My friends at NAS.org have posted on the “Climate Conspiracy” that broke when hackers revealed global warming scientists had apparently manipulated data, organized attacks on skeptics, and much more. Surprise, surprise.
The timing couldn’t be worse for those who would cripple economies with the plaintive cry: “Do as we say or we all die!” Worldwide there is growing skepticism about the benefits of micromanaging every aspect of daily life while measuring “carbon footprints.” The Wall Street Journal even contributed to this Nanny Project with a long piece measuring the carbon footprint of various common products. I was relieved to see that beer had the lowest carbon footprint.
How far have we gone when we decide whether or not it is “good for the planet” to drink beer? Now we must ask: Did German scientists manipulate the beer data to preserve their national beverage? (I'm kidding). It's a good cause(beer drinking) but who studies this stuff? And when is enough enough?
To read more, click here.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Student Blogs: Speaking Truth to Pooh-bahs
In a previous post, I noted how military bloggers are writing the "first pages of history." Likewise, student bloggers are offering a place to speak out against the abuses on their campuses: from official racial segregation (in the name of Diversity) to expulsion for being pro-life and much more.
During the 1990s, many upscale universities had students who said "Enough!" and established newspapers to advocate for academic freedom, mock the Mickey Mouse courses taught on campus, and generally play the role of watchdog. Needless to say, those newspapers were not welcomed by administrators or the PC thugs who "police" what happens on campus. Blessed by administrators who looked the other way, the thugs stole newspapers en masse and otherwise bullied these reporters in a style worthy of the Ku Klux Klan.
Flash forward ten years: the Internet offers students, alumni and faculty the opportunity to watch and report on the crazy shenanigans of those in power and those who feel empowered to act as foot soldiers in the "long march through the institutions" that has done so much damage to academic rigor and freedom.
(Disclosure: I have my own blog, FreeU, focusing primarily on Illinois issues).
Here I'd like to profile one excellent student blog: ClaremontConservative.com
(The blogroll includes many alternative blogs by students, alumni, community members from Left to Right and "just for fun").
Issues of interest to academic readers include the following:
Postscript: Alumni need to get into the act. They have nothing to fear--and administrators sometimes listen to them. Using the web, I got alumni at my alma mater to pressure the administration and get rid of a mandatory "white guilt" seminar for freshmen.
During the 1990s, many upscale universities had students who said "Enough!" and established newspapers to advocate for academic freedom, mock the Mickey Mouse courses taught on campus, and generally play the role of watchdog. Needless to say, those newspapers were not welcomed by administrators or the PC thugs who "police" what happens on campus. Blessed by administrators who looked the other way, the thugs stole newspapers en masse and otherwise bullied these reporters in a style worthy of the Ku Klux Klan.
Flash forward ten years: the Internet offers students, alumni and faculty the opportunity to watch and report on the crazy shenanigans of those in power and those who feel empowered to act as foot soldiers in the "long march through the institutions" that has done so much damage to academic rigor and freedom.
(Disclosure: I have my own blog, FreeU, focusing primarily on Illinois issues).
Here I'd like to profile one excellent student blog: ClaremontConservative.com
(The blogroll includes many alternative blogs by students, alumni, community members from Left to Right and "just for fun").
Issues of interest to academic readers include the following:
*Thought reformThe military bloggers have a central directory; perhaps it is time to gather a EDUblogging directory? Meanwhile, search and you will find someone blogging about your campus, whether the pooh-bahs approve or not.
*Expulsion for the "wrong" views
*Racial segregation promoted by the administration.
Postscript: Alumni need to get into the act. They have nothing to fear--and administrators sometimes listen to them. Using the web, I got alumni at my alma mater to pressure the administration and get rid of a mandatory "white guilt" seminar for freshmen.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Will Layoffs be based on Diversity?
In recent weeks, the USA Today and National Public Radio have crowed that this recession is different: most of those losing jobs were men (and predominantly white). This is “encouraging” according to these news outlets.
Why is it good? Because a majority of the workforce is now made up of women; and blacks have not been hurt as much as whites (the media seem to have forgotten about Asians and Hispanics but what else is new?). This is an advance in gender, if not racial, diversity. Whooo. One wonders how those women married to unemployed men think about their gender’s “advance.”
