Assistant Professor Jonathan Anomaly
The Koch Brothers “Freedom Center” lecture against public education and in favor of privatization of education is set for Thursday, Sept. 21 at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
The dark-money Charles G. Koch foundation donated $1 million to the UofA to create the “Center for the Philosophy of Freedom,” which is a think tank designed to turn students into future lobbyists for the right-wing, anti-education foundation.
The lecture, entitled “Public Goods and Education,” will be delivered by libertarian professor Jonathan Anomaly in Social Sciences 332 from 12:30 to 1:45 pm on Sept. 21. Anomaly was imported in 2017 from Duke University, where he founded the Heterodox Academy website, set up to fight a perceived liberal bias in universities.
Because the lecture is political propaganda, it has caused concern among Tucson’s elected leaders. The Koch Brothers’ extreme right-wing agenda has sabotaged public education in the state and promoted school vouchers to funnel taxpayer money into for-profit private and religious schools.
In August, more than 111,000 Arizona parents and voters signed petitions circulated by Save Our Schools Arizona in opposition to a new state law creating school vouchers that undermine public schools. The measure to veto the law is set to be on a referendum ballot in November 2018.
The abstract of Assistant Professor Anomaly’s talk describes education as a “good,” like a box of cereal, which students “consume.” The lecture makes a bogus economic analysis of “markets for education,” as if it were a product to be bought and sold.
The lecture is a diatribe against unions and “bureaucrats with monopoly power.” It is a clear example of how dark money politics are subverting higher education in Arizona.
For example, Anomaly writes:
“The public supply of education often results in bad teaching, political indoctrination, and a system of certification and promotion that deters many smart people from wanting to become teachers.”
“The public goods argument does seem to justify some public financing of education, perhaps through a voucher program.”
“New nationwide standards for examining knowledge of American history were designed that showed a significant left-leaning (or “progressive”) bias.”
“Unions in many American states have made it difficult to fire teachers, and have lobbied against performance-based pay and in favor of requirements for teachers to go through extensive certifications that deter capable people from entering the profession.”
“Bureaucrats with monopoly power rarely have the relevant information or motivation to find the best ways to structure schools and reward innovative teachers and teaching methodologies.”
“Education steeped in political correctness creates negative externalities like emotional fragility.”
“At the level of primary and secondary school, teachers are typically given curricula devised by state bureaucrats rather than encouraged to design methods of teaching that best promote the interests of students.”
“State subsidies for some purposes, such as vouchers for primary and secondary school, may have real benefits by increasing choice.”
It is alarming to see that a public university is now being used for political purposes to undermine the essential public nature of the school itself.
This is the problem with the original blog post: it judges an academic article without offering any scholarly informed argument. In fact, it goes as far as calling an academic lecture “political propaganda” and a “diatribe”… before the event happens!
Now, for sure the claims made in the offered quotes need to be assessed. That means exploring the empirical evidence and then crafting an argument that can be persuasive or not. But for sure that requires academic work, including dialogue, debate, disagreement, and rigorous work. At the end, the claims may be supported or disproved. That sounds harder than just posting a set of unsubstantiated claims and judgments about the character of the writer and the alleged supporters of his work. It is. But is also intellectually honest and sound, something that cannot be said of this blog posts and most all of the replies.
“But is also intellectually honest and sound, something that cannot be said of this blog posts and most all of the replies.”
I applaud your desire for intellectual honesty, but I fear you will be disappointed here. The very process of blogging here is fast paced, in the here and now, and based largely on historical evidence/occurrence that can be researched quickly and hard fought opinion that may or may not be correct. Being one of the contrarians (read: troll) here, I am certain there will be many who disagree with me, but I think by the time you collect the evidence, analyze it and prepare to disseminate the information, the subject has long been forgotten. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any well though out and factually correct arguments that occur here…many postings are like that. But generally speaking this a rapidly moving discussion forum with quickly changing topics that requires people to cover a wide range of subjects.
