Category: Uncategorized

Kahlenberg for The Wall Street Journal: The Merits of ‘Economic Affirmative Action’

Posted on by Max Sherrill

While most Americans applaud the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision striking down racial preferences in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, they also support affirmative action for economically disadvantaged students of all races. Jason Riley’s column “‘Economic Affirmative Action’ Won’t Work” (Upward Mobility, April 23), however, raises a legitimate question: Would affirmative action for working-class students—an approach I encourage in my new book “Class Matters”—lead to academic “mismatch” for underprepared students and violate principles of merit?

In its defense of racial preferences in the litigation, Harvard also claimed that economic affirmative action was an unworkable alternative because it would reduce standards. But simulations that Duke University economist Peter Arcidiacono and I conducted as expert witnesses for Students for Fair Admissions showed that the mean SAT of students admitted through economic affirmative action at Harvard would be at the 98th percentile. As Justice Neil Gorsuch noted in his concurring opinion, class-based affirmative action “would barely affect the academic credentials of each incoming class.”

Moreover, most fair-minded people recognize that in assessing a student’s potential, it would be absurd to ignore whether a 1400 SAT score was achieved by a pupil who attended poorly funded schools and worked two jobs after school to help his family make ends meet or by one who had been given everything in life. Considering academic achievement in light of hurdles surmounted is the best measure of true merit.

Read his letter to the editor in The Wall Street Journal.

Manno for Philanthropy Daily: Mapping Pathways to Economic Opportunity: A Guide for Donors

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Recent economic volatility has prompted speculation on Americans’ financial futures and job prospects. But whether we are entering a recession or a new era of “onshoring” jobs, one fact remains: individuals need practical pathways to good jobs and upward mobility. What kind of job opportunities do young people and workers say they want? And what kind of employment opportunities exist?

Any donor investing in the long-term economic well-being of Americans must answer these two questions. In this article, I explain the current situation among the young and employable and describe five ways of thinking about career pathway navigation.

Keep reading in Philanthropy Daily.

Marshall for The Hill: Flailing Democrats Need to Build Coalitions, Not Primary Their Own Members

Posted on by Max Sherrill

These are anxious times for our country. We are assailed hourly by a belligerent president who treats America’s laws, courts and civil liberties with utter contempt and imagines he can rule a free people by royal decree.

Are Democrats fighting hard enough against President Trump’s malicious policies and rampant abuses of power? Progressive activists say no, and they’re even threatening to unseat Democrats they claim are afraid to mix it up.

This is asinine — a return to the politics of subtraction that has locked the party out of power, effectively disarming it in the struggle with a rogue president.

The party’s left turn in reaction to Trump’s rise since 2016 has been a fiasco. It’s identified Democrats with soaring prices and living costs, sclerotic federal bureaucracies that can’t get things done, unrestricted illegal immigration, permissive attitudes toward crime and an illiberal politics of race and gender essentialism.

That has left the Democratic brand badly tarnished. Only 27 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the party.

Keep reading in The Hill.

Kahlenberg for Inside Philanthropy: Class Matters Most: So Why Do Foundations Focus More on Race?

Posted on by Alex Terr

In the past few weeks, we’ve seen the nation’s richest institution of higher education, Harvard University, and the nation’s wealthiest philanthropy, the Gates Foundation, have their status as tax-exempt organizations questioned. President Donald Trump threatened to remove Harvard’s IRS exemption over a larger struggle with the university, while a conservative group, the American Alliance for Equal Rights, led by Edward Blum, filed a complaint with the IRS against the Gates Foundation for a minority-focused scholarship program.

A casual observer might see these disputes as part of a larger pattern of unwarranted right-wing political attacks on the nonprofit sector. But the two cases are, in fact, worlds apart.

Trump’s threats aimed at Harvard’s exempt status are part of a bigger war on universities in which the administration has bypassed due process rules and sought to micromanage private colleges. For example, in its letter, the administration called on Harvard to create a “critical mass” of conservatives on campus. Harvard, though flawed in many ways, refused, and it has been widely lauded for standing up to a bully. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which has been appropriately critical of the university’s lax attitude toward antisemitism, defended Harvard’s academic freedom.

Read more in Inside Philanthropy.

Kahlenberg for Slate: I Wrote the Book on Charter Schools. This Supreme Court Case Could Inadvertently Destroy Them.

Posted on by Alex Terr

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court is slated to consider a case that one education journal said could yield “the most significant legal decision to affect schooling in decades.” The justices will decide whether the religious liberty clause of the First Amendment requires the state of Oklahoma to fund the nation’s first religious charter school.

The central problem is that the educational institution in question, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, is not designed to promote liberal democratic values or e pluribus unum in a nation that desperately needs both. Instead, the school says its “ultimate goal” is “eternal salvation.” That is surely a valid objective for people who are members of the Roman Catholic Church. But it is not clear why Americans who adhere to other religious traditions, or to no religion at all, should be compelled to support the school.

Read more in Slate.

Marshall in The New York Times: How Four Democrats Who Saved the Party Before Would Do It Again

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

Patrick Healy, the deputy Opinion editor, hosted an online conversation about the future of the Democratic Party with four veteran strategists and reformers who spearheaded the New Democrat movement that helped elect Bill Clinton to the presidency in 1992.

Will Marshall: Everything was mediated through the desires and demands of 100 worthy interest groups. What we said was: Look, we were not winning these elections for a reason. So the first thing is to let the public know you’ve heard their message. Then: What are the new ideas?

Marshall: We got a lot of mileage out of just the simple idea that there was a brain-dead politics of left and right that we had to get beyond, and that we needed generational change. Something fresh. Ending welfare as we know it. National service. Public school choice. Reinventing government. All that generated energy and excitement, and it helped that we had a next-generation team with Clinton and Al Gore. To redefine a failing party you need to capture imagination, and it’s got to be with a new offer, and it’s got to be with creative ideas.

Marshall: Through four years of President Joe Biden, we spoke to white college graduates incessantly on almost every dimension: economic, cultural, foreign policy. We stopped talking to the 62 percent of the electorate that doesn’t have a college degree. I think this is the hardest cultural challenge for the party right now. We don’t know how to address their economic aspirations in a way that doesn’t sort of throw government benefits at them. We’re terrified if we do we’ll somehow be crossing the line, becoming racist or nativist or xenophobic. We are now in this class configuration that was mercilessly revealed by this election. We have lost the knack of hearing, listening, going to working-class people and speaking the language that they understand. So you see the party retracting geographically, demographically. We’re a shrunken party now.

Read the entire conversation in The New York Times. 

Moss in Bloomberg Law: Live Nation’s Legal Pressure Grows as Private, DOJ Suits Advance

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Both lawsuits accuse Live Nation of monopolistic practices that locked venues into long-term exclusive contracts and spiked ticket prices.

“The pressure is on,” said Diana Moss, vice president and director of competition policy at the Progressive Policy Institute. “Live Nation is now juggling a private case, a very strong federal-state case, and will have their hands full litigating on all fronts.”

Read more in Bloomberg Law.

Senate to vote next week on ‘terminating’ Trump tariffs

Posted on by Max Sherrill

FACT: Senate to vote next week on ‘terminating’ Trump tariffs.

THE NUMBERS:  IMF World Economic Outlook forecast changes from January 2025 to April 2025 –

World growth projection -0.5% lower
U.S. growth projection -0.9% lower
World inflation projection 0.4% higher
U.S. inflation projection 1.0% higher

WHAT THEY MEAN:

As the Senate prepares to vote next week on a resolution from Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Finance Committee Ranking Member) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) terminating the Trump administration’s April 2 tariff decree, here’s a sad Friday bulletin from Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley News:

“Mack Trucks will lay off 250 to 350 workers at its Macungie-area facility, the company confirmed Friday. The job reductions will occur over the next three months in part because of market uncertainty and the impact of tariffs, the truck maker said in a prepared statement. ‘Heavy-duty truck orders continue to be negatively affected by market uncertainty about freight rates and demand, possible regulatory changes, and the impact of tariffs,’ company spokeswoman Kimberly Pupillo said.”

