BBC4 Analysis: What Are Universities For?

Almost half of the UK's school leavers are now going to university. But the university sector is under more scrutiny than ever before. Sonia Sodha argues that it's time to take a profound look at what universities are really for.

Should we be spending vast amounts of public money educating young people at this level if the main purpose is to get ahead of the next person? Are vast numbers of students being failed by a one-size-fits-all system that prizes academic achievement above all else? Why has Apple - and several other companies in Silicon Valley - decided that training young people's imagination and sense of civic culture is of paramount importance? What are the long-term risks to society if universities increasingly become little more than training grounds for the workplace?  

listen to the podcast

The Atlantic: How Trump Is Remaking Evangelicalism

But evangelicals are also defined by how the world sees them, and this has become particularly complicated in the wake of the 2016 election. The statistic that 81 percent of the white evangelicals who voted chose Trump has been cited constantly over the last year and a half. All jokes about conservative Christians supporting a thrice-married, foul-mouthed casino owner have become canned. Non-Christians weren’t the only people who were shocked. “Most evangelical Christians like me exclaimed, ‘Who are these people?’” wrote Mark Galli, the editor in chief of Christianity Today, in his essay. “‘I know hardly anyone, let alone any evangelical Christian[s], who voted for Trump.’” [...]

This, above all, may be the fracture line within the church that Trump has most exacerbated: race. The authors of Still Evangelical? clearly see a non-white-majority future for the church—not just in America, but worldwide. In the U.S., Hispanics grew as a share of Catholics, mainline Protestants, and evangelical Christians between 2007 and 2014, according to Pew, and whites are more likely than either blacks or Hispanics to say they’re not religiously affiliated. A century ago, North America, Europe, and Australia dominated global Christianity; today, the faith is growing most quickly in regions like sub-Saharan Africa. While many predominantly white churches in the U.S. are aging and fading, multi-ethnic and immigrant-driven churches are increasing in size and vibrancy. [...]

Evangelicalism is not going to be remade into a progressive movement in the wake of Trump. In 2015, Pew found that 56 percent of evangelical Protestants identify as Republican or Republican-leaning, higher than any other religious group other than Mormons. While a small but vocal minority of leaders have pushed to create an evangelical left, that movement is still narrow. Even among the generally anti-Trump elites who wrote essays for this book, not all would want that future for their faith.

read the article

America Magazine: Five Years of Francis: The Keys to His Papacy

The sheer surprise of Francis’ election was also a factor. John Paul II had been pope for 26 years at the time of his death, and his doctrinal wingman, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was elected to succeed him in 2005 as Benedict XVI. The combined pontificates represented 35 years of a traditional reorientation in the church, and those two popes had named all of the 113 cardinals who went into the 2013 conclave. [...]

But the hallmark of Francis’ papacy, and the source of the gravitational draw of his personality, is not about some tectonic shift in the church. Rather, it is a commitment to reforming the church first in order to serve the flock truly and bear genuine and convincing witness to Christ’s teachings. [...]

Benedict XVI was wiser about the need for the church to renew itself. But he insisted that all the tools and traditions were already at hand. He had neither the energy nor the administrative skill to open the church to reform and instead sought to highlight tradition and beauty and liturgy as the irresistible draw that would outshine the church’s obvious flaws. Both John Paul and Benedict, in other words, saw themselves as pastors who went out in order to bring others back to their fold, through their own gate. [...]

Prosaic as it sounds, part of the answer lies in the numbers. By the end of 2017, Francis had named just under half of the 120 cardinals who could cast a ballot in the next papal election. A two-thirds supermajority is needed to elect a pope, so it is not as though he has “packed” the College of Cardinals. To be sure, many of the cardinals appointed by Benedict and John Paul are happy about the direction in which Francis is taking the church. But others are dismayed, to say the least, and still others are perhaps unnerved by the tumult that has been stirred by Francis’ critics and may want a compromise candidate as his successor, someone less prone to stirring the pot. On the other hand, a principal dynamic at work in the 2013 conclave—an effort by a large majority of the cardinals, whatever their orientation, to rebalance the power equation between the Vatican and local dioceses—endures and could play a central role again.

read the article

Financial Times: Three reasons Theresa May didn't retaliate more on Russia

The FT's chief foreign affairs commentator Gideon Rachman says the expulsion of diplomats was the 'minimum expected' but Britain's prime minister will have other measures up her sleeve.

The Atlantic: Obama's Legacy of Impunity for Torture

Before Obama even took office, he announced his belief that “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards” on torture. That set the standard for Obama’s tenure, as all avenues of accountability for Bush-era torture were curtailed. A Justice Department inquiry into interrogators who broke even the “acceptable torture” guidelines ended with no charges. Civil lawsuits from former detainees were blocked when the Obama-era Justice Department invoked the state secrets doctrine. An internal Justice Department review of the torture memo authors concluded they had not committed professional misconduct when they worked backwards to justify the Bush administration’s use of torture in defiance of laws against it. Even a proposal for a South African-style “truth and reconciliation” commission was rejected. All avenues for any form of accountability for torture—criminal, civil, even professional—were blocked by Obama-era officials. Even an episode in which the CIA spied on Senate staff in an effort to stonewall an inquiry that ultimately found CIA torture ineffective, and then lied about having done so, ended with little more than an apology. [...]

The Obama administration’s actions helped entrench a standard of accountability that stretches from beat cops to CIA officials, one in which breaking the law in the line of duty is unpunishable, but those suspected of a crime—particularly if black, Muslim, or undocumented—can be subjected to unspeakable cruelty whether or not they are ultimately guilty. After all, these are public servants who have committed their lives to protecting Americans. Why should they be punished for being overzealous? But this logic is entirely backward. It is precisely because they are imbued with such power and authority that accountability is necessary. The public is not served by lawlessness in those to whom it grants power over matters of life and death. The logic of the war on terror, that no act of brutality carries a cost that is too dear to pay, is one that erases all distinctions between right and wrong. By “looking forward,” Obama has allowed Trump to look backward.

Obama’s decision must have seemed like the obvious one at the time. Picking a fight with the intelligence community in the middle of a recession, in which he needed congressional support to rescue the American economy, install a new financial regulatory regime, and pass health-care reform, probably seemed like a bad idea. But it has had tremendous consequences. And President Trump has shown no such squeamishness for picking messy political fights with intelligence agencies or law enforcement should they threaten his prerogatives, an asymmetry that can only warp the political incentives of entities whose authority must never be wielded in a partisan fashion.

read the article

The Atlantic: Trump's Craven Courtiers

But like Malcolm—who gains the throne over the corpses of both Duncan and the usurper Macbeth—we may note that the manner of Tillerson’s exit from Washington life is more interesting and instructive than what he did there, or the fact of his firing. Given that he never denied calling the president a moron, that he had been shut out of the most important diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East and Asia, and that he had embarked on a completely unnecessary wrecking of his own department, his firing was no surprise. Yet the manner of his dismissal is important. [...]

The replacement of Tillerson by CIA Director Mike Pompeo has obvious consequences: a more hawkish disposition on Iran and probably North Korea; a possible diminution of the influence of the lone pillar of integrity in the administration, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. But it also means something much more important, which is that if you hope to influence Trump or gain access to his inner circle, you have to go full Mnuchin. The Secretary of the Treasury is shameless in his flattery of the president. One suspects that his sycophancy is matched by his cynicism. Pompeo may be more subtle, but the bonding between the president and his secretary-designate seems much more a result of his careful cultivation of Trump during his regular intelligence briefings than any record of managerial or diplomatic accomplishment. The president may like his subordinates to fight with each other—but they had better show unflagging harmony with his instincts, including his worst instincts. That is the price of admission, and these ambitious officials know and accept it. [...]

The president’s men (and few women) will also know that what happened to Tillerson could happen to them. That includes Mattis. That in turn means that when the time comes they will be all too happy to betray each other and the president himself. When the clouds finally gather around Macbeth, one of the discontented nobles observes: “Now minutely revolts upbraid his faith-breach; Those he commands move only in command, nothing in love.” Such a moment awaits Trump, though unlike Shakespeare’s Scottish king, who is at least self-aware, he is incapable of understanding that. No band of brothers this: rather a mixture of wary scoundrels, opportunists, and very rare patriots who know that there can be no trust amongst each other or towards their leader. This too is a danger for when some serious test comes.

read the article

Spiegel: Macron Eyes Expanding His Movement Across Europe

Plenty is still in flux, but it seems clear that Macron doesn't plan to simply join one of the existing groups in the European Parliament. Guy Verhofstadt, head of the parliamentary group Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE), the primary proponents of economic liberalism in Brussels, is in frequent contact with Macron via text message, but he still hasn't been invited to Élysée Palace. The Socialists are in the process of shrinking into meaninglessness across Europe. And the EPP, the European Parliamentary group to which Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU) belong, in addition to the parties of Silvio Berlusconi in Italy and Viktor Orbán in Hungary, doesn't seem to Macron like the right political ally either. [...]

Indeed, there are nascent efforts across Europe to establish movements similar to En Marche! - everywhere, that is, but in Germany, where Anglade is exercising caution. For one, the German party system is still seen as being relatively stable despite the rise of the right-wing populist party Alternative for Germany. For another, Macron is wary of antagonizing Merkel's conservatives or the center-left Social Democrats (SPD) since he needs the chancellor and incoming Finance Minister Olaf Scholz (of the SPD) to implement at least some of the EU reforms he has proposed. [...]

Macron has already suffered initial defeats at the hands of the European establishment. In February, a clear majority in the European Parliament voted against Macron's proposal to replace British MEPs post-Brexit with candidates elected on the basis of transnational lists, one of the French president's most important ideas for injecting more democracy into the European project. The EU summit at the end of February likewise rejected the idea.

read the article

The Guardian view on Theresa May and Russia: tackling the troll state

Mrs May was right to set out a measured retaliatory response. Some of these were economic, targeting financial assets that might abet Russian espionage. Others focused on that capability more directly, including the expulsion of 23 diplomats, identified as “undeclared intelligence officers”. Mr Putin is unlikely to change his foreign policy as a result of unilateral British action. And, while Nato allies and the EU have offered words of solidarity, there is much uncertainty around the potential for coordinated containment of the Kremlin. The lack of such cohesion – especially when Brexit makes Britain look strategically dislocated – may have emboldened Russia. [...]

The leader of the opposition’s response to the prime minister was dispiriting. Jeremy Corbyn invited Mrs May to acquiesce to Russia’s requests that a sample be sent to Moscow for verification – on the supposition that the Kremlin might then honestly try to match it with its own stores. He sounded too keen to find another explanation for the use of the nerve agent novichok in the attack.

There are many reasons to be wary whenever governments ask for cross-party support. Oppositions have a duty to challenge prime ministers in the most critical circumstances. Nations should not act in haste over such issues. But Mr Corbyn’s reluctance to share Mrs May’s basic analysis of the Salisbury incident made him look eager to exonerate a hostile power. In the coming days the diplomatic clash with Moscow is sure to escalate. There is likely to be a campaign of obfuscation and misinformation directed at British audiences. That is the Kremlin’s well-established modus operandi. When matters of national security come to the fore, governments do not acquire a licence to act without check or criticism.

read the article

The Guardian: Under Trump, the lies of abstinence-only sex education are back

This comes on the heels of a leaked White House memo and HHS guidelines showing the administration plans to teach teenagers “fertility awareness methods” – otherwise known as the rhythm method – in lieu of birth control. Teens can barely get their homework in on time but somehow we’re expected to believe that they’re going to prevent pregnancy by tracking their periods. [...]

Nearly a decade ago, I wrote a book about abstinence-only education. The lies told by federally funded “educators” to students across the country ranged from inaccurate to astounding.

I spoke to young people who were taught they could be arrested for having premarital sex, and others who were warned birth control pills would make them infertile. Students in Montana were told condoms could give them cancer. A widely used textbook taught that Aids is be transmitted by skin-to-skin contact. Another said that a girl who has had sex is no longer “fresh.”

These classes didn’t stop at inaccurate health information – they also promoted outdated gender roles, such as telling students that boys are wired for science while girls are “feelings” oriented and claiming that girls don’t like sex as much as boys so they need to be the ones to “put the brakes on” to stop intimacy. (These kinds of lessons were directly mentioned by young rape victims I spoke to while writing my book. They believed if they were assaulted it was because they didn’t do enough to stop it, or that they “tempted” their attacker.)

read the article