The Unsung Icon of Western Pennsylvania Football Royalty

Western Pennsylvania is steeped in football tradition. The cradle of quarterback legends Joe Namath, George Blanda, John Unitas, Joe Montana, Dan Marino, and Jim Kelly. Beyond marquee QBs, the region I call home could fill Canton with its own dedicated wing of current and future members: Tony Dorsett, Curtis Martin, Mike Ditka, Russ Grimm, Jimbo Covert, Bill Fralic, Aaron Donald, Jack Ham, Sean Lee, Joe Schmidt, and Ty Law to name a few. We’ve enjoyed a pro team with six Lombardi’s and two collegiate teams with multiple national titles.
The stacked legacy and legendary names of western Pennsylvania football make it easy to gloss over one of the most impactful native sons of the sport. In the region’s coaching tree, there sits a giant who enjoys both icon status among the football elite and unsung status across the general fan base. No offense to Cowher and Ditka, but the most accomplished football coach from western PA is a position coach who became the godfather of offensive lineman. He’s the greatest name in the region’s football history that you probably never heard of: Joe Moore.

Coach Moore’s Story

Coach Moore is an exemplar of western Pennsylvania. He was raised during the Depression in Pittsburgh’s Bloomfield neighborhood and married a Rankin girl. He started coaching high school football in upstate New York, moved on to Towanda and Erie in Pennsylvania, and then became the head coach at Upper Saint Clair (USC) high school in suburban
Pittsburgh in the early 1970s.

Coach Moore built a successful program at USC and set the stage there for his successor, Jim Render, who became the winningest football coach in Western Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic League (WPIAL) history. Moore’s defensive captain during his first year at USC was a kid by the name of Kirk Ferentz, who went on to great things at Iowa, becoming its winningest coach and today stands as the longest tenured head coach at a single FBS program.

Moore’s legendary collegiate coaching career started at the University of Pittsburgh in 1977, where as part of Jackie Sherrill’s staff he led an epic nine-year run of unprecedented talent development of offensive linemen. The names he nurtured to greatness at Pitt are a generational who’s-who of the O-line: Bill Fralic, Mark May, Russ Grimm, Emil Boures, and Jimbo Covert.

After Pitt, Coach Moore spent two years coaching the offensive line at Temple, and then in 1988 began a nine-year run at Notre Dame. Over those nine years for the Irish he sent all but two of his starting linemen to the NFL. One of the most articulate and passionate ambassadors to the Coach Moore legacy through the years has been Notre Dame two-time All-American Aaron Taylor. Coach Moore’s coaching tree bloomed from his tenure with the Irish: Andy Heck was a player for Moore at Notre Dame who went on to a lengthy NFL career as a player and won a Super Bowl as the O-line coach for the Kansas City Chiefs.

Joe Moore was a direct, to-the-point man. He was an intimidator, but in a good way. There were zero airs and graces about him; he simply oozed western PA. He had the perfect personality and style for instilling greatness and realizing raw potential with rough, unpolished talent. His style was optimally suited to develop boys into men.

One of his most famous sayings captured his philosophy of linemen with, “there is no greater feeling in life than moving a man from Point A to Point B, against his will.” He loved teaching the fundamentals and was a master at manipulating players mentally to motivate and prepare them for competition.

As he would often say, those around him would love him at times, hate him at times, but kill for him all the time. His linemen through the years may have had Jackie Sherrill or Lou Holtz as their head coach, but they all played for Joe Moore.

The Joe Moore Legacy

Sadly, we lost Joe Moore much too early in 2003. Although the man may be gone, his memory lives larger than ever. His memory is evident both publicly and privately.

Coach Moore’s public memory is embodied in the Joe Moore Award (JMA). The JMA is awarded annually to the best collegiate football offensive line unit. The award is presented by the Joe Moore Foundation for Teamwork and recognizes the toughest, most physical offensive line in the country. The JMA is the only major college football award to honor a unit or group, not an individual.

