Hidden Intelectualism Response

In his paper on the intellectualism of sports communities, Gerald Graff discusses his childhood fascination with sports. He goes on to assert, that although he did not fully understand it at the time,  he now recognizes that it was his own  attempts at developing intellectualism, in an environment that looked down upon "smart" people. He argues that the subject is largely irrelevant to the concept of intellectualism, and that what is more important is the method. The discussion of abstract ideas, the points and counterpoints, the developing of ideas, this is what separates the smart from the not so smart. I personally agree with Graff, after having read about the Roman Forums/Baths, we can see the same concepts present here. Famous for being places for discussion from anything to gossip, to politics, economics and other important topics, the forums are a hallmark of Roman Civilization. Throughout many cultures, this trend continues, from the castle halls of the middle ages, to the Internet of the information age, the ability for humans to gather and discuss topics irregardless of topic is crucial to intellectual development.

Scientific Distortion in Political Campaigns

Politicians lie. This statement should not come as a shock to anyone who hears it, since the beginnings of civilization, it’s just been the nature of the game. However, as the relentless march of scientific and technological advances continue, our society must adapt and assume greater responsibility for the use of such technology, and the consequences of our actions. While politics may be largely philosophical and sociological discussions, scientific issues such as climate change, stem-cell research, and evolution are becoming increasingly common, and the same strategies cannot be applied to these discussions. Science is not meant to be political; it is in principle the human effort to unearth the truth about the world we live in, without consideration to agendas, nations, religion, etc. Unfortunately, the lack of scientific literacy among the general public of the United States, as well as the culture of lying so deeply ingrained into politics, has created a political atmosphere where lying about and distorting scientific reports, or even worse, dismissing them altogether to pursue a political agenda has become commonplace.

At the root of this issue is the lack of information, and abundance of misinformation, presented to, and believed by the American public. In the sciences, arguably more than any other field, the knowledge gap between the general population, and scientists is evident. A survey conducted by the Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) illustrates this perfectly. They surmise that while “science holds an esteemed place among citizens and professionals”, on many issues “a sizable opinion gap exists between the general public and scientists” (Funk 8). The study included a myriad of topics and measured the differences in opinion between citizens and scientists. Both parties agreed that STEM education in the U.S is lacking in K-12, with large percentages ranking the U.S as “below average” in this regard (Funk 5-6). STEM is an acronym used to refer the subjects of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. This is no coincidence. In a survey I conducted for the purposes of this paper, 52.63% of respondents described their background in scientific subjects as “high school level”, therefore the publics opinion on scientific studies is heavily based on what they learned from grades K-12. The discrepancy between scientists and the public on many issues is no surprise then. Indeed, within the same study, scientists responded that: “the public’s knowledge about science — or lack thereof — is widely considered to be a major (problem)”, and that “too little K-12 STEM education is a major factor” (Funk 10). These discrepancies, while inconvenient, are harmless on their own, but as a general trend within the study, the population tends to believe that there is limited or no scientific consensus on many topics, while the surveyed scientists demonstrated overwhelming consensus. This is suggestive of a failure to communicate findings, and current ideas to the public by the scientific community. This failure is key to political distortion of science.

Taking advantage of this knowledge gap, political candidates often use incorrect or half-correct information, presented in a manner that supports and gives credit to their platform. In a 2010 survey conducted after the year’s election by the University of Maryland, over 90% of voters reported “encountering information that seemed misleading or false” (Ramsay 3). Politicians of both major parties are guilty of spreading misinformation, as the reported rates were extremely similar when broken down by party affiliation. The idea that misinformation is a tool to support particular political positions is supported through the findings of this survey. When the responses were sorted by party affiliation, trends emerged with voters of one party holding more incorrect information regarding certain topics, and vice versa on other topics. For example, the study found that Republican voters were much more likely to believe that “most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring”, while Democratic voters were more likely to believe that “the US Chamber of Commerce was spending large amounts of foreign money to support Republican candidates” (Ramsay 17). Topics that are likely targets for incorrect information are often ominous in their implications. The emotional appeal of the possible positions on these topics allow for fear to become a tool of persuasion.

