billclinton   950

« earlier    

Better Public Schools Won’t Fix Income Inequality - The Atlantic
"Like many rich Americans, I used to think educational investment could heal the country’s ills—but I was wrong. Fighting inequality must come first."

...


"Long ago, i was captivated by a seductively intuitive idea, one many of my wealthy friends still subscribe to: that both poverty and rising inequality are largely consequences of America’s failing education system. Fix that, I believed, and we could cure much of what ails America.

This belief system, which I have come to think of as “educationism,” is grounded in a familiar story about cause and effect: Once upon a time, America created a public-education system that was the envy of the modern world. No nation produced more or better-educated high-school and college graduates, and thus the great American middle class was built. But then, sometime around the 1970s, America lost its way. We allowed our schools to crumble, and our test scores and graduation rates to fall. School systems that once churned out well-paid factory workers failed to keep pace with the rising educational demands of the new knowledge economy. As America’s public-school systems foundered, so did the earning power of the American middle class. And as inequality increased, so did political polarization, cynicism, and anger, threatening to undermine American democracy itself.

Taken with this story line, I embraced education as both a philanthropic cause and a civic mission. I co-founded the League of Education Voters, a nonprofit dedicated to improving public education. I joined Bill Gates, Alice Walton, and Paul Allen in giving more than $1 million each to an effort to pass a ballot measure that established Washington State’s first charter schools. All told, I have devoted countless hours and millions of dollars to the simple idea that if we improved our schools—if we modernized our curricula and our teaching methods, substantially increased school funding, rooted out bad teachers, and opened enough charter schools—American children, especially those in low-income and working-class communities, would start learning again. Graduation rates and wages would increase, poverty and inequality would decrease, and public commitment to democracy would be restored.

But after decades of organizing and giving, I have come to the uncomfortable conclusion that I was wrong. And I hate being wrong.

What I’ve realized, decades late, is that educationism is tragically misguided. American workers are struggling in large part because they are underpaid—and they are underpaid because 40 years of trickle-down policies have rigged the economy in favor of wealthy people like me. Americans are more highly educated than ever before, but despite that, and despite nearly record-low unemployment, most American workers—at all levels of educational attainment—have seen little if any wage growth since 2000.

To be clear: We should do everything we can to improve our public schools. But our education system can’t compensate for the ways our economic system is failing Americans. Even the most thoughtful and well-intentioned school-reform program can’t improve educational outcomes if it ignores the single greatest driver of student achievement: household income.

For all the genuine flaws of the American education system, the nation still has many high-achieving public-school districts. Nearly all of them are united by a thriving community of economically secure middle-class families with sufficient political power to demand great schools, the time and resources to participate in those schools, and the tax money to amply fund them. In short, great public schools are the product of a thriving middle class, not the other way around. Pay people enough to afford dignified middle-class lives, and high-quality public schools will follow. But allow economic inequality to grow, and educational inequality will inevitably grow with it.

By distracting us from these truths, educationism is part of the problem."

...

"However justifiable their focus on curricula and innovation and institutional reform, people who see education as a cure-all have largely ignored the metric most predictive of a child’s educational success: household income.

The scientific literature on this subject is robust, and the consensus overwhelming. The lower your parents’ income, the lower your likely level of educational attainment. Period. But instead of focusing on ways to increase household income, educationists in both political parties talk about extending ladders of opportunity to poor children, most recently in the form of charter schools. For many children, though—especially those raised in the racially segregated poverty endemic to much of the United States—the opportunity to attend a good public school isn’t nearly enough to overcome the effects of limited family income.

As Lawrence Mishel, an economist at the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute, notes, poverty creates obstacles that would trip up even the most naturally gifted student. He points to the plight of “children who frequently change schools due to poor housing; have little help with homework; have few role models of success; have more exposure to lead and asbestos; have untreated vision, ear, dental, or other health problems; … and live in a chaotic and frequently unsafe environment.”

Indeed, multiple studies have found that only about 20 percent of student outcomes can be attributed to schooling, whereas about 60 percent are explained by family circumstances—most significantly, income. Now consider that, nationwide, just over half of today’s public-school students qualify for free or reduced-price school lunches, up from 38 percent in 2000. Surely if American students are lagging in the literacy, numeracy, and problem-solving skills our modern economy demands, household income deserves most of the blame—not teachers or their unions.

If we really want to give every American child an honest and equal opportunity to succeed, we must do much more than extend a ladder of opportunity—we must also narrow the distance between the ladder’s rungs. We must invest not only in our children, but in their families and their communities. We must provide high-quality public education, sure, but also high-quality housing, health care, child care, and all the other prerequisites of a secure middle-class life. And most important, if we want to build the sort of prosperous middle-class communities in which great public schools have always thrived, we must pay all our workers, not just software engineers and financiers, a dignified middle-class wage.

Today, after wealthy elites gobble up our outsize share of national income, the median American family is left with $76,000 a year. Had hourly compensation grown with productivity since 1973—as it did over the preceding quarter century, according to the Economic Policy Institute—that family would now be earning more than $105,000 a year. Just imagine, education reforms aside, how much larger and stronger and better educated our middle class would be if the median American family enjoyed a $29,000-a-year raise.

In fact, the most direct way to address rising economic inequality is to simply pay ordinary workers more, by increasing the minimum wage and the salary threshold for overtime exemption; by restoring bargaining power for labor; and by instating higher taxes—much higher taxes—on rich people like me and on our estates.

Educationism appeals to the wealthy and powerful because it tells us what we want to hear: that we can help restore shared prosperity without sharing our wealth or power. As Anand Giridharadas explains in his book Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World, narratives like this one let the wealthy feel good about ourselves. By distracting from the true causes of economic inequality, they also defend America’s grossly unequal status quo.

We have confused a symptom—educational inequality—with the underlying disease: economic inequality. Schooling may boost the prospects of individual workers, but it doesn’t change the core problem, which is that the bottom 90 percent is divvying up a shrinking share of the national wealth. Fixing that problem will require wealthy people to not merely give more, but take less."
economics  education  inequality  2019  labor  work  policy  poverty  history  nickhanauer  educationism  charitableindustrialcomplex  philanthropicindustrialcomplex  philanthropy  trickledowneconomics  ronaldreagan  billclinton  canon  edusolutionism  us  unemployment  billgates  gatesfoundation  democracy  wages  alicewalton  paulallen  anandgiridharadas  middleclass  class  housing  healthcare  publicschools  publiceducation  schools  learning  howwelearn  opportunity  lawrencemishel  curriculum  innovation 
7 days ago by robertogreco
7 Reasons Why the Uranium One Scandal Won’t Go Away Seamus Bruner May 9, 2019 Updated: May 22, 2019
The Trump–Russia collusion narrative is officially dead, now that special counsel Robert Mueller has concluded there is no evidence of collusion.

With the cloud of the Mueller probe lifted, President Donald Trump can now go on the offensive with an attorney general who appears ready to drop the hammer on corruption in Washington. Moreover, Attorney General William Barr doesn’t appear to be intimidated by Democratic lawmakers who have already threatened him with impeachment and even incarceration.

Former President Barack Obama’s allies have lately claimed his term in office was “scandal-free,” a claim his critics find “laughable.” Abuses of power under the Obama administration ranged from drone-strike assassinations of U.S. citizens to the IRS’s targeting of conservatives. In fact, the Obama administration was a magnet for scandals. One of the largest—and perhaps least understood—involves the Russian takeover of Uranium One, a Canadian mining company with large uranium holdings in the United States.

The mainstream press has repeatedly declared the Russian purchase of Uranium One a “debunked conspiracy theory.” But it’s no theory, nor has it been debunked. The Uranium One deal was complicated and had many moving parts, which also explains why misinformation about it has spread widely.

It’s true that the Clinton Foundation received undisclosed millions from Uranium One stakeholders—such as the $2.35 million from board Chairman Ian Telfer. The Obama administration did allow the Russians to acquire domestic nuclear assets critical to U.S. national security. But minor inaccuracies in the soundbites have allowed self-appointed fact-checkers such as PolitiFact and Snopes to selectively “debunk” the larger story without critically examining the full set of facts.....
UraniumOneDeal  HillaryClinton  Russia  RussiaGate  RussianCollusion  BillClinton 
27 days ago by juandante
‘Liz Was a Diehard Conservative’ - POLITICO Magazine
"Warren herself says that in her early academic work she was merely following the dominant theory of the time, which emphasized the efficiency of free markets and unrestrained businesses, rather than holding strong conservative beliefs herself. Still, she acknowledged in our interview that she underwent a profound change in how she viewed public policy early in her academic career, describing the experience as “worse than disillusionment” and “like being shocked at a deep-down level.”

Her conversion was ideological before it turned partisan. The first shift came in the mid-’80s, as she traveled to bankruptcy courts across the country to review thousands of individual cases—a departure from the more theoretical academic approach—and saw that Americans filing for bankruptcy more closely resembled her own family, who struggled financially, rather than the irresponsible deadbeats she had expected.

It wasn’t until Warren was recruited onto a federal commission to help reform the bankruptcy code in the mid-1990s—and then fought for those reforms and lost that battle in 2005—that she became the unapologetic partisan brawler she was in creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, serving in the Senate and, now, stumping on the 2020 campaign trail. “I realize nonpartisan just isn’t working,” she recalls of that second conversion moment. “By then it’s clear: The only allies I have are in the Democratic Party, and it’s not even the majority of Democrats.”

Some friends and colleagues say Warren became radicalized, equating her change to a religious experience, to being born again. “She really did have a ‘Road to Damascus’ conversion when she saw the bankrupt consumers really were suffering—forced into bankruptcy by illness, firing or divorce—and not predators,” Johnson says. Other friends argue Warren’s shift has been more gradual, and that she is not the extremist her opponents have sought to portray her as. “It drives me crazy when she’s described as a radical left-winger. She moved from being moderately conservative to being moderately liberal,” says Warren’s co-author and longtime collaborator Jay Westbrook. “When you look at consumer debt and what happens to consumers in America, you begin to think the capitalist machine is out of line.”"



"What Warren’s Republican history means for her presidential prospects remains unclear. There’s a version of this story in which her politically mixed background makes her the ideal candidate to capture not just the the American left but also the center—a pugilistic populist vowing to take on corporations, a policy-savvy reformer who believes that markets are essential to the economy.

But that’s not the political landscape of 2019. Warren’s tough stance during the financial crisis got her tagged by Republicans and many Democrats as more Harvard liberal than an up-by-the-bootstraps working mom from Oklahoma. And her work on the CFPB alienated much of the financial services industry. Meanwhile, much of the left wing of the Democratic Party, for which she was the banner-carrier after the financial crisis, has found a new champion in the democratic socialist Bernie Sanders. And members of the growing Democratic Socialists of America and the hosts of the popular leftist podcast Chapo Trap House have criticized Warren for her adherence to capitalism. As of this writing, she is generally polling fifth in the Democratic field, and her 2020 fundraising has fallen short of several other rivals’.

With some in the Democratic Party demanding purity, perhaps Warren thinks going back through her Republican history could hurt her. When I suggested near the end of our interview that she might consider talking more about that part of her biography, and her conversion, she was politely noncommittal.

“Sure, sure,” she said, before quickly pivoting back to another question."

[See also: https://twitter.com/siddhmi/status/1120023080477298693

"A very good read. Warren's story is such a profound American story, and a very deep story about how ideology works, and what it takes to get free.

This is how you get free: You do the work, and embrace the learning.
Warren’s academic career soon took a turn that made her far less comfortable with unfettered free markets. Prompted in part by a surge in personal bankruptcy filings following the passage of new bankruptcy laws in 1978, Warren, Sullivan and Westbrook in 1982 decided to study bankruptcy in a way that was then considered novel in academia: by digging into the anecdotal evidence of individual filings and traveling to bankruptcy courts across the country, often rolling a small copy machine through airports along the way.

Whatever their take on "capitalism" or "socialism," I'm here for leaders who understand how American capitalism in its current form (since the late 1970s; "neoliberalism") has completely failed—both morally and technically.

In the presidential field, there are exactly two.

The intellectual damage of the 1980s is intense. It's immensely to Warren's credit that, as a young woman untenured professor then, she realized—through fieldwork—that she could not in conscience enforce the ideology.

And everyone who went to elite colleges in the US in the 1980s needs to be scrutinized. I remember intro economics in 1985-86. Martin Feldstein preaching the catechism to 1,000 young minds in Sanders Theatre. Midterms where you "proved" why rent control was bad. Deadweight loss!

Three years later those young minds were lining up for "recruiting" as Goldman, Morgan, McKinsey et al swarmed the campus to usher them into the golden cage. This shit happened quickly, people. It's a wonder anyone escaped.

People shaped in the 1990s, with the neoliberal foundation cushioned by Clintonite anesthesia, post-Cold War complacency, and the mystical arrival of the internet, are no better. Probably need even more deprogramming. That's why the arrival of the AOC generation is SUCH A RELIEF."

https://twitter.com/NYCJulieNYC/status/1120080930658557952
"Not everyone. A lot of college students in the 1980s were committed activists, from those involved in Divestment from Apartheid South Africa to ACT UP to activism against US policy in Central America."

https://twitter.com/siddhmi/status/1120081603403898886
"Indeed. I was one of them! But that doesn't mean we didn't get coated in the zeitgeist. We all need periodic cleansing."]
elizabethwarren  mindchanging  politics  research  listening  2019  berniesanders  siddharthamitter  billclinton  1990s  1980s  ronaldreagan  economics  martinfeldstein  neoliberalism  2000s  us  policy  bankruptcy  academia  jaywestbrook  highered  highereducation  ideology  fieldwork  rentcontrol  regulation  consumerprotection  democrats  republicans  finance  cfpb  banking  markets 
8 weeks ago by robertogreco
What is Pizzagate and How Might it Change the Shape of America By Roy MacGregor
I’m not going to slowly build to a punchline here. This is not a story or any attempt at satirical humor, though the vast majority of our content is. There is a gargantuan illness in America and the world, and it’s not the ugly underbelly of the political elite. It is out in the open and staring us all directly in the face. The crimes committed by the Elite in this nation are far more severe and disgusting than many have even bothered to imagine, or could even conceive. A combination of dark web terminology, the emails procured and released by Wikileaks, the work of Anonymous, and unnamed sources within the New York Police Department provide evidence of a conspiracy to abduct children for purposes of kidnapping, trafficking, and molestation.