Another visible aspect of Moore’s legacy is the Joe Moore O-Line Camp, held every summer in suburban Pittsburgh. The camp provides high school players the chance to be instructed in the craft by an impressive list of former Joe Moore players, headed by NFL Hall of Famer Russ Grimm. The star-studded coaches who regularly attend the camp are testament to the lasting impact their coach had on them decades ago in college.

However, Coach Moore’s most important legacy is one that escapes public notice: his family. The Moore’s raised three boys in suburban Pittsburgh, and today the extended family has grown to include the coach’s grandchildren. I know the extended family well; they are close friends. I can tell you the best part of the Joe Moore legacy is that his grandchildren are the type of individuals you would want to live next door to, befriend, or have your young kids emulate.

In his chosen profession, Joe Moore achieved greatness. In the endeavor of his family, Joe Moore exceeded greatness. I hope we are all as fortunate.
Learn More About Moore
View a video tribute to Joe Moore here.
Read about the Joe Moore Award here.
Follow the Joe Moore O-Line Camp on Twitter: @JM_OLine_Camp.

What Does the Presidential Medal of Freedom Truly Value?

With a new administration in Washington, much is changing. One thing that will not change is the forthcoming numerous photos and video clips of individuals having a medal draped around their neck by President Biden.

The Presidential Medal of Freedom ceremony has been consistently embraced by our Chief Executive. Whether Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, presidents love the photo op of awarding the medal and recipients enjoy the attention upon receiving it. It is one of few constants in a constantly changing 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The Presidential Medal of Freedom is awarded by the president, “for especially meritorious contribution to (1) the security or national interests of the United States, or (2) world peace, or (3) cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.” The defining criteria are sufficiently vague to allow sitting presidents to award the medal to basically whoever they desire, and from just about any walk of life.

In many ways, the Presidential Medal of Freedom is the ultimate lifetime achievement award for individuals lucky enough to elicit favor of the White House. It’s obviously a big deal for the recipient, and prior recipients (excluding a few in hindsight) were deserving.

But it also serves as an indicator of what and who the elite political class value most. The Presidential Medal of Freedom is awarded to the same walks of life, careers, and sectors that government is designed to fund, nurture, and grow. What the government awards correlates to what the government thinks is most important in society.

Which got me thinking. What do the award data tell us about what our elite leadership thinks is most important and less important in society?

The Analysis and the Data

The successive terms of Presidents Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump provide nearly thirty years of data. Over these four presidential administrations, over 300 Presidential Medals of Freedom were awarded. That’s a decent sized data set to perform a quick analysis.

To assess the data, recipients were classified into eight categories, using general career/sector descriptions. The eight are:

  • Charities, foundations, and advocacy
  • Politics, government, and civil service
  • Arts, entertainment, and media
  • Sports
  • Academia
  • Labor
  • Business
  • Science, technology, and engineering (STEM)

For some recipients, assigning one of the eight categories was a judgement call. For example, 2018 medal recipient Alan Page enjoyed accomplishments of note in both government and sports. For individuals straddling more than one of the eight categories, they were assigned to the category they were most known for. Thus, Alan Page is included in the sports category.

When you mine the data set of these medal recipients, what conclusions stand out?

Conclusion #1: Presidents Enjoy Awarding Medals

Not a shocker. We know politicians love attention and awarding medals is a great opportunity to be seen in a positive light. Thus, it comes as no surprise presidents hand out these medals like candy. Clinton, Bush, and Obama all hit the one hundred medal mark during their tenures, with Obama being the most prolific awarder, clocking in at a rate of nearly 15 medals per year in office.

Interestingly, Trump had the lowest medal award rate per year in office, at six. That’s half of his three predecessor’s average rate of 12 per year in office. Was it because Trump didn’t place as much importance on the Presidential Medal of Freedom, was more selective in his criteria when choosing awardees, or had a smaller pool of candidates due to the Resist Movement? Hard to say, but Trump stands as an outlier on medal frequency versus his predecessors.

Conclusion #2: Government Picks the Most Winners From…Government

Perhaps a shocker to some, but it should not come as a surprise if you’ve been paying attention to how government tends to operate in an insulated ecosystem separate from the citizenry it is supposed to serve. For all four presidents save Trump, the biggest grouping of awardees is from the combined categories of “charities, foundations, and advocacy” and “politics, government, and civil service.”

For Clinton’s class this grouping comprised over 75% of the total, while for Bush’s class it tallied nearly two-thirds of the total awardees. The representation tailed off a bit under Obama and Trump, coming in at 43% and 29%, respectively. Across all four presidents cumulatively, half of the 300+ awardees hailed from government, politics, or advocacy closely tied to both.

Although I am sure these 150 awardees are deserving of the award (maybe a few exceptions), it shows that government has its greatest affinity for itself.

Conclusion #3: Hollywood, Media, and Sports Are Medal Magnets

Presidents are increasingly drawn to the entertainment complex when doling out Presidential Medals of Freedom, like moths to a flame. Trump loved the jocks: he awarded nearly 60% of his medals to individuals in sports. Obama loved the arts: he tied almost a third of his medals to the necks of singers, writers, and actors.

Bush was slightly less weighted to sports and entertainment than Obama and Trump, but still awarded 38% of his medals to this combined group. Surprisingly, Clinton was the least impressed with athletes and cultural celebrities, having awarded a relatively paltry 5% to the group.

Clinton aside, the data show our leaders place enormous weight on those who provide entertainment to society. If you can consistently sink three-pointers or stream a hit song, the trend indicates you may be in line for a Presidential Medal of Freedom someday.

Conclusion #4: What Matters Most is Recognized Least

The United States is a capitalistic society based on a foundation of free enterprise and individual rights. Americans have a 200+ year legacy of technological innovation that continually raises quality of life for all.

This is a country of “doers” who disrupt the status quo and create wealth. Someone should remind Washington, D.C. of this.

Nearly thirty years of four presidents handing out Presidential Medals of Freedom shows that our political elite care little for business and STEM. The share of awardees hailing from business and technical fields is consistently embarrassing.

Bush (at 15% of awardees) and Obama (at 14%) were slightly less embarrassing than Clinton (at 8% of awardees) and Trump (at 4%), but all four are saying the same thing: those who achieve and create value are not placed on the same pedestal as those who entertain or live in and around government.

A Stark Contrast Between Two Rivals

Almost thirty years of data from the Presidential Medal of Freedom paints a clear picture. Our leaders favor the image (sports and entertainment) and the familiar (government and advocacy groups closely tied to it) over the substance of those who create value in business and technical fields.

We have the Presidential Medal of Freedom. China has its Thousand Talents Program.

The Biden administration is mulling over who the next celebrity or athlete will be to join the ranks of prior awardees Barbara Streisand, Robert Redford, Robert DeNiro, and Tiger Woods. Meanwhile the Chinese are figuring out which advanced technology it needs to procure from us through its program funding and rewards.

Which country is playing the long game and which is fixated on shiny distractions?

We are running out of time to adjust course as to what matters in American society.

A good start is to improve the optics of the Presidential Medal of Freedom—shifting its weighting of awardees to those who create, enable, and serve the vital pillars of free enterprise, technological advancement, value creation, and geopolitical competitive advantage.

The more medals we tie around those types of necks, the better off the world will be.

Who’s Big Tech’s Daddy? Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, and Carnegie

Over the past 150 years, starting with post-Civil War Reconstruction, America has delivered to the world the largest improvement in quality of life in history. Capitalism, free enterprise, and individual rights were the ideological columns that allowed the edifice of the human condition to rise.

As you sit in your climate controlled home, streaming movies, using Door Dash for dinner, and waiting for your vaccine of choice, you might ascribe all this technological innovation and progress to the behemoths of big tech: Apple, Google, Amazon, and so on. Certainly, these modern-day FAANG titans sit at the fore of the idea economy.

Yet our modern economy of services and ideas consists of tiered levels, with the prior tier serving as a necessary and supporting base to the next tier. No internet, no digital streaming. No electricity, no internet. No carbon, no electricity. And so on, back to the most fundamental building blocks of an economy.

Americans have lost sight of this fundamental economic truth, blinded by the mesmerizing clicks and taps of apps. Add to the mix fabricated mistruths about the demise of the “old economy” spewed by the elite and the Left in academia, government, and monied foundations, and many of us today are transitioned from uninformed to misinformed when it comes to drivers of the economy and our lives.

