparity of the ability
to create wealth among the
population.



Occupy Wall Street protesters have
reason to be distraught at the current
circumstances we are faced with in
our once great and proud nation, but
their energies our being wasted in a
disgraceful style, pointing the blame
to the very industry in which could be
used for their very own benefit, if they
only knew how. Is it their fault that
these occupiers of Wall Street, and
now our very own capital, do not
understand where to point their
anguish and dispense their energies
for the purpose of a better chance at a
life of fullfillment and contentment?
With all the talk about disparities in
innumerable contexts, such as wealth
particularly, there is one very
important disparity that gets
remarkably little, if any attention at
all; the disparity in the ability to create
wealth.
People who are abssessed with
disparities in income, particularly the
Occupy Wall Street protesters and the
liberal media who support and cover
them, are seldom interested at all in
the disparities in the ability to create
wealth, which is the primary reason
for the disparity of income in the first
place. If these people had a better
understanding of the root cause of
their problem, then they would not be
wasting their time in front of Wall
Street asking people for a check, but
they would spend it looking for ways
to enhance their ability to create
wealth. If they did this, they would
find the real problem plageing
America today rather then wasting
their time attacking the very financial
institutions that help to allocate the
wealth of this country where it is most
useful. The root of their problem isnt
the time-tested and proven financial
institutions that have been used for
centuries, it is the unfair disadvantage
of the select few.
Only rank unfairness can explain it.
A measly 1% of the 18 24
demographic qualify for admission
into the Ivy League. What of the 99%
who suffer seclusion? Are these not
the 99% who occupy Wall Street?
Where is the fairness? Or should I ask,
where is the unfairness? Is it in the
disparity of income amongst the
population, or in the disparity of the
ability to create wealth due to the
unequal chance of the people to
accommodate the skills necessary to
create it? The 99% have every right to
raise their fists in protest for such
blatant discrimination. How can our
nation rest knowing that 99% of 18
year olds walk about our streets
deprived of an Ivy League education.
Unfairness is only compounded when
we look at the fuller picture. Just 43%
of that same demographic are eligible
to sit in the desks of any institution of
higher learning. Disgraceful!
The real problem going on here is
not simply the disparity in income, it
is the fact that our Intelligence Gap is
unconscionable. But, an even better
question to ask ourselves is this: Was
there ever any realistic reason to
expect the same achievements among
races, classes or other subdivisions of
the human species? This is a
fundamental question almost never
asked, but when thought about, the
answer is fairly obvious,.
Could we expect Eskimos to have
the same ability to grow pineapples as
the Hawaiins? Could the Boudouins of
the Sahara really know much about
fishing as the Polynesians of the
Pacific? Could the Himalayans have
the same seafaring skills as those
living on the Mediterranean?
In a more realistic sense in which
could be applied to America, a better
question we must ask ourselves is
could people living in isolated
mountain valleys be expected to
develop their own intellectual
potential as fully as people living in
cities that are international crossroads
of commerce, cultures and ideas from
all throughout the world, not to
mention the time saved by city
dwellers just for the simple fact that
everything is in such a short distance
from them?
Anyone who watches professional
basketball must be blind not to see
that the star players are by no means a
representative sample of the
population at large.
When the Spaniards discovered the
Canary Islands in the 15
th
century,
they found people, white people, living
at a stone-age level. Isolation and
backwardness have gone together in
many parts of the world, regardless of
race.
Historical happenstances the fact
that the Romans invaded Western
Europe but not Eastern Europe, for
example left a legacy of written
languages in Western Europe that
people in Eastern Europe would not
accomplish until centuries later.
My point here is that it is not so
much the race or subdivision of a
group that creates the disparity of
wealth, or better yet, the disparity in
the ability to create wealth, it is the
circumstances of their location and
their access to certain
accommodations.
Gross inequalities in skills and
achievements have been the rule, not
the exception, in every inhabited place
on earth for all time. Yet the problem
is that our laws and government
policies act as if any significant
statistical difference between racial or
ethnic groups in employment or
income can only be a result of their
being treated differently.
This is not simply an opinion either
anymore, but law, as the government
has sued businesses when the
representation of different groups
among their employees differs
substantially from the proportions of
the population at large.
But no matter how the human race is
broken down into its components,
glaring disparities in achievements
have always been apparent, not due to
anything else but the simple fact that
it is just the way it is.
