logo
Christopher Jencks, a Shaper of Views on Economic Inequality, Dies at 88

Christopher Jencks, a Shaper of Views on Economic Inequality, Dies at 88

New York Times12-02-2025

Christopher Jencks, a highly regarded sociologist who helped transform public and expert opinion on complex policy issues like homelessness, income inequality and racial gaps in standardized testing, died on Saturday at his home in Lexington, Mass. He was 88.
His wife, the political scientist Jane Mansbridge, said the cause was complications of Alzheimer's disease.
Mr. Jencks had an unconventional background for an academic social scientist: He had an undergraduate degree in English literature, followed by a stint as an opinion journalist, and despite holding an endowed chair in sociology at Harvard, he never earned a doctorate.
If anything, that background seemed to help him. In books and articles, he wrote clear, concise sentences backed by finely honed data, presenting arguments that cut to the quick of policy debates, often in novel ways that defied traditional left-right divisions.
His 1994 book, 'The Homeless,' is a case in point. In a mere 176 pages, including endnotes, he offered a dramatically lower estimate of the country's homeless population than what was assumed at the time: less than 300,000, versus the accepted estimate of up to 3 million, a number, he said, that had been inflated to draw attention to the issue.
He then walked through the reasons homelessness was rising — including cuts to social services and the closing of mental institutions — following this explanation with a suite of often surprising prescriptions, including bringing back 'Skid Row' neighborhoods.
His 1972 report, 'Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America,' written with seven associates at Harvard, did something similar with education, drawing on reams of data amassed during the 1960s to show that, contrary to many policymakers' hopes, there were limits to what education reform could do to lessen income inequality.
The book was widely hailed, and just as widely misread; he was not arguing against education, as some thought, but rather showing its limits in the inequality debate. Instead, he argued for much more direct and significant policies, like tax credits and other income supports.
Mr. Jencks also proved refreshingly willing to change his mind when the situation changed. By the 1990s, he had shifted his position on education somewhat; as manufacturing jobs declined and the demand for skilled workers grew, the benefits of education, he said, had become more pronounced.
Though he joined Harvard as a lecturer in 1967 and spent the rest of his career in academia, he kept a foothold in journalism. In 1973, he helped found Working Papers for a New Society, a wonky periodical dedicated to sifting through the successes and failures of Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society.
In 1990, he and several other journalistically inclined social scientists founded The American Prospect, a left-of-center magazine; with Kathryn Edin, he wrote one of its first feature articles.
That article, 'The Real Welfare Problem,' was vintage Jencks. It grew out of an observation by Dr. Edin, who had been his graduate student, about the large number of aid recipients who worked under the table to make ends meet.
As the writers showed through meticulous analysis, the problem was not greedy welfare cheats but a pernicious aspect of the system: It paid too little, and cut that support further as soon as people looked for other means of income. That insight did much to frame the debate over welfare reform in the 1990s.
'Most people assume that low benefits just force recipients to live frugally,' they wrote. 'But low benefits have another, more sinister effect that neither conservatives nor liberals like to acknowledge: they force most welfare recipients to lie and cheat in order to survive.'
Christopher Jencks was born on Oct. 22, 1936, in Baltimore. His parents initially chose to forgo a middle name for him, then changed their minds and gave him 'Sandys,' a pluralized version of a childhood nickname.
His father, Francis, was an architect, and his mother, Elizabeth (Pleasants) Jencks, oversaw the household. The Jencks were wealthy, and Christopher was educated at expensive private schools, including Phillips Exeter, from which he graduated in 1954.
He earned an English degree from Harvard in 1958 and a master's degree in human development from the Harvard Graduate School of Education in 1959.
Moving to Washington, he wrote for and helped edit The New Republic and was a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, a left-leaning think tank.
His first two marriages ended in divorce. In addition to Dr. Mansbridge, whom he married in 1976, he is survived by their son, Nat; their grandson; and a brother, Stephen.
Mr. Jencks moved to Northwestern University in 1979 and returned to Harvard in 1996. He retired in 2016.
Though he retained a willingness to buck liberal orthodoxies where the data demanded it, Mr. Jencks remained at heart a believer in the need for large-scale government interventions to alleviate inequality.
He insisted that, in the main, the War on Poverty had worked, even as many liberals in the 1980s and '90s were turning against such programs.
The problem, he said, was one of perception: People expected wealth-transfer programs, like Medicaid and Aid to Families With Dependent Children, to solve a host of social ills, not just eliminate income disparities — something they were unable to do.
'The remedies for crime and family breakdown lie much deeper, requiring changes in the fundamental character of our society, not just a few innovative government programs,' Mr. Jencks said in a 1996 speech at the American Enterprise Institute. 'But that is a story for another time.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Harvard gets new legal backing from 5 Ivies and over 12,000 alumni
Harvard gets new legal backing from 5 Ivies and over 12,000 alumni

