Facebook is a treacherous place on any election night – political statuses flood your newsfeed. Supporters of the winning candidate post praises of democracy and the losers of the night “swear they will move to Canada.” Yet while perusing the usual reactions of the gubernatorial election night, I stumbled upon a particularly interesting, often-used criticism of recently reelected Gov. Scott Walker: “Can anyone tell me why a guy without a college degree managed to win another four years as governor in Wisconsin?”
True, Walker lacks a complete college education – he attended Marquette University but voluntarily left one semester prior to completing a degree to take a job with the Red Cross. Contrary to rumor, he was not asked to leave nor did he flunk out. However, this statement implies an interesting idea: Walker is somehow incompetent because he lacks a college degree. Forget his years of experience in politics – this man is unqualified because he did not complete his final semester of college. This logic highlights two problematic ideas: the idea of explicit requirements for politics and the elitist, wrongful assumption that those without a degree are automatically incompetent. This is not to say that a college degree is not a welcomed indicator of knowledge but rather that it is not the only one.
I write this column as someone pursuing a college degree (in political science no less). I wouldn’t be pursuing this degree if I did not think it was valuable. However, in no way does the absence of this degree, or any degree for that matter, mean someone is automatically incompetent. There are too many individuals to list that have achieved success in a plethora of careers without the distinction of higher education. The field of politics is no exception.
Let’s imagine an America that requires a college degree to run for public office. We would have disqualified twelve presidents, including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Many argue that the prevalence and expectation of college degrees has increased since Truman – the last president to not graduate from college – was elected. This is true. The realm of higher education has changed in recent decades. However, more recently, one out of every 20 members of the 2009 Congress did not have a college degree.
Furthermore, the idea that people without a college degree are automatically incompetent is ridiculous and elitist. If higher education were accessible to all, then perhaps this claim would be slightly less delusional. However, higher education is not accessible to all. While this sentiment may not be specifically applicable to Walker, the undue criticism given to him for not completing higher education highlights and reinforces elitist assumptions.
There are several reasons why a person may not choose to complete a college degree, among them cost. We live in a world where higher education is increasingly expensive, and therefore increasingly inaccessible. Thus, to imply those without a college degree are incompetent is to imply that those without the monetary means to attend college are incompetent–a clearly an unfounded assumption.
Also, politics is something meant to be inclusive by nature. One of the most powerful things about politics in a democracy is that people have a right to engage in it. It is for this same reason I oppose Voter ID. We should be encouraging political participation for all people, including those without college degrees, not erecting social or institutional barriers that say certain people are automatically disqualified from politics.
So, if you’re going to disagree with or critique Walker, make it about his policies, not elitism.
Madeline Sweitzer ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science and intending to major in journalism.
