Sunday, 12 December 2004

Hammers, nails, and bias

Stephen Bainbridge is outraged (yes, outraged) to discover bias in an exam question on the presidency:

In a five-page, double spaced paper in a 12-point font, write a memo to President Bush on how to assure that in his second term he become known as a persident who unites rather than divides the American people. In your memo you should concentrate particularly on the models past presidents provide for success as uniters. You might also point out the mistakes made by past presidents that President Bush ought to avoid.

OR

Write a memo on the actions President George W. Bush ought to take in the first one hundred days of his second term to deliver on the promises he made during the election AND to build a strong legacy for his presidency overall.

In your essay you should be mindful of the following observations made by seasoned pundits David Gergen and William Schneider:

”[The Bush Administration] has already shown ominous signs of ‘group-think’ in its handling of Iraq and tha nation’s finances. By closing down dissent and centralizing power in a few hands, he is acting as if he truly believes that he and his team have a perfect track record, that they know best, and that they don’t need any infusion of new heavyweights. He has every right to take this course, but as he knows from his Bible, pride goeth before…” (David Gergen, “The Power of One,” The New York Times, Nov. 19, 2004).

“Rallying his conservative base paid off for Bush. But he did it by running on divisive social issues, such as same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, and a ban on late-term abortions. His strategy will make it harder to heal the painful divisions created by the 2004 campaign. Just wait for Bush’s first Supreme Court nomination.” (William Schneider, “Exploiting the Rifts, ” National Journal, Nov. 6, 2004).

“The post-election Times/CBS News poll asked whether, in the next four years, Bush’s presidency will bring Americans together or divide them. The results were closely divided but tilted toward pessimism: 48 percent said Bush will divide the country, while 40 percent predicted that he will bring America together. In other words, the country remains divided-even over whether Bush will continue to divide the country.” (William Schneider, “Divided We Stand,” National Journal, Dec. 4, 2004.)

Except for the problem that both options essentially ask the same question (which, er, makes the inclusion of this option pretty stupid—pick one and stick with it), I’m a bit at a loss as to how these questions demonstrate bias, although I suppose the Gergen and Schneider quotes might stack the deck a little. I am curious what examples of “uniters” the question’s author has in mind, though; I can’t think of any post-Washington examples of presidents who managed to please most people, although I suppose there were presidents who managed to unite vast majorities of people in opposition to them (Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon spring to mind).

6 comments:

Any views expressed in these comments are solely those of their authors; they do not reflect the views of the authors of Signifying Nothing, unless attributed to one of us.

The second question does look a bit loaded, but this is hardly shocking if it’s an exam in a class that has anything to do with politics. I don’t mind bias among professors—indeed, I think it’s unavoidable—and I don’t even really mind if they have an expectation that I come around to their way of thinking since I can pretend long enough to get an A.

Maybe I should feel outraged, I guess, but this sort of thing has been so commonplace for so long that it’s hard to muster any disbelief. Even with the deck stacked to one side of the political aisle, the party that should benefit from this hasn’t really benefitted that I can see. It doesn’t seem to be a particualrly effective strategy for winning elections, thus it’s hard to get worked up over it.

As for what it does for education, well, that’s another story, I suppose. That’s more bothersome, but I don’t see a solution in the near future.

 

Like you, I could understand the objection if the course was “Latin 101” or even “The Politics of the New Deal”... but such a question seems wholly in-bounds for a course in the American presidency.

IMHO the bias issue would really arise here if the instructor downgraded responses from students who (like I did) disagreed with the premise of the question or argued that, in fact, the president has advocated and enacted policies with popular support and will continue to do so. (For example, in our exit poll in Jackson, majorities of both black and white respondents overwhelmingly favored at least some use of private social security accounts… so a Bush privatization scheme is only divisive among elites, some of whom are singing a different tune in 2004 than they did when the Concord Coalition suggested private accounts a decade ago.)

 

I’m surprised about your polling data on SS and hope you’ll do a detailed post once you’ve finished analyzing the data.

 

Yeah, that’s a project I need to finish tonight… unfortunately the Redskins and Eagles aren’t cooperating with that.

 

I love your priorities!

 

Well, as Robert Tagorda would say, we need time for frivolities as well! ☺

 
Comments are now closed on this post.