It is rather fun. I think if you stay with it a while you will find you enjoy it despite the often missing scientific approach to facts. You should relax and give it a try…
You make a fair point Steve and I appreciate you sharing it. I guess my hope is that a balance emerges between fast-pace opinion based post and some more carefully crafted arguments. In this case I saw to much emotional ranting and not enough actual argumentation to refute or support the authors arguments. Anyway, thanks again and have a good night!
Let me try one last time to clear up the First Amendment issue for the “conservatives” around here.
Anomaly has every right to his opinion, and the government is prevented from suppressing him.
The local community, however, has a First Amendment right as well, and they are well within their rights to say “beat it, creep, go spread your hate and lies elsewhere”.
And anyone want to learn more about Mr. Anomaly is welcome to seek him out. His speech has not been suppressed.
But there is no Constitutional right to speak where you’re not wanted, there is no right to forcing your speech on anyone, and Free Speech does not immune anyone from consequences.
Free Speech is a two sided Right, it does not go one way.
Also. could the “conservatives” just say “Nazi’s and eugenics are bad”, please?
“Also. could the “conservatives” just say “Nazi’s and eugenics are bad”, please?”
That is not a problem: Nazi’s and eugenics are bad. I always thought that went without saying, but if needs to be said, then it can easily be said without any problem. Why the fuss?
“The local community, however, has a First Amendment right as well, and they are well within their rights to say “beat it, creep, go spread your hate and lies elsewhere”.”
That depend entirely on what you mean by “the local community”. If you mean the local government or governmental agency (whch should include public schools and universities), then it is not okay for them to deny a speaker the right of free speech. On the other hand, if it is a private institution it can do as it pleases because constitutionally related censorship only applies to government censorship.
“…there is no right to forcing your speech on anyone, and Free Speech does not immune anyone from consequences.”
That is very true. The right to free speech does not guarantee your right to an audience, nor does it guarantee you an appreciative audience, nor does it immunize you from the ramifications of what you say. It only guarantees your right to be free of government censorship in saying it.
There is nothing hateful about any of his quotes on education as quoted in this post.
In fact, there is a certain elegance to them.
However, a lot of you are going to look like haters if it turns out that minorities can move at a 100 points a year and you trapped them in a system moving at 25 points a year.
They are also disseminating a badly written textbook for high school AP courses that award college credit for placement into the UA Freedom Center program. Ethics, Economy & Entrepreneurship by Cathleen Johnson, Robert Lusch, and David Schmidtz.
SEPTEMBER 2016 Reviewed here > https://thebaffler.com/latest/the-handmaiden-of-entrepreneurship
We do not yet know if the school boards involved had/have any hand in permitting this curriculum.
Malcolm X said by any means necessary. liberal elitists say when they go low we go high so high in the air we can’t be seen or so high in the ir like the woman hit by the nazi’s car in charlottesville. not tom we don’t have to go killing them after all as loathsome as they are they are still ameriKKKans. I don’t want to punch them out unless they want to fight. I have suggested non-violent attics on this post that we should try first as the colonists did until the british marched onto lexington green. as colonel parker said on april 19, 1775 “don’t fire unless fired upon ;but if they mean to have war let it begin here.” strategy is what the goal is. tactics are how the goal will be achieved. I am a left tactician who thinks liberal whining is not a very effective tactic.
This quotation is a virtual gold mine of irony: “The public supply of education often results in bad teaching, political indoctrination, and a system of certification and promotion that deters many smart people from wanting to become teachers.” This, from the mouth of someone clearly engaging in political indoctrination. And there are many established, distinguished scholars who will tell you exactly what deters smart people from becoming teachers: start with low salaries. Then add having to buy your own school supplies. And throw in a community that blames teachers first. So, let’s account for all the variables at play, shall we?
Interesting. So arguments that you disagree with are “political indoctrination”? When the greatest liberal of the 20th century, John Stuart Mill, worried that a public monopoly on education might produce bad results, are his elegantly expressed worries a form of “indoctrination”?
