GOOD

The H-Bomb: Why We Should Care that Elizabeth Warren Works at Harvard

Most Americans go to public university, if they go to college at all. Yet so many of our role models were educated by a handful of elite schools.


You may have heard by now that Elizabeth Warren is running for Scott Brown's Senate seat in Massachusetts. Warren is best known as President Obama's special assistant, and for her role in setting guidelines for the Consumer Financial Protections Bureau. She's also a professor at Harvard University, and that's the detail that many conservatives have emphasized in an attempt to paint Warren as an elitist East Coast liberal. Republicans often refer to her as "Professor Warren." In a recent radio interview that's recently made the rounds, Scott Brown proudly distinguished himself by saying that he had attended the "school for hard knocks."

Despite the Republican push, most Massachusetts residents are not swayed by Warren's academic pedigree. In a new poll [PDF], 63 percent of voters said Warren's status as a Harvard professor would have no effect on whether they'd vote for her. Twenty-one percent are more likely to vote for her because of it, and just 13 percent would be less likely to cast their ballot for her. On the one hand, it's reassuring that most voters can look past the academic institution where a politician teaches or calls her alma mater. But maybe we can learn something from the remaining 35 percent.


The mere mention of "the H-Bomb" packs a host of competing associations for American voters. You're smart or you're a smart-ass. You're exceptional or you're elitist. You're Barack Obama or you're George W. Bush. Americans don't believe you need to attend an elite university to succeed—no one exemplifies that better than the world's most famous dropout, Steve Jobs—but a fancy college still translates to an elite position in our society.

Perhaps part of the reason many voters don't bat an eye at Warren's Harvard pedigree is that so many of our leaders were educated at Ivies. Our last few presidents attended prestigious schools like Georgetown, Yale, and Columbia. Following Elena Kagan's confirmation, all nine Supreme Court justices are now either Yale or Harvard law school alums. Many of our public intellectuals, from Cornel West to Noam Chomsky, teach at elite institutions while espousing populist ideals. In certain professions, like politics and law, attending a highly elite school now feels like a prerequisite to a paycheck. It's not only rich people who go Ivy, either. The upper echelon of poor students attend those schools, too. Considering that universities with large endowments are the only ones that can afford to give full scholarships, elite private colleges (and high schools) frequently snatch up the most gifted working-class students who could never afford a four-year institution otherwise.

Can you blame 13 percent of Massachusetts voters for feeling resentful? Or, conversely, for one in five of them feeling reassured by Warren's familiar credentials? Given the sad reality of the contemporary higher education system, it makes sense for the vast majority of Americans to attend public universities if they can afford to attend them at all. Yet many of our intellectual role models, regardless of class, were educated through elite channels. This dynamic creates a catch-22: We want to vote for the leaders who can speak for us, but the pool we're presented with comes from a very small corner of the academic world.

Highly educated people like Elizabeth Warren should be celebrated. But we should also make efforts to expand our leadership base beyond the same five campuses. It's not enough to invest in the schools most of our kids will end up attending—we also need to invest in the graduates of these schools. That way, we'll help ensure that the average American education actually means something. And maybe we'll start to see a cross-section of leaders who look more like us.

Photo via (cc) Flickr user j. gresham.

Articles
via GOOD / YouTube

Last Friday, millions of people in 150 countries across the globe took to the streets to urge world leaders to enact dramatic solutions to combat climate change.

The Climate Strike was inspired, in part, by Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old girl from Sweden who has captured worldwide attention for her tireless work to hold lawmakers responsible for the climate crisis.

The strike gave people across the planet the opportunity to make their voices heard before the U.N. General Assembly Climate Summit in New York City on Monday.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet
Julian Meehan

Young leaders from around the world are gathering at the United Nations Headquarters in New York Saturday to address arguably the most urgent issue of our time. The Youth Climate Summit comes on the heels of an international strike spearheaded by Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old climate activist from Sweden, who arrived in New York via emissions-free sailboat earlier this month.

Translated from Swedish, "berg" means "mountain," so it may feel fated that a young woman with Viking blood in her veins and summit in her name would be at the helm. But let's go out on a limb and presume Thunberg, in keeping with most activists, would chafe at the notion of pre-ordained "destiny," and rightly so. Destiny is passive — it happens to you. It's also egomaniacal. Change, on the other hand, is active; you have to fight. And it is humble. "We need to get angry and understand what is at stake," Thunberg declared. "And then we need to transform that anger into action."

This new generation of activists' most pernicious enemy is denial. The people in charge — complacent politicians and corporation heads who grossly benefit from maintaining the status quo — are buffered from real-life consequences of climate change. But millions of people don't share that privilege. For them, climate change isn't an abstract concept, but a daily state of emergency, whether it comes in the form of "prolonged drought in sub-Saharan Africa…devastating tropical storms sweeping across Southeast Asia, the Caribbean and the Pacific…[or] heatwaves and wildfires," as Amnesty International reportsare all too real problems people are facing on a regular basis.

RELATED: Greta Thunberg urges people to turn to nature to combat climate change

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet
Climate Action Tracker

In 2016, 196 countries signed the Paris Agreement, pledging to combat climate change by taking action to curb the increase in global temperatures. The Paris Agreement requires countries to report on their emissions and what steps they're taking to implement those plans. Now that the countries are coming together again for the U.N. Climate Action Summit in New York City, it's worth taking a look at what kind of progress they've made.

The Climate Action Trackerkeeps tabs on what each country is doing to limit warming, and if they're meeting their self-set goals. Countries are graded based on whether or not their actions would help limit warming to 1.5 degrees C.

According to a recent article from National Geographic, The Gambia, Morocco, and India are at the head of the class. "Even though carbon emissions in The Gambia, Morocco, and India are expected to rise, they'll fall short of exceeding the 1.5-degree Celsius limit," the article reads. Saudi Arabia, Russia and the United States, on the other hand, get a big fat F. "Projected emissions in Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United States are far greater than what it would take to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius."

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet

September 20th marks the beginning of a pivotal push for the future of our planet. The Global Climate Strike will set the stage for the United Nations Climate Action Summit, where more than 60 nations are expected to build upon their commitment to 2015's Paris Agreement for combating climate change.

Millions of people are expected to take part in an estimated 4,000 events across 130 countries.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet
Ottawa Humane Society / Flickr

The Trump Administration won't be remembered for being kind to animals.

In 2018, it launched a new effort to reinstate cruel hunting practices in Alaska that had been outlawed under Obama. Hunters will be able to shoot hibernating bear cubs, murder wolf and coyote cubs while in their dens, and use dogs to hunt black bears.

Efforts to end animal cruelty by the USDA have been curtailed as well. In 2016, under the Obama Administration, the USDA issued 4,944 animal welfare citations, in two years the numbers dropped to just 1,716.

Keep Reading Show less
Science