ODP’s, and OSU’s, Thought Police, and Megan Pappada
More Links Coming Later. Sept. 1 – Links and a few additional linked items, have been added to the original post.
There are a few things I’ve been meaning to say about the Megan Pappada situation.
First, Ms. Pappada probably didn’t write the headline for her OSU Lantern letter (”More Minorities Will Create Problems”). The headline doesn’t reflect the substance of her letter in any way shape, or form. The problems she wrote of were reverse discrimination, segregated minority housing, and, most importantly, the wide disparity in graduation rates. Take your pick — The Lantern headline writer was either ignorant, or deliberately provocative.
Second, I don’t recall it being mentioned or excerpted yet, but perhaps it has been: The disparity in graduation rates documented in the news item in the previous week’s OSU Lantern by Professor Boris Mityagin — the item that prompted Pappada to write her letter — was pretty stark:
Mityagin noted OSU’s graduation and retention rates. In 1999, he said, the six-year graduation rates for white students was 57.6 percent and for black students was 37.2 percent.
Mityagin said this data could mean blacks are being discriminated against by OSU instructors, so they succeed less in the classroom.
On the other hand, it could also mean the admission policies and practices at OSU give blacks an unfair advantage, thereby enrolling less qualified applicants whose lack of skills and preparation for college-level work translate into low graduation rates.
Nobody can reasonably believe that the discrimination option carries any validity on a college campus. If anything, it’s more likely that profs were at the time, and still are, giving minority students the benefit of the doubt. In certain instances I’ll allow that it’s understandable and defensible, as it is with anyone who tries to help a struggling student — but please, the discrimination card was bogus then, and it’s bogus now.
So there’s little doubt that the second option, which is saying that unqualified minority students were being admitted and set up for in essence a high probability of failure, is what was occurring then, and what is likely still occurring at schools throughout the country.
What’s striking — no, tragic — is that those who support more lenient minority admissions don’t seem to mind high minority failure rates as long as they meet their freshman admissions quotas. Tragic, because unprepared and underqualified minority students who were not ready for college were, and probably still are, being thrown into a high-challenge environment they are not ready for. Many of them would have been better off going either to a less challenging school or attempting to get through less rigorous two-year programs first.
What’s doubly tragic is that those who point out the obvious are tarred with the “R” word — as I suppose yours truly might be. But what’s more racist in result — advocating alternative methods for each person to reach their full potential, or setting up people for failure?
The bottom line: Pappada at age 18 was less than eloquent, but absolutely right about the implications of the graduation disparities. More qualified students were, and probably are, being shut out from their first choice(s), in favor of students who couldn’t cut it. Nationwide acceptance of this situation as the norm for a sufficiently long time is a recipe for societal mediocrity and stagnation.
Third, I have to assume that if what Ms. Pappada wrote at age 18 in a letter to a campus newspaper is sufficient to disqualify her from a position in the Ohio Democratic Party (ODP), then what Hillary Clinton did, said, and wrote at Wellesley, her commencement speech, and her role in “monitoring” the 1969 New Haven Nine trial, are all fair game when comprehensively evaluating her qualifications for the nation’s highest office. Right?
As to Todd Hoffman and the ODP, the fact that, as I understand it, Mr. Hoffman apparently remains an employee in good standing in light of his, uh, record and the harsh treatment of Ms. Pappada is beyond farce.
___________________________________________
UPDATE, Sept. 1: Jill, if you’re out there — I agree that ODP should have gone Googling before making their hiring decision. But do you agree that Ms. Pappada deserved the boot?
UPDATE 2, Sept. 2: One who articulates the argument better than I is Walter “Black by Popular Demand” Williams. In early 2002, Williams cited nationwide evidence that closely reflects what Prof. Mityagin pointed to as the case at Ohio State, and how the passage of California’s Prop. 209 had made things better, not worse, for minority students –
From the evidence that I see, civil-rights leaders, white liberals and college administrators seem to be more concerned with black student enrollment rates and the heck with whether they graduate. Black students are simply tools to keep government agencies, black politicians and civil-rights organizations off their backs or to make them feel good.
You say, “What’s the evidence, Williams?” Nationally, only 35 percent of black freshmen, compared to 60 percent of white freshmen, graduate; moreover, those who do graduate have grade point averages considerably lower than their white peers.
….. University of San Diego law professor Gail Heriot sheds a bit of light on this issue in her article “The Politics of Admissions in California” in the Fall 2001 issue of Academic Questions. California’s Proposition 209 ended racial admissions quotas. As a result, minority student admissions at UC Berkeley, California’s flagship university, fell. What went unnoticed in all the hand-wringing was that at less prestigious, but respectable, California universities minority enrollment posted impressive gains. Black students were simply being admitted to universities where their academic credentials were more in line with their fellow students. For example, at UC San Diego, in the year before Proposition 209’s implementation, only one black freshman had a GPA of 3.5 or better — a single black honor student in a class of 3,268 — in contrast to 20 percent of white students with a 3.5 GPA.
Was this because there were no black students capable of doing honors work at UC San Diego? Certainly not. Those who might have been on the honors list at UC San Diego had been recruited, and became failures, at California’s flagship universities: Berkeley, and UCLA. Proposition 209 has changed UC San Diego; no longer are black honor students a rarity. In 1998, a full 20 percent of black freshman could boast of a 3.5 GPA.
Somebody please explain to me why what Williams just described is not a gratifying result.
Hi Tom.
It’s my opinion that employers need to have standard procedures in hiring practices. Those procedures would govern what sources they use to learn about applicants and how they process the information they gather.