When poor parents are forced by the state to send their kids to failing schools but rich parents can afford to choose other options, that strikes me as unfair. Maybe I’m just a good old-fashioned bleeding heart liberal, but that’s one aspect of the argument of the paper.
white racists on jurys find white cops innocent of murdering unarmed blacken and even children like tamer rice. we should find all black people not guilty thru jury nullification in retaliation. the good government elitist liberal will say I can’t do that much safer to be a punching bag for republicans!
I’m just going to leave this right here– the SBS lecturer’s thoughts on eugenics.
http://quillette.com/2016/10/06/why-sex-really-matters/
I wish I hadn’t read that. I keep thinking that the GOP has reached peak evil and I keep being wrong.
Please, Kavanagh and Huppenthal and the rest, please learn about Jonathan Anomaly.
Do you really support his person? Let’s hear your thoughts.
This goes to prove my point, that the Koch brothers and those they fund have a sick world view, and it’s rare that we get to see that sickness in print.
Bit of a “hit and run” in that you suggest that Professor Anomaly said some dark things in his article. It is mostly a historical look at genetics and eugenics with a little future policy speculation thrown in. He condemns the past abuses and current authoritarian proposals for eugenics use and seems to support more readily available testing so couples know what they are getting into (no pun intended) with sex.
I think you owe it to Professor Anomaly to specifically cite why you attacked him so he can defend himself or retract the dark shadow you have cast over his reputation.
This post was in response to Pamela Powers Hannley’s post above.
Good to know you’re pro-abortion.
Because that’s what he’s advocating.
I am not pro-abortion but I do not believe that those who are should be banished from universities. How unprogressive of me. By the way, aren’t any of the liberals who read BfA going to defend academic freedom? Have they turned into witch hunting progressives or are they afraid that they too will be persecuted by the progressives?
You are defending eugenics.
Not wanting to banish someone who discusses the pros and cons of an issue is not defending the issue. Do you really believe that or are you just throwing mud against the wall?
Besides, why would I want to associate myself with a movement whose early days was spearheaded by Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger, whose current organization is a tool for eugenics, in some cases.
The speaker’s writing is a pro vs. con for eugenics, heavy on dog whistle racism with overtones of Master Race rhetoric.
He is advocating for eliminating “undesirables”.
You are a defender of the Koch’s, and the Koch’s are funding this person.
You can throw in all the standard Margret Sanger talking points you want, but the deflection is not working.
You are defending eugenics.
If you haven’t put any thought into why eugenics is evil, let me help.
Do you want to stop procreation by Muslims? Jews? Catholics? Mexicans? Blacks? Gays?
In the post, Anomaly says that society would be much better off without certain types of people. Who gets to choose?
You seem to be saying that this is a free speech issue, and that liberals are being anti-free speech, it is not.
Being anti-eugenics should be a bipartisan issue.
Good to know where conservatives stand.
I just re-read the piece to be sure I didn’t misunderstand something, and it’s all dog whistle racism and advocating for eliminating of “undesirables”.
I understand the USA has a bad history with eugenics, but no one is talking about that nasty shit except Nazis these days.
You really need to do some soul searching if you don’t think that article was straight up anti-Jesus anti-birth hate.
You expose yourself.
Read it again and take a course in critical thinking and reading. Here is what he says about “undesirables” and eugenics:
“One proposal previous eugenicists have made is to pay people with undesirable qualities — such as extremely low intelligence, or poor impulse control — not to reproduce. William Shockley went as far as to say that the state should pay people not to have children along a graduated scale in proportion to how many points below the mean IQ (100) they fall.[4] This proposal has serious problems that likely doom it to failure. Make no mistake, intelligence is a crucially important trait for living a successful life, but it is far from the only trait that matters. Qualities like compassion, empathy, and creativity are important for human flourishing, and for treating other people with respect. Policies like these, moreover, might lead to the manipulation of IQ test results by corrupt bureaucrats. Finally, IQ scores are at least partly affected by environmental factors in ways that are not well understood as of yet, a point that should not be overlooked (even if these effects are often exaggerated by blank slate enthusiasts).”
He argues AGAINST using eugenics to limit the birth of so called, “undesirables.” As an academic, he first explains what proponents wanted to do and then he argues against it, in a eloquent manner.
How about you go back and reread the last two paragraphs were he says eugenics has a bright future.
And why have a pro-con on something we should all agree on as being full tilt evil?
Regarding your earlier post about Planned Parenthood, here’s a timely and fun read:
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/09/these-are-the-8-scapegoats-that-republicans-trot-out-when-things-dont-go-their-way/
Number Two on the List Will Shock You!
Make that the last three paragraphs. The guy is pro-eugenics.
And so it seems are you.
So an article that explicitly denounces racism is “dog whistle racism”? Fascinating. When Astronomers denounce astrology, are they secretly promoting its use?
When someone gets tested for the gene that causes Tay Sachs before having a child, and decides to have children with someone who does not have the allele so that their child will not be born with Tay Sachs, is this an objectionable choice? Almost everyone in Brooklyn now takes this test. Why? Because they’d prefer to have children who thrive rather than suffer.
I’m for giving people the right to use this test. I guess that makes me a bad person. Look up the words “liberal eugenics” and re-read the paper. What I argue could not be more carefully worded or well thought out. Right down to the last sentence, which is “sometimes the best policy is not to have one.”
Speaking for myself, I strenuously object to this quote, among others from his crock o’ sh!t: “…part of the reason people differ from each other on measures of personality, intelligence, and temperament is because they are genetically different from one another. Because people vary genetically, our choices about who to have children with are immensely important, both for our children, and for those who will share the planet with them.” Anomaly should be run outta town.
Mel: that is an amazingly foolish thing to assert. You are a left wing creationist. When behavioral genetics finds a result you don’t like, you denounce science as evil, and say someone who cites the genetics literature should be “run out of time.”
Epic fail.
*town
Hmmm….
Why aren’t you condemning the master himself? Darwin went a lot further than anomaly goes – Darwin’s title of his epic was “The survival of the favored races in the struggle for life.” Didn’t know that did you? Can look it up in a few seconds.
In his correspondence with Hoechler in Germany, Darwin specifically stated that the Germans were the “favored race.”
Darwin also targeted Jews and Blacks as races to be wiped out by the favored race.
People aren’t familiar with the third of Darwin’s theories due to intellectual corruption in our universities. They were hugely complicit in the Eugenics movement, publishing hundreds of research articles edging closer and closer to ethically justifying the Holocaust.
Darwin’s third theory was that physical competition and sexual selection results in the development of races within a species – then, the stronger races wipe out in the weaker races in a genetic cleansing.
His analysis was a little problematic, Blacks represent 12% of the world’s population yet took 40% of the track and field gold medals. I think they can genetically hold their own.
Jews represent .2% of the world’s population yet they have won 34% of all Noble prizes – I think they can hold their own too.
And, Anomaly doesn’t hold a candle against another liberal favorite – Richard Dawkins the hugely influential atheist who believes that “religous faith is evil.” Hmm.. FSNT, what would Jesus do?
And, how about Sanger, the racist, white supremacist, founder of Planned Parenthood who specifically undertook the mission of wiping out African Americans? She wrote about it, in a cruelly racist fashion.
Anomaly wants to license parents – bad idea for a lot of reasons but perfectly in line with an atheist following Dawkins line of thought. He thinks that the Motor Vehicle Department can do a better job than Darwin and Hoechler of selecting desirable genetic traits. Won’t end well.
I think I will wait to see what he has to say about schools. So far, the “freedom schools” have been completely unimpressive but so is the larger university culture.
Darwin died in 1882. I live in 2017.
You are arguing for eugenics.
Try reading my post.