America's Caste System - My Take

I've been playing a huge amount of solitaire and Sudoku as of late.  Some of that is simply malaise about our current situation with the pandemic. But a good part is an indication of writer's block.  I've had a topic for a post to write for quite a while, but I was struggling both with what I wanted to say and how to frame it in a way that makes sense. And this opinion piece from yesterday, didn't help any. It made me wonder whether I've got anything worth saying that hasn't been said already.  I hope it is not arrogant to conclude that I do have something to contribute, by overlaying economic issues onto the race issues, and then including undergraduate education into the mix, plus a variety of additional issues.  That's my aim here.

The title of my post borrows from a featured piece in last week's New York Times Magazine, America's Enduring Caste System.  And this post is meant as a sequel to a recent post of mine, Did a Change Ever Come? Will a Change Be Coming Soon?  In that piece I wrote that we tend to provide solutions before we have a full airing of the problem and then having worked through an analysis of what needs to be done to remedy it. So I welcome pieces such as that essay in the New York Times Magazine.  (The week before there was a piece on reparations, What Is Owed.)  These pieces capture grievances that should be well understood and need to be addressed.  Can we bring systemic racism to an end?  If we could, what does the path to getting there look like?

I like to use quotes or bad jokes as a way to introduce goals or big picture ideas.

Q: What do you know when you see three elephants walking down the street wearing pink sweatshirts?

A: They're all on the same team.

With this let's consider income inequality, in the 1960s and now.  These graphs from the Pew Research Center are very informative.  They compare household income distribution for a base year, 1970, to a much more recent year, 2016.  This is done by each race separately and then with a comparison across races.  The income numbers are inflation adjusted (1970 dollars are converted to 2016 dollars) so these are "real income" comparisons that are meaningful.  Household income is given on a per capita basis, to control for size of household.  So if in my household there is my wife and me, and if her income is $100,000 while my income is $50,000, then this will be reported as each of us having $75,000 of income. (These numbers are just for illustration and don't reflect our true income.) There is an unmistakable message from the data presented here.  Household income was much more concentrated in 1970.  Then, it would be fair to refer to America as a middle class society.  That is no longer true.

Further, it appears that increasing dispersion in income is an ongoing thing.  Consider the following table, which I created from Census data on household income for the period 2010 to 2015, during a time of normal economic growth.  (I made this table in the process of writing a post called, Socialism Reconsidered - Part 4 - Thoughts on Income Redistribution, where I considered a hypothetical policy to flatten the income distribution, along with some rationale for doing so.)

My value add with this information is from computing the various rows in blue labeled Differences, showing that those difference grew over time, more so for the upper quintiles in the distribution.  The upshot is the higher income households grew further away from median households in the income distribution.

If we are on the same team with those who have similar incomes to ours, and if the change didn't come in the 1960s, in spite of us being a middle class society then, how can the change happen now when our experiences are not common because the income dispersion is so great?  We should pause over this question as it doesn't have an immediately obvious response.  The best I have come up with are these questions.  Can we still all be on the same team, but play fundamentally different roles based on our differences in income?  Is there a caste system now that is more income based than raced based?  If so, how might we undo that caste system as well?  Later in this piece I will give some examples of this that are specific to education.

There is a way in which those Pew graphs are misleading.  The data are right censored at $200,000/year.  It is not that long ago (fall 2011) when Occupy Wall Street had our attention.  It gave us the language of the 1% versus the 99% - the rich versus everyone else.  Based on data here, the Pew graphs do a good job of describing the income distribution among the 99% but don't tell us anything at all about the income distribution among the 1%.  (Recall the Pew graphs present per capita household income. That would need to be multiplie by number of household members to get household income.  I believe mean number of household members is around 2.6, but I'm reporting that here without checking it for veracity.  I've done that checking in the past.) 

Indeed the 0.1%, the uber rich, have such high incomes that they couldn't even approximately be represented on the Pew graphs as currently done.  And many of them seem quite resistant to income redistribution that would take income from themselves to raise the incomes of those in the lower quintiles, ergo their intense opposition to Obamacare, which entailed just such income redistribution. For this reason, when democratic socialists advocate for policy, which surely features elements of income redistribution, they typically focus on the beneficiaries and then consider the implied income redistribution as a taking from the very rich.  Ultimately, this may come to pass, but it is definitely not an all-on-the-same-team approach. 

It may be that an all-on-the same team approach is impossible.  What may be possible, however, and what I argued in that earlier post on income redistribution, is that many in the top quintile who are not uber rich can be convinced that they should favor some income redistribution out of a sense of social responsibility. It is this notion of social responsibility which I think is necessary to push for strongly if a a change will come.  Tying that to my earlier post about race, the change didn't come in the 1960s because too many opted out.  We need an approach now where people who are well off feel compelled to opt in. Even as the country has opened its eyes about race, the connection to necessary income redistribution is not being made, as far as I can tell.  Both the NY Times pieces, the one on the caste system and the one on reparations treat the burden as if it should fall on Whites equally.  I don't think that's correct.  Poor Whites should not bear this burden at all. The well to do of all races should bear it.  We need leadership that establishes this connection forcefully.

* * * * *

Let me turn to other economic issues, which show that our economy is not working well for many people, which in turn provides a good bit of the fuel for contemporary racism.  The growth rate of per capita GDP has been slowing for some time. It is worthwhile to contemplate the possible reasons for this.  One that's been on the table for quite a while is the aging of American society.  Birth rates have been down for a while.  Recently immigration has been down too.  Life expectancy, until recently, has been up.  In an era where robots and AI provide a threat to anyone who has a job that can be automated, I'm not sure whether those explanations hold water, but perhaps they are part of it.  A different explanation is that there are no big ideas left to dramatically raise productivity, nothing like indoor plumbing, the steam engine, and the advent of electric power.  Surely the personal computer and then the rise of the Internet were both big ideas, but they've been around for quite a while now, mobile computing too.  A related explanation is that much R&D now is going into protecting already achieved profitability - to keep the economic rents coming.  This makes those earning the rents happy, perhaps, but it does nothing for the economy overall (and maybe it hurts the economy, depending on how those rents are maintained, more about that below).  In any event, if the economy isn't growing very quickly and those at the top are claiming an increasing share of income for themselves, that leaves everyone else with not much at all.

There are other ways the economy is evidently failing that become apparent either when you look at specific sectors of the economy or if you consider big negative externalities that the economy produces.  On the latter, our over reliance on fossil fuels and its impact on global warming has to be the biggest one, along with our inability to self-regulate in a big and consistent way in anticipation that weather-wise, things will be getting still worse. (As I'm writing this piece, I had to stop yesterday afternoon and turn off the computer because of a horrific thunderstorm that came through the area, which produced incredibly large balls of ice in a terrible hailstorm.)   And we don't yet have a good answer for this.

Here are some sector specific ways the economy doesn't work well.  Finance as a sector is way too large, attracting far too many of the graduates from our elite universities. The benefits that the sector produces may be largely illusory, as anyone who has been tracking the stock market as of late will know.  The real economy is in a horrible recession now, the stock market not so much.  Further, those benefits are not broadly shared, so they contribute to the rising inequality in society.  I would argue that much of the so-called financial gains are really nothing more than income transfers from labor to capital.  Oliver Stone's movie, Wall Street, dates back to 1987.  It's a dark picture of compassionless management run amuck, yet perhaps a spot on depiction of the plutocrats who rule the roost over the Republican Party as if it is their puppets.

There is also something fundamentally wrong with how we do our news, mainly on TV, but also on the Internet, and in the various publications.  News should be boring, for the most part.  It should be about the details of potential policy debates or if not that then about major events in our economy, described in an expansive way.  To understand these at some depth requires a detailed analysis.  In other words, it should be a slug to get through.  Mostly, however, we're not getting that.  News competes with other entertainment for the viewer's attention.  News if done in a boring way would lose that competition, expect perhaps for a sliver of the population that consider themselves eggheads. What alternative for news wins the competition more broadly? We've known the answer to this for well over a century.  We called it "yellow journalism" back then, when the news was done exclusively by print media. Now, on TV, there is an added aspect - stoking the audience into a frenzy.  Anger, it turns out, can be addicting.  The audience comes back for more of the same, perfect for generating lots of revenue from the commercials, even while it is terrible for the audience in getting a nuanced picture of what's going on and in maintaining good mental health at the same time.

Something similar is happening with our social media too, where the design seems to promote addiction of the users.  But there is an added aspect with social media that is even more insidious.  The user's online history is tracked in detail and curated by the social media provider, which is interested in making a buck, nothing more. Our privacy is compromised as a result.  And the approach doesn't auto-correct, as the ad supported model has trumped the subscription model.  This is frightening.

However, regarding racism, the biggest failure happened in manufacturing, which has been in decline for upwards of 30 years, has hollowed out the industrial Midwest and converted it into the rust belt, and wrecked havoc on non-college males who couldn't make the adjustment by finding other work (less well paying) in the service sector. Much of this decline, I believe, was inevitable, both the off shoring of the jobs, as elsewhere workers with the same productivity would accept much lower wages, and the automation of work, an issue that has been with us at least since Charlie Chaplin's masterpiece, Modern Times. Where I find major fault is with policy makers who could have anticipated this decline.  For non-college males, construction jobs have to be a reasonable substitute for manufacturing jobs.  And our decaying infrastructure needs massive reinvestment, which we're reminded of every time we drive down a road full of potholes. Yet this infrastructure reinvestment has not been forthcoming. 

Among the White working class who used to have manufacturing or construction jobs, the Vietnam War drove them into the arms of the Republicans, as they were strongly pro war (and anti those who were against the war, notably the hippies).  Nixon became their guy.  Even as Nixon pursued his Southern strategy, I believe it was his hawkishness on the war that brought these voters into the fold.  But the Republicans kept playing the race card in subsequent elections, well after the Vietnam War was a thing of the past.  The Republicans found a winning strategy in combining a low-tax small-government approach, which economically was against the interest of working class Whites, by continuing to play the race card, and rounding it out by appealing to Fundamentalist Christians, particularly in regard to repealing Roe.

