Facts are Facts

by Don Boudreaux on February 2, 2010

in Education,Environment,Not from the Onion,Science

Value judgments camouflaged as objective science are common.  But this example of such a deceptive maneuver is simply ludicrous.  So here’s my open letter to the authors of this study:

Professors Julian D. Marshall, Ryan D. Wilson, Katie L. Meyer, Santhosh K. Rajangam, Noreen C. McDonald, Elizabeth J. Wilson
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 and etc….

Dear Professors:

I just read your paper entitled “Vehicle Emissions during Children’s School Commuting: Impacts of Education Policy,” published recently in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

In this paper you argue that increased school choice – by promoting more vehicular traffic – might have a detrimental impact on the environment.  As such, you suggest that policies to enhance school choice not be adopted unless and until they pass environmental muster.  Or, as you put it, “Our findings underscore the need to critically evaluate transportation-related environmental and health impacts of currently proposed changes in school policy.”

Your insight is a real eye-opener, with implications far beyond the narrow issue of K-12 school choice!

For example, why limit your study to proposals for K-12 educational choice?  Too many young men and women who attend college surely commute too far – some actually leave their homes to move across the country! – thus poisoning everyone’s lungs in their selfish quest to attend the colleges of their own choosing.  Further research by you will likely discover that it’s best to prohibit Americans from attending colleges far from home.

And why stop with education?  Perhaps another future study can be on the environmental impact of supermarket choice.  After all, with people free to drive wherever they wish to buy groceries, it’s almost certainly the case that too many of us drive hither and yon unnecessarily, wasting our time and fouling the air.  I’ll bet that your research will show that restricting each American to shopping only at that supermarket nearest to his or her home will reduce vehicular emissions and, hence, help the environment.

Indeed, the possibilities suggested by your research are infinite.  No telling how much filth is spit into our environment everyday by people needlessly driving to churches, restaurants, shopping malls, gyms, physicians’ offices, night clubs – even friends’ homes – when they could easily go to (and, hence, should forcibly be restricted to) churches, restaurants, etc. – and even to the homes of friends – who are located closer to their where they live.

I look forward to reading your follow-up research.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

UPDATE: My friend Nick Calapa points out in an e-mail to me that, if we take this study seriously, the best education policy is home-schooling.

View Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • msoane
    One must therefore assume that these authors are equally concerned about forced busing.

    This article is a disingenuous attack on school choice using the totally discredited myth of Anthroprogenic Global Warming as its weapon.
  • tomofthemissouri
    I heard these brilliant academics were hired to replace Van Jones as Obama's Green Job's Czar. Their plans are very similar.

    Note: To those earnest folks to whom erp617 refers, this too is sarcasm.
  • Ryan Vann
    I think Don may have blown a gasket over this study, which seems somewhat benign if not a bit hackeneyed in it's methodology. A 21% response rate and only dealing with elementary schoolers is a complete joke. Also, not controlling for the likelihood that private busing solutions might be part of the system leads to a rather static study. Finally, I don't believe traffic impact analysis should not be done by mail surveys.
  • I suggest that this study (and studies of its ilk) are done to provide ammo for argument by partisans. The focus of the study suggest that the ammo is more likely to be used by opponents of school choice.

    The problem Don is pointing out is not the study per se, but studies of this ilk. Agreed, Don should be careful in choosing his comments, but his larger point is the use of studies as ammo by partisans, as exemplified by the expansion of bans on "unhealthy" consumption moving beyond the obvious health issues of smoking, on to trans fat bans, salt bans, etc.

    There is a reason for the existence of such studies, and I doubt that it stems entirely from the objective pursuit of knowledge.
  • I think a study is needed on the environmental impact of government programs.

    For instance, many political jurisdictions have long implemented zoning for the purpose of separating residential areas from business and manufacturing areas. The policy promotes commuting.

    Indeed the cost of government necessitates workers having to commute at least two days of the week just to pay personal income taxes.

    The study, by its particular focus, suggests a value judgment has been made.

    It is easy to refrain from making explicit value judgments while presenting an implicit value judgment.
  • anon
    Sure, you can homeschool and eat locally grown produce from the backyard. But you forget -- your little snowflake will grow up to make more little snowflakes, each with a carbon footprint. And so on, and so on. The ensuing avalanche will kill us all!

    The sooner we all realize that rugrats are nothing more but exponential increases in our carbon footprint, the better.

    Mandatory sterilization for everyone (except for the annointed few) is the only way to save Mother Earth!
  • vidyohs
    Could we start slow? Like kill all the lawyers first and wait to see what effect that has on the CO2 in the atmosphere?

    If that doesn't do it, we could start in on socialist, and work in arbitrary increments, such as first batch all socialist who are doctors, wait to see what effect that has on atmospheric CO2.

    That way maybe mass sterilization wouldn't be necessary, selective retroactive birth control would work fine.
  • danielkuehn
    Don, did they ever actually say that school choice policies should not be adopted unless they pass this environmental test, or are you - once again - just attributing this to them.

    You do this a lot, and it can be frustrating - I don't have time to read through their whole study, so I'm wondering if you could just cite for us where they say that school choice should not be adopted.

    Studies like this are usually fed into much bigger cost benefit analyses. That's an appropriate use of a study like this (although I agree with you, the study does seem to highlight a relatively minor concern). There's a big difference between putting together a broad ranging cost benefit analysis of school choice that takes this factor into account, and using this study to say we shouldn't adopt school choice.

    As far as I can tell, you offer no evidence that they suggest we shouldn't adopt school choice policies.
  • Don Boudreaux
    Daniel:

    What meaning do you attribute to this claim, quoting the authors: "Our findings underscore the need to critically evaluate transportation-related environmental and health impacts of currently proposed changes in school policy"?

    Does this passage not suggest that the authors see their findings as being relevant for policy-makers whenever policy-makers are considering changing school policy?
  • vidyohs
  • Methinks1776
    Splitting the hair doesn't mean it's no longer a hair.

    This study doesn't have to be the sole reason school policy changes. It is not the government's role to decide for anyone where they go to school, shop, live and work based on ANYTHING. This cost benefit analysis should rightfully be performed only by individuals.
  • This is the charge Don made:In this paper you argue that increased school choice – by promoting more vehicular traffic – might have a detrimental impact on the environment.

    It includes the qualifier "might".

    Is Don making a wild accusation?
  • danielkuehn
    It's easy to write a blog post when you make up people's positions on issues.

    Take this, for example: "Don Boudreaux likes to kick puppies and can't stand the Beatles"

    I could probably get several paragraphs out of that one!
  • vidyohs
    No no youngling, it's "Don Boudreaux likes to kick puppies and can't stand the Beagles."

    Now you can get several paragraphs out of that.
  • danielkuehn
    I'm not talking about that charge. I'm talking about this one:

    "As such, you suggest that policies to enhance school choice not be adopted unless and until they pass environmental muster."

    I don't think they ever suggested such a thing, and that is quite an accusation.



  • MnM
    I won't speak for DK, but I think he might be. Don accuses them of making a value judgment. If such a judgment was in the study, I missed it.
  • Economiser
    I could be wrong here, but I read Don's criticism to be that the mere existence of a (costly) study on this issue is itself a value judgment.

    Every action has environmental costs, but we usually don't have academic papers citing them and asking that the government justify the costs before liberty is granted.

    For example, we could run a study that shows that allowing foreign tourists into the US is bad for the environment, because those tourists inevitably fly or drive many miles to get here and pollute all the way. Then we could strongly advocate that environmental costs be taken into account before issuing tourist visas. We don't see that kind of study because it's widely accepted that freedom to travel trumps the environmental costs of travel.

    Or to pick up on anon's point below, imagine a study that urged that the state calculate the environmental costs of expected future offspring before granting marriage licenses. The same logic that the paper's authors used can be used to get to that scenario, and I could foresee a state that happily grants marriage licenses to homosexual couples but refuses them to hetereosexual Catholic couples because we can't afford their polluting offspring.





  • MnM
    I could be wrong here, but I read Don's criticism to be that the mere existence of a (costly) study on this issue is itself a value judgment.

    I think you're right about Don's criticism; this is largely what I meant by "reading between the lines".

    But it's one thing to show that they are demonstrating the obvious, and quite another to make guesses about their motivations/goals.
  • MnM
    I think you're right in this case.

    The study focuses solely on the environmental impacts of school choice; they aren't making a value judgment.

    From page six:

    Because we focus on environmental impacts, we do not
    evaluate here the advantages cited by school choice advocates
    (e.g., increased racialandsocioeconomic integration, parental
    choice, rise in magnet and other specialized learning
    programs, increased overall educational quality owing to
    competition among schools), nor whether the disadvantages
    (e.g., additional commuting; additional administrative burden)
    outweigh potential advantages. Another important issue
    not investigated here is siting policies fornewschools. School
    districts often must choose between investing resources in
    existing schools (upkeep and maintenance) versus constructing
    a new school near current population centers or in
    “green fields” farther from population centers. Our investigation
    highlights potential environmental, health, and
    economic benefits of locating schools relatively closer to
    students’ homes.
  • danielkuehn
    Thanks for taking the time to look that up, MnM!

    It seemed like quite a claim - I would have been very surprised if they actually made it. Perhaps Don will want to mail a follow up letter to clarify :)
  • MnM
    No problem. What else would I do on my lunch break? Eat? ;o)

    You have to read between the lines to arrive at Don's conclusion. Maybe he's right, but I won't assume the writers are dishonest without knowing them personally or having read more of the work.

    If it's a camouflaged argument against school choice, it strikes me as a little too well camouflaged.
  • erp617
    Don, I fear sarcasm is lost on these bozos.
  • There should be a study to see what kind of environmental effects are caused by people doing studies. Then, we can just ban the types of studies whose commissioning will result in detrimental effects for the environment.

    I hope these guys aren't traveling to a conference to present their findings!
  • Economiser
    The lead author holds degrees from Princeton and Berkeley and currently teaches at Minnesota. Think of all the carbon he's wasted traveling every which way across the country!

    http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/marshall/
  • martinbrock
    Stop! They'll take you seriously! These guys want to ban the internal combustion engine, and they aren't kidding.
  • JohnK
    My uncle has a country place, that no one know about...
  • J Cortez
    ". . .the best education policy is home-schooling."

    I agree completely.
  • Methinks1776
    Unfortunately, some states have cottoned on the trend and are now trying to control homeschooling. I've heard of parents having to submit to certification to teach their own children and some districts have tried to control the curriculum. There is virtually nothing too private to be off limits for the government in this country anymore.
  • In California, the homeschooling community is large enough the the head of the Dept. of Education has recognized that they couldn't afford to absorb all the students if homeschooling were outlawed, so he has expressed some support for homeschooling.
  • Methinks1776
    My understanding is that certain school districts (in California, come to think of it) don't necessarily want to eliminate it. They want to control it.
  • Fortunately, the homeschooling faction in California is large enough that they can actually exert pressure in Sacramento. This was evident in a court ruling last year that was withdrawn after homeschoolers got on the ball.
  • Methinks1776
    That's great!
  • JohnK
    Sometimes I think that the environmentalists would have us all forsake all technology, buy the Foxfire Book Series, and live like hillbillies.

    By "us all" I of course mean everyone but them.
  • Tom Kelly
    Professor people:

    If you really want to save the environment- push for school choice. School choice will prevent families from moving to the exurbs in order to get quality education for their children. This will vastly improve the desirability of living in core cities and commuting will go way down, not up.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: