Northwestern to Add ‘Social Justice Education’ to Fraternity, Sorority Life By Tom Knighton

Northwestern is hiring a new “assistant director of Fraternity and Sorority Life.” Greek organizations are a key aspect of the college experience for millions of students, and the organizations are deeply involved in the college itself. Sounds normal.

But Northwestern University has decided that Greek Life, just like the rest of the campus, needs to be a training ground for Leftism. From Campus Reform:

The new “ Assistant Director, Fraternity and Sorority Life” will be responsible not only for advising fraternity and sororities, responding to emergency situations, and ensuring adherence to university policies, but also for assisting in the coordination of “social justice education” programming.

Minimum qualifications for the position include at least three years of experience working with fraternities and sororities, understanding of the educational environment at “highly selective institutions like Northwestern,” and “demonstrated experience” in the field of “social justice.”

While the new assistant director should also ideally hold a Master’s Degree from an accredited college or university, according to the listing, Northwestern will also consider applicants with an “appropriate combination” of work and educational experience.

[…]

Those skills will likely come into play when the new assistant director begins to “assist in the coordination of thematic programmatic/educational initiatives,” which can include leadership/community development, harm reduction/risk management, or social justice education.

Northwestern wants someone to lead the indoctrination of fraternity and sorority members into social justice zealotry. They can try to present this any way they want, but it’s nothing but a case of indoctrination of a politically charged ideology. Students simply shouldn’t find themselves being indoctrinated into a radical ideology that ultimately boils down to blaming straight white males for all the ills of the world.

At least Northwestern is a private university, which means they’re not blowing taxpayer dollars directly. Of course, they do receive plenty of taxpayer money in the form of federal student loans and grants.

I look forward to the day that parents and students recognize social justice nonsense for what it is, and understand how this movement is exploiting the campus environment to spread its noxious ideology.

I am a Muslim, and I support Trump’s travel restrictions By Mudar Zahran

The mainstream media and many others have been grilling President Trump since he signed the Executive Order temporally halting the population of seven predominantly Muslim states from entering the USA. As a result, he has been called everything from “racist” to “Islamophobic.”

As a Jordanian Muslim who also holds a British citizenship, I am not offended by the President’s actions, nor am I convinced that the Executive Orders in question were specifically written to target Muslims, for the following reasons:

First, the Executive Order singled out seven specific countries out of 56 Muslim states.

Second, the President did not pick these countries randomly, because six of the seven states have one thing in common: they are failed states, and they do not have a unified and recognized state system for processing of nationalities, passports, and state documents. In other words, the country’s citizens can receive any number of passports they like, complete with fake or multiple names. That means a terrorist can simply make up a name, obtain a passport and visa, and head to the U.S.

Third, there are numerous examples of terrorists using nefarious means to reach America’s shores – from the ISIS Passport Printing Press to clearly identified individuals. Take terrorist Anawr al-Awlaki, a dual national of both the U.S. and Yemen. It’s documented that in the early 90s, he was issued a passport using a different name, thus helping him establish a whole new, secret identity. He then used that identity to enter the U.S. on a Fulbright scholarship for foreign students. After obtaining a college degree at taxpayers’ money as a “foreign student”, he went back to Yemen and actively supported, promoted, and financed terrorist acts against America.

Fourth, the President knows these facts, and this is a sign that he is listening to his advisors and is absorbing intelligence information accurately and quickly.

Next, its quite clear that the President did what his patriotic duty and position require him to do: protect Americans from harm

With that said, if the President did want to ban a specific group of people, what would it look like, especially in a Middle Eastern country?

Enough already: Move the embassy to Jerusalem By Bruce Portnoy

On June 5, 2017, the United States Senate approved Resolution 176, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, and reminded us that “there has been a continuous Jewish presence in Jerusalem for 3 millennia.” This legislative initiative was preceded by the Jerusalem Embassy Act (Public Law 104-45), on November 8, 1995, which indicated that “Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel” and that the American Embassy, currently in Tel Aviv, at the will of the president of the United States, may be relocated to Jerusalem.

President Trump has followed the path of his predecessor presidents: he has chosen not to honor the intent of the Jerusalem Embassy Act, nor his campaign promise to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, for fear of alienating already hostile Middle Eastern nations and populations, so as to float his personal peace plan.

