But the convenience store chain decided to experiment with a new plan that was initially twofold:1) They removed all of the advertisements from the front windows of the store, and 2) they placed the cash register right behind the windows in the very front of the store.
Later, the convenience store would add two more innovations: 1) They placed the cash register and clerk on platforms, so that customers had to look upwards toward them—and potential robbers could not see how much money was in the cash register at any given time—and 2) they painted the word “taxi” on the parking space directly in front of the front doors of the convenience store. In addition to allowing taxis to wait there free of charge, they also offered cab drivers free coffee and restroom privileges.
With these simple innovations, the store slightly reduced motivated offenders’ access to suitable targets.
But the innovations also more than slightly increased the presence of capable guardians. There the change was dramatic. For example, people who passed by before the innovations were made could not see a robbery taking place in the back of the store, especially with the windows covered by advertisements. But looking through clear windows at a robbery taking place in the front of the store—with the panicking victim elevated above all else—was simply impossible to miss. And best of all, the first person likely to witness the event would likely be a cab driver whose car was equipped with a CB radio.
I don’t have to tell you the results of the experiment. You already know that the incidence of robbery dropped dramatically. (Otherwise, why would I be telling you this long story on an afternoon when Duke is playing North Carolina in the ACC conference final?)
This approach to combating robbery is very clever. It does not require expensive progressive social engineering in the form of building schools or raising the minimum wage. The grossly naïve principle that doing good things for people will lead them to return the favor by doing good things for “society” is nowhere in the equation.
Instead, this approach to fighting robbery assumes the worst about people—they will commit crimes if they have the opportunity. Then it proceeds to block opportunities for crime by increasing visibility, making crime that much more difficult to commit—and it does so for little more than the cost of giving cheap coffee to taxi drivers.
But of course, increasing visibility is only effective in preventing crime if people feel some obligation to help one another—to be capable guardians. That is why we must continue to teach people to love their neighbors and do for them the things they would wish done for themselves.
After fifty years of trying to implement new and clever progressive theories of crime prevention, it has become clear that the same features that made the neighborhood I grew up in a kind of Camelot are still the most relevant factors. When it comes to fighting crime, community is a far more important word than government.
I’m looking forward to more correspondence and discussion with you after spring break, Zach. Until then, go Heels!
LETTER 17
Government Subsidies and Spousal Abuse
Dear Zach,
I was sorry to hear about your bad experience with your cell phone service provider over spring break. At the risk of giving you unsolicited advice, let me say that it probably wasn’t a good idea to sell them your cell phone based on their promise that your upgrade would be available for pick-up in the store the next day. You were naturally shocked when you went to the store and they told you it was not there and would not be there for another month. But I wasn’t shocked when you told me. Your service provider is subsidized by the federal government, and that makes a difference in the way they treat their customers. Because you did not know that, you are without a cell phone for the next month.
I wasn’t shocked because I had a similar experience with the same federally-subsidized cell phone provider that just dealt with you so dishonestly. They were once in charge of providing my cell phone and Internet services. When I found out they were charging me 50 percent more than a local competitor, I called to cancel my Internet service. Distraught over the prospective cancellation, they matched the other company’s offer, and I stayed on with them. But then they did the same thing to me that they did to you—they broke a promise upon which I had relied.
Zach, I recount the following events not just because they are educational, but because they are also downright comical:Customer Service Visit #1: I went down to customer service to cancel my Internet service because the cell phone service provider had continued to charge me under the old rate for two months, despite their promise to make the rate change effective immediately. They apologized and said it would not happen again.
Customer Service Visit #2: Ten months later, they raised the rate again, specifically to its previous level. So I went down to tell a customer service agent to cancel my service. They said they did not want to lose me, and they restored the lower rate.
Customer Service Visit #3: One year later, they did it again. So I went down to talk to a customer service agent and asked what the problem was. They told me the low rate was just a temporary promotional offer, which had expired. I told them to cancel my service. They said they did not want to lose me and offered to restore the lower rate. I took them back. That was stupid of me.
Customer Service Visit #4: For two consecutive months, they kept charging me the higher rate. So I went back to cancel my service. It was a Saturday and the young woman working there apologized and told me that she would work everything out on Monday. I left hoping that my relationship with my provider would be improved by her intervention.