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Harvard gets new legal backing from 5 Ivies and over 12,000 alumni

Twenty four universities, including five Ivy League schools, and more than 12,000 alumni took measures to back Harvard University in its legal battle against the Trump administration, which has threatened it with slashing billions of dollars in grants. Princeton, Yale, Dartmouth, Brown and the University of Pennsylvania, along with several other schools, filed an amicus brief on Monday in support of the nation's oldest university, arguing that the funding freeze would impact more than just Harvard, due to the interconnectedness of scientific research, and would ultimately hinder American innovation and economic growth. Also on Monday, the group of 12,041 Harvard alumni filed a separate brief describing the withholding of funds as a 'reckless and unlawful' attempt to assert control over the school and other higher education institutions. 'The escalating campaign against Harvard threatens the very foundation of who we are as a nation,' the alumni said in the brief. 'We embrace our responsibility to stand up for our freedoms and values, to safeguard liberty and democracy, and to serve as bulwarks against these threats to the safety and well-being of all.' The amicus briefs aim to provide expertise or insight to the court, but the schools and individuals are not parties in the lawsuit itself. Harvard in April rejected the government's list of 10 demands, including auditing viewpoints of the student body, a move the administration says is aimed at addressing antisemitism on campus. After the government threatened to freeze $2.2 billion in multiyear grants and $60 million 'in multi-year contract value,' Harvard hit back with a lawsuit. The brief filed by the universities included other prominent institutions like Georgetown, Johns Hopkins and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The only Ivy League schools missing were Cornell and Columbia universities. The schools argued that the partnership between the government and academia has long led to critical advancements, from the The Human Genome Project to the Covid-19 vaccine. And that funding cuts to one school could endanger research at others. Harvard, MIT and Princeton, for example, have received funding from the National Institutes of Health for a project that could potentially yield tools to treat Alzheimer's disease. 'The work cannot continue at individual sites; MIT cannot use machine learning to uncover patterns, for example, without data from Princeton and Harvard,' the brief said. The universities said in the brief that the cuts would only cause more harm to the United States' ability to compete in science and academia. 'These cuts to research funding risk a future where the next pathbreaking innovation — whether it is a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's, a military technology, or the next Internet — is discovered beyond our shores, if at all,' the brief said. Sally Kornbluth, president of MIT, said in a letter to the school's community that it was critical to make a legal argument against the funding cuts. 'Although the value to the public of federally funded university research feels obvious to us at MIT, we felt compelled to make the case for its countless benefits to the court and, in effect, to the American people,' Kornbluth said. The Harvard alumni filed their brief in support of the school's motion for a summary judgement submitted last week. If granted, the summary judgment would allow the court to decide the case without a full trial. The alumni, which include comedian Conan O'Brien, author Margaret E. Atwood and Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., wrote in the brief that the administration's 'end goal is to narrow our freedoms to learn, teach, think, and act, and to claim for itself the right to dictate who may enjoy those freedoms.' The alumni also slammed the administration's concerns over antisemitism as rationale over the funding freeze. 'We unequivocally condemn antisemitism and every other form of discrimination and hate, which have no place at Harvard or anywhere else in our society,' the alumni said in its brief. 'Yet charges of antisemitism — particularly without due process and proper bases and findings by the Government — should not be used as a pretext for the illegal and unconstitutional punishment and takeover of an academic institution by the Government.' The government's demands on Harvard, the alumni said in the brief, 'have little or nothing to do with combating antisemitism' or any other form of discrimination on campus. 'Rather, its demands stifle the very engagement, teaching, and research that bring communities together, heighten our understanding of one another, and advance solutions that directly benefit us all,' the brief said. The show of legal support comes amid a monthslong back-and-forth between the administration and Harvard University. Most recently, the school sued the administration after Trump issued a proclamation last week denying visas for foreign students trying to come to the U.S. to attend the prestigious school. This article was originally published on