Lest we forget, only fifty years ago, war was forced upon our loyal Middle Eastern ally, Israel, by her neighboring nations (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq). Their clearly stated aim was to drive Israel’s young and old, helpless and able-bodied, Christian, Muslim and Jew, into the sea, and then to take for themselves all that the people of Israel had labored to build in their relatively tiny state.

At the time, every nation of means turned her back on the mixed multitude of Israelis being threatened. The United Nations security force was asked to withdraw from the Sinai and did so without protest. The United States, fearing the Soviet response, hid under the covers.

Without the help of her friends, the odds of Israel’s survival was minimal at best. Yet when push came to shove and with everything to lose, Jews and other people of conscience came from abroad to take a stand with their threatened brethren. Together, they helped thwart a massacre. Within hours, Israel’s pre-emptive air strike neutralized Egypt’s jets, while her ground forces overcame the might of more numerous opposition armies, in just six days, before a cease-and-desist action was organized.

Jerusalem became a unified city, reaffirmed as Israel’s eternal capital. All faiths were subsequently guaranteed perpetual, unobstructed, and protected access to their holy sites.

Yet, every six months, since November 5, 1995, a presidential waiver to delay the move of the American Embassy to Jerusalem was utilized, sidestepping the original intent of Public Law 104-45, on the grounds of unidentified national security issues.

Meanwhile, the United States has not become a more respected nation abroad, except with Israel. The Middle East is clearly less stable. The Palestinians have repeatedly capitalized on America’s failure to act responsibly towards her friend, Israel, by expanding their self-serving demands. Furthermore, they have not chosen to put aside their perpetual hatred of Israel and Jews so as to concentrate on building the infrastructure necessary to support a separate state for their children.

Unrealistically, American presidents stubbornly adhere to a vague dream of peace that the Palestinian leadership does not apparently share, and a succession of American presidents has seen fit to diplomatically punish an ally, Israel, by denying her the same diplomatic status any other nation’s capital currently enjoys: hosting the embassy of the United States.

With the current administration’s willingness to employ cruise missiles as necessary, I am not so sure that the feared Palestinian repercussions will become a reality should the American Embassy be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Meanwhile, Israel stands alone in the Middle East, as a proud nation with shared American values, and without fear for being so. This status alone should be rewarded with the embassy move.

Israel Leans Closer to Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Upsets U.S. Groups Prime Minister Netanyahu suspends plan to let Reform and Conservative movements of Judaism help administer the Western Wall shrine By Rory Jones see note please

I am not orthodox and I totally support Netanyahu on this issue. Given culture trends if the sacred Wall is “secularized” they would host pagan picnics and chants. And the ultra liberal Union of Reform Judaism doesn’t like it? Too bad. Their support for Israel stops at the so called West Bank, and their US national policies are a disgrace…..rsk

JERUSALEM—Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shifted closer to his ultraorthodox coalition partners on a controversial religious issue, sparking fresh tension with more liberal American Jewish groups that accuse the leader of putting his political survival before their interests.

Mr. Netanyahu earlier this week suspended a previously agreed plan to allow Reform and Conservative movements of Judaism to help administer the religion’s Western Wall shrine. Members of his government also proposed a bill in parliament that would allow only Israel’s ultraorthodox-dominated Jewish authority, known as the Chief Rabbinate, to administer and determine who can convert to the religion.

The moves have rekindled longstanding strains between Israel’s rabbinate and the Reform and Conservative movements in the U.S. that take a more progressive approach to interpreting Judaism’s laws and want equal standing in administering the faith and its holy shrines. Some American Jewish groups are now threatening to cut donations and investment to Israel that could amount to billions of dollars.

“If you cause Jews in the diaspora, particularly Jews of the United States to feel alienated…it has a strategic impact that should be of great concern to all the leaders of Israel,” said Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism in North America, in a broadcast Wednesday on Israel’s Army Radio.

His group, which represents roughly 2 million American Jews, ​ canceled a planned Thursday meeting with Mr. Netanyahu in protest over the Israeli government’s position on the religious conversion bill and the Western Wall.

The shrine is one of Judaism’s holiest sites and the last of the four walls that abutted the Temple Mount compound in Jerusalem’s Old City, where an ancient Jewish temple once stood. The Temple Mount, known as Haram al Sharif to Muslims, is now the location of the Al Aqsa mosque, one of Islam’s holiest sites.

