Educational Elitism Should Not Be Frowned Upon
More from this column:
Is Georgetown an elitist school? My parents seem to assume so, based on my returning home for summer after freshman year and having become, to their observation, somewhat elitist. I agree with them, in part. Georgetown is a prestigious school, located in one of the most upscale neighborhoods in the country with neighbors who are the political elite of the world’s most powerful country.
But Georgetown isn’t the stereotypical elitist school. Rather, I find it noteworthy because it is an overwhelmingly diverse campus, committed to multiculturalism and critical thought. In fact, I see the only common thread between all the various versions of a Hoya as an uncanny ability to learn. This exposure and academic energy is what sets Georgetown apart.
However, this year’s presidential campaign has groomed us all to despise elitism. Barack Obama would have much higher numbers in the polls if he weren’t branded as an elitist or part of the “liberal elite.” The negative connotation of these words must be reinterpreted because the elite of this nation is changing.
I see Georgetown’s brand of elitism as analogous to that of Obama. Neither is negative. I classify them as educational elitism. This sort of elitism is not based on wealth or success. The ideology rests on the fact that those who are privileged enough to become educated end up in powerful places because of their persistent learning. The educated elite should, then, use its brainpower to further the educational opportunities of others and improve society in a moral, efficient and pluralistic way.
Cultural observer and New York Times columnist David Brooks recently expressed in his column “The Next Culture War” that the elite is no longer based on family or wealth, but it is now based on education because America is the first to have a mass educated class.
He wrote, “Liberal members of the educated class celebrated the cultural individualism of the 1960s. Conservative members celebrated the economic individualism of the 1980s. But they all celebrated individualism. They all valued diversity and embraced a sense of national identity that rested on openness and global integration.” Barack Hussein Obama, with strong support from the elite, could be the multicultural symbol for the much-needed increase in global understanding and reputation. (And notice how his middle name was actually a benefit here!)
As an educated voter, I value intellect and competence: Barack Obama is one of the most educated presidential candidates I’ve seen in my lifetime. A graduate of Columbia and Harvard Law School, where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama is clearly a smart man. Judging on the past eight years, the presidency of the United States is not an easy occupation, and it requires abnormal amounts of decision-making. For this, I trust the most educated and well-informed candidate.
On the opposing team is John McCain, who graduated 894th in a class of 899 from the Naval Academy. This disgraceful fact is a testament to his privileged upbringing in the Navy and his taking education for granted, rather than actively having to challenge his mind to work for success.
Sarah Palin is a highly amiable country woman, but the educated elite is not looking for that. I believe there are several highly educated conservatives who keep mum about Sarah Palin, probably because they realize their Grand Old Party recently scaled down its intellect to entice the masses.
The changing definition of the elite to cosmopolitan, globally aware modernists has “emancipated the well-educated but left the Sam’s Club voters feeling insecure,” Brooks said in a different column. Palin was the GOP’s attempt to seem like it cared about the Joe Six Packs at Sam’s Club. In choosing a running mate based on campaign strategy rather than credentials and competency, I believe McCain alienated the educated elite. I don’t think Palin is the most uneducated person ever. I just do not see her as outstanding or impressively intelligent.
But, it is natural to want to have leaders who are more cut out for the job than you are. In today’s day and age, being cut out for the tremendous duty, according to our cultural elite, involves a well-educated, powerful mind. I know I want someone a lot smarter than me to be running this country.
I empathize with supporters of both candidates, though. It’s a presidential election — its unfortunate nature is to highlight divisions in our nation. This time, our divisions are starkest in the realm of education.
Superseding parties and policies, my most prominent rationale for voting this election is based simply on education and a natural intellect, rather than the counsel of over-simplified, nonsensical partisan-smear propaganda. At this crucial time in our history, we need the best of the best to run our country. I hope you vote with the same criteria in mind.
Dean Lieberman is a sophomore in the School of Foreign Service. He can be reached at lieberman@thehoya.com. RAVING ABOUT MY GENERATION appears every other Tuesday.
Oct 21 2008 at 6:29 p.m.
I hate to break it to you, but just because you went to a good school does not necessarily mean you are intelligent. Nor does it mean that you are the best candidate for President. Basing a vote on what schools a man went to is borderline stupid. Now, I doubt you are actually basing your vote on that. I assume you made such a hyperbolic statement as a rhetorical device. If, however, that is your most prominent rational (over policies), then I sincerely do not think that you should be allowed to vote.
I'd like to take you to task for some of your more focused arguments regarding the two candidates. I will not be voting for either, as I do not feel that either of them adequately represent my interests, but I feel that you have been quite unfair in your comparison. First, people always fail to mention that Obama could not get into Columbia without doing a two year stint at a liberal arts college in California (Occidental College) that is not as academically rigorous as the Naval Academy. Second, being elected to a leadership position on any law review has a lot to do with politics and much less to do with ability than one would think. Furthermore, under Obama's reign, the Harvard Law Review was, arguably, very poorly run. One must merely look at the citation statistics. Obama's volume of the journal has been cited, on average, 170 times per year, the lowest rate of any volume published in the past 20 years. By comparison, the other volumes of the past 20 years have been cited 262 times a year, or 54% higher than Obama's volume. Obama also failed to pubilsh anything during his academic career. If he was the worst manager of a law review for two decades, why does he instill such confidence in you that he is the best choice to run an entire nation?
I think you misspoke (mistyped perhaps) when you said that McCain's graduation rank was a disgrace. Graduating from the Naval Academy is not disgraceful, whether you graduate number 1 or number 899. Perhaps you meant to say that McCain's acceptance into the Academy because of family connections was disgraceful. Maybe it was, but he still competed a course of study at a very demanding school. If McCain's legacy acceptance is a disgrace, then be prepared to call more than a few of your classmates at Georgetown disgraces.
Now, I do believe that Obama is a smarter person than McCain, but painting the Republican candidate as a spoiled idiot is not accurate. The intellectual gulf is not as wide as you would like to believe it is. I also cannot agree with your wish to have someone "smarter than" you running the country. Someone who is smarter than you usually feels like they have to take care of you. That seems to be a theme of the Obama campaign (and to a lesser extent the McCain campaign), that he will take care of the country and the people. You know what comes along with "being taken care of"? Less freedoms. To steal a bit from Penn Jillette, I, for one, would prefer a President who feels that all he must do is faithfully execute the laws, defend the country from attack, and check Congress with the veto power whenever it exceeded its constitutional bounds. Of course, a president has to be smart to do that, but he does not have to be someone with a pedigree like Obama's to do the best job. Simply voting for the "smarter" guy while ignoring the issues and policy implications that come along with that person just does not make sense. It saddens me to know that there are people like you who will do just that.
Oct 22 2008 at 5:20 a.m.
Here are the two major problems with your article: your argument and your writing.
Although the previous poster did a decent job dispensing with your ridiculous assertion that voting should be based on " education and a natural intellect" let me add my two cents.
Harry Truman, whose many accomplishments include winning WWII and instituting the Marshal Plan, never even graduated college. It seems almost too obvious to point out that our current President, failure that he is, graduated from both Yale, and Harvard.
I too agree that the "best of of us" should run the country. Your major mistake is assuming that you can discern whose "best" by adding up a candidate's GPA and multiplying by the number of Ivy league schools he attended.
Now on to your writing.
Many of your sentences read like what my English teacher in high school used to charitably call "troubled sentences."
Reread: "My parents seem to assume so [that G'town is elitst], based on my returning home for summer after freshman year and having become, to their observation, somewhat elitist. I agree with them, in part."
This sentence is jumbled and confusing. Try: After returning from Georgetown my parents observed that I had become somewhat elitist.
Dean: This article is a baby-step up from your Entourage column so you're moving in the right direction. Though, I do wonder who edits your writing...perhaps some of your mistakes were unintentional.
Cheers,
Bonerjames08
Oct 22 2008 at 5:33 a.m.
I'd like to applaud Bonerjames08 for his robust criticism.
Oct 22 2008 at 4:38 p.m.
The problem with both criticisms, both the well-written, articulate first one and obnoxiously arrogant second one is both make the same sort of assumptions which weakens Mr. Lieberman's article. It is true that Mr. Lieberman would be incorrect to simplify the election to a single issue of who is better educated or "smarter", as though that could be actually quantified. I would have to agree that intelligence does not always ensure a good leader. Here is where the criticisms go too far to the opposite side of the spectrum, writing as if education is nearly a non-issue. Felix claims that intelligence should not be a major factor, but then attempts to prove his point by citing Obama's time at the law review which would imply he wasn't all that much of an academic. He attacks the larger, more valuable issue of the candidates intelligence with the minutia of that same argument, the "citation statistics" of a law review Obama was the editor of. What is that supposed to be indicative of? He edited a bad issue? And thus his intelligence, the issue which according to Felix ought not to matter, should be in question? On the issue of McCain's questionable acceptance, Felix does not so much address it as write it off as a common problem at prestigious schools. Simply because it is a frequent occurrence amongst the rich and influential does not mean it should be accepted and passed off as an unworthy contention. The largest problem, however, with Felix's article is what I would contend is the most ridiculous claim on this page, that the intelligent, "usually feel like they have to take care of you?" I'm not even going to address this issue at its face but just outright declare it ludicrous. How does one even quantify that? Welfare doled out by the president as compared to his GPA? One would imagine you would like the President to take care of the country, as is entailed in approving laws and implementing policies (I would label that caring for the country by ensuring its safety and policies). According to Felix, any President who claims to be interested in "caring" for the country is really saying that he intends to revoke their freedoms, though which freedoms aren't necessarily specified (My guess is freedom of assembly first, if he REALLY cares). You're right, Felix, to say that simply voting for the smarter guy is a mistake; your abysmal attempt to prove this, however, weakens as an argument and left me saddened to think that there are people like you who are allowed to criticize articles.
Bonerjames, you address the issue of voting only based on intelligence as wrong, which it is, but go so far in dismissing it that it seems as if intelligence should not be an issue at all. While Harry Truman could not finish college due to financial problems and George W. Bush was both accepted and performed at the level of a man who had worked for little in his life, these two examples don't exactly hold water if one is attempting to debate the importance of intelligence in a presidential candidate. George W. Bush went to good schools but never performed as well as Obama did, while Harry Truman was an intelligent man who wanted to go to college but did not have the means to complete his education. Intelligence is not as important as Mr. Lieberman claims it is, but claiming that Harry Truman didn't go to college so "anyone could do it!" is a relatively weak argument. And honestly? The comments about his writing? After you can make a single cogent argument, then you can make comments about another writer's "troubled sentences". Your grammar isn't half-bad, but that's about all that is decent in your post.