Pulling back for a broader view, the International Monetary Fund’s new World Economic Outlook — out yesterday morning — drops the Fund’s January optimism about a “growing and normalizing” global economy for a year of uncertainty, slowed growth, and rising inflation. Samples:

“In the United States, consumer, business, and investor sentiment was optimistic at the beginning of the year but has recently shifted to a notably more pessimistic stance as uncertainty has taken hold and new tariffs have been announced. In labor markets, hiring has slowed in many countries, and layoffs have risen. Meanwhile, progress on disinflation has mostly stalled, and inflation has edged upward in some cases.”
…
“[G]lobal growth is … lower than the projections in the January 2025 WEO Update, by 0.5 percentage points.  … U.S. growth is projected to decrease in 2025 to 1.8 percent, 1 percentage point lower than the rate for 2024 as well as 0.9 percentage points lower than the forecast rate in January. The downward revision is a result of greater policy uncertainty, trade tensions, and a softer demand outlook, given slower-than-anticipated consumption growth. Tariffs are also expected to weigh on growth in 2026.
…
“For advanced economies, the inflation forecast for 2025 has been revised upward by 0.4 percentage points since January, [and] the US forecast by 1.0 percentage point. For the United States, this reflects stubborn price dynamics in the services sector as well as a recent uptick in the growth of the price of core goods (excluding food and energy) and the supply shock from recent tariffs.”

Put concisely, on the IMF’s “macro” scale, Mr. Trump’s tariff decrees have cut $300 billion of U.S. growth this year, raised U.S. inflation by a point, and damaged financial markets. The contraction of Pennsylvania’s Mack Truck operation is a local and personal example of all this, and it’s far from rare. Some more scenes from the past week: Minnesota manufacturers canceling expansion plans; Tennessee Asian restaurants, North Carolina craft brewers and Arizona auto dealerships facing sudden price spikes and loss of customers; Indiana landscapers seeing “fear in the market” and orders put on hold; Texas’ natural gas exporters grappling simultaneously with falling gas prices, higher port construction costs, and potential retaliations; and (seen through the eyes of Merced Rep. Adam Gray) California’s Central Valley farmers worrying about looming foreign retaliations against their $24 billion in exports of almonds, wine, vegetables, and other crops.

What might be done? Congress, not presidents, has Constitutional power over tariff rates and can stop the bleeding whenever it chooses. An inflection point will come next week as Sens. Wyden and Paul, having successfully gotten the Senate to pass one resolution in March to terminate the February Canada/Mexico/China “emergency” decree, now propose a second. This Joint Resolution would void the full April 2 decree, including its worldwide 10% tariff, its 125% tariff on Chinese-made goods, and its (temporarily suspended but not canceled) “reciprocal” tariffs of up to 50% on 57 countries. Their concise 72-word bill reads as follows:

“Joint Resolution terminating the national emergency declared to impose global tariffs.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

“That pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622), the national emergency declared on April 2, 2025, by the President in Executive Order 14257 (90 Fed. Reg. 15041) is terminated effective on the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.”

Senate passage of course is only one step. In their offices on the Capitol Building’s south end, Republican House leaders have spent the spring devising exotic procedural devices to avoid a vote on tariffs.  It’s worked so far, but their passivity, is not consensus. Trade Subcommittee Ranking Member Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) leads all 19 House Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee (the one responsible for tariff policy) in a Resolution to void both February’s Canada/Mexico/China decree and the April 2 decree. And Constitution-friendly Republican Rep. Don Bacon from Nebraska offers another to require Congressional approval for any future “emergency” or “national security” tariffs.

Looking ahead to next week’s first step, a lot of harm is already done. And whether in the IMF’s “global economy” view, or the Lehigh Valley News’ “neighborhoods and communities” perspective, it is metastasizing daily. The sooner Congress reclaims its authority and restores Constitutionally legitimate policymaking, the less the harm will spread, and the more quickly the U.S. and the world alike will heal.

FURTHER READING

PPI’s four principles for response to tariffs and economic isolationism:

  • Defend the Constitution and oppose rule by decree;
  • Connect tariff policy to growth, work, prices and family budgets, and living standards;
  • Stand by America’s neighbors and allies;
  • Offer a positive alternative.