The Tom Cotton Do-Over
The Tom Cotton Do-Over

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

The Tom Cotton Do-Over

Five years ago last Tuesday, The New York Times, after considerable internal turmoil, published an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.) advocating that the federal government unilaterally send military troops to quell the riots ripping through the country in the wake of the Minneapolis police killing of George Floyd. The piece led directly to the firing of multiple Times editors, the resignation and eventual relaunch of Times controversialist Bari Weiss, and an appended 317-word editor's note lamenting that "the essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published," among other derangements. It also, crucially, did not deliver its intended result: Cities continued to burn, some for months on end, and President Donald Trump never did impose military troops on any unwilling governor. On the five-year anniversary of Cotton's unrequited exhortation to power, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities at the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles began snatching illegal immigrants and asylum seekers who had arrived for previously scheduled check-ins, and detaining them in a makeshift detention facility in the basement, some with their whole families (including U.S. citizen children). Such process bait-and-switches, including of at least one married father of four who thought he was going to his final naturalization interview, have been conducted across the country during Trump's second term as part of a White House pledge to increase immigration arrests tenfold from the 2024 average of 300 per day to 3,000. Last Tuesday's nationwide haul, assisted by text messages urging asylum seekers to check in early for appointments, reached a record 2,200. On Wednesday, as protesters began gathering outside the Roybal Building, Trump announced a travel ban on citizens of 12 countries (Cotton was pleased) and threatened "large scale fines" on California Democratic Gov. Gavin "Newscum" for allowing biological males to compete in girls' high school athletics—a precursor to a Harvard-style culture war showdown over federal funding. The stage was thus set for Friday's visually dramatic escalation of street-level conflict in Southern California. ICE that morning kicked off what it would later advertise as a 30-day campaign of raids on local workplaces suspected of employing or harboring illegal immigrants, with heavily armed agents, in both unmarked SUVs and military-style transports, throwing flash-bang grenades and tear-gas cannisters, cuffing suspected perps and objecting protesters alike. (The latter including the powerful president of Service Employees International Union, or SEIU, David Huerta.) In a Democrat-dominated city of 1.5 million foreign-born residents, in the nation's most immigrant-rich state, where infamously ineffective politicians have long touted sanctuary from immigration enforcement while defining themselves largely in opposition to Trump, the prospect of a theatrical clash probably looked to the White House like a win-win-win: Draw out the most self-defeating elements of the protest left, highlight the intransigent ineptitude of once-ambitious Dems, and continue to scare immigrant communities into self-deportation. All while releasing pent-up demand for a 2020 rewrite. "Tom Cotton," tweeted National Review's Jeff Blehar Saturday, "now has the chance to publish the funniest LA Times op-ed ever." The administration could barely contain its enthusiasm Saturday night. Even as protests Friday had been mostly limited, even in the most fed-credulous estimates, to around 2,000 combined people in two targeted locations—the Roybal detention center downtown, and the streets around a Home Depot 15 miles south in the city of Paramount near where an ICE caravan had massed—officials tripped over themselves to flex preemptive muscle over the riotous landscape. "If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can't do their jobs, which everyone knows they can't, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!" the president of the United States posted on Truth Social at 8:25 p.m. Eastern time. (Best as I can ascertain from a great distance, at the time of Trump's assertion there had been one reported protest-related looting incident, and zero looting-related arrests.) Within an hour, the White House announced the first uninvited deployment of the National Guard in 60 years. "Insurrectionists carrying foreign flags are attacking immigration enforcement officers, while one half of America's political leadership has decided that border enforcement is evil," Vice President J.D. Vance chimed in at 9:23 p.m. Eastern time. Ten minutes later Vance suggested that the presence of "foreign nationals with no legal right to be in the country waving foreign flags and assaulting law enforcement" meets the legal definition of invasion, thereby clearing the way for a more robust military response. Up jumped Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. "The violent mob assaults on ICE and Federal Law Enforcement are designed to prevent the removal of Criminal Illegal Aliens from our soil; a dangerous invasion facilitated by criminal cartels (aka Foreign Terrorist Organizations) and a huge NATIONAL SECURITY RISK," the former Fox News host tweet-shouted at 10:06 p.m. Eastern time Saturday night. "The @DeptofDefense is mobilizing the National Guard IMMEDIATELY to support federal law enforcement in Los Angeles. And, if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert." Seven hundred Marines were indeed mobilized from nearby Twentynine Palms on Monday night; the Associated Press reported unreassuringly that "the Pentagon was scrambling Monday to establish rules to guide U.S. Marines who could be faced with the rare and difficult prospect of using force against citizens on American soil." Meanwhile, the White House ordered up an additional 2,000 National Guard troops as well. By then, the administration's initial depictions of out-of-control lawlessness had graduated from anticipatory to plausible, if geographically contained largely within a five-minute walk of where this past week's conflicts began, the Roybal building. Demonstrators on Sunday shut down the 101 freeway, hurled rocks and electric scooters at cop cars, set fire to a handful of driverless Waymos, threw bottles and fireworks at law enforcement, defaced government buildings, and looted several businesses. "These past few nights we've seen a level that disgusts every good person in this city," L.A. Police Chief Jim McDonnell said Sunday, describing his forces as "overwhelmed." Such unforced protesting errors (including—yes!—waving predominantly Mexican flags at rallies backing immigration to the U.S.), were as predictable as morning fog on a June beach, not that that in any way deprives rioters of their own miserable agency. Californians looted after the deadly Altadena fires, for goodness' sake. Local Dems couldn't manage to say "knock off the rioting" without foregrounding Trump. And very little imagination is required to recall unchecked violence back in the summer of 2020, or indeed 1992. But those many conservatives, including of the otherwise anti-Trump variety, who are gleefully posting images of rooftop Koreans and cheering on federal militarism directed at residents of a great (if grossly mismanaged) American city, may benefit from reflecting on the ways June 2025 does not resemble June 2020, let alone the Bosch-style hellscape of early '90s L.A. The first is sheer scale. In Los Angeles County alone, there were at least 50 separate public demonstrations in the days after Floyd, with more than a dozen cases of looting and vandalism. Nationwide, there were 19 deaths, 14,000 arrests, and property losses estimated at $2 billion. More than 30 states activated their National Guard. Aside from the unrepeatable black swan aspect of COVID-lockdown decompression, the societal institutions most aligned with those protests—the media, academia, lefty nonprofits—are all significantly weaker than five years ago, in no small part through the are-you-kidding-me overreach and circular firing squads of that particularly insane season. The second difference is directional. Minneapolis police did nothing to residents of any city outside Minneapolis. That season's enemies were institutional, historical, impossibly overgeneralized. This year, specifically localized protests (so far, anyway) are arising—not just in L.A., but in Dallas, San Francisco, Santa Ana, and elsewhere—in response to discrete federal enforcement actions frequently carried out in disorientingly authoritarian manner. As The Wall Street Journal put it in a news article Monday, "Federal agents make warrantless arrests. Masked agents take people into custody without identifying themselves. Plainclothes agents in at least a dozen cities have arrested migrants who showed up to their court hearings. And across the U.S., people suspected of being in the country illegally are disappearing into the federal detention system without notice to families or lawyers, according to attorneys, witnesses and officials." Such actions tend to put affected communities on the defensive alert. Good!, retort immigration restrictionists, and we'll see about that. American public opinion is foursquare behind deporting criminals and prosecuting rioters; far more queasy about shipping away longtime residents with jobs and U.S. citizen nuclear family. Which brings up a final point that conservative deportation enthusiasts should be clear about, just as they press opponents to admit they don't want noncriminals to be deported: The expulsions they have longed for are sending legal residents to foreign prisons in authoritarian countries, being carried out in White House defiance of the Supreme Court, and under the auspices of a deputy chief of staff who believes this cause demonstrates that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended." American citizens (including a U.S. marshal) who either "fit the description" or are reckless enough to not be carrying an ID have found themselves detained and even jailed. We are almost, if not quite, living in a Tom Cotton universe. And sure enough, here was the militaristic senator taking a victory lap in The Wall Street Journal Tuesday afternoon, advocating an "overwhelming show of force," describing "areas of Los Angeles" as "lawless hellscapes," and arguing, cretinously, that "if anything, these riots are worse" than in 2020. The Insurrection Act that Cotton advocates using as of Tuesday had not yet been invoked, leaving the summoned military mostly in the role of protecting federal buildings. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who Monday night asserted that L.A. is "not a city of immigrants, they are a city of criminals," reportedly wrote a letter Sunday to Hegseth urging him to have the U.S. Marines make arrests, which would likely run afoul of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. The protests in L.A. Monday were reportedly quieter than Sunday; Tuesday's are only now getting started. One can only hope, against all recent experience of American political violence, that both sides choose not to engage in the escalation that they have clearly, and frighteningly, been pining for. The post The Tom Cotton Do-Over appeared first on

