High Heat/Low Friction: Where The “Utopic” Framers Roam
The original Constitution, written in 1787, was composed by wealthy, white, Ivy League educated, property owning men, who wanted to protect themselves from the the poor, which made up most of the US population. It was designed to prevent the poor from making important decisions, in concerns to the future of our country. Additionally, the elites were interested mostly in protecting their property, businesses, wealth, and influence, through “legal” means. The Constitution not only took individual rights away from the poor, but put it into the pockets of the elite. The 11 years before The Constitution, the characteristics of the founding fathers, the way The Constitution functioned, and the constitutional compromises afterwards prove that The original Constitution was written by the elite, for the elite.
The 11 years before The Constitution was written, the most powerful men in The Union feared the poor would attempt to overthrow the government. During 1786 a poor farmer named Daniel Shays led a group of farmers in revolt through Massachusetts. In turn, Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton wanted to take state and individual rights away from the people and transfer them to the federal government. Hamilton and other federalists were successful, since they dismantled The Articles of Confederation and replaced it with The Constitution. (Text pg. 15)
The 55 framers who wrote The original Constitution were power hungry authoritarians who expertly plotted against the majority. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison writes, “By a faction I understand a understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse or passion, or of interests, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” He later states, “There will be a rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or any such wicked or improper projects.” James Madison believed that that the poor (majority) would take power from the elite (minority). His solution was to cut down the majority into smaller groups. For example instead of the poor versus the rich, it would be poor Muslims vs poor Christians vs. poor Jews vs the rich. (Reader pg. 236–239)
All of the national institutions, besides members of the The House (the weakest part of said institution) are selected indirectly, because the elite feared majority rule. James Madison believed that The House should be kept in check by The Senate. He also believed since The House was directly selected by the people, they were ill equipped to make decisions (they were closer to the poor majority than a Senator was), they were not as “elite” as Senators. This system doesn’t work for the majority. For example, in 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but lost in The Electoral College. (Cannon pg. 79–80)
The single-member plurality elections guaranteed that the interests of the elite were represented over the poor’s. They chose the single-member plurality election scheme instead of the multi-member proportional scheme because poor people either didn’t own property or they owned property which didn’t qualify as “the right type” of property. This gave the wealthy (the 6% who got the right to vote) a chance to elect officials who looked out for the interests of the elite—interests such as their wealth and property. James Madison feared the multi-member proportional system, because it would put (at least some) of the poor majority into power. He wanted to take the majority and divide it into factions. (Reader pg. 214)
The Constitution staggers elections, in order to slow down change in policymaking; if the public is unsatisfied with how the government is functioning they have to wait 2–6 years to make gradual changes, making it difficult to go against the status quo the elite set up. Members of The House get elected every 2 years (the total amount of representatives is chopped into 1/3s), the president gets elected every 4 years, and Senators get elected every 6 years. The authors of the Constitution didn’t want a true Democracy, they wanted to put speed bumps in front of the people, so they couldn’t take complete control of the government. Because of staggered elections, to this day, only 17 amendments have made it through the amendment process. (Text pg. 25)
Separation of powers and checks and balances provide no incentive for The House, The Senate, The Supreme Court, and The President to work together; in addition to this, they share lawmaking, so they butt heads on a regular basis, thus making it difficult for the common folk and their selected representatives to affect policies in a timely manner. The House is loyal to their respected districts, The Senate is loyal to their states, The Supreme Court is loyal to their interpretation of The Constitution, and The President is one man being pulled in many directions. According to Matthew Spalding, “The Congress has given too much authority to the bureaucratic executive—a problem that has been 100 years in the making.” What he is stating is that The President can check anything The Congress proposes, to the point where he has more power than Congress, the only part of the three branches of government elected by the people. In modern times, the federal government relies on states to enforce immigration laws, even if the states don’t want to participate. (Cannon pg. 66)