            A key component to these “misinformation campaigns” is the use of fear as a tool to persuade the general public to support the politician in question. An article in The American Journal of Political Science applies economic theories to try and understand how fear may be applied into politics. The authors found that in order for an appeal to fear to work for a politician, a few conditions must be met. The first is that the politician must be a strategic, and not a benevolent actor, although the authors made the assumption that all politicians are strategic in some regard. The second condition, is that the politician “has private information about the presence (or absence) of a threat.” (Lupia 91). Based on these two, and a few more conditions, the authors’ model determines if the use of fear would benefit the politician. The important detail here is the model’s dependency on the lack of information available to the citizen. The conclusions drawn from this model, as well as the previously established knowledge gap among the public in scientific fields, suggest that fear would be an applicable tool for politicians on these issues. The use of fear in this case is itself dependent on the use of misinformation, because the model assumes the politician knows the true nature of the issue he is misrepresenting. Fear loses its power of persuasion after the citizen receives feedback on the true nature of the issue. In this particular case, the implications are especially important, because scientific education for the most part ends after high school, and natural feedback on scientific issues, particularly the one’s intertwined with politics, can take decades or centuries to manifest itself.

            Thus the three studies create a framework describing the current state of the American population as well as considering the motives behind the distortion of scientific research by its politicians. However, some would argue that governments have many things to consider, and serve a higher purpose than what can merely be described scientifically. A nation’s government is regularly forced to make moral and ethical decisions on behalf of its citizens. While science is very good at unearthing the hidden truths of the world around us, it makes no assertions about the truths we make for ourselves. To further decrease political regard for science, the public does not seem to prioritize the importance of scientific accuracy. In a survey conducted for this study, 57.89% of respondents did not prioritize or prioritized other issues over even a basic understanding of scientific concepts from their political candidates. This apathetic attitude towards accuracy removes a burden of honesty from politicians. Over 89% of respondents claimed to prefer an honest candidate, so the discrepancy between the public’s preferences, and priorities is an interesting one to explore. The data seems to suggest that the public does not perceive scientific inaccuracy as dishonesty. This is partly explained by the faltering science education, but an even greater contributor to this phenomenon is that Americans see science not as a community dedicated to unearthing the truth of the universe, but a group of “elites” pushing just another philosophy to choose from.

 In his article exploring the role of science as a moral authority in the U.S Christopher P. Toumey found that at the turn of the 20th century: “'Science' was generally reported to be the pronouncements  of authorities, and it was widely accepted” (Toumey 689). People saw science as the driving force behind most if not all technological and social change. Unfortunately, the growth in popularity of the benefits of science did not include the rigor of the scientific method. As Toumey put it “The American people respected science much more than they understood it” (Toumey 689). This in turn had unfortunate consequences for the role of science in government. Due to the perception of science as a monolithic “movement” or political philosophy, many atrocities committed in the 20^th century were blamed on “the pursuit of science”, resulting in a growing “counter-movement”. Taking advantage of the general population’s shallow understanding of scientific principles, many groups used scientific symbols “so as to confer some of the moral authority of science on ideologies which are not necessarily scientific” (Toumey 692). This is the basis of many candidates’ perversions of scientific research. Appealing to some universally accepted/revered body is a basic tactic of persuasion most learn in introductory speech or rhetoric classes. Whether that body be religion, ethics, or in our case science, the technique is universal.

