The Intercollegiate Studies Institute and the University of Connecticut’s department of public policy recently released a study that tracks the decline of “civic literacy” in college seniors. The survey was conducted for the institute (which advocates traditional curriculum and supports conservative student publications on college campuses) by the University of Connecticut’s department of public policy. It contained 60 multiple-choice questions on American history, political science, and economics, and was completed by 14,000 seniors and freshmen at 50 different higher-education institutions.

Apparently, my classmates were required to learn the details of the Stonewall Riots, but only 55.4% can name the final battle of the Revolutionary War. While the Marx-Engels reader is required in many introductory philosophy classes, 47.6% of students couldn’t properly define “federalism.” And, while college students commonly stage anti-war protests, fewer than 25% can identify the purpose of the Monroe Doctrine.

And we’re not talking little-known schools, either:

According to the report, “The Coming Crisis in Citizenship: Higher Education’s Failure to Teach America’s History and Institutions,” scores for college seniors on average were only 1.5 percent higher than those for freshmen. At some institutions — including such prestigious universities as Brown, Georgetown, and Yale — seniors actually scored lower than freshmen. The overall average score for seniors was 53.2 percent, the equivalent of a failing grade. Colleges Fail to Teach Civic Literacy, Report Says, by John Gravois, The Chronicle For Higher Education, 09/27/06

I have contended for years that mass immigration is harmful to Mexico, and for several reasons.

See my recent memo entitled “How to Help Mexico – Close the Border”! and previous articles here and here.

Mass emigration from Mexico eliminates the incentives to carry out economic reforms in Mexico.

Today I discovered there is another person who agrees with me.

It’s none other than Guillermo Ortiz, the highly-respected chairman of the Banco de Mexico(Mexican equivalent of the U.S. Federal Reserve).

On a visit to Dallas, Chairman Ortiz made some quite interesting comments, reported in the Dallas Morning News. [Mexican Bank Chief Talks Immigration by Dianne Solis ,Sept. 27th, 2006]

It’s very informative , and touches on some of the same themes I have written about, so I quote the article at length :

Guillermo Ortiz, Mexico’s central bank governor, admits he takes a contrarian view on immigration policy.

Unlike the current Mexican administration, Mr. Ortiz thinks tougher enforcement policies in the U.S. might help Mexico.

“I think Mexico needs its people,” said the 58-year-old Stanford-educated economist, on Tuesday in Dallas. “It would be best to keep its people in Mexico, and it would give incentives for Mexico to create the jobs that are needed.”

In remarks to the editorial board of The Dallas Morning News, Mr. Ortiz characterized his views as a “little contrarian” to those of President Vicente Fox, who has pushed for a guest worker plan with the U.S.

Instead, he says tougher enforcement measures, such as those being discussed in Congress, “would not be altogether bad. It would certainly be better over the long run.”

……..

Mr. Ortiz said the Mexican economy must become more flexible and more competitive in energy and telecommunications to facilitate growth and businesses. Higher economic growth rates would help absorb a growing number of workers who leave Mexico for work in the U.S.

But closing the gap between Mexican and U.S. wages – a key driver of migration – will take decades, Mr. Ortiz acknowledged. A recent Pew Hispanic Center survey in seven cities, including Dallas, found that most Mexican immigrants held jobs in Mexico before migrating to the U.S.

Remittances sent back to Mexico from immigrants, legal and illegal, have steadily increased. At the current pace, remittances may reach $25 billion this year.

Mr. Ortiz said their steady growth over the last few years reflected better tracking methods, not increased migration. Remittances are more important as a safety net for Mexico’s poorer families than as a key lubricant to the economy, he added.

Mexico has the highest per-capita income rate in Latin America, according to the World Bank. Yet 48 percent of the population was living in poverty in 2004, according to the World Bank.

This year, the central banker expects the Mexican economy to grow at 4.6 percent to 4.7 percent. It grew about 3 percent in 2005.

Actually, what John Lennon wrote was

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace…

My imagination isn’t that good; countries are important, as Aleksandr Solzhenitzn said, ” Nations are the wealth of mankind.”

Via Kathy Shaidle, I see that Mark Shea has done a full analysis of what’s wrong with this song,

That is why I have always thought of it as a sort of anthem to Original Sin — fallen man’s infinite capacity to believe he can create Heaven on earth if he’s just permitted one more chance to get it right. Everything the song advocates and hopes for as a supreme good was the fountainhead of all the horrors of the 20th century. Imagine there’s no countries? Hitler dreamt of a world without borders. Imagine there’s no heaven? No religion too? Stalin and Mao sought to free us from religion and the burden of hoping for something more than this life. Imagine no possessions? Communism was all about freeing us from possessions (though multi-zillionaire Lennon seems to have honored this dream more in the breach than the observance). [I Can't Imagine a Dumber Song,catholicexchange.com, September 27, 2006]