Customer Service Visit #5: I got a call from the aforementioned customer service representative, telling me that she could not restore my rate until I came back in the store to talk with another representative, who would then fix things immediately. I came in to the store only to hear a faceless representative tell me over the phone that we could not work things out. That is, she could not offer the lower rate. When I told her to cancel my service, the girl tried to negotiate a new deal. That’s when I just lost my temper and let loose with something like the following:
“You know, you’re not really an Internet provider. You’re nothing like one. You’re more like an abusive spouse. You treat me disrespectfully until I threaten to leave you and then you promise to make things better. But they only get better for a while because you don’t change. You just lie to me to get me back because you can’t live without me. But this time I mean it. We’re through!”
There were two employees in the store when I unleashed that little salvo. One was simply speechless. But the other was actually laughing because she knew that I was right. I really do enjoy using humor—especially when I feel like I am about to have a stroke. But Zach, there is a serious point to be made here. The question is, what the heck does it have to do with the political problems we’ve been discussing? Well, everything. Please allow me to explain.
When the government gets involved in trying to solve a problem, it invariably makes things worse. Your cell phone provider—my previous Internet provider—is subsidized by the federal government. For that one reason, and that one reason alone, you are unlikely to ever get good service from them. Because the federal government has built a safety net beneath it, it is not afraid of falling. That is why its employees behave so carelessly towards you. Doesn’t that make sense, Zach? It’s basic human psychology.
Furthermore, when the federal government gets involved in something, it’s even worse than when the local government gets involved. The reason for that is simple—the greater the physical distance between the problem and problem-solving entity, the less likely you are to find an effective solution. Local problems can’t be efficiently solved by national agencies.
So far in college you have been exposed to a lot of theory. But I want you to get a healthier dose of reality. So I have a little assignment for you—two assignments, actually:1. Take a notebook with you the next time you go off campus to get your driver’s license and
vehicle license plates renewed. Those renewals are handled by two separate agencies. One is run by the government. One is privately operated. Take notes and tell me which agency was more efficient in their dealings with you. Then I will tell you which one was privately operated.
2. Take that same notebook with you every time you go to the admissions office, parking office, or financial aid office here at UNCW Two of those offices are controlled by the state government. One office is controlled by the federal government. Record enough information about your experiences to report back to me with a reasonably detailed evaluation of each experience. Then I will tell you which one is run by the federal government.
Thinking about these issues will actually help you navigate the current political climate. Our politicians are increasingly asking us to trust the government with ever-greater involvement in our affairs. However badly government messes things up, the solution is always more government.
Zach, in my opinion, these politicians sound a lot like your federally subsidized cell phone provider. They keep saying that things will get better if you just give them one more chance. But deep in your heart you know they’re lying—and they’ll just make you look stupid all over again.
LETTER 18
We Don’t Need No School of Education
Zach,
Just last semester I terribly offended an education student who was enrolled in my introduction to criminal justice class. I know I offended her with my split infinitives. But I also offended her by suggesting that we ban the Watson School of Education from the UNC-Wilmington campus. What can I say? I like to boldly go where no other infinitive-splitting professor is willing to go.
From time to time, I joke around about things we need to eliminate on our campuses. But I was not kidding about the Watson School of Education. I believe it should be banned. My reasons are twofold:1. Education majors do not earn a degree in any substantive discipline. They merely learn to “educate.” The obvious question: Educate about what? Why not have them earn a degree in a substantive area like history or English and then learn how to “educate” people by serving a longer term as a teaching assistant? Currently, they only do a one-semester teaching assistantship. Whatever happened to the idea of longer-term apprenticeships? It seems like we hear more about apprenticeships on reality TV shows than we actually see of them in reality.
2. Education majors are indoctrinated heavily in postmodern philosophy, which teaches them that there is really no such thing as objective truth. No one doubting the existence of objective truth should be trusted with the responsibility of teaching anyone at any level.
In our desperate attempt to elevate the self-esteem of students, we have succumbed to the postmodern temptation to eschew objective truth. In the process, we also eschew the notion of objective falsity.
I am not the only one who has noticed this phenomenon. Rita Kramer authored a classic book called Ed School Follies , which dealt with the issue at great length. In her well-researched book, she documented how one education professor taught future teachers how to acknowledge wrong answers. The list of possible responses: “Um-hmm,” “That’s a thought,” “That’s one possibility,” “That’s one idea,” “That’s another way to look at it,” and “I hear you.”
Notably missing from the list: “That’s wrong.” I suppose the professor would have thought it wrong to conclude that an answer could possibly be wrong. But there really is something seriously wrong with never telling students they are wrong.
Sometimes I think we are moving in this direction in order to boost the self-esteem of teachers. No one wants to be the “meanie” who goes around correcting small children. But these people are learning how to to be teachers. That’s their job.
LETTER 19
I Earned My B.S. in Victimology
Zach,
Sometimes I have a hard time convincing people that the things I write about in higher education are actually real. I even have a hard time convincing them that some of our courses and majors truly exist. One good example is a course called “victimology,” which is frequently taught in our department. I have little doubt that before long Victimhood Studies will become an actual major housed in its own freestanding academic department.
As I look forward to the prospect of a victimology department turning out victimology majors, one question immediately comes to mind: what else could victimology majors do with their degrees except become professional victims?
It should be noted that there are numerous degrees already in existence that prepare students to become experts in certain types of victimhood, so a victimology major would be redundant to some extent. No doubt you have heard of some of these majors already being offered at a number of American universities:1. Women’s Studies. This is a major that teaches women to consider marriage a form of patriarchal oppression and motherhood a form of slavery. Women are taught that they are so victimized by men that the word “women” should be changed to “womyn” to avoid any association with men.
2. Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Studies. Some of the same lessons learned in Women’s Studies are retooled in these programs using slightly different terminology. For example, marriage is seen as “heterosexist” rather than patriarchal. Both mean the same thing: oppressive.
3. African American Studies. Black people are seen as the victims of white people, and affirmative action and endless reparations for slavery are the necessary remedies for this oppression.
4. Hispanic Studies. Same idea, different race. The public policy initiatives advanced in these programs include open border immigration policy, bilingual education, and out-of-state tuition waivers for Hispanics who are victims of their parents’ decision to enter the country illegally.
One wonders why victimology is even needed as a course of study within the field of criminology. All of these other degrees are essentially specialized varieties of Victimhood Studies. They are taught by people who see themselves as victims and are bent on showing other people how they are victims, too. The only real career these degrees prepare one for is teaching some variety of Victimhood Studies. The whole field of victim education is both self-perpetuating and entirely useless for anything but lifetime employment within itself.
Of course, in a sense, people who major in any variety of Victimhood Studies really do become victims upon graduation. That is when their student loan payments are due, and either they have no job or their salary is too small to make the payments. At that point, there is nothing left to do but take to the streets and blame their capitalist oppressors.
I have a novel idea for these protestors: Why not pack up, leave Wall Street, and move the protest to the local university? That’s where the people who taught them that victimhood pays are. Professors pushing different versions of victimhood are the true reason these kids have buried themselves in a mountain of debt and cannot escape it. They should demand a refund from the local university and leave the capitalists alone. It isn’t the capitalists’ job to clean up the mess created by those who could never survive in the private sector.
LETTER 20
The Fear of Ideas
Dear Zach,
One morning in January of 1993, as I was walking down the hall in the sociology building at Mississippi State University, I saw my good friend (and professor) Greg Dunaway. When he saw me he shouted a question, “Hey, Mike, weren’t you a Sigma Chi?” I replied “Yep. I still am.” He continued, “I think one of your guys got murdered last night. A guy named Steckler and his girlfriend, too.”
I thanked him for letting me know, rushed out the door, and drove across campus to the fraternity house. By the time I got there, a couple of reporters had arrived. The mood in the house was somber. It would stay that way for weeks.
The facts of the case are sad and gruesome. Jon Steckler and Tiffany Miller left the fraternity house around one in the morning. As they crossed the parking lot and approached Jon’s car, they saw a man trying to break into another car parked nearby. Ti
ffany shouted at the man to stop what he was doing. And he did.
But when the thief turned around, he was brandishing a gun. He immediately ordered Jon and Tiffany to get into Jon’s car. The man hopped in the back seat and ordered them to drive to the outskirts of town. Before they knew it, Jon and Tiffany were taking their last ride together in his car. They must have known those were the last few minutes of their lives. The only question was what that man would do to them now that he had assumed full control of their destiny.
About ten miles outside of town on U.S. Highway 45, the man ordered Jon to pull over. There on the side of the road he murdered both of them execution-style. Later testimony revealed that Jon was forced to watch his girlfriend take a bullet in the head shortly before he suffered the same fate. To add fatal insult to fatal injury, the armed sociopath would later try to blame the killings on rap music.
At the time of the murders, I was a liberal who was opposed to handguns. I had even voted for Michael Dukakis in 1988 in part because of his support for a complete national ban on handgun ownership. But I was also playing in a band and had to travel late at night—sometimes driving more than sixty miles home after the bars shut down at midnight.
Letters to a Young Progressive: How to Avoid Wasting Your Life Protesting Things You Don't Understand Page 8
