Meritocratic myths of the playing fields
The University of Nebraska at Kearney campus. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)
The unfortunate advent of Legislative Bill 552 in the Nebraska Legislature's hopper once again exposes the tentacles of national politics creeping into the state's process of making policy.
State Sen. Loren Lippincott's proposed law would require public Nebraska postsecondary institutions to forgo anything that remotely resembles a nod toward diversity, equity and inclusion, known as DEI, the latest histrionic being promulgated by the current White House.
Indeed, the removal of any vestige of efforts to give those in marginalized groups opportunities historically unavailable to them has a prime position in the president's executive order parade.
Lippincott ratcheted up his argument for LB 552 with a recent newspaper column in which he related several personal anecdotes of problems from his commercial airline pilot days, the result, apparently, of the skin color of air traffic controllers and their bosses.
His point appeared to be a classic case of projection — pushing for the idea that we shouldn't be making decisions based on skin color when he did just that.
DEI detractors insist we should be developing a 'colorblind' society, one based strictly on 'merit.' That means jobs, college admissions, promotions, contracts, whatever would be awarded according to ability. Fine … except for the facts. You remember the facts don't you?
For starters, tell us just how individuals can prove merit when their race, gender, sexuality, age, culture, language, religion or even their opinion keeps them from getting a chance to do so. Moreover, too often those wagging a finger in our faces about merit are preaching to an endless on-deck circle from where they started: on third base.
Plus, merit-based systems rarely achieve their goals because we've baked favoritism into the process. Getting inside that track remains all but impossible for a wide swath of Americans, many of whom are in communities which anti-DEI sentiments aim to keep on the sidelines.
In his book 'Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good?' Harvard professor Michael Sandel, addressing scandals in college admissions, wrote '… the problem with meritocracy is not with the principle but with our failure to live up to it.'
Meritocracies thrive when the proverbial playing field is level. For example, while a standardized test is designed to reward and expose merit, the data clearly shows that a student's family income is a more common predictor of scores than absolute merit.
Ironically, it's often sports, what some call the toy department of life, where ability wins out … along with diversity, equity and inclusion. For details, head to a game near you.
The impetus for much of today's infatuation with undermining DEI efforts is the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 2023 to end affirmative action. But, as University of Chicago law professor Sonja Starr wrote recently, the Supremes' decision 'did not render racial diversity an unlawful interest — indeed, it described that interest as 'commendable' and 'worthy.' Courts have long distinguished between 'benign' racial objectives, such as diversity, and 'invidious' ones, such as segregation. The Supreme Court did not change that distinction. What it changed were the means that schools can use to pursue diversity: They now must be race-neutral.'
To which I might add a private sector update: After behemoths such as Walmart, Target, Amazon and McDonald's did away with DEI efforts, in the last couple weeks shareholders at Apple and John Deere joined Costco in rejecting efforts to eighty-six DEI programs. The votes were not close.
LB 552 has some troubling details, too.
For example, the law includes the prohibition of 'Describing structures, systems, relations of power, privilege, or subordination on the basis of race, sex, color, gender, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation.'
To this layman, that sounds as though we're prohibiting college students from getting instruction that details the causes, conditions and consequences of slavery, as well as accounts that reveal seminal chapters in our American history such as the Stonewall Uprising, the Tuskegee narratives — both the airmen and the syphilis studies, the work of Cesar Chavez and the eventual formation of the United Farm Workers and the path Ruth Bader-Ginsberg took to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Most troubling in the anti-DEI movement, however, is the tone and tenor of the discussion, which on the low end reminds Amercians that left unchecked, such language and attitudes can and have eventually ended with brownshirts and white hoods.
Let's give the state's public colleges and the University of Nebraska unfettered license to challenge its faculty, administrators and students to find true merit in diversity, equity and inclusion efforts rather than to make believe the fields of play and progress are always level.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What exactly does Donald Trump think the federal government is supposed to do?