But this picture is incomplete.  There was an interesting interview in the New Yorker recently, How to Confront a Racist National History, which uses the experience of how Germany, post WW II, dealt with the Nazi period and the horrors created then, as a partial model for how the U.S. should confront the legacy of Slavery. The comparison is imperfect, no doubt.  It is, nonetheless, useful.  Prior to becoming Nazis, many of those German males must have felt a huge sense of emasculation.  Having lost WW I and having to bear very harsh reparations for that was part of it.  Then the world fell into the Great Depression and all became its victim except for the very rich.  Among a certain fraction of the population, as described here in a piece about contemporary politics, their values are focused on Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity.  These people are prone toward racist attitudes, which economic dislocation surely exacerbates.  An obvious message for us now, if we want to reduce the racism from such people, materially improve their economic situation so that it is not quite so desperate and, maybe, becomes even comfortable. 

The following is an absurd suggestion from me, I know.  But the social scientist in me wants to know about the family history of those White cops who do horribly violent things to Blacks.  Is there a history of overt racism in their families?  Is there a history of economic dislocation, where the parents once had good jobs in manufacturing but then lost those?  It's not the story now.  The story is about ending systemic racism.  Yet I think we need to have a better handle on the overt racist personality.  To defeat it, we need to know its cause. The NY Times Magazine pieces I cited above seem content to ascribing the cause to the system.  Yet there are Whites who try hard to treat others with decency, regardless of their race.  These other Whites live in the same system.  Why then the different responses?  That needs to be understood.

* * * * *

Hugo Long.  This is a bad joke about when we played street football, and what we said to the kid who was out of the play but nonetheless ran a pass route.  It's a commentary on this post, which I'm still writing this Monday morning, though I had intended to finish it yesterday.

I want to turn now to higher education as a microcosm of the caste system.  I do this in part because I have more direct experience to bring to the discussion when considering higher ed.  But it is also because I believe that the overt racism of some members of the police and White nationalists is quite different from what tends to happen on campus, which I would argue is mainly a consequence of provincialism rather than overt racism, though there is surely some of the latter and perhaps a continuum between the two rather than just one or the other.  I wrote about this a few years ago in a post called Provincialism and Freedom of Speech in the Classroom.  It gives some examples where cultural differences rather than racial differences caused tension.  Further, the first example is about student antagonism to the instructor on account of that cultural difference (and possibly because the instructor was a woman).  This can't be readily explained by a historical power structure.  It is something else going on.  Here is the most relevant bit from that post.

In her (the instructor's) mind provincialism didn't just reflect a limit on experience.  Many people have limited experiences through no fault of their own.  Provincialism requires a closed mind that is not willing to challenge preconceptions nor have experiences that might contradict those beliefs.

One reason for the provincialism is the geographic proximity of the students enrolled at Illinois when they were in high school.  Back in 2017, I actually made a Google Map of the hometowns of the domestic students in my Economics of Organization class.  (There were a few international students, who aren't include here.)  If you zoom out you can see the few students who were from out of state.  By zooming in, you see the vast majority of students were from the northwest suburbs of Chicago.  This, perhaps, explains a common cultural view by such students.  It doesn't explain a closed mindset, however.  That might be better explained by family values, religion, or some other factor such as a lack of curiosity.  This being closed to new ideas is antithetical to the values of the university, but it perhaps helps the students get through college. We know that loneliness is a significant issue for undergraduate students.  Finding students like themselves, perhaps students who went to the same high school as they did, might be considered as a coping strategy.  Fraternities and sororities might be considered in this light, though they might also reflect a determined effort to solidify provincialism, especially in that they exclude certain students who want to become members.

Sometimes this provincialism manifests as being clueless about how one's behavior might impact others.  I wrote about this in a post called Theism - "Pan", "Mono", and "A", where I described  my first experience where religion entered into my classroom.  It was inadvertent and in retrospect I invited it, but that's only because I couldn't imagine it happening ahead of time.  One student was responsible for several microaggressions against classmates, without being aware that he was doing it.  This was in a class for campus honors students, among the better students on campus academically.  My conclusion is that provincialism can pertain in certain dimensions of human interaction, while the same person is quite open to possibility in other areas, such as the discipline of study the student is pursuing.  Indeed, I felt I was reading about provincialism in this recent piece from the the New Yorker, about Silicon Valley versus the New York Times.  I wonder if other readers of that piece had a similar reaction.

Therefore, one wants to ask whether it is possible to educate a person out of his/her provincialism and, if so, what it would take to do that.  I don't think we know the answer to that one, but I'm guessing it would require an ongoing mentoring relationship to peel the various layers of the onion, rather than one simple lesson which gives clear evidence to counter prior held belief.  We don't let go of our beliefs very easily.  Instead, we tend to reject the evidence, at least initially.  Continuing to confront additional evidence of the same sort may create a kind of tension in the person that requires abandonment of the old belief.  But this is just a guess and it might very well be that the person opts out of the mentoring well before reaching that point.

In any event, the prevalence of provincialism makes one want to question that the beliefs derive only from the system and the history of oppression that the system embodies, as argued in the NY Times Magazine piece on America's caste system.  The following piece from five years ago, The University of China at Illinois, makes for a good read as it gives a good deal of background and detail about how Chinese students and White students at Illinois remained apart rather than intermixed with regularity in friendly interactions, in spite of the large numbers of both types of students on campus and although a priori the Chinese students would have preferred such interaction. This can't be explained by the system, because there was no earlier experience with large numbers of Chinese undergraduate students.  But whatever does explain it should be kept in mind when considering White-Black interactions on campus, as some of the same factors are likely in play.

Let me switch to a different aspect of college life that may be less apparent to outsiders, but that is evident to those who work on campus.  In a fractal way, the income inequality in our society overall gets replicated by divisions between haves and have nots on campus.  The STEM disciplines and Business are the haves.  The humanities and some of the softer social sciences are the have nots. I wrote about the issue some years ago in a post called Our Increasingly Bifurcated Higher Education System, where the focus was on faculty salaries. It is one of the main drivers behind why campuses like mine have gone so heavily into teaching faculty who are not on the tenure track.   And it is sustained by the expected starting salaries from graduates in the respective disciplines, along with the hyperinflation in tuition. 

Students have always been somewhat mercenary about why they go to college and in certain majors it seems more concentrated.  When I was a college student pre-meds had that reputation.   But the extent of it now is beyond belief and it is a major contributor to the mental health crisis among students we are currently seeing. What is especially sobering, in contrast to the non-college Whites who have lost out with the decline of manufacturing jobs, is that many of these students who are experiencing depression seem to be on the path to being winners in the the lottery that our economy presents to them.  Yet that is insufficient to keep them content, well motivated, and to avoid feeling anxiety and depression.  To me, this is a clear signal that the system is broken and we in higher education need to understand that.  My sense of the solution was expressed in a post, Reconsidering Elitism in Public Education, and my preference is that the solution would be applied to private education as well.  (But how to achieve that is beyond me.) We need for the education to be decent but not elite.  Now if students fail at school it is perceived as a disaster.  Failure should not be so frightening.  Indeed, students need to learn to fail and then after a fashion begin again with renewed determination or instead try something else that is fundamentally different.  The dread of failure is surely feeding the mental health crisis.  The system needs to see itself as largely responsible for producing that dread.  At present, we're dealing with this as if the system is fine and it's just the lack of mental health professionals that is the problem.  The system is not fine.  The mental health crisis is evidence of that.

Let's move onto considering admissions and how undergraduate admissions sustains the caste system.  Perhaps 20 years ago or so I was a member of the CIC Learning Technology Group (the CIC is now called the Big Ten Academic Alliance) and my counterpart from our sister campus in Chicago told me that my campus was not admitting enough Black students from Chicago.  I was probably vaguely aware of this beforehand, but I had no direct role in admissions, so I didn't make a big deal of it then.  Sometime later I became aware that many students who would qualify for admission didn't take the effort to apply, either because they didn't think they could afford it or because they didn't want to attend college where they were one of only a few Black students in their classes.  Our sister campus, UIC, was easier for them that way, and it was preferred by many Black students even while a degree from UIUC would be more prestigious as a credential in the labor market.

More recently, the NY Times ran a series to show how elite colleges reinforce the current income distribution more than they create opportunity for those less well off to rise and shine.  Here is the data for my campus and here is the article that describes the general issue.  To be fair, my campus has had programs to counter this apparent bias.  The one I'm most familiar with is called Illinois Promise, as I've mentored students who were part of that program.  More recently, the campus has raised the maximum income level for eligibility with something called Illinois Commitment.  Note that these programs are explicitly based on family income, not on race.  Moreover, it is my understanding that the admission decision itself may take county of residence into consideration as one of the many variables that determine admission.  But family income is not included in that, yet standardized test scores, which surely do count though not this year, are strongly correlated with family income. So, how the various variables get aggregated into a decision to admit the applicant remains something of a mystery.

There is more to it than that for considering in-state applicants.  In Illinois, the main way public education for K-12 gets funded is through property taxes.  Those taxes clearly vary by housing value.  Rich neighborhoods have much greater funding per student than poor neighborhoods, whether those poor neighborhoods are rural, and primarily White, or urban, and then primarily Black and Latinx.  It's been quite a while since I read Kozol's The Shame of the Nation, where he describes with horror apartheid schools that are incredibly under funded.  I can't remember whether any Chicago schools were included but I'm quite sure East St. Louis schools were.  Surely any approach to education that claimed it was being done by all who are on the same team would equalize funding per student regardless of race or location of the school.   Getting to that, however, will be a very heavy lift.  Based on where we are now, I wonder if it is possible.

* * * * *

I refuse to join a club that would have me as a member.

Groucho Marx

In this last section I want to take on the question of whether talking about White Privilege and White Guilt is a good way to arrive at an all-on-the-same-team approach. In particular, people my age who are not Black were raised on the story that we're a nation of immigrants.  Most of those immigrants experienced a good deal of discrimination when they arrived, for which that line from Groucho serves as an emblem.  Further, most of these immigrants arrived in America well after the Civil War, so they can't be directly connected with the evils of slavery nor with Jim Crow.  What then is the benefit about repeated talk of White Privilege? 

I'm probably going to disappoint readers on this one by taking both sides of the argument.  I do think it matters, on a case by case basis, where the person currently is on social responsibility and how far that extends.  A test of that is if many shared the same views would that be sufficient to end systemic racism?  But that may be too simple in how to consider these things.  We normally do things in increments, not all at once.  Ending systemic racism will be a process, a difficult one to follow through on.  Will we back away from the process before it has a chance to play through because some who said they would opt in got cold feet and then opted out?

Here I think it helpful to consider something called the availability heuristic, which means that people make their decisions about issues based on examples that come readily to mind.  What has become quite evident recently, is that the vast majority of White people are ignorant about the various issues and concerns that Black people live with that White people simply don't confront.  The events that have followed since the George Floyd execution have alerted everyone to the dangers of excessive police violence (even if we should have been alerted to this from prior experiences but apparently were not).  That particular threat is now available to White people.  But there are many other aspects to systemic racism that remain hidden to Whites because they don't live in segregated Black communities and don't experience all that happens there. Those are not available and I wonder if they can be made available in the absence of dramatic and viral videos that illustrate the issues.  For example, it has been reported extensively that the death rates from COVID-19 are much higher in minority communities.  But I doubt that most Whites can explain why that is nor could they explain what would need to change so that was no longer true. In the absence of full availability, the expressions White Privilege and White Guilt serve as placeholders that there is a story there that needs to be told.

Now, taking the other side of the argument, I do think that much of what needs to be done is to reduce income inequality so that we return to being a middle class society, with all races included in that vision. But this will require within-race income redistribution, something that is not getting attention now, yet I believe is absolutely necessary.   How can you argue for that except by arguing that it is the socially responsible thing to do?

I will close by mentioning this post, Ask What You Can Do For Your Country, which has a table in it of the amount households would pay in federal income tax at a few focal income levels and that is rendered every 5 years, starting in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was still President (though the last year is 2013 since I didn't have 2015 data available when I wrote the post).  It is worth spending some time poring over this table just to ask, what is the right amount of taxes that a household should pay in this situation?  We've changed our answer to that question repeatedly over time.  My own preference for the ideal would be to accept the first tax cut under Reagan, and hence use the 1985 numbers.  They are substantially lower than the 1980 numbers, yet much higher than in the other years given, all of which are more recent.   Would it be possible, by using a social responsibility argument, to return to that level of taxation.  Of course, it would need to be coupled with how the increased taxes would be spent.  The beneficiaries must be disproportionately at the lower income levels.  This in itself wouldn't end systemic racism.  But it would be a remarkably good first step to test the all-on-the-same-team approach.

Tipping

Tipping is an ordinary practice when you go to a restaurant for a meal, when you go to a bar for a drink, or when you buy a latte at a coffee bar.  Tipping typically does not happen for much other service work.  But now we live in extraordinary times where many of us are staying at home much of the time to avoid getting infected with the coronavirus.  Essential personnel don't have that luxury. They are out there working for our benefit.  Yet they are paid poorly.  This Thomas Edsall column gives a detailed look at the situation.

And a state-by-state survey conducted by Business.org found that “Nationwide, essential employees earn an average of 18.2 percent less than employees in other industries.”

On the other hand, most everyone is grateful to the essential personnel for the services they render.  On a walk I did recently that took me by the little shopping center not far from my house, I noticed a banner posted that thanked the essential personnel for the work they do.  I'm sure it is nice for essential personnel to hear the gratitude from the people who rely on their services rendered.  Yet there is the famous line from Jerry Maguire that is more than apropos, "Show me the money!"  And, at least for me, I'd be willing to pay more for the service rendered, if I knew that incremental payment was going to essential personnel who were involved in delivering the service.  The rest of this post is written based on the guess that there are many others who also would be willing to pay more if the payment did raise the income of essential personnel, enough so that it would be more than worthwhile to incur the costs to make that a reality.

I want to make two basic points.

(1) The companies that employ these essential personnel can't reduce their wages, once tipping has been introduced.  Doing so, which is what you'd predict would happen in a "perfectly competitive labor market" (economics jargon for saying that the market sets the going wage), would completely undermine the reason for tipping.  So, companies that did embrace the tipping would need to make a public commitment about not reducing the wages of essential personnel.  This might very well require also making public what the hourly wages for these people are. At present there seems to be a sentiment to have more transparency in employee compensation.  Having an effective tipping program might encourage that.

(2)  In the examples I gave in the first sentence of this piece, I prefer to tip in cash, even if I pay the bill by credit card.  That way I know the tip goes to the server, which surely happens in the restaurant and bar examples. At the coffee bar it is a little different.  There usually is a jar set out for cash tips.  The tips are then shared by the baristas on duty.  It's this sharing of tips possibility that I want to flesh out with this point.  My contention is that if the pool of employees with whom the tips are shared is comparatively small, then the incentive to tip is reasonably strong. But as that pool gets bigger and bigger, it dilutes the incentive to tip.  I wrote about a similar idea, why many rich people want to avoid paying taxes but are willing to give much of the their wealth to charity, in a post called Mattering Bias.  Likewise, I believe those giving tips to essential workers want their tips to matter.  That requires some mechanism that doesn't dilute the tip too much and perhaps also is able to show the person giving the tip where the money actually went.

Now I want to get into some other particulars that may be worth thinking about.  Let's consider two different examples, a) buying groceries and then tipping the cashier (plus the person who bags the groceries) and b) ordering something from Amazon that is delivered by UPS and tipping the delivery person.   In (a) you would pay the tip along with paying your bill, immediately after the service is rendered.  Even with that you wouldn't want to tip by cash now as that might increase the health risk.  So, as with the second example, all the tipping would be by credit card and thus there will be a record of the transaction, itself something to reflect on.  But in this case the size of the tip might depend on the shopper's experience at the store.  If my experience is any indication, while stock outs of some items are now part of the new normal, the real issue is how long you have to wait to get to an available cashier, after finishing shopping.  I normally go to the grocery between 6 AM and 7 AM, a time slot reserved for senior citizens.  Sometimes they have only one cashier going then.  Other times it's two.  I don't know if later in the day they have more than that or not.  But the waiting is an inconvenience.  I might tip more if I didn't have to wait.  With (b), you prepay at the time of ordering.  So the tip can't be based on the performance in that transaction, but it possibly could be based on the performance history.  I don't recall having any issue with orders from Amazon prior to the pandemic, but since then some orders have been wrong  and one never got through so I got a refund.

The point is that with the data collected, it might be possible to come up with social norms for how much to tip.  When I was a kid I believe the norm for restaurant tipping was 15% of the pre tax bill.  (I'm curious to know what people perceive was the current norm before the pandemic started.)  It seems possible to develop norms for cashiers based on - what fraction of shoppers tip, what's the average tip rate of those who do tip, how much do cashiers make in tips per hour on average, and possibly other like variables, providing this information in aggregate so as not to compromise the privacy of information of any individual transaction.  If such norms settled down reasonably quickly, the mechanism might then be effective in raising the pay of this type of essential personnel.

Likewise, this could be done for the UPS driver, although here some other relevant variables might matter.  I live in a community called Robeson West.  On most weekdays you will see a UPS truck in the neighborhood, also an Amazon Van, and reasonably frequently that will happen more than once a day.  How many stops they make in the community matters for what the norm for tips should be locally.  That sort of information, based on recent historical. data could be provided as well.  Where we used to live before moving to our current house was more in the country.  By rights, tipping at the old house should be higher, because the driver won't have as many stops in that neighborhood, and the customer should have a sense of that.  Alternatively, it may be the quality of service is lower there, e.g., the time of day that delivery is made might be much later, on average. so the items sit in the delivery truck for a longer period of time.

With these caveats, tipping of front line essential personnel might be effective and a reasonable way to raise their earnings to a more socially acceptable level.  But what about other essential personnel who are more behind the scenes?  At the grocery, these are the people who stock the shelves.  Yet they are hardly the only ones working behind the scenes.  We should go further to consider much of the supply chain, particularly the warehouses where non-perishable goods are kept, received from primary suppliers and subsequently shipped to individual groceries.  The people working in those warehouses are also essential personnel as are those who drive the trucks that move items to the warehouse as well as other trucks that move items from the warehouse to the groceries.  Will tipping of the front line personnel have any impact on the wages of those other essential personnel who are more removed from the customer?

Directly, I'm afraid the answer is no, which is why tipping should be thought of primarily as a near term answer until more comprehensive long term answers can be found.  Readers might consider raising the minimum wage substantially as the appropriate longer term response.  But our economy is very weak now and under these circumstances raising the minimum wage might very well lead to current employees getting fired.  A few years ago I wrote a post about wage subsidies, which would be a better approach under the current circumstances, and might be done in demonstration mode before it became official policy.  But setting up such demonstrations would itself take time; I'm guessing much more time than it would take to get a functional approach to tipping in order.

Returning to the wages of those more remote personnel, one might imaging that those shoppers who don't tip would not care about these workers at all.  Such shoppers would like the lowest prices possible for the items that they do buy.  Those who tip regularly, however, might be willing to accept higher product prices if it meant those remote personnel were paid better.  If so, and if those who tip regularly constitute a big fraction of the company's business, then raising wages on the more remote personnel might make good business sense as a way to build customer loyalty.  Under ordinary circumstances these sort of calculations have already been accounted for in how the company does business.  For example, contrast Trader Joe's with Walmart.  But the pandemic may have changed things sufficiently to have another look at this question.  The tipping of the front line employees would inform on this matter.

Let me wrap up with a brief mention of the logistics needed to be put in place to make the tipping discussed in this piece a reality.  Those logistics are beyond me.  For those who might be able to seriously work them through, the question will be, does it make sense to do so?  Two factors will increase the likelihood that it does make sense.  The first is that we will be living in this pandemic world for longer than we hope, perhaps another year or so.  The second is that others develop a buzz about tipping as a near term way to reward essential personnel.  I've never had a post of mine go viral, so I have no direct experience that speaks to how to create such a buzz.  Maybe readers of this piece who find the idea intriguing might have a better sense of how such a buzz can happen.  At a minimum, both of those should be considered with some care even as the idea might spread.