Trump, South Korean President to Focus on North Korea at First Meeting The two leaders differ on how to address the North Korea issue; military alliance and trade deal are also on the table By Jonathan Cheng in Seoul and Carol E. Lee in Washington

South Korean President Moon Jae-in and U.S. President Donald Trump are set to meet in Washington on Thursday for the first time, a highly anticipated summit that will serve as an early test of the new leaders’ relationship following several differences over key policies.

The discussions between Messrs. Trump and Moon, who will have dinner Thursday night at the White House and meet again on Friday, come amid growing urgency about confronting the threat from North Korea. The two leaders have suggested dramatically different approaches to the issue.

Mr. Moon, South Korea’s first left-leaning president in nearly a decade, has called for closer ties with North Korea, primarily through economic cooperation, while the Trump administration has called for tougher sanctions, military pressure and diplomatic isolation.

White House officials said North Korea is likely to dominate the talks between Messrs. Trump and Moon. They played down differences in the two leaders’ approaches and said Mr. Trump will stress to Mr. Moon the need to coordinate their policies.

Mr. Trump’s policy is to apply pressure on North Korea “to change their calculus to have substantive talks with us once they show they are willing to reduce the threat,” a senior White House official said. The official said Mr. Trump sees nothing “problematic” with Mr. Moon’s positions.

The U.S. administration is seeking to ramp up sanctions on North Korea and apply new diplomatic pressure to Pyongyang, though the White House official said no new sanctions are imminent.

“The State Department has been talking to our friends and partners throughout the world really to address North Korea’s trade, to address many of their illegal activities sometimes conducted under the guise of diplomatic missions to raise capital, hard currency for their weapons programs,” the official said. “I think there’s plenty more pressure that could be brought to bear on North Korea in the form of U.N. Security Council resolutions and also unilateral sanctions by the United States.” CONTINUE AT SITE

The Republicaid Party? Some GOP Senators are shrinking from entitlement reform.

With the Senate health-care bill delayed for now, the conservative and more centrist GOP wings need to bridge a philosophical gap to succeed. The outcome of this debate will define what the Republican Party stands for—and whether the problems of America’s entitlement state can ever be solved.

The biggest policy divide concerns the future of Medicaid, and here the problem is the moderates who are acting like liberals. Despite their campaign rhetoric, some Senators now want to ratify ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion as an unrepealable and unreformable welfare program.
***

Most of the Affordable Care Act’s insurance coverage gains have come from opening Medicaid eligibility beyond its original goal of helping the poor and disabled to include prime-age, able-bodied adults. The federal-state program has become the world’s single largest insurer by enrollment, covering more people than Medicare or the British National Health Service. Total spending grew 18% in 2015 and 17% in 2016 in the 29 states that expanded, and the nearby chart shows the growth of overall federal Medicaid spending under current law and without reform.

The Senate bill attempts to arrest this unsustainable surge by moving to per capita spending caps from an open-ended entitlement. When states spend more now, they generate an automatic payment from the feds. The goal is to contain costs and give Governors the incentive and flexibility to manage their programs.

Meanwhile, four long years from now, the bill would start to phase-down the state payment formula for old and new Medicaid beneficiaries to equal rates. Governors ought to prioritize the most urgent needs.

This would be the largest entitlement reform ever while still protecting the most vulnerable. The bill is carefully designed to avoid overreach and would save taxpayers $772 billion compared with what Medicaid would otherwise spend under current law, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This does not “cut” spending; it merely slows the rate of increase.

This has nonetheless made some Senators nervous, like West Virginia’s Shelley Moore Capito and Ohio’s Rob Portman. The growth rate for the block grants would be set at the rate of medical inflation for most beneficiaries at the start and then fall to the consumer price index in 2026, which is more ambitious than the House bill. Some Senators would like to see more generous growth rates, while others favor waiting six or seven years, rather than four, to start the phase-down of the expansion.

Obama’s Health-Care Audacity The ex-president takes a break from vacation to lecture Republicans.By Karl Rove

President Obama has been busy since leaving office. In February he was photographed kite surfing with billionaire Richard Branson in the British Virgin Islands. March brought a visit to Hawaii, followed by four weeks in French Polynesia and yachting with David Geffen, Oprah, Tom Hanks and Bruce Springsteen.

May included biking and golfing at a pal’s luxury hotel in Tuscany, before speeches in Berlin and Scotland, the latter providing the chance to play 12 holes at St. Andrews. Now the Obamas are in Indonesia for a nostalgic return to what was briefly his childhood home. But before jetting off on Friday, the former president, that champion of the poor and dispossessed, waded into the health-care debate with a lengthy Facebook post.

It was a trite, tone-deaf, partisan and condescending attack on the Senate Republicans’ health-care proposal. The comments show that the former president, still prickly and defensive, doesn’t understand how flawed ObamaCare really is.

Mr. Obama sold the Affordable Care Act with well-formulated falsehoods. “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” he said repeatedly, and “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” The law would “cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.” It would “bend the cost curve” for health care, he said, without adding “one dime to the deficit.” None of this was true, and Mr. Obama must have known that.

So did he address these failings in his Facebook post? Of course not. The former president changed his talking points for ObamaCare. “Women can’t be charged more for their insurance,” he bragged—but the GOP proposal doesn’t alter that policy. “Young people can stay on their parents’ plan until they turn 26,” he said—but Republicans would leave that in place, too. “Contraceptive care and preventive care are now free,” Mr. Obama added—except taxpayers actually pay for them with levies on, among other things, hospital stays, medical devices and insurance policies. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama shoved his broken promises down the memory hole.

Mr. Obama did repeat the left’s canards that the GOP proposal “would raise costs, reduce coverage, roll back protections, and ruin Medicaid.” He piously added: “That’s not my opinion, but rather the conclusion of all objective analysis,” starting with “the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.”

The CBO, however, did not issue its report on the Senate legislation until four days after Mr. Obama posted on Facebook. And when the CBO report did come out, it didn’t back up his indictment. For example, the CBO concluded: “By 2026, average premiums for benchmark plans for single individuals in most of the country under this legislation would be about 20 percent lower than under current law.”

One could scour the CBO’s report in vain for anything to justify saying the bill would “roll back protections” or “ruin Medicaid.” Under the Senate plan, Medicaid outlays would continue to rise, albeit at a slower rate.

Wielding the left’s favorite new club, Mr. Obama also claimed that “23 million Americans would lose insurance” if the GOP bill passes. But how can that be, since only 10 million people get coverage through the ObamaCare exchanges? Further, how many of those people want insurance in the first place? The CBO says that “in 2018, 15 million more people would be uninsured under this legislation than under current law—primarily because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated.” CONTINUE AT SITE

America Needs a Post-ISIS Strategy The U.S. should recognize Iran and Russia as adversaries—and that Iraq isn’t a friend.By John Bolton

The headlines out of Syria are eye-catching: There are signs the Assad government may be planning another chemical attack. American pilots have struck forces threatening our allies and shot down a Syrian plane and Iranian-made drones. The probability of direct military confrontation between the U.S. and Russia has risen. Yet the coverage of these incidents and the tactical responses that have been suggested obscure the broader story: The slow-moving campaign against Islamic State is finally nearing its conclusion—yet major, long-range strategic issues remain unresolved.

The real issue isn’t tactical. It is instead the lack of American strategic thinking about the Middle East after Islamic State. Its defeat will leave a regional political vacuum that must be filled somehow. Instead of reflexively repeating President Obama’s errors, the Trump administration should undertake an “agonizing reappraisal,” in the style of John Foster Dulles, to avoid squandering the victory on the ground.

First, the U.S. ought to abandon or substantially reduce its military support for Iraq’s current government. Despite retaining a tripartite veneer of Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Shiite Arabs, the capital is dominated by Shiites loyal to Iran. Today Iraq resembles Eastern Europe in the late 1940s, as the Soviet anaconda tightened its hold. Extending Baghdad’s political and military control into areas retaken from ISIS simply advances Tehran’s power. This cannot be in America’s interest.

Iraq’s Kurds have de facto independence and are on the verge of declaring it de jure. They fight ISIS to facilitate the creation of a greater Kurdistan. Nonetheless, the Kurds, especially in Syria and Turkey, are hardly monolithic. Not all see the U.S. favorably. In Syria, Kurdish forces fighting ISIS are linked to the Marxist PKK in Turkey. They pose a real threat to Turkey’s territorial integrity, even if it may seem less troubling now that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s plans have turned so profoundly contrary to the secular, Western-oriented vision of Kemal Atatürk.

Second, the U.S. should press Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf monarchies for more troops and material assistance in fighting ISIS. America has carried too much of the burden for too long in trying to forge Syria’s opposition into an effective force. Yet even today the opposition could charitably be called “diverse.” It includes undeniably terrorist elements that are often hard to distinguish from the “moderates” the U.S. supports. Getting fresh contributions from Arab allies would rebalance the opposition, which is especially critical if the U.S. turns away, as it should, from reliance on the Iraqi forces dominated by Tehran.