This is no small charge. Before you write it off as fanciful conspiracy nonsense, which is not only easy to do but better for your personal sanity, you owe it to yourself to hear the arguments out. Lives are at stake and innocent ones at that. As Nelson Mandela said, “Any society which does not care for its children is no nation at all.”

This would not be the first time in political history, even this decade, that a large pedophile ring involving powerful people has been discovered. An Australian piece on a mainstream media outlet just last year outed dozens of British and Australian politicians and high-society members as pedophiles. To this day, most of them are free to walk the streets. Kindly don’t take my word for it. Watch for yourself. This article will still be here when you get done. It only takes 30 minutes and it’s important going forward that you grasp the fact that we’re not talking hypothetically here.



First of all, it’s incredibly important to understand that this is not a new thing. People willing to harm children have always been with us.1 They have always had and acted on their desires. Only the most willfully ignorant could possibly deny it. It is no longer acceptable to turn a blind eye to the abuses and the fact that it’s happening at all levels of society. In the past half-century alone there have been dozens of high-profile cases that have gone absolutely nowhere, and a mere handful of low-level pedophiles have been punished.2 The only thing that has changed since these groups were outed is that they’ve gotten smarter about how they operate and gone farther underground. They first took to the Internet, but when law enforcement started tracking them they went to the dark web where the authorities have a much harder time finding them. People often call for the elimination of the dark web, but that is simply impossible. The dark web consists of every page on the Internet not indexed by search engines. That would include most of Facebook and a tremendous number of perfectly legitimate websites. All of them are ‘dark’ from the perspective of the average user. No account, no access.

The problem with the Internet is that anyone can style themselves an investigative journalist. People not trained in the art, myself included, tend to make common mistakes like including speculative information as fact or chasing red herrings in an effort to be thorough. This undermines the work the layperson does as well as the work trained investigative journalists do. We’re trying hard to avoid those pitfalls. Below is a non-exhaustive list of compelling evidence that the reader can verify at leisure.

A major source of information is Wikileaks, and specifically the Podesta Email Archive3 that has been released on a schedule from October 7th to November 9th, 2016. The useful messages cover the period from mid-October 2006 through Late February of 2016. Why should we trust Wikileaks as a source? Quite simply they have never released anything that was not authentic and verified. They are the only journalistic entity with a track record of 100% accuracy. They present information without comment in as close to its original form as possible, including all source information.4

The main objections to the Podesta emails have revolved around the fact that they’re seemingly in code. They don’t say anything overt at all. The question for anyone with that objection is, who wouldn’t speak in code when discussing nefarious activity? Parents speak in code around their children in an effort to hide the true meaning from their simpler minds and to great effect. The thing about this specific code is that it’s not particularly secret. The underground sex community has used it for decades.


this email (Email ID # 32795)
In emails, we see this code play out. For instance, in which some of the terms in the image to the right are seen. Link to that email.

In another email (John Podesta) we can decipher the terminology as excitement over having little girls as “company” instead of an ‘orgy’ involving ‘little boys’. He even gives us a second indication in the P.S. line that playing ‘dominos’ is better on top of ‘little girls’ than on top of ‘little boys’.

It seems as if Mr. Podesta has a difficult time cleaning up after himself. He is not nearly in the same league as his friend Anthony Weiner, but sloppy none the less. “A map that is pizza related,” as per the terminology chart, shows not only that Mr. Podesta was involved in unconscionable acts but the sender from The Sandler Foundation was aware of activities taking place. Now, some will suggest we are reading to much into this. but ask yourself, is it possible to spill a map related to pizza on your handkerchief?

This email shows children as young as seven being used as “entertainment” in a hot tub for old men. Based on the other emails we have read this one should put a big lump in your throat.

These emails show a blatant disregard for decency and give the reader some insight into the corruption of the elite. More emails can be found by searching the Wikileaks database and going down the rabbit hole.

As the information is trickling out we are seeing an ever-growing conspiracy that, according to anonymous sources within the N.Y.P.D, includes former Presidents, Congressmen, Federal Judges, and law enforcement officials. The information contained on the computer of Anthony Wiener seems more of a mutually assured destruction file than it does simple child porn. This being the same computer his wife Huma Abedin (Top aid to Hillary Clinton) used to send and receive emails to/from The State Department. You can just imagine the kind of blackmail this might have caused had Secretary Clinton won the presidency.