Yet these and numerous other
disparities in achievement are
resolutely ignored by those whose
shrill voices denounce disparities in
rewards, as if these disparities are
somehow suspicious at best and
sinister at worst.
Higher achieving groups are often
blamed for the failure of other groups
to achieve, and politicians tend to
conceive of social questions in terms
that allow them to take on the role of
being on the side of the angels against
the forces of evil.
This has turned out to not only be a
huge disservice to those higher
achieving groups, but to those
individuals who are lagging behind,
for it leads them to focus on a sense of
grievance and victimhood, rather than
on how they can lift themselves up
instead of trying to pull other people
down.
This strategy not only makes
lifelong dependents of the people
which are on the bottom half of the
population in disparity, but it also
hinders the ability of the achievers to
create more wealth by taking the
necessary capital they need to put to
work their ideas in order to raise the
standard of living of all human beings,
and in turn create more jobs, less
disparity, and no more sense of
grievance or victimhood.
There was once in this country a
great shame associated with
dependence. As brilliantly put by
Daniel Foster in the National Review,
this long-forgotten and most
necessary characteristic of the
American spirit is perfectly depicted
in good Russel Crowe boxing movie
from 2005 called The Cinderella man.
In it we find a standout sequence that
elegantly and efficiently dramatizes
the social and cultural value of shame,
and demonstrates why we miss it so
much today, states Foster. He goes
on to elaborate about this admirable
character as, injury-plagued, semi-
retired from boxing, and relying on
scant work as a longshoreman,
Braddock is depicted
Living with his wife and small
children in a dingy tenement in New
Jersey, splitting a single ham steak
four ways for supper. But even then,
he has too much pride to tap the
government for help. It is only after
the utility man shuts the heat off, and
Braddockss wife farms the children
out to a relative for fear they are
slipping into pneumonia, that the
fighter relents.
At this point Broddock finally goes
to the government for his $16 check
and then next to see his old friends
and boxing promoters to look for help.
He owes no apologies for doing
whatever he has to to hold his family
together, but he is ashamed
nonetheless. Foster goes on to
describe this same as, so powerful
that it kept Braddock from looking for
a handout until he had exhausted all
other possibilities. And its a shame so
powerful that by the end of the second
act, with Braddock well on his way to
the miraculous championship bout
that gives the film its title and its
central metaphor, he returns every
cent of charity he ever took.
This is truly an inspirational tale, and
it used to be an American one, but
Americas entitlement culture has
killed any remnant of this virtue left in
our culture. On top of this, a CBO
study showed that over the last 30
years, the share of government
transfer payments going to the
poorest 20 percent of Americans has
declined from 50 percent to 35
percent, while the share going to the
wealthiest 80 percent has increased
from 50 percent to 65 percent. Not
only have we given a sense of
entitlement to the poorest among our
peers who are just about to get their
feet on the ground to move up the
economic ladder, we have now
infested our wealthy peers with the
same disease rotting away at the
social virtue most critical to the
American experiment: shame. For a
limited government in which all are
free to pursue their own ends requires
a cultural counterbalancing to assure,
as William F. Buckley Jr. once put it,
that not everything that is legal is
reputable. Shame provides such
balance, and once upon a time there
was in this great country a feeling a
shame about dependence.
The question is how do we rid our
culture of the feeling of victimhood
and grievance and install within it a
sense of pride and self-worth so that
men are once again ashamed at being
anything other than the best they can
be, and provide for themselves?
One of the ways of trying to reduce
the vast disparities in economic
success is by making higher education
more widely available for people
without the money to pay for it. This
brings us back to the 99% who are
deprived of an Ivy League education
due to the flawed admissions system it
has created. Like I have stated above,
it is not so much the race or
subdivision of a group that creates the
disparity of wealth, or better yet, the
disparity in the ability to create
wealth, it is the circumstances of their
location and their access to certain
accommodations. Americans must
wake up to this misery index whose
cause is the alleged intellectual
superiority of some, over the rest.
This is a misery that the most
advanced nation on earth can no
longer tolerate. Why should the 1%
enjoy the privilege of the best
professors, the toniest campuses, and
the best-stacked libraries while we
now have the necessary technology to
make these accommodations widely
obtainable? Through video
conferencing and Internet accessible
libraries, we can easily fix this
problem. The intelligence gap must be
erased by the equal access of the 99%
to the educational amenities of the
1%. Anything less is naked bias.
