Is Washington and Lee Committing Suicide?

by Kenneth G. Everett

One of my ’64 classmates, and a good friend throughout our four years at Washington and Lee University, grew up in a Chicago suburb and graduated from a top high school there. Once during an idle moment while we were studying for a Charlie Turner exam in European history, I asked him why he, a big-city Illinois boy, chose to attend a small southern college like W&L. He answered, “Because my dad thought it was a good conservative school.”

Indeed, W&L was “a good conservative school” back then — and one in the best and most authentic sense, despite some faults it has long since shed. Long gone are such perishable appendages to W&L’s conservatism as “conventional dress” (the requirement to wear a coat and tie to class and in public), the all-male student body, and the racial segregation that still lingered at the school in those days and was associated with the conservative element of society.

But for a long time thereafter, the more fundamental, rightly imperishable portion of W&L’s conservatism remained intact: the rigorous Honor System, the code of personal honor and gentlemanly conduct, the correspondingly pervasive ambience of civility and respect of persons, along with instructional and curricular adherence to the enduring truths bequeathed to us by Western Thought and Tradition.

Those imperishables were deeply rooted in W&L’s long history, ingrained in its traditions, and illumined by the inspiring examples of the lives and characters of our venerated namesakes, George Washington and Robert E. Lee. I think no one during my W&L years could have imagined that these W&L values and traditions, so fundamental to civilization itself, would ever come under full assault by educated people.

But it has happened before our very eyes — in a savage fashion and at a pace that shocks the sensibilities. The woke administration and faculty now firmly ensconced at W&L have taken this place that was like no other and transmogrified it into a place hardly recognizable. I need not enumerate here the long series of actions taken by the administration and the Board of Trustees to erase the school’s history and its unique identity in order to level it into the growing herd of Woke institutions. In doing so, they have cavalierly dispensed with that precious transformative magic that former university president Francis Pendleton Gaines so felicitously described for all time as W&L’s “power to deposit in the life of a boy something a little finer than culture, a little rarer than competence, a little nobler than success….” That vision of W&L’s sublime greatness was clear to us back then, and cherished.

The article “American Colleges Are Committing Suicide” by Richard K. Vedder thoroughly and comprehensively describes the woke disease rampant in virtually all of American higher education — all the symptoms which you will easily recognize as present at today’s W&L.

A few beams of hope, however, are now piercing the darkness. At UNC-Chapel Hill, the school’s Board of Trustees has recently acted to topple a major pillar of wokism by severely curtailing the activity of the DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) apparatus on that campus for its excesses in hiring and admissions practices.

Those DEI practices have become destructive of the traditional reign of meritocracy in American higher education that was responsible for its outstanding success in the past, is essential to its future, and necessary for national prosperity, competitiveness, and security.

The University of Texas system has also adopted tough DEI constraints similar to those at UNC. And in Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Florida legislature are moving not only to defund and dismantle the heavy-handed DEI bureaucracies that have proliferated throughout the Florida state university system, they are also attacking its front line supporters — university faculties themselves — by subjecting tenured faculty members to five-year reviews. Those reviews can result in dismissal if faculty members are found guilty of intolerance in political or social discourse, racial bias of any sort, or other egregiously inappropriate woke-inspired conduct. Gov. DeSantis clearly recognizes that the greatest obstacle to de-woking the universities is the overwhelmingly woke faculty members and the college administrators who timorously kowtow to them.

It says much about W&L’s current faculty to remember that about 80 percent of them voted to strip Robert E. Lee’s name from the university. And, there can be little doubt that W&L’s Board of Trustees renamed Lee Chapel only to appease faculty anger at not changing the university’s name. The W&L Board of Trustees should feel ashamed that the governing authorities of large, cumbersome, usually lethargic state university systems like those in North Carolina, Texas, and Florida have shown more courage, more wisdom, more love for their respective institutions and their students — and more real concern for saving American higher education — than they have.

The W&L Board should wake up, or we will see W&L disappear forever into the woke morass described so well in Dr. Vedder’s article.

Kenneth G. Everett is a 1964 graduate of Washington and Lee and a writer for The General’s Redoubt. This article is republished with permission.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

84 responses to “Is Washington and Lee Committing Suicide?”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Parents and students CAN VOTE with their proverbial feet despite the “normally” conservative folks who talk about “markets”.

    Methinks that what Conservative folks “want” is not necessarily what those who pay to attend – want – and Conservatives seem instead to want someone to “force” the University to do what …. “conservatives” want done.

    So much for the conservative “ethic” of letting the markets “work”.

    Some, not all, Conservatives these days are woefully out of touch with what young folks want …. and again, as always, there ARE alternatives for those who don’t want what W&L are offering:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6128c0a8fbd0b9bc24b106be3352301697f4ced54dff7e94e6bfccdabed6f0f2.jpg

    1. Teddy007 Avatar

      Washington and Lee is a college of 2,00 students with a 25% acceptance rate. Not bad and not a sign of students walking away.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        I never thought of W&L as “conservative” … perhaps I was mistaken.

        1. Teddy007 Avatar

          Maybe in 1964 having no women and no black was the way to defiine yourself conservative. The real trick is how can an university be conservative and have high academic standards.

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Equity is not a threat to merit despite the ideologues who promote that notion. Co-existence is not simple but is doable.

          2. Teddy007 Avatar

            Equity is a massive threat to a strictly merit system. That is why no university uses pure merit or has ever used pure merit.

          3. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            If by strictly you mean absolute merit, equity requires the unjust outcomes of that to be modified as did England by creation of chancery courts. Even woke conservatives May acknowledge absolute merit is fiction along with absolute equality.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Also worth looking at is why there is such a demographic disparity in those who get selected for “gifted” programs. Is it really based on pure merit?

          5. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Probably not! But some influences, redlining, affect disparities more strongly and are largely immune to equitable remediation.

  2. Teddy007 Avatar

    One old man screaming “Get off my lawn” writes at article that references another writer who is also screaming ” Get off my lawn.”

    I wish no one ever wrote anything that starts with the equivalent of “Back in my day.” It is one of the reasons that education policy cannot be fixed at any level.

  3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    The writer defines conservatism as “the rigorous Honor System, the code of personal honor and gentlemanly
    conduct, the correspondingly pervasive ambience of civility and respect
    of persons, along with instructional and curricular adherence to the
    enduring truths bequeathed to us by Western Thought and Tradition.” Then he goes on to attack DEI and praise those schools that are deemphasizing DEI.. Somehow, I missed the connection between his definition of conservatism and opposition to DEI. Also, I think I subscribe to the elements he laid out and I don’t think anyone would label me as conservative.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      On the spectrum, got a $1 says you’re right of me.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        how about me?

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          You’re under foot 😁

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Compared to some of the Looney Left I’ve “met” here and see on raw social media I will call you conservative. I see no signs W&L is committing suicide, but the metrics are what they’ve always been: enrollment, admission standards, graduation rate, donations, etc. If they slip…. Lee’s presence in the name makes no difference to me either way, but if somebody doesn’t like it they have other schools to consider.

    3. Teddy007 Avatar

      The writer should have found some term other than conservatism as a description of what they wanted.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        “… the more fundamental, rightly imperishable portion of W&L’s conservatism remained intact: the rigorous Honor System, the code of personal honor and gentlemanly conduct, the correspondingly pervasive ambience of civility and respect of persons, along with instructional and curricular adherence to the enduring truths bequeathed to us by Western Thought and Tradition.”

        like it’s attributes that only Conservatives have?

        makes me better understand some Conservatives “views” expressed here in BR…. NOT!

      2. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Unfortunately, conservatives savaging woke now translates as woke conservatism.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar

          He He. It’s another Jim McCarthy silly walk. Keep up the good work Jimbo, you are distilling the very essence of silly to 9 words. Congrats.

  4. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    “The W&L Board should wake up, or we will see W&L disappear forever into the woke morass…”

    An awakened Board is the answer to wokery and DEI. Will sensitivity training help? Can’t become sensitive because that’s one of the elements of wokery. What to do?

    1. VaNavVet Avatar

      Is Western Thought and Tradition the only place to find value? The MLB is being called upon to consider moving its spring training out of Florida as a response to DeSantis’ relentless attacks on diversity. As was done in the 1940s with Jackie Robinson. There is plenty of “woke” on both sides with conservative woke now catching up!

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        Minnesota would be glad to host MLB spring training. On the side, the Washington Senators used to spring train at UVA. Moved training to Florida in the 1930s.

  5. M. Purdy Avatar

    It’s interesting that this post, which is about an old southern private college, uses two large public schools and their wild politicization by elected officials at UNC and UT as “beams of hope.” If you seek to become a political football catering to conservatives, have at it. You don’t even have to win an election to get your way! Just change the board out through whatever means available and go to work. I do question, however, what sorts of students you be attracting at W&L if you succeed. How many ambitious, soon-to-professional, liberal-arts-seeking conservatives who hate DEI as much as people on this board (as opposed to those who just see it as one other training they have to put up with in every conceivable profession out there), think to themselves, I’d like to go to an expensive fringe school that may turn future employers off! My guess is that if you play the anti-DEI game, esp. at an institution stepped in lost causery and white southern pride, you’ll be drawing from an extremely small pool of candidates.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      The problem with DEI is the “E”. Had liberals not rebranded “equality” to be “equity” there would be legitimate differences of opinion over how much to spend on DEI but the overall concept would be fine.

      Everybody’s antennae went up when “equality” was renamed “equity”. That change, coupled with commentary from people like Kendi, caused many people to look twice.

      Why the change from “equality” to “equity” What was wrong with “equality”?

      1. VaNavVet Avatar

        So instead of equity you prefer the equality of outcomes?

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          Equality of opportunity. M. Purdy and I disagree over whether the issuance of laptops to those who can’t afford them represents providing equality of opportunity or not. I think it does. I also think most people think Pell Grants are fine. What isn’t fine is Biden’s decision to grant more student debt relief to those who went to college on Pell Grants. The Pell Grant leveled the playing field for people who couldn’t afford to attend. Once they graduate, those people are now on a level playing field. So, why did Biden double the debt relief for that group of people vs those who borrowed money but didn’t get a Pell Grant? Equity, I guess.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I think “Equity of Opportunity” might be a new phrase.

            It’s not DEofO it.s DEI

            Diversity, Equity, Inclusion

            and the claim is that “Equity” should not mean “equal outcomes”.

            If everyone gets a laptop –
            is that “equal outcomes”?

            If every kid gets the same lunch meal, is that “equal outcomes”?

          2. VaNavVet Avatar

            For many equality means equal which indicates being the same as in result. Can there really be a level playing field when institutional and implicit bias are present? There is no question that money buys access and a leg up on the rest of the field.

      2. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Equity and equality may not be separated but they can be distinguished. Equality, as the Brits learned in creating courts of equity, often resulted in outcomes that were unjust and unfair. In part, its why the US Constitution placed “law and equity” in the courts. In contemporary terms, generally within agencies and institutions including corporations, equity defines as ensuring opportunity for all notwithstanding any disadvantages to compete to achieve success.

        Under equality, if your cattle trespassed on my land, I could exert ownership over them. Equity would find that unjust and unfair.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          I’m thinking there may be SOME potential in this discussion for some better
          responses behind the assertion that equity “means” equal outcomes.

          I’m probably foolish for hoping so but we’ll see.

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            No you are not. VDOE made the task more difficult by equating equity with outcomes. As a matter of fact, for some it is simpler to require equality in all aspects of society so that there is no duty or responsibility to assist with increased investment of the common wealth to reduce disadvantages caused by social or racial dynamics. By insisting or demanding equality in all planes, the claim is that all are treated equally. That is not the bargain in the social contract wherein folks live and function. In some respects, that view is the essence of libertarianism where every man is king. It also underwrites the conservative claim of American exceptionalism.

      3. M. Purdy Avatar

        I think it’s much semantic ado about nothing. I’m sure you’re sincere about the debate about equity vs. equality, but many people aren’t. It’s just a lever to end a practice they don’t like, i.e. don’t talk about oppression or make me feel bad about my advantages in life. Incidentally, equality doesn’t work if people are coming in at different levels and places. They switched to ‘equity’ because it means that you don’t just put people on a playing field and say ‘it’s level, it applies to you equally, go succeed.’ You have to account for the advantages or disadvantages people have coming in. So, if I had a policy saying that no freshman would receive a free laptop from State U., that would be equal treatment for all freshman. But if 90% of freshman came with their own laptop b/c their parents are well off, would that be fair to those who couldn’t afford it? I think most reasonable people would say ‘no,’ the kids with the material disadvantage should be afforded a laptop. The term ‘equity’ accounts for that, ‘equality’ does not. You give people the tools they need to succeed.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Actually, Purdy got it dead on. thanks. Too much of the conservative “angst” these days is really IMO doing exactly what you said above.

        2. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          I see no difference between equality and equity in your example. Making sure every student has a laptop is leveling the starting point.

          A better example is Thomas Jefferson High School’s lottery. Equality meant that anybody who wanted to test for admission could do so. Everybody took the same test. Equity was the attempt to reverse the outcome of the testing (i.e. too many Asians). A lottery was instituted so that those who were less qualified would still get admitted.

          That’s the difference between equality and equity.

          1. M. Purdy Avatar

            “I see no difference between equality and equity in your example.” Because giving laptops to some and not others isn’t equal treatment; it’s treatment based on need. I think TJHSST example is about affirmative action/race norming. I see that as a different issue, legally speaking. DEI would survive without affirmative action.

          2. Lefty665 Avatar

            However, that is not the way “equity” has been used by VDoE. We’ve been through this before in other posts concerning DIE in Virginia schools.

            On the VDoE Equity web page, now 404ed, but standards quoted in prior BR posts you have participated in, achieving “equity” was defined as eliminating differences in outcome due to differences in ability (among other things).

            That is perfectly illustrated by Charlottesville City schools defining 86% of their students as gifted to achieve racial equity. That is what is so profoundly wrong with DIE as used in Virginia’s educational institutions.

            You and I agree on equality of opportunity, or laptops, and especially teaching every child in Virginia to read and write so they have the opportunity to have a decent life.

          3. M. Purdy Avatar

            It was sloppy wording by VDoE, subsequently latched onto by various politicos to push the newly coined War on Merit. I don’t know. If it’s really a semantics debate, under the current political environment in VA, I’d be fine with calling it DOI–diversity, opportunity, and inclusion. Fine, let’s move on and try to get some important work done instead of politicizing word choice. From my perspective, I have multiple kids in VA public schools, in the most left of center school district in VA, and I’ve never seen this so called War on Merit. Kids are relentlessly tested and evaluated for harder and more elite courses. You want to call that “opportunity,” awesome.

          4. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Yah!! Someone at VDOE does not grasp the distinction between reducing disadvantages versus creating more fair opportunities for competiton..

          5. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Says the esteemed poster who doesn’t know the difference between “equity” and “equality”.

          6. Lefty665 Avatar

            Sloppy wording or intent, it was state policy under Northam. Schools, districts, colleges and universities acted upon it and are still acting upon it today. Some, as in the Charlottesville example I gave, admissions to TJ and UVa are proud of what they have done.

            So no, it is not a semantics debate, those words have had, and are still having racist real world consequences.

            We agree on getting work done. It starts with teaching every kid to read and write.

          7. Lefty665 Avatar

            Sloppy wording or intent, it was state policy under Northam. Schools, districts, colleges and universities acted upon it and are still acting upon it today. Some, as in the Charlottesville example I gave, admissions to TJ and UVa are proud of what they have done.

            So no, it is not a semantics debate, those words have had, and are still having racist real world consequences.

            We agree on getting work done. It starts with teaching every kid to read and write.

          8. M. Purdy Avatar

            “Sloppy wording or intent, it was state policy under Northam.” Can you expand on what you think state policy was? Was is that every kid ended up in the same place? Or that kids were dragged down or held back? I’m just trying to wrap my head around this argument, because I’m not sure the facts bear out what you’re arguing here.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Gadzooks! “sloppy wording and intent” is a “liberal” or “Dem” thing only?
            LORD!

          10. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            We agree that providing laptops to some unable to afford them is not equality but an equitable determination. If the TJ issue is, in fact, about AA or “race norming” it is different. The court will decide the legality. Intellectually, DEI could survive without AA. Whether the society must cancel AA is a question of another magnitude. As a principle of equity, society may wish to encourage AA.

          11. M. Purdy Avatar

            I think the Harvard case, as I understand the facts, would be illegal under current law anyway. The SCOTUS will nevertheless use it to more broadly end affirmative action in school admissions. It’ll unleash a slew of other test cases using race in other contexts as a plus factor, but schools will find other legal ways to diversify their student bodies, and people will move on. The private sector and military will fight this to the hilt, and will largely be spared, I would guess, if for no other reason that the SCOTUS will realize the limits of its public goodwill. DEI will continue.

          12. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            so free and reduced lunch is making sure there is equality?

          13. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            When all receive the same tool (laptop), that’s an equal distribution of the common wealth. When some due to income receive free or discounted lunch in order to work at school, that is equity. When some are confined to a wheelchair, ramps are an equity measure. When Johnnie needs reading or math assistance, tutoring may be equitable.

          14. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            exactly.

      4. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Don’t think liberals did that. Conservatives have CHOSEN to view equity in dishonest terms IMO.

      5. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Neither liberals nor wokesters “rebranded” equality or substituted equity for equality. That’s conservative trope. It is true that investment of equity measures in education and most other endeavors may require increased investment from the common wealth. The US Constitution merged law (equality) and equity in the court system creating an enduring value for all to achieve. Equity is an essential element to inform diversity and inclusion.

        Equality is actually the easier route. DEI demands effort and insight.

  6. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    The problem is not with equity itself. There’s nothing wrong with helping to level the playing field. The example of a college providing a student with a laptop when that student simply cannot afford one is a good example of something that is reasonable. The problem arises when determinations are made on the basis of generalizations or broad categories such as race, ethnicity or sex rather than by looking at individuals.

    NOVA has, or at least, had, a policy of offering every student access to tutoring for each course the student took. This seems equitable because any student could choose to take advantage of the extra help. But a policy that offered only female students tutoring would not be equity but rather, unfair discrimination. Of course, students need to take advantage of the extra support. Those who don’t shouldn’t complain.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Okay. So in K-12, how is “equity” supposed to work?

      If you are economically disadvantaged, does that entitle you to some things that cost money that you cannot afford – perhaps like tutoring?

      1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        Larry, why won’t you acknowledge we provide extra resources to public schools that have high numbers of low-income children? I guess whatever we spend is never enough in your mind. Then we move to free will. People can choose to take advantage of the added resources or not. Society may have a responsibility to provide additional resources in these instances but when it has and some reject them, I’d say society’s responsibility is satisfied.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          TMT – consider, for instance, hadicapped access that has nothing to do with “school”. Should we
          revert back to “free will”? Or for school, special ed. Tell the parents of these kids it’s not taxpayers responsibility? Or free & reduced lunch? “free will ” again?

          But heckfire – forget all that and tell me why others should subsidize your health insurance ? Shouldn’t we require each one of us to go out and buy health insurance at whatever cost is required no matter our own heath status? Back to free will ?

          Would you even be able to buy health insurance at your age if not for the govt providing equitable access to health insurance?

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Insurance functions on a theory of spreading risk. Youngkin has determined that charging higher premiums for smokers is inequitable, denying non-smokers the benefit of lower premiums for all via increased premium funds. Equity in educational settings requires additional share of the common wealth, increased taxes.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Right… and spreading risk for homeowners and vehicles is done very differently than employer-provided and the ACA, etc. Health Insurance is different and the govt will not let an insurance company refuse to cover someone because of their health status, age, etc… The healthy are forced to pay for the less healthy. Equity?

          3. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Health insurance, in particular within the insurance world, has had equity introduced by elimination of pre-existing prejudice; access; and caps to contain unrestrained premium swings. In Durante cannot be compared to the educational enterprise.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I’m just saying that health insurance does not operate like other insurance does because the govt will not let health insurance companies allocate risk by traditional underwriting by charging more for higher risk folks or even denying them all together.

            Virtually everyone is guaranteed access to health insurance AND at the SAME or similar premium prices no matter their age or health status.

            While these policies are not explicitly labelled “equity”, they are, in fact, based on the concept of equity – i.e. leveling the playing field so that all can get insurance coverage no matter their individual disadvantages.

            In this way, for instance, a person with cancer cannot be kicked on his insurance policy like someone with a bad driving record could be kicked off their auto policy.

            A woman cannot be charged a higher premium because of child-bearing.

            etc.

            Even pre-existing conditions can no longer be used to deny coverage.

            Equity guarantees access to health insurance. It does not at all mean that because you’re guaranteed access to insurance, that you’ll enjoy equal outcomes per se just equal access to services.

          5. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            So if a child qualifies for special ed, but refuses to go to class, is it society’s fault. We have made many buildings and services accessible to handicapped people. But if a person in a wheelchair refuses to use the ramp, does society have a further duty? Etc.

            I have my health insurance through the federal government as a benefit that my wife worked for almost 40 years. It’s priced based on what has been agreed to by Congress, various administrations and federal employees. It doesn’t have anything to do with equitable access from the government.

            And one more time, federal law permits companies to charge older people more for health insurance than they charge younger people subject to a percentage cap. Some plans do that. Others, like the federal employee plan, does not. But it has nothing to do with equitable access.

          6. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Again, there’s no allegation of fault or compulsion against free will. Insurance finance operates on a different principle from education – risk. As a matter of fact, the cap to which you refer is an equitable measure to ensure a quantum of fairness in the discrimination of the risk with respect to older insureds. Recall the debate about pre-existing conditions – old age is one. The equitable cap assists access.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            yes. It’s called medical underwriting and it would work like other insurance where the insurance company looks at you in terms of risk and decides on a price or if they will cover you at all.

            The Govt REQUIRES that everyone be covered (with some limitations still) but on balance if someone has an expensive disease , they pay the same premium as a 20yr old in perfect health.

          8. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            Larry, please stop making incorrect statements about federal restrictions on the ability of a company to charge higher premiums to older people for health insurance.

            “Under the health care law, insurance companies can account for only 5 things when setting premiums.
            Age: Premiums can be up to 3 times higher for older people than for younger ones.”

            https://www.healthcare.gov/how-plans-set-your-premiums/

            You are correct in your statements about preexisting conditions. “Factors that can’t affect premiums –
            Insurance companies can’t charge women and men different prices for the same plan. They also can’t take your current health or medical history into account. All health plans must cover treatment for pre-existing conditions from the day coverage starts.”

            Same source.

          9. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Again, there’s no allegation of fault or compulsion against free will. Insurance finance operates on a different principle from education – risk. As a matter of fact, the cap to which you refer is an equitable measure to ensure a quantum of fairness in the discrimination of the risk with respect to older insureds. Recall the debate about pre-existing conditions – old age is one. The equitable cap assists access.

          10. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            They can charge more but not anywhere near the actual medical underwriting cost nor can they refuse to cover like other insurance can.

            The Federal govt REQUIRES the insurance companies to cover you no matter your health status vice letting insurance companies cover only those they want to.

            No way around that TMT,

            It’s no different than the Federal govt mandating that handicap facilities be provided rather than letting the business decide.

            It’s no different than the govt REQUIRING schools to provide an education to kids with special needs even if it costs 2, 3, 4 times as much as other kids.

        2. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          IMO, no assertion has been offered that taking advantage of equitable assistance is mandated. Nor are rejection thereof and free will equivalents. I would agree that the larger society’s provision of such equity satisfies its responsibilities. OTOH, the society should seek the reasons for rejection.

          1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            I would agree that it makes sense to try to determine why some people eligible for additional assistance turn it down. Perhaps, a program can be retuned to become more effective.

    2. M. Purdy Avatar

      I think it’s a fair point that categorizing people by their race, gender, sex orientation, disability, etc. should not the ‘final word,’ so to speak. on what they’ve experienced, worldview, and how society treats them, etc.. I totally agree. But I also think that acting like those categories don’t exist, have been solved societally, or shouldn’t be counted at all is a major mistake. It’s simply a hard question that we have to address. The fact is that race is used as a proxy for many things, real and not real. Minorities didn’t invent that proxy, mind you, but they do have to deal with it. If this were a less politicized topic, I imagine smart people could come up with a better system than we have, for sure.

    3. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Offering tutoring to all students is a measure of equality, not equity. Laptops to all is equality. Providing some students with laptops who might not otherwise be able to afford one may be equitable where the device is necessary in course work. Providing reading assistance to a dyslexic student is equitable. Ramps for wheelchair bound students is equitable.

      1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        Thanks for the additional examples. It helps understand your use of the terms.

  7. Thomas Dixon Avatar
    Thomas Dixon

    We’ll get it back. And for the communists who tried to steal our country, there will be hell to pay.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Wow!! Did the commies take over W&L?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Washingtonski and Leenin

    2. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead

      Yes we will. The birthrate of liberals is half that of conservatives. We will wait them out.

      1. Teddy007 Avatar

        But many children born into conservative families become more liberal as they grow up. yet, how many children born in liberal families ever become conservative.

        1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
          James Wyatt Whitehead

          Patience Mr. Bond.

Leave a Reply