Even though I consider myself reasonably-well-educated and reasonably well-read, one truth I have come to realize is that the journey toward critical thinking never ends – it is always a work in progress, if I may mix my metaphors. I very much doubt that any of us can say that we have become the consummate analyzer of facts and information, dispassionately assessing information for its objective truth. No, because we are human, our values, our passions, and our prejudices will always be factors in how we process the information that bombards us daily. However, I think we are making real progress when we can recognize the role those factors play in our lives, and even just occasionally are able to stand outside of them and give another viewpoint some respect and consideration.
I mentioned in my previous post the ingredients I believe are necessary in this journey toward better thinking. Today I'd like to address one of those requirements, the need to read widely, something that I realize is a problem for many people. During my working life, I would always try to read a couple of papers, one local and one national, but otherwise the bulk of my reading, both fiction and non-fiction, was confined to bedtime and weekends. I know that for many, because of such time constraints, reading is not a priority. Yet there can be no substitute. It is surely an irony of the times that we have access to more information than any previous epoch, yet have so little time to consider it.
With that in mind, I would like to recommend a book that I recently read: The Trouble with Billionaires, by Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks.
Now, the reactionary (one with whom I associate a reluctance to think widely and honestly) would immediately and simply reject considering such a work because Linda McQuaig is a 'leftie.' A more open-minded person would see the opportunity to learn new things or see issues from a new perspective. And that is precisely what this book enabled me to do on a number of issues including progressive taxation, corporate donations, the disproportionate influence the wealthy have exerted on government policy both historically and contemporaneously, and the problem of rising inequality in North America.
One small illustration from the book will serve to exemplify its value in widening one's perspective. Increasingly, corporate donations are being pursued and relied upon by universities. However, beyond the obvious danger that over-reliance on such funding sources can pose for program development and content, the authors reveal something that I have never considered:
The public also has an inflated sense of how much financing wealthy donors actually provide through philanthropy. For instance, there was much celebration in April 2010 when it was announced that a new $35 million donation from Peter Munk would enable the University of Toronto to establish a school of global studies. The new Munk School of Global Affairs (incorporating the existing Munk Centre for International Studies) is to be housed in a century-old stone building on fashionable Bloor Street West, and feature an elevated pixel board flashing the latest world news headlines.
But, although it wasn’t mentioned in the announcement, Munk will receive a $16 million tax reduction for his $35 million contribution, reducing his actual personal contribution to $19 million. So he will really be paying just a little more than half the cost of his contribution, while the government (Canadian taxpayers) will be paying just a little under half. For that matter, if Munk made his donation in the form of shares in publicly traded companies — as most donors do — then his tax savings will be considerably larger (possibly by millions of dollars) and his personal contribution far smaller than $19 million.
The Ontario and federal governments also announced that they would each contribute $25 million to the new Munk school, bringing the total contribution of Canadian taxpayers to at least $66 million. But when it came to naming the building, the taxpayers’ $66 million simply disappeared; only Munk’s $19 million (or less) counted.
The authors then go on to talk about the influence Mr. Munk will have on the sorts of programs offered there. For example, is an examination of the role of multi-nationals and their sometimes nefarious behaviour in African gold extraction likely to be welcomed by Mr. Munk, head of Barrick gold?
I know that I have come no closer to answering the questions originally posed by fellow-blogger Orwell, but I will return with more thoughts on the development of critical thinking skills soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment