Can you explain exactly which facets of the protestors’ beliefs you support?

On Monday I saw signs that health care should be free and hedge funds abolished. Do you believe that?

Do you believe that the “demands” on the web site should all be met?

Do you really believe that our duly-elected President is part of a “repressive economic, social and political regimes”?

What exactly is a “fair share of taxes”? Should tax rates be determined by the kind of job (in your example: investment bankers) one holds?

Exactly what do you believe?

Oh, please. Read the statement before engaging in self-indulgent semantics that can be easily refuted by a fifth-grader. The signatories agree with OWS that political power has tilted too far in the direction of oligarchy. It no more requires them to agree with the totality of all opinions expressed in the protest, than I am required to assume that all Penn students or alumni show the same lack of facility with argument that you do.

Jeff, your completely disconnected parallel makes no sense at all. The signatories have aligned themselves with a movement. If I say I am a Tea-bagger, it is a legitimate question to go to the Tea Party website and pick specific policy issues that they advocate for to ask me if I agree with. Since the professors signed a solidarity statement that aligns themselves with the movement, and asks members of the Penn community to join them, it makes wonderful sense that the next set of questions would be specific policy issues, especially for a movement that is very un-organized with specific details. (If you were to list the issues these professors brought up, Barack Obama ran on literally every single one. Can we get some specifics on how they’ll be done? Is the OWS goal simply to re-elect Barack Obama?)

As for your silly comparison about Penn students and alumni, I would make calls on lack of facility with argument on a case-by-case basis, and you’ve shown quite a lack indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrkgBVNuFcQ

i believe one of the main issues the protesters have is debt from college, and then not being able to land a good enough job to pay off their student loans. Are any of these professors here going to take responsibility for that? Maybe the numerous English professors that signed here can admit that learning poetry and reading novels, although fun and enriching, serves little or no purpose in “the real world”. How about all you liberal arts professors take a pay cut since it is your salary that puts these students in debt, and the crap you teach which wastes their time and money. The reason a liberal arts graduate cant find a job is not because of this “oppressive and greedy 1%” you talk about. Its because you essentially are running a scam by teaching these kids something thats more oriented toward being a hobby, not a skill set.

…aaaaand cue the person who says Penn’s pre-professional atmosphere and Wharton are to blame for people not understanding the value in a liberal arts education just because it doesn’t create wealth.

“bastard” is completely right though. At all of these rallies, you’ll see outraged students who hold up signs about the amount of debt they have, demanding that the government subsidize education even more. Forcing Americans to pay for free college through taxation is not the solution. These professors will take no responsibility for it though, as they see themselves as heros, and the “villans on Wall Street” as the only responsible party. The students should blame themselves. They would have never even been able to go to college had the evil bankers not given them loans, and they were never promised jobs or wealth after graduating (with a degree in English or Finance; doesn’t matter).

Gee, I wonder why no economics or Wharton professors signed this? The vast majority of signatories are probably aged hippies in the English department reminiscing about their favorite anti capitalist poetry.

Well, sorry for the ad hominem digression. The reason I can’t really support OWS is because they’ve become too much like the Tea Party, which I loathe even more. They’re angry populists without really considering what they want.

Where are the supporters from Engineering, Economics, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Management, Psychology etc….

Or should the tag line read “Dozens of Penn (from the English and related departments) …”

Wow. I’m amazed at the shortsightedness of most of these comments. God bless the protesters. Thank goodness someone is finally speaking truth to power. As for the realism of their demands – they are only realistic because we assume that the system itself should stay intact. Perhaps it is time we challenged that logic.

Eduction should be subsidized – not because people somehow deserve it, but because this country would be more able to compete in the world market with a higher educated populace.

Health care should be subsidized – not because my heart bleeds for someone who cannot pay, but because we’re already paying for them. When the person’s health eventually does fail – which it surely will – we pay for their ER visits and emergency care. Why not pay less to prevent instead of more to treat?

The financial institutions should be reigned in and the wealthiest Americans brought back to within range of their less wealthy counterparts, not because of some vague notion of fairness… but because when 1% holds 90% of the goods, it leads to violence, crime and societal collapse (look at historical societal structures — many failed because of imbalances of wealth).

When you start from the basic assumption that the current system must remain intact or a solution will not be worth examining, you close yourself off to many ways to build and grow American society.

Within the constraints of the current system – the one most of those economics you hold in such high regard were trained in and wed to – these demands are not workable. The answer is not to dismiss them. Perhaps the answer is to dismiss a system that has created such a terrible situation for so many people.

JD, you really aren’t being critical at all in your thought process, only emotional.

As a history major transfer into Penn from another private school, who took actual courses at both a state school and community college level, I have experienced college from community college, public, private, and private Ivy League.

I would estimate that 90% of my liberal arts courses taught me almost nothing and had very little critical thought. Slightly less for Penn and Tufts, but nonetheless, most courses were just professors’ opinions, or taught me nothing about thinking critically. I had incredible, life—changing people teach me at both institutions, but those types of professors who even care more for students than research is rare.

The students, meanwhile, are always the main argument that people like JD always bring up. That we need to think about the students and how much they deserve an education because we need to lead the world. At Penn and Tufts, my experience with the students was that they wanted a degree, as a majority, and little else. I was astonished (and still am) by how few students attended classes, or simply surfed facebook or slept through class. I would estimate that for an average class, only about 30% stayed and payed attention consistently through the semester. There are exceptions, especially for smaller classes, but given that 72% of college students drink every month or more often, a student is more likely to drink on a given weekend than attend every class that week.

Granted, our science education and math education and many other areas of our education system are important to our country’s future. But to suggest that the American people (all of them, or just the “1%”, I don’t care), need to be forced to dump more money into English courses that have no practical purpose, and largely feature entitled kids who couldn’t care less about the material shows a lack of reasoning, and an argument based solely on emotions. The less you make each student pay for his/her own way through school, the less they’ll care about actually attending classes.

As for the wealth, JD, — 1% in the U.S. don’t own even half of the number you quoted, and many of them are people who made our lives better. I won’t make the Steve Jobs argument, because that seems lazy, but most of the people on the list earned or inherited their money. They got that money by making our lives better. If someone makes $50 billion selling products because people want them, that money is his. He didn’t steal it. There are Wall Street swindlers too, but it isn’t even a point of contention that people like Bernie Madoff deserve to rot in prison, because he committed fraud.

I would highly recommend the following read, as it illustrates my point quite well: http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105#

Additionally, the following graphic displays the inequalities quite well: http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105#

As for whether I’ve been emotional in my thought process, you couldn’t be farther from correct. At no point did I argue that anyone deserves or earned anything that I propose we grant them. Rather, that society would benefit from providing those things to them.

Despite the education you claim, something I find highly dubious by your level of response, you’ve managed to state the exact opposite of what I was arguing and claim it was my point.

It is also worth noting that you assume each and every one of my points was directed solely at the United States – a common mistake among Americans. While the corrective point were based in the United States (as that is the locale of the protests), we would be wise to remember that business is global. In the US, the number is generally cited between 30-40% for the top 1% and between 50-70% (depending on the source) for the top 5-10%. Given the politicized nature of the information, ranges are more appropriate than hard numbers.

Finally, I am somewhat amazed at your hero worship of the wealthy. An individual may have made some lives better, but the greatest outcry isn’t against Steve Jobs or anyone like him. The outcry is against hedge fund gamblers and those who brought the housing crisis to a head and walked away millionaires while thousands of American citizens lost their homes. The outcry is against those who have abused wealth – not those who simply have it. There are hundreds more of the Bernie Madoffs than you acknowledge who are free to live their lives.

Moreover, the outcry is against the policies that punish the middle class and coddle the wealthy at the expense of American prosperity. In addition to the fact that America’s greatest era of prosperity happened when the wealthy were taxed at rates that aren’t even being discussed today; the fact that you assume they somehow added value in a vacuum is proof that your (supposed) Ivy League education was a waste of money. Beyond the basics (the roads they drove, the education they received and the education their employees received allowing them to actually produce their goods), there are also industry subsidies, protective tariffs and many other government regulations that allowed them to make that money. If someone makes $50 billion dollars on a product, a great deal of that is owed to the people and system that made that possible — the American people and the US government.

Last but not least, before you launch yet again into the credentials, realize you’re talking to a UM Law Grad – thus the JD. I mention it only as an afterthought and because I’ve judged you on the strength of your argument – not your assertions of your education.

JD, I mentioned my credentials only to illustrate the broad range of education I’ve experienced in the U.S., not to flaunt it, as you have. I find it humorous that you end on the point that you’ve judged me “not on my assertions of my education”, yet you start that paragraph by saying “realize you’re talking to a UM Law Grad”. I also don’t understand the “(supposed)” before “Ivy League education”. I am a Penn student, class of 2013. I haven’t yet graduated, but are you assuming that because I disagree with the funding of the system that I don’t go here?

Your snide comment about me assuming you were talking about America also has no merit. In your original comment, you mentioned America specifically twice. It was a response to that, not some assumption that the United States is the only country in the world. Seems reasonable to me.

I don’t really have much to respond to, because you didn’t respond to mine. As for “hero worship”, I do not worship the wealthy. I just do not despise them. My position is that if they committed a crime, they should be prosecuted. Otherwise, they have no duty to pay for students to receive expensive education that serves no purpose. Wealthy people should pay more taxes, but they already do. They pay disproportionally to what they earn, unlike the 47% who pay no income taxes. The solution is not to tax more, it’s to spend less on a multitude of programs.

Last but not least, before you launch again into the credentials, realize you’re talking to a soon to be Penn Grad – thus the C ’13. I mention it only as an afterthought and because I’ve judged you on the strength of your argument – not your assertions of your education.

Assumptions are, by their nature, not as reasonable as fact.

You assumed I was speaking about the United States in that section of my post, you assume I despise the wealthy, and you assumed my motives for posting my background.

And you have, again, misstated my argument. I never claimed the wealthy had a duty to pay for the education of others. I asserted that American society would benefit if higher education were not operated under the system it currently is.

I would highly recommend you read this, though since you clearly didn’t read eithe rof hte first two pieces, I hold out little hope. http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/09/26/why-the-rich-pay-40-of-taxes/

Since you’ve hit all four of my conversation no-no’s, I’m walking away at this point. In case you’re curious, they are:

- Asserting credentials when they were not previously part of the conversation. – Making assumptions about the background/argument/point of the other poster. – Misstating the argument of the other poster. – Ignoring factual or documented references provided by the other poster.

I wasn’t curious. Your previous posts should a fundamental lack of anything substantive worth saying.

Considering the extreme disparity between faculty and graduate student incomes why don’t the professors who signed this letter show they are serious by donating the majority of their incomes to University Graduate Students so that everyone is making the same amount of money? Every one is for equality until it means less money for them.

showed*. My mistake.

Naturally, I look to the English and Theater departments for my information on economic governance.

John K, that might actually be more sensible than looking to most Economics Departments for opinions on economic governance. And I seriously mean that.

The unfortunate reality is that those who post on this article are those who felt so compelled to reduce the complexity of what is happening here down to a few poorly-constructed paragraphs (and I am clearly falling into that category now as well).

Also, the level of anti-intellectualism present here in attacking entire fields of study is a travesty in and of itself. The reason that there is not a similar volume of natural or life science faculty in this list is that too often those faculty members would rather not preoccupy themselves with the realities of the world outside of their narrow subspecialties. It is not because they are “smarter” and thus as “smarter” people they are choosing not to participate. Frankly, I find most of the science faculty (in global academia in general) to be more short-sighted and narrow-minded than non-science faculty.

-Biochemist

Just a thought, but maybe if all those who protested actually thought of how futile their efforts over the past few weeks have been, and realized that the real solution to the issue is not going to come from claims for entitlement, but rather from hard work and sacrifice, they would not be in the status they are today. Begging for the government to bail us out has gotten us to our current state, and begging for their help now will only have the same results. The rich, oppressive top 1% is not going to give up all their money because people stand outside their windows and protest, they are going to want to hold on to it more. Work hard, build your way up in society, persevere, historically that has been the American way. If you want things to get better, if you want your children to live in a world more evenly represented financially, work for it, do not stand outside of a building with a sign with some variety of commonplace phrase on it. Do not wait on the government to fix the issue, fix it yourself. I am not part of the 1%, but I am certainly not part of the 99% either.

For what it’s worth, C ’13, your exchange with JD makes me question whether he (or she, to avoid making a dreaded assumption) really acquired that law degree. I don’t intend that as an ad hominem attack on JD. It seems to me that JD did not read or respond to your postings very critically; I think it’s safe to assume they emphasize those skills in law school. If someone repeatedly falls short in that regard, I’m going to assume they did not, in fact, attend law school. Unless, as you noted in your initial posting, said person was more likely to spend a weekend drinking than to attend a week’s worth of classes.

It is abundantly clear from your first posting that you were not trying to “flaunt your credentials.” I actually enjoyed reading your take on higher education as it stands because it sounds like you have had an interesting and diverse experience. Transferring into Penn from any school is a very difficult thing to do. You deserve a big “congratulations” for that, rather than derision.

I also think you were safe in your assumption that the conversation here was about America. JD says, word for word, “When you start from the basic assumption that the current system must remain intact or a solution will not be worth examining, you close yourself off to many ways to build and grow American society.” Wait… so we weren’t talking about American society? JD’s accusation, “It is also worth noting that you assume each and every one of my points was directed solely at the United States – a common mistake among Americans” actually doesn’t seem particularly note-worthy to me. You didn’t even mention each and everyone one of JD’s points, let alone indicate you assumed “each and every one… was directed solely at the United States.” That very sentence is so extreme that it seems like one of the answer choices on the Logical Reasoning portion of the LSAT that you would immediately strike off as false. JD, if you did attend law school, you know exactly what I’m talking about.

I’ll start with my disagreements with JD. S/he argues, “Beyond the basics (the roads they drove, the education they received and the education their employees received allowing them to actually produce their goods), there are also industry subsidies, protective tariffs and many other government regulations that allowed them to make that money. If someone makes $50 billion dollars on a product, a great deal of that is owed to the people and system that made that possible — the American people and the US government.” This is a familiar argument; Elizabeth Warren made it recently in almost exactly those words. Hopefully my argument will be familiar as well: Yes, the wildly successful businessman had access to public resources required to build that success. But everyone else had access to those exact same public resources… so why didn’t everyone else build the products, and the company, and the jobs that the businessman did? Why, because the businessman made better use of the publically available resources, does he owe “a great deal of that” to the public, when we all had access to those resources? Seems like contention over equality of opportunity vs. equality of results to me…

This brings me to my second point. I disagree with you, C’13, in that I don’t think JD was purely emotional in his thought process. I just think JD fundamentally disagrees with the things I, and it sounds like you, find redeeming about the system as it stands. Ours is a system that was designed to provide equality of opportunity rather than equality of results (and I fully acknowledge that not everyone agrees with this take on the Founding, but it is mine.) I actually agree with those of JD’s points and the aspects of Occupy Wall Street that call attention to the disgusting intimacy between large special interests (both corporations AND unions, Goldman AND the UAW) and our supposedly representative government. This is because that borderline corrupt intimacy encroaches upon our Constitutionally-implied RIGHT to equality of opportunity, which is to say, equality in the eye of the law.

JD states that, “The outcry is against hedge fund gamblers and those who brought the housing crisis to a head and walked away millionaires while thousands of American citizens lost their homes. The outcry is against those who have abused wealth – not those who simply have it.” If that were the extent of Occupy Wall Street’s arguments, I would be on board. But it’s not. Aspects of this movement categorically demonize “the rich” and hold capitalism responsible, rather than a government that encouraged unsustainable, idealistic policies. Arguably immoral individuals took advantage of that stupidity, but the government provided incentives in the first place that ran completely counter to anything capitalism or the “free market” encourages.

JD, and much of the movement, appear to blame the results on “the system,” presumably capitalism: “Within the constraints of the current system – the one most of those economics you hold in such high regard were trained in and wed to – these demands are not workable. The answer is not to dismiss them. Perhaps the answer is to dismiss a system that has created such a terrible situation for so many people.” If “the system” is the cozy relationship between our government and big special interests, then I agree. But if it is capitalism JD is referencing (which I believe is the case from the description, “the one most of those economics you hold in such high regard were trained in and wed to”), I could not disagree more. “Dismiss” the most productive and prosperous economic system humans have created to date, because the government over-expanded, over-regulated, and played favorites to the point that the system was not allowed to operate as a free market in the first place? Perhaps it’s blind faith in the beneficent good intentions of the ever-expanding government that needs examining.

I also take issue with the end of that statement, that the system, “has created such a terrible situation for so many people.” Do you REALLY think this JD? I think this is more ethnocentric than any of C’13’s statements. There are many things that need to be changed in terms of the way the U.S. operates, yes. People have reason to be frustrated, and infuriated. They have a right to protest. But to call the current state of affairs, “such a terrible situation for so many people” flagrantly disregards the very real, very tragic plight of so many who live in fear of death at the hand of starvation, disease, and civil war, rather than defaulting on loans and underemployment. Our concerns, even our protests, appear trivial in comparison. There is still reason for discontent, and we should never stop striving to create the best society we can for the most people, but never loose sight of how incredibly fortunate even our most unfortunate are. We have so much for which to be thankful. Our “system,” or perhaps what it used to be, created this.

One final point, more pertaining to the reasoning process than to Occupy Wall Street. If you really want to get into it, I’m going to throw out some assumptions point blank. Because JD jumped to the conclusion that you were flaunting your credentials when you clearly were not, and because JD even used that degree as his moniker, I am going to assume that educational credentials are quite important to JD. I think this mindset among students and professors is EXACTLY what is responsible for the death of critical thinking that you (and I, and Allen Bloom in his 1987 book “The Closing of the American Mind” which I am again, assuming, you would LOVE) have noticed in our institutions of higher education. And part of the reason individuals like Steve Jobs and Peter Thiel resist blindly bestowing some exalted status upon a college education.

We are taught not to question the authority of our professors because we are not “qualified” to do so. But continual questioning and intellectual risk-taking is exactly how we hone our reasoning abilities. Socrates would agree (and die for it.) I think this has serious implications for civil engagement and public discourse. It leads us to misdirect our anger because we don’t learn to pick apart cause and effect. It leads us to concoct illogical or inefficient solutions, or none it all. One of the main criticisms of Occupy Wall Street is their lack of coherent complaints or substantive demands. Just imagine the power of a movement to realize actual change if our schools had taught us to reason critically, instead of to fear sounding “ignorant” or being “wrong.”

Quaker Pride!

And one more thing:

“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.” -Mark Twain.

I expect more bravery from more of you soon.

In solidarity,

Greg Goodman,
College ’07, South Asia Studies, Religious Studies (BA)
GSAS ’09, History (MA)
Presently occupying Chicago

Props from Tampa Bay! I’m a graduate of Williams College, ’95 and love the example you set. Here is a link to the MOST ARTICULATE ARTICLE I’VE READ ABOUT OCCUPY WALL STREET.

http://www.realitysandwich.com/occupy_wall_street_no_demand_big_enough

Noticing their conspicuous absence, I would like to think that the lack of Wharton professors on this list is because somehow they didn’t receive the invitation to sign on.
Danny Cohen, Wharton ’10, B.S.E.