Federalism takes control from local and state governments and in turn the people, and places it in the hands of the elite. The federal government makes laws which it wants to make and if it doesn’t want/need to, the states handle the law making. The states must abide by federal regulations. In modern times, the federal government relies on states to enforce immigration laws, even if the states don’t want to participate. The state of California even has sanctuary cities, but that didn’t stop past presidents from deporting noncitizens. (Cannon pg. 43, 41)
Supermajority requirements and the amendment process make it difficult for tyrants serving the elite to be kept in check or be impeached. It takes 2/3 of The House and Senate to override a presidential veto. It takes 2/3 of The House to put a president through impeachment; but to actually remove the president from office requires 2/3 of The Senate. The framers did attempt to protect the people from tyranny, by writing in the emolument clause; even with the emolument clause in place, President Trump was charged for getting insider tips (in concerns to the stock market)... he ended up being impeached but not discharged. (Text pg. 233 and 25)
The wealthy didn’t see slaves as equals, but as property to be used for their own purpose. For the consensus and tax money, the framers settled on the 3/5 Compromise, at the behest of the southern states. The more industrialized (northern) states wanted to end slavery, so they could have cheap labor for their factories. The public elite gave the private elite a whopping 21 years to take part in the slave trade, just so they could ratify The Constitution. (Reader pg. 47)
Property qualifications for voting not only hurt individuals and families whom didn’t own property but also property owners who didn’t own “the right type” of property. Only 6% of the population ended up getting the right to vote. Madison believed only property owners (again, only counting the “right” properties) cared about the elections and society. A modern day example of the property qualifications’ legacy is voter suppression. The disenfranchised (who wouldn’t have been a part of the 6%) miss out on voting because of: “Restrictive voter ID laws, complex registration procedures, limits on early voting, and cuts in the number of polling places...” (Cannon pg. 83)
The Bill of Rights wasn’t written with the entire US population in mind, it was written for white men who owned “the right kind” of property. The 9th and 10th Amendment gave power to the 6% who could vote, they excluded slaves, people who didn’t own “the right type” of property, and the poor. The liberties in the 4th-7th and 8th amendments didn’t apply to everyone. Denying these rights to the poor ultimately resulted in mass African American incarcerations, which got “passed down” to the following generations. (The Atlantic Video, from Module 11, 10:20–12:46)
High Heat/Low Friction: Equal Treatment Is Somehow Anti-Compromise
The current political climate is not only polarized, but is controlled by the rich and powerful through interest groups (money); the interest groups influence politicians who in turn favor the rich over average Americans. This form of government is racist, misogynistic, and unfair towards the poor. Additionally, the wealthy use lobbyists to improve their lives by getting laws written to favor their personal beliefs as well as their businesses. Lawmakers and their donors not only change and implement laws, but make it so that the average American has to live according to their interests and beliefs. Political parties, the media, our menial role in politics, and interest groups as well as the flawed judicial system lead to a lack of order, stability, and efficiency, by empowering those already in power... it’s a vicious cycle.
Historically, American political parties have worked to democratize the United States by mobilizing voters, but today the parties are polarized leading to an exclusive system of government in which highly funded candidates create a duopoly, which limits voter participation. The smaller parties need an expenditure of nearly $270 million to get to the primaries, and no independent campaign has spent that much, since they must be certain that their candidate has a chance to compete (Cannon pg. 166). Considering this fact, third party supporters may choose not to vote, as protest or simple disinterest. The public and private sector elite use their funds to utilize mass media, email campaigns, social media, and targeted messages to dictate who gets what. They get funding from their national committee members, in turn rewarding large contributors by recognizing them as model members (Text pg. 115).
According to George Washington, political parties divide rather than unite the public (Text pg. 93). John Adams believed since the party leaders were selfish, they couldn't pursue the common interests, honor, and dignity of the general public (Text pg. 93). Party leaders used to play the gate-keeper role, not so much anymore, which opens the doors up for powerful demagogues like Donald Trump to become president (How Democracies Die Lecture) and line their pockets (along with his friends' pockets) with money, using questionable means.
The rise of social media weakens democracy, because it creates echo chambers in which voters don't understand all sides of the issues, it has empowered the established politicians and campaigns... the ones who can afford to control said social media platforms with advertisements and propaganda. Cable news network and newspapers have declined, leading to voters who rely on social media and blogs for information on politics. The confusion caused by social media and the decline in local news exposure allows those in power to act without scrutiny. The American news media differs from other countries, because most of the outlets are privately owned, they must make money from advertisers; the amount of viewers coincides with how many advertisers they get, so they report on confusing and sensationalist news like Donald Trump housing foreign dignitaries on his own properties or how Obama isn’t an American (Reader pg. 176–177).
Bias in the media affects democracy because content is often skewed and its presentation of stereotypical narratives concerning the marginalized empowers wealthy corporate media outlets, their owner(s), and their personal political affiliations/views, all the while disempowering critical candidates and their political parties (such as Bernie Sanders’ Democratic Socialist party), women, people of color, and the youth. Today, news media outlets owned by tycoons (such as Rupert Murdock and Jeff Bezos) shape the political landscape... they have their own biases and political views which distorts objective reality (History of Media Bias Video). If communication is inadequate, factually inaccurate, manipulative, or biased, voters will not be equipped to rationally elect politicians to serve them and to then hold them accountable. The media tends to disproportionately report on African Americans committing crimes (Why Accurate Coverage of Crime Matters Video), which may create a bias against African Americans running for office. Sociologist, Herbert Gans, found that media personnel are disproportionately white males and come from a middle/middle upper class background and their upbringing reflects on their reporting (Reader pg. 184).
Political advertisements make it hard for voters to cast meaningful votes because a lot of them are made up of propaganda and misinformation (or outright lies); in turn, this empowers the wealthy and well educated (who may have more at stake), while disempowering the less wealthy (who have less, so they are more likely to be indifferent). There have been more than 360 voter suppression bills introduced across the nation, as of May 2021; these bills often time target minorities and take away voter rights in court cases (Brennan Center For Justice Article). Facebook and some TV networks don’t censor ads, based on content, which means that a political ad could be outright false and Facebook and said networks will let the ad run... this undermines the public (Facebook Truth Video).
Voters tend to be wealthier, more educated, have more at stake, more partisan, and older than non-voters, but at the same time they tend to be just as ill informed as non-voters. Facebook informs voters about issues through articles and ads, in a sense everyone is informed, by the use of targeted messages, but in a very polarizing way (Brad Parscale Video). Facebook and select news media don’t filter ads which fail to inform the public in an honest way (Zuckerberg and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Video). There are also social bots and foreign operatives who misinform the wealthy and the poor alike, the difference being the wealthy tend to be more well educated and have formal critical thinking training which the poor may not have.
In the past, The Federalist and The Democratic-Republican leadership handpicked their own candidates, today, voters choose delegates who in turn pick the candidates... although minority parties get overlooked, because the voters don't want to waste their vote (Khan Academy Video from module 14 and Cannon pg. 163). According to George Washington, political parties divide rather than unite the public (Reader pg. 93). John Adams believed that since the party leaders (the public sector elite) were selfish, they couldn't pursue the common interests, honor, and dignity of the general public (Reader pg. 93). For example, in concerns to The DNC and RNC, voters believe that the elite in each party are the ones making decisions and nominating candidates, and all the rank-and-file party members do is cast votes to support the elites' decisions.
The elite hold power by using interest groups, in turn these interest groups buy political clout by funding campaigns, lobby politicians through advice and facts on complex topics, fund defendants or plaintiffs in court, and go public through advertising, for example. An interest group is a group of individuals and/or companies who work towards affecting policy in our country. Interest groups have a very specific goal, as opposed to political parties; they reach these goals by making monetary contributions, holding rallies, and make ads to support their chosen candidate(s). Interest groups are in the private sector, while political parties are in the public sector. Interest groups can and are made up of foreign individuals and companies. Corporations and businesses are interest groups, and they can join others like them. Smaller interest groups are usually the most wealthy and organized, their activities are more affective in implementing policies. As opposed to small interest groups, large interest groups tend to have more free riders, which makes them less affective in the grand scheme of things. Historically, corporate interest groups are small, and public interest groups are large.
Candidates run their campaigns with personal and donated money, but they receive assistance from interest groups as well. Interest groups electioneer, which is the act of using money to influence the outcome of elections through donations. Groups can bundle their money or create multiple groups to donate more than allowed through PACs. Lobbying is the act of pressuring through the provision of information, it is what results from the large donations interest groups make (Text pg. 220). The lobbyists provide politicians with information on complex topics, in turn, they influence said politicians’ decisions. For example: a tobacco lobbyist may tell a senator how nicotine helps epileptics (based on their own studies), in turn they may make more lax tobacco laws. The wealthy can afford lobbyists, and we have to adhere to the laws the lobbyists get put into action. For example, they spend $5.8 billion influencing government, while taxpayer subsidies and support give them $4 trillion. The elite “get their way” over 90% of us. If they want a law passed, they have a better chance at it than the middle class and the poor. A lot of congresspeople becoming lobbyists, going from being a part of the public elite to the private elite.
Another method interest groups use to influence politicians and policy is: litigation. This is the act of either providing a defendant or plaintiff in a trial with legal backing or going to trial themselves to challenge and influence existing laws. For example, in North Carolina there was a leak in a coal ash pond which got into a small community’s water supply. What resulted from this is residents getting various forms of cancer. The energy company responsible was Duke Energy... theoretically, a coal based interest group cold fund Duke Energy’s case (North Carolina Video). The last (legal of course) method interest groups use is going public. An example of this method is advertisements to sway the public’s opinion on complex topics such as abortion rights, civil rights, or the benefits of coal over solar power. This is called grassroots lobbying, because it conveys the interest group’s message directly to the public. Super PACs don’t directly give money to candidates, but support them by running their own biased ads in favor of the candidate (Text pg. 147). In some instances, super PACs do in fact function within/with candidates... going as far as sharing the same addresses and offices as the politicians’ campaign (Text pg. 148).
The taking and use of campaign money counts as free speech (Reader pg. 173). Corporations, unions, and non-profits can spend millions of dollars on supporting or going against candidates, and the public won’t know where they’re getting the money from. Members of Congress do not know what it’s like to live in subsidized housing, using food stamps, paying off student loans, etc.; this insulates them. For example, they tend to view tax issues differently than the average American. Since WWII, 95% of Congress has sought to get re-elected, and 91% have been, this makes it difficult for Americans to see change. This is called the incumbency effect, and the reason it happens is because incumbents are more well funded than individual seeking office for the first time... they are also more recognizable, since they appear in the news media. Pork Barrel Legislation is when Congress gives money to universities, businesses, and subsidies for farmers (amongst other things). The media hates it, but the state and/or districts which get these subsidies love it. This helps the congress person get re-elected. To get re-elected Congresspeople also do casework. It’s when they give out favors to constituents in their district, a summer internship for a political science major, for example.
