Logging on from the Boonies

Rural broadband in Virginia could stand some improvement.

Rural broadband in Virginia could stand some improvement.

by S.E. Warwick

Last December, the RUOnlineVA statewide, broadband-demand survey reported that “23 percent of respondents have no option for fixed internet access and 48 percent rely on technologies that are too slow or expensive to support critical applications.”

These statistics reflect conditions not only in rural southwest Virginia, but just a few miles from the affluent Short Pump area of Henrico County. Many Goochland County residents crawl along the information superhighway at horse and buggy speed, if they can get on at all.

The dearth of rural broadband hinders economic development and hobbles educational initiatives in much of Virginia. Goochland was recognized as an Apple Distinguished Program in 2015-2017 for its iPad initiative in elementary and middle schools. Yet students who live in areas without strong Internet connectivity cannot take full advantage of the program.

Former Goochland Superintendent of Schools, James Lane, who took the top job in Chesterfield last year, declared that the digital divide between students with ready access to broadband and those without may be the prime civil rights issue of the 21st century.

Home buyers and Richmond-based Realtors unfamiliar with Goochland assume, often to their regret, that the  county has broadband access. In some places, it is not available at any price.

Comcast is the only wired broadband provider with a significant presence in Goochland. It covers a small portion of the county’s approximately 289 square miles, mostly in the relatively densely populated eastern and central parts.

Those who have access to Comcast are grateful for its presence. Even though there is high demand for service, the company resists expansion, citing the high cost of running lines to widely separated homes. Over the past few years, several subdivisions located near existing cable infrastructure have ponied up considerable sums to bring Comcast into their neighborhoods. In other areas, Comcast runs the lines at its own expense. Why the company puts its own money into one and not the other remains a mystery.

Other Internet options in Goochland include satellite and Verizon wireless. These are expensive and less satisfactory than a wired connection. It is not unusual for a family to spend $200 per month or more for speeds and data limits do not let them fully utilize Internet offerings.

Manuel Alvarez, Jr., a member of the Goochland Board of Supervisors, ran for office in 2011 on a pledge to expand rural broadband. He recruited Goochlanders with information technology expertise to study the issue and make recommendations.

The results were disheartening. A preliminary estimate of laying fiber optic cable throughout the county came in at a whopping $14.2 million in 2012 dollars. Goochland supervisors have expressed little interest in spending tax dollars on Internet expansion or getting into the Internet business. They would prefer private-sector providers to fill the void.

Goochland County now encourages developers to exploit existing utility connections in the planning stages of new communities. It has offered space on existing towers and water tanks to wireless providers, but, so far has no takers.

Each year, Goochland asks its General Assembly delegation for help in rural broadband expansion.

A bill introduced this year, HB 2108, initially had the opposite intent. The Virginia Broadband Deployment Act protected major players by requiring upstart broadband providers to reveal the ingredients of any “secret sauce” proprietary technology they planned to use to fill the coverage gaps, a sure way to discourage competition. The final, diluted version of this legislation, which has passed both the House and Senate, addresses transparency in setting rates.

Alvarez was one of many local officials representing rural areas who objected to this bill. “If the cable companies want to expand business in Goochland nobody is stopping them,” he said. “In fact, I could not encourage them more. They should not keep others or the locality from leveraging infrastructure to connect more citizens.”

Goochland continues to investigate strategies for countywide broadband expansion. Given the challenges of settlement patterns, topography, and existing infrastructure, this will likely not be a “one size fits all” solution. Options under consideration include easing or eliminating regulation where possible; pursuing grant funding; and entering advantageous public/private partnerships.

Rapid changes in technology should let market forces, not arbitrary legislation, choose the “who and how” of broadband expansion going forward.

S.E. Warwick, a Goochland resident, publishes the “Goochland on My Mind” blog. For years, she has been the only journalist regularly covering Goochland board of supervisor meetings.

No Magical Solutions for Trump

Says Rep. Tom Cole, R-Oklahoma: Trump’s numbers don’t add up.

Someone in the national press corps is finally focusing on an issue less ephemeral than Donald Trump’s tweets: the fiscal disaster that looms if all of the president’s programs are enacted. Writes Rachel Blade and Josh Downey in Politico:

“I don’t think you can do infrastructure, raise defense spending, do a tax cut, keep Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security just as they are, and balance the budget. It’s just not possible,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a senior member of the House Budget Committee. “Sooner or later, they’re going to come to grips with it because the numbers force you to.”

Duh.

If designed properly, tax cuts could be stimulative, but it takes a leap of faith to think that faster economic growth would recoup all the lost revenue. Carefully designed deregulation of the healthcare, banking, telecommunications and energy sectors could promote growth as well, although not without some offsetting risks and costs. Even if economic growth does rebound, it will likely trigger inflation and the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates. There are no magical policy levers that will allow the U.S. to fulfill all of Trump’s promises without running up deficits and the national debt.

My hunch is that the GOPs in Congress can water down the more fiscally irresponsible of Trump’s plans but won’t stop them all. Trump will blame the resulting deficits on Obama, just as Obama blamed his deficits on Bush. Words won’t change anything. Boomergeddon is coming. The only question is when.

Three Land Use Trends to Watch

Construction booming in Tysons despite 17.5% office vacancy rate.

Three articles today may help us divine the future of residential and commercial development in Virginia:

Rebound of the exurbs? For many years, I was committed to the proposition that metropolitan development had reached a tipping point in which the forces favorable to urban re-development were stronger than the forces driving suburban sprawl. The exurbs — low-density tract development on the metropolitan fringe — seemed to be in full retreat as market preferences shifted toward walkable, mixed-use development in central cities and inner suburbs.

There still seems to be an unfulfilled demand for walkable urbanism, but I may have been to quick to write off the exurbs. Jonathan Fox, a principle at the Fox Group, argues in the Washington Post that median home prices in Washington’s inner suburbs flat-lined in 2016 while prices in outlying communities such as Marshall, Warrenton, Lorton and Middleburg have experienced double-digit increases in median home prices and strong gains in cost per square foot.

“As home prices and the cost of living continue to increase in Washington,” writes Fox by way of explanation, “there will be more demand for affordable housing which is often found in farther out regions of the counties.

My question for Fox: Is he focusing on real estate prices in the oases of small-town walkability in outlying communities — Warrenton, for instance, is highly walkable — or does his analysis include the surrounding tract development? If so, are walkable communities out-performing tract communities?

Tysons redevelopment is booming. But… The Tysons area may have a 17.5% office-vacancy rate, but re-development is going gangbusters. Traditional supply-and-demand logic does not seem to apply, says Gerald Gordon, president of the Fairfax County Economic Development Authority, as reported by Inside Nova.

Tysons tenants are engaged in a “flight to quality,” moving from older buildings to new ones with the latest amenities. “The new space is more expensive, but it sits right on top of a Metro station,” Gordon said.

But redevelopment away from the Metro stops may prove a challenge. “We’re going to have to work hard just to stay in place,” Gordon said. “When I first got here, office users were taking an average of 265 square feet per employee. Today, it’s anywhere between 80 and 140. So you have to bring in twice as many jobs to fill the same space.”

Moral: As employers figure out how to use less office space — more collaborative space, more mobile office technology, more “hoteling” — high commercial vacancy rates will continue to be an issue. There will be a lot of obsolete office space on the market.

Bifurcation of retail. Everyone knows that Amazon.com and other online retailers are gutting the traditional retail industry. But that doesn’t mean everything will be purchased online. People still like to shop as part of an entertainment or social experience. My wife’s cousin calls it “retail therapy.” A related phenomenon is what I call “girlfriend shopping” — shopping as a bonding experience. While Amazon.com makes shopping ridiculously easy, it’s not what you’d call an enjoyable experience.

Tom Goodwin, head of innovation for Zenith Media, argues in Bloomberg that physical retailers can create a competitive advantage that trumps price and convenience.

“Shopping is the world of adding experiences,” he writes. “It’s the interactive perfume lab in Selfridge’s, the selfie opportunities in Harvey Nichols, the Hardware club experiences in Harrod’s or the extravagant laboratories of Le Labo. Coffee shops seem to have learned this, it’s the unnecessarily long wait, the drama of the brew, the theatre of the leather bound menu in Intelligensia coffee.”

Market forces will push retailers in one of two directions — more frictionless, low-cost shopping online or more experience-rich shopping in the physical world.

Bacon’s bottom line: I don’t get the sense that local governments in Virginia have absorbed two important lessons. First, technology has rendered obsolete the space-intensive offices of yesteryear, and the demand for commercial space is shrinking. Old office parks will rapidly lose their market appeal. Counties will see their tax bases shrivel. Second, retail activity continues to move moving online, which is rendering shopping centers obsolete and redundant. Again, counties will see their tax bases shrivel.

The future belongs to those who can adapt. Office activity will shift to centers of walkable urbanism; access to mass transit is a major bonus (although, in an Uberized world, I’m not persuaded it is absolutely essential). Retail activity likely will do the same. When people want to enjoy shopping as an experience, they want to enjoy the experience outside the store as well. Strip shopping centers and aging malls don’t have much to offer.

Nobody knows where all this heading. (That includes your humble futurist and prognosticator). Things are changing too fast for planners and politicians to figure it out. How will self-driving cars alter the equation? How will Transportation-as-a-Service change the way think about where they live, work and play? There’s lots of speculation, but nobody knows. We won’t know until the market figures it out. The communities that prosper will be those that are the most flexible, adaptable and willing to experiment with new forms of transportation and land use.

University Research — Your Tuition Dollars at Work?

Bacon’s Rebellion reader “Izzo” pointed us to a National Science Foundation database that breaks down the R&D funding sources for U.S. universities. I have extracted the numbers for Virginia’s three leading research institutions — Virginia Tech, the University of Virginia, and Virginia Commonwealth University — and converted them to pie charts. The yellow segments show the percentage of university research dollars that comes from each institution’s own resources.

Funding university research.

Funding university research. Data source: National Science Foundation Academic Institution Profiles database.

In raw dollars, here’s how much money we’re talking about:

Virginia Tech — $219 million
UVa — $123 million
VCU — $52 million

While some of those institutionally originated R&D dollars may come from endowments, Izzo contends that much of it is supported by tuition revenue.

“Where does tuition money go?” he asks. “I think it is an open secret in academic circles that a lot of it goes to fund research and graduate studies. For instance, one might think all research comes from external sources, but that is certainly not the case. … For UVA, $123M of research was institutionally funded in 2015, or $5,600 per student per year. … The majority likely comes from tuition and fees, and specifically undergraduate tuition and fees. When students and families are paying tuition and going into debt to do it (and this debt is subsidized and guaranteed by the government), this is where a lot of it is going, and they don’t even know it.”

I don’t know who Izzo is, and I don’t know with what authority he (assuming Izzo is a he) speaks. But his statement that most institutional funding comes from tuition and fees, if true, warrants much closer examination. While students and their families surely would like to see state universities conduct more R&D, they might well rise in insurrection if they thought that they were personally subsidizing that R&D, without their knowledge and consent, to the tune of $5,000 a year.

I don’t know how one would go about ascertaining the level of R&D subsidy embedded in the tuition. I seriously doubt that the universities themselves know the number or have the analytical capacity to calculate it. But Izzo has raised a fundamental issue here.

Faculty “Cost per Enrolled Student” Varies Widely

Average pay for professors is one important determinant of the "cost per enrolled student."

Average pay for professors is one important determinant of the “cost per enrolled student.” Source: “Faculty Deployment in Research Universities.”

