Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I have been bombarded with challenges against my support for Israel. As a Christian, I believe it is important that we support Israel. That doesn’t mean that I think Israel does no wrong, or that I don’t recognize that like all of humanity they are fallen and disobedient to God. I don’t always agree with all of their political decisions, and like America the country is plagued with leftism and a deep state. But, setting all of that aside, it is important that we recognized that the core issue here is that many of my challengers are simply guilty of a fundamental misunderstanding of God’s covenants and His nature as a covenant-keeping God. The arguments are based on classic replacement theology errors by spiritualizing promises that God made in very specific, physical terms to a specific people.
The Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 12, 15, and 17 is an unconditional covenant. God didn’t ask Abraham to do anything to earn it; it was based on God’s own character and promises. Genesis 12:2-3 states, “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”
God made a distinction between “I will bless you” (referring to Abraham personally) and “I will bless those who bless you” (referring to the nation that would come from him). The “you” in “whoever curses you” refers to the descendants of Abraham, the nation of Israel. This isn’t just about spiritual blessings but about a tangible, physical people and nation.
God’s promise of the land to Israel is specific and irrevocable. Genesis 15:18-21 describes the exact boundaries of the land God promised to Abraham’s descendants. This wasn’t a spiritual metaphor; it was a real estate transaction with God Himself. The fact that Israel was temporarily displaced from their land doesn’t nullify the promise. God’s promises are not dependent on Israel’s performance but on God’s own faithfulness.
The argument that Jesus redefined who the “children of Abraham” are is a misuse of Scripture. When Jesus said in John 8:39, “If you were Abraham’s children,” He was addressing specific individuals who were claiming physical descent but rejecting the faith that characterized Abraham. He wasn’t nullifying the covenant promises to the nation of Israel.
Romans 11 makes this abundantly clear. Paul writes, “Did God reject his people? By no means!” (Romans 11:1). He uses the olive tree analogy to show that God has not permanently rejected Israel. Some branches were broken off because of unbelief, but they can be grafted in again. According to Paul, the church has been “grafted in” to the root of God’s covenant promises, but that doesn’t mean the natural branches (Israel) are permanently cast aside.
The argument that “there was no Israel” before 1948 is historically and biblically inaccurate. Even when they were exiled from their land, the Jewish people maintained their identity as a distinct nation. Prophets like Jeremiah and Ezekiel spoke of Israel’s future restoration while they were in Babylonian captivity. God told them they would return to their land, and He kept that promise.
While the church has been grafted into God’s covenant blessings, this doesn’t mean God has abandoned His promises to Israel. The church hasn’t replaced Israel; rather, we’ve been invited to partake in the blessings that flow from God’s covenant with Abraham. Romans 11 teaches that “all Israel will be saved” (v. 26), indicating a future national restoration and spiritual revival for the Jewish people.
Regarding the “bless those who bless you” principle, history serves as evidence. Nations that have blessed and protected the Jewish people have generally prospered, while those that have persecuted them (like Nazi Germany) have faced judgment. This principle applies not just to ancient Israel but to the modern state of Israel as well, because they are the same people in the same land God promised them.
I appreciate the fact that folks think they are trying to educate me on this important topic, but I believe we need to distinguish between God’s unconditional covenant promises to Israel and the conditional blessings individuals receive through faith. The Abrahamic Covenant wasn’t nullified by Jesus’ coming; rather, Jesus’ death and resurrection opened the way for both Jews and Gentiles to have a relationship with God.
When Jesus spoke about ‘true children of Abraham,’ He was addressing individuals who had the physical lineage but lacked the faith. He wasn’t nullifying God’s promises to the nation of Israel as a whole. Romans 11 makes it clear that God hasn’t rejected His people.
Israel existed as a people even without their land, and God’s promise to restore them to that land was fulfilled in 1948. This wasn’t merely a political act but a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Supporting Israel doesn’t mean ignoring the importance of the Gospel or the church; rather, it’s acknowledging that God keeps His promises to all peoples.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I am currently studying the biblical Book of Ruth with my wife, and in the second chapter there is a lot of discussion regarding the Mosaic Law regarding gleaning. Ruth, because she was poor, gleaned in fields (gathering remaining grain after the harvest and after the workers have moved on).