Because of the pandemic and current economic crises, power in the United States is likely to flow to corporations (which are run by the wealthy) whom use the public elite to their benefit (and vice versa). Lobbyists sometimes pre-draft and deliver legislation to Congress, for example, Florida’s Stand Your Ground law which was written by the American Legislative Exchange Council, the same law that helped George Zimmerman murder Travon Martin (Lobbyists Write Many State Laws Video). In two legislative sessions in California, during 2007-2010 of the bills that became law, 50% in one year and 60% another year were first drafted by outside interests (Lobbyists Write Many State Laws Video). Two of the problems with this are: the public gets left in the dark, as to who drafted those laws and only wealthy interest groups can do this and the less funded groups have to fight it (Lobbyists write many state laws video). The bureaucracy is made (partially) of patrons and their family and friends, Betsy DeVos for example. They or their families donate money and get special favors like being a part of the executive bureaucracy. Bureaucrats interpret and execute the laws passed by Congress, execute them, and fund them. This is why lobbyists approach bureaucrats, to get government contracts to build missiles or highways for example. This is known as The Iron Triangle, it’s a triangle made up of special interest groups/lobbyists, the bureaucrats, and the president all influencing each other. Authoritarianism has been accelerated, because of the COVID epidemic (PBS News Hour Video). Lastly, the COVID pandemic has made corporations even wealthier, a congressional stimulus package gave the airline industry $60 billion while an American facing job loss, eviction, and illness got (at most) $1,200.
The United States judiciary furthers the power of the status quo favoring the wealthy elite because justices are often themselves drawn from the elite class, receive electoral backing from the elite, and then render decisions that serve the elite because the judges know little about what it's like to be poor, a person of color, or a woman. President Woodrow Wilson said, “(Laws were created) not to guide the strong, but to protect the weak” (Text pg. 335). Conservative justices like Antonin Scalia believe it’s wrong for the constitution to be a “living constitution”, ever changing (Cannon pg. 120). Liberal justices such as, Stephen Breyer believe it’s the key to individual liberty, he points out that changing The Constitution gave African Americans the right to vote, while ignoring a lot of racist precedents (Cannon pg. 127). According to Breyer, “... too few individuals contribute too much money and that, even though money is not the only way to obtain influence, those who give large amounts of money do obtain, or appear to obtain, too much influence. The end result is a marked inequality of participation” (Cannon pg. 129). Large campaign contributions to influence the election of justices (as well as politicians) are a dangerous form of free speech. It is why large corporations get away with polluting our drinking water, for example. Breyer suggests that the courts should look at the consequences of their rulings, instead of The Constitution’s exact speech (Cannon pg. 130). It is possible to impeach and remove a federal judge... Alecee Hastings was removed in 1988, for accepting bribes; John Pickering was removed in 1803 for on the job intoxication; Samuel Kent was removed in 2009 for sexual assault (Text pg. 351).
Crony Capitalism further empowers corporations such as YUM! Brands, McDonalds, and Denon because they gain a health based platform by funding groups such as Susan B Komen, The ADA, and The AHA. Crony Capitalism is when the government buys goods that may be more expensive than the competitor, because of lobbyists, because they may have given campaign contributions, or because they may be in their district. This applies to affordable housing, defense contracts, clean energy programs, etc. (Crony Capitalism YouTube Video). The dairy industry has funded studies, the outcome of these studies were biased, they wanted to neutralize the idea that saturated fats were dangerous. The government encourages Americans of color to consume milk, even though most of us are lactose intolerant, it’s because the government is in cahoots with dairy farmers (What the Health Transcript). The American Nutrition and Dietetics Association puts out a nutrition facts sheets written by the industries themselves. “The industries pay $20,000 per fact sheet and explicitly take part in writing them. So, you can learn about eggs from the egg industry. You can learn about lamb from the lamb industry. This would be like learning about the benefits of smoking from the tobacco industry” (What the Health Transcript).
This money based elite system of Crony Capitalism is unjust because it misinforms Americans, affects people of color more than their white counterparts, and creates medical issues for consumers. Susan G. Komen’s cancer foundation didn’t warn women about the harms of drinking milk, even though it’s known to cause cancer recurrence. There are even pink ribbons on yogurt packaging. Pig farms in North Carolina are disproportionately in neighborhoods where people of color live. The feces and chemicals from these pigs gets into the environment and people get cancer. It is unfair, because the government is spending public money, it is wasteful, it distorts the economy, and it encourages politicians to break the law (Crony Capitalism YouTube Video).
