To clarify, I was betrayed by a fake friend and that’s what I meant with ‘they’ not anything more.

~Jamie Foxx/Instagram/August 5, 2023

The above quote is an excerpt from Foxx’s online apology for an earlier Instagram post which could be interpreted as anti-Semitic based on its historical use to blame Jews for the crucifixion. 

They killed this dude name Jesus … what do you think they’ll do to you???! #fakefriends #fakelove.

~Jamie Foxx/Instagram/August 4, 2023

As seems to be the case these days, celebrities, regardless of occupation, seem incapable of simply saying, “I know I screwed up.  I’m sorry.  And I know I need to work at being a better person.”  Instead, Foxx’s explanation only made the matter worst.  Why? Because his explanation makes sense only if one of the following must be true.

• His #fakefriend is non-binary and refers to himself as “they.”
• By simple deductive reasoning, if “they” refers to Foxx’s #fakefriend, Foxx accused this individual of killing Jesus.  Should we, therefore, expect a new comedy album in which Mel Brooks, in a role reversal, is the straight man to Foxx’s #fakefriend, the new 2,000-year-old man?
• Foxx refers to every individual as “they,” as in “Joe, how are they doing this afternoon?”

Of course, Foxx is not alone, Donald Trump and his campaign played “can you top this” over the weekend.  It began with Trump’s now infamous post on “Truth Social.”

If you go after me, I’m coming after you.

~Donald Trump/Truth Social/August 4, 2023

Jack Smith correctly pointed out in a filing to Judge Tanya Chutkan it took Trump less than 24 hours to violate a federal magistrate’s warning not to intimidate or threaten anyone associated with his obstruction and conspiracy indictment.

It is a crime to try to influence a juror or to threaten or attempt to bribe a witness or any other person who may have information about your case, or to retaliate against anyone for providing information about your case to the prosecution, or to otherwise obstruct the administration of justice.

Her concern was not unfounded. This unusual admonition was likely tied to findings by the House Select Committee to Investigate the Attack on the United States Capitol’s finding Trump had contact one of their witnesses prior to that individual’s interview with committee staff.  And once Trump’s legal team realized their client might be in jeopardy of having his bond vacated, they backtracked quicker than Vin Diesel in the latest Fast and Furious movie.

The Truth post cited is the definition of political speech, and was in response to the RINO, China-loving, dishonest special interest groups and Super PACs, like the ones funded by the Koch brothers and the Club for No Growth.

~Unsigned Statement from Trump Spokesperson/August 5, 2023

If that is who Trump meant, why did he not mention them specifically?  I thought maybe he might have referred to the one security officer at his hush money arraignment in New York who did not cry when he was led into the courtroom.  The irony is Trump’s lawyers did not appreciate that the very statements and ads sponsored by the Koch Brothers and others, which so upset their client, are the “definition of political speech,” without the “fire in a crowded theater” threat to avenge a perceived wrong.

Despite the MAGA-verse “war on woke,” the real problem is not whether an infinitesimal percentage of Americans who could be described as gender fluid choose to attach a non-traditional pronoun to their persona.  The real problem is the use of pronouns such as “they” and “you” which are bandied about as a façade for moral fluidity.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Things that are not important are easy to measure.  Those that are important are hard to measure.

~Michie Slaughter

As long as the Supreme Court is taking up cases based on imaginary plaintiffs and defendants and no longer requires that plaintiffs have standing (i.e., personally suffered some harm), I thought I would jump on the bandwagon.  Therefore, I present the case of Quantity v. Quality in hopes the high court might understand the folly of their ways and put common sense ahead of ideology.

Cases between this imaginary plaintiff and his equally imaginery defendant are adjudicated almost daily in a number of venues.  One, in which I was actually a participant, involved the United Way, for which I served on the local board in Oxford, Ohio. We constantly sought better criteria for making funding decisions.  Applicants had reams of quantitative data about the number of people served (e.g. Meals on Wheels) or membership in their organization (e.g., Boy Scouts).  They took pride in demonstrating their financial efficiency by touting cost per person helped.  The board, however, wanted answers to a different question, “Did it make a difference?” A non-profit could provide mental health care for thousands of clients.  But if they continued to act irrationally or presented a danger to themselves or others, maybe it was time to fund someone else.

There is no better example of quality trumping quantity than “Project Choice,” a program of the Ewing Kauffman Foundation which covered the college expenses (tuition, room and board, and books) of at-risk youth if they graduated high school on time, were drug free and had no record of illegal activities.  The cost per participant could be exorbitant. One graduate’s benefits included a full-ride through medical school.  Another, who pursued a career as as a preacher included bible studies in Israel.  Sadly, new leadership at the foundation determined the per student cost was an inefficient use of foundation resources (an endowment of $2.7 billion at the time of which the total cost for Project Choice covering 1987-96 was $22.4 million).

