Lowering expectations?

Posted by on

To The Guardian

Fifty years ago, only the top 2%* of the population went to university, and about 10% of them got firsts, so that’s 0.2% of the population.  Now, 30% go to university , and 25% of them get firsts, making 7.5% of the population. The universities say there is no grade inflation, so we must be more than 30 times cleverer! Impressive or what?   ( letter from Rob Symonds, Birmingham)
This is what happens when you make the customers (the students) pay for their studies, whether in ready cash or with the aid of a loan.  In my old college they have  abolished Fourth class honours degrees altogether and now give a paltry number of Thirds. The great majority get Seconds, (which used to be an achievement), divided into 2.1’s and 2,2’s.
 In the old days most people got thirds and fourths, a signal to employers that girls and booze had been the priorities, not hard studying.  At least the employers knew the score and maybe enjoyed the good-timers who joined their companies.  Now a prospective employer has a hard time judging what a 1st Class Honours degree really means.  It used to signal “seriously bright”.
This is all a matter of perception.  What a university considers improved success  to other people is a lowering of standards and pandering to the crowd, the customer, whatever.  The amusing aspect of this is that in the college in question the majority of students are (yes!) women, and they would probably have thrived under the old system being, as we all now know, brighter and more grown-up than the men (ahem!) If you are going to admit so many clever women why change the system?  Personally, I believe in high expectations, even if I personally fail to meet them.
(* Actually 4%, but who’s counting?)

The two Irans

Posted by on

About a month ago, thousands of ordinary Iranians took to the street, protesting against the Rouhani presidency and its failures. Rouhani promised a wealthier country as a result of the nuclear deal. But for many Iranians, these supposed benefits have yet to materialise. Unemployment is high, with many students graduating from university only to find there are no jobs for them, only debt. Inflation also remains stubbornly high, despite the lifting of sanctions. In response to the protests, the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, has blamed Israel and the United States for stirring up trouble, refusing to take responsibility. President Rouhani has defended the right to protest, but encourages people to keep faith with the government and the detente with the West.

Iran has a long and proud history of dissent. After all, it was protests and strikes that led to the establishment of the Islamic Republic, so any government crackdown reeks of hypocrisy. In recent years, protests have been concentrated in the major cities and universities, with liberal reformists protesting against government corruption and election-rigging, most notably after Ahmadinejad won the presidency in 2009. But what makes these protests is how widespread they are, both geographically and demographically. One of the largest protests took place in Mashhad, a socially conservative, working class city. They have more in common with the Arab Spring than with reformist protests insofar as they seem to be motivated more by economic deprivation than opposition to authoritarianism.

The protests perfectly illustrate the two Irans. The first is the one most talked about by Trump and the neoconservatives: Iran as an Islamic theocracy, hell-bent on the destruction of Israel, the acquisition of nuclear weapons and domination over the Middle East. A country with no freedom, and thus a perfect illustration of the evils of Islamism and its radical leftist ideological origins. The neoconservative critique of Iran is limited by American support for Saudi Arabia, which is even more authoritarian and corrupt than Iran. Rather, Iran is condemned because it is a geopolitical adversary and a threat to US-Saudi hegemony. It’s worth noting that most people affected by Trump’s travel ban are Iranian.

But just because the neoconservatives are wrong, doesn’t make the Iranian government right. Too much power is concentrated in the hands of the Supreme Leader. The Revolutionary Guard acts as a state within a state, controlling vast assets and commanding considerable political influence. The President, while benefiting from a popular mandate, is increasingly unable to reform against the wishes of a conservative establishment. Following the Iran-Iraq war, Iran has undergone a peculiar brand of neoliberal economic reforms, whereby tariffs and subsidies are cut, and state-owned assets are privatised. The effects of this are mixed: industry is more efficient and long-term GDP growth trends are good, but living conditions have worsened, wage increases have been eroded by inflation, and the privatisations smack of cronyism.

The other Iran is the one less talked about by Western media outlets. This is the Iran of relatively secular, reform-minded or apolitical people who simply want a better life for themselves. They do not share the regime’s obsession with opposing America and Saudi Arabia, preferring closer ties with the West. They want less money spent abroad and more invested at home. For these people, freedom and prosperity are more important than dogmatic adherence to Khomeini’s teachings or Islamist orthodoxy. This is the Iran than elected Rouhani, that wants change, albeit within the confines of Iran’s constitution.  The bellicose rhetoric coming from Iranian politicians is not a reflection of what most people believe, hence the protests. The lesson of Iran’s protests is that moderates in both Iran and the West must fight to strengthen ties between the two, and oppose the extreme conservatives who wish a Huntingdon-style clash of civilisations to occur. The values of the West and Iran may be distinct, but they are not irreconcilable.

Why Republicans and Democrats need to compromise on immigration.

Posted by on

It’s official. Yet again, the US federal government has shut down, since the bill needed to fund the government has failed to clear the 60 votes required to overcome the filibuster in the Senate. It feels like we’ve been here before, with Republicans and Democrats blaming each other for the shutdown, both sides accusing the other of being extremists, and the American political system looking as dysfunctional as ever. What makes this shutdown different is the policy area that caused it- immigration. Democrats don’t want a wall and want full amnesty for the DREAMERs- those brought to the US illegally by their parents, who are eligible for protection under a programme started by Obama.

The Republican argument is this: the people voted for Trump, largely because of his views on immigration, so he has a personal mandate to enact his proposals. The DREAMER programme represents executive overreach and undermined the rule of law. Democrats have consistently failed to support border enforcement, instead proposing amnesties while saying nothing about the need to deter future illegal immigrants. If Democrats want an amnesty of any sort, they should do so through the conventional legislative process, instead of obstructing the basic functions of government.