The masks we wear to hide from ourselves

Just to get this out of the way up front, the masks I'm referring to are a kind of behavior and perhaps a mental attitude that goes with it.  For example, a sycophant employee will agree with everything the boss says.  That same employee may not be nearly so agreeable when at home and away from work.   That sort of thing is the subject of this post, though the focus will be on other motives for wearing masks.  This post is not about the face masks we need to wear in public to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Sometimes we wear such a mask when we read fiction, imagining ourselves as one of the characters in the story.  In this week's New Yorker there are four very short stories by Kafka, previously unpublished.  They seem especially appropriate for now, living under the pandemic. I especially liked the third one, which seems to capture my current thinking quite well, even if the particulars are different. The enigmas are of the same nature.  What to want now and how to negotiate for what we want remains a puzzle.

I have several different aspects to my personality.  One of those is to worry excessively, often about things entirely outside my control.  When I was an administrator I did this with some frequency and the stress of it ate me up on the inside.  I didn't know how to cope and put on a lot of weight in those years.  (It didn't help that I had to give up jogging several years earlier because my knees couldn't take it anymore.  I should have embraced walking then, but didn't till much later.)  Earlier in life, this same part of my personality led to two separate bouts of depression as a teenager.  I later learned some coping strategies about avoiding depression.  I'll return to that idea in a bit.

Before that I want to note that everyone has dark aspects to their personalities.  They won't all manifest in the same way, but we are not just our better angels, even if on occasion we behave as if we were.  So, it is my belief that all of us embrace ways for which those dark aspects won't manifest.  This is done by the wearing of masks, as in the title of my post.

Early in May I wrote a post, Fending Off Depression - My Take.  The intended audience for that post was current college students and also recent grads, each of whom is facing a very tough job market.  Implicit in the post, I assumed that we'd get the pandemic under control  eventually, but the economic consequences would persist well after that happened.  So I was writing about dealing with the economic consequences, especially for kids (in my world you're a kid till you're 35) who are living with mom and dad rather than venturing out on their own.  I didn't anticipate that the pandemic itself would be a possible source of depression, at least for the type of kids I saw in the class I taught last fall.

Later in May I stumbled into a wonderful and charming way for me to wear a mask.  I orchestrated a mini high school reunion via a Zoom call with friends in Facebook who went to Benjamin Cardozo HS and who graduated in 1972.  A few of them invited other friends, also in our graduating class.   After that call I did a few one-on-one calls with some of the participants.  But with one, I had been on a date with her in 12th grade, we instead had a very lengthy email exchange.  It was on a variety of topics, but part of it was about a "what if?" talking it through with a romantic touch, when we both were going through those awkward teenage blues that Bob Seeger sung about.  I found it captivating.  Now, with both of us 65, that our teen years are still such an object of fascination, and that we could discuss it openly was wonderful.

This conversation led me to a life question for which I still don't have a good answer.  As an adult I've had conversations with many women, though outside of close friends and family almost all of them had work at the university as how I got to know these women, and work often was at least part of the conversation.  In junior high and high school I had hardly any of these conversations.  In high school, particularly senior year, there was a lot of hanging out as a group, and I knew girls in that context.  But a one-on-one conversation with a girl was quite rare for me.  Why was that?  And had such conversations happened, would they be just like the one-on-one conversations I did have with close friends, all of whom were boys?  Or would they be different because the boy-girl thing would intrude in some way? 

As that email conversation was winding down I started another conversation with a 7th grade classmate whom I understood was having some life struggles.  I didn't know her well in 7th grade but I naively thought I could be of some comfort to her simply by schmoozing online.  This time we used Facebook Messenger instead of email.  My first attempt at contact failed to produce an ongoing conversation, but she did respond that what I sent was sweet in some way.  I had and still have a hunger for communication where the tone is sweet and the messages give the recipient a warm feeling.

A couple of weeks later I tried again and this time we connected.  I took delight in the back and forth we had and would spend considerable time thinking about how the conversation now tied into the common experiences we had in 7th grade.  Eventually, this brought me to a new self-understanding that I wrote about in a recent post, When Boys Had To Wear Ties To School.  And it occurred to me that sending silly but sweet messages, in particular sharing bad jokes, had some of the same elements.  It's a combination of performance/non-performance, where the aim is to evoke the right sort of reaction.  This was the mask I had wanted to wear.

When my kids were little I had similar warm feelings when playing with them, reading a book to them at night, or watching a movie with them in our living room.  Family life was full of warmth.  But the kids grow up and want to hang out with their own friends.  Eventually they move out of the house and our family communication is much more adult now.  My wife, who is still working for the university, occasionally expresses some of those child-like warm feelings, but more so on the weekends, and then they are fleeting, as she needs her downtime to restore herself.  I, however, am retired and have a craving for this sort of interaction.  Where might I find such interactions?  It seems with women I knew in public school, who want something similar.

I came to believe I could fill my day with sweet communications and the thoughts those messages engendered in me.  It was living in a dream world, no doubt.  Then, a few days ago the bubble burst.  The bad news, about the coronavirus in the U.S., as demonstrated in this table from the CDC, which I compulsively view at least once a day, coupled with the bad economic news, and the apparent stupidity of so many to cause these outcomes, got to me. The dark side of me appeared with a vengeance.  I didn't want to share these dark thoughts with anyone, though I'd like to know how others are maintaining their equilibrium in the present circumstances, and maybe understanding that also requires us to express our doubts and fears.  (My rhyme from yesterday is a very mild form of such expression.)

The news is likely to remain grim for a while.  Can I return to where my better angels take over and the sweet messages become a large part of my day?  I don't know.  It's been my experience that by writing about what's bothering me, I can get it out of my system and move onto something else.  But now we're on a pace for more than a million new cases per month.  The election seems far away.  The inauguration even further.  I need a coping strategy for the interim.  Wearing a mask might be part of it, but I don't think it can be the whole solution.  I wonder if others are thinking along the same lines and, if so, what they have come up with.

Maybe I need to stop reading Paul Krugman's column in the NY Times.   Economics is the dismal science.  Instead, we need upbeat science fiction.

Did a Change Ever Come? Will a Change Be Coming Soon?

If you click through to see this song at YouTube, it says it is from 1963.  Wikipedia, in contrast, says the song came out in 1964.  While this distinction is of no consequence for what I want to say here, it does offer a fair warning to not believe everything that 's online, including what I say in this post.  I will try to avoid deliberately distorting matters, but inadvertent distortions might very very well creep into my argument.

Let's begin with a few other dates that help to identify the time.  Brown v. Board of Education happened in 1954.  It overturned the concept of separate but equal, as articulated in Plessy v. Ferguson.  The decision was rendered soon after Earl Warren became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  Warren had received a recess appointment made by President Eisenhower in fall 1953, but was subsequently confirmed by acclimation of the full Senate early in 1954, which itself stands in quite a contrast to the present moment.  Indeed, Warren wrote the Brown opinion and orchestrated a unanimous agreement with that opinion among the other justices.  The Brown decision is the most clear articulation of a moral principle that I am aware of with regard to public policy in the schools. Yet articulating the principle and implementing it are two quite different things.

On November 22, 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated.  Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson became President. I was 8 years old then and in 4th grade at P.S. 203 in Bayside Queens, NYC.  To the best of my recollection, busing to achieve integration hadn't yet started in the NYC schools at that time. President Johnson signed The Civil Rights Act of 1964 on July 2, prior to the election LBJ had against Barry Goldwater that would occur that November. There was an extensive filibuster against the act that was ultimately defeated.

“It is an important gain, but I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come,” Johnson, a Democrat, purportedly told an aide later that day in a prediction that would largely come true.

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution happened a month later.  I don't know anyone of my generation who believes that decision was other than a colossal blunder.  It provided the basis for a dramatic escalation of America's presence in Vietnam.  I believe the political calculus, of which LBJ was said to be a master, was that if the Democrats were going to be so liberal regarding Johnson's Great Society, then they needed to show a tough side too, and this was it, to serve as a counter to Goldwater, who was an incredible hawk.

The pace of the news cycle was much slower then.  But it still may be that the electorate can't well process more than one big issue at a time.  The Vietnam War competed with Civil Rights as that number one big issue.

There are many other important events and pieces of legislation that one might add to this timeline.  In the interest of keeping this piece of reasonable length, I won't do that.  I will simply note that in fall 1966 I started at Junior High School 74, only a ten minute walk from where I lived.  There was busing of Black kids to the school.  Likewise, there was busing of Black kids to Benjamin Cardozo High school, which I attended beginning in 1968, as 74 switched from a Junior High to a Middle School.  (I still have no idea why this happened.  But Middle School eventually became the new normal.)  At 74, I don't have any recollection of racially motivated incidents.  In contrast, at Cardozo I experienced that repeatedly when outside the building waiting to get in.  Being panhandled was a recurrent activity.  Also, there where White toughs who seemed to be looking for a fight to get into with the Black students.  I have no explanation for this difference other than that the high school was much bigger than the junior high regarding the number of students.  Indeed, in 10th grade I was on late session, and that may have been when I most experienced panhandling.   Students on late session couldn't be let into the school until some of the students already there were dismissed.   I do want to point out that the integration was far from complete, inside the school.  Academic classes were tracked and the tracking created a school within a school effect.  The tracking predated busing, so wasn't immediately dismantled when busing started.

Sam Cooke's song presumes a change that is profound and persistent. The first question in my title is about whether any of that happened in the 1960s and early 1970s.  In spite of the high minded intentions of the Great Society and busing to achieve integration, I'm not sure that it did.  Indeed, one of the things I'd like to argue here is that in considering the present we do a deep look at the 1960s, so we can ask the following.  If a change didn't come then, why didn't it happen?  Might those same issues exist today?  If so, can we do something to not repeat that history?