As a vice-president at the foundation, I often attended the annual banquet for “Project Choice” alumni.  Many shared how the program had not only changed their life trajectories, but those of others in their family or community.  I specifically remember one successful female “Kauffman Kid” (as they were affectionately known) telling the audience she emulated “Project Choice,” providing financial support for a nephew’s college education.  It reminded me of the final scene in Schindler’s List  in which descendants of the 1,000 plus Jews Oskar Schindler saved from extermination placed a stone on his grave site. How many times will the investment in one child result in an exponential impact on others for generation after generation?

Which brings me to the actual Supreme Court decision which might as well have been called Quantity v. Quality. In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard University, a 6-3 Supreme Court majority decided a private university could not use race as a (not the) factor in admissions.  The justices sided with “quantity” even though that issue had already been adjudicated in Regents of University of California v. Bakke.  “Quotas” were ruled unconstitutional but “affirmative action” for some applicants was not.  In other words, as long as preferential treatment was not a numbers game (i.e., established quantity), subjective consideration of the impact that admission of a minority student (i.e. quality), until last Friday, was still allowed. [Note, this is the same majority that minutes earlier said it was okay for a private business to discriminate against protected populations, in this case the LGBTQ community.  Maybe the decision issued in response to 303 Creative’s refusal to design wedding websites for same-sex couples should henceforth be known as “Project Choice for Homophobes.”]

Each year, when Ewing Kauffman, would introduce “Project Choice” to the newly enrolled freshmen at Kansas City’s inner-city Westport High School (from which he graduated), he told them, “When others thought you did not have a chance, we want to give you a choice.”  American universities had a chance to make a multi-generational difference in the lives of at-risk youth and their descendants.  There was no mandate.  Universities were free to decide if and how much they wanted to take race into account when it came to admissions. Unfortunately, six members of the Supreme Court looked at the numbers, not the potential impact, and took away that choice.

POSTSCRIPT

According to a 2017 Gallup poll, 58 percent of Americans supported Affirmative Action program for racial minorities including 51 percent of white Americans.  A similar June 2023 poll, conducted by the Pew Research Center, now shows 33 percent support by all Americans and only 29 percent by whites.  I cannot prove causation but I believe some of this shift in sentiment has been the concurrent re-emergence of white nationalism including public pronouncements of racist memes such as “you will not replace us” as well as MAGA-worlds tacit approval by failing to push back against the rise of white extremism.  One more example of the power of people’s exposure to fearmongering, regardless whether the specific threat is real or merely perceived.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Friday, June 30, 2023, will be remembered by those most affected as the day the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) turned its back on those less-advantaged Americans for whom admission to one of the nation’s premier colleges and universities could provide the resources and mentoring by which they have a chance to fully develop their innate interests and talent.  But it is about more than education.  When a Harvard or North Carolina used race as a (not the) factor when considering a potential student’s application they were practicing what could be called “affirmative entrepreneurship.”

The curriculum in every American institute of higher learning with a major or minor in entrepreneurship includes a discussion of risk and reward.  It goes something like this.  You can do what everyone else is doing and make a decent profit.  But if you can see something no one else sees, even though the risks to pursue it are high, the rewards can be even greater.  Affirmative action in education was the willingness to see the less than apparent (through SAT scores or being president of the French club) potential of an applicant and produce something that was more unique and of higher value than what was readily available in the marketplace.  In other words, the justices who made up the 6-3 majority in Friday’s decision sent a second, more covert message.  American universities need to be more like risk-averse, large corporations, rather than entrepreneurial ventures.  Stick with the proven commodity, not identify and develop the market disruptor.  Be more like American Motors, TWA and Sears (remember them?) instead of Apple.

If you really want to know how affirmative action can work, one of the best examples is not in education, but in sports.  It was called “the Royals Baseball Academy.”  When Ewing Kauffman acquired the rights to a Major League Baseball (MLB) team in Kansas City, he chose not to repeat the dismal tradition of new franchises.  For new MLB entrants, initial rosters consisted of cast-offs and has-beens waived by the more established teams.  Mr. K (as he was affectionately known to his business associates and citizens of his hometown)  decided to take a different approach.  In 1969, the Royals held tryout camps in 41 states, the only attendance criteria being athletic ability regardless of sport.  Of the 7,682 attendees, 42 were chosen to attend the baseball academy at which they were mentored by the best in the business such as Ted Williams.  Of those 42, eight had never played on a high school or college baseball team.  Three of the 42 ended up playing for the Royals, including Hall of Fame inductee Frank White.  Mr. K knew there were potentially great baseball players out there.  You just had to look for them and offer them a path to reach their potential.

Perhaps those who oppose affirmative action would be less antagonistic if they considered how they have benefitted from the practice.  You do not have to be a minority, as my own experience demonstrates.  Based on my undergraduate GPA at the University of Virginia, I should never had been considered much less accepted into the Ph.D. program at Johns Hopkins University.  However, I had the good fortune to have John Ellwood as one of my professors.  John earned his doctorate from Hopkins and wrote a recommendation in support of my application.  He told the admissions office, although I was not much of a traditional student or test-taker, he thought I would thrive in the seminar-dominated environment for which the political science department was known.  I know I was given an opportunity I probably did not deserve based on objective criteria such as test scores or GPA.  I also know, an equally qualified (or in my case under-qualified) minority candidate would never have had a John Ellwood as a mentor.