Third, the Trump administration must take a clear-eyed view of Russia’s intervention. The Syrian mixing bowl is where confrontation between American and Russian forces looms. Why is Russia active in this conflict? Because it is aiding its allies: Syria’s President Bashar Assad and Iran’s ayatollahs. Undeniably, Russia is on the wrong side. But Mr. Obama, blind to reality, believed Washington and Moscow shared a common interest in easing the Assad regime out of power. The Trump administration’s new thinking should be oriented toward a clear objective: pushing back these Iranian and Russian gains.

Start with Iran. Tehran is trying to cement an arc of control from its own territory, through Baghdad-controlled Iraq and Mr. Assad’s Syria, to Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon. This would set the stage for the region’s next potential conflict: Iran’s Shiite coalition versus a Saudi-led Sunni alliance.

The U.S.-led coalition, enhanced as suggested above, needs to thwart Iran’s ambitions as ISIS falls. Securing increased forces and financial backing from the regional Arab governments is essential. Their stakes are as high as ours—despite the contretemps between Qatar and Saudi Arabia (and others)—but their participation has lagged. The U.S. has mistakenly filled the gap with Iraqi government forces and Shiite militias. CONTINUE AT SITE

THE MEDIA WILL DO ANYTHING TO BASH TRUMP- AND NOW THEY’RE HURTING: MICHAEL GOODWIN

It was many years ago, but the memory lingers of the first time I was embarrassed to be a journalist. It was a steamy summer afternoon and reporters and photographers were shoehorned into a small Manhattan apartment for a civic group’s announcement.

As we waited, a photographer wearing a “Press” card in his battered fedora picked up a bud vase from a table, pulled out the rose and drank the water in one gulp.

The hostess was horrified and shrieked, “What are you doing?” He looked at her as if she were nuts and said simply, “It’s hot in here and I’m thirsty.”

I laugh now at the outlandishness of the photographer’s behavior, but at the time I cringed and wondered: Do I really want to be a journalist and end up like that?

America should be so lucky now. Bad manners are the least of it.

In the sixth month of Donald Trump’s presidency, we are witnessing an unprecedented meltdown of much of the media. Standards have been tossed overboard in a frenzy to bring down the president.

Trump, like all presidents, deserves coverage that is skeptical and tough, but also fair. That’s not what he’s getting.

What started as bias against him has become a cancer that is consuming the best and brightest. In rough biblical justice, media attempts to destroy the president are boomeranging and leaving their reputations in tatters.

He accuses them of publishing fake news, and they respond with such blind hatred that they end up publishing fake news. That’ll show him.

CNN is suffering an especially bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, even trying to make a virtue of its hostility to the president. In doing so, executives conveniently confuse animus with professional skepticism, and cite growing audiences as proof of their good judgment.

The bottom line matters, and there is certainly an audience for hating Trump all the time. But facts and fairness separate major news organizations from any other business looking to make a buck, and a commitment to them creates credibility and public trust.

That’s how CNN sold itself for years — boring but trustworthy. Now it’s boring and untrustworthy.

For all its bravado, the network might be having doubts about its course. Its apology for and retraction of a story connecting a Trump associate to a Russia investment fund, and the resignation of three journalists involved, suggest the network fears it has lost control of its own agenda. It also issued a special edict barring all Russia coverage without approval from top bosses.
SEE ALSO
CNN faced $100M lawsuit over botched Russia story
CNN faced $100M lawsuit over botched Russia story

That’s hardly a solution to a problem that starts at the top. The secret recording of a CNN producer by James O’Keefe’s

Vocational Ed, Reborn Making high-quality career training central to American schooling Steven Malanga

At a dinner for Silicon Valley executives in early 2011, President Barack Obama asked Apple CEO Steve Jobs what it would take to bring iPhone manufacturing back to America. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” the typically blunt Apple cofounder told the president. Examining Jobs’s claim, the New York Times looked at Apple’s vast Chinese operations and found that workers there not only worked for less than Americans did; more of them were skilled. To oversee production and guide some 200,000 assembly-line workers, Apple, for instance, needed 8,700 industrial engineers—positions that required more than a high school diploma but less than a full college degree. While abundant in China, these kinds of employees are harder to find in the United States. “The U.S. has stopped producing people with the skills we need,” an unnamed Apple executive told the Times.

That’s a refrain that more and more American business executives are uttering these days. Even as politicians argue over how to create or keep “good jobs” in the U.S., a recent National Federation of Independent Businesses survey reported that the percentage of small businesses saying that they get no or few qualified applicants for available jobs has hit a 17-year high. Studies estimate that hundreds of thousands of positions in manufacturing firms went unfilled, even during the post-financial-crisis downturn and subsequent weak recovery, because of the lack of skilled workers. “Open manufacturing jobs are at an all-time high,” the former CEO of Siemens USA, the industrial giant, observed in December.

Much of the problem, say business leaders and employment experts, is an educational failure. Career and technical training in the U.S. hasn’t evolved to keep up with the transformation of the modern economy—with many schools even slashing funding for vocational education. Worse, parents, guidance counselors, and even politicians keep pushing students to enter four-year college programs that provide no clear paths to employment. Meantime, jobs in traditional blue-collar trades—from manufacturing to automobile repair—have grown more sophisticated and demanding. A huge gap between job seekers’ skills and employers’ needs has resulted.

The good news is that some visionary businesses, educators, and nonprofit funders are intensifying efforts to revamp and upgrade career education—twenty-first-century vocational education—in the United States. The obstacles to such efforts are many, including school officials’ reluctance to partner with industry and lingering prejudices against vocational schooling. But for the rising number of students participating in programs that tailor education to career goals—programs that emphasize work-related experience and teach to the high standards necessary for modern jobs—the payoff has been impressive. Now the challenge is to build on those successes to ignite a broader cultural change that makes high-quality career training central to American education.

Congress may have had good intentions in 1917 when it passed the Smith-Hughes National Vocational Education Act to promote vocational training in agriculture, industry, and trades. But the law, which required any student receiving trade-skill instruction with federal funds to spend at least half of his time in vocational training, tended to cut off vocational training from public school education. Career education eventually developed into something that teachers and guidance counselors encouraged students of low academic achievement to pursue. Though the robust post–World War II American economy provided many of these students with a solid middle-income living, vocational school became stigmatized. That stigmatization only intensified as American industrial jobs, battered by global competition and automation, started to disappear during the early 1980s, making four-year college seem for many the surest route to better jobs and higher earnings. Policymakers reinforced the message with subsidized student loans and other initiatives that sought to make college readily available to all.

Unfortunately, many students wound up enrolling in four-year colleges who weren’t suited for it, and the results haven’t been pretty. These days, only 55 percent of college students graduate within six years, leaving many with no degree and dismal job prospects. Meanwhile, student-loan debt has swelled to a monstrous $1.3 trillion.

Many of the students would have been better off receiving some kind of vocational training. Both as candidate and now as president, Donald Trump has tapped into widespread blue-collar discontent with his call to overhaul free-trade agreements to keep jobs from heading overseas. The reality, though, is that plenty of good-paying jobs are already available for properly trained workers. These positions typically fall into a category known as middle-skilled, meaning that they require some postsecondary education—for instance, a certified apprenticeship or a two-year associate’s degree from a community college—but not necessarily four years of university. These jobs are found in health care, information technology, manufacturing, and construction, among other fields. According to a 2013 Brookings Institution study, more than half of all jobs in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) do not demand four-year degrees—and they pay an average annual salary above $50,000. Further, while high-paying STEM jobs requiring advanced degrees do cluster in a few major urban centers, plentiful middle-skilled jobs—ranging from cybersecurity specialist and web designer to robotics engineer and industrial-engineer technician—are dispersed throughout most American metropolitan areas, making them within geographical reach of most Americans.

Yet many of those jobs go unfilled. A 2011 survey by the consulting firm Deloitte and the Advanced Manufacturing Institute found that more than eight out of ten manufacturing firms reported a shortage of high-skilled workers—at a time when unemployment nationwide was above 8 percent. (By one estimate, some 1.5 million manufacturing jobs that America has added since the 2008 recession have been for workers with more than a high school education.) Even though the U.S. is graduating some 3 million high school students every year, nearly half of whom will enter the job market instead of continuing school, an estimated 1 million middle-skilled jobs in all fields remain unfilled.

A 2011 survey found that more than eight out of ten manufacturing firms reported a shortage of high-skilled workers.