A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. There are some major contradictions in President Donald Trump's view of what government should do to help and protect Americans as expressed this week. He promised to 'wean' the country off federal disaster relief and wind down FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Cleaning up after hurricanes, wildfires and earthquakes should be a state function, he said. 'A governor should be able to handle it, and frankly, if they can't handle it, the aftermath, then maybe they shouldn't be governor,' Trump told reporters on Tuesday. Trump seized control of California's National Guard from Gov. Gavin Newsom, federalizing troops and putting them on the streets of Los Angeles over the objections of local and state leaders. He has threatened to send troops to other cities throughout the country. Critics, including Newsom, accused Trump of an illegal authoritarian overreach. California has sued the administration to end the callup of Marines and National Guard. Trump's actions had the effect of inciting more unrest instead of quieting it, according to the state's leaders. 'These are the acts of a dictator, not a president,' Newsom said on social media. He is primed to roll back California's looming ban on the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035, at least according to Rep. Kevin Kiley, a California Republican. Expect lawsuits. California's Environmental Protection agency has enacted its own climate change policy because the federal government, which has switched from Democrats to Republicans in recent elections, has been unable to stick to one. Trump is also trying to dismantle climate change efforts enacted by Democrats under President Joe Biden. Trump is trying to end the Department of Education in part because he says he wants to return more power over education to the states. At the same time, he's threatening state universities and school systems that want to prioritize a diverse environment. Trump has done all he can to strong-arm American institutions into ending diversity programs that are a reaction to the country's complicated racial past and is instead treating the inclusion of trans women in gendered sports as a major civil rights issue. The standoff between Trump and Newsom is in some ways the inverse of relationships between past Democratic presidents and Republican governors. While Trump is foisting troops onto Los Angeles over Newsom's objections, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, launched Operation Lone Star, which mobilized his state's National Guard to patrol the border and set up obstructions in spots when he felt federal authorities under Biden were not doing enough. Biden officials never threatened to arrest Abbott, however. Trump officials have warned mayors and Newsom against impeding federal immigration authorities. Abbott, for his part, took the initiative to put the Texas National Guard on standby as anti-deportation protests spread around the country. For instance, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders — who was Trump's first-term press secretary — was denied a request for tornado relief funds earlier this year. Sanders was ultimately able to obtain the funds by publicly lobbying and then calling Trump with a direct and personal appeal, as CNN's Gabe Cohen wrote. It would be interesting to see whether Newsom, a Democrat who has previously tangled with Trump, would be as successful. Trump has a history of denying assistance to California. He did it during his first term. In April, CNN reported that when billions of dollars in disaster funding were stalled, Republican governors had better luck at unfreezing them. The White House may already be cutting FEMA out of the equation, according to Cohen's report. He wrote that there have been multiple instances this year when FEMA has not been immediately notified that the White House had approved disaster relief packages, which led to delays in getting the funds out. Regardless, FEMA's normal way of doing business — approving aid based on nonpartisan formulas and the extent of damage — has been replaced by Trump's preferences. If a version of Trump's sweeping policy bill passes through Congress this year, it will also rewrite the social contract by which the federal government helps the lowest-income Americans. States would have to spend more to help provide health insurance through Medicaid programs, but they would also have to impose new work requirements, and millions of Americans would lose health insurance. Spending on food stamps, now called SNAP benefits, would be cut. Trump clearly wants the government to do less. Less foreign aid. Less scientific research. Less income taxes. Less responsibility to fund the social safety net. Except where he wants more. More defense spending. More tariffs (which are actually taxes). More military parades. More deportations.
USA Today
38 minutes ago
- USA Today
Medicaid churn: How working Americans could mistakenly lose coverage under Trump tax bill
Medicaid churn: How working Americans could mistakenly lose coverage under Trump tax bill Show Caption Hide Caption President Trump gives his thoughts on Elon Musk amid clash on bill President Donald Trump responded to Elon Musk's criticism of his "big, beautiful bill" with disappointment as Musk responded on X. A centerpiece of Donald Trump's tax bill would make millions of Medicaid recipients work, volunteer or study to maintain their publicly-financed health insurance. Republicans say the work requirement is vital to protect taxpayers while motivating nondisabled Medicaid recipients to take charge of their physical and fiscal health. Dr. Mehmet Oz challenged this population to "prove that you matter." But health advocacy groups and analysts say most recipients already work in jobs that don't provide affordable health insurance or pay enough for people to afford their own insurance. They say mandating a Medicaid work requirement − combined with more frequent eligibility checks − would create an administrative nightmare that drops coverage for many who qualify for the public health insurance program for low-income and disabled residents. What is Medicaid churn? Medicaid rolls vary from month to month as people lose eligibility due to a new job, a raise or other income source that disqualifies them for coverage. A job loss or change in life circumstances could make someone newly eligible. The constant change of Medicaid rolls is what health policy experts call churn. A person who temporarily loses coverage due to a paperwork issue or mistake then must again sign up. "Churn is what happens when these eligibility systems become difficult to navigate," said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of the program on Medicaid and the uninsured for KFF, a health policy nonprofit. The federal government requires state Medicaid programs to check enrollees eligibility once a year. The Trump tax cut legislation would mandate states double eligibility checks to twice a year. And states would have the added duty of verifying a person's employment or exemption status. The legislation, which passed the House and awaits Senate approval, mandates Medicaid recipients who are "able-bodied" adults without children work 80 hours per month or qualify for an exemption such as being a student, caregiver or having a disability. The bill defines able-bodied as people who are not medically certified as physically or unfit for employment. The legislation also would strip coverage from undocumented immigrants who get Medicaid through state-funded programs. Health policy experts say more frequent eligibility checks and red tape will add administrative costs and cut off people who qualify but fall through the cracks due to administrative miscues. "People are going to have to document work status or exemption status multiple times a year, and at each point there's a risk that someone who is eligible could lose coverage," Tolbert said. Thousands lost coverage under Arkansas work requirement During the first Trump administration, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services gave states the option of implementing a work requirement for nondisabled adults on Medicaid. Arkansas' work requirement cut more than 18,000 residents from Medicaid within the first seven months of the program. People were removed often because people were unaware of paperwork requirements to keep their coverage, research shows and analysts said. In April, a study by researchers from the Urban Institute and Loyola University Chicago found the Arkansas uninsured rate jumped 7.4 percentage points among low-income adults age 30 to 49 after the state's work requirement began. The policy's impact on employment among that age group was "negative, small and statistically insignificant," the study said. Arkansas adults who didn't have access to the internet at home were disproportionately harmed by the policy, a sign adults might've had trouble accessing the state's online portal to report work histories or exemptions, the Urban Institute said. If the work requirement for Medicaid recipients is adopted nationwide, health experts say millions of working poor Americans will inevitably lose coverage. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated 10.9 million Americans would lose health insurance coverage through 2034 under the legislation. Most would lose coverage due to the Medicaid work requirement and the twice-a-year eligibility checks, but about 3.1 million would become uninsured from tweaks to Affordable Care Act enrollment, according to a KFF analysis. The ranks of the uninsured could grow larger if Congress doesn't extend the COVID-19 pandemic-era tax credits that have made ACA plans more affordable for consumers. If the tax credits expire and Congress passes the current version of the Trump tax bill, as many as 16 million Americans would lose coverage , according to CBO. "Coverage loss from work requirements should actually be very small," said Kathy Hempstead, a senior policy officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "But we anticipate it will be very large, because people will not be able to comply with the requirements and will lose their coverage." Dr. Oz: Medicaid spending is 'crippling the system' The Trump administration's top Medicaid official has defended the House legislation as a necessary step to slow spending for the federal health program that covers nearly 80 million low-income and disabled Americans. In a June 4 interview with Fox Business, Dr. Oz challenged Medicaid recipients who would face work requirements should "prove that you matter." Oz, the Trump-appointed administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said the work requirement asks "able-bodied individuals who are able to go back to work at least try to get a job or volunteer or take care of a loved one who needs help or go back into school. Do something to show you have agency over your future." In a Fox News interview posted on the social media site X, Oz said Medicaid spending has surged 50% since 2019, a pace that is "crippling the system." However, some Republicans have pushed back on the proposed cuts. In a May opinion piece in the New York Times, Sen. Josh Hawley, R- Missouri, said "slashing health insurance for the working poor" is "morally wrong and politically suicidal." Survey: Americans worried about Medicaid cuts The public is paying attention to the proposed Medicaid cuts. Slightly more than half of adults said they're worried significant cuts in Medicaid spending would negatively affect their family's ability to obtain and afford health care, according to a KFF health tracking poll released June 6. The survey this survey of 2,539 U.S. adults was conducted online and by telephone over three weeks in May. The survey said nearly 6 in 10 adults said the Trump administration's policies would weaken Medicaid, but there is a stark divide based on party affiliation. Nine in 10 Democrats but just 2 in 10 Republicans expect the administration's policies would weaken Medicaid. Republicans also were far more likely than Democrats to say that the Trump's policies would strengthen Medicaid. Still, while the survey suggests people are tracking the news, many likely wouldn't know whether their coverage has changed until they try to get medical care. "People don't often know that they've lost coverage until they try and fill a prescription or see a doctor," Tolbert said.
USA Today
38 minutes ago
- USA Today
I was wrongfully imprisoned abroad. The US must do more to help people like me.