Orgy Island
Another party to this story is a longtime friend of the Clintons Jeffrey Epstein. Mr. Epstein is a former financier at Bear Sterns before starting his own company J. Epstein and Co.

In 2008 Epstein was found guilty of attempted solicitation of sex from an underage girl and served 13 months.5 Yes, only 13 months in prison. Isn’t it great to have connections? Especially connections you have the ability to blackmail? According to various sources, Epstein owns his own island which is used to bring Elite adults together with children. This in not just an island used for elites from the United States, rather it is used for elites all over the globe. Bill Clinton has traveled with Mr. Epstein 26 times on Epstein’s private jet named “The Lolita Express” thus far and many of those “vacations” were taken without Secret Service protection.6 On several trips, President Clinton was joined by former Secretary Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Epstein seems like an odd friend for a former President and Secretary of State to have, no?

According to Virginia Roberts testimony in a Federal Court, she was used by Epstein as a sex slave from the age of 15.7 She was trafficked as an underage prostitute for wealthy clients including Attorney Allen Dershowitz, and Prince Andrew. Ms. Roberts also identified former President Clinton as being a guest in the Epstein Villa used for group sex with underage children, “I remember asking Jeffrey, ‘What’s Bill Clinton doing here?’ kind of thing and he laughed it off and said, ‘Well, he owes me a favor,’ ” Roberts was never explained to what that ‘favor’ was.

Oft-quoted Lord John Dalberg-Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I wonder if perhaps he may have missed the mark. Could it be that powerful positions attract the most corruptible people? The evidence, and there is much more to be had, deserves a proper investigation by a proper investigative body. According to the anonymous informants in the NYPD, they’ve been stonewalled in their attempt to bring the information forward. We will continue to update information as it is released. The good decent people of the world deserve to know the truth and we will do everything in our power to bring that truth to you. Power should not grant immunity from morality.

Update 25 November 2016

Since it’s called Pizzagate it becomes important to make that term make sense. Since Bill Clinton and Jeffery Epstein have little to do with pizza overtly, where does the term come from? The whole thing can’t be based on the fact that pizza is a pedophile term. Where the ‘pizza’ in Pizzagate comes from is the inexorable ties to pizza parlors as fronts for human trafficking. Yeah, that sounds ludicrous. It has to be ludicrous. Pizza is a wonderful, albeit unhealthy, food, right? Yes. Everyone, especially a child, loves it.

Given its popularity, it’s not hard to imagine that trendy pizza shops would be frequented by politicians and powerful people especially in powerful cities like Washington, DC. But how is it possible that a pizza shop owner could be considered one of the most powerful people in Washington? I mean, it’s the most powerful city in the arguably most powerful country in the world, right? The list of powerful people should be limited to POTUS and influential lobbyists. How did this man, James Alefantis, become number 49 on … [more]
Pizzagate  BillClinton  JeffreyEpstein  LolitaExpress  ChildTrafficking  ChildSexualTrafficking 
8 weeks ago by juandante
“When You Get That Wealthy, You Start to Buy Your Own Bullshit”: The Miseducation of Sheryl Sandberg | Vanity Fair
"Harvard Business School invented the “leadership” industry—and produced a generation of corporate monsters. No wonder Sandberg, one of the school’s most prominent graduates, lacks a functioning moral compass."



"The truth is, Harvard Business School, like much of the M.B.A. universe in which Sandberg was reared, has always cared less about moral leadership than career advancement and financial performance. The roots of the problem can be found in the School’s vaunted “Case Method,” a discussion-based pedagogy that asks students to put themselves in the role of corporate Übermensch. At the start of each class, one unlucky soul is put in the hot seat, presented with a “what would you do” scenario, and then subjected to the ruthless interrogation of their peers. Graded on a curve, the intramural competition can be intense—M.B.A.s are super-competitive, after all.

Let’s be clear about this: in business, as in life, there isn’t always one correct answer. So the teaching of a decision-making philosophy that is deliberate and systematic, but still open-minded, is hardly controversial on its face. But to help students overcome the fear of sounding stupid and being remorselessly critiqued, they are reminded, in case after case—and with emphasis—that there are no right answers. And that has had the unfortunate effect of opening up a chasm of moral equivalence in too many of their graduates.

And yet, there are obviously many situations where some answers are more right than others. Especially when it comes to moral issues like privacy, around which both Sandberg and Facebook have a history of demonstrating poor judgment. While H.B.S. is correct in its assertion that it produces people who can make decisions, the fact of the matter is that they have never emphasized how to make the right ones.

Consider investment banker Bowen McCoy’s “The Parable of the Sadhu,” published in Harvard Business Review in 1977, and again 20 years later. It addressed what seemed, at least to the H.B.S. crowd, to be an ethical dilemma. McCoy was on a trip to the Himalayas when his expedition encountered a sadhu, or holy man, near death from hypothermia and exposure. Their compassion extended only to clothing the man and leaving him in the sun, before continuing on to the summit. One of McCoy’s group saw a “breakdown between the individual ethic and the group ethic,” and was gripped by guilt that the climbers had not made absolutely sure that the sadhu made it down the mountain alive. McCoy’s response: “Here we are . . . at the apex of one of the most powerful experiences of our lives. . . . What right does an almost naked pilgrim who chooses the wrong trail have to disrupt our lives?”

McCoy later felt guilt over the incident, but his parable nevertheless illustrated the extent to which aspiring managers might justify putting personal accomplishment ahead of collateral damage—including the life of a dying man. The fact that H.B.S. enthusiastically incorporated said parable into its curriculum says far more about the fundamental mindset of the school than almost anything else that has come out of it. The “dilemma” was perfectly in line with the thinking at H.B.S. that an inability to clearly delineate the right choice in business isn’t the fault of the chooser but rather a fundamental characteristic of business, itself.

Here’s a slightly more recent example: remember Jeff Skilling? Like Sandberg, he graduated from H.B.S. and went to work at McKinsey. And like Sandberg, he left McKinsey for a C-suite gig—in his case, Enron—that took him to the stratosphere. Again like Sandberg, he basked in adulation over his ability to deliver shareholder returns. Skilling had done so, of course, by turning Enron into one of the greatest frauds the world has ever seen.

One of Skilling’s H.B.S. classmates, John LeBoutillier, who went on to be a U.S. congressman, later recalled a case discussion in which the students were debating what the C.E.O. should do if he discovered that his company was producing a product that could be potentially fatal to consumers. “I’d keep making and selling the product,” he recalled Skilling saying. “My job as a businessman is to be a profit center and to maximize return to the shareholders. It’s the government’s job to step in if a product is dangerous.” Several students nodded in agreement, recalled LeBoutillier. “Neither Jeff nor the others seemed to care about the potential effects of their cavalier attitude. . . . At H.B.S. . . . you were then, and still are, considered soft or a wuss if you dwell on morality or scruples.”

Why do so many M.B.A.s struggle to make the ethical decisions that seem so clear to the rest of us? Is it right to employ a scummy P.R. firm to deflect attention from our failures? Is it O.K. if we bury questions about user privacy and consent under a mountain of legalese? Can we get away with repeatedly choosing profits over principles and then promising that we will do better in the future?

If you think this kind of thing isn’t still going on at Harvard Business School—or wasn’t going on when Sandberg graduated in 1995—I refer you to Michel Anteby, who joined the faculty 10 years later, in 2005. At first enthusiastic, Anteby was soon flummoxed by the complete absence of normative viewpoints in classroom discussion. “I grew up in France where there were very articulated norms,” he told the BBC in 2015. “Higher norms and lower norms. Basically, you have convictions of what was right or wrong, and when I tried to articulate this in the classroom, I encountered . . . silence on the part of students. Because they weren’t used to these value judgments in the classroom.”

Eight years after his arrival, Anteby published Manufacturing Morals: The Values of Silence in Business School Education. The book was not published by Harvard but the University of Chicago Press. Calling the case system an “unscripted journey” for students, it was one of the first times an insider had joined the chorus of outsiders who have long criticized the case method as one that glamorizes the C.E.O.-as-hero, as well as the overuse of martial terminology in business curricula. (The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Mark Zuckerberg currently considers Facebook “at war.”)

“H.B.S. studies everybody under the sun,” Anteby told me in early 2015. “There is no reason we should be off limits.” Alas, they were. Not long after his book was published, Anteby came to believe that H.B.S. would not grant him tenure, and left the school soon after. “He is an unbelievably productive and smart guy,” one of his supporters, the University of Michigan’s Jerry Davis, told me later that year. “And they fired him. Probably because H.B.S. wasn’t the right place to have a conversation about itself. It would be like being at Versailles in 1789, offering up leadership secrets of Louis XIV. The really unfortunate part is that he wasn’t as harsh as he should have been, because he was up for tenure.”

The absence of voices like Anteby’s are evident to this day, and an ongoing indictment of the culture that turned Facebook from a Harvard sophomore’s dorm-room project into what passes for a Harvard Business School success story. Return one last time to the H.B.R. Web site, and you will find a case study that was published just a few months ago entitled “Facebook—Can Ethics Scale in the Digital Age?” Set aside the abuse of the English language in the question—M.B.A.s specialize in that kind of thing. The mere fact that it’s being asked serves as resounding proof that the moral equivalence problem is still with us today. The question is not whether or not a company of Facebook’s size and reach can stay ethical. The question is whether it will even try."
harvard  harvardbusinessschool  ethics  sherylsandberg  facebook  2018  business  careerism  morality  hbs  via:nicoleslaw  leadership  billclinton  mba  mbas  harvardbusinessrevie  hbr  duffmcdonald  competition  competitiveness  winning  decisionmaking  billgeorge  larrysummers  abrahamzaleznik  johnleboutillier  jeffskilling  bowenmccoy  michelanteby  norms  values  capitalism  neoliberalism 
november 2018 by robertogreco
‘The Clinton Affair’ Is a Necessary, Maddening Documentary - The Ringer
The Clinton Affair chips away at the idea, so popular among Democrats at the time, that outrage at Clinton was a regrettable by-product of the right wing seizing on a national puritanism. “We were the original ones who broke our silence,” Kathleen Willey says. “And we were absolutely hammered for it.”
TheClintonAffair  BillClinton 
november 2018 by cbearden
BREAKING: Journalist Found Dead in Hotel After Investigating Bill Clinton
Anonymous EXPOSED -
BREAKING: Journalist Found Dead in Hotel After Investigating Bill Clinton | Anonymous EXPOSED
JenMoore  Pizzagate  BillClinton  ClintonMurders 
august 2018 by juandante
Time’s Up, Bill
"it is truly only a powerful white man who could have lived the past 20 years — through the defeat of his wife and the social revolution it helped to galvanize — and think that none of this effort or upheaval applied to him, especially given that so much of it applies to him directly."
billclinton  sexualharassment 
june 2018 by sucktastic