Is this recession different? We won’t know until later but with “diversity accomplishments” now part of our academic job descriptions, there is reason to think that we may be evaluated accordingly when (or if) layoffs occur. After all, what better way to “diversify” the faculty than to adopt the slogan:
If universities can make diversity hires, why not make the same decision when firing people?
Time to dust off your computer screen and search for labor relations law in your state. Those of us with unions ought to contact them too if the proverbial four-letter word “hits the fan.”
Why is it good? Because a majority of the workforce is now made up of women; and blacks have not been hurt as much as whites (the media seem to have forgotten about Asians and Hispanics but what else is new?). This is an advance in gender, if not racial, diversity. Whooo. One wonders how those women married to unemployed men think about their gender’s “advance.”
Is this recession different? We won’t know until later but with “diversity accomplishments” now part of our academic job descriptions, there is reason to think that we may be evaluated accordingly when (or if) layoffs occur. After all, what better way to “diversify” the faculty than to adopt the slogan:
“First thing we do, fire all the white males!”Employers are fearful of employment-related lawsuits and this is the first recession to seriously threaten academic jobs since 1982. The Diversity Machine has grown enormously since 1982, when it was only a glimmer in the eyes of campus social engineers. Today it is an industry that influences accreditation bodies, professional associations, and university practices (think of the money set aside for “diversity hires”).
If universities can make diversity hires, why not make the same decision when firing people?
Time to dust off your computer screen and search for labor relations law in your state. Those of us with unions ought to contact them too if the proverbial four-letter word “hits the fan.”
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
“I am Woman”: Sharia is OK with Me
[Crossposted from http://nasblog.org/2009/10/13/i-am-woman-sharia-is-ok-with-me/ NOTE: The original post has links to the video, transcript and other relevant material]
Surprise, surprise: multicultural dogma and concern for “the Other” have seeped from college campuses to the highest corridors of power (again).
To wit: The first veiled female appointee in the White House, Dalia Mogahed, member of the Presidential Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Mogahed recently appeared on an Islamic television show in the UK touting her Gallup poll purporting to show that women are OK with sharia. Westerners just don’t get it, she says:
Imagine if a president appointed a strict Christian adviser who stated: “gender justice means obeying the Bible and church rulings on it.” Can you imagine the uproar?
The key point: Christians are not “the Other.” The dominant or majority group is held to a different standard. “Others” get a pass because “it’s an ‘Other thing,’ you just wouldn’t understand.”
Where is Western-style feminism when you need it? We don’t lack for Women’s Studies Departments that issue secular fatwas when they feel the pea of oppression through their seats in the Ivory Tower. Surely, they have something to say about treatment of women in Muslim countries? Alas, we must seek out a Yemeni feminist to criticize the appointment of Dalia Mogahed.
I can hear the comebacks: feminist critics of sharia are a minority (the abolitionists were a minority too). Or: “those uppity women need to read Dalia’s surveys and tighten their hijabs!”
**For Mogahed’s puffed-up survey results, go to “Who Speaks for Islam?” For criticism of Gallup “spin” see Jihadwatch More to the point, read the conditions under which pollsters labor in Muslim countries, given the many restrictions on women and the watching eye of government and family. Do these restrictions lend themselves to representative opinion surveys?
Postscript: Apologies to Helen Reddy: “I am Woman” is the title of her best-selling song (1972). Reddy did not have sharia on her mind.
Surprise, surprise: multicultural dogma and concern for “the Other” have seeped from college campuses to the highest corridors of power (again).
To wit: The first veiled female appointee in the White House, Dalia Mogahed, member of the Presidential Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Mogahed recently appeared on an Islamic television show in the UK touting her Gallup poll purporting to show that women are OK with sharia. Westerners just don’t get it, she says:
“the majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance. Whereas only a small fraction associated oppression of women with compliance with the shari`ah.”**For the transcript, click here. There was little news coverage, except for this British article.
Imagine if a president appointed a strict Christian adviser who stated: “gender justice means obeying the Bible and church rulings on it.” Can you imagine the uproar?
The key point: Christians are not “the Other.” The dominant or majority group is held to a different standard. “Others” get a pass because “it’s an ‘Other thing,’ you just wouldn’t understand.”
Where is Western-style feminism when you need it? We don’t lack for Women’s Studies Departments that issue secular fatwas when they feel the pea of oppression through their seats in the Ivory Tower. Surely, they have something to say about treatment of women in Muslim countries? Alas, we must seek out a Yemeni feminist to criticize the appointment of Dalia Mogahed.
I can hear the comebacks: feminist critics of sharia are a minority (the abolitionists were a minority too). Or: “those uppity women need to read Dalia’s surveys and tighten their hijabs!”
**For Mogahed’s puffed-up survey results, go to “Who Speaks for Islam?” For criticism of Gallup “spin” see Jihadwatch More to the point, read the conditions under which pollsters labor in Muslim countries, given the many restrictions on women and the watching eye of government and family. Do these restrictions lend themselves to representative opinion surveys?
Postscript: Apologies to Helen Reddy: “I am Woman” is the title of her best-selling song (1972). Reddy did not have sharia on her mind.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Freedom from Fear: Crime and the Diversity Hustle
[This is a crosspost from http://nasblog.org As an officer of the National Association of Scholars, and president of the Illinois affiliate, they asked me to become a regular contributor to the national blog. NAS is committed to academic excellence, freedom, and restoration of common sense in higher education. No small task. If interested in joining, email me at jonjbean@gmail.com]
By now, most Americans have watched the newscast on the brutal killing of Chicago honors student Derrion Albert.
FDR made "freedom from fear" one of his Four Freedoms. Many Chicago students flee to my rural university to secure "freedom from fear." They escape gang violence and the prospect of ending up in jail. They are the Derrion Alberts of the world--kids who want to start over.
Alas, college administrators--in the name of "diversity"--promote gang magnet events such as our Player's Ball: a fraternity-sponsored event with "pimps," "hoes," and "bitches."
Guilty white administrators cave to demands for "urban culture." After all, "it's a black thing." Diversity officials remain silent (privately, they do not approve but "what are we going to do?").
The same administrators ban credit card vendors on campus, squelch "hate speech" (a term never applied in this context) but will not lift a finger to "do the right thing." At the very least, campus officials could use their bully pulpit and authority to criticize these events.
One of my former students escaped his gang, became an honors student and attended the "Ball" in his second year. At the Ball, gang members searched him out and put a "hit" on his head for leaving them. Several of us found a way to relocate him but ultimately this student left for another university.
That is not education, it is exodus.
Since administrators and diversity deans do nothing, say nothing, hear nothing, I call them out: "Shame on you!"
Derrion Albert could have been one of my students, if he lived to attend college. For the Derrions of the world, those of us who teach or lead need to speak up.
R.I.P. Derrion Albert
By now, most Americans have watched the newscast on the brutal killing of Chicago honors student Derrion Albert.
FDR made "freedom from fear" one of his Four Freedoms. Many Chicago students flee to my rural university to secure "freedom from fear." They escape gang violence and the prospect of ending up in jail. They are the Derrion Alberts of the world--kids who want to start over.
Alas, college administrators--in the name of "diversity"--promote gang magnet events such as our Player's Ball: a fraternity-sponsored event with "pimps," "hoes," and "bitches."
Guilty white administrators cave to demands for "urban culture." After all, "it's a black thing." Diversity officials remain silent (privately, they do not approve but "what are we going to do?").
The same administrators ban credit card vendors on campus, squelch "hate speech" (a term never applied in this context) but will not lift a finger to "do the right thing." At the very least, campus officials could use their bully pulpit and authority to criticize these events.
One of my former students escaped his gang, became an honors student and attended the "Ball" in his second year. At the Ball, gang members searched him out and put a "hit" on his head for leaving them. Several of us found a way to relocate him but ultimately this student left for another university.
That is not education, it is exodus.
Since administrators and diversity deans do nothing, say nothing, hear nothing, I call them out: "Shame on you!"
Derrion Albert could have been one of my students, if he lived to attend college. For the Derrions of the world, those of us who teach or lead need to speak up.
R.I.P. Derrion Albert
Friday, September 25, 2009
Sexual Harassment Procedures: You Have the Right to . . . (mumble mumble)
Everyone knows the famous Miranda decision requiring the accused to be informed of their rights. This decision became one of the keystones of modern liberal due process. If the accused is not informed of their rights, a police state may run rough shod over those alleged to have committed crimes.
Forget Miranda and all that "innocent before guilty" nonsense. Welcome to the wonderful new world of "Sexual Harassment Procedures." In the latest phase of obfuscating the rights of the accused, Southern Illinois University has produced a "Working Draft" entitled "Sexual Harassment Complaint and Investigation Procedures." Since this is "comment period," here are my criticisms of the Not-So-New Procedures. For a full history of the events leading up to this point, read the following provocative posts:
http://freesiu.blogspot.com/search/label/sexual%20harassment
The one by law professor Leonard Gross is relevant here.
The criticisms that follow apply not only to Southern Illinois University Carbondale but to many (most?) college campuses. Hence the need for groups like FIRE, NAS, and certain ACLU chapters.
Silver Lining in SIU Procedures Draft:
The SIUC draft streamlines the harassment procedures by channeling everything through an "Associate Chancellor." Got to give them credit for efficiency. This might help reduce the odds of double jeopardy.
Devilish Details:
Let us move on to find the "devil in the details." A rigorous analysis of the draft uncovers
The Procedures state that the accuser:
Verbal complaints allowed with no explanation of transcription process:
The procedures need to clearly state WHO and HOW verbal complaints will be recorded. There are always problems with oral statements, particularly when they can be changed, the person can be "coached," etc. Does any one recall the Duke Lacrosse fiasco and the harm that did to Duke University? I recommend that all verbal complaints be taped (precedent for this with Judicial Affairs) and taken down in writing so that the accused may respond in his/her defense.
Recommended Revision 2:
Make clear that "confidential" does not mean "anonymous" accusations. Later in the document there is talk of redacting and providing only "relevant" information. This places the accused in a terrible position of not knowing WHO is accusing them, who is an alleged witness, etc.
Destroy Reputation, Finish Investigation Later:
Recommended Revision 1:
Lay out something short of an action that will destroy a person's reputation before there is a finding.
Recommended Revision 2:
Spell out that such drastic action will only be taken if the person constitutes a "clear and present danger" (or similar language).
Confidential Report: what does that mean?:
False Reporting
This is the only mention of "false reporting":
Recommended Revision:
"1. To be informed of the allegations against him or her in a manner that will provide the Respondent an opportunity to respond;" (italics added).
Does "in a manner" mean full and complete disclosure of the complaint, investigation report, testimony of witnesses, etc.? It suggests something less than full disclosure.
Later in the report (p. 8), the draft states the Associate Chancellor will protect "the privacy of the alleged victim and witnesses" (does that mean they will not be revealed to the accused?). Privacy and anonymity are two very different things. The former keeps the process private within the confines of the university, the latter prevents the accused from knowing WHO is accusing them and who is witnessing against them.
On p. 8 there is further discussion of "redacted reports, documents and other materials germane to the investigation." What will be redacted? This needs to be spelled out. If the names of the accuser, witnesses, etc. are redacted (the anonymity issue), then I am totally opposed to this illiberal proposal.
Disclosure to Third Parties:
"Any documents . . . shall not be disclosed to any third parties, unless required by law." Translation: creating a leak-proof university? This became an issue at SIUC when one person allegedly provided information to a lawyer who then took action against the university. Does the above language prevent either party from disclosing documents to legal counsel in preparation for possible legal action? Or is this the ultimate CYA or shield clause for the university to hide its dirty laundry?
The irony is rich: our campus, like so many others, has witnessed criticism of George W. Bush, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay procedures on the grounds that due process is lacking and the government shields itself from scrutiny. Yet here we are with procedures that bear an eerie resemblance to the Bush-era action.
Recommended Revision:
The accuser must provide a complaint (to investigators) with names, dates, and witnesses. Why not simply state that the respondent has "the right to know his/her accuser," and a right to read the charges against him/her in full? We will hear the usual feminist objections that accusers won't be forthcoming if they know the accused will know them and their charges. But this is serious business when a person's life is at stake. Sexual harassment can harm the accuser but it can also have terrible consequences for the accused. Again, the incentives are structured to create an uneven field between the accuser and the accused.
Rights of the Respondent: Privacy
"the privacy of the Respondent will be maintained." But what of those barred from campus? How can we square privacy with an action that clearly marks them with a Scarlet S (for sexual harasser)?
