What is a Public School?

 A lot of the political divisions in our country are based around large, national questions: who do you want for President? Should the U.S. support Ukraine? Should our government provide a safety net? Most of these issues are covered by the news media so people can hear about them easily if they wish, and often even if they don't want to. And it doesn't take a lot of effort to weigh in on them - just cast a vote every couple of years. But local issues - issues that really affect people's daily lives and can change the structure of our society - those issues are often invisible in the background and take a lot of sustained effort to understand and affect.

If there is one idea in our liberal democracy that holds true to the purported ideals of our nation's founding - equality and opportunity for all - it is the public education system. There is no better way to level the playing field so naturally distorted in a capitalistic society; no clearer signal that every child deserves a chance at a bright future; no system more geared towards true meritocracy. Providing a good, free education for everyone is the cornerstone of what America thinks it is and has the opportunity to become. But that very notion is under threat.

For the very notion of a public school is dependent on the idea of serving the public, which by definition must include everyone. There is no more insidious threat to the public than the exclusion of some people from the definition. And that is exactly what some groups in this country are attempting to do.

While no one may be trying to ban actual individuals from attending public schools, by restricting what is taught, who it's taught to, and who can be represented and acknowledged on campus, certain identities are being restricted. And if someone knows their identity is not fully accepted, then they are no longer welcome or equal. It's discrimination. It cannot be allowed to continue.

If you tell black children that their history can't be taught, not because it's not true, but because that truth might upset white children, then you are telling black children they are lesser than white children. If you can't allow a teacher to acknowledge they are gay, then you are telling the child with gay parents they come from a lesser home and that their parents are not equal. If you ban books featuring minority characters, even if it's just a purple shadow, you are telling all the students that some colors don't matter - some children don't matter. If you do not explicitly offer dignity, humanity, and equality to all of the members of a community, then you have expressly condoned a hierarchy that says some are better than others. And there are always those who will take advantage of that opportunity to spell out who is who.

A public education has to be for all of the public. It has to teach inclusivity and acceptance, even if that is divisive to some, because the only alternative is discrimination, which is unacceptable to the principles of our society. Public school is for all the public, or else it will once again become an institution of segregation and shame. We've made the mistake before and have corrected it. We can't let a vocal minority drag us back to repeat our own failings. Now is the time to show up and stand up for what's right. 

And doing what's right takes getting involved. Showing up at school board meetings. Telling some of your neighbors they are wrong. Telling all the marginalized kids they are right. It requires bringing politics into your local life because it's already there whether you want to admit it or not. If the greater public doesn't support a truly public education system, then we have failed our future generations and our country will fail because of it.

Fair and Equitable

 As a well-educated, upper-middle-class, liberal, white person who knows a lot of other similarly described people, I've noticed a consistent theme in arguments regarding social and economic justice. They push back against any idea of change by pointing out, often quite correctly, how the new laws/regulations/attitudes will result in an unfair situation. Affirmative Action hurts Asian Americans. The MeToo movement results in some innocent men being harmed (financially). We can't decrease racial disparity at the expense of higher overall crime rates. We can't (shouldn't) change the status quo in a way that results in a new type of inequity.

But if you think about it: why not? Those very same liberals will readily admit the status quo is not fair. They decry the racism in our country and want to change. They feel for other marginalized groups and will attend a rally and carry a big sign to prove it. They know things are wrong and should be fixed. But they will fight any change that fixes one problem by creating another - because that new problem might actually affect them.

But if one group has held the advantage in an unfair situation for many generations, isn't it better to switch it up and let the disadvantaged people have power for a while? If your older brother hogged the Nintendo console for a whole weekend, isn't it fair that you get to have it all to yourself the next weekend? Isn't inequity fairer when the victims are rotated instead of locked on the same groups all the time?

I mean, I also would like a world that is perfectly fair and equal to everyone everywhere all the time. And such a world might be possible. But to hold up any change in this world in the name of only moving towards a theoretical perfection (which cannot be universally agreed upon) ends up looking like a bunch of privileged folks not willing to give up their privilege. I get it. I, too, would rather not live in a world where I am accosted for my skin color; where I face heavier policing of my public interactions as well as my personal life. I'd rather not be poorer than my neighbors and given less chance to improve my situation. I don't want to be discriminated against, prejudged, or needlessly killed by the state and society. But if that's the price I (we) must pay to create a better world for those who are currently suffering under the yolk of my privilege, I  have to admit it would be only fair.

The Transgender Athlete Question

 I’ve seen a lot of folks say they accept and support transgender people but they still don’t feel it’s right to allow them to compete in athletics. A lot of these people are kind and considerate folks who genuinely want to be accepting and compassionate, and I think their position comes from ignorance and not malice. I think their logic is unsound and if they'd be open to deliberate and thoughtful discussion of the topic they might well realize their mistake. It’s easy to rely on our feelings or the words of someone else when we don’t really have the background or desire to dig deeper into an issue. But the only compassionate route is to take the time to think a little deeper about an issue that affects the basic humanity of a group of people, even if that group represents a small percentage of the population.

The argument normally comes down to this: men clearly have a biological advantage in sports, so it’s unfair for transgender women to compete against cis women. Sounds reasonable but it fails on measured reflection. First, we let people with biological advantages compete all the time. We let tall people play basketball. We admire swimmers with abnormally long arm spans. We let people who grew up at high elevation run against those born at sea level. Some men and women have naturally higher testosterone levels. Sports is never a biologically level playing field so why is it an automatic disqualifier in this one instance?

And whether or not transgender women have a biological advantage is much in dispute. Transgender women only compete in sports after they have transitioned. And while the definition and rules vary by sport, it’s very clear transgender women athletes are no longer biologically the same as male athletes. All the evidence I’ve been able to find, including all the anecdotes put forward, show that transgender women lose most, if not all, of their biological advantages in the transition. (If you don't believe this, do the research yourself instead of assuming you know it already.) So how is it right to exclude a group - a very small group - of people on the basis that they might possibly have some (probably) small degree of biological advantage? 

On the other side of the coin, we have a ton of evidence that excluding transgender people from parts of our society does great harm to them. They face much higher rates of violence and abuse. They are discriminated against in jobs and schools. They are far more likely to have suicidal thoughts and actions. We have direct evidence these harms come from societal perceptions and treatment and when transgender people are met with acceptance and opportunity they fair better. We also have a ton of evidence that participation in sports provides such acceptance and support and leads to better mental health among all populations.

As I said, it’s okay to be uncertain. It’s okay to not understand transgenderism and not know where to draw what line. It’s okay to ask questions and to try to learn more. But it seems like a clear choice that if we are to err due to our ignorance and uncertainty on the issue of allowing transgender women to compete, it should be to err on the side of compassion, the side which does less significant harm. More women will lose competitions to women who are naturally taller or stronger than them, more women will lose scholarships to women who can afford private coaching and better training than them, more women will lose out to women who try harder than them than will ever lose any of those things to the very, very tiny percentage of transgender women who take huge personal risk to transition and compete in sports. Let transgender women be women. Let them compete even if they might win. That’s what sports is about.

Finally, and perhaps I should have said this part first, no people deserve to have their existence questioned. Transgender people have existed throughout history throughout the world. They are real. They are human and thus deserving of all the rights and dignity we all share. They themselves are not up for debate. This is where I’ll lose some people, but any question of such a basic tenet of humanity is not to be tolerated. It’s okay to not understand transgenderism. You can always learn. But any question of their fundamental right to exist is based on ignorance and born of bigotry. It’s the same bigotry that says being gay is immoral. It’s the same bigotry that says Black people are inferior to white. It's the fear of the Other and the reflex to hurt and hate those who are different in a vain attempt to protect and uplift one's own group. Such a view leads to dehumanization and discrimination and does not deserve to be respected or entertained in the discussion of the topic. Transgender women are women.

Unfair is Fair

Life is not fair. In other words: in the complex system that is our world, good is not always rewarded and bad is not always punished. You can eat healthy and exercise and still get cancer. You can be faithful and loving and still get your heart broken. There is a degree of randomness which inevitably creates unfairness. But that very randomness is what makes such unfairness acceptable.

But some of the unfairness in the world is anything but random. Specific groups or classes of people face systemic unfairness due to the structures of society which we have created and have control over. When life is not fair in a directed way, the ideal solution is to create fairness. But true fairness is an imperfect concept and impossible goal. Instead we should aim for balance

Imagine you have a workgroup at your company with a lunch meeting once a week. Bob, the head engineer, always picks the food and always picks pizza. You’re a sales rep and you point out that is not fair. Maybe let sales pick lunch this week. That’s when engineer Jim, who loves pizza, chimes in: if someone else chooses it will be just as unfair. We should come up with a system that’s fair to everyone every single week. Sounds reasonable. But there is no fair system. Different groups are different sizes, so do you do proportional turns? Suzy in accounting is vegan, so should we have to accommodate her? Maybe everyone orders their own food - but that would create too many deliveries and be too hard to coordinate times. It would cost more and be less productive. It’s all too hard and since we can’t make it fair we should just leave it as it is. Right?

