The Public Intellectual's Burden

An individual working in the public eye may simultaneously feel honored and burdened by receiving the title, “public intellectual.” On one hand the title speaks to the individual’s academic and professional accomplishments, their contributions to public discourse in their specialized field and their dedication to improving our society. On the other hand a public intellectual is forever charged with challenging ideas and practices that most would, and do, accept without a second thought. They are frequently in battle. Most people do not wake up one day and pledge to become a public intellectual and neither did Diane Ravitch an American educational policy analyst, however, Ravitch’s career exemplifies that of a public intellectual based on criteria Dr. Stephan Mack discusses in his article, “The Decline of the Public Intellectual.” Her decades of experience leave her with an intimate knowledge of the failures of America’s school system, she does not pledge allegiance to a political party and has no qualms criticizing whichever party or policy that merits it and lastly one of Ravitch’s main concerns with education reform is to build strong schools in order to build up strong communities.          

            Before further discussing how Ravitch serves as an example of a true public intellectual it is important to flesh out the criteria listed above. In his essay Dr. Mack argues that:

“Now, are some people ill-equipped for self-government? Of course. But the strongest alternative argument, the best argument for democracy, is not that the people are “naturally” equipped for self-government—but that they need to become so, and, moreover, experience is the only teacher.”

A good indicator of a public intellectual is the amount of experience they have in their field. This is not to say that a person with a higher number of years in the field is by default more right than a person with fewer years, but rather it is the use of what they have learned through their experience that makes them a useful public intellectual. A true public intellectual has to practice critique and learn how to view their society through a critical lens. Once this skill is acquired they can then move on to the next criterion and their main function in society which Jean Bethke Elshtain defines as:

“…to puncture the myth-makers of any era, including his own, whether it's those who promise that utopia is just around the corner if we see the total victory of free markets worldwide, or communism worldwide or positive genetic enhancement worldwide, or mouse-maneuvering democracy worldwide, or any other run-amok enthusiasm.”

The public intellectual must not be concerned with popularity or appeasing the government. They should be willing to challenge any ideal they believe to be false no matter how many people are against them. It is their duty to be, as Dr. Mack phrases it, “party poopers” in order to ensure that the truth is revealed. They reveal this truth not to further their own self-interests but to benefit a larger cause whether it is their city, their country or their world. Public intellectuals also realize that this burden should not be theirs alone for it is as Dr. Mack puts it:

“…also, however, the obligation of every citizen in a democracy. Trained to it or not, all participants in self-government are duty-bound to prod, poke, and pester the powerful institutions that would shape their lives. And so if public intellectuals have any role to play in a democracy—and they do—it’s simply to keep the pot boiling.”

A public intellectual is not greedy with knowledge. They share their knowledge with others in an attempt to help more people make more informed decision. In the end this strategy is the most effective in building a strong democracy.

Ravitch certainly meets the first stipulation of public intellectual status as she has had both a considerable amount of time working in education as well experience working in a variety of positions and boards. She attained her bachelor’s degree from Wellesley College and later went on to receive a Ph.D in history at Colombia University. The list of positions Ravitch has held is quite extensive and a full list can be found on her site’s biography. Before debuting in the government sector Ravitch was the adjunct Professor of History and Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. Under the first Bush administration she served as the Assistant secretary of Education and Counselor to Secretary of Education and led the Office of Educational Research and Improvement in the U.S. Department of Education. From there Ravitch was appointed to the National Assessment Governing Board, a body that oversees the National Assessment of Educational Progress, from 1997-2004. During this same time frame she also held the Brown Chair in Education Studies at the Brookings Institution. During her more than 40 years of experience of she has seen educational policy change time and time again. She herself has changed her view regarding educational policy as a result of having witnessed several failures over the years.  Via her numerous book publications and over 500 scholarly articles she has been able to discuss some of these changes and failures. For example, in her most popular book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing andChoice Are Undermining Education (2010) Ravitch challenges ideas concerning education reform such as charter schools, standardized testing regimes, and privatization of schools that are still highly revered by policy makers. In another one of her popular books, The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn, she admonishes textbook publishers and state boards of education for over sanitizing school textbooks leaving students with a distorted perception of history. For her contributions to the field of education reform Ravitch has earned several awards and commendations. In 2010 she won the Friend of Education award from the National Education Association and the Charles W. Eliot Award from the New England Association of Schools and Colleges. She has also been awarded the National Association of Secondary School Principals’ Distinguished Service Award, the John Dewey award from the United Federation of Teachers of New York City and a barrage of others the point being that Ravitch’s influence has proven beneficial both nationally and internationally as she has lectured and won awards in Eastern Europe, Japan, and Nicaragua.          

In 2002 during the second Bush administration the No Child Left Behind law was passed. This program was designed in such a way that schools are to meet a level of achievement, a level set by the state, and if they under perform they are punished with the loss of funds and school closings. The Bush administration promised to have all students at proficient levels by 2014. An outrageous claim that went on to create an environment where teachers began teaching for the test specifically turning schools into what Ravitch calls “testing factories.” No Child Left Behind appealed to many education reformists but Ravitch saw flaws is this miracle plan. For one, this plan did not take into account schools with high numbers of students with disabilities, student whose first language was not English, or schools where many students suffered from poverty. These schools would obviously show less improvement on paper than schools in wealthy white neighborhoods and thus punishing them by closing them or removing their funds is unfair and further compounds the problem. The standardized testing frenzy created yet another problem which sent education reform one step back. The individual states boards of education are allowed to set the standard students need to meet in order to pass and as a result of such harsh punishment for failures some states have lowered their standards. So while it may seem that more students are improving as reflected in the test scores going up students are actually receiving a lower quality of education and in essence falling through the cracks. These students may reach high school completed unprepared to succeed. No Child Left Behind is the child of both the Democratic and Republican parties. As a true public intellectual Ravitch acknowledges her work under the Republican Party but stood firm in her belief that both parties had done education reform a great disservice in allowing such a law as No Child Left Behind to pass. As Jean Bethke Elshtain so eloquently put it, “I think perhaps, too many White House dinners can blunt the edge of criticism.” Many so called public intellectuals will support or defend polices their party has come up with even while flaws are evident. Ravitch is not one to show favoritism even towards herself. In the past she supported the advancement of charter schools but once time revealed their ineffectiveness she was the first to admit she was wrong. Right now there continues to be a big push for charter schools especially after the release of Guggenheim’s popular documentary Waiting for Superman (2010), a film that Ravitch calls propaganda for charter schools. Ravitch takes issue with the films misrepresentation of facts and its glorification of privatizing schools across the country. For example, while the documentary only focuses on charter schools that are succeeding it fails to mention that only 17% perform higher than regular schools. The large majority preform at an equal or lower level. Ravitch now stands to rebuild and invest in public schools and the good they can do for their community.     

Ravitch’s support for public schools shows her interest in rebuilding and sustaining communities, a key characteristic of a public intellectual. She sees a powerful and very harmful trend occurring in education which is the privatization of the school system or the “business model” of schooling. Over the years there has been an increase in the number of privately owned schools in America. Now if a school does not perform well the government closes it and disperses its students to other schools, some of them privately owned schools. Ravitch argues that this tactic does more harm than good as it removes the power out of the hands of the voter and the schools created are not held accountable by their communities. She gives the Gates Foundation as an example. The Gates Foundation opened several smaller high schools and in the process shut down many public schools. What is worse is the Gates Foundation was highly unsuccessful and today many of the schools have been abandoned. Who will take responsibility for the situation now? Ravitch is also against Charter schools because they pose a threat to unions and their advocates are fond of teacher bashing. In her book The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education (2010) Ravitch explains that districts with strong unions tend to outperform districts with weak unions. She supports targeting the issues that cause children to suffer in school, such as poverty, instead of bashing the teachers and punishing them for situations they cannot control. She believes that instead of pawning off the responsibility of education reform to a private party the government should work to build strong schools in communities that are currently lacking them. An empowered community is exactly what a public intellectual should be working towards.  

Few people willingly accept the burden of being a public intellectual. More often than not they are met with resistance for their views that go against the norm. Some accept the title but compromise their position by their partiality to one party or another or by their pursuit of goals that do not benefit society. I argue that Diane Ravitch is a more than acceptable public intellectual for having withstood such temptations, for her extensive experience in her field and her unwavering dedication to truth and community.