But this investment can be both a
wise and foolish one as many societies
have found out the hard way. When
institutions of higher learning turn out
highly qualified doctors, engineers,
scientists, and others with skills that
can raise the standard of living of an
entire society and make possible a
better and longer life, the benefits are
obvious. But things dont always pan
out the way we plan them. What is so
obvious, and painfully true, is that
universities can also turn out vast
numbers of graduates with
credentials, but no marketable skills.
This is much of what we have been
seeing today, with more job openings
available today then in any other
comparable time after a recession.
The main reason why companies like
Apple choose to manufacture their
products in China is because lt ls |ust
eusler to flnd the klnd of workers they
need out there who work ut the speed und
efflclency they do und huve the
murketuble skllls requlred to do them.
Amerlcuns huve become luzy. Educutlon
cun flx thls.
People wlth degrees ln soft sub|ects,
whlch lmpurt nelther skllls nor u reullstlc
understundlng of the world, huve been the
drlvlng forces behlnd muny extremlsts
movements wlth dlsustrous consequences.
The turgets huve been dlfferent ln dlfferent
movements, but the buslc plot hus been
much the sume. Those who cunnot
compete ln the murketpluce, desplte thelr
degrees, not only resent those who huve
succeeded where they huve fulled, but
push demunds for preferentlul treutment,
ln order to negute the unfulr udvuntuges
thut others huve. Such polltlcul
movements cunnot promote thelr ugendus
wlthout demonlzlng others und ultlmutely
polurlzlng un entlre soclety. Tlme und
uguln, thelr turgets huve been those who
huve the skllls und uchlevements thut they
luck. When they uchleve thelr ultlmute
success, forclng such people out of the
country, us ln Ugundu ln the 1970s or
Zlmbubwe more recently, the whole
economy cun collupse. Thls huppens
becuuse the movements ure spendlng
thelr energles ln the wrong pluces.
Insteud of occupylng Wull Street, we must
occupy the lnstltutlons thut enuble people
to work ut Wull Street. If we full to do
thls, when the dust settles, we wlll be
stundlng over u heup of dust und ushes,
wlth no tulent left to put humpty dumpty
buck together uguln. Educutlon cun flx
thls. Teuch people how to obtuln
murketuble skllls, und glve them the
necessury knowledge requlred so they
stuy uwuy from these soft sub|ects und
choose to study ureus ln whlch help
socletles enhunce thelr stundurd of llvlng,
where the reul weulth ls creuted. Tuke the
shuckles of the 99%, or the 99% shull tuke
the heuds off the 1%.
Intellectual fitness should not be
the marker that divides the 1% from
the rest. It is a cultural function of
power that established intellectual
merit as the qualifier for entrance to
the Ivy League privilege. How can
such bigotry be missed? The 1%
enjoys the best jobs, the choicest
opportunities, the swiftest mobility
and the most pampered manner of
living. Where is the fairness in all
this? Its about time the USA
recognizes that the SAT score is one of
the most jagged instruments of the
classic power play. The worth of each
person, not an arbitrary intelligence
measurement, must be the standard to
stroll the prestigious tree-lined paths
of Harvard. Individuality, not
conformity to a single test should bear
the consequences of our childrens
futures. Its time to look at
intelligence as the preposterous
powdered wigs that sat upon the
heads of the 18
th
century French
aristocracy: a pretention that kept the
99% shackled. And if the 99% must
rise up, as did those French peasants,
so be it. Sometimes heads must roll,
that the heads of the rest could be
held high.
Unfair distribution of intelligence is
a breach of justice that an enlightened
culture such as ours can no longer
tolerate. The Ivy League campuses
are the ante-bellum slave plantations
of the 21
st
century: 1% rules while the
99% serve. America should accept no
aristocracies, least of all an aristocracy
of an undeserved intellectual
meritocracy. Fairness demands that
all of us sit in classrooms of the same
standards. This is the meaning of
equality that merit never dictates
disparity in results. For who has the
right to judge another mans merit
than God himself?
America trumpets fairness always
has. This moment in time is ripe for
the beginning of a New
Enlightenment. Top-notch Ivy League
education must be for all, or for no
one. Pick up your placards,
reassemble your tents, enlist money
from the self-loathing intellectuals and
march to Cambridge, Harvard, Yale,
Stanford and Princeton. The Ivy
League must be occupied so America
can be fair. Never again will the 1%
hold up their 4.0 GPAs as a bludgeon
over the heads of the 99%. It is time
that the 99% put a fist into the pledge
of allegiance, and make real the
promise of justice for all.