Who is David Huerta, the California labor leader who was arrested in Los Angeles?
Who is David Huerta, the California labor leader who was arrested in Los Angeles?

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Who is David Huerta, the California labor leader who was arrested in Los Angeles?

A revered California labor leader arrested for his involvement in protests decrying immigration raids in Los Angeles is out on bond, after demonstrators came out nationwide Monday to demand his release. David Huerta, the president of the Service Employees International Union California, was arrested Friday as he protested an immigration raid in Los Angeles. After three nights of detention, Huerta was released on a $50,000 bond Monday afternoon, though he remains charged with conspiracy to impede an officer, a felony that could result in up to six years in prison, according to the US Attorney's Office. A well-known figure in the California labor movement, Huerta started his career mobilizing immigrant janitors in Los Angeles to demand better working conditions as part of a 1990s campaign called Justice for Janitors, according to a UNI Global Union statement. He was once praised by former President Barack Obama's administration for his efforts to advocate for immigrant workers. 'As a labor leader, David has worked to build an immigrant integration program that includes English classes for union members. Under his leadership, hundreds of SEIU-USWW members have become U.S. citizens. In addition, he has advocated for comprehensive immigration reform by empowering SEIU-USWW members to become their own advocates for change,' an archived White House post from the Obama administration reads. Huerta's union has described him as 'a father, a union leader, and a fighter for immigrant justice.' Supporters in California rallied around Huerta when he was released from custody Monday afternoon, chanting 'Si se puede.' Speaking outside the courthouse after his release, Huerta said authorities are trying to make an example out of him, cautioning that while he was released on bond, other detainees are still locked up, with some allegedly unable to see their lawyers or attend critical court hearings. 'We will have our time for justice, but we must do it in a way that we demonstrate the power of working people across this country and stand united,' Huerta told the crowd. After Huerta was released Monday, his union released a statement: 'We are relieved that David is free and reunited with his family and we are deeply grateful to the hundreds of elected officials, civil rights leaders, labor partners and allies from across the nation who stood in solidarity and demanded David's release,' Service Employees International Union President April Verrett said. 'But this struggle is about much more than just one man,' Verrett continued. 'Thousands of workers remain unjustly detained and separated from their families. At this very moment, immigrant communities are being terrorized by heavily militarized armed forces.' The national union boasts about 2 million members in healthcare, the public sector and property services, with more than 700,000 workers represented throughout California. After Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials began performing targeted raids and arresting community members in the Los Angeles area last week, protestors came out in numbers to voice their objections. Huerta was among the demonstrators gathered in Los Angeles Friday at a business prosecutors say was suspected of unlawful employment and falsifying employment records. Prosecutors have accused Huerta of blocking access to a gate while law enforcement attempted to execute a search warrant and refusing to leave when asked, saying multiple times, 'it's a public sidewalk.' When a law enforcement vehicle approached the scene and Huerta refused to step aside, an