If you’re wondering why Joe Biden still won’t say whether he supports packing the U.S. Supreme Court if he’s elected president, it’s because he doesn’t have to. His Democratic Party has been actively transforming state courts into legislative backstops for years – and will undoubtedly pressure Biden to do the same to our nation’s high court, if given the chance.
In states across the country, where Democrats have failed to achieve their increasingly radical agenda at the ballot box, leftist groups have spent millions of dollars installing on state supreme courts liberal, activist judges, who are all too willing to legislate from the bench. In 2020, that means helping to elect Biden president by ignoring critical election security laws designed to protect against voter fraud.
Look no further than in battleground Pennsylvania, where Democrats in 2015 seized on turmoil created by three resignations from the state’s highest court and spent millions of dollars to win those seats for liberal judges. The Democratic Party, state and national labor unions, and billboard trial lawyers all chipped in, knowing the stakes – and the opportunities – were high.
The Republican State Leadership Committee led the fight to stop them in an election that would ultimately become the most expensive state judicial election at the time – a record $16.5 million was poured in by outside groups. Democrats recognized how useful a partisan, activist majority on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would be for their policy agenda and political preferences for years to come.
The outcomes didn’t take long to pay off: This year, that same Democrat majority on the court used the Pennsylvania Constitution’s “Free and Equal Elections Clause” to ignore state law requiring absentee ballots be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day. The court adopted a politics-first interpretation of the law, allowing it to rewrite deadlines that it found inconvenient.
Instead of applying the “received by” deadline statute, a neutral, even-handed rule that applies to all Pennsylvania voters equally, the court created a rule requested by Democrats who believe this outcome benefits their party, and their candidate, politically. Under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling, only absentee voters can cast valid votes after Election Day. In-person voters can’t.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling has been appealed by Republicans to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Biden’s Supreme Court shortlist is likely full of activist judges on state supreme courts who have ignored legislatively adopted rules, procedures, and deadlines when it was inconvenient for their politically preferred outcome.
Whether they come from Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, or Ohio, Democrats have been quietly electing partisan, activist judges to state supreme courts across this country. The Republican State Leadership Committee is the only national group fighting on this field in support of the rule of law.
“Elections have consequences.” That’s the refrain from winners in the game of power politics, from Barack Obama to Donald Trump. But we expect those elections to be run according to the rules, procedures and deadlines adopted by legislatures after sober consideration, not stripped of security provisions by partisan, activist judges.
Forgive us if we’re rightfully skeptical that Biden will stand up to the radical left when they ram through Congress an institution-crumbling, court-packing scheme.
(AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)
Andrew Wynne leads the Republican State Leadership Committee’s Judicial Fairness Initiative.
I recently caught up with Tom Watkins who was on the cutting edge of sensible school reform as Michigan’s state superintendent of schools, (2001-05) and remains so today, to take a look at remote/e-learning in the time of Covid.
Tom has perhaps one of the most eclectic careers serving in leadership roles in K-12 and preschool education, higher ed, health and behavioral health, business, politics, and media. He was recognized by EdNews as a Upton Sinclair awardee and been active in building global educational bridges; especially with China. He is a “go to” person on both sides of the Pacific when it comes to China US relations, which he considers the most important bilateral relationship in the world today. He is often quoted as saying, “Going forward, all the major world issues will intersect at the corner of Beijing and Washington, D.C. How our respective leaders address these concerns will impact the people of China, the USA and all of humanity”. Perhaps the only subject Tom speaks out more on – beyond the need to support public education — is China/US relations. Read some of Tom’s China thoughts here: CHINA US Focus
Now, let’s dive into Tom’s thoughts on e-learning today.
EDNEWS: Mr. Superintendent, as you have often said, “the only constant in the world today is change.” We have certainly witnessed a great deal of change since Covid-19 washed up on our shores. How do we assure this “change” produces progress for our schools and teachers?
Tom Watkins: Covid-19 has forced the world to examine new ways of doing things. Covid, became a accelerate for remote/e-learning. With technology we chat, zoom, live lectures, and other means of videoconferencing are all possible through the internet.
It is amazing what a global pandemic can do to fast-forward the adoption of new ways of teaching and learning. Education leaders cannot be mired in what they feel they can’t do because of what they have done in the past and must be focused on finding creative solutions to the very real problems at hand.
Remote and e-learning was viewed as inferior to face-to-face traditional educational models prior to the pandemic. Yet, we all know, necessity is the mother of invention. Education must adapt to a changing world by moving away from the traditional building/classroom learning environment— learning does exist in the clouds. The Chinese people have led the world as early adopters of technology, remote or e-learning should be no different.
No school, community or nation can lead in the 21st century without casting off the anchors of archaic laws, policies, and beliefs that bind us to 20th century education models. With or without the global pandemic, e/remote learning is here to stay. Wise leaders will find ways to uses this new tool to advance teaching and learning advancing opportunities for their students and nation.
EdNEWS: What are your thoughts on remote or eLearning. As I recall, you are one of the early pioneers in this work and certainly Michigan was an early adopter of this new way of teaching and learning.
Tom Watkins: Since the inception of e-learning, technology has delivered increased bandwidth, and more engaging multimedia tools. Innovative instructional methods supported by a growing body of best practice have advanced the efficacy of remote learning. Solid learning about how to maximize the teaching and learning experience is being shared by exceptional teachers across the globe.
I know a bit about remote/ online learning, having written an internationally recognized report on the topic in 2005, while serving as the assistant to the president at Wayne State University in Detroit Michigan USA after by tenure as Michigan’s state superintendent of schools from 2001 to 2005.
The report: “The New Education (R)evolution: Exploring E-Learning Reforms for Michigan”
offers a series of policy recommendations that are as relevant today in the US and across the globe as when I wrote them in 2005.
EDNEWS: What are some of the advantages in e-learning in your eyes?
Tom Watkins: Technology, specifically e-learning, can assist in customizing the student\’s learning experience. E-learning covers a wide set of applications and processes such as Web-based learning, computer-based learning, virtual classrooms and digital collaboration. The report I referenced above provides 29 major recommendations designed to further develop and enhance e-learning
Some schools and nations have embraced this technology and are partially ready to continue learning for their students during this crisis. Sadly, many are not.
I am not advocating online learning replace the human touch of face-to-face teaching and learning. Yet, sadly, few schools have adopted the full potential technology can offer our schools and children in a way that prepares students for their future, and not our past.
EDNEWS: Do you see the uses of e-learning as a passing fad to paper over the problems that Covid has forced on our schools— is it here to stay?
Tom Watkins: Schools across the globe will be stronger in the future if we are willing to do a deep self-reflection on anchors that hold us back when this crisis ends. When Covid -19 virus struct, wise policymakers and educators wasted little time casting blame or cursing the darkness but reached for new technology tools to enable quality teaching and learning to continue.
EDNEWS: as I recall, you have been working developing powerful cross cultural educational partnerships going back decades and most recently have been connecting Chinese and US Schools. How has e-learning helped in this regard?
Tom Watkins: I was working in China prior to the pandemic partnering with one of the oldest and largest private K-12 schools in China. Serving as the China Partner and Managing Director of WAY American Schools (https://www.wayamericanschool.com/)
we were providing highly qualified American teachers to teach Chinese students using a powerful technology platform, HERO (centriclearning.net) that was developed, not by techies, but by educators/teachers for educators. Offering a rigorous project based learning platform WAY American Schools/Centric Learning are internationally accredited enabling the awarding of an American High School diploma, anywhere in the world. Partnering with Chinese educators enable us to bring the best of education from each nation.
EDNEWS: Tell our readers more about Centric Learning?
Tom Watkins:The Centric Learning platform provides for ways for teachers and students to engage in real-time and through technology 24/7 learning. Further, assessments are done by high quality teachers and not computer generated. The assessment is competency based. Students develop projects in order to demonstrate their mastery over a given topic or subject matter. Our project based learning curriculum engages students and prepares them for success for their future.
At Centric Learning, we constantly ask ourselves, “How will this help our students?” Any crisis, even a global pandemic is a terrible thing to waste; and we have looked for ways to uses our decades of experience to benefit students with our powerful e-learning educational platform. We’ve spent over a decade developing truly engaging curriculum and intuitive teaching tools to enhance learning. Our HERO Learning System was designed to bring out the hero in students and teachers. We work with a growing global network of private, public and charter school partners on multiple continents who are excited to work with us to impact student outcomes. Our students success is our success.
EDNEWS: You have also partnered with schools in China using this technology and educational platform?
Tom Watkins: Yes. WAY American Schools in China and across the globe have created effective online learning courses which requires knowledge, time, experience, talent, passion, commitment, great communication skills, and a true passion for learning— all of which our in our education and technology teams DNA.
Today, Centric Learning is working with students face-to-face and remotely in the USA, China, South America and the European Union.
This robust, rigorous Centric Learning WAY American School/ HERO educational platform had the built in capability to switch to remote elearning without skipping a beat. While schools across the globe were struggling to continue educating students WAY American Schools and our Chinese partners did not miss a day of teaching and learning completing the school year as strongly as we began. Further, we are continuing our partnership remotely this school year with our highly qualified American teachers using the internet to teach their eager and bright students in China.
EDNEWS: Has e-learning been an easy sell in China. It certainly has not been quickly adopted in schools in the US?
Tom Watkins: I recall the blank stares I encountered both in the US and China in the early 2000’s while serving as Michigan’s state superintendent of schools when I attempted to introduce blended and e-learning into the mainstream. There was little appetite to be early adopters of this new technology and teaching modality into public and private schools in the US and across the globe. Today, universities and schools are offering online learning to fill the void today. Online learning has been in the educational shadows and has now popped into the spotlight. Under it, learning is no longer regulated to the six-hour school day, four walls of a classroom or the two bindings of a book — if educators are prepared to uses these tools.
EDNEWS: Due to COVID-19 pandemic, remote/e- learning may become normality. Concerning remote learning, what are the advantages and disadvantages of this way of teaching and learning?
Tom Watkins: Remote learning offers Positive Aspects:
Greater flexibility
Can be done in the mist of a pandemic. ..
Globalizing Education– making it easier for students from around the globe to connect with learning via e-learning
Learning in a language which is not your native language can be a challenge. Yet with e-learning the lecture can and be seen and heard again and again if you do not happen to understand the topic first time around.
Using technology to digitalize and personalize learning;
Enables global learning without leaving home.
Self paced
Tap Western educators
Ability to learn 24/7
Study any time, place, pace
Personalize learning
With E-learning you can access the content an unlimited number of times.
Today’s learners want relevant, mobile, self-paced, and personalized content— remote learning can and is delivering it.
Challenges:
imagination. We all need to cast off our historic beliefs and move boldly into the 21st century using ALL tools to advance teaching and learning. The next educational advancement will come with the embedding of AI (Artificial Intelligence) into our schools to advance learning.
* students can be distracted
scheduling issues around different time zones
Technical or internet connectivity issues
Assuring these advancements reach ALL students, not simply the elite.
Equity issues, assuring poor, minority and rural school children have equal access is always a challenge in America.
EDNEWS: How may education opportunity and economic benefit evolve under remote learning?
Tom Watkins: Technology is another tool educators can and must uses to assure quality teaching and learning. Educators skilled in using new and old tools are best prepared to adapt to meet the needs of students.
EDNEWS: In medium and long term, is it likely that the remote learning may change the politics of many countries?
Tom Watkins: Change is easy, progress is always much more difficult. Sadly, the tensions between China and the US coupled with the global pandemic has made it increasing more difficult for students at the high school and university level to travel to America and other Western countries to receive an education. The Covid has also, reduced the number of Western teachers in China. The uses of remote or e-learning has enabled teaching and learning to continue uninterrupted. This has benefits for both China and the USA.
EDNEWS: What has the economic impact of remote learning on universities in the US and China?
Tom Watkins: The loss of Chinese and other foreign students unable to return to universities in the US has resulted in a loss of significant revenue and opportunities for students to interact face-to-face. Australia, Canada and the U.S. face shortfall in applicants because of travel bans; revenue growth relied significantly on Chinese, Indian students. Prior to the pandemic, China has over 320,000 university students in the US. Some of these students are attempting to continue their studies remotely, while others were forced to withdraw. It is estimated that Chinese students spend about $40 billion a year globally on overseas tuition.
In China, the China’s Ministry of Education historically has not accepted online degree courses, so universities are scrambling to figure out a way to offer some classes in person. It would be wise for the Chinese Ministry of Education to review this policy as well as eLearning is proving to be as robust as face-to-face modality.
EDNEWS: What are your expectation for the future of remote/ e-learning?
Tom Watkins: There is a saying: “you can’t unring a bell, turn back time or unscramble an egg. Remote learning is here to stay. Yet, like most things in life, not everything on the market is the same or equal quality. Parents, students school administrators and policymakers need to be diligent in choosing quality remote/e-learning. As my colleague Ron Stefanski, executive director of Sales and Marketing at Centric Learning says – great teachers:
Engage students directly in their own learning and help them think independently.
Excite students’ natural curiosity and appetite for learning.
Adapt their teaching to students’ needs and use creative alternative approaches.
Nurture relationships and assist children in doing so.
The truth is — this is how effective learning takes place remotely or using e-“
learning as well.
EDNEWS: Anything you want to add about the benefit of remote e-learning, that I failed to ask?
Tom Watkins: It was said in the past in America that students needed to “focus on the 3 R’s Reading, Righting and Rirthmatic.” Today, need to be serious about the new 3 R’s — Restructure, Reform, and Reinventing teaching and learning.
Clearly, we are living in a fast paced, hyper-competitive, disruptive, transformational, technologically driven, global, knowledge economy where ideas and jobs can and do move around the globe effortlessly– staying even is falling behind. Our children, both in the US and China are not simply competing against the child in the next seat, district, or state—- they are competing with the children of the world. Change is difficult and is avoided until it can be avoided no longer. As we know– the only human that truly likes change is an infant. We have to get to the point where the only adjective that matters before school— is QUALITY! Preparing our children with the abilities to learn, unlearn, and relearn, will help them navigate the tsunami of automation and technology that offers potential for even greater disruption of our traditional ways of living and working in the coming decades.
As the 21st Century unfolds, new technologies like e-learning and artificial intelligence (AI) will permeate our world— educators and policymakers need to lead change that produces progress for our children .The community, state, Provence or nation that invests in teaching and learning will prevail as the 21st century unfolds.
The pandemic has created an environment to speed up the need and acceptance of e-learning. Educators took this tool and have demonstrated the wide set of benefits it gives to students. E-learning has proven to be successful and quite popular and appreciated among students all over the world. With e-learning/technology, the impossible is possible now.
There is no going back – and students and the world will benefit.
EdNEWS: As always, thank you for your keen insights that maintain a focus on quality teaching and learning.
For a country as wealthy as ours, the prospect that some disadvantaged children may never go back to school is unacceptable.
By Anton Leschen
I recently spoke with a principal in Melbourne’s northern suburbs. During the first lockdown, her school worked tirelessly to support students through remote learning. But now, months later, the threat of “lost learning” isn’t her chief concern. Instead, what keeps this principal up at night is the prospect that some of her students – as young as primary school children – “may never even return to school”.
The Smith Family’s Victorian general manager Anton Leschen.
This is as extreme as it sounds – we’re talking about primary school-aged kids never returning to school. But this isn’t Dickensian London; this is Victoria in 2020 – and for a country as wealthy as ours, it’s a prospect I find unacceptable.
When Victoria’s lockdown was extended, my thoughts went to a great mother who’s been doing it tough all her life. I’ll call her Sue. She’s a single parent living in Bendigo, and not in paid employment.
Faced with the task of co-ordinating the home schooling of her four children, Sue struggled with just one computer and limited data access, somehow also juggling the responsibility of caring for her elderly mother. Despite the brave face, it was increasingly difficult to keep her children engaged with school.
Sue didn’t finish high school and is the first to admit she isn’t much help to the older two with their schooling. She works hard to create a home and save for her family. Cupboards and bookshelves are dragged across bedrooms to create makeshift walls and private study areas. Sue’s trying, but getting her kids educated has gone from really hard to almost impossible.
This may not be considered the “standard profile” of a family living in this country, but for Australian children living in poverty, it’s real.
And for thousands of Victorian families like Sue’s, lockdown 2.0 isn’t just a tough time to be endured, it has come to represent a compounding moment when thousands of young people stand at a critical crossroads.
Before our second lockdown, the Grattan Institute estimated students from disadvantaged backgrounds may be learning less than 50 per cent of what they would in the classroom, due to school closures.
That was in June. Since then, the majority of Victorian students continued with home learning, and the challenges, especially for vulnerable students, have been exacerbated. And students living in poverty were behind in their learning even before COVID-19.
Financial hardship is just the surface issue; other problems include a lack of learning resources, support networks and opportunities to aspire to a different way of life. Challenges mount and without the right support at the right time, young people can easily disengage from school.
We need targeted interventions to combat this risk. Students experiencing disadvantage need learning devices, affordable internet and long-term tailored support to re-engage with their learning and catch up to peers. By identifying students most in need of “catch-up” tutoring, making it available at no cost and ensuring quality delivery over a sustained period, we can limit the impact of COVID-19 on children like Sue’s.
Anton Leschen is the general manager, Victoria, at children’s education charity The Smith Family.
Homeschooling parents unerringly find the most efficient textbooks. This is only natural if you have to spend all day at a kitchen table teaching children.
A decade back, I was startled to find homeschoolers almost unanimous in praising the legendary John Saxon (1923–1996). What was his secret?
Saxon, with three advanced degrees in mathematical subjects, flew jet planes in the Air Force, first as a bomber pilot and then as a test pilot. Reaching retirement age, he wasn’t certain what to do next. A counselor suggested he teach math at a community college. He liked the idea but was dismayed to find that his students knew almost no math. Now he had found his destiny. He would fix this problem. How could he possibly do that? By creating better textbooks. He ended up creating a publishing empire that was sold for roughly $100,000,000 in 2004.
Saxon had a big heart, an exceptional mind, and a precise vision of how children can most quickly learn arithmetic. Perhaps the indispensable trait is that he was a fighter. He challenged the Education Establishment, offering to pay all expenses for head-to-head competitions. He had no takers. People said he should perhaps be more polite to the education professors. Saxon said they didn’t deserve it. Their offerings were absurd.
…Saxon Math, since its debut in 1981, has proven successful with all “subgroups” of both boys and girls. John Saxon is the only author and publisher of math textbooks to prove the effectiveness of his teaching methods and materials before selling his books to schools…
He field-tested his first book, an algebra textbook, in 22 Oklahoma schools under the supervision of the Oklahoma chapter of the American Federation of Teachers. They gave it a rousing thumbs up. That’s when the establishment realized that it had a problem. The big New York City publishers refused to publish his work. The professors began a counter-attack.
…This group bitterly demonized Saxon’s ideas even though they were demonstrably superior. And what is the mechanism of that superiority? Saxon believed in step-by-step instruction, with constant practice and testing to make sure students have truly understood the lessons, and constant recycling of all the main ideas.Repetition is assumed to be the mother of instruction…
Here’s the clincher. It takes about two hours for teachers or parents to learn how to use Saxon Math effectively. Teachers of progressive mathematics require a minimum of two weeks of costly training plus more “professional development” throughout the school year. Two weeks of wading through gunk so you can teach gunk.
Nakonia (Niki) Hayes is the author of the only full biography of the great man, John Saxon’s Story, a genius of common sense in math education. For many years she was a schoolteacher and school principal. She is a battle-tested veteran of the Math Wars. Now 80, she’s still helping teachers and parents to survive these wars. (For a more complete story,visit her site.)
Niki Hayes cautions that revised versions of John Saxon’s books published after 2007 are not acceptable.Older versions can be found on the internet.Publishers bought the rights to John Saxon’s books apparently with the shameful goal of mangling them into conformity with Common Core approaches.
New Math (roughly 1962); Reform Math (many varieties, roughly 1985 and thereafter); and Common Core (more recently) share the same flawed theories and depressing results. Children don’t learn to master math. They learn to hate math. Indeed, the most touching part of the John Saxon story is that students loved math and loved the author.
The Saxon story is a window into everything wrong and indeed corrupt throughout American K–12.Proven methods are disdained and discarded. Grotesque complexities doom most children to become innumerate. They don’t go on to advanced subjects. And then, for years, we have to listen to disingenuous experts complain that America is neglecting STEM subjects. More accurately, Common Core guarantees this outcome.
Protect your students. Understand the evils that John Saxon set out to defeat. Give your students textbooks designed to work.
1) Professor Dal Porto, first of all, what are you currently doing in this pandemic? How are you coping and providing instruction to your students?
Thank you for having me. I am doing my best to cope by not focusing on the pandemic and recognize that what is happening is mostly beyond my control, with the exception of my wearing a mask and social distancing when out in public. Regarding my teaching, it is exclusively online at this time and I am continuing to hone my skills on how to best teach in this environment so that my students are still able to effectively learn and be motivated and to continue with their education and pursuit of their life goals.
2) Secondly, I hear that you have just won 3 awards from the American Prize Association in composition-choral, chamber, and orchestra. When did you find out and how did you feel?
I found out in June 2020 that I had won three awards, those being for my orchestral work Mystic Mountain, choral work From Spring Days to Winter, and chamber work Exotic Animals Suite. I certainly felt honored and was very pleased to receive these awards since it is an extremely competitive competition. All of the aforementioned works are included on my CD Peace, Nature & Renewal released last year and sold at various retail outlets.
3) Now, the American Prize Association- where are they located and how often do they award these prizes?
The American Prize Association is located in White Plains, NY and they are a national nonprofit organization in the Performing Arts. They award prizes annually in music and theater.
4) How did you go about winning these prizes? Did you have to submit sheet music, or public performance or recordings of these compositions?
I submitted five scores plus recordings for The American Prize 2019-2020 competition. All five works were selected as semi-finalists with three winning finalist award certificates.
5) Now choral is basically for voice- am I correct? But chamber music is written for what instruments?
Yes, choral means an ensemble of voices, typically sopranos, altos, tenors, and basses (“SATB”) being the most common choral group. Chamber music is composed for a small group of instruments—traditionally a group that could fit in a palace “chamber” or large room.
6) Big question- writing for an entire orchestra. What does that involve?
Composing for an entire orchestra entails a large amount of work, but I thoroughly enjoy the process. Because you are writing for a sizable group of musicians, it takes a good deal of time and forethought to not only write the music, but strategically and colorfully orchestrate it, making sure it balances, blends, and effectively highlights every emotion and nuance of your melodies, rhythms, and harmonies.
7) Last question, how are you coping musically during this pandemic? I am feeling a bit depressed. Does your emotional state with this pandemic impact your composing?
Yes, my compositional output has been somewhat limited in the sense that live performances, competitions, and concerts have been put on hold which has disrupted my creativity and motivation. On the other hand, I have now been able to find more private time and inspiration in completing the largest work I have yet written, a symphony for full orchestra. It is now getting close to being completed and, when finished, should be close to an hour in duration.
8) Anything I have forgotten to ask?
Perhaps why I compose music. I find it to be an excellent source of self-expression and its purpose for me is to communicate feelings, thoughts, and memories that engage my listeners and transport them to their own unique and special place.
“Over the many years, I truly enjoyed not being required to defend my interpretations. I could just work with the greatest of pleasure. I never felt the need nor the desire to defend my views. If I turned out to be wrong, I just forgot that I ever held such a view. It didn’t matter.”
– Barbara McClintock
“If you know you are on the right track, if you have this inner knowledge, then nobody can turn you off… no matter what they say.”
–Barbara McClintock
1) Barbara McClintock was born in Hartford, Connecticut—when exactly was she born, and can you describe her formative years?
Dr. Barbara McClintock was a Nobel Laureate and founding pioneer of modern genetics who discovered transposons and genetic recombination in corn genomes. McClintock was born in Hartford, Connecticut, on June 16, 1902. She had one younger brother and two older sisters. McClintock was an energetic youth and liked to participate in sports such as volleyball, skating, and swimming. She was raised in Brooklyn, New York, by her parents, Thomas and Sara. However, she spent some of her childhood, from ages three to five, living with an aunt to lessen her parents’ financial responsibilities. At the same time, her father grew his medical practice. Her mother was a piano teacher and poet. Although McClintock had her sights on attending college, her parents were not supportive at first. Her mother feared her daughter would not be attractive to potential suitors if she partook in higher education. Eventually, her father changed his mind in time for McClintock to complete the admissions applications, and all ended well.
2) Her early education—where was she trained?
McClintock was an Erasmus Hall High School graduate in 1919. At the age of 17, McClintock enrolled in the New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University. She attended Cornell for both her undergraduate and graduate degrees. At Cornell, McClintock began to enjoy the company of others, unlike when she was younger, and joined a jazz band and was even elected president of the woman’s freshman class. McClintock earned her B.S. in Agriculture in 1923, and her focus was on plant breeding and botany. Two years later, with financial help from a graduate scholarship in botany, she took her master’s degree. McClintock was selected for membership in the graduate student’s Honor Society, Sigma Xi.
In 1927, McClintock completed her Ph.D. from Cornell’s Department of Botany and was the graduate student of L. W. Sharp and laboratory assistant of L. F. Randolph. During that time, she dedicated herself to investigate cytology, genetics, and zoology. A microscope and the squash staining technique enabled McClintock’s intense study of maize. McClintock’s Ph.D. thesis was titled A Cytological and Genetical Study of Triploid Maize (1927).
3) McClintock’s very early contributions to the field of maize cytogenetics—seemed to set her on the road to success. What were her early contributions, and why were they significant?
Dr. McClintock’s early contributions to the cytogenetics of corn were significant. One of these studies was related to gene mapping of specific traits to the genome corn, the scientific name Zea mays. Another notable discovery was genetic recombination and the crossing over of corn genes as they proceeded with meiosis.
McClintock’s pioneering work stemmed early on, starting in 1924, soon after her admission to graduate school at Cornell University. Her graduate academic advisor, Dr. Lester W. Sharp, a botany professor, taught a cytology course. McClintock had flourished in the class and eventually became his teaching assistant. Sharp later became McClintock’s thesis supervisor. Professor and program director Rollins Adams Emerson, a leading corn geneticist, taught McClintock how to cultivate corn. Under Emerson’s tutelage, McClintock learned to keep track of and control self- versus cross-pollinations carefully. The new expertise made it possible for McClintock to advance the study of maize cytogenetics.
As a paid laboratory research assistant, McClintock, who was still also a graduate student, entered the laboratory of Professor Lowell F. Randolph, a noted cytologist. The new association would provide funding to McClintock for graduate school. Randolph taught McClintock how to perform the so-called “squash” technique, developed by cytogeneticist John Belling, for staining the chromosomes of corn cells that were fixed to a glass slide. She used Belling’s technique to examine the chromosomes that were stained with a chemical called aceto-carmin (known today as acetocarmine), containing iron.
McClintock harvested the corn, collected its anthers, removed their walls and flower parts, and squeezed anthers’ contents onto a glass slide containing the iron-aceto-carmin staining solution. Next, McClintock added a glass coverslip and applied a flame to heat-fix the stain onto the corn chromosomes. Then she dropped the heated slide into a solution of acetic acid. After the coverslip fell away on its own, McClintock placed the coverslips, and the stained chromosomes slide inside of a so-called Coplin jar filled with a mixture of alcohol and acetic acid. McClintock then washed the contents with the covers and slides using a series of acid-alcohol solutions. Using her thumb, she reapplied the coverslips onto the slides to flatten out the chromosomes (the squash) and better visualize them.
McClintock used the corn chromosome detection method and made it her own to produce significant discoveries in generic’s burgeoning field. She used the chromosomes’ observable characteristics, such as their so-called knobs, extensions, and constrictions, to tell them apart.
McClintock and Randolph worked well together, at first, during their study of the triploid corn plant. The particular plant strain was a rare variant of maize discovered growing in the cornfields of Cornell University. The triploid plant harbored three chromosome sets, instead of one group (haploid) such as those found in the sex cells (i.e., gametes like eggs and sperm), or two groups (diploid) such as in somatic cells.
During mitosis, the parental cell divides into two daughter cells, each somatic containing a diploid number of chromosomes. In contrast, during meiosis, haploid gametes are produced in a two-stage process. The first stage of meiotic division generates a diploid chromosome number. The second meiotic division manufactures a haploid chromosome component to the egg or sperm. See Figure 49.
The collaboration between McClintock and Randolph produced their first and only publication, which came out in the journal American Naturalist in 1926. The article was also McClintock’s first scientific publication. Afterward, McClintock and Randolph had a falling out and never collaborated again. Several explanations for the rift have been postulated.
Randolph was known to be a methodical and careful scientist. While McClintock was also a systematic and cautious scientist, she was also clearly talented and gifted. She would eventually be fully recognized as a genius by the world’s leading scientist. Still, as a graduate student, she was viewed negatively by Randolph. He had tried to distinguish an identity from the Zeamays corn’s chromosomes but failed, and McClintock succeeded. She improved the chromosome staining technique, publishing the work. Furthermore, McClintock chose another meiosis stage, called pachytene, rather than metaphase, as Randolph had examined. McClintock got immediate results in clearly distinguishing individual corn chromosomes.
She was also instantly astute in grasping the significance of new data, even those of others. It was apparent to those colleagues around her that McClintock was gifted. A fellow graduate student, George Beadle, complained to Emerson about this aspect of McClintock. Emerson was reported to have informed Beadle that he should be grateful for the insight she had provided. Randolph complained about McClintock, too. Emerson took Randolph’s complaints more seriously, however, as he was a faculty. At first, Emerson sympathized with Randolph and voiced his disapproval of McClintock. In the end, however, Emerson soon became one of McClintock’s strongest advocates after learning of her scientific findings.
Her thesis completed, McClintock took a Ph.D. at age 25 in 1927 from Cornell University and published her thesis in the journal Genetics in 1929. She had identified each of the ten chromosomes held in the maize plants. She had lined up the chromosomes in order of length, with chromosome number one as the longest and number 10 has the shortest.
4) In 1945—she was chosen as the very first woman President of the Genetics Society in America. Can you outline just some of her work that led to this award?
McClintock discovered genetic recombination and genetic crossing over of corn genes during the meiotic process of gametogenesis. After earning her doctorate, McClintock remained at Cornell University from 1924-1931. She was employed as a researcher, teaching assistant, and instructor. She resumed the work that concluded in discovering transposable elements published in 1950 with financial support from three contributors: the National Research Council, the Guggenheim, and the Rockefeller Foundations.
During the period beginning in 1929, McClintock collaborated with fellow graduate student Harriet Creighton to study genetic recombination and gene crossover during meiosis. Creighton and McClintock used a set of markers, e.g., knobs at chromosome ends, located on the corn chromosomes that harbored a collection of linked genes. These markers permitted Creighton and McClintock to follow chromosomal crossing-over events. They also exploited a set of genetic markers that expressed themselves in the form of easily observable corn phenotypes. These traits included pigmentation of corn aleurone, (C), colorless aleurone, (c), waxy kernel starch (wx), and shrunken (sh) endosperms. This set up permitted Creighton and McClintock to follow any crossing over movements of genes and chromosomes.
They had genetic markers adjacent to two distinctive genes present on the same corn chromosome, e.g., one tag had a knobbed chromosome with adjacent genes for aleurone color and waxy endosperm starch on the kernel (knobbed-C-wx). These makers allowed Creighton and McClintock to trace whether chromosome crossover and gene movement were co-occurring in the same event. They had to perform the necessary mating experiments to demonstrate genetic recombination and gene crossing over during gametogenesis.
The work was arduous. Creighton and McClintock worked in the experimental cornfield stations from sunup to sundown. They planted the kernels with their distinctive observable colors and characteristics in spring. They also had to water and weed the growing plants in the hot sun while maintaining careful records of each corn plant and their genetic histories. They also had no control over the weather, such as drought or rain deluges. If the corn plants failed to grow after all of these efforts, they would lose all of their work!
During corn plant growth, they had to take great care to prevent cross-fertilization (pollination from different plants) while maintaining self-fertilization (pollination on the same plant). The male sperm on the plant tops (tassels) would fall to the egg cells located at the corn plant’s base, and their fusion would create the embryo within the corn kernel. Each sperm-egg fusion produced one corn kernel. Creighton and McClintock prevented unwanted pollination and maintained the desired self-fertilization by covering the tassels and ears with bags and transferring the pollen from the bags by hand to the eggs on the same plant (self-fertilization).
After harvest, they began the painstaking cytological work. Creighton and McClintock made observations on the numbers of chromosome crossovers and diagramed the genetic exchanges during meiosis. They looked especially closely at normal knobbed chromosomes versus knobless and interchanged chromosomes with those for kernel endosperm characteristics and colors. For instance, on chromosome number nine of the Zea mays corn, they studied the standard parental gene constitutions. One parent had knobs that carried the pigmented aleurone gene C and the gene wx (knobbed-C-wx). The other parent corn plant had no knobs and carried the c gene and the Wx gene (knobless-c-Wx). In the progeny, they observed crossovers, such as knobbed-C-Wx and knobless-c-wx!
That is, they had observed movements of genes to new chromosomal locations. It was a historical first that genetic recombination had been observed during meiosis. It was a scientific discovery of epic proportion.
Upon the encouragement of the famous Thomas Hunt Morgan himself, Creighton and McClintock would publish their groundbreaking data in the prestigious Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences in 1931.
McClintock was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1933 to study in Freiburg, Germany. She ended up leaving before the fellowship ended due to the rise of Nazism. Once back in the United States, McClintock found out that Cornell University refused to hire a female professor. Luckily, the Rockefeller Foundation funded her research at Cornell for about three years until she acquired employment at the University of Missouri in 1936.
From 1936 to 1942, McClintock held positions at the University of Missouri and then the prestigious Carnegie Institution of Washington’s Department of Genetics located at Cold Spring Harbor, New York, where she worked until she died in 1992. McClintock felt that the University of Missouri would not promote her since they labeled her as a “maverick.” She did not measure up to the university’s impression of a “lady” scientist, so she gained employment elsewhere. A small number of science historians have attempted to downplay the sexism she encountered. Nevertheless, it is clear that she experienced sexism on a personal level and was deeply affected by its ramifications. The Nobel’s bestowment to McClintock so late in her life is a giant testament to that fact, compared to the many younger male Laureates.
5) McClintock was apparently at the Carnegie Institution and continued to investigate the mechanisms of chromosome breakage and fusion in maize and transposons. Why is each of these important in the big scheme of things?
In 1950, McClintock studied chromosome breakage and fusion in maize, which led to the famous discovery of transposons. In particular, she observed a breakage phenomenon in a specific location on chromosome number nine from corn. This particular chromosome locus had a high rate of breakages. McClintock referred to this breakage point as a “mutable” locus. The specific name of the mutable locus was given Ds, for dissociation of the chromosome. She discovered that the Ds locus appeared in different places within the genome of corn, having moved about, as if jumping from place to place. In one particular example, McClintock found that the Ds locus had jumped to the C gene’s center, which specified kernel color. The genetic jump mutated the C gene to inactivate it to c, causing it to produce a colorless kernel. McClintock concluded that the kernels with no color resulted from a transposition event of Ds occurring into the middle of the C gene to destroy it.
Figure 50. Photograph of Barbara McClintock’s ears of corn (five) and a microscope.
Most of the ear’s corn kernels appeared white, but several also appeared speckled with red sectors. See Figure 50. On the other hand, McClintock correctly deduced that Ds transposed out of the C gene for the red speckled kernels in several of the cells. Thus, the loss of Ds allowed the two ends of the broken C gene to reconnect, reforming the C gene to its normal function. Hence, the result was a restoration of the red kernel color in sections of the overall kernel, producing a prevalent red speckled kernel trait.
McClintock’s 1950 discovery of transposition was met with great skepticism. It would be decades before she was proven correct and given credit. She would be in her 80s before she was awarded the Nobel Prize.
6). Apparently, in 1983—35 years after McClintock first published a report on transpositions and 33 years after her PNAS “Classic Article,” she was finally awarded the Nobel Prize. What exactly did she get the Nobel for—or was it to recognize her work of many years?
McClintock discovered transposons and transposition as a mechanism for gene expression regulation, and she would earn the Nobel for it. See Figure 51. At Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, McClintock focused on the coloration of corn kernels and their possible genetic information link. More specifically, she researched the role of specific chromosomes and their effects on pigmentation and other characteristics. McClintock’s famous article title was “The origin and behavior of mutable loci in maize.” The paper would become the basis of her so-called “classic article” that was first ignored and widely disbelieved for decades and later gradually accepted and celebrated.
Figure 51. McClintock is giving her Nobel Lecture at Karolinska Institute in Stockholm during the Nobel Prize ceremony.
In 1950, McClintock had just completed her studies of breakages in the chromosomes of corn. Her findings led to a discovery—transposons, known as the “Jumping Genes” for which she would be world-famous. During McClintock’s chromosome breakage studies, she found that one of these breakage loci could alter its position within a chromosome. These genetic elements were mobile, and they became known as transposons. McClintock discovered that when these mobile genetic elements are inserted into their new chromosomal positions, they could alter the nearby genes’ expression depending on the insertion location. She had called these transposons “controlling elements.”
The classic 1950 PNAS paper presented the world’s first transposons, which McClintock specifically called Ac for activator and Ds for dissociation. The Ac transposon had controlled gene expression. She showed that Ac was a locus on the genome that moved to another locus and influenced gene expression at its new location. The dissociated chromosome section, Ds, the dissociation locus, was controlled by Ac. The breakage event seemed to occur at Ds, and it appeared to be a so-called Ac-controlled mutable locus. McClintock further showed that the Ds locus could change its position within the corn chromosome. The Ac activator locus was required for the Ds locus to move to its new location. McClintock demonstrated that Ac and Ds could transpose and that their transpositions led to unstable chromosome mutations. She further explained that the transposition events from the detrimental mutated locations would restore gene function.
Reportedly, McClintock’s colleagues did not see the significance of her transposition work, so she ceased publishing and lecturing on her findings. However, she continued to conduct research. By the late 1960s and on into the 1970s, her work’s importance and relevance began to escalate due to scholars determining that the “controlling elements” (transposons) of which McClintock wrote about were DNA. She was presented with numerous awards and honors. Among those was the 1983 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine.
7) After her formal retirement—did she continue to do research—and in what areas?