All of these acts not only give priority to the wealthy over the poor, but take freedoms away from those who are already marginalized, all the while using legal means to do so. Court rulings have brought change for marginalized groups who have faced past discrimination. A lot of the time this happens when the rest of the government fails to act at the behest of the victimized. One downside is: the courts don’t necessarily implement change... that comes from the executive and congressional branches. An example would be 1954’s Brown decision. The ruling didn’t do anything for 99% of the African American students in the south. It was during 1972–1973 when the majority of African American students in the south started attending desegregated schools, because the federal government threatened to cut off the segregated schools’ funding. The judicial system (in its many forms) fails to protect us, all the while favoring corporations and special interest groups. Between 1905 and 1918, the Supreme Court sided with corporations, instead of laborers, they failed to ban child labor and didn’t implement humane work hour laws (9 hours a day for example). It also upheld a Virginia law which resulted in the sterilization of people with disabilities, it criminalized same sex relationships, it also helped push laws which victimized people of color such as Native Americans, African Americans, and during WWII, Japanese Americans.
Elite attorneys are 6 times more likely to get their cases heard by the Supreme Court compared to “regular” attorneys. Chief Justice Roberts was appointed in 2005, ever since then voting rights have been trampled over, corporate special interest groups have flourished, and labor unions and workers have had some of their rights taken away. Federal judges along with conservative (corporate) groups have made it more difficult for average people to bring class action lawsuits against groups and individuals who harmed them. All of this makes it very difficult for the average person to bring corporations and individuals to justice.
People of color, women, and the LGBTQ community are regularly discriminated against, historically and presently. In the 1800s African Americans weren’t classified as citizens of this country. This had an adverse affect on The African American Community, since they couldn’t vote... how could they change things? The court system is disproportionately made up of old, wealthy white men, similar to the rest of the elite governmental positions. “The first African American was not appointed to the Supreme Court until 1967, and the first woman was not appointed until 1981. While diversity on the lower federal courts has improved substantially, the Supreme Court remains a particularly unrepresentative institution; it currently has only two people of color—22 percent—and three women, 33 percent.”
Gaming the System: How Higher Education Turned Into A Profit Machine
I: If you’re applying to college, you may be wondering what SalesForce and U.S. News know about the admission process; the truth of the matter is: these companies don’t only dictate who gets into certain schools, but they also influence the school’s cash flow, in turn influencing your wallet. Their argument is: college admission officers have biases and aren’t as efficient as an Artificial Intelligence. While this may be true, AIs have flaws. I believe that AIs are harmful towards students and the schools they may be applying to, because they rely on arbitrary proxies which are easily gamed, they discriminate on the grounds of finances or outright fail to mention affordability, and advocate cheating from schools as well as students; this makes it difficult for all parties to practice autonomy during the college admission process.
II: Before these corporations got involved with colleges, they made algorithms to filter out unfit employees (Pangburn 1). In 2011 Taylor University (one of SalesForce’s few colligate clients willing to be less opaque), hired SalesForce to boost their application and enrollment rates (Pangburn 1). The algorithm took into account how often students interacted with the school, what their zipcodes were, and how wealthy their families were (Pangburn 1). Admissions officers are human and they get tired. In the past, these officers have fallen victim to potential students posing as athletes, to get preferential treatment (Pangburn 4). Kira Talent has a solution. They will crawl the students’ backgrounds based on publicly available information on social media sites for example (Pangburn 4).
Proxies are a major component for these algorithms. They are stand in values for what colleges consider a promising student. For example: community service. Community service shows that a student is responsible. Another positive of this proxy is: it improves community engagement. A student who has volunteered in the past may be inclined to get involved with local communities. A volunteer may also become socialized, by interacting with the elderly and administrative staff at a retirement home for example.
Another helpful proxy may be legacy students. This means their families can afford to pay for college with cash on hand. In turn these students have a lack of financial burden after they graduate, making them more satisfied with their college experience. Another positive for using this proxy to admit students is the surplus of financial aid and scholarships which results. A star athlete may draw crowds to a college’s football stadium and amplify enrollment rates (The Flutie Effect), but may lack financial resources (O’Neal 10). These financially strained athletes may get the leg up during the admissions process based on more financial aid and scholarships being available.
III: The U.S. News college ranking system was created by a struggling news outlet in 1983 (O’Neal 5). Their intent was a noble one. It assisted students in deciding which college to attend, which career field to go into, which in turn would help build lifelong bonds with their peers (O’Neal 5). The reality was: U.S. News was setting a status quo which would result in a Weapon of Math Destruction, propelling all the participants into a dystopian and destructive future (O’Neal 5).
They included proxies (which were ultimately unscientific hunches) such as: graduation rates and alumni donations, to rank how “excellent” a school was (O’Neal 6). This created an interaction bias, by valuing these proxies above undermined proxies such as affordability. It also created a latent bias, by correlating alumni donations (money) with success. Unfortunately this created a feedback loop of professors and students steering clear of “bad” schools and angry alumni who didn’t feel comfortable cutting anymore checks (O’Neal 6). To counteract these unfair rankings, Baylor University paid for admitted students to retake the SAT, in hopes of boosting their scores and rankings, again creating an interaction bias (O’Neal 7). The resulting bias gamed the U.S. News ranking system into believing that Baylor’s students had (in theory) better SAT scores than they actually did. “Iona College, in New York, said in 2011 that its employees had fudged numbers about nearly everything: test scores, acceptance and graduation rates, freshman retention, student-faculty ratio, and alumni giving” (O’Neal 7). This created all three biases. It created an interaction bias, because Iona appealed to U.S. News rankings based on things which they were looking for, creating a feedback loop which would ultimately harm them. It created a latent bias by aligning alumni giving with a (false) sense of success. It created a selection bias, because it over represented students who attended the school in 2011, compared to alumni. These schools were attempting to fake it until they made it. This also hurt the students, because safety schools started pandering to The U.S. News ranking system (O’Neal 10). In order to climb the ranking system, a school needs to be selective (O’Neal 10). Schools considered decent but with lower standards compared to the top schools started rejecting excellent candidates, since they knew (usually) their loyalties lay with target and stretch schools (O’Neal 10). This created a latent bias, where safety schools rejected a diverse set of excellent students for more “fitting” ones. What if an excellent student didn’t see a traditional safety school as a safety school, but a target school? The student loses out on their top choice of schools and the school loses an excellent candidate.
“Between 1985 and 2013, the cost of higher education rose by more than 500 percent, nearly four times the rate of inflation” (O’Neal 12). To counteract this, during his second term, The Obama Administration put The College Scorecard into play (O’Neal 17). Obama’s model would be made up of affordability, the percentage of poor and minority students, and postgraduation job placement (O’Neal 17). If a school dipped below an acceptable standard, they would lose their 180 million per year federal funding (O’Neal 17). This pushed back not only against the one sided U.S. News ranking system, but against for profit schools which line their pockets with government funding.
Seasons
Seasons come and seasons go in flaxen blink
Don't let your heart stop beating—
There aren't missteps in their duty. Never!
Stop and feel the cycle and repetition against your
incarnatious gloom.
Bandcamp: From DIY To Indie
Bandcamp is a streaming and procurement platform for record labels, collectives, and independent artists, amongst other music oriented aggregates and persons. The business model is simple: a fan visits an artist’s page, streams their music, and purchases digital and/or physical merchandise (if it’s to their tastes). Payments are processed through PayPal and the artist gets paid after both Bandcamp and PayPal take a cut of the revenue. Although the Bandcamp model is inclusive, it may not be viable for users seeking long term success in the music industry.