The Democrats retort that the Republicans have failed to compromise on immigration, having said that they would do so. The final bill contained funding for the wall, but nothing to safeguard the DREAMERs. More significantly, abolishing the DREAMER programme, or even using it as leverage, is a cruel policy that will hurt children brought to the US as a result of their parents’ decisions. Most of the children will face a very tough life if they are deported, even if they are technically illegal.

In my view, it’s obvious both sides need to compromise. While the wall isn’t good value for money, there is a strong appetite for strong border enforcement- the wall shows the government is serious about securing the border.  The Democrats also need to abandon their view that the federal government shouldn’t enforce immigration laws by default, and only deport those who have committed a crime. The vast majority of illegal immigrants should fear deportation. But I don’t believe it’s realistic or humane to try to deport all illegal immigrants. Those who have lived in the US for longer than 15 years, have strong links in the community, or are vulnerable  if they are deported (children, the elderly, the disabled), should not be a priority for federal immigration enforcement. So I don’t think it’s fair to use the DREAMERs as leverage, even if their status will ultimately be protected in exchange for funding for the wall. This reminds me of the Conservative Party’s attempt to use the status of EU citizens in the UK in the Brexit negotiations: totally futile and quite cruel.

Overall the shutdown is yet another example of how broken the American party political system is. The political culture at present rewards ideological purity and not some much-needed pragmatism. Each party is afraid of their base not turning out because a deal with the other side is regarded as toxic. It’s this kind of entrenched tribalism that makes politics so unappetising.

The evolution of trust – will we regret it?

Posted by on
 Human interactions are built on trust. We trust others to hand over the goods when we pay them. We trust banks with our money and doctors with our lives. We trust governments to run our countries and newspapers to tell us how they are doing it. The more trust in a society, the better it fares; without it society would collapse.
In the old days people trusted their kings and nobles and went into battle for them.  With the industrial revolution and the rise of international trade , we were dealing long-distance with international trade, so people started to trust intermediaries like insurers, bank managers  and lawyers. Reputation was vital.  Marketing teams created brands that  anthropomorphise faceless corporations. In the last century we have trusted democratically elected representatives and a free press that prided itself on accurate reporting.
But public trust in our institutions has plummeted in the past decade. Nearly half of people in the US mistrust lawmakers according to a recent  poll. In the UK, fewer than 1 in 4 people trust the press.  The internet has fundamentally changed who we trust and why. Technology now allows us to make informed (?) decisions and vet individuals. Millions of people learned to their dismay about banking and company scandals, exorbitant salaries and political corruption.  Leaks quickly become common knowledge.
Now opinion is no longer shaped only by journalists, experts or state authorities. With constant access to a deluge of information, rather than putting our trust in the institutions we’re now trusting our peers instead of the institutions. People are questioning  the entire system.
And yet, companies which rely on people placing their faith in strangers are thriving. The trick seems to be forging links directly between individuals, while appearing to cut out the institutions.
When many of these companies started out, they could still rely partly on existing social connections. You might stay at an Airbnb based on a personal recommendation, for example. But as they expanded, it became more and more crucial to encourage trust between users.
What the internet offers instead is information. Companies like CouchSurfing, Airbnb and Task Rabbit  – which put you in contact with strangers, do so in a way that encourages you to invite strangers into your home.  Profiles, pictures, personal details and online ratings allow us to make informed decisions. We pick hotels on the basis is a string of comments on websites by total strangers.   Actually, by and large, it works, but for how long?   (part-based on an article by Douglas Heaven, New Scientist, 28 Oct 2017)

A message from Rev. Dr. Jack Sara, Palestinian pastor and evangelical Christian

Posted by on

(This message was sent to my sister in England.  She and her family met the writer during a visit to Israel)

“Christians in the middle east are both worried and upset by the American declaration that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel. They are particularly concerned about the uncritical support given by American Evangelical Christians to Trump. These Evangelicals are despised here. They assume that all Christians believe as they do. Their unequivocal support of Israel has blinded their eyes to the injustices that occur here. They believe that Trump’s support of Israel is a fulfilment of prophecy even if it leads to world war. They justify it by distorting scripture. ( Sara then discusses end time prophesy which, they believe, predicts the coming of Christ to Israel in the “last days”).

We Palestinian Christians are treated as guilty by association and are stigmatised as Zionists by our fellow Christians. This brings Christians into disrepute because Trump’s policy dismisses the right of people for self-determination at the expense of justice and stability in this region.

Leaders should make every effort to be true and impartial mediators. Evangelical Christians of the USA continue to show partiality in defence of their particular theology. They are ignoring the plight of Palestinian Christians and don’t want to listen to our advice,which is born of reality on the ground. Our opinions are dismissed as politically motivated. Instead of engaging in reconciliation,the American Evangelical christians are indirectly inciting violence through their statements. They infer that all the news about how we are being treated is just propaganda.  Evangelicals talk about “ good news”, but  there is no “ good news” for the Palestinians, ( by “good news” evangelicals are talking about the Gospel).

My  comment

Would someone please educate me?  Where in the Bible does it exhort followers of Jesus to behave as American evangelicals behave, morally and politically?  I understand their attitudes are tribal – we all are to some extent, and I understand that evangelicals elsewhere are very different, but these Americans not only torment Palestinian Arabs but support practically everything the boy President of the USA does and says, however gross, racist, divisive and bullying.  How does one square this with Christianity? I am truly perplexed.