This article came out this past Sunday in The Clarion Ledger. If you've got feedback for me on it, feel free to email me at etweber@olemiss.edu. Here's the text of the article.

-------------------------------------

Cultural Divides: Barriers Remain to Educational Attainment

Mississippi appears to be stuck in a vicious Catch-22, which accompanies the state's troubled racial history. On the one hand, Gov. Haley Barbour has noted that education is the No. 1 economic development issue in the state. At the same time, poverty and racial stereotyping inhibit educational success. The problem appears irresolvable.


Two reactions are common. The first one says things are not so bad in Mississippi - the denial of failure. The second sees failure everywhere and expects nothing else of the state - the prophecy of failure. Exceptional students who overcome adversity are proof for the deniers and negative stories about Mississippi are confirmation for the prophets of failure.

Both views are troubling. Most people have a hard time denying the state's great problems. Some think that if only we would quit pointing out Mississippi's troubles, we could get people to invest here and to grow business. There is some truth to this concern, but ignoring real problems only lets them grow. My own optimism for the future of the state comes from the fact that the Catch-22 is only apparent. It can be overcome. The difficult problem falls on the side of the pessimists. They create and sustain self-fulfilling prophecies of failure.

A self-fulfilling prophecy is an error of reasoning. When people commit this fallacy, they call some circumstance inevitable and then, through their own actions or inaction, they make it true. The conclusion they draw from the experience is that they were right: the outcome was inevitable.

Take an example from baseball. A kid who says he will never get a hit decides not to swing. When the third strike whizzes by, he says "See! There was no way I was going to get a hit!"

Failure in baseball has miniscule effects compared with failure in school. Imagine the same thought process at work when a student believes that he or she cannot succeed on a test. If messages continue to predict poor students' failure in education, we should not be surprised when some think there is no point to school.

A number of my students told me about their experiences in transition to college and gave me permission to pass on their messages. The first four are African-American students and the fifth is white. Christopher Cox said: "My high school guidance counselors told me that coming from my background that I would struggle during my tenure. They said that I should attend junior college. This increased my doubt in myself being able to achieve at a four-year institution . . . these statements were discouraging, " he said.

Chris will be a senior in the fall at the University of Mississippi and has a bright future ahead of him.

Nick Luckett shared with me the fact that some members of his community warned him against coming to UM in particular. They told him "Don't go there. You'll get killed." Clearly this warning was racially motivated.

But other teachers told him he would be better off attending a community college, rather than a four-year institution, advice with economic implications. He explained: "Despite all the negativity I received because I decided to come to Ole Miss, I have had a great experience here at this university and I am so glad that I came."

Next, Andre' Cotten and Melissa Cole, both inductees in the UM Student Hall of Fame, have related difficult transitions to college. Andre' wrote that "from my experience, I find that some prospective minority students get discouraged because of the stigma of social injustice that some people who are not familiar with the Ole Miss community attach to our university . . . on the contrary, from my experience as an undergraduate I found that there seems to be a comfortable place for everyone to fit within the Ole Miss family."

Melissa explained that "when I told my friends, neighbors and fellow church members that I would attend Ole Miss, I was always asked 'Why?' or was received with a frown." Certainly racial history played an important role in the culture that inspired these forms of discouragement, but it is important to notice the economic impact that comes along with it.

Finally, Brent Caldwell, one of my white students self-described as a person from a modest financial background, has explained to me that he has "a few friends whose parents didn't go (to college) and who gave them the attitude of 'well we didn't need to go to school; why do you?' . . . Unfortunately, most of these friends never went on to college or flamed out of community colleges." Brent explained that between himself and his former friends, he experienced a "palpable feeling of class difference there," which ended a number of his friendships.

In examples like these I see a symptom of what appears to be happening at all levels in the state. There is still an outlook that inspires people to think that certain institutions and successes are not "for us," for poor African Americans or whites, or for Mississippians generally. These attitudes are observable at many levels, despite the shining examples that contradict them.

The cultural challenges for Mississippi impact us all. When people get too used to hearing negative things about Mississippi, they become more likely to accept low expectations for the state. We need the opposite. We need high expectations, but without denying the problems we face.

Something very important for cultural leadership is at work in the examples of the successful students I have mentioned. I have asked my students how they overcame discouragements from going to college or from coming to the University of Mississippi.