« earlier    

related tags

#metoo  1%  10%  10thcircuit  1942  1960s  1980s  1983  1986  1988  1990  1990s  1991  1992  1993  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2000s  2001  2005  2007  2009  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  538.com  9thcircuit  abortion  abrahamzaleznik  abuse  aca  academia  alandershowitz  alaska  alexanderacosta  alexrobinson  alicewalton  alimony  analysis  anandgiridharadas  anationatrisk  andreasschleicher  andrewcockburn  andrewold  anisshivani  anitahill  annanorth  antitrust  arnoldschwarzenegger  article  audreywatters  avatar  axelrod  axios  babyboomers  babydoc  bailout  bank  banking  bankruptcy  barackobama  bearstearns  beaubiden  beef  benjamindoxtdator  bernie  berniesanders  bill  billcolmer  billgates  billgeorge  bipartisanship  blm  bodies  body  boehner  book  books  bowenmccoy  bradplumer  brettkavanaugh  brownvboard  bryandawson  bryandawsonusa  buckvbell  bush  business  busing  california  campaign  campaigns  canon  capitalism  care  careerism  cathydavidson  catyenders  cbc  cbo  centrist  cfpb  chapter13  chapter7  charitableindustrialcomplex  chelseaclinton  childsexualtrafficking  childsupport  childtrafficking  china  christianity  christians  christucker  citicalracetheory  civilrights  clarencethomas  class  clinton  clintonmurders  coldwar  colonialism  colorado  communication  competition  competitiveness  compromise  congress  conservation  conservationists  consumerprotection  containment  contradiction  cooperation  corollary  corporations  corporatism  corruption  corybooker  coup  court  courtneywild  credentialing  creditcards  crime  crony  culture  cuomo  curriculum  cwrightmills  cybersecurity  dailyintell  davidaxelrod  davidcayjohnston  debt  decisionmaking  deficit  delaware  delusion  democracy  democratic  democraticparty  democrats  demographics  dericashileds  derivative  desegregation  desireewashington  detriot  detroit  devereuxjosephs  dictatorship  difference  discrimination  dnc  doj  dominicanepublic  donaldtrump  door  doughenwood  dredscott  drugwar  duffmcdonald  durbin  dws  dynasties  earthjustice  economic  economics  economy  edbrooke  editorial  edtech  education  educationism  edusolutionism  election  election2016  election2018  election2020  elections  elilake  elitism  elizabethwarren  emails  end  enlightenment  entitlements  essay  ethics  eu  europe  evangelicalism  exclusion  facebook  fakenews  fbi  fdr  fear  feminism  fieldwork  finance  florida  foreignaffairs  foreignpolicy  forestservice  fox  foxnews  france  francisfukuyama  frank  franklingraham  fredkorematsu  freespeech  freetrade  funny  future  futurism  gatesfoundation  gawker  gay  gaymarriage  gender  generation  georgehwbush  georgelakoff  georgestephanopoulos  georgewbush  germany  gfc  gilliantett  gillibrand  girls  glasssteagall  globalization  google  gop  government  governmentshutdown  grammleachbliley  grassroots  hacker  haideralabadi  haiti  harpers  harvard  harvardbusinessrevie  harvardbusinessschool  harveyweinstein  hazemsalem  hbr  hbs  health  healthcare  henrygiroux  henrykissinger  hezbollah  hhs  highered  highereducation  hillary  hillaryclinton  hiphop  history  honduras  hortensespillers  house  housing  howwelearn  hrc  huckabee  humaabedin  hunters  hypocrisy  ianjukes  idaho  identity  identitypolitics  ideology  immigration  imperialism  india  indystar  inequality  innovation  internet  iran  irannext  iraq  israel  jacksaul  jamescomey  janecoaston  janemayer  japanese  jasonchaffetz  jaywestbrook  jean-bertrandaristide  jeffreyepstein  jeffreysachs  jeffsessions  jeffskilling  jenlisajones  jenmoore  jillabramson  jimcarroll  jimmycarter  jobs  joebiden  johndewey  johndickerson  johnhickenlooper  johnleboutillier  johnmaynardkeynes  johnmccain  josephrecarey  juanitabroderick  juliebrown  kamalaharris  karenkorematsu  karlfisch  katiejohnson  kennethstarr  kenstarr  kerifacer  kevinspacey  korematsu  kqed  labor  landtawney  larrynassar  larrysummers  latecapitalism  lauraingraham  law  lawrencemishel  lawsuit  leadership  learning  lebanon  left  legislation  leisure  lgbt  liberalism  liberia  lindadarling-hammond  lindataylor  listening  lobby  logging  lolitaexpress  london  lorettalynch  losing  manuelzelaya  manufacturing  marginalization  marilynpatel  markets  martinfeldstein  massachusetts  massage  matt  matthewyglesias  mba  mbas  media  metoo  miamiherald  michaelberman  michaeljstern  michaelsalwen  michaelstroll  michaelwolff  michelanteby  micheleobama  michigan  middleclass  mikehuckabee  miketyson  mindchanging  missyelliott  money  monicalewinsky  morality  mostlikelytosuccess  multiculti  music  muslimban  nationalforests  nationalism  nato  nature  neilkinnock  neoliberal  neoliberalism  netflix  newdemocrats  newmexico  newspapers  newtgingrich  newyork  newyorker.com  nickhanauer  nikolehannah-jones  ninaburleigh  norms  northkorea  nourialmaliki  npr  nro  nuclear  nuclearwinter  nyc  nyer  nyt  nytimes  oakland-ca  obama  oecd  okheelee  oligarchy  omb  opinion  opportunity  orlandohernandez  outdoorlife  p2  palmbeach  panama  panetta  partisanship  party  paulallen  paulkrugman  pedagogy  petespiliakos  philanthropicindustrialcomplex  philanthropy  pizzagate  plagiarism  plessyvferguson  plutocracy  podcast  podemo  podesta  police  policy  polifacts  politico  politics  polls  populism  posttruthpolitics  poverty  power  presidential  presjimmicarter  press  primaries  prison  privatization  productivity  prosecution  proxy  psmag  psychology  ptsd  publiceducation  publiclands  publicschools  putin  race  racism  radiofreetom  reagan  recession09  regulation  religion  rentcontrol  reparations  republican  republicans  research  resist  revolution  revolving  rich  richardriley  right  rkelly  rnc  roadlessrule  robbymook  robertbork  robotics  robots  rodneybrooks  rollcall  ronaldreagan  russia  russiagate  russiancollusion  ryanzinke  régisdebray  saidyahartman  salmanrushdie  samuelalito  sanders  scandal  scandals  schools  scottmcleod  scotus  seattletimes  security  senate  separation  sexism  sexualabuse  sexualassault  sexualharassment  sexualharrassment  sexuality  sherylsandberg  siddharthamitter  slate  slavery  society  sovietunion  speech  spending  sputnik  staffers  statistics  statusquo  stephenbannon  stephenmarkman  stromthurmond  studentloans  study  success  super  superpac  superpacs  superrich  supremecourt  surveillance  syria  taibbi  tax  taxes  tech  technology  tedcruz  teddintersmith  tedkaufman  theatlantic  theclintonaffair  thedailybeast.com  theguardian  thehill  theodorejohnson  thomas  thomasfriedman  tomnichols  tomwaldo  tongass  tonywagner  towerbridge  trauma  trentlott  trickle-down  trickledowneconomics  trolling  trump  tv  twitter  ukraine  unemployment  uraniumonedeal  us-pres  us  usa  usaid  usattorney  ussr  usvirginislands  utah  values  vanityfair.com  vanityfair  vietnameware  vox  vpalgore  wages  wapo  war  washington  watergate  wealth  welfare  west  whitehouse  williamjenningsbryan  winning  women  woodrowwilsonn  work  workingclass  worldbank  worldeconomicforum  wyoming  xenophobia  zachcarter  zalmaykhalilzad 

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: