Anthony Cody was taken aback when he saw that pundit Alexander Russo was critical of the media for ganging up against Betsy DeVos when she explained at a budget hearing why she was defunding the Special Olympics. Russo seemed to think that the media critique of DeVos may have been the work of “advocates and trolls,” special interests blowing up a story that was a Nothingburger. Russo treated the hearing as a ho-hum event, nothing new.
But Cody, who sat behind DeVos throughout the hearing, saw plenty that was new.
First, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro grilled DeVos about the new report by the Network for Public Education which documented that the federal Charter Schools Program had wasted nearly $1 billion on charter schools that either never opened or closed soon after opening. The basic issue was that the Department of Education was handing out millions of dollars without fact-checking the applications. Yet DeVos was seeking a $60 million increase for this slipshod, wasteful program while asking to cut or eliminate many other programs. Russo didn’t find that newsworthy.
There was another important story that Russo found to be not newsworthy. Anthony Cody became part of that story because of the expression on his face as he sat directly behind DeVos.
He writes:
“In fact, I wound up being a part of a whole OTHER viral story that Russo doesn’t even mention – the moment when Lucille Roybal-Allard asks DeVos to explain her absurd belief that larger class sizes may benefit students. And although I am indeed an advocate (if not a troll) I had very little to do with this clip going viral — 8.4 million views at last count.”
Cody complains that Russo has tried to set himself up as the “ethical minder” of education journalism. But anyone with an ethical barometer should be appalled every day by the unethical actions of DeVos, as she rolls back civil rights protections, undercuts students who were defrauded by for-profit “colleges,” and campaigns against the nation’s public schools. She is a novelty: the first person to lead either the Department of Education (established in 1980) or the U.S. Office of Education (established in 1867) who was actively opposed to public schools. That should be a daily story, kind of like having an Environmental Protection Agency head who doesn’t believe in protecting the environment.
I have my own beef with Russo.
In the spring of 2010, I published The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education.
It got a lot of attention because I had been deeply embedded in prominent rightwing think tanks (the Koret Task Force at the Hoover Institution and the Thomas B. Fordham Institute), and in the book I renounced policies and a worldview I had espoused for years. It became a national bestseller. The very fact that anyone had changed her mind was a big deal.
Many months later, I was contacted by Russo. He invited me to meet with him at a cafe near my home in Brooklyn. We had a nice getting-to-know-you chat. I told him that I had cast the deciding vote in his favor as a judge of the Spencer Fellowships, and he thanked me. Towards the end of our meeting, he asked if I would be willing to read his book about the Green Dot charter chain and write a blurb for the jacket. I agreed to do so. I found the book informative and I wrote a blurb.
Some weeks later, a friend sent me Russo’s latest article, in which he criticized me and said I could not be trusted because I changed my mind and could do it again. I am paraphrasing here. Basically, he implied that I was an intellectual or political whore, lacking in sincerity or conviction.
I was stunned. As soon as I got over the shock of being attacked by someone I thought was a friend, I called his publisher and asked to speak to his editor. When I reached her, I said I wanted my blurb off his book. She explained that the jacket was in production, and it was too late. I read to her what Alexander Russo had written about me, and there was a long pause. She said, “I agree with you. We will take your blurb off the jacket.”
I have never mentioned his name since then, and hope I never again have reason to do so.
That is truly shocking about Russo. But Russo has clearly embraced the right wing philosophy that you accuse your “enemies” of doing what you yourself are doing.
Implying that you are an intellectual or political whore is about Russo knowing what he himself is and attacking you for being what he is.
I have read Russo and he selectively cherry picks what pleases the people who fund him the most and he will look the other way when vulnerable children are hurt because the people who fund him prefer that only positive articles be written about those people.
Russo will never rock the boat. He just looked in the mirror and attacked you for being what he is. Maybe that is a sign that deep down he knows what he is and he will have to live with it.
I have no doubt that if Russo was funded by people who were pro-public school, he’d happily embrace that, too. He isn’t an ideologue, merely a faux journalist whose ultimate goal is to please those who fund him.
So he cannot understand why you don’t do the same because he can’t imagine anyone having any ethical core.
It strikes me that journalists who try to position themselves in any way are dishonest. Just report the facts. Your selection of the important facts should “position” you in terms of the facts you find important. The ones you ignore will also define you.
This phenomenon, the attempt to appear in the middle of an argument, has pushed the American electorate to the right for years. Journalists have seen fit to set themselves solidly on the right, creating a wealth of voices on the right, all in competition for the hearts and minds of a group that thirsts more and more for pundits that validate their particular opinions. A second group of writers have seen fit to position themselves in the middle. This group allows itself to be labeled by the right as left wing, socialist, satanist, or sartorial (OK probably not that one). A third group of writers who advocate Marxist takeover of industrial society is so inconsequential as to be seen as an anomaly.
Thus the middle ground moves inexorably right, just as Roger Ailes wants it to. Joining Ailes on a long list of leaders who want the electorate to move toward a distant right, journalists who wish to be seen as fair have now been induced to accept even the babbling of the Trumpists, of which DeVos is a prime example.
I think you nailed it about how Anthony Russo is unwilling to criticize DeVos about her strong belief that large class sizes are perfectly fine. So he pretended that wasn’t important (because ignoring such things is very lucrative to Russo), and acted as if cutting funding for the Special Olympics should never be criticized!
Meanwhile, Betsy DeVos and her biggest cheerleader Eva Moskowitz have both insisted that class size doesn’t matter. And Russo would not dare to criticize what is the guiding belief of reformers — that “good” teachers should be able to teach in large class sizes. And Russo and his pro-large class funders never mention that part of teaching in large class sizes is demonizing small children who are suspended and humiliated and held back multiple years and counseled out because those small children who can’t learn in small class sizes do not matter to Russo. Although i suspect Russo knows how awful it is for at-risk kids to be in large class sizes but he’d rather have those kids suffer than take a chance on his funders not being happy.
Talk about projecting your own character on others. That is what Russo does. it’s sad because he probably knows deep down that it is he himself who is the “intellectual or political whore, lacking in sincerity or conviction”.
Those faux journalists need to be marginalized. They are PR hacks, not journalists.
I don’t understand why no one is allowed to criticize Betsy DeVos for her proposed budget.
It doesn’t matter at all if the budget passes or not- she’s not in Congress.
Did she have some hand in drafting the proposed budget? Well, then it’s her work and subject to criticism as her work.
This isn’t debatable- Betsy DeVos presented a public document. She has to defend it.
It’s not at all “unfair” to DeVos to insist she stand behind her own work! Should we completely ignore everything she writes or says unless it’s included in legislation and sure to pass?
Exactly, Chiara. Yours is the voice of reason here.
I wouldn’t know Russo if I fell over him, but in my opinion all one has to do is read what he writes and it’s obvious he’s a “movement” ed reformer. Consistently and blatantly anti-public school and anti-labor union.
He’s about as “agnostic” as DeVos.
Diane Ravitch is without doubt our nation’s foremost public intellectual on the subject of PreK-12 education. How did this happen? Well, of course, there were the decades that she spent doing intensive study and scholarly research, and then there is the matter of her character. This is a forceful, indefatigable, compassionate person who wasn’t blinded by ideology, who followed where the facts led. And in doing that, she became a model to the world of what a public intellectual should do and be. Writing that book was an act of breathtaking courage. The personal cost to her of friendships lost and doors closed to powerful institutions she belonged to were enormous, but kids and teachers and public schools and the truth mattered more to her. She spoke truth to power. That’s what public intellectuals have a responsibility to do. That’s the job description. Our nation is forever in her debt, and one day, when the histories are written of the madness that was Education Deform, she will be remembered as the one who illuminated the darkness and showed us the way out of it.
I can think of one comparable example. Richard A. Muller was one of the few prominent physicists who had doubts about anthropogenic climate change. He was hired by the Kochs to do a massive review (a metastudy) of the scientific literature on that topic, and when he concluded his work, he wrote a report, and an article in the New York Times, “The Conversion of a Climate Change Skeptic,” that said, basically, Guess what? I was wrong. The science is unequivocal. Anthropogenic climate change is real and dangerous.” And, to their credit, the Kochs released the report.
Of course, showing that bravery–following where the facts led, whatever those in power might think of those facts–is extraordinarily admirable. Diane and Muller are models to us all. Speak the truth, even when your voice shakes.
Ditzy DeVoid, the first secretary of the Department for the Privatization of Public Education, formerly the USDE, wants a world in which taxpayer dollars are spent on schools that teach that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that Cain and Abel rode around on dinosaurs, and followers of other religions are all going to hell. She wants to pave the way for grifters who run charters and professionals schools for private profit. It’s no wonder that they guy who gave us Trump University appointed her. Don the Con is Ditzy DeVoid’s brother from another mother.
I think so many in this county have their heads up their rears and it’s growing. WHY?
DECEPTION has become second nature for many. We all know 45 lies. Is this a contagious disease?
Here’s just ONE example and I think shows the deception so prevalent. Some people actually ask another to LIE on paper for them and even sign their names?
I wonder how many people USE “acquaintances, friends, and relatives” to write LORs? Forgot, happens in Hollywood and in Politics.
As far as I am concerned to engage in this kind of action is like having an affair in the workplace.
Has this country gone bonkers? Are there that many people out there who think nothing of asking another to LIE on paper for them and then sign their names?
I am learning that this happens a lot and across the spectrum of work, and never thought I would be asked to LIE on PAPER about a person’s qualifications and then sign my name. BTW, this person actually sent me an email with the “words” to put in this LOR and all I had to do was copy and paste, then sign my name. HUH? What person in their right mind does this?
It’s obvious to me that person who asked me to be DECEITFUL has no clue that any thorough evaluation of an application involves calling past employers.
BTW, I was TOLD what to write in the LOR (DECEPTION to the max) … HOLY COW.
To be clear, this person is not someone I consider to be a friend. Friends do not ask friends to LIE for them, at least not in my world. Hollywood and Politics … another story. Maybe so many in Hollywood and Politics are so muddled, they cannot tell a truth from a lie and it’s rubbed off. This may be a good research study.
Beware! America has a MORALITY problem.
Plagiarism … I was actually FORCED to chair a dissertation committee. Well, the person who turned in the dissertation proposal PLAGIARIZED. I went to the stacks and whole pages were lifted without citations. At the Dissertation presentation, had to show all the places plagiarized and basically MOST of this dissertation proposal was PLAGIARIZED.
I presented to this doctoral student and the other committee members and noted all the passages plagiarized and said, “I quit.” as i walked out the door leaving the student stunned. Now I know why this student was foisted on me. No one wanted to work with this student. I was the last ditch effort.
Do I really have the word: “SUCKER” written across my forehead? I looked and it’s not there.
What is wrong with this country anyway? I worry.
“DECEPTION has become second nature for many. . . What is wrong with this country anyway?”
To answer the question first. Deceit is considered okay if it is by omission, i.e., not telling the whole truth about any given human situation or exchange. Our legal system is built on being able to “tell one’s story” the way one wants it to be told and not necessarily based on the truth of the matter. Same with marketing, ads, etc. . . .
Comte-Sponville discusses this lack of “fidelity to truth” in his chapter on “Fidelity” in his brilliant book on human good, i.e., virtues “A Small Treatise on the Great Virtues”. I used his concept of “fidelity to truth” in the title of my book “Infidelity to Truth: Education Malpractice in American Public Education” to highlight the fact that to rely on errors and falsehoods can only net malpractices.
And that is where this country currently is–too much infidelity to truth.
“The money funneled into unaccountable charter schools OUGHT to be a big story, and so should the additional $5 billion DeVos wants to pour into “Freedom Scholarships.”
Cody is correct in saying this should be a big story, especially during tax season when many people are sending checks to the government. The government has an onus to be responsible stewards of tax dollars. These outrageous figures shows the government is failing the taxpayers. Who voted for them to create these fake scholarships? What evidence is there these scholarships have any value at all? DeVos should have to demonstrate this so called scholarship is worthy of a $5 billion dollar investment. This so-called scholarship is another 1% tax write-off that will continue to reduce taxes for the wealthy. The working people will have to pick up the slack for the lost revenue, or services will be cut. This is the objective! These are the very services that working people in this country pay into and depend on, Social Security and Medicare.
Devos has a God-given mission to make federal funds available for religious indoctrination. She is trying to make hay from a Supreme Court ruling about federal funding for improvements to a church playground. https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/betsy-devos-strikes-a-blow-for-religious-freedom/
Here is the official “guidance” letter from Devos. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/190311.html
Also, in her testimony before Congress someone asked directly of her federal voucher proposal could be used for religious schools. She said yes, with enthusiasm.
Sorry, but she is — NOT — a novelty.
There are only two antonyms for novelty and the one that fits Betsy the Sham is “stagnation”. A novelty is something fresh, innovative, and unique.
Betsy the Brainless is a perverted, distorted farce of a corrupt travesty and she is not unique. She is just like all the other members of ALEC — arrogant, corrupt and living in a brain dead bubble.
All strong but bad micro-organisms need a good strong antibiotic or a heavy dousing of oregano oil . . . .
back during the black death during the middle ages, fire worked too
The whole Special Olympics (SO) is a ridiculous ploy.
I don’t think Beasty DeVos ever really wanted to reduce its funding, as I don’t think she is that stupid (I could be wrong). And certainly, $10 million is nothing to her. That probably is equivalent to the cost of maintaining her 10 yachts and her still blond coiffure per year.
But what may well have happened is that this was an agreement to do a good cop/bad cop skit before America starring her and the Donald.
She would be the bad guy (so easy for her to be typecast) while Trump would be the good guy (he’s such a bad actor) and restore funding to the SO. Then he would end up looking good to his supporters and corroborate their moronic beliefs that he really represents their and morality’s interests.
Not a bad idea if you support him, are ill informed, poorly educated, frustrated for very good reason, and still are good at heart. I mean, how many people does that typify in the USA? I would say tens of million, given our culture.
Kudos to Mr. Cody for the looks of horror and disbelief on his face while witnessing Ms. DeVillain misspeak and lie right through her opaque, porcelain laminated teeth . . .
I think you are right — it was a good cop/bad cop thing, and act.
We will probably see more of that as we move closer to the 2020 election and Trump with lots of help from the GOP and maybe even Russia again starts to lie to influence fringe voters to swing his way.
And if he wins another four years, he will quickly flip on those fringe voters, deny he ever made those promises to his marks, and burn them for being so easy to fool.
To him, all of his voters are just marks (a person identified as an easy target or sucker.) All of MAGA Man’s life, he has seen everyone else as a potential “mark”.
Russia focused on those American “marks” too in 2016.
Not that it matters, but she was proposing to cut $18 million, not $10 million.
Later she said it was not her idea.
My guess is that the decision was made by OMB, as almost all budget decisions are, and she did not object. She is tone deaf.
Her staff wrote her testimony and she read it. She is clueless and also doesn’t care what anyone thinks
All scientists are whores, Diane. They change their minds daily when they face facts that contradict their beliefs they held just the day before.
Oh, good. Respectable historians change their minds when new facts appear.