Their answers are often that "I knew her" or "I knew him." Students saw examples of success and wanted it for themselves. A crucial component of leadership in educational attainment in Mississippi must come from a few individuals who swim against the powerful currents of discouragement. When they succeed, others can see that their own prospects might also be bright. The more our students succeed and are visible, the harder it becomes to assume that failure in school is the only option.

My proposal to overcome the apparent Catch-22 is simple: We must fight culture with culture and on many fronts. One way I suggest we do it is with a documentary. There are countless examples of success that we can show kids in Mississippi to contradict the harsh discouragements that many children confront. We have rich resources in our fantastic students who must be talked about, who must be shown to others as the exemplars that they are. A growing number of students have overcome self-fulfilling prophecies of failure. With a documentary we can highlight our many successful students.

We can make the video available for classrooms and public television, but we can also post it online for each student to watch through our expanding avenues of communication that technology has enabled. I envision a viral video that students can access directly on computers at school or in local libraries, to circumvent the common channels of discouragement.

Such efforts could be just the kind of force needed to turn today's cultural current around, to replace a negative and discouraging culture with a culture of excellence.

Dr. Eric Thomas Weber is assistant professor of Public Policy Leadership at the University of Mississippi, expressing only his own point of view in this article. His second book, Morality, Leadership, and Public Policy, will be released in 2011. Contact him at etweber@olemiss.edu.

---------------------------------

I've got a scanned version of this file here, in case you'd like to see the original printed version. You can visit my Web site here or send me feedback via email at etweber@olemiss.edu.

This was my first piece as a guest columnist for The Clarion Ledger. This article was published on March 6, 2010, page 9A. Here's the text:

------------------------------

In January, three University of Mississippi undergraduates advocated for charter schools before the Mississippi House Committee on Education out of concern for the crisis of education in the state. The Public Policy Leadership majors, Chelsea Caveny, Cortez Moss and Alex McLelland, met resistance to partial measures for progress.


Aside from a few vocal opponents, the general response from Republicans in the room was positive and some Democrats were cautiously open to charter schools. The most vocal opponents of charter school legislation worried about the children who stay behind in traditional schools. One representative exclaimed: “Separate but unequal!”

I can understand the resistance. If charter schools only help some, are they not institutions that tell others to wait? Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had to explain time and time again “why we can’t wait.” He was a great opponent of the numbing gradualism of his day. Being patient is not something suffering people can easily stomach. Despite this powerful motivation, however, the objection to gradualism is misapplied when it comes to charter schools. Charter schools represent the potential, certainly not a guarantee, for substantial progress in education in the state.

At the committee meeting in January, three worries arose. First, if charter schools are the answer, why not overhaul the whole system to follow their method? In response to this concern, the issue is not a desire for progress to be slow. Rather, what is needed is sincere experimentation. In different states and regions, different methods work well or poorly. Charter schools need fine-tuning. Good experimenters, furthermore, don’t stop after one try. Once a model is successful in our state, we should replicate it then and then only, as the urban prep schools did in Chicago.

The second worry that our legislators raised was that charter schools may not work as well in rural areas. There are clear exceptions to this concern, however, such as the KIPP schools (Knowledge Is Power Programs) which have locations in Helena-West Helena, Ark. What seemed to be lacking in the legislators’ responses to the students’ presentation was the will to try, to experiment with new ideas. Innovation and change require openness of mind to the possibilities that others may not have attempted.

A final concern came up. In the accusing charge of “separate but unequal!” was the reasonable worry people have about achievement gaps between white and minority students. This week, the House version of the charter school legislation made sure to emphasize that charters could be established only in replacing schools with a three-year track record of failure. This requirement would ensure that charters be created only where schools most need help, not simply as alternatives for already advantaged students.

Charter school legislation is moving forward for consideration. What is crucial for the future of Mississippi, I believe, is that we regain the will to experiment and to try new ideas. Charter school legislation may only be a partial measure, a step in a larger plan.

With good legislation written to allay the worries people have about charters, however, the charter school initiative could represent a great step forward and in the right direction.

Dr. Eric Thomas Weber is assistant professor of Public Policy Leadership at the University of Mississippi, expressing only his own point of view in this guest column. His second book, Morality, Leadership, and Public Policy, will be released in 2011.