I am not an employment lawyer and I’m not a Party girl so I can’t judge the ODP’s decision based on either the law or the tenets they say must be adhered to.
I am not in a position to say whether or not she “deserved the boot.”
Comment by Jill — September 1, 2007 @ 11:35 am
But Jill, you ARE in a position to comment on one aspect of this… If Mr. Lie and Earn Todd Hoffman proclaims that a person’s past will have an impact on whether or not the person is ODP employee material, then shouldn’t Todd Hoffman’s past be equally judged regarding whether or not he should be allowed to continue on as an ODP employee???????
Also, shouldn’t the ODP chairman, Chris Redfern, be expected to honor his past promises to progressive activists that happen to be well over a year and a half old ?????
http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/news/redfern.php
How can anyone trust Todd Hoffman or Chris Redfern’s actions and/or words when they both have demonstrated shady and manipulative pasts?
I don’t trust either of them and of course I can hardly stand to mention big boi bryan clark by name. Redfern should have his head examined for hiring Hoffman. However, even more, both Redfern and Hoffman should be fired just for associating with Bryan Clark, let alone hiring him.
It is very apparent that Redfern is the scum of the earth based on the scum he is hiring to produce lies and other manipulative propaganda. The ODP communication team is completely corrupted and misleading in every way that means anything. I would exempt Randy Borntrager simply because I don’t know him. However, if Randy is willing to work with these other ODP dirtbags, then Randy is indirectly guilty by association.
Comment by Dave Hickman — September 1, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
#1 Jill, fair enough. Opinion, or no, your finding and the Pappada fallout, juxtaposed with Mr. Hoffman’s situation, IMO nevertheless shed quite a bit of light on the thought process inside ODP that would not have otherwise become known.
Comment by TBlumer — September 2, 2007 @ 8:53 am
Tom, I agree 100%. Have you noticed how many times, when I have written about this situation, I’ve made sure to mention that I’m not nor have I ever been a Party girl? The reasons are too numerous for a gorgeous Sunday morning.
Obviously, as you can imagine, it’s not that I don’t have an opinion, it’s that my opinion as to that specific question is completely irrelevant, except to the extent that anyone would want to know what and/or how I think when I try to understand such situations. And I can promise you, getting to that answer would be as long-winded as the longest, windiest thing I’ve ever written.
Comment by Jill — September 2, 2007 @ 11:29 am
#4, those who throw the “long-winded” thing at you clearly haven’t read some of the posts around here. :–>
Comment by TBlumer — September 2, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Well - we certainly can preserve this topic for another forum, ahem, because it’s definitely not going to go away as an issue (where do you draw the line re: past behavior that turns up) - it’s a huge topic in many, many circles.
Comment by Jill — September 2, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
I think the whole thing is stupid. 75% of people wouldnt have jobs if things they did when they were 18 were held against them.
Comment by Ben Keeler — September 4, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
What about this twist: police department recruiting is being affected by the fact that so many applicants have elements in their background that, up to now, were fatal flaws: credit problems, bankruptcy, drug usage, poor academics, very visible tattos.
Listen to these two reports from the last 12 months, in which police dept. spokesmen specifically say, we’re lowering our standards because if we don’t, we can’t get anyone. They say in one report that they must go through 100 applicants to get 1 who will make it to the force.
Are we okay with this? Do credit problems, bankruptcy or drug use, poor academics, visible tattoos or criminal history, in the background of a police officer, bother you? How much? Think about how we attack politicians for elements in their background.
Here are the links:
From June 07 (standards discussion at 2:51)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10682250
This report from Oct 06 (based on young people not wanting to become police)mentions how half of all people who attended high school from 1980 forward have drugs, poor academics or criminal, or they have “very visible” tattoos and bad credit.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6380058
This issue of what to do with people’s backgrounds, whatever is in them isn’t new. But how we’re judging people seems to be shifting, and shifting depending on each case.
Aren’t we supposed to making guidelines and applying them across the board?
I don’t know anymore. It’s a very complicated issue.
Comment by Jill — September 5, 2007 @ 8:34 am
#8 Jill, I think your comment changes the subject.
Megan was released because of her expressed thoughts. The problems you cite have to do with finding qualified people who on the surface appear to represent risks in certain professions. One example is that cops in credit trouble are more vulnerable to bribery.
I don’t think it’s that complicated. If you’re ODP you do the legwork and in a less pressured situation decide whether Megan is in fundamental agreement with party positions now, regardless of what she wrote 7 years ago (which she IMO has nothing to be ashamed about anyway). They should have stood up for her after the fact too. I think her firing sends a message to ODP employees and pols that you are one “mistake,” past or present, in action or thought, from being thrown under the bus.
The other jobs have largely objective standards. I don’t object to taking a calculated risk on applicants from time to time, but pervasive lowering of standards is potentially very dangerous.
Comment by TBlumer — September 5, 2007 @ 9:51 am
You would have to check with the ODP to know whether they believe the distinction you make is valid or not. My take is that your distinction is in fact semantics.
A formal political party entity has, at its core, the mission to perpetuate an ideology. It is in the profession of perpetuating that ideology. If the ODP sets up guidelines for what it believes would be an unacceptable risk to its ability to perpetuate that ideology, then, when they conduct and assess whether an applicant is or is not a risk to being able to perpetuate the ideology, they should follow those guidelines, just as with anyone charged with hiring in any field.
Where we do agree: pervasive lowering of standards is potentially very dangerous. And calculated risks can definitely be worthwhile.
But I won’t second guess others in making those determinations - especially if I don’t have access to firsthand knowledge of what went on in the process.
Comment by Jill — September 5, 2007 @ 5:38 pm