As I researched the history of gleaning, thanks to the Book of Ruth, I began understanding how it captures a profound biblical principle that contrasts sharply with many modern approaches to charity. The principles around gleaning provide a key distinction in God’s design for caring for the vulnerable that balances compassion with personal responsibility and dignity.
The Mosaic Law established gleaning in several passages:
Leviticus 19:9-10: 9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. 10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the Lord your God.
Leviticus 23:22: 22 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the Lord your God.
Deuteronomy 24:19-22: 19 When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands. 20 When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow. 21 When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow. 22 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing.
The thing I glean (pardon the reuse of the word) from all of this is that God’s Law created an important array of aspects of the system I think we’ve forgotten in modern times.
- Dignity through Work: Gleaning preserved human dignity by requiring effort from those receiving assistance. Ruth didn’t simply receive handouts but worked diligently in Boaz’s field (Ruth 2:7, 17).
- Productivity and Stewardship: The system prevented waste while ensuring the poor were fed. It was an economically wise approach that benefited everyone.
- Limited, Not Comprehensive: Gleaning wasn’t intended to meet all needs but to supplement what the poor could provide for themselves. It was a safety net, not a complete support system.
- Voluntary Participation: The landowner wasn’t required to harvest and distribute food but to leave opportunity for others to work.
The contrast with modern charity systems is stark to say the least. Many contemporary approaches, including private charities and government welfare programs, create dependency rather than empowerment, unintentionally stripping recipients of dignity and work ethic. The biblical model fosters responsibility while still providing for fundamental needs.
This is not to say that God frowns completely on direct giving. In the New Testament Jesus commends those who give to the poor (Matthew 26:11), and early Christians shared resources freely (Acts 2:44-45, 4:32-35). Both approaches have their place. Direct giving is sometimes necessary for urgent needs, and systems like gleaning existed for sustainable provision.
In today’s politics, this serves as among the reasons that I support strategies of welfare reform in the United States that includes work requirements instead of unconditional assistance. Under Newt Gingrich’s leadership in the 1990s, Congressional Republicans championed welfare reform that emphasized personal responsibility and work requirements. The effort culminated in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, which President Clinton signed, famously declaring it would “end welfare as we know it.” The legislation led to programs that imposed time limits and work requirements on recipients.
During the Great Depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s philosophy behind the New Deal, at least in the beginning, was that the programs were temporary relief measures designed to restore self-reliance rather than create permanent dependency.
Roosevelt explicitly stated this vision in his 1935 State of the Union address when he said: “The objective of our… social legislation is to correct the injustices of our economic system… but it is also to preserve the essentials of our American system.” He added that “Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.”
There is an important distinction between Roosevelt’s approach and the gleaning model. The New Deal went far beyond the biblical system of leaving gleanings in the fields. His model suffered from a collective influence that saw government intervention as necessary to correct what he considered to be economic imbalances that left people unable to support themselves due to some kind of error created by the free market system. His intention on the surface was to find employment for those who couldn’t find it, but there was no employment to have at that time due to the Great Depression. He recognized work should be encouraged, but at the moment some people couldn’t support themselves through labor. Ultimately, unfortunately, the New Deal led to programs that created a permanent underclass dependent upon government, of which was doubled-down upon by President Lyndon B. Johnson with his Great Society.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Today, perhaps, we have a chance to get back to the biblical principles that surround gleaning. Perhaps the application for today would be creating opportunities that allow the poor to work for their provision with dignity, rather than only establishing systems that create dependency. This might include job training programs, honest and fair employment practices, work requirements attached to welfare programs, and community-based initiatives that empower rather than merely enable.
The book of Ruth beautifully illustrates how God’s provision often comes through human responsibility and hard work, combined with the generosity of those who follow His commands to care for the vulnerable.
The Founding Fathers and colonial America understood these principles, and developed systems that reflected principles remarkably similar to the biblical practice of gleaning. While not identical, they shared the core emphasis on work, personal responsibility, and dignity rather than simple handouts.
Colonial America adopted “Poor Laws” modeled after English traditions that established public responsibility for caring for the destitute while requiring work in return. These systems distinguished between the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor, similar to how biblical gleaning targeted those willing to work for their sustenance. Two common approaches were the contract system, where a farmer would care for a poor person in exchange for labor, and auctioning, where a person or family was assigned to the lowest bidder who would then put them to work. Unfortunately, human nature often stuck its ugly head into the whole thing, eventually becoming punitive rather than empowering, with conditions that essentially legalized abusive behavior and near starvation existence. While the early Americans recognized the need for assistance, and they attempted to balance it with opportunities for self-reliance and dignity, even then the darker side of human nature tugged on the system in a negative way.
Jesus said the poor would always be with us. His statements were not intended to express fatalism about poverty, but rather to provide a realistic assessment of human society. It does not mean that we should accept poverty as inevitable, throw our hands up, and do nothing about it. Jesus said in Matthew that caring for the poor was important – as important as caring for ones’ self.
Deuteronomy 15:11 also states that the poor will never cease to be in the land. The verse is also accompanied by commands to address poverty generously. But that doesn’t mean giving away charity to the poor. Recognizing poverty leads to a level of responsibility that we must contemplate on all sides of the issue. We must practice compassionate responsibility while seeking to prevent harmful dependency. After all, there are warnings in the Bible against creating systems that foster idleness or dependency, as seen in Paul’s instruction that: For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
This is precisely what makes the gleaning model in the Book of Ruth so brilliant as a framework. It acknowledges the reality of poverty while preserving human dignity through work. The poor weren’t given grain directly but were provided the opportunity to labor for it – much like how Roosevelt’s New Deal work programs originally intended/attempted to preserve “self-respect, initiative and courage” rather than simply dispensing relief.
The challenge for modern society is applying this principle in an economy where most people don’t work in agricultural fields where gleanings can be left. Perhaps the contemporary equivalent would be systems that create pathways to productive work rather than mere assistance. Job training programs that actually lead to employment. Educational opportunities that provide marketable skills. Community-based initiatives that empower rather than simply enable. Welfare programs with work requirements, and education programs that are not simply useless college degrees earned through indoctrination and accompanied by massive student debt.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In a case that the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear, the growing tension between religious liberty and leftist anti-religious zealotry involves an Orthodox Jewish man in University Heights, Ohio who has been forced to defend his fundamental right to pray in his own home.
Daniel Grand’s ordeal began when he simply wanted to host a small prayer gathering with approximately a dozen friends at his residence. The practice of holding a prayer meeting inside one’s home is one that people of all kinds of faiths have engaged in for centuries. The First Amendment to the Constitution, and religious freedom clauses of the State Constitutions, are clear that government has no authority to prohibit the free exercise of religion.
The language regarding religious freedom in the Constitution of the State of Ohio is found in Article I, Section 7 of that document:
All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience…it shall be the duty of the general assembly to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship…”
When a neighbor learned of these plans, they reportedly complained to city officials, who responded by ordering Grand to obtain a permit for what they classified as a “place of religious assembly.”
The situation quickly escalated from bureaucratic red tape to something more sinister. City officials began surveilling Grand’s home and allegedly encouraged neighbors to monitor his activities and report any suspected violations. When Grand attempted to comply with the permitting process, he discovered an impossible catch: the permit requirements were designed for churches and synagogues, not private residences. Obtaining the permit would effectively force Grand and his family to stop living in their own home.
The city presented Grand with an untenable choice: abandon his prayer meetings or surrender his family’s residence. When he sought relief through the courts, federal judges told him he must first complete the permitting process; an administrative nightmare designed for commercial religious properties, not private homes.
This case represents a disturbing precedent. If opening one’s home to friends for prayer now requires government permission and transforms a private residence into a regulated “place of religious assembly,” then religious freedom in America faces a grave threat.
Alliance Defending Freedom has taken up Grand’s case, representing him before the U.S. Supreme Court alongside co-counsel Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. Their argument strikes at the heart of what it means to have religious freedom in this country: the ability to live according to one’s faith without government interference.
The implications of this case extend far beyond one man’s prayer gathering. When government can require permits for private religious expression in one’s own home, it sets a dangerous precedent that could affect Americans of all faiths. The fundamental right to exercise one’s religion freely, as enumerated by the First Amendment, means little if that expression can be regulated out of existence through unreasonable permitting requirements.
As this case makes its way through our judicial system, it serves as a critical test of our constitutional principles. The outcome will determine whether Americans can continue to gather in homes for religious purposes without government surveillance, permitting requirements, or the threat of losing their residences.
Daniel Grand shouldn’t have to choose between his faith and his family home. And in America, no one should.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In the ancient city of Berea, a remarkable scene unfolded as recorded in Acts 17:11. The Apostle Paul arrived with his message, and the people there received it with what Luke describes as “great excitement.” Yet, what set them apart from the Thessalonians was not their enthusiasm, but their methodology. These Bereans, Luke notes, “were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
This Berean spirit represents more than mere intellectual curiosity. It embodies a profound commitment to truth that transcends time and circumstance. As both a Christian and a constitutionalist, I see in this passage a blueprint for navigating the treacherous waters of modern discourse, where deception masquerades as truth and falsehood wears the costume of wisdom.
For the Christian, the Bible stands as the ultimate standard of truth against which all teachings must be measured. For the constitutionalist, the Constitution serves as the supreme law of the land, the fixed standard against which all governmental actions must be judged. Though different in scope and authority, both documents share a crucial characteristic: they claim to be objective standards that transcend personal preference or popular opinion.
The Bereans understood this principle. They didn’t evaluate Paul’s teachings based on his charisma, rhetorical skill, or the persuasiveness of his arguments. They evaluated his message against an external, authoritative standard: the Hebrew Scriptures. This approach protected them from deception and false teaching, which the Bible repeatedly warns us to avoid. As 1 John 4:1 instructs, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”
In my constitution classes, I told students not to believe what I say simply because I said it. Instead, I encouraged them to follow my resources, consult the original documents, and conduct their own research. This isn’t humility for its own sake; it’s an acknowledgment that truth exists independently of any human teacher and that each individual bears responsibility for discerning it.
We have all been influenced by our upbringing, education, and cultural context. Our parents, friends, and worldly influences have all played roles in shaping our beliefs and actions. We see this clearly in today’s political landscape, where socialist and communist ideologies rise in American politics, leading many astray from both biblical principles and constitutional values.
Yet in the end, we make our own decisions. Right, wrong, or somewhere in between, we are the ones who say yes, no, or maybe. We cannot ultimately blame others for our conclusions, though we must acknowledge their influence on our journey.
How do we apply this Berean method today? First, we must establish our standards. For the Christian, that means grounding ourselves in Scripture through regular study and meditation. For the constitutionalist, it means developing a deep familiarity with the Constitution’s text, original meaning, and historical context.
Second, we must approach new ideas with both openness and discernment. The Bereans received Paul’s message “with all readiness of mind.” They weren’t cynical skeptics looking for reasons to disbelieve. Neither, were they gullible believers accepting everything without question. They listened eagerly but examined carefully.
Third, we must do the hard work of verification. This requires daily discipline, not occasional checks. The Bereans “searched the scriptures daily,” not weekly or monthly. Consistent engagement with our foundational documents is essential for developing the discernment necessary to recognize deception.
Deception surrounds us today. It comes from political leaders, media personalities, academic institutions, friends, family, and sometimes even religious figures. If we don’t know the truth, how can we determine if we’re being deceived?
When we discover deception, the Bible offers guidance on how to respond. Sometimes, the appropriate response is separation – avoiding those who persist in promoting falsehood after correction. At other times, it’s engagement – reasoning with others as Paul did in the marketplace and synagogue. The key is maintaining our alignment with truth while exercising wisdom about which influences merit direct engagement versus which require firm boundaries.
For constitutionalists and Christians today, this means evaluating all political teachings, media narratives, and policy proposals against our foundational documents. It means acknowledging how personal influences shape all perspectives while maintaining intellectual humility. It means engaging respectfully with those holding different views when possible, but recognizing when deception requires firm boundaries.
The Berean approach offers a path forward in an age of confusion and deception. By grounding ourselves in truth, examining all teachings against our standards, and taking personal responsibility for our conclusions, we can navigate the complexities of modern discourse without being led astray.
Whether in the realm of faith or politics, in the church or the public square, we must be like the Bereans – eager to learn but committed to verifying everything against the truth. Only then can we fulfill our dual responsibilities as faithful Christians and engaged citizens, standing firm for both biblical principles and constitutional values in an age that desperately needs both.
The question remains: Will we be like the Thessalonians, swayed by charisma and emotion? Or will we be like the Bereans, noble in character, eager to learn, and committed to testing everything against the truth? The answer we give will shape not only our own lives but the future of our constitutional republic and our faith.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Something doesn’t sit right about Wisconsin’s Democratic gubernatorial primary. According to final polls released just four days before the election, Francesca Hong held what should have been an insurmountable 22-point lead over her opponents. The polling organization even noted that their results aligned with Marquette Law School’s poll – the “gold standard” of Wisconsin polling. Yet when the votes were counted, Hong lost to David Crowley, a candidate who had actually dropped out of the race before re-entering, by a razor-thin margin of about 4,000 votes.
The official narrative suggests that Democratic voters simply changed their minds in the final days. But I’m not buying it. Let’s consider an alternative explanation that deserves serious consideration: those polls weren’t just wrong – they were potentially manipulated.
Think about the mechanics of voter psychology. When polls show a candidate with a massive lead, it creates a powerful disincentive for supporters of other candidates to bother showing up. Why waste your time voting when the outcome seems predetermined? This is especially true in primary elections, where turnout is already typically low.
The 22-point lead reported for Hong wasn’t just a polling miss – it was a polling catastrophe. State Navigate themselves seemed concerned, noting the “12-point polling miss in the Democratic primary for US Senate in neighboring Michigan” and questioning whether a similar miss might occur in Wisconsin. But they proceeded with their numbers anyway, potentially influencing thousands of voters to stay home.
What if that was the point? What if the polls were deliberately designed to create a false sense of inevitability around Hong’s candidacy? The effect would be twofold: discouraging Crowley’s supporters while simultaneously creating momentum for Hong. It’s a classic psychological operation dressed up as scientific polling.
Beyond the questionable polling methodology lies an even more troubling aspect of this election: how close a self-identified socialist with radical positions came to winning the Democratic nomination. Hong’s platform included proposals that would fundamentally reshape Wisconsin’s economy and social structure – policies that would have been considered unthinkable just a few years ago.
That Hong lost by only 4,000 votes despite her radical agenda should alarm every Wisconsin resident, regardless of political affiliation. It demonstrates how far left the Democratic Party has drifted that such a candidate could nearly secure the nomination. This isn’t about principled progressivism; it’s about an ideological shift that threatens the very foundations of our economic system.
The fact that Crowley, who had withdrawn from the race, could still defeat Hong speaks volumes about the reservations even Democratic voters have about her platform. But what’s concerning is that those reservations weren’t strong enough to create a decisive rejection of her ideology.
We need to ask some hard questions about what happened in Wisconsin:
- Who funded these polls that showed Hong with such a commanding lead?
- What methodologies were used, and why were they so dramatically wrong?
- Were there any connections between the polling organizations and Hong’s campaign?
- Why did State Navigate acknowledge concerns about potential polling misses yet release numbers that were even more inaccurate than Michigan’s?
The American people deserve transparent, accurate polling, and this kind of potential manipulation designed to influence electoral outcomes is nothing new. We’ve seen polls weaponized against the GOP for decades. When polls consistently miss the mark by such dramatic margins, it’s potentially something more sinister.
The Wisconsin primary should serve as a wake-up call. We’ve become too complacent about the integrity of our electoral processes, including the polling that shapes voter perceptions. We’ve also become dangerously accepting of ideologies that were once considered on the radical fringe.
Whether through manipulated polling or ideological drift, the Wisconsin primary demonstrates the fragility of our processes. When a candidate with socialist policies comes within 4,000 votes of winning a major party nomination in a state like Wisconsin, which is considered a swing-state, it’s time to reassess our political trajectory.
This isn’t just about one primary in one state. It’s about the direction of our country. The Wisconsin experience should prompt us to demand greater transparency in polling and more thoughtful consideration of the ideologies we’re willing to embrace as a country as the Democratic Party continues to push further and further to the left. Remember, this is the same Democratic Establishment that made sure Bernie Sanders was removed from the presidential party lead in 2020, undemocratically pushed aside Biden for Kamala in 2024, and has done all they can to eliminate Donald J. Trump. They call the socialist communists radical, as they act in such a radical manner to stop the radicals. But, hey, all of the elections are safe and secure… right?
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
University of Michigan’s Gradeless Marxist Retread Disincentivizes Excellence
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The University of Michigan’s recent announcement that thousands of freshmen will receive only pass/no credit grades rather than traditional letter grades represents more than just a policy change. It’s the latest manifestation of a dangerous educational philosophy that first gained traction during the Marxist push in education of the 1970s.
While administrators frame this “grade covering” pilot program as a mental health initiative designed to help students “acclimate” to university life, it’s nothing more than a foot-in-the-door strategy to eventually eliminate grades altogether. This approach fundamentally misunderstands human nature and the competitive spirit that drives innovation and excellence.
What we’re witnessing at Michigan is a retread of the failed educational experiments of the 1970s, when Marxist-influenced academics pushed for eliminating grades under the guise of promoting equality and reducing stress. The underlying philosophy was the same then as it is now: if we remove measures of individual achievement, we can create a more “equitable” environment where no one feels bad about themselves.
The problem with this thinking is that it ignores a fundamental truth about human motivation; people strive for excellence when they can see and measure their success. When you eliminate the ability to distinguish oneself through superior performance, you eliminate the incentive to perform at one’s highest level.
Michigan administrators claim this policy will benefit students’ mental health, but this is a deeply flawed premise. True mental health comes from building resilience through overcoming challenges, not from being shielded from the reality that some performance is better than others.
Professor Derek Peterson’s comments about students being in a “particularly precarious position” perfectly illustrate this misguided approach. Rather than helping students develop the tools to succeed in a competitive world, this policy coddles them at the moment they most need to develop grit and determination.
If I know that my maximum reward for effort is simply a “pass” mark, the same as someone who does the bare minimum, why would I push myself to excel? This policy sends a clear message: mediocrity is acceptable, and striving for distinction is unnecessary.
The competitive spirit that drives innovation, breakthroughs, and excellence is being systematically dismantled. When students can’t see the direct correlation between their effort and their academic standing, they naturally adjust their effort downward to match the reduced incentive structure. Human Nature plummets operations to the lowest common denominator.
Make no mistake, this freshman-only policy is just the beginning. Once established, the “grade covering” approach will gradually expand to upperclassmen, then to other schools within the university system. The same arguments about mental health and acclimation will be repurposed to justify eliminating grades across the board.
The fact that other elite institutions like MIT and Caltech have implemented similar policies doesn’t validate the approach. It simply shows how deeply this anti-meritocratic ideology has permeated higher education.
What universities should be doing instead is helping students develop the resilience to compete and excel. Rather than eliminating grades, institutions should focus on teaching students how to handle both success and failure – both essential components of a well-rounded education.
The competitive drive that motivates students to strive for A’s isn’t something to be suppressed. It’s something that should be channeled productively. This drive has fueled innovation and excellence throughout human history, and attempts to eliminate it in service of a misguided egalitarianism will ultimately harm both the students and society at large.
The University of Michigan’s gradeless experiment isn’t progress; it’s a regression to failed educational philosophies of the past, dressed up in modern mental health rhetoric. Unless we recognize it for what it is, a disincentive to excellence, this approach will continue to spread, further eroding the competitive spirit that has made American higher education at one time the envy of the world.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary