Search results

Are elite MBA programs producing morally bankrupt administrators? Duff McDonald, author of "The Golden Passport," tries to convince Luigi & Kate that conflicts of interest and flawed case studies amount to an unethical education that harms society.

Mustafa Akyol and Neal McCluskey


America's culture wars are sometimes perceived as conflict between "conservatives," who defend the values of white Christians, and "progressives," who defend the rights of minorities. But there is something new these days complicating this always too‐​simple dichotomy: Some minorities are also quite conservative in their moral standards, and they are raising their voices against impositions from the progressive side.
This is evident in ongoing protests by Muslim and Christian families, among others, from Maryland to Los Angeles, against public schools pushing lessons about gender and sexuality that contradict religious values. "Protect our children" these families have called together, adding, "Protect religious freedom."
On June 24, in National Review, we highlighted this new development in a co‐​authored article: "Defuse the Culture War with Liberated Education."
First, we argued that the newly emerging Muslim‐​Christian alliance for traditional values offers interesting lessons:
There are lessons for both political camps. America's assertive progressives should realize that theirs is a counterproductive campaign. By advancing their ideals through assertion and coercion, instead of persuasion, they are alienating many people, including some minorities they claim to defend. Among Muslims, they are also giving ammunition to hardliners, who preach that Western freedom is a lie, that it only means freedom from religion and tradition, and thus Muslims should reject it everywhere.

On the other hand, America's conservatives should reconsider their distance from minorities, including a rigid stance against immigration, symbolized by Donald Trump's famous "Build the Wall" campaign. Those on the political right should realize that they may well share values with some of the people that they want to push behind that wall.

Then, we also proposed a solution to these increasingly intense culture wars in American education:
We believe that the best strategy is to keep government out of decisions about values and culture whenever possible, including — perhaps especially — in education, which is about nothing less than shaping human minds. This requires allowing more choice, so families can decide for themselves what their kids will learn. Instead of diverse people being forced to fight, they can freely pursue what they think is right.

The solution, in other words, was in going back to the classical liberal foundations of America:
Government should not discriminate against LGBTQ individuals, nor should it discriminate against people with traditional values. The only way to treat all equally, while advancing genuine tolerance, is the good old American value of limited government.

Read the whole article here in National Review. Read more about School Choice here. And see our catalogue of culture war in public schools – the Public Schooling Battle Map – here.

Born in California to immigrant parents, Scott Galloway says that he's the product of an America willing to invest in unremarkable people. While Scott has made a name for himself as an entrepreneur, author, professor, and outspoken podcast host, he's endeared himself to audiences through his candor and vulnerability. Scott joined David to talk about what makes America unique, higher education and its moral short fallings, the benefits of immigration, the dangers of social media, problems with the tax code, and his belief that Donald Trump will drop out of the presidential race and make a plea deal.To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Jeffrey Miron


This article appeared on Substack on June 29, 2023.
Later today, or next week at the latest, the Supreme Court will announce its decision in two cases that challenge the Biden administration's cancellation of $400 billion in federal student loan debt.
The legal issues are beyond my expertise. Regardless of the Court's decision, however, loan forgiveness is deeply misguided as a matter of policy.
Those who took out loans did so willingly. Presidential cancellation, at taxpayer expense, undermines the rule of law and makes a mockery of people who honor their commitments, or accept the consequences of failing to do so, even when that is difficult.
If this forgiveness stands, future borrowers will take out even more debt, believing that future presidents will likely cancel some of it. They will probably be right.
This moral hazard increases the cost of the loan program; more and more is paid out, and less and less is re‐​paid.
Worse, subsidizing education loans, and especially forgiving them ex post, discourages potential borrowers from using common sense to decide how much education to acquire and whether borrowing to pay for it is sensible.
Some amount of, and certain kinds of, education are beneficial for almost anyone.
Yet more and more education is almost never the right choice. Any decision to acquire education should balance the benefits against the costs (including explicit costs, like tuition, and the opportunity costs of foregone income). By making costs artificially low, loan forgiveness encourages excessive or poorly chosen kinds of education.
Students loan forgiveness, moreover, mainly helps higher income borrowers, since they take out disproportionately larger loans. Thus Biden's proposal is regressive.
Last, loan forgiveness by executive action is ripe for political abuse; politicians will do so in ways that benefit voters they can "bribe" into staying or becoming their supporters.
In Libertarian Land, governments would not subsidize student loans. Such a policy, however, at least has good intentions. Presidential loan forgiveness is just politically motivated theft.

On this day in 1740, no doubt full of trepidation and excitement, Adam Smith set off from his home in Kirkcaldy, on the east coast of Scotland, to take up the 'Snell Exhibition' scholarship in Balliol College, Oxford. His time in Oxford would teach him much — though it would by no means enhance the reputation of Oxford in general and Balliol College in particular.At school in Kirkcaldy, Smith's passion for books and learning, along with his extraordinary memory, became apparent. He went on to Glasgow University at the age of 14, and studied under the great moral philosopher Francis Hutcheson – libertarian, rationalist, utilitarian, plain speaker and thorn in the side of authority. Hutcheson seems to have infected Smith with some of the same.Oxford and incentivesSmith excelled, as he had done at school, and won the scholarship to Balliol College, Oxford. In 1740, now just 17, he saddled up for the month-long horseback journey. If thriving, commercial Glasgow had been an eye-opener to a boy from backward Kirkcaldy, England seemed quite a different world again. He wrote of the grandness of its architecture and the fatness of its cattle, quite unlike the poor specimens of his native Scotland. But the English university education system did not impress him. Indeed, it gave him an important lesson on the power of incentives, which he would catalogue acidly in his great 1776 work of economics, The Wealth Of Nations.Oxford teachers were paid directly from large college endowments, not from students' fees as they were in Glasgow. It hardly encouraged their interest in their students. "In the University of Oxford," wrote Smith later, "the greater part of the public professors have, for these many years, given up altogether even the pretence of teaching."Ouch. But it got worse.College life, he observed was contrived "for the interest, or more properly speaking, for the ease of the masters." There were disciplines aplenty on the students, but not on the teachers. In his words, "Where the masters, however, rarely perform their duty, there are no examples, I believe, that the greater part of the students ever neglect theirs. No discipline is ever requisite to force attendance upon lectures which are really worth the attending, as it well known wherever any such lectures are given."From this experience, Smith drew out a general principle of economics: "It is the interest of every man to live as much at his ease as he can; and if his emoluments are to be precisely the same, whether he does, or does not perform some very laborious duty, it is certainly his interest, at least as interest is vulgarly understood, either to neglect it altogether, or, if he is subject to some authority which will not suffer him to do this, to perform it in as careless and slovenly a manner as that authority will permit."And institutes like a university, he noted, indulge each other's laziness. They "are likely to make a common cause, to be all very indulgent to one another, and every man to consent that his neighbour may neglect his duty, provided he himself is allowed to neglect his own."Smith, then, learnt little from his Oxford teachers. Yet, thanks to Balliol's world-class library and his own love of reading and learning, Smith was able to educate himself in the classics, literature, and other subjects. He left Oxford in 1746, before the expiry of his scholarship, to return to Kirkcaldy, where he began to write essays and articles that would make his reputation and launch his academic career — a career that would culminate with these insights on economic incentives and the cutting rebuke of the system that had so let him down.

UPDATE 2/12 6:00 a.m. EST: According to reports the election commission has released final results, showing that Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party came out on top. According to al Jazeera, a number of independent candidates allied to help the party to a surprise lead with 97 of the 265 seats, though with "no party winning a majority, and numerous contenders claiming vote tampering, Pakistan's political future is very uncertain." UPDATE 2/9 1:00 p.m. EST: . The release of the election results have been significantly delayed, fueling fears that rigging is taking place behind the scenes and discrepancies exist in reported numbers. It is clear that Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party came out on top, but whether they will be permitted to form a government is the real question. Even critics of PTI within Pakistan have raised alarms over the results. While countries worldwide, including the United States, expressed concern, there seems to be no intent to exert pressure on Pakistan's military establishment. It is being treated as an internal matter.The U.S. State Department issued a statement today expressing concern about "undue restrictions" on the electoral process and alleged interference. However, the statement also conveyed that, "The United States is prepared to work with the next Pakistani government, regardless of political party, to advance our shared interests.""Pakistan's elections are taking place under compromised conditions, with the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party effectively sidelined. Nevertheless, as results come in, PTI candidates are winning across the country by a large margin. If these results are ignored, Pakistan's democracy would face serious turmoil.The party, led by former Prime Minister Imran Khan, and popular in urban centers and among younger middle-class Pakistanis, has been subjected to intimidation and dismantling, with Khan himself in jail. Even PTI's electoral symbol was prohibited on ballots, making it harder for voters to identify PTI candidates.Pakistan's military systematically disassembled Imran Khan's PTI party, repeatedly arresting senior members and even targeting their children and party workers, with some facing trial in anti-terrorism courts. To maintain momentum, PTI has resorted to creative tactics, such as organizing large virtual political demonstrations and gatherings, even in the face of internet disruptions.Today, there were reports of certain polling stations opening late, forcing voters to endure lengthy waits in line. Additionally, cell and internet services were cut across the country, ostensibly for security reasons, creating logistical challenges for voting. The elections are occurring amid threats from militant groups like ISKP, particularly in Pakistan's northwest, but as of now, significant violence has been largely avoided.The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), known for its stronghold in Punjab and led by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who returned from self-imposed exile last October, was projected to win, but current polling suggests otherwise.Pakistan's flawed democracyPakistan's political system is commonly characterized as a hybrid regime, incorporating both democratic and authoritarian traits. While there are regular (although sometimes delayed) elections and democratic institutions, such as a prime minister, parliament, and an activist judiciary, the military wields considerable influence in defense and foreign relations. Persistent issues like censorship, restrictions on civil liberties, and extrajudicial detentions are common.A "elite bargain" prevails among the country's political and business elites and the security establishment, with the ruling party benefiting the most, while the opposition politicians act as a counterbalance or are marginalized. Notably, politicians critical of the military in opposition tend to support it when in power, prioritizing personal and party interests. This is true for Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan alike. This dynamic has led many, both in Pakistan and abroad, to perceive the military as more reliable and resilient compared to the political parties' shifting alliances, defections, infighting, and nepotism.What Pakistan's security establishment prefers is an elected head of state who is compliant and a robust political opposition that can serve as a check on their power.However, the ongoing feud between Imran Khan and the military has disrupted this cyclical arrangement. Public criticism and protests against the military by PTI supporters last spring reached unprecedented levels, facilitated by the ease of expression on social media.Additionally, if Nawaz Sharif becomes the next prime minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, serving as a political counterbalance, will not be available unless he is released from jail. It is also uncertain whether Nawaz Sharif and his PML-N party will willingly cooperate with the military if they come into power, particularly as time progresses. While a PML-N victory may temporarily appease the military, the absence of a strong political opposition could lead to conflicts between the PML-N and the generals over time.If PTI comes out on top and the results are ignored, then Pakistan's democracy will be placed into question and turmoil could follow.What Does This Mean for U.S.-Pakistan Relations?Washington consistently communicates that it supports free and fair elections in Pakistan but the public statements stop there. After Imran Khan's arrest last May, the State Department issued cautious statements, expressing hope for Pakistan to adhere to the rule of law.Khan's arrests have been referred to as an "internal matter" for Pakistan which is music to the military's ears. Some members of Congress have voiced concern but it is not a top priority for elected officials. Imran Khan's PTI party is quite popular among the Pakistani American diaspora, but the diaspora itself is not large or organized enough to exert real pressure on elected officials. Furthermore, U.S.-Pakistan policy is largely crafted within the White House.Imran Khan complicated the possibility of Washington providing moral support, even if it were inclined, by framing his removal from office through a vote of no confidence as a U.S.-backed regime change conspiracy. This move heightened anti-American sentiment in the country. The Biden administration is likely cautious about risking its relationship with Pakistan's military over the fate of one political party led by a perceived unpredictable leader, and a strong U.S. statement is unlikely to benefit PTI figures or advance civil liberties. U.S. financial support for Pakistan has also significantly decreased compared to previous years. A lesson from the Afghanistan war is that Washington cannot change the decisions of Pakistan's generals once their minds are made up.Washington's key priorities in Pakistan are preventing large-scale conflict between Pakistan and India, maintaining political and economic stability, and counterterrorism. Initiatives like democracy promotion and education are important but secondary. Washington will engage with Pakistan as it exists. This explains why Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with Pakistan's army chief during his visit to Washington last December, even though they are not direct counterparts. Despite limitations, Pakistan has elections, a vibrant press, and civil society. Although election outcomes may be partially engineered, the democratic challenges in Pakistan are not new, as no prime minister has ever completed their term.A showdown over valid election results could, however, place Washington in a precarious position.