In Defense of Being Educated

HarperLee · 05-13-2008, 04:52 PM

Robert J. Elisberg, May 13, 2008

Much attention was made of Hillary Clinton's interview last week with USA Today, when she noted that support for Barack Obama "among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

Many found her comments about race divisive and problematic. Overlooked was what she said at the end -- that voters "who had not completed college were supporting me."

Let's look at this a moment.

It's fair to say that people who haven't completed college have less education than those who have completed college. And saying that that someone has less education is the same as saying they're less smart. And calling someone less smart is saying that they're -- well, dumber.

And Hillary Clinton thinks this is a badge of honor?? It's one thing, after all, to call your supporters dumber than your opponent's. It's another to proudly trumpet the fact.

Most politicians tend to present why they are the best, what they can offer to the public to make their constituency a better place. Even Ronald Reagan, who didn't set very high standards of excellence, wanted Americans to seek a "shining city upon a hill." Barack Obama's hope is "Yes, we can," to inspire Americans to reach for their best. Hillary Clinton is proudly saluting that her appeal is to the dumber voters.

Way to pander.

To be very clear, before people leap (which they will) -- calling someone "dumber" is not the same as calling them "dumb." Put two Nobel Prize-winning physicists in a room, and one will be dumber than the other. But they're both really smart people.

And also to be clear, there are college-educated people who snake through four years and leave the ivy-covered walls dumb as a rock. And people who never went past high school who you'd be happy to have them lead you anywhere.

But while we're being clear, let's also be honest.

When picking a surgeon to operate on you -- would you prefer one with a college education, or one of those unlicensed doctors? Why? If you need someone to defend you in court, are you more likely going to want to have an attorney who went to law school, and actually graduated? Yes? Why?

We tend to require college education for the most valued aspects of life. Teachers, for instance. Air traffic controllers. Registered nurses. FBI agents. Nuclear physicists. CPAs. Commercial airline pilot. Veterinarians. On and on...

George Bush says he listens to the generals on the ground. Do you? Good. But you do understand that all those generals went to college. West Point tends to make that a requirement.

By the way, though we disparage them, it's a safe bet (since we elect them) that we want our politicians to have gone to college.

Right now, there are those ready to boil up a faux-cry of "Elitist!" And a faux-cry it is, particularly because it tends to come from the party of actual elitism. But mainly, education has nothing to do with elitism. It has everything to do with human beings wanting the best. Wanting the best for themselves when needing medical care, legal defense, flying on an airplane, safe bridges, military leadership, on and on. Wanting the best, period.

People have different goals, temperaments, life situations, needs. So, some go to college, and others don't. But most people in life want more for their children than themselves, to reach loftier heights. Isn't having a good education generally the goal? Honestly? Don't we all wish for the best for our children? For us?

Honestly?

When denigrating education, understand that it has an effect. Dismissing science, math, history does not exist in a vacuum. Medical research will grow overseas. Other countries will invent computer technology once invented in America. Electronics development will take place internationally, as will the jobs. Creative automobile leadership will occur elsewhere.

Education matters. It has nothing to do with elitism. Being elitist doesn't mean striving for the best, trying to be as talented, smart and accomplished, as qualified as you can be and want others to be. That's the point of life.

Being elitist is dismissing other people's worth as people because they haven't reached your self-imposed standards. That's completely different from wanting everyone to reach that same high standard, and striving to bring that about.

Striving to reach a high standard. Hoping to become the best we can be. Working for our children to do even better than us. It's what we want.

Unless, apparently, you're Hillary Clinton. Then you proclaim that you should be president of the United States specifically because voters who support you are not as educated as your opponent's.

Senator Clinton's claim reminded me of an email I received a few days before. One of her supporters was furious at a prayer I'd written for Ms. Clinton, and said it was the last straw, that he wasn't going to vote for Barack Obama should he become the Democratic nominee. I thanked the fellow for writing, and mentioned that I said Hillary Clinton had much good in her, and might one day be president, suggesting he seemed to have missed that part.

What I didn't write was that anyone who wouldn't vote for a candidate because of what someone other than the candidate believed -- well, that person probably shouldn't vote. But then, I guess when you're going for the "My voters are dumber than yours" base, it's not surprising when occasionally that's what you get.

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

Jonesy · 05-13-2008, 04:59 PM

To be uneducated is to be inhuman.

CosmicRocker · 05-13-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarperLee

Robert J. Elisberg, May 13, 2008

Much attention was made of Hillary Clinton's interview last week with USA Today, when she noted that support for Barack Obama "among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

Many found her comments about race divisive and problematic. Overlooked was what she said at the end -- that voters "who had not completed college were supporting me."

Let's look at this a moment.

It's fair to say that people who haven't completed college have less education than those who have completed college. And saying that that someone has less education is the same as saying they're less smart. And calling someone less smart is saying that they're -- well, dumber.

nice spin, but you never get it, or are purposely obtuse.
No formal sducation does not make you inherently more intelligent than not having it.

Many inventors, craftsmen, and self made people lack higher education, but to call them dumb is
.....well...I don't know how else to say it - an example of elitist thinking.

Comicsartist · 05-13-2008, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

nice spin, but you never get it, or are purposely obtuse.
No formal sducation does not make you inherently more intelligent than not having it.

Many inventors, craftsmen, and self made people lack higher education, but to call them dumb is
.....well...I don't know how else to say it - an example of elitist thinking.

Can you define what 'elitist' means?

I still haven't heard nor read a clear definition. I guess I could consult the www but that'd be too straight an answer.

HarperLee · 05-13-2008, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker
nice spin, but you never get it, or are purposely obtuse.
No formal sducation does not make you inherently more intelligent than not having it.

Many inventors, craftsmen, and self made people lack higher education, but to call them dumb is
.....well...I don't know how else to say it - an example of elitist thinking.

I did not write the piece, and either you did not read it or did not
comprehend it.

CosmicRocker · 05-13-2008, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comicsartist

Can you define what 'elitist' means?

I still haven't heard nor read a clear definition. I guess I could consult the www but that'd be too straight an answer.

It's a buzzword.
It's come to mean a dismissal of folks who don't have academia backgrounds, by those who do.

It's also a way of saying " my opera going is superior to your NASCAR attendance"

It 's saying "Hillary supporters are inherently racist, because surely EVERYONE would support Obama, except clueless racists."

dismissing Hillary's talents. as being meaningless or inferior.

etc.

Comicsartist · 05-13-2008, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

It's a buzzword.
It's come to mean a dismissal of folks who don't have academia backgrounds, by those who do.

It's also a way of saying " my opera going is superior to your NASCAR attendance"

It 's saying "Hillary supporters are inherently racist, because surely EVERYONE would support Obama, except clueless racists."

dismissing Hillary's talents. as being meaningless or inferior.

etc.

So...dismissing Obama because of his color could be considered 'elitist'? I mean, there's plenty of people looking down their noses at him because he's darker than them.

Would that make the idiots with 'say no to Barack Hussian Obama' 'ignant elitists'?

winthrop · 05-13-2008, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarperLee

I did not write the piece, and either you did not read it or did not comprehend it.

You did post it, however. Are you suggesting you do not agree with its premise?

CosmicRocker · 05-13-2008, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comicsartist

So...dismissing Obama because of his color could be considered 'elitist'? I mean, there's plenty of people looking down their noses at him because he's darker than them.

Would that make the idiots with 'say no to Barack Hussian Obama' 'ignant elitists'?

ignant(.....) racists; yes it would

Comicsartist · 05-13-2008, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

ignant(.....) racists; yes it would

You're so, so close.

Come on, man. Say it. The truth shall set you free.

They are 'ignant elitists'.

Saaaaay iiiiiiit...

05-13-2008, 04:52 PM	#1 (permalink)
HarperLee Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,182 Thanks: 834 Thanked 271 Times in 170 Posts	In Defense of Being Educated Robert J. Elisberg, May 13, 2008 Much attention was made of Hillary Clinton's interview last week with USA Today, when she noted that support for Barack Obama "among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." Many found her comments about race divisive and problematic. Overlooked was what she said at the end -- that voters "who had not completed college were supporting me." Let's look at this a moment. It's fair to say that people who haven't completed college have less education than those who have completed college. And saying that that someone has less education is the same as saying they're less smart. And calling someone less smart is saying that they're -- well, dumber. And Hillary Clinton thinks this is a badge of honor?? It's one thing, after all, to call your supporters dumber than your opponent's. It's another to proudly trumpet the fact. Most politicians tend to present why they are the best, what they can offer to the public to make their constituency a better place. Even Ronald Reagan, who didn't set very high standards of excellence, wanted Americans to seek a "shining city upon a hill." Barack Obama's hope is "Yes, we can," to inspire Americans to reach for their best. Hillary Clinton is proudly saluting that her appeal is to the dumber voters. Way to pander. To be very clear, before people leap (which they will) -- calling someone "dumber" is not the same as calling them "dumb." Put two Nobel Prize-winning physicists in a room, and one will be dumber than the other. But they're both really smart people. And also to be clear, there are college-educated people who snake through four years and leave the ivy-covered walls dumb as a rock. And people who never went past high school who you'd be happy to have them lead you anywhere. But while we're being clear, let's also be honest. When picking a surgeon to operate on you -- would you prefer one with a college education, or one of those unlicensed doctors? Why? If you need someone to defend you in court, are you more likely going to want to have an attorney who went to law school, and actually graduated? Yes? Why? We tend to require college education for the most valued aspects of life. Teachers, for instance. Air traffic controllers. Registered nurses. FBI agents. Nuclear physicists. CPAs. Commercial airline pilot. Veterinarians. On and on... George Bush says he listens to the generals on the ground. Do you? Good. But you do understand that all those generals went to college. West Point tends to make that a requirement. By the way, though we disparage them, it's a safe bet (since we elect them) that we want our politicians to have gone to college. Right now, there are those ready to boil up a faux-cry of "Elitist!" And a faux-cry it is, particularly because it tends to come from the party of actual elitism. But mainly, education has nothing to do with elitism. It has everything to do with human beings wanting the best. Wanting the best for themselves when needing medical care, legal defense, flying on an airplane, safe bridges, military leadership, on and on. Wanting the best, period. People have different goals, temperaments, life situations, needs. So, some go to college, and others don't. But most people in life want more for their children than themselves, to reach loftier heights. Isn't having a good education generally the goal? Honestly? Don't we all wish for the best for our children? For us? Honestly? When denigrating education, understand that it has an effect. Dismissing science, math, history does not exist in a vacuum. Medical research will grow overseas. Other countries will invent computer technology once invented in America. Electronics development will take place internationally, as will the jobs. Creative automobile leadership will occur elsewhere. Education matters. It has nothing to do with elitism. Being elitist doesn't mean striving for the best, trying to be as talented, smart and accomplished, as qualified as you can be and want others to be. That's the point of life. Being elitist is dismissing other people's worth as people because they haven't reached your self-imposed standards. That's completely different from wanting everyone to reach that same high standard, and striving to bring that about. Striving to reach a high standard. Hoping to become the best we can be. Working for our children to do even better than us. It's what we want. Unless, apparently, you're Hillary Clinton. Then you proclaim that you should be president of the United States specifically because voters who support you are not as educated as your opponent's. Senator Clinton's claim reminded me of an email I received a few days before. One of her supporters was furious at a prayer I'd written for Ms. Clinton, and said it was the last straw, that he wasn't going to vote for Barack Obama should he become the Democratic nominee. I thanked the fellow for writing, and mentioned that I said Hillary Clinton had much good in her, and might one day be president, suggesting he seemed to have missed that part. What I didn't write was that anyone who wouldn't vote for a candidate because of what someone other than the candidate believed -- well, that person probably shouldn't vote. But then, I guess when you're going for the "My voters are dumber than yours" base, it's not surprising when occasionally that's what you get. ------------------------------------------------- __________________ When an intelligent, truthful man appears, he will be easily identified by the confederacy of dunces arrayed against him. Jonathan Swift
	Top

05-13-2008, 05:59 PM	#5 (permalink)
HarperLee Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,182 Thanks: 834 Thanked 271 Times in 170 Posts	Originally Posted by CosmicRocker nice spin, but you never get it, or are purposely obtuse. No formal sducation does not make you inherently more intelligent than not having it. Many inventors, craftsmen, and self made people lack higher education, but to call them dumb is .....well...I don't know how else to say it - an example of elitist thinking. I did not write the piece, and either you did not read it or did not comprehend it. __________________ When an intelligent, truthful man appears, he will be easily identified by the confederacy of dunces arrayed against him. Jonathan Swift
	Top

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate View Forum Leaders Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read