The problem should be clear: we are left with a situation that explicitly favors Bob and the engineers. Giving someone else a turn would be unfair only in the most limited view, and spreading the unfairness around is actually more fair than leaving it static. We might not be able to find a perfect solution, but we can reduce the systemic unfairness by increasing the randomness of the unfairness.

When you hear people say affirmative action gives an unfair advantage to Black people, or Diversity Equity and Inclusion programs discriminate against whites, or the #metoo movement will result in men suffering from false allegations, there’s a bit of truth in all of them. But that little bit of truth is being used to hide a much larger truth. If change brings less unfairness to the perpetually disadvantaged at a cost to those who’ve enjoyed relative advantage for generations, it’s a worthwhile transaction and better for society overall. A more random distribution of who gets punished and rewarded is actually a step in the right direction. Life is not fair, but it should be unfair equally for all.

The Proper Response to Uncertain Risk is Overreaction

 At almost two years into a pandemic, it's only natural that we are seeing more and more takes on the policy choices (and even some personal choices) made in response to the threat of a deadly contagion. Also as expected, most of these takes are using the clarity of hindsight to criticize specific choices which were made in the face of uncertainty. While analyzing what worked, what didn't, and what we should do the next time is necessary and valuable, it can only be done properly if we accept the timeliness of the unknown vs. known.

I think the simplest way to demonstrate this concept is to quantify things, even if only an arbitrary manner. These are all actually fuzzy and complicated subjects, but the premise is the same. When faced with a new risk, even if it's just a variation on known risks, the uncertainty that comes along with it needs to be factored into any response.

So let's say we're at the start of a new, deadly virus spreading around the globe. How bad is it going to be? Some people might say it's only a 5 - about the same as a bad flu season. Others might say it's a 50 - approaching an extinction-level event. Even the level-headed experts will disagree, but if you follow the science and listen to a consensus, you can get an approximate level to use as your basis. Let's say the weighted average comes out to a 15. Great, we have a number to work with. 

But you really shouldn't base your response on a 15. If 15 is the average, then there's around a 50% chance it will be worse than that. If you react as if it's going to be a 15, there's a very strong likelihood you will end up underreacting and face grave consequences. If you wait for more certainty you will respond too late and suffer because of it, especially when facing a risk known to grow exponentially. Instead, you factor in the uncertainty by assuming it's going to be a 20 (with 90% confidence it will be less than that), react at that level knowing you will likely overreact a little bit, which generally has much lower costs than any level of underreaction. So you deliberately overreact compared to the consensus expectation.

And yes, when it ends up being a 17, some people will criticize your overreaction. Some will even say foolish things like: I predicted it would be a 17 and you should have listened to me. Of course, my cousin Jimmy predicted Tampa Bay would win the Superbowl before last season. The fact that he was right doesn't change the more important fact that he predicts that every year, so to have listened to him last season (and not all the seasons before and since) would have been foolish even though he turned out to be right.

Hindsight is valuable, and we have made a lot of improvements on our reactions and we've learned from experience and analysis. With more certainty comes better reactions. We don't worry about masking outside as much. We aren't obsessing over wiping down every surface every fifteen minutes. We know we have to take more care with the elderly, especially in group home situations. We even can keep kids in the classroom as long as we take precautions proven effective: universal masking, vaccines for those eligible, improved ventilation, and frequent testing. But it was absolutely the right call to close down schools when all those things were uncertain because we've also found out that when schools are open without proper precautions things go bad really fast. Our overreactions were good, and with the clarity of hindsight I see a lot of places, a lot of policy, and a lot of people who underreacted based on wishful thinking of assuming a level 10 just because someone, somewhere said so. With a million people dead in the U.S., tens of millions more with long-term health damages (we still don't know the extent of), those who look back and speak with certainty are not the voices to listen to. Cousin Jimmy speaks with confidence and certainty, but at the end of the day, he's from Florida. Do you really want to listen to him?