I've read some Jeffrey Yass profiles, but it will be hard to beat the one just published by Robert Huber at Philadelphia's City Paper. It's not just an illuminating profile of Yass, but of the motivation behind many of the privatizers.
“‘If you had a lot of philanthropic money, what would you do with it?’ And Friedman said, ‘I would fight for school choice. That’s the fundamental problem with the country. Nothing is more valuable than school choice.’ So as a gambler, I was like, well, I got to ask the guy who has the best opinion. I want to bet with him. So it certainly made sense to me. … [It’s] pretty obvious that nothing could impact society as much as school choice.”
Which is a window into Yass’s way of thinking: He drills down into the most rational viewpoint held by the smartest people — of course, he’s the one deciding what’s most rational and who’s the smartest — and then runs with it.
Yass is a free market true believer. Competition will improve education. Education will reduce poverty. And he sees one other outcome that he likes:
“As students flee [to schools of their choice], those government schools would have to shut down,” he says, trotting out his favored term for public schools. “And that’s a good thing. If a school cannot fix itself, if it does not adequately educate its children, if it shortchanges the families it is supposed to serve, it doesn’t deserve to be open.”
Huber mentions, not for the last time, the complete self-assuredness with which Yass pitches his ideas. Schools are a big wasteful bureaucracy. Having the money follow the child will work. And all the rest because, as Huner writes, "Jeff Yass has absolutely no doubt that he is right."
Huner delves into Yass's technique of primarying anyone from his own party who doesn't back his choicer agenda (an old DeVos tactic). And while one of his PA partners, state senator Andy Williams, says that Yass just loves kids, Councilwoman Kendra Brooks argues that he does not give a damn "about education policy for the families and children in my community. He just doesn't want to pay taxes. Asked what she would say to Yass, she offers Huber this:
“I really would like to know the why,” she says. Why his focus is on Black and brown children and why he thinks he knows best what they need. “Why does it have to be grounded in pulling these children out of their communities and transforming them into something different?”
Folks often rush to accuse privatizers of looking to make plenty of money, but one old friend of Yass's, when pressed, offers a motivation--
Power. Huber expands. "The power to upset the apple cart, to blow things up, to have his say."
Power and focus, perhaps. Huber pulls an example from a Texas race in which he backed David Covey, from the far right wingnut part of the GOP, simply because Greg Abbott told Yass that this guy would be their friend on choice. Telling Yass about Covey's extreme beliefs, Hubert mines the following:
Yass claims that he was unaware of that; Governor Abbott, he says, told him Covey was a sane human being, and if there were a really bad guy who was in favor of school choice, Yass says he wouldn’t support him.
Later, I press Yass on that: What of conservative candidates he supports who would try to cut spending on programs that help schoolchildren — Head Start-type programs, say, or school lunch programs — in the name of cutting taxes? Does that concern him at all?
“No, frankly,” Yass says. “Because the school choice issue is so much bigger than anything else that I don’t really consider those things.”
Perhaps whether Covey is a bad guy is debatable, but Yass not knowing exactly whom he supports — or considering the fallout from what policies they’ll pursue — is chilling. (In the end, Covey lost. Barely.)
Huber believes that Huber sincerely wants to fix US education, and agrees that we "desperately need to have an open debate on the state of our schools, our urban schools especially." Yass says he welcomes that debate.
But to many people, it looks like he leaped from debate to certainty long ago, and that he is dangerously gaming our politics with all the money he is throwing around in the name of education. That criticism doesn’t matter, not to Yass. Because he believes he is right.
Because he is utterly certain that he knows the answer:
We have seen this movie before. Bill Gates, because he successfully launched a technocratic empire. Betsy DeVos, because she has a direct line to God. Jeff Yass, because he's gotten incredibly rich beating the system. Countless other wealthy people, because they have been successfully in one business endeavor or because they are sure they know the mind of God.
Each certain that they know The True Answer, and each endowed with a mountain of money that they can use to appoint themselves the Boss of All Education. True Believers who don't feel the need to hear other opinions and able to use a juggernaut of money to roll over anyone who disagrees (aka "people who are wrong").
Folks like Yass aren't really interested in wealth, but money is how they keep score (literally true for the guy who made his stake playing poker). I reckon that Yass doesn't want to pay taxes not because he wants that actual money, but because how dare the government try to take something that belongs to him. How dare they try to exert power over him. Still, these rich privatizers attract a whole host of folks who are happy to follow in their wake and gather up the cash they shake loose. But for Yass et al, it's about exerting power in order to make the world conform to what they know is True. It's about winning.
This is the legacy of Citizens United and every other SCOTUS decision allowing unrestricted spending by the rich in politics. Want to find a person with ideas about how education ought to work? You can find one on every street corner, but only a few have the financial might to inflict their view, no matter how ill-informed, on the rest of us.
Read this full piece. It's a good window on how these folks think and operate.
No comments:
Post a Comment