The oil-and-gas Christian nationalists swamped a number of Republican primary races in Texas with millions of dollars. One big issue was vouchers; the other was payback for trying to oust the state’s corrupt Attotney General, Ken Paxton.. They managed to defeat rural Republicans who are conservative but voted against vouchers for religious schools and/or voted to impeach the state’s corrupt Stste Attorney General. And of course, Pennsylvania billionaire Jeff Yass and Michigan billionaire Betsy DeVos tossed in more millions.
Having Trump’s name at the top of the ticket made have made a difference too.
The Texas Tribune reported that the billionaires won 11 of the 28 races they paid for:
West Texas oil billionaires Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks entered the 2024 primary election cycle wounded.
Their political network was in the middle of a scandal over its ties to white supremacists. Republicans were calling on each other to reject the billionaires’ campaign money. And their enemies believed they were vulnerable — one bad election day from losing their grip on the state.
Instead, Dunn and Wilks emerged from Tuesday perhaps stronger than ever — vanquishing old political foes, positioning their allies for a November takeover of the state Legislature, and leaving little doubt as to who is winning a vicious civil war to control the state party.
In race after race, more moderate conservative incumbents were trounced by candidates backed by Dunn and Wilks. Their political network made good on its vows for vengeance against House Republicans who voted to impeach their key state ally, Attorney General Ken Paxton, advancing more firebrands who campaigned against bipartisanship and backed anti-LGBTQ+ policies. Tuesday’s election also paved the way for the likely passage of legislation that would allow taxpayer money to fund private and religious schools — a key policy goal for a movement that seeks to infuse more Christianity into public life.
All told, 11 of the 28 House candidates supported by the two billionaires won their primaries outright, and another eight are headed to runoffs this May. And, in a sign of how much the state party has moved rightward, five of their candidates beat incumbents in rematches from 2022 or 2020 — with some House districts swinging by double-digits in their favor. Of the candidates they backed, they donated $75,000 or more to 11 of them — six who won, and four who went to runoffs.
Tuesday was a stark contrast from just two years ago, when Dunn and Wilks’ top political fundraising group poured $5.2 million into a host of longshot candidates — much more than what they spent in the current election cycle. They lost badly that year — 18 of the 19 challengers to Texas House members they backed were defeated. Their only successful House candidate that year was Stan Kitzman of Pattison, who toppled former Rep. Phil Stephenson of Wharton in a runoff.
Among the triumphant on Tuesday was Mitch Little, aided by at least $153,000 in Dunn and Wilks cash, who defeated Rep. Kronda Thimesch in a campaign that focused on Little’s defense of Paxton from impeachment charges in the Senate trial last summer. Three days before he won, Little appeared at an eventin Denton County with Paxton and, among others, Steve Bannon, the political operative who helped rally the far right behind then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016.
And another Dunn and Wilks candidate, David Covey, stunned the state by winning more votes than House Speaker Dade Phelan — the No. 1 target of the state’s far-right in part because of his role in the Paxton impeachment and refusal to ban Democrats from House leadership positions. Phelan now faces a runoff from Covey and the prospect of being the first Texas Speaker since 1972 to lose his primary.
Certainly, Tuesday’s dark-red wave can’t be attributed solely to Dunn and Wilks. Texas GOP primaries have historically been decided by small shares of voters, many of them further to the right of even the party’s mainstream. This election cycle, the billionaires’ targets also overlapped with an unlikely ally, Gov. Greg Abbott, who poured more than $6 million into his quest to rid the Texas House of Republicans who defied his calls for school voucher legislation last year. (Dunn and Wilks’ political groups supported Abbott’s opponent in his 2022 gubernatorial primary.)
Meanwhile, Paxton barnstormed the state as he sought retribution against incumbents who supported his impeachment. And, perhaps most importantly, former President Donald Trump was active in many contests — following the lead of Paxton and his other ally, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, and offering late endorsements that bolstered right-wing candidates.
Even so, the billionaires’ fingerprints appear all over the outcomes. Since January, they spent more than $3 million to support candidates through a new political action committee, Texans United For a Conservative Majority. That PAC is a rebrand of Defend Texas Liberty PAC, which has been at the center of a political maelstrom since early October…
Jonathan Stickland, then the president of Defend Texas Liberty, was caught hosting Nick Fuentes, a prominent antisemite and white supremacist, prompting Dunn to issue a rare public statement through the lieutenant governor. Stickland was quietly removed from his position with the PAC.
Subsequent reporting by The Texas Tribune revealed other ties between white supremacists and groups funded by Dunn and Wilks, prompting outcry from some Republicans and calls for the Texas GOP to distance itself from Stickland’s groups.
As votes continued to tally in the far right’s favor this week, Stickland returned from a post-scandal social media sabbatical to gloat.
“We warned them,” Stickland wrote Wednesday on X, one of the handful of posts he’s made since shrinking from the public eye after the Fuentes meeting. “They chose not to listen. Now many are gone.”
Dunn and Wilks both made their fortunes in West Texas oil and, in the last 15 years, have poured more than $100 million into a constellation of political action committees, dark money groups, nonprofits and media websites that they have used to push the state GOP further to the right.
Their strategy has been to incrementally move the party toward their hardline views by painting fellow conservatives as weak and ineffectual — as “RINOs,” or Republicans in name only — and promising well-funded primary challengers to lawmakers who defy their network and its aims. With almost endless wealth, they have poured millions of dollars into inexperienced candidates who often lose but advance the far right’s long-term goals by slowly normalizing once-fringe positions, bruising incumbents, depleting their campaign coffers and making them more vulnerable in the next election cycle.
For years, many Republicans have denounced the strategy, noting that the state Legislature is routinely ranked as the most conservative in the country and warning that Dunn and Wilks’ no-enemies-to-our-right approach to politics would eventually cost the party elections and open the doors to outright extremists.
This year’s elections show just how successful the billionaires have been in pulling the party toward their hardline views.
Open the link to finish the story and read about the extremists installed by the billionaires to promote “Christian values,” like no gun control.
Did Jesus advocate for open carry?

Hopefully Democrats in Texas can take advantage of this and undercut the power of these rightwing billionaires by convincing the more moderate and law-abiding members of the GOP to cut and run from their own extremist wing. It would be nice if this kind of extremist over-reach would result in them being hoist on their own petard.
LikeLike
Stewert
Democrats will need to “undercut the power” of the right wing Catholic Church. In 2020, 63% of White Catholics who attend church regularly voted for Trump, a 3% increase from 2016.
Catholic Conferences have spearheaded school choice campaigns in states. Some take credit for initiation and gaining passage of the legislation.
The first religious charter school, St. Isidore’s, is in the neighboring state of Oklahoma. The legal scholar credited as most influential in advancing religious charter schools is Amy Comey Barrett’s friend at Notre Dame, Prof. Nicole Stelle Garnet. Garnet is a (Koch) Manhattan Institute Fellow as is Christopher Rufo.
LikeLike
Blah blah Catholics bad blah blah Conferences blah blah blah blah Sielo site blah blah blah blah 3rd largest employer blah blah Rufo blah Leo blah blah blah democracy in Ohio blah blah blah Bishops under the bed blah blah blah lions, tigers, and bears, oh my! blah blah Amy Conan Barrett’s friend’s housekeeper’s cousin blah blah
LikeLike
Bob, showing us the temper tantrum of a two-year old. Proving again, he can’t control himself.
LikeLike
Bad Catholics
Very bad, bad Catholics
LikeLike
If Bob had maturity and was capable of self reflection, he would review his comments in this thread and ask himself, what impression would a new visitor to the blog, form about the Ravitch blog and those who read it.
LikeLike
blah blah
LikeLike
Linda, I don’t know where you’re getting that polling data so this isn’t necessarily apples to apples, but one poll found that 71% of whites who attend religious services voted for Trump in 2020. So by those measures, white Catholics are significantly (8 percentage point difference in the poll, which would be greater because presumably the 71% would be even larger if Catholics weren’t included) less pro-Trump than white religious people in general.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/08/30/most-white-americans-who-regularly-attend-worship-services-voted-for-trump-in-2020/
LikeLike
“who attend church regularly”- it’s in the comment. (Pew)
But cutting to the chase, I trust blog readers to read info and make decisions for themselves e.g. that the Knights of Columbus succeeded in 1954 in getting “In God We Trust” added to the pledge of allegiance, that 3 dioceses in Ohio spent $900,000 in August on the GOP-anti-democracy ballot issue, that Leonard Leo has great influence in the selection of judges, that Notre Dame conducts regular summits for school choice, that Catholic Conferences have spearheaded the school choice campaign, that right wing Catholic judges overturned Roe and allowed religious school exemption from civil rights employment law, that a state rep, like Phil Jensen, cites his church as God’s provider for the poor, while he votes against school lunches for poor kids, that their tax dollars have made Catholic organizations the nation’s 3rd largest employer, organizations like clinics that lie to women telling them that abortion causes breast cancer, that the Church spends its money on lobbying and sophisticated voter mobilization efforts to get right wing votes, that the history about the Catholic Church and slavery and civil rights is not one to be proud of, including up to 1960, that the Church has spent large sums to deny equality to LGBTQ, that Robert P George of the right wing James Madison programs on campuses co-wrote the Manhattan Declaration, signed by the bishops of 15 major cities, that the politically influential and successful groups, Becket Law and EPPC, are primarily right wing Catholic, that prominent influencers like Sohrab Ahmari, Adrian Vermule, Steve Bannon, and Michael O’Shea cite their Catholic sect as underpinning their right to impose right wing political views on American citizens, etc.
Bob’s intent in ridiculing, gaslighting and mischaracterizations is to stop readers from reading about the preceding at the blog.
People who read the blog frequently understand why you chose to jump in to have Bob’s back while he belittles.
LikeLike
I think it has been obvious for YEARS that Linda’s criticism has been directed at American Catholic groups backed up with extraordinarily outrageous amounts of money to harm out democracy. Linda was warning about Leonard Leo long before most of the folks here (including those who are Catholic) knew he existed. And that was before Leo became even more powerful with an even greater influx of money.
It should be noted that those same American Catholic groups whose influence Linda has been warning us about tend to be wildly critical of Pope Francis.
National Catholic Reporter, November 15, 2022:
“Bishops elect anti-Francis archbishop as new president”
“The U.S. bishops have sent a clear message of rejection to Pope Francis by selecting Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who heads the Archdiocese for the Military Services, as president of the bishops’ conference.”
It is true that Leonard Leo’s organizations have joined with right wing non-Catholic billionaires like the Koch’s to push their right wing agenda. And they have joined with evangelical groups.
Both Koch and Leo have a malign influence on our democracy, and unfortunately they control a lot of money and (thanks to the Supreme Court) have outsize influence to undermine the basic principles that have been the backbone of our country.