* * * * *

One of the things about current politics that disturbs me, this is not a left versus right thing as everybody does it, is that solutions are proffered before the issue is fully described and analyzed.  Then as a voter your loyalty is tested by whether you subscribe to the proposed solution or not.  I wish so much that we could be far more deliberate and consider the various related issues in their totality, produce a good narrative that explains why those issues manifest, and only then begin on what a good solution might look like.  But nobody seems to have the patience for that.  They want to race ahead to get to the answer.  The wanting to be quick about it trumps whether what they have in mind is indeed an answer, or if instead it is merely window dressing.  A particular example triggered this post.

I have a PayPal account for a non-profit where I am the treasurer.  The non-profit raises funds for an organization in Uganda.  So, I end up checking PayPal at least once a day to see if there have been new donations.  This message has been on PayPal's login page for a while.

I was bothered by this and ultimately it was my irritation that encouraged me to write this post.  It seemed far more marketing than substance, to me.  I will give a bit of analysis of that in a subsequent section.  Here let me simply observe the following.  The George Floyd execution made available to many people the excessive use of violence that Black people face on an all too regular basis.  There was ample evidence of such excessive violence before this, much of it highly publicized.  Why people didn't put two and two together until now, I don't understand.  But they didn't.  That NFL owners have rethought players taking a knee during the National Anthem is not because they too saw the light about the plight of Black people.  It's because they came to understand that the fans, majority White, had seen the light and they needed to show they were aligned with what the fans are now thinking.  Likewise, companies like PayPal, this piece mentions YouTube and Walmart among others, are reacting now because of the same reaction among their customer/user base.

If these companies had been prescient about these matters, they would have reacted in much the same way as they are doing now when Colin Kaepernick first took a knee during the National Anthem, in the last preseason game of the 2016 season, or perhaps even earlier.  (Trayvon Martin was killed in February 2012.)  But they weren't prescient then, which makes one wonder if they are still not prescient now. And, if not, why should one buy into these gestures as anything other than marketing devices?  If that's what they are, we shouldn't be swayed by them.  We should want something more, something earnest and durable, something that we can reasonably expect will improve the situation.

* * * * *

When I was a kid the acronym WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) was in fairly common usage.  This was used as the designation for people who were in control of society.  JFK's election marked a breakthrough for Catholics.  Where I grew up in Bayside there was a Catholic church just two blocks away from where my family lived,  St. Roberts.  It had a parochial school for grades K-8 that was an alternative to the public school.  Why middle income families would want to send their kids to parochial school, I still don't get to this day.  Wasn't it possible to get sufficient religious training for the kid outside of school?  But that it happened, in large numbers, I have no doubt.  And, to be fair, some Jewish kids, like my orthodox cousins, went to Yeshiva.   The Catholic kids were mainly of Irish or Italian decent.  The theory we were taught in social studies at the time was that NYC was a melting pot.  Eventually, we'd all simply be Americans.  The public schools had a chance to perform such melting, if every student attended them.  As things were, it mainly didn't happen that way.  Instead, the public schools I attended inadvertently reinforced the idea that the Jews were the Chosen People, as a significant majority of the high academic achievers at these schools were Jewish.

There were other differentiators that mattered as well.  During the Vietnam War, a significant divider was about whether you were for the war or against it.  Emblematically, this was cast as the hard hats versus the hippies, a division that the show All in the Family captured quite well. Then, there was also a very strong north-south distinction among Whites, which focused on the race issue, specifically including Blacks as equals or not.  Before too long, the Republican Party has captured most Southern Whites, as the LBJ quote above suggested would happen.  The Democratic Party had more of the Northern Whites.  Thus, rather than have a mixture of conservatives and liberals within a political party, there became separation of these types across the parties.  National politics became increasingly fierce thereafter; this is one explanation for that.

Let us note that even if an integrated solution is imposed by government, it may not be a real change if significant numbers of people opt out of the solution.  We've already noted the possibility of going to parochial school instead of public school.  There is also the possibility of attending private schools that have no religious affiliation.  In the 1970s, the opt out happened mainly by families moving to the suburbs, emblematic of the phrase, "white flight."  In case this is not obvious, the families that did opt out tended to be wealthier.   Years later, when there was a reverse trend toward urban gentrification, but with busing no longer in vogue, the quality of the neighborhood schools reflected the wealth in the surrounding communities.   Did this represent overall progress?  Or was it a return to the way things were in the early 1960s?

* * * * * 

While I understand the need for some level of aggregation when in discourse about racial issues, I do not like being referred to as White.  I also do not like the phrases White Privilege and White Guilt, at least as far as they are applied to me.  I will explain why and then offer an alternative that I prefer.  I've lived in Champaign Illinois for 40 years.  It is a college town.  Life revolves around the university here.  On campus, while I was a faculty member and an administrator as well and later when I was retired but would teach one course a year under contract, I had a strong ethos of collegiality, which I applied to all my interactions.  That ethos is race blind.  I would much prefer to live in a world where collegiality is the norm in the way people behave and race fades into the background as an issue.  I have been largely successful in achieving this ethos within my own limited universe.  It is not that everyone I've interacted with is also collegial.  There definitely have been jerks now and then.  But race was largely a non-factor in determining who was collegial and who was a jerk.  This is not to argue that racism is absent on campus.  That is definitely not true.  But if most people behave according to the proverb, when in Rome do as the Romans do, then setting the tone in a collegial manner can encourage others to do likewise.  Further, there is an educational aspect to this, about how one should behave.  People can learn to be collegial by repeatedly behaving that way. This is the ideal I'd like to see extended to society as a whole.

In getting from where we are now to better approximating this ideal, it is evident to me that the opting out behavior, which in the rest of this piece I mean to stand for many additional behaviors that are anathema to desegregation and fair treatment, stands as a significant obstacle, one that is likely to take some time to address sufficiently.  As with the PayPal example, I find us wanting a quick hitter type of solution, which might work in a single instance but then very likely will lead to reversion to form.  I'd put the expression White Privilege in that category.  Realistically, many people are heads down about their politics now - get Trump out of office, that is job one. Build the solidarity that is necessary for that.  Only after job one has been accomplished should we consider what to do next.  I understand that thinking.  But it doesn't do anything to combat systemic racism.

Opting out is myopically rational and selfish behavior, an extension of the notion - vote your pocketbook. We were taught that as the thing to do when we were growing up. It is a learned behavior that has hardened into habit over time.  But it clearly does damage to the system and it makes the game appear rigged when most of the well off opt out.  We've been hearing that the economy was a rigged game for a long time, well before #BlackLivesMatter was established.  Opting out must be unlearned and replaced with something else - socially responsible behavior.  Social responsibility requires opting in.  That much should be evident now.  Our rhetoric could say as much, so it should say as much.

* * * * *

What would the social contract look like if it were to end systemic racism and had the vast majority of people opting in to do the socially responsible thing?  I wish I knew the answer to that question.  If we could figure that out we might then be able to reverse engineer it to see what must be done now to make it happen.

Absent that, one might envision a more pragmatic approach starting with the question, what can be done so that Black Americans don't face excessive violence from the police?  The immediate response might be to give better education to the police and better screening of those who want to become members of the police as well as to provide ongoing evaluation of those currently doing this work. Would that be sufficient?  I'm guessing the answer to that is no.  Segregated schools and segregated housing will produce excessive police violence.  In other words the environment matters, perhaps as much as the skill and the character of the police.  If the environment appears hostile, it will evoke a hostile response, even to people who otherwise seem good and decent.

Then you'd roll that back. What can be done to desegregate housing and the schools?  Almost surely, this would lead to consideration of income inequality in the overall society, the faults in the criminal justice system apart from the police, the disintegration of the two-parent family among working class people, and possibly a host of other issues.

The starting pragmatic and rolling it back approach might eventually lead to much the same place as the more abstract and conceptual structuring of the social contract.  But if only one step in this rolling back were taken per election cycle, it might take quite a while for people to see where this is eventually heading.  Would those who have switched from opting out to opting in keep their commitment through the entire process?  Or would they eventually get discouraged that this is taking too long without showing sufficient results?

* * * * *

The pandemic is today's Vietnam War.  It has focused the public's attention and rightly so, everyone is scared about their own health and the health of their loved ones.  Can we manage the response to the pandemic in a sensible fashion and still make progress on ending systemic racism at the same time?

Let us note that when President Obama first took office, the Great Recession was the big deal issue and many people were in underwater mortgages.  TARP, a program established near the end of the Bush administration, had $50 Billion allocated to bail out people in such mortgages.  As I recall, much of that money went unspent.  Eventually the housing market came back in many communities.  But it remained depressed in majority Black communities.  This was racism of a different sort, documented here.

Social networking enables people to become woke on certain issues, especially if they can be framed in a visually captivating way.  Yet many important issues remain largely invisible.  If through more earnest inquiry we become aware of these issues can we find support for addressing them as well?  Wouldn't that be a necessary piece of ending systemic racism.

* * * * *

I want to turn to the PayPal program that rubbed me the wrong way - I referred to it as marketing.  Maybe there are bits of it that do make sense.  I'm not in a position to determine that.  But I can pose the following questions which I think need real answers before we should embrace the program. 

• What determined the size of the program?  Is it a lot or only a drop in the bucket?  Consider that relative to what PayPal can afford.  Also consider that in terms of the underlying need.

• Given that other large companies are each doing their own programs, does that make sense?  Or would it make better sense if the programs were coordinated into one overall program?  Would such coordination require government to do be doing this?  So might it be better that these companies pay increased taxes on their profits so that the government could implement a coordinated program?

• These programs are targeted at Black-run businesses.  Will employees of these business see benefits as well?  Or is this another case of the same old trickle down that lined the pockets of the CEOs, but left the employees with very little for their part?

• These programs seem designed so that those who are running the programs get to pick the winners and losers.  What criteria will there be to do this?  How can impartiality be assured in the process?  Conversely, how can the process not become too clunky as to block applications for grants?

• Might it actually be socially better, for Black businesses and everyone else as well, if PayPal simply lowered their fees, so customers/users got more bang for their bucks, rather than have any such programs at all?

This list of questions probably can be made longer.  But this should be sufficient as an expression of skepticism that what PayPal is doing isn't going well beyond mere marketing. 

 * * * * *

Let me wrap up.   There's an argument being made that White folks need to speak up or write about racism, for there to be any real progress.  I've done that on occasion, for instance here.  But I know my posts are a slug and people who do work through them want to have a good take away.  It is this.  The idea that there is a quick solution to systemic racism is a pipe dream.  We need to look at the long haul and find an approach which decent people of all colors and creeds can embrace.  Let's do the necessary homework to produce such a solution.  In my view, it still has yet to be articulated.

When Boys Had To Wear Ties To School

To the best of my recollection, there was no dress code for kids when I was in elementary school.  There was in junior high school, which I will describe below.  Sometime during ninth grade, which for me was in high school, as the junior high had converted to being a middle school by then, the dress code was dropped, as a result of the ethos of the time.  The Vietnam War had created a huge reaction and spawned social change.  How we dressed was part of that.  My interest here is before that.  Things like dress codes exist for a reason.  What was the reason then? I'm going to speculate about that here.  I'm also going to talk about this as trying to understand my own development during that time.

Why bother?  For me, better understanding myself as a kid helps in figuring out how I am now. Each of us is the product of our own past. Some revelation of that past can then be brought to the present by increased self-awareness and perhaps change in behavior in the here and now as a consequence.

Here's a little bit of an aside that might help.  It's about our notions of intelligence and how it is determined.  Current thinking, as exemplified by the work of Carol Dweck, is quite different from how we thought of intelligence when I was a kid.  According to Dweck, intelligence is an attitudinal thing.  If you have the growth mindset, you then are willing to put in the time and effort for the practice needed to learn something new and with that learning you do grow.  The learning thus confirms the growth attitude.  In contrast, if you have the fixed mindset, I'm not good at that, then you don't practice much at all and don't get any learning as a result.  That too confirms the prior attitude.  When I was a kid we thought about intelligence as largely genetically determined and a fixed attribute, so your IQ was the same throughout your life.  But unlike hair color, which clearly is genetically determined and does differentiate us some, intelligence apparently differentiated us vertically.  Having a higher IQ was equivalent to being smarter than the other person.  While in some cultural environments intelligence is not prized, so a smart kid might dumb himself down to be more acceptable to others, among the Jewish kids I knew when I was growing up intelligence was prized.  Parents wanted their kids to be smart as benefit to the kids, but also as confirmation about themselves. 

Now let me get to the punchline and then circle back to personalize all of this.  While kids differ in the age at which they enter puberty, if school is to make adjustments in how they go about things, they have to do it based on grade level, or on even coarser considerations, elementary school versus junior high school, for example.  So think of elementary school as for prepubescent kids while junior high school was for kids who have entered puberty.  Considered in this light, the dress code is an increase in the rules that kids must abide by.  Making the rules overt, which the dress code surely did, is a way to enforce authority and to quash student expression via appearance.  This direct effect might have also had an indirect effect on students, who were just becoming aware of their own sexuality.  At least with regard to time in school, the school was signaling that more prudish behavior was preferred.

For the boys, there was some "cheating" with the requirement.  Some kids wore clip-on ties.  One or two wore bow ties, which were also clip on.  And there were these tie-like things, I'm not sure what they were called, that did go around the neck and then you snapped it together to form an inverse V.  Wearing a tie necessitated wearing a button down shirt.  Further, jeans and sneakers were not allowed.  The norm was to have pants too short by what's considered appropriate today*, with white sweat socks, the tops of which were clearly visible, and penny loafers to complete the look.  For the girls, they had to wear skirts and blouses.  Pants weren't allowed, which especially in wintertime seemed quite unfair.  The "solution" was pantyhose.  Had it been the girls who wore pants and the boys who wore skirts, at least that part of the dress code would have been knocked down years earlier.

There were several other factors where elementary school differed from junior high school. Here are a few to consider.  In elementary school, it was not uncommon for some kids in the classroom to be doing one activity while other kids were doing something else.  The easiest of these to remember was painting at an easel.  Our classrooms had a limited number of stations for painting, maybe two or three, that were located in a back corner of the room.  We also had time in class for reading, which was either a book of our own choice from the school library (individualized reading) or SRA reading, which was color coded by how proficient the kid was then.  Students in different color codes got reading passages of different difficulty levels.  Of course, we did have ensemble activities as well.  Spelling was one of the those, with the pre-test on Monday and the re-test on Friday, where all of us had to master the same list of words.  Junior high featured much less (and possibly none) of the small group activity where kids did different things across the groups and much more of the ensemble activity.  So kids in  junior high may have become more aware of the performance of other kids in their class as a result.

Further, junior high featured explicit tracking when I was a student.  If there was tracking in elementary school (and there might not have been) it was invisible to the students. In junior high there was something called SP (special progress) which separated students out by academic performance.  There were two flavors.  I was in the 3-year SP, which emphasized enrichment in the teaching.  There was also 2-year SP, which compressed 3 years of schooling into 2 years, so the emphasis was on acceleration.**  The consequence of SP was to create a school-within-a-school effect, where SP kids were the elite students.  I started junior high in 1966.  Busing to achieve desegregation in the NYC schools started perhaps a year earlier.  SP predates that, which I know because my sister, who is 5 years my senior, was also in SP.  So SP was not designed with the aim of thwarting desegregation, but it may have inadvertently done that.  There were very few Black students in SP when I was in junior high. 

Junior high also had numerical grades, from which a GPA could be computed.  In elementary school, we did get report cards, which included categories for which grades were assigned (Excellent, Good, Fair, or Unsatisfactory) and for which the teacher might write a brief comment, but there was no converting of those grades into numerical equivalents.  There is no doubt that numerical grades make students more grade conscious. We should ask whether that is a feature or a bug.  Overall, I can't say.  But it did have a profound effect on me, as I will illustrate.

Until yesterday, I was under the impression that puberty and academic performance were two entirely separate things.  Then, while having an extended thread with a classmate from 7th grade, it occurred to me (Why? I don't know.) that maybe they are connected in an important way.  So I did some Google searches to see if this has been investigated.  I looked at several documents, which somewhat differ in their conclusions, suggesting that maybe it matters when in the school career of the kid one takes a look.  Among these papers this one was the most interesting to me, The relationship between pubertal hormones and brain plasticity: Implications for cognitive training in adolescence. I won't claim that I read it carefully.  But I garnered from it that it is possible for puberty to be the cause of an "intellectual growth spurt," depending on other factors as well.   I started puberty quite early.  I wrote about that in this post.  This is the relevant paragraph.

Those questions begin, I believe, with the onset of puberty, especially as how the time of that compares with the times for others in the kid's cohort.  For me, it started quite early, when I was nine.  I was kicked out of choir in fourth grade because my voice broke then, much like the kid in Almost Angels.   There was one other kid, Jay S, who was in the same boat.  We were separated from the rest of the class, when it was in choir practice.  I understood this separation wasn't punitive.  But it reinforced a feeling of being different from others.  (Being one of the biggest was what generated that sense of being different.  So I already had some of this feeling since nursery school.)  The first meaning of life question, then, was how to regard this difference and not feel shame about it, which I surely did feel at the time.  I have since confronted this feeling of being different in several other areas.  I probably wasn't ready in fourth grade to consider it a theme that might focus reading and writing.  But by high school I was.  However, I had nobody like Mr. Conrad to intrude on my thinking and direct it in this area.

I believe I had an intellectual growth spurt soon thereafter.  An issue for me that I don't have completely resolved in my head is whether my teachers took note of my early puberty and directed my school activity accordingly.***  I am quite sure that in 6th grade, where my teacher was also the school librarian,  I spent an inordinate time outside of the classroom and in the library.  At least some of that time was to place the plastic coverings on the book jackets of newly received books.  But much of it must have been to do independent reading on my own.  I will never know why Mr. Sachar selected me for this, but I'm now very grateful that he did.  I was able to develop at my own pace. At the time, I had no clue how that compared with the pace of other students, so social concerns didn't impede me in any way then.  And I developed a very strong sense of directing my own learning, which is something I believe each kid needs to develop, though nowadays it is comparatively rare.

I'm also of the mind now that I probably repressed any explicit form of sexual expression in fifth and sixth grades, which was my way to deal with my puberty when my classmates weren't there yet.  It may have been a sensible thing to do at the time, but it probably began a battle between my conscious self and my subconscious being, which persisted for many years thereafter, well into adulthood.

With this as setup, I now want to consider a novel thought for me, that my performance in junior high school was a kind of sexual expression, one that my subconscious directed.  I want to note two things about that performance.  After the first marking period in 7th grade, we had assembly in the auditorium where the school principal called me up to the front of the room because I had the highest GPA among all the 7th graders.  From then I was branded as a very smart kid.  Also, in class, particularly in social studies, I raised my hand a lot in response to questions from the teacher.  I don't recall specifically if this was just to give the "right answer" or instead to embellish on the topic more broadly.  I'm guessing now, without remembering exactly, that I did some of both.  It's more the hand raising and my responses to the teacher that I'm thinking of as a kind of sexual expression.

Yet consciously, it was just me being me.  At that level I'm quite sure I was not trying to impress my classmates.  Was that naiveté or something else?  I did learn near the end of 7th grade that it can cut the other way.  We had autograph books which we got others in our class to sign, after saying something they felt about the person.  One girl wrote that I made her feel uncomfortable in class.  Had I gotten many such comments, I might have changed my in-class behavior.  With just this one comment, while it bothered me, I didn't make any adjustment at all.

Some years later, definitely before college, I read On Aggression by Konrad Lorenz, which was a study of the animal kingdom, of which we humans are members.  It features a concept called territoriality, which helps to explain within-species aggression.  I'm the king of my own zone.  If you stay outside my zone you and I are fine.  But if you cross into my zone I will fight you.  Here I'm using the first person singular to generalize to any animal who will defend his turf.  The book goes beyond this particular concept and discusses particular examples of animal life, for example, mating rituals.  One that illustrates matters quite nicely is the behavior of peacocks, who strut in order to entice peahens to be their mates. Later in life I've referred to the analogous behavior in human beings as "plumage." My classroom behavior in 7th grade seems an almost perfect example, in retrospect, although I really wasn't aware of it at the time.  But it may very well have been the subconscious driver behind the urge to raise my hand to respond to the teacher's question.

Alas, even if I did make a strong (and good) impression on some of the girls in the class then, I didn't know how to close the deal, and felt myself unattractive, both for being very big and because I was a klutz physically. I wrote about this in my previous post, but there I focused on the time from college onward.  Some of the same issues were there, even in 7th grade, which is what gave the impetus for this post.

We don't get to relive our lives over again, where in the encore we've learned from our mistakes made the first time through.  But we can share some memories with our friends who were there with us.  Recently, I've been doing that with some friends from junior high school.  It gives me a warm feeling now to do that.  I hope it's the same for them.

Adolescence is such a struggle. It is said that struggle makes you stronger.  If eventually a spouse is found, this particular struggle makes you more compassionate, at least it did for me. Nowadays, I believe it's good to think of strength as compassion.

-----

*Since the kids were growing in those years, the pants might have been more than long enough when purchased originally, with an inner or outer cuff for the extra material, to be let out after the kid grew a few inches.

** There were three 2-year SP classes and four 3-year SP classes at JHS 74 when I was there.  Some years ago I scanned our yearbook, Insights 68.  The class photos start on page 58, with the 2-year SP 9th graders.  It seems that those classes were somewhat larger (35 or 36 students) than the 3-year SP classes (about 27 students).  If you do look at those photos note that each page is within its own folder and you want the image that has larger file size, the second one in the folder.  Also, after you've opened the file to view the image, near the bottom there is a control that is evident if you mouse over it.  You can expand or shrink the size of the image with that control.

*** I believe placement into SP was generated by performance on a standardized test, the score on which was not made known to the student.  Conceivably, I had a very high score and that, rather than the evident puberty, was something the teachers were aware of.

The Time Machines In Our Minds

Taking A Chance on Love Performed by Ella Fitzgerald
I thought that cards were a frame-up 
I never would try 
But Now I'm taking the game up 
And the ace of hearts is high.

I first confronted this song while taking piano lessons at our house in Bayside. These lessons were taught by Mr. Anson and after a while those lessons developed a familiar pattern.  The two pieces I had been given the previous week would be performed first, to show some mastery.  Then the two pieces for this week would be introduced and tried.  Of the two pieces one was classical.  (Clementi Sonatinas convey the right sense of these.)  I seem to recall that we had a few books of classical music at the house and Mr. Anson would choose selections from these sources.  The other piece was sheet music that Mr. Anson had rexographed and punched holes in.  We (my brother and sister also took lessons from Mr. Anson) would put the new piece into a loose leaf binder that had the shape to contain this type of music.  The music itself had notes for the melody, but for the accompaniment there were cords written in.  This meant that when you played the accompaniment you could either play block chords, perhaps varying the note sequence within the chord, or as an arpeggio. This, along with the volume and perhaps the pace at which the piece was played, gave the rendering a sense of improvisation.

I'm Getting Sentimental Over You Performed by Frank Sinatra

I thought I was happy,
I could live without love
Now I must admit love 

Is all I'm thinking of.

I took piano lessons for 5 years.  For the first 4 years, I would practice about a half hour per day.  During the last year, in which I had started taking clarinet lessons as well, I did not practice piano on many days.  It was an indicator that I was ready to stop taking lessons.  Until then, however, I developed a skill that has survived into adulthood.  I could take a piece of sheet music where I already knew the tune and give a tolerably good rendering on first playing, as if I were playing by ear.  (The issue for me now with this is the font size of the music that we have.  I often can't tell if the note is between the lines or on a line.  That has made the playing less fun.)  

While I don't remember this explicitly, I must have sung the lyrics while playing the songs, as I now know the lyrics of many of these songs by heart.  (In contrast, I have no such ability to play the classical music now and for the most part don't try to play those pieces at all.). Indeed, this playing and singing was a kind of emoting, my first recollection of doing this sort of thing.  This sense of emoting must have been helped by the nature of the music, much of which was love songs with a common theme in the lyric.  (I've selected the bits of lyric to illustrate that theme.) It is conceivable that such emoting could have happened with the painting we did in elementary school.  Perhaps with other children more skilled than I was that is where they developed their sense of self-expression.   But it didn't work that way for me.  I had the piano playing and once in a while in a social situation some ability to express warmth with a verbal observation.  If that too was learned, it happened very early, perhaps in nursery school. My inclination now is to treat such expressions of warmth as part of my disposition. 

Try to Remember Performed by Jerry Orbach
Try to remember the kind of September
When you were a tender and callow fellow.

I was never good enough to play the piano in a public recital.  But my skill level was sufficient to have family and sometimes friends gather around the piano to sing along.  My dad especially liked to do this, as a form of entertainment.  Try to Remember has to be the best possible song for this purpose.  The melodic line is very simple and the lyrics are so sentimental, a real tearjerker.  I recall being at the piano like this with other kids in my dorm my second year at MIT (where they were lubricated with beer and/or gin and tonic).  A girl who lived the floor below me at Senior House sat on the piano bench with me and turned the pages.  Others were standing around, close enough so they could read the lyrics on the page.  It was evidence that some people want group singing as part of their social life, especially if the songs are familiar and sweet.  Indeed, after I was married we'd often do this with extended family members.

Here is a different set of experiences that might be more unusual.  When we were still in Vancouver BC, living together, engaged but not yet married, my not yet wife and I would sing while driving to wherever we were going.  (We ate out a lot then and occasionally went to the movies.)  The favorite song was definitely Ol' Man River, another song that Mr. Anson had me play.  I would not characterize it as a love song, but there is some romance in it.  And the melody ranges across a few octaves.  Singing the base line in each verse is its own reward.

After my kids were born I learned to put the baby to sleep by holding the baby with his head on my shoulder, touching my ear, and then singing in a gravelly voice.   My favorite then was Haul Away Joe, a song my dad favored.  But once in a while I'd do a little Cole Porter for variety or other show tunes, often from Fiddler on the Roof.  The warm feeling created then was much like the feeling we'd get a year or two later when we would read a book before the kid went to sleep.  Goodnight Moon was one of the favorites then.  We'd never got tired of reading that.

* * * * *

While some of me still remains a tender and callow fellow, I think it helpful to look at two distinct segments of my life, to sort my behavior.  In reverse chronological order,  the first started when I became an ed tech administrator and lasted till now, even though I've been retired for almost 10 years.  At the start, I had already been married six years and had two young kids.  Over time I developed friendships and collegial relationships with many different people on campus, within the CIC (which then was the academic arm of the Big Ten) and nationally.  I had very warm feelings for these people that I wrote about in a post called Affection. And for the most part, the gender of the colleague didn't matter at all in our one-on-one interactions.  I won't say that gender didn't matter at all in the group dynamics, but it was of secondary importance there as well.  (At a national conference the guys from the CIC Learning Technology Group would go out to dinner and the women would do likewise.  The night before an LTG meeting, we'd all go out to dinner together.)

These sort of warm feelings in work are perhaps a byproduct, as the work itself comes first.  But they end up being the reason the work itself becomes enjoyable.  (I don't want to over romanticize this.  There were plenty of headaches too, but I'll abstract from those here.)  I actually try to teach about this in my course on The Economics of Organizations, where we do Akerlof's model on Labor Markets as Partial Gift Exchange.  This is as close as economics comes (and it is part sociology) to a workplace that would generate the type of affection I described above.  The emphasis in the economics is not on the warm feelings generated.  It is on the improvement in productivity that occurs in such a work environment.  The two go hand in hand.

The earlier period is my years in school, from junior high through graduate school, and then including my time working at Illinois till I met my wife, about 8 and a half years into being a faculty member.  While the relationships with male friends were pretty much the same as when I was an ed tech administrator, there was more nuance then regarding affection with female friends, because there was a gray zone of uncertainty where the relationship might take a romantic turn.  I was pretty bad at managing that gray zone.  Out of shyness I often wouldn't ask - would you like to take a walk?  would you like to go to dinner?  would you like to have a drink?  or other questions of that sort.  I don't think the shyness was ever overcome.  Instead, the frustration from what in retrospect seemed a missed opportunity became a spur for being more forthcoming the next time around.

It is also worth noting that while I continue to hold rather romantic ideas about these things, there is no denying that we were exposed to sex in a much more raw way during adolescence and thereafter.  If you watched TV or went to the movies, you couldn't avoid it.  I will mention just two things here as illustration.  The first is this Noxzema TV Commercial, where Joe Namath gets creamed by Farrah Fawcett.  The second is  The Avengers TV series.  Many of my male friends had a thing for Diana Rigg, moi aussi.  We were taught that sex sells, which it evidently did.  I don't think we needed to be told that, but that we were, repeatedly, and that added to the sense of failure in the missed opportunities.

* * * * *

Before I ever learned as an administrator the need for doing a post mortem at work when a project would go awry, to identify the causes and see if we could learn from our mistakes so we wouldn't repeat them, I would review these episodes from the earlier period, imagine that I played my cards differently in the review and then it followed a path that had a happy ending.  This is one type of time machine that I'm referring to in the title of this piece. I've "learned" from reading some popular psychology pieces about this sort of imagining that many people do this.  (Note, I'm not referencing such pieces here, an indication that I'm not sure whether it is science or bs, though it is comforting that at least some others do seem to do this.)

I have not included the interim period, where I was much more satisfied with how things went.  In fact, the year we were engaged I can recall exactly two fights.  One was in Vancouver and was about how to cook broccoli - boil it or steam it.  (I was on the wrong side of that one - boil it - and afterwards I bought flowers to patch things up.) The other was on the drive back from Vancouver to Champaign.  After a very romantic night in Yakima Washington, we had a dreadful time in Butte Montana.  The hotel we stayed in was very shabby.  But we rebounded after that and had a good time on the rest of the trip. We did make a whopper of mistake later on.  While planning our wedding we also purchased the house we would live in soon after we married.  Doing either of those things individually would have been very stressful.  Doing them together was overwhelming.  But that's spilt milk and I'm not crying about it now.