In a paper on the morality of science, a professor of sociology at the University of Chicago noted that: “It is argued that science is just another "ideology," a manifestation of Western culture” (Ben-David 24). In the 1970’s, when the paper was written, science in America was facing a similar crisis as today, with a general distrust of science prevalent among the public, as well as movements within political circles to push forward anti/pseudo-scientific philosophies as just as valid as “real” science. As Robert Socolow mentions on a discussion panel focused on scientific response to distortion: “our opponents present science as dogma and construct a symmetric conflict: their dogma vs. our dogma” (Socolow 4). However, this is a false dichotomy, as it requires one to regard scientific consensus as “dogma”. This is one of the ways politicians distort science, apart from presenting incorrect data, or deriving unfounded conclusions from otherwise benign scientific studies, they abuse the public perception of science, to simultaneously support their own positions, as well as discredit science. Socolow goes on to dispel this notion stating that “There is no such symmetry. Science is not just another point of view. Science is a process of searching, always incomplete” (Socolow 4). While Socolow and his panel, and many others in the scientific community work constantly to counter scientific distortion and apathy in the public, they are woefully unequipped to tackle the issue. The nature of the scientific community results in very individualistic members, with small groups formed. The largest organizations are only the loosely cohesive laboratories or the large and slow committees. Randy Olson, on the same panel notes: “The overall effect is slow, limited leadership, leaving the science community vulnerable to attack” (Olson 7). The panel notes that science educators are working hard to communicate the advancements science has made but that it would be worth the effort to start educating people about the aspects of science that lend it credibity, such as the rigor of the peer review process so engrained into the scientific community.

 The case for political distortion seems almost redundant to make, resting on premises that most would take for granted. However, seeing as that a key component of the problem is public perception, as well as the abundance of misinformation circulating, it is prudent to definitively make a case against it. Taking into consideration the education gap, and the political incentive to be dishonest, it comes as no surprise to see studies quantizing the sheer amount of misinformation utilized during election campaigns. The problem with this same paradigm of dishonesty being applied to science, is that it harms our society. As we have mentioned before, even with the publics limited understanding of science, it holds a revered position in society, being associated with many social, technological, and medical advances through the years. This is unfortunately being taken for granted, by both the scientists, and the public. We cannot rely on this always being the case, and if science were ever to fall out of prominence in our society, many things would change; innovation would stagnate, technology would peak, etc. With this in mind it is important to acknowledge the problem areas, so that they may be addressed. STEM education amongst the general public is unfortunately low, leading to misinformation and fear being used to manipulate voters. This issue is further complicated, by the failure to respond by a lack of scientific leadership and a misunderstanding of scientific philosophy, fostering distrust of the “mainstream”, and promoting the rise of pseudo-scientific philosophies that give the public “the moral meanings they require, and it sets them upon a stage of scientific sanctification decorated with test tubes…white lab coats, monographs, geological expeditions, …and secular credentials” (Scientific American 1). To let the reputation of science degrade would be a tragic loss to society. The distortion of science by politicians is therefore not only dishonest, but morally reprehensible.

Works Cited

Ben-David, Joseph. “On the Traditional Morality of Science”. Newsletter of the Program on Public        Conceptions of Science 13 (1975): 24–36. Web...

Funk, Cary, and Lee Rainie. "Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society." Pew Research  Center Internet Science Tech RSS. N.p., 29 Jan. 2015. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.

Lupia, Arthur, and Jesse O. Menning. “When Can Politicians Scare Citizens into Supporting Bad    Policies?” American Journal of Political Science 53.1 (2009): 90–106. Web.

Ramsay, Clay, Steven Kull, Evan Lewis, and Stefan Subias. "Misinformation and the 2010 Election."             WorldPublicOpinion.org. N.p., 10 Dec. 2010. Web. 29 Oct. 2015.

"Science versus Antiscience?" Scientific American. Scientific American, 1 Jan. 1997. Web. 25 Nov.    2015.

Smith, Leonard A., and Nicholas Stern. “Uncertainty in Science and Its Role in Climate Policy”.     Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369.1956 (2011): 4818–      4841. Web.

Socolow, Robert, Roger A. Pielke, Jr., and Randy Olson. "When Politicians Distort Science."          Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. N.p., 20 Oct. 2011. Web. 29 Oct. 2015.

Toumey, Christopher P. "Modern Creationism and Scientific Authority." Social Studies of   Science21.4 (1991): 681-99. JSTOR. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.             <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/285344?ref=search-            gateway:3883c65cfbe9fd571bbc4e3ad601bad2>.

Right-to-Exploit: How anti-union laws allow employers to exploit the American worker

The idiom of the wolf in sheep’s clothing comes to mind when discussing the prevalence of “Right to Work” laws in the U.S. “Right-to-work” is a term used across the U.S to refer to laws that prevent established unions from requiring new and existing employees to pay union dues, or be active members of said unions.  These laws are pitched to voters as protections intended to defend against the excesses and overreach of union power and influence, while maintaining the benefits of unions. However, while “Right-to-Work” proponents would like to have you believe the laws are pro-worker, in actuality, they are unapologetically anti-union. Contrary to the implications of these laws and the rhetoric used to defend them, being anti-union is more likely to harm than help a worker. Unions, and more generally collective bargaining, have been an essential component in improving the situation of the worker, by fighting for higher wages, fair hours, and safe work conditions, in the U.S, but also world-wide since the industrial revolution. Free-ridership, shifting blame from employer to union, misnomers, and misinformation are some of the tools “Right-to-work” allows employers to use to harm unions, and ultimately turn the worker against himself.

Free-ridership is the economic concept of benefitting from a situation while doing nothing to sustain the process by which the benefit is received. In this case, it refers to the propensity of workers in “Right–to-Work” states to take advantage of those laws by abstaining from union membership and obligations, while receiving union benefits. Union dues and a high membership percentage are the essence of how unions derive their power, which, although able to be abused, is essential to how unions fight on the behalf of the worker. Proponents of “Right-to-Work” laws argue that the significant shift in union membership over the decades is due to anti-union sentiment, and not due to the laws, which they claim only serve to protect the worker.

To combat these claims, Casey Ichniowski conducted a study comparing union and association membership in various states with and without “Right-to-Work” laws. He hypothesized that if the argument that union membership decline was in fact due to anti-union sentiments within workforces, then membership of labor associations, a non-bargaining form of unions, would be at the same level as collective bargaining unions. What he found was that associations were more common than unions in “Right-to-Work” states, leading him to conclude that “unmeasured antiunion sentiment in RTW states is not a compelling explanation” for the decline in union membership (Ichniowski 273). Furthermore, his study supports the idea that free-riders are the cause of the decline of unions, due to the fact that “associations are as vulnerable to free riders in RTW and non-RTW states” (Ichniowski 259). The fact that they are more common than bargaining unions in “Right-to-Work” workforces suggests that it is the free-ridership allowed within those workforces, and not a prevailing anti-union sentiment, that is causing the decline in membership.

   Jake Rosenfeld claims that modern day union’s “strikes no longer have a beneficial effect on worker wages”, and that unions do not offer as much material incentive for membership as they used to (Rosenfeld 236). However, others such as Stephen J. Trejo argue that unions are still beneficial to the worker, specifically in the case of overtime pay where “union workers are much more likely than non-union workers to receive premium pay for overtime” (Trejo 254). Trejo then goes on to claim that unions supports the conclusion that workforces that are highly unionized are better off than their “Right-to-Work” counterparts, by comparing instances of both workforces in measurable qualities such as salary, hour stability, benefits, and overtime hours. His finding suggest that overall, areas that are unionized have more stable hours, more comprehensive benefits, and have greater employment numbers. These finding are explained by the fact that it becomes more affordable to hire new employees rather than overwork existing ones, because of union-demanded premium pay for overtime. This also has the effect of increasing union membership, by necessitating a larger workforce, and consequentially, larger unions.  Trejo refers to this as “adjusting employment vs. adjusting hours”, but it is more than that (Trejo 255). Employers are reluctant to pay employees more, or hire new employees to cover the missing time after a reasonable forty hour work-week, so they resort to lowering base wages, so that weekly salaries remain the same after overtime premiums are taken into account. Unions ensure that this exploitation of workers does not take place.

However, it is a common flaw in social thinking to take for granted the conditions that one lives in. Like the proverbial frog in boiling water, when change occurs slowly, few take notice, and the true extent of what is going on may remain hidden. Abstract concepts like work weeks, strikes, and retirement benefits are quickly forgotten when employers rail against unions and their more tangible dues. After all a union’s objectives are accomplished, there is not much left for them to do, but there is a constant upkeep cost associated with organization. Eager to dismantle the organizations digging into their profits, employers point to unions as complacent, lazy, greedy, and unnecessary. Unfortunately, to those that have never worked without the hard-won benefits of collective bargaining, this may sound true.

Recently, the trend has been towards decreasing union membership, and a study by Bruce Western of Harvard University shows that “Union decline forms part of an institutional account of rising inequality” (Western 513). Western’s studies support the proposition that employers exploit the lack of unions by decreasing wages where they can, as observed by the rise in wage inequality. The tendency for union workers to have higher wages than non-union workers, arguably an argument for further unionization, is exploited to turn workers against unionism. Union power is decried as something that must be kept in check, banking on the historical tendency of Americans to be anti-establishment, while disguising the employer as a benevolent force. In reality both companies and unions have been known exploit their influence over large groups of people for political power, as Edwin M. Epstein states in his discussion on the topic: “business and labor-as do other social interests-have sought to influence the election of officials and to bring before the public ballot measures supportive of their organizational needs” (Epstein 33).

The issue with these campaigns against unions is not the subject matter, but rather the approach. If employers played fair and argued the benefits of independent workers, there would be no cause for alarm, and rational workers could decide for themselves whether they wanted to unionize or not. However, this is not common, and their agendas are often pushed forward with such as the mentioned “Right-to-Work” which has nothing to do with any actual right to work, but rather the ideas mentioned before. The use of misnomers has risen lately to polarize voters and they are not just a cheap tactic, but an unacceptable corruption of the democratic process. Rather than rely on the collective decision of an active and informed populace, the use of misnomers blame and emotional rhetoric suggests that they are hoping for a knee-jerk, emotional response from voters.

It is no secret that unions occasionally end up embroiled in some scandal. Whether it’s an unethical use of their power extended to politics, or their lack of purpose with regards to certain occupations, it often becomes tempting to “trim the fat” and dismiss them as a bureaucratic obstacle to progress. However, it is of the utmost importance for democratic societies to remain informed, have an understanding of the faults in human nature, and be aware of historical precedents and trends. The push for “Right-to-Work” legislation should be recognized for what it intends to do, and not what it appears to be. These laws create exploitative conditions against unions that would not be tolerated by any other organization, commercial or charitable, in an attempt to defeat them by employers. These laws represent only a small part in an on-going trend of obscurity and deceit in politics, which is dishonorable, shameful, and should be made to stop.

         

Works Cited

Epstein, Edwin M. "Corporations and Labor Unions in Electoral Politics." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 425.Political Finance: Reform and Reality (1976): 33-58. JSTOR. Web. 01 Oct. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1040933?ref=no-x-route:16bb1e97d207eed23edd6046660ad9ff>.

Ichniowski, Casey. "Right-to-Work Laws, Free Riders, and Unionization in the Local Public Sector." Journal of Labor Economics 9.3 (1991): 255-75. JSTOR. Web. 01 Oct. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2535144?ref=no-x-route:5f34d04cb60b3eff60ae06039572c3c2>.

Rosenfeld, Jake. "Desperate Measures: Strikes and Wages in Post-Accord America." Social Forces 85.1 (2006): 235-65. JSTOR. Web. 02 Oct. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/3844415?ref=no-x-route:fd813e0e10c5ff86f700001b8353f79d>.

Trejo, Stephen J. "Overtime Pay, Overtime Hours, and Labor Unions." Journal of Labor Economics 11.2 (1993): 253-78. JSTOR. Web. 01 Oct. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2535281?ref=no-x-route:9c6096f903a8d4b360ea560d40dc2385>.

Western, Bruce. "Unions, Norms, and the Rise in U.S. Wage Inequality." American Sociological Review 76.4 (2011): 513-37. JSTOR. Web. 01 Oct. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/23019206?ref=no-x-route:de00cf1458aa5649811cabd91bfc277b>.