The Constitution and its friends: 

U.S. Constitution text, from the National Archives. See Article I, Section 8, first clause, for “Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises.”

Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) propose terminating the April 2 “emergency” declaration.

Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) and House Ways and Means Democrats propose terminating both the April 2 global and February 1 Canada/Mexico/China “emergency” decrees, and require any future “emergency” and “national security” tariffs to get Congressional approval.

And Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) with Foreign Relations Ranking Member Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.), Jeff Hurd (R-Colo.), and Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) with a look-ahead bill to require a Congressional vote on any future tariff imposition.

Real-world perspectives: 

The Lehigh Valley News on layoffs at Mack Truck.

… and State Rep. Josh Siegel appeals for Congressional delegation help.

Rep. Adam Gray (D-Calif.) on tariffs, retaliations, and the dent they’re putting in Central Valley farm exports and rural income.

Tennessee’s Asian restaurants and North Carolina’s craft brewers grapple with price shocks and lost business.

Arizona auto dealers and Indiana landscapers ponder falling sales, while Texas’ LNG exporters watch prices drop while infrastructure costs rise.

And economic analysis:

A gloomy look around the world from IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva.

And former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers (video, via the Peterson Institute for International Economics), explains the fallacies of Trump administration tariffs and their likely effects at home.

For more detail, the IMF’s April World Economic Outlook has growth, inflation, and other projections, and analysis of tariff shocks, business uncertainty, and their likely impacts.

… and as a comparison, its happier late-January Outlook update, with our justifiably apprehensive comment at the time.

ABOUT ED

Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.

Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.

Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank ProgressiveEconomy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.

Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007). He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.

Read the full email and sign up for the Trade Fact of the Week.

Ainsley and Mattinson for The New European: How Populism Gives Youth Wings

Posted on by Alex Terr

As Europe reels from the sudden gear shifts of the US government, it is tempting to see Donald Trump as an outlier, isolated in his endeavour to reshape the world order. But while Trump’s tariffs agenda has mixed support even among Americans, its radicalism has been enabled by a restlessness and yearning for change that is clearly present in Europe, too.

Many progressives took heart from the victory of Labour and Keir Starmer – for whom we have both worked – last July. There was some relief, too, at the election of Freidrich Merz’s CDU in Germany, which might have beaten the Social Democrats but at least denied success to the far right AfD and its troubling political agenda. Yet restlessness with “politics as usual” – seen to be offering the same tired answers – is gaining pace rather than abating.

Voter research that we conducted immediately after Germany’s election, for a project on behalf of the US-based Progressive Policy Institute, offered few crumbs of comfort. We asked voters who had previously supported Olaf Scholz’s Social Democrats why they had changed their vote. The answers sounded familiar to us from our campaigns for Labour in the UK, and echoed views we had heard in the US battleground states after the US election last autumn.

Read more in The New European.

Ainsley for The Spectator’s Coffee House Shots Podcast: St George’s Day: Who is the Most Patriotic Leader?

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Happy St George’s Day! To celebrate, we thought we would discuss who is the most patriotic political leader — and why some struggle to communicate their love of country.

Keir Starmer declared in an interview with the Mirror this morning that Labour is ‘the patriotic party’. This follows a more concerted effort from those within the party to become more comfortable with the flag. But is Keir Starmer actually a patriot? How will the ‘battle of the Union Jack’ play out at the local elections? And does Reform have a point to prove when it comes to patriotism?

Oscar Edmondson speaks to James Heale and Claire Ainsley, former executive director of policy for the Labour party, now at the Progressive Policy Institute.

Listen here.

BEAMing Into BEAD: LEO Satellite Constellations and Their Role in Closing the Digital Divide

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

INTRODUCTION

As modern life becomes increasingly reliant on access to the Internet, closing the digital divide is crucial to addressing economic inequality. The digital divide refers to the gap between those who have access to the Internet and those who do not. Increasingly, that divide severely limits economic opportunities for people in rural areas, resulting in many feeling left behind by today’s economy.

Recognizing this, Congress created the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which was signed into law in late 2021. IIJA authorized over $42 billion to connect all Americans to the internet and promote the adoption of this technology. The Biden Administration acted quickly to establish a notice of funding opportunity, which went out in May 2022.

Unfortunately, due to the extensive bureaucracy and unrelated criteria instituted around the program, not a single American has been connected via the BEAD program for broadband access nearly four years after Congress passed legislation directing the program to be established. For instance, companies participating in the program must meet a host of labor and climate resiliency requirements despite those requirements having no direct benefit to the goal of the program: closing the digital divide. This has opened debate around how to get Americans connected faster.

Congressional Republicans and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick have pushed for a variety of reforms for the program. This paper will focus on examining the debate around one key fix: making LEO satellite broadband an option for states to include in their plans without the roadblocks that are currently in place.

Democrats — along with some Republicans in the Senate — have pushed back on the idea of modifying the BEAD program in light of where states are in the process of finalizing their implementation plans and with concerns that further opening the program to LEO satellite broadband equates to a giveaway to special government employee and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk.

These issues are valid, and any modification to the program needs to be done with an eye towards mitigating any delays resulting from requirement changes, ensuring states retain the flexibility to select the technologies that are the best fits for given areas, and maintaining competition within the nascent LEO satellite broadband market. However, appropriately addressing these items and further inclusion of LEO satellite broadband in the program are not mutually exclusive.

Read the full piece here.

Rachel Canter Joins PPI’s Reinventing America’s Schools Project as Director of Education Policy

Posted on by Alex Terr

WASHINGTON — The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is proud to announce that Rachel Canter is joining PPI as Director of Education Policy for the Reinventing America’s Schools (RAS) Project.

Canter joins PPI after more than 16 years as the founder and executive director of Mississippi First, where she built a reputation as one of the most effective education reformers in the country. She brings a sharp focus on evidence-based policy, equity, and innovation — qualities that make her an ideal fit to lead PPI’s education policy initiatives at a national level.

In her new role, Rachel Canter will help chart a bold course for reclaiming America’s public schools as engines of opportunity, citizenship, and upward mobility. At a time when public confidence in K-12 education is faltering — and when neither political party offers a compelling vision for its future — Canter will help fill the policy vacuum with pragmatic, student-centered solutions that work. Her leadership will focus on restoring academic rigor, expanding high-quality public school options, and advancing policies rooted in evidence, not ideology. By working across sectors and with leaders at every level, she aims to help rebuild public education around a new compact with families — one that delivers on the promise of literacy, readiness, civic identity, and a future filled with possibility.

“Rachel Canter has a rare combination of deep policy expertise, practical experience, and a passion for expanding opportunity,” said Will Marshall, President of the Progressive Policy Institute. “We are thrilled to have her leading our education policy work, and we’re confident she’ll help shape the next generation of school reform with vision and urgency.”

Canter joins Curtis Valentine, Director of the Future Learning Network at PPI, in leading the RAS Project. While Valentine focuses on grassroots and grassroots advocacy, coalition-building, and political engagement, Canter will provide the policy infrastructure that underpins those efforts. Together, their complementary roles — one centered on policy development, the other on stakeholder mobilization — reflect a coordinated approach to changing how public education works for students and families.

“I’ve spent my career developing and advocating education policies that expand access, elevate quality, and center students — especially those too often left behind,” said Canter. “I’m honored to bring that work to PPI and help drive an education agenda that’s both visionary and grounded in what works. We have a tremendous opportunity to make lasting change.”

The Reinventing America’s Schools Project inspires a 21st-century model of public education geared to the knowledge economy. Two models, public charter schools and public innovation schools, are showing the way by providing autonomy for schools, accountability for results, and parental choice among schools tailored to the diverse learning styles of children.

Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us @PPI.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

How Democrats Can Rebuild Trust on National Security: Five Big Ideas to Start

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

In just about three months in office, the Trump administration has inflicted grievous damage on American national security. From threats to the sovereignty and independence of America’s closest allies to launching an unprovoked global trade war and politically motivated purges of the Pentagon, Trump has left America much weaker, far lonelier in the world, and deeply insecure than at any point in living memory. And matters will only grow worse over the course of Trump’s next three-plus years in office.

Democrats will need to go big and bold to even begin to repair this damage. Here are five ideas on national security that can help Democrats to do just that:

  1. A 350-ship Navy in ten years and a 250-strong bomber force as soon as possible as the core of a strong national defense.
  2. Rebuild the non-defense foundations of national power.
  3. Lift all of Trump’s tariffs, recommit to free trade, and pursue strategic economic cooperation with America’s allies.
  4. Double down on America’s alliances in Europe and Asia.
  5. Fully commit to a free, sovereign, and independent Ukraine.

Read the full piece. 

Kahlenberg for The Chronicle of Higher Education: Higher Ed Brought This on Itself

Posted on by Alex Terr

Academe is right to be alarmed by President Trump’s attacks on colleges and academic freedom. His administration appears to be acting in bad faith, motivated by a desire to punish political enemies and weaken the sector’s independence. The attempt to micromanage Harvard University’s viewpoint diversity is particularly alarming. Trump’s dangerous approach comes straight out of the authoritarian playbook of leaders like Viktor Orbán. It should be — and has been — roundly denounced.

But to end the discussion there misses the other half of the story: It is not simply rotten luck that landed higher education in this position. And so academic leaders must take this moment to look in the mirror. The truth is that, for decades, elite higher education has been starkly out of step with the public. At top liberal-arts colleges, one study found, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 48 to one among English-department faculty members, and 17 to one among philosophy, history, and psychology professors. While college leaders tirelessly championed diversity by race and gender, they tolerated, and sometimes abetted, an ideological monoculture.

Some academics wore this political disconnect as a badge of honor, a sign that higher ed’s leaders, faculty, and students were more enlightened than a benighted American public. And for years, they got away with it. But in our system, where even private colleges rely on enormous public subsidies, that was a dangerous game to play. Many large universities receive at least a quarter of their operating budgets from the federal government, and it was only a matter of time until we encountered an administration that sought to leverage that dependency to exact changes.

On one high-profile issue that the administration and conservative critics see as an easy target — the use of racial preferences in college admissions — elite colleges have been stunningly out of touch. And predictably, countermeasures have begun: The Department of Justice is already investigating admissions at Stanford University and the University of California’s Berkeley, Irvine, and Los Angeles campuses.

I’ve been writing about admissions for more than three decades, and over that time I’ve visited dozens of campuses. I frequently ask audience members to raise their hands if they oppose racial preferences. Very few hands go up. Often none do. When I next cite Pew Research polling showing that 74 percent of Americans, including a majority of people of color, oppose the consideration of race, my audiences seem surprised.

Maybe the American public is cold-hearted and doesn’t care about racial justice the way right-thinking people in elite colleges do? The polls contradict that as well: Americans support racial diversity, they just don’t think racial preferences are the right way to accomplish that goal. Instead, Americans support, by a substantial margin, colleges giving a break to economically disadvantaged students of all races, a disproportionate share of whom are Black and Hispanic.

This approach does not ignore America’s history of racial oppression. It is precisely because of that history that Black and Hispanic Americans are more likely to find themselves in America’s lower socioeconomic brackets. Moreover, as I argue in my new book, Class Matters, the strong political support for economic rather than racial affirmative action makes sense given profound changes in American society over the past half century or more.

Read more in Inside Higher Ed.

Manno for Forbes: Workplace Career Guidance And Mentorship: Education And Gender Matter

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Work is not only about the economic exchange that comes from earning a living. Work also involves social exchange. It is a place where we earn a living and make connections with other people. These connections nurture social capital, the relationships we need to work, live life, and reach our potential.

The American Perspectives Survey of over 5,000 U.S. adults conducted by the Survey Center on American Life is filled with insights into workplace social capital. It includes a discussion of the workplace career guidance and mentorship workers receive. It also describes the different workplace experiences and social relationships that exist between those with and without college degrees and between males and females.

Understanding education and gender differences in developing workplace social capital is important because it helps us understand social wealth and social poverty in the workplace and beyond. This awareness also should lead us to ensure that K-12 students receive career education and mentorship experiences before they graduate from high school. These K-12 experiences prepare students to take advantage of the job opportunities they will have for career guidance and mentorships that nurture workplace social capital.

Keep reading in Forbes.