Microaggressions and Our Orwellian Future

A few years ago, I postulated that George Orwell, the author of 1984, got it wrong (Little Brother is Running Things Now).  Technology had put power in the hands of the people NOT Big Brother, said I.  It was unlikely that a central power would control our thoughts and actions a la 1984.

Now, I am not so sure.

I learned a new word this year – microaggression.  Dictionary.com defines it thus:  “a subtle but offensive comment or action directed at a minority or other non-dominant group that is often unintentional or unconsciously reinforces a stereotype”.  The origin of the word, according to the same source, goes back to 1970.  How have I survived the last 45 years without knowing it?

Buzzfeed provides us with 21 examples, some of which go beyond micro and truly display some macro-stupidity (“What do you guys speak in Japan? Asian?”).  A more institutional approach has been taken by UCLA, which has created a guideline for faculty and staff.  I’m in trouble right away as my favorite get-to-know-you opening line is “where are you from originally?”  I usually follow up with “what brought you here?”

Such questions are apparently evidence of bigotry despite my asking them of everyone including, you know, white people. 

We get a bit more casual about the way of the world as we age.  The phrase “it is what it is” was likely invented for those over 50.  We don’t worry so much about microaggressions.

On the other hand, campus life has always been the birthplace of new liberal thinking.  Winston Churchill is often quoted as saying:  “Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart.  Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains.”  (Although, wikiquote.org attributes the quotation’s origin to others.)

None of this bothers me with the exception of one little tidbit: the resignation of University of Missouri president Tim Wolfe.  I am aware that there are those who think that he would not have been forced to resign if the football team hadn’t gone on strike. However, it’s worth noting that his firing (if I may call it that) was not the result of some egregious action.  It was the result of not displaying sufficient sensitivity.

Students at Columbia have taken the focus on sensitivity a step or two further.  Four members of the Multi-cultural Affairs Advisory Board wrote an op-ed protesting the assignment and classroom discussion Ovid’s Metamorphosis.  Apparently, the study of a mythological rape “triggered” negative feelings in a class that included, unbeknownst to the instructor, a survivor of sexual assault.  

The demands of student protestors at Missouri, Columbia and elsewhere (Ithaca College, Vanderbilt) often include the resignation of university presidents and faculty.  And, given the response at Mizzou, the incumbents have something to fear – the loss of their livelihoods and, perhaps, their careers.

So, as the children of helicopter parents look for administrators to protect their fragile little sensibilities from the slings and arrows of the real world, the institutions are caving rather than standing up and stating the obvious: the point of a society is that we figure out a way to live with one another despite our differences.  We use language with all its limitations to get our points across.  How you look at and assess the world is necessarily different than how I do.  Those differences are to be tolerated in a free society not suppressed.   Discuss them.  Argue your point-of-view vehemently.  Develop new opinions.  But, don’t expect institutions to enforce the repression of ideas that don’t match yours.

If the goal of these student protests is to get institutions to not only embrace political correctness but also to act as the “Thought Police”, then any violation will be punished as blasphemy.  University presidents’ losing their jobs is just the first step.  “Groupthink” will rule the day and Orwell’s vision of 1984 will arrive perhaps a bit later than he projected.

WHO WILL LEAD?

When will the university bubble burst?

A local business owner I know has hired several Rochester Institute of Technology students to write software. “Are they graduates?” I once asked him.  “Some are; some aren’t,” came the reply. He didn’t really care.  He only cares if they can do the job.

He’s not alone. “Coding boot camps” are popping up all over the country.  Venture Beat reports that the percentage of bachelor’s degrees in computer science has dropped by half since the turn of the century.  Meanwhile, the graduates of coding boot camps are growing at 280 percent per year. 

And, it’s not just computer science that is experiencing changes.  

Roger Martin, former dean of the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, compares the state of our business schools to that of General Motors before their bankruptcy.  In his analogy, tenured college professors are stand-ins for UAW workers with lavish salaries and benefits.  Martin points out that enrollments in the nation’ B-schools are being propped up by an increasing percentage of foreign students.  The annual number of graduates has doubled in the last 20 years as tuitions skyrocket and demand for grads tumbles.

So, how are universities responding to these disruptive forces?  By raising tuitions, of course. 

A key driver of tuition increases – at least at public universities -- has been state budget cuts.  However, there are other forces at play.  Costs are spiraling upward as universities add amenities and build new sports stadiums.  So, students take out larger loans supported by federal government programs and graduate into a job market that doesn’t offer economic opportunity sufficient to pay back the loans. 

Meanwhile payrolls are increasing not because faculty salaries are on the rise but rather because administrative staff is growing at twice the rate of faculty.  As administrative expenses increase, colleges reduce costs by augmenting faculty with part-time adjunct professors.

So, the complete picture looks like this:  kids go away to college, pay exorbitant tuitions for an education delivered by less than qualified teachers in classes they can attend online from their posh dorm rooms.  All of it is supported by loans that banks wouldn’t make were it not for guarantees from the federal government. 

Does that sound like a sustainable model to you?

When I was at the Naval Academy, there was a cross-town curiosity called St. John’s College, a hippie haven “known for its distinctive curriculum centered on reading and discussing the Great Books of Western Civilization”.  To this day, St. John’s eschews costly amenities that attract a lot of students – intercollegiate sports, swimming pools, hot tubs and movie theatres – in favor of providing a great education. 

I grew up during the Cold War and the space race.  Engineering was the most valued degree.  A degree in liberal arts was then, as now, often derided as inapplicable to a demanding job market.

Yet, I have to say that St. John’s is on to something. 

The founders – among them Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and Webster – advocated for a national university.  In Washington’s words, “a primary object of such a National Institution should be, the education of our Youth in the science of Government. In a Republic, what species of knowledge can be [more] important … than to patronize a plan for communicating it to those, who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the Country?”

The founders were well aware that government institutions decay over time.  A national university would provide for a common understanding of philosophy and history.  Should not graduates be prepared to contribute to our society based on a fundamental understanding of our institutions of government, our history and our social needs? 

And, yet, we hear more and more about students who don’t want to hear anything that might challenge their understanding, beliefs or feelings.  Students at Columbia objected to a classroom discussion about the origins of Ovid’s poetry because it included a summary of violence and rape in the times of the Roman Empire. 

Speakers have been shunned because their views don’t fit the social and political narrative of the students.  IMF president Christine Lagarde and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were cancelled as commencement speakers by Smith College and Rutgers University, respectively, because they represented institutions and points of view that were deemed to be politically incorrect. 

A better response might be to demand a balance.  If the university invites Paul Krugman, demand John Mauldin.  If the special guest is Dick Cheney, insist upon John Kerry too. 

We should expect our universities to produce graduates with an understanding of how to contribute to our society by engaging in productive work and by having the perspective to constructively participate in our national dialog.

Otherwise, you might as well go to a coding boot camp.

WHO WILL LEAD?

Advice to give your kid in the age of AI

One of my sons graduated college with a business degree and a focus in Information Technology (IT).  At the time, the trend to outsource programming and other IT jobs to places like India was in its infancy.  When he asked for my advice, I told him he was in an industry that would likely grow for the duration of his career but it would be important for him to stay in jobs that required him to interact with customers face-to-face.  After all, no one can outsource human contact to another continent. 

It turned out to be good advice (at least so far).  Indeed a working paper authored by David Deming for the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that social skills, especially when combined with math skills, are the most important element in adapting to a future where Artificial Intelligence (AI) replaces people doing routine work.  The study’s conclusions are backed up by a parallel study at University of California, Santa Barbara by Catherine Weinberger who concludes, in part, that the combination of social and cognitive skills has been important in career progression at least since the 1970’s and that a combination of the two has become more important to career earnings over time.

So, what does all this mean to today’s students?

Many experts tell us we shouldn’t worry about robots or other forms of AI taking our jobs.  But others – even those who promote the benefits of the AI revolution – worry that the pace of innovation will be too quick for the workforce to adapt. 

Already there is a hotel in Japan that is staffed entirely by robots and a factory in China that is similarly operated.  And, a 2013 Oxford University study predicts that 47% of workers in the U.S. will lose their jobs to automation over the next 20 years. 

You don’t have to look very hard to find analyses of how automation and AI have and will eliminate jobs. However, to project a future world of work, you have to look at how business strategies will change when enabled by these advances. 

Much of the improvements we shall see in the quality of products and services will not be the result of robots running the show but rather by virtue of the use of advanced sensing devices and data analysis.  In a manufacturing environment for example, such technology will better identify quality issues on production lines or monitor supply networks.  They will increase the demand for industrial engineers and people managing the supply chain. 

Businesses will use these advances to evolve their offerings consistent with the concept of ‘Shared Value’ advanced by Harvard’s Michael Porter.  For example, a manufacturer that sells industrial equipment like generators or turbines could offer its products as a service, installing and then remotely monitoring them to identify repair and maintenance issues before a breakdown occurs.  Maintenance and upgrades would be the responsibility of the manufacturer rather than the customer. 

The ability to interpret digital data and manage machinery to optimize availability and cost would be among the new skills required of technicians.  Like supply chain coordinators, industrial engineers, robot coordinators, simulation experts, data analysts, accountants and sales people, jobs that already exist will require new skills to accomplish them.  The careers of the next generation will require these skills. 

A traditional 20^th Century college education – particularly the now overabundant undergraduate business degree – will not serve us well.  Where and how will these new skills be acquired?  How will the workers of the future know what skills to learn?

Moreover, what advice will you give to your kid when he or she graduates from college?

WHO WILL LEAD?