I am not alone.  Every successful individual, if perfectly honest, can identify one or more instances where they received some immeasurable, subjective advantage in life.  Often due to nothing more than being in the right place at the right time.  And though they might not want to admit it, that hand up was a form of affirmative action, something that gave them an advantage over equally or more qualified competitors.

One last point.  Economically, affirmative action is not in the best self-interest of great universities.  Endowments, which are becoming an increasing portion of a school’s financial resources, come largely from successful alumni.  When a university admits a student from a family of less means or whose lineage does not consist of multi-generational success, the school is less assured that graduate will have the means to make a major donation in a future campaign.  Yet, successful minority graduates continually show their appreciation for the life-changing effect of a college experience offered them, often at a giving rate higher than non-minority alumni.  As an example, Morgan State University alumnus, Calvin Tyler, who worked as a UPS driver to pay for his education, parleyed his degree in business administration to become a senior vice-president at the delivery company.  In 2021 he and his wife Tina added $5 million to an endowed scholarship fund, bringing the total to $20 million.

Any major university in America, before Friday, could have taken that same risk and reaped the same rewards.  Today they are less likely do so.  And future Calvin Tylers, the universities they might have attended and America are more disadvantaged as a result of SCOTUS’ repudiation of “affirmative entrepreneurship.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

One of the signature segments on Sesame Street was based on a song, “One of These Things (Is Not Like the Others),” created by Joe Raposo (music) and Jon Stone (lyrics).  The refrain was accompanied by pictures of four items, one of which was outside the general category represented by the other three. One of the earliest examples included a banana, an apple, a peach and a shoe.  I trust you can figure this out without my help.

I thought about this standard Sesame Street fare watching the cacophony of Republican voices invoking the “whataboutism” card in an effort to normalize Donald Trump’s indictment for violation of the espionage act and obstruction of justice.  Imagine Elmo or Ernie pointing at a poster with images of Trump, Joe Biden, Mike Pence and Hillary Clinton and singing to Kevin McCarthy or Lindsay Graham:

Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Did you guess which thing just doesn’t belong?
If you guessed this one (Trump) is not like the others,
Then you’re absolutely…right!

But, as is often the case, that is not what I came here to talk about.  Today, I want to acknowledge a less obvious instance where one item or person stands out from the rest of the pack.  It was triggered by Nikki Haley’s change of heart after actually reading the Special Counsel’s indictment. What struck me was not a pivot that would give John Kerry vertigo, it was her reference to her husband.  After finally admitting Trump was “incredibly reckless with our national security,” she added:

More than that, I’m a military spouse. My husband’s about to deploy this weekend. This puts all of our military men and women in danger.

No contrition about how long it took her to reach this conclusion or her comments 24 hours earlier in which she claimed Jack Smith and his team were guilty of “prosecutorial overreach.”  Nor did she mention that Trump endangered the lives of thousands of military service men and women way before she realized, “Oh, he is endangering my husband.”

The second image is a picture of former White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.  On July 15, 2020 Mulvaney criticized the Trump administration’s response to the spread of COVID.

I know it isn’t popular to talk about in some Republican circles, but we still have a testing problem in this country. My son was tested recently; we had to wait five to seven days for results. My daughter wanted to get tested before visiting her grandparents but was told she didn’t qualify. That is simply inexcusable at this point in the pandemic.

Again no contrition.  It only became “inexcusable” when it affected his own daughter.

Image #3 is a two-person portrait of Representative Glenn Thompson (R-PA) and then Senator Rob Portman (R-OH).  Thompson joined 75 percent of his GOP colleagues who voted against a bill to codify same-sex marriage protections just days prior to attending his son’s wedding to (drum roll) his male partner. To add insult to injury, Thompson’s office issued the following statement. “Congressman and Mrs. Thompson were thrilled to attend and celebrate their son’s marriage on Friday night as he began this new chapter in his life.”

Although Portman voted for the bill when it came before the Senate, the justification for reversal of his long-standing opposition to same-sex marriage was equally hypocritical. 

It’s a change of heart from the position of a father. Will came to Jane and me and announced that he was gay, that it was not a choice. It was who he is and he had been that way since he could remember. Jane and I were both surprised, very surprised, but also very supportive of him. Our reaction was not about policy or positions. It was about him as a son and letting him know we were 110 percent supportive of him.

No doubt, Portman would have continued to deny other parents the same opportunity to celebrate a son’s or daughter’s love for another human being if his family had not personally faced the issue.

Which brings me to image #4, Fred Guttenberg whose daughter Stephanie was killed on February 14, 2018 during the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.   Guttenberg has become a national leader in the gun safety movement since Stephanie’s death.  But he still does not feel personally exonerated for his previous indifference to the suffering of other parents.  On September 15, 2020, during a radio interview, Guttenberg said, “Every day I live with guilt I did not use my voice until it was my daughter.”

Again, I trust you do not need my help to determine which thing is not like the others.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP