A public servant of 40 years is now on the offense against President Donald Trump. He has already surpassed the average life expectancy. Honorable in tone and political in nature, his career has primarily pleased his state and constituents.
On the other hand, his last boss waited over a year to mention his name publicly. His son represented an American corporation that received $1.5 billion from a state-owned company of an adversarial government in 2015. He couldn’t poll more than 1 percent in his three previous attempts for the presidency, yet now represents the only hurdle for President Trump. Although to his credit, Vice President Joe Biden is currently polling higher than the president.
Critics of Mr. Biden point to his increasingly senile behavior, arguing that any election in the past 50 years would have eliminated his chances for success. That would not have been the ex-Vice President’s fault. It is the reality of life. In their eyes, Christopher Nolan captured the rising theme of Joe Biden in The Dark Knight: he could die a hero or live long enough to become the villain. Maybe Joe Rogan’s bluntness on the issue of age will hold out, and a 78 year old man who mumbles through his interviews cannot win the presidency. In that case, the introduction of this article will be an afterthought.
I can’t help but ask if the 2020 campaign is the work of an inside job? I still scratch my head entertaining these thoughts, sitting in quarantine as my father’s dehumidifier rumbles in the background of this basement.
Maybe my four years at Holy Cross have given me the slightest insight into how and why things work. Perhaps my refusal to publicly write until April of 2020 validates my sincere discernment of this topic.
In Jesuit fashion, I followed-up my original question with another bigger question: What is wrong with America? That’s far too big of an inquiry, and would lead to a theological discernment on the nature of man — a subject beyond the scope of this article. Thinking smaller, I found myself posing this question: How do we, as college students, knowingly or unknowingly contribute to our country’s partisanship? That’s the question I will answer here.
Perhaps the boldest claim I’ll make for this audience is that elite colleges and universities (yes, sometimes even Holy Cross) have tarnished a tremendous intellectual culture that has been imperative for our country’s past success. The transition of our intellectual culture from a culture of reason to one of competing identities is to blame for partisanship, and helps to understand why someone like Joe Biden is the nominee. Reason is innate; identities are subjective and ever changing. Problems arise when people falsely believe identities are innate. The American university system has started to believe these lies.
A common denominator of civilization—a reason—has been gnawed at by subjective ideologies that seek to place identities above our rational functions. Unfortunately, this flawed process is most present at American colleges and universities and leads to deepened partisanship. Though millions of American people are tired of identity politics, our academic institutions have failed to recognize it.
The rise of identity politics correlates with the increasing problems of the American college system. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines ‘Identity Politics’ as, “politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group.”
Identity politics adversely affect the majority of Americans who do not attend college. This ideology removes people of the same fabric and places them into separate ideological and political categories. Moreover, identity politics attaches itself to the brightest among us (top universities), only to further divide and alienate the most talented from each other. It also lends a hand to managerial dysfunction that severely weakens Americans’ interest in sending their kids to college.
A recent Pew poll showcased how identity politics have infiltrated college-educated voters. When asked if, ‘they were bothered’ that the Democratic nominee was not ‘of color,’ 58 percent of post-graduate students responded that Biden’s nomination bothered them. On the other hand, over 70 percent of black and latino voters responded that Biden’s nomination ‘did not bother’ them.
The real world operates at a radically different and more successful level than a college campus. How can we measure that? Take supply and demand as basic indicators. How can a college education continue to get more expensive in spite of the historically high supply of American universities and low student demand? That math fails to work.
The anecdote that allows this math to work mainly rests on a bloated administrative state. In the face of the largest economic recession since the Great Depression, U.S. colleges expanded administrative roles by 15 percent. From 1993 to 2015, administrative roles at colleges and universities grew 60 percent. Why?
Simultaneously, educational polling suggests that over eighty percent of Americans cannot afford college. The same polling shows that a mere two-thirds of Americans are unable to identify what a 529 college saving plan is. The Department of Education has reported that, “Between 2006–07 and 2016–17, prices for undergraduate tuition, fees, room, and board at public institutions rose 31 percent, and prices at private nonprofit institutions rose 24 percent, after adjustment for inflation.” Yet, the same report indicates that student enrollment at U.S. colleges and universities is down 7 percent from 2010 to 2020. Steadily, a minority of Americans attend college.
So, why in light of an extreme lack of affordability and falling enrollments, would public and not-for-profit colleges and universities expand their bureaucracy? Author of the book, The Changing of the Guard: The Political Economy of Administrative Bloat in American Higher Education, Todd Zywicki, writes, “The interesting thing about the administrative bloat in higher education is, literally, nobody knows who all these people are or what they’re doing.” Reason and logic cannot answer why colleges operate in this manner. There must be a deeper ideological problem that has circumvented the generational American interest to afford college.
Obviously there are other contributing factors to university failings, such as the incentive structure of the federal student-loan system and private banks. These serve as an additional incentive for colleges to increase costs. However, credible and normative observations showcase that the prevalence of identity politics is the core failure of our university system.
Holy Cross, as an institutional actor, naturally perpetuates identity politics. Just ask the Admissions office what the chances are that a female from Massachusetts is accepted, compared to me, a male from Michigan? Lucky for me, I have the advantage. Yet, is it unjust that Holy Cross desires geographical diversity and 50/50 gender delineation in its ranks? No one questions if justice was not served in this scenario. However, I’m willing to bet a year’s worth of tuition that there were female candidates with higher qualifications than myself from Massachusetts who drew the short end of the stick.
Apply this standard when considering the acceptance of any race or religion on campus. It follows a similar logic. Although, the social and political pressure becomes intensified. Suddenly, the sense of justice is shifted. As you can see, identity politics are vague and subjective, yet become problematic when applied to individual groups.
The real problem arises when this logic becomes pervasive on campus. Many professors apply identity politics as a serious standard in their academic inquiry. Students in a ‘majority’ identity and ‘minority’ identity are placed in a hierarchical standard of assessment. Identity politics suddenly impedes each group’s natural capacity for reason and diminishes the normative pursuit of truth.
For instance, think about the feeling of second-hand embarrassment that runs through your veins when the subject of race is mentioned in a mandatory administrative fishbowl. How awkward is it when students refuse to address a topic as simple as race? Of course, there are major historical complications in race relations, but why are we afraid to say it?
As you can tell, when the topic is cloaked in a hierarchical standard of identities, nobody in a majority group would seek to diminish the standing of a minority group. It counters our capacity for good if we think we are hurting others. No rational person desires to hurt someone. However, if you pull back the subjective cloak of hierarchical identities, suddenly you are in the objective pursuit of truth and feel free to present competing ideas. No one is being hurt.
St. Ignatius teaches us that our natural emotions can help guide us to truth. The unnatural feelings of second hand embarrassment with a topic as simple as race suggests that we are being led by a false ideology. With identity politics at the helm, students are inherently limited from presenting their ideas due to factors outside their control. Moreover, when students do share ideas, their ideas could be discounted, again, due to factors outside of their control. A student's parent’s, job, skin color, hometown, and citizenship can stand in the way of pursuing truth if identity politics control the narrative. This runs contrary to the American education system, and more importantly, a Jesuit education.
I’d argue that the feeling of second-hand embarrassment propagated by identity politics turns rational people away from engagement and enhances partisanship among those who do engage. The shyness of intelligent people forces them to withdraw from political engagement. They would rather withdraw from identity politics, an ideology they know is subjective and illogical. They make a conscious choice to not engage, rather than take the risk of social alienation. They think to themselves, “Let the Gender Studies majors solve the problems that they created. I can’t change their mind.”
Identity politics removes our most talented people from government and places them in business and finance. Whereas governing addresses the laws of society, business and finance point toward monetary gain. If American society’s morals are presented in a narrative that alienates its most talented citizens, why would they want to engage in those platforms to create law? In this case, identity politics in universities and government serve as a detriment to our joined national interest.
For instance, Wall Street steadily maintains deeply vested interests in communist China. If our own citizens sell American companies to this communist state, our government is severely undermined when trying to hold China accountable for severe human rights and trade abuses. We as a people are speaking with two contradicting voices, thus speaking with no voice at all.
The rise of Wall Street partly stems from the social, academic, and economic benefits of non-engagement with identity politics. Instead of recognizing a joint purpose, identity politics at American colleges alienate our country’s brightest students. Billions of dollars are being made by our smartest individuals at the expense of their fellow citizens, because our universities decide to pursue subjective narratives that underscore the pursuit of truth.
The governing and political fabric of our nation deteriorates at the hands of a small subsection of society who educate students at our most esteemed universities. Unfortunately, many students today leave college with an underlying framework that tells them that the necessity to rectify certain social groups’ ills outweighs the needs of the aggregate.
If one is looking for evidence of this, look no further than the last time Congress passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform. It occurred in 1986. Despite at least three documented attempts, the inability of our largest deliberative body to disregard factional identity interests now results in millions living in shadows and our sovereignty questioned.
Our true national interest is lost at the behest of an ideology. Partisanship backed the interest of identity politics and created no room for compromise. Now, compromise is viewed as the harming of a minority group, rather than the pursuit of the common interest. Rather than tending to the needs of both sides, identity politics restricts Congress and harms both immigrants and the American population.
There are people in this country, especially in academia, that see identity politics as a driving force in our attempt to structure a just society. On the other hand, there are people in this country, especially young people, that see identity politics as a hindrance to society and choose not to engage.
Perhaps the steady stream of identity politics in the last decade has turned young people off from engaging entirely. Why is it that sixty-five percent of people who actually vote are over the age of 60? Young people, who make up the largest segment of society from the ages of 18 to 44 participate at the lowest levels.
Ideals such as freedom, equality, and justice are diminished when universities consistently structure their institutions to perpetuate identity politics. Identity politics transcribes our ideals reactively, drawing from our country’s worst sins, rather than the settled truth decided at our country’s foundation. What I’ve learned most about the United States while at Holy Cross is that our country maintains an everlasting commitment to uphold natural rights, alongside the pursuit of a more perfect society. Both these endeavors are lost if the best formats to pursue a just society limit the flow of ideas, intentionally or unintentionally.
When the perceived victimhood of groups within society overcomes the pursuit of truth, then serious inquiry is lost. Citizens choose not to engage and free discourse disappears. The only way to combat identity politics is to talk about them. A full picture is finally illuminated when we talk about the most pressing and controversial issues, without special regard to any one group.
If reason is to be practiced again, then professors, students, and administrators will need to jump over a fundamental hurdle and assume that people do not intend to harm others with their ideas. In the off chance they do harm others, they need to jump over another fundamental hurdle, and not let it bother them. If hurt, they can again say to themselves, while embodying the Christian virtue that Martin Luther King extolled in his crusade, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” When this change in attitude occurs, many college bureaucrats will become irrelevant. Happily, tuition will be lowered and more Americans can afford college. How could this happen?
Identity politics will inevitably fail. Its logic fails to work, for; consistent subjectivity erodes into an oblivion. Maybe the Trump administration represents the beginning of a cultural paradigm that defeats identity politics and bolsters the reunion of the smartest financial and government actors.
So back to the 2020 election. Who’s going to win? President Trump. Why? In addition to Joe Biden’s inability to communicate thoroughly, there are sectors in the Democratic Party that, rather than working within the constitutional logic ingrained in American culture, prefer to dabble in identity politics.
It’s why President Trump could win in 2016 by hammering the establishment that was built on identity politics. Most Americans do not have a four year degree. They are not directly exposed to subjective and alienating narratives. In the large portion of America, there is a concerted effort to end identity politics. That’s why the Democratic establishment failed to elect any candidate that promotes these narratives. Rather, the Democrats placed their chips on a 78-year old moderate who can barely finish a 10-minute TV interview, because they hope he can relate to Americans who reject identity politics.
If the unprecedented increase of tuition continues alongside the perpetuation of identity politics at American universities, we should not be surprised that our political choices are two individuals in their seventies who do not faithfully follow identity politics. Americans reject identity politics, yet universities fail to follow suit. If post-secondary institutions cannot grasp reality, we should be prepared to see that our generation is becoming further polarized or has become disengaged all together.
Perhaps the reason that we - college students, professors, and administrators—fail to understand the successful rise of President Trump—is because we do not fully understand ourselves.