Public Reporting::
Investigators and Panelists (judges):
There are procedures to make up a pool of investigators and panelists from "constituency groups."
Recommended Revision:
Information personnel (sexual harassment advisers) are available to both sides and should not be eligible to investigate or serve as members of appeals panels. There is a conflict of interest between their role as impartial advisers and judges.
Before signing off, this post is more than "pissing in the wind." It often seems that the Harassment Establishment will engage in rituals nodding to due process while letting the substance dribble away in opaque "procedures." Those who criticize the status quo are labeled (with some accuracy) PITAs (Pains in the Ass).
I take comfort in that I have offered not only criticism but suggested improvements to the draft.
I also take comfort in what George Orwell, one of history's great PITAs, wrote:
Forget Miranda and all that "innocent before guilty" nonsense. Welcome to the wonderful new world of "Sexual Harassment Procedures." In the latest phase of obfuscating the rights of the accused, Southern Illinois University has produced a "Working Draft" entitled "Sexual Harassment Complaint and Investigation Procedures." Since this is "comment period," here are my criticisms of the Not-So-New Procedures. For a full history of the events leading up to this point, read the following provocative posts:
http://freesiu.blogspot.com/search/label/sexual%20harassment
The one by law professor Leonard Gross is relevant here.
The criticisms that follow apply not only to Southern Illinois University Carbondale but to many (most?) college campuses. Hence the need for groups like FIRE, NAS, and certain ACLU chapters.
Silver Lining in SIU Procedures Draft:
The SIUC draft streamlines the harassment procedures by channeling everything through an "Associate Chancellor." Got to give them credit for efficiency. This might help reduce the odds of double jeopardy.
Devilish Details:
Let us move on to find the "devil in the details." A rigorous analysis of the draft uncovers
*the "guilty before innocent" principle,The rights of the accuser are spelled out in great detail but when it comes to the accused ("Respondent") we find "not so much" information. If you accept the procedures at Guantanamo Bay, you'll love the approach taken here.
*extreme preemptive action,
*vagueness concerning the "rights of the accused."
The Procedures state that the accuser:
"should include as much relevant information as possible, such as the name of the alleged victim, the name of the individual who allegedly violated the Policy (hereinafter “Respondent”), and a factual description of the incident(s) (including dates, times, places, and the names of any witnesses)."This sounds good: full and complete information so that the accused might respond without being left in the dark, as has been documented in past horror cases at SIUC. But will this "full and complete" information be relayed in full to the accused? There are reasons to doubt anything has changed based on the following:
Verbal complaints allowed with no explanation of transcription process:
"Individuals are encouraged to make complaints in writing; however, written complaints are not required. Consistent with the University’s obligation to investigate complaints, and to the extent permitted by law, these records will be kept confidential."Recommended Revision 1:
The procedures need to clearly state WHO and HOW verbal complaints will be recorded. There are always problems with oral statements, particularly when they can be changed, the person can be "coached," etc. Does any one recall the Duke Lacrosse fiasco and the harm that did to Duke University? I recommend that all verbal complaints be taped (precedent for this with Judicial Affairs) and taken down in writing so that the accused may respond in his/her defense.
Recommended Revision 2:
Make clear that "confidential" does not mean "anonymous" accusations. Later in the document there is talk of redacting and providing only "relevant" information. This places the accused in a terrible position of not knowing WHO is accusing them, who is an alleged witness, etc.
Destroy Reputation, Finish Investigation Later:
"if the Associate Chancellor finds it necessary to ensure compliance with applicable laws and/or University policies, he or she . . . may place the Respondent [accused] on temporary paid administrative leave, or otherwise temporarily bar such individual from campus pending the investigation . . . ."Whoa! These preemptive strikes can devastate a person's reputation, even if the facts are later found to be "insufficient" (you are never declared "innocent," the facts are just "insufficient" to bear the charge!). Why do the Procedures jump to the "nuclear option" without offering milder, sensible alternatives such as a "restraining (or no-contact) order?" One reason, I suspect, is that a restraining order is impossible if the accused is kept in the dark as to WHO is accusing them!
Recommended Revision 1:
Lay out something short of an action that will destroy a person's reputation before there is a finding.
Recommended Revision 2:
Spell out that such drastic action will only be taken if the person constitutes a "clear and present danger" (or similar language).
Confidential Report: what does that mean?:
"Upon completion of the investigation, the investigator(s) shall prepare a confidential report of the findings and any recommendations, to the Associate Chancellor."Again, does confidential mean that this report will not be made available to the accused? As I recall, this issue came up in the John Y. Simon case and incidents on other campuses.
False Reporting
This is the only mention of "false reporting":
"disciplinary proceedings shall be conducted for violations of the Sexual Harassment Policy (including sexual harassment, retaliation, and false reporting)."No definition of "false," no recourse for the accused, no consequences for frivolous or false reports, no reasonableness standard. Nothing, nade, zip. Accuse all you want because these procedures give the accused no recourse. The feminist upholders of sexual harassment justice will assert that "false reports" are "rare" and of no concern. Surely, however, they do occur and these procedures, by providing no recourse, only encourage false reporting.
Recommended Revision:
Define false reporting, lay out procedures for the accused to file a countercomplaint.Rights of the Respondent:
"1. To be informed of the allegations against him or her in a manner that will provide the Respondent an opportunity to respond;" (italics added).
Does "in a manner" mean full and complete disclosure of the complaint, investigation report, testimony of witnesses, etc.? It suggests something less than full disclosure.
Later in the report (p. 8), the draft states the Associate Chancellor will protect "the privacy of the alleged victim and witnesses" (does that mean they will not be revealed to the accused?). Privacy and anonymity are two very different things. The former keeps the process private within the confines of the university, the latter prevents the accused from knowing WHO is accusing them and who is witnessing against them.
On p. 8 there is further discussion of "redacted reports, documents and other materials germane to the investigation." What will be redacted? This needs to be spelled out. If the names of the accuser, witnesses, etc. are redacted (the anonymity issue), then I am totally opposed to this illiberal proposal.
Disclosure to Third Parties:
"Any documents . . . shall not be disclosed to any third parties, unless required by law." Translation: creating a leak-proof university? This became an issue at SIUC when one person allegedly provided information to a lawyer who then took action against the university. Does the above language prevent either party from disclosing documents to legal counsel in preparation for possible legal action? Or is this the ultimate CYA or shield clause for the university to hide its dirty laundry?
The irony is rich: our campus, like so many others, has witnessed criticism of George W. Bush, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay procedures on the grounds that due process is lacking and the government shields itself from scrutiny. Yet here we are with procedures that bear an eerie resemblance to the Bush-era action.
Recommended Revision:
The accuser must provide a complaint (to investigators) with names, dates, and witnesses. Why not simply state that the respondent has "the right to know his/her accuser," and a right to read the charges against him/her in full? We will hear the usual feminist objections that accusers won't be forthcoming if they know the accused will know them and their charges. But this is serious business when a person's life is at stake. Sexual harassment can harm the accuser but it can also have terrible consequences for the accused. Again, the incentives are structured to create an uneven field between the accuser and the accused.
Rights of the Respondent: Privacy
"the privacy of the Respondent will be maintained." But what of those barred from campus? How can we square privacy with an action that clearly marks them with a Scarlet S (for sexual harasser)?
Public Reporting::
"The Associate Chancellor shall, at the end of each fiscal year, provide the number of complaints and the disposition of such complaints to the Chancellor and the offices of the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the Illinois Board of Higher Education, pursuant to State statute."Will this information be public record? If so, where would one find it? If not, why not?
Investigators and Panelists (judges):
There are procedures to make up a pool of investigators and panelists from "constituency groups."
Recommended Revision:
Information personnel (sexual harassment advisers) are available to both sides and should not be eligible to investigate or serve as members of appeals panels. There is a conflict of interest between their role as impartial advisers and judges.
Before signing off, this post is more than "pissing in the wind." It often seems that the Harassment Establishment will engage in rituals nodding to due process while letting the substance dribble away in opaque "procedures." Those who criticize the status quo are labeled (with some accuracy) PITAs (Pains in the Ass).
I take comfort in that I have offered not only criticism but suggested improvements to the draft.
I also take comfort in what George Orwell, one of history's great PITAs, wrote:
"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Military Blogs: The First Pages of History
A crosspost from my policy blog deals with military blogging, something I stumbled on while teaching online courses:
"Military Blogs: The First Pages of History."
"Military Blogs: The First Pages of History."
Monday, September 14, 2009
Low Graduation Rates: Are We Admitting Too Many Students?
Labor economist Richard Vedder has a provocative article discussing the waste and heartbreak associated with low graduation rates (my own university has a six-year graduation rate of 40% for incoming freshmen, not unusual and much higher than some other Illinois universities).
Vedder suggests that low graduation rates, coupled with underemployment of so many college graduates, translates into a society madly shoving students to go to college "or else" their lives will be miserable. Perhaps we need to rethink that proposition, not a popular one when colleges are desperately trying to scoop up any warm bodies to "stay alive" during these hard times.
Vedder suggests that low graduation rates, coupled with underemployment of so many college graduates, translates into a society madly shoving students to go to college "or else" their lives will be miserable. Perhaps we need to rethink that proposition, not a popular one when colleges are desperately trying to scoop up any warm bodies to "stay alive" during these hard times.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
"Sustainability is a Waste: 10 Reasons to Oppose the Sustainability Movement on Your Campus"
The above link relates to issues I raised with the Sustainability Scam back in November 2008. See also "Plants Have Rights Too!"
Even in hard times, gullible people are willing to give up their money and their freedom to a radical movement that is "anti-rational." Let's stop the waste of money on "third circle" projects (see my link above) and devote it to students, books and learning.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Mohammad and Man at Yale: Burning Books (One Cartoon at a Time)
“Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book,” by Patricia Cohen (New York Times, August 12, 2009)
In 1951, Bill Buckley published God and Man at Yale, a polemic arguing that the Christian God was no longer welcome at Yale University, a school founded to train Christian ministers and educate students about their Christian faith. That was too "biased" even in 1951.
58 years later, Yale University Press decides that they do respect religion -- the most biased, intolerant expressions of it. If Islam is a "religion of peace" and wisdom and tolerance, Western "progressives" are acting as if it were not. That is cowardly, yes, but also condescending, insulting to thinking Muslims, and suicidal to the academic enterprise.
[For those who are interested, Google "Danish Mohammed Cartoons" without the quotes and -- voila! -- the veiled is visible]
Book burnings horrify civil libertarians but this precensorship is far worse. Know-nothing book burners may burn a single book but copies of it remain and the ideas live on. Academic precensorship makes sure that the book the author wishes to write never sees the light of day.
What's next? Pre-clearance of academic monographs by Grand Ayatollahs?
I am sure Islamofascists would be offended by the photographs of Ms. Krausen without a hajib. We won't even mention the fashion spreads in the New York Times Magazine.
Or all the Jewish writers at the Times.
But perhaps Yale is right. The Wise and Wonderful Ayatollah Khomeini said
(Apologies to chickens)
In 1951, Bill Buckley published God and Man at Yale, a polemic arguing that the Christian God was no longer welcome at Yale University, a school founded to train Christian ministers and educate students about their Christian faith. That was too "biased" even in 1951.
58 years later, Yale University Press decides that they do respect religion -- the most biased, intolerant expressions of it. If Islam is a "religion of peace" and wisdom and tolerance, Western "progressives" are acting as if it were not. That is cowardly, yes, but also condescending, insulting to thinking Muslims, and suicidal to the academic enterprise.
[For those who are interested, Google "Danish Mohammed Cartoons" without the quotes and -- voila! -- the veiled is visible]
Book burnings horrify civil libertarians but this precensorship is far worse. Know-nothing book burners may burn a single book but copies of it remain and the ideas live on. Academic precensorship makes sure that the book the author wishes to write never sees the light of day.
What's next? Pre-clearance of academic monographs by Grand Ayatollahs?
I am sure Islamofascists would be offended by the photographs of Ms. Krausen without a hajib. We won't even mention the fashion spreads in the New York Times Magazine.
Or all the Jewish writers at the Times.
But perhaps Yale is right. The Wise and Wonderful Ayatollah Khomeini said
We are not afraid of economic sanctions or military intervention. What we are afraid of is Western universitiesWith another demonstration of chicken-sh** cowardice, Western universities have demonstrated that when it comes to Islamic threats, their only position is "prone."
(Apologies to chickens)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
