The elite don’t hand out resources like the rest of us

Those from premier schools take a very utilitarian approach.

by Roheeni Saxena

Economic inequality in the US has drawn attention to the attitudes and behaviors of the elite, as those who are educated in the top universities are both likely to start out wealthy and disproportionately likely to have an impact on the future of this country. To examine how this elite class would manage societal resources, the authors of a paper published in Science studied a group of Yale Law School students.

The findings indicate that they’re more likely to make economic choices based on increasing the overall wealth of the nation rather than on increasing income equality within a nation. Thus, there’s a chance we’re selecting policymakers who are unlikely to address this issue.

For the study, the researchers recruited a sample of 208 Yale Law School students as well as a diverse but “comparatively less elite” (in the authors’ words) sector of the population. The subjects were recruited in spring of 2007, 2010, and 2013—the gaps meant that each experiment would draw from a completely new Yale Law School student population.

The authors selected Yale Law School students as a proxy for social and political elites because of its status as a graduate institution. YLS admits only 11.3 percent of its college-educated applicants, and the student body tends to consist of people from relatively well-off households. Almost half the study participants reported having two parents with graduate degrees, and over half of the participants were raised in ZIP codes with an above-average household income. Typically, graduates of a law school of this caliber enter the job market earning $160,000 a year.

The law students were compared to an Internet sample of 309 adult Americans with a wide representation of demographic, geographic, and socioeconomic characteristics. The majority of these subjects had received less education than the law students. A second control groups included non-Yale elites, defined as participants from the Internet sample who had a graduate degree and household incomes over $100,000. The final control group was UC Berkeley undergraduates—a top university, but it draws students from more diverse socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds.

The participants played decision-based games in which each choice had a consequence for the participants themselves and an anonymous player. In these games, the subjects were playing for in-game wealth. Some options they were given promoted equality and consequently reduced the wealth disparity between themselves and other anonymous player. Others promoted efficiency and consequently increased the wealth of both players without rebalancing relative wealth.

The data from these experiments shows that the participants from Yale Law School were significantly more likely than any other group to select efficiency, electing to raise the overall wealth of all players, but they also disregarded the relative disparity that may exist between themselves and others. Elites who were not students at Yale Law School were slightly less fair-minded than the non-elite controls, but this difference was statistically insignificant.

It wasn’t just Yale, though; the students from UC Berkeley were more likely to select efficiency than the non-elite controls, but they were less likely than the Yale Law School students to do so. Of all populations studied, the non-elite controls were the most likely to make choices that would promote equality, decreasing the wealth disparity between themselves and the other player.

The authors think that these results are important because they offer potential insight as to why the US has only made incremental policy steps to reduce income inequality. The findings suggest that, perhaps due to their training or their disposition, the people most likely to end up making policy are less inclined than the general population to sacrifice efficiency for the sake of increased equality. This study adds a meaningful piece of data to the public discussion regarding income inequality and the factors that perpetuate it.

Zero Tolerance

Age-specific alcohol porohibition of persons under the age of 21 enjoys wide public support in the U. S., as does the policy of zero tolerance. Is zero tolerance effective? Are there beter alternatives? This short piece provides answers.

Zero Tolerance in Action

Prohibition for those under the age of 21 currently enjoys wide public support in the United States and is commonly imposed by school policy. For example, Carter Loar, a high school senior at Park View High School in Loudoun County, Virginia, was suspended ten days for violating the school's alcohol policy. Mr. Loar's violation? Using mouthwash on campus. School officials confiscated the contraband and "He was charged with violating the school's alcohol policy which prohibits the possession or use of alcohol on school property. As part of this ten day suspension, Mr. Loar was required to attend a three day Substance Abuse Program sponsored by Loudoun County."
Circumstances, including educational objectives, are irrelevant in judging behavior under a policy of zero tolerance. For example, during a three hour multi-course dinner in Paris as part of a field trip study of French culture, the 14 seventh and eighth grade students in the class were each permitted to sip a "thimbleful" of wine by the chaperon, their school principal. Many parents said they had signed tour company waivers allowing their young people to drink small amounts of beer or wine in supervised settings.
Nevertheless, the superintendent demoted the principal for violating the school's "zero tolerance" policy. Supporting this action was a parental advisor to the school who said, "They tasted wine. But it was not a wine tasting. They did not rinse and spit. They may have ingested alcohol." However, pressure from the students' parents led the superintendent to reinstate the principal after he wrote a contrite letter of self-criticism to the parents.
Not so lucky was Jennifer Coonce, an honor student who was barred from her high school for two months after she politely "took a sip from a glass of sangria as part of a toast" for a fellow employee. It was the student's first day as an intern at the company and she didn't want to cause a problem or embarrass the guest of honor by not participating in honoring the employee.
Because of her school's zero tolerance alcohol policy, Ms. Coonce was suspended for 10 days. Following her suspension, she was not allowed to return to school for two months. She had to take her classes at home over a speaker phone, but was unable to continue the honors courses she had been taking. Additionally, she was forbidden to participate in extracurricular activities and couldn't become a member of the National Honor Society.
These are harsh penalties for taking a celebratory sip of sangria off campus. More importantly, such extreme punishments adversely affect any student's chances for admission to an outstanding college, for receiving scholarships, and for subsequent success in life. However, the school defended its policy of rigid intolerance and insisted its actions were fair.
Not even totally abstaining can protect students from zero tolerance, as Mr. Loar discovered. Another abstainer who suffered was a 13- year-old student in Georgia, who was suspended for two weeks for merely giving his French teacher a gift-wrapped bottle of French wine!
Nor are adults free from the negative consequences of zero tolerance. Consuming a drink in a restaurant cost high school teacher Lori Gallagher her teaching and coaching career.
Ms. Gallagher was suspended from her job as an English teacher and swim coach at Greenwood (Indiana) High School for consuming alcohol at a team dinner after a swim meet.
School regulations don't specifically prohibit a teacher from consuming alcohol in the presence of students but include a vague prohibition against "improper conduct" with students.
The school clearly makes no distinction between the legal and responsible consumption of alcohol by an adult and alcohol abuse. Amazingly, the Teaachers Association agreed, asserting that "Clearly, a situation in which in which alcohol is in the presence of minors is inappropriate." Apparently, merely taking students to a restaurant at which alcohol is available is also unacceptable. The prohitition is extremely vague.
What does this temperance view accomplish? Instead of seeing adults consume alcool in a legal, responsible manner, the message is that alcohol is an exciting taboo that has only one purpose -- to get consumers drunk. What a lesson for a school to teach!

Zero Tolerance Results

These are a few of the many victims of "zero tolerance," which is now all the rage. But what messages does such a zealous pursuit of zero tolerance send our young people? One apparent message is that those who promote such misguided intolerance have lost touch with youth, another is that they are unrealistic and impractical, and another is that their alcohol education messages are not credible.
More important, what does zero tolerance accomplish? Unfortunately, there is no evidence that "zero tolerance" is an effective deterrent to alcohol abuse. It is no more successful than were the scare tactics of early drug education and is almost certainly counter-productive.
Alcohol is a part of Western society and the majority ofAmericans enjoy alcohol beverages. To pretend that young people will grow up to enter a world of abstinence is both unrealistic and irresponsible. Even religious groups strongly committed to abstinence are not very successful in maintaining it among their young people, the majority of whom drink. This is true even among students attending schools supported by abstinence religions. Why should we expect secular education to reach even that very low level of "success?" It can't, and , unfortunately, zero tolerance won't help.

What Really Works

On the other hand, many groups around the world have learned how to consume alcohol widely with almost no problems. Those groups familiar to most Americans include Italians, Jews, and Greeks. The success of such groups has three parts:

1. beliefs about the substance of alcohol
2. the act of drinking
3. education about drinking

In these successful groups, the substance of alcohol is seen as neutral. It is neither a terrible poison nor it a magic substance that can transform people into what they would like to be.
The act of drinking is seen as natural and normal. While there is little or no social pressure to drink, there is absolutely no tolerance of abusive drinking by anyone, anytime, under any circumstance.
Education about alcohol starts early and starts in the home. Young people are taught -- through their parents' good example and under their supervision -- that if they drink, they must do so moderately and responsibly.
In Europe, where the drinking age is generally 16, alcohol is served in some school cafeterias. In referring to the dinner in Paris, alcohol authority Dr. Dwight Heath of Brown University explained that "that is the best way for young people to learn about drinking. It deglamorizes it, it demystefies -- they are drinking in a responsible situation with adults, as an accompaniment to food."

What We Do in the U.S.

In spite of the fact that most Europeans promote responsibility and moderation by introducing alcohol to their children within the protective and supportive environment of the home, we ignore their successful example by denying children meaningful alcohol education in the false belief that young people can't handle alcohol. Our actions lead them to drink in uncontrolled environments, such as in cars, hanging around street corners with their friends, at unsupervised parties, and similar undesirable situations. These are the worst possible environments in which to learn appropriate drinking behaviors. When our unprepared young people subsequently fail to drink appropriately, we see that as "proof" that young people shouldn't drink. In this way, our society is creating the problems it fears.

Teaching Responsibility

But isn't it illegal for anyone under age 21 to drink? No, it isn't. In most states and communities, people of any age can drink for religious reasons, for health purposes, or under the direct supervision of their parents. And in at least 19 states, it is not specifically illegal for people under the age of 21 to drink. 8
Additionally, teaching responsibility toward alcohol doesn't require that young people consume alcohol any more than teaching them civics requires them to run for mayor or vote for president. We teach civics to prepare young people for civic responsibility when they become adults. If we drink sensibly, and think our children may choose to drink as adults, then we need to teach them responsibility, as well.

It's clear

We should have zero tolerance for "zero tolerance."