“The combination of inflation, poor first-line leadership, and expensive mistakes spell trouble for low-margin small businesses. Some people are leaving their jobs to upgrade their skills and enter new lines of work.”1 In the COVID age, these are common thoughts for small businesses. Five years ago, I was making 40%–50% in profit, selling digital and physical goods. Currently, my Bandcamp page is operating at a loss. Patrons can’t throw their money around, like they used to... the economy is wounded, and people are finicky. Small label owners may also get tired and give up, especially if it’s a one person operation. How can one operate a Bandcamp page, while turning said page into a legitimate/profitable Indie label, in the year 2022? In the past, Leaving Records did it, Innovative Leisure pulled it off, 100% Silk went from a micro label to an Indie. What makes them the cream of the crop? Why don’t most reach their level of success?
Here’s a shortlist of things I would do differently, if I had a chance to:
I would work with artists who are not only quality musicians, but quality individuals. In one word: professional. A professional understands the ins and outs of their own input, while collaborating with others.
I wouldn’t deal with artists who wanted total creative direction. As a graphic designer, it killed me to use Microsoft’s Ariel typeface instead of Helvetica on our fourth release. The template the artist provided for the cassette tape was not the best and took away from what could have been an excellently packaged piece. I got feedback from professional designers and the only compliment they had was, “It’s important to design according to the client’s needs, you did your job.”
“If a company is second rate, the logo will eventually be perceived as second rate. It is foolhardy to believe that a logo will do its job immediately, before an audience has been properly conditioned.”2 Branding and identity is a massive cluster in the business world and is also tied to UX design. In the digital world, looks and usability influence how the end user will interact with a brand. Point being, I would have invested in the future of my business, by hiring a copywriter, a brand/identity designer, a social media expert, a web designer (so I could migrate from a Bandcamp page to a full on website and shop) etc. As stated above, collaboration is extremely important in concerns to professional development of the self as well as a business. Like first impressions, the way your label is portrayed is also very important.
If you are passionate about music, art, design, business, accounting, collaborating, then feel free to throw your hat into the Bandcamp bustle. There is nothing wrong with passion projects. If you’re looking to make a living out of Bandcamp in 2022, it’s a good place to start, but there are many other avenues which will get you there quicker, with a lot less risk (specifically cost). Lastly, no label wants to be known as a: “Bandcamp label.” It’s like pigeonholing rappers into “Soundcloud rappers.”
1 Kolenda, Christopher. “2022 Prediction: Small Businesses will Fail at Historic Rates.” Kolenda Strategic Leaders Academy. https://strategicleadersacademy.com/2022-prediction-small-businesses-will-fail/. Accessed on May 31, 2022.
2 Rand, Paul. “Logos, Flags, and Escutcheons.” Paul Rand Design. https://www.paulrand.design/writing/articles/1991-logos-flags-and-escutcheons.html. Accessed on May 31, 2022.
Semicolon
The child’s mother would complain, about feeding him. Once he had started, he could not stop. If she tried pulling away, he would kick and scream and keep her up at night. She would usually surrender to his cries and feed him some more. After all, he was just a child.
The child had grown into a boy. His mother had passed away, so his father became his sole provider. They would squabble over the boy’s refusal to wake up on time for his studies. The boy would laugh and tell his father that studying was beneath him. The other boys and girls needed to attend school, but he claimed to know everything which was being taught. His father knew his son was deceiving himself, but overlooked it, for the sake of his late wife.
The boy was now a man. He had settled down with a partner who loved him and he told her he felt the same way. His father had chosen not to attend their wedding. The man’s partner gave him everything she could, but he was never completely satisfied. Eventually, he found a mistress, then another and another. His partner demanded that he stop, or else, she would leave.
The man had now become old. His sight had corroded to the point where his glasses were about as useful as his telephone. He lived with a dog, whom frequently ran away. His partner had remarried and started a family. He would repeatedly ask himself, “why does she get to be happy? I deserve happiness too.”