RUTHFULLY YOURS

Professor Melissa Click of the University of Missouri criminally assaulted an undergraduate student and, though local prosecutors were slow to move on the case — there was video of the incident, and the facts were not in question — she eventually was charged with third-degree assault. She will not be convicted of a crime, and, so far, her tenure-track position is safe.

Ironies abound. Click, a professor of Lady Gaga studies (no, really), enjoyed an appointment in Mizzou’s journalism department, which for mysterious reasons is highly regarded. The undergraduate she assaulted was a student journalist going about his proper business, covering a campus protest of which Professor Click was one instigator.

The subject of what protest was, in part, “white privilege,” which the protesters held up in contrast to the purportedly rough and unfair treatment that African Americans, particularly young men, receive at the hands of the police.

Which brings up the obvious question: What do we imagine would have happened to a young black man who criminally assaulted a white female college professor — and then, as Professor Click did, attempted to instigate mob violence against her? On campus? On video?

There would have been handcuffs, at least. He almost certainly would not have been given the option of performing 20 hours of community service in exchange for deferred adjudication, which is the deal Professor Click is getting from Columbia’s shamefully cowardly prosecutor, Steve Richey. He would not be, as Professor Click is, on track to a lifetime sinecure from which he effectively cannot be fired.

The problem of “inequality” looms over America like a storm cloud. According to our political and journalistic class, inequality is the single biggest problem facing our nation, with the possible exception of climate change. It is a desperate problem demanding sweeping solutions. President Obama calls it the “defining challenge of our time.” Hillary Clinton says we’re living in a throwback to the elitist age of “robber barons.” Bernie Sanders says inequality is the result of a “rigged economy” that favors those at the top while holding down those at the bottom.

In that spirit, I have a modest proposal: Abolish the Ivy League. Because if you’re worried about inequality among Americans, I can think of no single institution that does more to contribute to the problem.

As former Labor secretary Robert Reich recently noted, Ivy League schools are government-subsidized playgrounds for the rich: “Imagine a system of college education supported by high and growing government spending on elite private universities that mainly educate children of the wealthy and upper-middle class, and low and declining government spending on public universities that educate large numbers of children from the working class and the poor.

“You can stop imagining,” Reich wrote. “That’s the American system right now. … Private university endowments are now around $550 billion, centered in a handful of prestigious institutions. Harvard’s endowment is over $32 billion, followed by Yale at $20.8 billion, Stanford at $18.6 billion, and Princeton at $18.2 billion. Each of these endowments increased last year by more than $1 billion, and these universities are actively seeking additional support. Last year, Harvard launched a capital campaign for another $6.5 billion. Because of the charitable tax deduction, the amount of government subsidy to these institutions in the form of tax deductions is about one out of every $3 contributed.”

Are you worried about inequality? I am not. You are not supposed to say it, but inequality is an important motor of progress, as James Piereson has shown in The Inequality Hoax. But if the thought of inequality keeps you up at night, you should get behind Glenn Reynolds’ suggestion that we abolish the Ivy League. Really, is there a greater engine for the perpetuation of inequality than those bastions of wealth and (mostly white) privilege?

But perhaps outright abolishing Yale, Harvard, Princeton, and the other top colleges is a step too far. Maybe, as Glenn has also suggested, we should just address the issue by a little redistributive justice. For any college or university with an endowment of more than, say, $1 billion we 1) stop all federal subsidies and 2) require that they send, say, 10% – 15% of their endowment to a college that caters primarily to poor students.

The exact numbers are not critical. Maybe the threshold should be a $500 million endowment. Maybe the required transfer should be set to the current personal income tax floor, which I believe is 28%. The exact numbers are negotiable, but the principle should be obvious. If we’re against inequality, here is a concrete step we can take not only to make a statement but also make a difference. Make a Statement! Make a Difference! It has a nice ring to it, don’t you think? Yale’s endowment, for example, is about $25 billion. I reckon Howard College could do quite a lot with $4 or $5 billion.

There is scientific evidence that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is not a real phenomenon. Ironically, this evidence is simple, easy to find, has nothing to do with temperature, and is from the United States government. This proof is the proverbial elephant in the living room.

The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis originated from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is in two steps: “Increasing fossil fuel causes increasing carbon dioxide in the air; and increasing carbon dioxide in the air causes climate change.” Oil, natural gas and coal are called “fossil fuel” by the IPCC.

The first part of the hypothesis, that increasing fossil fuel causes increasing carbon dioxide in the air, has generally been a “given” in the past. Heretofore, it has received practically no scrutiny. It is the second part of the hypothesis, that increasing carbon dioxide in the air causes climate change, which has received many scientific arguments. Predictions into the future require “models” which require assumptions. It is said that assumptions are the mother of all screw-ups. Testing of models by the reliable and venerable Scientific Method has been unable to obtain reproducible test results. The second part of the hypothesis has never been proven.