More fascinating data from “Faculty Deployment in Research Universities,” co-authored by University of Virginia economics professor Sarah Turner….

Best paid fields. A key finding of her research is that average faculty salaries vary widely from department to department, depending upon supply and demand considerations specific to each field. Disciplines in which Ph.D.s are employed outside of academia tend to fare better than those with more restricted options. Also, departments that generate outside research dollars pay more as universities engage in bidding wars to recruit star faculty.

Consequently, at UVa’s College of Arts & Sciences fields, computer science and economics professors tend to earn a lot more than English, history and philosophy professors. As a history major, I’m disappointed, but there’s no surprise here. We’re seeing market forces at work.

Cost per enrolled student. Turner and  co-author Paul N. Courant then calculated the faculty cost per enrolled student for each of ten departments. They saw two main variables at work here: (1) how much faculty members are paid, and (2) how many students they teach. As noted in the previous blog post, the more highly a professor is paid, the fewer students he or she is likely to teach.

I must confess that I have long thought that the “hard” sciences were more expensive to teach — their faculty were more likely to engage in research and teach less. But that’s not the case at all. A critical variable I had overlooked is how writing-intensive a course is. Fields like English, history and philosophy require a lot of discussion and writing, and the tasks of teaching and grading students are extremely time-intensive. By necessity, their class sizes are smaller.

By contrast, other disciplines have courses that better lend themselves to lecture-hall teaching, and their answers have more clear right/wrong answers that are easily graded. Faculty can teach larger classes without a diminution in quality.

Thus, we find that teaching English (the most expensive discipline) entails more than three times the faculty cost per student than computer science (the least expensive).

Bacon’s bottom line: It is ironic that it takes two economics professors to generate these numbers. This is precisely the kind of analysis that universities should be undertaking themselves — for every academic department. If we think of English degrees, philosophy degrees, chemistry degrees, computer-science degrees and the like as different product lines, universities should know exactly how much (1) each degree costs to deliver, (2) how much each degree generates in revenue, and (3) how much each degree generates in surplus revenue (or operating profit).

Now, I’m not saying that we should start cutting the English department just because it is “losing” money. Perhaps English writing and reading comprehension is a foundational skill that justifies maintaining writing & critical thinking courses regardless of cost. (There may be less justification for poetry, Medieval literature and post-modern literary criticism.) But when it comes to reallocating resources within a university, administrators and department heads should know at a minimum whether different departments and programs within those departments are money sinks or money generators.

Do universities ask these kinds of questions? Highly dubious. Turner and Courant would not have felt compelled to do their research had UVa and University of Michigan administrations conducted the analysis themselves. The lack of such analytical rigor and the ignorance of underlying costs, I would suggest, is a huge contributor to the rising cost of tuition. How is intelligent cost control even possible? When it comes to university administrations, ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance contributes to runaway tuition, student over-indebtedness and the degradation of living standards for an entire generation.

Steve Bannon: Richmond Boy Made Good… Er Bad

Steve Bannon

Steve Bannon

by Les Schreiber

Virginia has contributed much to the political growth of the United States: George Washington as leader of the Revolutionary Army and first president; Patrick Henry as fiery supporter of the Revolution; Thomas Jefferson as author of the Declaration of Independence and third president. More recently, Doug Wilder became the first African American to be the elected governor of a Southern state since Reconstruction.

Now, the most famous Virginian at the national level is Steve Bannon, a graduate of Benedictine High School and Virginia Tech. Some national publications have indicated that he has more influence with president Trump than even even the Veep. His role has been magnified by his elevation to the National Security Council, the  only political operative in U.S. history to be given such a distinction.

Bannon also is also an avowed anti-Semite. According to divorce papers filed in California vited by the New York Times, Bannon wanted to remove his children from the Archer School in Los Angeles because he thought there were too many Jews there and they were all “whiny brats.” According to this deposition, he was offended by a collection of books that explained the Jewish festival of Chanukah.

Bannon’s website Breitbart News referred to a conservative columnist as a Renegade Jew and in writing about famous investor George Soros that “Hell hath no fury” like that of a Polish American Jew when he senses that he has not received appropriate deference.

The Anti-Defamation League has written that Bannon, through the Bretibart website, has advanced ideologies that are antithetical to American values by including, ant-Semiticsm, misogyny, racism, and Islamaphobia.

The New York Times reported recently that in 2014, Bannon attended a conference of conservative clergy where he referred consistently to the writings of an obscure Italian philosopher, Julius Avola. Mussolini based his 1938 racial laws restricting the rights of Jews in Italy on Avola’s writings. The Times further reports that last March Bannon’s website, Breitbart, stated that Avila provided the foundations for the Alt Right movement that Bannon champions.

Bannon does not seem to be fit to hold so lofty a post in government.

Virginia’s Republican members of Congress such as Rep. Dave Brat must vocally disavow Bannon’s repulsive ideas and work to remove him from any role in the Republican Party. Their continued silence in the face of this information that they are morally and intellectually bankrupt. Their failure contaminates what true conservatism is about.

Faculty Productivity Paradox: Get Paid More, Teach Less

Faculty productivity paradox: The more professors are paid, the less they teach.

Faculty productivity paradox: The more professors are paid at UVa and the University of Michigan, the less they teach. Source: “Faculty Deployment in Research Universities. (“Click for larger image.)

Newly published research by Sarah Turner at the University of Virginia and Paul N. Courant at the University of Michigan sheds light on a critical factor driving the cost of attendance at public universities: faculty productivity.

Turner’s and Courant’s findings buttress a point we have made repeatedly on this blog: that higher-paid faculty members spend more time on research and teach fewer students than lesser-paid faculty members. Depending upon the academic department, a $50,000 increase in salary results in 5% to 30% fewer students taught (as seen in the chart above).

The analysis is restricted to tenure-track faculty. It does not compare the teaching loads to non-tenure-track “instructors” who get paid less and take on even heavier teaching loads than the professors.

Sarah E. Turner

In a paper recently published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, “Faculty Deployment in Research Universities,” Turner and Courant ask if faculty  members are deployed efficiently at research universities. They base their findings on an in-depth analysis of the University of Michigan and the University of Virginia, which are consistently ranked among the top public research universities in the country.

The authors conclude that UVa and Michigan are indeed “efficient” in the sense that they are economically rational in allocating faculty time and effort.

Tenure track faculty in research universities teach and they do research. Over the past several decades, the relative prices — in terms of wages paid to faculty — of those two activities have changed markedly. The price of research has gone up way more than the price of teaching. Salaries have risen more more in elite research institutions than in universities generally. …

Departments in research universities … must pay high salaries in order to employ research-productive faculty. These faculty, in turn, contribute most to the universities’ goals (which include teaching as well as research) by following their comparative advantage and teaching less, and also in teaching in ways that are complementary with research — notably graduate courses. The university pays these faculty well because they are especially good at research. It makes perfect sense that they would also have relatively low teaching loads (along with relatively higher research expectations) …

If we accept that the value placed on research in elite research universit[ies] is warranted, we conclude that the deployment of faculty is generally consistent with rational behavior on the part of those universities. Faculty salaries vary, for a variety of reasons, and the universities respond to that variation by economizing on the most expensive faculty….

Bacon’s bottom line. Note the caveat above: “If we accept that the value placed on research at elite research universities is warranted…” This goes to the heart of the debate over college affordability. UVa and other Virginia universities place an extremely high value on research. Why? Because the publication of research has an outsized effect on a university’s prestige, and the research dollars brought in enables departments to employ more faculty and graduate students, also markers of departmental prestige. By contrast, the cost of attendance is incidental to departmental interests.

Students and parents have a different perspective. While an institution’s prestige is clearly a factor in deciding where to attend college, the cost of attendance typically is a central concern as well.

In sum, universities can emphasize faculty productivity in research or in teaching. As the Turner/Courant data confirms, the system pays the most to the faculty members who teach the least. While the authors don’t go the extra step and say so, it seems clear to anyone outside of academe that undergraduate students are paying ever-higher tuition for the privilege of being taught increasingly by junior professors and instructors so tenured faculty can spend more time on writing and research.

Owens & Minor Goes for Millennials, Walkable City

Owens & Minor wants Millennials,and Millennials want 15-minute, livable communities. Graphic credit: Institute for the Future

Good economic news for the Richmond region: Medical supply giant Owens & Minor Inc. announced plans Thursday to open a client engagement center in downtown Richmond that will employ 500 people. Jobs will average about $53,700 in annual pay.

In making the announcement Governor Terry McAuliffe made much of the fact that Richmond competed against 60 other cities in a year-long search process. Less was made of the fact that Owens & Minor, which is located in the Mechanicsville suburb of Richmond, chose to locate in the central city rather than one of the region’s outlying counties.

The reason? “We want to attract the millennial generation,” CEO Cody Phipps told the Richmond Times-Dispatch. “We did our research. The millennial generation is going to be 50-plus percent of the workforce in the next few years, and they want to live in urban areas. They want to be downtown. They want to work in a state-of-the-art space. We like that we can draw from the universities around here.”

Owens & Minor will make Riverfront Plaza in downtown Richmond its newest home.

Owens & Minor will make Riverfront Plaza in downtown Richmond its newest home. Photo credit: Richmond Times-Dispatch

I don’t know who conducted Phipps’ research, but I know of one outfit in town that does specialize in generational marketing — The Institute for Tomorrow, which is affiliated with the Southeastern Institute of Research (SIR). (I worked for SIR about ten years ago.) Two days before Owens & Minor’s announcement, Managing Partner Matt Thornhill tweeted presciently, “Winning communities of tomorrow are 15-minute livable communities.”

By way of elaboration, he blogged about recent research conducted for the Virginia Secretary of Transportation. In a survey of 600 people around the U.S. who had just moved or were considering moving more than 100 miles, four out of five agreed with the statement, “Having access to stores, restaurants, and services close to my home (within about 15 minutes) is very important to me.” Almost as important was living withing a 15 minute commute of work.

It is often said that Millennials want to live “downtown” where it’s hip and cool and there are coffee shops and microbreweries. According to a recent Urban Land Institute study, though, only 37% of Millennial consider themselves to be a “city person,” wrote Thornhill; 36% classified themselves as “suburbanites” and 26% as “small town/country” people.

While there is nothing inevitable about Millennials wanting to live and work downtown, they are “hard-wired to be in community with each other,” Thornhill observed. “Thanks in part to doing school projects in teams from their middle school years onward, Millennials like to collaborate and trust in decisions made by the wisdom of the crowd. … They want neighborhoods where they can walk, bike, and use transit to get around.”

This community mindset, opined Thornhill, will drive the growth of “activity centers” of 15-minute livable communities. Activity centers don’t have to be in traditional cities (although most are).  “Builders, developers, urban planners, and government officials are now catching up to the changing preferences of consumers and looking for ways to in-fill activity centers across their metropolitan landscape.”

Thornhill stops his analysis there. But as I think about the Owens & Minor decision, it’s not clear that urban planners and government officials actually have gotten the message. While most of the City of Richmond fits the definition of a 15-minute walkable community, there are only flyspecks of walkability in neighboring Henrico and Chesterfield counties. In Henrico County the one area that potentially has the critical mass to compete with downtown Richmond, the Innsbrook Office Park, was rezoned for urban mixed use back in 2010. But re-development has stalled for more than six years due to inflexible application of the zoning code.

Absent a dramatic change of thinking and practice in the suburban counties, it looks like the future of the Richmond metropolitan region belongs to the city. Everything old is new again: Richmond possesses the key elements of walkability — moderate density, mixed uses, grid streets and timeless architecture — inherited from a past era of urban grandeur. The counties are stuck with suburban sprawl. Expect to see more headlines like Owen & Minor’s in the region’s future.

How Higher Ed Is Failing Faculty and Students

by Reed Fawell III

Higher education is corrupt. Each year the rot degrades the system’s ability to educate our kids. The problem is not criminal activity, malfeasance, or bad intentions. Rather, the system is losing focus on its core mission.

Last month I suggested on this blog that higher education needs a total overhaul, especially in elite undergraduate institutions. Here, and in posts to follow, I will explain why this overhaul is critically needed.

My intent is not to blame particular individuals, groups or institutions, but to highlight how a once-great system of elite higher education is failing its students and undermining all that it touches. The ramifications extend to students, parents, faculty and administrators, as well as the outside interests (public and private) that feed off the system or unduly influence it.

Even as the sector grows into a massive commercial enterprise accounting for an ever-larger share of the nation’s economy, the capacity of higher ed to fulfill its historic mission of educating undergraduate students is crumbling. Nowhere is the problem more evident than at the nation’s foremost colleges and universities once led the world in teaching liberal arts, sciences and humanities upon which Western Civilization depends.

While the threat is real, there are heroes in this story. A dwindling minority of students, faculty, and administrators fight the debilitating system every day. Too often, though, they labor at great cost to themselves and their careers. Their battles usually take place outside the public view. Yet more of them are going public, describing their struggles in books and articles. Even a few institutions are fighting the tide by focusing sharply on the mission to educating their students in an efficient, cost-effective way.

But we are losing ground overall. All too often the career and work of Col. John Boyd, a preeminent military strategist, theorist and educator in last decades of the 20th century, typifies how today’s real “educators” wage lonely, uphill battles. Boyd wrote how those caught in dysfunctional institutions are forced to do “counter productive work” instead of the real and transformation work. Higher education needs far more John Boyds. (See Robert Coram’s biography Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War.)

Each year teaching and learning get harder. Leadership failures and destructive cultural forces are overwhelming undergraduate programs at an alarming pace. Higher education inflicts pervasive, long-lasting, and often devastating harm upon many of its undergraduate students. As the corruption spreads into families and communities, it poisons everyone’s future. Elite institutions, which educate a disproportionate share of the nation’s leaders, can most do the most harm.

William Deresiewicz’s 2014 book, “Excellent Sheep, the Mis-education of the American Elite,” tells of “toxic levels of fear, anxiety, and depression, of emptiness and aimlessness and isolation” experienced by large and growing numbers of undergraduates at elite schools. He describes how undergraduates are too often the left overs from “stressed out, over-pressured high school student(s)” that elite institutions now demand.

The American Psychological Association summarized a recent survey under the headline The Crisis on Campus: “Nearly half of college students reported feelings of hopelessness while almost a third spoke of feeling “so depressed that it was difficult to function during the past twelve months.”

Excellent Sheep also reports that college counseling services are being overwhelmed. Nearly of half of students seeking help now suffer from “severe psychological problems,” triple the number two decades ago. A Stanford Provost who convened a task force on student mental health in 2006 wrote: “Increasingly we are seeing students struggling with mental health concerns ranging from depression, anxiety, eating disorders, self-mutilation behaviors, schizophrenia and suicidal behaviors.” A college president wrote: “We appear to have an epidemic of depression among young people.”

Many pathologies arise in high school among students striving to meet the admission requirements of elite colleges.  Many are overwhelmed when they get there. Many never recover. Said one student: “For many students, rising to the top means being consumed by the system.”

Why? Why is the mental, emotional, and physical health of so many of America’s elite students in apparent collapse? Why is this phenomenon so under-reported?

Professors and instructors tasked to mentor these undergraduates in college often suffer the same maladies as their students. Evidence mounts that today’s higher education system inflicts emotional, professional and financial harm, and related injustices, upon the tenured and non-tenured faculty teaching at America’s most prestigious institutions. Here, too, we find toxic levels of fear, anxiety, depression, emptiness, aimlessness and isolation, particularly among those most vulnerable: the graduate and post graduate instructors, non-tenured track professors, and younger professors seeking tenure.

When those who do the bulk of teaching and mentoring of undergraduate students experience undue stress, dysfunction, obsessive-compulsive behavior, hysteria, and depression, something is terribly wrong. The next few articles will delve into the central drivers of this dysfunction within America’s elite educational system and how they combine with cultural forces to threaten to collapse not only our elite undergraduate education but our society that depends on well educated citizens.

Corey Stewart Defines Himself through the Fights He Picks

Corey Stewart (left) appeared last week with Jason Kessler, a conservative blogger-activist, after Kessler petitioned to remove the vice mayor of Charlottesville, Wes Bellamy, from office.

Corey Stewart (left) appeared last week with Jason Kessler, a conservative blogger-activist, after Kessler petitioned to remove the vice mayor of Charlottesville, Wes Bellamy, from office. Photo credit: Richmond Times-Dispatch.

I met Corey Stewart, Republican candidate for governor, for the first time last night and interviewed him outside a public hearing about coal ash disposal. The Prince William County board chairman came across as a genial guy. But he’s not one to run away from a fight. Indeed, he’s more likely to be the first one to charge into the fray.

With Ed Gillespie as the perceived front-runner in the Republican race, Stewart evidently has decided that the best way to get attention and define himself as a tribune of the people is to pick the right fights. That strategy certainly was on display last night when he lambasted Dominion Virginia Power to the cheers of many in the audience for its closure-in-place proposal for dealing with coal ash at its Possum Point Power Station.

“Dominion has been less than honest with Prince William County,” Stewart said. Then, referring to a series of local controversies over the impact of coal ash on surface and ground water, he said, “Dominion lies. You have to be very skeptical of what they tell you.”

I wasn’t paying attention to Virginia politics in 1973 when Democratic candidate Henry Howell took on Dominion’s predecessor company, vowing to “keep the big boys honest.” But I can’t imagine that he was any more blunt in his denunciation. The issue back then was electric rates, not the environment, but Howell nearly rode the slogan to victory.

Stewart is best known for his hard line approach to illegal immigration. His campaign website boasts that under his leadership, Prince William County turned over 7,500 criminal illegal aliens for deportation. He says he will work “side-by-side with the Trump administration” to oppose amnesty and sanctuary cities in Virginia.

Along similar lines, he has aligned himself with a far-right group in Charlottesville to protest, among other things, City Council’s decision to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee from the public square. Mobbed last week by counter-protesters who drowned out his words, Stewart reportedly handled himself with aplomb. But his views seem pitched to the same kind of disaffected white working- and middle-class voters who voted for Donald Trump, for whom he acted as Virginia campaign chairman. Just wait until next week, he told me. He’ll be back in Charlottesville.

Stewart also joined conservative activist-blogger Jason Kessler in calling for the removal of Charlottesville Vice Mayor Wes Bellamy from office. Bellamy had posted misogynistic, homophobic and anti-white comments on Twitter before his election to Charlottesville City Council in 2015.

I asked Stewart to elaborate upon his view of Dominion. He said it’s wrong for a monopoly utility to insert itself so deeply into the political and regulatory process. “This is what happens when every member of the General Assembly is taking thousands of dollars from Dominion. DEQ (the Department of Environmental Quality) rubber-stamps every thing Dominion wants.”

If he becomes governor, Stewart said, “Heads are going to roll” — starting with the chief of DEQ, David Paylor. Then, alluding to Denver Riggleman, one of his three Republican rivals for the governorship who also has campaigned against Dominion, he quipped, “I’ll put Riggleman in there.”