A historical refresher is in order.

Our modern economy is built upon five successive pillars, each one rests atop predecessor pillars and supports subsequent pillars. Lose one pillar and you lose the pillars above it. Let’s meet the new bosses, same as the old bosses.

Pillar #1: Don’t Call Them Robber Barons

Everything we enjoy in our modern life traces its roots back to, and continues to depend on, the founding fathers of our economy. Most of them rose to prominence in the period of American history after the Civil War and before World War I; a time where industry rebuilt and then drove America to global prominence.

The three faces that sit on this pillar’s Mount Rushmore are Cornelius Vanderbilt, John Rockefeller, and Andrew Carnegie. Vanderbilt built, integrated, and consolidated the transportation network, specifically rail, that allowed a nation to grow and its industry to thrive. Rockefeller took the fragmented and disorganized industries of oil and refineries and brought order that spurred the innovation of new products, including gasoline. Carnegie was the visionary who saw the need for a new product to build our cities and structures: steel.

Innovating from their home bases of New York, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh, these three men along with others fused a backbone of the American economy that we depend upon to this day. They were far from perfect, as incidents like the Homestead Strike painfully illustrated. But they were great, and we owe them a debt of gratitude.

Most importantly, they set the stage for Pillar #2 of our modern economy.

Pillar #2: Finance Powers Innovation

As railroads, steel mills, and refineries grew into industrial titans, finance evolved into a powerful catalyst to accelerate progress and spur more innovation.

J.P. Morgan revolutionized finance as an instrument to optimize commerce, and he was not afraid to get in between Rockefeller and Carnegie where he saw opportunity to create value (for example, Morgan bought out Carnegie and created U.S. Steel). Morgan showed how the purse could be a force to be reckoned with, even for the world’s most powerful industrialists.

J.P. Morgan also funded new innovators and innovations, playing Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse against each other as they demonstrated and commercialized electricity generation. Edison brought us light, he and his competitor Westinghouse established electricity generation at scale, and Morgan provided the capital to enable all of it (Morgan eventually took control of Edison’s company and recast it as General Electric).

But if no rail, oil, or steel, then no modern finance and electricity. Once these two pillars were in place, it set the stage for the next pillar that would fundamentally reshape the world.

Pillar #3: The Societal Impact of the Modern Assembly Line

Thankfully, at about the time politicians and bureaucrats were working to take down the Standard Oils of the world, a new breed of creators appeared on the scene to keep progress moving. Henry Ford took the recipe ingredients of steel, gasoline, finance, and electricity to revolutionize manufacturing with the modern assembly line.

Ford’s assembly line made automobiles affordable. His manufacturing innovations also established an eight-hour workday and a living wage for workers, who would then have both the time and money to purchase and enjoy cars. That drove up the demand for cars, making Ford more profitable. Policy makers have been trying to replicate this virtuous circle ever since.

Others took note of what Ford was doing in autos and looked to copy it for other products. Hershey figured it out for candy while others applied it across a spectrum of industries. The worker and consumer both benefitted, with increasingly worker and consumer being one in the same. In many ways, the American middle class was the most impactful innovation of this pillar.

All of Ford’s necessary ingredients came from predecessor pillars. Without them, there would be no assembly line, all the consumer benefits that derived from it, or a middle class. Nor would there be the benefits of the next pillar that Ford and his peers made possible.

Pillar #4: Rise of the Service Economy

The prior three pillars of the economy provided the feedstocks to efficiently manufacture consumer goods. Workers increasingly were able to enjoy and afford these products, driving up demand. And technology expanded the gameboard of what and when things could be enjoyed.

All of this birthed what we know today as the service sector of the economy. Mechanics were in demand to repair cars. Beauticians were wanted to assist with application of makeup and hair care products. Entertainment became a massive industry as movie theaters and television became ubiquitous.

Before you knew it, the service economy was as big, or perhaps bigger than, the manufacturing sector of the economy. But without a strong manufacturing base, there would be no service economy. If you don’t build it, you won’t service it. If you lose the large number of high paying jobs in manufacturing, people won’t be able to afford services. Obvious to most, but frustratingly foreign to many politicians and policy makers today.

Everything was now in place for the fifth and final pillar.

Pillar #5: The Idea Economy

The prior four pillars set the stage for increased specialization, innovation, and widespread technology diffusion. Suddenly everyone had computers, cell phones, and internet access. Entrepreneurship blossomed and the largest corporations in history were created by thinkers tinkering in garages.

Big tech and the idea economy are awesome innovators and innovations. Yes, at times their power needs to be checked when impeding individual rights such as free speech. And these entities must be constantly reminded that their initial and ongoing success hinge on the underlying pillars they rest upon. But like Rockefeller and Carnegie before them, we are much better off with today’s tech titans than without them.

What’s Next?

Donald Rumsfeld famously referenced “known knowns” (things we know that we know) and “known unknowns” (we know there are some things we do not know). Our 150-year American economic journey of prosperity has definitively proven Rumsfeld’s two axioms true.

Our “known knowns” are that if you sabotage any of the underlying economic pillars, you will unleash the widespread collateral damage of ruining the subsequent pillars. That’s true even when the aspiring destroyers are trumpeting the need to do so under the banner of the public good or saving the planet.

The “known unknowns” are the future pillars to be created and brought to society. We don’t know what they are or when they will appear. But we do know the frequency and timeliness of them will hinge on our ability to protect the current pillars and nurture the ideological columns that made them possible: capitalism, free enterprise, and individual rights.

Post that in your app and stream it.

Major College Athletics: Financial and Moral Failings

Major college sports enjoy an image of enlightened morality coupled with financial prowess.

Tune in to any major NCAA televised event and you are bombarded with constant messaging of social and political progressivism. Individual schools and programs publicly embrace a spectrum of causes, from the liberal to the outright leftist.

The television advertisers during commercial breaks are a who’s who of the largest, most powerful corporations in the world. March Madness and the FBS rake in billions of dollars annually, from broadcasting revenues to merchandising. Schools join major power conferences not for geographic convenience or to preserve historic rivalries, but instead to secure lucrative payments for the programs.

Yet these false images mask unpleasant realities. Major college sports are financially broken and mired in immorality. The unsustainable truth manifests in four failings.

Failing #1: Major College Athletic Programs Bleed Cash

The accounting does not lie. Less than 10% of Division I NCAA athletic programs make money, defined as sports revenues covering sports expenses. Meaning 90% of Division I athletic programs lose money.

There is a misconception that Division I football and men’s basketball programs rake in big bucks, which are then used to cover or subsidize the other sports at a school. Although football and men’s basketball bring in the most revenue at Division I schools, only 20% of all Division I men’s basketball programs brought in more revenue than the basketball program spent, according to the Wall Street Journal. Football did a bit better, but only 28% of Division I programs brought in more revenue than what they spent.

If one adds up all Divisions I-III programs across the NCAA, total revenues were $10.6 billion while expenses were $18.9 billion, creating a massive deficit. Less than 10% of Division I programs cover their expenses with their revenues. These deficits get plugged by direct and indirect subsidy via government revenue (taxpayer dollars), excessively high tuition, and the hidden costs of college these days in the form of student activity fees and the like.

If you never watch a college game, you pay for college sports via taxes. If you are a student that doesn’t have an athletic bone in your body, you pay for major college sports programs through escalating tuition. Government and academia created a system where all are forced to subsidize these money losing endeavors, whether we desire to or not.

Failing #2: Higher Education Puts Your Dollars in the Fluff Instead of the Substance

College athletics spend massive amounts of money on a host of program line items, but the single largest expenditure line item is coaches’ salaries at $3.7 billion (student-athlete compensation won’t appear on the list, another hypocrisy of academia). That’s not by accident.

Many people are shocked to learn that in 39 of the 50 states the highest-paid state employee is either a university football coach or basketball coach. In most of these 39 states the difference between what the college coach is paid and what the governor is paid exceeds a factor of ten.

Public university football and basketball coaches in these 39 states have compensation levels that grossly exceed the pay packages for the heads of the state medical, law enforcement, and educational organizations. Taxpayers in these 39 states are forced to pay excessive amounts of money for someone who can design a 3–4 defense or who can talk a seventeen-year-old into committing to the state school basketball program instead of those dollars being invested in efforts to provide improved cancer care, to keep the streets safe, or to improve math and reading proficiency in the public school systems.

Failing #3: Moral Hypocrisy Abounds in College Athletics

The NCAA, individual universities, and college sports programs all tout commitments to a host of progressive issues. These commitments are trumpeted everywhere you read, watch, or listen.

Until you compare the actions of universities behind the scenes to the public rhetoric. Major college sports programs display shocking hypocrisy when there is an opportunity to procure money. If major funding for a new facility is in play, universities drop all pretense of moral authority and will chase the almighty dollar.

One could choose from a gaggle of examples to illustrate how major college sports programs drop their high-and-mighty platitudes to grovel for funds. The owner of hundreds of fast-food restaurants that peddle unhealthy food and don’t pay living wages to employees leads the funding to revamp UCLA’s historic Pauley Pavilion. The CEO of a lingerie clothing brand that promotes unrealistic images of women to impressionable young girls has Ohio State’s football complex named after him. And a CEO notorious for his eagerness to slash jobs is one of Florida State’s biggest football boosters.

But the biggest example of hypocrisy is found at the University of Oregon, where the founder of Nike and track team alumnus Phil Knight is paying for a $270 million renovation to its track facility. This is nothing new for Knight or Oregon, as he has gifted over $1 billion to the school over time. He is free to donate his money where he sees fit.

What is hypocritical, however, is Oregon’s willingness to take Knight’s money. Oregon is one of the most liberal/leftist campuses in the nation. Equality, inclusiveness, and climate change activism are pillars of core beliefs on the Eugene campus. So, one would think Oregon would be picky and only accept money from donors epitomizing those pillars.

Not the case when it comes to Knight and Nike. Nike has been criticized for decades for its questionable manufacturing practices and whether they embrace child labor, low pay, and worker abuse. The Nike supply chain of overseas contractors is murky and there is concern oppressed Uighurs in China may be forced laborers in its supply chain. Many of Nike’s shoes and apparel are constructed of evil carbon-based materials.

Behind its politically correct ad campaigns, Nike is as brazenly capitalistic as one can imagine. But when a glistening new track facility, equipped with a barbershop, museum, and murals is in play, the Ducks sweep their morals under the bleachers. Rest assured this will not preclude the university from lecturing the rest of society on how to behave.

Failing #4: College Athletics Abuse the Concept of Human Capital

Funny how academic institutions that created the concept of, and preach to business the importance of, human capital will unabashedly exploit student athletes.

The exploitation of the student athlete is evident across three fronts.

The first is the most obvious: star athletes at major programs bring in millions of dollars of revenue for the school, yet the athletes are paid nothing close to a fair or living wage. Worse, most of these athletes will never make it to the pros and many of them will suffer injuries that can last a lifetime, from the physical to the cognitive. Major college sports are designed as human meatgrinders.

The second front of athlete exploitation is colleges, in concert with pro sports, using anti-competitive collusion to deny athletes opportunities to ply their trade in the free market. How ridiculous is it that in 2021 it is nearly impossible for a gifted athlete to exit high school and enter the NFL draft? Or that we are still duped into lamenting the ‘one and done’ mentality of the college basketball elite when it should be ‘none and done.’ Higher education and the big business of pro sports have imposed a system of indentured servitude on the most gifted of athletes.

The final front of human capital exploitation is misleading athletes and their families with the fiction that they will graduate with a free education in a skill that sets them for life. That is far from the rule today. Instead, the big-time programs know many of their student athletes will never graduate with a degree. Many who do graduate will be armed with a useless piece of parchment stating a major that has little demand in the real world (I suppose the student athlete shares the same fate as many students in this facet of academia’s failing).

A Moral Imperative for Change

Major college sports need an overhaul. Tear down these programs built upon failed business models, fiscal deficits, moral hypocrisy, and human capital exploitation. Build in their places sustainable models that meet the following four criteria:

  • Division I athletic programs only spend what they generate in revenues and donations. Taxpayers and students should not be forced to subsidize sports through excessive taxes and tuition levels.
  • Division I programs should pay star athletes fair compensation for what the athletes bring in as revenue. Dispense with the tired and bogus argument of, “well, the player gets paid with a free education.” That degree, if the athlete actually graduates, may end up not being worth the paper it is written on.
  • If a college sports coach at a public university is paid more than the governor of the school’s state, the president of the university, or the dean of its medical school, society should question if that school is acting in a way that is consistent with its charter as a public institution of higher learning. The university should be required to submit formal justification for the coach’s compensation package, much like a public company must submit a proxy to its owners to defend its executive pay packages.
  • Donations are only accepted if the donor and his/her business clearly comply with the mission statements and core values listed on university websites, speeches, and brochures. If they don’t comply, the school should either decline the donation or relax/modify its mission statement and core values so that a conflict no longer exists.

Until these reasonable, transparent, and rational reforms are adopted, academia, its leadership, and student body should refrain from activism and public discourse. The unwillingness to hold oneself accountable to the standards you lecture society to adopt is blatant hypocrisy that destroys credibility.

If academia wants to talk the talk, we should demand they walk the walk.

The Arts Wage a Shooting War Against STEM

Despite spending a career in technical fields and being an engineer at heart, I’ve been a lifelong fan of the arts and humanities. Love of jazz and rock music, cinema, philosophy, and literature have been constants through my life. Life without them would’ve trudged on, but it would’ve certainly been less enjoyable.

Notwithstanding my fondness, the arts have not returned the favor. In fact, an academic vanguard of the humanities today wages a hot war against science and technical fields. The war is fought across multiple fronts, from the ideological to the financial.

The stakes in this war are high for our society and nation. As rivals, including China, continue to bolster and promote STEM prowess, the U.S. consciously dilutes its STEM competency in the name of equity. If allowed to continue and left unchecked, the undermining of science and technology education will have dire consequences.

STEM to STEAM, How One Letter Makes a Big Difference

A recent trend in education is degrading the quality of crucial technical fields society relies on. That trend has been the viral transformation of STEM education into STEAM education. One little letter can make an enormous difference in a bad way.

STEM stands for science, technology, engineering, and math. Society ceases to function without technology and technically competent professionals. In contrast, the humanities, represented by the “A” (for arts) in STEAM, are a want not a need. Although the humanities have a proud legacy, the country can’t run on them.

The methodical dumbing down of STEM in academia is led by the arts and administrator bureaucrats who see an opportunity to avoid necessary reform and freeload off the demand and need for critical STEM fields. Instead of rightsizing programs, staffing, and facilities for the arts and humanities to reflect the market realities of 2021, academia instead has chosen to subsidize these areas under auspices of the need to make technical programs more “well-rounded.” You see it across every level of the education journey: kindergarten, primary school, high school, college, and graduate school.

Yet STEM drives both quality of life and the competitiveness of nations. And STEM is constantly evolving at dizzying rates; every hour and dollar we can invest in these fields is necessary just to keep pace with progress.

Conversely, the more “A” we inject into STEM, the less time and attention is paid to the technical fundamentals. The STEM gap between the United States and other nations is closing in large part because we consciously water down STEM content across technical fields.

Academia Manufactures a Humanities Crisis

The humanities concluded long ago that the best way to secure more resources is to attack and drain resources from STEM. To do so, the arts needed a pretense for confrontation with STEM. Thus, everywhere you turn in academia, you hear about the “humanities crisis.” But many of us outside academia have little understanding of what humanities professors teach or what that crisis is.

Humanities are no longer traditional English literature, art, or philosophy as we might remember fondly. Today, they are quite different. What was once four years of immersion into the classics is now four years of surgical, ideological programming of students. Humanities curricula across the higher education system have been dramatically revamped by a cadre of students and faculty thought police to reflect identity politics and victimhood ideologies. Shockingly, students today can obtain an English degree from Yale without ever having to study Shakespeare.

The manufactured humanities crisis is used to invade and conquer the social sciences, such as economics or sociology. The social sciences play a pivotal role in undermining STEM curricula and disciplines. The days when the social sciences sat between a quantitative/qualitative spectrum bookended by STEM on one side and the humanities on the other side are long gone. Elements incubated in the humanities have consumed the social sciences and now wage war on STEM disciplines.

Advocates for the humanities define this manufactured crisis differently, but they agree on one thing: more. As in the critical need for more funding for humanities faculty, more tenured humanities professors, more buildings dedicated to the humanities, more humanities classes, more humanities degrees, and more resources to end the humanities crisis.

All of this “more” must come at the expense of something else since most students only need and can afford so many credits, campuses have only so much space for more buildings, and college budgets have theoretical limits. Addressing the so-called critical crisis in the humanities would have to come at the expense of STEM programs and budgets, as well as continue to drive college tuition to even more unconscionable levels. Exactly the opposite of what the economy and society are demanding.

Examples Abound

You see the manufactured humanities crisis diluting STEM everywhere these days. Increasingly, humanities departments dictate how STEM programs instruct, train, and operate. Consider the following examples (unfortunately, there are many more to choose from):

  • Stanford is the gold standard of STEM education. Yet the president of Stanford is obsessing over whether Stanford is too focused on the engineering and technology fields and is not spending enough time and money on the humanities. Much of the recent Stanford campus spending has been on new art museums, theaters, and humanities degrees.
  • Sustainability has become the ultimate liberal art and a weapon of choice for those looking to dilute STEM influence. When Yale rolled out its Sustainability Strategic Plan, its president told students to “fake it till you make it” to present an image and mirage of sustainability behaviors. The Yale president publicly encouraged students to pretend their way through sustainability theater. Yale is run for the benefit of the liberal arts and to the detriment of STEM.
  • The University of California–Berkeley, engages its non-STEM doctorate students and faculty to re-design the undergraduate general chemistry course to, “dismantle racialized, gendered, and classed hierarchies of competence in chemistry.” That’s code for less chemistry fundamentals and more rhetoric in Chem 101.
  • Carnegie Mellon University is marketing engineering programs by bragging that you don’t need to take too much math, computer, science, and engineering classes to obtain the degree. Administrators tout dual degree and minor degree programs for engineers where the second, minor degree is in the humanities. That allows a student to graduate as an engineer with less than half of his coursework in science, engineering, or math.
  • Cornell boasts over 700 courses deemed to be sustainability-focused or sustainability related. The Big Red of the Ivy League asserts that over 25% of their faculty engages in some form of sustainability research. The sustainability academic complex means less traditional STEM curricula, fewer and lower-quality STEM faculty, diluted quality of graduates in STEM disciplines, and older STEM facilities.
  • Botany is no longer about crop science or cell biology. Evergreen State College in Washington state offers a course titled “Botany: Plants and People,” where students learn about how they can enjoy more socially just and sustainable relations with plants.
  • A Smith College mathematics professor developed the course “Inequalities: Numbers and Justice,” which aims to show how mathematics and statistics are used to promote racial capitalism, climate change, and a portfolio of other evils.
  • Medical schools are not immune to STEM dilution. The American College of Physicians (ACP) advocates on a range on non-medical topics, including gun control and climate change. The ACP lobbies medical schools to incorporate these non-medical topics and positions into the curricula. With only so many hours of instruction, simple math dictates more ideology in the curricula results in less scientific instruction.

What’s Ultimately at Stake

The most obvious forms of damage being done via the dilution of STEM are a less prepared workforce and a weaker nation competing across an unforgiving geopolitical map. But there is another insidious factor at work when eroding, weakening, and supplanting STEM.

Throughout history, the scientific community has been the most consistent, steadfast bulwark to protect against and resist tyranny, especially tyranny of thought. The more closed-minded academia becomes, the more ideologically rigid the campus culture becomes, the less tolerant students and faculty are of free thought, and the less likely leaders in STEM fields will speak up and rebut unenlightened oppression.

What better way for those wishing to eradicate the greatest threat to suppression of free thinking than to hinder STEM? Instead of science checking politics, politics checks science.

It is time for STEM to stand up and defend itself.