On state firearms, feral animals, and "degrees to nowhere."

It's been awhile since i've posted here, but alas, the 2011 legislative session has begun and it was only a matter of time before our state legislative body proposed or did something that merited response. As usual, it didn't take long before some rather bufoonish legislation had garnered national attention for Utah. Rep. Wimmer pushing for a state firearm just weeks after the tragedy in Tucson showed a distinct lack of class or good taste. And Rep. Oda has followed suit by sponsoring HB 210 that would give Utahns the much needed ability to shoot any animal that we have a "reasonable belief" is feral. Great, if all goes well and these bills proceed through the legislative body i'll be able to acquire a Browning 1911 Offical State Handgun and lay waste to all the damn feral cats that come and defecate under my porch. Pet owners beware! Make sure to mark your pets well lest they be mowed down by a 2nd-amendment-celebrating neighbor who "mistakes" them for feral animals.

But it wasn't either of these bills that really spurred me out of my political correspondence hiatus. As tasteless as i consider Wimmer's bill, it was something far more specious that has prompted me to write. Recently a couple of state senators have begun to criticize liberal arts degrees as "degrees to nowhere" and have even advocated cutting english, philosophy, and other degrees that, in their opinion, don't contribute to a growing economy. Last week in a presentation to the Higher Education Appropriations Subcommittee, Sen. Howard Stephenson argued that the state is wasting billions of dollars on "degrees to nowhere" that do not prepare graduates to enter the workforce. Instead of funding degrees such as sociology, psychology, and philosophy, Stephenson argued we should be putting our money towards job training programs and "STEM" (science, technology, engineering, and math) programs. Although Stephenson said he supported the liberal arts and wanted students to be able to pursue a liberal arts education if they so desired, he consistently insisted that departments were "tricking" (his exact word) students into signing up for majors that would leave them unemployed after graduation. He suggested that higher ed is to blame for economic problems because of a misalignment between college degree programs and job vacancies (there are a lot of unemployed folks right now who i'm sure are really interested to know just where these job vacancies are). His solution: an "Economic Value Assessment" performed by IBM and set up as a web portal through which students can be tracked from an early age into an appropriate area of study. Other legislators and university officials, as reported by the Desnews and SLTrib, were quick to point out that the data does not support Stephenson's assertions.
Sen. Stuart Reid also called for a cut in liberal arts programs, suggesting that if the University of Utah was so cash-strapped in its STEM programs that it had to offer saturday chem labs, it should cut liberal arts programs in order to more adequately fund the STEM programs. In responding to President Young's comments to the committee Senator Reid argued that the U shouldn't be all things to all people and should drop liberal art programs so that resources can be allocated to STEM degrees. Reid went on to suggest to Pres. Young that the U is competing with itself by offering programs (i.e. the liberal arts) that won't get it to it's goals of national prominence in economic development.

Plenty has already been written and said about how a liberal arts degree actually prepares students for the work place. Plenty of information is readily available about how four-year college degree holders have much lower unemployment rates and much higher earning rates. But these responses only further validate the real problem here and why this particular avenue of thought about the purpose of education is so dangerous. Responding to critics of the liberal arts by suggesting that the liberal arts adequately prepares, and is some cases better prepares students for the workplace only perpetuates the notion that the primary purpose of an education is job training. And underlying this assumption is the notion that educational merit, and even more disturbing, the merit of a person, can only be measured in terms of economic value. The value of your education, and by extension you, is only as good as the amount of money you can generate for the economy after graduation. Of course this falls right in line with how we measure progress in most developed countries: the GDP. And although the GDP is a useful measure for overall economic growth, this economic growth does not necessarily correlate with happiness, satisfaction, strong families, and most certainly not with sustainability. To give an oft-cited example, a mother who pays to leave her child at a daycare then drives her car to a separate daycare where she works until she drives back to the first day care to pick up her child contributes far more to the GDP ( in terms of paying for her child's care, driving her car, and then taking an income for her work at a separate daycare) than the stay-at-home mother who spends her day with her child. Good for the GDP, not necessarily good for the child or family. Yet these are exactly the kind of means by which these legislators want to measure the value of our education; inasmuch as it can increase our overall economic development.
Sen. Stephenson emphasized that he supported the liberal arts, yet he wants to use an "Economic Value Assessment" to track students into the STEM programs so that they will be more employable after graduation. We, as students, teachers, educators, our being reduced to our "economic value." In such a system we are not valued for our creativity, passions, beauty, stories, differences, experiences, or any of the other things that make building relationships and human interactions so exciting and fulfilling. We are valued solely for what we can contribute to the GDP. This model is appalling and contrary to the human spirit. It is contradictory to the concept of democracy, though it certainly meets the needs of capitalism, but be assured the two are not necessarily synonymous. How does such a system help prepare us for participation in civic society? How does such a system prepare us to live and work and play in a pluralistic society? Because despite the best attempts of the xenophobes, we are becoming increasingly and increasingly pluralistic. How does such a system prepare us for the moral and ethical questions that accompany developments in sciences and technology? And most importantly how does it prepare us to live rich lives full of learning and engagement? Let me be clear, i do not believe that learning only happens in the university and a university degree is a requisite for a full life, but life-long learning and challenging oneself are critical to an engaged and rich life, and these should be the trademarks and foundation of a good liberal arts education.
Senators Stephenson and Reid walk dangerous ground when they reduce the value of education to it's ability to train workers for the labor force. Likewise those who defend the liberal arts by citing their economic value in the workplace compromise and disparage the true value of an education. Remember the adage, those who forget their history are bound to repeat it. We're far more likely to forget our history if our history programs are cut in favor of more profitable disciplines determined by the market. There is value to a liberal arts education that cannot be quantified in economic terms, and we're in big trouble if we fail to recognize that.

Raise the flag and load your weapons!!

Traditional protocol holds that if you're flying both the state and the U.S. flag, the U.S. flag flies higher and is usually larger. I wouldn't be surprised, however, to find some Utah state legislators flying the state flag above the federal flag at their own homes. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me, given some of the current rhetoric, if they stopped flying the stars and stripes altogether. A number of conservative legislators are running "message bills" this year with the explicit message that Utah is not beholden to the federal government. The SLTrib recently reported that Sen. Stephen Urquhart (R-St. George), commenting on one such bill, asserted that Utah is "sovereign and we take our sovereignty seriously."
Grandstanding of this type against the federal government is nothing new in Utah. Utah was at the center of the Sagebrush Rebellion during the 70s and 80s and has the ironic distinction of giving George W. his largest margin of victory in both the 2000 and 2004 elections, but then leading the charge against his No Child Left Behind education mandate. But this most recent revival of the tired old motif, especially when considered in light of much of the legislation proposed by those most loudly sounding the call, is worrisome and irresponsible on a whole new level. What did Urquhart mean by his claim that we are "sovereign and we take our sovereignty seriously"? Just an assertion of states' rights over federal rights or something more?
When considered in the context of the teaparty movement and the legislation being proposed by many of Urquhart's compatriots the latter doesn't seem so far fetched. Consider, for example, Texas Governor Rick Perry's addresses to tea party rallies in which supporters cheered, "secede!" as Perry ranted against federal spending. Is a similar sentiment growing in Utah?
While state legislators may not be pushing for all out secession from the Union (at least they haven't gone public with such an agenda yet), they are certainly fanning the flames. Senator Margaret Dayton wants to exempt firearms made in Utah from all federal regulations, including background checks. Representative Chris Herrod wants to use eminent domain to take over federal land, and Rep. Carl Wimmer has introduced a bill that would require legislative approval before the state abides by federal rules on health care. These are just three of a dozen or so bills being brought forward by conservative legislators with the specific intent of asserting state sovereignty as part of a concerted effort.
Before I move on, let me make it clear that i am not opposed to local control or local governance. I believe, as many conservatives do, that local officials are often in a better position to make decisions for their unique situations. I am, however, opposed to irresponsible legislating with significant potential negative repercussions simply for the sake of making a point, and the proposed bills being brought forward by Dayton, Wimmer, et al certainly fall under this category. Each of them will face significant constitutional challenges if passed into law, but that is the intended purpose.
Herrod and Dayton have both acknowledged that these bills are first and foremost designed to spark legal battles. Herrod, as reported by the Daily Herald, explicity stated his bill is "designed to be a court case." Dayton has likewise commented that she is not pushing her bill because of any specific problem with existing law, but rather as a challenge to the feds. And a challenge is certain, Montana is already in court over a similar law passed there last year. Dayton wants a fight. But at what cost?
As many of those opposed to these potentially unconstitutional assertions of sovereignty have rightly acknowledged these legal battles will cost money at a time when we don't have any. The worst recession since the Great Depression has done its damage to our state coffers and forced the legislators to cut funds from every source possible. On the same day Dayton's bill passed out of the Senate, the House passed out the public education base budget that represents 12-15% cuts and the next day a higher education base budget that represents 19% cuts moved forward. Sen. Buttars has even proposed doing away with the 12th grade and busing in order to save money and as the Deseret News reported, service agencies across the state are struggling to serve the disabled and other clientele.
Yet even in the face of these all these cuts and financial challenges, the state sovereignty advocates are out to pick a fight (or more accurately a number of fights) with the federal government. If Dayton, Wimmer, Herrod and their ilk were willing to foot the bill for their reckless behavior, i wouldn't have much of a problem with it, but don't kid yourself. It is you and I the taxpayers who will pay for their petty attempts to send a message, and in the current financial recession that is downright immoral and unacceptable, not to mention the public safety problem of removing background checks on those purchasing weapons.
But let's be clear, this is not really about states' rights or limited government. It that were the case, then by logical extension, such advocates of states' rights would also support the rights of local cities and municipalities to determine their own policy. On the contrary, ever since Salt Lake City passed it's anti-discrimination ordinance banning housing discrimination against same-sex couples, there have been threats and rumblings from conservative lawmakers about a state law to overturn this decision. Hypocrisy is in the air.
So don't be surprised if you see the Great Seal of the State of Utah superimposed on the confederate flag, sans stars and stripes, flapping in the wind on a flag pole in Utah County. The movement is afoot. There may be other reasons Dayton wants to make it easier to acquire firearms.