It shouldn’t be anti-Catholic to criticize radical far right Catholic organizations with outsize money and influence who themselves criticize Pope Francis! I don’t think these folks should represent the Catholic Church.
LikeLike
I wrote about Leo on this blog before Linda did. LOL.
LikeLike
According to google’s site-specific search query, the first time the words “Leonard Leo” appeared on this web site was August 2, 2019.
LikeLike
I stand corrected. Linda was called out by Diane and other commenters for this “Catholics are the root of all evil” stuff way, way back on September 20, 2019.
LikeLike
Our memories are highly fallible. I confront this every time I depose someone or defend someone in a deposition. I can’t exclude myself from this. We’re all just half-making shit up all the time, I fear.
LikeLike
On that extremely important topic:
LikeLike
Did you have that on the shelf and my comment just reminded you of it?
LikeLike
Yes. Something I’ve meant to post for years now. LOL. I have a lot of that stuff.
LikeLike
Impressive. Started to read it but realized it was a reading level higher than what I’m capable of handling right now. Will return later.
LikeLike
Oh my. I think it will repay reading, Flerp. It details and adds considerable heft precisely the point you make and even contains examples drawn from legal cases.
LikeLike
Note also that Linda was not posting Leonard Leo stuff back in the Obama years, either.
LikeLike
Obama didn’t ask Leonard Leo for judicial nominees.
LikeLike
True. I was referring to another commenter’s comment that she had been reading Linda talking about Leonard Leo since the Obama presidency.
LikeLike
Bob,
Good that you saw the danger. I don’t recall your posts but I do recall Linda’s because they were so frequent because she obviously saw it as a huge danger. I also felt at first that she was probably overreacting to the danger, and I don’t recall anyone responding as if they agreed what Leo was doing was very dangerous and frightening. (This was back in the Obama days way before the media started noticing Leo and his influence became evident.)
LikeLike
flerp!, I don’t know if the search you used is accurate, but Linda’s very important comment in 2019 was basically ignored:
“If Leo and Weyrich aren’t representing Catholic political policy, its time for fellow Catholics, those who believe in social justice to make the rift highly visible. If they don’t, Catholic political policy should be the same target as evangelical policy.
Readily, media report on and expose evangelicals like Jerry Falwell Jr., Franklin Graham, etc. and, elites readily mock them. But, there’s blackout on equal treatment for the right wing extremism of other religious sects who sit at the seat of power.”
Image if that rift between Leo and fellow Catholics had been more visible, and Leo lost a lot of his credibility as he became associated with the far right anti-Pope Francis folks who hate America’s long tradition of separating church and state.
Jerry Falwell was mocked. He had many followers, but people understood what the Moral Majority wanted and most rejected it. Now, Leo has mainstreamed a radical religious right that Falwell could only dream of.
LikeLike
Linda made some excellent points — my other posts are held up so I hope people will read Linda’s very last comment on the August 2, 2019 link posted above:
“If Leo and Weyrich aren’t representing Catholic political policy, its time for fellow Catholics, those who believe in social justice to make the rift highly visible. If they don’t, Catholic political policy should be the same target as evangelical policy.
Readily, media report on and expose evangelicals like Jerry Falwell Jr., Franklin Graham, etc. and, elites readily mock them. But, there’s blackout on equal treatment for the right wing extremism of other religious sects who sit at the seat of power.”
I also noticed that bethree5 and Linda had a perfectly reasonable conversation in the link that Bob posted. And it is wildly inaccurate for Bob to mislead readers by saying: ”Linda was called out by Diane and other commenters for this “Catholics are the root of all evil” stuff way, way back on September 20, 2019.” Diane and bethree5 and Linda demonstrated how to have a civil conversation in the link that Bob posted.
It IS possible to have civil conversations and Linda – even when people disagree – is civil. She listens to comments and responds, unless they are just nasty insults as some folks here believe substitutes for dialogue when they disagree and don’t like the person.
LikeLike
NYC
I wrote a response before your comments. It will likely never show up or show up days after readers have moved on.
I appreciate your comments. You are correct that I am warning about a serious threat and the Roe decision is clearly proof.
Bob doesn’t want readers to know about the political threat from the Catholic Church. He’s not impacted by its anti-woman bias and, if he isn’t gay, he’s not impacted as that demographic group is., either.
When Joel writes at the blog that the Catholic Church isn’t involved in right wing politics and cites as evidence, it hasn’t been covered by media, it makes Bob’s day.
LikeLike
Leila and Loofi | Bob Shepherd | Praxis (wordpress.com)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Two worthwhile things- being reminded what Diane said and having Bob and Flerp lord it over me.
NYC
I’m sorry we never met. I would have liked you.
LikeLike
What’d I do??
LikeLike
Agree, Stewart!
LikeLike
These results are another example of how billionaires use their weaponized wealth to influence elections and convince the uninformed to vote against their own self-interests.
LikeLike
Apologies for the off-topic comment, but the University of Texas at Austin has become the latest university to announce that it is moving back to requiring standardized tests for applicants. UT Austin says that admits who submitted test scores had GPAs on average 0.86 points (almost a whole grade) higher than those who opted not to provide test scores. And admits who submitted test scores were 55% less likely to have a first semester GPA below 2.0 than those who didn’t submit test scores.
From the University’s statement: “Our experience during the test-optional period reinforced that standardized testing is a valuable tool for deciding who is admitted and making sure those students are placed in majors that are the best fit. Also, with an abundance of high school GPAs surrounding 4.0, especially among our auto-admits, an SAT or ACT score is a proven differentiator that is in each student’s and the University’s best interest.”
LikeLike
I am glad U Tex has auto-admits based on GPAs. This seems like something they would use as a placement exam, not as a barrier to keep students out. If a 4.0 disadvantaged auto-admit student has lower standardized test scores, they should be given extra advantages in college to help them succeed.
I would support selective universities using test scores if they made admissions decisions between high performing students in public and private schools based on their standardized test scores. What I don’t like is the hypocrisy of ignoring standardized test scores when the choice is between a very wealthy connected student and a middle class student with higher standardized test scores. If standardized test scores are relevant, then certainly a student given 13 years of the most expensive private school education, who has access to tutors and private test prep, should be expected to have higher standardized test scores than a typical public school student. If that isn’t the expectation, then it seems like hypocrisy.
The statistics you mentioned are meaningless without more information. Did a higher percentage of wealthier students submit test scores? Was this a direct comparison of students taking the same classes, or a vague apples to oranges GPA comparison.
In the spring semester 2023, Texas Tech University was proud to note its’ football team had a GPA average of 3.15. That same semester, U. of Tennessee’s football team had a 3.17 GPA. I tried to find the same with U. Texas and couldn’t, but they did place football players as academic all-americans who had majors in physical culture and sports and youth and community studies.
If someone from a disadvantaged background with no easy access to tutors has below a 2.0 in an engineering major or hard math or sciences, I don’t assume they don’t belong. I am impressed that they challenged themselves and I believe the university should be giving them all the resources they need to do well in those majors, much as student-athletes are often lavished with academic support in less rigorous majors.
It’s obviously not an even playing field, but universities can make it far more even. It is hypocrisy to use standardized test scores to bar students who are already disadvantaged, but overlook standardized test scores when they want to advantage students who are already extremely advantaged.
LikeLike
The stats are not “meaningless.” They demonstrate that students who choose not to submit their test scores perform worse — dramatically worse — than those who do choose to submit them. That’s a good basis for a university to require applicants to submit test scores, both to help universities identify students more likely to succeed in college and to help them identify which students need help. As UT Austin said in its statement, “[w]ith an abundance of high school GPAs surrounding 4.0, especially among our auto-admits, an SAT or ACT score is a proven differentiator that is in each student’s and the University’s best interest.”
I’ve said it a thousand times, but eliminating test scores simply makes college admissions even more game-able by the wealthy, at the expense of the middle class.
I’m glad so many universities are recognizing this, although in truth they’ve known it all along, as I’m not aware of any research showing that GPA (and recommendations letters, and extracurriculars, and idiotic personal statements written and edited by people other than the student) is as good a predictor of success in college as GPA combined with test scores.
LikeLike
Obviously, people with good test scores are likely to submit them and people with poor test scores are unlikely to do so, given the choice. Please explain to me why this finding is not akin to “Water is wet.”
LikeLike
That’s not the key finding. The key finding is that people who don’t submit test scores — who, as you correctly note, have higher test scores than those who don’t — are dramatically more likely to perform well at the university. I also find that finding akin to finding that water is wet, but there are a surprising number of people who don’t.
LikeLike
Sorry, got that flipped. Those who don’t submit scores are likely to perform dramatically worse (and in fact did perform dramatically worse) than those who do submit them.
LikeLike
“eliminating test scores simply makes college admissions even more game-able by the wealthy, at the expense of the middle class.”
If the most selective colleges routinely admit wealthy students with SAT scores that are lower than middle class students who get rejected, this won’t change that. But it can be used by folks like you who say they support an even playing field to point out the hypocrisy. That’s why I brought it up. I expected you to agree with me.
I believe that very wealthy students who have 13 years of the finest education money can buy — including the most expensive private standardized test prep — should not be admitted over top performing public school students with the same or higher standardized test scores. Unfortunately, I find that folks who put a lot of faith in standardized test scores often start making excuses about how we shouldn’t put so much faith in standardized test scores because they don’t believe it would be fair to reject the most privileged private school students just because some middle class public school student got better test scores.
Then they usually claim that there really isn’t much difference between a perfect or near perfect score and a score that is 50 or 100 points lower (after multiple tries).
LikeLike
I don’t really follow what you’re saying. Sounds like you weren’t trying to address the narrow substance of my comment but rather were trying to get me to agree with something else, for some unclear reason.
LikeLike
flerp!,
You are the one who said:
“I’ve said it a thousand times, but eliminating test scores simply makes college admissions even more game-able by the wealthy, at the expense of the middle class.”
I just find the hypocrisy glaring when people who say they don’t want the wealthy to game college admissions and support standardized testing requirements seem to hedge when asked whether it’s fair to admit very wealthy private school students over high performing middle class public school students if the middle class student has a higher GPA. Why not just acknowledge the hypocrisy? If it’s okay to admit very wealthy private school students and reject middle class students with higher standardized test scores, then what is the point of those standardized test scores again, since the wealthy don’t have to “game” anything if standardized test scores don’t matter for them?
I don’t understand how pitting middle class and low-income public school students against one another solves the problem of the wealthiest and most advantaged students being admitted at the expense of middle class students with higher test scores.
How does that stop “gaming” by the wealthy?
LikeLike
^^^typo in there:
I just find the hypocrisy glaring when people who say they don’t want the wealthy to game college admissions and support standardized testing requirements seem to hedge when asked whether it’s fair to admit very wealthy private school students over high performing middle class public school students if the middle class student has a higher STANDARDIZED TEST SCORE.
LikeLike
I stand by the statement you quoted (and I haven’t seen it contradicted) but I remain confused. Are you referring to some argument we had in the past? It feels like it but I can’t really tell. And when you say that “people” are hypocritical, do you mean to say that *I* am a hypocrite? If so, why? Just say what you want to say in a straightforward manner.
LikeLike
My reply to those attacking Linda above seems to be held up forever, so I am going to try to post it again here:
flerp!, I don’t know if the search you used is accurate, but Linda’s very important comment on August 2, 2019 was basically ignored:
“If Leo and Weyrich aren’t representing Catholic political policy, its time for fellow Catholics, those who believe in social justice to make the rift highly visible. If they don’t, Catholic political policy should be the same target as evangelical policy.
Readily, media report on and expose evangelicals like Jerry Falwell Jr., Franklin Graham, etc. and, elites readily mock them. But, there’s blackout on equal treatment for the right wing extremism of other religious sects who sit at the seat of power.”
Image if that rift between Leo and fellow Catholics had been more visible, and Leo lost a lot of his credibility as he became associated with the far right anti-Pope Francis folks who hate America’s long tradition of separating church and state.
Jerry Falwell was mocked. He had many followers, but people understood what the Moral Majority wanted and most rejected it. Now, Leo has mainstreamed a radical religious right that Falwell could only dream of.
LikeLike
I wasn’t attacking Linda.
LikeLike
I think it’s a good idea to have testing to get into college, but I think that SAT and ACT are NOT good tests. The tests need to be redesigned to show subject knowledge (not just multiple choice/quick pick of an answer after dropping out 2 of the 4….guessing). There are so many kids in college who really shouldn’t be there and it is a disservice to them (and their family) to keep them indebted for something that doesn’t suit their needs or better their life.
LikeLike
My comments don’t seem to be posting, or are posting in the wrong places. But I will try again.
flerp!, I assumed we agreed when I read your comment: ”eliminating test scores simply makes college admissions even more game-able by the wealthy, at the expense of the middle class”.
So I am mystified as to why you are picking a fight with me.
Surely my comment was not confusing:
Standardized test scores COULD be used to make sure the wealthy aren’t gaming the system at the expense of the middle class. It’s very easy. Admit high performing middle class students over wealthy students if the middle class student has higher standardized test scores.
flerp!, if you don’t like that idea, it’s fine. But I find it odd that someone who believes that using standardized tests would make the system less game-able for the wealthy would object to using standardized tests to make the system less game-able by the wealthy!
LikeLike
I’m picking a fight with you? I don’t even know what you’re talking about!
Listen, our little arguments may stick with you a long time, but they do not stick with me. But I gather there must have been some prior argument about private school admissions in which I said something that you think is contradictory to what I’ve posted here? Is that it?
If you have a question, just pose it in clear, simple language, and I’ll try to answer it.
LikeLike
If we agree on the statement ”eliminating test scores simply makes college admissions even more game-able by the wealthy, at the expense of the middle class,” then I suppose that’s some progress.
LikeLike
flerp!,
How does requiring standardized test scores help make college admissions less game-able by the wealthy, at the expense of the middle class, if high-performing middle class students with higher standardized test scores are not admitted over lower-scoring wealthy students?
I know there are college admissions officers who point out that getting all those donations from the wealthy students’ family makes their admission over higher scoring middle class students a very good idea.
It may be. But then let’s all acknowledge that requiring standardized tests doesn’t help address the system being game-able by the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.
LikeLike
Oh I see. You’re saying there is a tension between the ideas that (a) requiring test scores ameliorates the advantages that extremely wealthy students have over middle class students, and (2) extremely wealthy students already have advantages over middle-class students, even under a test-required admissions scheme.
True, hyper-wealthy students have advantages over middle class students in a system where standardized test scores are required. But hyper-wealthy students have advantages over middle class students in a system where test scores are not considered. Hyper-wealthy people and their children will always have advantages over less wealthy people, at least until the state or the mob starts chopping their heads off. But their advantages are larger in a test-blind system than in a system where test scores are considered. Because the hyper-wealthy are much, much better positioned to accrue letters of recommendation from impressive people, slick personal statements not written by the student and edited by (probably) better educated people and consultants. They will tend to have much better extracurriculars, because increasingly, extracurriculars involve time and money. And they are far more likely to come with the imprimatur of prep schools that have reliably fed students into elite colleges for eons.
Put more tersely: it would be worse without standardized tests.
LikeLike
I find it odd that someone who believes that using standardized tests would make the system less game-able for the wealthy would object to using standardized tests to make the system less game-able by the wealthy!
So how CAN standardized tests be used to make the system less game-able by the wealthy, flerp!?
LikeLike
They are a check on the hyper-wealthy. If tests are considered, a rich kid with a 1300 SAT and a 3.5 GPA is at a disadvantage relative to a middle class kid with a 1580 SAT and a 3.5 GPA, assuming the rich kid’s dad doesn’t have a library named after him.
This is pretty straightforward, I think.
LikeLike
Why would it be worse without standardized tests? Every advantage you mentioned is still there, and colleges still would not admit high performing middle class students with higher test scores over the wealthy students with lower test scores.
You described a system where the wealthy have the same advantage over middle class students, with or without standardized tests!
I suggested a possible solution to that – using the standardized tests to admit middle class students with higher test scores!
I thought you’d agree, given your comment, but it seems you do not.
LikeLike
I tried to explain. If it’s not convincing you, or if you don’t even see the explanation I offered, there’s nothing I can do about it.
LikeLike
As for your proposed solution, if you want a system where students are admitted according to the rank order of their standardized test scores, go advocate for that. I recall you being very opposed to the stack-ranking test-only admissions scheme used in NYC’s specialized high schools, so it seems odd that you would want to see the same system implemented in college admissions. I assume it’s a rhetorical tactic of some kind. But again, feel free to advocate for that system. No skin off my back.
LikeLike
flerp!,
Thank you for finally acknowledging that standardized tests being “considered” (and then not counting for much) really won’t help middle class students. Your scenario is enlightening.
Does the affluent student whose parents can only donate $250,000 get in with a 1500 SAT over the middle class kid with the 1580 SAT?
Maybe the richer student whose parents can donate $500,000 only needs a 1450 SAT to be admitted over the middle class kid with the 1580 SAT. And a $750,000 donation means a 1400 SAT is enough to make that student more worthy than that 1580 middle class student.
And the kid whose parent donates a library only needs a 1300.
In other words, as Leona Helsmley might say, only the little people should be judged by their standardized test scores. Not the rich! When considering admitting a wealthy student over a middle class one, standardized test scores should be “considered”, a meaningless term which means that many high scoring middle class students get rejected but a wealthy student with lower standardized test scores gets in.
You are correct that it’s pretty straightforward. I just find it odd when people argue that it is fair to admit a very wealthy student given every advantage who still doesn’t have test scores higher than middle class students who are rejected, but “unfair” to admit a student who has had no advantages at all, and many disadvantages, who doesn’t have test scores higher than middle class students. To me, if standardized test scores are to be used, the requirement for higher standardized test scores should fall on the wealthiest students with every advantage. Not the poorest.
LikeLike
Are you incapable of speaking plainly? Please make sense.
LikeLike
flerp! says “eliminating test scores simply makes college admissions even more game-able by the wealthy, at the expense of the middle class.”
Making standardized test scores a “consideration” while in practice admitting lower scoring wealthy students over middle class students with higher standardized test scores does nothing to address that the system is “game-able” by the wealthy.
If you want to make admissions less “game-able” by the wealthy, then require them to have higher standardized test scores to be admitted. That will open up seats for middle class students and can’t be “gamed” by the wealthy.
I figured anyone who supported using standardized test scores to make the system less game-able by the wealthy would want to use the standardized test scores to make the system less game-able by the wealthy!
LikeLike
Diane asked you to be civil.
I was directly responding to this comment of yours at 12:08am above:
“Are you incapable of speaking plainly? Please make sense.”
Like any civil person, I responded to you saying “Please make sense” to try to clarify what my comment meant.
I should have realized it was just you being uncivil.
”eliminating test scores simply makes college admissions even more game-able by the wealthy, at the expense of the middle class”.
And requiring test scores while still admitting lower scoring wealthy students at the expense of middle class students with higher standardized test scores keeps that game-able system in place.
Next time you don’t want to engage in a civil discussion, just don’t reply as I may not always recognize that you are just being uncivil. Such a waste of my time.
LikeLike
So weird.
LikeLike
If you think that I’m wasting your time, do both of us (and the rest of the commenters) a *huge* favor and don’t reply to my comments. I have the patient of a saint with you, even though your sole goal seem to be to try to catch me in some inconsistency to show I’m a hypocrite or a bad person. It is really strange behavior, and I just spent 15 minutes collecting this particularly weird exchange for posterity.
https://imgur.com/gallery/V7CWZqU
LikeLike
No reader should address a personal response to another.
LikeLike
Okay, y’all, settle down. This is not social media. We discuss ideas here, not each other. Diane posted that Texas evangelical billionaires won big last week. The money beat the numbers. That’s a problem, a big problem. I don’t have an easy solution. Let’s put our heads together. Together.
LikeLike
What, you don’t want to discuss my hypocrisy?
LikeLike
But, but . . . bad Catholics!!!
LikeLike
After all these decades of becoming, I am in my unbecoming phase. ROFL.
LikeLike
Thank you, LCT.
Sometimes I feel like a kindergarten teacher, trying to make the kids stop fighting.
LikeLike
Notice the “kids” replies to LCT above.
I come here because I like that you and bethree5 and others here can have a civil discussion with Linda or me without resorting to snark – even if we disagree. I am not sure that this is a “both sides” issue.
LikeLike
Greetings Diane: I don’t read everything here as I used to, and especially not the comments.
But part of why I “left” was because: in way too many cases, your excellent and informative beginning blog note was followed by Linda’s Catholic/religion-bashing and witch hunting, and a resultant diversion away from the original theme.
I thought providing a context and another side of the argument was important, and so I participated for some time; but nothing changed.
I will still read your notes and do appreciate (especially of late) the rich information you bring to the blog.
However, I can only hope that Linda realizes that too much of that drum-banging only hurts people’s ears, and blocks interest, inspiring blah blah-ing, even in what truth she might bring (and there is some truth to it, though my stance on her obvious bias and massive delivery problems stands), and it makes one wonder whether her teeth bleed, and about how much psychic spittle is running down her chin every time she performs what turns out to be an intensely biased conspiracy-theory sounding overkill and song and dance. CBK
LikeLike
CBK,
I hope you don’t give up. Don’t read Linda’s comments. She is obsessed with Catholics, and posts whatever she can that is negative and conspiratorial. I have urged her not to, but she continues. Her information is usually correct but unbalanced. The Catholic world is far more complex than she admits. I am married to a practicing Roman Catholic who is critical of the hierarchy but loves the body of belief. Joe Biden is a Catholic. So was JFK. Many others, too numerous to list, who share my values. I read every comment.
If someone here posted anti-Black comments or anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim comments, I would block them. Many years ago, a friend said to me that “anti-Catholicism is the last respectable prejudice.”
LikeLike
Ah, Texas again. It seems to me that Texas elections always seem to be dodgy. Beginning with “Landslide Lyndon’s” first election down to the election that are still going on. Michigan’s Betsy DeVos famously said “We have the best elections that money can buy.” Well in Michigan we have had enough. We amended our constitution so that we all can use vote-by-mail (absentee ballots), 9 days of early voting ending the Sunday before the election, same day registration and voting (including election day), ending Political Parties Gerrymandering election districts, and as usual we keep using scannable ballots that then fall into the locked ballot boxes and become a paper record of the vote if a recount is needed. But it seems that MAGA-Republican controlled Texas still has “The best elections that money can buy.” It is time to pass legislation that overturns the “Citizens United Decision that made money speech!
LikeLike
Very good news from Florida, with the settlement of the lawsuit against the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” law. Summary in quotation marks below.
“As part of the deal, the Florida Department of Education will send a memorandum to all school districts explaining that the law is not as restrictive as some schools have interpreted it. Among the clarifications, it will note:
The law does not prohibit classroom references to LGBTQ+ people, families or issues, including in literature, discussions with students and academic work such as student essays.
The law requires neutrality and bars classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity of all types, whether heterosexuality, homosexuality or others. It would be impermissible to say one is superior to another.
Because it refers to instruction, the law does not apply to library books that are not being used in class lessons. The state made this point in defending against separate lawsuits challenging library book removals.
The settlement also points out that the law does not prevent teachers from providing lessons about stopping bullying based on gender or sexual orientation, and it does not require the removal of safe space stickers generally associated with protections for LGBTQ+ students, as some districts have done.
It does not prohibit schools from allowing student clubs such as the Gay-Straight Alliance, offering book fairs that include books with LGBTQ+ characters, permitting student performances with LGBTQ+ references, or allowing students to wear clothing that do not conform to perceived gender identity.
Finally, the settlement clarifies that the law does not apply to non-school personnel, such as parents, family members and guest speakers who are not visiting the school for the purpose of talking about sexual orientation or gender identity. It does not apply to other laws addressing related topics, such as the participation of transgender students on high school girls’ sports teams.”
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article286556060.html?fbclid=IwAR33yVXOWByVQQ2_5AiUZ6kil_RY71p01RgG3lNHv9c2L4X4WF634DHXElk_aem_AY0jSm86hrLS2IGITh28t2_fK20rfK7o4Ujr66jYnvRL502IQyzP7aCjqQuwwl5OSbI
LikeLike
All Bloggers Here: My thoughts about the depth of Linda’s anti-Catholic/anti-religious bias, along with her insistence on using all sorts of logical fallacies, is on record here from many past discussions, so I won’t repeat details of those arguments.
Just this: when you read Linda’s notes, keep your “bias alert!” intelligence close at hand. A clue: NOTHING good, ALL bad.
Moreover, I say that . . . knowing that the Catholic Church as such has a lot to answer for (I am Catholic and do not deny that, and have said so many times on this blog).
However, I also agree with Bob’s comments, as well as the bla-bla-bla as a signal for cringe, “not again.” Bob is one of my favorite bloggers here. He knows that give-an-inch/take-a-mile Linda can find “Catholic” under any dirty rock in the universe, whether it’s there or not. If it’s bad, there must be a Catholic school or “friend” in one’s background–and she digs and digs to feed her conspiracy mentality until she finds some “suspicious” link, which need not be a link at all–but still, the inuendo throughout is that “Catholic” is some sort of Blob-like influence on that person’s whole demeanor, like the pod people.
And yes, Linda, AGAIN, I put to everyone here that Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are both Catholic and progressive–as only two who happen to be nationally well-known.
Also, take a clue from NYC Public School Parent here about the right-wing resistance coming from many powerful American Catholics (so called Christians) against Pope Francis and the misreading of polling statistics.
But also, Linda complains about how Catholics get a pass in much of the discourse about real intrusions on democratic institutions here. Why might that be? In my view, a comprehensive knowledge of the Catholic Church would show why the Church (which has been around for CENTURIES, and not merely for a few hundred years) also is respected enough to warrant the consideration that many, who are not so biased as Linda, give it.
Finally, take as a clue from the right wingers‘ anti-poor policies . . . those who call themselves Catholics, evangelicals, and “Christian” nationalists, and who are, by definition, far and away from anything Jesus taught. For them, “Christian” is Orwellian code for “gated, entitled, racist money-grubbing bigots” who use what is good about their religious affiliation as a coverall for everything nefarious (and sinful) under the sun. They give us all a bad name and do more to foster religious hate in America that any religious order on the planet. But there is a huge OTHER out there that Linda “passes” over: crickets. My guess is that Linda would rather smear than hear. CBK
LikeLiked by 1 person
ALL BLOGGERS: Linda’s comments below perhaps skirt the edges a bit, and I’m not perfect in this regard, but I presume it’s an example of what some might understand as civil discourse:
Also, please note the absence of citations for Linda’s list of All-Things-Bad-Catholic. CBK
LikeLiked by 1 person
CBK, I always appreciate reading your thoughtful posts. In many ways, I think you and Linda are not so far apart in your views. I hesitate to speak for Linda, so this is just my own sense but not necessarily correct: I think Linda is very alarmed at what is going on in the leadership of American Catholic Church and perhaps sees the threat as far more dangerous than other people do. I too worry when it seemed that without the intervention of Pope Francis’ Vatican, Catholic politicians like Pelosi and Biden who won’t fight to make all abortions illegal can be denied Communion. What happens if the next Pope is like Benedict? Is it okay that the leadership of the American Catholic Church now seems politicized against Biden and for Republicans, even if those Republicans spurn moral and ethical behavior, like Trump? Is it okay that there is an influential right wing leadership in the US that believes that Catholic politicians must fight to impose Catholic laws on the entire country or denied Communion? I can understand Linda’s belief that it’s important to make people aware of this danger now because isn’t it too late once the right wing controls the Vatican as well as the American Catholic leadership? I guess I see it as a good thing that people like Linda keep reminding us of the danger, because I think the actual facts of what is happening are dangerous. When she first began posting about some guy I never heard of named Leonard Leo, I was more skeptical, but time has proven (to me at least) that she wasn’t just trying to foment anti-Catholic hate. She is worried, and so am I, because I don’t know what happens when Pope Francis is gone. Many of the politicians I admire the most are Catholic so I don’t think the issue is anti-Catholic as much as concerned about the US Catholic Church’s hierarchy’s politicization to help the right wing Republican party. It’s hard to make an apt comparison, but I can be extremely critical of Netanyahu while not being anti-Israel and I definitely understand that there are many Israelis who want to change things. I think it is more helpful to keep up the strong criticism of Netanyahu than to refrain from criticizing because it is “anti-Israel” or “anti-Jewish”. It’s sometimes hard to find that line — there is criticism of Israel that crosses the line — so I am sympathetic to your view.
CBK you said: “Also, please note the absence of citations for Linda’s list of All-Things-Bad-Catholic.”
Linda doesn’t have a list of “All-Things-Bad-Catholic”. BOB was the one who mischaracterizes her posts that way.
CBK, Your re-posting of the discourse between Bob and Linda begins with Linda’s reply to Bob, when you should have begun with Bob’s comment that came before:
Bob: ”Blah blah Catholics bad blah blah Conferences blah blah blah blah Sielo site blah blah blah blah 3rd largest employer blah blah Rufo blah Leo blah blah blah democracy in Ohio blah blah blah Bishops under the bed blah blah blah lions, tigers, and bears, oh my! blah blah Amy Conan Barrett’s friend’s housekeeper’s cousin blah blah”
Linda: ”Bob, showing us the temper tantrum of a two-year old. Proving again, he can’t control himself.”
Under the circumstances, I thought Linda’s reply was fairly restrained. I have seen flerp! reply to Linda in a civil manner (but challenging her) and she replies civilly in kind. Same with bethree and Diane. Linda is always civil, and if this time she got a bit fed up at Bob’s unnecessary (and insulting) reply, I don’t blame her. There aren’t two sides when it comes to civility on this blog.
LikeLike
Hello Diane: I always enjoy reading your blogposts, and regularly pass them on to others. And thank you for inviting me to stay in your “living room.” Someone earlier said that she/he? wished your blog could get an even bigger reading–I agree–we need it. CBK
LikeLike
Hello NYC: A correction about citations: I was responding to LINDA’s note above which began:
Linda
March 11, 2024 at 3:28 pm
“’ . . . who attend church regularly’- it’s in the comment. (Pew) But cutting to the chase, . . . “
ALSO, many of Linda’s notes from the past . . . presumably with facts–just a short research check after experiencing many interior questions about what she was saying, killed any trust I might have had in Linda’s statements as providing facts that (I could trust) weren’t riddled with fallacies. TRUST about facts is such a HUGE issue today. When I caught on to her methodology, I thought perhaps requiring citations might help. I asked, but nothing changed. You need a course in Logical Fallacies 101 to wade through them. My own experience (FWIW) makes reading her “factual” statements a waste of time–unless you want to spend all of your time wading through the psychological mess. The only question is: Does she know how bad it is?
Also, you say: ”Under the circumstances, I thought Linda’s reply (to Bob) was fairly restrained.” My view is that, as ironic as it is, you asked for a bigger context when copying Bob’s notes, (okay); but you are missing the much larger context where there has been a sustained provocation note-after-note-after-note, which I hoped came clear in my own posts here. And I AM SORRY TO HAVE GOTTEN AWAY FROM THE MAIN BLOGPOST itself. Provocation is not always a part of one’s move towards open complaint, but it is in this case. I got tired of it before, and it sickens me now.
Finally, you write: “Many of the politicians I admire the most are Catholic so I don’t think the issue is anti-Catholic as much as concerned about the US Catholic Church’s hierarchy’s politicization to help the right wing Republican party. It’s hard to make an apt comparison, but I can be extremely critical of Netanyahu while not being anti-Israel and I definitely understand that there are many Israelis who want to change things.”
I think you are projecting your own reasonable distinctions and good thoughts onto Linda. Bad idea, bad lenses.
I sometimes have agreed with Linda and have said so; am glad you learned about Leo here, and also worry about Pope Francis; but I have also said many times: that’s not what Linda is up to, to the detriment of truth itself; and I have said that several times in many ways in my notes, which again, is why I only peek in here with the comments sections from time to time where I see that she cannot or won’t control herself. CBK
LikeLike
CBK,
Thank you for you thoughtful reply. I read it and it made me think, so I am glad you are still peeking in once in a while!
LikeLike
Recent comment in moderation. CBK
LikeLike
Note posted. Thank you. CBK
LikeLike