IS WATERTOWN WHISTLING PAST AN ECONOMIC GRAVEYARD?

 

When you think back to the days of the pandemic, what comes to mind first? For many, it would of course be the staggering death toll (over 1 million in the U.S. alone), especially if someone you know died from the disease. For others, it might be the vaccines, the school closings, or the isolation.

Or, it might be the recession.

If you were a worker between the ages of 18 and 24, the recession that most affected your life was the COVID-19 Recession of 2020. Members of that age group, especially those who worked in hospitality, retail, or food service were most likely to lose their jobs. Young workers in other sectors were likely to have their careers placed on hold.

I have lived through seven recessions in my adult life. To some extent, I remember all of them. But it was the recession that took place from December 2007 to June 2009 − aptly dubbed the Great Recession − that I remember most vividly.

On the eve of that recession, the 2007 U.S. unemployment rate was 4.4%. At the peak of that recession, in October 2009, it had skyrocketed to 10%, and over 8.7 million U.S. jobs, including mine, had vanished. With massive government intervention, the unemployment rate gradually declined to 5% in 2015. The employment disruption lasted eight long years.

The Great Recession began when the housing market collapsed and the construction sector lost over 2.3 million jobs. It took 10 years for that sector to return to pre-recession employment levels.

The housing stories featured in the news were not about building more units and creating density, they were about loan defaults and foreclosures. There were reports from across the country of homeowners so upside-down on their mortgages they walked out their front doors and never looked back.

At its low point, the Dow lost 50% of its value. Prominent psychologists advised the public not to look at their 401ks. For therapists and other mental health professionals, business was booming.

Bankruptcies and layoffs were the dominant business news stories. More than 30,000 businesses filed for Chapter 11. Had it not been for a federal bailout, General Motors and Chrysler would have ceased to exist.

Looking back at the Great Recession and the COVID-19 Recession, we can see the number of jobs that were lost, but we can’t see the number of careers that ended prematurely with those jobs. We can see the number of business bankruptcies, but we can’t see the number of middle-class families that descended into poverty.

Statistics take us only so far. The human damage from any recession can never be adequately quantified. The number of Americans who never recovered is incalculable and remains an untold story.

With all of my vivid memories of the Great Recession, there was a highly relevant fact that I could not immediately recall.

Who was the President of the United States?

It happened under the watch of George W. Bush, but it never became known as the Bush Recession. The causes were too numerous and complex to assign total blame to that president. And, we could say the same of every other past recession of my adult life. The causes were too numerous and complex to assign total blame to any of those presidents.

Fast forward to March 2025.

The President of the United States has declared a trade war on our neighbors and our allies. His weapon of choice: tariffs.

Here’s a summary of Trump’s war so far: He tariffs them. They respond by threatening to tariff us. He responds by tariffing them more. He delays, he threatens, he exempts, he reinstates. He doubles down. Intentional or unintentional, it is economic chaos and the markets and investors don’t like it. And neither do employers. And neither do consumers.

Once again, it might be advisable not to check your 401k. Once again, mental health professionals should consider canceling their vacations.

President Trump, who presided over the COVID-19 Recession, explained that a future recession might be a necessary part of a “transition” to a much stronger U.S. economy.

He is fine with having his weapon of choice referred to as the Trump Tariffs, in fact, he practically insists on it. Why share the credit?

For the first time in our lives, a President of the United States considers a recession an acceptable component of his economic policies. But has he really thought it through?

Is he too comfortable with the prospect of a recession?

There are tens of millions of voters who believe that Donald Trump is a genius − a master strategist who is playing chess while his opponents are playing checkers. They believe the United States has foolishly allowed other nations to take unfair advantage of our generosity, making them richer and us poorer.

There are tens of millions of voters who believe that Donald Trump is a malicious sociopath who has become America’s mad king. They believe that we and the rest of the free world have become helpless passengers in a vehicle being driven erratically by a drunk driver.

The question as to whether he is a chess master or a mad king should start becoming clearer as the trade war continues to develop.

(Sorry for my blatant metaphor-mixing. I try my best to keep it in check, but…)

Most economists agree that if the tariff war continues, there will be pain. The question is: How much and for how long? The answer is anyone’s guess. No economic guru has a crystal ball.

One possible outcome of the tariff war is stagflation − an economy suffering simultaneously from recession and inflation.

My immediate question is: What should Watertown do to prepare for the economic fallout?

Municipalities were hard hit during the Great Recession. Several filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 9. Others were forced to cut services and slash their payrolls.

Watertown was well-positioned under the stewardship of Town/City Manager Mike Driscoll and we emerged from the recession intact. That was so yesterday.

How vulnerable is today’s Watertown to a sharp economic downturn? The life-science boom that had been filling the city’s coffers is now barely a whimper. Developers have been cautiously playing wait-and-see while an already uncertain market decides to declare itself.

With tariffs, they will soon face higher costs of lumber, steel, and other building materials that were already high and already getting higher.

Meanwhile, residents have had to contend with the ever-rising costs of living: water and sewer rates, energy bills, property taxes, insurance, and the current cost of food, clothing, and other necessities.

Has Watertown’s economy become more fragile than most of us realized, making us less able to handle the load that tariffs will pile on the shoulders of struggling residents?

Our city government seems to be in a business-as-usual mode, taking for granted that the storm clouds will pass, sparing us the pain that other municipalities will suffer if the tariff war continues.

Maybe Watertown will be spared. Maybe.

But, maybe it’s time to hit the pause button and focus on emergency preparedness.

Maybe it’s time to turn our rainy day fund into a tsunami fund.

Maybe it’s time to tighten our belts and halt our government’s hiring spree.

Maybe it’s time for some tough, honest conversations.

 

Bruce Coltin, The Battle For Watertown

WHEN DEI GOT HIGH ON ITS OWN SUPPLY

 

Drug lord, Frank Lopez (Robert Loggia) gives important business advice to Tony Montana (Al Pacino) in the 1983 film, Scarface. His most memorable pearl of wisdom: Don’t get high on your own supply.

Jason Kilborn is not a character in a Robert Ludlum spy novel. He’s a professor at the University of Illinois Chicago Law School. While he is not a household name, he is more famous than he would like to be.

He would not be at all famous had it not been for the final exam he gave his students in December 2020 on the unsexy topic of civil procedure. Kilborn is a tenured professor who has taught at the university since 2010.

The exam included a hypothetical question that had been included in his previous final exams. This question presented a real-life scenario that essentially asked: What would you do if you were a lawyer in this situation?

This real-life scenario contained two real-life words that are not used in civil conversation. The first word is one I never use and never did use.  

One student’s reaction to those two words set off a cascade of events that placed Jason Kilborn’s reputation and career squarely on the DEI chopping block.

The hypothetical question had to do with a Black woman who quit her job and was suing her employer for fostering a hostile work environment. As the plaintiff in the case, she alleged that, in a meeting, other managers in the company had called her a “n _ _ _ _ _ _” (racial slur) and a “b __ _ _ _”. (rhymes with witch). Those words were intentionally not spelled out on the exam.

I can’t use the female student’s name because her identity has been kept anonymous. We only know that she was a member of the UIC Law School chapter of the Black Law Student Association (BLSA).

BLSA issued this statement about “the inexcusable usage of ‘n_____’ and ‘b_____’ words on the exam: “The slur shocked students, created a momentous distraction, and caused unnecessary distress and anxiety for those taking the exam.”

According to BLSA, one of their student members complained that seeing the two words on the exam had given her “heart palpitations.” We don’t know if this student had taken the exam or if she heard about it from another student. Did she suffer first-hand palpitations or second-hand palpitations?

BLSA jumped into action by circulating a petition with a list of demands, which included suspending the professor from teaching his classes. He was then summoned to meet with the law school dean where he learned that the dean sided with BLSA.

To put it mildly, Professor Kilborn was caught off-guard by the student response and by the dean’s reaction to that response.

He immediately issued a public apology for using the “offensive language" that he had previously used without incident and with the knowledge of the school’s administration.

Believing that there was a huge misunderstanding, Kilborn agreed to meet with a BLSA leader to try to clear the air. It was a Zoom meeting that lasted for about four hours. Kilborn’s impression of the meeting was that it was amicable and had gone fairly well. He breathed a sigh of relief.

And then he learned that the meeting had resulted in a new allegation against him that would get him suspended from his teaching duties and would cost him a scheduled annual pay raise.

About 90 minutes into the Zoom meeting, the BLSA leader asked Kilborn if the dean had shown him the written BLSA statement. Kilborn said the dean had not, and added that “maybe she’s afraid if I saw the horrible things said about me. I might become homicidal.”

The law professor, having been lulled into a false sense of mutual understanding, was joking. Big mistake! You don’t joke around with a DEI cop – even an unofficial, self-appointed DEI cop. Dropping his guard was a serious rookie mistake.

BLSA reported the “homicidal” comment to the university administration which determined that Professor Kilborn was a “safety threat,” barred him from setting foot on campus, and ordered him to meet with mental health professionals for an assessment.

When he was allowed to return to campus, his courses had been either canceled or reassigned and he learned that he was under investigation by the university’s Office of Access and Equity (OAE) – the official DEI cops.

The investigation uncovered an even more damning slur uttered by the professor. The allegation was made that a year before the exam question had generated the uproar, Kilborn referred to Black students as “cockroaches”.

Now BLSA had all the ammunition they needed to demand that the tenured professor be fired. Meanwhile, Kilborn left on a long-planned sabbatical, which I imagine he needed more than ever. In his absence,  BLSA conducted three campus rallies to pressure the administration to drop the ax on their undeniably racist professor.

One of the rallies featured a guest appearance from none other than the 80-year-old Reverand Jesse Jackson who, standing in solidarity with the protestors, proudly proclaimed: “Students deserve an environment that’s not hostile. We must act! We will act!”

Before being allowed to return to his classes, Kilborn had to agree to the satisfactory completion of a battery of required training courses that included eight weeks of diversity and sensitivity training, weekly 90-minute sessions with a diversity trainer, and submission of “self-reflection” papers.

 Self-reflection papers? Seriously?

Meanwhile, the cockroach allegation got legs. The allegation was covered by the local press and played up on social media. And without a shred of evidence, the university’s Office of Access and Equity verified that it was true.

And then, aha!

A recording of the incident surfaced. Kilborn had indeed used the word cockroaches. He used it in a class to describe plaintiffs seeking to profit by filing frivolous lawsuits. Race had absolutely nothing to do with it.

So, was the Office of Access and Equity embarrassed? Were they apologetic? Of course not. Did BLSA back off from the false allegation? Why would they? It gave them gotcha! material for their next grievance.

Professor Kilborn had not hidden his feelings about his persecution. He was angry and upset. And because he didn’t hide being angry and upset, he of course presented a threat to the university because he of course made some students feel unsafe.

Imagine how different it would have been had the university’s Office of Access and Equity guided the heart-palpitating student to the counseling she obviously needed instead of driving the professor to diversity and sensitivity training.

As a teacher and mentor, Kilborn’s objective was to send her and her fellow students into the world as mentally tough, savvy lawyers, prepared to defend their clients against the real-world ugliness that confronts real-world victims. Instead, he, himself, was portrayed as the ugliness that needed to be confronted.

Why did OAE and BLSA do it? The simple answer is: Because they could. They were flexing their muscles and they were riding a high.

After two years of being a DEI punching bag, Professor Kilborn sued five members of the UIC Law School administration in federal court, claiming violations of his First, Fifth, and 14th Amendment rights. The case is currently working its way through the courts.

Jason Kilborn continues to teach law at UIC.

And now I have two questions.

First, who is the primary victim in this story? Second, given the executive order of January 20, 2025, and the federal government's ongoing process of eradicating DEI, does the first question even matter?

I think it matters a lot and I will tell you why.

It was in a state of semi-horror that I watched the Watertown School Committee Meeting of March 21, 2022, on Zoom, at which a consulting company made a presentation, inspired by antiracist guru, Ibram X. Kendi, whose books were recommended on Watertown Public School’s website.

The consulting company used slides to highlight its “equity action plan.” Two sentences that popped out and permanently lodged themselves in my brain were:

“Adopt an equity decision-making framework through which all decisions are reviewed. In order to end individual, institutional, and structural racism and bias in the district, all leaders must consistently and intentionally apply an equity lens to every decision made.” (The highlighting is mine) The presenter acknowledged that this policy was already in place at WPS.

From my disbelief, this blog post was born.

WHEN IT COMES TO RACE, SHOULD OUR SCHOOLS BE TEACHING KIDS WHAT TO THINK INSTEAD OF HOW TO THINK?

I just reread that blog post and it nearly gave me heart palpitations. The title of that post is of course a statement thinly disguised as a question.

When kids are educated in a DEI cocoon, and then land in an institution of higher learning where, as a direct result of Trump’s executive order, DEI has now been wiped from their websites and mission statements − like Northeastern and UMass − and DEI offices have been closed or renamed, some of those students will experience culture shock.

How will they cope when they feel “unsafe” and realize there is no cavalry galloping to their rescue?

The law school student who experienced heart palpitations and all the students who were so shocked and upset by seeing the redacted words that it impaired their ability to take the exam were the real victims in the Jason Kilborn story, but not for the reasons they claimed.

Though battered and bruised, Jason Kilborn, like the true professional he is, will continue to do his job at a high level and prepare his students for real-world lawyering.

Students who, early in their educational journey, should have been taught the skills of critical thinking and media literacy to enable them to determine for themselves how to separate fact from fiction, make better decisions, solve problems, communicate effectively, and adapt to change are equipped for life.

Critical thinkers are more likely to be lifelong learners, who are more likely to be independent thinkers.

I would argue that these attributes make for real open-mindedness, which is the opposite of “Kendi-ish” single-lens indoctrination.

Is there a future for DEI? Will it be a rebranded, new and improved DEI with a fresh coat of paint, and maybe a new set of initials?

The last national election highlighted a widespread anger across racial and ethnic groups − white, black, and brown − making it painfully clear that many Americans feel undervalued, underrepresented, and underserved by their government.

Their anger is fueled by the dominance of progressive voices that claim to champion equality but often dismiss or overlook the struggles of working-class Americans of all races who don’t fit their ideological narrative.

This is an election year in the still somewhat townish and very diverse city of Watertown. How encouraging it would be to hear the voices of candidates for City Council and School Committee who believe that any future DEI should be colorblind and that the best answer to prejudice, born of ignorance, begins with teaching our children how to think and not what to think.

We should all be proud and grateful to the local leaders (along with the taxpayers) who gifted this community with shiny new schools. But if well-intentioned educators persist in their futile efforts to prepare the road for the child instead of the child for the road, those shiny new buildings will become symbols of a false promise.

Because, as many of us already know, there are times, when out of nowhere life blows up in your face – a phone call delivering terrible news, a sudden devastating job loss, a life-altering diagnosis, a tragic something that was nowhere on your radar screen. Perhaps all of the above.

 When life does blow up in your face, it just might require all the resourcefulness, resilience, and fortitude you can summon.

Most of you know this all too well, and you have the mental scar tissue as a reminder. 

You know first-hand what others have yet to discover.

That life is not for the faint of heart.

 

Bruce Coltin, The Battle For Watertown