After 1967, when McClintock retired, she gained a long-awaited worldwide recognition of her transposition work. Not only was evidence mounting in support of her transposition phenomena, but also of her hypothesis that these jumping genetic elements had controlled gene expression patterns. New molecular and cellular mechanisms were later revealed on how these transposons moved about from chromosome to other chromosomes and epigenetic factors, like plasmids.
During these years, she would study the origin of corn in Latin America. She became a warrior in the Corn Wars. George Beadle had postulated that the central Mexican corn strain teosinte was the progenitor of modern corn. Beadle hypothesized that ancient humans domesticated teosinte, producing the contemporary corn we now enjoy as food worldwide. Beadle’s notion for the origin of corn was called the “teosinte hypothesis.” The prominent Paul Christof Mangelsdorf disagreed, who counter proposed that modern corn resulted from a cross between teosinte and a more-modern variant of the genus called Tripsacum. Hence, the Corn War was in a full-on mode of operation.
McClintock began collecting data to determine which of the various teosinte genomes available had contributed to the modern corn genome. She focused on the knob structures of the teosinte strains and the modern corn chromosomes. Soon Beadle’s results coincided with those of McClintock, who had found that the Rio Balsas section of Mexico was a likely area where ancient corn had arisen. In the end, McClintock’s data supported the now widely accepted notion proposed by her good friend George Beadle. Thus, in these later years, McClintock published influential studies relevant to ethnobotany, evolutionary biology, and paleobotany.
8) In a sense, what type of summative comments can be made about this pioneering female scientist?
In 1944, McClintock was the third woman to be nominated into the National Academy of Sciences. National Medal of Science (1970). She also received the Thomas Hunt Morgan Medal (1981) and the Louisa Gross Horwitz Prize (1982). McClintock won as the sole recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1983 for discovering transposable genetic elements in corn.
In May of 2005, the United States Postal Service issued a commemorative postage stamp series, the “American Scientists,” which was a set of four 37-cent stamps in several arrangements. The scientists depicted included Barbara McClintock, John von Neumann, Josiah W. Gibbs, and Richard Feynman. In addition, McClintock was featured in a 1989 four-stamp issue from Sweden, which illustrated eight Nobel Prize-winning geneticists’ work. A Cornell University building and a laboratory facility at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory were named after McClintock. Near an “Adlershof Development Society” science park in Berlin, a street was named after her. McClintock has become the topic of several biographies and several children’s books intended to promote scientific study among young girls and give them a role model to follow in their educational and vocational quests.
McClintock’s work with genetic recombination explained a great deal about the internal workings of the living cell. When gametes were formed during meiosis, much of the genetic elements moved about, creating new variants in cellular and organismal traits. These were fundamental discoveries that are regularly included in all modern textbooks dealing with biology, genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology, biomedical sciences, and genomics.
Her discoveries of transposons, the “jumping genes,” has particular relevance to the field of microbiology. Bacterial antibiotic resistance genes have been found to reside within specific transposons. For example, the transposon called Tn10 carries a tetracycline resistance gene encoding an efflux pump transporter for the drug. The Tn10 transposon can transfer between various bacterial species present in the human gut or the soil of agricultural regions, permitting antibiotic resistance to move within human and farm animal populations.
Figure 52A and 52B. Structure of a DNA transposon and its transposition mechanism (Mariner type).
In Figure 52A, The general structure of a transposon example is shown. In the Mariner type transposon, two so-called tandem inverted repeat (TIR) regions of the DNA flank the gene encoding the transposase enzyme. The transposon harbors two short tandem site duplications (TSD) on the inserted region’s two ends.
In Figure 52B, the mechanism of transposition is depicted. Here, two transposase enzyme molecules recognize and bind the TIR elements on the DNA. The two ends then come together and connect. The DNA then undergoes a double-stranded cleavage, breaking the DNA (indicated by the four arrows), just as McClintock had postulated. The complex formed by the DNA and the transposase enzyme then inserts the foreign DNA at specific sites. These insertion sites are called motifs located in other loci throughout the genome, generating new TSDs sections upon integration into new DNA places.
McClintock’s studies on the origins of modern corn have direct relevance in explaining human behavior. Her worked lent vital insight into the actions of over 5,000 years of human farming practices. Each succeeding human generation played a role in the cultivation of new corn variants. The social efforts led to the highly efficient and edible modern corn, an important food source for most humans on Earth.
For additional information about the famous Dr. Barbara McClintock, visit the following link:
1) Matthew Meselson was born in Denver, Colorado, and began his career early with a chemistry set in his basement. When exactly was Meselson born, and what do we know about his early education?
Matthew Stanley Meselson was born in Denver, Colorado, on the 24th of May in 1930, to Hyman and Ann Meselson. He was an only child. When Meselson was two years old, the family moved to Los Angeles, California.
Meselson was interested in chemistry and physics and conducted many natural science experiments at home in the garage, or should we say his first laboratory? From an early age, Meselson was fascinated by the question of how life originated. He also wondered about how electricity was related to the energy of life. Meselson attended school during the summer breaks and accrued enough credits to graduate from high school one and a half years ahead of his schooling schedule. To his dismay, the high school he attended the required three years of physical education to earn a diploma. Therefore, at the age of 16, Meselson enrolled and registered for courses at the University of Chicago. They did not necessitate a high school diploma to attend. Meselson graduated from the University of Chicago in 1951 with a Ph. B. (Bachelor of Philosophy).
Meselson attended the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena and earned his Ph.D. in 1957, under the direction of Linus Pauling. His research allowed him to study the details of replication of DNA in cell division with Franklin W. Stahl in 1958. They found that the cell division was “semi-conservative.”
The title of Meselson’s doctoral thesis was “I. Equilibrium sedimentation of macromolecules in density gradients with application to the study of deoxyribonucleic acid. II. The crystal structure of N, N-dimethyl malonamide.”
2) Apparently, no discussion of Matthew Meselson would be complete without a discussion of Franklin Stahl—First, who was Franklin Stahl, and what did the two of them invent?
Franklin William Stahl was born and raised in Boston. He earned a B.A. from Harvard University in 1951 and went to the University of Rochester for his graduate studies.
Near the end of completing his Ph.D. requirements, Stahl attended a molecular biology course at Woods Hole. James Watson and Francis Crick were teaching the class, and it was here that Stahl met Matthew Meselson. According to the two scientists, during a brief recess in the course, Meselson introduced himself to Stahl. Supposedly Stahl was sitting under a big tree drinking and selling beverages of the gin and tonic type. At that time, Meselson was a graduate student at Caltech; he was interested in investigating new research methods. Stahl had the experience and the mathematical skills to help Meselson design these experiments. The two got along immediately and made plans for Stahl to do post-doctoral work at Caltech.
3) Density gradient centrifugation—why is this important in scientific research?
The density gradient centrifugation technique is a long-established method for separating cellular components. The isolation of cellular parts from each other permits their purification and, hence, a closer look at their molecular mechanisms of action. A centrifuge machine is a piece of laboratory equipment shaped like a box. It has a rotor inside, which spins around at high speeds of rotation. The density gradient centrifugation uses exceptionally high rates of rotor speed rotation. The cellular contents are spun around at many times the force of gravity. The equipment is frequently referred to as an ultracentrifuge. In the ultracentrifuge machine, the rotor contains test tubes with mixtures of cell lysate. The lysate harbors sub-cellular parts, like membranes, proteins, organelles, and, importantly, nucleic acids. The spinning rotor’s ultra-fast speeds will force sub-cellular material with relatively high densities towards the test tubes’ bottoms. Meanwhile, materials with somewhat lighter densities will tend to remain towards the tops of the centrifuge tubes.
The equilibrium rates of materials depend not only on material density but also on the material sizes, shapes, and viscosities of the solvents with which the materials are centrifuged. These factors determine the extent of the sedimentation within the materials inside the spinning test tubes. Relatively dense substances will form a pellet at the bottom of the test tube, creating sediment. On the other hand, less dense substances will tend to remain towards the top of the test tube in a section called the supernatant. Investigators can separate the different biological ingredients by extracting the supernatant or accessing the pelleted material. One may describe the degree of the material depositing to the bottoms in terms of a so-called sedimentation coefficient. Typically, these coefficient values are expressed as Svedberg (S) units, named after Dr. Theodor Svedberg. He took the chemistry Nobel in 1926 for his studies of colloidal solutions in the high-speed ultracentrifuges.
Figure 53. Density gradient centrifugation.
A useful modification of the ultracentrifugation method is to add a concentrated solution of cesium chloride (CsCl) or sugar, like sucrose, in the centrifuge test tube. The ultracentrifuge rotor is then spun at excessively high rates for a long time. The high rotation rates will fractionate the solution into a gradient of densities. See Figure 53. The test tube’s bottom will take the denser solution, leaving the less dense portions at the test tube top after ultracentrifugation. The CsCl or sugar solution will form a gradually changing density gradient, from low to high density. The solution’s density gradient forms along the test tube after the ultracentrifuge has completed the high-speed rotor rotation. Therefore, the density gradient follows the centrifuged solution, increasing from top to bottom.
When radioactive material like DNA is centrifuged in this manner for about 36 hours at 30,000 revolutions per minute (rpm), the mixture of DNA and CsCl solutions reach equilibrium and form a band. See Figure 54, which was reproduced by Meselson and Stahl’s famous 1958 PNAS paper. At time 0, before the density gradient is established, the radioactive DNA is uniformly spread throughout the centrifuge tube and appears as a smear. With continued ultrahigh centrifugation for more extended periods, the banding pattern appears more compact. After about 36 hours, a tight band at equilibrium has formed.
Figure 54. The concentrating of DNA at the equilibrium points during solution centrifugation.
During the ultracentrifugation procedure, great care must be taken to exactly match the weights of opposing test tubes and their contents. If the opposing test tubes’ heaviness is not precisely matched, the rotor will be improperly balanced. At ultra-high speeds of rotor rotation, an imbalanced set of test tubes will be extremely unstable and cause a catastrophic failure in the ultracentrifuge function. In early incidents, unbalanced test tubes destroyed the equipment, and legendary stories emerged where entire laboratory rooms were damaged from loose rotors. In modern times, ultracentrifuges are lined with heavy shielding to prevent unstable spinning rotors from escaping their compartments. Some low-speed centrifuges are self-balancing and are, thus, not a problem. Still, an unbalanced rotor in an ultracentrifuge can extensively damage the machines.
The investigator can add a mixture of substances, like the various components of a cellular or tissue extract, to the CsCl or sugar density gradient solutions and centrifuge the test tubes. Here, the variously dense substances will move through the CsCl or sugar solutions and settle at the locations that match the same densities along the gradient as the cell and tissue parts.
Once the centrifugation is complete, the various cellular materials will have separated into bands, aligning themselves according to their matching densities along the gradient. The sample of cell debris in the density gradient solutions can be fractionated to separate them. The fractionation process is performed by puncturing the test tube’s bottom and collecting the contents in a test tube series. Each of these test tubes in the series represents a “fraction.” These fractions contain a cellular component that corresponds to the same density as the solution had sedimented. An equilibrium in density between component and CsCl has been reached.
The density gradient centrifugation method can be used to prepare various cellular parts. The cellular components include sub-cellular elements like membranes, proteins, organelles, ribosomes, or nucleic acids. Each sub-cellular piece will have specific densities and corresponding sedimentation coefficients.
4) DNA—it seems to be repeated or replicated semi-conservatively—but why is this important?
In virtually all living forms of life on Earth, from bacteria to humans, the copying of DNA for the next generation involves DNA synthesis that uses the semi-conservative mode for the replication. That is, DNA replication is semi-conservative. In this semi-conservative mode, the newly repeated DNA has one parent strand and one recently made strand. Thus, the parental strands are “half conserved,” and the term we use is semi-conserved. See Figure 55.
Figure 55. Models of Replication. (Figure order modified.)
The semi-conservative mode of DNA replication is essential because it allows the DNA synthesizing machinery access to its internal nitrogenous bases. The base sequences serve as a template for the synthesis of new DNA. The biosynthetic DNA-making machinery needs to read the template’s nucleotide bases to know what new nucleotides to string together when making new DNA. Without easy access to the nucleotides on the inside of the DNA molecule, it would be extraordinarily difficult to read the template sequence. Hence, without access to the template’s bases, DNA synthesis would be virtually impossible. Thus, semi-conservation during DNA synthesis facilitates the transfer of new DNA into the succeeding generations and permits each new generation of the organism the opportunity to adapt and evolve to forever-changing environmental conditions.
Let us consider more closely the semi-conservative mechanism here. During DNA synthesis, the parental DNA is replicated to form the next generation’s DNA, the so-called daughter DNA—the new DNA. In general, DNA molecules are double-stranded. Each of the two parental DNA strands serves as a sequence template for replication to make two new stands. During semi-conservative DNA replication, the two strands of the parental DNA separate. Each newly constructed strand stays associated with one of the parental strands. Thus, the next generation of double-stranded DNA contains one parent and one new strand. Because the parental strands do not stay together, the replication is called semi-conservative.
In a conservative DNA replication mode, the two parental strands stay together after replication is finished. Thus, the two strands of the newly made daughter DNA would remain together, as well, after the copying is complete. Because each of the parental and the daughter strands stay together, the replication mode is called conservative. While most living cells, from bacteria to humans, do not use conservative replication, some viruses do! For instance, the double-stranded RNA reoviruses have a specially packaged protein called RNA-dependent RNA polymerase enzyme. The viral enzyme uses one of the RNA strands as a template to make the other RNA strand. However, the two parental RNA strands stay together after their replication is over. As of this writing, only the reoviruses are known to undergo conservative nucleic acid replication.
A third DNA replication mechanism is called dispersive. In a dispersive DNA replication model, the newly made DNA contains a mixture of both parental and freshly made DNA. After replication, the DNA would include interspersed segments of original and new DNA. That is, each of the two strands of the next generation’s DNA has both parental and fresh DNA.
5) It seems important to mention that Matthew Meselson studied chemistry and then did his graduate work with Linus Pauling, a scientist that needs no introduction. How did this influence his later work?
In research and teaching, Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling was a mentor extraordinaire in Meselson’s eyes. Pauling was Meselson’s graduate thesis advisor at Caltech. Meselson took his Ph.D. under the legendary Pauling, who was famous at the time for this discovery of the alpha-helix structure for proteins. Pauling would gain notoriety for his advocacy of vitamin C to prevent diseases like the common cold, and controversially, prevent cancer.
While briefly a Caltech student before graduate school, Meselson had enrolled in Pauling’s popular Freshman Chemistry course. Meselson was inspired by Pauling to concentrate on chemistry and had spent a brief period as an undergraduate studying hemoglobin protein chemistry in Pauling’s research laboratory.
In the early 1950s, Meselson became good friends with Pauling’s son Peter and daughter Linda. The Pauling family hosted a pool party in their Sierra Madre home, and Meselson was in attendance. At this event, it was reported that Pauling recruited Meselson to enter graduate school and conduct a thesis project in the Pauling laboratory at Caltech.
Meselson learned X-ray crystallography in the Pauling laboratory and, fortuitously, density gradient analysis for nucleic acids. Pauling had been cleverly astute in learning about the structural nature of proteins. He had used the method to establish the alpha-helix structural motif, and Meselson had benefited from the same expertise.
According to Meselson, in graduate school, Pauling had strongly encouraged the so-called “proposition” system for their doctoral oral examinations. The scheme involved graduate students proposing at least ten different projects and systematically defending each one. The plan was designed to fulfill Caltech’s mantra of originality, interest breadth, and proper training. Meselson later wrote that Pauling’s system ensured that the graduate student came away with a wide-ranging way of thinking outside of their expertise.
One of Meselson’s graduate committee members was the “curious character” Dr. Richard P. Feynman, Nobel Laureate and noted genius. On the day of Meselson’s Ph.D. thesis defense, May 23, 1957, Feynman commented during the question and answering session. The event quickly turned into a spectacle. Feynman had reported informed everyone in the Crellin Conference Room that he had a better method for calculating the time-course distribution of large molecules in a density gradient. Feynman had gone to the blackboard and proceeded to derive the necessary equations for support of his contention. It was an impressive performance to all in attendance, even Pauling.
Meselson successfully defended his graduate Ph.D. thesis that day. After he was informed that he passed the examination, Pauling had further informed Meselson that he was quite fortunate to be entering the field of molecular biology at the genesis of exciting discoveries. The insight would be incredibly accurate in the study of protein and DNA structures.
Meselson would be Pauling’s last graduate student, though it is unclear why, as Pauling would live for many years afterward. However, Meselson would in the succeeding years confer with Pauling on scientific matters. Moreover, Meselson would model his scientific career after the great intellectual Pauling, who had opened up nature’s forces within the chemical bond.
Caltech employed Meselson until 1960, at which time he accepted a post at Harvard University as associate professor of biology. Meselson began working at Harvard University in 1960. Meselson’s early work at Harvard University involved collaboration in 1961 with French biologist François Jacob and South African biologist Sydney Brenner. The team found that ribosomes were responsible for the construction of proteins (messenger RNA). Further research investigation with Werner Arber led to the discovery of restriction enzymes.
6) Apparently, there is even an experiment named after Meselson and Stahl—what is that all about?
Drs. Matthew Meselson and Franklin Stahl would perform what many of us in molecular biological circles consider is the “most beautiful experiment in biology.” In their famous “beautiful” experiment of 1958, Stahl and Meselson would discover that DNA synthesis followed semi-conservative replication rules. The Meselson-Stahl experiment would change the world of molecular biology forever.
As mentioned above, the three hypotheses were that DNA replication occurred by conservative, semi-conservative, or dispersive means. In the conservative replication hypothesis, the parental strands stay together. In the semi-conservative DNA synthesis hypothesis, the correct one, the daughter DNA contains half parental and half new DNA. In the premise of the dispersive model for replication, the parental and new DNA segments are interspersed throughout the next generation’s DNA.
Stahl and Meselson took advantage of two newly made radioactive isotopes of nitrogen used to tag DNA for detection. One of these radioactive nitrogen tags, nitrogen-15 (15N), was called “heavy” as it would sediment at a higher density in the density gradient centrifugation process. The other radioactive nitrogen tag, nitrogen-14 (14N), called “light,” would sediment at lighter densities.
In a control experiment performed by Meselson and Stahl, they mixed two radioactive light and heavy DNA batches. They underwent a long-term and high-speed centrifugation process. Afterward, they observed two radioactive bands (see Figure 56 left). The tracing on the left indicated the light 14N-DNA, and the tracing on the right was the heavy 15N-DNA. In Figure 56, right, a densitometer measurement of the CsCl density revealed peaks that corresponded to those of the two DNA samples, light and heavy. The banding pattern indicated an equilibrium between the DNA mixture and CsCl had been reached within the density gradient.
Figure 56. DNA with different N-isotopes has different densities. The concentration of the DNAs shown in Figure at distinct equilibrium points.
Stahl and Meselson cultured Escherichia coli bacteria for many generations in heavy nitrogen (15N) in their experiment. See Figure 57, top. This first step produced bacteria with all of its parent DNA labeled with heavy nitrogen. Thus, both strands of the double helix DNA contained heavy DNA (denoted 15N-15N). Next, Stahl and Meselson broke open the bacteria, producing a cell lysate containing its DNA. They then centrifuged the radioactive DNA at a high rotor rotation rate—over 44,00 rpm for 20 hours! The result permitted the densities of the radioactive DNA and CsCl solution to reach equilibrium, producing radioactive banding patterns in their proper locations in the centrifuge tubes.
Because all of the parental DNA was heavy, it sedimented to a corresponding equally heavy density in the CsCl gradient, which was near the bottom of the centrifuge tube after the ultracentrifugation.
Figure 57. The famous Meselson-Stahl experiment of DNA replication.
Next, Stahl and Meselson took their Escherichia coli with its parental heavy-labeled DNA (15N-15N) and let it commence a “first replication” of new DNA. See Figure 57, middle. However, they switched the food source containing only light nitrogen (14N) in the medium when they permitted the bacteria to make a new DNA generation. Thus, all new DNA would have only 14N and would, therefore, be light. After one generation, the newly synthesized DNA band on the density gradient centrifugation moved towards the centrifuge tube’s middle. Stahl and Meselson quickly ruled out conservative replication because two bandings would have appeared. One would have been all heavy and the other all light because the parental DNA would have been conserved and heavy, and the new generation DNA would have been all new and light. However, after the first replication, Stahl and Meselson could not distinguish between semi-conservative and dispersive. They needed to see the second round of DNA replication. It would be one of the most exciting results ever obtained by Stahl and Meselson. See Figure 57, bottom.
After the second round of replication was finished, Stahl and Meselson cracked open the bacteria, isolated the new DNA, and ran the density gradient centrifugation experiment. This second replication result showed two bands! However, one tracing sedimented in the middle of the centrifuge tube. The other showed up towards the test tube’s top. Immediately, the presence of the two bands ruled out the dispersive model as a replication mechanism.
Instead, the two bands were interpreted by Stahl and Meselson to mean that the middle bar was a hybrid between parental and new DNA (14N-15N). The top DNA bar indicated that the second generation of DNA also had 14N-14N as its product. A dispersive mode would not have produced this hybrid in the second generation.
Let us consider the semi-conservative results more closely. In Figure 58, the parental bacteria with all heavy nitrogen, 15N, was called generation zero, produced a band at time 0 minutes. At the zero generational age, 100% of its DNA sedimented toward the bottom of the density gradient centrifuge tube. After the addition of light radioactive nitrogen, 14N, a new generation, called generation one, at 20 minutes, produced one more lightweight band, indicating a hybrid of heavy and light DNA. This indicated semi-conservative replication. When allowed to proceed to the next round of replication at generation two, 40 minutes, the top band appeared, further indicating the presence of 14N in that generation of DNA. All subsequent generations of DNA incorporated 14N, producing increasingly brighter light bands.
Figure 58. The Meselson-Stahl experiment was an experiment by Matthew Meselson and Franklin Stahl, which demonstrated that DNA replication was semi-conservative.
The data were definitive. The best way to interpret the formation of the banding patterns in the density gradient radiograms in generations one, two, and so was that the bacteria were replicating their new DNA by the semi-conservative mechanism. Meselson and Stahl would describe the experiment in their now-classic article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in July of 1958. It was indeed a most beautiful experiment!
7) Some of his later work involved his concern about chemical weapons in warfare—what were some of his contributions?
Meselson’s contributions have primarily involved consultation and science policy. By 1963, Meselson broadened his research to consulting for the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency concerning chemical warfare and biological defense and arms control. He advised President Richard Nixon to repudiate biological weapons production and use. Eventually, the Biological Weapons Convention was formed in 1972.
During the 1980s and 1990s, Meselson was a consultant for the CIA to investigate an anthrax outbreak in the Soviet Union as a potential biological warfare program, having suffered a military research laboratory accident in 1979. He co-authored and published the final report on the incident in the journal Science in 1994. In the article, Meselson and colleagues reported that bio-weaponized anthrax endospores were somehow accidentally released from the Sverdlovsk installation. The Bacillus anthracis endospores then dispersed through the wind and infected people and animals who lived nearby the military facility, causing the anthrax outbreak.
Meselson has also assisted as an advisor on this subject to numerous government organizations. Meselson was a member of the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Advisory Board, which reported directly to the U.S. Secretary of State. Meselson also served as a member of the Committee on the International Security and Arms Control, which was affiliated with the National Academy of Sciences, in the U.S. Meselson has been a member of the Steering Committee as part of the Pugwash Study Group for policy determination regarding the influential group called the Implementation of the Conventions for Chemical and Biological Weapons.
8) Is he still alive and doing research, and if so, on what topics?
As we write this chapter, Meselson is 90 years old. He has received several prestigious accolades, such as the MacArthur Fellows Program Genius Award and a Guggenheim Fellowship, in addition, the Thomas Hunt Morgan Medal for a lifetime of scientific achievements, which is an award funded by the Genetics Society of America. In 2004 Meselson received the Lasker Award for Special Achievement in the Medical Sciences, and in 2008 he received the Mendel Medal, sponsored by the Genetics Society, in the U.K.
In more recent times, Meselson has been conducting investigations into the so-called Meselson effect. The phenomenon originated in the early 1990s with William Birky, who postulated the process of allelic divergence. In the process, two alleles of a gene of an individual evolve independently of each other as time goes by. Several mechanisms have been utilized to explain the Meselson effect, but some have been sources of contention.
As a young Harvard post-doctoral fellow, one of us (MFV) had the delightful opportunity to hear a keynote address delivered by Meselson at the General Meeting sponsored by the American Society for Microbiology (ASM). At the ASM meeting, I sat at the auditorium front, and the venue had thousands of other microbiologists in attendance. As I listened to the words of a famous founder of molecular biology, I was astonished by how young Meselson appeared. It is a stark reminder that the field of molecular biology is still relatively new. Afterward, Meselson’s ASM address, I followed the crowd of attendees to an even larger room filled with stations of great (and free!) food and drink. It was an inspiring evening.
For more information regarding this pioneering molecular biologist in his own words, click on the links:
Since the unfortunate deaths of George Floyd and a number of other black individuals in interaction with law enforcement, campuses across the country have been roiled by paroxysms of self-righteous indignation over race, white police racism and purported attendant brutality, and the alleged existence of endemic racism in society and its major institutions—including, specifically, universities.
In fact, there is so little actual racism on American campuses that race-obsessed grievance activists have had to invent new, previously unseen sources of racism. Thus, suddenly campus buildings named for benefactors from hundreds of years ago are denounced because the donors had owned slaves. Whole campuses are considered illegal and purloined because they supposedly sit on lands previously inhabited by indigenous peoples. Statues of campus notables with a shady past have to be moved, torn down, or shattered. At Princeton, as one notable example, the public mea culpa over the supposed prevalence of racism on its campus by President Christopher L. Eisgruber was so public that it actually resulted in a surprising investigation for possible violations of federal antidiscrimination law (under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) against the university by the Department of Education.
Identifying anti-black racism was the first step in elevating and asserting that racism existed in a systemic, endemic, and institutional way. But was what was also important was to not only elevate blacks by recognizing their longstanding oppression, but then by making whites feel guilty about their so-called white privilege and their intended or unintended roles in continuing racism against blacks.
Thus, on campuses now sensitivity training has not discussed what constitutes racism on the part of white people, but also about the fundamental defects of white people, of being white itself, as a way of flipping the paradigm and destroying the notion of white supremacy and white privilege. As part of that process, a whole new genre of whiteness studies emerged, and, in the case of critical whiteness studies, specifically, the goal was not only to reveal for white people their own privilege and roles as oppressors, but to shatter the belief that this supremacy and dominant role in society were going to be tolerated any longer, and that white people, whether they knew it or not, were fundamentally racist by virtue of their skin color alone and needed to address that with self-reflection, self-critique, and self-denunciation.
It is not enough, if a student is white, to merely not be a racist, to not promulgate racism, to not exhibit or articulate bias toward non-whites. To be an anti-racist, if a student is white, he or she has to go beyond that by recognizing that their whiteness itself signifies a social defect, that being white means being imbued with privilege, supremacy, and oppression and that they must always be aware of that when they interact with non-whites. Moreover, they must repent of their ever-present, corrosive racism—implied or overt, intentional or unintentional—and be conscious that they are always complicit in racial inequality in the larger world around them simply by virtue of their skin color. With the recognition that they are in a moral trap from which they can never escape should come shame, self-denunciation, and self-loathing for being an oppressor.
The grievance campus bureaucrats, of course, have been eager to confirm and reinforce this racial inquisition, and the ubiquitous university administrators—with their fiefdoms of diversity and inclusion—eagerly guide minority students through the process of seeing themselves as victims while simultaneously making sure that white students become aware, if they are not already, of just how complicit they are in perpetrating the lingering racism and marginalization of their fellow non-white students.
As one troubling example of this process, Brandeis University’s Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion recently created a whites-only “space” where students can participate in a voluntary six-week anti-racist training program so, since they are apparently ignorant of this already, they can “come to a deeper understanding about how whiteness moves.”
Although negative reactions to the concept of the whites-only program have motivated Brandeis, to remove public postings about it, the program as conceived astoundingly segregates the white students during their “racial sensitivity conditioning” and prevents them from interacting with non-white peers until they have completed the training. Why? So they do not “cause harm,” as Joy von Steiger, Ph.D., Director of Mental Health Education and a “racial justice educator” who runs the program, put it. “It doesn’t have to be kumbaya, but white folks in particular have to have done enough work” to interact “safely” with minorities. Only after white students have been thoroughly inculcated with the totality of their racism can they then engage in “cross racial dialogues” with their non-white peers. After completing the program’s two sections, “White Students Discussing Anti-Racism” and “From Ally to Accomplice: Taking Action in Your Anti-racism Journey,” the white students should be sufficiently humbled by having been made aware of their latent racism.
The program’s reading list is peppered with the de rigueur pop culture racism handbooks, including, of course, Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist. Kendi’s theory is that racism is prevalent and unrelenting, that “racism has spread to nearly every part of the body politic,” “heightening exploitation,” even causing “arms races,” and “threatening the life of human society with nuclear war and climate change.” And since Kendi defines a racist as anyone who supports “a racist policy through their actions or inaction,” white readers of his book, whether they are woke or not where racism is concerned, find themselves as being complicit in a society built on and ever-promoting racism.
Another suggested book is Robin DiAngelo’s best-selling White Fragility: Why It’s so Hard for White People to Talk about Racism, which, according to black Columbia University professor and linguist John McWhorter, “teaches that Black people’s feelings must be stepped around to an exquisitely sensitive degree that hasn’t been required of any human beings.” Professors Craig Frisby and Robert Maranto confirmed that same view, suggesting that DiAngelo’s premise reminds white people that their privilege requires them to cautiously interact with non-whites to suppress their innate racism. “In the White Fragility universe,” they write, “whites are inherently oppressive, and African Americans (and by extension all ‘people of color’) serve only as victims around whom whites must walk on eggshells to avoid triggering deep emotional pain.”
Brandeis was not the first school to develop courses to help white students feel badly about their ethnicity. In 2015, Arizona State University offered what became a controversial course called “U.S. Race Theory & the Problem of Whiteness,” taught by professor of English Lee Bebout. In describing his teaching, Bebout clearly believed in the currently popular concept of intersectionality, a commonality that victim groups share by being similarly oppressed. In a journal article, “Skin in the Game: Toward a Theorization of Whiteness in the Classroom,” Bebout wrote that “Like many scholars of ethnic studies, my courses daily explore instances and legacies of racism, sexism, homophobia, class oppression, and other manifestations of inequality.”
The University of Wisconsin-Madison offered a similar course in 2016, “The Problem of Whiteness,” which was greeted by many with the same disdain. Taught by Professor Damon Sajnani, in the African Cultural Studies program, the course description asked students, “Have you ever wondered what it really means to be white? If you’re like most people, the answer is probably ‘no.’ But here is your chance!” And the goal was clearly to help white students see that their whiteness is fraught with defects, and this self-reflection will help them realize the downside of being white. “In this class,” the course description reads, “we will ask what an ethical white identity entails, what it means to be #woke, and consider the journal Race Traitor’s motto, ‘treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.’”
A class at Ohio State University, “Crossing Identity Boundaries,” was offered to teach students how to detect white privilege and microaggressions, those instances of racism so subtle and invisible that they are often exhibited without any conscious participation by either the perpetrator or the victim. A Hunter College (part of the City University of New York ) course, “Abolition of Whiteness,” went even further than others by questioning if “whiteness” itself—that is, not being racially white but being culturally, socially, and economically defined by “whiteness”—should even be allowed to exist. The course examined (critically, of course) “how whiteness – and/or white supremacy and violence – is intertwined with conceptions of gender, race, sexuality, class, body ability, nationality, and age.”
And a Stanford University course called “White Identity Politics” had students “survey the field of whiteness studies” and discuss even “including abolishing whiteness or coming to terms with white identity.” Asserting solemnly that “the 2016 Presidential election marks the rise of white identity politics in the United States,” the course description for the anthropology seminar asked: “Does white identity politics exist?” and “How is a concept like white identity to be understood in relation to white nationalism, white supremacy, white privilege, and whiteness?”
In the current feverish conversation about race and racial justice on university campuses, well-intentioned people, white and black, have called for self-examination as a way of seeking to eliminate any vestiges of racism, bigotry, and ethnic bias. To the extent that racism even exists on university campuses, it is of course useful and necessary to identify and eliminate it. But if that process now includes, as clearly it does, devaluing being white, eliminating whiteness itself, and compelling white students to evaluate their unconscious roles as oppressors and confront the guilt of harboring racist feelings in the first place, then the university’s legitimate role in mitigating actual racism is being transformed into something untoward that creates new victims of racism: namely, white students.
In an effort to elevate the self-esteem of their black students, universities are now promoting programs seeking to impose a self-hatred on white students, not because this is actually of benefit to white students but as a way of making their non-white peers feel better about themselves. Making victims of one group to undo bias aimed at another group of victims is neither just nor equitable, and certainly not the role of universities to be social engineers chasing a dream of realizing racial justice for only one chosen group.
Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D., a Freedom Center Journalism Fellow in Academic Free Speech and President Emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, is the author of Dispatches From the Campus War Against Israel and Jews.
President‐​elect Biden is rumored to be considering a teachers union head to be his secretary of education. Since the Education Department was essentially created by the National Education Association, this is basically just confirming their control. It’s understandable that Biden would promise to name a teacher for this post. After all, who knows education better than teachers? It no doubt sounds good to voters. But imagine a candidate promising to name a defense contractor as secretary of defense, an oil company CEO as secretary of energy, or a real estate developer as HUD secretary. For each of those the candidate could plausibly raise the same argument, that few others would know more about the subject. But there would be a lot more public skepticism about naming a provider of the service to run the federal department in those cases.
We didn’t always have a federal Department of Education, of course. It only goes back to 1979. Education was historically a matter for local communities, with increasing state‐​level involvement over the years. What happened in 1979? As the Oxford University historian Gareth Davies explains,
[President Jimmy] Carter would not have fought for the bill, and most likely would not even have endorsed it, had it not been for the unprecedented influence that the National Education Association enjoyed within his White House. In earlier years, education client groups had come to enjoy great influence within Congress, the judiciary, and the federal bureaucracy. Now, it seemed, the most important single such group had gained considerable influence within the White House, too.
Those changes were a result of the transformation of the NEA from a carefully bipartisan professional association to a politically active labor union, and in particular its heavy involvement in the 1976 Democratic presidential primaries.
Not everyone supported the establishment of the federal department, even on the Democratic side of the aisle. The American Federation of Teachers, fearing that the department would be controlled by its rival, the NEA, organized opponents. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was close to AFT leader Albert Shanker, led Senate opposition and called Carter’s bill “a backroom deal born out of squalid politics.”
The New York Times editorialized, “The supporters of a separate department [of education] speak vaguely of the need for a federal policy on education. We believe that they misunderstand the nature of American education, which is characterized by diversity. The legitimate centers of gravity are, and ought to remain, in the educational authorities of the states and the local communities.”
Many such critics warned that a secretary of education would turn into a national minister of education. Rep. John Erlenborn (R-IL), for instance, wrote, “There would be interference in textbook choices, curricula, staffing, salaries, the make‐​up of student bodies, building designs, and all other irritants that the government has invented to harass the population. These decisions which are now made in the local school or school district will slowly but surely be transferred to Washington.”
Such concerns were not limited to Republicans. Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D‐​Colo.) predicted, “No matter what anyone says, the Department of Education will not just write checks to local school boards. They will meddle in everything. I do not want that.” David W. Breneman and Noel Epstein wrote in the Washington Post, “Establishing a cabinet‐​level department is a back‐​door way of creating a national education policy.” And Richard W. Lyman, president of Stanford University, testified before Congress that “the two‐​hundred‐​year‐​old absence of a Department of Education is not the result of simple failure during all that time. On the contrary, it derives from the conviction that we do not want the kinds of educational systems that such arrangements produce.” A Washington Post editorial raised the fear that “by sheer bureaucratic momentum, [a department of education] would inevitably erode local and state control over public schools.” Another Post editorial reminded us, “Education remains a primary function of the states and localities, which is surely one reason this country has not had a national ministry of education as part of its political tradition. We think it is a tradition worth holding on to.”
The critics failed, of course. Congress and President Carter created a federal Department of Education. And over the past 40 years, what have been the results? Neal McCluskey wrote in the Cato Handbook for Policymakers:
To assess learning in the modern era, the most consistent, national measure we have is the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Long‐​Term Trend Assessment. The assessment is a federal test given to a nationally representative sample of students — but without stakes attached and, thus, insulated against “gaming” — which has remained largely consistent since the 1970s. What does it show? Looking at 17‐​year‐​olds over the decades, achievement is almost completely flat, even though — as Figure 47.1 shows — the inflation‐​adjusted expenditure on the average student’s education has nearly tripled. That trend has been largely echoed by SAT scores; after controlling for numerous variables including self‐​selection of test takers, we see that those scores have also stagnated.
How about learning? Well, Neal offers this chart, which ought to be the starting point for any discussion of schools and school funding:
Change in NAEP Long‐​Term Trend Results (17‐​Year‐​Olds) vs. Change in Total Spending for a Child’s K–12 Education, in 2014 dollars, by Graduation Year, 1970–2012
Spending on schools has risen steadily. Test scores have been flat. And indeed the federal government has gradually extended its intervention in local schools. As far back as 1994 the Government Accountability Office estimated that although the federal government provided less than 10 percent of K–12 education financing, federal regulations caused more than 40 percent of the administrative burden felt by state education agencies. Such burdens and strings have only increased, in areas from curriculum to bathroom access, most recently under both the Obama and Trump administrations.
Education is not mentioned in the Constitution of the United States, and for good reason. The Founders wanted most aspects of life managed by those who were closest to them, either by state or local government or by families, businesses, and other elements of civil society. Certainly they saw no role for the federal government in education. Once upon a time, not so very many years ago, Congress understood that. The History of the Formation of the Union under the Constitution, published by the United States Constitution Sesquicentennial Commission, under the direction of the president, the vice president, and the Speaker of the House in 1943, contained this exchange in a section titled ‘‘Questions and Answers Pertaining to the Constitution’’:
Q. Where, in the Constitution, is there mention of education?
A. There is none; education is a matter reserved for the states.
The greatest service Congress and the Biden administration could perform for American education would be to rekindle the original understanding of the delegated, enumerated, and thus limited powers of the federal government and to return control and financing of education to states, localities, and families. Failing that, the administration should stop imposing new burdens and controls on 15,000 local school districts.