As I can write about certain aspects of that time and do view it as such a happy part of my life, I don't have need for the time machine to fix what might have happened but didn't. And I will observe the transformation from academic economist to ed tech administrator happened in stages and was facilitated by the novelty that was entering our lives in the early days of the Internet, a factor so large that my mental time machine couldn't do anything about it, even if it had wanted to. Before that interim period it's a different story.

And there are episodes from different junctures of that - when I was a counselor at a sleep-away camp, as an undergraduate at MIT, and again after I transferred to Cornell, as a graduate student at Northwestern, and then when I started working at Illinois.

The funny thing is, I don't travel back in time to each of these places with equal frequency.  The focus is on graduate school, especially the first two years.  There are two main reasons for this.  Between Cornell and Northwestern I lost about 50 pounds.  Being overweight was definitely a liability on the romantic front. At Northwestern, my appearance was normal and I was making a fresh start.  As I told a friend recently, my mind didn't make the adjustment nearly as readily as my body did.  This made that first year a challenge, even as opportunities did present themselves. (Actually, the first quarter at Northwestern was so intensive that there really weren't opportunities then.  I'm talking about after that.)

The second year was a bit different.  At Northwestern in Economics at least then, 1977-78, being a TA was a degree requirement for the PhD.  And the Department, which was having some funding issues then, upped the requirement from 4 sections (2 per quarter for 2 quarters) to 6 sections (2 per quarter for all 3 quarters).  During this time I was the rep from my class to the Grad Studies Committee.  This change clearly wasn't made for the educational benefit for the graduate students.  (As an aside, I was on fellowship.  So I didn't get paid anything in addition for being a TA.  Further, because it wasn't income, I didn't have to report the TA activity when filing my income tax.  Indeed, that was the real reason behind some of these shenanigans.  Eventually the IRS caught up with this and disallowed the practice.)

The prospect of being a TA brought a different wrinkle into these gray area interactions.  The song by the Police, Don't Stand So Close To Me, conveys some of the idea.  As a TA, I was very well regarded by the students.  I was quite knowledgeable and passionate about the economics.  During that year, several male students told me I was their favorite TA.  This was based purely on the teaching of the economics.  I, of course, can't know this, but I intuited that some female students developed a crush on me.  This was manifest not so much in live class sessions, though it did happen sometimes there as well.  It was mainly evident during office hours, which I conducted in the Library lounge, a public space.

Writing the previous paragraph was a challenge, as if I was threading a needle, because nowadays sexual harassment on campus is such a big deal issue.  So I want to emphasize that in actuality nothing untoward happened, in the classroom nor in office hours.  I performed my TA function as it should have been performed.  All the action was in my head and possibly in the head of the female student. The most dynamic of these episodes happened in real time as I was performing my TA function, rather than as reflection afterwards.  That contributed to the intensity of the experience.  Another factor that might have mattered is how Northwestern differed from Cornell regarding student culture.  At Cornell, at least among the students I knew, there was an ethos that prevailed about not displaying wealth even if you had plenty of it.  As a result, most students dressed down when going to class.  I continued to do that as a graduate student, a flannel shirt and jeans my usual attire. But many of the students I taught at Northwestern dressed up when coming to class.  Either the Midwest was a different animal than the East Coast, or the times they were a changing.  I had sensed the former ahead of time and was fearful about the culture difference. When I seemingly cut through that, there was exhilaration.

I didn't teach my third and fourth years in graduate school.  I resumed teaching when I came to Illinois and I did experience some of what I had previously experienced as a TA, but the situation was more muted this time around.  One reason for that is distance in authority.  A TA is in between the professor and the student.  At Illinois when I taught I didn't have a TA, but I was now the professor.  It's interesting how young faculty establish their authority.  One of my colleagues wore Brooks Brothers suits while teaching - authority demonstrated in appearance.  In contrast, I had a tendency to make my course more difficult than it should have been.  My approach made some of the students negatively disposed to my class and that blocked the romantic sentiments of those students.  There is also that I was a little older and a little more mature.  I was only 22 when I started as a TA.  I did eventually modify my course difficulty level and I think it generally true that students feel more comfortable with a younger instructor.  But its also true that then my office hours were actually in my office, and the students typically came in groups - strength in numbers.  So there was a different dynamic at play.

I now want to turn to a different time machine, the one the brings our past episodes and incorporates them into who we are at present and how we regard others.  Let me describe the underlying issue first. In the simplest economic model of productivity, the person either puts in effort or the person shirks.  Effort should be rewarded.  Shirking should be punished.  But now, let's complicate things by adding the mental state of the person.  The person can be mentally healthy, in which case things are just as they were before, but if the person has mental health issues, perhaps the person is suffering from anxiety and depression, then productivity-wise the person can look like the healthy person who is shirking.  But the right response is not punishment.  It is to be caring and helping.  There are two issues to confront when the person we are talking about is a student and I am the student's instructor.

The first of these issues is how to identify the student with mental health issues and distinguish the situation from the case of the mentally healthy student who is shirking.  The second issue is how to develop an attitude to want to be helping the student in this instance.  Helping the student, for example by accommodating work that has been turned in very late, well past the deadline, might be thought of as something of a bother.  There is no contractual obligation to do this.  What then might encourage it nonetheless?

What I've found, whether this is true only for me or if it might work for others as well, is that I need to feel affection for the student, more like how I felt affection for my ed tech colleagues, but it would be okay even if some of the feeling was like it was when I was a TA.  The likelihood of a romantic relationship with a student now essentially nil for me, while the student's need for help is real and evident, anything that can create this sense of affection is for the better.  What triggers the affection is evidence of the student struggling, e.g., not coming to class for a while and then reappearing and with a doleful look on the student's face.  Sometimes it is even more obvious.  In an email the student describes the struggles.  As I've written elsewhere in this blog, the number of students who are having like experiences has been rising dramatically, even before the pandemic.

Beforehand, I would not have seen this connection between ethical behavior and having a sense of affection for those who will receive my help.  Now I believe these two things are inseparable and is a very important lesson learned from all the frustration I had with romance when I was younger.

* * * * *

About 10 days ago, a bunch of friends from high school, Benjamin Cardozo in Bayside Queens NY, had virtual happy hour in Zoom.  There were 21 people on the call.  The number of students in our graduating class was well over 1100, so I would hesitate to call it a reunion because of how many others were not on the call.  But it had the feel of a reunion. And it precipitated many subsequent one-on-one interactions by participants in the call as well as all-group exchanges by email.  This post represents me trying to make sense of the call and the follow up as it ties into my life.

There is no doubt that for me the follow up was more fun and interesting than the call itself.  On the technology side of things, Zoom calls where everyone participates equally (as distinct from Webinars where the audience is in a more passive role while the presenters are more active) need to have fewer participants and/or require a moderator who keeps those who do speak to a strict time limit so as not to monopolize the conversation.  If we had met face to face, there is no doubt we'd have broken into smaller groups, and then some would mingle with other groups after that.   There is also that I organized the call based on my friends in Facebook from Cardozo, then there were a few friends of friends who were added to the call.  But the fact is that if two people are friends of mine, they need not be friends of each other.  So many in the call felt affinity for a subgroup on the call, but not for everyone who participated. 

I'm still uncertain how things should play out from here.  I'm going to content myself with a few observations based on the follow up activity where I was directly involved.

The whole thing was encouraged by the stay-at-home behavior we are all living through now due to the pandemic.  A reunion call offered some novelty in interaction.  We graduated 48 years ago and while we have occasional exchanges in Facebook we don't have real conversation.  So there was some hunger for this beforehand as filling a need.  I'm curious to know how the participants perceive that need now.  I did calls with several friends, sometimes in Zoom, others by phone.  And I had email exchanges or Facebook Messenger exchanges with a few others.

Some of the calls were with friends I had been pretty close with in high school.  Others were with friends where I can't recall previously having an extended one-on-one conversation.  I made a point earlier in this post of noting the my professional interactions after I became an ed tech administrator made gender a subsidiary issue, at most.  That was not true in high school, at least for me.  Then I had several deep relationships where we had meaningful one-on-one discussions that engaged me and from which I benefited greatly.  All of those were with other boys.  I can't recall any deep conversations with girls with whom I had Platonic relationships.  Might that have been possible then, but I simply didn't discover it?  I don't know.  In any event, it is certainly possible now.  Indeed the conversations I had with women were in tone much like the conversations I would have with my ed tech colleagues, though the subject matter was different, of course.

Most of these conversations focused on the present and had little or no nostalgic elements.  Some of the conversations did have discussion, not so much about what we did in high school, but rather about things in the past that happened since high school.  In one case where I had an extensive email thread, there was quite a bit of nostalgia, coupled with a time-machine-like look at what might have been.  I found it delightful and fascinating, as I've never previously externalized any of my time machine sojourns.  Yet unlike those sojourns, where I on multiple occasions return to the same episode for still another look, this externalized sojourn was one and done.  And it begs the question, do we have a lot of other territory from high school still to examine or will we soon grow tired of the nostalgia and then, perhaps, grow tired of each other?

I have a more academic reason for maintaining this connection.  I have a sense now that school is broken.  I mean high school and college taken together.  The mental health issues are the canary in the coalmine.  There is no balance between learning for the joy of learning and going to school to get a good job.  It's all the latter and none of the former.  But I believe that when I was in high school there was a true balance between the two.  Indeed, for me it was mainly the former, with the latter a byproduct only.  I still want to learn from my high school classmates how it was that way for them.  Learning about that would help keep me from getting tired of them.  Yet this is my question, not theirs.  Might there be something else that gets them to keep wanting to come back for more?

Many of us have tsoris of one sort of another, mainly health or money issues, sometimes both.  I've got my share of the health variety, which I've written about elsewhere but haven't brought up in this context much at all.  As remedy, I have found that later in life kvetching can be a joy, one that consistently delivers and requires no great creativity to produce.  A group kvetch might be a stretch, but I'd go for it if the others would as well.