officer tried to physically move him, prosecutors said. When Huerta pushed back, the officer pushed him to the ground, handcuffed and arrested him. Video of the incident shows the tense moments around the arrest, Huerta face down on the ground as multiple masked ICE agents surround and try to detain him, with demonstrators loudly objecting. The union has described his treatment at the hands of the masked officials as 'assault.' Huerta was later hospitalized and treated for injuries sustained during the arrest, SEIU said in a statement. As President Donald Trump called in the National Guard to quell the protests in Southern California – against the guidance of the governor – lawmakers around the nation condemned Huerta's arrest. 'David Huerta is a respected leader, a patriot, and an advocate for working people. No one should ever be harmed for witnessing government action,' California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. US Democratic Sens. Adam Schiff of California, Alex Padilla of California and Chuck Schumer of New York wrote a letter to the Department of Homeland Security, ICE and the Department of Justice Monday demanding a review of Huerta's arrest – including exactly how the labor leader was injured in the process. 'During a workplace enforcement action, Mr. Huerta, a well-known and deeply respected community leader, was exercising his lawful right to observe the conduct of immigration enforcement personnel,' the senators wrote. Schiff attended Huerta's initial appearance Monday, his team told CNN. Beyond Huerta's immediate release on bond, Democratic leaders are demanding the charge against him be dropped. 'House Democrats will stand with David Huerta for as long as it takes until the charges are dropped and the rogue federal actions that have been unleashed will be completely investigated and exposed,' House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries said in a statement. 'Free Huerta now!' massive crowds in Los Angeles chanted Monday. Their demands were echoed around the nation, as demonstrators took to the streets in at least a dozen cities, including San Francisco, Boston, Pittsburgh, Seattle, Washington, DC, Charlotte, North Carolina, and parts of Connecticut and New York. Members of Huerta's union, along with other labor leaders and workers, held up signs reading, 'FREE DAVID' and 'END ICE RAIDS.' Union leaders across other industries voiced their support for Huerta's due process. 'We must fight back. We reject these attacks on our communities and demand the immediate release of our union brother David Huerta,' Manny Pastreich, president of the property service workers labor group 32BJ SEIU, said while speaking at the demonstration in New York. 'The United Farm Workers, along with the entire labor movement, stands in strong solidarity with our comrade, labor leader David Huerta. We demand his immediate release and condemn indiscriminate sweeps targeting working class immigrants,' the United Farm Workers union said on X. The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees also chimed in: 'The apparent targeting of labor activists by federal authorities is unacceptable and dangerous,' the group said in a statement Monday. 'We stand united with David Huerta, immigrant workers, and all who seek justice.' And upon Huerta's release, the California Federation of Labor Unions said it was relieved to see its 'brother' out of custody and on bond. While many across the labor movement celebrated Huerta's release Monday, the focus has turned to the workers and family members still detained by immigration authorities. Huerta has thrown his support behind them. 'I know when we organize, we win,' he said Monday. CNN's Amanda Musa, Taylor Romine, Hannah Rabinowitz, Holmes Lybrand and Maureen Chowdhury contributed to this report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store