----------------------------

I've got a scan of this article here, posted on my Web site in case you'd like to see the original in print. If you'd like to visit my Web site, this link will take you to the main page.

Today I've signed a freelance writer's agreement/contract with The Clarion Ledger to write pieces for their editorial section. I've received permission to post my articles online generally and on my blog here after they've come out in print. I'll post them and label them "Clarion Ledger Article: [Title of article]..." I know, it's a really creative label that required all that explanation...

Anyway, I've been very lucky to have had a strong response to my first two articles in the CL. I've received a number of very nice and encouraging emails. I appreciate everyone's input. Soon I'll post the first two articles I've had come out already. I should have another come out in July and will be sure to post it here as well. Happy reading. Feel free to send me feedback at etweber@olemiss.edu.

Today, the Clarion Ledger published my piece called "Barriers Remain to Educational Attainment." The editors shaped the title. I'm not very experienced writing headlines.

The paper's Web site keeps posts online only for so long, so if this link to the article: http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20100606/OPINION03/6060301/ doesn't work, that's why. For my digital records, I've scanned the article and posted it on my Web site here. You can go directly to the PDF file by clicking here.

An article should be coming out tomorrow too in the Oxford Eagle about the research and documentary plans I'm putting together.

One of the things that I'm planning (as explained in the Clarion Ledger article) is a documentary, highlighting the great successes in education that students have achieved in the face of substantial discouragement. I want kids, teachers, guidance counselors, and parents to see the forces that bear down on less fortunate children as well as the many examples of shining students who have overcome the odds.

For the documentary, I'm looking to setup a database of contacts (full name, full contact information, and info about the person, position, and insight about poverty and education in MS) to have ready once the plan, funding, and personnel line up. If you are interested in taking part and have a unique perspective that can add to addressing the story, email me at etweber@olemiss.edu with the information I've mentioned.

Eventually, I hope to setup a Web site where people could enter their info online to add themselves as persons I could interview for the documentary. I look forward to learning from and with you about Mississippi's cultural challenges. To address them, we need to show them for what they are first. Then, we can work on solutions.

Recently, I've started toying with the idea of putting on another SOPHIA symposium, this time on the subjects of Philosophy and Disability. It's a growing field. After putting on a SOPHIA event (http://www.philosophersinamerica.com, click on Events, and see the one called "Ethics at the End of Life"), I've found that these events are fantastic ways to get a jump start into an area of study that I'm generally interested in, but have only a little bit of experience studying.

For those who are unfamiliar, SOPHIA stands for the Society Of PHilosophers In America, which in truth does not say much about what we do. That said, it is a group with a long history and an interest in showing the value of philosophy for real life, as well as in learning more about philosophical studies from people who live the matters that we read and write about. At the event in Oxford, we had nurses, doctors, social workers, lawyers, students, members of Oxford's retired community, pastors, and scholars of religion, philosophy, legals studies, and more. The diversity of the group was exactly what we were hoping to have at the event. The first tenet of SOPHIA as the board has been redesigning the organization is to bring philosophical study to communities that could learn from and teach scholars about their work.

The next element of SOPHIA's purpose is to encourage not only paper presentations, which are an incredibly common form of academic presentations, but conversations too - perhaps primarily. Thus, the person who at a usual conference would serve as a keynote speaker would serve at a SOPHIA event more the function of facilitator of discussion. A specialist in the relevant area of research is important, as is someone who would be a good match for the topic of the event in any number of ways, such as a person who has friends or family dealing with the matter at issue, or who lives certain elements of the matter himself or herself.

The idea for a possible upcoming event that would be of interest to me would be the matter of living with or supporting persons with disabilities, with a philosophical framework of consideration of the various facets of this less common way of living. I am sure a great deal of prejudices must be overcome, as well as negative attitudes in the form of self-fulfilling prophecies. Much more is relevant, though, of course, such as concerns of equal opportunity in education, access to proper health care resources in rural communities, and more.

Anyone who would like to send me ideas about putting on such an event can post comments here or send me an email (etweber@olemiss.edu). I'm thinking about developing a program for sometime in the fall of this year (2010).

I think recent news offers a good example of the pressures of leadership. For some time, President Obama left the drafting of the upcoming healthcare bill to Congress (after all, the legislative branch of government). After some time without much concensus, people criticized Obama for having lost the message of his healthcare platform, for being in the background.

After a little more time, planning, and a speech before a joint session of Congress, Obama then went on to give a great number of interviews on Sunday morning talk shows. He was said to have "seized the reins" of his healthcare message.

What response was there for the President's efforts? Journalists and critics argued that he was getting overexposed.

Today, a poll was released to study public opinion on whether the President seemed to be overexposed. The NBC/WSJ poll found that the majority of people did not think so.

I go over these criticisms one could raise about politicians because they help make a point for those thinking about seeking positions of leadership (many of my students). If you want to help people or if you are simply ambitious, just as in the academic world, you must come to expect criticism everywhere.

Whatever good thing you have done, expect even it to be criticized. I do not say this with cynicism. Rather, in the public sphere, we demand justification from one another because of the importance of public offices. Plus, without feedback and criticism we can never improve on our efforts. It also implies that to ever be proud about one's achievements, one must judge when to count a victory. If perfection is an ideal that is unachievable, a leader's criterion for satisfaction in ameliorating problems must be nearer than what is perfect.

Some time ago, a fellow I respect recommended I read the NY Times Magazine's article about Freeman Dyson, the "civil heretic." Dyson thinks that politicians have overblown the threat of global warming. He is a decorated scientist and a liberal, who thinks that Al Gore as protagonist of the story of global warming relies on science that is not terribly thorough.

In particular, Dyson thinks that the models of rising water make predictions of the worst case scenario appear more likely than we have evidence to believe. Because of criticisms like this one and the fact that Dyson calls for more study of the matter, he draws criticism from a wide variety of people.

While I think that the shock value of the worst-case scenario is certainly used rhetorically, I think that Dyson's dissent is better targeted when he criticizes the scientists on whom Gore has drawn (and yes, he does this). A few things trouble me about his general aversion to theories of global warming. First, today people generally prefer the language of climate change. The reason for this is that Dyson and others are right - the Earth is not universally getting warmer. The colder regions are staying warmer longer in the hotter periods, which is melting ice at the globe's extremities. Warm regions are not all getting hotter. In fact, in some years, global temperatures may decrease (see BBC article online here).

The next thing that troubles me is the fact that Dyson criticizes the same trouble that he himself commits. He criticizes others for supporting a view that is not terribly specific and well understood, while at the same time arguing with a bit of a straw man version of environmentalists' arguments. What is it he is really challenging? I don't think that the article makes it terribly clear and he himself does not address climate change with extensive study or writing.

So what is the pay out? Some like to say these days that they support green initiatives while not being all that convinced that human beings are raising the temperature of the Earth. Again, the latter is a misunderstanding of climate change. Average temperatures are not necessarily going up. Also, the presumption is that human beings do not have a substantial effect on the environment, really, so why bother too much with restrictive policies?

I think people must travel more to learn the answer. While still in high school, I had the chance to visit Macau. To breathe clean air, my family and I had to run from building to building because of the visible pollutants in the air (is was brown air). It was gross and unhealthy. Friends have told me of the pollution of Mexico City. In other circumstances, regions' resources are frequently depleted, streams are poisoned with the byproduct of some industries and private practices. Clearly human beings have an effect on the environment. Whether Florida will go under water the way Al Gore predicted may not be likely to happen as quickly as he suspects. Nevertheless, Venice has been sinking for a long time and now some island inhabitants in the Indian Ocean are planning their escape from the sea's swallowing rise (Maldive Islands).

As I read about Dyson's claims I wondered why he seemed to lump green initiatives together with somewhat exaggerated political rhetoric. For instance, there is good reason to recycle in big cities. Landfills are expensive, as land is expensive when it is close to big cities. Recycling slows the filling of landfills dramatically. When they are full, you have to travel farther to dump, which costs more fuel and time/labor. Plus, resources are not limitless, so why not reuse some of the land's resources a few times. Cities get recycled materials for free, reprocess them, and then sell them to industry, thus providing public income that is not taxation. When done right, recycling can make money for municipalities. Even if it does not, however, when resources are not limitless, the reuse of them needs to be considered in costs greater than immediate availabilities.

What else is so tough about the green movement? Automobiles could me made more efficient as a requirement. Building codes could be set to follow more efficient standards. When I visited South Korea in 2008, I was astonished at the ubiquity of intelligent coding of buildings for efficiency. Efficiency is an industry. If there is a great cost and danger in whatever Dyson wants to criticize, he has not show it in the social sphere. He is right, however, that if environmental sciences are not rigorous, they should be. I think environmentalists would agree with that view.

In the end, I am left wondering what really drives Dyson so mad policies about climate change. He thinks more should be said and researched about it. I agree. Recycling is not a religion, however, though it is a practice that considers the aggregate impact of individuals' decisions. That sounds like an excellent idea to consider. His idea of trees that could eat up excess carbon dioxide is fun, but why not further his notions (as described in the NY Times article) about solar energy.

Another matter he seems not to have considered are the looming effects of climate changes in agriculture. People will have to move to continue to plant their crops. Those movements may be cause of much conflicts in the years to come. It would not be silly to start some planning about the shifts in agriculture that poor peoples will have difficulty anticipating.

In the end, it sounds to me as though Dyson is angry that politicians have oversimplified the facts about scientific matters. I'm left stunned that someone as smart as him is surprised. Overstatement or no, it is not so damned hard to recycle some cans and to produce cars that double our mileage. Let's put off running out of oil a bit longer. Where is the harm in that?

On Saturday, I posted a link on Facebook to this article, about Ahmadinejad's invitation to speak with Obama. I've been thinking about the ways it makes sense to respond to him.

Here's what I said on Facebook:
"This after accusations of meddling? Sounds odd, but is a win-win for him. If Obama does not participate, it'll look like an insult, judgment, and meddling. If he does, Ahmadinejad will take the participation as a sign of the legitimacy of the election, of respect. If Obama participates, he'll be criticized for supporting what many see as an illegitimate victor. If he doesn't, he'll be criticized for not following through on his commitment to open up to the muslim world. Ahmadinejad is not a stupid man."

The decision about how to respond is a tough one. I think the first quality of a smart response would be to wait, be patient, and do nothing initially. The U.S. has a great deal to focus on right now, domestically, and with regard to nations other than Iran. The second thing I think makes sense would be to make the meeting quite public. In this sense, the proposal to meet at the U.N. is a good one.

A colleague of mine and I discussed the weight of each side of the dilemma I have described. The options before Obama are basically two. He can choose not to meet with Ahmadinejad or he can meet with him. What does Obama, America, or the world gain from not meeting with Ahmadinejad? If one wants to protest the elections in Iran, you might think, not meeting with Ahmadinejad could be seen as a statement that challenges his government's legitimacy. To meet with Ahmadinejad, some might say, would be to endorse the tactics he used to suppress his people.

Essentially, I think that this point of view depends on the tenor of the meeting. If Obama were to engage in this meeting casually, making sure not to be interpreted as meddling, the critics would be right. At the same time, Obama could turn the challenge of meddling on its ear. To meddle is a colonialist throwback of illegitimate intrusion. It would be best not to do that. Meddling, however, is quite different from pursuing the moral high ground. My colleague pointed me to this article from the New York Times, which discusses Obama's anti-proliferation agenda.

If Obama were to explain, prior to the meeting, his motivation for meeting with Ahmadinejad, he could diffuse concerns about legitimating the election. The motivation is the higher moral obligation to fight nuclear proliferation, a worry for all people. Also, Obama can go to the meeting critical of Ahmadinejad's administration's violence against his own people. He can compare Iran's election to the disputed, but peaceful transition that the United States underwent in 2000. He can reiterate the value of transparency, the rule of law, and of the moral worry that the whole world must deal with concerning nuclear weapons.

If he meets with Ahmadinejad, then, he must ignore the accusations of meddling. After all, Ahmadinejad asked for the meeting. How can he complain? He will, but it will come accross far less weighty a criticism when Obama calls for the high ground internationally in terms of nuclear concerns and democratically with regard to the legitimate basis of government. In sum, he will need to bite the bullet of meddling, but from the high ground that will leave him consistent in being open to talks without pre-conditions and morally virtuous in advancing a peaceful and democratic message.