Oped revision

Op-Ed Rubric Prof. Hankinson Spring 2020 Components of a Successful Op-Ed

● Contains an “catchy” headline ○ I should have an idea of your position from the headline ○ Good example

■ “On Social Security, Tap the Wealthy to Support a Program for All” - ​"On Social Security, Tap the Wealthy to Support a Program for All"

○ Bad example ■ “How to Fix Housing Policy”

● Doesn’t tell me anything about the argument ● Establishes argument in the opening paragraph

○ Good example ■ “Social Security is in peril these days, not because of its finances, but

because politicians refuse to consider the most obvious, highly popular reform -- uncapping the payroll tax, which would essentially shore up its finances in perpetuity.” - ​"On Social Security, Tap the Wealthy to Support a Program for All"

● Describe the status quo ○ What is society like today, without the proposed policy? Why is the status quo

inadequate? ○ Good example

■ “After remaining essentially flat in the 1950s and 1960s, the prevalence of obesity doubled in adults and tripled in children between the 1970s and 2000. ​According to new data​ from the Centers for Disease Control, the epidemic shows no signs of abating. Nearly four out of 10 adults are obese; for children, it’s nearly two out of 10. Most 2-year-olds today will develop obesity by age 35, according to a ​recent projection​ from our colleagues at Harvard. The obesity epidemic affects every region of the country and every demographic group. But rates have increased the fastest among low-income Americans and racial minorities, exacerbating pre-existing health disparities.“ - ​"The Toll of America’s Obesity"

■ Directly addresses need for policy in this space using empirical evidence to highlight problem

● Uses ​one​ piece of social science evidence for the existence of the status quo ○ What are the politics that created this problem in the first place? ○ What are the politics that are preventing your solution from being implemented? ○ Examples of theories

■ E.g., Does the concentration/diffusion of costs and benefits limit policy action (J. Q. Wilson)?

■ E.g., Does your policy require collective action and face the problem of free-riding (Olson)?

■ E.g., Are people simply unaware of the status quo, or systematically misperceiving it?

○ Good examples ■ Misperceptions of elected officials

● “Congress doesn’t know what policies Americans support. We know that because we asked the most senior staff members in Congress — the people who help their bosses decide what bills to pursue and support — what they believed public opinion was in their district or state on a range of issues....As a similar study showed​, state politicians also do a poor job guessing public opinion of their constituents. We found two key factors that explain why members of Congress are so ignorant of public preferences: their staffs’ own beliefs and congressional offices’ relationships with interest groups.” ​"Congress Has No Clue What Americans Want"

● Cites a study showing that politicians are bad at guessing public opinion, such as systematically underestimating what share of their constituents support climate change legislation.

■ Loss aversion ● “Obviously, programs like these don’t eliminate the costs of

moving away from dirty energy. But they can change the political calculus. When a policy calls attention to the costs of the transition, as a carbon tax does, people are wary. When a policy calls attention to the benefits, people often have a more favorable attitude and are willing to accept slightly higher costs.” ​"Winning the climate fight"

● ^Uses social science psychology, but needs a citation. ○ Bad Example

■ “Republicans and Democrats are gridlocked and can’t agree to a fix...” ● Unsightful. Why are they at a gridlock? What are there

arguments/values that lead to disagreement? ■ “The ​X​ political party is in the pockets of Big ​Y...​”

● Show me evidence of why? Is there evidence of how extensive campaign donations to key decision makers?

● Propose a ​specific​ policy change ○ What is the policy or regulation?

■ “And this legislative session, a bipartisan coalition of California legislators is supporting the ​More Homes Act​, which is sponsored by one of us (Senator Wiener). ​The bill​ would override local restrictive zoning by legalizing small to midsize apartment buildings (up to five stories) near job

centers and public transportation and set minimum affordability standards for some of those units.” - ​"Why Housing Policy Is Climate Policy"

○ Who would it affect, in terms of beneficiaries? ■ “The legislation would also help existing renters keep their homes in

areas that qualify for new housing. The measures are intended to stem the growth of super-commuters — workers who are priced out of areas near their jobs and forced to drive long distances to get to work.” - ​"Why Housing Policy Is Climate Policy"

○ How much would it cost?/Who would it harm? ● Describe ​at least​ 2 pieces of policy evidence supporting your policy effects

○ What studies support the expected effects of your policy? ○ Who wrote the studies? ○ What are the specific findings of the studies? ○ Good example

■ “Moreover, liberal economists Emmanuel Saez and Jeffrey Liebman concluded​ that, because of income shifting and behavioral responses, net collections from eliminating the cap would be less than 60 percent of what static projections claim.” - ​"Don’t Raise or Eliminate the Contribution Cap"

■ “In 2018, researchers at ​the Education Trust​ found that in many states free college policies actually end up providing more resources to upper-middle-class students than more needy ones. ​A similar study​that zeroed in on Tennessee’s community college program showed that about half of qualifying students received no aid at all. Meanwhile, a student from a family earning over $160,000 annually could receive more than $1,400 in state subsidies.” - ​“The Cruel Irony of ‘Free’ College Promises”

● Include a qualifying paragraph (2-3 sentences) ○ What are the tradeoffs of your proposed policy?

■ Are there reasons the policy may fail or not fix everything wrong with the status quo?

■ Are there people who will “lose” from it? ■ Why should we tolerate that lost/cost?

○ Good example ■ “One objection does have merit: Though carbon pricing would spur huge

change in infrastructure and power generation, that alone would not be enough. It would not stimulate all the innovation the nation needs in the climate fight, nor would it change behaviors in circumstances where the desired price signal is muted or nonexistent. Carbon pricing can do a lot — but not everything...In those circumstances, the government would have to do more.” - ​"Want a Green New Deal? Here’s a better one"

● Closing Statement/Call to Action ○ What can X group do to help achieve this policy goal? ○ E.g., “In June, the Women in Public Service Project will convene at Wellesley

some 50 emerging women leaders from around the world, focusing on countries

in transition, to offer intensive training and a cross-cultural exchange of ideas and resources....I hope other institutions will join the movement towards leadership parity, because if you have female students, and if you believe that they will be integral in leading the world in the 21st century, then you too are a women’s college. And if we get this right, the world will be a better place—not just for women but for everyone.” ​“Why all colleges should think of themselves as women’s colleges”

Sources For public policy evidence, several trusted, nonpartisan think tanks include:

● Urban Institute - poverty and inequality related policy ● Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget - federal budget and fiscal issues ● Kaiser Family Foundation - health care and health policy ● Brookings Institution - general public policy

You are welcome to cite research outside of these groups, but strive to explain their background. For example, “The Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning think tank, finds…” Or, “The Cato Institute, a Libertarian think tank,...” Ultimately, these categories can be fluid, but some organizations are extremely oriented towards specific policy agendas, threatening the objectivity of their policy briefs. Here is a list compiled by ​The New York Times ​that categorizes the most prominent think tanks: https://ideas.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/think-tanks/ Rough Draft A draft of your op-ed to be circulated blindly to a peer for review

● Due Wednesday, March 18th, 11:59 pm ● Not graded, but will be penalized if judged incomplete/incoherent

Peer Review A write-up in response to your peer’s op-ed.

● 400-500 words, ● Due Monday, April 6th, 11:59 pm ● Verify that each component of the op-ed is present ● Grade the op-ed as if you were a professor ● Your review will be graded on whether it addresses ​each​ of the defined components

○ State where the component is in the text ○ State whether the component meets your standard

Final Submission To achieve an A, your op-ed must meet each criteria

● Include ​all​ of the above components ● Length between 600 and 700 words

● 1” margins, double-spaced, submitted as a pdf ● Include a ‘Works Cited’ section formatted in the APA style

○ All facts must be supported in the text by their source ○ Formal in-text citations are not required, nor appropriate for an op-ed

● Include a pdf/screenshot of the email sent to the media outlet for publication ● Contain zero spelling or grammar errors ● Be submitted by Monday, April 27th, 11:59 pm