Back to School for Dan Rather
AIM Column | By Bethany Stotts | June 11, 2008
Did Rather know this beforehand?
Some might have thought that the 2004 election scandal would have ruined the career of Dan Rather. Instead, he was given his own show at HDNet.
Now, four years later, Rather’s show, Dan Rather Reports, offers viewers a glimpse into what the former CBS news anchor considers good reporting: not citing sources, overlooking conflicts of interest, and sensationalizing material to promote marxist class-warfare perspectives. All this is touted as news, even when Rather relies solely on anecdotes and ignores publicly-available statistics.
“And college admissions also strike at some of the most controversial issues facing the country—questions of race, wealth, privilege, and economic class,” said Rather in a recent episode of his show, Stress Test. “Fact, fiction, or hard to tell that the current system clearly favors wealthier students?,” he asks his star guest, Lloyd Thacker. Thacker answered yes.
Lloyd Thacker is the President of the Education Conservancy, a non-profit which opposes the growing commercialization of higher education. Aware of Thacker’s activist agenda, Rather describes him as an activist who “leads a movement to change the status quo,” starting with the ranking system.
Like Thacker, Rather is intent on demonstrating that the system of higher education is broken and governed by elitist, wealthy interests. Rather claims that these views are widely shared among the educational community. “The process of applying to college has become so tortured and demanding that many people—students, teachers, and experts—say the system is broken,” he asserts.
But Rather’s “analysis” amounts to little more than the repackaging of quotes and the careful casting of Thacker’s supporters as independent sources. The mother he interviews is reacting to one of Thacker’s speeches. Rather doesn’t deign to show the question she’s actually answering, however.
Other sources promoted by Rather have given large sums of money to Thacker’s organization. Three of the four college presidents invited to Rather’s roundtable discussion preside over schools which donated between $2,500 and $5,000 dollars to the Education Conservancy. Two of these four colleges, Earlham College and Kenyon College, have staff on the Education Conservancy’s advisory board.
Did Rather know this beforehand? “Thacker is supported by contributions from over a dozen universities and foundations and one recent success was this May 2007 letter labeling the current ranking system misleading...,” he said during the show. Clearly, Rather had some prior knowledge of Thacker’s financial backing.
Ironically, the Educational Conservancy—which strongly opposes the rankings system—has received high-profile donations connected to 5 of the top 11 schools (U.S. News and World Report ranking) including:
- Yale University ($5,000+)
- Harvard University
- Dartmouth College
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- University of Chicago
Besides promoting Thacker’s rhetoric, Rather seems intent on proving that our educational system perpetuates pervasive class and racial inequities. To do this, he takes the viewers first to upscale Great Neck South High School (Long Island) and then to the impoverished Central High (Providence, Rhode Island). According to Rather, Great Neck sends 99% of its seniors on to college. “Wealthy students are not what you’ll find in Central High School...Here only about 20% of seniors will attend a four-year college, well below the national average,” says Rather.
This is an unfair comparison. Rather fails to mention that Great Neck is listed by U.S. News and World Report as one of the 50 best high schools in the nation. Central High, on the other hand, is failing in virtually every measure.
According to the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE), Central High has
- 9% Math Proficiency
- 21% English Proficiency
- SAT scores 127 to 138 points lower than the state average.
According to a National Center on Public Education and Prevention survey, 86% of Central High students receive free, federally-funded school lunches. Nearly half (48%) of student respondents reported speaking Spanish, not English, as their primary language at home.
But poverty is not Central High’s problem. According to RIDE, students at Central High living above the poverty level do worse in school. “Non-poverty” students have 4% Math and 18% English proficiency, a 4%-7% gap, RIDE reports.
While Great Neck still has a significant achievement gap, its “disadvantaged students” achieve 82% proficiency, reports the U.S. News and World Report. Great Neck South High is, quite simply, a better school.
Facts like these do not seem to persuade Dan Rather, who focuses more on anecdotes and rhetorical arguments than actual data. In some cases, Rather’s comments are just plain wrong. He said, for example,
“But this [financial aid] money isn’t just earmarked for students from low-income families. They have to compete for it with students from middle and upper-income families. That’s because an education at a private, four-year college can cost up to $50,000 a year...It’s numbers like these that make students at Central High think college is an impossibility.”
College is out of reach for many Central High students because only 9% of them achieve math proficiency and they have terrible SAT scores, not because college costs too much.
Rather has apparently never heard of the “expected family contribution” or Federal Pell Grants—or the Federal Application for Student Aid, for that matter. Each heavily favors low-income families. Pell Grants are exclusively for low-income families.
Rather says that Central High students don’t know they can receive financial aid and that “they just think college is not for them.” To exemplify the problems facing first-generation college applicants, Hannah Lewis, a College Advising Corp member, tells Rather she had helped students who didn’t know that the SATs were necessary “to get started with the application process.”
RIDE reports that just below half (46%) of Central High seniors take the SAT, another statistic Rather does not mention.
Getting into a high-ranked school can often cost low-income students very little, especially at high ranking ones. Take Princeton and Harvard—the nation’s two highest-ranked schools—for example. Harvard prides itself on its need-blind applications. “Harvard is one of the few remaining colleges in the country to maintain a true need-blind admissions policy. Need-blind admissions means that freshmen are accepted on the basis of their scholastic achievements and other talents, not their ability to pay tuition,” states its website.
The College Board estimates the expected family contribution (EFC) for a family of four earning $20,000 as, well, nothing. Many colleges calculate their financial aid based on the EFC.
The Princeton financial aid estimator places the expected family contribution, including student earnings, at about $2,000 a year for a family earning $20,000. This remains the same even at a more comfortable salary, such as $40,000. Because Princeton gives all its financial aid as grants, not loans, the low-income student could likely graduate debt free. Can many middle class students say the same?
Bethany Stotts is a Staff Writer for Accuracy in Academia, and can be contacted at
15 Comments | Post a Comment
Frankly speaking who cares about Rather, a washed up has been who through his own narcissistic hard headedness disgraced himself in front of the entire world? No one except left wing haters of America.
I know, but these old libs. never seem to leave the scene gracefully, e.g. Bill Moyers. And they always find ways to get air/TV time and clutter up the air waves with their cant. It just discusts me, that’s all.
I agree. They ARE disgusting! It won’t last forever though. A higher POWER is going to act one of these days to all the disrespect, corruption, abuse, arrogance and lies.
Boring. Of course Rather was being bias in favor of the Education Conservancy, he was covering a very emotional issue; affordable and accessible higher education. Everyone knows that kids from wealthier school districts have an easier time affording college than those in poorer areas, despite the incentives and aid. It’s the nature of the beast.
I don’t think Rather was trying to hide any bias on this one. Since there is no objective, non-bias way to cover such a topic. What’s Rather going to do, find some blue-blood parent who condemns low-income students from getting an education? Or maybe some faculty member who thinks colleges should become commercialized commodities and that the Conservancy should butt out? Get real.
So what if he didn’t pound a bunch of figures into our heads. The point, I believe, was to bring this subject back into the limelight for those who care about it.
By your somewhat vindictive and bitter tone, it seems that you just wanted to dig and uncover whatever evidence you could to crucify Rather once again. It’s called sensationalism, look it up.
Unless, however, your argument really is that accessible higher education isn’t an important issue, and that the struggles of low income people aren’t worth our time.
Dear Geo1, I said nothing about the struggles of low income people and higher education, but since you brought it up, I’ll comment. I knew when I was in the fourth grade that I would go to college, I also knew that my parents, being, as you put it, “low income people,” I would have to do it on my own. Well, I got a higher education, and given that I came from “low income people, you might wonder how I did it. Here’s how I did it and how anyone who wants it can also do it. I worked through high school, college and graduate school. I worked partime and full time and went to college the same way, some part time and some full time. It took me eleven years from my high school graduation to my law degree.
So here’s how I got my college education, I got it the old fashioned way—I worked for it. And just by the way, when I left law school I didn’t owe anyone a dime. So, cry me to tears. It’s not the stuff you’re born with that matters, it’s only what you do with it that matters.
Is there a probability that there will be a repeat of Dan Rather’s explosive revelation against Republican candidate this coming September?
What will be the outcome this time?
His previous revelations have always been a puzzle to me.
Was it just his exalted sense of his own importance that caused him not to check out the information?
Did we ever know exactly where he got the information?
“Was it just his exalted sense of his own importance that caused him not to check out the information?”
[Mostly arrogance, I think. It reminds of something we said about a judge I used to practice law before. He was never in doubt, but frequently in error.]
Did we ever know exactly where he got the information?
[Indeed we do, the story which caused his demise was based on a forgery, which he refused to acknowledge and for which he never appoligized.]
That man is an ass, an arrogant ass at that.
I’m certainly not disputing your last statement.
But do we know who did the forgery? Who actually furnished him with it?
What I can’t understand about Dan Rather is how anyone who has such an annoying speech impediment as he does (pronounces the letter S as Sh) has gotten as far as he has, career-wise.
The arrogant, ultra-liberal Barbara Walters also comes to mind.
But do we know who did the forgery? Who actually furnished him with it?
Well, “we” did know when the events were current, but I’ve forgotten some of the details. My best recollection is that one of his staff producers procured a letter of questioned authenticy, which was, I think, about GW’s military service. Not withstanding it’s questioned authenticity, Rather ran with it. What ever it was, it was forged. But I’m now at an age when it’s easier for me to remember the name of my first grade teacher than it is to remember what happened Dan Rather five years or so ago.
tons, yes, I remember it was something about his military record.
Truly, I can remember things from when I was 3, but where I put my glasses or the book I’m reading is another matter.
I just always wondered why he would not have checked it out - not that I think the media is scrupulous on that.
Dan is fantastic and will be around for a long time!
I hope Dan reads this: Mr. Rather, at your age sir you might want to consider preparing for your trip to your afterlife. You won’t be here forever and you have not prepared yourself at all. You narcisstic behavior is going to get you in eternal trouble. Better buy some fire insurance; join a prayer group.
June 12 at 11:05 am | #1 | Link
Same old, and getting senile, Dan Rather.