The New York Times reports today, in a story that it runs on the front of its metro section in all apparent seriousness, that the city schools chancellor has "ordered the closing of 4 of New York City's worst-performing schools." At surface this sounds like a dramatic reform effort. But all it really amounts to is a reshuffling of personnel and the changing of some signs on the outside of buildings. The story doesn't say that any of the principals or teachers who ran the worst-performing schools will be fired or demoted. Probably they will simply be transferred to other public schools. The article does say that "the school buildings themselves will not be closed; they will be used for other educational purposes, like magnet schools." So you have the same buildings, the same staff, the same top management, the same government control, the same students. Merely the names of the schools and the distribution of some students and staff will change. It's enough to make a reasonable observer skeptical about whether the school closure plans will actually make much of a difference in student performance. Today's Times story, however, doesn't quote any education experts reacting to the closures or considering the question of whether they will have any significant effects.
You Are a Winner: The Times runs at full length in its national section an Associated Press dispatch reporting an $18 million settlement between Publishers Clearing House and 24 states and the District of Columbia. The states, including New York, charged that Publisher Clearing House sweepstakes mailings emblazoned with the notice "you are a winner!" duped some consumers into spending more than $2,500 each for magazine subscriptions. There's not a single quote in the story from a tort-reform advocate who might say something to the effect of "Anyone who would spend more than $2,500 on magazine subscriptions in hopes of winning the Publishers Clearing House sweepstakes is so dumb that it is a waste of taxpayer money and a drain on the economy to try to save them from the consequences of their own stupidity."
Crimes of the Times: An article in the business section of this morning's Times reports on corporate executives who visit Attica prison in the company of an "executive coach." What's telling is the way the Times handles the criminal histories of the inmates the executives are meeting with. There is "Roger Weisser, an inmate in his 50's who has spent most of his adult life in prison for crimes committed while drinking." There's no indication of what the crimes were or who the victims were -- but, after all, from the Times's point of view, why would it matter, because Weisser was "drinking" and therefore the crimes were presumably the result of his having a disease, alcoholism, for which he bears no moral culpability. Then there is "Ellis Stokely, 50, who has been behind bars since his robbery partner fled police custody and an ensuing shooting left one person dead 25 years ago." Note the passive construction: it was the "shooting" that "left one person dead," not a particular criminal who shot a person dead. And it all would have been just an innocent robbery had it not been for Stokely's unnamed "partner." Right. Again, the Times runs this story out in all apparent seriousness, without even a single quote from a skeptical business-school professor or a more conventional management consultant who might wonder if the shareholders would be better served if the managers spent more time running their companies and less time engaging in philosophical discussions with Attica inmates.