I wrote about this a few weeks ago and now Kay Steiger of Campus Progress has published a more thorough takedown of Lanny Davis, the former Clinton lawyer who now makes a living representing for-profit colleges, oppressive foreign regimes, and mad despots who are widely rumored to be cannibals:
When Davis first joined this debate, it was as a commentator, writing what looked like an opinion piece on June 23 for the newspaper The Hill. Davis attacked “a noted Wall Street short-seller, Steve Eisman” for criticizing for-profit schools without disclosing that he (Eisman) had made financial bets against the schools. But did Davis himself have a disclosure issue here? Perhaps he had not yet entered into discussions with the for-profits to be their paid advocate. Perhaps he was simply auditioning for the lucrative assignment. Or perhaps in a world of critical policy issues on which he could comment, Davis acted solely out of conviction in penning this tribute to schools that have left many students deeply in debt and without marketable skills. In any case, Davis registered as a lobbyist for [a for-profit trade group] on Sept. 17.
In many ways the most interesting thing about Lanny Davis is the way he illustrates the exceedingly dysfunctional de facto process of ideological credentialing in Washington, D.C. Once upon a time, Davis worked for President Clinton. President Clinton is a Democrat and, in many respects, a liberal. This has allowed Davis to claim the liberal label and sell it to the highest bidder on the open market for the explicit purpose of promoting illiberal causes. This isn’t just what Lanny Davis does—it’s the only thing he does. So the question is: How long does a putative liberal get to prostitute their liberalism before they’re no longer considered liberal in the public mind? The answer, apparently, is forever. It’s like once you get your diploma from Liberal U., you can spend your weekends recreationally stealing from widows and orphans (or, more to the point, your weekdays professionally working for giant anti-labor corporations) and you still get invited to the class reunion.
12 Responses to Lanny Davis and the Wages of Sin
rbannist - October 30, 2010 at 7:22 pm
And what’s so awful about “For Profit” institutions? While they might not be a substitute for a traditional liberal arts school, they’re not intended to be and the comparison is the old apples and oranges analogy.
Is it that the radical left and its total intolerance (case in point Juan Williams firing from NPR)is so deeply entrenched and empowered in tradional acaademia that anything that threatens their bully pulpit will be subject to immediate demonization?
Like any other enterprise, there are some excellent for-profits and some that aren’t so hot. The notion that some students who attended for profits, owe money for their attendance, and do not have marketable job skills does not necessarily reflect on the quality of the programs in which they were entrolled nor is this an affliction reserved for for-profit institutions as there are plenty of graduates from traditional non-profits who are total flops in seeking employment including some who hold advanced degrees. The key factor underlying these cases are certainly more a matter of executng sound judgment and effective decision making than pinning it on a place of learning.
I will likewise disclose I worked for Sylvan Learning Systems, the company that gave birth to Laureate Inc. a pioneer in for profit learning. I seldom saw an organization work so hard to develop quality material for their students and improve what they were doing.
Perhaps what the entrenched left in academia fears is competition and that the for-profits might develop management models and instructional methods that would render what’s going on today in the traditional classroom obsolete. Imagine if the barriers of tenure were removed and professors were evaluated on the measured performance of their students. Imagine if there were productivity goals, pay-for-performance, and other such metrics that are common in the world of commerce?
Surely there are benefits to both and the need for quality post-secondary education creates the need for a wide range of learning environments.
There are some things that are sacred to traditional post-secondary institutions that would be meaningless for most for profits such as “academic freedom” however, the traditional schools have leaned so far in one direction, there is no place for moderate, conservative, pro-free enterprise, or libertarian voices among the academic elite.
Surely, such horros showing pure intellectual fascism like rushing the stage and silencing speakers some members of the campus environmenet don’t agree with would never happen in a for profit school. They wouldn’t have speakers to begin with; however, this point is germaine to this discussion as it shows how even liberals like Lanny Davis and Juan Williams are now targets because of how much orthodoxy the current left-wing mindset demands.
Lanny Davis is more a classic liberal who believes in tolerance, open debate, and a place for everyone and that profit is not a dirty word.
For profit post-secondary programs will succeed in part because they can build their busniess model around things that work having the traditional model to study and recognize its shortcomings. Soon, traditional schools will have to respond by marketing what they can do that for profits can’t and discarding some obsolete concepts such as little or no accountability for student performance.
It’s a big academic world, many options and choices are a good thing.
trendisnotdestiny - October 31, 2010 at 11:03 am
@ rbannist,
QUOTE
“And what’s so awful about “For Profit” institutions? While they might not be a substitute for a traditional liberal arts school, they’re not intended to be and the comparison is the old apples and oranges analogy.”
I find it ironic that you believe you understand their intentions. Groups of large numbers of people who have shown to be predatory about increasing market share, profits and access to an education designed for the least among us. Ironically, this involves penury, systemic disparities as job training.
QUOTE
“Is it that the radical left and its total intolerance (case in point Juan Williams firing from NPR)is so deeply entrenched and empowered in tradional academia that anything that threatens their bully pulpit will be subject to immediate demonization?”
Academia IS the last bastion of the left, but it suffers too from the same cultural deficits as the majority of our population (individualistic, competitive belief that things will work out for themselves when facts suggest otherwise). How much more of society does industry need to colonize to demonstrate how utterly fraudulent their socio-financial models of profit re-distribution are? I rarely read about conservative rightwing pundits talk about education as anything other than an indoctrinational ritual designed to make for malleable debt-riddled labor market participants. There are so many elements of corporatism where the idea is not to promote just enough education to function for capital but not too much (anti-intellectual snap-back)because then they will be hard to control….
QUOTE
“Like any other enterprise, there are some excellent for-profits and some that aren’t so hot. The notion that some students who attended for profits, owe money for their attendance, and do not have marketable job skills does not necessarily reflect on the quality of the programs in which they were entrolled nor is this an affliction reserved for for-profit institutions as there are plenty of graduates from traditional non-profits who are total flops in seeking employment including some who hold advanced degrees. The key factor underlying these cases are certainly more a matter of executng sound judgment and effective decision making than pinning it on a place of learning.”
rbannist, you are selling a product with so many uncertain outcomes that your alignment has clouded your understandings here. First, we as a society have proven statistically and socially that our educational structures have deteriorated. We are under-educated, more expensive and less coherent about our missions than labor in growing economies in BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India & China).
As a result, industry has already done the math here. Their conclusion is to fully privatize the last institutional structures to better align with world market competition and open new markets of production. In other words, money flows to abundance and away from scarcity. In the US, there is a scarcity of employment opportunities, competitive vision and divergent schools of thinking. Very few people remember how we got here (through the systematic gutting of the public school system over decades). So to now crow about that there are some good Educational institutions out there is an apologist’s way out of taking responsibility for forgetting how much the right has damaged education in the country for decades.
QUOTE
“Perhaps what the entrenched left in academia fears is competition and that the for-profits might develop management models and instructional methods that would render what’s going on today in the traditional classroom obsolete. Imagine if the barriers of tenure were removed and professors were evaluated on the measured performance of their students. Imagine if there were productivity goals, pay-for-performance, and other such metrics that are common in the world of commerce?”
The fears of the left are threefold:
1) De-skilling of the Professorate –
(Industry disciplines the field through the carrots of funding and the administrative whip where education evolves into published content delivered on-line without any real world application; removing the person from teaching or learning)
2) Transforming College into a Job Skills Breading Ground (essentializing fields into reductionistic where easily sold outcomes for malleable and indebted students beyond the mechanism for capital to sort out onto the conveyor belt of production)
3) Watching young minds struggle with huge financial and relational burdens that go hand in hand with poverty, developmental delays in family formation, reduced opportunities for jobs and having to take care of more than we have asked of any other generation (all while they have received the least resources). Historically when the young in a society have been treated this way, this causes violence, fear and uncertainty. The fear here is operating as a untensil of an unhealthy apparatus. From the same people who brought you payday lending and subprime mortgages, what makes you think this educational “for-profit model is any different.”
QUOTE
“Lanny Davis is more a classic liberal who believes in tolerance, open debate, and a place for everyone and that profit is not a dirty word.”
Lanny Davis is a neoliberal…. know the difference!
QUOTE
“It’s a big academic world, many options and choices are a good thing.”
This is the biggest illusion that exists since these students are in employment feeder systems. The debt differentials for most institutions across the country are strikingly similar. Let’s not obfuscate the truth here with individualism and social darwinism. I suspect that your view of choices here means that no one bears the slightest responsibility ensuring what has been promised by the system is experienced by the individual. Yeah, we have seen what having so many choices has done for personal finance education as well as consumer consumption (see Elizabeth Warren’s work)…..
rbannist, you seem incapable of removing your own self-interest from your forgetful historical pitch of “what so bad about for-profit education”. This type of blind apologeticism reminds me of so many of our recent financial bubbles (savings and loan, internet, housing, commodities and consumer credit). You have swallowed the ideological interests’ of billionaires as your own.
t_paine - October 31, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Hi Trends,
So “employment feeder systems” are a bad thing? Only to someone who doesn’t need a job, I guess.
Of course it is the individual adult citizen’s responsibility to police the system in his own interest. You say you suspect that people like me think that “no one bears the slightest responsibility” for outcomes. But in fact we all must manage our lives ourselves.
You think people are stupid and need to be taken care of. But our poor people are the envy of the rest of the world’s poor people.
Now, as regards this paragraph:
“2) Transforming College into a Job Skills Breading Ground (essentializing fields into reductionistic where easily sold outcomes for malleable and indebted students beyond the mechanism for capital to sort out onto the conveyor belt of production)”
I think I speak for the world when I say: What?
trendisnotdestiny - November 1, 2010 at 10:34 am
@ World of t_paine,
Quote
“So “employment feeder systems” are a bad thing? Only to someone who doesn’t need a job, I guess.”
I try not to think in terms of simplistic: good and bad t-paine. This is called black and white thinking. However, I will answer your question. There needs to be a balance between the needs of capital and labor. While capital would enjoy having a cheap and malleable labor force, it is not always in the interest of labor to be riddled with debt, inculcated by the competitive myth of the American Dream and to believe that their interests meld with those of billionaires in a convenient world view of American Exceptionalism.
QUOTE
“Of course it is the individual adult citizen’s responsibility to police the system in his own interest. You say you suspect that people like me think that “no one bears the slightest responsibility” for outcomes. But in fact we all must manage our lives ourselves.”
When people write this type of stuff, I wonder if and how they have parented and been parented. You confuse ideologic individualism with concrete examples of systemic burden shift in this country. Let me be clear here. We are talking about multiple billion dollar multi-national companies selling the public the latest versions and varieties of choices. How much individual responsibility can one person assume in a two-tiered economy of emulation and fraud (both buttressed by faux-notions of the American Dream). Buyer beware is not good enough in the information age where we have flash trading and ponzi schemes, manipulated commodities markets and an insolvent banking system.
t_paine, it is apparent that many opt of out those problems associated with a neoliberal point of view while spewing from the social darwinstic perspective; people do take responsibility everyday and struggle with their decisions as wealth has concentrated itself effectively on the back of middle class self-reliance. So, most individually responsible people I know are not asking for a handout (circa Reagan’s anti-welfare), they are asking for a balance. It is interesting though that very few people mention how much industry has gutted public finances to save itself.
QUOTE
“You think people are stupid and need to be taken care of. But our poor people are the envy of the rest of the world’s poor people.”
No! I am a Frierian. I believe people are smart and usually make good decisions when given accurate information. Corporations own our media/info. The last few years proves we have not done a very good job in taking care of or educating our own (payday lending, fraudulent mortgage mills, oil spills, financial crises, CEO compensation and corporate welfare). We have abdicated our responsibility to cost/benefit analyses. And what would you know about poor people here or abroad?
QUOTE
“I think I speak for the world when I say: What?”
Education has a more important function than just to serve capital. It is here to challenge capital (that’s called innovation).
t_paine - November 1, 2010 at 11:02 am
Trends
“And what would you know about poor people here or abroad?”
you ask, and since this is one of the few sentences (who am I kidding–the ONLY sentence) where I can find the subject and predicate I’ll answer, and then I give up completely.
Poor people.
I come from poor people, potato famine indentured Irish, and appalachian trash. I’ve smelled the third world on three continents and squatted with some of it’s people on their dirt floors, held their babies, ate their food.
Got a class. Bye.
trendisnotdestiny - November 1, 2010 at 11:53 am
@ t_paine,
Lets hope that you are not teaching students about poverty in America; we wouldn’t want to minimize another aspect of their lives by blaming individuals in a corrupt system….
marktropolis - November 1, 2010 at 2:41 pm
rbannist – “And what’s so awful about “For Profit” institutions?”
Well, for the public-traded companies, what’s so wrong is that they are only successful if their stock increases in value. And lately, the for-profit companies that are “successful” have gotten there is on the backs of tax payers – many of these for-profits have gamed the student loan system to such an extent that the vast majority of their income comes from federally guaranteed student loans. How, exactly, is that free market? There’s a reason why there’s a movement in Congress to halt their predatory lending practices: it’s gotten out of hand.
p.s., the harshest criticism of the for-profits hasn’t been coming from the “radical left” it’s been coming from the New America Foundation – which is pretty centrist, if not leaning right. But then again, I don’t think you’d notice that, since it appears that any critique of the so-called free market falls under the category of “radical left” for you.
Lanny Davis is a mercenary. He has been since probably before he joined the Clinton administration. And if you read it, Carey’s post is less about the for-profits, and more about the industry of individuals with less-than-sterling liberal credentials, selling themselves as liberals.
As for Juan Williams (speaking of so-called liberals selling their liberalness to the highest bidder, and Juan get’s extra bucks for being Black), he didn’t get fired for one thing, he’s had a pattern of saying things on Fox that rankled NPR (in large part because of the nature of his contract with NPR). You may recall that about a year ago he was told by NPR that he could no longer call himself an NPR correspondent when he was on Fox. But based on your harsh response – and your leap to the “racial left” lingo – I wouldn’t expect you to find any time to get the the bottom of that fiasco.
But somehow, Juan Williams saying something offensive, and then getting fired for it, is an example of what’s wrong with liberals?
rbannist - November 1, 2010 at 11:30 pm
There is something wrong with stocks increasing in value? For starters, plenty of public pension funds are highly invested in the stock market and that these funds remain solvent are dependent on the performance of the stock market. Likewise, how many of us have 401K’s? Again, the ability for our investment to grow depends on solid companies marketing quality products and services from which they gain a profit margin for doing so.
That there are some “for profits” that do not do a good job does not reflect badly on the ones that perform well, many of which fulfill nitches that the traditional university is not suited to reach. If there are notable examples of “for profits” operating unethically and illegally, surely prosecutors, the courts, and if necessary, regulatory authorities, can reign them in. It’s not a black market. Many student/customers benefit substantially from organizations like the Univesity of Phoenix, DeVry, the programs Laureate provides, and others. If there is a trend of corruption in these organizations, let’s get 60 Minutes, cable news, or NPR after them and reveal the abuses.
Surely that the Federal Government owns the student loan practice, they can regulate which organizations qualify to take in students who receive Federal aid. Look at the requirements “non profits” must meet for admitting such students.
On what grounds is Lanny Davis a “mercenary” that he has marketable talents and is able to profit from putting them to use? That’s a good thing for Mr. Davis, and if he is as talented and well connected as he appeares to be, it is certainly beneficial to those who employ him.
There seems to be a perception that lobbying itself is an unethical or shady profession. I would suggest it depends who is employing the lobbyists and to what ends they are lobbying. Surely, some industries have OUTRAGEOUS perks that are not deserved.
Juan Williams comment about Muslims was a very candid confession in a broader context in which he was talking about the abuses of prejudices and how easily prejudices can get out of hand. His comments were not directed as a slur or to disparge the Islamic population. He was, in fact, criticizing Bill O’Reilly’s assertion that there is a problem in the Muslim world that is not being addressed. There is a very legitimate debate here, but when folks immediately pounce on people without giving them a chance to articulate their entire position with all supporting arguments and nuances, how quickly they get branded for something they are not.
We have the uncomfortable truth that those who killed us on 9/11/01 were radical extremists who professed a fervent belief in Islam. They were not united by nationalism or an ideology like fascism or communism. They did so on the basis of how they believed the Islamic religion directed them to behave. That there are similar terrorist factions and al qaeda cells who have committed mass murder or plotting to do so is a serious threat to much of western culture. Most rational people accept that such conduct is not typical of most Moslems but to perhaps hop on an airliner and feel a little nervous feeling … one has to give Mr. Williams credit for being honest and such honesty is the only way we can ultimately discuss these issues and rise above them rather than whacking people who don’t say exactly the right thing that conforms to the proper doctrine of those in authority to demonize one for being honest with his thoughts.
There are elements with the broader Islamic culture such as provisions that oppress women and brutalize non-believers in Sharia we can surely fine abhorent without being anti-Muslem bigots as well.
rbannist - November 2, 2010 at 3:31 am
There’s so much to comment on in this piece. There are many issues I’d like to further debate and question.
I am a strong defender of a solid liberal arts education. I don’t see “for profits” being effective purveryors in the study of philosophy, literature, fine arts, theater arts, and many other well-established programs in the arts and humanities.
As long as traditional academic institutions graduate students who demonstrate strong criticial thinking skills, master the fine points of spoken and written language, and demonstrate an appreciation for “big picture” and “out of the box” thinking, such individuals will be in high demand in many forms of commerce.
Perhaps some will have a hybrid education where they obtain their liberal arts degree at a traditional college but prepare to master their CPA’s or other professional certificates at “for profits.”
Some fields like hotel management, computer maintenance, and other fields which require certain specific skill sets that are not widely available in traditional schools are the kind of thing “for profits” can work with most effectively.
If those who think we are heading toward an information based society where on-going education is a life-long pursuit, our society will require many modalities of learning.
The challenge to traditional academia is to work hard to remain relevant and not become too doctrinaire and esoteric in their approach. While I am decidely not a “leftist” by anyone’s imagination except perhaps an idiot like Glenn Beck or Michael Savage, I would hope college campuses would provide a voice for a huge variety of political and philsophical outlooks. Those of us who went to college in the late 60′s and 70′s all felt we had at least one professor who was at least as conservative as Judge Hathorne. Most of my professors were classic liberals or further to the left, but they were great teachers. I also had some who were ultra-traditionalists and very conservative who were equally effective. My education would have been less effective were it not for the contributions of all of them (except the Judge Hathorne figure!!!)
trendisnotdestiny - November 2, 2010 at 11:00 am
@ rbannist,
QUOTE
“There is something wrong with stocks increasing in value? For starters, plenty of public pension funds are highly invested in the stock market and that these funds remain solvent are dependent on the performance of the stock market. Likewise, how many of us have 401K’s? Again, the ability for our investment to grow depends on solid companies marketing quality products and services from which they gain a profit margin for doing so.”
Where have you been during the last decade? Stocks and markets have been and are being manipulated to form bubbles of corruption. These public pension funds are next domino to fall along with municipal debt defaults in the worst four states (NJ, CA, FL & NV)… Lastly, it is very important to understand that Treasury, The Federal Reserve and Wall Street have largely papered over our insolvency making recent gains over the last three months a gambit. You might start reading zerohedge as a way to begin to apart of the conversation.
QUOTE
“Many student/customers benefit substantially from organizations like the Univesity of Phoenix, DeVry, the programs Laureate provides, and others. If there is a trend of corruption in these organizations, let’s get 60 Minutes, cable news, or NPR after them and reveal the abuses.”
Again another naive view. In fact, you missed last springs’ Frontline episode that covered the very piece you are asking for; It is free online!
QUOTE
“Surely that the Federal Government owns the student loan practice, they can regulate which organizations qualify to take in students who receive Federal aid. Look at the requirements “non profits” must meet for admitting such students.”
This hasn’t been the case during the last decade where private student loan lending increased fourfold with higher rates of defaults and larger interest rates (7-8%) and higher profits for Sallie Mae executives
QUOTE
“On what grounds is Lanny Davis a “mercenary” that he has marketable talents and is able to profit from putting them to use?”
The definition you can look up on wikipedia, but the point is that he a republican lite hack who uses media, his connections and aggressive tactics to harm those message that do not directly align with the center right of this country. As a someone advocating for a balance, he betrays every notion of the left while selling his liberal credentials. Mercenary is a good word.
QUOTE
“There are elements with the broader Islamic culture such as provisions that oppress women and brutalize non-believers in Sharia we can surely fine abhorent without being anti-Muslem bigots as well.”
Two things here rbannist. First, most people can agree about the oppression of women and human rights, but what is frequently missed is how these themes are amplified only at those convenient times where Islamic culture is being attacked. As someone married to Muslim, I am perhaps more sensitive to all the multi-millions of Repubicans who espouse the equality of women in another country with one breadth while doing very little to help them here with another breadth (other than to let them know they are on their own with abortion, equal pay and sexual harassment)
Second, whether it is Juan Williams, Sharia Law/Muslims or Critical Thinking coming from a liberal arts background, do not confuse not confuse the media attention to topics with that of being educated. Each topic you address is an invitation to have your narratives co-opted by left and right. This is at the heart of Neoliberalism where the market decides what is fit for consumption.
trendisnotdestiny - November 3, 2010 at 7:38 am
@ rbannist,
This audio of Chris Hedges provides some background of the current milieu where the left has failed (especially with respect to the de-regulation and privatization)
http://www.cbc.ca/video/news/audioplayer.html?clipid=1631355837
marktropolis - November 3, 2010 at 11:00 am
rbannist, we can debate the content of Juan Williams content until the cows come home. The reality is that he’s a paid commentator, playing to his audience. And in this case, it’s the audience of Bill O’Reilly. Which is primarily a white, racist, audience. For years, Juan has parlayed his color and alleged liberal bona fides into a paying gig at Fox. And the other reality is that he had a contract with NPR that had guidelines for his conduct. And he violated that contract. Methinks if he had a leg to stand on, he’d be suing NPR. And as I said earlier, this isn’t just about that one comment – this was merely the straw that broke the contract.