I was wrongfully imprisoned abroad. The US must do more to help people like me. This summer will mark five years since I was wrongfully imprisoned by the Rwandan government. For 939 days I sat in prison, cut off from family and community. It was a nightmare I couldn't escape. Show Caption Hide Caption Mother of freed Hamas-held Israeli-American hostage speaks to son The mother of Israeli-American Edan Alexander, who was held captive for 19 months by Hamas, spoke to her son for the first time since being freed. Paul Rusesabagina, known for his actions during the Rwandan genocide, was arbitrarily detained for 939 days. Arbitrary detentions of Americans abroad have risen significantly, increasing from four countries in 2001 to 27 in 2023. Rusesabagina advocates for stronger U.S. government support for detainees and their families, including clearer agency roles and improved coordination. He highlights the need for improvements to the Levinson Act, urging clearer guidelines for wrongful detention designations and responses, especially for human rights defenders. This summer will mark five years since I was kidnapped and wrongfully imprisoned by the Rwandan government. For 939 days, I sat in prison, cut off from my family and community. I was held in solitary confinement, denied medical care and often unable to speak with my lawyers. The days felt endless ‒ like a nightmare I couldn't escape. For my family, it was a different sort of nightmare. Overnight, their lives were transformed. My wife and children were left to navigate the complex web of U.S. federal offices tasked with hostage recovery. My family became full-time advocates for my return, pleading my case before U.S. government officials and sharing my story with the news media. They recruited everyone from national nonprofits and grassroots organizations to Hollywood celebrities who had first learned my story from the movie 'Hotel Rwanda.' Led by my family's passion and persistence, all of these groups played a role in securing my freedom in 2023. There are no words to describe my gratitude. Alongside that gratitude is my fierce commitment to ensure that no individual ‒ and no family ‒ goes through this alone. More Americans are being detained abroad. We can't leave them behind. Over the past two decades, there has been a significant rise in the overseas arbitrary detention of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents like me. Arbitrary detention means someone is detained without due process, and most of the time as reprisal for exercising their rights or being a member of a targeted group. In 2001, only four countries had arbitrarily detained a U.S. national. In 2023, that number had grown to 27 countries. According to the Foley Foundation, at least 54 Americans were held hostage or wrongfully detained overseas during 2024. Opinion: Terrorists killed James Foley, my journalist son, and threaten others. Democracy needs them to be safe. The stories behind these statistics are chilling. Cambodian American human rights activist Theary Seng was jailed and sentenced to six years in prison for criticizing Cambodia's dictator on social media. Russian American journalist Alsu Kurmasheva was sentenced to more than six years after the Russian government accused her of spreading falsehoods about the army. I was jailed without a fair trial and punished for speaking out against Rwandan President Paul Kagame and his repressive regime. Addressing the rise in arbitrary detention, wrongful detention and hostage-taking isn't just about justice on an individual level. It's about safeguarding the very foundation of democracy ‒ the ability to speak out without the threat of a jail cell. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Across administrations and across party lines, the United States has historically been committed to helping people who are wrongfully detained overseas, whether they are U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents like myself or citizens of other countries who are victimized by oppressive regimes. Amid an international context of increasing authoritarianism, it is more important than ever that the U.S. government provide a strong, unified front in fighting for the return of arbitrarily detained individuals and supporting the families left behind. America is capable of protecting its citizens abroad better. I know. My story proves what the U.S. government is capable of when it mobilizes resources and prioritizes democracy. To this day, my daughters speak about the State Department's above-and-beyond efforts to reunite us. For years, congressional representatives championed our cause, writing letters, speaking out and putting pressure on the Kagame regime. But there is still room for improvement. The U.S. government's ability to help detainees and their families is often hindered by the lack of clarity on the specific roles of various government agencies and the logistical difficulty of coordinating with all of those different groups. My family and I recently worked with Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, the leading nonprofit that took my case to the United Nations when I was detained, to create a new guide that provides strategies and best practices for engaging with the U.S. government on arbitrary detention cases. It's my sincere hope that this resource helps individuals and families who find themselves in our position, desperately trying to secure the return of their loved one. Opinion: Hamas released me. But with my partner still held hostage, I cannot be truly free. Aside from independent resources, we need stronger federal guidance and coordination. The U.S. law that governs hostage recovery, the Robert Levinson Hostage Recovery and Hostage-Taking Accountability Act, was passed in 2020 and significantly expanded the U.S. legal framework around arbitrary and wrongful detention. But for all its benefits, the Levinson Act doesn't give enough clarity on how the secretary of State makes wrongful detention designations, which is a crucial component of recovery efforts. It also doesn't provide a clear system for how the United States responds to arbitrary detention, particularly in cases involving human rights defenders. Organizations like the Foley Foundation that work closely with arbitrarily detained people and their families have spent years advocating for changes within the U.S. government. Their recommendations range from establishing a direct line of communication among the president, the special presidential envoy and the director of the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell to creating a more comprehensive reintegration support program for returning hostages and wrongful detainees. Admittedly, there is no one catch-all solution. Arbitrary and wrongful detention is a complex challenge, and addressing it requires ongoing collaboration within the government, strong recovery efforts, effective international relations and prevention strategies that tackle root causes. But all of this starts at home, with domestic policies that protect U.S. nationals and safeguard human rights defenders abroad. I escaped that Rwandan prison because of a powerful joint effort among individuals, nonprofit organizations and government agencies. There were many people who stood up and who fought for my freedom. That community saved my life. In a perfect world, no individual or family would ever go through what I did. But until we get to that point, we must stand alongside arbitrarily detained individuals and their families. The U.S. government has an opportunity to continue being a beacon of hope. Paul Rusesabagina is a Rwandan humanitarian activist and former hotel manager whose actions during the 1994 genocide inspired the film "Hotel Rwanda." He has since become an outspoken critic of authoritarianism in Rwanda and a global voice for justice and peace.
