Washington Week: Student Voices (O)

COLUMN: Roosevelt's notions on equality still applicable
By Ehsan Sadeghipour
The Lantern (Ohio State U.)
08/14/2007

(U-WIRE) COLUMBUS, Ohio — Theodore Roosevelt is the only 20th century American president who has been immortalized on Mount Rushmore. This fact highlights his importance as one of the most highly regarded presidents in American history.

Although I find many parts of his platform very interesting, I agree most with his notion of the Square Deal. He believed that "we must treat each man on his worth and merits as a man. We must see that each is given a square deal, because he is entitled to no more and should receive no less."

Roosevelt lived in an age of enormous economic and social inequalities between the wealthy upper class and the struggling lower class. The government was generally vehemently in favor of businesses at the cost of unions and ordinary workers. Furthermore, corruption was rampant and enjoying a successful career was largely based on connections rather than the merits of individuals.

Roosevelt attempted to change this trend by promoting a system in which personal and professional capabilities were the deciding factor in hiring individuals. At the same time, he took a more evenhanded approach than his predecessors to the struggle between unions and management, which resulted in better living conditions for low-income individuals.

Roosevelt's idea of the Square Deal is perhaps the best definition of the American dream, and one that has been in danger for the past few decades. Throughout the past few decades there has been a widening economic and social gap between the wealthiest Americans and their middle and lower-class counterparts. In 2002, the wealthiest one percent of Americans owned more wealth than the bottom 95 percent of our nation. Until the recent increase in the minimum wage, inflation had depleted the buying power of this level of income to its lowest level in more than 50 years.

Furthermore, in 1980 the average CEO made 42 times the salary of the typical worker compared to 2002 when the average CEO made 531 times the salary of that employee, according to businessweek.com.

The increasing income gap means that middle and lower-income Americans not only lose their access to education, health care and security, but they also lose their political voice, which depends on forming and funding lobbies. However, the worst part of this problem is that the workers who have not been offered a Square Deal in terms of wages, are going to have children who will not be offered a Square Deal in terms of educational and career opportunities. Most Americans have long believed that education is the great equalizer. In other words, individuals are allowed to improve their socioeconomic status by receiving an education. Yet, these economic disparities also dictate a lower access to education.

A 2005 report by the National Center for Education Statistics states that only 8.5 percent of public school system funds are supplied by the federal government. On average 48.7 percent of the remaining funds come from states and 42.8 percent of these funds are financed by local sources. Therefore, the funding that a school receives depends on the income of the residents of that state and largely on the income of the residents of that school district. This system means that the children of lower-income individuals will not receive the same level of education as the children of higher-income families because their parents cannot afford to live in neighborhoods with increased school taxes. When combining this fact with the rising costs of higher education and the federal cutbacks in student loans, lower-income individuals find it ever more difficult to improve their lives. Therefore, families become entangled in a cycle of low incomes and low education levels.

Although Roosevelt's presidency ended in 1908, his Square Deal policies had a lasting effect on government well after his presidency. America developed into a powerful nation through promoting the most talented and capable individuals regardless of their economic status. However, we must be vigilant, because this meritocracy can only continue through educational equality, which is often a direct result of economic equality.

[ Back to Student Voices ]