That is: A federal government mandate forcing schools to make kids exercise for 60 minutes a day. Because, y'know, obesity is a nationwide problem that requires government to step in.
In his report, [NBC's Robert] Bazell proceeded to detail the dictates of the health panel: "...requiring at least 60 minutes a day of physical activity in schools. Public and workplace policies that encourage people of all ages to exercise more. Industry-wide guidelines on marketing food to children, including healthier choices for kids in restaurants and having healthy food available at all public events."
It's bad enough we have kids testing left and right due to suffocating federal mandates; now we're magically going to make kids engage in physical activity for an hour during the school day. The thing is, this isn't too much of an issue for a lot of kids already, being that many are involved in sports activities. But for those kids who perpetually refuse to even get dressed for gym class by merely bringing in a parent note? How will these lofty "health advocates" work their way around that? And will phys ed teachers now be evaluated on how fit their students are?
*Sigh*
UPDATE: Ed Driscoll offers NBC some advice:
NBC itself is in a perfect position to do so, by refusing all advertising from beer manufacturers, fast-food retailers and junk food purveyors. Not to mention banning coverage of sporting events where these products are sold by concessionaires. Think they’ll do so?
For this week's non-Council article for the Watcher's Council vote I submitted "Don't Pick Up" by the Chronicle of Higher Education. This was before I read about the news that the publication axed one of its writers for, among other things, "causing distress" to some readers for daring to opine about the apparent mediocre academic aspects of Black Studies dissertations.
Here's how the Chronicle's editor, Liz McMillen, rationalized the firing:
We now agree that Ms. Riley's blog posting did not meet The Chronicle's basic editorial standards for reporting and fairness in opinion articles. . . .Brainstorm writers were able to post independently; Ms. Riley's post was not reviewed until after it was posted. . . .
In addition, my Editor's Note last week inviting you to debate the posting also seemed to elevate it to the level of informed opinion, which it was not. . . .
I sincerely apologize for the distress these incidents have caused our readers and appreciate that so many of you have made your sentiments known to us.
By saying "we now agree ..." McMillen essentially admits that she buckled under to the complaints of the perpetually aggrieved -- usually academic "diversophiles" who, like Elizabeth Warren, view all of society through the lens of gender, ethnicity, and especially race. But most disturbing is the last sentence -- that McMillen feels the need to apologize for any "distress" the article may have caused anyone. Now, I wonder -- would the Chronicle have acted similarly if one of its writers opined positively about hackish programs such as these? Cheeyeah, don't bet on it. And just look at the titles of the dissertation titles that the fired Chronicle writer in question, Naomi Schaefer Riley, highlighted:
One is titled " 'So I Could Be Easeful': Black Women's Authoritative Knowledge on Childbirth." Another is a denunciation of blacks who deviate from the leftist party line: "conservatives like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, John McWhorter, and others," in the words of the Chronicle's report. (We know McWhorter and would describe him as a man of the center left.) A third argues that "the subprime lending crisis . . . highlighted the profitability of racism in the housing market."
I wonder if the Chronicle would fire these dissertation writers (especially the latter two) for their distress-inducing screeds if they were employed by the publication.
Of course, I support the right of a private entity to hire or fire whomever they choose. However, higher education is supposed to be about a free exchange of ideas -- not an exchange of ideas that are "distress-free." If that were the standard, then the vast majority of humanities professors' jobs might be in jeopardy because their political views could cause "distress" to a majority of their captive student body. That is, if "progressive" higher education used a thing called "consistency." But as we all know very well by now, only ideas that cause "distress" to "historically aggrieved/oppressed" groups are subject to scrutiny and censorship.
Delaware's new incoming secretary of education has a whole three years teaching experience ... in phys. ed.
Three. Years. And he's gonna be in charge of education. For the whole state.
I don't know if the word "unbelievable" is adequate enough.
This is what contemporary teachers have to deal with:
Caught copying another student’s homework, a California sophomore was kicked out of honors English. His parents admit he cheated, violating the Academic Honesty Pledge he’d signed at the start of the year. But the cheater’s parents are suing, claiming the teen’s due process rights were violated, reports the San Jose Mercury News. The boy’s father, Jack Berghouse, said the punishment is too severe and could make it harder for his son to get into a top college.The school offered to let the boy enter the International Baccalaureate program in 11th and 12th grade with others in the honors track and to keep the cheating incident off his transcript. But that wasn’t enough for the parents.
Teachers who primarily teach low SES (socioeconomic status) students have to deal with constant unpreparedness, apathy, and disconnected parents. Teachers who teach high SES students have to deal with constant unpreparedness, apathy ... and parents like these. Both types of students have shocking degrees of sense of entitlement, for [obviously] different reasons.
And the public then often wonders about school discipline, values, and standards?
But, there is hope, to be sure. I recently caught two [very nice and smart] students copying off one another. School policy dictates a "zero" be given in such an instance. However, given that the students admitted to their error (without attitude, too), are historically excellent students, and were quite apologetic about it all, I merely gave them a sizable point deduction on the assignment. When the mom of one of the kids got my e-mail about the incident, she 1) thanked me for the note and for my generosity, 2) said she gave a stern reprimand to her son, and 3) told me she wouldn't have been as generous as I in that situation!
I still always try to live by a motto of the principal who first hired me, lo those many years ago: Have rules with a human face.
The deputy director of organizing for the AFT -- the American Federation of Teachers -- is named Shaun Richman. Now, just imagine if his credentials were the complete "opposite":
Richman’s previous organizing experience? The Socialist Party-USA. In 2001 he was quoted discussing the party’s plans to run candidates for office and in 2005, he was running the party’s national convention. In 2006, he was producing the party’s magazine. He’s a socialist true believer.So he’s a socialist – what radical union staffer isn’t, right? But it gets much worse. He’s also an apologist for Osama bin Laden. In a 2008 article, CNSNews.comreported:
“The Socialist Party-USA does not believe that bin Laden is responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.
“’I refuse to believe that Osama bin Laden...is behind all of these things he's been accused of,’ said Shaun Richman, the co-vice national chairman of the Socialist Party USA.”
To top it off, this socialist makes just under a cool $213,000 a year in salary.
And unions wonder why they get grief??
We need "studies" to figure this stuff out, folks. From Delaware's own News Journal: Parent provide key to student success.
School changes lyrics from 'God Bless the USA' to 'We love the USA'
Via the Daily Caller: College Democrats invite Louis Farrakhan to speak in Alabama.
Do I really have to explain just how ludicrous this is?? Perhaps I do, though, to Kris Taylor:
Kris Taylor, who leads the poetry club, predicted that there’s “going to be positive energy coming from this.” “I don’t believe he’s going to come here and bash the Jews,” Taylor said.
Farrakhan's history, however, proves otherwise, Ms. Taylor.
Now, envision the College Republicans inviting David Duke and someone like Taylor saying there's “going to be positive energy coming from this; I don’t believe he’s going to come here and bash blacks.”
A Virginia middle school teacher has his students do opposition research on the GOP presidential candidates and to find weaknesses in their positions ... which they'll then send on to President Obama:
The assignment was for students to research the backgrounds and positions of each of the GOP candidates for president and find “weaknesses” in them, the parent explained. From there, students were to prepare a strategy paper to exploit those weaknesses and then to send their suggestions to the Obama campaign.Liberty teacher Michael Denman, who declined to comment, unveiled the assignment in mid-January when he broke the Civics Honor’s class into four groups, one for each Republican candidate. The students were then to collaborate as a group and research the backgrounds of their assigned candidate.
Denman assigned two kids to write a paper revealing the identified “weaknesses,” two to write the attack strategy paper and two others to locate an individual inside the Obama campaign to whom they could send the information.
No similar assignment was given to research Obama’s history, identify his weaknesses or pass them along to the Republican candidates.
I'm a trained social sciences teacher and nothing infuriates me more than reading about stuff like this. I don't care what your own beliefs and biases are; what right do you have to indoctrinate students to those beliefs? Your job is allow students to examine both (or more) sides of an issue, no matter how much it may pain you to do so.
Kevin Williamson goes after Rochester, NY school superintendent Bolgen Vargas for an incident last week whereby a 13 year old student echoed the sentiments of Frederick Douglass
Mr. Vargas is fortunate enough to have in his charge one Jada Williams, a 13-year-old eighth grader who voluntarily took on some difficult extra work: reading Frederick Douglass’s Narrative of the Life and writing an essay on the subject. Frederick Douglass is dangerous reading, truly "radical" stuff. Miss Williams, like most of the students in her dysfunctional school, is black. Most of the people being paid to go through the motions of teaching them are white. Coming across the famous passage in which Douglass quotes the slavemaster Auld, Miss Williams was startled by the words: “If you teach that nigger (speaking of myself) how to read, there will be no keeping him. It will forever unfit him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master.” The situation seemed to her familiar, and her essay was a blistering indictment of the failures of the largely white faculty of her school: “When I find myself sitting in a crowded classroom where no real instruction is taking place I can say history does repeat itself.”
Williamson is spot-on in his criticism of Vargas because the reaction that followed in inexcusable: The teacher who received Williams' essay made copies of it and shared it with other faculty and administration. Williams shortly thereafter began to receive grades of "D" where she had previously been a straight-A student. Her mother got harassing phone calls from teachers. This is most certainly one big "WTF??" Williams had to leave the school and enroll in another.
But my gut instinct tells me that a lot on the right are jumping on this incident merely as a means to go after public schooling, teachers unions and Democrats in general, though this is short-sighted in many respects. The latter, of course, does hold a disproportionate amount of influence over the former two. But if such was written by a student in another arena -- one not controlled by liberals/Democrats -- would the Right be so vociferous in this student's defense? I tend to doubt it. Most of the time the Right [usually correctly] criticizes the quick use of the racism card when it comes to such matters. But if, say, Ms. Williams attended an affluent suburban school and used Douglass' essay to lament the lack of teaching African-American history as a component of an overall US history course? Would the Right then be as quick to take up her cause?
Again, since the Left does control so much of [inner-city] public schooling, they do share a disporportionate amount of blame for the state of these schools. But I wouldn't be so hasty to blame teachers for "not teaching" these children; I would place more blame on [liberal] administrators, politicians and like-minded teachers who believe the rights of chronically disruptive children are just as important as those of children like Ms Williams. That's the real problem with such schools -- teaching cannot occur if classrooms are too frequently zones of chaos. Teachers are told by administrators not to send kids out of class, and administrators want to keep school discipline figures down. So, it becomes a vicious circle whereby the misfits get away with [everything short of] murder. Young Ms. Williams, bless her, is very probably blissfully unaware about what really transpires in the school hierarchy ... and how "the game is played." Thus, she blames the only thing she deals with everyday: her teachers.
I read this report at several other sites (like this one) before happening upon Robert VerBruggen's piece at The Corner. He references the NY Times coverage of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights report on <"harsher" school discipline meted out to minority students. As you might expect (especially from the current Education Dept.), racism is heavily implied, whereas there is absolutely no mention of the possibility that minority students actually commit more [school] suspendable offenses than white students. (Asian students, by the way, aren't even mentioned as they frequently are not, mainly because they 1) do better academically than whites, and 2) are a minority that doesn't get into trouble a whole lot in school, making the "case" the Ed. Dept. wishes to make just a bit tougher.)
As VerBruggen writes,
Most liberals know that not all racial gaps are attributable to racism. At any rate, they should know this if they’re paying any attention to the facts; for example, scholars Glenn Loury and Bruce Western have conceded that the black-white gap in incarceration rates largely results from the fact that blacks break the law more than whites. Heather Mac Donald has made the case at length, which is almost a waste of her considerable talents, because the evidence is so overwhelming it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.Yet we see this ridiculous spectacle in the Times: a story that reports the fact that black students are more likely to be disciplined in school, quotes some lefty sources about how this is a “civil rights” issue, and doesn’t even mention the possibility that black students might misbehave more.
Liberals always claim we need to have an open conversation about race in this country, but ignoring the reality of racial differences in behavior does nothing to move that conversation along.
We've long discussed the oxymoron that "brave" conversations about race are, whether they're called "Courageous Conversations," "Difficult Dialogues," or whatever. They're only "brave" insofar as whites must accept the blame for any and all racial disparities. There can be no other explanation permitted (and "Courageous Conversations" says this outright). Sorry, but if this is the case, then nothing will ever get solved.
But liberals will feel good about themselves. That's for sure.
Perpetually aggrieved Delawarean Jea Street -- a member of the Delaware Black Caucus -- is miffed that the state's "Race to the Top" education reforms aren't leading to "greater equality":
"The new millennium term is 'charter school' and 'choice school.' I call it segregation," he said. "There are black charter schools and there are predominantly white charter schools. You can call it what you want, but it is what it is."
*Sigh* Street really likes the term "new millenium [racism]," and he always views things through a racial lens. And only an anachronism like a "Black Caucus" can claim that "Delaware's modern education policies like school choice still retain an air of segregation." Um ... aren't liberals supposed to be about choice? Yeah, yeah, I know, as long it's the "right kind" of choice. Choices that people make freely -- even black people!! -- that may lead to some disparity in some progressive-desired racial "balance," are ridiculously compared to pre-Brown v. Board of Education.
Get. A. Grip. On. Reality. For. Heaven's. Sake.
Oh, and Jea? "Race to the Top" is a Barack Obama idea. He happens to be a black guy. Or, perhaps you don't consider him "authentically black?" (Another favorite progressive epithet.)
School counselor gets kids class credit for volunteering to work on Obama's re-election campaign. Now, as I read through this, I kept waiting to see if volunteering for Obama's campaign was just one choice -- like, could a kid volunteer for the GOP candidate's campaign?
"Sure," the counselor says. But "no students have asked her about that."
Well gee, why might that be? Could it be because this counselor has suggested herself that kids work for the Obama camp? (She admits she has.) How comfortable would a student be asking an outspoken advocate for one side ... about working for the other side?
Not very, I'd wager.
Via Insty: Europe doesn't have anything like it, and as such has to deal with crap like this:
The mother of a seven-year-old boy was told to sign a school form admitting he was racist after he asked another pupil about the colour of his skin.Elliott Dearlove had asked a five-year-old boy in the playground whether he was ‘brown because he was from Africa’.
His mother, Hayley White, 29, said she received a phone call last month to say her son had been at the centre of a ‘racist incident’.
This would be bad enough if adults were involved; this kid is seven. Unbelievably, the incident will undergo "further investigation."
Remember, too, this sort of nonsense would result if people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg get their way. Many "progressives" feel that our First Amendment is a huge impediment to "social justice;" y'know, like being able to "eradicate" racism by branding children as "racists" for innocent interrogatives.
Oh, that's right -- too busy worried about spontaneous student-led prayers and defending the loafers in the Occupy movement. But no word regarding where they are in this:
A Colorado high school student quit the school choir after an Islamic song containing the lyric “there is no other truth except Allah” found its way into the chorus.James Harper, a senior at Grand Junction High School in Grand Junction, put his objection to singing “Zikr,” a song written by Indian composer A.R. Rahman, in an email to Mesa County School District 51 officials.
“I don’t want to come across as a bigot or a racist, but I really don’t feel it is appropriate for students in a public high school to be singing an Islamic worship song,” Harper told KREX-TV. “This is worshipping another God, and even worshipping another prophet … I think there would be a lot of outrage if we made a Muslim choir say Jesus Christ is the only truth.”
He's certainly correct about that last part!
Hey, I agree with the district that a religious theme in songs is perfectly fine (the Christmas and Hanukkah season, for example); however, lyrics that promote the supposed truth of one religion over another certainly appear to be crossing the line. And, as noted, it should be something so-called "progressive" organizations should be all over like flies on you-know-what. So ... why aren't they?
I know. It's the 'ol "What the hell do we do when two competing politically correct idelogies conflict?" scenario. First , there's the obvious church vs. state issue, but then there's the PC promotion/protection of an "aggrieved" minority ingrained in their dogma which is combatting the first "progressive" tenet. What to do??
UPDATE: One important aspect of this story that is important (and one which I perhaps glossed over too much) is that the choir in question is an after-school activity. This makes quite a bit of difference in contrast to a choir class that would take place during the school day. Being an after-school activity is purely voluntary, and indeed allows for more leeway when it comes to the use of religiously themed songs and lessons. So, not only does Harper have the absolute right to NOT join this choir, the choir does have more latitude in utilizing religious material. This doesn't change my main assertion that it is surprising groups like the ACLU haven't joined the fray on this when it has done so in (perhaps) less controversial instances. Like here. Or here.
You've probably already read about this: A "state" food inspector deemed a North Carolina pre-schooler's home-packed lunch "inadequate," and made the little girl eat an "approved" school lunch of chicken nuggets instead. Worse, the school sent a bill to the girl's mom for the nuggets!!
Are you freakin' kidding me? I'd send back that bill with an attached digital photo -- that of my middle finger. Also attached would be a request for the school/state to demonstrate exactly how a lunch of chicken nuggets is "better" than a packed lunch consisting of a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice, and potato chips.
A family in the Acton-Boxborough School District near Boston is suing said district to get the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance:
The Plaintiffs are named as Jane and John Doe out of concern for what they call “public hostility.” Their children are listed as ages 13, 11, and 9.David Niose, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, describes the family as atheists and humanists. They say the children don’t have a problem reciting the pledge [sic], just the phrase, “under God.”
Niose told FOX 25’s Sharman Sacchetti, “Every day these kids go to school and the pledge is recited declaring that the nation is in fact under God. That marginalizes them and suggests that people who don’t believe in God are less patriotic.”
Since it was decided LONG ago that NO ONE is required to recite the Pledge, Mr. and Mrs. Doe aren't really concerned for the kids' "marginalization." They want to make a point, such that it is. And with cash-strapped school districts (Acton-Boxborough has alerady spent $10K in legal fees on this) scraping for every penny these days, many will simply settle -- ie, cave in -- when idiots like these parents bring suit.
Here's my very simple question: If the children "don't have a problem reciting the Pledge," then why don't they just omit the words "under God" when saying it? Who would know? Kids barely mumble the Pledge at the beginning of the day anyway; it's not as if anyone would notice. Superintendent Stephen Mills says
“This business that they’re marginalizing students. They’re absolutely no recriminations; no negative consequences against a child that chooses not to say the pledge or in this particular case the words ‘under God.’”
Yep. And attorney Eric Rassbach adds, “They’re not asking for the right to opt out. They have that right. They admit that they’re trying to get other people to shut up.”
Watch this video and scratch your head:
Some are using this to go after teachers unions. I suppose that's understandable; when we have idiots like this in our profession -- who believe it's their mission to indoctrinate kids instead of educating them, and allowing them to be critical thinkers -- well geez. But allow me another explanation (or two. Or three):
[Some] Teachers who really want to hold their students academically accountable can sometimes find "opposition" on two fronts: 1) their administration, and 2) parents. Administration: "Why are your students' grades so low?" Parents: "How can Johnny be failing your class?" Administrators want the "numbers" to look good, and parents (obviously) want their kids' grades to be good, even when they don't actually deserve it. If you were a teacher and faced these ... "obstacles," what would you do? If you're human (and if you're reading this I assume you are), you'd probably want to keep your employment, hence you'd "adjust" some of your methods and/or grading. Granted, this is not a blanket "indictment," so to speak ... many good teachers would battle through these obstacles, and there are many admins and parents who support high standards and sticking to them.
In addition, let me offer another tidbit: Kids today have so many more things to occupy their attention than ever before. The Internet. Facebook. Twitter. Cell phones/texting. YouTube. In my school years we had the [rotary] telephone and ... TV (sans cable). We went outside to play -- football, wiffleball, army, "I-Spy," even basic tag ... the only time we remained inside was when it was raining. In "down" times (and when nature called!) I'd grab an encyclopedia or one of those Time-Life books that my parents bought for my sisters and I. I've always had a thirst for general, abstract knowledge. (Ironically, a week ago, a current student of mine in the middle of class said, "Mr. So-and-So said you're that pretty smart -- that when you pop into his class and he has his [science] students ask you questions, you usually always know the answers." I replied, "Really? That was nice of him ... perhaps I get the correct answers because I just like to know things. Don't you like learning new things -- y'know, knowledge just for knowledge's sake?" His retort? "Nah, not really.")
So where am I going with this? I suppose it's to say that it's easy to bash teachers for videos like this ... but it's just that: easy. Keep in mind that there are a lot of conservatives in teachers' unions, and that many, many teachers (regardless of politics) do not always share the unions' official stances on matters. In addition, there are myriad factors within and without schools that affect educational progress (or lack thereof).
That's all. ;-)
An ... "interesting" article in today's Philly.com which could be classified as just another peon who is fairly clueless about what your average public school teacher does and goes through. Author Jason Kaye is described as a "writer and student advocate."
If you've read a even a little of this blog, you know I'm not a big fan of unions, even the teachers unions, when they act ridiculously and make outrageous demands. Kaye mentions that, but really -- it's old hat by now. And he goes beyond that. He wants teachers to stay after school, show up at night and even on weekends to accommodate the "parents [who] have no choice but to work two or three jobs."
Did he ever stop to consider that public school teachers themselves may need to work a second (and third) job? I know plenty who do. Then, Kaye goes on to compare -- ready? -- the hours put in by "the majority of employees with salaried positions at top-tier corporations (typically 60-80-hour workweeks)" and, yep, teachers ("works an average of 36.5 hours per week when school is in session"). You may be thinking that, "So what? Corporate types earn a ton more than teachers." But don't worry -- Kaye notes that teachers "get a very generous vacation package compared with other employees who work in the private sector, including summers off and holidays and school breaks ... throughout the year, teachers generally receive 10-12 weeks off ..." What Kaye conveniently omits here are the MANY hours that teachers put in on their own time at home (and, which I'm certain corporate types do too in those 60-80 work weeks). Ask a teacher of a major academic subject how much time they spend grading assignments and exams at home. If the teacher ain't a total lemon, you may be astounded at the figure you hear. And, again, many teachers work second jobs during those summer months.
I've just one question for people like Kaye: Were American teachers really a lot better 20, 30, 40 years ago? Because he concludes:
Other than parents, who is exclusively representing the interests of the children within the institution of public education? Because in the United States, clearly, teachers unions care more about teachers' rights than students' rights. The evidence is the abundance of failing schools across this great nation. America can do better, and many teachers need to stop coming up with excuses why they cannot produce better results in the classroom.
Personally, I'd amend that bit about the unions to say "some in the teachers unions care more about teachers' rights than students' rights." But to blame teachers (and their unions) exclusively for failing schools is preposterous in the extreme. Remember this cartoon we posted back in October? That doesn't have anything to do with failing schools? The ridiculous (and appalling) decline in basic discipline in schools has nothing to do with failing schools? Administrators who fail to enforce basic discipline has nothing to do with failing schools? Ask any teacher or person in the general public (check out the reader comments in response to Kaye's article) what they'd like to see improved MOST in schools. I'd wager the most popular response would be discipline. Teachers cannot teach if classroom discipline is not enforced (at all levels). Period.
As we noted back in November, former Philly schools chief Arlene Ackerman unbelievably filed for unemplyment compensation after getting axed by the city. Her severance package was worth almost $1 million ... but she filed for unemployment. However, we also noted that it appeared the state had the right to deny her claim.
Wellllll ... it seems that's exactly what the state has done. Couldn't happen to a "nicer" lady.
Photo of sleeping Mustang substitute teacher investigated is a headline today at The Oklahoman. Yep -- a 9th grade student snapped a pic of a sleeping substitute teacher with a cell phone camera ... and was then suspended. Why? Cell phones, while permitted on campus, aren't allowed to be taken in class. Not to mention that the kid promptly posted the pic on a social media site.
What do 'ya think about this? My first principal (whom I worked for) had a saying -- "Rules with a human face." The result of this student's actions was a positive: He showed that the school had hired a lemon substitute teacher whose actions endangered a whole class of kids. The kid's principal has, according to the article, discretion on what disciplinary action to take against the photographer. Is suspension a little too harsh? If this kid's past discipline record is unblemished, I believe it is. If it's not, it's probably justified. What I would have done was go to the administration with the pic, and said, "Hey -- look at what we had to deal with in class today. I know I'm not supposed to take out my cell phone in class, but these were unusual circumstances." I doubt there would have been any consequences in doing that.
The Messiah last night in his State of the Union Address:
I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: that government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more. That’s why my education reform offers more competition, and more control for schools and states. That’s why we’re getting rid of regulations that don’t work.
While it is accurate to say that Obama has been friendly to school choice and charter schools, how can he with a straight face say that he's offering "more control for schools and states?" Here in the First State, his Race to the Top monies have come with innumerable strings attached, from the same mandated tests statewide, to the same teacher evaluation system ... again, statewide. There's very little, if any, school (local) control anymore. The state DOE, if anything, is running things more and more rather than the individual districts. Which, unfortunately, means the vast majority of Race to the Top funds have done nothing but expand another bureauacracy.
That is, until you provide a balanced lesson plan. Check out this lesson ... "plan" via the NY Times' "The Learning Notebook":
Overview | What does income inequality say about contemporary American society? What should be done to address income inequality? In this lesson, students examine Times infographics about income and wealth distribution in the United States and discuss what this information says about society.Related | Paul Krugman’s column “How Fares the Dream?” examines income inequality in the United States:
If King could see America now, I believe that he would be disappointed, and feel that his work was nowhere near done. He dreamed of a nation in which his children “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” But what we actually became is a nation that judges people not by the color of their skin — or at least not as much as in the past — but by the size of their paychecks. And in America, more than in most other wealthy nations, the size of your paycheck is strongly correlated with the size of your father’s paycheck.
Read the entire article with your class, using the questions below.
Questions | For discussion and reading comprehension:
- In what ways does Mr. Krugman believe that America has made progress since Dr. King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech?
- Why does Mr. Krugman believe that Dr. King would be disappointed in America today? Do you agree or disagree?
- What does Mr. Krugman mean when he says that “there are racial implications to the ways that our incomes have been pulling apart”?
- What phenomenon happened around 1980 that Mr. Krugman describes using the metaphor of a ladder?
- Do you agree or disagree with Mr. Krugman that income inequality should be discussed loudly and openly in American society?
I particularly like how Krugman claims Dr. King would be "disappointed," even though King actually addressed race and racism in his quote, and not income differences. Nice bait and switch there. Nevertheless, this goes to the very core of what ails American [humanities] education today: that progressives see absolutely nothing wrong with presenting a blatantly one-sided lesson like this in a civics class. I can think of several "counter" questions to use as discussion follow-ups; for example,
Thankfully, it appears many agree with me. Just scan through the comments at the end of the lesson "plan."
You're OVERPAID.
Please return the overage to Delaware's Treasury.
Thanks,
Concerned Taxpayer.
Back on the 3rd we wondered if third graders really wrote such lyrics. It seemed pretty incredible. Well, it turns out it wasn't so incredible:
The director of a children’s music program has admitted to steering a third grade class toward singing Occupy Wall Street-themed lyrics during a songwriting session at a Virginia elementary school.According to its website, Kid Pan Alley “uses the group songwriting process to inspire and empower children to become creators of their own music.”
That changed this week, when the founder and director of Kid Pan Alley, Paul Reisler, took responsibility for the lyrics and said he should have avoided certain phrases to keep the song neutral.
Who'da figured, eh?
Soccer Dad sends word of a Weekly Standard article which notes that President Obama's pet education project, Race to the Top, has been a dismal failure:
Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Education issued first-year progress reports for 12 states that received $4 billion in federal funds through an Obama administration pet project, Race to the Top. Not one had followed through on the promises they’d made to secure these grants. For three states — New York, Hawaii, and Florida — their progress was so lax Education Secretary Arne Duncan threatened yesterday to pull their grant money if not accelerated soon.
Our own First State, Delaware, gets a needed mentioned too (being that we were one of the first recipients of the RTTT monies). It notes that state teachers "complained federal mandates created a third of their paperwork" ... while RTTT was "contributing a tenth of their funding." And this ratio is actually better than the national average!
Ugh. C'mon, people -- education has historically been a state and local function. The sooner it reverts to this idea, the better.
For great local education reporting laced with snarky commentary (including a ton about the silly Race to the Top), be sure to pop over to Kilroy's place.
Via Right on the Left Coast: Colorado Student Banned from Yearbook Over Racy Photo.
A Colorado teenager whose yearbook picture was rejected for being too revealing is vowing to fight the ban with her high school’s administration, but the editors of the yearbook insist it was their decision alone on the photo.The five student editors of the Durango High School yearbook in Durango, Col., told the Durango Herald they were the ones who made the call not to publish a picture of senior Sydney Spies posing in a short yellow skirt midriff and shoulder-exposing black shawl as her senior portrait.
“We are an award-winning yearbook. We don’t want to diminish the quality with something that can be seen as unprofessional,” student Brian Jaramillo told the paper on Thursday.
The girl's provocative attire violates the school's dress code, too, which, if the school wants to maintain any credibility along those lines, it's proper to disallow the photo. But here's the part that really gets me:
Spies was joined by her mother, Miki Spies, and a handful of fellow Durango High students and alumni in a protest outside the school Wednesday after, she said, administrators informed her the photo would not be permitted because it violated dress code.
Look at the photo. And the mom is out protesting that it should be allowed? Call me ridiculously old fashioned but if I saw that pic and was informed that it was the one my daughter wanted in the yearbook, I'd be protesting too -- to my daughter ... telling her "What the HELL were you thinking???"
Nice job, "mom." Cripes.
Two disturbing incidents to bring forth today in the realm of education. First, a six year-old with a broken leg who tripped and fell on a playground at a school in Skokie, IL was told to "crawl back to the school":
“His teacher told him, ‘You’re a big boy — I can’t carry you,’” the boy’s mother, Priya Chandani, said Wednesday, “She told him to walk back, but his leg was broken so he fell again and then had to crawl at least 200-300 feet back to the school building.
As a teacher I presume there's another side of the story; nevertheless, it's almost incomprehensible that this poor kid didn't get any sort of assistance.
Closer to home, the New Media Technology Charter School in Philly is dealing with a situation of a teacher who clearly took his position of authority way too far:
School District Asks About Teacher Rant Tape: MyFoxPHILLY.com
The school is supposed to "offer a culturally affirming education to its 481 students." Based on this, some multiculti types would probably argue that this teacher actually did nothing inappropriate. At any rate, there's no definitive word on the current status of this teacher.
Hans Bader details the politically correct ugliness at Widener University after a law prof used a ... "bad" example in class.
Elsewhere, Greg at Rhymes With Right ponders whether should schools be promoting -- and teachers be providing recommendations for -- scholarships that exclude students based on race.
Did eight-year olds write the following lyrics?
Some people have it all
But they still don’t think they have enough
They want more money
A faster ride
They’re not content
Never satisfied Yes — they’re the 1 percentI used to be one of the 1 percent
I worked all the time
Never saw my family
Couldn’t make life rhyme
Then the bubble burst
It really, really hurt
I lost my money
Lost my pride
Lost my home
Now I’m part of the 99Some people have it all
But they still don’t think they have enough
They want more money
A faster ride
They’re not content
Never satisfied
Yes — they’re the 1 percentI used to be sad, now I’m satisfied
’Cause I really have enough
Though I lost my yacht and plane
Didn’t need that extra stuff
Could have been much worse
You don’t need to be first
’Cause I’ve got my friends
Here by my side
Don’t need it all
I’m so happy to be part of the 99
A Virginia elementary school is claiming they did -- and then was performed by them. Kid Pan Alley, which sponsored the program, expressed some concern over the content -- which is supposed to be free of any political or personal agendas:
“Last November, when the Kid Pan Alley Board of Directors was made aware of the song in question, we took swift action to clarify our guidelines for lyrical content,” the statement read.
School spokesman Phil Giaramita said, “We really don’t censor the topics that students come up with." To which (correctly) a commenter on the article replied, "Oh really? Let's just put 'Jesus' and 'God' in there and see what happens!"
Courtesy of The College Fix. My personal fave:
10). UC Berkeley chancellor blames Tucson shooting on those who oppose the Dream Act. Even as liberal pundits were drawing imaginary arrows between Sarah Palin-supporting Tea Partiers and apolitical killer Jared Lee Loughner, Berkeley’s chancellor found an even more absurd group to blame for the Tucson shooting: anyone who didn’t support tuition breaks for illegal immigrants.
Saw this professor's curriculum vitae via Phi Beta Cons, and sadly, nothing so embodies the contemporary politically correct academy -- and useless studies -- more:
Her research and scholarship diverge from and call into question the universalistic view of science. This perspective of science includes beliefs that the validity of a scientific account is objective and resides in the physical world itself; factors like power, culture, race, gender and ethnicity of the participants involved in and learners of science are irrelevant. In addition to investigating learning contexts with respect to culture and race, she employs constructs and findings from research on the education of Blacks. Specifically, she introduced a comprehensive framework that synthesizes and adds to the theoretical models used by a small cadre of science education researchers interested in the influences of social context upon the science educative experiences of groups marginalized in science.
In other words (since educationists absolutely love edu-jargon), she calls into question the basic objectivity of the scientific method and believes that science depends on the "context" by which it is derived -- the aforementioned "power, culture, race, gender and ethnicity." Somehow, apparently, something like the mass of an electron may vary depending on one's "cultural/racial perspective" ... and Einstein's Theory of Relativity is "oppressive" because it was conceived of by a[n] old, white male. (Einstein being Jewish doesn't matter for, like contemporary Asians, they're not considered "minorities" by the academy.)
This woman, besides being a complete and total a-hole, really thinks we're stupid:
"I'm taking something that is rightly mine," she told reporter Lu Ann Cahn from her new home in Albuquerque, which she said she was renting to be closer to her grandchildren.Ackerman said that people who had criticized her for applying for unemployment, which could total $573 a week, didn't know her financial situation.
"I'm not a millionaire," Ackerman said, adding that she was "not living in luxury. I'm living a normal life."
She also told NBC10 that the money she would receive could not have been used instead to pay for children's educations because it comes from a special district fund set up to pay unemployment claims.
She got over a $900,000 severance package from the district!!! Her salary during her tenure was over $300,000 (with free bennies)!!!
But's she's "not a millionaire," and is just "living a normal life." Right.
Previous coverage here.
Learned its lesson from its Residence Life Thought Control Program from a few years back, that is. UD President Pat Harker is COMMITTED to diversity -- so much so that
it's no good to bring a diverse community together if people don't talk to each [sic] and challenge each other.
In other words, if you won't talk to that fellow student who's different from you, we're gonna make you!
Yeesh. I sure wish educrats would concentrate on what they're supposed to -- educating students -- and leave the ancillary crap, especially at the college level (they're adults, after all, now) alone.
UPDATE: Of course the ever-PC News Journal has to jump into the fray on this topic. Interestingly, the article notes how UD's student and faculty population "doesn't reflect society at large" (as if that's such a big concern); however, I wonder why it doesn't ask the very same question about Delaware State University -- an Historically Black College? Does its population reflect the state's demographics?
You know the answer to that: No, it doesn't. But in the world of politically correct diversity, that isn't a concern. Diversity only is of consequence when any population is majority Caucasian.
And what is up with this from the article:
Prior to Tuesday's announcement, UD had engaged in several initiatives to improve diversity. It added a question to the forms students use to evaluate their teachers asking if their academic abilities were prejudged based on their race, ethnicity or gender.
How is this ... "an initiative to improve diversity"?? How, realistically, would college administrators take into account a student "evaluation" that answered in the positive? Knowing American universities' penchant for far-left PC, I'd wager these admins would take any such student "evaluation" at face value, and confront the "offending" professor as being "racist," "sexist" "homophobic," or whatever. Why? Because the rules of left-PC dictate that it's how someone interprets words and actions that are of paramount import. The interpretation may have absolutely no basis in reality, but this doesn't matter. Who are we to judge what someone else interprets, right? Not to mention there's the way-obvious "excuse" for students to negatively assess an instructor with such an "evaluation" merely because the student performed dismally academically. "How can I get this meanie prof back? Ah, yes -- he's racially/gender/sexual identity insensitive! Bingo!"
Then:
The university also started gathering and studying data on retention and turnover among female faculty and faculty of color, as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender faculty."I feel like this can be a great university," [Professor of psychology and Black American Studies and first director of the new Center for the Study of Diversity James] Jones said. "And to do that, we have to deal with issues of diversity."
Ah yes, the ever-popular director of The Completely Non-Essential Center chiming in here. I wonder if James feels similarly about Del. State -- does he feel it could "be great" if it evened out its vast racial disparities?
It's. All. A. Big. Joke.
This certainly comes as little surprise if you've been at all following the racialist nonsense of the current administration over the last three years. No need to dissect the contradictory inanity of it all (again), but once again just consider the following:
1) "Diversity," that ever-nebulous concept, has no proven effect on academic achievement, and
2) how ridiculous is the following in the article (ways to "legally" increase college diversity):
They could also "select high schools for partnership" based, among other things, on "racial composition of the school’s student body" and former partnerships with historically black colleges and universities"
As we've noted numerous times, if diversity is such a hallowed concept -- to be enacted at all costs -- then why do we even maintain "historically" black colleges anymore? How is it "diverse" to have a student that is predominately black?
Once again, educational "progressives" perpetually contradict themselves in their constant worship at the altar of diversity and political correctness. And if you question their beliefs, just like the heretics of old, you'll be [metaphorically] burned at the stake.
Following up on yesterday's post, Tom Blumer over at Newsbusters has some interesting info on Arlene Ackerman's unemployment claim:
... from Matt Petrillo at Philadelphia Weekly just three weeks ago. It began thusly: "It’s been 11 weeks since the School Reform Commission unanimously voted to fire public school boss lady Arlene Ackerman." A quick visit to the relevant page at the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry would appear to indicate that Ackerman should not get unemployment benefits, and that it shouldn't matter whether the district contests her claim:Who Can File for BenefitsAny individual who has become unemployed may file an application for UC benefits. Eligibility to receive those benefits will be dependent on whether the worker meets the various requirements specified in the Pennsylvania UC Law.
... To be Eligible to Receive Benefits
A worker may be eligible to receive benefits if the worker
- is unemployed through no fault of the worker;So if you were fired, you can't collect benefits, because it's your fault (nebulous or not) that you don't have a job.
Here's hoping the state will put its foot down on this pompous idiot's claim -- the sooner, the better.
From the NY Times (via an e-mail from a teaching colleague): Principals Protest Role of Testing in Evaluations.
President Obama and his signature education program, Race to the Top, along with John B. King Jr., the New York State commissioner of education, deserve credit for spurring what is believed to be the first principals’ revolt in history.As of last night, 658 principals around the state had signed a letter — 488 of them from Long Island, where the insurrection began — protesting the use of students’ test scores to evaluate teachers’ and principals’ performance.
Their complaints are many: the evaluation system was put together in slapdash fashion, with no pilot program; there are test scores to evaluate only fourth-through-eighth-grade English and math teachers; and New York tests are so unreliable that they had to be rescaled radically last year, with proficiency rates in math and English dropping 25 percentage points overnight.
Why should this be of local (Delaware) interest? If you're a First Stater the answer is obvious: Delaware was one of the first states to get Race to the Top federal funds. And a "race" it has been: With those funds has come a rapidity of ludicrous initiatives, many -- most -- of which are noted in this article about New York State. Administrators, who've evaluated countless teachers through the years, are required to attend "training" sessions to ... evaluate teachers. And then there's the so-called "experts":
The trainers at these sessions, which are paid for by state and federal grants, have explained that they’re figuring out the new evaluation system as they go. To make the point, they’ve been showing a YouTube video with a fictional crew of mechanics who are having the time of their lives building an airplane in midair.
The article goes on to state that the above “was supposed to be funny, but the room went silent ... these are people’s livelihoods we’re talking about.” Indeed! These evaluation systems -- admittedly established "on the fly" -- will "judge" whether teachers and administrators are doing their job "adequately."
And it certainly seems what has happened here in the Diamond State has also happened in NY State:
She (Katie Zahedi, principal of Linden Avenue Middle School in Red Hook in Dutchess County) said one good thing about the new evaluation system was that it had united teachers, principals and administrators in their contempt for the state education department.
As I've stated here numerous times, I don't know of any teacher who has a problem with a fair evaluation system. As previously alluded to, Race to the Top is aptly named -- states are racing against the clock to get whatever assessment system they can cobble together ASAP. And you can see the results of this in the first blockquote above. If states won't take the time to come up with fair and sensible evaluation systems, then with all of this cash being dropped in their laps, why not take a few master teachers from each subject area and pay them to, say, three times a year visit the classrooms of district teachers for the latter's evaluations? The obvious benefit of this is that not only would these evaluators be experienced teachers, they also know the subject area as well. Most administrators that have traditionally evaluated teachers only know one subject area well. And you know what? I bet this idea'd be a heck of a lot cheaper.
Lastly, if this miasma of confusion doesn't cause the NEA, ATF and many teachers in general to rethink their lock-step/no questions asked support of Democrats and the Democratic Party, then I don't know what will. George W. Bush was blasted by these folks for No Child Left Behind, but Obama's initiative is NCLB on steroids.
After being given an almost one million dollar severance package, former Philly schools Superintendent Arlene Ackerman has ... filed for unemployment compensation.
Speaking at the tribal headquarters of the Spirit Lake Sioux Nation, attorney Reed Soderstrom announced a lawsuit against the NCAA alleging copyright infringement and civil rights violations. The Sioux tribe supports the University of North Dakota’s “Fighting Sioux” nickname and logo, but the NCAA has deemed them to be “hostile and abusive.”“Today, the Spirit Lake Tribe of Indians, by and through its Committee of Understanding and Respect, and Archie Fool Bear, individually, and as Representative of more than 1004 Petitioners of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, filed a lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association in direct response to their attempt to take away and prevent the North Dakota Sioux Indians from giving their name forever to the University of North Dakota,” said Soderstrom in prepared remarks.
Soderstrom alleges that the NCAA has violated “the religious and first amendment rights of the Dakota Sioux tribes.” He also alleged a double standard in the application of the NCAA’s policy against the use of Native American names and imagery.
“Though the NCAA has decided ‘Fighting Sioux’ is derogatory, the NCAA supports the University of Illinois’ use of the name ‘Fighting Illini,’ and the use by Florida State University of the name ‘Seminoles’ along with the Seminole mascot – someone dressed in Native American attire who rides into the FSU stadium on a horse and throws a flaming spear before every home football game,” said Soderstrom. “The NCAA claims these are not derogatory depictions because the Illini people and the Seminole people approve of the use of the name and mascot. Inexplicably, the NCAA fails to accept the tribal vote and the sacred religious ceremony as endorsements of the name ‘Fighting Sioux’ by the North Dakota Sioux Nation.”
Maybe the we-know-better-than-you academic elitists at the NCAA will see the light. But then again, no one ever said that academic P.C. ever made any sense in the first place ...
(h/t: The Corner.)
Interesting article here about teacher pay and subject taught:
There are 19 gym teachers in the Farmington School District who make more than $85,000 a year each. The average gym teacher's salary in Farmington is $75,035. By comparison, the science teachers in that district make $68,483 per year on average. That’s not unusual in Michigan schools, according to Freedom of Information Act requests received from around the state. In the Woodhaven-Brownstown district, 18.5 (FTE) science teachers average some $58,400 per year in salary, while 12 gym teachers averaged nearly $76,700. In Harrison, science teachers earned $49,000 on average while gym teachers averaged $62,000. This is not unusual, because school districts don’t differentiate what a teacher does when considering compensation, regardless of the district's educational needs. Teachers are paid on a single salary schedule based on seniority and education level.
And today that is just silly. Teachers in subject areas which are generally tougher to find -- math, science, foreign language -- should be paid more. That is, if you'd like an easier time finding them (and keeping them)! It shoudn't be too difficult for districts to make a case for such if they so wanted (just point out the demographics, applications vs. need, etc.); however, you can probably count on the various state and local unions to oppose it.
And in another aspect, here in Delaware, which teachers get the vast majority of the pressure from state testing? English and math teachers. Are they compensated for this? Heck, no. Should they be? Yes. Even teachers who do not teach a core subject area will be partly evaluated ... on the test scores of students in English and math. In other words, these non-core teachers rely on their English and math teaching colleagues to keep up good student test results ... so that they get good evaluations!! Aside from the inherent inanity in such an evaluation method, doesn't it make sense to compensate the teachers who bear the bulk of the testing pressure, i.e. English and math teachers??
Again, count me in as an emphatic "yes."
Or, yet another "Thanks for the Black Eye." Via Darren, check out the following photo from the CTA -- California Teachers Association:
Look at that whiteboard carefully. Notice the misspelled word? Now, ok, it got by the teacher ... but everyone else at the CTA too??
YEESH.
Via The Blaze by way of CSPT: Muslims at Catholic University complain that the school is too Catholic.
The official allegations claim that CUA, “does not provide space – as other universities do – for the many daily prayers Muslim students must make, forcing them instead to find temporarily empty classrooms where they are often surrounded by Catholic symbols which are incongruous to their religion,” according to a press release on PRLOG.com.This formal complaint also maintains that the new same-sex residence halls are particularly discriminating against female students, which is a new position on the same-sex lawsuit that began last month.
That's a crying f'in shame now, ain't it? Check this: Catholic University is a PRIVATE university and hence can "provide" whatever the hell it pleases for its students. Don't like it? Go elsewhere. Try a public university where such "provisions" are given.
What I don't get is that the complaints also says
... [Catholic] University is denying Muslim students the same benefits that students of other religions are able to enjoy since there is no formal Muslim association sponsored by Catholic University but the Columbus School of Law has an association for Jewish students.
But here we read this:
Wiaam Al Salmi, a Muslim student at CUA who recently started the Arab American Association, which had is first meeting this week, said, “The community here is very respectful of other religions and I feel free to openly practice it.”
So, whaaaa ...?
If this nonsense persists, then I say Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Buddhists etc. should all enroll in Islamic schools across the country and file lawsuits when school administrators don't agree to "provide" accommodations for them. See how "tolerant" and "accommodating" these schools are.
LA Times headline: Study finds education gap for illegal Mexican migrants' children
Besides the obvious "Gee, y'think?" that immediately comes to mind, spot the ironic wording:
The majority of children of illegal immigrants from Mexico in the Southland fail to graduate from high school, completing an average of two fewer years of schooling than their peers with legal immigrant parents, a new study has found.The study by UC Irvine professor Frank Bean and three other researchers documented the persistent educational disadvantages for such children — who number 3.8 million, with about 80% born in the United States.
In other words, they "documented the undocumented."
It never ceases to amaze me how big city MSM outlets like the Times fail to grasp the [vast] majority of their audience. You'd never be able to gauge such by reading the hard copy of the paper; however, the online versions allow reader comments (usually ... Philly.com frequently disallows reader comments on more "controversial" stories. Figures.), and comments on articles such as this simply lambaste the paper for its politically correct inanity. Indeed, the readers usually use a lot more common sense than the article authors.
Via Darren:
Anne Foley, the principal at Kennedy School in Somerville, Mass., sent an email to teachers warning them about celebrating Thanksgiving, the Boston Herald reported."When we were young we might have been able to claim ignorance of the atrocities that Christopher Columbus committed against the indigenous peoples," Kennedy School Principal Anne Foley wrote.
"We can no longer do so. For many of us and our students celebrating this particular person is an insult and a slight to the people he annihilated. On the same lines, we need to be careful around the Thanksgiving Day time as well."
She must have gotten that straight from some ed school course probably titled something like "Multiculturalism for New Teachers." But that ain't it. The laughable CYA moment comes from the district superintendent:
School Superintendent Tony Pierantozzi also issued a statement yesterday in response to the holiday flap saying Foley’s email was intended to “spark healthy faculty discussion” about Christopher Columbus and that the schools celebrate holidays “when related to the curriculum.”
Uh huh. And if that "healthy faculty discussion" included teachers telling their principal that she is being outrageously ridiculous? Yeah, I bet that'd go over really well, especially come evaluation time. Thanksgiving is a national holiday for goodness sake, and besides -- what does Columbus really have to do with Thanksgiving? He landed in the New World over a century before the Pilgrims landed further north. The idea that the Europeans were brutal, genocidal ogres and the Natives were idyllic, peace-loving utopians is laughable in the extreme. After all, for example, why didn't Foley mention the cannibalism that some of the Natives who Columbus encountered practiced? Easy: Doesn't fit THE NARRATIVETM.
Via Darren comes this superb post by the Math Curmudgeon. The M.C. is amused by a post put up by NBC's Education Nation site which states that kids aren't listened to in the classroom, and has a list of things that "need to be done" by teachers which will [supposedly] "help" them.
Needless to say, like Darren and M.C., I got a bit of chuckling enjoyment out of reading the list. It's almost akin to reading the "demands" by those in the current "Occupy" protests across the country. Nevertheless, this seems to be a boondoggle within the teaching realm today -- teachers who believe, like Darren, M.C. and myself -- that too many of the current educational "theories" and fads are pretty much useless and have transformed an appallingly large segment of our youth population into mewling babies ... vs. those who subscribe to such theories. Let's face it -- there's always been distrust by teachers of administrators and/or professors who pop into inservices armed with the latest fad du jour and then telling us (not asking) that we need to use it. Usually these fads are repackaged (or re-repackaged) ideas from yesteryear but now include the latest "edu-jargon." Furthermore, these fads are promulgated by profs and/or administrators who have either never been in an actual classroom (teaching), or have been out of one for decades. And, additionally, particularly when it comes to administrators, such dissemination of these fads is often due to the fact that one (or some) of them is working towards another degree and needs to "field test" his/her fad in a classroom.
I don't want to totally denigrate the list made by these students as some of the statements are indeed what good teachers should do. For example, one suggestion says "I can't learn from you if you are not willing to connect with me." Any teacher worth his or her salt will always try to "connect" with the students. That's part of the job! But students need to remember that this is a two-way street -- that they have to make an effort to connect with the teacher. But unfortunately, the vast majority of the list in question is mealy-mouthed "do-stuff-for-me" narcissism. For example, this one is way too often co-opted by the educrats: "We learn in different ways at different rates." This is, of course, true; but what these students and the educrats fail to realize is that the reality of modern public education makes it nigh impossible to address this as they would like. How does a teacher address over 30 students' different learning styles and paces in the span of 45-50 minutes? And consider: How will college professors address the learning styles and paces of over 200-300 students in university lecture halls? How will employers address the learning styles and paces of new hires? Answer: They don't. They expect their students/hires to adjust to their teaching style/job requirements. Therefore, should we not expect school students to similarly make adjustments in the classroom?
We also read this: "Caring about each student is more important than teaching the class." Again, any good teacher cares about his students, but it is not more important than teaching the subject matter. I tell 'ya what, students: When No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top say to teachers that we'll be evaluated on our empathy, maybe that above statement will have merit. But as it is, we're evaluated on how we teach the subject matter, and how we raise your test scores ... whether you give a hoot about raising them or not.
"We need more than teachers. We need life coaches" is the next suggestion. Nothing more, perhaps, epitomizes how education has changed in the last 30 years or so. (I direct you to this cartoon as evidence.) Y'see, parents used to fill this role. But I tell 'ya what, students -- if you want teachers to usurp the role of parents, then don't go running to your parents when you're disciplined for bad behavior or you get a poor grade in class. Fair enough? This student suggestion perhaps goes well with another which says "Tell me something good that I'm doing so that I can keep growing in that." Uh, no. The problem with the modern narcissism is that you've been told that too much.
Fifteen years ago while working on my masters I took a class titled "Discipline and Classroom Management." Having only been in the classroom then a mere six years, I figured it'd be beneficial. Oops. The course was taught not by professors (not that that would have made a bunch of difference, in my opinion) but by several counselors whose total "real" experience in classrooms I can't precisely recall now, but do remember it was pretty miniscule as a whole. I think the last straw for me in this class is when they showed a video promoting a program whereby the teacher and the student were to be considered "equal partners" in the classroom (or some such nonsense). It showed a student-teacher conflict being "resolved" by a school counselor where each presented his side of the story and then a "resolution" was "agreed upon." Here's what the Math Curmudgeon would probably say to that:
Apparently, no one listens to the students and that's bad. Of course, most of us do but that's not the Reformer Way of Describing Teachers so we obviously don't do that and obviously The Students Are Always Right When They Complain."In their discussion, young people provided insight into their own experiences with education and what they think needs to be done to ensure that every student receives a world-class education." Because we all know that students are the Font of Wisdom and teachers are morons. Quick note: Sleeping through class does not make you an expert on education.
The bold text is key. Why would any teacher want to be put on an "equal footing" with a 13 year-old in a classroom dispute? It's not his class, it's the teacher's class. A good teacher (and most are good) will establish fair rules and enforce them fairly. It's ludicrous to go to a mediation session because you booted a kid from class for talking constantly ... after you gave him numerous warnings. What would that boil down to?
Yes, the above is a hypothetical conversation, but the aforementioned video included a mediation session very much like that -- sans the teacher firmly holding his ground. In the video, the teacher meekly accepted the idea of being "equal" with a young teen.
I tell 'ya what: When a 13 year-old child has bought a house, has paid bills, has had children, and has held a job ... THEN you can put him on an equal footing with me. But until then he's just a kid, who at that age has as the most important thing on his mind playing Xbox after school.
For "Discipline and Classroom Management's" final paper, I spent an entire day in the University of Delaware's Morris Library researching scholars who believe that such management ideas are a lot of bunk. It was easier than I expected. I meticulously dissected and shredded the course in my final paper, putting worries aside that I'd get a lousy grade for not toeing the party line. I felt it more important to send a message. The result was a mixed bag: I got an "A" on the paper, but one of the instructors wrote a page full of comments on the back of it ripping me in return. I took it as a compliment, really, except for, perhaps, the remark that my paper was "visceral." "Visceral" means "not intellectual : instinctive, unreasoning; dealing with crude or elemental emotions : earthy." To the contrary -- my feelings about discipline and my final paper are (were) anything but. They're well thought-out based on research and real life experience.
Which brings us right back to where this post began. And which would you prefer? A theorist who thinks he knows what works, or a realist who knows what works?
That's how much William B. Harvey -- former Vice President for Diversity and Equity at the University of Virginia -- makes in a year. $315,000. If I had a kid at UVA and saw what the tuition I was shelling out cost me, I'd demand to know what this ridiculously politically correct dolt actually did to warrant such a salary. It certainly ain't because of "logic" like this regarding why Asian-Americans are underrepresented at the very top levels of American education:
Bill Harvey, vice president and chief officer for diversity and equity, said this discrepancy between higher and lower levels of the University faculty may be because of culture. He said Asian-Americans typically do not actively seek out leadership positions and instead may prefer to take a more supportive role. For example, Harvey said, they may appear more comfortable in roles as senior faculty members.
Now, Harvey's "logic" isn't misplaced since he may actually have a [cultural] point here. The problem is that it is highly doubtful that he'd apply this logic consistently. If a Vice President for Diversity and Equity's role is to "ensure" diversity at virtually any cost -- even at the cost of skirting the law so much so that you may as well be completely over the border -- it would be his job to make sure Asian-Americans were represented at those mentioned higher levels. And, of course, were we to apply Harvey's logic elsewhere, this same explanation should suffice as to why, without racial preferences and quotas, there aren't as many blacks and Latinos at various universities ... for that "may be because of culture" too, might it not?
As we've noted ad nauseum here at Colossus, self-described diversophiles and multi-cultis inevitably just cannot help tripping over their convoluted racial/ethnic/diversity "logic." Consistency is anathema to them, mainly because there is no consistency inherent in what they believe and advocate. For [further] example, Harvey is now Dean of Education at North Carolina A & T University where the student body is 84% African-American, and ten members of its Board of Trustees (out of twelve) are black. If diversity is such the educational "necessity" as vice presidents for Diversity and Equity routinely claim (and get paid handsomely for), why isn't Harvey actively attempting to diversify A & T's population so that the institution will gain all these miraculous "benefits?"
Another indoctrinated-in-ed school idiot, it seems. Or, just an idiot:
When someone sneezes, a common response is, “God bless you.” But one California teacher finds this statement so offensive and disruptive that he’s working to cut back on its usage in the classroom.Steve Cuckovich, a health teacher at William C. Wood High School in Vacaville, California, has attempted to banish the friendly gesture, as he believes it is both disrespectful and disruptive. To punish students who do, indeed, say “God bless you” after one of their classmates sneezes, he purportedly knocks 25 points off of their grade.
Steve says it isn't about religion -- he merely thinks the saying is "outdated" and "disruptive":
When you sneezed in the old days, they thought you were dispelling evil spirits out of your body. So they were saying, ‘god bless you’ for getting rid of evil spirits. But today, I said what you‘re doing doesn’t really make any sense anymore.
Amazing that a supposedly educated man couldn't conceive that the saying -- uttered by children -- just might be a respectful and polite gesture. At any rate, thankfully, the school seems to be siding with parents over this nut.
Henry Schleifer in today's Wilmington (DE) News Journal kinda proves he's merely working in the master's program at Georgetown University in Public Policy. What does his article offer that is truly innovative regarding education? Zilch. What he's saying is what his Public Policy professors want to hear -- the same old tired clichés about "not enough money," yada yada yada.
Interestingly, Schleifer invokes the story of a foreign (Colombian) student, a friend of his from college. Schleifer might want to check out this post of mine and how it pertains to foreign students, particularly from poor countries, vs. American students. Then again, he might not ... it might upset his college profs who view as anathema real world (and politically incorrect and inconvenient) situations and solutions.
As yet another example of how "progressives" view free speech, not to mention how teachers should NOT do their job, we see this:
Great job there, teach. Not only do you bring your students along to witness your how you're not impartial, but you call people with whom you disagree -- not to mention who hold a very popular (and legitimate) point of view -- "Nazis."
As WR Chandler notes (to whom the hat tip goes for this video), "If he taught my kids, I would pull them out of his class yesterday." Got that right, brotha.
UPDATE: Thanks to AJ Lynch, check out this local news story on the teacher. As AJ noted, notice how they don't ID the teacher but do mention how he's "in good standing." He also, by the way, expressed "regret" that his comments "went too far." Well that's a relief.
... this post from 2006? Still rings truer than ever today, I'm sad to say.
Kilroy has more.
... when there are such ridiculous idiots teaching at them -- and they have absolutely NO idea what a college is supposed to be about when it comes to freedom and exchange of ideas?
Students at Sam Houston State University (SHSU) in Texas found this out the hard way yesterday when they erected a “free speech wall” — a recently popular way for students to highlight the importance of free speech in which students put up a freestanding wall covered in paper, upon which anyone can write anything they want. Students jumped on the chance to participate. To cite a few examples: “Don’t hate against Gays …,” “If you make less than $200,000 Republicans don’t care about you,” “Life’s not a bitch, Life is a beautiful woman …,” “Han Solo Shot First,” “My boyfriend is a liar!,” “Legalize Weed!!!,” and “NAZI PUNKS FUCK OFF!!!”But just hours in, the free speech wall was vandalized by a professor — yes, a professor! — who was offended that someone had written “FUCK OBAMA” on the free speech wall. Students being students, the “F-word” was written on the wall many times about many different topics, but apparently the only expletive that offended this professor enough to take action was the one referring to President Obama.
The professor, whom students identified as Joe Kirk, demanded that the student groups sponsoring the wall — including Republicans, Democrats, libertarians and socialists — cover up only the Obama statement. They refused. He then told them that he would come back with a box cutter and cut it out of the wall himself, which he then did. You can see the before and after pictures at thefire.org.
Shocked that a professor would do this, the student organizers got in touch with the campus police. When the police arrived, they interviewed the students and the vandalizing professor. Then came the surprise: The police told the students that since Prof. Kirk was offended by some profanity on the wall, the students were engaging in “disorderly conduct,” a misdemeanor, and had to cover up all the swear words on the wall or take it down. Realizing that this would make a mockery out of the purpose of a free speech wall, the students simply disassembled the wall. Thus ended SHSU’s several hour-long experiment with free speech.
This is the conundrum the faux "progressive" academic Left has put us all in. They're all for freedom -- including speech -- but you have to exercise those freedoms in a manner that they want you to. Is it any wonder, then, why the faux "progressive" academic Left are so enamored with Marx, communism, Castro, Chávez, Mao, etc.? Nope. They act just like 'em.
UPDATE: Looks like UVA is dealing with its own similar incident. Again, "progressives," this is what you've sired with your overzealous zeal for multiculturalism and "sensitivity." In your world, "free speech" is the goal -- unless it offends some designated "historically aggrieved" group, that is.
How friggin' sick is this:
London’s Daily Mail newspaper reports that teachers are being pushed to brand thousands of children as racist or homophobic in a permanent database run by Great Britain’s Department for Education.Records of these juvenile utterances follow students when they switch schools, and can be used against them if a future employer or university asks the school for a reference.Teachers who do not report any incidents are criticized for “under-reporting.”Using the word “gaylord” was considered a hate crime. One child was entered into the database as a racist for calling another student a “broccoli head.”
A total of 34,000 primary and secondary school pupils –and some children in nursery schools that teach children age three and under — have already been classified as bigots. More than 20,000 students under the age of 11 were reported for “hate-crimes.”
This blessed database, this political correctness, this multiculti madhouse ... this England.
Only at the modern American campus, folks. Only at the modern American campus.
Moms and educrats lament the use of plastic bags for [homemade] school lunches:
“Ziplocs are the biggest misstep,” said Julie Corbett, a mother in Oakland, Calif., whose two girls attend a school with an eco-friendly lunch policy. In school years past, she said, many a morning came unhinged when the girls were sent to school with disposable sandwich bags.“That’s when the kids have meltdowns, because they don’t want to be shamed at school,” Ms. Corbett said. “It’s a big deal.”
Well, how about that. Apparently schools deem it acceptable to shame kids who have the temerity to use plastic, but they'll pay for everybody's lunch just so students who may not be able to afford 'em won't feel "singled out."
In addition, if you're really concerned about waste, maybe schools oughta keep track of how much "free meal" food is squandered on a daily basis. After all, if you don't have to pay for it, why do you care how much of it you eat/throw away?
Elmhurst College is the first college in the country to query incoming students about their sexual orientation:
“Would you consider yourself to be a member of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered) community?”With that one line, though, they became the first college in the country to ask potential students directly about their sexual orientation or gender identity.
“Increasing diversity is part of our mission statement,” said Gary Rold, Elmhurst’s dean of admissions. “This is simply closing the loop, in many ways, of another group who has a very strong identity. It may not be race and religion but it’s an important part of who they are.”
Being a private institution, Elmhurst certainly can do as it wants. However, once again, we see an educrat spewing the utter nonsense that diversity is of some paramount importance. As we've noted numerous times at Colossus, studies show otherwise. Not only that, why is a person's race "an important part of who" someone is? Answer: Because "progressive" educrats think it is, that's why. And that's all.
Consider this statement from towards the end of the article:
“It’s important that these youth have a way to express their sexual identity, like their racial identity,” he (Rold) said. “Colleges ask those questions so they can give them the resources to get them to be successful.”
I wonder: If a group of white students got together to express their "racial identity," what do you think the reaction of university officials would be? Do you think them throwing Rold's words back at him -- that "it’s important that [us] youth have a way to express [our] racial identity" would work? Or would Rold then regurgitate some socio-edu mumbo jumbo about "white privilege," etc.?
Just on the heels of my sense-of-entitlement bashing post from last week, we read this insanity from one of the American bastions of insanity, Detroit:
Last month, with the federal government on the precipice of default, President Obama & Co. repeatedly warned that any cuts in government would amount to a terrorist Tea Party attack on assistance to the poor and elderly.Funnily enough, they failed to mention the recent $4.5 billion expansion of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, which will now provide free lunches to ALL — rich and poor, needy and non-needy — of Detroit’s 65,800 public school-students. (Detroit is one of three pilot programs starting this month for a free-for-all that will ultimately cover similar districts nationwide.)
This new program is part of Obama’s orgy of spending, a binge that has ballooned the federal budget by 25 percent since his inauguration. But the program’s logic is even more insane than the price tag: The administration says it is giving rich kids free food to eliminate the shame that less-fortunate students may feel in receiving free food. We’re not making this up.
“We’ve worked very hard to reduce the stigma,” Aaron Lavallee, a U.S. Department of Agriculture spokesman, told the Detroit News. “We’re seeing a lot of working-class families who’ve had to turn to free school meals to feed their children.”
Considering how I mentioned in last week's post that way too many kids getting free meals seem to have little difficulty purchasing cell phones, iPods, and pricey basketball shoes, is it really a hardship for working-class families to pack a PB&J sandwich and, say, a box drink in a brown bag for their kids?? My family was certainly working-class, and this is precisely what my mom did for my sisters and I each and every school day. That would sure heavily assist in avoiding any stigma, right? But no -- you and I have to pay these families so they can avoid "stigma."
Yeesh.
Next, our illustrious feds have nixed a New York City plan to limit the types of foods people can buy with food stamps. Why? Again, can't have any STIGMA.
What did I [snarkily] pen last week? "Wondering why that person is using food stamps to buy a bunch of junk instead of actual food at the grocery store? Who are you to judge? Just keep your mouth shut, dammit!"
And we wonder why we have an ever-growing sense of entitlement among our populace? As Henry Payne says regarding the Detroit lunch nonsense, "What’s next — handing out free Chevy Volts to all 16-year olds in order to reduce the stigma that low-income kids feel driving used 1990 Geo Metros?"
Two disturbing stories from the education realm today. First, a Missouri district failed to report the rape of a seventh grade girl, but unbelievably also made the girl write an apology to her attacker -- and hand deliver it! The girl's family is suing; part of the [shocking] district response is that the girl “failed and neglected to use reasonable means to protect herself.”
Meanwhile, in Florida, a school's "Teacher of the Year" -- a 22 year veteran -- was suspended for his Facebook comments against gay marriage:
Buell told Fox News Radio that he was stunned by the accusations. “It was my own personal comment on my own personal time on my own personal computer in my own personal house, exercising what I believed as a social studies teacher to be my First Amendment rights,” he said.The school system declined to comment on the specific Facebook messages that led to their investigation, but Buell provided Fox News Radio with a copy of the two Facebook messages that he said landed him in trouble.
The first was posted on July 25 at 5:43 p.m. as he was eating dinner and watching the evening news.
“I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying same-sex unions came on and I almost threw up,” he wrote. “And now they showed two guys kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?”
Three minutes later, Buell posted another comment: “By the way, if one doesn’t like the most recently posted opinion based on biblical principles and God’s laws, then go ahead and unfriend me. I’ll miss you like I miss my kidney stone from 1994. And I will never accept it because God will never accept it. Romans chapter one.”
According to the school system, what Buell wrote on his private account was disturbing. They were especially concerned that gay students at the school might be frightened or intimidated walking into his classroom. Patton also disputed the notion that Buell’s Facebook account is private.
The report notes that Buell has over 700 friends on his account, so the district claims that hardly makes it "private." But other legal experts say that the district is on shaky [legal] ground as it pertains to the First Amendment:
“It’s a little bit more complicated with a school teacher,” said Brad Jacob, a law professor at Regent University. “The first question you have to ask, did this context communicate that the teacher was speaking on behalf of the government?”But what about on social networking sites, like Facebook and Twitter? “School teachers generally have free speech rights, and the government may not censor the private speech on public school teachers,” he said.
Even though his comments may have been inappropriate, as long as Buell didn't proselytize about such opinions in his classroom, doesn't he have free speech rights like anyone else? After all, as his attorney says, Buell's views are hardly radical. I may personally disagree with Buell on this topic, but I think his lawyer is correct -- many do object to gay marriage on religious grounds.
What do you think?
UPDATE: Greg at Rhymes With Right has more on the Facebook story. Remember Tinker v. Des Moines.
Unless you've been living under a rock the last week or so, you may have noticed that there are riots going on in Britain, continuing riots in Greece, and here at home there has been a small epidemic of "flash mob" violence in various large cities. There has been no shortage of explanations as to why this is all happening, including, of course, the usual "progressive" conclusions: hopelessness, economic marginalization, poor schools, excessive greed by the "rich," etc. Admittedly I don't know enough about economic stratification in the UK (as opposed to the US) to make a more informed judgment about said "progressive" reasons above; however, it appears that stratification is more rigid in the Britain (less class mobility), and this site confirms it. And it is unlikely that said "progressive" reasons for rebellion are legitimate in and of themselves. But there is an underlying dynamic -- "progressive" in nature itself -- at the root.
Let's take two of the "progressive" reasons (or, if you prefer, "excuses") above -- hopelessness and a lousy educational system. Here in the United States, the question is why are many (typically urban area) schools so lousy? Is it because of lack of funding? Many urban districts have some of the highest per-pupil spending in the country. In fact, this funding usually [far] outstrips spending by Catholic and private schools, yet these schools produce better academic results. So what gives?
Well, let's see: For one, parochial and private schools have the ability to discharge students who perpetually misbehave and disrupt classes. Public schools do too, but it is an extremely onerous process, and one that district and school administrators are loath to invoke. Why? Potential lawsuits, bad publicity, and a general reluctance to deal with upset parents (or guardians). Thus, chronically disruptive students continue to wreak mayhem in classrooms, all the while knowing that there will be little, if any, repercussions. By law, special education students can only be suspended out of school for a certain amount of days per year. Did you know that? When that limit is reached, what happens? They either remain in the classroom causing problems, or often they're huddled into what's known as "in-school suspension."
(Note: I'm cognizant that the higher per-pupil spending in public schools includes the mandatory funds for special needs children, something which parochial and private schools do not have to deal with if they do not wish it. Nevertheless, overhead and administrative costs in public schools indeed outpace their private sector competitors.)
And it all begins with the small things. One of my favorite edu-bloggers, Mamacita, recently wrote about the notion of "community school supplies." Specifically, she laments that such a concept devalues the concept of ownership -- of valuing something that you purchased and thus, have a stake in (my emphasis):
I guess so, because teachers who don’t want to bother with a child’s private property are forcing the kids to dump it all in the pot for everybody to use. “Don’t be selfish.” “Share.” Well, you know what? I don’t like that kind of forced sharing. I had to share everything, EVERYTHING, and that little pile of school supplies was my only private stash of anything. I do not feel it was selfish, or is selfish, to want to keep school supplies that were carefully chosen, to oneself. Children who have their own things learn to respect the property of other children. Children with no concept of personal property tend to view the world as a buffet of free, unearned delights awaiting their grasping, grabbing hands. Both tend to grow into adults with the same concepts learned as children.This business of everything being community property in the classroom causes problems in the upper levels, too. Junior high, high school, even college students, are expecting things to be available for them without any effort on their part. Upper level students come to class without pencils, erasers, paper, etc, because they’re used to having those things always available in some community bin somewhere in the room. They have never been required, or allowed, to maintain their own things, and now they don’t know how to. The stuff was always just THERE, for a student to help himself to. And now that they are supposed to maintain their own, they really don’t know how. Plus, why should they? HEY, I need a pencil, Teach, gimme one. No, not that one, that other one there.
In my own classroom, I've occasionally gotten grief(!) from parents and/or school personnel for my refusal to supply chronically unprepared students with pencils, paper, or whatever. Hey look, everyone occassionally forgets something at one time or another, I know that. I'm not that unreasonable that I won't lend a pencil out to a kid who usually is always prepared. I'm talking about the chronic offenders. All my school's teachers are given a fistful of pencils at the beginning of the year for a combo of personal use and for forgetful students. Being the "seasoned veteran" that I am now, I've tried just about all the "tricks" involved in lending things out and making sure I get 'em back: "minus points" for no return, kids give me something in return for a pencil (or whatever), a sign-up sheet ... Eventually I came to realize that, at my students' age, there should be no reason for such measures. That, and it always cut into instructional time more and more. Why should I waste minutes on the same unprepared kids day after day? So, today, when I hear "I don't have a pencil!" my usual retort is "And that is my problem how ...?" Then I'll say "Look around. There are around 30 others in here. I'm sure at least one of them has an extra writing utensil, so start asking." Hard-ass? Perhaps. Or, my little contribution of preparing kids to act more responsibly and to get ready for the real world. Or, at least the real world as it currently still is, God willing.
This sense of entitlement, whether it is the "rights" of chronically disruptive students to remain in classrooms to the detriment of everyone else, or the beginning seeds of "gimme" attitudes in the early grades noted by Mamacita, is not the result of an "oppressively hierarchical neo-conservative state." On the contrary, it is the direct result of progressive theories and teachings -- social, educational and beyond. In essence, when you are given things instead of having to put forth effort to acquire them, you value them a lot less, if at all.
This progressive theory also condemns any sort of "shaming" of bad behavior, often on the pretext that it will result in still more bad behavior. Notice I said I would sometimes get some grief for my stance on giving things out in my classroom to perpetually lazy students. Wondering why kids who get free breakfast and lunch have cell phones, iPods and $200 sneakers? Don't dare say anything. Don't these kids have the "right" to feel "included" by having what a lot of other kids do? Wondering why that person is using food stamps to buy a bunch of junk instead of actual food at the grocery store? Who are you to judge? Just keep your mouth shut, dammit!
During the so-called "Great Society" era we began to fundamentally alter society by giving people things. Housing. Vouchers for food. Extra money when you have another kid. Meals in schools. Transportation for after-school activities. Now I, like the vast majority of conservative-leaning folk, have little qualms about assisting people in need -- real need -- whether it's via private assistance or even some governmental help. But we've bastardized the original intent of such assistance so that the personal incentive to better one's own situation has plummeted to negligible levels. Some have recognized this perverse situation and sought remedies. Former VP candidate Jack Kemp, when he was Secretary of HUD (Housing and Urban Development), championed a program by which people in public housing could eventually assume [private] ownership of their homes. While it was not as roundly successful as one would hope, Kemp nevertheless had the right idea. After all, consider: why do public housing units quickly become blighted areas of disrepair? Is it because there is little-to-no incentive for residents to maintain upkeep ... because they have no stake in it? If it's not theirs, why should they care what happens to it? Someone will eventually come and fix it.
Ironically, what then happens when you take something away (or merely threaten to take something away) from a culture that has grown accustomed to getting something for virtually nothing ... and for whom there are little consequences for negative behavior? We witness something like that in the United Kingdom. Here in the US, on the other hand, you don't even need the former aspect; the mere fact that consequences for anti-social behavior are slim-to-none is sufficient alone for the recent series of "flash mob" violence witnessed in various big cities of late.
The good news is the public at large by and large no longer subscribes (if they ever really did) to the progressive BS about an "oppressive" society "holding down" the participants of these riots and flash mobs. Just scan through reader comments on the online reports and editorials about these events. What they recognize is that the anti-social behavior of these hooligans is largely the result of poor individual lifestyle choices made by themselves, their parents, their friends, their relatives, or any combination thereof -- and you and I who work hard, behave civilly, and act responsibly aren't accountable for it.
Or, check out where some of Obama's vaunted stimulus funds went to:
The Omaha Public Schools used more than $130,000 in federal stimulus dollars to buy each teacher, administrator and staff member a manual on how to become more culturally sensitive.The book by Virginia education consultants could raise some eyebrows with its viewpoints.
The authors assert that American government and institutions create advantages that “channel wealth and power to white people,” that color-blindness will not end racism and that educators should “take action for social justice.”
The book says that teachers should acknowledge historical systemic oppression in schools, including racism, sexism, homophobia and “ableism,” defined by the authors as discrimination or prejudice against people with disabilities.
The authors argue that public school teachers must raise their cultural awareness to better serve minority students and improve academic achievement.
*Sigh* Here we go again -- educational charlatanry masquerading as scientifically-based research. Just like the preposterous "Courageous Conversations" (or "Difficult Dialogues" or whatever the edu-jargon du jour is) we've dealt with previously, this sort of crap does nothing to (or, at least, doesn't show how to) improve minority student academic achievement. What it does do is promote resentment -- among students and among faculty. After all, if one has to accept the premise of what the authors want, exactly what sort of "conversations" can be had? And how are they "courageous" when there exists that premise of acceptance ... and the implicit aura of "do not dissent"? Check it:
... these are “conversations” that... follow a structured format in which participants examine and embrace specific premises, such as the ubiquity of white privilege and racism, and thus raise the consciousness of whites.
Participants must “come to recognize that race impacts every aspect of your life 100 percent of the time.” Meanwhile, “anger, guilt and shame are just a few of the emotions” whites should expect to experience “as they move toward greater understanding of Whiteness.”
Again, we've been all through this before over the years here. It's bad enough when local/state funds are used to purchase such feces, but now bucks that are supposed to stimulate our economy are being used to purchase it. Again, such huckster-ish programs have never been able to prove they're effective at reducing the so-called achievement gap; however, they have been very successful at uniting folks from across the political spectrum. And this is not because of any intransigence about discussing -- or wanting to discuss -- race; it's because these programs demand adherence to one point of view about it. And that view is the program creators': radical Marxian-Maoist-Freireian victimology. Even more "mainstream" organizations like the National Education Association (NEA) have fallen victim to this as they advocate getting away from a color-blind belief, the more "classical" Martin Luther King Jr.-esque philosophy.
Such demands should be abhorrent to any rational political bent.
But these diversophiles would do well to heed the warnings of Hans Bader (to whom a big hat tip goes for this post): making belief/adherence to such [racial] philosophies (or even participation in such workshops) mandatory can invite legal trouble.
UPDATE: Good timing: Toronto School District decrees that only whites can be racist.
UPDATE: More on the scandal here. I'm hardly unsympathetic to those who believe that NCLB is drastically flawed (as is its bulkier brother, Race to the Top), but to resort to cheating and deception (you're teaching KIDS!!) garners absolutely no sympathy.
(Got the following from my girlfriend, also a veteran teacher.)
You know you're a veteran teacher when...
*sleeping until 7 am is a treat.
*your response to the students' comment, "You're mean!" is "Thank you."
*you think 30 is a SMALL class.
*you find yourself teaching the child of one of your former students.
*you finally realize that a professional development day means administrators go to their comfortable offices and actually work while the teachers sit in hard chairs listening to boring speakers.
*you get excited about a 2% pay raise.
*you have a permanent horizontal white line across your fanny from the chalkboard.
*you no longer show up at school bright-eyed, but need a caffeine injection just to stay upright.
*you find yourself sitting on a stool more and more to get through the day.
*you remember the good old days when the teachers had rights, too.
*you aren't surprised a bit when asked to teach ESL students, even without the language skills or a text.
*you've learned the fine art of scarfing down lunch in 20 minutes.
*you no longer dream of passionate love scenes with Kevin Costner (Angelina Jolie for me!), but how to keep your ADD student in his seat.
*you remember when the boys' pants were tight enough that they didn't fall down when they stood up in class.
*the responsibility for getting a good education was placed on the shoulders of the students and parents.
*you've found 789 ways to say "Your child is really dumb" on a report card so that it sounds positive.
*you think fondly of the days when cursing was not commonplace.
*you start seeing your ex-students names in the newspapers - the listing of dean's lists, wedding announcements, the police blotter
*you've trained your bathroom breaks to work around your planning time.
*the "old math" was good enough.
*a "great" day at work means every student had a pen, paper, and books when they crossed your threshold.
*cell phones and pagers didn't go off during class.
*nothing shocks you anymore -- even when you walk into the girl's bathroom and find three students in one stall, and two of them are boys!
*your car is not as nice as your students'.
*you've learned not to ask questions in the faculty meeting.
*you realize that when the principal asks for your "input," he doesn't really want it.
*you've come to the conclusion that you obtained an advanced degree so you could serve as a hall and cafeteria monitor.
The News Journal goes out on a limb today with "End lax oversight of charter schools."
Delaware schools: Checkered past goes unchecked -- Multiple bankruptcies, child abuse conviction all part of charter school founder's record.
And the Delaware State Department of Education never ran a background check on this dude -- the guy who runs a damn building. Yet, teacher substitutes here (at least in the northern part of the state) are required to get a background check for the temp agency they work for ... and then get another background check if a school decides to permanently hire them. Said checks could occur within months or even weeks of one another, but that doesn't matter. The sub/teacher must get them, even though the same law enforcement folks do the checks... and it costs [another] hefty coin.
But the guy who runs a charter school doesn't get any sort of invvestigation. Absolutely remarkable.
UPDATE: Don't miss Kilroy's inimitable take.
Indiana School Bans National Anthem at Sporting Events:
A school in Indiana has become a target of public outrage over its decision to ban the playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner" at sporting events, arguing the anthem's words conflict with the college's core values, FOXNews.com reported Tuesday."We recognize that some people may not be satisfied with this decision, but we believe it is the right one for Goshen College," Ricky Stiffney, chairman of the Mennonite school's board of directors, said in a written statement.
"The board has a diversity of views on this issue as reflected through the process of considering the anthem."
According to an online fact sheet on the issue, the college noted, "Historically, playing the national anthem has not been among Goshen College's practices because of our Christ-centered core value of compassionate peacemaking seeming to be in conflict with the anthem's militaristic language."
The Mennonite Church is peace-oriented but it does not have an official position on playing the national anthem.
Of course, as a private university, Goshen can do as it pleases in this regard. But, note the following: Mr. Stiffney didn't say the school polled the student body about this. Only its board decided. Also, the college says that the anthem seems to be in conflict with the its values, and the Mennonite Church itself does not have an official position on the whole matter. Therefore, what is one to conclude?
My [educated] guess: Typical "progressive" educrats took it upon themselves to act "in the best interests" of everyone. Because, you know, America is such an awful place.
Middle school yearbook lumps George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in with Adolph Hitler and Osama Bin Laden:
Open up the Russellville Middle School yearbook. You'll see the students' pictures, the administration, and a pretty controversial list that's supposed to be covered with a piece of black tape."My problem is the tape can be removed easily," said School Board Member Chris Cloud. Cloud has two kids in the Russellville School District and one brought home the yearbook.
"I'm furious as a parent and as a board member and as a tax payer and as a resident of Russellville," he said. "It's wrong."
The list is titled "Top 5 worst people of all time." The top three, in order, are Adolph Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, and Charles Manson. Numbers four and five are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Superintendent Randall Williams calls the list "an oversight." Parents caught it after the yearbooks were printed. The district's solution was to cover the list with tape. It didn't work.
"Really?" said Williams when told the tape could be pulled off. "Well that's disappointing because the yearbook supplier told us this was a definite fix." (Link.)
The yearbook sponsor, a teacher at the school, "is very very very upset about it." Williams claims she did not "pay any attention to that particular part of that particular page." Sorry, Mr. Super, but that's what the yearbook sponsor is supposed to do. Otherwise, who would know what's being printed if there's no editorial oversight, hmm?
This isn't surprising, though. Way too many teachers are left-of-center (the NEA is a Democrat Party shill), and too many of 'em think everyone else thinks like them. And, unfortunately, some of them pass this conceit off on to their students.
But look at this way, too: Your average middle schooler ain't gonna be all that up to snuff on who's really one of the worst people of all-time. (Hell, your average adult ain't, either.) So, how exactly do 'ya think GW Bush and Cheney would have gotten on the list (assuming, that is, that the school got to vote on this for publication in the yearbook)? That's easy -- the mainstream media. For the [very] casual amount of news that your average middle schooler will watch/read, the biased MSM can certainly shape opinion. I know it did for me back when I was that age. Hell, I even took Jimmy Carter's side in a classroom debate for the election of 1980! (It was actually in 10th grade, but that's only two years after middle school ...!)
The conventional liberal wisdom is that George Bush and Dick Cheney are "evil" much like they're stupid (like all Republicans are). Just imagine if this school had included Barack Obama's name on that list. It'd make national headlines. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the NAACP would be screaming for "sensitivity training" for the school's teachers. Every pundit on MSNBC would be ferreting out "racism" within the school and the district. The network morning shows would feature sociologists and psychologists explaining how children can still be "prejudiced." Etc.
You can bet your bottom dollar on that.
Great vid (h/t to Buckhorn Road) exposing the laughable "values" that are "progressive":
Yep, you heard all that right -- "I believe in free speech ... but let me sign this petition anyway."
Recently I said: Even democrats concede economic reality in a crisis: "Taxes matter. Regulations matter. Capital flight is a reality. Not just from state to state but from country to country."
According to The Wealth Report from The WSJ:
The Rich Are Moving More Money Overseas
If there is one overwhelming investment trend among the American rich, it is capital flight.Rather than investing in the U.S., they are putting more and more of their money abroad.
A new survey by the Institute for Private Investors of families with $30 million or more of investible assets showed that the families have one third of their assets overseas. One in five wealthy families has more than half their investments overseas. Most of them are buying overseas stocks, while they also are buying into hedge funds and private equity with exposure abroad.
Additionally, wealthy investors are moving away from the U.S. dollar. The IPI study showed that one quarter of respondents are managing currencies or hedging currency risk.
Spectrem Group, of Chicago, shows a similar outmigration of money from the rich. More than 60% of investors with $25 million or more are investing overseas, Spectrem found.
You can’t blame them, of course. Capital follows growth, and the strongest economic growth is in the so-called BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) nations and other emerging markets. Some may talk about the broken “social contract” of the American rich, who are taxed at low rates on capital gains and dividends in order to encourage them to invest in the U.S. and create jobs.
Yet the rich don’t sign any social contracts when they get rich. And so far, the flight of wealthy investors hasn’t stopped the U.S. stock market from roaring back to life after the recession. In fact, wealthy investors are at the forefront of the current tech bubble.
Since the wealthy control an ever larger share of the country’s wealth and investments, their aversion to the U.S. could create a vicious cycle–the wealthy don’t reinvest in the U.S., so the U.S. suffers from underinvestment and slower job creation, which slows economic growth and drives the wealthy to invest even more overseas.
Earth to Democrats: Capital flight is real. Capital follows growth. This is easier now than ever before. Consfiscatory tax rates and draconian regulation encourage capital flight. Unless or until you figure this out, you're going to turn the whole country into California or worse, Greece.
Insty had a brief blurb up linking to a Guardian (UK) article which asks "Why don't we love our intellectuals?" In response, Insty also linked to articles by Christopher Hitchens and the inimitable James Taranto. The question is a good one; conventional wisdom, such that it is, posits that conservatives are the "anti-intellctual" crowd ... you'll see this conceit uttered frequently by folks like the usual suspects, and by those "big brains" in the mainstream media. As partial evidence, it's conservatives who are frequently made fun of and derided. George W. Bush was a total buffoon -- even though he had better college grades than Al Gore; Dan Quayle was a walking, talking gaffe machine -- but our current veep actually makes Quayle look like a professional motivational speaker; Ronald Reagan was a "lovable dunce;" Sarah Palin is [insert demeaning comment]," etc. etc. etc.
Take Hitchens' article next: He dissects the "intellectual" that is Noam Chomsky. Chomsky is sort of a radical leftist academic pop-culture icon (he got a nice gratuitous shout out in Matt Damon's "Good Will Hunting," for instance), who somehow has managed to evolve into this deeply heavy political and cultural thinker even though his area of expertise is ... linguistics. He is greatly admired by a former big-time Delaware blogger many of you probably know, Dana Garrett. Let me state right up front that I love Dana to death -- he's an incredibly nice and personable fellow, who actually listens to conservative arguments and concedes good points when they're made ... a very rare trait for a progressive. (Notice that I did not put quotations around the word "progressive" this time like I normally do, for Dana is a true progressive.) Chomsky was one of the [many] items Dana and I argued about back in the day. It's easy to understand why the noted linguist is endeared by progressives: the virtually constant tendency to side with the "underdog," taking up the cause of the historically oppressed, fighting for minorities and the poor, etc. The problem is that Chomsky and his acolytes will overlook virtually every negative aspect about the causes they take up. Why? To be consistent? Because maintaining a contrarian view is of utmost importance? This leads to what historian Paul Johnson (noted in the Guardian article) stated about people like Chomsky -- they are "moral cretins." Hitchens' article dissects much of this aspect, and is pretty much in line with how I feel about him. In this case, 'ol Noam chimed in on the death of Osama bin Laden where he questioned the al Qaeda leader's actual responsibility for 9/11, said bin Laden was no worse than George W. Bush, and claimed that, by our commando raid on bin Laden's compound, we thus "would justify a contingency whereby 'Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.'" Chomsky also complained that bin Laden's killing was a "planned assassination," and that he "should have been accorded all the rights of criminal suspects."
It should come as little surprise, then, that bin Laden was apparently a fan of the MIT professor:
The New York Times, reporting on the intelligence haul from Osama bin Laden's house, paints a picture of the mass murderer's politics: In 2007, he complained that Democratic control of Congress had not ended the war in Iraq, a fact he attributed to the pernicious influence of "big corporations." In other messages he commented on the writings of Noam Chomsky, the leftist professor at M.I.T., and praised former President Jimmy Carter's book supporting Palestinian rights.
In a brief side-note here, one of my favorite bloggers early on my blogging "career," Benjamin Kerstein, in his [old] blog Diary of an Anti-Chomskyite dedicates virtually every post to shredding the "logic" that is the blog's namesake. It's a must read for those interested in dissecting the meanderings of Chomsky-thought, where Kerstein's prose is both terse and quite delightfully sarcastic. (Currently, Kerstein has a new blog and has written for various online publications.)
So, are you still wondering why so many people do not revere our [so-called] intellectuals?
Chomsky and others of his ilk also dabble all the time in moral equivalence. International law (like the professor noted above) is of paramount import -- unless, of course, some oppressed group is undertaking actions to support their "cause" -- much like the Palestinians against Israel. Closer to home, our old friend Perry and New Zealand's "Phoenician in a Time of Romans" (the moniker really says it all) over at Common Sense Political Thought predictably take up the Palestinian mantle whenever the subject is broached, and they're supposedly intelligent individuals. They'll scream about Israel violating UN Security Council Resolution 242 time and time again, for instance, but, of course, the constant threat of Palestinian (and other) terrorism -- that breach of international law -- is conveniently overlooked. Heck, if you're such a proponent of UN resolutions, what about the very one that created the state of Israel and a state of Palestine in the first place? If you demand "legality" so vociferously, what about that action by the world body? Which group crapped all over that plan, and began a war of annihilation to subvert it? Hint: It was not the Jews. And check out Chomsky and Vietnam. I mean, c'mon -- can anyone other than a hardcore far-leftist take such drivel even remotely seriously??
Supposed non-intellectuals can somehow -- just "somehow" -- manage to realize that, for example, Israel has absolutely NO obligation to return land gained in a defensive war of survival until and unless it gets guarantees from the other parties involved that they will refrain from terrorist activity, agree that Israel has a right to exist, and sign a peace treaty. Gee, after all, take a look at what happened when Egypt did just that in 1979: it got back the Sinai Peninsula which Israel had captured after the 1967 Six Day War. Regarding Vietnam, somehow non-intellectuals can accept that, yes, perhaps the US should not have even been there in the first place; however, somehow an authoritarian communist regime making use of a terrorist effort (Viet Cong) to infiltrate a neighboring government, not to mention next door's Khmer Rouge in Cambodia murdering millions is ... justified?
In the educational realm, so-called "intellectuals" are all over the place (and I am excluding higher education here for the nonce). Let's just examine what has happened, and what is currently on, here in the First State. With all that Race to the Top cash that it won a couple years ago, here's what the high-powered "intellectuals" have come up with and have proposed to evaluate individual non-core subject area teachers: They'll be evaluated on their schools' test scores in core subject areas. That's right -- if you're a "specialist" -- an art teacher, phys. ed. teacher, foreign language teacher, or chorus teacher -- over half of your performance evaluation will be based on a certain number of students' state test scores in core subjects (like math and English) ... students that you "touch" (and yes, that is the exact terminology that these "intellectuals" came up with!) on a daily basis. [Supposedly] Very smart people actually came up with this. Of course, it doesn't take someone with a very high IQ to then ponder, "How does that measure the teaching performance of a chorus teacher?" Or someone with a normal IQ might wonder, "If the chorus teacher is being evaluated on students' English and math scores, why does she waste her time working on singing? Doesn't it make sense that she tutor the subjects on which she's being assessed?" This is the best idea the state higher-ups could come up with!
Let's not forget the experience with judicial-enforced desegregation in northern Delaware. It was "intellectuals" who told us that all black children needed to succeed in school was to be sitting next to a white kid. And then that "super" intellect known as federal Judge Murray Schwartz rejected the state legislature's proposal of a voluntary busing plan -- y'know, putting the decision in the hands of the people -- and instead implemented the infamous "9-3 Plan": city students would attend suburban schools for nine years, and suburban students would attend city schools for three. (Schwartz, by the way, ended up sending his own children to private schools during the deseg imbroglio. Go figure, eh?) After nearly a quarter century, busing failed to increase student achievement, and now we see [minority] calls for ... a return to a city school district. A city school district in Wilmington, just like the one that existed before 1978, the year the federal desegregation order was implemented. But -- we were told (by supposed intellectuals) that minority children needed to be with white kids! That a predominately minority district should not exist! And people actually wonder why we don't revere our "intellectuals?"
How many of you have ever managed to sit through a typical school district-level inservice? Intellectual "educationists" -- usually Ed.Ds from within the district or professional "experts" -- package and repackage ideas and theories over and over again but with different colorful names or acronyms, and we're supposed to "oooh!" and "ahhh!" them as if they're the latest and greatest scientific discovery. Of course, many of these same folks are responsible for "great" ideas like Whole Language Instruction, which the (year 2000) United States Reading Panel concluded has led to reduced reading abilities in children. And whattya know -- there's 'ol Noam Chomsky's moniker linked to Whole Language Instruction! But, at least, this is his area of expertise, but a particular focus area that ultimately proved not very well conceived.
In another example, one of my favorite edu-bloggers, Michael E. Lopez, notes how "intellectuals" did a study which concluded the following:
School safety depends far less on the poverty and crime surrounding the campus than on the academic achievement of its students and their relationships with adults in the building, according to a new study of Chicago public schools. The report, released Tuesday by the Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago, finds that while schools in high-poverty, high-crime neighborhoods tend to be less safe than other schools, students’ level of academic achievement actually plays a bigger role in school safety than a school’s neighborhood. Furthermore, even in high-poverty, high-crime neighborhoods, the quality of relationships among adults and students at a school can turn one school into a safe haven while another languishes as a center of violence.
As Lopez notes, though, this is hardly "some sort of X-causes-Y phenomenon":
The “root cause” of school-wide (and even neighborhood-wide) suckage — safety, academics, attitudes towards authority, graduation and literacy rates, etc. — if some root cause there be, is actually likely to be extremely hard to identify because it’s probably something missing rather than something present.Still, it’s an interesting read. I was especially caught by this sentence:
After a trio of 7th graders “borrowed” a parent’s car for a joyride over the weekend, Ms. Hightower was able to retrieve the keys quietly and have the students meet with a community police officer—without threatening them with an official arrest.
This to me suggests that you not only need an involved, attentive faculty and administration, but it helps if you have a dollop of common sense, too. Children are not going to feel safe if they’re living in a thoughtless zero-tolerance prison system.
The problem with this is, when you do get someone in charge of such a school in such an environment -- someone like Joe Clark, the subject of the film "Lean on Me" -- the so-called intellectuals flip out. For proof, just check out this Time magazine cover from 1988. "Is Getting Tough the Answer?" the cover asks. "School Principal Joe Clark says yes -- and critics are up in arms" is the response. If you know the story of Clark, you know he was brought in to [hopefully] turn around the chaotic Eastside High School. He was a non-nonsense, no excuses kind of guy, with students and teachers alike. He "expurgated" (to use his words from the film) numerous chronic discipline-problem students, students who had repeated grades many times and "weren't going to graduate anyway" (again, his words from the film) as a beginning in restoring the necessary order and discipline a school requires if education is to even take place. But make no mistake -- Clark loved his students. He was the first to arrive at school, and the last to leave everyday. He told students to come see him in his office anytime about anything. In other words, he became like unto a father figure for many of the school's kids.
But to his critics, Clark was a loud-mouthed, egotistical authoritarian whose worst "crime" was expelling the perpetual troublemakers. The so-called intellectuals believe in the absolute "right" of students to get an education -- no matter what. And that "no matter what" includes countless -- innumerable, even -- discipline infractions, including countless violent offenses. It doesn't matter that these miscreants' behavior and attitude can disrupt not only individual classrooms but the entire building. The schools must "save" these kids -- even if it's at the cost of educating students who want to learn, and despite the fact that the vast majority of such kids can't be saved. And the "best" part of this whole debate is that those who are most vociferous about denigrating a man like Joe Clark either have never taught or have been out of the classroom for years (usually now in a comfy office at the central district office). But hey -- they've read theories on this stuff, don'tcha know!
In the arena of contemporary world politics, we've witnessed how our "intellectuals" have reacted to the killing of Osama bin Laden. Our president, long hailed as an "intellectual" by other "intellectuals" and so-called intellectuals in our media, campaigned on so many things that he has long since abandoned that it is hard to keep track. Among these are promising to close Guantánamo Bay prison, ceasing rendition of captured terror suspects, and promising civilian trials for terrorists. The instances of our intellectual class lecturing us common folk during the Bush years about the evils of all those things (and more) and endless. The biggest lecture, perhaps, was about the debauchery of waterboarding, and how it is not only depraved, but ultimately useless. But then lo and behold: It's revealed that the trail to Osama bin Laden was at least partially obtained thanks to the use of ... waterboarding the three al Qaeda bigwigs we captured in the early 2000s. B-b-b-b-but ... I thought such a practice was useless! And that's not the end of it: our "intellectual" class is also pulling out all the stops to justify shooting an unarmed, non-threatening man (bin Laden), while at the same time continuing either to claim that the waterboarding during the Bush years "didn't really work," or that there's "a legal and moral difference" between putting a bullet in a man's skull and subjecting him to simulated drowning (the former being legal and more moral, if you can fathom that; just take a quick look here for an example).
Is it any wonder why such "intellectuals" label President Obama an "intellectual?" Anyone who simultaneously claim that shooting an unarmed someone in the forehead is "legal" and "morally justified," but that waterboarding is not; claims that waterboarding was no factor in locating bin Laden despite all the evidence to the contrary; lauds the Navy SEAL team that offed bin Laden while at the same time bringing other SEALs up on charges for punching a captured terrorist; uses information obtained through waterboarding to locate and kill bin Laden while at the same time continuing to investigate these very same practices utilized by the CIA under the previous administration ... THAT, folks -- THAT takes some "brains."
But us "average folk" have very little difficulty seeing it for what it really is.
(Cross-posted at Truth Before Dishonor.)
From the University of Wisconsin, y'know, in the state where that nasty GOP governor Walker (or, in the parlance of our old friend and self-described champion of civil discourse[!!] Perry, "Governor Dictator Conspirator Walker") was much maligned by unions, and backers of unions (particularly the teachers unions), we see this:
A recording released by the Republican Party of Wisconsin exposes Professor Stephen Richards [UW-Oshkosh] using class time to actively campaign for the recall of State Senator Randy Hopper, encouraging his students to sign recall petitions offered by circulators present in his classroom.In the tape, recorded during a criminal justice class, Richards can be heard encouraging a female student to sign the recall petition even though she thinks she lives outside the district, and instructing students to sign using their campus address instead of their parents' home address. He also tells students to look for petition circulators all around campus and "in the bars."
Surprising? Hardly. One, he's a college professor (just recall a couple classic movie instances regarding this tidbit: one, from "Cocktail," and the other from "Back to School" ... see also this one at around the 1:23 mark) and two, he's an ex-con. Oh, and three -- he's got a ridiculous rug on his head.
Based on a story today in the Wilmington News Journal, it appears that Greg Mortenson, author of the award-winning Three Cups of Tea story about his work in educating women in Afghanistan, is a fraud:
The book also was added to reading lists in many schools in the state and was the University of Delaware's choice as the book to be read by all incoming freshmen.But a report on CBS' "60 Minutes" found that Mortenson exaggerated the number of schools he built. It also alleged that a large portion of the revenue from his charity, the Central Asia Institute, is used to promote his book, which is partly about his happening upon a village while lost during a hiking trip. Mortenson invented portions of his experience in the region, according to the CBS report.
You just gotta love the reaction by the professional educationists, too, in response:
Regardless of whether the allegations about Mortenson prove correct, UD students benefited from the broader subject matter of the book, [faculty director of first-year seminars Avron] Abraham added."It was really about building schools and educating women," Abraham said. "It was a great story about Greg Mortenson, but it didn't hinge on that. There's no doubt that he built schools and had an impact. How many schools? Those are all allegations I wait to see what his rebuttal is."
Ah, the 'ol "it doesn't really matter if it's true, it's the overall 'meaning and 'benefit'" bit. Which sounds very much like what occurred in the early 1990s with another "author," Rigoberta Menchu. Menchu won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1992 for her supposed autobiographical I, Rigoberta Menchu. But there's a problem: It's a fraud. But that hasn't stopped colleges from using "her" book; indeed, many educationists are outraged -- not at Menchu's fraud, but at those who exposed it. Professors, like Abraham above, invoke "the larger meaning" (Menchu's experiences in poverty-ridden Guatemala), and truth be damned. Much like the infamous Duke "rape" case (the accuser of which now is charged with murder), and/or the infamous Tawana Brawley hoax, which, as legal scholar Patricia Williams put it, "No matter who did it to her, and even if she did it to herself, Tawana Brawley has been the victim of some unspeakable violation." Menchu's "story," such that it is, must be so compelling that despite its lie has the Southern Poverty Law Center still maintaining classroom lesson plan information about Menchu up at their Teaching Tolerance website. And don't forget about the myriad fake "hate crime" instances scattered across the land (usually adjacent to schools or college campuses because the [phony] perpetrators certainly know their audience).
Ironically, as you may have noticed, Mortenson's phoniness being embraced by academia is sort of an anomaly in that he "reported" on the savagery of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Usually "progressive" educationists frown upon anything that puts "historically oppressed groups" in a bad light. (Admittedly, they face a conundrum with Mortenson's work -- women and fundamentalist Muslims are the subjects, and while the Taliban subjugates its women, the Taliban is, after all, a "victim" of Western imperialism and colonialism, not unlike how countless academics view the Palestinians in contrast to Israel.) Menchu was embraced wholeheartedly because "her" story was a distinctly concrete example of Western colonialism and imperialism, and of rich vs. poor. The Duke lacrosse players were "automatically" guilty because their accuser, a black woman, exemplified the long history of oppression against both African-Americans and women. Same with Tawana Brawley.
Etc., etc.
Semi-related case in point: A college professor responding with a "F*** you" is supposed to be OK because of the "historically oppressed" nature of her subject area (and possibly herself).
Uber edu-blogger Joanne Jacobs had a post up last week about giving -- or not giving -- a penalty for late work in school. She quotes two other edu-bloggers, pro and con. What caught my eye more than anything, however, were the comments by teacher "Cal":
I don’t assign math homework. When assigning history and English homework, I make it clear that the work will be on time, and if it isn’t, then they’ll will be staying in at lunch or missing any interesting classwork until it’s done.Most of my students turned in the work on time and, if they forgot occasionally, got it to me the next day or so. The students who were consistently late at first changed their behavior because they didn’t like staying in at lunch and after a while, they got the idea that they were going to have to do it anyway, so may as well do it sooner rather than later.
Teacher convenience is, I’m sorry, just a ridiculous reason to use late penalties. So what if it makes your life a bit more difficult? It’s part of the job. Cope.
Later on, "Cal" calls teacher late penalties ridiculous "morality plays," and says that such is to prepare students for the real world is "nonsense."
Many other commenters address Cal's points quite aptly (especially Michael Lopez, one of my favorite all-time bloggers who now writes at Joanne's site), but I'll throw my own two cents in here.
First of all, Cal is correct in that not handing in assignments does not denote academic ability in the subject matter. The key is finding an adequate balance of assessments. But Cal's issues with late penalties have several flaws:
1) The SES (socio-economic status) of the children. He says that his students will miss lunch / any interesting classwork until late assignments are complete. My guess is that, by making this very statement, he teaches relatively well-off students where such penalties are much more easily enforced. You think such a ... demand would be effective in a tough inner-city school? Not a chance:
"Brian, you're going to have to miss lunch today so you can finish that homework assignment from three weeks ago."
"F*** you, Mr. Cal."
And that's the end of that!
2) Grade level of students. Based on the fact that Cal said he teaches multiple [diverse] subjects it's a good bet he teaches elementary school. It's certainly easier to enforce such things as a lunch detention to get past-due work done, or make kids come after school to do it. Middle schoolers and especially high schoolers are much more likely to say "screw that."
3) Teacher convenience is a legitimate issue. As Michael Lopez notes in the comments in response to Cal,
Why should you get to turn it in after the assignment is due? Should students just get to turn ALL their work in ten minutes before the teacher has to file his or her grades with the front office? Of course not. A group of students that did this would receive F’s, and rightly so, because they missed their chance to demonstrate their skill level. And why would they have missed their chance? Because teacher convenience matters, and administrative convenience matters.
Indeed. Teachers have deadlines to get interim reports done in addition to the usual report cards. Imagine if 100 students handed in a late assignment (and a lengthy one, at that) the day before report cards had to be done by the teacher. In an nutshell, there simply isn't enough time in the day to grade these assignments and get the report cards finished. Period.
4) The real world is a relevant consideration. Let's follow Cal's logic to its logical conclusion through various "real world" examples:
You can see where this is going. The real world requires punctuality quite often. There are deadlines in the real world, just as teachers have deadlines. The great NFL coach Tony Dungy wrote "Being late means it’s not important to you or you can’t be relied upon." I personally find it amazing that schools today are expected to be virtually everything to kids these days, yet people like Cal would not require that basic punctuality be enforced -- perhaps the most important "real world" skill needed as an adult?
I've no doubt that there are teachers -- too many, perhaps -- who assign tedious class and homework assignments with little or no real assessment value. Such has little value period let alone if a late penalty is added for it being handed in tardy. As I noted above, the key is finding a balance, so here's how I've done my grading for over 15 years:
Seem fair? I haven't had any complaints about it since I implemented it.
So, in conclusion, let's face it: As one "moves up the ladder" in our district, then on to college, and then the working world, the penalties for being late increase in severity. Not having tangible consequences for is doing a disservice to kids.
Visit her website here.
Her platform: Choice, Charter and Magnet schools, discipline, high academic standards (but only after the discipline piece is in place).
Hard to argue with those!
Is this any surprise? Supporters of Philly schools chief Ackerman call protest against her "racist":
State Rep. Jewell Williams, NAACP honcho J. Whyatt Mondesire, and some others suggested people opposed Ackerman because she's African American. [Parent Sylvia] Simms isn't sure. "The thing is, there's always going to be prejudice that exists in the United States. I believe that if it was a Caucasian man, there wouldn't be this treatment. I just think that people think they can bully a woman - not just a black woman, any woman."
This is a terrific strategy when you think about it -- no matter how lousy a leader the person is, if he/she is an African-American, merely pointing this fact out (a lousy leader, that is) is "racist." Because, y'know, the person is black. That's all.
Heard about this on the radio en route to school this a.m.: "Boobies" bracelets OK in schools, judge says.
Breast cancer fundraising bracelets that proclaim "I ♥ boobies!" are not lewd or vulgar and can't be banned by public school officials who find them offensive, a federal judge in Pennsylvania said Tuesday in a preliminary ruling.The ruling is a victory for two Easton girls suspended for defying a ban on their middle school's Breast Cancer Awareness Day.
"The bracelets ... can reasonably be viewed as speech designed to raise awareness of breast cancer and to reduce stigma associated with openly discussing breast health," U.S. Judge Mary McLaughlin wrote in a 40-page ruling issued Tuesday. She added that the school district had not shown the bracelets would be disruptive in school.
I am a big proponent of free speech, (which should come as no surprise if you've ever read this blog!); however, the issue here is age appropriateness. Obviously the judge sees little hassle with 12-14 year olds using a slang term for "breast." Yes, the context is breast cancer awareness; so, why not have bracelets that say just that? After all, would a "I [heart] titties" be an acceptable phrase, then? How 'bout "I [heart] knockers"? Or "I [heart] nice racks"? These are middle schoolers. They laugh at anything even remotely connected to sex and/or genitalia. I can only imagine the innuendo that occurs with these bracelets and I'm sure that's what teachers and administrators were concerned about. High school is a different animal; the [student] maturity level is markedly higher, as a whole.
I actually hold the makers of these bracelets more accountable than the school(s). What were they thinking, distributing them in middle schools? Again, why couldn't the message be more direct and concise, like "Say 'no' to breast cancer"?
WPHT morning host Chris Stigall posited the following this morning: What if boys started wearing bracelets that said "Save your nuts" on them -- for testicular cancer awareness?
Where's the line drawn?
Breitbart.tv » College Students Lament Being in Debt: ‘I Might Have To Do a Job I Don’t Want”
Welcome to the club, it's called "Everyone". We meet at the bar on Friday nights.
The rest of the point about "good" debt is a matter of perspective. I'm one of those people who thinks that education, any education, has intrinsic value. That is not to say it will make you smarter but it will probably make you more informed. The problem is that we tend to conflate education with critical thinking. The two are very different.
Instapundit has been tracking what he's been calling the "higher education bubble". I agree that the path its on is unsustainable. They're going to have to cut something. You can't keep providing more and more and charging more and more. If this does pop as expected I think we might see the rise of more vocationally oriented schools. More people taking certification classes rather than bachelor degree classes. Frankly, I would have done better to take technical certification classes and started working earlier rather than waiting until after the B.A. That is not to say I regret getting a B.A., far from it. Rather, I wonder if it was worth what it cost.
...a Seattle school has banned the term "Easter egg" and in its place utilizes -- wait for it -- "Spring Sphere":
Jessica, 16, told KIRO Radio's Dori Monson Show that a week before spring break, the students commit to a week-long community service project. She decided to volunteer in a third grade class at a public school, which she would like to remain nameless."At the end of the week I had an idea to fill little plastic eggs with treats and jelly beans and other candy, but I was kind of unsure how the teacher would feel about that," Jessica said. She was concerned how the teacher might react to the eggs after of a meeting earlier in the week where she learned about "their abstract behavior rules."
"I went to the teacher to get her approval and she wanted to ask the administration to see if it was okay," Jessica explained. "She said that I could do it as long as I called this treat 'spring spheres.' I couldn't call them Easter eggs."
Of course, 'ol Seattle is perhaps best known for its ridiculous definitions of "racism," as well as its "diversity" training. So this latest idiocy should come as little surprise.
Chicago school bans some lunches brought from home.
At his public school, Little Village Academy on Chicago's West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria.Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.
"Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school," Carmona said. "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception."
I wonder if, aside from her teaching/administrators degree, Carmona has a degree in nutrition.
Unbelievable.
(h/t to Jonah Goldberg's tweet for the title.)
At least in terms of screwy situations. Case in point -- Valdosta State University:
A mass media professor is facing battery charges in connection with an incident that occurred in his 10 a.m. law class Friday, March 25.Assistant Professor, Dr. Frank J. Rybicki, was arrested Wednesday around 10:30 a.m., according to the Valdosta State University Police Department.
Dr. Rybicki is free on bail as of Wednesday afternoon, according to the Lowndes County Sheriff Department.
According to the original incident report, a 22-year-old female student went to the VSUPD to report an assault involving a faculty member in the mass media building.
The altercation occurred when Dr. Rybicki allegedly closed a laptop computer on the hands of the student, said Dorsena Drakeford, another student in the class and Spectator sports editor.
Dr. Rybicki closed the laptop because he thought the student was on non-class related websites. The student began to argue with Dr. Rybicki about closing the laptop and about the websites she visited while in class. Class was dismissed early because Dr. Rybicki seemed upset by the incident, Drakeford said.
As Joanne Jacobs notes, many students in the comments section of the article have voiced support for the professor. Indeed, based on the information provided, arresting the prof for battery seems fairly extreme, to say the least. Did the student go to the hospital for treatment to her fingers? Are they even bruised?
I totally understand the prof being upset. But I learned early on not to mess with students' stuff. At most, if kids take out their cell phone(s) in class (prohibited), or have, say, a magazine out that you've already told them to put away, teachers are allowed to take it until the end of the day ... and then give it back. If a student refuses to give up the cell phone/whatever, it becomes "defiance" and then they can be requested to leave the class and face further consequences.
Mom complains of "excessive force" when police use pepper spray on her kid:
Teachers were so scared of the boy that they barricaded themselves in a room and called police because he was "spitting" at them and had broken "wood trim off the walls and [was] trying to stab [them] with it."The report said the boy, identified in the news report as Aidan, told police, "I wanted to make something sharp if they came out because I was so mad at them. I was going to try to whack them with it."
The report also said when police arrived Aidan "was holding what looked like a sharpened one-foot stick and he screamed, 'Get away from me ...'."
Police told the boy to drop the stick twice but he refused so officers used two doses of pepper spray to subdue the youngster.
Mom said "I'm sure what he was doing wasn't right, but he's eight years old..." and that the police used excessive force. Well that's a relief! She's sure what her kid was doing wasn't right! Remarkably, mom said the kid wasn't on any meds nor has a mental illness. Might wanna look into that, mom, as well as examining the rationale that police were not only protecting other people from your kid, but from himself, as well.
... we read what some City of Brotherly Love parents and school officials are really concerned about.
Interesting turn of events in Iowa via Best of the Web:
An anti-terrorism drill based on a fictional scenario involving white supremacists angry over an influx of minorities and illegal immigrants was canceled Friday after officials of the school that was hosting the training exercise said they received threatening phone calls and emails.
You read the rest of the article for various reactions to this; nevertheless, the point in posting this isn't to criticize the school for the drill or even its choice of terrorists (because there are, after all, white supremacist terrorists!). The point is, what if the school made the terrorists Muslims -- or even illegal immigrants themselves? As James Taranto notes,
Is there any doubt that the Council of American-Islamic Relations, the NAACP and other such groups would object? Our surmise is that such scenarios were never even considered because officials have internalized a sensitivity to that kind of stereotyping. Why would anyone be astounded that [groups like] the Minutemen are as sensitive as CAIR or the NAACP?
I do believe that surmise is 100% dead-on.
If you can actually stomach to sit through and read the following remarks by Philadelphia School District Assistant Superintendent of Alternative Education Benjamin Wright regarding discipline problems in those schools, God bless you. I'll merely highlight the "best of the worst" here for some guaranteed jaw-dropping.
The past week, Philly.com has been running a huge exposé on the awful discipline problems in the city school district. Part 3 features incidents between students but also those against staff members. Here are some of Wright's classic remarks -- and excuses -- which personify why this district is such a mess:
He (Wright) opposes sending children that young to alternative schools or classrooms. They are in school to learn good behavior, and it's not right to banish them to a disciplinary setting, he said.
"It's not right" for whom? What about the many other children -- and staff -- who may be the victims of such out of control students? Is it "right" for them?
Wright says the problem is due in part to poor responses by staff, who inflame rather than defuse bad behavior.Take the case of a young student who refuses his teacher's directive to take his seat. "Does that mean that child's being disobedient? No, that means the child is bored.
"So you might want to say 'OK, I'll give you five minutes to move around and then I'm going to ask you to take your seat.'"
Ultimately, who cares if the child is bored? Why is that an excuse to defy a teacher's authority? Consider how Wright would "handle" that situation: In the meantime, other kids see this, and they refuse to sit down too. They want five minutes to walk around the class too. And what do all these kids do during these five minutes? Tantalize kids who aren't walking around? What happens if the kids want five more minutes? If the teacher refuses, is he/she "inflaming" the situation further?
And then there's this classic gem:
Wright also blamed the staff's unequal treatment of boys and Hispanic and black students."A boy can't do what a girl does in some schools. A black or Latino kid can't do what a nonblack or Latino kid does," he said.
He also said that adequate counseling and resources were available and that the staff received ample training to deal with problem students.
In other words, since there's an "imbalance" of discipline referrals of a particular racial/ethnic group, it's something the staff is doing ... like "inherent racism."
There's barely anything more risible in education than advocates for differential treatment for different groups of people just because the bean counters may be offended. Just never ask an educationist like Wright why, if racial/ethnic groups are "different" -- so much so that teachers need to "understand" these differences and hence treat students differently -- why the "achievement gap" is such a big deal? I mean, racial/ethnic groups are different! Shouldn't we therefore expect differences in achievement (in this case)?
And it gets better. Here's what this idiot said about a pregnant teacher who was punched in the stomach by a student who didn't get what he wanted:
Hearing of the case, Wright said pregnant teachers should know how to protect themselves.In this case, he said, the teacher should have given the boy what he wanted at the time and then called for help.
"If I'm in a school, and I'm a teacher, and I'm pregnant, make sure I don't put myself in harm's way, because the kids are going to be kids," Wright said.
"Kids will be kids" = punching a pregnant woman in the stomach. How does this mental pygmy have the position he has again??
Wright also "was skeptical" about a teacher aide who was attacked four times, "most recently by a 5-year-old kindergartner at Dobson Elementary who kicked and punched her." She suffered torn ligaments and tendons. Says Wright? "He probably only weighs 65 pounds. I can hold that kid off until some help comes."
Ye. Gad.
Be sure to read the entire series. And then thank The Maker that your kids (hopefully!) aren't in the Philly School District.
Following up on yesterday's basketball hoop issue where Delaware's DelDOT took away several hoops that were put up too close to the street in a local neighborhood, the News Journal opines correctly on it today:
As DelDOT crews and police removed street-side nets from other residents in Radnor Green and Ashbourne Hills -- who also object to the law -- Mrs. McCafferty's kids got the message they are above the law. And that's unfortunate. One wonders what the parents would have done if a wayward car crashed into a lively game outside their home, or a youngster chased a ball into a passing car. Sue the state for not following up on its own pre-identified safety concern?Mrs. McCafferty's husband, John, said he is considering emergency court action to prevent DelDOT crews from returning. That's extremely admirable parenting: Take appropriate legal action after you knowingly violate the law.
One message was clear, though: Even when the state sends out a warning months in advance that you are violating the law, ignore it until you can get some news coverage of your complaint.
Extremely well-stated. As I wrote yesterday,
I also don't think the parents are setting a particularly good example (like the mom climbing on top of her family's basket) for their kids. What's that say to the youngsters? "It doesn't matter what the law, or other neighbors, say -- we're gonna do what we want"? Great lesson, there. And they did receive warnings from the state about this, too. They just ignored them.
I'd also add, with this sort of situation, it's no freakin' wonder teachers bang their collective heads against the wall on a daily basis. Myriad methods of communicating grades and behavior are either ignored or not cared about ... until teacher takes some sort of disciplinary action against their child. Then mom or dad show remarkable speed in communicating and/or getting to school ... to complain about how those dastardly teachers and administrators are treating their kid!
*Sigh*
Ilya Somin reports over at The Volokh Conspiracy the lunacy that is law school "diversity" rankings:
Larsen ranks schools on the basis of the percentage of students and faculty who are African-American, Hispanic, or Asian, with a bonus if that percentage is significantly higher than the percentage of these groups in the state population. Under this system, most of the schools that get the highest possible rating (“A+”) turn out to be historically black schools where the student body is overwhelmingly black. Ironically, many of these schools are actually not especially diverse if that concept is understood as having a wide range of different groups represented by a “critical mass” in the student body, the theory adopted by the Supreme court in Grutter v. Bollinger as a justification for affirmative action. For example, one of the schools with an A+ rating is Howard University, where the student body is 78% African-American. Why should Howard be considered any more diverse than a school that is 78% white?
Because, as we've noted here at Colossus for years, "diversity," as understood by the Left, is a colossal sham. Leftists twist themselves into literal pretzels attempting to rationalize "diversity," only to laughingly contradict themselves, ultimately.
Houston Prepares To Host 1st African American Spelling Bee.
Spelling is an important building block to teaching children how to read. Research shows children who are good spellers become more confident readers. The movie “Akeelah and the Bee” was a heartwarming story however; no African-American child has ever won the Scripps National Spelling Bee in its 85-year history. The African American National Spelling Bee Championships, Inc.’s (“AANSBC”) focus is to get children excited about spelling. The goal is to help African American kids expand their vocabulary, which will make them stronger readers.
It goes on to say that the AANSBC will "will train our children to be able to compete in spelling on a national and international level." That's a laudable goal; however, why have a segregated spelling bee to do this? Won't children have to prepare for the AANSBC too? So, why can't this same preparation be utilized to compete in the Scripps (and other) non-segregated bees?
I'm just getting the same vibe with this as I did with Eric Holder's DOJ mandating that Dayton, Ohio lower the passing score of its Civil Service test so that more African-Americans can pass it. It's a bad idea and sets a poor example.
Lowering entrance scores for police exams ... because there aren't enough of a certain group being represented:
DAYTON — The city’s Civil Service Board and the U.S. Department of Justice have agreed on a lower passing score for the police recruit exam after it was rejected because not enough blacks passed the exam.The city lowered both written exams a combined 15 points that resulted in 258 more people passing the exam, according to a statement released Thursday by Civil Service officials. The agreement allows the city to immediately resume its plans to hire police and firefighters.
The original passing scores determined by Civil Service required candidates to answer 57 of 86 (66 percent) questions correctly on one portion and 73 of 102 (72 percent) on the other. The lowered benchmark requires candidates to answer 50 of 86 (58 percent) questions correctly and 64 of 102 (63 percent) of questions on the other.
What's next? Will the DOJ go after schools now because not enough minorities are passing state tests and/or assorted teacher tests? As it is, the Education Dept. is using "disparate impact analysis" to go after school districts for varying discipline rates among ethnic groups.
Is this not just a step on the road to chaos? Failing is "passing," and schools afraid to apply disciplinary measures for fear of DOJ lawsuits?
Maybe more people like Zachary Williams need to speak out:
Williams said he understands what the Justice Department is trying to accomplish, but he thinks it’s the wrong method and it’s keeping him from achieving his dream.“You can’t blame the city for the lack of diversity,” Williams said. “This isn’t your normal 9 to 5 job and you have to want it. I don’t want to be in a department where I was hired because of my skin color. I want it because I earned it.”
Community leaders agree with Williams and said the Justice Department’s method stigmatizes blacks.
'Ya think? Why is this so easy to figure out for clear-thinking people, but not hotshot lawyers and career federal employees?
Got me.
UPDATE: It gets "better": Check out what happens when you call for a paramedic in Massachusetts!
Interesting article in today's News Journal which quotes a Danny Young, a 1973 graduate of PS DuPont High School who wants a Wilmington city school district again:
In the future, he wants to see that children in Wilmington go to schools near their homes. He thinks they have the opportunity to get a solid education in their own neighborhoods, but the only way that will happen is if Wilmington has its own school district."Other powers that be have had control of our schools for 35 years and they failed," said Young, 56. "It's time to give it back to us. It's time to give us control. Even if the Legislature says 'no,' we're willing to go all the way to the Supreme Court to save our children."
Interesting choice of words there, Mr. Young. Because there exists a group from the city called The Coalition to Save Our Children which litigated to maintain the system of busing that had been in place since 1978! And those "other powers" you mention were the Coalition (or, its precursor), its plaintiffs ... and the then-extremely "progressive" judiciary, namely in the guise of one Judge Murray Schwartz!
So the question is ... which will save the children, then? Is it the system of busing which still essentially remains in place in New Castle County (the four major school districts have never substantially reverted to what they once were since the federal desegregation order was lifted in 1996), or is it going back to the existence of a Wilmington School District like that which was around pre-1978?
Back to the Future.
UPDATE: For a comprehensive overview of the New Castle County busing history, check out this classic Colossus post.
... this time -- and not surprisingly -- by New Castle County Councilman Jea Street. In a column disagreeing with the recreation of a Wilmington School District, he writes,
Sixth, the re-creation of a Wilmington School District would be deemed unconstitutional and new litigation would be required. Contrary to the Delaware General Assembly's action over the last 16 years and the nostalgic desire to re-create a Wilmington School District, the legal determination made in Brown v. Board is still the law of the land. In that regard, separate but equal is still inherently unequal. Therefore, segregation -- whether imposed by segregationists, the Delaware General Assembly or self-imposed -- is still segregation that is inherently unequal and in violation of the law.
Street must still be basking in the "progressive" desegregation heyday that brought Delaware the most "Draconian [plan] than any ever approved by this [US Supreme] Court." Unfortunately for him (but fortunately for rational, free will-favoring people), courts in the last 30 or so years have looked quite unfavorably on government-imposed, social engineering-based "desegregation" ideas, most especially ones that undercut the aforementioned concept of free will/choice.
Heck, even as far back as 1962, Judge Caleb Wright said, "Discrimination is forbidden, but integration is not compelled." Street therefore is pipe dreaming that a move to a new Wilmington District would be deemed unconstitutional, especially if based (wholly or in part) on the self-imposed choices of its participants/inhabitants.
Moreover, one may wonder if city residents (mainly minority) who favor a return to a district of their own are "racist" according to Street's very own rules. Because, after all, back during the debate over Delaware's Neighborhood Schools bill, he referred to the legislation as "new millennium racism."
There may be good reasons why a renewed Wilmington District shouldn't come into being. But it "being unconstitutional" and a return to "racism" sure ain't part of them. That's just trademark Jea Street bluster.
from here.
This is exactly the crap I hate about unions and public education. TWO YEARS to get rid of a teacher? Insanity. Me? I can be canned today. This minute and I gotta find another job. Sanity is somewhere in the middle of those two.
Teacher Hope Moffett spoke out against plans to turn her school into a charter school, and she was sent to what's colloquially known as the district's "teacher jail":
Moffett faces an "investigatory conference" today after she openly criticized the district's plan to convert Audenried, at 33rd and Tasker streets, in Grays Ferry, into a charter school as part of the Renaissance Schools initiative to turn underachieving schools around.Moffett said she was first told that she was in trouble for "inciting a riot" after students protested last week, and that the district ordered her in a letter last Thursday "not to discuss this matter.".
"Failure to follow this directive will result in disciplinary action," the letter said.
Moffett hasn't stopped speaking her mind, however, including writing an opinion in Tuesday's Daily News, signed by six other Audenried teachers, outlining why community members and many staffers believe that the changes are unfair.
"There's an attempt to silence anyone who asks a question, and that's not healthy for the district," said Jerry Jordan, president of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers. "Teachers should be able to question what is going on. It's her personal business, and if she chooses to say something, then that's her constitutional right."
It's a touchy matter, to be sure. As a public employee, a teacher does have greater flexibility when it comes to First Amendment protections than a private sector counterpart. And, I certainly wouldn't base an opinion on the Daily News's report alone. Failure to follow an administration edict can result in insubordination charges, which, in this case, means Moffett was sent to the "teacher jail." It doesn't say what subject Moffett teaches, so if she was discussing school district planning matters in, say, algebra class, the district can [legitimately] claim she wasn't doing her job. On the other hand, if she teaches English or civics, she might have a lot of leeway to discuss the subject, despite what the district actually desires. I'm sure there's enough of a gray area in various law to take both sides here.
Still, a "teacher jail??" There isn't a more ... grown-up alternative? How cheesy is that?
You've probably read about/seen by now the situation involving Holy Family University basketball coach John O'Connor and player Matt Kravchuk. If not, at practice during a rebounding drill, O'Connor got miffed at Kravchuk and shoved him to the ground, apparently hurting the player's wrist. O'Connor later apologized to Kravchuk and the entire team, but that wasn't sufficient -- for Kravchuk. He filed a criminal complaint with the Philly district attorney's office.
Is Kravchuk going too far? I say "yes." I've opined on here before that as a society we are too quick to take offense, and too slow to accept apologies (and to forgive). Sure, this coach overreacted. No doubt about it. But to file a criminal complaint with the city about it -- even after O'Connor apologized shortly after the incident? Sorry, but that's going too far. Hell, as regular Colossus commenter "cardinals fan" can attest, our junior high school basketball coach was a hard-ass, and he verbally thrashed us regularly, not to mention forcefully grabbed our jerseys (and yes, occasionally shoved us) if we weren't making the proper moves during a [practice] play. Should we have filed charges? We weren't even adults, like Kravchuk is!
Maybe John O'Connor can reprogram a Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 and really teach Kravchuk a lesson! Oh, wait, that was John Connor ... nevermind.
Look at what happened to Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna's car after he unveiled an education reform plan:
Hey, I think his idea of basing 50% of a teacher's evaluation on student achievement (only one facet of his overall plan, BTW) is crackers as I've yet to see such a plan that remotely makes sense and/or is fair, but this is how you react?? Luna's also gotten death threats and a teacher even showed up his mother's house!
The mainstream media had to make up stuff about the Tea Party so as to give credence to their preferred narrative. There's nothing to make up here, but don't hold your breath waiting to see this on the MSM.
Both fellow MU.NU bloggers -- one, the Confederate Yankee, and the other, fellow Watcher's Council brother Rhymes With Right.
I particularly liked this line from Yankee:
After engaging in the lowest form of politics and dragging a child into the pit with you, do you imagine his father will see you as an honest, dedicated teacher who is “protecting” his son? Would any parent feel that way? Do you imagine that Gov. Walker’s son will find you “inspiring,” should you eventually decide to return to the classroom which you have dishonorably abandoned? Have you obtained your fraudulent “doctor’s excuse?” Tell me Ms. Gustafson, what would you do with a student who skipped a week of school and showed up with a forged doctor’s note? If he said he did it for a worthy political purpose, would you excuse him?
Great question!
Mom makes son stand on street with sign announcing 1.22 GPA.
And go figure -- someone reported mom to the Department of Children and Families. Yeesh.
Remember -- no culture is any better than another:
BBC - Muslim students taught proper method for chopping the hands off of thievesIs it believable that in the 21st century, schoolchildren could possibly be taught that certain Jews were transformed into pigs and apes? Or that certain crimes should be punished by stoning?
Both the BBC and the Telegraph newspaper of London are reporting that Muslim students within the borders of Great Britain are precisely being taught these things.
And it doesn't end there. Students are taught at the age of 15 how to cut the hands off of thieves for their first offence and that their feet should be amputated for any subsequent crime.
Students are also instructed by illustrated diagrams showing exactly where the specific cuts should be made. (Link.)
Just don't raise any objections, though. Because, after all, in the eyes of a "progressive" multiculturalist, raising such objections is not only "Islamophobic," but much more heinous than the fact that these lessons exist in the first place!!
According to the Wilmington News Journal, "a group of ministers wants to make unannounced visits to Wilmington's public schools to make sure students are getting the education they need to avoid lives of crime."
Members of Interdenominational Ministers Action Council said they will be speaking to principals in the coming weeks to develop plans that would give them access to classrooms so they can monitor teachers, administrators and overall school performance."We can't interrupt. We can't go in there and teach the lesson," said the Rev. Christopher T. Curry, chair of the council's education unit. "But we come in unannounced, we sit, we listen. We watch how the classroom discipline is, how the instructors are motivating our young people ...
"If we see that it is not happening, we certainly would want to have this conversation with the principals who are involved. But if there is a rejection at that point, then we need to talk to the Department of Education."
Thankfully, the state teachers union is against this silly idea. Unfortunately, the state secretary of education, Dr. Lillian Lowery, doesn't see a problem with it: "It sounds right on," Lowery said. "These are good people with good intentions."
As you might expect (because, after all, it's not like you would the News Journal to actually focus on this aspect), many of the commenters to the article think the idea is ludicrous -- and think instead these ministers should make unannounced visits to the homes of these children to monitor how their parents are parenting:
-- Or maybe these Ministers can "sit" in the houses these students come from and observe the root of their violent and defiant nature. Then they can see for themselves that schools are not the reason for street violence, nor will schools be the end to street violence.-- Question: Are they also going to monitor the homes of the children in their 'adopted' schools?
-- Since it appears to be a well-known fact that many of the problems at school are as a result of lack of parenting at home, why aren't these ministers going to the heart of the problem? Perhaps conducting 'parenting classes' at their places of worship. Perhaps offering things to encourage parents to take an interest in their kids. Perhaps sharing with their communities the fact that out-of-wedlock children are not as likely to succeed as those from two-parent families.
-- I want to know what the Ministers are going to do with the parents that are not sending their kids to school. The problem is not the school. It's the parents that are not raising their kids.
-- Instead of walking into classrooms, why don't they walk into peoples homes and make sure they are being good parents.
I was wondering what precisely these ministers would be looking for in terms of what is motivating children and in terms of discipline. And did these ministers wonder what sort of artificial effect their mere presence would have on a classroom during their visit? In other words, kids tend to behave better when they see other "official" adults in a classroom. Do these ministers have degrees in the subject of the classroom they'll be visiting? Are they familiar with the teaching methods for that subject? Are they familiar with what the state test requires for that subject? Are they aware of how/what disciplinary measures are permitted for the school and/or district?
If, as I suspect, the answer to most or all of these questions is "no," then these ministers have no business "reporting" on anything from a classroom to a principal ... or anyone else. Personally, I don't have an issue with them visiting classrooms to make generalized observations -- as a public institution any member of the public should be so permitted (of course, with the usual school/child protection measures in place, i.e. administration chaperones, etc.) -- but the moment any sense of "officiality" about their observations becomes apparent, teachers (and their appropriate representatives) should speak up and have this practice cease.
Further, this idea wiffs somewhat of the aborted Consent Decree that city representatives wanted enacted during the battle to have the federal desegregation order lifted from county schools in the mid-90s. Included in that agreement were items such as the following:
Unlike others noted in the article and in the comments, I've little issue with their presence from a religious angle. But as they claim, their mission is merely "evaluation," what sort of "remedies" would they offer?
But even though Curry said this would be an "unofficial" evaluation, they would go to the district and education department if they find the school is not performing within the parameters they've set up.
What parameters exactly? Why weren't these laid out in the article so we'd all know precisely what these ministers would be looking for? Would [some of] their solutions resemble those from above from the mid-90s -- those that were soundly rejected by the state legislature?
I certainly hope not.
Via Ace, it's actions like these that give a certain profession of mine a bad rap:
Ye gad ...
Via Phi Beta Cons: Gaming Skills Become a College Course
Problem-solving skills used in one of -- if not the most -- popular real-time strategy games of all time are not unlike those used in the 21st Century real world. At least that is the song that the University of Florida is singing.The school, located in Gainesville, Florida, is offering a two-credit honors couse titled, "21st century Skills in Starcaft." The eight-week class "does not teach about Starcraft," but combines weekly gameplay, analysis of recorded matches and "synthesis of real/game-world concepts," to develop workplace skills.
I don't know what's sadder -- the mere fact that such a course is taught, or the fact that it's an honors course.
... he'd have been suspended for ten days. Plymouth-Canton School District Allows Ceremonial Dagger:
A Detroit-area district says Sikh students are permitted to wear a small, religious dagger to school.The decision by the Plymouth-Canton Community Schools reverses a ban put in place in December after a fourth-grader at a Canton Township elementary school was found with a dull, 3- to 5-inch kirpan.
It's either utter stupidity gets in the way of common sense, or political correctness gets in the way of common sense. It's lose-lose either way.
NY Senator Chuckie Schumer on checks and balances:
You know, we have three branches of government. We have a House. We have a Senate. We have a president.
Um, Chuck?
With apologies to Thomas Sowell, of course:
Jim Goodmon, CEO of Capitol Broadcasting, said this week that reporting of the student assignment issue in Wake County had been too balanced. Goodmon, a vocal supporter of Wake schools' long-standing diversity policy, said that reporters typically talked with each side of the debate and then quit reporting. He compared it to a reporter working on a story about whether the Earth is round or flat. The reporter quotes one academic saying the Earth is flat and another saying it's round. "I've done my job. Film at 11," Goodmon said. He believes deeper reporting would show that the diversity policy is the correct course to take.Goodmon made his comments Monday at the annual Martin Luther King Triangle Interfaith Prayer breakfast. Capitol Broadcasting owns WRAL-TV and its website. He said WRAL reporters are "the best." But he said, "I'm mad at them." (Source.)
The issue at hand shouldn't be unfamiliar to New Castle County, Delaware residents. Wake County, NC, like New Castle, is debating a move to neighborhood schools. Unfortunately, this would pretty much nix a "diversity policy" that has been in place.
And there you have it -- the magic word "diversity." Despite the evidence that the ambiguously nebulous term has no tangible effects on academic achievement, cultural elites like Goodmon and Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert (mentioned in the immediate link above) know that support for anything remotely "diversity" related gets them approving nods from their limousine liberal brethren. I mean, after all, how can one be against diversity, right?? Perhaps when it costs a ton of money, destroys communities and, as noted, provides no tangible benefits, that's how.
But much more disturbing than the predictable Colbert opposition is Goodmon's analogy to Flat-Earthers. Aside from the fact that such a comparison is ridiculously laughable, it's his job position that makes such comments actually dangerous. This isn't a matter of basic, hard scientific facts like the Earth is round; it's a cultural, societal and educational matter with myriad facets that should be debated and discussed as much as possible. Goodmon's position is authoritarian and stifling, and is merely the typical "progressive" penchant for obliterating points of view which dare to challenge their ingrained orthodoxy. And Goodmon could do just that.
A "wow" essay by Peter Sacks about how the entitlement culture is infecting colleges at an alarming rate. Here's a taste:
There's little doubt that postmodern students, confusing engaged learning with entertainment and performance, have come to depend on universities and professors treating them as passive subjects. Some students, apparently from the University of Texas, even have a Facebook page they call Students Against Professors Who Don't Utilize Technology. The students complain: "Don't you hate it when you sign up for a class that SHOULD be really interesting, and it becomes your worst nightmare because your professor lectures the entire hour and a half of class? Some professors need to realize that we live in the 21st Century." The Facebook description goes on, in all earnestness: "We grew up with computers, video games, and cable television. We have short attention spans."To be sure, technology has a place in the modern -- nay, postmodern -- classroom. Some topics lend themselves to a multimedia presentation or a real-time computerized assessment of student learning. But over-reliance on technology can turn higher education into nothing more than mediocre entertainment, dumbing down ideas and oversimplifying real-world complexities.
Such is the trade-off that the professor now faces: Sing, dance, and entertain at any cost, or else be prepared to deal with "disruptive" students, who chose disruption over hard work because, after all, they have short attention spans.
Engage the cliché and read the whole thing.
Far-left Prof. James Loewen connects slavery to ... extension of the George W. Bush tax cuts:
[T]wo ideological factors caused most Southern whites, including those who were not slave-owners, to defend slavery. First, Americans are wondrous optimists, looking to the upper class and expecting to join it someday. In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy now.
Loewen is perhaps best known for his book Lies My Teacher Told Me. (You can just imagine the "lies" he discusses.) Lesser known is what Loewen believes an "appropriate" (i.e. "not culturally biased") SAT question for African-Americans would be:
Saturday Ajax got an LD:a) He had smoked too much grass
b) He tripped out on drugs
c) He brought her to his apartment
d) He showed it off to his fox
e) He became wised up
Maybe Loewen's next column will discuss how his sample SAT question is connected to slavery. Nah, doubtful. Remember -- "progressives" such as Loewen believe African-Americans need their enlightened assistance to make it in this "oppressive" United States.
That is the question. Do what, you ask? Who's "they?"
Why do "progressives" insist on trying to link just about any evil occurrence to conservatives and Republicans ... despite virtually no evidence? What purpose does this serve, other than to make them look ridiculously foolish ... and to only galvanize the determination of their political opponents even more?
It's already been stated so here and on many other [right-leaning] sites over the past few days, but the rapidity of the Left in attempting to tie Sarah Palin's "target" graphic of Representative Giffords to her shooting has been nothing less than hideously revolting -- especially since the evidence of such a connection is zilch. This is called "THE NARRATIVE TM," folks. Y'see, the Left doesn't win -- and can't -- in the realm of actual ideas. The American public by and large wants smaller and more efficient government. Groups like the Tea Party came about largely around this philosophy. So what does THE NARRATIVE TM then dictate? Tea Partiers are racists, because our current Chief Executive happens to be a black man. In Arizona and across the country, Americans are fed up with illegal immigration and the federal government's inept response to it. States, like Arizona, take matters into their own hands as a result. The public overwhelmingly supports Arizona's efforts. So what does THE NARRATIVE TM then dictate? The state's governor and its citizens are bigots and xenophobes.
Republican politicians, notably George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Dan Quayle and Ronald Reagan are/were considered "stupid" because they made occasional verbal blunders. Of course, myriad Democratic pols did precisely the same thing, notably Al Gore, Joe Biden and Barack Obama. But THE NARRATIVE TM dictates that the latter are just "Al being Al," "Joe being Joe," and "Barack being Barack." Or, they had hard days when their miscues were recorded. And so on. The former? Stupid.
American universities have had this whole concept down to a science for some time now. They enact "speech codes" and "hate speech" provisions so sweeping and broad -- and nebulous enough -- that just about anything they deem "hateful" or "offensive" will be treated as such. Unfortunately for conservatives, it is their speech that is usually on the receiving end of such specious judgments. Don't want to participate in "Gay Pride Day?" You're a homophobe. Oppose affirmative action (and run a "bake sale" to illustrate why it's wrong)? You're a racist. Support Israel's right to self-defense? You like "apartheid." This is the campus version of THE NARRATIVE TM. And campuses will do what is still as yet unthinkable in general American society: They will prosecute you for such speech that goes against THE NARRATIVE TM, using kangaroo courts, denial of counsel, refusal to face accusers, and forced "re-education" like "diversity" seminars and "sensitivity training" to "alleviate" what ails you. Funny, that, just like what was noted in the second paragraph above , the positions noted in this one (usually by conservatives) are also favored by a majority of the American public. (Thankfully, so far, one outstanding organization battles such inanity -- and usually emerges victorious.)
These type of "progressives" know their ideas are not popular, and they resent it. And they know their ideas aren't likely to become popular anytime soon. So what recourse do they have? Well, at American universities, such "progressives" do what is noted above -- because they have a young, captive audience who they think they can intimidate. It works often enough, but when one student fights back, and makes use of groups like FIRE, the sunlight shone on these "progressives" much more often than not causes them to skitter back into the woodwork.
In the real world, these "progressives" know they can't get away with what their campus brethren can. So they resort to their allies in the mainstream media and attack those whose views they find abhorrent -- and label them "racists," "bigots," and attempt to link any sort of politically oriented violence to them ... despite what the evidence actually proves. Again, this is THE NARRATIVE TM.
And you can tell how pathetically desperate these "progressives" are getting, especially now that the Democrats took a beating last November. If it wasn't pathetic enough when they attempted to create out of whole cloth a story that members of the Congressional Black Caucus were the victims of hollered racial epithets right in front of the Capitol, we're now witness to THE NARRATIVE TM being utilized once again to tie conservative speech and images to the shooting of a congresswoman and federal judge, among others ... Despite. Not. One. Scintilla. Of. Evidence.
The funny thing is, 'ya think these miscreants would learn, especially in this day and (Internet) age that it won't work. If anything, it'll end up backfiring. The phony story about the CBC and racial epithets didn't stop opposition to ObamaCare, and it didn't prevent the Democrats from getting crushed on Election Day. Perhaps this is why those invoking THE NARRATIVE TM are now so ridiculously transparent in their desperation, not to mention haste, in disseminating it. Unlike 20 years ago, now there is the Internet, Fox News, and myriad conservative radio outlets to counter the previous monopolistic and monolithic MSM. (And I don't know which is more comical -- the increasing desperation of those invoking THE NARRATIVE TM, or their "explanations" as to why Fox News and conservative radio hosts are so damn popular.)
So, in conclusion folks, it's OK to get miffed when these dimwitted "progressives" take advantage of an incident like that which happened on Saturday. But just keep in mind that ultimately it will come back to hurt them -- where it hurts most: in the wallet and at the ballot box. That is the cost to these "progressives" of ... THE NARRATIVE TM.
Aren't "progressives" those who most vociferously claim "don't tell me what to do with my body" when it comes to things like ... abortion?
The St. Paul school district will make all public schools "sweet-free zones" by the end of the school year.Debra LaBounty, president of the Minnesota School Nutrition Association, said she believes St. Paul is the only district in the state to institute such a dramatic measure. National nutrition leaders say fewer than a handful of school districts in the country have tried such a thing.
With a nod to their role in reducing the nation's high obesity rate, Minnesota's second-largest school district plans to fully enforce the ban on sweets.
Reminders have been sent to teachers, students and parents that "sweet, sticky, fat-laden [and] salty treats" aren't allowed during the school day, said Jean Ronnei, the district's director of nutrition services.
OK, how are they going to "fully enforce the ban on sweets"? The article says that only verbal warnings will be given; however, knowing kids as I do, if that's the maximum punishment, what happens if said warnings don't suffice? I'd like to see the write-up: "Possession of Hershey's Kisses in sweet-free zone; refused to put away." Sheesh. A 10 year-old seems to understand the concept of freedom a lot better than the district's educationists: "A lot of us feel it should be up to us to determine what we should do with our bodies," said the [ironically named] Misky Salad.
But this has to take the cake, so to speak:
They call themselves the "Christmas Sweater Club" because they wear the craziest ones they can find. They also sing Christmas songs at school and try their best to spread Christmas cheer.Now all 10 of them are in trouble because of what they did at their school.
"They said, 'maliciously maim students with the intent to injure.' And I don't think any of us here intentionally meant to injure anyone, or did," said Zakk Rhine, a junior at Battlefield High School.
The boys say they were just tossing small two-inch candy canes to fellow students as they entered school. The ones in plastic wrap that are so small they often break apart.
Skylar Torbett, also a junior, said administrators told him, "They said the candy canes are weapons because you can sharpen them with your mouth and stab people with them." He said neither he nor any of their friend did that.
The kicker in this one? "Mother Kathleen Flannery said an administrator called her and explained 'not everyone wants Christmas cheer. That suicide rates are up over Christmas, and that they should keep their cheer to themselves, perhaps.'"
(h/t to Cato at Liberty.)
Must. Not. Mention. Ham. In. Class.
According to the account of the facts, the teacher was explaining the different climates in a geography class and cited the village of Trevelez due to its cold and dry climate. According to the newspaper account, ”as a story, the teacher told his students that such a climate was conducive to making hams (this refers to the procedure that it’s necessary between the pig is killed and the ham is actually ready to be eaten). Then the student asked the teacher not to speak of hams since it offended him, because he was a Muslim. “The teacher told the students that in his classes, he did not consider the religion of their students, but apparently the family did not stay at home when they learned the facts, to the extent that they went to the National Police to file a complaint without speaking in advance with the teacher. (Link.)
The maestro “is accused of being the author of an alleged crime of abuse of workers, also alleging racist and xenophobic motives.“
UPDATE: Elsewhere in the land of Euro-"free" speech nuttery (via Tongue Tied):
Lars Hedegaard, President of The Free Press Society in Denmark, said,
"Of course [Danish MP] Lars Hedegaard should not have said that there are Muslim fathers who rape their daughters when the truth appears to be that they make due with killing their daughters (the so-called honour killings) and leave it to their uncles to rape them."
This violated § 266b of the Danish penal code so Hedegaard was fined $1,000.
In the UK, a bar that advertised a drink called a "Suicide Bomber" was accused of "insensitivity" by that area's Race Equality Council.
In Italy, an atheist requests "asylum" in Sweden due to the "overabundance" of crucifixes in his own country.
Back in the UK, a local pol got arrested for supposedly calling for the stoning of a Muslim woman ... in an attempt at irony -- since said woman had previously stated on the radio that "no politician had the right to comment on human rights abuses, even the stoning of women in Iran."
Lastly, in New Zealand (I know -- not Europe, but culturally close enough!), Air New Zealand's ditching of a commercial where an All Blacks (not a racial term) rugby player refuses a kiss from a gay flight attendant "could lead to gay male suicides" according to (surprise) a professor.
[Chicago] Mayoral challenger James Meeks recently said that the term "minority" should only apply to blacks:
“The word ‘minority’ from our standpoint should mean African American. I don’t think women, Asians and Hispanics should be able to use that title,” he said. “That’s why our numbers cannot improve — because we use women, Asians and Hispanics who are not people of color, who are not people who have been discriminated against.”
Meeks later apologized. But I'm sure that would be news to women, Asians and Hispanics! And maybe Meeks ought to check out a bit of history and the Constitution -- specifically, Amendments XV and XIX.
Nevertheless, Meeks merely voiced what is pretty much standard practice, notably in education: "Minority" doesn't mean "anyone other than Caucasian," including women -- especially Asian. Why? Because Asians outperform Caucasians in virtually every measure. And women? They're not the minority, either in general population nor college enrollment population, though higher ed certainly appears to be a lot more "sympathetic" towards them than Asians.
A California mother, Monet Parham, has filed a class action suit against McDonald’s. How come? Because she absolutely SUCKS at basic parenting:
“I am concerned about the health of my children and feel that McDonald’s should be a very limited part of their diet and their childhood experience,” Parham said. “But as other busy, working moms and dads know, we have to say ‘no’ to our young children so many times, and McDonald’s makes that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald’s is getting into my kids’ heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.”
Using such "logic," why not a class action suit against candy makers? Toy makers? Video game designers?
Overlawyered's inimitable Walter Olson chimes in:
You’re probably wondering: How is this grounds for a lawsuit? No one forced Parham to take her daughters to McDonald’s, buy them that particular menu item, and sit by as they ate every last French fry in the bag (if they did).No, she’s suing because when she said no, her kids became disagreeable and “pouted” – for which she wants class action status. If she gets it, McDonald’s isn’t the only company that should worry. Other kids pout because parents won’t get them 800-piece Lego sets, Madame Alexander dolls and Disney World vacations. Are those companies going to be liable too?
And, back to the title of this post, you can imagine how such ... "parents" react to their kids getting into trouble at school and/or them getting bad grades. "But as other busy, working moms and dads know, it tough to stay up on what our kids are doing at school! How are we supposed to make sure our kids are doing their homework? That they're studying for tests? Why can't the teachers check in on them -- after all, isn't that their job?"
I say all responsible parents file a class action suit against Parham (and those like her who've sired offspring) for defamation of parents everywhere.
Via Zero Out of Five:
Look at #6. Those of you who had even a little Spanish back in the day may remember that "pen" is usually either "[la] pluma" or "[el] bolígrafo."
"Pene" in Spanish means ... "penis."
"An Associated Press-Stanford University Poll on education found that 68 percent of adults believe parents deserve heavy blame for what's wrong with the U.S. education system — more than teachers, school administrators, the government or teachers unions." (Link.)
Only 35% said teachers deserve "a great deal or a lot of the blame."
Not surprisingly, conservatives blame parents more than liberals do. And those who placed more blame on parents cited "a lack of student discipline and low expectations for students as serious problems in schools."
Here's a good example of the liberal view: Julie Woestehoff, executive director of Parents United for Responsible Education, a Chicago advocacy group, says,
The problems children and their parents deal with inside and outside of school every day are growing. Children are tired, they're hungry and they need someone to help with their homework. Some kids face violence at home or in their neighborhood. Some parents are trying so hard to keep a roof over their family that they can't help with school.
Excuse me, but how exactly is this different from any other time in American history? How are the problems "growing?" And even if they are, why? Just to name one, but d'ya think the huge growth in illegitimacy might have anything to do with the downward trend in school discipline and academic performance?
And here's what kills me:
"A variety of research in past years backs up the poll respondents' sense that parenting plays key roles in school performance."
IT TAKES RESEARCH TO CONFIRM THIS !!!!!!!!!!
"Exposing kids under 2 to too much television can cause them to develop language skills later, researchers at the University of Washington have found."
IT TAKES RESEARCH TO CONFIRM THIS !!!!!!!!!!
Then:
Educating parents about how the school system works and welcoming them to get involved may also help their children, according to Joyce L. Epstein, research professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University, who focuses on school, family and community partnerships."Without programs to educate parents, everyone is working in some stage of ignorance." Epstein said.
True; however, just imagine attempting to ask a parent why in the world he/she cannot fix a simple lunch for his/her kid every morning ... like a very simple peanut butter and jelly sandwich, say. Or, get them a bowl of cereal in the morning. Even those on food stamps can do this. What do you think the reaction will be? Would it be like "You're right -- I need to plan a little better and do more," or would it be like "Who are YOU to tell ME how to live MY life?" And this is in large part why we see a lot of what we do in schools. Apathy. Irresponsiblility. No one's fault. Free school breakfasts and lunches should be for only those that truly need them. How many kids who receive such now have expensive sneakers and cell phones, for example? Therefore, in this regard, what sort of incentives do the parents of such children have to do things for their children ... themselves?
"These are tough times we're living in," [Mike] Principe said. "What's our world going to be like when our 2-year-old is an adult?"
No times are too "tough" when it comes to your own children, Mr. Principe. Or, at least they shouldn't be. More parents need to heed this very simple message.
MSM outlets across the land "sounded the alarm" (including our own Wilmington News Journal) about how American students fared on the recent PISA tests. But edu-writer Diane Ravitch has to slap the faces of the cretins at the WNJ to knock some sense into them, among others:
Consider the two top contenders on PISA: Shanghai and Finland. These two places — one a very large city of nearly 21 million, the other a small nation of less than six million — represent two very different approaches to education. The one thing they have in common is that neither of the world leaders in education is doing what American reformers propose.According to the OECD, the international group that sponsors PISA, the schools of Shanghai — like those in all of China — are dominated by pressure to get higher scores on examinations. . . .
OECD points out that more than 80 percent of students in Shanghai attend after-school tutoring. It remarked on the academic intensity of Chinese students. Non-attention is not tolerated. . . .
Finland is at the other end of the educational spectrum. Its education system is modeled on American progressive ideas. It is student-centered. It has a broad (and non-directive) national curriculum. Its teachers are drawn from the top 10 percent of university graduates. They are highly educated and well prepared. Students never take a high-stakes test; their teachers make their own tests. The only test they take that counts is the one required to enter university.
Can you imagine 80% of American students coming for after-school tutoring? And "non-attention is not tolerated ..."?? Ha! Hell, teachers here can get a parental 3rd degree for booting a kid out of class for raising holy hades in the room ... and preventing any instruction!
The US used to allow what Finland does to a degree, though I doubt American teachers ever came from 10% of college graduates.
This all doesn't mean that the US can't learn anything from the Chinese, the Fins, or anyone else. But when doltish outlets like the News Journal completely overlook political and especially cultural differences when it comes to discussing education, you should be highly skeptical of their "sky is falling" rants.
Syracuse University College of Law (SUCOL) has threatened a student with "harassment" charges for the last two months because of the content of a satirical blog about life in law school, but the university has refused to tell him what expression in particular justified the charges or even who is charging him. Worse still, SUCOL is now demanding a gag order on law student Len Audaer, his attorney, and any media outlets that receive information about the case."Because of his alleged involvement with a blog intended to resemble The Onion, Syracuse has held harassment charges over Len Audaer's head for two months," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. "Now the university is trying to force him into silence, despite the fact that Audaer still doesn't know the identity of his accuser or even what expression is at issue. Syracuse University College of Law should be demonstrating the importance of free speech and due process to its students by example; instead it seems to prefer the example of the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland."
Yet again, folks, never believe it when a so-called "progressive" tells you he/she stands for freedom, especially freedom of speech. The only freedom faux progressives believe in is the right to agree with them.
Not to mention more than a few schools (for anti-US exam questions, of course): Teacher arrested in Kashmir for 'anti-India' exam questions.
The Dallas Independent School District has named a new magnet school after our current chief exec -- except they apparently forgot how Mr. Obama spells his first name (scroll down to second-to-last school):
Via Ace: The harshest, most ridiculous, most racist, most guffaw-inducing parent complaint letter sent to a school official EVER.
Yeah -- teachers should not slap kids. I get it. But ... *shakes head*
Page 10 is where the fun really begins. Wow.
My jaw dropped when I read this:
Professors routinely complain about students who spend class time on Facebook or texting their friends or otherwise making it clear that their attention is elsewhere. But is it acceptable for a faculty member to deal with these disruptions by walking out of class?Two years ago, a Syracuse University professor set off a debate with his simple policy: If he spots a student texting, he will walk out of class for the day.
Now two faculty members at Ryerson University, in Toronto, sparked discussion at their institution with a similar (if somewhat more lenient) policy -- and their university's administrators and faculty union have both urged them to back down, which they apparently have.
The Ryerson professors' policy was first reported last week in The Eyeopener (the student newspaper) .... Two professors who teach an introductory engineering course in chemistry jointly adopted a policy by posting it on the courses' Blackboard sites. ... [T]he professors said that after three warnings about disruptions such as cell phone discussions and movies playing on laptops, the professors would walk out of class -- and students would have to learn the rest of that day's material themselves. ...
The student newspaper described a chaotic environment in the class where the faculty members made the threat to walk out, with loud chatting among students and even paper airplanes being shot around the room.
Wow. The advantage professors have is that they can walk out. Garden-variety school teachers certainly can't. (Although substitutes can, and have.)
In a related matter, several teachers and I were chatting at lunch today and though we agreed that our students this year really aren't any less well-behaved than usual, the overall tone of parent complaints, inquiries and demands has been eyebrow raising. As you might expect, with this in mind, such just might explain (some of) the behavior witnessed in those college classrooms!
Via Insty comes word of the Left's latest attempt to squelch speech which they don't like:
…the [“Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act”] bill redefines [campus-based] harassment in a manner that is at odds with the Supreme Court’s exacting definition of student-on-student harassment, which successfully balances the need to respond to extreme behavior with the importance of free speech on campus. In Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999), the Court defined student-on-student harassment as conduct that is “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims’ educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities.” This definition has been relied upon by courts for more than a decade and has been adopted by many institutions across the country, including the entire University of California system.Flouting the Supreme Court’s carefully crafted balance, the bill removes the requirement that the behavior in question be objectively offensive. The loss of this crucial “reasonable person” standard means that those most interested in silencing viewpoints they don’t like will effectively determine what speech should be banned from campus.
And gee, just who do you think will be making such decisions? Yep, the vehemently PC totalitarian Left.
No one I know has ever looked to the Wilmington News Journal as a bastion of intellectual heavyweights, and today's editorial about US schools (Delaware, in particular) vs. those in China and Taiwan proves it again by missing (on purpose?) one HUGE point.
Can you figure it out?
An update if no one can or there are no replies.
... the teacher who came to my room that late 1994 afternoon and asked if I wanted a Charlie Oberly yard sign for my house. "Why?" I asked. "I'm voting for Bill Roth." (Oberly was the Democrat going up against the long-time GOP incumbent senator.)
The look on the teacher's face was priceless.
Unfortunately, too many teachers are liberal Democrats, and seem to automatically feel that all their colleagues are too. Oops.
Which brings me to this pathetic story:
In a close election race against former Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina, California Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer is facing new ethics complaints over asking teachers to send their students to work for her campaign.In an Oct. 27 letter to California education authorities, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA), a non-profit group urging lower taxes, said, “In abject ignorance of California state law, the political campaign of Senator Barbara Boxer has openly solicited teachers employed by [Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)] to urge their students to volunteer for her campaign.”
If I had gotten such a letter, I'd send it back with a Post-It note saying "Go to Hell."
... begins in Delaware.
Funny how I mentioned it earlier without even knowing about this article. Soooooo predictable with this nonsense.
The Messiah visits the kids featured in "Waiting for Superman."
Too bad about that aforementioned voucher program.
Stupidity like this:
If schools discipline more blacks or Hispanics than white students, federal officials warn they’ll use “disparate impact analysis” to charge civil rights violations, reports Education Week.Under “disparate impact,” schools can be in violation if discipline policies affect one racial group more than others, even if there’s no evidence of unequal treatment for the same offense or an intent to discriminate. An education agency would be found out of compliance if an equally sound policy would have less of a disparate impact, Russlyn Ali, an Education Department official, told Ed Week.
As mentioned, just another reason race relations have soured. "Stupid" is an understatement. What about the "disparate impact" of disciplining more boys than girls? Or what about that "unproportionate representation" of races on various sports teams?
No wonder The Messiah wants his daughters in a private school. Secretly, you know he wants to avoid edu-nonsense like this at all costs.
UPDATE: Sigh. Former director of [Delaware's] Moyer Academy Charter School Theo Gregory doesn't get it either.
RELATED: The dolts at the Philly Inquirer are distressed that in their city, which is 44% black, there's not enough black faces in the Philly Orchestra.
Via the Tween Tribune:
The American Civil Liberties Union claims in a lawsuit filed Wednesday that a North Carolina school violated the constitutional rights of a 14-year-old student by suspending her for wearing a nose piercing.The lawsuit from the state chapter of the ACLU seeks a court order allowing Ariana Iacono to return immediately to Clayton High School, which has kept her on suspension for four weeks since classes started.
The complaint hinges on Iacono's claim that her nose piercing isn't just a matter of fashion, but an article of faith. She and her mother, Nikki, belong to a small religious group called the Church of Body Modification, which sees tattoos, piercings and the like as channels to the divine.
Personally, I don't know which is sillier -- the school suspending a kid for a nose piercing (quite common these days, and WTF is the essential difference between that and ear piercings, anyway?) or the ACLU actually suing on "religious" grounds?
Maybe I should have had the ACLU back me up back in the day so I could have freely dropped the F-bomb whenever I wanted in school. I was once a member of a "small religious group" called the Church of F-You. ;-)
Well, specifically conservative pundit Dom Giordano, whose column today on parents and their kids is right on the mark.
LAST week, a federal judge refused to suspend an innovative 24/7 policy developed by the Haddonfield School District that punishes students for off-campus drug and alcohol use. The district, trying to curb substance abuse, would bar students from extracurricular activities if they're accused of breaking the law.The policy was cheered by many because it was a reasonable attempt to do what a number of Haddonfield, N.J., parents were failing to do - raise their children in a responsible manner. Fearing that the loss of extracurricular activities on their child's resume would prevent them from getting into a prestigious college, these parents opened their checkbooks and hired lawyers to fight the policy.
In the eyes of these parents, the fact that their children were arrested for underage drinking was irrelevant - the warning signs of potential substance abuse were secondary. Sadly, what was important was that nothing get in their child's way of getting into a "name" college.
First, good for that judge. And now -- that "other" aspect of parent hassles that teachers dread. Usually in the media and elsewhere, you hear about apathetic parents who never show up for meetings or open houses, and never return calls or e-mails. But on the other side of the coin are the type of parents from this article -- the mom and dad who believe their kid's feces don't stink. Every form of [disciplinary] action by a teacher or administrator is questioned and fought. (Who are we to make such a judgment about their child, after all?)
I mean, c'mon -- what good are you doing your kid by pulling this sort of nonsense??
Girodano has more examples:
While education reform is a hot topic today, what about parental reform? Bad parenting is equally harmful to a child's ability to achieve success at school and in life. If you don't think this is serious, consider some of these scenarios:"Not My Child" Syndrome. At one time or another, most children behave badly. But way too many parents, confronted by another parent or teacher about their child's behavior, get defensive and go into blind denial mode. Without proper discipline, kids develop a sense of entitlement and the dangerous realization that their bad behavior will go relatively unpunished.
Enabled by clueless parents, kids soon realize there are no moral boundaries. Bad behavior escalates. Yet no matter how many times these parents are confronted, they refuse to see reality. It probably pains them to think they've raised less-than-perfect children - but it's more painful to see the damage these disruptive kids do to the other kids they victimize.
And this is the ... "intangible" which the endless educational "reforms" present and coming down the pike never take into account. Teachers today are not only expected to teach, but to act as a parent to the kids too -- but without the means to discipline the kids as an actual parent would.
Here's another classic (personal favorite) head scratcher:
"Why haven't you ever contacted me about my child's grades and/or him not turning in work?" Hmm, let's see: First, elementary school has long been bye-byes. At this level, I have almost 170 students. Not only do I have approximately that many homework assignments and tests to grade when I assign them, but then I have to grade the corrections on them too. Then, not only do I input these grades on a hard copy page, I also put them online -- updated at least once per week -- for you to view at your leisure. And not only that, I post homework assignments on my personal webpage -- when they're assigned, when they're due, what they're worth, and a description of the work -- so that you know what's going on in my class. This is all in addition to the district-mandated interim reports and report cards, by the way. So, in other words, I am providing you with more than enough information about your child for you to keep up with what he/she is doing... and how he/she is doing. Oh, and remember what I mentioned at that Open House? "E-mail me anytime if you have any questions."
In essence, it boils down to the fact that if I had to e-mail (or call) each and every parent about each and every single assignment, test and quiz, a 24 hour day would be insufficient. But more importantly, me doing that aborgates mom and dad of their responsibility.
See also: Why I don't (and won't) coach anymore, Why I decided against coaching (again), and Sounds VERY familiar!
Saw this story over at Joanne Jacobs' edu-blog:
An elementary school teacher from South Gate who mysteriously disappeared last week was found dead about 9 a.m. Sunday in the Angeles National Forest, authorities have confirmed.The Coroner confirmed the body found by a search and rescue team near Big Tujunga Canyon Road is that of Rigoberto Ruelas, 39, a fifth grade teacher at Miramonte Elementary School.
Authorities said it is a suicide, but did not say how he killed himself. An autopsy is scheduled for Monday.
Friends and family said he was feeling stressed about work and a recent teacher evaluation report printed in the Los Angeles Times.
"He kept saying that there's stress at work," said Ruelas' brother, Alejandro.
In my opinion, Ruelas had problems that went beyond just the reporting of his teacher rating in the paper. The report in the LA Times was this. The paper used a "value-added" analysis which "estimates the effectiveness of a teacher by looking at the test scores of his students."
Each student's past test performance is used to project his performance in the future. The difference between the child's actual and projected results is the estimated "value" that the teacher added or subtracted during the year. The teacher's rating reflects his average results after teaching a statistically reliable number of students.
But then we read this under the "What are some of the limitations of the value-added approach?" section:
Scholars continue to debate the reliability of various statistical models used for value-added estimates. Each has an inherent error rate that is difficult to measure. Value-added estimates may be influenced by students not being randomly assigned to classes, or by students moving from class to class during a single year. Likewise, they could be misleading for teachers who team-teach. Even many critics of the approach, however, say value-added is a vast improvement on the current evaluation system, in which principals make subjective judgments based on brief pre-announced classroom visits every few years.
I don't know how many times I've opined here and elsewhere on the idea of basing teacher evaluations solely on student test scores; if you (the public) want that to be the way your teachers get evaluated on their "effectiveness," so be it. You pay our salaries, after all. But the Times itself admits, this value-added method has its skeptics -- there's plenty of debate on its use -- yet it still thought it a good idea to publish the supposed "effectiveness" of all area 3rd, 4th and 5th grade teachers via the method. And even though, through its article FAQ, it notes the limitations of "value-added," how many people would actually take the time to comb through it? Or (more likely) will parents and others merely head for the "Find A Teacher" and "Find A School" menus and take what the results say as gospel? For me, this is essentially the same as a biased newspaper headline -- people see the headline, and barely scan the actual article.
I've also opined that I have little difficulty with such assessments if they're well thought-out and fair. In Ruelas' case, I was left wondering (and perhaps I missed something from the various pages of the Times story) about the across-grade comparison. For example, say a student has truly excellent teachers in 3rd and 4th grade. But then when they reached Ruelas in 5th grade, their test scores dipped -- because, say, Ruelas was just slightly "worse" a teacher than his 3rd and 4th grade counterparts. Contrariwise, Ruelas rating would be the opposite if his 3rd and 4th grade colleagues weren't very adequate; his rating would be positive since when they got to him the students' scores went up a bit. In other words, it is highly dependent on the teachers that precede you for your rating. Not very good teachers preceding you can "mask" another bad teacher, and very good teachers can "mask" another very good teacher.
Delaware is moving in this direction, and trust me -- if you know anyone in education in the first state, they probably don't know much about Race to the Top (RTTT) and, specifically, how it will affect them yet. But it's here now. Don't'cha think they should know (by now)?
In my case, I teach a first-year course. What would be my baseline? There's no teachers in the pipeline before me that teach the subject. Should I assume that I'll always get an "effective" (or "highly effective") rating since it's essentially inevitable that my students will show progress ... because they've never had the subject before me? I don't know! Apparently, we have to have a baseline test in place by next school year. What is it? I don't know. How will I be measured? I don't know. What exactly is on this test? I don't know.
And so on. Yet, this will be part of my job evaluation.
That's why I titled this post what I did. Again, ask educators across the state if they're 1) anxious, 2) uncertain, 3) stressed beyond belief, 4) scared, and 5) very worried. I bet all five will be an "affirmative." I've never seen a school year begin like this. But I will tell you that if things had been concretely laid out and teachers knew what to expect -- and how they'll be evaluated ... well, it'd be a whole different story.
Par for the course for the state? Don't get me started.
Protesters Demand Indian River Schools Hire More Minorities.
About two-dozen people protested outside a school board meeting Tuesday night demanding the Indian River School District do more to hire minorities.Of the 498 employees in the school district, fewer of 50 of them are minority in terms of race, Pastor Claudia Waters said. Waters, who conducted that research on her own, helped organize the rally.
Waters said hiring more minorities would help bridge the achievement gap by enhancing diversity and culture in the classroom.
Pastor Marvin Morris said students need teachers of all races in order to receive a proper education.
To Ms. Waters: Really? Let's see the research on how "enhancing diversity and culture" reduces the achievement gap.
To Mr. Morris: Define "proper."
Call me silly, but I thought that hiring the most qualified teachers would be the most beneficial thing for students.
Obama: D.C. schools don't measure up to his daughters' private school.
And why would that be, Mr. President? Why would let lapse a voucher program for DC students ... so that they might get a semblance of the same education your own daughters get for $31,000 per year??
Ye gad. Hurry up, 2012.
Edu-blogger Joanne Jacobs notes an article about the Hollywood formula of "white knight" teachers that come in to "save the day" for tough, urban schools. I had written about precisely this almost four years ago (and to which Joanne linked) and noted a few stand-out flicks that focus on outstanding minority teachers (who're those usually in the trenches at tough, urban schools) such as "Lean on Me," "187" and "Stand and Deliver."
But the best part of Jacobs' post is the link provided in the comments by the ever-awesome Michael Lopez (a former edu-blogger himself) to a video from "Mad TV" titled "Nice White Lady" -- a hilarious satire of that aforementioned Hollywood formula.
John Rosenberg (whom I consider my blog "godfather" for inspiring me to get into blogging) has yet another unintentionally funny essay up about "diversity-mania" in higher education. This time, diversophiles are concerned that "not enough" minorities are signing up for study abroad programs.
Well, rat's bit. Looks like my program back in the mid-80s (in Costa Rica) was in "violation." Of the thirteen of us, there was only one minority (a black male). That's about seven and a half percent. Oh, wait -- since black males make up roughly six percent of the general population, does this mean this group was over-represented in our study abroad program? Or, do we include the total African-American population (approx. 12%) and conclude that this group was under-represented? (Of course, if you know anything about the philosophy of diversophiles, over-representation of minorities isn't of any concern.)
Thus, the continuing inanity of "diversity" and "proportionate representation" rocks on ...
UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds knows: "It’s only a diversity problem if the gap goes the other way. Duh." He said this in reference to the huge gender gap in higher education.
The United States Student Association is looking for national board members — of a certain sexual orientation.The Board has not met the diversity guidelines stipulated in the Constitution, which require that 30 percent of the Board identify as openly queer.
30%? So much for "proportionate representation," huh? I mean, it's estimated that only 10% or so of the general public is gay, so what's up with that figure of 30%? Well, I do know what's up -- proportionate representation is only important when it applies to certain groups, namely whites and males. Higher than proportionate figures for "historically oppressed" groups are just fine and dandy.
But that aside, get a good laugh at how this idiot group USSA twists itself into a pretzel concerning its "Voting Members":
“3. Whenever the representation of people of color on the board of directors is less than fifty percent (50%), the NPCSC shall elect students at-large to compensate for the difference. Whenever the representation of women on the board is less than fifty percent (50%), the NWSC shall elect students at-large to compensate for the difference. Whenever the representation of openly lesbian gay, bisexual and transgender students on the board of directors is less than thirty percent (30%), NQSC shall elect students at-large to compensate for the difference, at least fifty percent (50%) of their representatives must be people of color and fifty percent (50%) must be women.”
And it gets better. Here's its "Delegate Selection and Diversity Guidelines":
“10. For the purposes of these guidelines, delegates will self-identify with caucuses and affiliates. Self-identification shall mean that a delegate identifies with a particular community to the extent that they feel it is comfortable and appropriate to attend the closed, safe space of a caucus or affiliate meeting. For the purpose of credentialing, a delegate’s declared identity will not be subject to question or review by any means.11. For the purposes of these guidelines, a delegate shall be said to identify as a person of color only if they identify with NPCSC, Women of Color Caucus, or National Queer Students of Color Caucus. A delegate shall be said to identify as a woman if they identify with NWSC or Women of Color Caucus. A delegate shall be said to identify as queer if they identify with NQSC or National Queer Students of Color Caucus. All other identities shall be determined by identification with the corresponding caucus.”
The hilarious thing about this is that these bozos take this crap seriously! I'd love to be a college undergrad today; I'd love to apply as a delegate to this group, especially based on the above. I'd say "I 'identify' with the NPCSC." Even though I am not actually a member of a minority group, there's nothing based on the above guidelines that states that I cannot identify with such a group, right? And if some shlub in the Association is skeptical of me, I'll merely point out that "a delegate’s declared identity will not be subject to question or review by any means!"
So there!
Via the Washington Examiner:
President Obama's top education official urged government employees to attend a rally that the Rev. Al Sharpton organized to counter a larger conservative event on the Mall."ED staff are invited to join Secretary Arne Duncan, the Reverend Al Sharpton, and other leaders on Saturday, Aug. 28, for the 'Reclaim the Dream' rally and march," began an internal e-mail sent to more than 4,000 employees of the Department of Education on Wednesday.
Although the e-mail does not violate the Hatch Act, which forbids federal employees from participating in political campaigns, Education Department workers should feel uneasy, said David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute.
"It sends a signal that activity on behalf of one side of a political debate is expected within a department. It's highly inappropriate ... even in the absence of a direct threat," Boaz said. "If we think of a Bush cabinet official sending an e-mail to civil servants asking them to attend a Glenn Beck rally, there would be a lot of outrage over that."
'Ya think? The MSM and the usual suspects would be all over it in a heartbeat.
An instant classic:
In yesterday's News Journal: Delaware schools: District plan would pay parents to attend events.
Thanks to "kidney" for the tip!
Well, the new school year is upon us, and as such it's time for a little education humor. The following was sent to me from a fellow teacher, but I make no claim as to its accuracy:
The following questions were set in last year's GED examination. These are genuine answers (from 16 year olds).
Q. Name the four seasons.
A. Salt, pepper, mustard and vinegar
Q. Explain one of the processes by which water can be made safe to drink.
A. Flirtation makes water safe to drink because it removes large pollutants like grit, sand, dead sheep and canoeists
Q. How is dew formed?
A. The sun shines down on the leaves and makes them perspire
Q. What causes the tides in the oceans?
A. The tides are a fight between the earth and the moon. All water tends to flow towards the moon, because there is no water on the moon, and nature abhors a vacuum. I forget where the sun joins the fight
Q. What guarantees may a mortgage company insist on?
A. If you are buying a house they will insist that you are well endowed
Q. In a democratic society, how important are elections?
A. Very important. Sex can only happen when a male gets an election
Q. What are steroids?
A. Things for keeping carpets still on the stairs
Q. What happens to your body as you age?
A. When you get old, so do your bowels and you get intercontinental
Q. What happens to a boy when he reaches puberty?
A. He says goodbye to his boyhood and looks forward to his adultery
Q. Name a major disease associated with cigarettes?
A. Premature death
Q. What is artificial insemination?
A. When the farmer does it to the bull instead of the cow
Q. How can you delay milk turning sour?
A. Keep it in the cow
Q. How are the main 20 parts of the body categorized (e.g. The abdomen)?
A. The body is consisted into 3 parts - the brainium, the borax and the abdominal cavity. The brainium contains the brain, the borax contains the heart and lungs and the abdominal cavity contains the five bowels: A, E, I, O, U
Q. What is the fibula?
A. A small lie
Q. What does 'varicose' mean?
A. Nearby
Q. What is the most common form of birth control?
A. Most people prevent contraception by wearing a condominium
Q. Give the meaning of the term 'Caesarean section'?
A. The caesarean section is a district in Rome
Q. What is a seizure?
A. A Roman Emperor.
Q. What is a terminal illness?
A. When you are sick at the airport.
Q. Give an example of a fungus. What is a characteristic feature?
A. Mushrooms. They always grow in damp places and they look like umbrellas
Q. Use the word 'judicious' in a sentence to show you understand its meaning
A. Hands that judicious can be soft as your face.
Q. What does the word 'benign' mean?
A. Benign is what you will be after you be eight
Q. What is a turbine?
A. Something an Arab or Shreik wears on his head
Via Phi Beta Cons:
A sports conference that always scheduled weekday basketball doubleheaders in which women’s teams played the first game — letting the men play in the later time slot — has altered the practice, after an anonymous sex discrimination complaint charged that this made the women’s games appear to be a “warm-up” act for the men’s games.Now, hoping to avoid possible gender equity suits, other athletic conferences are considering similar scheduling changes. (Source.)
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights strikes again!
Look, here's the deal: One, women's sporting events are just not as popular as men's events because the level of competition is not as great. Fact. Two, universities planned the double-headers the way they did to maximize fan attendance and, most importantly, profits. With women playing first, it's highly likely that some fans who had planned only watch the men's game will arrive early, and as such will catch a bit of the women's game. If women play second, I can virtually guarantee that a ton of spectators will vamoose from the arena as soon as the men's game ends.
If these "gender equitists" really believe in "equality," why not dismantle the whole premise of separate men's and women's sports altogether? It's the logical conclusion of their "philosophy," after all. See how many women make the teams, then.
Oh, wait -- then a lawsuit will be brought forth charging discrimination based on "disparate impact" ...
Well, after my buddy's and my annual Fellas Weekend, my girlfriend and I hit Cape Henlopen beach yesterday. Two incidents during that time with her, in addition to a few more earlier today, REALLY are causing me to question why I am always such a nice, polite guy in public. Seriously.
When my girlfriend and I arrived at the Cape, it was pretty early. Thus, we got a prime parking spot near the beach's entrance. We left around 2:30, and as we were entering the parking lot, I noticed a van, full with family, circling around looking for a parking spot. I waved my hand around and indicated to the driver where we were parked and that we were leaving. I even pulled my car out of the spot before we packed up our gear so as to hasten the van's parking.
Now, did anyone from the van even utter a simple "thank you"? Nope. Did the driver physically indicate such when I gestured to her? Nope. She and her family merely poured out of the van, got their stuff, and hit the beach. My incredulous girlfriend and I just packed our stuff -- in the fire lane, mind you -- and simply chuckled. It's all we could do.
A couple hours later, the girlfriend and I hit a local eatery near her house. We were seated next to a mom and a few of her kids, including an infant. The infant had no toys in his high-chair, nor did mom give him anything to eat. Thus, the little guy was crying quite a bit. Mom's reaction? Cursing at him the entire time, including the F word. All within easy earshot of us, too, natch. Unbelievable.
Then, earllier this afternoon, I hit the local supermarket to pick up some needed items. And what do I encounter? Clueless old ladies with their carts in the middle of the aisle not heeding my polite "excuse me's." Clueless moms on their cell phones making sure the entire aisle can hear what the other person on the line wants from the store (all the while also keeping their carts dead center in the aisle). Clueless moms paying no attention to their kids who're running amok through the aisle (and store).
*Sigh*
And school begins in about three weeks. Connect the dots.
UPDATE: The unfortunate ultimate result of folks like the above.
President Obama, that is. Recently he said,
We should all make more of an effort to discuss with one another, in a truthful and mature and responsible way, the divides that still exist — the discrimination that’s still out there, the prejudices that still hold us back — a discussion that needs to take place not on cable TV, not just through a bunch of academic symposia or fancy commissions or panels, not through political posturing, but around kitchen tables, and water coolers, and church basements, and in our schools, and with our kids all across the country.
Eugene Volokh reminds us (at the link above) that discussing race around water coolers would NOT be a very good idea. That is, if you valued your continued employment. Why? Potential charges of "harassment" and "hostile work environment" among other tidbits. And in our schools? Yeah, right.
As I've said many times, "progressives" like Obama do want frank discussions on race -- as long as everyone agrees with their viewpoint. Otherwise, "RACIST!!!"
Shouldn't be a revelation, really:
The prominent "progressive" historian Howard Zinn, whose books are force-fed to young people on many college campuses, was not only a member of the Moscow-controlled and Soviet-funded Communist Party USA (CPUSA) but lied about it, according to an FBI file released on Friday.The file, consisting of three sections totaling 423 pages, was made available on the FBI's website and released in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from this writer.
Zinn taught in the political science department of Boston University for 24 years, from 1964 to 1988, and has been a major influence on the modern-day "progressive" movement that backed Barack Obama for president.
Although Zinn denied being a member of the CPUSA, the FBI file discloses that several reliable informants in the party identified Zinn as a member who attended party meetings as many as five times a week. (Link.)
Considering the time-frame involved I can understand why Zinn would have been reluctant to be fully truthful about his political leanings. But later on?
I wonder if Matt "You oughta read Zinn's A People's History of the United States it'll knock you on your ass" Damon will being up all this info in his next sneaky film reference about the historian/author.
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign:
Alliance Defense Fund attorneys sent a letter Monday to University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign officials on behalf of a popular, highly regarded professor who was fired for explaining the position of the Roman Catholic Church on human sexual behavior to members of his Introduction to Catholicism class.“A university cannot censor professors’ speech--including classroom speech related to the topic of the class--merely because certain ideas ‘offend’ an anonymous student,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French. “To fire a professor for teaching the actual subject matter of his course is outrageous. It’s ridiculous that a school would fire a professor without even giving him a chance to defend himself when he simply taught Catholic beliefs in a class about Catholic beliefs.”
Dr. Kenneth Howell, who had been teaching at the university since 2001, was relieved of his duties based in part on an anonymous complaint sent via e-mail to university officials. The e-mail was sent by the friend of an anonymous student who claimed to be “offended” by a May 4 email Howell sent to students elaborating on a class discussion on Catholic beliefs about sexual behavior. The May 4 e-mail from Howell addressed a May 3 lecture in which he explained how the Roman Catholic Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual conduct. He properly stated the church’s teaching that homosexual conduct is morally wrong, framing the issue in the context of natural moral law.
Well gee. We can't have a poor young adult be offended now, can we? Especially in a conversation regarding what the f***ing class is all about! But this is a university, after all, so certain groups' feelings and concerns have a higher priority than those of others. If this prof was teaching a course on, say, modern American progressivism, and mentioned some things that offended a conservative who attended the class, you think his job would be in jeopardy based on one anonymous complaint?
Heh.
Who knew? According to the enlightened brains at the Wilmington News Journal, 420 million kids are on waiting lists for charter schools!
Population of the USA? About 307 million.
Barack Obama is among best presidents ever say scholars in Siena poll.
That's the verdict of 238 of the nation's leading presidential scholars, who - for a fifth time - rated Franklin Delano Roosevelt the best president ever in the latest Siena College Research Institute poll.In office for barely two years, Obama entered the survey in the 15th position - two spots behind Bill Clinton and three spots ahead of Ronald Reagan.
Obama got high marks for intelligence, ability to communicate and imagination, but his score was dragged down by his relative lack of experience and family background.
Folks, if you've ever doubted the fact that universities are overwhelmingly liberal and an isolated womb outside the real world, look no further than this survey. How a guy who's been in office for only a year and a half can rank at #15 ... and ahead of Ronald Reagan ... is beyond astonishing.
And WTF is "imagination"?? How does that realistically come into play when ranking presidents? How come (at least that I saw) something like "RESULTS" isn't listed among the ranking criteria? Contrariwise, how elitist is it to consider "family background" when looking at presidential greatness? Who cares if Obama was raised without a father? How does that play into his effectiveness/ineffectiveness as a chief exec? For me, that makes him "better" than JFK, the Bushes, and any other president who came from mega-money because he didn't have everything "handed" to him.
Yeesh.
UPDATE: For some easy and cheap laughs check out what the LGOMB's Jason "Soft Hands Trust Fund" Scott has to say about the survey. He "coverts" Republicans Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt into Democrats (based on modern political definitions), but amazingly then keeps Tom Jefferson as a Democrat.
But give him a break. He can't really help his utter stupidity.
I wrote yesterday about Oliver Stone's slobbering love fest for Venezuelan strong-man Hugo Chávez. The left-leaning Village Voice (aside from Variety) takes Stone apart for his film fellatio about Chávez, noting his preposterous hypocrisy:
And yet Stone raises the specter of media manipulation when it suits him, devoting a whole section of the film to sympathetically presenting Chávez's argument that during the failed coup attempt of 2002, the Venezuelan media were so in the tank for his political opponents that they edited footage of rioting in the streets to make it look as if Chávez's supporters instigated a fire fight. The construction of false realities for political gain is the subject of much of Stone's own work—so why is he content to take each leader's practiced-for-the-camera spiel at face value, never pushing for information or conducting interviews on any deeper level than a photo op? South of the Border's subjects are masters at cooking bullshit, and Stone just eats it up.
Because, at least in part, Stone is a rich, pampered elitist, whose status and position makes him "see" (he believes) the lofty "goals" and "values" of rulers like Chávez (and Fidel Castro) -- and yet conveniently ignore the cold hard realities of their policies. Why? Good question. You think Stone would ever live as a typical Venezuelan or Cuban for any length of time? You think members of Congress (like idiot Maxine Waters) who've spoken favorably of Cuba would likewise do so?
Hell no.
I've always been fascinated by well-to-do lefties who just don't get it. Are they so enamored by the professed ideals of people like Chávez that they purposely block out the actual results? Or do they actually approve of the results -- jail for political differences, massive barriers to free speech, etc. -- at least in the short term, so that the ideal can be reached?
I've come to the conclusion that there are essentially two types of people who support people like Chávez, Castro, et. al.: Very well to-do "progressives" (usually foreigners) and the very destitute (usually natives). People in the middle usually want nothing to do with these thugs. I can understand the destitute; it's the reason why the double Cs got into power in the first place. After all, the majority of Latin American countries are poor. Costa Rica, where my ex is from and where I've spent a heck of a lot of time over the last 25 years, is one of the few L.A. countries with a sizable middle class -- and as such is a stable democratic nation which generally despises far-left politics.
There's my own grappling with far-left politics: It began in 1986 when I first went abroad (to Costa Rica) as a college junior to study. (Detailed here and here, among other places.) As noted in that first link, this was largely due to the influence of our accompanying professor. Dr. M clearly falls into the first category I noted -- a well to-do progressive. Whoa -- an American academic ... a progressive?? What a surprise, eh? Dr. M lectured to us and had us read about the virtues of the then-in progress Sandinista Revolution in neighboring Nicaragua. I became quite an opponent of the US-backed insurgency there, and Dr. M even noted that many of us should look into opportunities to study ... in Cuba!
And that's just it. I was studying. I wasn't a part of the [average] Nicaraguan (or Cuban) population. I was essentially on a big vacation where studying was only a [relatively small] part of the whole equation. I had enough money to do as I wished. In effect, it was a charade. It was far from reality. How in the f*** could I sit there and, based on what an academic and his choice of books said, judge the Sandinistas and Castroites as nothing but beneficient? (Side note: It was also around this time that I was rabidly pro-Palestinian. Another side effect of academic progressivism!)
By the time I was a grad student I had delved into the opposing side of the Sandinista-Contra question (not to mention the Palestinian-Israeli topic). There was clearly a lot more to the whole discussion than what had been presented by Dr. M, needless to say. So, again -- what is it that so arouses comfortable progressives to the poverty-inducing policies of people like Chávez? Is it a deeply-ingrained desire for "equality" at virtually all costs? The ultimate egalitarianism? Our own [leftist-dominated] education system is replete with such a philosophy. We cannot have "achievement gaps" among various racial/ethnic groups. Academic "tracking" is anathema. Honors and gifted classes with the "wrong" ethnic make-up are a no-no. Group work over direct instruction. Restrictions on free speech on campuses so as not to offend "historically aggrieved" groups. Etc. But all these efforts at "equality" only make people equally ... poor, destitute and wanting.
A good (leftist) friend recently visited some of his family in Cuba. He is furious at people like Stone because they are clueless. The only "equality" is in poverty, and the moral hypocrisy of the Castro regime is appalling; his tales of young girl prostitution that are outright ignored by the regime were sickening. Further south, average Venezuelans like the members of Los Amigos Invisibles and the myriad friends I have made from that country are all trying to get out, or, if they're already out, get their families out. These are average Venezuelans, folks, not rich elitists.
I'm not a big fan of those who put forth knee-jerk quips like "America, love it or leave it;" however, when it comes to "progressives" who unhesitatingly espouse the "virtues" of people like Hugo Chávez, Fidel Castro, (Bolivia's) Evo Morales, I will quickly ask them to go live in those "paradises" as a typical citizen for a period of not less than six months. They cannot take any of their American-earned cash with them. They have to live completely as a typical Venezuelan/Cuban/Bolivian citizen.
Think they'll want to come home after those six months?
Be sure to check out Dave Jones' superb article on Delaware school discipline today.
Coming on the heels of this idiot we have two more dolts who are busy giving teachers a bad rep:
Some students are calling for the firing of two Dennis-Yarmouth Regional High School teachers who held an anti-war sign during a school assembly Friday.History teacher Marybeth Verani and English teacher Adeline Koscher made their silent protest during the part of the assembly in which school officials recognized graduating seniors who are entering the military.
"They not only imposed their political will, they imposed it at the wrong time," said D-Y junior Andrew Bowles Jr., who organized an after-school protest yesterday that drew about 30 students.
Parents and other community members have flooded the high school principal's office with about 40 e-mails and phone calls criticizing the teachers' actions.
"I honestly feel (the protest) was misplaced," said D-Y parent Joanne Schuman of Yarmouth. "I think they should have been removed from that event."
"Misplaced" is being very polite. What is it with teachers who think their views must be heard ... that they have this entitlement mentality that supercedes all notions of basic politeness and civility?
Stop giving us black eyes, you cretins. Thank you.
I really don't see the big deal about this:
A school principal in Wrightsville, Wisconsin, has defended on constitutional grounds the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in Spanish at the school. Responding to a letter of protest from the mother of a kindergarten student, Principal Lee Mierow of Wrightsville Elementary School said he wanted to ensure that Spanish-speaking students understood the importance of the Pledge. But he also seemed to suggest students have a constitutionally guaranteed right to recite the pledge in the language of their choice while participating in the ritual at school.
Well, considering that students have the constitutional right to not even say the Pledge (West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943), I'd surmise it's a fairly safe assumption that they have the right to say it in Spanish if they so choose.
I also think the principal's point is spot-on: Wouldn't we want students to know the importance of the Pledge above all other considerations? If students are [very] new immigrants to our country, learning English will take some time. Instilling the values of the Pledge in a kid's native tongue -- while they're learning English -- seems pretty darn reasonable to me.
The protesting mom who brought this to the media's attention is missing the point in several respects:
"Not only does reciting this in Spanish insult our family as American citizens, it is disrespectful to the veterans who have defended our country," she wrote. "English is the primary language in this country. The Pledge of Allegiance was written in English and should be recited in English. No similar accommodations were made for other immigrant patterns in history nor should they be as long as the American flag is flying."
How does it insult your family, really, ma'am? Don't we want newly arrived peoples to understand and accept our cultural, political, and legal values? How much you wanna bet that in the past, immigrants who recited the Pledge in their native lingo had no idea what the hell they were saying? Sorry, but our veterans fought for American values, not the English language. But the mom is right, at least, in one respect: English is the US's primary language -- it is not the official language, thus meaning legal barriers to mandates regarding it are few. So, this is another factor in the principal's favor.
As long as students are learning English -- in the quickest and most reliable way possible -- I see no reason why they cannot [initially] learn our Pledge in their native tongue. Again, America is about a shared culture, and legal and political philosophy -- an idea and ideal -- much moreso than a common lingo. Should we make sure that we have a common language? Of course. But not at the expense of the former.
Rhymes With Right asks the question. Remember Texas?
Then there's this:
Standing in front of a wall-to-wall mural featuring a who's who of revolutionaries, including Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, and boldly displaying the motto Patria o Muerte, Venceremos!!! (Fatherland or Death, We Shall Overcome!!!), a group of teachers, students, parents and community activists in the Los Angeles Unified School District gathered last month for an unusual field trip — to Arizona, to protest that state's controversial immigration law.A video posted on YouTube shows LA social studies teacher Jose Lara interviewing teachers and students on May 28 at the headquarters of an organization calling for a Mexican revolution on U.S. soil. Soon after he shot the video, many in the group left for an overnight "freedom ride" to Phoenix to protest what Lara tells the camera is a "racist and outrageous" law.
Only MSM talking heads can get all uppity about "capitalism" [supposedly] being replaced by "free enterprise," but then shrug their shoulders about a school field trip featuring those great humanitarians Castro, Minh and Guevara.
Check out this asset to humanity.
Apparently, his past teachers didn't have enough "cultural competence" training and as such, "let him down."
Sometimes I wonder if the News Journal doesn't write up its ridiculously one-sided articles just to yank the public's chain. The letters reaction has begun to dwindle in from its articles about school suspensions and discipline. Here's a common reaction (based on the online comments) from Mike Stanek of Wilmington:
We are trying to form a foundation for children so they realize what behavior is right and what behavior is wrong. So instead of disciplining these students, let’s blame the teachers and school districts for trying to enforce some sort of rules for the students.The erosion of accountability of our youths is getting greater. Keep enabling everyone, so we don’t have any form of respect for authority whatsoever. I feel sorry for future employers of these individuals, as they will have no regard for company policies, as long as they don’t hurt anyone.
Next, Marie Anne Aghazadian of Wilmington says schools need to understand special education disabilities:
According to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, students with disabilities are entitled to services and support that take into consideration the manifestations of their disabilities. Yet schools routinely suspend students with special needs for behavior that occurs as a result of their disabilities.Students with Attention Deficit Disorder are being suspended for making poor decisions, students on the autism spectrum for inappropriate social interactions and children with behavioral health needs for showing signs of anger or depression.
Based on my understanding, such students are permitted to be suspended -- up to ten days per year. They could possibily be suspended more than ten days if the determination is made -- via a "manifestation meeting" -- that the suspendable offense is not related to the student's disability. Ms. Aghazadian may not be aware, but until a student has either an IEP (Individual Education Plan, for special ed. students) and/or a 504 accommodation (for special ed. OR regular ed. students), schools do not have to recognize a student's "disability."
That brings us to the larger question of whether such students -- especially those with more severe disabilities -- should even be in traditional classroom settings if said disabilities may [often] disrupt the learning environment for the vast majority of children.
Lastly, George Poole of Newark notes what Mike Matthews and myself did a few days ago:
“Del. students suspended at twice the U.S. average” (Sunday) was not clear on whether the figures represented the total number of suspensions/expulsions or the number of students who experienced those forms of discipline. In other words, every school has a number of students who are suspended multiple times during the year. For example, a student who is suspended 10 times is very different than 10 students being suspended one time.The article is not clear about the criteria used by the state and across the nation in compiling these numbers. A school showing a “discipline rate” of 44.8 percent of 1,132 student enrollment faces an entirely different set of issues to work on than examining the total of 498 suspensions at that school. A large number of those suspensions were caused by behaviors of repeat offenders. In that example, the school is not looking at almost one-half of its students being troublesome.
The original article did state that "More than 18 percent of students were suspended or expelled last school year, a figure that includes in-school suspensions and does not count students more than once." But, like Poole and Mike Matthews, I find this extremely difficult to believe.
Not to mention, the fact that the News Journal included in-school suspension in its figures is misleading. A lot of the complaints (even from a person like DOE's Robin Case) are about suspended kids "not being in school" and thus "aren't learning." Aside from the fact that it's a good bet many of these suspended kids aren't learning much anyway due to their behavior(s), in-school suspension is a different animal than out-of-school suspension. Students are supervised by a school staff member (frequently a teacher) and are given school work to do from their various teachers. If they have questions or problems with the work, they can often seek that help or have the supervisor make contact with the appropriate teacher. (Granted, the specific policies may vary from school to school, but that's beside the overall point.) Thus, it is a bit disingenuous to count in-school suspensions in the same way as out-of-school suspensions.
After our illustrious News Journal's report on Delaware school suspensions and subsequent advocacy of teacher/administrator "cultural competence" (detailed yesterday here), it just may want to take a gander at this story from the Philly Daily News:
KINDERGARTNER ERNEST KEY is afraid of taking his pants off because two of his schoolmates sexually assaulted him in a bathroom at Lea Elementary in April, his mother said.At the Vare School, Krisire Tuggles, also in kindergarten, refuses to go into a coat closet because that was the spot where his former teacher used to pinch him and smack him around, his mother said.
Since classmates at Heston Elementary School bloodied her nose and ripped her uniform, first-grader Aalliyah Brake has been too afraid to go back, said her father.
These little ones have two things in common: They've allegedly been violated during school hours at the hands of staffers or other students, and, their parents say, the adults responsible for their safety have done little if anything about it.
The exasperated parents of these young students were among several who echoed the same disturbing message in calls to the Daily News in recent weeks. The newspaper normally would not print the names of such young children, but the parents were so frustrated that they allowed use of their names.
They've confronted teachers and principals, and called school district management, but parents say they have been brushed aside or have been forced to turn to politicians, lawyers and police.
Now, aside from the disturbing allegations against some school staff members, why would I say that this scenario might come to First State schools? This is why:
Another parent, Tanisha Hollomon, is beginning to wonder whether the school cares about her daughter, third-grader Nafeesah Hollomon-Gary, who was kicked so hard by a classmate at Thurgood Marshall Elementary that he fractured her foot.Hollomon said that Nafeesah was hobbling around all day after the assault but that no one contacted her until after the school day ended.
She said that the principal, Edward Penn, acknowledged that she should have been called earlier but that when she pressed for the boy who kicked Nafeesah to be disciplined and tried several times to meet with his parents at the school, it took weeks for the school to suspend him.
Parent advocates say that cases like these happen so often because there is little incentive for school staff to report violence, and that some school officials really don't care.
And that "little incentive" could come to Delaware due to reporting by the News Journal on the supposed high number of student suspensions in the state, not to mention the advocacy for "cultural competency" among school staff which, in part, is supposed to alleviate the need for punitive measures like suspensions. After all, just consider the scenarios (allegations) noted above, and then this from Sunday's News Journal article:
But parents such as Toyia Lopez are frustrated.Her son Khaalid Lopez, a kindergartner, was suspended from Colonial School District's Eisenberg Elementary four times this year.
The 6-year-old sometimes throws toys and has hit his teacher, but his mother contends he's never hurt anyone or done anything serious enough to warrant suspension.
Indeed -- hitting his teacher is not something which warrants suspension! ARRRRGH!! (Pulls hair out...)
Nevertheless (and I am in no way exonerating the powers that be in the Philly schools), imagine if you were a school administrator and faced situations like those noted above from Philly, and then the incident involving Ms. Lopez's kid (and others similar to it). Then, consider what the News Journal ran yesterday about school staff needing "cultural competence" (a euphemism essentially designed to excuse aberrant behavior), the "advocates" out there for suspended kids like Jea Street, and then the Obama administration's intent to use the Civil Rights division of the Justice Dept. to investigate schools/districts who have racially disparate rates of discipline/suspensions/expulsions.
What would you do?
Really, what would you do? Maintain a "no-nonsense" approach to discipline and face criticism (and sanctions) from anyone from your superiors, to folks like Street, to parents like Lopez, to Justice Dept. lawyers. Or, maintain a "cultural competence" atmosphere and face angry parents like those in the Daily News article, not to mention outright flight from your school and/or district from parents and children tired of excuse-making politically correct jibberish?
What would you do?
A bomb squad determined that a grenade found at a South Philly elementary school was a fake.
C'mon! It looks like it was made out of a bar of soap!! Who brought the thing in -- Virgil Starkwell?
Check out the dude in the back right:
Hey -- I'm sleepy tired of his rhetoric too!
"What goes around, comes around" is what people sometimes joke about education. And it appears we may be getting that (again) in Delaware. Is the Race to the Top $100 million really going to go towards this sort of nonsense??
The question is: Given the changing demographics in our neighborhoods and the rising expectations of a global economy, are Delaware's public schools ready to meet the needs of children where they are and prepare them to be career and college ready?We encourage the experts around the table to ensure that reform efforts include a problem-solving orientation that systematically considers cultural difference and the preparation of teachers who can connect, commit, and provide a culture of caring for diverse students and their families.
Now see if you can decipher this next paragraph:
To truly understand the students in our classrooms, it is critical we understand cultural values such as child-rearing practices, family relationships, and interpersonal communication transmitted at home that can be far different from those values that children encounter at school. This understanding is referred to as Cultural competency. Cultural competency does not mean coddling a child and ignoring the need for high expectations.
Let's put this into the BS translator and see what we find: In other words, "children whose parents spend little-to-no time with them should be 'better understood' by teachers and staff, and should not be penalized for violating the [common] values of the school -- things like no fighting, no bullying, being respectful and polite in class to one's teachers and fellow students ..."
You know what folks? We've been down this route before here in New Castle County. Yes we have. It was the mid-1990s and the state was debating whether to go to federal court to have the 1978 desegregation order lifted. On one side, however, was former governor Tom Carper and the self-proclaimed Coalition to Save Our Children -- which wanted the county to adopt a consent decree. Look at what some of the items in this consent decree were ... and see if they sound familiar:
The article by Deborah Wilson (president and CEO of the Metropolitan Wilmington Urban League), Paul A. Herdman (president and CEO of the Rodel Foundation of Delaware), and Howard Weinberg (executive director of the Delaware State Education Association) is printed today in conjunction with a News Journal editorial (surprise) that once again raises the supposed "bad spectre" of school suspensions, and the ethnic/racial disparity therein:
However, most of the students involved are black, Latino or those with special needs, populations with histories of discipline problems since Delaware desegregated public schools in 1978 and after it formally abandoned racial integration efforts 20 years later.As punitive measures to protect the learning environment of students who pose no classroom distractions, suspensions and expulsions have validity.
Too often this view is seized as sort of a moral high ground, when compared to racism and the root causes of poverty.
First, Delaware (New Castle County, specifically) did not "abandon" racial integration in the mid-90s. True, the federal desegregation order was lifted then; however, the four districts that were under the court order since 1978 did not change their [desegregated] feeder patterns much, if at all.
Second, the editorial backs -- you guessed it -- "cultural competency" on the part of teachers and administrators as the "answer" to disparate discipline rates:
But cultural competency -- the subject of "Schools must meet students' diverse needs," on today's Opinion page -- is critical.It has the potential to take the bite out of racism concerns by helping schools create effective, relevant and rigorous learning environments for minorities.
I bet that $100 million RTTT cash would be worth the price alone if someone could PLEASE explain precisely what is meant by the highlighted above. Seriously. As one commenter wrote in the first linked article, "I asked the writers of the article to give some concrete examples of their ideas." Indeed. The article notes that
Sharon Brittingham led her team at Frankford Elementary School from perennial poor performance to a nationally recognized Blue Ribbon award-winning school," and "Jack Perry is showing remarkable gains with students from the Eastside at Prestige Academy charter school, and demonstrating clearly that they can perform at the highest levels.
Great! But ... what are they doing? What resources do they have? Do they put up with a lot of BS in their classrooms? What do they do with chronically disruptive students? What are the demographics of their schools? Etc.
I'm sorry, but I've heard so much of this edu-jargon time and time and time again that the meanings of all the edu-babble get all jumbled together!
If Delaware ever wonders why it has the highest percentage per capita of its students in private schools (and/or why there's such a demand for charters), look no further than these two articles in the News Journal today. Just peruse the comments from yesterday's News Journal article on school suspensions. The DE public doesn't want pie-in-the-sky edu-babble about so-called "cultural competency" which it views as simple excuse-making. It wants straightforward, no-nonsense approaches to learning and discipline. Former DE blogger extraordinaire and new teacher Mike Matthews comments on the discipline article:
When a student has become so disruptive as to the point of infringing on the rights of others to learn, then, as a teacher and advocate for that majority of students, I feel I have the responsibility to document the bahavior I've witnessed and then have the student removed.At several points during the year, I had students come up to me and tell me they felt their learning was being diminished because of one student's poor behavior. Where are the advocates for those kids?
And most importantly, Mike takes the News Journal to task for not even bothering to investigate very far:
It simply beggars belief to think that our schools are suspending 20% of any student body during the school year. No, what it is is the same handful of students who can't get it together who are being suspended multiple times during the school year. The News Journal needs to clarify its statistical tactics when writing an article like this. Either that or fire its computer-assisted reporting associate for not delineating the complete picture. It borders on yellow journalism when making a downright outlandish claim that a fifth of all Delaware students were suspended last year.
Bravo, brother.
Elsewhere, Kilroy has his inimitable take on the matter.
Looks as if being against illegal immigration is the newest form of "hate speech":
Over thirty organizations want the Federal Communications Commission to open up a probe on "hate speech" and "misinformation" in media. "Hate has developed as a profit-model for syndicated radio and cable television programs masquerading as 'news'," they wrote to the FCC earlier this month.As for the Internet, it "gives the illusion that news sources have increased, but in fact there are fewer journalists employed now than before," they charge. "Moreover, on the Internet, speakers can hide in the cloak of anonymity, emboldened to say things that they may not say in the public eye."
The groups who want this new proceeding include Free Press, the Media Access Project, Common Cause, the Prometheus Radio Project, and the League of United Latin American Citizens. Their statement, filed in the Commission's Future of Media proceeding, comes in support of a petition to the agency submitted over a year ago by the National Hispanic Media Coalition.
Let's not be fooled -- what these groups want is NO discussion about illegal immigration, or, if there is to be a discussion, it should be solely empathetic to the immigrants.
But to be sure, however, some folks in the media do cross the line. This nut, John Stokes on KGEZ-AM in Montana, advocated that those who do not speak English should have their hands chopped off. But on the other hand, is an instance where talk radio guy Michael Savage asks "Is it racist to protect your nation against an invading horde, from another nation that wants to sweep you off the map?" even close to that sort of [violent] hate? The NHMC thinks so.
And of course they do. This is what "progressives" do -- they cloak their lust for power and disdain for opposition in good deeds ... in this case, the feelings and "rights" of minorities. American universities do this all the time (just check out the website FIRE), not to mention faddish academic hypotheses like Critical Race Theory. Free speech is anything but if a member of an "aggrieved group" objects. He/she alone has veto power; if he in any way takes offense at something, however innocuous, in a 180 of American justice the "offending" party is presumed guilty and must prove his innocence (again, merely peruse FIRE's archives). Favorite "sentences" include "diversity training," "sensitivity training," and the like.
But back to the FCC inquiry, the NHMC offers up the typical "progressive" "world ends, women, minorities hardest hit" complaint:
The lack of hard-hitting, fair news is felt deeply in communities of color. Traditional media have never been particularly diverse, and rapid deregulation over the last two decades has significantly reduced opportunities for people of color to own and control such media...
Who cares about the traditional media anyway? It's a dying institution! With the Internet -- the New Media -- minorities ... everybody ... has more of a voice than ever before! Never mind the nonsense NHMC says about it near this post's top quote. Citizens have become journalists. Where has the NHMC been the last fifteen years??
The real agenda of the NHMC (noted above, natch) is encapsulated here:
Hate speech against vulnerable groups is pervasive in our media—it is not limited to a few isolated instances or any one media platform... Indeed, many large mainstream media corporations regularly air hate speech, and it is prolific on the Internet. Hate speech takes various forms, from words advocating violence to those creating a climate of hate towards vulnerable groups. Cumulatively, hate speech creates an environment of hate and prejudice that legitimizes violence against its targets.
And there you have it. This is how perfectly legitimate political speech will be deemed "hate speech" -- stances like being against illegal immigration will be "creating a climate of hate towards Hispanics." Opposing affirmative action will be "creating a climate of hate towards blacks." Opposing gay "marriage" will be "creating a climate of hate towards homosexuals." And so on.
Thankfully, to date, American courts haven't taken a very friendly view of such an extension of "hate speech." Even judiciaries as liberal as the Ninth Circuit have maintained a quite [classically] liberal view of the First Amendment. Hopefully, the addition of Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court won't change this situation.
New Jersey teachers don't like their new governor very much, that's been made clear. But some of them sure aren't helping their cause:
RealClearPolitics has a video circulating of an exchange between Governor Chris Christie and Rita Wilson, a school teacher in the Rutherford School District.The teacher demands more salary, telling Christie, “if she were paid $3 an hour for the 30 children in her class, she’d be earning $83,000, and she makes nothing near that.”
Christie told her that teachers go into teaching knowing the salary. The teacher tries to claim she does it as a calling, but clearly thinks she should be doing it to earn a cushy living.
There’s just one problem. There is one Rita Wilson working for the Rutherford School District. Assuming the teacher confronting Governor Christie is the same lady, she has no freaking clue what she makes.
Public records from the school district show her making $86,000+.
Nice work there, Rita.
Numbskull, over at the LGOMB, predictably knows little about what's actually IN the Texas history standards or how they're written. Pandora, also predictably, calls for her acolytes to e-mail Delaware districts to lobby against adopting any of Texas' textbooks. (But, of course, if a teacher doesn't parrot the standard "progressive" line on certain topics, though, pandora has a different attitude!)
Maybe these dolts ought to pick out the standards that are so "offensive" and let us know why they are so ... just so we don't have to take their word for it (because their word, frankly, is rarely, if ever, good). Like sort of what the Washington Post did. Thankfully, Ann Althouse injects some common sense into the WaPo. Here's an example:
The Washington Post writes:The Texas state school board gave final approval Friday to controversial social studies standards....The new standards say that the McCarthyism of the 1950s was later vindicated -- something most historians deny --...
The students are required to "describe how McCarthyism, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), the arms race, and the space race increased Cold War tensions and how the later release of the Venona Papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government..." The word "vindicated" is inflammatory and unfair. What is the Washington Post saying historians deny? One can be informed of the reality of what the Venona Papers revealed about communist infiltration into the U.S. government and still understand and deplore the excesses of "McCarthyism."
Ah, but you see, by including anything about communist infiltration into the US, you are insulting true-blue leftists! McCarthy was an evil, evil man and must remain such without any caveats, get it?
They also removed references to capitalism and replaced them with the term "free-enterprise system."The document on economics does use the term "free enterprise system" throughout, but students are required to "understand that the terms free enterprise, free market, and capitalism are synonymous terms to describe the U.S. economic system," so what is the problem?
This must be some sinister attempt to "absolve" capitalism -- or at least lessen its culpability -- regarding the current economic crisis, eh? Since so many "progressives" are busy pointing out how capitalism "caused" the contemporary downturn in the economy, let's just "change the wording," right? LOL!!
Personally, though I don't concur with all of the changes that I've seen in the Texas standards, I think it is a push-back from decades of leftist politicization of school texts. I once was a member of a committee that analyzed various secondary level history texts, and probably the biggest example of such politicization was the overriding effort of "inclusion" -- that of various ethnic, racial, religious, gender, sexual orientation groups -- at the expense of actual historically relevant knowledge. Here's but one example from California. Certainly, inclusion of previously neglected peoples (and events) is a good thing -- provided, of course, such inclusion has some historical merit. Inclusion for inclusion's sake is just politically correct silliness. As our textbook review committee wrote about one American history text, The American Journey by Glencoe McGraw-Hill (1996 edition), it
attempts to make all groups equally important to development of American history ... Inclusion of the contributions of women and minorities is beneficial when it relates to the main themes of historical development, but forcing trivial information into the text to ... increase the number of politically correct paragraphs creates a disjointed and unsatisfactory narrative.
A lot of the leftward PC tilt in history standards can be traced to UCLA's Gary Nash. He was the principal author of the 1992 National Standards for History. He stated that American history is the story of outcast groups "struggling under difficult conditions and ... in large and small ways, refusing to submit to abuse, discrimination and exploitation." In Nash's standards, for example, "the 1848 declaration at Seneca Falls by a conference of feminists gets more coverage than either the Declaration of Independence of the Gettysburg Address."
That's American history? Thankfully, Nash's standards were shot down by the US Senate by a vote of 99-1.
By the way, California's "great" for PC textbook matters. Bet you didn't hear a peep from lefties about the state's law that prohibits "... the adoption of official teaching materials or the conducting of school activities that reflect adversely on people on the basis of race, religion, gender and so on." Or of Muslim efforts to "tone down" textbook lessons on terrorism carried out with religious motivation. Hey -- maybe Cali can take a page from the UN and ask whether the Holocaust should be taught in schools, eh?
Lastly, the big difference in the Texas controversy and those noted above should by now be obvious: The former, because it involves conservatives dominating the standards, gets a large amount of negative MSM coverage. The latter was only covered at all by conservative-oriented media which, back in the early 90s, really only included talk radio. Thankfully, that situation has changed.
... the teacher called the student a "teabagger":
A Francis Howell High School teacher failed to get approval from an administrator before using the 2007 Michael Moore documentary "Sicko" as part of a final exam, prompting a student complaint, district officials say.Senior Celeste Finkenbine, 18, found out last week that her final involved watching a movie by the liberal filmmaker critical of America's health care system. The assignment was to analyze the film for different forms of persuasion, said Finkenbine, who objected and went to a principal. (Source.)
OK, it was a mistake to overlook the administrative approval process for films; however, the issue of watching the film for the purposes of writing a paper to analyzeg different forms of persuasion sounds perfectly legitimate to me. If you disagree with the premise of the film -- even quite vigorously -- say so in your written paper!
But then this happened (which, unsurprisingly, the St. Louis Post Dispatch article above omitted):
Finkenbine said that, after she compared her participation in Tea Party rallies with the civil disobedience in which Dr. King participated, Blessman responded to her by saying, “Well, we all know you’re a ‘teabagger.’”Afterward, Finkenbine recalled, the teacher started laughing and everyone in the class started laughing about Blessman’s use of the derogatory term, prompting the student to think, “Wow! Did she really just say that?”
That is crossing the line, of course. One can only imagine what would happen if a teacher reacted similarly but dubbed the kid a Communist because he supported ObamaCare.
Via Colossus R&D man Gooch:
Sixteen principals in the Philadelphia School District are working without proper state certification, officials said Tuesday, citing a failure to monitor staff credentials.The disclosure cames days after LaGreta Brown, the former principal of South Philadelphia High, resigned after The Inquirer asked questions about her credentials.
The principals will face no discipline, and efforts are under way to get them emergency certification or submit proof of coursework needed to obtain full certification.
"There is simply no excuse why the district did not properly monitor the certification expirations and requirements," Superintendent Arlene Ackerman said in a statement. "Just as every employee in the district must pass an FBI background check, all teachers and principals require up-to-date certifications. We failed to do our job in these cases and will take immediate steps to repair the process." (Source.)
Sounds to me like the solution is quite simple: Superintendent Ackerman should either resign immediately or else be axed by the district school board ASAP.
More on that California high school idiocy where several students were asked to remove their American flag t-shirts because it was Cinco de Mayo:
When these young men refused Assistant Principal’s Rodriguez’s request to turn their shirts inside out, they were standing up for their First Amendment rights and pride in their nation. Hispanic students at the school threw a hissy fit. Roughly 200 Hispanic teens protested, claiming they were slighted by the young men wearing American flags on Cinco de Mayo. They chanted “We want respect!” and “Si se puede!”:The group — mostly high school students — walked out of school this morning after the story of four students who were sent home because they wore American flag T-shirts went viral on TV and online. Many wear red, white and green and two large Mexico flags can be seen at the front of the line.The students say they want people to know they’re proud of their heritage and they believe wearing red, white and blue on Cinco de Mayo is disrespectful.
I mean ... cripes -- what can anyone actually say to such outright stupidity? Some educators "tried to use the bizarre argument that wearing the U.S. flag to school on Cinco de Mayo was the equivalent of wearing the Mexican flag on the Fourth of July," but Cinco de Mayo isn't even Mexican Independence Day ... not to mention it's not even widely celebrated in Mexico! And why does this high school officially sanction MEChA -- the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán -- a group which desires that much of the [US] southwest be returned to Mexico? Can you imagine the reaction if, say, an Idaho high school sanctioned a student "militia" group that wanted the northwest to be "purged of all foreigners?" Yeah, I'm sure you can -- MSNBC and the rest of the MSM would be tying it into the Tea Party movement and blaming it on the fact that Barack Obama is a black guy!
As I said in my original post on this matter, "Only in America, folks." Only in America.
And those would be "race as one of many factors."
After all, critics of the law are mischaracterizing what it means in the most ridiculous terms imaginable; however, why couldn't the law's supporters used the same "logic" that "progressives" use (regarding the use of race) when it comes to, say, education. Ladies and gentlemen, my blog "godfather," John Rosenberg:
As we’ve seen too many times to cite, one of the most ubiquitous excuses liberals give for why racial profiling by college admissions officers and company employment offices is not racial profiling is that race is “only one of many factors” considered. As I wrote here,If there is one refrain that is repeated, mantra-like, over and over again by defenders of racial preferences, it is that race is only "one of many factors" in admissions decisions. The quotes are ubiquitous, as in the president of the University of Michigan, Mary Sue Coleman's, repeated assertions that “there is no effective substitute for the consideration of race as one of many factors in our admissions decisions.”
The IRS, to pick one of many examples, will not revoke the tax-exempt status of an organization so longs as it “limits its use of race to being one of many factors in making affirmative action decisions.”
Thus the face of liberalism shines upon race-conscious preferential treatment so long as race is “only one of many factors” considered in awarding the preference.
Indeed. But much like the ridiculous TSA screenings at airports, Arizona's new law must be absolutely free of ANY hint of a racial component ... and even though, as written, it is, that still doesn't stop it from being labeled "racist" by the left. Even if the governor who signed the law said the following:
Let me be clear, though: My signature today represents my steadfast support for enforcing the law -- both AGAINST illegal immigration AND against racial profiling.This legislation mirrors federal laws regarding immigration enforcement.
Despite erroneous and misleading statements suggesting otherwise, the new state misdemeanor crime of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document is adopted, verbatim, from the same offense found in federal statute.
I will NOT tolerate racial discrimination or racial profiling in Arizona.
Because I feel so strongly on this subject, I worked for weeks with legislators to amend SB 1070, to strengthen its civil rights protections.
That effort led to new language in the bill, language prohibiting law enforcement officers from “solely considering race, color, or national origin in implementing the requirements of this section...”
As Rosenberg writes, "Do any readers entertain the belief that liberals, who do not believe academic racial profiling is racial profiling because race is “only one of many factors,” are satisfied that the Arizona law is not racial profiling because ethnicity is “only one of many factors” police may consider in stopping someone?"
Yeah, right. Though I'd love to hear someome use that very line against a "progressive" who's screaming about the "racism" inherent in the new law!
I really had to ponder this Philly Inquirer editorial yesterday. It attempts to paint as sinister the Lower Merion School District's plans to send more black students to a school farther away (Harriton HS) than a closer one (Lower Merion HS) -- plans which the district claims is to achieve more diversity.
Now, let's stop right here for a second. "Progressives" have argued for years -- decades, now -- that "diversity" is an educational boon. Such an argument won the day in Grutter v. Bollinger, but similarly-based lower education plans were shot down by the US Supreme Court in 2007 (regarding Seattle and Louisville, KY). In those plans, districts sought to -- get this -- move students to different schools to achieve diversity ... just like Lower Merion apparently wants to do. And how did the Philly Inquirer opine on the SCOTUS decision then?
The school assignment programs such as those the court ruled against Thursday are designed to give children of different races and backgrounds opportunities to get to know each other better, as classmates. That kind of mixing at an early age might in fact lessen the need for other, more intrusive measures down the road. . . .Our schools cannot truly mold children into the adult citizens we need them to be without exposing them to situations and people they otherwise might not encounter.
What does it say now?
The Lower Merion district can't very well argue that any consideration of race by it was to provide equal opportunity. Both of its high schools are well-funded and provide good educations. Plus the equal opportunity the plaintiffs seek is to attend the school closest to their homes.Mandatory busing failed as a solution to segregated schools in America by driving families out of public schools and making them even less diverse. There's no need to let a busing plan similarly offend black students in Lower Merion schools, which are already diversity-challenged, both racially and economically.
Let's see if we can follow:
Ultimately, however, the editorial gets it right in that Lower Merion plan most likely won't withstand legal scrutiny based on the 2007 SCOTUS decision, and it would be wise to seek an out-of-court settlement. And, the [black] students and parents who are miffed at the district are legally and philosophically correct based on same. But, again, here is an example of the conundrum "progressives" face on matters such as this. Is "diversity" an educational panacea ... but only up until the time minorities believe (or wish) otherwise?
We are seeing something similar in northern Delaware of late. Ever since the federal desegregation order was lifted from New Castle County in the mid-90s, and then the passing of the Neighborhood Schools Law, we've seen demands from [Wilmington] city interests to once again have a Wilmington School District (which was dissolved in 1978 when the federal deseg order was implemented). But ... such a district would be decisively minority compared to the surrounding [suburban] districts. What about the benefits of diversity? After all, the "big four" districts in the county really only cosmetically altered their feeder patterns to abide by the Neighborhood Schools Law, one of the rationales being needed ... diversity!
It's akin to what I've opined on at times regarding HBCs -- Historically Black Colleges. If, as "progressives" insist, diversity is of such import (colleges clamor all the time about their "commitment to diversity"), then why do HBCs exist? Aren't they living contradictions to the very boon diversity to supposed to bring everybody?
Of course, you won't hear this as a major story on the big news broadcasts or on CNN, MSNBC with an ominous headline along the lines of "Hate on the Rise?"
They're the kind of obscenity-laced schoolyard taunts that could get a student suspended.But the target of this tirade is New Jersey's Gov. Chris Christie — and the perpetrators are the state's teachers, irate over his calls for salary freezes and funding cuts for schools.
In Facebook messages visible to the world — not to mention their students — the teachers have called Christie fat, compared him to a genocidal dictator and wished he was dead. The postings are often riddled with bad grammar and misspellings.
"Never trust a fat f...," read one profane post on the Facebook page, "New Jersey Teachers United Against Governor Chris Christie's Pay Freeze," which has some 69,000 fans, many of them teachers.
"How do you spell A-- hole? C-H-R-I-S C-H-R-I-S-T-I-E," read another.
"Remember Pol Pot, dictator of Cambodia?" warned another. "He reigned in terror, his target was teachers and intellectuals. They were either killed or put into forced labor... King Kris Kristy is headed in this direction."
Yep -- I sure can see a few years from now forced labor and re-education camps all over New Jersey, where teachers and intellectuals are imprisoned! Boy -- and "progressives" are apoplectic about Tea Partiers' rhetoric regarding Barack Obama?? Oh, and the teacher who wrote the Pol Pot nonsense claimed that Christie is only trying to "kill us spiritually." Right. She also said her salary of just over $50K per year "isn't enough to make ends meet."
Since when?
Check out how the Inquirer's Liz Willen and those whom she interviews attempt to "deal" with the issue of violence against Asian students in area schools. Here's History teacher Patrick Compton recalls his days at Lafayette High School in Brooklyn:
The ethnic sea change brought with it a spate of violence against Asian students by non-Asian classmates remarkably similar to the unrest and painful divisions plaguing South Philadelphia High."As neighborhoods change, schools have to change, and unless they address the needs of a new population systemically, the problems are just going to be reflected back into the schools and repeat themselves," says Compton, a resident of Burlington Township, who has spent 24 years teaching in the cavernous brick building in Bensonhurst, a densely populated area of semidetached two-family homes 16 miles from Midtown Manhattan.
Questions:
"You can't just address these issues with security guards or cops in schools," says Pedro Noguera, a professor at the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development at New York University. "They need to create a sense of inclusion, so all kids feel like part of the community."
I see. But how, again, do "isolated" Asian students provoke/instigate/beget violence against them? The school making them feel "more welcome" is terrific ... but how will that prevent violence against them -- merely because of their race/ethnicty?
That was not the case at South Philadelphia High, where 13 Asian students were sent to a hospital after violence Dec. 3 that triggered a seven-day student boycott. In interviews, Asian students said they did not feel safe, and a report released in February by a retired federal judge found "race and ethnicity" were contributing factors.
Really? How were race and ethnicity "contributing factors?" You mean to say (in plain English) that the Asian students' race and ethnicity were [part of/most of] the reason they were attacked? Isn't that ... racist? Should that not be ... a hate crime?
Asian students at the time were afraid of African American students because they had no understanding of their culture, she recalls. And African American kids mimicked Asian students, making fun of the way they spoke, until they got to know them better.
Afraid ... because of their culture? (Is this what they mean?) Why was it only African-American students? And black students making fun of Asians because of who they are? Again, isn't that ... racist?
Call me cynical, but if the situation at South Philly High was a case of white on black violence, I seriously doubt that the Inquirer -- and for that matter a huge portion of the national MSM -- would not be all over this story 24/7 for a good week or so. Don't think so? Then remember the case of Jena, Louisiana for starters. Or, locally, how a local swim club prevented a group of black children from entering its pool. And so on. And I doubt we'd be reading nebulous "reasoning" behind the strife -- y'know, how ethnic change somehow "just brings with it" violence, and how if schools don't "systematically change" [ethnic] violence won't abate.
But the wishy-washiness of this article isn't entirely Liz Willen's fault. At story's end, we read this:
This article was produced by the Hechinger Report. The nonprofit, nonpartisan education news outlet is affiliated with the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media at Teachers College, Columbia University.
'Nuff said.
It would be remarkable to see the Inquirer, Wilmington News Journal or virtually any other MSM outlet be as vociferous in denouncing violence such as that seen at South Philly High with the same vigor that the Inquirer rips VA Governor Bob McConnell a new a-hole. I've already opined on that issue, and though I am largely in agreement with the Inquirer's stance, I do not have to resort to the standard MSM "narrative" to make the case. For instance, the Inq repeats -- AGAIN -- the unproven allegations by several black congressmen that they were called the "N" word, and also inserts a gratuitous blurb about the new right-leaning Texas history standards as being an overreaction to "perceived" liberal bias in the texts. (They write, for example, "A focus on the Confederacy will include side-by-side comparisons of speeches by Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln, as if they were equals;" however, you'll likely never see an op-ed complaining about the disparity in textbook coverage between César Chávez and James Madison where the former gets more pages.)
George Leef over at Phi Beta Cons ponders:
In today's Pope Center Clarion Call, Jay Schalin writes about a very important piece of research that has just come out of the UNC system. It's a report on "The Impact of Teacher Preparation on Student Learning," and finds that students perform better if they're taught by "non-traditionally" trained teachers rather than those with education-school pedigrees. Teach for America wins high honors.What explains why teachers who have not specifically studied to become teachers (Teach for America people have earned degrees in actual academic disciplines) tend to impart more knowledge than ed-school types?
One reason is that TFA only takes graduates of top universities — an intellectually gifted group of people. In contrast, the students drawn into your standard ed-school program are generally among the least gifted at any college or university. Smarter teachers are better at engaging with students, motivating them to learn.
Another reason is that TFA teachers have not been put through the ed-school processing plant, where you find weak and dubious courses having far more to do with politics than academics and professors you would hardly entrust your children to — for example a professor of "science instruction" who questions the objectivity of science, saying that it depends more on "factors like power, culture, race, gender, and ethnicity."
I've opined numerous times here and elsewhere that, by and large, ed schools need a LOT of work (meaning, "improvement") in prepping teachers for what they'll face in a classroom. And Leef is certainly correct that way too many [new] teachers aren't exactly the brightest folk, whether in their subject area or in general. It certainly makes sense that teachers with a greater knowledge base would be better at engaging with students ...
... but is that a given? How often is this the case?
I ask because over my many years in the public schools I have seen rather brilliant people get "eaten alive" by modern public school students, and for some it was enough to send them looking for another career. And I often wonder how many education professors have actually taught in [public] schools -- and if they did so for more than five years.
So, by "smarter teachers," I hope Leef also means "street smarts." The best combination (I've found) for teachers is to be an intellectual who's "hip." This means you can relate to the kids, and once you "have them" (metaphorically, obviously), your intellect (hopefully) will then "grab them" ... make them intellectually curious!
Go read this letter to the editor in today's News Journal. It's from a teacher.
Jonathan Kay of the [Canadian] National Post experiences the unintentional hilarity of a "Whiteness workshop." The premise:
Sandy, Jim and Karen work at a downtown community centre where they help low-income residents apply for rental housing. Sandy has a bad feeling about Jim: She notices that when black clients come in, he tends to drift to the back of the office. Sandy suspects racism (she and Jim are both white). On the other hand, she also notices that Jim seems to get along well with Karen, who is black. As the weeks go by, Sandy becomes more uncomfortable with the situation. But she feels uncertain about how to handle it. Test question: What should Sandy do?
Kay's predicament:
My own answer, announced in class, was that Sandy should approach Jim discreetly, explaining to him how others in the office might perceive his actions. Or perhaps the manager of the community centre could give a generic presentation about the need to treat clients in a colour-blind manner, on a no-names basis.The problem with my approach, the instructor indicated, lay in the fact that I was primarily concerned with the feelings of my fellow Caucasian, Jim. I wasn't treating Karen like a "full human being" who might have thoughts and worries at variance with the superficially friendly workplace attitude.
Moreover, I was guilty of "democratic racism" -- by which we apply ostensibly race-neutral principles such as "due process," constantly demanding clear "evidence" of wrongdoing, rather than confronting prima facie instances of racism head-on. "It seems we're always looking for more proof," said the instructor, an energetic left-wing activist who's been teaching this course for several years. "When it comes to racism, you have to trust your gut."
You will never encounter a bigger bunch of hooey than by sitting in such a "workshop." I mean, just consider that term "democratic racism." "Race-neutral principles of due process" is a symptom of this concept? Well sure, if you subscribe to this gobbledygook; after all, it's the logical outgrowth of "Critical Race Theory" which has as one of its foundations the idea that the American (and Western, for that matter) political system -- equal justice for all, due process, equal rights ... even freedom of speech -- is still oppressive if it doesn't take into historical account the plight of minorities. This is at the heart of "white privilege" -- since whites have constructed the very system under which we [all] live, it inherently will "maintain" the dominant culture (or race).
Just witness how Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream has been perverted (from the article): "I hate when people tell me they're colour-blind. That is the most overt kind of racism. When people say ‘I don't see your race,' I know that's wrong. To ignore race is to be more racist than to acknowledge race. I call it neo-racism."
What does one say to that? That to ignore race makes you more racist than acknowledging it? Are you kidding me??
Such damned-if-you-damned-if-you-don't theorizing can only come about by people with an extreme amount of free time on their hands, not to mention some pretty destructive ideas for modern Western society. The First Amendment, for these folks, would be conditional; the speech of the dominant culture (whites) would suffer greater legal scrutiny (or, be subject to more constraints) than that of minorities. In 1992, for example, lawyers used Critical Race Theory to argue against the right of a person to burn a cross (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul). Mari Matsuda and Charles R. Lawrence III argued that "when acts of speech are acts of intimidation and threaten violence, backed up by a historical force, then those words become a mechanism for social control and domination." But the US Supreme Court didn't buy the argument, saying that banning certain speech -- even hate speech against a particular group -- violates the First Amendment: "St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle ..." and
"Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone's front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire."
You can probably see why such theories have remained largely confined to the world of [leftist] academia since, if utilized by contemporary Western (but mostly American) societies, the race grievance industry might become the largest sector of the economy virtually overnight. "Historical claims" of discrimination by virtually every group imaginable would have hearings in courtrooms across the land for virtually any claim imaginable. What chronological limit would be established for their compaints? How far back could grievances go? 300 years? 400? 1,000? 5,000?
Even liberal jurist Alex Kozinski (of the far-left 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) has said that Critical Race Theorists "have constructed a philosophy which makes a valid exchange of ideas between the various disciplines unattainable." UPDATE: (Thanks to Soccer Dad for elaborating on Kozinski's politics. Kozinski should be dubbed "unpredictable" if anything, not (exclusively) liberal.)
The radical multiculturalists' views raise insuperable barriers to mutual understanding. Consider the Space Traders story. How does one have a meaningful dialogue with Derrick Bell? Because his thesis is utterly untestable, one quickly reaches a dead end after either accepting or rejecting his assertion that white Americans would cheerfully sell all blacks to the aliens. The story is also a poke in the eye of American Jews, particularly those who risked life and limb by actively participating in the civil rights protests of the 1960's. Bell clearly implies that this was done out of tawdry self-interest. Perhaps most galling is Bell's insensitivity in making the symbol of Jewish hypocrisy the little girl who perished in the Holocaust -- as close to a saint as Jews have. A Jewish professor who invoked the name of Rosa Parks so derisively would be bitterly condemned -- and rightly so.
Those in "lower" education may be familiar with the sort of "workshops" that Kay willingly put up with. I know I have. Within the last decade I've attended "workshops" where I was informed that, as a white teacher, it was my fault that minority children in my class (and school) don't succeed, and even told, simply, that "all whites are racist." We were also told one time that an incident that was completely race-free had been perceived by minority students as racist ... and so we "had to accept their reality." Now read above what Kay encountered again!
But one thing to keep in mind is that if this sort of garbage is flung around often (and maliciously, even if done "professionally") you don't have to just sit there and be harassed and intimidated (at least here in the US, that is). There is ample legal precedent for recourse against a "hostile work environment."
OK, so my daughter texts me the other day saying she didn't get in to her school's National Honor Society. I thought that quite strange, as she has over a 3.9 GPA. Not being a complete moron, I'm aware that, these days, the National Honor Society puts some emphasis on stuff like community service in addition to academics. (Personally, I think that is a bunch of bullsh**, but more on that later.) Daughter says that she had filled in every section with requisite information. Hmm.
I send an e-mail to the school's Honor Society advisor and ask how the students are judged, etc. (Oh, and being a teacher myself and a total NON-helicopter parent, I was extremely polite and non-accusatory ... FYI.) Here's what I thought is, well, astonishing for a group the dubs itself an honor society: Only 25% of a student's application is based on academics. The other three categories are, 1) community service, 2) leadership, and 3) character. A faculty group judges each application. The school's society is in adherence to the national group's standards.
When I got into my high school's honor society, it was based solely on one's academic achievement -- your GPA. So were the college honor societies into which I was inducted. I can understand certain aspects of the "character" and "leadership" categories, but community service?? And even so, why is GPA (currently) given equal footing with such?
In my only semi-snarky line to the advisor, I asked, based on the info above, why the group wasn't called the "National Good Citizenship Society" since academics is such a small part of the whole package. The answer was that the group is "in line" with what universities want.
I see. 'Nuff said, eh?
Washington DC, in order to comply with the Supreme Court's Heller ruling from 2008, established a quite labyrinthine set of rules and regulations by which one could legally purchase a gun:
A Washington Post article last summer found it took “$833.69, a total of 15 hours 50 minutes, four trips to the Metropolitan Police Department, two background checks, a set of fingerprints, a five-hour class and a 20-question multiple-choice exam” to possess legally a handgun in Washington D.C.And one must travel outside the District to purchase a gun and then pay $125 dollars to have the city's only licensed firearm dealer transport it in for you. Also, registered guns must be kept unloaded and either disassembled or locked with a trigger-lock.
Dick Heller, the same guy who challenged DC's total ban on handguns, was unsuccessful (so far) in challenging these new regs:
U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina found that the new regulations were crafted to make the streets safer and aren't so restrictive that they violate the Second Amendment guarantee of a person's right to own a gun for self-defense.
Is Judge Urbina "make the streets safer" bit valid? DC "has the highest gun homicide rate in the country – five times the average rate." So how did its restrictions and total ban create safe[er] streets? Meanwhile, there's plenty of evidence that less restrictive gun laws make for safer streets. Urbina's "reasoning" isn't unlike the majority SCOTUS decision in the Grutter v. Bollinger affirmative action case that agreed there are educational benefits to a [racially] diverse student body. But the National Association of Scholars shredded the University of Michigan's research (the Gurin Report), essentially making a mockery of the university's claims.
Solid evidence for less restrictive gun laws? So what.
Pathetic evidence for the eduational benefits of diversity? Sounds great!
It's likely Heller will appeal this recent setback all the way to the SCOTUS. Again.
Colossus R&D man Gooch sends me this link about a Florida state senator who wants to base teacher firing/promotion primarily on student test scores:
The bill, sponsored by state Sen. John Thrasher, the new head of Florida’s Republican Party, would require that school systems evaluate and pay teachers primarily on the basis of student test scores. What would not factor into teacher pay would be advanced degrees and professional credentials, including National Board Certification, which requires teachers to pass a competitive series of tests that is considered the gold standard for educators.It gets worse: Experience in the classroom wouldn’t matter either. And student test results would determine which teachers get targeted when layoffs are necessary.
Would it be fair, say, to fire doctors because his/her patients failed to follow his/her directions in taking their medication (meaning their health got worse)? If not, how is this radically different from Thrasher's proposal?
I once went back and forth via e-mail with DE state Senator Dave Sokola about this very issue (among others). I never did get a worthy response. Sokola's reply consisted of him explaining that he "knows what he's talking about" because he did a year-long stint as a substitute teacher back in the day, and that teachers are really not different from a company. Regarding the latter, I had asked Sokola how teachers aren't different from private companies as they do not control the factors or production. They have to "produce" a product solely based on what they're given -- whether they want the "factors of production" or not. Can companies do this? Sokola retorted that a person at a manufacturing co. could get canned if one of the co.'s suppliers didn't come through with some materials needed to build a [finished] product (on time). Well, perhaps. But that co. could easily ditch that supplier for another, not to mention make amends (monetarily or materially) to whomever for the lateness of the company's finished product.
In addition, Sokola could offer no explanation as to how it was fair that a then-proposed state teacher evaluation system that based 20% of every school's teacher's evaluation on test scores -- tests that were, like the current DSTP, reading, writing, and math. So how is that fair to teachers who don't teach those subjects? 20% of an art teacher's evaluation ... based on students' math scores?? Say whaaaa ...?
Hey look, those who know me know that I am hardly a hardcore union type who is against any sort of education reform. Indeed, one proposal from the article I don't have much of a hassle with (at a cursory glance, however, to be sure) is "Newly hired teachers would be on probation for five years and then work on annual contracts for the rest of their careers." (Right now, in Delaware, teachers usually are on a probationary period for three years and then get tenure that next year. And contrary to popular belief, tenure does not mean a teacher cannot be fired; it ensures certain steps must be followed and can, admittedly, prolong the process and make it difficult to ax a lemon teacher.) Annual contracts are what many charter schools utilize, so I don't see many reasons why they couldn't be used in public schools. (As long as the primary basis for a firing isn't student test scores, that is!)
Also, I am not one who seeks to blame everyone but teachers and schools for lousy performance. Clearly, teachers (and schools) play a big role in shaping students' lives. Lemon teachers can clearly exacerbate even more the problems of students who already have myriad issues, and great teachers can assist in alleviating [some] of these. But ultimately, a teacher would have to be "in control," for lack of a better term, of a student's life for much more than the 45-to-60 minutes per day that he/she sees him/her (and that's all individual teachers see students per day, especially 6th grade and up -- not the full 7 and a half hours that critics claim) to make "student test score teacher evaluations" fair.
What would be a "fair" evaluation system for teachers? The way the system is currently set up across the country, [school] administration does teacher evaluations based on a few classroom visits. (Again, keep in mind that the frequency of these visits vary from not only state to state, but district to district and not all states/districts may use such methods.) The inherent problem with this is, while administrators may be well versed in general pedagogy, they may not know a whit about the actual subject matter. I'd recommend assembling a small cadre of veteran (good) teachers, one for each subject area in both elementary and secondary levels, that would periodically visit teachers' classrooms for evaluations. This would ensure that the evaluators would actually know something about the course being taught. (This idea doesn't address the issue of cost; however, various districts might be able to pay EPER -- Extra Pay for Extra Responsibility -- or offer "clock hours" towards recertification, which are required by the state.)
As for counting students' test results towards evaluations, I've little problem with it as long as it makes logical sense. Sokola's and the former DE legislature's inane 20% for all teachers regardless of subject matter certainly doesn't qualify. The DSTP goes a step towards the right direction in that since children are tested every year, one can see progress up or down, and somewhat correlate it to the teacher. By "somewhat," I mean it is not clear cut. For example, a student may have never been taught (or taught properly) his times tables in elementary school, so why should that reflect [moreso] on a subsequent teacher whose primary job is to teach him middle school algebra? An 8th grade algebra teacher's evaluation who had such a child may be more negative than that of another algebra teacher who had children who benefitted from an excellent past teacher of multiplication ... even though the former may be a superb algebra teacher. One of Thrasher's ideas in Florida is to test students in every subject every year not already done so by state or other assessments. That's a good idea, if you can come up with such [good] assessments. (Band? Chorus? Art? Shop?) And for introductory classes, what would be the baseline assessment?
There are many, many questions involved in utilizing student test scores for teacher evaluations, pay, and hire/fire decisions.
The Chicago Tribune reports on how a "shadowy appeals system" under former Chicago Schools chief-now US Education Secretary Arne Duncan gave preference to the politically connected:
Whispers have long swirled that some children get spots in the city's premier schools based on whom their parents know. But a list maintained over several years in Duncan's office and obtained by the Tribune lends further evidence to those charges. Duncan is now secretary of education under President Barack Obama.The log is a compilation of politicians and influential business people who interceded on behalf of children during Duncan's tenure. It includes 25 aldermen, Mayor Richard Daley's office, House Speaker Michael Madigan, his daughter Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, former White House social secretary Desiree Rogers and former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun.
Non-connected parents, such as those who sought spots for their special-needs child or who were new to the city, also appear on the log. But the politically connected make up about three-quarters of those making requests in the documents obtained by the Tribune.
The Chicago Way. Or, as James Taranto states it: "This is 'the aristocracy of pull,' in Ayn Rand's memorable phrase. Its existence is probably inevitable inasmuch as government's is, but its extent can only increase with the power and reach of government."
So much has been made in the MSM of the Texas social studies textbook "controversy" the last few weeks. The Associated Press, to name just one, wrote that a "far-right faction wielded its power to shape the lessons." To be sure, some of the changes made caused a question mark to appear over my head (excising a reference about the US being founded on the principle of religious freedom, ditching Thomas Jefferson in referencing the Enlightenment); however, have you ever seen stories about textbooks changes garner so much attention ... when leftist groups are the most influential? Of course not. Unless you read conservative media.
Let's take a quick gander at what the AP wrote:
... it agreed to strengthen nods to Christianity by adding references to "laws of nature and nature's God" to a section in U.S. history that requires students to explain major political ideas.So?
They also agreed to strike the word "democratic" in references to the form of U.S. government, opting instead to call it a "constitutional republic."Again, so?
In addition to learning the Bill of Rights, the board specified a reference to the Second Amendment right to bear arms in a section about citizenship in a U.S. government class and agreed to require economics students to "analyze the decline of the U.S. dollar including abandonment of the gold standard."Once again -- so? Have you heard in the AP (or other MSM) any of the following instances?
An unelected review panel, not the elected members of Texas State Board of Education (SBOE), attempted to push through a number of highly questionable changes to the standards – removing Independence Day, Neil Armstrong, Daniel Boone, and Christopher Columbus – from them. They even dumped Christmas and replaced it with Diwali. You can’t make this stuff up! After a huge outcry from citizens and strong leadership by conservatives on the Texas State Board of Education, each of these changes was reversed.Sadly, the attacks didn’t stop there. Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison were removed from World History, yet Mary Kay and Wallace Amos (of Famous Amos Cookies) were added, it appears, for more “diversity.” That’s unbelievable. Edison is the greatest inventor in American history with over 1,000 patents; oh, and by the way, that Einstein guy was pretty successful too!
I didn't think so. And that's the point.
A decade ago several other teachers and myself formed a committee, supported by the Delaware Association of Scholars, to examine several American and world history texts. Addressing us at our inaugural meeting was Gilbert Sewall, director of the American Textbook Council. Sewall was concerned about the mid-90s' proposal of American and world history standards that were, essentially, the reverse of the present-day [media] worry. (Back then, the MSM reaction was only conservatives' reaction about these proposals -- "They're only trying to get more diversity etc. etc. etc. into our texts which are long overdue ..." they clamored.) To note:
What the public and elected officials didn't like about these new standards was their failure to affirm or celebrate the nation or the Western tradition. Just the reverse. Like a muffled drum through the U.S. history standards, African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, gay Americans, and women face and overcome centuries of oppression, neglect, and adversity. Students meet Speckled Snake and Dolores Huerta, Mahmud al-Kati and Madonna. These people were, according to the drift of the curriculum, the real American heroes. They and others replaced such white patriarchs as Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Jonas Salk, and Albert Einstein. The defining reform institutions of the future? Political phalanxes like La Raza Unida and the National Organization of Women.The standards reinvented the European discovery of the New World, changing a once triumphal Columbian conquest into a three-way "encounter" of Europeans, Africans, and Native Americans. From the beginning, disease-carrying Europeans encounter and enslave innocent people of color. Older paradigms of federalism, industrialism, and expansionism were minimized, along with heroic figures and their achievements. Hamilton end Jefferson, the Erie Canal, Gettysburg, and Promontory Point did not exactly vanish, but they were not much savored either. Teachers and students inherited a solemn, often bitter chronicle of unfulfilled national promise. Historical sufferers and victim groups receive belated recognition and redress. Participation in history becomes an empathetic act. By sharing the pain of exploited groups and learning the gloomy "truth" of the U.S. past, students presumably learn to become more virtuous and sensitive.
The world history standards pushed Western civilization to the side, straining throughout for equivalence of cultures. "Drawing on archaeological evidence for the growth of Jenne-jeno, interpret the commercial importance of this city in West African history," states one suggested activity. "How did the commercial importance of Jenne-jeno in this era compare with that of contemporary western European commercial centers such as early Venice?" The cultural achievements of Classical Greece, the Abbasid Caliphate "as a center of cultural innovation and hub of interregional trade in the 8th-10th centuries," and "the civilization of Kush" receive equal weight in the standards. The miracles of Western science and public health are sidelined in favor of recherche topics interesting only to university specialists. In order to demonstrate historical understanding, eighth-graders could "create a summary evaluation of the Zagwe dynasty of Ethiopia from the view of an Egyptian Coptic Christian" and ask "How would a Muslim from Adal have evaluated the Zagwe history? "
Ancient Rome, Judeo-Christian theology, the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution all suffered from inattention, as new attention was paid to Gupta India, Coptic Ethiopia, and Bantu culture. Old military heroes like Hannibal and Wellington disappear from the historical scene. Now Julius Caesar and Marcus Aurelius, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther and John Calvin, Catherine the Great and Louis XIV, Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud play supporting roles, and are no longer considered dominating figures of their respective historical ages.
This is what has been the norm in late-20th century and early 21st century textbooks, not what just occurred down in Texas. If this has been going on for decades, is it not inevitable that some people -- like the board in Texas -- will react?
The question isn't whether there should be "diversity" in such texts (there should), but whether the need for such diversity outweighs basic common sense. After all, should the Kush civilization really be given equal weight to the achievements of the ancient Greeks ... just because of "diversity?" Should the Columbian conquest be reduced to "a three-way encounter" between Europeans, Native Americans and Africans when it was only the Europeans doing the actual "encountering" ... just because it may show some "superiority" of the European side?
This doesn't mean that such history should be whitewashed, of course. The horrors of slavery, the decimation of the Native Americans, and the long, brutal struggle for civil rights for all Americans should be covered -- and covered well in our textbooks. But not to the exclusion of [many] other significant topics and not without discussion of the ongoing battles for remedies for past wrongs. Many texts have become denigrations of virtually anything Western, while anything not Western is celebrated. (Which, as you might expect, just might leave middle and high schoolers pondering just why the heck the Western world has been so damn successful!)
At any rate, good history teachers will know how to supplement textbooks -- and may only use them at a minimum anyway. And why should it matter to the rest of the country what Texas does? Why do publishers have to use the standards that Texas adopts for other texts? Why don't other states complain and demand to use different standards and/or books? Education should be a local matter (though I know that sentiment is not exactly en vogue at present). Honestly, if liberal enclaves across the nation want to teach that the Columbian conquest was "an equal encounter" or whatever, then let 'em. And if Texas wishes to stress Christianity's influence in the Founding, so be it. At the very most at the federal level (if anything) only extremely basic standard outlines for the subject should be available.
"A new study shows that diversity training programs have roundly failed to eliminate bias and increase the number of minorities in management, despite the fact that many corporations have spent increasing amounts of money on them since the 1990s."
“For the past 40 years companies have tried to increase diversity, spending millions of dollars a year on any number of programs without actually stopping to determine whether or not their efforts have been worth it,”[professor of sociology Frank] Dobbin says. “Certainly in the case of diversity training, the answer is no. The only truly effective way to increase the presence of minorities and women in managerial positions is through programs that create organizational responsibility. If no one is specifically charged with the task of increasing diversity, then the buck inevitably gets passed ad infinitum. To increase diversity, executives must treat it like any other business goal.”
I wonder how that will affect sites like Diversity Inc.? Just check out the gazillion articles they have devoted to diversity training.
I'm still fairly dumbfounded at how common sense doesn't point out the obvious -- that by engaging in stereotypes (diversity training), bias won't be eliminated. I mean, in my field (education), we're treated (in "workshops") to constant negative stereotypes about whites ("all whites are racist") whereas only positive stereotypes about minorities (their communication is "personal, emotional and 'process-oriented'”). The resentment -- which is logical outcome of such utter nonsense -- is always lost on the "progressive" edu-babblers who present it.
Joshua Dunn notes why Education Secretary Duncan's proposed civil rights "reinforcement" is not only misguided, but will ultimately lose in the courts if it comes to that:
This is the same Department of Education that can’t support a voucher program in Washington DC to help minority children escape the grinding incompetence of the DC school system. Now it wants to spend its resources determining whether schools in Fairfax County or Westchester have a disproportionate number of white kids in college prep classes. Someone’s priorities seem misplaced. Even Nixon would blush.Second, it’s hard to see how Duncan can do this without running into headlong into the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1. Duncan plans on relying on “disparate impact” analysis to show for instance that school districts with a disproportionate number of white students in advanced placement classes are guilty of discrimination. The cure for that disparate impact will be “robust remedies” like early intervention programs. But if (white) parents discover that their children have been denied access to an AP class to ensure racial balancing, they will likely bring suit just like the parents from Seattle in Parents Involved. And chances are, they will win. After all, Justice Kennedy, in his controlling opinion, singled out identifying students based solely on race as unconstitutional.
Of course, you might wonder "Well, why not just add more AP classes instead of denying some kids access (for balance)?" A legitimate query. However, now consider if your school district/state has the funds to add more teachers. Dunn then notes "One can easily envision school districts putting unprepared students in AP classes simply to satisfy the Department of Education." This is precisely what I wrote yesterday. Which is the bigger educational tragedy -- lack of minority faces (except Asian, of course) in AP classes, or putting more minorities in those classes and watching them fail at high rates because they're not adequately prepared?
In Missouri v. Jenkins, when the court and its self-appointed experts tried to improve the quality of education for African American children in Kansas City they structured their reforms around what they thought middle-class white children would want. As a result, after spending more than $2 billion, educational outcomes declined and African American parents became outraged and actually led the effort to end the court’s attempt to help them. Focusing on college prep classes when many minority children are trapped in dysfunctional and failing urban school system will likely be met with a giant “huh?” from many parents.
For the locals that may be reading this, does this sound familiar? As in New Castle County desegregation from 1978-1996? After almost 20 years of federally-enforced busing, the results were virtually identical to those seen in Kansas City -- no net improvement in minority academic achievement, and many [black] parents lamented the disintegration of the Wilmington School District and the corresponding local control of schools.
Latest results in a Philly Daily News poll which asks "Who most needs to step up for today's students?" As of right now, 87% say "parents," 11.7% say "students themselves," and a mere 1.3% say "teachers."
Related in the Daily News: The founder of the Mathematics, Civics & Sciences Charter School, Veronica Joyner, says that "teachers need to 'step up' and do whatever is necessary for kids -- even combing their hair, washing their clothes, and bringing them prescription glasses. "When a parent wasn't involved, it gave me more motivation to do a better job," Joyner said of her days as a teacher. "They're blaming the parent when they're the professional."
Wow, eh? Funny, then, that this same Ms. Joyner seemed to have quite a different attitude about a decade ago when she booted a kid from her school because he may -- may -- have suffered from ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). Joyner said her school "was not equipped to deal with [such] a child."
So much for doing "all that is necessary," huh Ms. Joyner? Guessed you "blamed the parents even though YOU were the professional" ... ?
Or, in other words, folks, beware false prophets.
Also related: Bill Cosby says "Parents at fault."
As mentioned yesterday, the Obama administration is going to begin looking "more intently" at civil rights in our public schools, notably disproportionate discipline rates, [lack] of access to college prep courses, and that 'ol "disparate impact" nonsense. Roger Clegg, who's usually dead-on about the effects of ... stuff like this, notes:
...the easy way out for schools -- and what school bureaucrat won't prefer the easy way out -- is to make sure the numbers pass muster, i.e., to make discipline decisions based not solely on the merits, but also on the basis of race. And since administrators aren't likely to mete out punishment just to balance the numbers, they will balance them by going easier on black students because they are black.As a result, school discipline will be further eroded, making it increasinigly difficult for students of all races to learn.
Maddeningly, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan gave an address about all this at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, "scene of the 'Bloody Sunday' civil-rights confrontation 45 years ago." As Power Line's Paul Mirengoff says, "... did the civil rights protesters of the 1960s really march so that school administrator's would be intimidated into not disciplining black students who violate the rules?" Highly unlikely. Which just goes to show you how preposterously the civil rights movement has been altered. The right to attend the same schools as everyone else has now been transformed to the "right" to equal discipline rates (despite the number and severity of offenses). The right to equal educational opportunity has been transformed into the "right" to take, for example, Advanced Placement classes (even if you're in no way prepared for the rigor of such classes).
Regarding the latter, I (and hopefully everyone else) sincerely want more minorities (that would be sans Asians, who're already well represented) in such courses; however, much like universities, which almost stop at nothing to recruit minorities to "show" that they care about "diversity," how is it beneficial to these students to be put in classes/situations for which they are woefully prepared? And then they fail (or drop out)? Bean counting administrators feel good about themselves for "propping up their numbers;" no one really counts the successes of this bean counting, however.
And who was it recently that was complaining about groups suing public entities -- and the prohibitive cost of a defense? See what Clegg says above. Not only will school districts "fudge their [discipline] numbers" to avoid a costly lawsuit, but the spectre of being labeled "racist" is, of course, destructive PR. And the inevitable result -- deteriorating building discipline -- will result in families, of ALL races, fleeing public schools for private and parochial.
John Rosenberg [rightly] ponders: "Does anyone really believe that 'one of the largest' problems of American education today is rampant, pervasive discrimination against minorities?"
I mean, if they made it to college and spell like this:
Ah, but perhaps I shouldn't be so hard on them. After all, their just exercising there First Amendment writes!
UPDATE: Semi-related -- Detroit school board President demonstrates his writing "skills."
My. God.
... when it's a minority/oppressed/radical/fringe group causing a stir. Case in point:
A college atheist group is offering students pornography in exchange for Bibles.Atheist Agenda calls the exchange "Smut for Smut," prompting prayers and protests from Christian students at the University of Texas San Antonio campus.
Student Monica Cornado says it's offensive to compare pornography to "the Word of God."
University officials say the atheist group has the right to conduct the swap.
UTSA spokesman David Gabler says, "As long as students are not violating laws or violating the Constitution, they have the freedom of speech and assembly."
Mr. Gabler is absolutely correct. But it is refreshing to see/hear a university gabber actually speak up for the right of free speech (and protest). Something tells me, however, that if the situation was reversed, campus officials might be more inclined to elevate the supposed right to "not be offended" and pontificate about "hate speech" more than American constitutional principles.
By one of my favorite education pundits, Michael Lopez:
It’s not fashionable to say this… but I suspect that there would be a lot fewer discipline problems that actually needed to be addressed if students could lose their public school privileges.Students who act out in class are implicitly representing that they don’t *value* the educational experience. People have a funny way of suddenly valuing things when they are taken away, or even when it’s possible that they will be taken away.
I’m all for public schools, in much the same way I’m for public highways. But we take away the driving privileges of people who don’t value the highway system. And the fact that we *can* take away someone’s driving privileges keeps most people in line.
Brilliant, as Michael's comments usually are. Unfortunately, this makes too much sense, and public ed. is usually found wanting in that realm ...
Why? It's America, after all: Laptop family is no stranger to legal disputes. As in the recent Lower Merion School District laptop "snooping case."
Before the commission was yet another appeal from a Philadelphia-area family, again seeking a break on unpaid electric and gas bills that by last year were closing in on $30,000.This family lived in a $986,000 house on the Main Line. The breadwinner, until recently, had earned well more than $100,000 per year. Yet he and his wife were in hock to creditors, ranging from Uncle Sam to their former synagogue - and had regularly been stiffing Peco Energy for five years, breaking payment plan after payment plan.
"Our procedures," the commission's Tyrone J. Christy wrote in a Dec. 17 motion, "were not meant to allow customers living in $986,000 houses, with incomes in excess of $100,000 per year, to run up arrearages approaching $30,000."
Longtime Peco spokesman Michael Wood said this week that the family's debt was the largest household delinquency he could recall, except for one theft-of-services case.
In addition to the Peco debt, the PUC noted, the Robbinses had been hit with numerous civil judgments in recent years totaling more than $365,000.
According to court records, their unpaid debts range from $62,692 owed to the IRS to lesser debts of a few thousand to their dentist, their former synagogue's preschool, and a Montgomery County lawyer.
Michael Robbins is currently embroiled in a legal dispute with his former employer, Interstate Motor Carriers Agency Inc. of Freehold, N.J.
In a federal lawsuit filed by Haltzman last year, Robbins contends that Interstate owes him about $5 million in commissions. Bill Buckley, an attorney for Interstate, declined to comment.
Huh. Could it be that this laptop controversy was the "perfect vehicle" by which this family could recoup some cash?
Did anyone catch the brief statement by Lindy Matsko, assistant vice principal at Harriton High School yesterday? I've rarely seen someone so adamant in their own defense, not to mention genuine. Robbins' lawyer Mark S. Haltzman said "he had warned the [Robbins] family that its members' lives would be placed under a microscope" -- and he's right. Though he says this laptop lawsuit should be viewed independently of the family's past legal troubles, I wonder if he actually said that with a straight face -- especially since it seems professional litigant-to-be Blake Robbins' (the son/student) story seems sketchy. Blake said "Ms. Matsko does not deny that she saw a Web-cam picture and screenshot of me in my home;" yet the vice-principal had stated "At no time have I ever monitored a student via a laptop Web cam." Maybe that's a substantive difference, but I sure doubt it.
Sorry, but I feel little-to-no sympathy for people that refuse to pay their bills -- and get sued for it -- especially when they're living in the lap of luxury. Hey Robbins family -- Your rights were [supposedly] violated by the school district? What about the rights of all those you've bilked out of rightful payments?
(Story h/t to Colossus R&D man Gooch!)
Signe Wilkinson in today's Philly Daily News sidetracks from his her usual [liberal] cartoons to write a supposed "thought-provoking" column on learning something from communist Vietnam. I didn't know exactly what to take from it -- Wilkinson says we can "learn something" about capitalism from the bustling port vendors so prominent in Haiphong Harbor ("they don't seem to be turning any of them into parks or casinos"); however, with Philly's ridiculous crime problem (and that of other big cities), how productive would such a hypothetical market be? The city can't even control rampaging youth through its inner city malls, yet Philly should consider 'Nam's version of capitalism? Uh huh. Maybe if communist dictatorships have the crime problems of democratic societies (that is one of the banes of being "free," after all) there might be a logical comparison. After all, it's easy to make crime rare when people can be arrested at the whim of any government official, for virtually any reason.
Where Wilkinson makes some sense is when he she brings up education. He She writes:
And if Philadelphia parents wanted to see what urban education looks like where kids come to school on time and pay attention, they, too, should visit third-world Vietnam.Looking into schoolyards in the early morning, the neatly uniformed children were busy doing exercises (sometimes led by another student), singing or listening to school programs.
But this is hardly unique to authoritarian societies like Vietnam. Many Third World countries' parents take a lot more pride in getting their children an education than we do here in the most affluent of nations. Take Costa Rica, for example, where I've lived and traveled to many times. CR is a democratic nation much like our own (capitalist with a strong two-party political system), yet their education system is very akin to what Wilkinson notes about 'Nam. I think what Signe fails to realize is that since Third World nations -- any of them -- lack much of what we're fortunate enough to have here in the US, they're much more serious about doing what it takes to improve their "lot in life." Our problem in many areas is that there is a sentiment of "being owed" something that really only can exist in affluent societies. In "richer" areas, parents think their children should get their way/what they want because, well, they're rich. (This hassle is probably more evident in private schools, I'd imagine.) In "poorer" areas, so many things have been subsidized (transportation, breakfast, lunch, school uniforms, materials) that there's no real feeling of responsibility left for anything (like behavior and academic achievement).
Over the years I've had the pleasure of teaching students that had come from different countries, and several things are usually evident. One, they're initially ... appalled at the classroom and hallway behavior of the typical American [public] school student, and two, their parents are saddened -- and surprised -- at how way too many American students disdain education and could care less about the so very much they have available to them in their teachers and their schools.
That would be Bill Ayers, Barack Obama buddy, unrepentant domestic terrorist, and supposed education expert -- this Wednesday, Feb. 24 at the Willard Hall Education Building, room 207.
(h/t: Target Rich Environment's BadIdeaGuy via e-mail.)
Via Education Week: Court Backs Student on Facebook Page Criticizing Teacher.
The case involves Katherine Evans, who was a senior at Pembrook Pines Charter High School in Florida in 2007 when she created a group on Facebook called, "Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I've ever met.""To those select students who have had the displeasure of having Ms. Sarah Phelps, or simply knowing her and her insane antics: Here is the place to express your feelings of hatred," Evans wrote on the page, which she created on her home computer.
Peter Bayer, the principal of Pembroke Pines High, suspended Evans for three days and removed her from her Advanced Placement classes for violating the school's rules against "cyberbullying" and "harassment" of a staff member, according to court documents.
Evans sued the principal in his individual capacity, alleging that her First Amendment free speech and 14th Amendment due process rights were violated.
In a Feb. 12 ruling in Bayer v. Evans, U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry L. Garber of Miami declined Evans's request for an injunction barring the principal from keeping the student's discipline in school records. But the judge denied qualified immunity for Bayer, holding that Evans's speech was protected under the First Amendment and that the principal should have known he was violating a clearly established right by disciplining Evans.
There must be an indication that the speech at issue disrupted the work and discipline of the school, or will disrupt school in the future, for the discipline to be upheld, the judge said, and there was no indication in the record before him that Evans' Facebook group critical of a teacher disrupted school.
I would concur with this ruling. The last paragraph is key, and I think courts have been fairly consistent with rulings of this nature -- that the "disruption of the educational environment" has to be established before any sort of speech restrictions would be warranted. Keep in mind, too, sites like RateMyTeachers.com which give an open forum for any student to criticize any teacher for reasons as silly as "makes you throw out your gum." If the court found for this principal, then sites like "Rate" would have to be shut down too, right -- if any teacher complained (or principal objected)?
Sorry, but teachers aren't immune from criticism just no one else is, even that of their own students.
Elsewhere, some members of the Seattle Education Association have been suspended for violating their district's directives:
In 2007, we were told to administer the Washington Alternate Assessment System to our students in grades 3-5, and we did. It took nearly three months because the test had to be given a little at a time, to each student individually. Meanwhile, our other six children were with our assistants.Although the test was modified, it measured our students achievement against grade level standards. Because our students are cognitively at ages six months to two years, the assessment was not at their level. It had nothing to do with the goals and objectives designed for them.
Our goal might be to teach them to hold a spoon or recognize their name in print, and the test covered fractions. In fact, one student would start crying every time we got to the part on fractions.
So last year, we described the test to the parents. They said it was ridiculous. One said, “If I had known you were doing this, I would have told you to stop.” Another said, “I’m sick of tests that tell what my child can’t do. I want to see what he can do.”
We did our own research and found that parents do have a right to refuse state assessments. Since the parents had expressed their opinions to us, we thought this was all that was needed. So we didn’t give the test.
The way the district sees it, we were given a directive and didn’t follow it. The reason why held little significance to them.
My emphasis above -- and therein lies the problem: These teachers took it upon themselves to determine what was "right" in this case (not giving the test) -- for a state assessment that their district must give. It's an easy call, really, despite how sympathetic I (or others) may be to these teachers' cause. They "thought this was all that was needed." Did they not bother to check with their school administration, let alone district highers-up? In their own words, no. Many districts have in-house lawyers, or contract out to one when needed; an opinion on the matter could have asked of him/her, could it not?
Hey, administrators, school or district level, are far from infallible. But teachers are employees who, like those in other careers, have to follow a chain of command and get approval for many things (like this) from those above them. If you decide to take it upon yourself to "make the call" on something of this import (or controversy), then you'd best be prepared to face the consequences.
What to do when a minority ... makes offensive statements about another ... minority?
This is the problem that faces Vanderbilt University where a Muslim chaplain was quoted as "saying he would have to 'go with what Islam teaches' regarding the imposition of capital punishment on practicing homosexuals." Some Islamic countries put those "caught" practicing homosexuality to death, like Saudi Arabia and Iran. In a statement, Vandy said that Awadh A. Binhazim's comments were part of "Project Dialogue," "a series meant to bring 'diverse viewpoints' to campus."
Uh huh. Anyone who has followed as I have the folly of political correctness that infects American campuses to the Nth degree has to chuckle at that statement. Y'know, American campuses -- where conservatives routinely get shouted down and even attacked for saying something contrary to the prevailing campuse orthodoxy. Of course, most of these conservatives are white, so there's not really an "inner struggle" among diversophiles/multi-cultis about what to do, unlike Binhazim's case.
Vandy went on to "reaffirm" it commitment "both to free speech and to non-discrimination." Let's wait and see if that's really the case when someone like, say Dick Cheney, Ann Coulter or David Horowitz is invited to speak there. If they're even invited, that is.
More here.
That's the title of a short story by Hal Colebatch in Man-Kzin Wars VII, the popular series based on master scifi author Larry Niven's superb "Known Space" characters.
In a nutshell, in the period (roughly) between the mid-22nd century until the end of the 24th, Earth has enjoyed a "golden age" -- a time of peace and plenty, all the while it has settled worlds orbiting nearby stars. Earth history -- especially anything about wars and violence -- is suppressed among the general public by the ARM, the Amalgamated Regional Militia, the enforcement branch of the UN (yeah, go figure!). Tendency to violence is treated as a mental disease, and can be cured chemically. Those who stumble upon any historical info about past Earth conflicts can face a memory wipe. In 2360, one of our ships en route to one of these colonies, the Angel's Pencil, encounters an alien vessel in interstellar space. The ship belongs to the Kzin, a race of carnivorous humanoid felines that resemble huge tigers. They're pure warriors, and want nothing more than to conquer other species.
The crew of Angel's Pencil eventually (out of survival's necessity!) get over their disbelief that the Kzin vessel is trying to harm them, and turn their laser-drive against the ship, destroying it. (This is all detailed in Niven's first-ever Kzin story from 1966, "The Warriors.") They eventually beam back all the evidence of their encounter to Earth -- to warn them of this horrible threat. But since their message travels at the speed of light, it takes years for it to arrive.
In "The Colonel's Tiger" two ARM agents ponder the Pencil's message, and conclude that, despite all the photographic and visual evidence presented, the crew of the ship is mad -- suffering from some sort of delusions brought about by extended space travel. How can aliens, which have superior technology to humans, be aggressive and war-like? Impossible!! And the crew's "madness" must indeed be severe, as they've "come up with" weapons (via their photographic evidence of the Kzin vessel) that have LONG since been outlawed by the nations of Earth; indeed, 99.9% of the population now hasn't even heard of things like fusion bombs, missiles, particle beams, and the like.
One of the ARM agents discovers evidence from the 1800s of a "tiger man" that was eventually killed by an army colonel ... a creature that was such an anomaly as to defy description. The ARM conclude that the crew of the Angel's Pencil probably concocted an elaborate hoax for some as-yet unknown reason -- perhaps to thwart further space travel, or create a panic on Earth, probably for prodigious monetary gain. Again, what the Pencil sent back to Earth just can't be true!! It just can't!
Can it?
Colebatch scatters throughout "Tiger" appropriate passages from past literary works to drive home his point. For instance, there's this from The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:
It was scarcely possible that the eyes of contemporaries should discover in the public felicity the latent causes of decay and corruption. The long peace, and the uniform government of the Romans, introduced a slow and secret poison into the vitals of empire. The minds of men were gradually reduced to the same level, the fire of genius was extinguished, and even the military spirit evaporated.
Then there's this, from Where Ignorance Is Bliss:
One of the largest of all British local council libraries, at Brent, lately destroyed apporximately 66,000 of its 100,000 books. The explanation which the council gave for this destruction was that the offending books were "books on war, history books and other books irrelevant to the community.
Backtrack about 400 years from the time of the Angel's Pencil and what do we find?
In the end, the two ARM agents in Colebatch's story realized that the crew of Angel's Pencil could not have created the hoax in which the agency so fervently believed. (The hoax, that is.) The cold reality was that fierce, war-like aliens were indeed out there in space, and we were going to be their next target. Humanity would surrender without a shot unless the ARM acted -- and acted swiftly. Humans would have to be made aware of their past, and be made aware of what they were capable of doing, if they wanted to survive.
September 11, 2001 was supposed to have been our -- not just the US's, but the entire civilized world's -- wake up call. We've already forgotten a mere eight years later. And before that -- what, World War II? How long did it take before we forgot its lessons?
In closing, and in keeping with the scifi analogy, it's best to keep Jean-Luc Picard's words in mind at the end of the superb episode "The Drumhead":
We think we have come so far ... the torture of heretics and the burning of witches is ancient history... and then ... before you can blink an eye ... it threatens to start all over again.Villains who wear black hats are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged.
She [Admiral Satie] -- someone like her -- will always be with us... waiting for the right climate in which to flourish...spreading disease in the name of liberty. Vigilance, Worf. That is the price we must continually pay.
The Messiah (using a teleprompter, by the way) to a group of DC area 6th graders:
We're going to raise the bar for all our students and take bigger steps towards closing the achievement gap that denies so many students, especially black and Latino students, a fair shot at their dreams.
Obama was speaking in reference to the "Race to the Top" initiative, which grants federal cash to states that make worthy educational reforms. (Be sure to check out Kilroy's superb coverage of Delaware's efforts in Race to the Top.) But ... what precisely does Obama mean by that statement? By saying that the achievement gap "denies" students a fair shot at their dreams, the implication is that the gap is purely -- or mostly -- a result of poor teaching and schooling.
Such a mindset (Obama's) should not come as a big surprise, given his far-left politics. "Progressive" educrats have for years blamed things like white teacher racism and/or "white privilege" for the poor academic performance of minority students. Poor funding [of inner-city] schools is another reason. Unfortunately, unless a lot more emphasis is placed on the enormous problem of fatherlessness, and on the violence that plagues way too many city schools, it will extremely tough to fully close that gap (unless schools do what Obama and co. have done with job figures a la the stimulus package, etc.!).
Alas, it just is not politically correct to mention these things. Especially without someone invoking the dreaded "R" word ...
I recently wrote that the LGOMB's pandora's posts of teachers was well worth a read. But, then she goes on to write this.
Does anyone actually buy her anecdote hook, line and sinker? Or, do you think there just might be more to it than her retelling?
I vote the latter.
Democrats are jumping to the defense of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for his racially insensitive remarks about Barack Obama:
"I think if you look at the reports as I have, it was all in the context of saying positive things about Senator Obama," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine. "It definitely was in the context of recognizing in Senator Obama a great candidate and future president." Sen. Diane Feinstein of California said Mr. Reid should not resign, and defended his remark as just a "mistake.""Clearly, the leader misspoke. He has also apologized. He's not only apologized to the president, I think he's apologized to all of the black leadership that he could reach," she said.
And you know what? I agree with them. My long-time blog nemesis Perry commented over at Common Sense Political Thought:
Back on topic, here is what [former GOP] Leader [Trent] Lott said at Strom Thurmond’s bday shindig: “I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”It was a stupid racist statement which one would not expect from the Republican Leader in the Senate.
Here is the context of Leader Reid’s remark, from the book: “… Game Change, as saying privately that the US would be “ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama – a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.’”
It was a stupid racist statement which one would not expect from the Democratic Leader in the Senate.
In my view, neither statement is characteristic of the individual who made it, therefore, again, just plain stupid. Besides, both apologized.
I did not think that Leader Lott should have been forced by his Republican colleagues to step down, nor should Leader Reid be forced to step down.
Both parties are guilty of making a mountain out of a molehill. Partisan politics rears its ugly head once again.
Don’t we have more important issues to debate?
While Perry is wrong about 99% of what he writes, he's right about this. Unfortunately, many of his fellow "progressives" certainly didn't feel that way in the past, nor anytime the subject is a conservative or a Republican. Regarding Trent Lott,
And, unlike the Lott situation, where numerous prominent Republicans did not come out in support of him, Democrats have immediately jumped to Reid's defense:
So, when Republicans charge "double standard" in this whole matter, they're absolutely right. (UPDATE: our LGOMB has a "thoughtful" post about Reid's comments; just imagine what it'd be if a Republican said what Reid did.) Not just regarding Democrats, but the mainstream media as well. For example, it's like MSDNC's Chris Matthews chuckling and smirking about foul-mouthed Dem. Rep. Alan Grayson's past comments, but having a coronary about former veep Dick Cheney's recent policy criticism of Barack Obama. I virtually guarantee you Matthews will be rationalizing Reid's comments later today, but on the other hand almost anything remotely associated with the GOP is laced with insinuations of racism.
Being a liberal and/or a Democrat gets you a pass because somehow "you mean well." Otherwise, you'd have actually heard about things like this, let alone its necessary accompanying criticism. Right?
UPDATE 2: Tyler Nixon at DE Libertarian reminds us all why he is the smartest of all the First State's bloggers.
In a related matter, you might think that only the Right has misgivings about James Cameron's awesome "Avatar." However (as even the AP amazingly admits), a "small but vocal group of people" actually think the film is -- wait for it! -- racist:
Near the end of the hit film "Avatar," the villain snarls at the hero, "How does it feel to betray your own race?" Both men are white — although the hero is inhabiting a blue-skinned, 9-foot-tall, long-tailed alien.Strange as it may seem for a film that pits greedy, immoral humans against noble denizens of a faraway moon, "Avatar" is being criticized by a small but vocal group of people who allege it contains racist themes — the white hero once again saving the primitive natives.
Since the film opened to widespread critical acclaim three weeks ago, hundreds of blog posts, newspaper articles, tweets and YouTube videos have made claims such as that the film is "a fantasy about race told from the point of view of white people" and reinforces "the white Messiah fable."
Which is kind of ironic since the film more overtly portrays [the whites] as unscrupulous, immoral conquerors! If you look at the full equation, I think the so-called "minorities" come out on the "moral top" when compared to the so-called "white messiah" concern. After all, Costner, Cruise and now Sam Worthington in "Avatar" end up siding with the "minority" because they recognize their [supposed] inherent goodness/superiority. (And were Costner and Cruise "saviors" in their respective films? The Native Americans and Samurai were ultimately defeated/wiped out! What kinda "messiah" leads to that?)
Overall it's a good debate: For example, isn't the West (ie, developed nations ... which just happen to be quite white, by the way) most responsible for things like the abolition of slavery (and on moral grounds at that), codifying political and legal equality, and fostering a technological age unmatched in human civilization that has led to increased standards of living for untold billions? What if the West had never colonized the areas that it did (the Americas, in particular)? Would these lands, still dominated by its indigenous peoples, be at the same technological (among other aspects) disadvantage that they faced back then?
Now, this may sound sort of like the "Well, the descendants of slaves should be glad their great-great-great-whatevers were brought here" argument used by some (less than scrupulous folk) to say that ultimately, slavery "wasn't all that bad." But that is far from the case. If anything, it's a needed reminder of the current edu-babble PC that denigrates anything Western, and lionizes everything else. (See Costner's "Dances With Wolves," which, while an outstanding film, nevertheless furthered the myth of the Native American as a faultless Noble.)
Personally, I am clearly in the camp of non-intervention; if I was a citizen in the "Avatar"-verse, I'd be dead-set against the invasion of Pandora -- much like I was dead-set against the invasion of Iraq and other areas in which the US really has had no business being. However, it is a common error to utilize 21st century moral codes to impose standards upon the peoples of 200, 300, 400 or more years ago. Because we recognize that slavery is (was) a horrible institution today doesn't discount the fact that it was once, centuries ago, an accepted world-wide phenomenon.
I'm getting off on a bit of a tangent here; I suppose my overall recommendation to this "small group" that thinks "Avatar" is racist is that it needs to take the view that most conservatives do with it: It's a freakin' science fiction film. If this "small group" wants to express a more real-life beef, perhaps they can look at flicks where, for example, some whitebread teacher [usually reluctantly] accepts a teaching gig at a tough inner city school and suddenly "reaches" and "transforms" the "underserved" youth there. As I wrote over three years ago:
Sorry, but I just have to wince every time I see a spot for the new Hilary Swank film "Freedom Writers." If this isn't just a sappy remake of Michelle Pheiffer's "Dangerous Minds" for all intents and purposes, I'll eat my hat. Certainly, teachers that are dramatized by Swank, Phieffer and others are nothing short of miracle workers. And, their stories can be uplifting. But one thing that annoys me is the seeming Hollywood mantra of a "Great White Hope" that is "needed" for these tough, inner-city classrooms. Remember how Pheiffer was virtually terrified in her first few days in the classroom. But hey -- she is determined to "reach these kids" by, among other things, "understanding" where the kids come from. Swank is obviously keen on doing likewise. Matthew Perry in "The Ron Clark Story" is another. Meryl Streep in "Music of the Heart" is yet another.If you know me by my past writings, I'm certainly not one to endorse the multiculti philosophy that kids will learn "better" if they are taught by teachers who "look like them." And surely, middle-class whitebreadish teachers like Pheiffer, Swank et. al. will have to make necessary adjustments to whatever teaching methods they learned in order to be successful with high-need urban students. But this isn't my point. The point is that Hollywood seems to believe that these stories are "inspirational" in part because these middle-class whitebreadish teachers "gave their all" to help these destitute pupils -- they sacrificed and were devoted beyond measure -- when they could've taken a cushy suburban teaching job that would have been much easier. They're "Great White Hopes" as I said before.
But what about the stories of teachers who DO "look like their students" who have been there since day one doing their utmost to get through to these kids?
I went to note several excellent such films, like "187," "Lean On Me" and "Stand And Deliver." The latter two are staples on the Encore channels, so if you've never seen them, you gotta check 'em out.
Yeah, I rip on the LGOMB's pandora every now and then; however, go and read her exceptional post about good teachers here.
Very good stuff.
From the NAS e-mail bag:
MINNEAPOLIS, December 17, 2009—The University of Minnesota–Twin Cities is defending its plans to enforce a political litmus test for future teachers in the face of national outrage. The plans from its College of Education and Human Development (CEHD) involve redesigning admissions and the curriculum to enforce an ideology centered on a narrow view of “cultural competence.” Those with the “wrong” views are to receive remedial re-education, be weeded out, or be denied admission altogether. After an anonymous source at the university contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help, FIRE called on the university to end its plans, but the university has defended the program by publicly misrepresenting it.“The University of Minnesota should be ashamed to pretend that these plans are only about helping future teachers learn about other cultures,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “In reality, this program would scrutinize the thoughts, values, attitudes, and beliefs of prospective teachers and demand conformity or else require ‘remedial’ re-education. By the plain language of the program, anyone who doesn’t conform will be considered unqualified to be a teacher.”
The proposal, from the college’s Race, Culture, Class, and Gender Task Group, would require that each teacher recognize how minority students suffer from “white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativity, and internalized oppression.” Education students would be made to “discover their own privilege, oppression, or marginalization”; “develop a positive sense of racial/cultural identity”; and “recognize that schools are socially constructed systems that are susceptible to racism … but are also critical sites for social and cultural transformation.”
FIRE wrote University of Minnesota President Robert Bruininks on November 25 after it became clear that the task group’s proposal was being implemented in month-by-month plans beginning immediately, as stated in a funding proposal to The Bush Foundation. The foundation is providing $4.5 million to implement the program.
In response to the controversy, CEHD Dean Jean Quam and university spokesman Dan Wolters have misled inquirers and defended the proposal as though it is merely a way to teach future educators about different cultures. In a brief response to FIRE’s letter dated December 8, Bruininks failed to respond substantively to FIRE’s concerns but instead referred the matter to legal counsel.
“This is a moral matter as well as a legal one,” Lukianoff said. “This is a proposal that says teachers need a specific ideology to be considered qualified. It violates the autonomy and private conscience of faculty and students alike, and it rejects the very pluralism and diversity that the program claims to care about. Doesn’t the university understand that great teachers come in all shapes and sizes and with a wide variety of political views and beliefs?”
The Supreme Court invalidated mandatory allegiances to political ideologies at public schools in the landmark 1943 decision West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette. In that opinion, issued by the Court during World War II, Justice Robert Jackson wrote: “Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” The University of Minnesota’s proposed program starkly violates these guiding principles.
The university’s Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee met last week with Dean Quam and is scheduled to meet tomorrow with university counsel. Committee meetings are normally open to visitors. Friday’s meeting is from 9:30 to 11:30 a.m. in 300 Morrill Hall on the Twin Cities campus.
“To learn about other cultures is one thing, but to say someone with the ‘wrong’ political views should not be allowed to teach is unacceptable,” said Adam Kissel, Director of FIRE’s Individual Rights Defense Program. “We would defend the University of Minnesota professors who proposed this program if they were censored or punished for expressing their points of view, but they have gone too far by demanding that everyone in the program share their views.”
Unbelievable.
Previous Colossus coverage here.
Good (surprise, at that) editorial in the Philly Daily News dealing with the attacks on Asian students at South Philly High over the past month or so. Like Mayor Nutter's ridiculous statement: "All of us responded very quickly, very swiftly and very directly." Um, twelve days after the attacks is "very quick/swift?" Nutter also stated that Philly Superintendent Arlene Ackerman "jumped on [the matter] in the most immediate fashion." To Nutter, "immediate" equals eight days.
In a related matter, Sgt. Robert "Sarge" Samuels is a police officer who was reassigned to South Philly High because he speaks Mandarin and Cantonese (both Chinese lingos that are quite distinct from one another, FYI). But -- uh oh -- some people think Samuels is a "bully":
... his detractors say that he's a bully with a short fuse and a penchant for violence. Yesterday, Samuels allegedly handcuffed a student for mouthing off.The controversy about Samuels surfaced after two Frankford High School police officers were accused last month of beating a student who had arrived late.
On Monday, members of the local chapter of the National Action Network, the group led by the Rev. Al Sharpton, called for the district to investigate the Frankford matter and Samuels' reassignment.
The group said that complaints had been lodged against Samuels for alleged actions during his time at Olney High, including accusations that he put on boxing gloves and roughed up students.
Other complaints are that he handcuffed students for various infractions, including lateness. Oh, and what a surprise -- Sharpton's group is right on top of the Olney student complaints, but as existent as Pres. Obama's deficit reduction plan regarding the abuse of Asian students nearby.
OK, obviously I've no idea whether these issues/complaints (against Samuels) are legit or not. But what I do know is that school students are among the very best embellishers of stories that I know. For instance,
[Tamika] Brown said that Samuels ordered her handcuffed in Room 106, the room where students are interviewed by school police. She said that her infraction yesterday was being late for one of her classes.After being turned away by her teacher, Brown said, she hung out in a stairwell with another student. She was later caught and escorted to Samuels, who she said was yelling at other students.
Now, in my almost 20 years of teaching, I've heard MANY excuses along the lines of these. In other words, some school authority's actions were entirely unjustified because a student essentially "did nothing." Handcuff a student ... for lateness? Yeah, sure. I'm certain that was the ONLY thing Tamika was doing. And oh no -- a school cop ... yelling at students!! Like, that's NEVER justified! I've done enough "time out" and in-school suspension room duties (among other things) to know that the vast majority of this sort of student beef is total nonsense. Much more often than not there was some other misbehavior going on other than, for example, mere lateness. After all, take Tamika's case -- there is NO place for students who arrive late to go? She HAD to hang in the stairwell? So then why does the article say that she was "caught" and taken to Officer Samuels?
But hey -- even if every single allegation against Samuels is true, why not just use the 'ol Philly School District method of treating the problem? Y'know, blame "society at large" for his behavior (or no one in particular), and have him attend a diversity seminar.
(Thanks for Colossus R&D man Gooch for the assist on this post.)
Asian students to file federal civil rights complaint against Philly School District.
Superintendent Arlene Ackerman still doesn't get it: She "announced new security measures and diversity programs" and said "We're not going to continue to make this an Asian vs. African American thing. This is not just about demands of one racial group. It is about the needs of everyone." In addition, she "suggested the attacks were being sensationalized by the media, and urged the community to stop assigning blame and move forward."
And the kicker: "Also at the news conference, Ackerman and some South Philadelphia students said that the problem was more a cultural one - those who speak English not understanding those who don't."
Unbelievable. In other words, since you can't understand what they're saying, it's OK to kick the sh** out of them.
Yep, this is what you do when the real issue ... "inconveniences" political correctness. You blame "the community." You blame "cultural misunderstandings." Or you just blame no one in particular. Whatever you do, just don't address the actual problem!!
See if you can find the term "hate crime" in this Philly Inquirer article about the ongoing travails of Asians students at South Philly High. And perhaps the most troubling aspect of this whole mess is this: Staff members who [allegedly] stood by and did nothing or even encouraged the violence against the Asian students, not to mention usage of the basest of stereotypes against same:
" 'As soon as we open our mouths and speak, they treat us like we're animals,' " Ellen Somekawa, executive director of Asian Americans United quoted a Vietnamese student." 'Where are you from?' 'Hey, Chinese.' 'Yo Dragon Ball.' 'Are you Bruce Lee?' 'Speak English!' '' Somekawa said the students are told.
Those aren't the words of the students who harass Asians, she said.
"They are the words of the adult staff at South Philadelphia High. So stop blaming the children and start owning the responsibility."
Also,
Troung, the South Philadelphia student, recited a litany of problems with school staff. She singled out the security officers, who she claimed forced Asian students to follow them into a lunchroom where they were attacked and who directed the frightened students to leave school after they were beaten.Yan Zheng, another student, said that when students were fighting in the lunch room last Thursday, "the lunch lady did not do anything to stop them, and went around cheering happily. . . . The staff shouldn't just stand there and watch and say, 'Stopping fights is not my job.' "
Duong Thang Ly said the school's security officers "are the big problem," saying they looked the other way when a group of African American students interrupted a lunch line and heckled a group of Asian students. They ignored groups of students as they roamed during class time, Ly said.
And the incompetence/ridiculousless goes right to the top, apparently. School Superintendent Arlene Ackerman blamed "societal racism" for the problem, warned everyone "not to blame one racial group for the violence," and then did the do-nothing chore of appointing a "Task Force for Racial and Cultural Harmony" to "recommend changes" not only at South Philly High but across the district.
"Changes?" Regarding what? Hopefully it's about the preposterous nature of the school staff's reaction to Asian students who are in danger. And what's a "task force" gonna do? What it should do is recommend the obvious: that students that target and attack other students because of their race be expelled from school. Period.
In a nutshell, the Inquirer's reporting of this imbroglio, as well as the district's response to it, are rooted in modern political correctness and radical diversity/multiculturalism. I think it goes without saying that if the attackers were white and the targets black, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the entire MSM would have descended upon Philly like they did in Jena, Louisiana demanding [straightforward] action. And [sadly] it isn't all that surprising to read the district's lame response to the situation. After all, we have seen how the educationist diversophiles and multicultists seek to rationalize everything from poor grades to poor behavior time and time again. When it's not [white teacher] racism, it's just "the students' culture." Just check out the litany of "cultural differences," for example, that are utilized to "explain" the disparity in racial discipline rates.
I've a feeling Asian students at South Philly High aren't gonna get any satisfaction anytime soon ...
From the News Journal: 26 Asian students attacked at Philly high school.
A number of Asian students at South Philadelphia High School are staying home after some say they were targeted for attack.A counselor at the Chinatown Development Corporation says 26 Asian students were beaten in the hallways by a gang of other students throughout the day Thursday.
Seven of the victims were treated at a hospital for scrapes and bruises.
School district officials say 10 students have been suspended.
The Philly papers? The Daily News's report on the incident is, at this moment, devoid of any text (I checked on both IE and Firefox). The Inquirer? Nada. Only an article about how violence in general in Philly schools hasn't decreased.
Let's see ... members of a minority ... selectively targeted? Yet, no mention of hate crime! No mention of racial prejudice! Hmm. Why is that?
Maybe it's because they "get preferential treatment."
UPDATE: The Daily News's article text is up. It's no better than the News Journal's, though.
UPDATE 2: Looks like one outlet was a bit "braver" than others in its reporting.
This time (well, again) if you don't adopt a particular political/social view, you're not worthy of becoming an educator in Minnesota:
Do you believe in the American dream -- the idea that in this country, hardworking people of every race, color and creed can get ahead on their own merits? If so, that belief may soon bar you from getting a license to teach in Minnesota public schools -- at least if you plan to get your teaching degree at the University of Minnesota's Twin Cities campus.In a report compiled last summer, the Race, Culture, Class and Gender Task Group at the U's College of Education and Human Development recommended that aspiring teachers there must repudiate the notion of "the American Dream" in order to obtain the recommendation for licensure required by the Minnesota Board of Teaching. Instead, teacher candidates must embrace -- and be prepared to teach our state's kids -- the task force's own vision of America as an oppressive hellhole: racist, sexist and homophobic.
The task group is part of the Teacher Education Redesign Initiative, a multiyear project to change the way future teachers are trained at the U's flagship campus. The initiative is premised, in part, on the conviction that Minnesota teachers' lack of "cultural competence" contributes to the poor academic performance of the state's minority students.
OK, so this is pretty much the same radical swill that infects way too much of American campuses today. But I'd really like an answer (which I never got as a grad student in education) as to just how teaching students that the US is a living hell for minorities and women helps to motivate them to do well in society, both vocationally and socially. I mean, let's have it.
The first step toward "cultural competence," says the task group, is for future teachers to recognize -- and confess -- their own bigotry.
Not a new thing among the Educrat Left. In the nonsense that are "Difficult Dialogues" and its variants, white educators are told that it's their inherent prejudice that keeps minority students from achieving -- the cause, if you will, for the "achievement gap."
The task group recommends, for example, that prospective teachers be required to prepare an "autoethnography" report. They must describe their own prejudices and stereotypes, question their "cultural" motives for wishing to become teachers, and take a "cultural intelligence" assessment designed to ferret out their latent racism, classism and other "isms." They "earn points" for "demonstrating the ability to be self-critical."
Mao would be extremely proud of this task group.
Sheesh. I will tell you, though, that there's nothing more satisfying than confronting a moron that peddles this garbage. It will amuse you to listen to the "non-answer answer" you'll receive, as well as to the outright racial/ethnic ignorance the advocate him/herself possesses.
The ever-on-top-of-First State-education-happenings Kilroy gets some scoop on some disturbing news: Governor Markell plans on removing SROs -- School Resource Officers, aka police officers -- from various schools:
Letters from DOE per the request of Governor Jack Markell were sent to district school superintendents informing them, due to budget constraints SROs aka School Resource Officers will be pulled from Delaware high schools and put in patrol positions.
Kilroy doesn't have a direct link to his source (yet), but if this is accurate it is beyond lunacy. We're going to yank the one police officer assigned to various high (and middle) schools -- despite incidents like this? Kilroy commenter Jack is right on target (my emphasis):
I think the State Audit Report said 1 out of every 4 DOE employees salaries exceeded $100,000, when you include employment cost and benefits they cost $140,000. I wonder how many SRO one of these employees would fund?Consolidation of support services for Vocational Schools would save millions.
But instead of reducing overhead, schools SRO are removed. Just another example of overhead having priority over school employees who work with our children every day.
Michael Lind in Salon (h/t to Joanne Jacobs), despite some ridiculous bloviating against conservatives and the GOP, makes a pretty persuasive case that the Pledge of Allegiance is "un-American":
Shouldn't the government pledge allegiance to the people rather than the other way around?The very idea of a pledge of allegiance, in any form, is completely at odds with what is often called "the American Creed," inspired by the 17th-century philosopher John Locke's theory of natural rights and government by popular consent. The concept of "allegiance" is feudal. In medieval Europe, the liegeman, or subject, pledged allegiance to his liege lord. But in Lockean America, there is no government outside of society to which the members of the society could pledge allegiance, even if they wanted to.
In a republic, the people should not pledge allegiance to the government; the government should pledge allegiance to the people.
It's pretty hard difficult to argue Lind's point -- at first glance. But let's look at the Pledge:
I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and the Republic, for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.
It seems pretty obvious to me that by "pledging allegiance" Americans are -- as it says above -- doing so to the Republic. And what is our republic? It's the people, after all, who elect other people to serve the general public. Then there's "one Nation." And what is a "nation?" It's a group of people: –noun 1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own.
I'm not going to argue (much!) whether "under God" should rightfully (i.e. legally) be in the Pledge; I will say, however, that Lind -- who sees fit to make use of the Declaration of Independence to make his case against the Pledge -- neglects to make it clear that the Founders certainly believed that the people derived their rights from ... God!
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The boy with whom Lind begins his article, Will Phillips, who refused to stand and recite the Pledge because he felt it wrong that gays and lesbians aren't allowed to marry (no "liberty and justice" for them), had every right to so refuse. That is established legal precedent dating back almost 70 years. Lind also at one point laments the near-establishment of "mob rule" as the [GOP-dominated 2004] House had passed a bill disallowing federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving the Pledge (the bill died in the Senate). "Checks and balances" worked, he claims.
But would it have been "mob rule?" What it would called then, if perpetual litigants like Michael Newdow finally managed to succeed in getting the [entire] Pledge ruled unconstitutional -- over the objections of the [enormously] vast majority of Americans? (Checks and balances would surely prevail in this hypoethetical, I'd bet, as Congress and then the states would likely pass a constitutional amendment allowing for the Pledge.) I mean, consider: No one is required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance if they do not wish to say it. Period. (Educators like Phillips' teachers should attend inservices about legal "dos" and "don'ts" instead of the crap they usually have to sit through.) So why litigants like Newdow? Because they'll feel ... left out? Because they may get ... harassed? To which I say: So what.
America is great precisely because you can thumb your nose at saying the Pledge. America is a cornucopia of ethnicities and beliefs that is the envy of the world, because that amalgamation can act on their beliefs (within reason, of course) without hassle from the state. But that doesn't mean those whose beliefs fall into a distinct minority are entitled to be free from "feeling left out" or be free from "pressure [by peers] to conform." To legally permit such is nigh impossible, given the sheer numbers of different beliefs extant in our system. The phrase "under God" in the Pledge (though added later, in the 1950s) clearly has an historical basis, as noted above.
If the Newdows of the country were all able to prevail, it seems to me the common threads that bind us as a nation would unravel. And, if the Newdows are so concerned about "feeling left out" and feeling "pressure to conform," just think about what'd happen were they successful. Will the Newdows then litigate demanding that people continue to associate with them? And be nice to them?
There's a fine between between "mob rule" and tyranny of the minority, the latter usually accomplished via litigation instead of, obviously, the legislative process.
I know my argument isn't perfect. For instance, if it's OK to say the Pledge in schools, why not allow prayer? After all, students could opt out of saying that just as they can with the Pledge. But the difference is that students would be saying an affirmation to a god in a prayer, whereas with the Pledge they are merely affirming that our nation was, in part, formed with a belief that our most essential rights are derived from [a] god (again, as the Founders themselves noted). Perhaps a better argument could be made as to why Congress still begins sessions with prayers ... while schools cannot. Both are public institutions.
But, alas, that is enough for now. :-)
In response to "Straight Talk with Charles Potter, Jr. and Company" which had as its summary for yesterday's program (courtesy Kilroy):
"Straight Talk with Charles Potter, Jr. and Company" -- Comcast Channel 28, 2-4 p.m. Sunday, October 23 [sic]As we look at the performance of Wilmington students in our schools under desegregation, it is time to consider the need for a Wilmington school district.
Why?
- Wilmington students ride buses for a longer time each day and for more years than suburban students.
- Dropout rates among African-American and Latino students exceed 40%.
- While we must have safe schools, the smallest transgressions by even the youngest students lead to expulsion or placement in alternative schools.
- Too many parents are disconnected from our communities, their children and the responsibility to participate in civic life. This contributes to our failures in our schools and communities.
This Sunday, October 25, Straight Talk will be devoted to the next stage of a community discussion on the state of education for Wilmington children. Our panelists, who will consist of elected officials and members of the community, will touch on these and other topics.
Keep supporting the same old people, keep getting the same old results.
George Evans is the Board Chair for the Christina SD. Over 20 years. His term is up next year. Time for elections.
I live in Evans SD electoral district. If I get multicultural support, I can take over this seat. Paul Falkowski, although you hate his guts, will change the district, its attitude and its rules. For the better. ALL I have ever done is to help people. There are no examples of any discriminatory actions in my record.
Paul would challenge the Wilmington community to produce successful students at all levels. I would reward effort, discipline, and proper behavior. For students with attitude problems that are negative to learning, I would establish classes on life skills to succeed, to become self-sufficient and to build self-respect of the person themselves, through encouragement and their own work and their production of positive accomplishments.
Has anyone in the schools or in community centers or in the home instructed students why they need to get an education? It is time to stop subsidizing failure and to start demanding equal success for equal work and effort.
It is the teachers' job to teach, It is the students job to LEARN. Anything else is CHEATING everyone. It is the parents' job to nurture and to be supportive. The parent is limited by their own education levels. It's time to TEACH the parents in a massive effort of day and night schools in every extra classroom,
community centers and other public facilities like health clinics, in the city. The parents can and should bring their children with them to the adult classes.
We can not abandon the generations of young adults while we try to raise the children of today. Those children will be influenced by these previous generations, to continue the culture of violence and educational failure. BUT if we grab the young adults and the young parents, and initiate an adult school for them, we can start the turnaround overnight. And these young adults will be a positive example, NOW.
Politics and politicians, always seem to support each other in a comfy little clique. No wonder things never get done. The fix is in, and under the table politics prevents new initiatives and always compromise to settle for the status quo.
AND in Wilmington, the status quo for 20 plus years is one of FAILURE.
Patrick Welsh has an article in the Washington Post that lays out what those with just a decent quantity of common sense already know: That having a dad around in the house (or, parental involvement in general) has a LOT to do with a child's academic achievement in school.
My students knew intuitively that the reason they were lagging academically had nothing to do with race, which is the too-handy explanation for the achievement gap in Alexandria. And it wasn't because the school system had failed them. They knew that excuses about a lack of resources and access just didn't wash at the new, state-of-the-art, $100 million T.C. Williams, where every student is given a laptop and where there is open enrollment in Advanced Placement and honors courses. Rather, it was because their parents just weren't there for them -- at least not in the same way that parents of kids who were doing well tended to be.
Unfortunately, way too many school districts across the country use race as the "handy explanation" for the achievement gap. It may be they'll advocate for more resources (such as above) or they'll bring in speakers -- supposed "experts" -- who lecture teachers that it is white [teacher] racism that is responsible for minority children not doing as well as their Caucasian counterparts.
And people wonder why some folks snicker at [public ed.] educationists' explanations for low performance? For example, if those above "experts'" theories that white teacher racism is the true culprit for poor minority school performance, what explains the results of schools whose staff is overwhelmingly minority? And if state-of-the-art technology, infrastructure and materials is the answer, what explains the Kansas City Experiment?
Welsh:
But focusing on a "racial achievement gap" is too simple; it's a gap in familial support and involvement, too. Administrators focused solely on race are stigmatizing black students. At the same time, they are encouraging the easy excuse that the kids who are not excelling are victims, as well as the idea that once schools stop being racist and raise expectations, these low achievers will suddenly blossom.
Indeed. Most of the rest of Welsh's article is eerily (and sadly) familiar. But I am not attempting to excuse schools and teachers from doing their utmost best to help rectify what is inherently a societal problem that is brought into the schools. That's their job, after all. What I am saying is that more people -- educationists -- need to stop relying on esoteric theories and just use plain old common sense. It'll save them a LOT of money and best of all, something substantive actually might get done.
Which brings me to this: A good friend of mine who was finishing his masters about a decade ago was enrolled in a class that [partly] dealt with this topic. After class, off the record, the professor -- despite covering a great deal of "theory" so criticized above -- told my buddy that "if you tell me a kid's socio-economic status and whether he/she has involved parents, I can tell you how well that kid will do in school."
'Nuff said.
Y'know, I thought I heard wrong when I caught this on The Factor last night, but I guess I didn't. Guest Warren Ballantine told fellow guest Juan Williams to "go back to the porch" after Williams defended Rush Limbaugh from a series of phony quotes that the MSM has attributed to him over the past week.
BILL O'REILLY: The reason that Limbaugh is not going to be able to buy into the NFL is because a bunch of made-up stuff became legend, and he got hammered.WARREN BALLANTINE: OK, we won't look at the made-up stuff. Let's look at him playing "Barack The Magic Negro", and we're going to say that's just funny, that's just a joke, that's not racial either. It is racial to real black people.
JUAN WILLIAMS: Hey Warren, you were saying my argument was a red herring. Maybe you should do some research, go back and find out that it was an article written by a black person, headlined "Barack The Magic Negro."
BALLANTINE: He made it a song and played it on his show.
WILLIAMS: So what? He was making fun of it.
BALLANTINE: You can go back to the porch, Juan. You can go back. It's OK.
O'REILLY: All right guys: good debate, good-spirited debate. (Link.)
The reason I had thought I heard wrong was because of O'Reilly's -- and Williams', for that matter -- reaction to Ballantine's slur. There wasn't one. That's probably because it came right at the end of the segment -- the commercial segue music had begun rolling (though I couldn't hear it on the vid below):
Notice Ballantine's use of "real black people." To him, Williams is not "authentically black" because he had the audacity to defend a conservative from blatant lies. And therein lies the utter inanity of PC multiculturalism: dolts like Ballantine claim what is (and is not) "authentically black," but if a white person (or someone from any other group) dares to make similar statements/comparisons, then the "racist" canard comes to the fore. Then, for folks like Ballantine, it's, "How dare you lump all black people together like that!" PC multiculturalism allows for positive group characteristics, but not any negative ones -- unless you're describing the [white] majority. This is why you'll hear, especially in academic circles, things (theories) like "how black students learn," "understanding minority student behavior" and "culturally responsive classrooms" as if ALL black and/or minority students learn and behave the same way. Educationists also love to implement programs like "Difficult Dialogues" which, on the surface claim to be "honest discussions" about race, but are really lectures on the bane of "white privilege," and how white [teacher] racism is the primary culprit behind the dearth of minority student academic achievement. (See, notice how a majority group negative -- "white teacher racism" -- is permitted!)
There's plenty more examples in the Colossus education archives if you're interested. And that last point above, about programs like "Difficult Dialogues," is perfectly exemplified by Mr. Ballantine. The real purpose isn't to have a "difficult" dialogue because difficult dialogues would involve hearing things that you may not like -- for everybody. You may not agree with what's said, but you listen and you don't accuse someone of "racism" or of being a "race traitor" like Ballantine sickeningly did to Juan Williams.
... unfortunately they're showing how they're "old fashioned" in another way:
Crowning of first non-black Miss HU divides campus.Hampton University crowned its first non-black Miss HU Friday, leading to a division on campus that prompted her to write President Barack Obama.
Nikole Churchill, 22, competed against nine black students in the 15th annual Miss HU scholarship pageant. The senior nursing major attends the Virginia Beach campus and is the competition's first non-black winner, according to executive pageant director Shelia J. Maye.
Churchill, who is from Hawaii, wrote Obama on Sunday to tell him that her crowning was met with negative comments because of her skin color. She invited him to visit HU and speak about racial tolerance.
Journalism sophomore Juan Diasgranados said the Hampton campus is split on Churchill's crowning, with everyone from students to faculty and professors weighing in. Some are saying her win is great and embodies HU's spirit of diversity, he said, while others complain that she's not black and doesn't attend the main campus.
"They're saying that people don't know who she is, people don't even see her, so how can she represent us if she's not even from the main campus?"
The main campus has about 5,700 students while the university's Virginia Beach campus has about 90 students.
Diasgranados said a noticeable number of students walked out of the pageant Friday night when Churchill was crowned, but that he was among the majority who stood and applauded. About 900 people attended the pageant in Ogden Hall on campus, Maye said.
First, imagine if this was a predominately white campus that had crowned its first black winner. Second, how exactly does a HBC -- Historically Black College -- "embody a spirit of diversity?" Its very designation contradicts the term. This just [further] shows that the word "diversity" is actually meaningless, and only has a political meaning for colleges and universities. (In other words, just because HBCs are overwhelmingly minority -- black -- they are therefore "diverse," despite the fact that other enrolled races/ethnicities are paltry in number.) Third, think the MSM will pick up on this story of blatant racial intolerance? Fourth, why do HBCs even exist in this day and age?
I love this story from Joanne Jacobs:
Seattle’s school board may delay a decision to let students graduate with a D average. Currently, students need a C — with a lot of exceptions. The board also wants to let D students compete on sports teams.At the same time, the board vows to raise standards.
Only educationists can say something like that with a straight face and wonder why people guffaw at them. Just imagine your reaction if you attended a school board meeting and the board president and/or superintendent stated that they were lessening graduation and athletic academic standards, yet in the next breath vowed to raise standards. I think a very big "WTF?" is the very least thing that may come to your mind.
While parents and community leaders oppose the move, reports the Seattle Times, “most high-school principals and counselors support the changes, saying the C-average policy hurts students who can’t catch up if, for any number of reasons, they have a bad year or arrive in high school performing well below grade level.”
Nothin' like public schools doing what the public wishes, eh? Especially when it comes to high standards!
Here's what you do then, Seattle public: Throw the school board out on their collective cans.
... principals in Philly will now be accountable for how many kids -- ready? -- eat breakfast in the morning:
In a locally unprecedented move, the School District of Philadelphia will hold principals accountable for the number of students eating breakfast in their schools.Breakfast participation will be part of the report card that rates principals each year, along with categories such as attendance and math and reading performance.
All 165,000 students in Philadelphia public schools, regardless of income, are eligible for free breakfasts. But just 54,000 ate breakfast last year, district figures show.
The new system, which begins this year, is expected to increase the number of students eating breakfast, said Jonathan Stein, a lawyer with Community Legal Services, whose efforts - along with those of Public Citizens for Children and Youth (PCCY) - helped bring about the move.
As Rhymes With Right notes, it's bad enough that all students in Philly get breakfast on the public dime even if they're not officially "needy" -- but "what does it say when we require a principal to discourage parents taking responsibility for the care and feeding of their own kids as a part of determining whether or not the principal (and the school) is doing his/her job?" He adds: "What's next? Feed the kids dinner before leaving school?" And what about making sure kids get to bed at a reasonable hour?
Heck, it's already ridiculous at times with parents blaming teachers for their kids not doing their work, even in this Internet information age where assignments, progress and grades can be checked instantly with a point and click. Now mom and dad can now call the school and complain that Johnny didn't get breakfast. Pretty soon principals and teachers will held responsible for students' vaccinations, making sure students have designer clothes (can't have the kids feeling "left out" -- self esteem issues), and that students bathe regularly and get their hair cut.
From the NAS e-mail bag:
[The Residence Life Program] never entirely died, however. The rest of 2007-2008 was devoted to efforts by the Office of Residence Life to restore many of the elements of the program. Under constant attention from FIRE, concerned faculty, and the public, though, ResLife made little headway but did manage to hide the full program from the university's Board of Trustees. The central victory for student rights in the matter was that almost nothing in the ResLife educational program was going to be mandatory (even though it was hard for freshmen to figure out how they could safely opt out).At the end of 2008-2009, when it came time for the University of Delaware
faculty to vote on the program for 2009-2010 -- oops! -- there was no vote. A faculty member informs us that then-president of the Faculty Senate, Alan Fox, misinformed the Senate and stated that the Senate had somehow voted that there would be no more votes on ResLife plans. Here's what really happened, though (it is instructive to take note of Fox's behavior at the time).Not only that, there was a second mistake. Last year's program was clearly
optional, using this language in boldface and italics: "*With the exception
of the floor and building meetings held at opening, all activities detailed in this plan are attendance-optional*." This language, however, entirely dropped out from both the freshman and upperclassman educational plans. While the upperclassman plan does use the word "optional" in a few places, not even the word "optional" appears in the freshman
plan. New RAs who have not been on campus and paying attention since 2007 might not realize just how important this mistake could be. It is essential that all RAs and all students know that everything in the ResLife plans are optional.According to the faculty member, both mistakes will be remedied at the
Faculty Senate's meeting in October. FIRE will be paying attention to ensure
that the rights of University of Delaware students in the residence halls
are protected.
Previous Colossus posts on UD's Residence Life nonsense here, here, here, here, here, and here among numerous others.
Ben Chavis, principal of the American Indian Public Charter School in Oakland, CA, seems to have it right:
What the educational establishment really hates about Chavis is that he has achieved this success by exploding nearly every liberal myth about education. His approach to education is strictly old-school, and based on proven, effective methods. The only thing innovative about what he’s doing is that he’s doing it in the face of decades of “progressive” education. A few core tenets of his educational philosophy are:
- Requiring near-perfect attendance.
- Maximizing the amount of class time and number of school days. (Summer school is required, and teachers are expected to assign a minimum of two hours of homework each day.)
- Heavily weighting the curriculum toward language arts and math. (Chavis’s schools spend twice as much time on those subjects as most other California schools.)
- Liberally handing out disciplinary actions such as detention, and otherwise ensuring that order is maintained.
- Setting and enforcing standards — e.g., every eighth-grader must pass Algebra I. (In many California high schools, it’s possible to graduate with just “General Math.”)
- Making a big public point of not setting lower standards for minority students. (Too many educational institutions indulge in the “soft bigotry of low expectations,” as President Bush memorably put it.)
Wow! Who thought it could be that simple? Making -- and enforcing -- standards and discipline? No mealy-mouthed edu-babble? No politically correct multi-culti jibberish?
If only such common sense was more universally adopted.
Meanwhile, Joanne Jacobs reports that discipline hassles in the classroom ain't just an American problem.
You probably already heard about that New Jersey Elementary school that sang about Emperor Obama's inherent goodness and omniscience. But did 'ya know that our "leader's" moniker was used in place of ... the Christian Savior?
One song that the children were taught quotes directly from the spiritual "Jesus Loves the Little Children," though Jesus' name is replaced with Obama's: "He said red, yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight. Barack Hussein Obama."
Yes. It's creepy. Very creepy. And you know no elementary school would sing such a song about a Republican president, no matter what.
Amazingly (not), the AP omits something from their report. See if you can spot it:
That month, a group of smiley and fidgety students at B. Bernice Young School sang a medley of two short songs praising the president.The first song begins, "Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama/He said that all must lend a hand/To make this country strong again."
The second one was set to "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and included the refrain, "Hooray, Mr. President."
Yep, notice that "Jesus Loves the Little Children" is not mentioned as the song the first tune was set to, but "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" is mentioned as the basis for the second. Surprise that, huh?
I often compare the American Left's antics to those found on [American] college campuses. Here's a perfect example why.
Doesn't that sound an awful like the "You're a racist because you disagree with us" mantra the Left is utilizing in political discourse these days?
Interestingly, I came across a movie on one of the indy film channels the other day called "Oleanna." It deals with a professor's (William Macy) [supposed] sexual harassment of a student, and the terminology used by the female lead (Debra Eisenstadt, whose acting is otherwise atrocious) is straight out of a college's over-the-top PC handbook. If you want to see what [clear-thinking] professors and students have to put up with at colleges these days, just listen to Eisenstadt's lines, especially in the second half of the story.
... for once -- with this bit on the Obama school speech.
... but, of course, was that the case 18 years ago moonbats?
House Democrats criticized President [George H.W.] Bush yesterday for using Education Department funds to produce and broadcast a speech that he made Tuesday at a Northwest Washington junior high school.The Democratic critics accused Bush of turning government money for education to his own political use, namely, an ongoing effort to inoculate himself against their charges of inattention to domestic issues. The speech at Alice Deal Junior High School, broadcast live on radio and television, urged students to study hard, avoid drugs and turn in troublemakers.
"The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.' "
Two [Democrat majority] House committees demanded that the department explain the use of its funds for the speech, an explanation that Deputy Secretary David T. Kearns provided late in the day in a letter to Rep. William D. Ford (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. Education Secretary Lamar Alexander was out of town. [...]
Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), chairwoman of the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, said it was outrageous for the White House to "start using precious dollars for campaigns" when "we are struggling for every silly dime we can get" for education programs.
Rep. Martin Frost (D-Tex.) said that if Bush feels obliged to use government funds to hire outside consultants "to make him look good," then he should fire some of the public relations experts on the White House payroll. "Then the president might be more sympathetic to unemployment benefits," Frost said, referring to Bush's threat to veto legislation to extend benefits. (Source.)
Hearings! Congressional criticism! Waste of needed funds!
But hey, the moonbats believe that Obama's speech is "historial" (it's not -- and don't ever bother attempting to decipher this guy's writings), and even though some admit that they'd have a problem with a Republican giving such a speech (like all the above liberal/Democrats did), it still "wouldn't be as bad" as the current situation.
Uh-huh. Now excuse me while I clean up my keyboard from the coffee I just spit up all over it ...
DE Libertarian's Steve Newton thinks you're an idiot if, as a parent, you withdraw your kid from class (or school) for the day when President Obama speaks to kids on Sept. 8. While I tend to agree that it would be an overreaction to take your kid out of class/school merely for the speech (I wouldn't use the term "idiot" in this case), as I noted in the comments in Steve's post the bigger concern was over the federal Dept. of Education's proposed lesson plans (since scrubbed from its website) dealing with Obama's address -- some of which forced students into adopting a particular point of view.
But Steve said "his post stands," and added
If Barack Obama's lesson plans are that effective in brainwashing the children of America in thirty minutes plus a bunch of lessons that very few teachers are ever going to do ... then we are all idiots.Sorry, but this is hyper-partisanship carried to a ludicrous extreme.
But the issue isn't whether "very few teachers" use the plans (again, the controversial ones have since been deleted). The issue is teachers that would use them -- and use them to, as Steve might say, "hyper-partisan" effect. Steve seemed to have an objection to my use of the term "right of conscience" for he later wrote a rambling post about kids being "over-protected." In it he wrote:
Which is why I do not buy any of the faux "freedom of conscience" arguments from people who don't want their kids to be "forced" to watch President Obama on TV. Guess what? School is frankly about coercion all over the place, and the chief lesson once your kids become independent learners is how to find the edges of the system and survive. Coddling them by "protecting" them from strange ideas or bad teachers is, frankly, not helping them at all.Don't agree? Fine. Take your kids out of every school activity with which you politically disagree; I won't interfere, other than to think you're not doing them any favors.
Since I was the only one to invoke such a term in his previous post, it's pretty obvious to me that Steve had myself in mind when he wrote that. But I didn't object to kids being forced merely to watch Obama on TV; again, I objected to the proposed lesson plans that the Dept. of Education initially had in mind (and which Steve indicated he still didn't care about). I responded in the comments section thusly:
"Faux?" I was trained as a social studies educator (even though I'm in foreign language now) and my cooperating teacher (a big-time conservative) made it more than clear that on all things political teachers should cover both (or as many as feasible) sides of an issue, and NEVER mandate that students be forced to PICK a side. If you are OK with what the federal DoE had in those lesson plans, fine. (I never said anything about merely watching Obama's speech, which I agree would be pretty much benign in nature, politically.) But as a social studies person yourself, I find that horrifying frankly. Amazing that you brush off concern over that as "hyper-partisanship," yet you get all apoplectic about a DNC memo invoking right-wing terrorism (which has also since been scrubbed from its website) which is what -- just more modern "politics as usual." Spare me.You implication that I condone parents objecting to all things "controversial" is hilarious. So is your implication that I am a "helicopter parent." Try reading what I've written on that subject in my education archives. It would have saved you from being overly self-righteous (and verbose) in this post. All I was saying is that NO student should be forced to take a [political] side by advocating for something that he/she does not believe in. Would you, Steve, take such a cavalier attitude if schools forced students to say the Pledge of Allegiance? Would anyone concerned about that be "hyper-partisan" and/or "not doing their kids any favors" in life, hmm??
Indeed, even though I am (obviously) a right-leaning person politically, it frankly turns my stomach when I ponder myself assigning to students a paper/project for which they MUST adopt a particular point of view that may be [so] contrary to their personal beliefs. (And we're not talking about a college law class where potential lawyers must learn to advocate for a client despite personal views or something similar, OK?) Steve thinks this is just "hyper-partisan" (which, ironically, puts him in the company of the MSM).
UPDATE: Newton has since commented that my "right to conscience" point was not the genesis of his follow-up post, and that he still thinks classroom coercion in certain areas isn't that big a deal. And when he says
Children are amazing resilient and resistant to a lot of this crap, especially when parents are actually involved in their education. When parents are not, the children usually aren't learning much of anything
I largely agree. Personally, were my own daughter assigned a project to write a letter of support to a politician whom she did not agree with, I would not contact the teacher and demand he rescind the assignment. I would tell my daughter to ask the teacher if she could write a letter expressing her concerns over the politician's policies instead of indicating support. If the teacher refused, then I would [politely] contact him/her and ask why. I'd estimate that in 99% of such cases, the situation would be resolved right here. But if was not, at this point I [still] would not contact the school's administration. I'd tell my daughter to go ahead and write the "contrary" letter anyway -- just to see what happens. If the teacher gave the letter a failing grade that resulted in a detrimental overall drop in class average, then I would consider asking for a parent-teacher-[and possibly] administrator conference.
Overall, my view is that when delicate/controversial issues arise in classrooms/schools, parents should be well notified and should have a [reasonable] provision to either have their children do alternative work, or not attend altogether. Good teachers/administrators (and I've been fortunate enough to work with both over my almost 20 years in public ed.) recognize this and make allowances for such.
UPDATE 2: Uber edu-blogger Joanne Jacobs has a post up about the Obama speech/lesson plan controversy.
From the Beeb:
The head of its education committee in Gaza, Abdul Rahman el-Jamal, told the BBC that the Holocaust was a "big lie".He said that to teach it would be to "grant a big favour" to Israel, which has been fighting Hamas for years.
The UN, which runs most Gazan schools, recently asked local groups whether the Holocaust should be taught.
It uses local textbooks and, in Gaza, that means using material from neighbouring Egypt, the BBC's Tim Franks reports.
But over the past seven years the UN has added its own coursework about human rights.
Mr Jamal told the BBC that the UN should, instead, teach about the Naqba, the term Palestinians use to describe the establishment of the state of Israel and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees.
I'm sure this makes DE's own resident hypocrite commenter Perry quite happy. He's been a Hamas apologist for who knows how long. Jamal's views on the supposed Naqba fit neatly into Perry's own (see the comment section). Not surprising considering Perry says that Israel "has been resistant for decades to a diplomatic solution" for middle east peace.
Yes. Israel. Uh huh.
Go check out Steve Newton's take-down of a moronic Wilmington News Journal article on public school teachers.
... for other Harvard profs to claim racism:
A second black Harvard professor accused the Cambridge police of racism yesterday in wrongfully arresting him outside his home nearly three years ago.S. Allen Counter's (a prominent Harvard Medical School professor and head of the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations) attorney, Ozell Hudson Jr., told the Globe yesterday that Counter is considering his legal options over the manner he says he was treated after he complied with a request to step outside his house in December 2006 when police arrived to investigate a call by his former wife. She reported to police that Counter had tried to push their teenage daughter out of a moving car during an argument.
Counter said he had not previously publicized the arrest because he feared that police would harass him and his family. But he told Harvard colleagues about the incident and said he felt he had been mistreated because he is black.
Counter also said “I was polite, and yet police lied and said I was loud, just as they did with Professor Gates.’’ The police lied and Gates wasn't loud? Hmm ... wonder what the Harvard professorial definition of "loud" is.
What the public should consider whenever they hear educationists go on about "high standards":
The pressure to pass students - even those who rarely go to class or can't read - is pervasive in the Philadelphia School District, teachers around the city say.The push comes in memos, in meetings, and in talks about failure rates that are too high, the teachers say. It comes through mountains of paperwork and justification for failing any student. It comes in ways subtle and overt, according to more than a dozen teachers from nine of the city's 62 high schools.
"We have to give fake grades," said a teacher at Mastbaum High in Kensington. "The pressure is very real." (Source.)
The article goes on to quote teachers who note administrative directives that there "are too many failures," and that "the statistics (quantity of failures) are unacceptable."
It's the 'ol "water takes the path of least resistance" adage. What's the most expedient thing to do in this case? Just pass 'em along. Despite what the heck the kid has done. I don't envy teachers in such cases; even the best teachers cannot make a kid pay attention and learn, yet they'll always end up taking the heat.
I wonder what it'd be like if physicians were assessed like teachers -- if patients refused to follow the doc's orders/recommendations so their condition worsened, or at the least didn't improve. We'd end up reprimanding or firing the doctors!
UPDATE: In the same edition of the Inquirer, we read this editorial. God bless these teachers!
Bruce Fleming, an English professor at the Naval Academy, sheds light on Annapolis's two-track admission system.
Check out this comment from Carol M. Swain, a professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, regarding the recent apology for slavery by the US Senate:
"The Republican Party needed to do it. It would have shed that racist scab on the party."
Unbelievable. Swain just might wanna check out the origins of the GOP. And more currently, didn't this resolution pass unanimously?
YEESH.
This time the term is "Inclusive Excellence":
"Inclusive excellence" is based on the idea that different social and cultural groups have their own standards for excellence that cannot be shared or in most cases even translated across group boundaries. The excellence pursued by white Americans is one thing; that pursued by African Americans is another. The excellence pursued by women is one thing; that pursued by men is another. Under the doctrine of "inclusive excellence," a university makes clear that it recognizes and values the distinctive excellences of each and every campus group. (Source.)
Can there be anything more destructive? A "sliding scale" for excellence? Do educrats have any conception of how detrimental this will be for their students in the real world? Hell, instead of "disparate impact" maybe the black firefighters in the Ricci case can argue that their "standard of excellence" is different from that of whites, Hispanics and Asians, and thus who is anyone to judge how well they did?
And just contemplate: No universal measures whatsoever for anyone. Imagine how that would translate into real life. How can any employer deny anyone a job? After all, one potential employee's "standard of excellence" may not be what another's is. Imagine the lawsuits if such a doctrine became accepted. I think Ashley Thorne says it best:
In practice it means having separate (and lower) expectations for some groups than others. A simple translation of "inclusive excellence" is that it is affirmative action for ideas. Ideas that are too weak, too flawed, too unsupported to withstand critical inspection get a sharply discounted admission ticket under the reign of "inclusive excellence." The doctrine clearly owes something to several decades of post-modernism and various other attempts to diminish respect for reason and rational inquiry.
Rosenberg over at Discriminations (whom I consider to be my "blogfather" -- the one blogger that really influenced me to begin blogging myself) totally annihilates the "disparate impact" theory of discrimination, which is at the heart of the Ricci lawsuit. Disparate impact, like too many diversity/discrimination/multicultural theories, ultimately implodes in the logic department when one begins to examine it. In Ricci, the disparate impact was using a promotion test for its firefighters which no black applicants passed. Fearful of a lawsuit (by black applicants, using disparate impact claims), the town of New Haven, CT, ditched the exam completely. This led to a different suit -- that of white firefighters (and one Hispanic) -- the one to come before the SCOTUS shortly.
John opines:
What if the complaint of Ricci et al. were treated as a disparate impact claim? And why shouldn’t it be? If using a test that disproportionately disadvantages a racial or ethnic group risks a disparate impact suit, why shouldn’t not using a test that disproportionately disadvantages a racial or ethnic group risk an identical suit? Just as honoring the test’s results would lead to the promotion of no blacks, just as surely not honoring the test’s results would lead to the failure to promote only whites (and one Hispanic) who would otherwise have been promoted. I would pay a not inconsiderable fee to read the briefs and listen to New Haven’s arguments in such a lawsuit, to hear it reply, as it must, that not honoring its test’s results was a “business necessity.”In the real world, a concern for disparate impact ... has a disparate impact. If you think I exaggerate, give me a list of cases where defendants have been held liable for policies or practices that had a disparate impact on Asians, whites, or other non-preferred minority groups.
... the city’s argument that its decision was not discriminatory because no one was promoted has a foul smell to it. It reeks of the old segregationist argument that closing a municipal swimming pool to avoid integration and banning interracial marriages are not discriminatory because the pool closing and the interracial marriage ban apply equally to all races (as I argued here).
Disparate impact is akin to the "proportionate representation" argument -- that jobs, education, etc. should "mirror" the community ... that the percentage of whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, et. al. in whatever realm should approximate the percentage of those groups in the general population. Of course, when one considers one of, if not the, biggest "fly in the ointment" to this theory -- professional sports -- well, then, uh, nevermind!
There's also the "diversity" theory that posits academic (and other) benefits arise from a diverse student body (and workforce, etc.) This whole premise was the basis for the [in]famous Grutter SCOTUS case. But the whole "diversity has academic benefits" hypothesis remains just that, and in fact that National Association of Scholars showed that this theory actually has little merit. But even if it did hold water -- what then would be the rationale for maintaining HBCs -- Historically Black Colleges? Separate ethnic dorms, freshmen orientations ... and graduations? Etc.?
It's little wonder that the only place such nonsense is given any sort of consideration is within the walls of academia. And the insular world of leftist law.
Gotta love the title, too: Harvard Will Announce Endowed Chair in Gay Studies.
Not only for this ... "family," but for the News Journal and the Wave, which covered this story first.
A complete dolt of a "student" threatened bodily harm to a teacher, and so the school district refused to allow the kid to attend the school's graduation:
Robert Storms Jr. will receive his high school diploma in the mail after he threatened to punch a teacher and was ultimately placed on social probation.During that type of punishment, a student's classes are continued on a homebound basis, but he or she is not allowed on school property or at school events.
Sure makes sense and seems quite fair, right? Oh, but that is just TOO MUCH for poor Robbie and his family, who suddenly have discovered a "purpose" in life ('cuz for mom and dad it sure ain't parenting, that's for sure):
"It makes me angry to see my parents so upset about this," the senior said, donning his cap and gown on the edge of school property Monday night. "I went through 12 years of school here and they're not gonna let me walk?"Storms' parents, Edith and Robert Sr., along with a group of friends and extended family members gathered outside the complex prior to the ceremony to protest.
Awwwww, it makes poor Wobbie angry!! I bet he's sooooo angry that he wants to bop another teacher!
The [unintentionally] hilarious part of this sordid tale comes later in the article. We get to see what type of ... "family" Robbie is a part of:
His (Robbie's) aunt, Lillian Mitchell, said her son, Anthony, graduated from SCHS last year despite being caught with drugs on school property."He was found getting high in school and all they did was make him get drug rehab," she said. "And even though he failed all them drug tests, they still let him walk. All Robert did was threaten someone verbally."
"I'm puzzled ... just real puzzled," Edith Storms said. "There's these other kids with more serious charges, like my nephew, and they let them walk. It's not right."
I'm puzzled too, Mrs. Storms. I'm puzzled at how so ridiculously misplaced your freakin' priorities are. I mean, check it:
"I don't care if I have to sell my house, I'm going after the school by any means needed," Robert Sr. said. "I spent all day today driving between here and Dover, talking to the boards of education, and got no answers. I want some answers."
Amazing. How 'bout selling your house to take some much needed parenting classes? How 'bout selling your house to get your kid (and nephew) some much needed counseling? How 'bout selling your house to purchase some much needed COMMON SENSE AND DECENCY???
Oh, and doesn't it seem like these folks are graduates of the Delaware Liberal School of Grammar?
UPDATE: Uber edu-blogger Joanne Jacobs has picked up the story, offering up her always-dry sarcasm (which I love!).
... comes courtesy of Right on the Left Coast:
Six-year-olds who don't pay attention well in class apparently struggle throughout their school years, and reach age 17 with lower math and reading scores than their peers, a new study shows.The study, by researchers from UC Davis Medical School and Michigan State University, dovetails with earlier findings that show attention problems can hinder a child's performance throughout grade school.
Uh, 'YA THINK??
What's sadder -- the findings of this study, or that someone actually felt they needed to conduct such a study to come to its way-too-obvious conclusion??
I saw this comment by "allen" over at Joanne Jacobs' site regarding "educationists," and I just had to repost it here:
Edu-fads appeal to the conceits of professionals. Since they’re inevitably free of any educational value there can’t be any other attraction. Edu-fads give the appearance of progress and of modernity without the reality, without the attendant improvements in productivity or quality.
This is so perfectly stated I just can't stop nodding my head!
The end of another school year is upon us, and me. It's number eighteen for me, meaning I'm a few years past the "halfway point" to retirement (that is, if I can actually afford to when the time comes). The bunch I had this year were the most ... "trying" I've had in the many years of teaching my current subject, perhaps the most trying. By that I mean academically and behaviorally. I don't think I've ever seen the degree of utter apathy among my students that I witnessed this year.
What got me really thinking about this was when I caught a short segment on CNN's "Lou Dobbs" show a couple weeks back. A few graphics showed the [growing] percentage of drop-outs across the country, with Dobbs then asking "Are we failing our children?" Then I thought of the numerous foreign students I've had over the years -- and some of the observations made by their parents. Why? Well, to show how spoiled we've all become in our country.
I still recall an Indian (from India, not Native American) family from my very first year in the classroom (1991). They were astonished at all the "stuff" American students had at their disposal in their classrooms, and school in general. Really. Astonished. Hell, my wife (from Costa Rica) was equally astonished the day she first set foot in my class. And again, this was 1991. Drastic improvements in schools and classes have taken place since.
So, if we have top-of-line schools and classrooms across this country (and face it -- even our poorest districts are [much] better off than schools in the 3rd World), why do our kids still drop out? Why could they care less about their performance in class? They have the best facilities, as a whole, anywhere on the globe.
In short, I think we've become a victim of our own affluence -- and of our "no (or "lack of") responsibility" mindset. After all, why study when you know you're going to be "promoted" anyhow? (This is called "social promotion" -- granted to those who do absolute sh** in the classroom and eventually get moved on to the next grade because, well, they're too old.) Why study when you know that X-Box will be there for you when you get home, along with your cell phone and laptop? Why study when it's mostly the teachers' responsibility to "make" you learn? Why study when the government will take care of you if you just wanna be a bum?
Why behave in class when no matter what you do, mommy and daddy will believe you and not the teacher? Why behave in class when even the most egregious behavior will garner a mere slap on the wrist? Why behave in class when disruptions that require the teacher to physically restrain a student frequently result in the teacher getting into trouble?
Yet, society demands more and more that the classroom teacher rectify these academic and social shortcomings.
Hey look, trust me -- I'll be the last person to place all the blame on society and parents for the travails in our schools today. Hell, a good/great teacher is vital today more than ever, especially in classes where there are numerous academic and behavioral issues. But as the degree of social strife increases year after year in our schools, logic dictates that not only will the effects of these great teachers be less, but more and more great teachers will be less willing to stay in the profession, let alone enter it at all.
Is it any wonder that the most successful schools are those with the lowest BS tolerance? Seriously. Take a look around. Schools with strong administrations -- administrators that are a constant presence in the hallways and classrooms, and tolerate NO behavioral nonsense -- are the ones that end up with safe, successful schools. Just consider the Rudy Giuliani approach to crime and safety during his tenure as New York mayor: Deal with the little things and the big things will follow (being dealt with, that is). Administrators (and teachers) who don't deal with the "small" things (like school/class latenesses, minor class disruptions like repeated talking, constant unpreparedness) are just inviting bigger hassles to appear -- and they will. Why? Because students recognize that they can get away with it. It sure ain't rocket science. And anyone recall the name Joe Clark? (I previously discussed Joe here.) Immortalized in the film "Stand By Me," Joe was hired to turn around a perpetually dysfunctional high school, and he did just that -- by putting up with absolutely no bullsh**. (Granted, some of the instances depicted in the film I doubt could actually occur in real life -- unfortunately -- like gathering the numerous repeat troublemakers on the auditorium stage and informing them that they are "expurgated;" basic state laws would forbid such a casual dismissal.) If more school administrators -- and their higher-up central office administrators -- were willing to go to the mat to get rid of the worst of the worst elements in a school, problems would decrease markedly. However, these folks fear the costs of lawsuits brought by the "parents" (and their ambulance-chasing lawyers) of such troublemakers and [especially] central office personnel end up making the most cost-effective decision: Cede to the "parent's" demands. And so the cycle continues ...
And what of stigma? The very definition doesn't exist anymore in schools. Back when I was in school, those known to use drugs (usually marijuana in those days) were known as "druggies" or "burn-outs." Socially they were shunned, and with good reason. The majority of students were well-behaved, and most were decent-to-good students or at least worked to be. Now, truly good students are a minority. "Tracking," or its slightly less un-PC relative "ability level placement" has become anathema because those who aren't as intellectually rigorous or hard-working might be "hurt" by their placement in a "lower level" class. So, in the meantime, the hard-working and bright students sit aside those who could care less, the behavior and attitude of the latter diminishing the class atmosphere as a whole. But hey, at least their self-esteem is intact! Isn't that more important than the achievement of the kids who really care about school? Right? Getting suspended from school used to be considered a really big deal. Now, it is almost a status symbol. Where it was once rarely invoked, suspension is done on a daily basis now.
Do I sound like an embittered educator ... a surly grizzled veteran who should vacate for someone new and fresh? After reading this post I can see how you might get that impression. However, I am really not at that point yet. Really. Teaching keeps me young (in mind and spirit) and the joy of seeing that "light bulb" go on in a young student's head is still a joy for me to behold. My students seem to think so too as they've yet again -- twelve years in a row now -- chosen me as the school's "Favorite Male Teacher."
Perhaps part of the problem related to my beefs is that I hold what are considered to be largely "traditional" views. And as such, these beliefs go up against "the system." Traditional belief holds that misbehavior should have consequences, especially severe and/or chronic misbehavior. Modern "educationist" belief holds that we have "to understand" the student, counsel him/her, and rely more on "positive reinforcement." (Granted, I am not against this out of hand; however, note that I previously said "severe and/or chronic" behavior. It gets beyond ridiculous when a kid who's constantly a disruption gets only a talking to ... about the "good" things he/she has done. Meanwhile, the kid is laughing his/her ass off inside planning what he/she can get away with next.) Traditional belief holds that students actually have to earn something. Educationist belief holds that "all students are special" regardless, thus ability grouping (discussed above) is scorned, competition is frowned upon, and awards celebrations have to include everybody. (I've made a decision not to attend any more "awards nights." They've become a satire of their former selves as kids are now getting "awards" for being an office aide or for mere participation in, say, an afternoon "chat" session -- right alongside those who earned a perfect 4.0 GPA and/or earned academic honors in a specific discipline. Sheesh.)
I suppose I'll end where I began. Later in June I'll be traveling back to Costa Rica to, in part, celebrate my daughter's "quinceańera." While there, I am always incredibly touched by the hundreds of "Ticos" (what Costa Ricans call themselves) all dressed in the standard school uniform, walking several miles, if need be, to what in many cases is something akin to a traditional, old-style one-room schoolhouse. Often with only a few pencils and a notebook. Costa Rica is, after all, the country that abolished its armed forces over a half century ago ... to pour those monies into education. It is one of Latin America's most prosperous countries.
Let's hope that it's growing prosperity and affluence doesn't alter its attitudes on education.
Check out a big part of the US's problem here -- my Watcher's Council non-member blog submission of the week.
James Corbett has lost the suit brought against him by student Chad Farnan. This case first came to light two and a half years ago when Corbett referred to Creationism as “religious, superstitious nonsense,” and said "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth," among other things. Corbett lost on First Amendment grounds:
The decision is the culmination of a 16-month legal battle between Corbett and Farnan – a conflict the judge said should remind teachers of their legal “boundaries” as public school employees."Corbett states an unequivocal belief that Creationism is 'superstitious nonsense,'" U.S. District Court Judge James Selna said in a 37-page ruling released from his Santa Ana courtroom. "The court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context."
The establishment clause prohibits the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion" and has been interpreted by U.S. courts to also prohibit government employees from displaying religious hostility.
In nothing I've read (at least that I recall) have I seen where Farnan had simply asked Corbett for an apology, nor if Corbett was willing to offer one. Wouldn't that have solved the problem? Especially so for Corbett -- the dude has been teaching for 20 years so you'd think he would have a clue as to being cognizant of respecting his students' various beliefs.
What a chump.
There's a new conservative college group on various campuses across the country. The Youth for Western Civilization "hopes to inspire Western youth on the 'basis of pride in their American and Western heritage,' counter and ultimately defeat 'leftism on campus' and create a social movement in which a right-wing subculture is an alternative to what it calls a 'poisonous and bigoted' campus climate" according to its website.
This hasn't been well-received, needless to say:
"'Western' is a veiled term that means 'white,'" University of North Carolina graduate student Tyler Oakley wrote in an e-mail to FOXNews.com. "I believe that our democracy is strong enough to allow extreme forms of speech, but YWC's message is essentially a negative one, an assault on not being white or non-Western, and is therefore hateful, if not blatant hate speech."
There it is -- the inevitable "but." As in "I'm all for free speech and all, BUT ..."
Look, I don't know if the YWC is actually a "veiled" white supremacist group or not. What I do know is that, based on the article, there is nothing "hateful" about believing that Western civilization or culture is superior to others. It's a laugh that "Western" means "white;" indeed, the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear the term "Western" is the political and legal system which the West helped found and codify. One certainly doesn't have to be white to enjoy the benefits of such a system, nor is it "racist" or any other "-ist" to believe that Western political and legal systems are superior to others in the world.
But if you wish to quell this quite logical and rational belief, just do what Mr. Oakley did -- label it as "racist" and "hate speech." What better way to stop the debate before it even begins? This has been a fairly hot topic around the local blogosphere lately (see here, for example, at CoR), and Oakley's view fits that of our local gaggle of moonbat bloggers perfectly. One of them maintains that groups like YWC ought to monitored, while DE Libertarian's Steve Newton [attempts] to set him straight. (I say "attempts" not in any way to disparage Steve, but to convey the notion that it indeed may be an exercise in futility.)
I wonder: If rightist groups should be monitored by the government for harboring the views they do, should a left-winger who wrote that "all Republicans should be rounded up and shot, seriously" be monitored similarly?
Via the NAS e-mail bag:
PRINCETON, NJ—The National Association of Scholars welcomes the decision of President Charles W. Steger of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University to rescind its policy of requiring faculty candidates for promotion and tenure to demonstrate their contributions to “diversity.”
Lawrence G. Hincker, Virginia tech’s associate vice president for University Relations confirmed this afternoon that “the provost has asked the college to rework its proposed guidelines. The fundamental problem was a requirement to produce materials in support of diversity.”
NAS broke the story of this policy on March 17 (“Free to Agree”), citing documents that had been provided by an anonymous source on the Virginia Tech faculty. NAS also provided other crucial details in a follow-up story (“Suitable for Framing”) and our Virginia affiliate the Virginia Association of Scholars called on President Steger to reverse the policy.
The story soon gained much wider attention. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) publicized the violations of First Amendment freedoms at the heart of Virginia Tech’s new policy. The Association of College Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) called on Virginia Tech’s board of trustees to review the policy. The editors of Virginia tech’s student newspaper also called on the University to rescind the policy. The Chronicle of Higher Education covered the story, but gave most of its attention to the excuses of the provost, Mark McNamee, who depicted the new policy as just an improved way for faculty members to report their voluntary service to the community.
Blogger John Wilson, however, uncovered an email from May 2008 in which Provost McNamee declared that candidates for promotion and tenure “do a better job of participating in and documenting their involvement in diversity initiatives.”
NAS President Peter Wood said, “We welcome this development, but we intend to remain vigilant. Virginia Tech’s current action falls short of eliminating the bad policy altogether. Faculty members should be judged on the quality of their teaching and scholarship, not on their willingness to conform to an ideology.”
“The problem at Virginia Tech is that it lost sight of basic principles. Diversity is a valuable goal when it means openness to people and ideas. But openness is lost when faculty members are told that to keep their jobs they have to promote a political line.”
***************
Previous coverage of the VA Tech mess at Colossus here and here.
Thanks to a tip by fellow track & field aficionado and blogger Chanman, check out this disturbing report by FIRE about UD's residence life program:
Man, would I really want my daughter to consider my alma mater in a few years??
I really don't know. Yikes.
Adam Kissel writes:
Suppose the provost at Virginia Tech started a new "patriotism" initiative. In the first year, he would permit faculty members to self-report their "patriotism accomplishments."In the second year, faculty members would be strongly encouraged to report their "patriotism accomplishments" on their annual reports of their activities. In the third year, faculty members would be told that "patriotism accomplishments are especially important for faculty seeking tenure and promotion," and dossiers for tenure and promotion would be a list of kinds of activities that would count as sufficiently "patriotic." Faculty assessment in the area of "patriotism" would include attention to "patriotism" in one's publications and one's syllabus, and faculty members would be encouraged to further educate themselves about "patriotism" by going to patriotic events, which they would report to their superiors in their dossiers.
Or insert the word "Christianity" in place of "patriotism." Suppose the provost informs all faculty, graduate students, and tenure and review committees that Christian activities are something they are encouraged to report in their self-assessments. After three years, there is a "Christian accomplishments" section in the tenure dossier, a list of approved activities, and strong pressure to incorporate Christian themes into faculty members' research, teaching and professional development.
Read the whole thing. It's basically in response to this nuttery.
PRINCETON, NJ -- The National Association expresses its regret over the decision of a Denver jury to find in favor of Ward Churchill in his case against the University of Colorado.
Reacting to the decision, NAS Chairman Stephen H. Balch commented:
The decision for Churchill will only further attenuate an already fraying relationship between the protections of academic freedom and their corollary obligations. Churchill is the poster boy for academic irresponsibility in both substance and style. That he wins today in court, helped somehow by his very notoriety, can only fortify the sense that anything goes.
If there is a lesson here it is that universities must be proactive in the enforcement of standards. Waiting for a public scandal with all its attendant complications is hardly the policy of choice. Universities must build a culture of responsibility that affects every aspect of institutional operation, but especially scholarship and teaching. Faculty members must realize from the beginning of their employment that their institution, and their peers, care about issues of intellectual integrity, foster a consciousness of scholarly ideals and good practice, and apply these at every level of professional review.
The outcome of the Churchill trial is unfortunate, but it was a trial that in a better academic world would never have occurred. The best point at which to protect professionalism is not career exit, but career entrance and stage-by-stage thereafter. If that's the lesson learned from this sorry result, academe will still be able to recoup its loss.
The National Association of Scholars is America's foremost higher education reform group. Located in Princeton, NJ, it has forty-seven state affiliates and more than four thousand professors, graduate students, administrators, and trustees as members.
Links about the Churchill decision:
From yesterday’s News Journal:
A fifth-grade teacher at Leasure Elementary School used a student's serrated knife Wednesday to cut a vanilla cake with white frosting that the girl brought to share with classmates.After handing out the slices, the teacher promptly turned the girl in for bringing a "deadly weapon" to school, her parents said.
Are. You. Kidding. Me?? Reason #763 why teachers get flack from the public, and unlike many reasons, this one happens to be totally legit. Hey – gotta make sure everyone gets cake – THEN turn in the girl for a [supposed] “deadly weapon!!”
Under district policy, a knife measuring three or more inches is considered a deadly weapon. Regardless of intent, any student carrying or concealing a weapon is subject to a five-day, out-of-school suspension.
First, the “regardless of intent” clause is just plain stupid. Even crimes have varying degrees of intent. OBVIOUSLY this young lady’s intent was merely to share some goodwill with her classmates! Her INTENT was nothing but GOOD.
Unbelievable.
OK, here’s what I do in this case: I see that the girl has brought in a cake knife along with the cake. Certainly, teachers are quite cognizant of the need to CYA. So, upon glimpsing the knife, I contact an administrator to inform him/her what is going on. I clearly note the girl's GOOD INTENTIONS. I also inform him/her that I will gladly hold onto the knife until the girl’s parent comes to pick it up. I will at that time inform mom or dad that next time any cake should be pre-cut in advance so as not to possibly cause a problem (like that which unfortunately actually occurred in this girl’s case). Case closed, no harm done.
Common sense. Shorter and shorter supplies of it available in today's society.
... if the speaker had been a former right-wing domestic terrorist.
Here's part of an e-mail from Dr. Alan Leis, Superintendent of the Naperville School District (forwarded to me from a tipster) regarding the cancelled speaking engagement of former Weather Underground-er Bill Ayers:
Over the weekend, however, it became clear that this issue was not really about where Dr. Ayers was speaking, but that he was speaking at all. Each day, the level of emotion and outrage has seemed to increase, along with the number of emails and phone calls received. What was most unfortunate was that a few directed their anger toward an outstanding high school and at a well-regarded, award-winning teacher who encourages students to think for themselves.
Now if you've been reading Colossus for any length of time, you should know I am loath to ditch almost anyone from a speaking gig. But just imagine for a second if Ayers was a right-wing former terrorist that was invited to speak at a [public] high school? Keep in mind that Ayers is unrepentant for his actions. This is not a guy who has mended his ways, so to speak. Would such a person be given a forum like this in the first place had he been from the opposite side of the political spectrum?
Hell, plenty of non-terrorists from the Right cannot get to speak at colleges, even when invited. They are victims of disruptive protests that prevent them from giving their talk, or, in the middle of a speech they are continually shouted down and heckled. And this is all because they represent a supposed "hateful" point of view from the perspective of the Left. But these speakers never engaged in terrorist activity. Bill Ayers has -- and isn't the least bit sorry for it. Would Dr. Leis put forth an invitation to an unrepentant racist? A unrepentant homophobe?
Dr. Leis really finds some folks' anger "unfortunate?" Really? (I must confess that it isn't clear from the tip whether Leis is referring to Ayers as the "well-regarded, award-winning teacher," or some other teacher at the high school who may have invited him. I do believe he's referring to Ayers.)
The NY Times' Nicholas Kristof ponders so-called "experts":
The best example of the awe that an “expert” inspires is the “Dr. Fox effect.” It’s named for a pioneering series of psychology experiments in which an actor was paid to give a meaningless presentation to professional educators.The actor was introduced as “Dr. Myron L. Fox” (no such real person existed) and was described as an eminent authority on the application of mathematics to human behavior. He then delivered a lecture on “mathematical game theory as applied to physician education” — except that by design it had no point and was completely devoid of substance. However, it was warmly delivered and full of jokes and interesting neologisms.
Afterward, those in attendance were given questionnaires and asked to rate “Dr. Fox.” They were mostly impressed. “Excellent presentation, enjoyed listening,” wrote one. Another protested: “Too intellectual a presentation.”
I'd like to think I wouldn't be all ga-ga after attending such drivel, especially since I've looong become skeptical of "educationist"-type workshops and inservices. One way by which the education establishment can regain some credibility is to simply cease such nonsense. An additional school day (or two or three) would be MUCH more preferable than having to sit through an actual (meaning, one that is intended to mean something, but ends up saying virtually nothing) Dr. Fox-ish seminar.
(h/t to Joanne Jacobs.)
It's now infecting one of the best engineering schools in the country, Virginia Tech:
Diversity accomplishments are a meaningful part of the faculty review process. Candidates must do a better job of participating in and documenting their involvement in diversity initiatives. Diversity accomplishments are especially important for candidates seeking promotion to full professor. Please use the categories developed by the Commission on Equal Opportunity and Diversity to prompt and organize diversity-related contributions. The categories may be found at section VII. C. 1. - 8. of the promotion and tenure guidelines. They are also available at www.provost.vt.edu/documents/reporting_diversity.php. Committees are asked to develop working expectations for department members, perhaps sharing good examples, and to review diversity contributions included in the dossier with those expectations in mind.
Of course, the always-excellent John Rosenberg is all over this, noting one of the (ridiculous) guideline examples, “Self-Education, Increasing Your Own Awareness”:
Participation in diversity awareness workshops on campus or off, attending harassment prevention training from EO Office, participation in CEUT reading group on multicultural/diversity topics, attending diversity-related programs to learn more about groups other than your own (Diversity Summit, identity group celebrations, Campus Climate Checkup, MLK events, special speakers, annual AdvanceVT and Scholarship of Diversity conferences, events hosted by Cranwell Center or Disability Services, special programs in your discipline or association, etc.); participating in an Undoing Racism workshop; learning another language (including American sign language) so that you might speak to current or prospective students, parents, or community members.
From my own perspective, how freakin' insulting is this garbage? We're talking about college professors here! First, the mere fact that they're employed by a modern university means that they're most likely exposed to the usual multi-culti/diversity swill ad nauseum as it is. Second, they're some of the best educated people in the country. But they'd have to attend an ... "Undoing Racism" workshop?? Cripes, it's bad enough at my level when we have to endure this nonsense -- like the time I had to listen to some fop "inform" me about Hispanic culture based on stuff he read from some book. All the while I've lived it. "Superficial" isn't a strong enough term.
Neither is "total balderdash."
A group dubbed Chicano Organizing and Research in Education (CORE) is offering scholarships to, to use the PC term, "undocumented immigrants":
CORE (Chicano Organizing & Research in Education) is pleased to announce its first annual "Que Llueva Café" scholarship. Applicants must be undocumented, Chicano/Latino high school students entering college this fall. The postmark deadline is April 10, 2009.
Only in America, folks. Not to mention, if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gets her way, we'll see more such nonsense:
On March 7, Nancy Pelosi spoke at an event in Congressman Luis Gutierrez's magical amnesty tour, where the San Francisco Chronicle reported that she described worksite immigration raids as "un-American" if they arrested illegals who had U.S.-born children. (Gutierrez is the Chicago Democrat who called immigration officers "Gestapo agents.") Despite some criticism, including a letter from Lamar Smith, ranking member on Judiciary, her comments didn't get any traction until today, when Fox got video of her comments and put it on frequent rotation, and now the story is all over the place ...
Is it me or is the use of "un-American" by members of the Left ... hypocritical? Especially when such supposed "un-American" actions merely ... enforce long-standing law?
The woman's from Portland, OR, usually a good reason on its face to ignore her educational advice (h/t to Joanne Jacobs):
In a letter in the New York Times, a former teacher, principal and superintendent from Portland, Oregon urges President Obama to improve schools by ignoring “achievement” and “rigor.”Finally, I’d tell him (President Obama) to lose the words “achievement” and “rigor,” which have no connection to the inquisitiveness, determination, creative thinking and perseverance students need for genuine lifelong learning. -- Joanne Yatvin
Yeah, that'll work out real well. This woman must be straight outta the typical education college of the typical university.
Portland's schools are those that once adopted the fictitious Afrocentric "Baseline Essays" as a curriculum in the late 1980s.
Line from a News Journal article about lack of discipline in Delaware schools:
And what irked Ken Dixon, a Red Clay Consolidated School District transportation official whose job it is to try to quell problems on school buses and at bus stops, was the fact that there were more police and school administrators at the meetings than parents.
Like the title says, 'nuff said.
University of Delaware President Patrick Harker has announced the convening of a Diversity Action Council to "move boldly" toward the goals and strategies recommended by the UD Diversity Task Force. Unfortunately, many of the Task Force's more than ninety recommendations would blatantly violate state and federal civil rights laws.
The recommendations call for hiring and promoting faculty on the basis of race or other "minority status." For example, the provost and deans would have funds set aside for hiring only minority applicants, and minority faculty would be singled out for appointment to leadership positions. Minority status itself would even become a criterion in faculty evaluations and rewards. "[D]iversity should be included in the criteria used to evaluate and reward faculty achievement" (p.7). Just as only minorities would qualify for certain positions, favoring minorities or perhaps simply being one would be rewarded as a faculty "achievement."
The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Delaware has explicitly rejected the Task Force's "diversity" rationale, however. In the employment context, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed considering race/ethnicity only to address a "manifest imbalance" in a "traditionally segregated job category," and only in a way that does not "unduly trammel" the interests of other applicants.
The Task Force similarly recommends ensuring that UD's "student body better represent[s] the demographic region from which we draw our students" (p.6). Here, too, it contradicts the law. The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed universities to give only limited, "individualized consideration" to a student's race/ethnicity, and only when there is a "compelling interest" in doing so. Contrary to the Task Force's recommendation, the Supreme Court has never recognized having the student body mirror the state's demographics as a "compelling interest."
The Delaware Association of Scholars (DAS) urges President Harker to reject the unlawful recommendations of the UD Diversity Task Force. Both President Harker and the Task Force speak of the need to foster "a robust educational environment" (p.1). The principal lesson in such an environment should not be that one can violate the law when one wishes.
See also The Democracy Project and Phi Beta Cons.
Visit the National Association of Scholars website.
A math tutor who ran a club for math enthusiasts was told by the school's principal that his program was "widening the achievement gap," and had suggested to him that he run a tutoring club instead -- for kids that are struggling in math.
I don't know if this tutor got paid for running that club or not; either way, it takes a lot of cojones for the principal to say that to an someone who's volunteering his time to the school.
It's bad enough that The Messiah's administration had, and has, badmouthed many of the previous administration's policies -- and then gone ahead and continued/justified them itself -- but now it's starting to just get silly:
Breaking with the George W. Bush White House, the Barack Obama administration on Friday dropped the term ''enemy combatant'' for suspected terrorists and said international law governed the detention of terrorism suspects at the Guantánamo Bay prison, which Obama intends to close.
Maybe we can now refer to them now as, what -- "undocumented freedom fighters" (as I read somewhere this morning)??
In a semi-related note, Shirley sends me word of a Texas school district that wants to ban the term "cheating." They want to call it "academic dishonesty." Which puts me "ahead of the curve," I suppose. I regularly joke, for instance, when I see kids looking at other students' papers, that they're engaging in "academic thievery." Who knew that I wasn't really joking?
Once again our local News Journal is concerned about the University of Delaware's "lack of diversity" -- just like the UD itself apparently is. But this time there's a small glimmer of hope:
University of Delaware leaders have plans to create a campus that is more diverse and more welcoming to students and employees of different ethnicities, ages, sexual orientations and intellectual viewpoints.
Yep, that's about the only mention "intellectual viewpoint" diversity gets in the article, the one facet of diversity that is truly important on a college campus. The bulk of the story concerns itself with the usual stuff -- not enough minorities on campus, not enough women in high positions at the college, hiring people from "under-represented" groups.
Here's the sad part:
"We wanted to make sure that we defined diversity broadly," said task force Co-Chair Araya Debessay, an accounting professor. "People told us that it should not include just ethnic or religious diversity, but intellectual diversity, diversity of thought."
They had to be told to include intellectual/viewpoint diversity! How pathetic is that?
Nevertheless, with this "new" commitment to viewpoint diversity at UD, maybe they'll actually get some conservative and libertarian professors, and we won't see one-sided events such as these. In addition, will UD's southern neighbor, Delaware State University, similarly be concerned with expanding diversity on its campus? Historically Black Colleges should be considered an anachronism today, but some folks still consider them important. Why? We've been treated to the meme that "diversity" is an academic boon, so doesn't it stand to reason that colleges like DSU would [also] be better off if they "diversified?" Its statistics appear to be an "inverse" of UD's student body, after all.
And that's the point. Who cares about what ultimately is superficial diversity at colleges? Again, at this educational level, intellectual diversity is what matters. When higher ed. institutions become obsessed with hue, gender and sexual orientation, we get "programs" like that which UD instituted a little while back. And that's pure nonsense.
Via AOL News comes word of the twenty-five worst schools in the country. And how ‘bout this – Chicago has four institutions on this dubious list, including Robeson HS (#6), Harper HS (#18), Englewood Technical Prep (#21), and Fenger Academy HS (#24). It's the only "big" city with a sizable percentage of such schools. Even Philly schools, with which local readers may be more familiar, had only one make the list (#23 -- Hope Charter School). Smaller cities, like Milwaukee and Columbia, SC, unfortunately had several institutions on the list.
But regarding Chicago schools, weren't these the same schools that were to "benefit" from the Annenberg Chicago Challenge? Yep, this is the same organization in which Barack Obama worked with radical prof Bill Ayers. (In different areas to be sure; I'm not going to rehash here the argument of how well each one knew the other, etc.) This "challenge" was supposed to promote achievement and improvement in Chicago's public schools from the mid-90s to 2001. (Ayers' part of the Challenge was through a group called the Chicago School Reform Collaborative.)
It shouldn't come as a surprise that Chicago has four schools on that top 25 list. Overall, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was wasted money:
Results suggest that among the schools it supported, the Challenge had little impact on school improvement and student outcomes, with no statistically significant differences between Annenberg and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain, classroom behavior, student self-efficacy, and social competence.
More detailed analyses can be found here.
Overall, about $160 million was spent on the Challenge. Some more results from Ayers' and company's efforts:
- In 1998-99, just 36% of the Annenberg school students in grades three through eight were reading at or above national norms compared with 35% in Chicago schools citywide. In math, the results were similar. Some 43% of Annenberg students were at or above national norms versus 42% for non-Annenberg students.
- High school graduation rates for both groups of students were the same at 40%. The Annenberg schools edged out Chicago schools in dropout rates 35% to 36%.
- The CAC did not improve the schools, and in some ways made things worse. The executive summary also notes: “Classroom behavior, students’ sense of self-efficacy, and social competence were weaker in 2001 than before the Challenge.”
Keep in mind that former terrorist Ayers had much more of a hands-on responsibility than Obama regarding the Chicago Challenge. And despite Obama's past anti-[non public] school choice/anti-voucher rhetoric, as president he's made some atypical education moves for a Democrat. For one, his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, is reform-minded (having been in charge of Chicago's schools after the ill-fated Chicago Annenberg Challenge), and just the other day Obama himself came out in favor of teacher merit pay. Teachers (their unions, actually) have historically been opposed to merit pay; however, they're now cautiously behind Obama, saying that they "could support merit-pay plans as long as they are fair to teachers." (Although the current president of the NEA says "If you pay one teacher more you have to pay someone else less." Obviously, such a zero sum game does not have to be the case.) This makes sense, of course.
I've opined on teacher merit pay often; one such post is here.
Of course, Duncan (and Obama) can only get as far as Congress will allow them to. The recent Omnibus spending bill was stripped of a provision that would have kept 1,700 D.C. poor and minority students (who receive federal aid) in private schools -- a provision favored by Duncan and reform-minded D.C. Superintendent Michelle Rhee.
… then I delved into the article. Some Republican lawmakers in Georgia (as well as the Christian Coalition) want to ditch “Queer Theory” classes at Georgia State University:
On CNN's American Morning today, Carol Costello reported on Georgia's recent variation of the age-old debate over what should be taught in our schools. Georgia State University is under fire for employing professors who are listed in an annual faculty guide as experts in 'Oral Sex' and 'Male Prostitution.' State Representative Charlice Byrd announced on February 4 that she is starting a "grassroots" effort to oust these professors, AP reported."This is not considered higher education," Byrd said. "If legislators are going to dole out the dollars, we should have a say-so in where they go."
Calvin Hill, another State Representative, took issue with the University of Georgia's graduate program(!!) on queer theory. "Our job is to educate our people in sciences, business, math," said Hill, a vice chairman of the budget-writing House Appropriations Committee. He said professors aren't going to meet those needs "by teaching a class in queer theory."
Mindy Stombler is the professor listed as being an expert in oral sex. According to the GSU website, "Her latest research project involves unraveling the power dynamic embedded in the practices of oral sex, particularly cunnilingus, and connecting conceptualizations of cunnilingus to public discourse (particularly messages about oral sex sent through music and other media)."
OK, time for a big WTF. How do you get to become a professor by "connecting conceptualizations of cunnilingus to public discourse??" And how does one get "listed" as being an "expert" on oral sex? By what means does one attain such "expert" status?
At any rate, in these times of [state] financial woes, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to expect state institutions that get state funding to offer SUBSTANTIVE college courses. As I said at the top, though, based on the article’s title I thought this article was actually about hard-up, extreme right-wing conservatives once again desiring to eradicate all vestiges of anything related remotely related to homosexuality. Moreso, if this was a private college, that would be even more reason to tell these rightists to shut it.
But hell, even our own public school districts have to make course choices when times are tough. So-called “elective” courses like home ec. (now actually dubbed “Family and Consumer Science”), shop (now called “Technology Education”) and even my own area of foreign language are frequently on the chopping block when budgets are tight. In these days of high stakes testing, math, reading and writing get top priority, followed by science and civics. Everything else is superfluous.
I think it's safe to say that college courses in "Queer Theory" meet the "superfluous" definition -- and then some. (And they're not the only such courses by ANY means.) GA legislators have no legal right to axe professors or dictate the college curriculum; however, they do control the purse strings of the state budget -- a budget that's $2.2 billion in the red. That'll certainly give them some voice in the matter.
Check 'em out. My fave: "Underwater Basket Weaving."
Former University of Delaware student Bill Rivers fills us in on the utter inanity that was (and hopefully it stays in the past tense) the notorious Residence Life Program:
One of the best examples of this kind of offensive thinking happened early in the spring semester of 2007. It was about 8:30 on a Monday night and my roommate and I were both at hard work in our dorm room. He was engrossed in a lab write-up that was due the next morning for his one of his mechanical engineering classes and I was inching my way through a paper on Alexis de Tocqueville for my Honors colloquium. Then Lori, our Resident Assistant, appeared in the doorway and gave a quick knock. “Mandatory floor meeting downstairs in five minutes, guys,” she said. “Let’s go.”We complained—like everyone on the floor—but at the end of five minutes, my roommate and I—like everyone else—tramped on down to the basement lounge. Sometimes mandatory floor meeting notices were announced by bright, colorful pieces of paper posted on bathroom doors, but this one was a surprise. To this day, I don’t know if it was intended to be that way, or if Lori simply forgot until the last minute. Regardless, forty irritated freshmen collected down in Lane Hall’s basement lounge to participate in one of the more jaw-dropping of Residence Life’s programs.
Lori passed out a blank sheet of paper and told us to number it, leaving spaces for our answers. She announced that we were going to expose our prejudices and stereotypes about other races and in so doing learn more about diversity. To this end, she instructed us that she was going to read off a list of minorities and ethnicities for each number, and that we (working in pairs) were to write down all the stereotypes and prejudices we could think of for each category. After trading incredulous looks with each other (“Really? You took me away from studying Tocqueville to have me write down all the most offensive labels I’ve ever heard? Seriously?”), students then pooled their resources and for the next ten minutes went to work thinking of all the slurs, epithets, and bigoted comments used to demean not only African Americans, Asians, Italians, Jews, Hispanics, and Poles, but also, gay and lesbian persons, and persons of other alternative lifestyles. When it was finished, Lori said something to the effect of, “Look how bigoted and prejudiced even us college students can be,” and “isn’t it a shock that even us who are being educated can think of all these slurs and stereotypes?”
As they say, be sure to read the whole thing. I’m just glad I graduated UD over 20 years ago. As it is, I would have told Ms. "Residence Assistant" Lori to “stuff it” if she told me to attend such a “seminar” in place of studying – y’know, what you’re actually in college for.
Shirley first tipped me to this article; boy, did it hit home. I wonder how often other educators, both in primary-secondary schools as well as higher ed (paging Steve Newton), have to deal with this stuff.
“Many students come in with the conviction that they’ve worked hard and deserve a higher mark,” Professor Grossman said. “Some assert that they have never gotten a grade as low as this before.”He attributes those complaints to his students’ sense of entitlement.
“I tell my classes that if they just do what they are supposed to do and meet the standard requirements, that they will earn a C,” he said. “That is the default grade. They see the default grade as an A.”
A recent study by researchers at the University of California, Irvine, found that a third of students surveyed said that they expected B’s just for attending lectures, and 40 percent said they deserved a B for completing the required reading.
Just check out these quotes from some college students:
Jason Greenwood, a senior kinesiology major at the University of Maryland echoed that view.“I think putting in a lot of effort should merit a high grade,” Mr. Greenwood said. “What else is there really than the effort that you put in?”
“If you put in all the effort you have and get a C, what is the point?” he added. “If someone goes to every class and reads every chapter in the book and does everything the teacher asks of them and more, then they should be getting an A like their effort deserves. If your maximum effort can only be average in a teacher’s mind, then something is wrong.”
Sarah Kinn, a junior English major at the University of Vermont, agreed, saying, “I feel that if I do all of the readings and attend class regularly that I should be able to achieve a grade of at least a B.”
To answer Greenwood's first question of "What else is there really than the effort that you put in?" the answer is simple: Results. Would this be Greenwood's excuse in the business world when his [future] boss asks him why his department hasn't been meeting its, say, sales quotas? Or, why those business reports weren't adequately finished? "But we're really trying, boss. That should be worth something!"
With such an attitude, his boss would laugh hysterically while handing him a pink slip.
The New Republic's Michelle Cottle opines on Ms. Kinn's attitude:
Wow. Now there's a gal looking to set the world on fire. Remind me to set Ms. Kinn up with a TNR internship asap. Because, honestly, the only thing we look for in an intern around this joint is a warm body who can get to work more or less on time and remain conscious long enough to slog through some of the more tedious manuscripts that land on the editors' desks.
In addition, Cottle adds:
If anything, a student who tries really, really, really hard at something and still repeatedly falls short might benefit from realizing that his talents lie elsewhere. (As could the rest of us: Not to state the obvious, but I don't want a brain surgeon who graduated at the top of his class because he had perfect attendance. I want one who is an artist with a scalpel.) Go ahead: Aim for the stars. Don't let anyone tell you you can't do something. But if you actually try that thing and it turns out that you're not so hot at it, don't whine about unfair grading. Acknowledge that you have major room for improvement and decide where to go from there. The sooner kids learn how to deal with failure and move on, the less likely we are to have a bunch of whiny, fragile, self-entitled, poorly qualified adults wandering around wondering why their oh-so-stellar efforts aren't properly appreciated in the real world.Alternatively, now might be a good time to revisit my dream of becoming a concert pianist. I've never had much of an ear for music, but I bet if I quit my day job and worked at it really, really hard--or at least showed up at all my lessons and did the homework--someone would eventually reward my "excellence."
Down at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, such student attitudes seem to be ... "paying off":
A new report on grade inflation reveals that about 82 percent of all undergraduate grades at UNC-CH were A's or B's in the fall of 2007, and more A's were given than any other grade.Now, some faculty fear top students aren't getting the recognition they deserve as the line between them and the rest of the class blurs.
"We think it is a problem," said Donna Gilleskie, an economics professor who analyzed more than 1 million grades since 2000 in writing the report. "It's a disservice to students. Sure, students would all like to get A's. But you want to reward students who have mastered the material."
I actually don't blame professors (or teachers) overmuch. Their response is a logical self-interest: They're getting pressure from above. In the case of college professors, student evaluations also play a key role. "Negative" evaluations -- "the professor is too tough" ... "has unrealistic expectations" ... "gives too many exams" -- can nowadays spell the unemployment line for them. School teachers can get grief for "too many low grades" and their classroom acumen can be called into question.
Personally, I do feel that a student's effort (at least at the grade level I teach) should be worth something. As such, I weigh my classwork and homework assignments in such a way that successful completion of them can help to offset a lousy test score (tests and quizzes which, by the way, are weighted more heavily than class/homework). A student who successfully completes all his/her assignments but doesn't do well on assessments will at the very least earn a "D" in my class. (Believe it or not, the psychological barrier between a "D" and an "F" is pretty large for kids of the age I teach.)
As students move up the educational ladder, expectations increase and concrete results are more important. For example, many high school teachers won't accept late work, while middle school teachers might take late assignments a day or even up to a week late. At least in high school students still have fairly close relationships with teachers. Once in college, the phrase "on your own" really comes into play, especially those first two years when you sit in huge lecture halls attended by hundreds of other students. You think the professor cares if you attend? Ha. He/she also doesn't care if you pass the exams. (Though that may be changing if Chapel Hill is the going trend. I think the grade inflation phenomenon -- and this is just my opinion, mind you -- manifests itself particularly in the junior and senior years, as well as in grad school, where classes are typically smaller and professor-student interaction is more intimate.)
Some colleges have taken action on the grade inflation "explosion": Princeton has set quotas where no more than 35% of the student body can earn "As," and at Seton Hall grade inflation dropped after faculty met and discussed grading procedures. The latter, in particular, is a wise move. In an age where student evaluations play a significant role in rating a professor, a "rogue" prof who cares little about actual hard work and assessments could "earn" high marks from students whereas a prof who demanded 100% attendance and assigned some tough reading and term paper assignments could be panned -- even if the latter is a [much] more exceptional instructor. Sure, the [supposedly] higher maturity levels of college young adults may "see through" the former's pathetic standards and contrariwise would appreciate the latter's attempt at actually making his students learn something.
But if the testimonials of Mr. Greenwood and Ms. Kinn are the wave of the future, this attitude may be a distinct minority.
A few days ago, new Attorney General Eric Holder proclaimed that Americans were "cowards" for not discussing matters of race more openly and frankly:
"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Holder said.
To which Victor Davis Hanson retorts (my emphasis):
He obviously hasn't paid much attention to college campuses, where the obsession with race permeates departments, curricula, hiring, faculty profile, student events, funding, etc. Bumper-sticker identification and hair-trigger readiness to accuse someone of racism to further a particular ideological or even personal agenda are now 30 years old and institutionalized in higher education.He is right on one count, however — in the university, public schools, journalism at large, the foundations, and politics, there is a reluctance in one aspect to broach the subject. It is absolutely taboo to suggest that personal behavior, particular ingrained attitudes, and pernicious cultural assumptions — far more than contemporary racial oppression — could have contributed to ordinately high rates of drug use, crime, illegitimacy, unemployment, high-school drop-out rates, sexist attitudes toward women, and incarceration among a subset of young African-American males.
One can cite data, and refer to it in the spirit of finding constructive solutions. Yet that will most often result in suffering the slur of racism, given that so many are invested in the industry of racial grievance, as Holder himself has unfortunately demonstrated. It is not encouraging that in the first real public speech, the Attorney General of the United States has denigrated the American people as "cowards."
A reader of Jonah Goldberg writes:
Mr. Holder’s statement is shockingly ignorant of the legal (read “liability”) landscape in which race relations exist. As an attorney who represents employers facing workplace discrimination charges, I can tell you that wisdom dictates that the workplace be as free of race-related discussions as possible if an employer is to avoid administratively and/or judicially imposed liability or, more importantly, the potentially enormous cost of defending against a charge of race discrimination. Believe me, whenever an employer terminates an employee in a protected class, there is a better than even chance that that employee will at least file a discrimination charge with the EEOC or a similar state agency. The employer must then choose between “mediation” (read – paying off the charging employee to avoid the greater expense of a trial) and opposing and defending against the charge. Of course, not all such charges are hogwash. However, given the fact that the EEOC and its state-run subsidiaries typically help disgruntled employees comb some basis for a Title VII (or ADA, or ADEA, of FMLA) claim from their particular facts, many, many of them are frivolous.Mr. Holder’s apparent ignorance of this government supported racial grievance generating machinery is appalling for any attorney. It is unthinkable in the U.S. Attorney General.
Regarding Hanson's point, one has only but to look to our own University of Delaware and its [reconfigured] "residence life program" as an example of how the Left wants people to discuss race. Our local gaggle of moonbat bloggers have that hair-trigger readiness to accuse folks of racism for something as simple as questioning the expansion of hate crimes definitions and/or legislation. Just take a search here at Colossus under "racism" to see many more such ridiculous anecdotes.
I've attended so-called "frank" dialogues on race often in my teaching career. Two disparate instances stick out in my mind, both involving invited [black] speakers. In the first instance, an older gent spoke about how a predominately white teaching staff can best reach African-American children. (He also had written a book to that effect.) His was a no-nonsense philosophy; his basic message was that black children should not be treated any differently than white children (what a concept, eh?). They should be held to the same standards as white children -- anything less was the "soft bigotry of low expectations." He had little tolerance for blaming racism for the lack of black student achievement, and in answer to critics' charges that [some] white teachers may harbor biases (overt or covert) he said that black students and parents harbor the same. The key, obviously, is not acting on them (ignoring them, basically) and overcoming them.
The reception that this gentleman received was tepid, to say the least, particularly from black staff members. Some administrators even felt the need to apologize for this gentleman's seminar the following day.
A few years later, another such speaker held a seminar. But his thesis was the virtual antithesis of the previous speaker's. This gentleman posited that [white] teacher racism was the primary cause of black student [under]achievement, and stated outright that he would "not discuss any factors such as home life, economics, culture, etc." (How's that for cowardice, Mr. Holder?) In small groups we "discussed" concepts like "white privilege" and took a "test" in which the results (a high or low number figure) supposedly determined how "privileged" one was in American society. (The test "questions" were so preposterously "loaded" as to be beyond facetious.)
The reception this gentleman received was much more gracious than that given to our previous speaker, particularly from black staff members. In fact, many of this gentleman's ideas were further disseminated for use in varying degrees here and there. There was no administrative apology made for this gentleman's blanket indictment of racism among all Caucasian teachers who happen to have black students in their classrooms. Indeed, white teachers were encouraged to "look inward" to come "face to face with their privilege and biases."
In one such manifestation during one of those ..."disseminations," a discussion group leader (white guy) once asked "Why is it that no white teachers are willing to speak their thoughts?" After an uncomfortable minute of silence I raise my hand and said the obvious to him: That they're afraid of being labeled a "racist" for being perceived as perhaps saying the "wrong" thing. And as an example, I brought up the instance of having to apologize for our first speaker's seminar a few years back, but the second's. I asked what sort of message that sent.
I didn't get a straight answer. What I got was a gobbledeegook round-about statement that "we just need to have more open discussions."
He just didn't get it. Just like Eric Holder.
From the NAS e-mail bag: Sustainabullies. Our local University of Delaware gets a mention:
The University of Delaware’s residence life director Kathleen Kerr is an avid proponent of sustainability in that second sense. Kerr is a leader of the movement to sustainabully students and has widely advertised that the goal of sustainability in higher education is to have “all students engaged as effective change agents in our sustainability challenges.” According to Kerr, students should move from “apathy” to “caring involvement” and should be “engaging in the challenges and solutions of sustainability” both globally and on their campus. Thus, activism and turning students into activists is the role of administrators.
Read the whole thing.
I just got the acclaimed John Birmingham novel Without Warning in the mail the other day, which details what would happen to the world without the United States. An inexplicable "energy wave," acting much like a neutron bomb would (wiping out life but leaving structures intact) has swept across most of North America, and planet-wide chaos ensues soon after.
Of course, I'm not far enough into the book (which is tough to put down after only a few pages!) to have learned the origin of this "energy wave," but as it stands now it requires quite a suspension of disbelief.
Which brings me to a totally different matter, that requires a similar suspension: Terrorist Bill Ayers' memoir will be turned into a graphic novel! Whaaaa ... ?
Teachers College Press, a scholarly, professional and trade publisher focused on the theory and practice of teacher education, has reached agreement on a two-book deal with William Ayers, the University of Illinois at Chicago professor, lauded educational theorist and former leader of the radical 1960s Weather Underground. And, yes, Ayers is indeed the same figure dragooned into the 2008 presidential race in a controversial attempt to use his background in radical politics and a minor acquaintance with Barack Obama to undermine Obama’s presidential run.
Since, as currently constructed in way too many colleges across the land, the "theory and practice of teacher education" is a laughable joke to those who actually "in the trenches," one could surmise that reading a graphic novel about a dude who's immersed in such will be an ... excruciating experience -- only slightly less excruciating than reading a standard book.
(h/t to SWT.)
Steve Newton at DE Libertarian has some thoughts on what one should do if your kid's teacher allows some of his/her political views escape into the classroom. I've written about this more times than I can count, most recently here and here. The ironic thing about the incident Steve addresses is that it deals with an anti-Joe Biden teacher. Say whaaa ...?? A teacher [supposedly] espousing anti-liberal views in a classroom?? A true rarity!!
Which brings me to what typically we hear about when it comes to political bias in the classroom: Loyal CoR reader Fred Gregory brings me word of a preposterous situation at Elon University. Freshman Joe Malone had a beef with how his "Global Experience" professor dealt with the conservative/Republican point of view:
The textbook for the course, "Democracy's Edge," by Francis Lappe, is an outrageous example of left-wing indoctrination.Lappe expends gallons of ink hurling invective at Reagan, Bush, "the far right" and its "mean-spirited, ends-justify-means mind set." The "far right," the author claims, opposes "the democratic premise that citizens use government as our tool to provide basic security for ourselves and express solidarity with our neighbors."
To begin with, anyone who suggests that President Bush is a member of the "far right" is ignorant of conservative principles. And second, we can only wonder if Lappe has ever read the Constitution, or any of our founding documents, which say nothing about expressing "solidarity with our neighbors." Obviously, the author's paranoia about conservatives distorts her vision of "the global experience." For Joe Malone, things would only get worse.
Malone's instructor in "The Global Experience" was Stephen Schulman, assistant professor of philosophy, who, in the first week of class, proclaimed that President Bush, upon completion of his term, should be tried for war crimes and convicted by the International Criminal Court. Upon voicing a contrary position -- in a course that allegedly thrives on dialogue and the exchange of ideas -- Joe Malone was scolded and advised to alter his behavior. This exchange was verified by Wendy Warren, a classmate of Malone.
Shortly thereafter, Professor Schulman suggested that his students undertake, as a class project, the gathering of signatures to increase the minimum wage in Greensboro. It would be inappropriate for a "far right" professor to expect his students to gather signatures for tax cuts or to abolish affirmative action; likewise, isn't it inappropriate to expect students to participate in a partisan, progressive cause?
Students were asked to write a "response" to the minimum wage initiative, about which Malone's paper was critical. Although his arguments were valid and his tone respectful (I have read the paper), Professor Schulman, in an e-mail to Malone, declared the paper "unacceptable" because of the author's "overblown statements" and "general tone of distaste." In the same message, Schulman warned Malone that his "behavior in class comes across as borderline hostile to others."
Joe Malone Jr. was charged with "disorderly conduct" and ordered to appear at a hearing before Elon's Honor Board, which found him "responsible," meaning guilty as charged. (He has appealed the decision.) The aforementioned Wendy Warren wrote the board on Malone's behalf and argued that he was "never intimidating" in class. But Malone, she wrote, was "about the only one passionate enough about his beliefs to question Schulman's extremely liberal thoughts and ideas."
Now, this is college, so I personally don't have as much of an issue with a prof spewing his personal views about topics in his class. I do have an issue, 'tho, with the sort of assignments he put out. But that's not the issue. The issue is Schulman's [alleged] reluctance to allow Malone's contrary views to be expressed. In a word, it's ridiculous. It seems Schulman has been thoroughly schooled in that collegiate PC inanity known as "creating a hostile environment" merely when one voices disagreement with the prevailing liberal heterodoxy. (For example, we're witnessing a form of this right now nationally as those who disagree with Barack Obama's and the Democrat Congress's "stimulus" package are dubbed "anti-American" and "unpatriotic.")
I had my share of liberal profs in my undergrad and grad days, but thankfully none of them were anything like this idiot Schulman. Indeed, in one of my grad classes (dealing with student behavior and classroom management) I wrote a lengthy paper pretty much trashing the philosophy of the course and our assigned textbook. It was thoroughly researched and, as such, I got an "A." But the professor wasn't very happy with my views (since she wrote a full page of comments ripping me in return!), but the point is that she allowed me to express my points and didn't penalize me academically or in a disciplinary manner.
The sooner the Schulman's of the college world realize what asses they are, the better off academia will be.
Caught this hilarious site via Joanne Jacobs. It features actual test questions, the [usually unintentionally] hilarious student answers, and even some wacky teacher comments.
Check it out -- you'll love it!
Here's one that had me in giggles for several minutes:
Shirley sent me this link the other day, and it sure bodes well for my future in education. Or so it seems:
Parents are calling for more men to become teachers because they fear their children lack male role models, research showed yesterday.Demand is even stronger among single mothers, who told the survey their children had little contact with men in caring roles.
The study found one in six children living with a single mother spends less than two hours a week with a male role model, such as a father figure, relative or teacher.
High schools traditionally have more male teachers than elementary or middle schools. Men I've known that get certified for elementary education usually get snapped up (that's "employed") pretty darn quick.
Men tend to be more ... "direct" with discipline ... not as "touchy feelie" for lack of a better term. I don't it's a stretch to say that more men teaching in the early years would be better for discipline.
(By the way, the guy in the article's photo kinda looks like me...)
An African-American has been elected president. A very liberal African-American has been elected president in a country that still maintains many politically conservative opinions. It is a truly momentous occasion.
Not so fast.
Our ever-race conscious News Journal (unless, of course, it comes to crime reports) says “Race [is] still an issue despite [the] presidency.” Of course! What would we expect from our ridiculously PC local newspaper? I don’t plan on dissecting this silly article in its entirety (it’s too easy, frankly) but let’s take a gander of some of the hi (or is it “low”) lights:
To [Heriberto] Caraballo, the question isn't whether Obama's presidency will change race relations in America. He thinks the change has already begun, thanks to a campaign that brought Americans of all races and ethnicities together.
Did it? Obama ran away with the black vote, but then every Democrat candidate for president has done that in the last half century or so. The percentages of other groups were all that different from that of other candidates either.
Caraballo said, "A lot of people that got together would never have come across each other otherwise, they would have never reached out to another race or class. They didn't even look at it that way, it just served the purpose of trying to get him elected. But as this whole thing has been going for the last four years, change has been happening."Those who study race relations are a bit more skeptical, however. Perceptions of race and social institutions that perpetuate racism are deeply ingrained, they said, so much so that neither Obama, nor any one person, could never [sic] eradicate them on his own. Add in two wars and an economy in shambles and Obama faces perhaps the highest expectations of any president in recent memory.
Stop right there. Of course “those who study race relations” are skeptical. They have to be, natch. Else, how could they continue to keep “studying” such? Much like the Jesse Jacksons of the world, problems must always continue to persist, however seemingly ridiculous, else the unemployment line will beckon. No, I do not mean by any means to lampoon REAL racial issues and problems. Anyone with only one hemisphere in his/her cranium knows racism and bias still exist. But when once-noble organizations such as the NAACP have to criticize, for example, the dresses that a state’s delegation of women (to the inauguration) are wearing as “reminiscent of slavery days,” what does that say? (The prez of that NAACP chapter has since apologized.)
With all the high expectations for Obama, UD's [Antonia] Randolph said, a real danger exists that anything he does, or does not, achieve during his presidency will be used to create generalizations about all black people.
Sort of like the generalizations that have been created about all Republicans, maybe? Speaking of which …
"There's a danger of people saying, 'Well, show us what you can do as a black person on behalf of the black race,' " Randolph said.
Of course Obama doesn’t represent all black people just like George Bush didn’t represent all white people. But this statement here is, frankly, what drives many folks nutty. It outright contradicts what we hear constantly in the media: that is, it’s commonly accepted that the “black community” is supposed to believe the same things, think alike, and act alike. How often do we see/hear in the media “the black community …”? How many times have we seen the utter and repulsive derision towards black people who “deviate” from what is supposed to be “black?” Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell were denigrated in racial terms because they dared to work for [Republican] George Bush. What about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas? He was vilified (probably most disgustingly by “journalist” Julianne Malveaux who wished Thomas would get a heart attack by eating lots of bacon and eggs precisely because he “didn’t think like a black person should.” (In other words, he’s conservative.) And Ward Connerly? Etcetera.
29-year-old [Lisa Sadar] isn't sure Obama's presidency will mark the end of race as a prominent issue in American society."I don't know if it should. I was brought up in a mixed-race family and grew up around a lot of diversity. I think you've got to celebrate everyone's heritage,"] Sadar said.
Trying to achieve a colorblind society can be dangerous if it comes at the expense of celebrating people's differences rather than trying to combat inequality, [UD’s Antonia] Randolph said.
Again, here we go. Do we or do we not want to keep “race” an issue? What did Dr. King desire – content of character or color consciousness? I don’t believe the quest for colorblindness has ever meant obliterating “one’s heritage” or “celebrating differences.” Even in the days of legal segregation when society was virtually completely dominated by whites, European American immigrants, though desirous of becoming “American,” continued to “celebrate” their roots from the “old countries.” Why would – should – this be any different for African-Americans, Asian-Americans and Latinos? If anything, the “dangerous” part comes from the far-Left when they insist (usually in academic circles) that different races are “inherently different” -- for instance, like blacks “are louder” or “learn differently” merely because they are black, and how different ethnic populations need teachers that “look like them” to learn effectively). How this isn’t as stereotypically asinine as a bigoted red-neck saying that “blacks are naturally pre-disposed to criminal activity” is beyond me. And should be beyond you, too.
"You can't declare racism dead and wash your hands of it," she said. "You can't say, 'Well, racism is over now and thank God for that,' because there are social institutions that run on racism."
Hmm. When can we declare racism dead? Can we ever, since individuals will always exist that are bigoted in some way? Humans are imperfect beings. And what are these social institutions that “run on racism,” Ms. Randolph? I’m genuinely curious.
A sign seen at a Philly Burger King:
Courtesy Shirley over at DE Curmudgeon.
Via The Guardian (UK) (with a h/t to The Corner):
A new Ł4.7m primary school in Sheffield is facing criticism for dropping the word "school" from its title after governors decided the term had "negative connotations."The headteacher of Sheffield's Watercliffe Meadow, Linda Kingdon, said the south Yorkshire school, which is due to open on Monday, will instead be called a "place for learning."
"We decided from an early stage we didn't want to use the word 'school'," she told local newspaper the Sheffield Star.
"This is Watercliffe Meadow, a place for learning. One reason was many of the parents of the children here had very negative connotations of school."
Ye gads. What's next?
Along these same [ridiculous] lines, I often joked with my students at how certain subjects over the years have had their monikers changed to a more ... "PC" orientation. For instance, "Shop" is now "Technology Education" (frequently called "Tech Ed") and "Home Economics" is now -- wait for it -- "Family and Consumer Science" (usually dubbed "FCS"). So, in keeping with this meme, a number of years back I "renamed" my class from "Spanish" to the edu-babblish "Acquisition of Indo-Iberian European Language."
About five years ago, one student of mine thought it was such a [hilariously] cool idea that she made a huge banner for the classroom with that title. It's hung in my room prominently every year since.
John Rosenberg strikes again at Discriminations. Chaparral High School in Temecula, CA will see its teachers endure (my term) “cultural competency training” soon in an effort to boost student achievement:
Last week, the Temecula school board approved a $15,000 contract for a consultant to come to the campus for five days next semester and teach educators how to better understand where their students are coming from ---- on a cultural level ---- in an attempt to improve their grades.Chaparral officials said the campus is becoming increasingly diverse, and has more than 1,800 students who have not passed either section of the exit exam, scored below proficient on standardized tests, or are still learning English.
The training is expected to examine why these students "are not being educated to their full potential" and to "promote educational equity for all students," according to district documents.
CA Superintendent of schools Jack O’Connell, a known nutty “progressive,” digs the idea:
“Students are more likely to do well in school if they feel supported and understood by their teachers ... and teachers are more likely to be effective if they understand and can relate to the diverse cultures of students in their classroom,” he said.
That sounds all peachy keen; however, as Jennifer Kabbany, columnist for the North County Times writes, “all teachers must have minored in Asian studies during college, because clearly they are adept at getting most Asian students to perform well academically.”
Indeed. I so do hope at least one teacher will ask the $15,000 consultant how Asian students excel academically – outperforming even [majority] white students – even though 99% of them don’t see teachers that “look like them.” Perhaps Discriminations commenter Alex Bensky says it best about this nonsense: “What this will do, of course, is encourage students to ghettoize themselves, to believe that unless the teacher looks just like them they aren't required to perform.”
A school in North Carolina had temporarily ditched the song "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" from a ... holiday concert because -- OH NO! -- it had "religious overtones."
The objecting parent was upset about the words "Christmas" and "Santa" in the song, feeling that they carried religious overtones.That prompted the song to be pulled from the upcoming holiday concert, which in turn upset more parents.
But Rudolph will be shining bright next Tuesday after New Hanover County school administrators and lawyers determined the song was just, well, a secular song about a make-believe reindeer.
"They’ve determined that it signifies just a day in time, Dec. 25, not the promotion of a religious symbol," said Ed Higgins, chairman of the county Board of Education. "So Rudolph is back in."
School officials also found the use of "Santa" to be okay because he’s considered a nonreligious figure.
The kindergarten chorus’ holiday concert for the school’s PTA will now include Rudolph along with the songs "Winter Wonderland," a snowman rap and "Jingle Bells."
The parent who complained -- who is Jewish -- said she had contacted the school about including a Hannukah song but hadn't received a reply. This is not an unreasonable request, certainly. However, she added this:
"I don’t mind Christmas or anything Christmas-related at all, so long as you’re not imposing it on my child." Y'see, this is where the cult of multiculturalism comes back to bite us in the collective ass. If we're supposed to be all ABOUT multiculturalism, tolerance and the like, and the mom in question here admittedly doesn't "mind Christmas or anything Christmas-related at all," then ... what is the deal? If a social studies class is learning about Jewish traditions ... or Hindu traditions ... whatever, would that be "imposing" (in the words of this mother) those [religious] traditions on the students? If Christian parents believed that, and complained about it, would they be the ones considered "intolerant?" Or would the school that set up said curriculum be so considered?
Attendance at this holiday concert is not a requirement for students, according to the article. Students did practice the songs in their chorus class during the school day, however; where were mom's objections then?
I'm not one to go ballistic about the supposed "War on Christmas" like, say, Bill O'Reilly does. But ALL of us -- whatever your religious background -- need to get a BIG grip.
Stephen Zelnick has a great piece about yet another higher ed. verbal somersault, this time known as "critical thinking." My favorite passage:
For example, Rethinking the Color-Line, the textbook assigned for a required course I recently taught (English R50, a course in college composition and also race studies that fulfills two requirements at once) is uniformly leftist in its selections. Angela Davis, Howard Zinn, and Jonathan Kozol are well represented, along with a stellar list of urban sociologists and radical historians, including specialists in race studies like Howard Winant, all making the case that the United States has been brutal in its treatment of minorities. The writing is vigorous, as is the display of data demonstrating the wide gap in the distribution of the wealth of this country and the misery experienced by immigrant populations and racial and ethnic minorities.One looks long and hard for an essay or two in which immigrant populations may appear to have done well in the United States or had some good reason for showing up here for what is apparently an unendurable social and cultural mauling. Also, although there are mentions of “African-American Conservative” writers, they seem to have been segregated out of the discussion, except to be denounced unheard.
Bingo. I don't think I've ever heard a rational answer as to why, if the United States is such a brutally racist and xenophobic country, immigrants continue to come here (or seek to come here) in droves.
A white social studies teacher attempted to enliven a seventh-grade discussion of slavery by binding the hands and feet of two black girls, prompting outrage from one girl's mother and the local chapter of the NAACP.After the mother complained to Haverstraw Middle School, the superintendent said he was having "conversations with our staff on how to deliver effective lessons."
"If a student was upset, then it was a bad idea," said Superintendent Brian Monahan of the North Rockland School District in New York City's northern suburbs.
The teacher apologized to the mother who complained and her 13-year-old daughter during a meeting Thursday that also included a representative of the local NAACP. But the mother, Christine Shand of Haverstraw, said Friday she thinks the teacher should be removed from the class.
I wonder if the teacher is fairly new. I can see a young teacher, full of energy but also some naďveté, trying something like this out. Still, you gotta let just a bit of common sense to prevail, eh? Ever see the movie “Amistad?” I recall reading that, during its filming, the shackling of the [black] actors was quite an emotional experience. In fact, only other black actors, production assistants, et. al. were permitted to put the shackles on these actors. I can only imagine what these seventh graders must’ve felt.
Here’s how I would have handled the lesson: First, I’d send a mass e-mail (or a snail mail letter) home explaining the unit or lesson -- due to the sensitivity of the topic. Usually, if I want to demonstrate something, I ask for student volunteers. I don’t randomly choose students to come up in front of the class since many are quite introverted. In this case, ‘though, I doubt I’d consider such volunteers. If anything, I’d use myself as the subject of the demonstration (students love it when they see their teachers in something other than their customary role), and perhaps would enlist the aid of a few fellow instructors.
Eileen Bernstein, the teacher in question, apologized as noted. For me, if this was Ms. Bernstein’s first such “infraction” as it were, that is sufficient. Demanding her removal from the class (not sure if this means her dismissal?) is unduly harsh. She made a mistake. She attempted to liven up a lesson – as all good teachers should do – but she went about it in quite the wrong manner.
Of course, a lawsuit isn’t out of the question for Mrs. Shand. It’s America! Land of the Lawsuit!
This “sensitivity” issue brings to me an otherwise innocuous “incident” in one of my classes the other day. (And it fits perfectly into the PC/anti-PC nature we see every holiday season.) I was doing a verb review activity whereby two students each have a small whiteboard, a marker, and an eraser. As I was handing out these implements, I said, “Whoa! Look! Holiday-themed markers!” (as the markers were red and green). Notice I didn’t even say “Christmas” -- I said “Holiday.” One (very bright & friendly) student immediately remarked (facetiously, mind you, but a tad seriously) “That’s insensitive! Not everyone celebrates Christmas!” I responded, “Sure, but I didn’t say ‘Christmas.’ I said ‘Holiday.’” The student retorted, “Ah, but what do the colors green and red represent? Christmas!” I then conceded that was pretty much accurate, but then pressed the student (again, all in good fun but with a touch of seriousness) on exactly how my bringing up these “representational” colors was “insensitive.” The student reiterated her point about everyone not celebrating Christmas.
I then asked if I had brought up a reference to, say, Hanukkah, if that would be "insensitive." Or Ramadan, say. Whatever. She found herself pondering that for a little bit. To which I said, “Y’see? Why worry about a reference [such as mine] to a particular holiday? I could have just as easily referenced Hanukkah or Ramadan in such an innocuous and well-meaning manner." I also asked is it “offensive” to reference a holiday whose overall general message is “goodwill towards all men?”
She got it. I like that. ;-)
This actually is not a new idea, if one can actually call it an "idea." I recall my cooperating teacher during my student teaching days (over 20 yrs. ago, natch) laughing while recalling an educational "consultant" whose entire offering during a workshop was those "nasty red pens":
TEACHERS have been told to stop marking schoolchildren's work with red pen because it is an "aggressive" colour.Queensland's Deputy Opposition Leader Mark McArdle told parliament today that teachers were being advised to reconsider their pen choice because it may offend children.
Mr McArdle tabled a Queensland Health document proposing "strategies for addressing mental health well-being in any classroom".
It says: "Don't mark in a red pen (which can be seen as aggressive) - use a different colour."
"Given your 10-year-old Labor government presides over the lowest numeracy and literacy standards of any state in Australia, don't you think it's time we focused on classroom outcomes rather than these kooky, loony, loopy, lefty policies?" Mr McArdle asked.
Got that right.
I use (and always have) a red pen when I grade papers for one simple reason: It stands out and kids can see it easily. Since I frequently allow students to make corrections on assignments for a higher score, I don't want my students to have difficulty finding what they had done wrong. And, I don't want to search for my initial marks when I re-grade the assignment.
I'm sorry if my use of red pen may "offend" some kids. I'm sure these same educational "consultants" will eventually determine that teachers actually correcting student work is offensive, too -- 100% on everything so as not to make little Johnny upset!
(h/t to Tongue Tied.)
The National Association of Scholars is exploring “The Changing Landscape of Higher Education” at its January conference. From the looks of the schedule, it sure looks like it’ll be a good one.
The dates: January 9-11, 2009.
Where: Washington DC, Marriott Hotel.
Contact: John Irving (609) 497-2480.
Dave Burris has a couple posts up about reforming education right here in Delaware, to which the Energizer Bunny Perry has responded. Perry writes:
Dave, I heard your rant the other day and you have a point. However, you seem to think the solution involves cutting out the union and reducing administration duplication and costs. I think there is much more that we can do, which has to do with our continued propensity for so-called local control and continued segregation according to class and race. To improve our schools, we need to start to move away from these concepts.
Say what? Why do away with local control? I always fail to grasp the "progressive" infatuation with top-down control, in this case from one state superintendent downward. What, precisely, is so anathema with having local superintendents, who're much more attuned to their population and district needs? If the issue is saving cash, each individual school district can cut plenty of fat at the central office level.
And what is meant "continued segregation according to class and race?" You mean ... since desegregation? Is it the growing propensity for parents to take advantage of choice -- whether it be public or charter schools? How precisely is this a bad thing? Unfortunately, the only thing I can think of is the usual predilection of "progressives" like Perry to engage in the bigotry of low expectations; in other words, if choice is open to everyone, what does it actually matter if economic and/or racial proportions are disparate? ("Disparate" meaning based on the "progressive" notion of "proportionate representation." The usual crapola.) Y'see, for "progressives" like Perry, equal opportunity is insufficient. Equal outcomes are of primary importance. If, in Delaware, it is a majority of more affluent and/or white parents who are taking advantage of the state's school choice law, then ... something's wrong with the law. Poor[er] people might not utilize school choice. Therefore, we cannot allow the decision of where to attend school to be in parents' hands.
Perry then goes on to make a comparison to Fairfax County, VA's district:
* One superintendent over the entire system.
* Takes advantage of economy of scale.
* Costs $13.4K per student, about 18% less than DE.
* Average SAT score: 1654
* Much smaller number of charter and private schools than DE.
* Has an extensive teacher in-service training system.
* Well organized teacher orientation.
* High standards for teacher hires.
* Pays good salaries/benefits.
* Extensive AP and IB offerings.
* Thomas Jefferson HS of Science and Technology, world class.
* Gifted and talented program available at all schools.
* Extensive adult education offerings.
He writes "good comparison of our school system can be made to the Fairfax County Public School System." But what, precisely, is the "good" comparison? Why is having less private and charter schools "good?" Who says DE districts don't pay well and offer good bennies? Who says DE districts don't have extensive in-service and teacher orientation? What constitutes "good" teacher in-service and orientation? Who says DE districts don't have high standards for new hires?
He then asks,
Now granted, we do not have a $2.2 billion budget to work with, (gee, that might be a "small" factor! -- Hube) but, having a renowned and exemplary school system on our doorsteps, why are we Delawareans so parochial as to not avail ourselves of this model for the improvement of our school system?
Perhaps because, like too much in education today, much of what you say is undefinable fluff. How easy is it to say "We need high standards for teachers." Or, "we need high standards for students." It continually amazes me when education "think tanks" or "study groups" remarkably come up with ideas such as these. I mean, how long does it take a task force to come up with such these "terrific ideas?"
I've had a few conversations with Dave Burris about education reform. While I always note my suggestions are far from a universal panacea, I believe common sense measures include:
Feel free, as always, to chime in with your own ideas.
... and I'm dreading what sort of utter detritus she'll have to deal with there. Thankfully, I can say with almost utter certainty, she'll not be attending school in Canada:
Carleton University in Ottawa is dropping cystic fibrosis as the beneficiary of its annual fundraiser because the disease isn't diverse enough---most of the people who suffer from it are believed to be white males.Queens University in Kingston, Ontario, has trained six students to listen in on conversations around campus and correct speakers who voice slurs and other opinions that women, gays and minorities might consider objectionable.
Certainly there are obvious slurs that various [ethnic] groups will find objectionable. I don't see a hassle with anyone speaking up and saying something like "Excuse me, but that's inappropriate" to someone asinine enough to utter one. But the authoritarian aspect of this silliness is apparent based on two facets -- one, these "trained students" have as their job to listen in on other people's conversations. Not only is this an invasion of privacy, but if something like that is someone's "job," you can be sure they're bound to "find" something objectionable. This is the second facet -- these "trained students" alone will determine what gays and minorities might find off-putting. Because, we all know, that gays and minorities are all of like mind and all believe in the same things! Right?
As for the cystic fibrosis nonsense, that is just so ridiculous as to defy description. As article author John Leo notes,
... lots of other diseases could run afoul of a proper diversity test---Tay-Sachs (mostly Jews), sickle disease (mostly blacks) and, for that matter, AIDS (mostly male and gay) and breast cancer. It's just hard to get illnesses to observe diversity standards.
Yeah. Biology sure is a pesky thing. It's always somehow immune to politically correct bone-headedness.
David Beito of the University of Alabama discusses his book From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State during a four-campus swing through North Carolina.
David graciously invited me to attend a seminar about a similar topic almost two years ago. Talk about stretching one's brain!
... naming a school after Barack Obama that is. Yeah, that's right. I said I don't see a problem with it. (Volokh disagrees, to whom the h/t for this story goes.) Naming an elementary school is a fairly paltry matter in the whole scheme of things, and the mere election of Obama is historic in itself. Besides, if Obama ends up a total loser of a chief exec, the school can always be renamed again!
This is a far cry from wanting a national holiday for the guy. Now that is a big deal and, in my opinion, requires the demonstration of a superb tenure as president.
Last week Duffy had a brief, albeit thought-provoking, post about the Obama's choice of school for their daughters. He writes:
They're going private. That anyone thinks this is anything other than guaranteed is not dealing with reality. They'll cite "security concerns" or some crap. But the truth is they know how awful DC public schools are.I will not listen to a single word against vouchers or charter schools from people who do not send their kids to public schools. That goes double for teachers of public schools and triple for anyone in elected office.
I actually don't think the security concerns are "crap;" in fact, I think they're quite legitimate. However, I'm totally with Duff on his second point. I mean, if Obama is fortunate enough to be able to send his children to an elite private school, why would he oppose that choice for someone else -- someone less fortunate? Indeed -- if you oppose that very option for someone else, yet YOU act ON it, I don't wanna hear from you. At all. Ever.
My daughter didn't attend public school until the middle school years. That choice was largely due to my wife's religion (Catholic). But I wouldn't fall into Duff's "Don't Wanna Hear From 'Ya" category for the main reason: I'm all in favor vouchers and charter schools.
The "official" Obama school announcement was yesterday. Their daughters will attend the elite Sidwell Friends School, the same school Chelsea Clinton went to. Newsbusters' Michael Bates tells us why this announcement occurred so late on Friday afternoon.
A seventh grader tries to rape a teacher. A freakin' SEVENTH GRADER.
Shirley at DE Curmudgeon has a terrific post which hit me at just the right moment today. I had just finished with what has to be the friggin’ WHINIEST class I’ve had in years. After spending some three days on a topic, I assigned a few pages from their workbook. First, about ten students didn’t even HAVE the workbook with them. This, despite me telling them the day before to bring it AND making a similar announcement over the school PA system this morning. Then the real “fun” started …
“I don’t get this.” (This question despite me asking numerous times over the last three days “Any questions?”) “We didn’t do this.” (Um, where WERE you the last three days?) “How are we supposed to know how to say this?” (By what we learned the last three days, perhaps? Have you looked at your notes?) “I don’t remember this.” (Maybe the fact that you kept talking to your neighbor that one day, and that you kept reading that pleasure novel the other day in class has something to do with it?)
My classes are supposed to be “honors” level. That’s right – “honors.” You might expect an “honors” level class to do their homework regularly, not get ridiculously irate by mildly difficult work, come prepared to class everyday, and get this – actually pay attention when there’s a lesson going on. This year, out of all my many years in the classroom, has demonstrated what a knee-slapper the term “honors” has become. Don’t get me wrong – there are still many students who rightfully deserve the label “honors.” But I feel bad for these students because they, like me, have to deal with the knuckleheads who shouldn’t be in their class.
Why are these kids in “honors” classes? One way to get in is to have mom or dad merely complain about it. You’ll get in an “honors” class, no problem. Grades? Test scores? Not a problem. The other reason there are kids who don’t belong in “honors” classes is because of what Shirley wrote – we don’t “want to hurt anyone’s feelings.” Y’see, those that aren’t in “honors” classes might feel … “left out.” “Stigmatized.” It’ll “hurt their self-esteem.” Then, there’s that tried and true belief (/sarcasm) that the real honors students might serve to “lift up” those who are not actual “honors” students in those “honors” classes. Yeah, uh-huh. In actuality, the typically worse behavior of non-“honors” students usually “rubs off” on the “honors” students.
Some “honors” students think they’re soooo smart that this somehow exempts them from actually doing any work. “I got As on my tests,” they’ll argue. “But,” I’ll retort, “you neglected to turn in those two papers, didn’t do that oral presentation, and you skipped five homework assignments.” In other words, “honors” means more than just smarts. It also means work ethic.
Perhaps this dilemma will get better next year. My field of endeavor, after all, has its ebbs and flows like anything else. (My group last year, for example, was one of -- if not the -- best group of kids I've ever had.) Perhaps. Just perhaps. But as a whole, I believe what Shirley noted is too rapidly becoming the norm. Kids want things easy. They want things to come to them easily. Effort? How come? If they don't do well, it couldn't possibly be THEIR fault, could it? "Why did you give me a 'D,' Mr. Hube?"
Yep, that's a classic line. The classic retort to which is "I didn't 'give' you anything. I merely wrote down what you 'earned.'"
... this time locally: Former principal sentenced to prison.
Former Sussex Central High School Principal Dana I. Goodman could spend at least the next four years behind bars for having sex with a 17-year-old student.Goodman, 38, was sentenced Friday to 32 years in prison, with all but four years suspended contingent upon completion of an intensive sex-offender rehabilitation program while behind bars.
In court Friday, Goodman broke down in tears and apologized for hurting the victim, her family and the community, describing himself as a changed man in the six months since his arrest.
"I made a horrible choice. ... I have no one to blame but myself," he said, clutching a Bible and speaking of his renewed Christian faith. "I made a mistake, and I'm truly sorry."
At least the dude seems to recognize that he has no one to blame but himself. That alone is, sadly, refreshing in today's day and age.
Meanwhile, Mike Matthews reminds us (WHY??) of a recent sex scandal between a teacher and student. Ick.
... Dallas School District makes up fake Social Security numbers for Mexican and other foreign employees.
Years after being advised by a state agency to stop, the Dallas Independent School District continued to provide foreign citizens with fake Social Security numbers to get them on the payroll quickly.The practice was described in an internal report issued in September by the district's investigative office, which looked into the matter after receiving a tip. The report said the Texas Education Agency learned of the fake numbers in 2004 and told DISD then that the practice "was illegal."
DISD human resources chief Kim Olson, who came to the district in 2007, said that she learned about the false numbers this past summer around the time the district's investigative unit was looking into them and that she put a stop to the practice.
"There's no way we should be doing that kind of stuff," Ms. Olson said. "Even if your intention is good to help employees get paid, you can't use inappropriate procedures to do that."
"Inappropriate??" See above, Ms. Olson. Try "Illegal." Ah yes, but the "intentions may have been good," you see. But you know what they say 'bout that.
Amazingly, the article doesn't contain a statement from an Hispanic "advocate" that deemed the investigation into all this "racist."
Please. Kudos to this young lady for opening some eyes on one of the biggest knee-slappers that exists today -- that "progressives" are oh-so tolerant of others:
Catherine Vogt, 14, is an Illinois 8th grader, the daughter of a liberal mom and a conservative dad. She wanted to conduct an experiment in political tolerance and diversity of opinion at her school in the liberal suburb of Oak Park.She noticed that fellow students at Gwendolyn Brooks Middle School overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama for president. His campaign kept preaching "inclusion," and she decided to see how included she could be.
So just before the election, Catherine consulted with her history teacher, then bravely wore a unique T-shirt to school and recorded the comments of teachers and students in her journal. The T-shirt bore the simple yet quite subversive words drawn with a red marker:
"McCain Girl."
"I was just really curious how they'd react to something that different, because a lot of people at my school wore Obama shirts and they are big Obama supporters," Catherine told us. "I just really wanted to see what their reaction would be."
Immediately, Catherine learned she was stupid for wearing a shirt with Republican John McCain's name. Not merely stupid. Very stupid.
"People were upset. But they started saying things, calling me very stupid, telling me my shirt was stupid and I shouldn't be wearing it," Catherine said.
Then it got worse.
Yep, it did.
(Hey! Now we know from what grade this dope must've dropped out of school!)
Needless to say, when young Catherine wore her Obama shirt the next day, the attitude of her peers was quite different. They were ... "tolerant." "Understanding." Even ... "progressive."
Don't be fooled.
This strikes home for me as a teacher, and it makes me furious how the utter lack of non-partisanship must be emphasized (or not even brought up at all) at ed schools across the country:
A teacher in Cumberland County, N.C. near Fort Bragg (NOTE: she is no longer in Asheville) was caught on tape by Finnish documentarians making a film about Barack Obama’s supporters. The teacher, Diantha Harris, uses the classroom as a propaganda vehicle to shove her politics down the children’s throats.Partial transcript:
Harris: We want to talk about the presidential election. I want to ask you, who are you pulling for? Raise your hand.
Student: Obama.
Harris: You pullin for Obama. Who you pullin for?
Student: Obama.
Harris: Any of you pullin for John McCain? That’s fine, say him as well.
Student: Obama.
Student: Obama.
[Cathy, the daughter of an American soldier answers McCain.]
Harris: John, oh lord, John McCain. Oh Jesus, John McCain. Ok, now I wanna axe you somethin. Why are you pullin for John McCain? It’s ok, but why are you pullin for John McCain?
Cathy: I thinks it’s because my parents are going for him too.
Harris: Ok, your parents are going for him. Why are you pullin for Ba-RACK. Barack.
Student: I just want a black president sometimes.
Harris: Ok, you want a black president.
Student: The reason why I want Barack Obama is because he’s making good changes in the good country and stuff like that.
Harris: So, he’s making good changes for our country. Now can you tell me just a little bit more, like what type of changes? Like not having big fights between Iraq and having soldiers killed. So in other words, Barack is going to end that war in Iraq. What do you all know about that war in Iraq?
[Harris addresses Kathy] Talk, cause yo daddy in the military. Talk. It’s a senseless war! And by the way, Cathy, the person that you’re picking for president said that our troops could stay in Iraq for another hundred years if they need to!
[Camera pans to Cathy, in near tears.]
Harris: So that means that your daddy could stay in the military for another hundred years!
Watch the video. The school's superintendent has responded.
This is just atrocious. And it doesn't surprise me that Ms. Harris, like many teachers today, believe it's OK to pontificate about their personal political beliefs in the classroom full of a captive audience, let alone berate [young] students for theirs.
I've written about this numerous times, but I'll say it again: My student teacher mentor was a hardcore conservative, yet he was dead-set on me never allowing any of my personal views into my teaching, and it was mandatory to cover both sides of controversial political issues in class. Regarding this recent past election, many of my students wanted to know who I was voting for. I refused to tell them. "Ask me after November 4th and I'll tell you who ... and why," I said.
And I did tell them when they asked me November 5th. And even though the vast majority of my students were Obama supporters, they were surprisingly receptive and understanding of my reasons for voting for McCain. I did, of course, emphasize the quite historic nature of Obama's election, and told my students they should feel very fortunate to have lived through this defining moment in American history.
I had seen (in my class and out) various "teenage style" mocking of others based on their presidential preference, and I when I did I would gently intervene and tell the kids to express their views politely and be respectful of others' differing views. Overall at my school, the many student Obama supporters were quite gracious in their victory -- very little of any "nyah-nyah" stuff -- just a general sense of glee and joy.
Chanman at Buckhorn Road has an anecdote from a recent teacher inservice of his. Wish I could say it shocked me; it didn't. Too many teachers go through that sort of crap far too often.
Why I'm having serious doubts about sending my daughter there in a few years.
MSNBC.com has an article up today about idiot parents who argue with school officials -- and even get arrested in the process for causing such a ruckus -- over ... a school's dress code.
Gina Castillo, of Lawrence, Mass., and her 16-year-old son were charged with resisting arrest and assault and battery on a police officer after Castillo confronted officials at Lawrence High School this month. Administrators had suspended the boy, who was not identified because he is a juvenile, for a “uniform matter,” forcing him to miss three days of classes and an important test.School officials called police when Castillo got into a heated argument with the school’s safety officer about the uniform policy. When officers arrived, they told her she would be arrested if she did not leave. According to police, Castillo responded, “Arrest me.” Her son was arrested when he tried to intervene.
Terrific values Ms. Castillo is instilling in her boy, eh? Don't get your way? Get arrested and resort to physical violence. God help a teacher who may have given her angel a low grade.
Last month, Shabraia Dodd, 15, was charged with assault on a police officer after she was arrested for wearing a jacket to East Ridge High School in East Ridge, Tenn. Shabraia acknowledged that she was in violation of the dress code, which prohibits wearing jackets in class, but she said she was recovering from a cold and had offered to remove the jacket after class.
Um, you don't get arrested for "wearing a jacket." You get arrested for continually disregarding school officials' requests. What most likely happened here was the following: 1) A teacher asked Dodd to take off the jacket. 2) She refused. 3) Teacher asked again. 4) She refused again. 5) Teacher either sent her out of class (and she refused to leave) or teacher called for an administrator; Dodd refused to go with administrator. 6) Administrator attempted to grasp Dodd to escort her out of the class. 7) Dodd became physically violent in response to administrator "touching" her. 8) Police were summoned in response to Dodd' physical actions (and, most likely, accompanying profanity).
And at North High School in Akron, Ohio, dozens of students were suspended earlier this month after nearly 100 challenged the dress code by wearing hooded sweatshirts. A spokeswoman for the Akron Public Schools District said most of the students agreed to take their hoodies off when faced with discipline, but more than 30 refused and were sent home for insubordination.
In other words, "We're all freakin' spoiled brats and we want to do as we freakin' wish." I'm sure many of their parents back them up, too.
The lead story featured several parents who contacted -- wait for it -- the ACLU in response to their kiddies not being allowed to wear an "in memoriam"-type t-shirt for a student who was killed. The article doesn't say explicitly, but it could be easily implied that there is some sort of gang overtones in this whole matter.
Maybe I get too miffed at stories like these since here in Delaware school choice allows parents to decide where to send their kids. If you don't like a school's dress code, you go somewhere else. It's very simple. But that aside, what is it about parents that feel making a federal case out of dress code actually teaches the kid something?? And don't give me that "They're teaching them about freedom of expression" or "Showing them how to dissent" nonsense. No, they're not. They're teaching them to be conceited "you owe me's" who should have all their needs catered to. I imagine these same parents think their kids' future employers will allow them to wear whatever the hell they want in that law office, right? That bank, right? Check it: WRONG!!!
Simply put, adhering to a sensible dress code shows simple respect and decency. As TV and popular culture make dressing like a thug and/or whore more and more prevalent, and as "parents" allow kids to leave the home dressed same, the very LEAST a school can do is maintain a simple dress code.
To be sure, some of the examples cited in the article for dress code violators are certainly idiotic. No kid should be suspended immediately for violating the code. (Constant violations and/or refusal to change clothes can warrant suspension, however.) The school that made violators change into a prison-like jumpsuit? WTF?? IDIOTIC! Why stigmatize a kid so? My school maintains a supply of "approved district wear" -- [mainly] shirts with our school logo (or that of other schools in the district) that students can wear for the day and return at the end of the day if they forget to wear garb acceptable by the dress code.
In one, they've voiced an opinion. On the other, not so much. See if you can guess which is which.
The New York City teachers’ union filed a federal lawsuit on Friday claiming that a policy banning political pins and signs in schools violates teachers’ First Amendment rights by blocking them from political expression.Randi Weingarten, president of the union, the United Federation of Teachers, said that while the policy has been on the books for more than two decades, it has rarely been enforced, and that teachers have routinely worn political buttons as recently as this year’s presidential primaries.
But in the lawsuit, the union — which has endorsed Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee — states that the principal of Community School 134 in the Bronx removed an Obama poster that a teacher placed on the union bulletin board, and that a teacher at another school who wore political buttons was warned against it.
Ms. Weingarten, who is also president of the American Federation of Teachers, and spoke at the Democratic National Convention in August, said that for a quarter of a century she had watched teachers “balance their obligations as professionals and their responsibilities as citizens.” She added that “teachers, maybe more than others, understand how important democracy is and how important the Constitution is, particularly the Bill of Rights.” (Source.)
The union is being assisted by Norman Siegel, formerly of the -- yep -- ACLU, who said
“We are just weeks away from a landmark presidential election that is being discussed in classrooms and at dinner tables across the nation,” and added, “Students can only benefit from being exposed to and engaged in a dialogue about current events.”
Right. I'm sure it's very "engaging" to "dialogue" with your teacher about the election when he/she has an Obama button on, and you're a McCain supporter. Let's see ... the teacher controls your grade, there's a definite power relationship (the teacher has it all)... unbelievable.
Elsewhere in Carlisle, PA, a teacher has been barred from participating in a student-led prayer event:
For the last six years, Cheryl Holquist, a science teacher at Carlisle High School, has met 50 students and more than a dozen teachers on the last Wednesday in September for 30 minutes of prayer as part of the national See You at the Pole event.Holquist, who advises the high school's Christian-oriented Crossroads Club, wasn't there this year because she had other plans -- but she wouldn't have been allowed to show up anyway.
A new district guideline prohibits teacher participation in student-sponsored religious activities.
"It's an issue because [the prayer at the pole] takes place on school grounds," solicitor Jim Flower Jr. said. "That makes it sensitive." So does the fact that the prayer event happens right before school starts," he said.
Sara Rose, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, backed up Flower's opinion. While a student's right to expression is fairly clear-cut, a teacher's right is more of a gray area, Rose said. (Source.)
What a surprise, eh? Those [supposed] "Guardians of the Bill of Rights" are absolutists when it comes to that First Amendment ... except, of course when it comes to that "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause.
Here's the deal: In the first case, having to take down the Obama flyer from the union bulletin board is ridiculous. It only applies to teachers, not students (students wouldn't even see it). On the other hand, outright support of a certain political candidate on school time may or may not violate the First Amendment; however, it is (or should be) a blatant violation of a teacher's job description. In addition, the Hatch Act provisions for employees of the "executive branch, state and local employees who are principally employed in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a federal agency," has the following prohibitions for employees:
- be candidates for public office in partisan elections
- campaign for or against a candidate or slate of candidates in partisan elections
- make campaign speeches
- collect contributions or sell tickets to political fund raising functions
- distribute campaign material in partisan elections
- organize or manage political rallies or meetings
- hold office in political clubs or parties
- circulate nominating petitions
- work to register voters for one party only
- wear political buttons at work
There is a provision of the Hatch Act for local and state employees; however, see if you can make sense of the following:
The Hatch Act applies to executive branch state and local employees who are principally employed in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a federal agency. Employees who work for educational or research institutions which are supported in whole or in part by a State or political subdivision of the State are not covered by the provisions of the Hatch Act.
I emphasized part of the above previously because I don't know of any school district which isn't "financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a federal agency." This provision would make virtually ALL schools fall under the federal Hatch guidelines. However, the second clause seems to negate that first clause as school districts are ALSO financed by local and state governments! The Hatch Act provisions for state and local employees are less restrictive.
In the second case, schools are NOT prohibited from allowing religious-oriented activities on their campuses (if sectarian activities are allowed, schools cannot discriminate against religious activities). However, the "See You at the Pole" prayer takes place before the official school day, is student-sponsored, and is NOT in any way backed by the school district.
If a student sees a teacher at this "Pole" event before school hours, this would be no different from, say, witnessing a teacher getting out of his car in the parking lot before school starts and seeing him with an Obama button on, or an Obama bumper sticker on his car.
But again, what's not surprising at all in these stories is the ACLU's stance. Just like its "let's imagine the 2nd Amendment isn't in the Bill of Rights" view of gun rights, the First Amendment is absolute -- except when it comes to any semblance of religious expression.
... check out these "progressive" arguments against parental rights when it comes to allowing parents to "opt out" of a pro-gay school curriculum:
The Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief: “There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one’s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue – or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.”
From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief: “Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book…King and King.”
Now, a good libertarian should be all for equal rights for gay Americans. But likewise, a good libertarian should also be staunchly for the right of parents to raise their children as they see fit. While in my opinion I don't believe that individual parents should have what amounts to "veto power" over an aspect of the school curriculum (although, parents en masse could certainly -- and rightfully -- do so by electing representatives to the school board), the Human Rights Campaign view that parents cannot even opt-out of a rather sensitive pedagogical segment is just plain un-American and undemocratic. What they are saying above essentially amounts to parents' feelings as to what is best for their child is irrelevant because it might "make others feel bad."
Worse, the HRC and ACLU -- two groups which could "find" just about any "right" in the Constitution imaginable -- are adamant that that very same document doesn't afford parents any rights regarding their own children. (That is, unless a mother decides she wants to abort an unborn child -- then that is OK and perfectly constitutional.)
This, I believe, is perfectly summed up as what Jonah Goldberg terms "liberal fascism."
Scary -- but all too real -- story in the Philly Daily News today:
LOOKING BACK on her brief stint as a Philadelphia schoolteacher causes "Rebecca" to shake her head sorrowfully.Every day of that career, she says, she had to break up fights between her fourth-graders, who cursed and threatened each other - often making good on the taunts.
She spent far more time on discipline than on teaching.
Administrators at Samuel H. Daroff School offered her little help and did not provide a promised mentor teacher, she says.
So, on the seventh day of classes, Rebecca quit - walking away from a $41,000-a-year job in the School District of Philadelphia.
Rebecca - not her real name - has $50,000 in student loans, but says she does not regret leaving because her mental health was at stake.
"It was the worst experience of my life," she says of the first day of class, Sept. 4, at the West Philadelphia school.
Many teachers, administrators and union officials often talk of "hazard pay," a euphemism for extra salary for teaching in "difficult" schools -- "difficult" meaning where students are essentially out of control. But how much extra pay would be sufficient to entice teachers to "teach" (in quotes since not much actual teaching gets done in such schools) in such schools? $5K? $10K? $20K?
I don't know, but I do know this: I wouldn't take a job in such a school if they offered me double my salary. Is such a high salary worth the price of attempting -- virtually each and every day of the week, class period after class period -- to maintain control of a class of students who want to fight, scream and run around, and yell profanity at each other -- and at you? "Rebecca" was right -- the cost alone in mental health would be tremendous. Hell, your general health alone would suffer appreciably as anxiety levels would never recede. Adrenaline racing through your veins constantly ... and at what cost?
Teachers are fleeing the district, she reasons, because they are tired of having to put up with out-of-control students while receiving little or no help from school administrators."Those people who are higher up in the district need to get honest about what is going on in the schools in this city. You cannot hide behind music-teacher and special-education-teacher shortages and an interim contract," she huffs, seated at the dining-room table in the tidy Northeast Philadelphia townhouse she shares with her parents.
I think this is what way too many outside of education don't fully grasp. (And by "outside" I mean parents and not-in-the-classroom edu-crats and administrators.) The impulse is often to blame teachers for out of control students and classes. Either they're not "trained" properly or they need some sort of "special inservice lessons" on something like "[white] teacher racism and privilege." And many with this impulse are, again as noted, often administrators. But if a school is perceived as a "problem" school, I say you can usually bet that its administration is "weak" -- they will either make excuses for kids who cause problems, ignore them altogether, and/or make trouble for teachers who actually attempt to enforce what those in the "real world" would consider proper and just discipline.
As administrators and edu-crats continue "to study" the issue of "problem schools," a thing called Occam's Razor comes to mind: "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." And what is that in this case? I like the Joe Clark approach to "tough" schools: Get rid of the thugs and hoodlums, for starters, especially those who are over 16 years of age. Remember what Clark says at his unforgettable first lecture to the school: "You are all expurgated. You are dismissed! You are out of here, forever." This isn't as easy as it was made to seem, however. It was only briefly touched on that Clark got into hot water for booting these kids (one of which was a mom of one of the thugs who later made a deal with the mayor to get rid of Clark. Some "mom," eh?) But actions such as Clark's should be made easier to accomplish. There are too many in education who believe that, no matter what, ANY student has a "right" to be in a classroom. It doesn't matter how many times a kid has been in trouble; it doesn't matter how many times the kid has threatened other students and/or teacher; it doesn't matter how many times the kid has been arrested! To these such edu-crats, this kid has a RIGHT to be in the classroom.
But what about those kids who are school for the actual purpose of school? Y'know, to learn? What about their rights?
To be sure, many administrators are hamstrung by their higher-ups and by lawyers (district and/or those hired by troublemaker students' parents). School districts have a financial choice to make in that "is it worth the cost to fight a legal battle over whether a kid can remain in school, or just let him back in?" Then there's the issue of what to do with the "trouble" students once they're banished from regular school. The most obvious response to that is to establish more "alternative schools," staffed by strict disciplinarians (preferably ex-military) and those specializing in behavioral problems and disorders.
But then this opens up a whole can of other worms: What would it take -- in other words, how many disruptions/types of infractions would it take for a student to get sent to an alternative school? And what about the political difficulties involved in those decisions, such as charges of bias ... and/or racism?
The bottom line is that something must change in [public] schools in order for them to survive. We have seen some changes -- like those right here in Delaware, most as a result of the public becoming fed up with a lot of said edu-crat nonsense. Probably the most significant development is the prodigious growth of charter schools. In addition, [public] school choice has been massively taken advantage of here in the first state. Parents know which schools possess the no-nonsense administrations (and teachers). If you don't want the public to "vote with their feet," one of the simplest answers is to just "stop the nonsense.
One heck of a lot, apparently:
A Marianna middle-school teacher has been suspended for 10 days without pay after he wrote a racially charged interpretation of a commonly used phrase in the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama.While some parents and community activists were outraged by the actions of Greg Howard, Jackson County NAACP officials want to gather more facts before the group considers taking action. But some parents feel Howard should be fired.
Larry Moore, deputy superintendent for the Jackson County School District, said school officials determined Howard wrote an acronym with an explanation on a dry-erase board in his class Sept. 26 at Marianna Middle School.
It said, "C.H.A.N.G.E. — Come Help A (N-word) Get Elected."
Howard, who's been teaching in the district for 17 years, wrote the comment during his seventh-grade social-studies class that included 17 white students, six black students and one Asian.
Howard was suspended with pay Monday while the incident was investigated. The reprimand was elevated to a 10-day suspension without pay starting Thursday. Howard also must write a letter of apology to the students. (Link.)
A mere ten day suspension -- for actually writing that on a classroom chalkboard?? Unbelievable. But here's the thing: "Progressives" have been sticking up for lefty moonbats who spew similar garbage (just from the other side) in the classroom for decades. Think these "free speech absolutists" will jump to Howard's defense? Cheeyeah -- and Jason Scott voted for Reagan.
Joanne Jacobs (to whom the h/t goes for this story) read several comments at various sites which covered this story and found that some folks dubbed Howard "brave" to "speak out" about ... what exactly? His hatred for blacks?
Sheesh.
Too many of us are idiots:
"Educators for Obama" buttons are no longer worn by teachers at Soquel High School.The buttons began sprouting up at the Santa Cruz County school and parent John Hadley complained that teachers were attempting to politically influence his 16-year-old daughter and other students. Hadley is a John McCain supporter.
Teachers have now agreed not to wear the buttons in class.
Greater Santa Cruz Federation of Teachers president Barry Kirschen says the teachers were simply exercising what they believed was their right to free expression.
Which is fine. But they're wrong. I like what a commenter over at Joanne Jacobs' site said:
Where in the world did teachers get they idea that they have a right to say whatever they want in class? They don’t. They shouldn’t. They never have. And as long as we have a pluralistic society, they never will. Why do they have to discover this the hard way? Weren’t they taught about these things in ed school? (Silly question, of course).
Legal (free expression) questions aside, WTF do teachers believe it's OK to blatantly endorse one candidate over another? Aren't we in the business of teaching these kids -- especially the means to think critically ... and for themselves? By what right does a teacher have to use his/her position of authority to subtly pressure students into who the "right" choice in the presidential race is? As a former social studies teacher, I was taught NEVER to allow my personal politics to enter my teaching. Indeed, many students this year thus far have asked me who I am voting for. I have refused to answer, telling them I will reveal who after the election if they wish. And if I do, I will actually cover both sides of various issues and explain why I agree with one side over the other.
Elsewhere, the Virginia teachers union sent an e-mail encouraging its members to wear blue collared shirts in order to show support for Barack Obama:
The Virginia Education Association sponsored "Obama Blue Day" on Tuesday. In an e-mail sent last week, it urged teachers to participate by dressing in blue."There are people out there not yet registered. You teach some of them," the Sept. 25 e-mail reads. "Others, including our members, remain on the fence! Its time for us to come together, voice our unity, because we make a difference!"
"Let's make Obama Blue Day a day of Action!" the e-mail continues. "Barack the vote!"
In a statement released to FOXNews.com Thursday, VEA President Kitty Boitnott defended the e-mail, saying that it called for teachers to wear blue shirts, but not ones that mentioned a candidate.
Does she think people are really this stupid? And this woman is a teacher. As Joanne Jacobs said (and to whom the h/t goes for these articles), "Perhaps the use of the words 'Barack' and 'Obama' gave teachers the idea that the union wanted a 'day of Action' for Barack Obama."
Gotta love the assumptions teachers unions make. I think I posted this once before, but I recall the DE senate election of 1994 -- Charlie Oberly vs. Bill Roth. A fellow teacher came by my room asking if I wanted an Oberly lawn sign. "Why?" I asked. "I'm voting for Roth." The look on the teacher's face was one of utter befuddlement and anger.
Can you believe it took a study to come up with that??
Here's the deal: If we need "studies" to tell the public sh** like this, we're all in a lot deeper trouble than we think. And I'll also tell 'ya -- take it from one who sees the effects every year -- it's getting worse. At my school's open house this year parent behavior was the worse I've ever seen it. In one class, there were two moms who decided to hold a [loud] conversation in the back of the room like it was old home week ... while I was discussing the curriculum. Numerous parents had their cell phones go off (no, they weren't on vibrate) ... and they took the calls -- in class -- while I was talking. Several parents left small messes in my room where they sat.
And I wonder why more and more kids laugh at/sneer at/ignore me when I make a request of them?
... after reading this:
I thought it was bad enough that I occassionally have to stomp my feet while peeing (to scare the mice away...really). ( I rationalize that it's good for my thighs.)Then I thought we had hit rock bottom when the administration took no sort of stance after teachers routinely had their personal property stolen out of their locked classrooms.
When I found a dead mouse in the middle of my rug (with several other LIVE mice feasting on the corpse) at 7:30 a.m., I thought, "This is it...this is as low as we can go. What else can be expected of me?"
And then...they took our parking spaces away.
So far this year my biggest infrastructure complaints are that my classroom is freezing and that the lights are so dull I fear I'll turn into a bat or a mole by June. But I guess that really ain't so bad ...
Remember my post from yesterday? Here's yet another terrific example: The cretinous chancellor of UC Berkeley, Robert Birgeneau, thinks that -- wait for it -- racism -- is behind the motivations of a bunch of "tree sitters" who've been protesting the construction of a gymnasium (h/t to NB):
“[R]acism against our minority student athletes ... underlies much of the opposition to our student athlete high performance center.”
What's the old adage? "Racism is the last refuge of the ... ?" I mean, c'mahn -- tree-huggin' Berkeleyites -- racists?? You really can't get anymore ridiculous than that. And just gander at the stereotype Birgeneau invokes -- minority athletes. After all, those "minorities" probably wouldn't be there if not for athletics, right chancellor? And, of course no white athletes would ever make use of a new gymnasium, correct?
Schools not solely responsible for ills. By Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) (Socialist, actually. -- Hube)
Response to more of the same educational arguments coming from Washington DC by Paul J. Falkowski, B.A. Ed. 1972 Mathematics-Education, UD. (Paul's comments are in bold.)
No one doubts that our education system is in very serious trouble. Too many students are not learning what we expect them to learn [Delaware, took a LEAD in State Standards at every Grade level, outlining, 'What is to be learned. '] , and too many are dropping out [ ASK WHY? ] before they get a high school degree — a catastrophe, [ A catastrophe, but not linked to College jobs. We need more BASIC EMPLOYMENT. Manufacturing, products that we can sell to the world. ] given that more and more of our good-paying [ We need as a basic, jobs that pay something, ] jobs are available only to college graduates. [ Hold that thought on College Students ] [ PS, This country, prospered from 1800 till 1970's without college level jobs, and manufacturing. ]
“On virtually every international assessment of academic proficiency [ That being the case, do away with DSTP and American teste and apply International tests and Grade level proficiencies. ] , American secondary school students’ performance varies from mediocre to poor,” according to the Alliance for Excellent Education. Recently, the United States ranked 15th of 29 countries in reading literacy, 21st in scientific literacy, 25th in mathematics literacy, and 24th in problem solving, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Only 70 percent of high school students in the United States earn a diploma. [ NOW, Just who is going to college with only 70% earning a Diploma. ]
It is easy to blame the schools for these failures, and to be honest, our schools bear some responsibility for what happens within their wall. But the schools are not the whole of it. Education cannot be looked at without paying attention to the context of how we treat our children. When almost 20 percent of our nation’s children live in poverty, [ First place to look is their homes, and their parents, or single parents. Improve the FAMILY, Improve the children, and the children's HOME education. ] the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world; when millions of babies and young kids are cared for in inadequate childcare facilities by undertrained and underpaid staff; when young Americans watch upwards of 40 hours of television a week, much of it based on violence and selling useless products; when too many of our political leaders categorize intellectual and artistic pursuits as “elitism” and actually make fun of those who attend our best universities [ Where did this come from? ] ; when hundreds of thousands of young people are simply unable to afford higher education [ Hundreds of thousands do not have a Diploma. ] ; we must understand that schools alone are not responsible for all of the problems of education in America. [ PARENTS ARE, first! ]
Part of our educational failure results from distorted national priorities. While schools in Vermont and across this country are laying off language instructors and music teachers because of their dependence on the burdensome and regressive property tax, Congress passes a bloated $532 billion military budget with very little discussion. [ Tax spending is not a zero sum game. Not spending on a war, does not mean spending on Education or Health care. ] While thousands of schools throughout America lack after-school programs or enriched summer schools, President Bush has provided hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent.
What should we be doing about our troubled educational system? For a start, we can look at countries that are remarkably successful, like Finland. Finland comes out on top of almost all the international education benchmarks on which we do so badly. As a direct consequence of its strong education system, Finland has the most competitive economy in the world, according to the World Economic Forum. What do the Finns do? They provide high quality and free early childhood education and daycare, from age six months until their kids go to school, to every child in their country. They have small classes. They give fewer tests than we do, and those tests require complex thinking and problem solving [ Many students and parents would revolt otherwise. Test is too hard, I can not take tests and also panic that this one test is so important. ] — they are not just “fill in the box” multiple-choice exams. They understand that education is an investment in their economy, in their healthcare and in their environment, which is why they provide free college and graduate school to all eligible [ ELIGIBLE? How? ] applicants.
What else can we do? We can fully fund federal programs for our public schools, which have been greatly underfunded since the Bush administration took office. We can also fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which provides only 18 percent of special-ed costs, when 40 percent was what the federal government promised.
We also must go beyond today’s mandates for testing and more testing. Too many schools are not teaching their students how to learn — they are teaching to the test, drilling and drilling and drilling [ Drilling, has always worked. ] . In reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we should get rid of these failed provisions and instead require programs that will make our schools the source of rich experiences for our children, and no longer prescribe sterile classrooms where nothing matters but the next examination.
Finally, we must once again make college affordable for American families. Too many students do not go to college — or even aspire to college — [ False They do not have the academic background for college. ] because the costs are too great. In the final analysis we must understand that education is the basis on which our future is formed. If we want a strong middle class, [ We need production JOBS. ] if we want young people gainfully employed in the workforce rather than rotting in jails, if we want a society where our citizens live in good health then we must accept the basic principle that education is not an expense but an investment in the future well-being of our nation. [ What is missing are programs to Educate the 30% every year of HS students that did not get their Diploma. There numbers are cumulative. These kids have babies, with out 'Educated parents.' Parents who fail to pass on a respect and the importance of having 'THAT EDUCATION." We do not need more childcare, we need to train More Parents to handle their own childcare, and concurrently parents that get an Education. ]
Sanders is a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Thankfully, this one clamped down on the stupidity fairly quickly:
University of Massachusetts officials on Monday quashed efforts by an Amherst campus chaplain to offer two college credits to any student willing to campaign in New Hampshire this fall for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.Chaplain Kent Higgins told students in a Sept. 18 e-mail, "If you're scared about the prospects for this election, you're not alone. The most important way to make a difference in the outcome is to activate yourself. It would be just fine with (Republican candidate John) McCain if Obama supporters just think about helping, then sleep in and stay home between now and Election Day."
Higgins added that an unnamed "sponsor" in the university's history department would offer a two-credit independent study for students willing to canvass — identify supporters — or volunteer on behalf of the Democratic nominee.
University officials said Higgins originally had arranged for credit for "disaster relief efforts or other humanitarian ventures." They added that "We do not engage in or sponsor partisan political activity." That's hard to believe, but at least they stepped in to squelch this nonsense.
As a quickly-becoming grizzled veteran teacher, I've seen a lot of teacher movies. Some have been good, some pretty lame. Entertainment Weekly has a list of "24 Cherished TV/Movie Teachers," and here's my take on some of them (h/t to Matthew Tabor):
Most notable forgotten mention: Alex Jurel from "Teachers." Although this flick is 24 years old, it holds up perfectly. Nick Nolte's portrayal of Jurel is dead-on; he's a history teacher at an urban, ethnically mixed high school. The staff is a mix of all personality types, including the teacher we probably all had at least once, "Ditto" -- the "teacher" who just hands out a worksheet and then sits at his desk reading the newspaper. Jurel deals with reality as he faces it. When his room's heater isn't working one class period, he gets out his tools and tells his class to gather 'round for "a lesson on home heating repair." In order to reach a perpetually failing student (Ralph Macchio), he allows him to take photos for an assignment -- photos that reach that local media. And Jurel takes the heat for it in order to keep the kid's trust.
The film also deals credibly with how teachers' union issues can border on the ridiculous ("We're fighting for an extra three minutes of planning time!"), tenure (how bad and even criminal teachers are virtually impossible to fire), and best of all denotes how teachers have to have at least "one screw loose" to go into the profession as demonstrated by Richard Mulligan's character. He plays a mental patient who inadvertantly takes a phone call for a substitute teacher, and ends up subbing for several days. His inherent nuttiness endears him to his class, and before he's found out he has his students loving history with a passion never before imagined.
Our own UD had attempted to prevent students from distributing student newspapers on campus "without prior approval."
The administrators told the students that distributing the newspaper counted as "solicitation" and would require a permit from the city of Newark, Delaware. When the students reminded the administrators that students enjoy a constitutional right to distribute materials, one UD administrator responded: "According to policy, they don't." UD policies required "approval" from administrators before published materials could be distributed, and banned distribution of anonymous published materials altogether.
F.I.R.E. got involved and UD backed down.
"Delaware's policies would have banned the distribution of both Thomas Paine's ‘Common Sense' and the Federalist Papers," remarked [FIRE President Greg] Lukianoff. "Is this the lesson about American liberty that UD wants to teach its students?"
This policy reversal marks yet another sorry chapter in UD's politically correct, indoctrination-like campus atmosphere:
Over the past year, the University of Delaware also has had to end a thought-reform program in its residence halls; has had to change a speech code that required immediate notification of the authorities for any "oppressive" speech; has had to change a funding policy that provided only half as much funding to political student groups as to other student groups; and has lost the free-speech part of a lawsuit filed after a student was suspended, pending psychiatric evaluation, because of postings on his personal website.
Man, how 20+ years has changed things at my alma mater. Sad.
Wendy Doniger, the Mircea Eliade Distinguished Service Professor of the History of Religions at the University of Chicago’s Divinity School, says that Sarah Palin is not really a woman. And somehow, this "PhD" missed the boat on how all those "facts" about Mrs. Palin have been debunked.
Amazing how young adults have to spend a small fortune to be "educated" by the likes of Ms. Doniger. And "small fortune" isn't an understatement -- if the price of a gallon of milk had risen as much as higher education has since 1980, that gallon would cost $15 now.
How come I never see "progressive" intellectuals demanding that something be done about the insane cost of college? Must be because they feel their "instruction" is well "worth it."
... ed. blogger supreme Matthew Tabor links to a story which proves Britain is still fast becoming a pitiful shell of the great country it once was:
Thank goodness all those kids are in the United States, because competitive sport in the United Kingdom apparently leads to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and general fat-itude:“Schools should cut down on competitive sport because it is putting children off exercise and undermining the government’s drive to tackle obesity," researchers warned today.
Last month, the prime minister, Gordon Brown, promised to bring back competitive sport in schools and to extend the range of sports offered to children.
However, a new study by Laura Ward, from Loughborough University, claimed the heavy emphasis on fitness and competitive sport in many secondary schools is doing little or nothing to help curb the UK’s record teenage obesity rates.
Teachers’ own deeply-embedded attitudes are also influential. A teacher who has experienced lifelong success in sport is likely to want to focus upon competitive team games within their lessons. This then presents us with a persistent cycle whereby sport is privileged within PE and health-related exercise is marginalised.”
Only an "academic" in a university could tie in PLAYING COMPETITIVE SPORTS with an INCREASE in child obesity. Matthew says, "If you think some students hate gym class now, turn it into 'Exercise Class' and measure their attitudes again. I wasn’t a class-cutter in high school, but I’d have taken every opportunity to skip that one."
Got that right. Then what would happen to child obesity, Ms. Ward? I mean, c'mahn -- how in the freakin' world can competitive sports that require constant motion (like basketball, soccer, field hockey) be bad for a kid's cardiovascular system, huh? Wait I got it: It's not the EXERCISE. It's that "C" word -- "COMPETITION." I almost had forgotten how much educationists DESPISE that term. I had myriad books/readings in grad school that discussed how "cooperation is preferred over competition" in the classroom. Of course, in my class whenever I have kids compete (usually during review games prior to a test or quiz) they do so in teams which means -- wait for it -- they have to work together!! But even such as that is frowned upon by too many educationists ... because students will then be instilled with the need "to be better" than their fellow students. Heaven forbid!
And hey -- after all, what economic system relies on competition? Right -- the one too many university academics hate.
... and I'm beat. But it's a "good" beat. As I told Paul Smith Jr. the other day, I crashed on my sofa Thursday night at 6:30pm, and didn't awake until 7:30am the next day! The transition from summer hours to regular school hours is always tough, but don't play any small violins for me -- I ain't really complaining, 'ya hear? ;-)
My classes this year appear to be a "notch down" academically from the group I had last year. You might think that "it's still too early to tell;" however, my instincts after 17 years have proven to be pretty accurate. It's not, though, as some teachers might complain, a "gradual dumbing down" year after year. For me, it "ebbs and flows" -- some years I get exceptionally bright students, other years not so bright. No biggie. I just gotta go more in-depth on basic concepts, that's all.
At any rate, I saw an interesting article the other day: Florida is considering allowing teachers to use "force" against students in a much more, well, "liberal" fashion:
Educators could use physical force to maintain a "safe and orderly learning environment" under a proposed state Board of Education rule.State law already allows school officials to restrain special education students who are deemed a danger to themselves or others.
The proposed rule would extend the use of force to any student and is drawing criticism from parents across the state.
The 30-line rule does not define the term "force" and leaves open to interpretation the circumstances under which it would be allowed.
It says force can be used to protect students from conditions harmful to their learning, mental health, physical health and safety or in cases of harm, injury or the significant damage of property.
The rule would not require that parents be informed if a school staff member has used force on their child.
Many students have the misperception that NO teacher can touch him/her for ANY reason. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, here in DE (and my district in particular) we're advised never to touch a student unless absolutely necessary (like if there is a fight, or a threat to another student or teacher). This is how it should be, in my opinion. In our modern litigious society, any other reason just opens the proverbial can of worms regarding "inappropriate touching." And hell, I know of cases where that charge has been brought even when a teacher was just attempting to break up a fight or melee. I think Florida, if they enact this law, better put aside a "legal fund" to back up teachers/administrators against litigious parents and their attorneys.
Barack "The Messiah" Obama visited all 57 states.
Virginia Governor Tim Kaine on Fox News Sunday:
Well, first, Joe (Biden) comes from a state, Delaware, that borders Virginia. The eastern shore part of Virginia and Delaware are not only bordering but very, very similar. And I think there's a lot in common, and Joe understands that.
That's actually impossible for Joe to understand, Tim, as Delaware and Virginia share NO common border. Maryland gets in the way for a small bit there.
Wonder why a state's chief exec doesn't know this?
... if my district implemented these new rules:
1) teachers have to accept late homework without penalty,
2) ignore homework grades that lower a student’s semester grade, and
3) give retests to students who fail.
The rationale for this? Superintendent Michael Hinojosa says,
“We want to make sure that students are mastering the content [of their classes] and not just failing busy work. Our mission is not to fail kids. Our mission is to make sure they get it, and we believe that effort creates ability.”
There's a good debate going on in the comments, but as you might surmise by this post's title, I side with those who this idea is pretty much crap. As some note, part of teachers' job is to prepare students for the real world. This real world doesn't accept work whenever an employee feels like turning it in, nor does it allow an employee chance after chance to "master" a skill or knowledge until they "get it."
On the other hand, most teachers I know (including myself) aren't nearly that harsh. They'll accept work late (although with a penalty), and allow retests (but not interminably). I personally don't give retests; however, any homework I give is akin to a "take home quiz" and I allow corrections to be made on it.
A blanket edict where ALL homework must be accepted at any time and/or ignored if it lowers a student's grade (not to mention constant retests) is just educationist nonsense and will only serve to further decrease student motivation and necessary "real world" preparation.
Family of gay teen slain in Calif. blames school:
The family of a gay teenager who was fatally shot in class blames the school district for allowing their son to wear makeup and feminine clothing to school — factors the family claims led to the death.The parents and brother of 15-year-old Larry King of Oxnard filed a personal injury claim against the Hueneme school district seeking unspecified damages for not enforcing the dress code.
King, an eighth-grader at E.O. Green Junior High School, was shot in February. Classmate Brandon McInerney pleaded not guilty to the shooting last week. He was charged as an adult and also faces a charge of a committing a hate crime.
The family's claim, filed last week in Ventura County Superior Court, said administrators and teachers failed to enforce the school's dress code when King wore feminine clothing and makeup to school.
Now, answer the title of this post's question: What if the school district did enforce the dress code?
Give up?
Answer: It would have still been sued -- for [sexual] discrimination against a gay student.
... and that is sue, sue, SUE!!
Saint Anne's Catholic school, its principal, the church and the diocese are being sued for implementing an English only policy at school.When some students refused to sign a pledge to honor the policy they were expelled and their parents filed suit.
Three families are suing alleging that the policy discriminates against those who speak other languages and lawyers for the families say it's racial discrimination and therefore violates their civil rights. (Link.)
First, how is prohibiting any lingo other than English in school racial discrimination? If a French student enrolled in the school, could he/she sue for racial discrim .... oh, yeah. Right.
Cripes.
Second and most importantly, the Catholic school is a private institution and therefore should be able to set its rules as it desires. Just as private colleges are allowed to establish their [risible as they are] speech codes -- which have, basically, the same effect as what St. Annes implemented -- so should private/Catholic schools. After all, don't like the rules? You're quite free to attend that nearby public school which will accommodate virtually your every need.
(h/t: Joanne Jacobs.)
Uber-education blogger Joanne Jacobs is hosting this week's edition, which includes this post of mine from a couple days ago.
... and as such, the weird dreams begin. What do I mean by "weird?" Here's a typical week-before-school-starts dream:
For some reason, I miss the inservice days preceding the first student day. I discover that I am not teaching my own subject -- I have to teach something like math or keyboarding. I have the worst behaved kids imaginable. 35 or more of them. They absolutely, positively do NOT listen to a word I say, even after I slam a desk to the ground to get their attention. When I call the administration for assistance, I am told that it "is my problem, so deal with it." In addition, I'm back enrolled in grad school and I've forgotten that I enrolled in a class. I haven't attended once all semester. If I don't pass this class, I'll be tossed out of the graduate program.
This happens every year when there's about 1-2 weeks to go until the start of school. Every year. This, despite the fact that I'm a 17 year classroom vet who easily gets a full night's sleep before the first student day.
I'd be curious if many other teachers experience such pesadillas (nightmares).
I caught this great quote from Tigerhawk (via Joanne Jacobs) regarding snooty parents who will see at nothing to make sure their kiddies get their way:
These parents are teaching their children to be easily discomfited, hypersensitive in the defense of their own prerogatives, and disrespectful of rules, all traits that are opposite to those required to be a good citizen.There is some good news in this, at least if you believe that social mobility is a good thing (and I certainly do). Most of these children are from affluent, highly-educated families. If by dint of their upbringing they turn out, on average, to be as dependent and petulant as is the likely consequence of this much parental intervention, they will not be successful and will be displaced in the upper quintile by the children whose parents actually taught them to be adults.
Amen, brutha.
From the NAS e-mail bag:
... Poll: Teachers believe parents not preparing kids for school, life.
Hey, it's only fair based on this story, natch.
In "The Kindergarchy," writer Joseph Epstein describes in detail the differences between two generation's of parents attitudes towards raising children. What rang a distinct bell were the tales of his upbringing; in other words, he was not the center of his parents' universe.
When I was a boy my parents might go off to New York or to Montreal (my father was born in Canada) for a week or so and leave my brother and me in the care of a woman in the neighborhood, a spinster named Charlotte Smucker--Mrs. Smucker to us--who was a professional childsitter. Sometimes an aunt, my mother's sister who had no children, would stay with us. We seldom went on vacation as a family. When I was eight years old, my parents sent me off for an eight-week summer camp session in Eagle River, Wisconsin, where I learned all the dirty words if not their precise meanings. None of these things made me unhappy or in any way dampened my spirits. I cannot recall ever thinking of myself as an unhappy kid.My mother never read to me, and my father took me to no ballgames, though we did go to Golden Gloves fights a few times. When I began my modest athletic career, my parents never came to any of my games, and I should have been embarrassed had they done so. My parents never met any of my girlfriends in high school. No photographic or video record exists of my uneven progress through early life. My father never explained about the birds and the bees to me; his entire advice on sex, as I clearly remember, was, "You want to be careful."
At roughly the age of 11, I had the run of the city of Chicago, taking buses, streetcars, or the El with friends to Wrigley Field, downtown, or to nearby neighborhoods for Saturday afternoon movies. Beginning at 15, the age when driver's licenses were then issued in Chicago, I had frequent use of my mother's cream-and-green Chevy Bel-Air, which greatly expanded my freedom. I don't recall either of my parents asking me where I had been, or with whom, even when I came in at early morning hours on the weekends.
When we were together, at family meals and at other times, we laughed a lot, my parents, my brother, and I, but we did not openly exhibit exuberant affection for one another. We did not hug, and I do not remember often kissing my mother or her kissing me. Neither my mother nor my father ever told me they loved me; nor did I tell them that I loved them. I always assumed their love, and, as later years would prove, when they came to my aid in small crises, I was not wrong to do so.
I did not seek my parents' approval. All I wished was to avoid their--and particularly my father's--disapproval, which would have cut into my freedom. Avoiding disapproval meant staying out of trouble, which for the most part I was able to do. Punishment would have meant losing the use of my mother's car, or having my allowance reduced, or being made to stay home on school or weekend nights, and I cannot remember any of these things ever happening, a testament less to my adolescent virtue than to the generous slack my parents cut me.
My emphasis above. Boy, does that hit the nail on the head!
This generational dichotomy is oft discussed in my own home. My wife is what I call (well, someone else made up the term) a "helicopter parent." She feels the need to be at every single event our daughter is involved in, frequently at the expense of other matters. This has led to some spousal conflicts as you might imagine. For instance, daughter might have a parent "visiting day" for her dance class. According to wife's philosophy, I am to drop everything and make sure I attend this visitation. Now, keep in mind that there are several visitations throughout the year, and what we see in the visitation we ultimately see at the big dance recital at the end of the year. The reason (or "excuse") that I may have students after school for extra help, or have some other school business to attend to, is not a valid one to miss visitation -- according to the wife.
Such a situation would be unimaginable to my own parents. My father would be too exhausted after work and/or had to give guitar lessons upon his arrival home. (Yeah, my dad is a pretty good guitar player!) Mom was a stay-at-home mom, but she had my two sisters to worry about. Like Epstein, it was a rarity for either of my folks to attend one of my little league games; I usually had to ride my bike to the games, as it were. Same with my school track meets. I only remember my dad being at a track meet one time, and the fact that I knew he was coming sort of made it "special."
And y'know what? I never held any grudges for my folks not being at my events. Not at all. I knew they had other commitments. Indeed, I was thankful that they ponied up the cash for my little league participation, and my track spikes for the running season! As Epstein notes,
Parents generally didn't feel under any obligation to put heavy pressure on their children. Nor, except in odd, neurotic cases, did they feel any need to micromanage their lives. My own father once told me that he felt his responsibilities extended to caring for the physical well-being of my brother and me, paying for our education, teaching us right from wrong, and giving us some general idea about how a man ought to live, but that was pretty much it. Most fathers during this time, my guess is, must have felt the same.
I attempt to abide by this idea, although I am clearly at odds with my generation, wife included. I make it clear to our daughter what's expected and if something doesn't happen as it should, there are consequences. But on the other hand, when daughter does something good, there are small rewards (NOT something like MTV's utterly ridiculous "My Sweet Sixteen") and a general attitude to "keep up the good work." For instance, daughter only received one "B" all year in her classes. (Yep, the rest were "A's" ... pretty good, eh?) Helicopter mom, however, was constantly checking daughter's grades online (two-three times per week), hovering over her when she was doing homework, and insisting on when she did her homework. My retort to this was: "She's gotten one 'B' all year. She's obviously doing something right. Why not leave her alone?"
But, again, it's my wife's attitude that is the prevalent one in today's age, not mine. I'm in the minority. I'm seen as some sort of ogre (and not just by my wife) if I don't "push" daughter to, say, play softball ... or run track ... or join the swim club swim team, and just about everything else that is humanly possible. "You have to show her!" I'm told.
I do? Sorry if I'm sort of showing off here, but my daughter is one smart cookie. She knows what she likes and what she doesn't. If she wants to try something, I'll certainly back her up, get her what she needs, and assist her with any training/advice.
Those with my wife's attitude abound in schools today. They micromanage their kids' homework, want daily or weekly reports from teachers on their children's academic and social progress, and perhaps worst of all will back their children in any conflict (academic or behavioral) with a teacher or administrator. Epstein recognizes this:
School is the pressure point. More and more teachers in grade and high schools complain not about the children they are asked to teach, but about the endless contact with children's parents. Parents are in situ, on the scene, unstintingly on the job. "How come Corey only got a B in physics? He's always been so wonderful in science." "Why isn't Lettice a better speller? Her father won the state spelling bee in Iowa." One wonders how many teachers have been driven out of the profession by parents' bombarding them with emails, phone calls, and requests for meetings?
Despite the wonderful accolades I receive at the end of a school year, I certainly get my fair share of those instances noted above, as well. Some of my favorites are "Your class is the only one [name] is not doing well in." "You're the only teacher who gave her a 'D.'" (I always like that "gave" part as if the child's study habits and work ethic had absolutely not a thing to do with the bad grade.) "My son says you're picking on him." (I do tend to "pick on" kids who constantly disrupt class -- "pick on" them to leave my class and go to the Time Out Room.)
Point of note: I don't want readers to think I am being unfair to my wife. It's an honest disagreement, but one that has legitimately caused the most consternation between us over the last thirteen years. But certainly, I feel that my perspective on the matter is the right one (else I wouldn't advocate/write about it, natch), and that hers is [partly] responsible for the generation of milksops we are raising today. I am fortunate that I work with a lot of teachers who share my view; however, the problem we all face is that ours is a distinct minority in the realm of education in general.
I am genuinely interested in what our readers think, so comment away.
One of the cool things about being a teacher: You always get that giddy feeling around the end of May/beginning of June that the [school] year is almost over. It's now officially over! And, frankly, I'm exhausted. I slept ten hours last night, and just got up from a two hour nap. My teaching load this year was the heaviest I've had in many years, and now that I'm in my mid-40s, it's not as easy handling that as it was when I was, say, 29!
This exhaustion, coupled with how my overall teaching load didn't allow for as many close relationships with students as I've had in past years, makes getting student/parent thank you letters a bit more "emotion-inducing" this particular end of the year. In other words, a few actually brought a tear or two to my eye(s). Here's a brief sampling:
Thank you for being such a patient, compassionate, and humorous teacher! [Name] often shared with me your funny stories, jokes and comments. I have always prayed that my son had the best teachers, and every time that prayer has been answered! You answered that prayer!
When I needed help staying after school you were always there to stay with me until I knew every little bit and piece of what I needed help on. I am going to end this letter with what another past student said about you: You are the #1 Best Teacher in the World!
I'm so glad I was in your class. You taught me how much fun Spanish can be. When I didn't understand a concept you helped me with it. I really appreciate that. And, you're the funniest teacher I ever had!
ˇMuchas gracias! You were my favorite teacher this year, hands down. You definitely know how to make "not the funnest" subject exciting. You were always making other students, as well as myself, laugh. You're a wonderful teacher who knows how to keep entertaining.
Thank you for teaching me Spanish for two years. I really appreciate the way you have taught your classes. There wasn't a single day when your class was boring, unlike many of my other classes.
I liked how you find lots of different ways to teach us that are not just taking notes and being lectured. One of my favorite things in your class was when you taught us the proper verb form endings. You made up that song and started to dance on top of the heater and windowsill. That was SO funny!
Thank you for a great school year. I was ecstatic when I found out I had you as a teacher. I felt this way because I heard from all my friends you were awesome. Out of all the teachers I had I think you are the coolest. The class can be hard sometimes but you make it a good time. I learned a lot and will be prepared for more Spanish next year. Thanks for making Spanish so great and interesting.
I think I'm getting emotional again ...!
This is what makes, what can be a most difficult profession, all worthwhile.
... the UK Faculty Union imposes an interrogation on Israeli academics about their political views.
First the Christian ministers:
A police community support officer ordered two Christian preachers to stop handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham.The evangelists say they were threatened with arrest for committing a "hate crime" and were told they risked being beaten up if they returned.
Minister Arthur Cunningham said, "He (the policeman) said we were in a Muslim area and were not allowed to spread our Christian message. He said we were committing a hate crime by telling the youths to leave Islam and said that he was going to take us to the police station."
So, somehow, wishing to spread the gospel is a "hate crime," yet when Britain's largest college faculty union imposes a political test on a single country's academics, well ...
Britain's major faculty union was called "racist" and "McCarthyite," reports the Chronicle of Higher Education, after its approval last week of a resolution asking members to interrogate Israeli academics on their political views before collaborating with them.A Jewish organization in Britain, Academic Friends of Israel, condemned the new policy as a "blatant McCarthyite demand" that is "discriminatory, anti-Semitic, and, we believe, in clear violation of the UK Race Relations Act." It noted that the union did not call for similar questioning of academic colleagues in any other nation, no matter how grave its human-rights violations. Specifically, at the same meeting where the policy toward Israeli professors was adopted, the union leaders passed resolutions expressing support for academics and citing human-rights abuses in Cuba, Darfur, Egypt, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe. Yet the union did not posit that potential academic collaborators in those nations be questioned like Israeli academics.
Because it's those Joooooos, again, don't you get it? Somehow, someway in the UK, Muslims cannot be in any way offended, passing out Christian pamphlets is "hate," and Jewish/Israeli professors are specifically singled out for political interrogation.
Can we now thank those quite wise Founders for instituting that little thing called the First Amendment ... ?
Minding the Campus has the debate.
Defending the UD program is John Wilson, founder of the Institute for College Freedom.
Ripping the UD program is Adam Kissel, director of FIRE's Individual Rights Defense Program.
FIRE's Adam Kissel reports:
FIRE is very pleased that the University of Delaware Faculty Senate has delayed a vote on the deeply flawed Residence Life proposal for next year, as I requested. The campus now has a bit less than a week to genuinely debate it. I hope that sincere debate ensues and that Faculty Senate leaders and upper-level administrators do not try to keep pushing the proposal through.As I have written before, the proposal is soaked in a highly politicized social and political agenda around the idea of "sustainability" as the correct model for "citizenship." A good number of Senate faculty, and one courageous student, spoke up against the program at yesterday's Senate meeting.
I am told that students will be coming out to make their voices heard, and I hope that there is ample time next week for all points of view to be heard.
The Associated Press picked up the story, which has been published by the Delaware News Journal. The UD Review also has published an original article on the story, along with a photo of the students who arrived with literature in protest against the proposal. The National Association of Scholars (NAS) has announced the news here. The point was amply made that in the proposal and for ResLife, sustainability is not just about the environment, as reported by the NAS:
Professor Matt Robinson, chairman of the Faculty Senate Student Life Committee, who presented the new Res Life proposal[,] offered the bold claim that, "The concept of sustainability, that's only speaking in terms of environmental." His attempt to package the new program as only conservation and environmental preservation, however, didn't persuade skeptical faculty members who had taken the trouble to read the details. They replied that the term sustainability is being used to sneak in "a curriculum of indoctrination" similar to the one President Harker suspended in November.The student who spoke up also sent a letter to the Faculty Senate. Here are some thoughtful excerpts addressed mainly to those who defended the program:
You also argued that the definition of sustainability is limited to environmental aspects, but this is not shown anywhere in the plan. Additionally, RAs are taught during their intensive two weeks of training in the fall that sustainability has three components: environmental, social and economic. RAs are to implement this broad notion of sustainability into their position as an influential peer. Although the ResLife program was "shut down" RAs were never given a new definition of sustainability or told to limit their sustainability education with residents to include only environmental aspects. Furthermore, it is clearly illustrated in the current Spring Plan as well as the proposed plan for next year that sustainability is a highly politicized term with broad interpretations relating to a specific political id[e]ology.
You consistently claimed that the problem lies with the implementation plan which is different than the program plan. This is not the case. You can insert the word "optional" in the document hundreds of times, but that does not change the nature of the department. Regardless of how optional floor meetings and programs are, RAs are judged as successful or unsuccessful based upon their ability to get residents to do what ResLife wants...
You have engaged the student population very little throughout this entire process. Any student you talk to usually has a very strong opinion on the topic of Residence Life, yet only a select group of people were allowed to take part in the creation of a future plan. I am very interested in the future direction of the program and I am an active student leader on campus, yet I was never once invited to provide feedback or personal insight into the process of creating the proposed plan. Many other students feel this way as well.
I would like to make a few suggestions. [...] Students pay thousands to get a comprehensive education in the classroom, and if they are passionate about a particular subject, they can join a student group related to their interests. Each residence hall complex has a community council which can take charge of implementing programming that interests students without carrying a political agenda. Resident Assistants are not qualified to "educate" other students and they should not be burdened with such an impossible task as RAs do not even have a bachelor's degree.
As FIRE, the National Association of Scholars, and others on and off campus have argued, it will be a good thing if the proposal is rejected and ResLife continues doing what it reportedly has been doing this spring: running a traditional residential program that does not try to inculcate politicized values into students, a program that does not try to make students conform to ResLife's favorite thoughts, values, attitudes, beliefs, and actions. That seems to me to be what students want-not pizza parties where signs are posted that explain the impact of the party on the environment, not career counseling that pushes sustainability careers as the only ones that responsible citizens would choose, and not floor meetings where students are told they have to opt out of social time with their fellow residents if they don't want to be bombarded with ResLife's sustainability agenda.
I strongly believe that once the members of the Faculty Senate carefully consider and debate the ResLife proposal, they will conclude that this is not a proposal that can easily be salvaged in a way that respects students' freedom of conscience and academic freedom. Again, I think the Faculty Senate should reject it because it is unworthy of a great university or any school that sees itself as providing a liberal arts education.
So reports FIRE:
Following the attention given by the Delaware Association of Scholars to the University of Delaware Residence Life position called "Graduate Assistant for Diversity Initiatives," the university has removed the job description from its website. Fortunately, we have an archived copy here. The position's responsibilities include(d) "Resource Development," which include(d) the following:a.. Serve as a resource in the area of multicultural and diversity issues for Residence Life staff members and residence hall students.
b.. Develop resource files for programs and workshops on such topics as:
a.. Inter-Cultural Communication
b.. Stereotyping
c.. Oppression
d.. Prejudice Reduction
e.. Privilege
f.. Ally-building
g.. Heterosexism/Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Awareness
h.. Racism
i.. Ageism
j.. Ability Differences
k.. HIV/AIDS Awareness
l.. Sexism
m.. Values Clarification
n.. Multicultural Jeopardy
o.. Classism
p.. Collaborate with various campus offices to create a monthly diversity programming calendar.Readers may remember that last fall, when ResLife was under pressure, it also began removing controversial and incriminating documents from its website.
Once again, such news confirms reports I have heard that ResLife officials are doing everything possible to run the same program they ran last year but with as much hidden as possible. That's the opposite of the new transparency that ResLife reportedly has promised.
That shouldn't come as much of a surprise. That's how the radical multi-cultis and diversophiles have to operate -- in secret. Any "disinfecting" sunlight shows what a total joke their programs and philosophies truly are, "valuable" to those who can only survive in the comfortable womb of tenured academia.
It might give me some ideas ...! ;-)
A Dartmouth lecturer plans "to sue her students for workplace harassment based on 'intolerance of ideas.'" Check it:
Few of [Priya] Venkatesan's students deny disliking her; they just say it had nothing to do with race, gender, or any other federally-protected characteristic. Rather, the lecturer embodied that special brand of neurotic pedagogical tyranny that includes making rules against questions, refusing to interact with students, and, according to the D,cancellation of class for a week after the class applauded a student who contradicted Venkatesan’s opinions about post-modernism.Spontaneous applause during a class on literary criticism? Obviously, there is something very wrong with this picture, so outrageously shocking as to shake Venkatesan to her very core: In a class at an Ivy League university, students were paying attention. Worse: They were engaged, and they cared.
"I was horrified," Venkatesan said. "My responsibility is not to stifle them, but when they clapped at his comment, I thought that crossed the line ... I was facing intolerance of ideas and intolerance of freedom of expression." ...She canceled class because the incident caused her "intellectual and emotional distress," she said.Then again, being outsmarted by a room full of eighteen-year-olds must be pretty humiliating. A kinder choice would have been emitting a spontaneous snore or two, then preoccupying themselves with a more innocuous form of disrespect, like text messaging during class or ostentatious yawning.
But c'mon -- is it really any F'in wonder that this sort of crap is happening in higher academia today? College administrators virtually invite it with their inane speech codes, behavior codes, sensitivity seminars, and diversity training.
I believe the phrase is "hoisted on their own petard."
TB tests planned after Galena Park student tests positive.
About 300 Galena Park High School students and staff members will be tested for tuberculosis as a precaution after a student tested positive for the disease earlier this month.Workers with Harris County Public Health & Environmental Services will perform the skin tests on May 5 on those who have had the most contact with the infected student during the spring semester, said Craig Eichhorn, spokesman for the Galena Park school district. The results will be determined on May 7.
The test date was chosen because health officials didn't want to interfere with upcoming TAKS testing and wanted to give parents plenty of time to turn in consent forms, Eichhorn said. (Link.)
Gotta get those tests done, eh? No Child Left Behind and all, y'know! Hopefully, no one will get infected with TB during testing.
Sheesh.
Who knew that the Tucson (Arizona) Unified School District had a "Raza" Studies program? "Raza" means "race" literally, but its meaning in English sounds harsher than the Spanish equivalent. It probably best translates to "the people," obviously meaning Latinos/Hispanics. At any rate, this program has miffed one Rep. Russell Pearce (R) who has intro'd a bill in the AZ House that would ban the program, and essentially "would keep Arizona public schools from teaching anything that is anti-Democratic or counter to Western civilization."
Say whaaaa ...?? OK, tell me how one is going to determine that.
I don't know which is dumber -- Pearce's bill, or the silly program which spawned it.
Let's see what Augustine Romero, senior academic director for Ethnic Studies at TUSD, has to say about the Raza Studies program:
In reality we expose students to these materials so they understand where things have been and where we're trying to move away from. We want to become more inclusive and at the same time want students to be fully aware of barriers that can be out there and know how to remove these barriers.
Translation: America is a racist nation. It was founded thusly, and continues to be so today. The gringos not only stole land from the Native American, but they stole yours, too. The gringo doesn't want to give you a fair shot. You'll never make it in America. The only way to be successful in this country is to put into practice what brother Che created, the glorious revolution. Only then will the Greater Aztlán come into being.
We honestly believe we are doing the right thing for our children. First we want better academic success, and how to accomplish that is through the development of a cultural identity and an intensified and elevated sense of purpose, which creates a stronger sense of hope in these students. That, at the essence, is what we're about and I don't see how people can question it.
Translation: Only Hispanics can properly teach Hispanics. It is the only way they can succeed. Just please don't ask how it is that Asians, Jews and other minorities manage to be so successful without "role model" teachers. There's no answer for that. At any rate, the whole "cultural identity thing" means that kids will learn about things that really don't pertain to making them successful in the mainstream American culture and economy, but they'll certainly feel good about themselves.
Any program in schools that fosters separatism from the American cultural and economic mainstream is ultimately a failure. Kids may have their self-esteem boosted and take pride in their ethnic and cultural heritage, but if they have difficulty with English and don't have the basic education to get a college degree and hence a good-paying job, alas ...?
Place your vote in the comments -- which is dumber, the Raza Studies program, or a state rep. wasting time on passing a bill which would withhold state cash to districts/schools that teach anything which deemed [the ever-nebulous] "anti-Western" or "anti-democratic"?
This time it's part of their ridiculous "speech code." Brace yourselves:
The University of Delaware has revised a speech code that used to classify "[a]ny instance that is perceived by those involved as being racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, or otherwise oppressive" as an emergency equal to fire, suicide attempts, and alcohol overdose. This code was blatantly unconstitutional and about as absurd as you can get in 20 words or less, for these reasons:(Link.)
- This language is overbroad because "oppressive" is not a clear term on which to base judgments of one's language or actions.
- "Perceived by those involved" is an improper, unconstitutional standard for determining whether a statement or action truly is a violation.
- Racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic language, however offensive it may seem to many persons, in itself is protected by the First Amendment.
- Classifying "sexist" occurrences on the same level as rape, requiring immediate notification on the level of fires, suicide attempts, alcohol overdose, drug busts, and so on, is ludicrous.
- Classifying so-called oppressive speech as more serious than actual fights and minor thefts is also ludicrous.
Here's the "revision" -- it now refers to "[s]ignificant bias related acts that have the potential to create a significant disturbance to the community." But the bit about who "perceives" the supposed homophobia etc. remains. Resident Assistants and students themselves are the primary "judges." This sounds eerily like some claptrap I've heard at educational "seminars" regarding similar topics. We're told that students' "perception is their reality;" in other words, what they want to be true ... is.
Who can fight that? And as FIRE notes, UD students could still be expelled for "bias-motivated" behavior:
The university still maintains a zero-tolerance policy against "hate." In the words of former president David P. Roselle: "Those who engage in acts of hatred and bias-motivated threats and behavior will be confronted, prosecuted and expelled from our community."
And when RAs and students themselves define "reality," you can bet that "hate" is all too "common." Especially when they want it to be.
John Rosenberg has the [ridiculous] story.
Charter schools are public schools. As such, they have to abide by church-state separation edicts. Well, maybe not:
Evidence suggests ... that TIZA is an Islamic school, funded by Minnesota taxpayers.TIZA has many characteristics that suggest a religious school. It shares the headquarters building of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, whose mission is "establishing Islam in Minnesota." The building also houses a mosque. TIZA's executive director, Asad Zaman, is a Muslim imam, or religious leader, and its sponsor is an organization called Islamic Relief.
Students pray daily, the cafeteria serves halal food - permissible under Islamic law -- and "Islamic Studies" is offered at the end of the school day.
Let's see ... a charter school that shared a building with a "Christian American Society of Minnesota," had a chapel in it, whose executive director was a priest, was sponsored by a group called "Christian Relief," and had "Christian Studies" at the end of the school day. The ACLU would have filed suit in a pico-second after this information was revealed.
Writer Katherine Kersten was stonewalled when she tried to visit the school to see for herself what was happening at the school; however, Amanda Getz, a substitute teacher at the school, filled her in:
Arriving on a Friday, the Muslim holy day, she says she was told that the day's schedule included a "school assembly" in the gym after lunch.Before the assembly, she says she was told, her duties would include taking her fifth-grade students to the bathroom, four at a time, to perform "their ritual washing."
Afterward, Getz said, "teachers led the kids into the gym, where a man dressed in white with a white cap, who had been at the school all day," was preparing to lead prayer. Beside him, another man "was prostrating himself in prayer on a carpet as the students entered."
"The prayer I saw was not voluntary," Getz said. "The kids were corralled by adults and required to go to the assembly where prayer occurred."
Islamic Studies was also incorporated into the school day. "When I arrived, I was told 'after school we have Islamic Studies,' and I might have to stay for hall duty," Getz said. "The teachers had written assignments on the blackboard for classes like math and social studies. Islamic Studies was the last one -- the board said the kids were studying the Qu'ran. The students were told to copy it into their planner, along with everything else. That gave me the impression that Islamic Studies was a subject like any other."
After school, Getz's fifth-graders stayed in their classroom and the man in white who had led prayer in the gym came in to teach Islamic Studies.
Eye-opening report in today's Philly Daily News about how bad discipline is in the Philadelphia schools.
After running the Philadelphia School District for more than five academic years, the School Reform Commission is flunking when it comes to properly disciplining the majority of violent students and thoroughly reporting serious crimes.That's according to a memorandum sent to the commission from the state's school-safety watchdog. The Daily News this week obtained a copy of the at-times scathing four-page confidential memorandum.
The crime-and-punishment problems have been allowed to fester even though they are known by the five-member reform commission and the top school officials who work for it, according to Safe Schools Advocate Jack Stollsteimer, author of the Jan. 15 memo.
"I have concluded that the district's disciplinary and school safety systems are illegal, unjust and in complete need of reform, the same structural and procedural reform called for in several recent studies of the district," Stollsteimer wrote.
And folks wonder why there always seems to be a teacher shortage in the district (among other major city school districts)? Check it out:
Among Stollsteimer's findings:
Scary stuff, folks.
Concerns about promoting homosexuality are actually taken to heart and acted upon! Wonder why? Oh, it's easy. The concerns come from non-Christians:
Two primary schools have withdrawn storybooks about same-sex relationships after objections from Muslim parents.Up to 90 gathered at the schools to complain about the books which are aimed at pupils as young as five.
Bristol City Council said the two schools had been using the books to ensure they complied with gay rights laws which came into force last April.
They were intended to help prevent homophobic bullying, it said.
Members of the Bristol Muslim Cultural Society said parents were upset at the lack of consultation over the use of the materials.
Farooq Siddique, community development officer for the society and a governor at Bannerman Road, said there were also concerns about whether the stories were appropriate for young children.
He added: "In Islam homosexual relationships are not acceptable, as they are not in Christianity and many other religions but the main issue is that they didn't bother to consult with parents."
I bet I know what would happen if a [primarily white] Christian group of parents had put forth the same complaints: The schools would have kept the books to comply with that UK law, and the parents would be derisively labeled as "homophobic."
Furor brewing out in Arizona: A elementary teacher in the Tuscon Unified School District has had her students say the Pledge of Allegiance in English, then Spanish, then in American Sign Language. Uh oh:
When Lance Altherr learned last week that his son was reciting the pledge in Spanish, he was outraged. He spoke with [teacher Anne] Lee and then Principal Paula Godfrey, demanding they stop the practice. They wouldn't, and Altherr moved his son to a different class. In the days before the Internet, that's where the drama would have stopped. But Altherr, who is a member of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, took his case to the Internet, sending out mass e-mails and posting on message boards. The result has been a swirling Internet controversy marked by crushing e-mails sent from across the country to Godfrey and the district. "You are pledging your allegiance, and your honor and loyalty to your country," Altherr said in a phone interview Thursday. "And I find it ironic that anybody would want to do that in a foreign language."The thing is, the United States doesn't even have an official language like most other countries do. We have a predominate language, which is, of course, English. I fail to see the "controversy" since the Pledge is FIRST recited in the country's main language, then its second most common language, then in one which hardly anyone uses (if you look at the raw figures). So why isn't Altherr upset about the Pledge being hand-signed?
Isn't the sentiment behind the Pledge much more important than the lingo in which it's recited? I might understand Altherr a bit more if the class only said the Pledge in Spanish. But they're not.
"It's really not a story," said Chyrl Hill Lander, the district's spokeswoman. "They recite the pledge in English every morning, and they recite the pledge in Spanish. After they recite it in Spanish, then they sign the Pledge of Allegiance."After Altherr raised his concerns about multilingual pledges of patriotism, Godfrey checked around on the practice. She checked with the district's legal department, and the state's Department of Education; both said it was fine. She even checked with the national office of the Veterans of Foreign Wars to ensure it wouldn't offend. The VFW gave her mixed signals on the matter.
A VFW official first said in an e-mail that it was "not disrespectful to say the Pledge of Allegiance in either" language "as long as it was stated as written."
But when the heat turned up, the VFW's national director sent the TUSD Governing Board an e-mail Thursday demanding a stop to the practice of Spanish-language pledges.
"To allow Spanish speaking adults the freedom to pledge their allegiance to our nation in their native language is completely respectful. However, to require English-speaking second-grade students to recite the Pledge in Spanish is another matter entirely," wrote Stephen Van Buskirk. "To the Veterans of Foreign Wars, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is a sacred and meaningful exercise."
Ah, but you see no one is REQUIRED to say the Pledge of Allegiance in ENGLISH either, if he/she does not want to. This has been the case for over sixty years.
As a language teacher, I think what Ms. Lee has her class do is a great idea, especially considering the ethnic make-up of the school. Predominately English speakers learn Spanish, and vice versa. Then there's American Sign Language thrown in for good measure. Again, who cares what language the Pledge is said in! Isn't it more important that our nation's many races and ethnicities actually say it at all -- and [hopefully] believe in it?
The Corner links to what is actually an old story at Fox News today:
A student and his family have filed a federal lawsuit demanding that a popular European history teacher at California's Capistrano Valley High School be fired for what they say were anti-Christian remarks he made in the classroom.Chad Farnan, a 16-year-old sophomore, says the teacher, James Corbett, told his students that “Jesus glasses” obscure the truth and suggested that Christians are more likely than other people to commit rape and murder.
Farnan recorded his teacher telling students in class: “What country has the highest murder rate? The South! What part of the country has the highest rape rate? The South! What part of the country has the highest rate of church attendance? The South!” Farnan said he took the tape recorder to class to supplement his class notes.
I knew that sounded familiar, so I utilized the handy Colossus search function and found this from back in December. I think a lawsuit is going quite a bit too far, even if the offended student actually has what this teacher said on tape.
Speaking of lawsuits: The ten-year old girl in the downstate Delaware Indian River School District who supposedly overheard a teacher telling other students that she would not vote for Barack Obama because "he is a Muslim" (and whose sisters wrote a letter to the editor of a downstate paper about it, and whose mother, Dina Odetalla, subsequently filed a complaint with the district) didn't have any such proof other than her word. (By the way, The Wave newspaper refused to run the sisters' letter because they could not confirm its accuracy. The Cape Gazette didn't have the same scruples, apparently.) In addition, this mother had previously complained to the district because a geography teacher -- who had planned a unit on the 9/11 attacks -- wanted to include the "hatreds that go back to Biblical times." She accused this teacher of (in a meeting, not in class) insulting "our religious beliefs in front of my daughter and called our prophet a "killer and a marauder."
When these predictable cretins jumped all over this story, I did just a tad bit of checking and found out that there is a bit more to this woman's story than is being told (via the Wilmington News Journal and other media outlets, that is). Also, is it just a wild coincidence that Mrs. Odetalla has three daughters -- just like the Muslim family that sued the nearby Cape Henlopen District almost two years ago?
Consider -- from the Cape lawsuit:
The lawsuit, made public Friday in U.S. District Court in Wilmington, accuses a teacher at Shields Elementary School in Lewes of equating Muslims to terrorists while instructing a fourth-grade class last school year."During the course of that lesson, students were told 'Muslims believe the Koran teaches war and hatred'; 'Muslims believe that people who do not practice Islam are evil,' " the lawsuit said.
From the Indian River complaint:
... [the teacher] "attacked our religious beliefs in front of my daughter and called our prophet a "killer and a marauder."
In the Cape suit, the family
"suggested ... that her daughter ... would make a balanced presentation explaining the Muslim religion to the classroom, to boost her self-esteem, [but] it was expressed that such an action would be inappropriate, in that it would 'open a can of worms.' "
In the Indian River complaint,
Odetalla wrote that she repeatedly tried to address concerns about a planned weeklong unit on the Sept. 11 attacks that was planned for a geography class at Selbyville Middle School. One of Odetalla's daughters was in the class. Odetalla wrote that the teacher told her "if I didn't like the teaching I should remove my daughter from the classroom."
If I were a betting man, I'd wager that this family is one and the same. My posts about the Cape Henlopen situation indicated that the plaintiff family had some merit to their case, based on what I was able to find out. But if this family is the same as the one in Indian River, then my BS detector is beginning to buzz. These situations seem a bit too convenient; or to put it another way, some might be engaging is what is known as "hypersensitivity."
This week's offering comes courtesy of University of Delaware associate professor Alan Fox, who defends the university's "revamping" of its Residence Life program:
As president of the University of Delaware Faculty Senate, I was extremely disappointed in the editorial that rushed to judgment regarding the University of Delaware's Residence Life program, while remaining ignorant of the issues involved ("UD should outright repudiate student indoctrination efforts," March 23).The fact that the program was pulled and changes are being made is evidence that we repudiate the past program. The University of Delaware is definitely not going to be telling freshmen what they should think or say about gender and race.
One student was quoted as saying, "It's basically going to be the same crap, different people" – as though an embittered student is now the expert.
You just gotta love the elitist attitude of Fox. He totally dismisses a student's viewpoint of the program because he's not an "expert." In other words, the student is somehow incapable of recognizing that the crap spewed in the "new" Residence Life program is merely a regurgitation of the same previous refuse. And Fox's attitude has already been on display. Keep in mind that the university isn't "revamping" this program out of some sudden altruism; they're doing it because they got caught and called out on it, notably by the libertarian-leaning free speech group FIRE.
One telling item on Fox's "new and improved" list is the note that Shakti Butler's materials -- on whose program the UD one was modeled -- shouldn't even have been mentioned on the UD website. In other words, Fox and UD are saying "We're fearful that parents of UD students are not enlightened enough to fully grasp Butler's source material." Or, to put it another way, "We're worried that people will think that Butler's program is total crap, and thus allowing the public to view it may result in parents saying 'No way my kid is going to UD!'" Just take a quick gander at Butler's background: she has a PhD from the School of Transformative Learning and Change at the California Institute of Integral Studies. Riiiiiiight.
Fox notes that the revamped program "also are emphasizing citizenship and strategies for living together, rather than focusing narrowly on diversity and gender." Oh. Or, more likely, "We've merely switched the vocabulary to make it all 'more palatable.'"
I really do hope Fox is sincere. But the dogma and philosophy of those in [university] academia is what got UD into hot water in the first place (not to mention too many other universities across the country). The "improvement" about not including Shakti Butler's program on the university website, and merely changing program vocabulary to me indicates a less than forthright effort. Sunshine, as they say, is the best disinfectant, and it still doesn't seem UD likes a lot of sunshine.
Previous UD thought control program coverage here, here, here and here.
... again. John Rosenberg, as usual, nails it -- and hard (my emphasis):
According to this report in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Hampshire College students walked out of class today to protest the administration’s “insufficient commitment to fighting racism.”Among other things, the students were calling for additional faculty and staff positions in multicultural affairs, mandatory “anti-oppression training” for all employees, and residence halls exclusively for students of color and for “queer-identified” students.If Hampshire College administrators, faculty, librarians, secretaries, janitors, etc., have been oppressing anyone, I’m all in favor of someone teaching them how to stop. But maybe someone could explain to me how racially segregated dorms will increase “diversity.”
If “queer-identified” students deserve a dorm of their own, what about “straight-identified” students? Shouldn’t they be able to have a dorm of their own, i.e., one that excludes “queer-identified” students? Moreover, shouldn’t there be separate dorms for black “queer-identified” students and Hispanic “queer-identified” students? Without such separate dorms, those students would be forced to reject one of their core identities. And let’s not forget the Jews....
I know I've said it at least once, but it's just too damn easy to pick out how ridiculous these university-oriented diversophiles are. Diversity is "all-important," but we must have separate dorms. Diversity is omniscient, but Historically Black Colleges are necessary. Predominately white faculty are "oppressive," even though the vast majority of them are leftist/progressive (it must be that "white privilege" thing).
Fish. Barrel. Shoot.
I first wrote about this in early October, and I titled it "Place Your Bets." Columbia Professor Madonna Constantine first "found" a noose hanging on her office door shortly before; now, it's becoming more evident that the "incident" was an "inside job":
A Manhattan grand jury has subpoenaed the university records of the controversial black Columbia Teachers College professor who found a noose hanging from her office door - signaling that the investigation is broadening to examine possible links between the teacher, her closest friends and the racially charged incident, The Post has learned.According to sources, the subpoenas obtained recently by the NYPD Hate Crimes Task Force and prosecutors demanded the college hand over a laundry list of records pertaining to embattled professor Madonna Constantine, whose colleague found a 4-foot hangman's noose on her office doorknob last October.
The incident happened at the height of the school's probe of plagiarism charges against her.
Sources said the records would provide investigators with a timeline on the tightly guarded 18-month plagiarism probe and what Constantine - one of only two tenured black Teachers College professors - stood to possibly lose if she were found guilty and her job were threatened.
The revelation that Constantine had been under university review provides a possible motive for a sympathetic friend to consider placing a noose on her door - thinking it could whip up support for her, sources said.
Jammie Wearing Fool states what I think is the obvious: Prediction: Someone close to Constantine or Constantine herself will be found to have placed the noose there, and they'll somehow blame it on racism and a climate of intolerance.
That's indeed how it works. (Also see the very first link above!) Constantine and her supporters will state that "it's not really important who hung the noose" (even if it's Constantine herself) because the "overriding theme -- institutional racism -- needs to be highlighted at all costs."
The ACLU is suing the School District of Palm Beach County in Florida because its graduation rate "is too low":
In a class-action lawsuit, the American Civil Liberties Union is demanding that the district boost its graduation rates and reduce the gaps in those rates between racial and socioeconomic groups. The lawsuit is the first in the United States to make such demands of a school district, the ACLU and other sources say.Lawyers from the national ACLU and its Florida chapter filed the suit in state court on March 18. Specifically, the ACLU is asking the court to require the district to improve its graduation rates by a certain percentage each year – overall and for subgroups. It also wants the court to determine a more accurate way of calculating graduation rates – a complex issue nationwide.
PBC's stats essentially mirror those of districts across the nation, so one wonders why the "Guardian of the Bill of Rights" decided to sue the Florida district. And what percentages would the ACLU find "acceptable?" They do not say. But we get a glimpse of their mindset courtesy of Vanita Gupta, an ACLU staff attorney. She says PBC needs to "live up to its constitutional obligations [in Florida] to provide a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high-quality education."
Emphasis mine. It appears that the ACLU is using the term "uniform" to signify "equal outcome." In other words, graduation rates should be uniform (or, as close to "uniform" as possible, whatever that might mean to the ACLU ... who can ever tell) across ethnic and racial groups. Equal opportunity for education isn't sufficient.
The ACLU backs its claim by noting "a number of school districts with demographics similar to Palm Beach's that have higher graduation rates and smaller gaps." Gee, 'ya think? There are myriad factors involved in determining graduation rates and academic performance. But have no fear -- the ACLU doesn't put it all on schools:
"The ACLU has never said parents have zero role, but the school districts have a tremendous role in ensuring that as many as possible are graduating," Ms. Gupta says.
And you know what schools under a frivolous lawsuit will do to "ensure" that more students are graduating, Ms. Gupta? Three guesses, and the first two don't count.
... at the University of Colorado at Silver Springs for the ninth annual White Privilege Conference in Springfield, Mass.!
I gotta admit, I was a little concerned at first, but what a relief -- the website clearly says "This conference is not about beating up on white folks"!! *WHEW!* Still, I'm kinda bummed 'cause I won't be able to get a cool t-shirt like those worn in this pic. And I was really planning on taking this conference seriously -- probably about as seriously as the guy on the far right of the same picture!
Good thing I'm more than halfway to retirement, eh?
Another shake-your-head education story.
(h/t: Joanne Jacobs.)
Months after gaining national notoriety for its ridiculous freshman indoctrination program, the University of Delaware's Faculty Senate has issued [new] guidelines for a refurbished agenda (my comments in italics):
The committee's assessment of the 4-year-old program that was in place included:• Residence Life should have relied on faculty to develop the curriculum. (Better to rely on nutty leftists with DEGREES than not!)
• Qualified professionals and faculty should have led discussions. (See above.)
• Programs should have been clearly understood to be voluntary, not mandatory. (Should have been a no-brainer from the start.)
• Programs relied inappropriately on resident assistants. (See first comment.)
• Some activities and materials suggested that a particular viewpoint was correct. (You can almost hear the profs' teeth grinding with this admission!)
• The written materials of guest speaker Shakti Butler should not have been posted on UD's Web site. (Indeed! We don't want the general public to be able to read such nonsense! What were we thinking?)
The committee's recommendations for a new program include:
• Use the term "Residence Life program" instead of "curriculum." (Y'know, like "revenue enhancement" instead of "raising taxes.")
• Simplify programs from eight to two -- one for freshmen, one for upperclassmen. (Good luck, seniors!)
• Make it clear that participation in all Residence Life programs is voluntary.
(More teeth grinding here ...)• Revise learning outcomes, goals and implementation related to Residence Life, while continuing to provide learning opportunities related to study habits, personal development, citizenship, community, sustainability and diversity. (Edu-babble at its finest.)
• Identify ways to include expertise of faculty and staff in the overall Residence Life program. (Yeah, like Shakti Butler's "expertise!" Puh-lease.)
• Provide annual reports on future programs.
• Articulate clearly the activities that will be facilitated by Residence Life staff.
• Promote communication between Residence Life staff and the Student Life Committee of the Faculty Senate, with opportunity annually for the committee to review and endorse the program proposed for the following year.
All snark aside, I do hope UD can get the "laughing stock" monkey off its back as quickly as possible.
The weekly Carnival of Education is up at So You Want to Teach? I loved Learn Me Good's entry about worst parent-teacher conferences. I've tried at this blog (unlike my old one) not to delve much into my own similar experiences; let's just say that many of the anecdotes noted in the comments "rang a bell!"
As I was flipping through the Chronicle of Higher Education this morning, I came upon an article about the syllabus. (I would offer a link, but I was reading the hard copy and the Chronicle is subscriber-only anyway. If you're interested in looking it up, it's a March 14 article by Paula Wasley entitled, "The Syllabus Becomes a Repository of Legalese.")
Syllabi, it seems, have been becoming longer and more complex and the documents turn into pseudo-contracts governing the supposedly increasingly "adversarial" relationships between students and professors.
Many of you will already be familiar with this phenomenon. I do not come here to bemoan the state of education, or even the state of teacher-professor authority dynamics.
Oh no, I came here to pick on someone and to try to parse a very important concept. The someone on whom I would like to pick is Linda S. Garavalia, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Missouri at Kansas City. She is quoted -- indirectly in part, to be sure -- as saying the following:
Particularly important, she says, is the inclusion of well-thought-out policies on makeup exams, grading, and late assignments. That way, she says, "you're not asked every time a student comes to you to make an arbitrary decision."
When I read this, I realized something about Ms. Garavalia. She thinks that any decision not made in accordance with some written rule spelled out for all relevant parties is arbitrary.
Arbitrary. That's a heavy word. It can mean capricious or whimsical. More generously to Ms. Garavalia, it can also mean that "subject to personal discretion rather than a rule" or "a matter of personal judgment." (Let us also admit, however, that very few people actually use the word that way.)
But when a professor is gauging the worthiness of a student's late paper excuse without the benefit of a written policy, it is not necessarily an "arbitrary" act. Not all laws or rules must be written down in order to qualify as laws or rules.
Yes, Virginia. We have unwritten rules about behavior and expectation in society.
Mightn't it be that part of the role of the professor is to impress upon these young students some of the unwritten rules of our society? Rules such as, "Your mother's dying this morning is a good excuse for not coming to class, but your second cousin's dying last week is not a good excuse for not turning in a paper you've known about for months."
Indeed, that's not so much a "rule" in and of itself as it is the application of a principle of reasonableness -- something which, despite its wishy-washy appearance, really can serve as an objective guide to behavior once one acquires the concept in a deployable form. Yes, you have to acclimate yourself to the social definition of reasonableness, but that's part of growing up. And there's no reason to think that the professor isn't part of the social apparatus for inculcating the social definition of reasonableness into the college student.
Now, I will be the first to admit that oftentimes someone's personal judgments might seemarbitrary, but that is often because one does not understand the principle from which the person is acting. Part of the reason teenagers hate their parents (at least in many cases) is that the teenagers are going through the very painful process of learning about unspoken rules. Have you ever noticed how children past a certain age ardently argue against any rule that isn't written in stone and washed in the blood of twelve virgins? That's because unwritten rules are scary when you don't know them.
But the solution isn't to write them all down. It does no one any good to write down "Do the reasonable thing", and it's impossible to write down what all the possible reasonable and unreasonable things are. Reasonability must be acquired, as a deployable concept, through trial and error, through observation, or through harsh experience (or some combination of the three).
But that doesn't mean it's not an actual rule, and it doesn't mean that it's arbitrary. You'd think that, of all people, a professor of psychology would know that.
Via Joanne Jacobs comes another yarn of overly litigious nitwits:
To wake a snoozing student, the math teacher slapped her palm on his desk. The 15-year-old boy’s lawyer claims he suffered pain and “very severe injuries to his left eardrum” as a result and has threatened to sue the high school.“Many of us have fallen asleep in class and had the teacher wake us up. But what happened here was more in the nature of an assault and battery,” (lawyer Alan Barry) said. “My client is an extraordinarily bright young man. He’s a computer wizard who works late into the night, and that’s probably why he fell asleep.”
I find it very difficult to believe that a teacher could slap her palm on a desk so hard that it would damage someone's eardrum. If you struck a desk that hard, there'd likely be more damage to your hand than an adjacent eardrum! Only in America, folks ...
My usual method of waking slumbering students is not as ... "forceful." As I wrote in the comments at Joanne's site, when I see a snoozing pupil, I'll quietly get the class's attention, carefully walk over to the sleeping student's desk, grab his/her pencil, and delicately tickle his/her ear with it -- so they think it's an insect or something. The whole class -- including the sleepyhead student -- cracks up at the subsequent (and predictable) reaction.
But will I now have to fear being litigated for instigating acarophobia or entomophobia?
Sheesh.
The thinking of some people never ceases to amaze me:
[Maryland] State lawmakers are considering a bill that would grant free college tuition for some juvenile offenders. Supporters say it's a way to encourage troubled youth to get their lives back on track. John Dixon, Deputy Secretary for the MD Department of Juvenile Services says, "The kids the department serves face a lot of obstacles and challenges when they return to the community. This bill will allow kids who are interested in attending public institution to go there tuition free."Delegate Norm Conway is sponsoring the bill. As an educator for 39 years, he says it's important to help troubled teens make a positive transition. "They're out of their own families in many instances. You're hoping for the best possible transition and incentives that say hey if you're willing to do your part there are some opportunities out there for you."
Under the proposal, committed juveniles under the age of 21 would be eligible for free tuition at any public institution in the state. If the measure is approved, about 450 kids who are in group homes, youth centers, and residential treatment homes would be eligible for the program each year.
Meanwhile, kids who played by the rules, never got into a lick of trouble and got OK grades -- but whose families only earn a modest income -- get squat. What about these kids, lawmakers?
Don't these buffoons think about this stuff ahead of time, and realize the ridiculous message it sends? Why don't these lawmakers seek out philanthropists who can pony up the cash for such a program, instead of making us pay for freebies that aren't deserved?
P-A-R-E-N-T-I-N-G. Here's the latest:
The family of a middle school student who was given detention for wearing a T-shirt bearing the image of a gun has filed suit in federal court, accusing the school district of violating their son's freedom of speech.Donald Miller 3d, 14, went to Penn Manor High School in December wearing a T-shirt he said was intended to honor his uncle, an Army soldier fighting in Iraq.
The shirt bears the image of a military sidearm and on the front pocket says "Volunteer Homeland Security." On the back, over another image of the weapon, are the words "Special Issue Resident Lifetime License - United States Terrorist Hunting Permit - Permit No. 91101 - Gun Owner - No Bag Limit."
Officials at the Millersville school told him to turn his shirt inside out. When Miller refused, he got two days of detention.
His parents, Donald and Tina Miller of Holtwood, have accused the Penn Manor School District in a lawsuit of violating their son's First Amendment rights with a "vague Orwellian policy" that stifles patriotism and free speech.
I don't know of any school district that would allow a shirt to worn that prominently (or even didn't prominently) display[ed] a gun. Even in the pre-Columbine era this didn't happen. I am very curious why this kid's parents think this OK to wear among other 13-14 year olds in an educational setting. Aren't there [many] other ways in which to show one's patriotism? There sure are. Why not a shirt with an American flag on it with the kid's uncle's unit designation?
I hope the school district wins. It's been quite established (by the Supreme Court, among others) that schools can limit students' free speech expression if such expression is deemed a disruption to the educational environment of the school. But my issue in the post isn't so much the legal aspects of the coming case. My issue is the parents. What the hell are they thinking? I'm sorry, but for me this is yet another case of people overly focusing on their "rights," and not enough on their responsibilities.
From last year: Other parents who believe rights don't come with responsibilities.
That's the reasoning behind the Guilford County (NC) Board of Education's decision to force the school district to pay for the lunches of kids who do not happen to have money on a particular day (or days). And NO -- we're not talking about kids who already qualify for free lunches. We're talking about kids that pay full (or reduced) price for lunch.
Members of the Guilford County Board of Education argued at two March 4 meetings over whether the schools should pay to fund a rapidly expanding practice of allowing elementary and middle school students to eat regular meals without paying.At the meeting of the full board Tuesday night, board members and school staff framed the issue as either a case of hungry students who cannot afford meals, or of parents who are gaming the system to get the schools to pay for them.
But the former argument is moot for if students cannot afford the meals, then they would qualify for free lunches! A bit further down in the article, it seems the real reason for this dunderheaded decision comes forth -- and its loaded with the usual educationist theorist drivel:
Since 2003, Guilford County Schools has allowed elementary and middle school students without cash to charge meals, in order to avoid singling students out and halting meal lines.Guilford County Schools is alone on that list in that it doesn't provide alternate lunches, such as peanut butter and jelly sandwiches or vegetables, for students who charge lunches. Guilford County school officials say alternate lunches embarrass students, saddle principals with making case-by-case judgments on which students qualify, and force cashiers in meal lines to discard meals that students have been served in order to replace them with alternate meals.
Of course. We can't negatively affect a child's self esteem now, can we, no matter what. Even if it drives a school district into debt because parents that have the means are too damn lazy to either pay, or better yet, fix their own children their own lunch. Absolutely amazing.
Personally, I can perhaps understand not singling out young elementary school kids (say, grades 1-3), but eventually a line has to be drawn. And I especially liked the following comment from an article reader, which reflected my own thoughts on the matter:
I teach at an area Middle School. The kids that owe money have plenty to buy slushies, pretzles, cookies, chips, and Gatorade. They buy all of these extras and then run up a tab. The parents pay only what the regular meals cost - if that. Several of my students owe as much as $17.00, but they eat the extras every single day. Board members are out of touch with what is going on in the schools. It looks like they would ask the people that really know. Where is the money coming from?
Maybe next, school boards across the land can begin ponying up for students' i-pods, fancy sneakers and cell phones ... at least those who do not yet have such. After all, we wouldn't want the students to be "singled out" or "embarrassed," right?
Spell it with me: P-A-R-E-N-T-I-N-G.
(Thanks to faithful Colossus reader Fred Gregory for the tip!)
"I think it could end up being the most destructive welfare program ever devised," says Mac Donald.
What is she talking about? This:
A pilot program called Opportunity NYC pays low-income families cash incentives to do what many say they should be doing anyway.
- $25 dollars for attending parent teacher conferences;
- $600 for kids passing a standardized test;
- $200 for getting a yearly physical;
- All told, up to $6,000 a year in cash rewards per family.
"... what many say they should be doing anyway." Gee, 'ya think? I can't begin to describe the "Oh. My. God." feeling I got when I first heard of this.
But those in favor of the payment programs say it's hard to argue with success. In Dallas, students have been rewarded $100 for passing college prep exams for the past 12 years - with striking results."Over 30 percent are scoring over 1100 on the SAT or ACT college equivalent," said Gregg Fleisher of the National Math and Science Initiative.
Um, isn't the top score on the SAT now a 2400 and not a 1600? So a 1100 ain't exactly, um, very good ...? Even if it's based on the old 1600 score, a one-time $100 payout for passing a college prep exam is just a bit different from up to $6,000(!!) in payments for ... doing what the hell you're supposed to do. And if it's hard to "argue with success," why stop here? Why not open it up to all families, not just low-income ones? Don't we want all kids to succeed? Don't more well-to-do kids respond to such ... incentives too?
But let's take a gander at what these "payments for doing what normal people expect you to do" could mean down the road, eh?
And so on.
And what will it mean down the road for teachers? Kids saying "Pay me a dollar if you want me to stay seated"? "Give me a dollar to take out my pencil"? "I'll shut up if you gimme $5.00"??
Thankfully, the public at large seems to get it (as is usually the case; so-called educational "elites" are usually the ones who dream up these inane "ideas") as exemplified by the comment section under the story. Here's just a sampling:
Cost to get a parent to care how their child is doing in school: $25 Cost to remind a parent of the importance of physicals for their children: $200 Cost to convince a kid to do well on a test because the parent won''t: $600Taking the standard responsibility of any parent and putting it on the government and our schools...Priceless.
What ever happened to holding people responsible for their actions and in this case their lack of. This is a perfect example of a society where band-aids are the daily cure for broken arms.
Why are we so afraid of telling parents they''re doing a really bad job of parenting? And that they must do a better job, or else.
I am extremely upset at this story. To even consider paying people as incentive to parent their children is unacceptable. Library cards are free and to think tht it took a mom to be offered money in order to take her children to the library makes me ill. This type of program does not promote pride in learning and education, but rather selfishness and the feeling of entitlement in order to succeed. This is not the answer to our education problems in this country.
We are from a middle income family and we pretty much live paycheck to paycheck, but my bills are always paid. I would like someone to pay me for my son to have a physical or for passing a test. No wonder this country is so messed up. I guess it would be better for me to quite my job and become part of the economy that is lower class and have everything paid for me.
Are they going to pay my child for doing well in school although I work with her every night at home? How fair it is to the families who work hard at home and their kids are doing well. Should they too not be rewarding for performing well in the classroom? What should the teachers get for working with the disadvantaged children who come to school one to two years behind and have to pull them up to grade level in a semester. What about me? I have been a single-mother for almost three years now. I get up, cook breakfast, comb hair, get myself dressed, drop off my child and then go to work for 8 hrs. Pick her up try to get in some gym time on lunch. Go home and try to prepare somewhat of a decent meal and work on phonics, math, reading or something. What’s the difference, shouldn’t we get a little something for our hard work? Society would say no because: I have two degrees and work in the school system and "make too much money." I say it’s no different from the single mother who sits at home all day! Okay she lives in a low socio-economic situation, but she is choosing to become her situation and not change it. Her kids didn''t ask to be on this earth. I personally don’t want to be paid for something that I signed up to be: a parent! I am not leaving my child''s education up to the school. What happened to working hard for everything that you have? Paying parents and kids…please.
The National Association of Scholars takes a gander at the continuing saga of the University of Delaware Residence Life Program:
Success breeds success, and UD residence life folks decided to hold another institute in January 2008. Billed as "the Second Annual Residential Curriculum Institute," the meeting was planned to help residential life officials "to uncover the opportunities to deliver educational messages in every student interaction," beginning with the moment when students first check-in to their rooms. It was co-sponsored by the American College Personnel Association (ACPA).
If you've forgotten about the U. of D. residence life "program" and the controversy surrounding it, refresh yourself here and here. The above conference had to be moved away from the UD campus (to nearby Frazer, PA) because of the controversy. And, predictably, the individual rights group FIRE was the big "boogie man" for many speakers and attendees (since it was they who put the word out on the UD program) -- but not all of them (thankfully):
Not all the attendees were aware of who had snuffed the great candle of enlightened responsibility. One attendee explained to another that the culprit was indeed FIRE, which she characterized as a "bad organization with ties to white supremacy groups." Others did not put all the blame on FIRE, and instead blamed the UD student affairs directors for giving too much latitude to the RDs and RAs in carrying out programming.
My emphasis. Ah yes, what else to do but bring up the devious spectre of "white supremacy" when that proverbial disinfectant known as sunlight has been projected onto your program? And this attendee couldn't think of a better adjective than "bad"? Sheesh.
As they say, read the whole thing.
Via an e-mail by Soccer Dad comes word of this Dr. Helen article: Percentage of Male Teachers Hits 40-Year Low.
According to statistics recently released by the National Education Association (NEA), men made up just 24.4 percent of the total number of teachers in 2006. In fact, the number of male public school teachers in the U.S. has hit a record 40-year low. Arkansas, at 17.5 percent, and Mississippi, with 17.7 percent, have the lowest percentage of male teachers, while Kansas, at 33.3 percent, and Oregon, with 31.4 percent, boast the largest percentage of men leading the classroom.....Why the downward trend in male teaching? According to Bryan Nelson, founder of MenTeach, a nonprofit organization dedicated to recruiting male teachers, research suggests three key reasons for the shortage of male teachers: low status and pay, the perception that teaching is "women's work," and the fear of accusation of child abuse.
Many men once in the profession say they quit because of worries that innocuous contact with students could be misconstrued, reports the NEA.
In addition, the article says that men "face discrimination in the interview process." Wow.
I must admit, as a male teacher in the profession for going on 18 years now, that that "worry [of] innocuous contact with a student" turning into a complaint or outright accusation is indeed a concern. (This, by the way, is one good reason to be a member of the teachers union, whatever your politics.) Many school administrations now tell teachers not to touch students for any reason. It's sad, really, but given our [ridiculously] litigious society, a necessity. Over my years, at times I've had female students come up to me wanting to give me a hug, but I've backed away and said (tactfully, of course) "No no no -- just a handshake, please!"
The problem is worse, it seems, at the elementary school level. Some of the comments at Dr. Helen's post:
You know, I hadn't realized it until I read this column, but, growing up in the '60s, I didn't have a male teacher until junior high.
I told a co-worker of my plans to teach and maybe teach at an elementary school and the first thing she said was, "There is no way I would let my two girls be in a class with a male teacher."
And this sort of thing creates a vicious cycle where boys become convinced a young age that education is for girls. This will make the already scary male / female college population mix even worse.
And this is probably the saddest:
I spent a year and a half teaching computers to elementary school kids in Beverly Hills. i was the only male in a teaching staff of 30. Since I have that "Dad Voice." i was often called into other teacher's classes to bring order to chaos. it was a lot of fun working with the kids but near the end of the year, i was accused of "inappropriately touching" one of the little girls. i had to face the father who decided that he was going to kick my butt. i had to take the rest of the day off while it was investigated. i literally spent the weekend throwing up.fortunately for me, the administrator knew the young girl and she had a history of making unfounded charges. the child was forced to admit to her parent that she had lied in an effort to get out of doing her work. the father never apologized for his threats. The best part is that the child was forced to apologize and admit her lie in front of her entire class and her classmates treated her with the distain she deserved.
i would advise any man to avoid teaching children. the rewards are amazing but this sort of thing happens much too often. all the good feelings i had toward the experience of teaching were blown aside during that attack. and i won't forget that the father never apologized for this threats and for raising a liar.
There's also a plethora of [negative] comments about education departments at colleges as well as education majors. And many of these ring true -- nutty courses that have little-to-nothing to do with curriculum, subject matter or class management, but everything to do with "diversity," self-esteem, gender/racial/sexual "identity," and other "progressive" pedagogical claptrap. I've written about these before (numerous times), and unfortunately most of these types of ... "courses" are prevalent in the "major" of education (which usually caters to those seeking to teach at the elementary level ... usually).
I'm not certain if these types of ... "fluff" courses may turn off prospective male teachers; I can only offer my personal assessment, and that is that they certainly turned me off, the few (fortunately) I had to take in my graduate program. Maybe the innate female "nurturing" sense attracts them to these courses (or, at least makes the courses more "palatable" to them) as well as teaching elementary age kids in the first place. This sure would seem logical enough to me. (Oh no! The feminists will come after me now!) Still, kids need to see male figures in positions of authority, especially in lower-income/high-risk schools where single parent homes are the norm and not the exception.
It is amazing (well, not really) that the MSM hasn't picked up on this story. A Google News search turns up a single article -- a local news affiliate in Indiana. (A standard Google search did yield a Newsweek article on the topic.) I'd bet good money that if this story was on the shrinking percentage of women, minorities or homosexuals in education, we'd be reading about it all over.
Previously discussed at Colossus here, Politico.com has acquired the thesis of then-undergraduate Michelle LaVaughn Robinson.
Word comes from a Colossus reader about an interesting lecture at the University of Delaware next week (an e-mail that was sent to the entire UD student body):
From: James M. Jones [mailto:jmjones@psych.udel.edu]Students:
The Black American Studies(BAMS) Participatory Action Research (PAR) team, a research collective committed to evaluating the lived experiences of Blacks at the University of Delaware, has invited Rap artist, Lavell Crump, alias "David Banner", (hey -- that was The Hulk's real ID back in the 1970s TV series! -- Hube) to give a formal lecture entitled, "Cope, Conform or Resist? How Black College Students Should Think About Double Consciousness in the 21st Century," on Tuesday February 26th, 2008. The BAMS PAR team hopes that you can support this special and free event by having your students attend this event at 7pm in the auditorium of Clayton Hall.
Refreshments will be provided.
Mr. Crump's lecture has been scheduled this semester as one of several action events organized by the BAMS PAR team in response to data analyzed in an ongoing study. Results suggest Black students feel torn between holding on to an "authentic Black identity" and conforming to a more mainstream White value system in order to thrive in the college environment.
The BAMS PAR team determined that Mr. Crump would be an ideal lecturer to discuss the challenges as well as strategies on how to "keep it real" and be successful in a "professional" or what some have identified as a "White world". In addition to being a successful Hip-Hop artist, Mr. Krump is also the graduate of Southern University. Recently Mr. Crump presented on the impact of Hip-Hop music at a Congressional Sub-Committee hearing alongside intellectual heavyweights Michael Eric Dyson and Tracey Sharpley-Whiting. Mr. Crump in his music and other formal presentations has addressed not only issues related to
Hip-Hop but also Hurricane Katrina, both in Louisiana and his native Mississippi; economic poverty in the Black community; as well as the state of Black leadership.James M. Jones, Director
Black American Studies
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
302-831-2897 (ph)
302-831-6063 (fax)
www.udel.edu/BAMS
Based on what potential First Lady Michelle Obama wrote in her Princeton thesis, this sounds like it is right up her alley. But again, as I mentioned previously, universities have no one to blame but themselves for this supposed "problem" with "racial identity." And then, after inculcating in students this need to find that ethnic and racial "niche" for themselves, then we have to have conferences and lectures about the subsequent racial "confusion." Then, people write columns about being annoyed because others view them via their ethnic/racial identity. After all, what exactly does it mean by "keeping it real"? What is an "authentic Black identity"?
It's the ultimate "progressive" Catch-22; the pinnacle of the No-Win Scenario.
Columbia U. noose professor sanctioned for fraud; claims she’s a “victim of structural racism.”
Previous Colossus reports available here.
Retired Teacher Reveals He Was Illiterate Until Age 48.
His college degree? Education. What subject(s) did he teach? Social studies and ... English grammar!! (Link.)
Welcome to Colossus's second hosted Carnival of Education. While several of us (including myself) are involved in education, our blog doesn't focus exclusively on the subject. So, after perusing the Carnival, browse around, check us out, and we hope you'll come back!
Gifted Students
Mark Montgomery wonders which is better -- Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB)? One thing to keep in mind: Ask about the programs' pass rate.
In The Classroom
On the Tenure Track fills us in why teaching Government class in an election year is so easy.
Eric over at Teachers Call has some lesson ideas for language teachers on how to get the most out of CALL lessons.
Messy classroom? Don't worry. Just venture on over to Just a Substitute Teacher Blog and get some tips on keeping your room clean!
History is Elementary has a great history lesson plan that is tailored for the "Multiple Intelligences" approach.
muse at me-ander showed "Men of Honor" to her 10th grade class in Israel. The flick's theme: "Be the best."
Mathew Needleman begins his series on integrating video into the classroom by showing you some of his (and his classes') work -- and how they did it.
Darren at Right on the Left Coast serves up an anecdote that I've also experienced: The kid who feels that he gets "frustrated" if the kid asks a question in class. His explanation may have many a teacher going "I've done that!" like it did me; however, if I may add, there's nothing more [personally] frustrating than a student who constantly pays little to no attention in class, and then complains to me "I don't get it."
I love anecdotes like this one from Learn Me Good. I burst out laughing when I read it, mainly 'cause I've seen similar things all too often!
The Reading Zone wonders why reading in class is considered by some to be "a waste of time." RZ is heading on a fellowship for a few days and wonders how the substitute will handle 25 minutes of SSR.
Ms. Teacher informs us what she did when her class misbehaved when a substitute was there. Perhaps one of the misdeeds was some of her kids misspelling the word "assign"?
Inside The Profession
Wow. Be sure to check out this powerful post from Scenes From the Battlefield. Blogger "oldandnew" writes about teaching in tough UK schools, and this Carnival entry is about having dreams about chaos in his class. Except that it's not quite accurate. O&N says "I dream that I have a class that simply won’t respond to anything I do to control them, or even to quieten them down." How many of you have had that dream? I sure have. It's usually before the school year starts or at times of heightened stress during the year. It's a freaky experience to be sure.
Friends of Dave says Parents Aren't to Blame for Academic Failure. He dissects three recent articles that show how "underachieving" public schools can indeed be successful -- and, by making these schools successful parents will get involved. Joanne Jacobs has still more.
Darren from Right on the Left Coast is back with a little tidbit every teacher's gotta love when it happens to them: You run into a kid who had you in class years ago, and they inform you that you were their favorite.
Eduwonkette offers up her Value-Added Bucket List; in other words, how do we measure teacher effectiveness?
Median Sib discusses R.T.I. -- "Response To Intervention." In a nutshell, it deals with IDing the struggling students as soon as possible to get them the help they need.
Pat at Successful Teaching offers some advice on resolving conflicts with teaching colleagues.
Greg Laden discusses the trend in online learning. In brief, the opinions about such learning are as diverse as the delivery methods of the online instruction.
I really enjoyed this post by Bellringers which discusses elementary school "re-enactments" and a Super Bowl-inspired Top Five [teaching/student anecdote] list!
The Tempered Radical ponders what happens when middle school teachers attempt to come to a consensus about grading and late policies. Read about his policies and compare 'em to yours!
The Core Knowledge Blog details some ... unusual trends in the responses by students as to who the "most famous" Americans are. Has our culture become "where a basic knowledge of history was considered a vital precursor to effective participation in our democracy, to an anti-academic orientation that views history as unimportant, useful only as a means of correcting historical injustices"?
My own post for this Carnival is my reaction to teachers in Dallas not being allowed to give students a grade of "zero."
Kid Culture
Ever watch MTV's "My Super Sweet 16"? I have, and in my opinion it is one execrable program. These folks agree with me, and how.
Laureen at Life Without School takes a look at "DNs" -- "Digital Natives" who are [this era's] technological wizards, so to speak. It's a terrific glimpse at how instant communication (and the proliferation of it) is rapidly transforming our culture.
Higher Ed.
Planning on studying abroad? You might want to check out these 69 study abroad tips from SchoolisHard.com. They're all common sense, good tips, and I know from experience. I spent the spring semester of my junior [college] year in a Spanish-speaking country, and it was possibly the greatest decision I ever made!
Mamacita (I love that blog handle!) at Scheiss Weekly just gave her first writing assignment to the students of her new semester class. Make sure you know what a Patronus is before you stop by!
Dave Saba at American Board for Certification for Teacher Excellence has two updates: "The Virginia Tech Effect," and that applications to colleges are rising.
Homeschooling
NerdMom fills us in on what she plans to do to celebrate Pancake Day! (She also has a link to check out her recipe for Almond Buttermilk Pancakes! Yum!)
***************
That's all, folks! Thanks for stopping by! If you wanna submit a post for next week's Carnival, click here to use the handy submission form.
We'll be hosting our second Carnival of Education -- one of the bigger and better blog carnivals out there -- tomorrow. If you have an education-related post you'd like to submit, do so by 6pm this evening. But, if not, just tune in bright and early for all the excellent education links!
If I taught in Dallas I would. That is, to give a kid less than 50%:
Dallas teacher representatives asked trustees Thursday to reconsider a policy that prevents teachers from giving students who are failing any grade lower than a 50.Currently, students can receive a grade no lower than 50 for any marking period, even if they do no work. District officials said that's a long-standing policy meant to give students who bomb their work early in the semester a chance to earn a passing grade if they clean up their acts.
If students received a grade of zero for the first six-week grading period, for example, they would be unable to pass the class even if they produced near-perfect work in the rest of the course. Administrators fear kids would realize that and give up entirely.
That one sentence unfortunately demonstrates how clueless some administrators really are. I mean, consider: In order to get a grade of zero for an entire marking period, you'd have to do 100% NOTHING. Absolutely zilch. And administrators think that's... OK?? You do ZIP and you still get a 50%?? But these wise sage-like administrators think some don't "fear" that kids know precisely what they're doing -- meaning, they'll do that 100% nothing, still get a 50% for half the year, then kick it in gear a bit towards the end of the year to "salvage" a passing grade? That's just how it is, trust me. And all the while they should've gotten exactly what they deserved: A big fat "F."
"The only reason this policy exists is to give kids a chance to recover from a short-term failure," district curriculum chief Denise Collier said. "A student who gets a zero or a 20 has absolutely no hope of passing."Superintendent Michael Hinojosa agreed.
Even when students receive 50s, "they still have to work double-time to pass," he said. "Are we interested in seeing kids fail or seeing them be successful?"
Again, I have little to no sympathy for a kid who gets a zero -- because it means he/she has done zero. A kid who gets a 20% also deserves little sympathy because he/she has done close to zero. Just take a gander at Hinojosa's statement above. Talk about your ridiculous "logic"! What teacher wants to see a kid fail? But teachers also desire to expose their students to real world consequences. Like, doing nothing will result in nothing -- you get fired from your job, you get your car repossessed, etc.
I know of no teacher that will fail a student that has worked his/her tail off, but still may come up a bit "short" grade-wise. This is because teachers want to show that hard work does have benefits, even if the material was difficult for a kid. Using the job analogy, I'd say it'd be like someone working extremely hard at one dept. in a co., but ultimately it's not serving the company's needs in the whole scheme of things. But since the employee is a very hard worker, they just move him to a different dept. where his/her abilities are better suited. It's not a perfect analogy, mind you, and some will certainly disagree. But I've kids over my many years of teaching that worked their butts off, came for extra help all the time, and still may have ended up "just short" of a passing grade. But I didn't mark that "F" on the report sheet.
At any rate, thankfully, the Dallas teachers union (the AFT in this case) wants this nonsene halted:
But teacher groups see a double standard. At a time when the district will begin paying bonuses to teachers based on student achievement, the policy requires that students be given points for doing inadequate work."To assign actual grades earned by students, instead of grades of not less than 50 percent, is a vital part of raising the achievement bar," Alliance-AFT vice president Maureen Peters said. "An education is not something a child is given. An education is something the child must work for and earn."
Whoa, there, Ms. Peters! You're making way too much sense! We can't have a plethora of that in education now, can we? I mean, sheesh -- a child has to work for an education? In this day and age? Remarkable!
"What are we asking the board to do?" Ms. Peters said. "Hold students accountable for their grades. Raise the bar. Increase student rigor. Allow teachers to assign students the grades they legitimately earned. Stop supporting grade inflation."
But it's [sadly] amazing that the board is actually split on this matter. For instance, Board President Jack Lowe says "he supported the minimum grade of 50 because, ultimately, the most important thing is whether students learned the material, not what their grade was in the first six weeks of class." Nice. Go back to what I said about the kids being all too aware of this 50% policy. Consider how that affects classroom environment: Kids know they can do literally squat for half a year and still pass the class. If they're doing squat, what are they doing then? You got it: MISBEHAVING. DISRUPTING CLASS. RUINING IT FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO LEARN.
If Lowe is so concerned about the material actually being learned, maybe he could suggest that the course final exam figure in more prominently in a kid's final overall grade.
More idiotic is "former teacher" Nancy Bingham who also sits on the board:
Trustee Nancy Bingham, a former teacher in Mesquite whose district had the same policy, said she doesn't want teachers to be able to give grades lower than 50."You fail with a 50 just as much as with a 25," Mrs. Bingham said.
Ms. Bingham is a living example of why teachers aren't very highly regarded today. Too many of them are idiots. I mean, how does a 25% equal a 50% -- especially when computing a kid's overall final average? Sure, they're both "Fs" using the letter grade format, but that 25% difference can sure come into play when that final average is figured.
Wow, I sure must be old fashioned -- I'd rather have a 25% that I earned than be given a 50% for doing nothing.
So says Jonah Goldberg. An excerpt:
Now look at today's culture. In academia you have the proliferation of "Whiteness Studies," simply the most absurd discipline dedicated to purging the "white mind" from society. Here's the full and subsequent paragraphs where I begin to explain that sentence that has annoyed so many:The white male is the Jew of liberal fascism. The “key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race,” writes the whiteness studies scholar and historian Noel Ignatiev. Whiteness studies is a cutting-edge academic discipline sweeping American higher education. Some thirty universities have WS departments, but many more schools teach the essentials of whiteness studies in other courses. The executive director of the Center for the Study of White American Culture explains, “There is no crime that whiteness has not committed against people of color . . . We must blame whiteness for the continuing patterns today . . . which damage and prevent the humanity of those of us within it.” The journal Race Traitor (ironically, a Nazi term) is dedicated “to serve as an intellectual center for those seeking to abolish the white race.” Now, this is not a genocidal movement; no one is suggesting that white people be rounded up and put in camps. But the principles, passions, and argumentation have troubling echoes.First, there is the left’s shocking defense of black riot ideology and gangsterism. The glorification of violence, the romance of the street, the denunciations of “the system,” the conspiratorialism, the exaltation of racial solidarity, the misogyny of hip-hop culture: all of these things offer a disturbing sense of déjŕ vu. Hip-hop culture has incorporated. On college campuses, administrators routinely look the other way at classically fascist behavior, from newspaper burnings to the physical intimidation of dissident speakers. These attitudes ultimately stem from the view that the white man, like the Jew, represents every facet of what is wrong and oppressive to humanity. As Susan Sontag proclaimed in 1967, “The white race is the cancer of human history.” Meanwhile, Enlightenment notions of universal humanity are routinely mocked on the academic left as a con used to disguise entrenched white male privilege.
The discussion goes on for a while, addressing the tendency of the left to conflate white male privilege with traditional religion and the like. Then I move to Hollywood where I discuss how in movie after movie white men are the problem. It’s only by getting over their white maleness that they are redeemed. I’ll post some passages later. But the basic point is this, from Charles Beard’s An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States to critical legal studies, to the campaign against “dead white European males,” to popular culture, there is an abiding belief that “das system” was set up to benefit The Man and that The Man continues to pull the strings and rig the system for his own benefit.
And, I'll add, it's not just colleges dealing with "Whiteness Studies." The ... "philosophy" has moved right down into the grammar and secondary school arena as well, specifically teacher "training" and inservices.
The title of Goldberg's screed comes from the conspiratorial mindset of the Nazi Party -- anything and everything (bad, that is) could ultimately, in one way or another, be tied to the Jews.
How many Delawares? Looks like UMass Amherst has some problems ...
There's a must-read article up by George Leef titled "Teaching Teachers How Not to Teach." Much of what Leef writes I can personally attest to. Take the following, for instance:
Criticism of education schools doesn't just come from outsiders. Some highly knowledgeable and vocal critics are to be found among the ranks of current and former education school professors. One of those critics is George Cunningham, who taught for many years at the University of Louisville. In a new paper for the Pope Center, Professor Cunningham explains why he does not believe that schools of education in North Carolina are doing an adequate job of training future teachers.As he sees it, the great problem is that most of the American public holds to one view of the role of schools, while most of the education school elite – the deans and the professors – hold a very different view. The public overwhelmingly believes that the function of schools should be mainly academic – that is, to make sure that children learn very well the skills and knowledge that it takes to succeed in life. If you accept that view, then schools succeed only if their students graduate with a high degree of literacy, with proficiency in mathematics, with a good working knowledge of science, history, our social institutions, and so forth.
It follows that teacher training programs should ensure that their students are expert in teaching those things to young people. Someone who intends to teach math, for example, should be both well-versed in the field and well-trained in the techniques of explaining math to their students.
On the other hand, the dominant view among those who run and teach in our education schools is that the key role of schooling is to achieve various social objectives. In their opinion, it's more important for teachers to properly adjust students' outlook on life and society than to instruct them in "mere" knowledge and facts. Under that view, teachers who devote too much time to "rote learning" (for example, learning multiplication tables) are not doing a good job and a school could be performing poorly even though all its students have mastered the "3 Rs." Cunningham writes that according to this theory, "a child's education is successful if he is exposed to the right attitudes by teachers, even if he does poorly in measures of learning on reading, math, history, science, and so on."
As an undergrad, I didn't major in an education field. I filled all my free electives with the necessary courses to become a certified teacher. Many of these courses were, in a word, brutal. I'll never forget 'em, 'cause honestly, I think root canal without novacaine would have been more enjoyable. One was titled "Historical Foundations of Education" in which we traced the "evolution" of public ed. throughout American history. Another was "Psychological Foundations of Education." You might think the subject matter here would be relevant since learning about kids' developmental stages is a good idea if you're gonna become a teacher. However, the professor was pushing about 80 years old and pretty much went off on irrelevant [left-leaning] tangents each and every class. The only useful class I took as an undergrad (actually, it was immediately after graduation) was a curriculum planning course. The prof was a stickler for the most minute detail; we'd have to resubmit lesson plans over and over again until everything was perfect -- even if there was a small typo where the word "the," for example, was spelled incorrectly. I think the main reason this course was so ... pertinent is because the professor was actually a history professor and not an education prof.
My graduate experience a decade later was actually worse. Thankfully, my program allowed for numerous "elective" courses. These preserved my sanity. The electives could be chosen from my field(s) of study/teaching. I took one on multiculturalism and its critics, one on Latin American revolutions, and one on using technology in the classroom. From among the "mandatory" courses, the classroom "management" and educational "diversity" courses were laughable. I wouldn't have said that as an undergrad, of course, because I had no experience teaching. However, from the start of my graduate program through its end, I had six to eleven years of experience in the classroom. This was more than sufficient to call out the utter nonsense espoused in these classes as just what Leef writes about. For example, these classes were dreadfully similar to the philosophy of Appalachian State's Reich School of Education:
"We believe that theory should guide practice in all aspects of our work. While we use a variety of theoretical perspectives in the preparation of educators, socio-cultural and constructivist perspectives … are central to guiding our teaching and learning. Our core conceptualization of learning and knowing – that learning is a function of the social and cultural contexts in which it occurs ( i.e., it is situated) and that knowledge is actively constructed – emerges from the intersection of these two perspectives."
Yep, those "theoretical perspectives" unfortunately get in the way too much of actual reality. Leef also writes that ed. schools do not teach about [the successful] "direct instruction" method; in my experience they actually did, but it was with barely disguised disdain. Cooperative learning was a hot -- and highly regarded -- method. Cooperation over competition was a prevalent theme. In my classroom instruction class, cooperative learning was clearly shown in a positive light, while direct instruction had its negatives emphasized.
Cooperative learning can be a good change of pace in the classroom -- an occasional "break" from the norm which allows more student interaction. One of the [ed. school] bases for cooperative learning is to have higher achievers act as "tutors" for the lower achievers. But I -- and many others, including parents -- have a problem with that: How is that fair to the high achievers? Why do the high achievers have to do the teacher's job? Another was that teachers should always make up (construct) the cooperative groups, always taking the usual "diversity" factors into account: race, gender, ability level. There's that "socio-cultural" perspective, I suppose. I know many teachers who use cooperative learning and it seems to work successfully. It's just a philosophical difference with me. I don't think students should "officially" act as teachers during class time. If they want to assist students after school in a school-sponsored tutoring program, great. Over the last dozen years or so, my classes' student body has been fairly homogeneous in terms of ability level. You're not going to get some students "teaching" others. Still, that hasn't prevented [some] parents from letting me know that they do not like "group work" since it tends to dilute an individual's effort. There are myriad ways to structure cooperative learning activities to maximize individual performance and accountability; however, ultimately at some level there is a group assessment that has to be measured. If there isn't, then it isn't a cooperative learning activity.
One of the instructors of my classroom management class (I say "instructors" because they weren't professors, or even classroom teachers -- I honestly don't know what they were) got her "digs" in on me on the back of one of my papers. In my paper, I gravely criticized our textbook and many of the readings as either naive or totally useless in real-life classrooms. The instructor called my feelings "visceral," and labeled me a "control freak" (mainly because I thought that a "conflict resolution" video we saw was ridiculous -- it placed the teacher and the student on the same "level" where a social worker, or some other staff member, would serve as a "mediator" in any dispute between a student and a teacher; in essence, the assumed "foundation" for the program was that the class/school wasn't the teacher's, it was a "democratic institution" where everybody -- especially the students -- contributed to the class rules, grading policies, etc.). Still, I got an "A" on the paper (it was meticulously researched!). But that was only a small fraction of the nonsense in that class. We played games -- yes, games -- that elementary school kids would play. This -- in a graduate level university course. We'd "brainstorm" main ideas from the previous night's reading. Some of my fellow students' answers were either just plain silly or purposely contrived to "match" the faux enthusiasm of the instructor. Questions like "What are some of the definitions that come to mind when you read that passage?" would elicit replies of "depressing," "ignorant," "distressing," etc. and this would go for about five minutes. The instructor would excitingly exclaim "Yes! What ELSE?!" One time I whispered to a teaching colleague of mine, "This is ridiculous -- watch this," and then I raised my hand and offered this [sarcastic] high quality adjective: "Bad." As predicted, the instructor said "GOOD!" Unbelievable.
The "multiculturalism/diversity in the classroom" (not the actual title) course, predictably, had the most loathsome content. There was no textbook, but every one of the readings was by a leftist. And by "leftist," I'm talking FAR-leftist. Howard Zinn was the author of an article that trashed Christopher Columbus and his subsequent Western legacy. In one of my papers on this reading, I pointed out that Bartólome de las Casas, whom Zinn quoted favorably in his article as standing up for Indian rights, was the main proponent of making use of Africans as slave labor to replace the Native Americans! The instructor's (she was a graduate student, not a professor) reply? "Interesting point." Numerous other readings dealt with the notion of "white privilege" (which detailed how minority students will never catch a "fair" break in schools unless whites "understand" their culture and/or there are more teachers that "look like them" in the classroom) and "liberation theology" in which a total restructuring of the educational system was advocated. Teaching students to be prepared to function in US society was insufficient and even "totalitarian" -- all it did was relegate them to becoming another cog in the "capitalist pie." The authors lamented that working class schools usually taught students to be prepared for the jobs they would most likely encounter in their reality. But at the same time, they argued, teaching them higher order knowledge and skills would give them "false hope." So, what should teachers do, then? The apparent answer was to yell "ˇViva la Revolución!" and fight to transform all of American (capitalist) society. Talk about your "key role of schooling is to achieve various social objectives," as Leef notes above, eh?
Elsewhere, Jay P. Greene and Catherine Shock note that "Students Lose When Diversity Is Main Focus," and their focus is schools of education:
To determine just how unbalanced teacher preparation is at ed schools, we counted the number of course titles and descriptions that contained the words "multiculturalism," "diversity," "inclusion" and variants thereof, and then compared those with the number that used variants of the word "math." We then computed a "multiculturalism-to-math ratio" — a rough indicator of the relative importance of social goals to academic skills in ed schools. A ratio of greater than 1 indicates a greater emphasis on multiculturalism; a ratio of less than 1 means that math courses predominate.Our survey covered the nation's top 50 education programs as ranked by U.S. News and World Report, as well as programs at flagship state universities that weren't among the top 50 — a total of 71 education schools.
The average ed school, we found, has a multiculturalism-to-math ratio of 1.82, meaning that it offers 82% more courses featuring social goals than featuring math. At Harvard and Stanford, the ratio is about 2: Almost twice as many courses are social as mathematical.
Although a few commenters over at Joanne Jacobs' site take issue with this study, I think the overall point is clear: There's a definite disconnect -- as George Leef says -- between what the public wants teachers to focus on, and what ed. professors want.
In conclusion, and based on my own experience, ed. school reform is pretty easy:
And that should be sufficient. Pretty much everything else depends on a potential teacher's style, personality and disposition, not to mention what type of school the teacher may find him/herself. Any type of new teacher mentoring program is up to individual districts and/or schools.
I hope I didn't come off as some sort of omniscient, anointed sage in this post. I just wholeheartedly believe that a large dose of common sense needs to be injected into schools of education, and that that injection should flow into the new entrants of the teaching profession.
Gotta chuckle at this news from Columbia:
An academic delegation of Columbia University professors and deans of faculties plans to visit Tehran to officially apologize to Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad.The delegation plans to express regret for the insulting remarks Columbia University President Lee Bollinger directed at Ahmadinejad on September 24 in his introductory speech, the Mehr News Agency correspondent in New York reported.
Since the incident, the deans and professors from the faculties of history, anthropology, Middle Eastern studies, philosophy, and Islamic studies have criticized Bollinger's behavior toward Ahmadinejad.
A member of the delegation, who requested anonymity, said the main goal of the visit is to meet the Iranian president and officially apologize to him.
This is just a more-than-perfect example of what a joke the modern university has become. Where are the delegations that have gone to apologize to [invited] conservative speakers who have been shouted down, and even physically attacked at universities? Where is the delegation from Duke, say -- that so-called "Group of 88" professors -- that will apologize to those lacrosse players?
Don't hold your breath. In the mind of the modern "progressive" radical, American conservatives -- especially white, male ones -- are more dangerous than radical Muslim fundamentalists who (as Iranian President Ahmadinejad unintentionally comically stated), don't "have gays" in their country (gee, wonder why), treat women as virtual slaves, and wish to annihilate the state of Israel. Just like during the Cold War, when these same "progressives" touted the "superiority" of the "great socialist states," we're witnessing that all the degrees in the world doesn't necessarily mean one has any common sense.
UPDATE: Some Columbia profs deny the above report. Ironically, one of the profs noted, Gary Sick, wrote a book about the supposed 1980 "October Surprise" which stated that Ronald Reagan won that year's election because GOP operatives had a secret deal with Iran: Iran would release the long-held American hostages until after Reagan was sworn in.
Via the NAS e-mail bag:
At U Mass, the principal interface is a program called "Shaha." (Who knows what "Shaha" means? The web site does not say.) Shaha's program description is found in the Housing and Residence Life section of the university's web site. The site makes it very hard to discern exactly how the Shaha troupe is supported and organized. However, something like an organization chart can be constructed after considerable effort has been expended on mastering the Byzantine, and apparently unplanned, complexities of the heavily-interlinked pages that pop up from searching "Shaha" on the UMass site.The Office of Housing and Residence Life (HRL) at the University supports something called the Residence Life Resource Center (RLRC). (This was formerly called the Center for Diversity and Development.) According to the Housing and Residence Life's "RA/ALA Online Manual," the RLRC is a "resource center for Residence Life staff and residential student leaders in their efforts to promote community, diversity, leadership and student development within the residence hall communities." It has "staff development tools (games, stress relief toys), bulletin board kits, an Ellison letter press, poster making supplies, computer and color printer, button maker, label maker and a black and white copier" that are among the "many resources available to staff and student leaders."
The Shaha Storyteller troupe is one of the principal programs offered by HRL at the university. The members of the troupe are undergraduate students who participate in it and qualify for it by taking two courses (for credit) at the university. The troupe's primary purpose is to provide didactic theater for the residence halls on campus. According to its mission statement, the Shaha Storytellers "support Residence Life's commitment to multiculturalism by providing learning opportunities to students around issues of inclusion, social justice, and multiculturalism through theatre-based peer education."
And it only gets "better." Read the whole thing.
Caught this link over at Joanne Jacobs -- an Educational Jargon Generator!
After hitting the button several times, I particularly liked this one: "orchestrate mission-critical strategies."
Via Taranto comes word of an Israeli's "study" which shows "that the lack of IDF rapes of Palestinian women is designed to serve a political purpose."
The abstract of the paper, authored by doctoral candidate Tal Nitzan, notes that the paper shows that "the lack of organized military rape is an alternate way of realizing [particular] political goals."The next sentence delineates the particular goals that are realized in this manner: "In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it can be seen that the lack of military rape merely strengthens the ethnic boundaries and clarifies the inter-ethnic differences - just as organized military rape would have done."
The paper further theorizes that Arab women in Judea and Samaria are not raped by IDF soldiers because the women are de-humanized in the soldiers' eyes.
I tell 'ya, you just gotta love that Ivory Tower sometimes. So, here's what we have: Whether IDF soldiers do rape or don't rape Arab women, either way the action (or lack thereof) "merely strengthens the ethnic boundaries and clarifies the inter-ethnic differences." Uh huh. And then, I certainly would've figured that the brutal action of raping a woman would serve to "dehumanize" her instead of not raping her.
A local media outlet asks, "Can't it just be that Israeli soldiers come from a culture that very much condemns rape? And why not mention the much-touted 'purity of arms,' i.e., the high moral conduct, of the Israeli Army?"
Ah, but you see, that is much too simplistic an answer! You're dealing with the modern academy which touts, among other "enlightened" ideas, "postmodernism" which usually requires a cipher on par with that required for the famous Enigma machine. The difference is that Enigma actually carried information whereas postmodernist "thought" frequently only disseminates utter crap.
My first impression as an educator is to say "no." The school's assistant principal informed the student, Bethany Laccone, and her father that the shirt violated the school's dress code against "bawdy, salacious or sexually suggestive messages." (Link.) The ACLU is taking up the case, which is not a surprise, but I'm inclined to agree with them on this one. I do not see anything "bawdy, salacious or sexually suggestive" about the shirt. What I do see is a benign political message about tolerance of homosexuals. What would have been "bawdy" etc. is two females kissing (or more), say, in addition to the symbols.
I tend to come down on the side of educators in similar situations (due to the potential for disruptions of the educational environment), but become more ambivalent when the situation involves pretty much outright political expression. It should also be noted that the asst. principal stated to Laccone's father that the teacher of one her classes is "'very conservative' and claimed she was so upset by the t-shirt that it 'interfered with her ability to teach.'" This is not a sufficient reason to ban the shirt, sorry. I've been offended by student shirts over my years but big deal -- I actually admired the cojones it took for the students to express themselves politically more than I was offended. Indeed, with the degree of apathy among today's youth, this feeling shouldn't be uncommon!
But here's a question I'd pose to the ACLU: If Laccone has worn a shirt featuring the two Venus symbols overlapped by a null symbol, would they still have jumped to her defense?
Professor Judith Blau, a sociology(!) professor at UNC-Chapel Hill, had "her students hold a mock constitutional convention based on her assumption that our constitution is an inferior document." You might be wondering what the heck sociology has to do with American political and legal history. And the answer in the whole scheme of things is ... nothing! Check out the report by the Pope Center's Jay Schalin:
This constitutional convention took place on December 1 in Manning Hall on the UNC campus. Approximately 50 or 60 students were involved; they were either enrolled in Sociology 131: Social Relations in the Workplace or Sociology 273: Social and Economic Justice. (What else really needs to be said, eh?) Both classes are taught by Blau. The students' constitution was written "based on their analysis of other countries' constitutions and close study of international human rights law and doctrine."The constitution's preamble reveals the convention's collectivist agenda, with clauses stating "all humans are interconnected and have a responsibility to act for the common good of all people," and "working for collective rights will create a more harmonious society."
The main body of the constitution consisted of 46 articles or basic rights, many with more specific rights included. They were presented ceremoniously at the convention; a student would solemnly approach the stage and then read a single article from the podium. Ten or twelve articles were presented at a time, in between speakers.
These proclaimed rights formed a litany of liberal causes, including abolition of the death penalty and the promotion of multiculturalism, gay marriage, and environmentalism. Some were quite far out on the fringes of the political spectrum, such as a right to euthanasia: "[E]lderly will have the right to choose life/death." Others seemed frivolous, even silly, such as the "Right to Leisure" or the "Rights to Sports and Art."
But embedded throughout the constitution was the belief that the government should pay, and the government should decide. For instance, the students' constitution grants the right to "affordable housing," "affordable contraception and abortion," universal health care insurance, free health care for children, and so on.
There you have it. Sounds like this "constitution" could be named the "New Man" document, or, to put it another way, a socialist's dream. Of course, this sort of ... project could only come about in a modern college classroom. I mean, take the "right to leisure" and "right(s) to sports and art." What do these mean? Does this mean a person can do absolutely nothing and still have the government pay everything for him (housing, healthcare, etc.)? But basic economics and human nature always get in the way of this. If too many people exercise their "right to leisure," this means that others will have to pick up their slack. And who would want to do that when they can see people doing zilch and getting away with it?
The bottom line is that this sort of "constitution" guarantees nothing but a LACK of personal freedom. The government gets to determine practically everything, based on what the collective "good" is. Again, Prof. Blau could only get away with this sort of nonsense inside the safe, cuddly womb of higher academia. This nonsense is the continued attempts to make practice out of a historically proven failure of a system.
Can you imagine the reaction -- from the press in particular, but also from the education establishment -- if the target here was any other religion?
A history teacher has been sued for making what one student calls anti-Christian comments in the classroom. The case has sparked a debate about the role a teacher's convictions should play in their lessons.Capistrano Valley High School sophomore Chad Farnan and his parents filed the lawsuit against James Corbett last week.
They allege that Corbett's remarks during an advanced European history class violated a clause in the First Amendment that prohibits the government from promoting religious intolerance.
Court papers cited tape-recorded classroom comments that allegedly included Corbett saying, "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth" and other remarks that troubled Farnan.
My emphasis. First off, the answer to the part about a teacher's convictions is a teacher should never part with his/her [political, religious] convictions in front of a class, especially a history class. Second, the plaintiffs don't know -- especially a student in an advanced European History class -- that the 1st Amendment doesn't have a clause "that prohibits the government from promoting religious intolerance"? Yikes.
But what gets me is the arrogance of the teacher in question and his supporters. One student said that Corbett "was being sarcastic 'to help prove a point.'" Right. By denigrating students' religion ("Jesus glasses"), and the majority one at that. Would that have been an acceptable response if the "point" included a jibe at, say, Islam?
Fellow history teacher Tom Airey supported Corbett too. "Corbett has been a powerful reminder to me that we 'Christians' do not have the monopoly on truth," he said. Why is "Christians" in quotes, I wonder? Is that another attempt at sarcasm? But the point is, who the hell cares that Corbett is a "powerful reminder" to you, Tom? The issue is why does he feel the need to make such "reminders" in class? Has any of his students expressed your very point Tom -- that Christians have a monopoly on truth? Even so, how is that unique to Christianity? Don't other religions also feel that their "word" is just and right?
Leftist academics seem to have this problem a lot. They feel that, since their beliefs are "right," "just" and "correct," they are free to express them at will. Who can object after all, right? IT'S THE TRUTH! But then, in the instances when they are called out for their silly utterances, they explain it's for "critical thinking" purposes, or just plain "truth." If you've read this blog for any length of time you know that I am very much for free speech including the academic arena. Ironically, it is the Left that gets its panties in a bunch over supposedly offensive speech (especially on campuses), but which also cries loudest about censorship and freedom of expression when a complaint from the Right appears. After all, if Corbett used "Mohammed" in his "sarcasm," CAIR would be on his ass so fast, and the MSM would be all over it almost as fast, as an example of religious intolerance. And I'd actually agree with offended Muslims in this [hypothetical] case, as a high school teacher doesn't -- and shouldn't -- have the same degree of freedom as a college professor. (It would still be an inappropriate thing to say in a college classroom too, but probably less actionable.) The comment was clearly offensive and if this teacher has a track record of such comments then the plaintiffs may have a case. There are easily other ways to make a point than by outright insulting students' religion(s). I couldn't even conceive of making such a comment in my classroom.
Speaking of Muslim students, a bunch of them are upset -- not about remarks made in a classroom setting, but by comments in a book (and reprinted in a magazine) and one they aren't even required to read.
Mark Steyn (at left) has been ordered to appear before Canadian judicial tribunal panels on charges tied to his book, America Alone, which argues that Western countries are losing out to Islamist imperialism.Five Muslim law-school students have demanded that a magazine the reprinted part of the book be punished for spreading "hatred and contempt" for Muslims and, in effect, want opinions like that banned from publication.
A "guilty" verdict against the magazine would likely, as the editors of the New York Post write, "have a devastating impact on opinion journalism in Canada generally" — akin to the devastating impact the speech police have had on U.S. campuses.
Hopefully, you understand the difference between the two situations, right? Can you imagine if a cadre of American Pentecoastalists brought a lawsuit against Mr. Corbett? The MSM, leftist pundits and academia all over would howl about academic freedom, censorship, and "Look what George W. Bush has wrought."
The bad news is, things aren't looking good for Steyn. Steyn, who has pointed out in his writings the ridiculous cultural double standards in Canada and elsewhere, is seen as more the enemy than sharia law in the West. For example, bringing up the murder of Aqsa Parvez by her father for not wearing a hijab is only done by "high profile conservative columnists" who have been "particularly vigorous about highlighting these pathologies." The more-than-obvious utter brutality of the father's actions has been softened because, after all, we can't take a chance on upsetting a minority group.
This is what radical multiculturalism has brought us to, people. Horrible actions like "honor killings" and female genital mutilation are downgraded (again, see the immediate link above, and recall Whoopi Goldberg's rationalization of the Sudanese Muslims' anger at that British teacher who agreed to name a teddy bear "Mohammed") all the while the criticism of such actions are deemed so "offensive" that people must be prosecuted for that criticism.
... the "race racket." Hans Bader is all over it (them, actually), specifically Glenn Singleton whom we've most recently dealt with here and here. The money quote, as they say:
But the biggest losers in the long run from Singleton’s approach will be minority students, not the white teachers that Singleton scapegoats for poor performance by minority students ... Singleton doesn’t just humiliate white teachers. He also promotes stereotypes about minority children that could aggravate the minority achievement gap.Singleton claims that “white talk” is “verbal,” “intellectual” and “task-oriented,” while “color commentary” is “emotional” and “personal.” That’s exactly the sort of racist stereotype that contributes to the poor performance of some minority students, who believe that studying is “acting white.”
The fact that Singleton puts a superficially positive spin on this negative stereotype (by claiming that whites’ focus on achievement is coldly “impersonal” and “task-oriented”) makes it all the more seductive to those minority students who already perceive studying as “acting white” and being a “grind” (and who taunt studious classmates of their own race by referring to them as “schoolboy,” “schoolgirl” and “little miss perfect”).
Bader further compares Singleton's "theories" to those of Leonard Jeffries, former head of the Black Studies Department at the City University of New York.
Via the Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription required) we are to be informed that parents aren't doing enough to ensure that their children get into college.
In Middle School.
Far too few parents of middle-school students are doing what they need to do to ensure their children can go on to college, with the parents of minority and disadvantaged students being especially likely to lag in such preparation, according to a report being released here today by the Institute for Higher Education Policy.The report, based on a national survey of 1,800 parents of children in sixth through eighth grade, says that 87 percent of such parents fully expect their children to go on to college, and that fewer than 1 percent are certain that college is not in the cards for their young ones. Although the researchers found that some subsets of the population—such as Hispanic Americans and parents without a high-school diploma—were less likely than others to be confident their children would go on to college, overwhelming majorities of all of the groups studied had college expectations, reflecting a widespread belief that a college education is necessary to get ahead in today's world.
When, however, it comes to taking the steps necessary to plan to finance a college education and make sure their children will be academically prepared for college, many parents admit to dropping the ball, the survey found.
The report says 45 percent of such parents had not taken any of the college-planning actions the survey asked about, such as looking into the college-admissions process, doing research on specific colleges, or meeting with a teacher or counselor to make sure their child was adequately preparing for college in the years ahead.
"More than a third of parents reported having no sources of information on college preparation or admission," the report says, and those with lower levels of education were much less likely than the better educated to have such information access.
The most common step for parents to have taken was saving for their child's college education, but just 34 percent of all parents had started putting money aside. The likelihood of parents saving for their child's college education varied drastically by education level; 55 percent of parents with a graduate degree, but just 22 percent of those without a high-school diploma, had done so.
And while 94 percent of all parents believed their children would get financial aid for college, only 11 percent had done any research into what types of financial aid might be available.
And so on and so forth.
Now, don't get me wrong. "Getting into college" (read broadly -- as the people who wrote this article are doing -- as making something of your life) requires that you start early. Taking the SAT's, for example, is something that you need to start prepping for in 2nd grade. Not by taking test prep courses, but by studying and reading. The education of a child is an ongoing, long-term project that requires effort early, effort in the middle, and effort at the end.
But that's not what these fools are talking about. They aren't saying that parents are dropping the ball on making sure that their kids have studied, that their kids know how to read, write, multiply, etc. They aren't saying that parents aren't stressing the importance of memorization and synthesis.
They're saying that parents are dropping the ball by not looking into financial aid, looking into admissions, etc.
This is material that is entirely inappropriate for parents to be considering when their children are in middle school. It's not necessary for Johnny to get into the right pre-school so he can get into the right kindergarten so he can get into the right elementary school so he can get into the right junior high school so he can get into the right high school so he can go to Harvard (and such a course is beyond the means of most of the parents with which the article is concerned, anyway). That sort of hyper-anxiety is bad for the family, bad for the kid, and generally bad.
But it's also not appropriate to start worrying about admissions processes (something that takes a few days research AT MOST) when the kid is in eighth grade. Stress academics, sure. Make sure the kid stays out of trouble.
But don't listen to the alarmist views in this article.
Welcome to the first (and hopefully not last!) Colossus-hosted edition of the Carnival of Education. Muchas gracias to the Education Wonks, fellow members of the illustrious Watcher's Council, who asked us if we'd be willing to host one!
Inside the School & Classroom:
Man, this middle school conference set-up sounds pretty pathetic. No wonder Aahz at Philaahzophy is quite unhappy with his offspring's schooling thus far.
Principled Discovery notes that school is safer than home, and has Bureau of Justice stats to prove it.
Music teacher Nancy at Teacher in a Strange Land details how she's dealing (and has dealt) with religiously-themed songs during the holiday season.
The Young Writers' Blog has a couple entries this time out. Rebecca contemplates her visit to a Brooklyn school to teach a writing workshop to "level 1" writers. Dan reflects on procrastination and deadlines regarding his playwriting.
Ms. Mize of Random Thoughts of a Teacher describes her experience in a French language immersion classroom. Yeah, why were the kids speaking English??
The Baglady recounts a sixth grade lesson from her days in Hawaii -- the "Cost of Living in Paradise." Reminds me a lot of a unit I had back in 'ol Metro Studies class.
Pat over at Successful Teaching hears that employers want her "to teach the students how to work as a team." Hence, we read how she introduces cooperative learning to her students.
Ah -- school newspaper and yearbook deadlines. I know 'em well 'cause I ran my school's yearbook for eight years. January and February are trying times! "Richie" over at Bellringers shares her anecdotes regarding such.
Mamacita at Sheiss Weekly reminisces about the days she baked cookies for the kids her hubby has now in HS calculus. ˇQué sabroso que suena!
Education Technology:
Bill over at The Tempered Radical discusses the use of wikis by students.
Ever hear of "Show Beyond"? Me neither. It's a "free web application that allows you to create slideshows with audio." Larry Ferlazzo highly recommends it.
Standards:
The illustrious Education Wonks write that US students aren't comparing well with others. It ain't pretty.
Judy at Consent of the Goverened dissects the state of Connecticut's proposed requirements for high school graduation.
Shiloh Musings cogitates on how Israelis must take four separate exams in order to pass English. They say the testing system there "resembles Frankenstein's monster on steroids, but [it's] a lot more expensive." Ouch.
EduWonkette muses on the NYC Comissioner of Schools' rationale for closing some schools. (There's a "High School for Social Justice"? Whoa.)
Higher Ed. Tidbits:
David Ng confabulates college study habits during exam time. As a comicbook aficionado, I liked the dude who wore a bedsheet as a cape and shouted "I AM CAPTAIN PROCRASTINATOR!"
The Campus Grotto is offering tips on how to up that college admissions essay. A key line: "The admissions essay is even more important if your grades aren't top notch." Indeed!
Inside Teaching:
Scenes from a Battleground pontificates about days off teachers get in Britain to celebrate the "Cult of INSET."
Hey teachers -- in that emotional/philosophical "rut" that usually pops up at least once per year? Check out Wakish Wonderz's post about what a "true" teacher is!
Sharp Brains muses over Memory, Cognitive Abilities and Executive Functions.
EdWiz wonders if the charter school movement is returning to its progressive roots. The big issues: capacity and professionalism.
Going to the Mat says "Public Education Is A Business Deal -- Parents Are Becoming Better Consumers." He writes "The problem of course is that in a public school setting, the marketplace does not exist to move your child to a different service provided, except for the demand to have the child moved to another class." If I may add, this situation varies from state to state. Here in Delaware we have [public] school choice (statewide) and a bevy of charters. You can choice your child into any [public] school in any district, provided there's room (which there usually is).
One of my favorite all-around (but especially education) bloggers -- that's Darren at Right on the Left Coast -- asks "What Does CTA Do For Its Teachers?" I totally dig where you're coming from, D; I've written a few posts in the past asking similar questions about the national NEA.
Uber ed-blogger Joanne Jacobs offers up "All Brains are Gray and Wrinkly" which cites Richard E. Nisbett's research that race is pretty much irrelevant when its comes to IQ.
Don't smile before Christmas?? Say what? That's what Joel at So You Want to Teach? was offered as advice for this time of the year. I liked Joel's entry in particular 'cause it seems he and I are a lot alike. I joke around all the time and it's served me quite well in my 17 years in terms of class management and academic achievement. He writes,
Laughter makes learning more memorable. If you have a natural sense of humor, then you can really increase learning by throwing in a few laughs here and there. It works!
Perfectly stated! Elsewhere on his blog, Joel serves up "50 Reasons to Love Your Job as a Teacher." Great list! A few stuck out for me: #13 (My coworkers are great); #15 (When I am finally able to actually teach, I feel very rewarded when that little light bulb goes off); #22 (I love getting to know the kids and I especially love having siblings come up and watching the family grow; it is a real privilege to be part of people’s lives like that); #30 (I seem to be good at it ); and #49 (It’s something like a mix of game show host, stand up comedian, dad, vaudeville juggler, and sports play-by-play commentator).
RAD or "Reactive Attachment Disorder" is a relatively new diagnosis particularly found in foster children. Mrs. T examines the disorder and what can be done about it.
Arts for all!! Gary Stager makes the case for the maintaining of the arts in school. Count me in your corner, Gar. I'm a right-brained fella myself.
Kindergarten math success the greatest predictor of future academic success? So says a new study by the Journal of Development Psychology. Creating Lifelong Learners delves into this study.
The Science Goddess over at What It's Like On The Inside digs an article in Edutopia about "Building a Better Teacher." I agree with her -- too many teacher prep programs are woefully inadequate. Mine wasn't all it could have been, that's for sure.
Dave Saba fills you in on how more $$ can get flowing into education over at American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence.
Homeschooling:
Dawn over at Day by Day Homeschooling has been perusing the teacher blogs lately. She came across a post that got her to think about the differences of experiences between students at traditional schools, and those who are homeschooled.
Linsey at the Parenting Squad gets asked if "school has let out early" when she's out during the day with her daughter. Nope -- she homeschools! Here's a bit of why she decided to go the homeschool route.
Labels. Schools use 'em (tracking, heterogeneous grouping, etc.), but what's it mean for homeschoolers? Stephanie at Life Without School takes a look.
Henry at Why Homeschool gives ... well, one reason why: simple politics. He discusses an interesting new book by Gil Sewall, head of the American Textbook Council. I met Gil once back in 2000 when he came to speak to the Delaware Textbook Assessment Committee, of which I was a member. He's quite knowledgable.
*****************************
That's it! Thanks for stopping by! Next week's Carnival will be back at the Education Wonks. Submissions can be sent to: owlshome [at] earthlink [dot] net. You can also use the ever-handy submission form The deadline is Tuesday, (December 18th) no later than 9:00 PM (Eastern) 6:00 PM (Pacific).
On Wednesday we here at Colossus will be hosting the weekly Carnival of Education! If you have a blog story relevant to the topic at hand, send it our way by 6:00pm EST tomorrow (Tuesday).
'Ol Glenn Singleton is sure movin' around a lot lately. As Hans Bader reports over at OpenMarket.org, not only did the Arlington, VA schools recently get suckered into his racially divisive "seminars," not to mention the whole friggin' state of California, but now the Annapolis Valley Regional School Board in Nova Scotia has likewise been hoodwinked. Bader writes:
This is deeply ironic. Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn’t have strong protection for free speech akin to the First Amendment, so racist speech in public is banned in Canada under its so-called “human-rights” codes. Any white school teacher who said the offensive things that Singleton says about minorities — that their speech is not “intellectual,” “verbal,” or “task-oriented” — would be subject to prosecution by a human-rights tribunal. The same might even be true for a minority teacher. Yet Singleton gets paid big money — “a six figure fee” — to promote these offensive, racist stereotypes.
Gee, if this guy can get into hot water for what he said in Canada, it seems a cinch that Singleton's racist demogoguery could be prosecuted under our northern neighbor's "human rights" codes.
I'm starting up a new category here at Colossus, the "Dopey College Op-Ed of the Week." I totally got a kick out of the Campus News Confab blog, but it looks to be defunct now as it hasn't been updated in almost a year. CNC was devoted to the inanity that is frequently demonstrated in college newspaper opinion sections. They would have thoroughly enjoyed this whopper from Mike Eber -- advisor of Michigan State's debate team! -- in the Michigan Daily. The title of Mike's ... article is "Guns Are for Liberals Too." Here's the money quote, as they say (my emphasis):
Consider our presidential election in 2000. Blatantly ignoring the will of Florida voters, the U.S. Supreme Court handed victory to Bush on a technicality. Liberals agreed that there was nothing more to do in appeal, but according to Locke, if a government is guilty of systematic abuse of its power, then citizens have a right install legitimate rule. Instead, liberals stood by willingly after the ruling, acting as if they had just lost a close football game.
Where to start? First, the SCOTUS didn't "blatantly ignore" the will of the Florida voters. In actuality, the "will of the voters" in Florida was that a slight majority wanted George Bush to be president (as various news agencies later determined using various standards of "chad analysis"). As an advisor of a debate team, is Eber actually saying that the "will" of FL voters was Al Gore ... because of that ridiculously laid-out "butterfly ballot"? If he is, he should know then that he is sowing the seeds of election and hence, democracy, chaos.
But I digress. Eber's main point is that citizens -- according to Second Amendment history, among others -- had a right to have Al Gore win Florida's electoral votes because of blatant Supreme Court interference, and could have (should have) made use of their 2nd Amendment rights to ensure that right. You follow? Florida's hotly disputed electoral votes -- which George Bush had won initially and in subsequent recounts, not to mention after the fact by myriad news agencie's analysis -- actually should have gone to Gore ... and the people could/should have used their weapons to make it so.
What else should people have used their 2nd Amendment rights to "install legitimate rule," Mike? How 'bout states that, by the opinion of a clear majority of their voters, wanted to either restrict abortion or outlaw it completely? When the SCOTUS ruled as they did in Roe v. Wade, the people should have ignored the edict and made use of their 2nd Amendment rights to make it happen, according to Eber!
There's also the instance of the SCOTUS interefering again in federalism and issuing from on high that the death penalty was unconstitutional in the early 1970s. According to Eber, the people should have ignored that too, and made use of their 2nd Amendment rights to make that so.
For what else should "the people" make use of their 2nd Amendment rights, Mike? How about the recent Kelo decision which makes a mockery of eminent domain? If a government (state, local) decides to take over someone's property to build condos that'll provide a "better tax base," say, should that property owner use his 2nd Amendment rights to guard against this government tyranny?
Actually, the question of the "compact" between the people and the government was settled in the Civil War. The southern states believed (obviously) that the northern states were acting (and legislating) in a manner that was detrimental to their interests -- in essence, acting in a "tyrannical" fashion. Slavery and economic matters were two of the biggest issues. Abe Lincoln believed that the Constitution held the states in union "in perpetuity;" in other words, the southern states had NO legitimate right to secede from the Union even though they felt that the federal government was no longer serving their interests. The "little" fact that the North won the Civil War sort of ends the debate about secession and the "compact."
So where does that leave the 2nd Amendment today? Do people [still] need the right to own a gun as protection from "government tyranny"? And would it even matter? (The government has all of the really big weapons; using handguns and rifles ain't gonna do much good against artillery, tanks and bombs!) A few things:
My opinion is that "tyrannical government" reason to own a firearm still matters in 2007. It admittedly would be extremely difficult for any American government to mobilize against its own people in this day and age, first and foremost because it is a government "by the people." The difficulty of convincing some Americans to take up [military] arms against their fellow citizens would be enormous. Making the difficulty of higher magnitude is the very fact that those "fellow citizens" would be armed. Certainly not as much as any military, of course, but armed nonetheless. That is enough to give quite a bit of pause to any "tyrannical" leader.
This would be the case for one Islamic activist and journalist Yvonne Ridley, who gave a speech about the "valiant" Taliban the other day at UC Irvine. Yes, she's a bona fide nutjob, but d'ya notice anything in that video? There was no major disruption by pro-American protestors. There was no speech-stopping heckling by anti-radical Muslim activists. Ms. Ridley was allowed to speak.
Funny how that doesn't apply to those on the other side of the spectrum, eh?
... over at Phi Beta Cons.
UPDATE: Loyal Colossus reader Fred Gregory sends word of a FrontPage magazine article detailing still more on the UD thought-control garbage. Check this out:
... the Gilbert/Harrington complex’s “assessment plan” states that “through the Gilbert/Harrington curriculum experience (a treatment) specific attitudinal or behavioral changes (learning) will occur.” A curriculum assessment plan from the Russell Complex questions: “What is [students’] attitude and/or values about those specific social identities after the treatment?”
Ye gad. I lived in Harrington complex my freshman year and I tell 'ya -- if some freakin' RA tried to force me to participate in this nonsense ... !! You just gotta love that use of the term "treatment" as if the frosh had some sort of "disease." (Well, to the typical radical diversophile, they do have a disease: Racism!)
Then there's this from Rodney complex, home of the phone booth-sized dorm rooms:
The Rodney Housing Complex documents echo the language of psychological conditioning, explaining that they chose to hire “strong male RA’s” after concluding that male students displayed “a higher degree of resistance to educational efforts” than female students and that a strong male figure “combats male residents’ concepts of traditional male identity.”
Gee, I wonder what that could possibly mean!
And now the testimonials from RAs who disliked the program are coming to the fore:
“I was an RA before they started this new curriculum at the University of Delaware. When they instituted this curriculum, they had a ‘you better love it, or get out!’ attitude… Many of the former RAs who had returned were fed up with this curriculum, and any time we spoke up about it, our concerns were shot down, and we were branded as trouble makers … supervisors were selected not based on their abilities to manage dorms … but instead, those RAs who were most passionate about the curriculum got to lead the residence halls.”
The University of Delaware held a forum for students last night to discuss the temporarily dismantled freshmen "diversity" program. Alison Kepner's article is what is to be expected -- a bunch of fluff giving a forum to those who dislike and like the [former] program -- but I wonder, for one thing, if a sub-headline "UD forum on now-scrapped diversity training draws about 50" would be used for an article about politically correct gathering. I doubt it. And here's the money quote:
But a third group worried that without mandating or formalizing the talks, they may never happen, a concern on a campus where tensions already exist -- especially after a graduate student told police he had seen a noose on a tree by Orchard Road near the main campus earlier this year.
Well, of course! I've already opined that this ... "incident" has already given UD President Harker and his minions the "excuse" they need to continue with the program, however "changed" they may try to make it.
In other news, Sunday's News Journal featured an article about the UD diversity program's creator. Shakti Butler of the World Trust Educational Services claims she was "stunned" by the [negative] reaction to the UD program. (Notice too article author Beth Miller's editorializing -- she writes "The Oakland, Calif., filmmaker's efforts to build bridges between people of vastly different backgrounds -- work that had been hailed on campuses and at offices around the nation..." Oh, so there has been NO criticism other than that at UD? And hailed by whom, exactly? Who on campuses and offices around the nation?) Butler, who believes her African, Arawak Indian and Russian-Jewish heritage gives her "credibility," said she never has seen a reaction like that seen at UD:
"I've never had this kind of reaction," she said. "I call this reaction totally reactionary and designed to create a deep divide among people, which is the antithesis of what I'm trying to do.""It's not to shove information down people's throats," she said. "It's not, 'This is what you need to believe. This is true.' But 'What is going on and why is that so?' It's a process of critical thinking."
"Reactionary," of course, equals "right-wing."
Oh please, Ms. Butler. Wake up and smell the thought-control. It is YOUR program that is fostering any divide among people! When perfectly nice and thoughtful young people are forced to discuss things they do not wish, and are coerced to adopt a particular point-of-view, THAT is what divides people.
"There are a lot of people in this country who believe there are no racial problems here," she said. "And there are no problems with gays and lesbians -- they just need to learn to be straight. We have to be able to explore our weaknesses so they can become strengths. That way, we can create a society that is equitable for everybody."
It is your opinion, Ms. Butler, that there are "a lot" of people who think there are no racial problems in the USA. But let's cut through the BS and break it down: Ms. Butler and those like her believe racism and racial strife are rampant in America, hence programs like that at UD are "desperately needed." To them, it is completely unacceptable to believe the contrary -- that racism, while still existing, is not a very big problem at all. Therefore, programs like UD's are essential.
For what it's worth, Ms. Butler's PhD was received from the School of Transformative Learning and Change at the California Institute of Integral Studies. Whatever the hell they are. This might help, from Ms. Butler's organization's website:
Transformative learning is a form of adult education involving experiences that result in a deep, structural shift in thoughts and feelings, which then inform one's actions. This shift in consciousness can be very subtle or quite extraordinary. Often, it alters our way of making meaning and being in the world. Such a deep-seated shift involves our understanding and our relationships with other people, the natural world, and ourselves. (Link.)
Um, er, uh, OK ....
Speaking of California and along the same topic, the superintendent of the state's schools, in his infinite "wisdom," has adopted the program of a one Glenn Singleton, creator of "Courageous Conversations":
[Jack] O'Connell now believes that widespread cultural ignorance within the California school system is responsible for the poor academic performance of many black and Latino students in school.He offered the example of black children who learn at church that it's good to clap, speak loudly and be a bit raucous. But doing the same thing at school, where 72 percent of teachers are white and may be unfamiliar with such customs, will get them in trouble, he said.
Also on center stage will be Glenn Singleton, the coach O'Connell hired for the Education Department's racial sensitivity classes. Singleton runs a San Francisco consulting firm called Pacific Educational Group and is the author of "Courageous Conversations about Race: a Strategy for Achieving Equity in Schools."
Contrary to widely held views that parents play a strong role in whether their children do well academically, Singleton believes the schools, not parents, are the biggest influence.
"If we were to say that black or brown kids don't perform as well because of their parents, we're saying black and brown parents aren't as effective as white parents," Singleton told The Chronicle. "That's pretty much a racist statement."
Where to start? We at Colossus have covered this sort of utter nonsense countless times before. The first, and obvious, thing that comes to mind is, if "cultural ignorance" is primarily responsible for student under-achievement, how in the hell do Asian students outperform white students? A satisfactory answer is never forthcoming from these hacks. Why? Because it totally disproves their opinions. And make no mistake -- that's precisely what they are: opinions. Their programs are not based on any scientifically sound research. Actually, if you think about it, that's one of the benefits of such a program, especially Singleton's. The program has as one its "Four Agreements" that there might not be any resolution to the issues that CCs raise -- "Expect and accept non-closure." If there's not any closure, what better excuse to continue the program, eh? What a racket!
I'm almost speechless about that "clapping in church," anecdote. Do black parents inform their children that it is acceptable to be loud, raucous and clap their hands during whatever it is that they're doing -- like being in a classroom? (See how Singleton's beliefs are easily inverted to make them "racist" statements? Radical diversophilia is always like that!) What about at their job? O'Connell and Singleton (who has advised the Seattle School District in the past) might want to take a gander at the responses by [minority] students in this article as to what would help them succeed in school. One of the big answers? "Simple quiet." Say whaaat? Black children saying they can learn better -- if the class is quiet, with less distractions? Don't they know they're not acting as they ought, according to the "experts"? Aren't they aware, as one "expert" in Seattle has said, "We, as a people (blacks), are loud"?
Singleton may believe that schools are a bigger influence on children than parents. I happen to believe that Singleton is a singular dolt, so that makes it even out, I suppose.
Lastly, is it "racist" to bring up the fact that the illegitimacy rate among African-Americans, especially in the inner-cities, is ridiculously high -- and that this plays a huge role in these students' poor educational achievement? Is it a "racist" statement to say that Asian parents push their children harder than any other ethnic/racial group, and that accounts for much of those students' success?
If so, it's yet one more reason why the meaning of "racism" has lost much of its original [rightful] force.
A recent poll indicates that Americans believe music education results in greater academic success as well as higher incomes.
Since I personally fit right into the parameters of this poll, I'll be the first to say that learning to play an instrument sure IS a good thing! Learning to read music assists one's math skills, and obviously, too, the growth of that right brain area! (That's the, um, creativity center of your noggin', natch.) By personal observation, the vast majority of my students that play an instrument (in the school band and elsewhere) are some of my best students.
Actually, one of my biggest regrets is not actively staying with music. My tenor sax remains in its case in my basement (case gathering dust), having only seen the light of day but a few times in the last decade. (But hey, I can get a nice coin if I ever decide to sell it; it's a Selmer Mark VI, one of the finest saxes ever made.) My bass guitar was donated to my school's music department years ago, and my school's jazz band's percussion section makes use of my old Peavy amplifier.
*Sigh*
Via the NAS e-mail bag, article by Donald Downs:
A lot has been written about the details of the residential life program at the University of Delaware, and the ways in which it has bullied students and residential assistants to accept regnant orthodoxy. The nation's collective hat should go off to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education for exposing this program, and for compelling the university to back down - at least temporarily. The episode brings to mind last spring's heated debate in the Chronicle of Higher Education over whether FIRE was too extreme in its attacks on higher education, and whether FIRE had outlived its usefulness. One case is not statistical proof, but the fact remains that without FIRE, this remarkably repressive program would still be in effect.I want to address a broader issue in the Delaware case that has not attracted enough attention thus far: the role of non-faculty members in promoting the politicization of higher education. Kathleen Kerr, a mastermind of the Delaware program, is director of residential life for the University of Delaware. Interestingly, as John Leo has recently pointed out, she is also the chairperson of the American College Personnel Association's Commission for Housing and Residential Life - a group with connections to universities across the country.
Most of the literature on the ideological politicization of higher education has focused on faculty members. The standard line is that the rise of political correctness and its tools of war (e.g., speech codes, sensitivity training, etc.) have been the product of left-wing baby-boomers assuming positions of authority on faculties and in the upper echelons of administration. The standard line provides an explanation in some cases. But my own experience and reading have caused me to look for further explanations of this state of affairs.
I do not know all the facts, but I would be surprised if the faculty at Delaware had been deeply involved in promulgating and promoting the residence halls program. I know that if such a program were to exist at my school, the faculty would have remained in the dark about its existence in the first place, and would have raised serious questions about it once faced with the facts. Though the faculty at my school is widely regarded as very much on the left, it has shown itself over the years to be very suspicious of policies that raise the specter of thought control. Other than the speech codes - which the faculty abolished after giving the measures a second look in the late 1990s - the major threats to free thought at Wisconsin have arisen from programs pushed by professionals who have not spent a lot of time teaching and researching, or have turned away from teaching and researching to pursue administrative careers.
This situation is similar to what others have found. In The Diversity Machine (2002), for example, Frederick Lynch provided a detailed portrait
of numerous interlocking national programs designed to promote diversity and
attitudinal change, almost all of which were run by non-faculty personnel. The University of Michigan, for example, had about 100 such programs (this is not a misprint), but the faculty tended to ignore them because they applied to areas outside of the faculty's main concern. As long as such programs did not jeopardize faculty research, no problem. In The Shadow University, Harvey Silverglate and Alan Kors also provide many examples of violations of academic freedom committed by administrative staff in the name of pet causes. Despite these and other works, public concern remains targeted at faculty members, not staff.A few years ago I served on a speech code committee that ultimately led to the abolition of the university's faculty speech code. The committee consisted of faculty, students, and staff. One of the things that struck me during this year-long service was the posture of the staff members toward academic freedom and free speech. With one outstanding exception, the staff members evidenced little concern about the effects broad speech codes can have on the intellectual honesty and integrity of the classroom. Their experiences and professional agendas simply did not prepare or predispose them to take academic freedom all that seriously. This was not the case for faculty members on the committee, including those who supported some sort of code. (I should add that the students were among the most energetic defenders of freedom on the committee.)
It will be interesting to follow the plight of the residence life program at the University of Delaware now that it has the full attention of the faculty. Will the faculty exercise its fiduciary responsibility to defend the principles of free thought that comprise the core of liberal education, or will it eschew the burden of this responsibility out of indifference or fear? Nothing I have said here is meant to get faculty members off the hook for supporting such programs as Delaware's. Nor is it my intention to reflexively criticize university staff. After all, universities would grind to an immediate halt without its valued staff members. The problem is those staff members who promote agendas that threaten the truth-seeking mission of the university.
There is some evidence to suggest that faculties' main culpability may not lie in the active promotion of such programs, but rather in a kind of not so benign neglect. If this surmise has merits, it opens the door to a more nuanced analysis of the contemporary politics of higher education. Rather than routinely lumping faculty and staff together in a critical evaluation of higher education, perhaps we should look more closely at how faculty and staff culpabilities might often differ. It might be time to look more closely at the problem of faculty neglect as a distinct problem, and at the factors and forces that contribute to this neglect - above and beyond active faculty perpetration or complicity. I hope to do so in a future essay.
Meanwhile, here's an update about that supposed noose sighting at the University of Delaware:
Two weeks ago, a graduate student told police that he had seen a noose hanging from a tree by Orchard Road near the main campus downtown.Officers responding to the report apparently found a rope tied in a loop around a hanging plastic drinking bottle, President Patrick Harker said.
The police department ended the investigation because officials were unable to determine whether the bottle and rope were meant to be a noose or whether the incident was racially motivated.
That's doesn't matter, however. UD SOMEHOW NEEDS TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS! So, UD cops are reopening the investigation. What they'll "find" is anybody's guess, but according to UD President Harker, even if they find squat, that really isn't the point:
"We want to make sure we understand exactly what happened," Harker said. "But that's kind of irrelevant. Whether the facts lead to one way or another, the important thing is people felt threatened and uncomfortable about this, and that's something we need to deal with. We cannot have an environment where people feel threatened and intimidated. That's just not acceptable."
And there you have it: The perfect excuse to bring back that ridiculous RA program. (Oh, but it'll be "revamped." My ass.) After all, it really doesn't matter what the hell that rope around a drinking bottle was. It's how it was interpreted. And something must be done to address these interpretations.
This sounds way too much like what's happened in past hoax hate crimes incidents. Once it's revealed what really happened, university officials rarely admit they were suckered; instead, they spew similar nonsense to Harker's: "It's a 'teachable moment' about racism." Or, "We still have a problem with diversity here. The hoax incident is really irrelevant when you get down to it."
At the end of the article, Harker admits outright that a definitive answer as to what exactly the object was won't be forthcoming. So what? Again, he reiterates: "What matters is the community felt threatened by this -- that's my deeper concern and that's what we want to try to address."
Yesterday's Colossus post on this is here.
UPDATE: Check out the Nov. 15 update on the UD "noose" incident.
*************
... since the [supposed hate-crime] noose-hanging incident at Columbia University. On Oct. 11 the university turned over videotape to determine who the culprit was. As our own Felix asked nine days later, how long does such an examination take?
The proverbial odor in Denmark comes to mind...
... as it does now right here in the First State at the University of Delaware. Apparently, someone hung a noose somewhere on its campus, and after local police closed the investigation because they found nothing conclusive, the university asked them to reopen the case:
Several weeks ago, a report was made to police about a noose seen on Orchard Road near the main campus area downtown. Officers looked into the report, but the investigation was closed after police determined it not to be conclusive, Senior Vice President Scott Douglass said.But reports of the siting(!!) persisted, and UD administrators asked police to reopen the investigation, Douglass said. Officials said they could not provide more details about the report because the investigation is ongoing.
Aside from writer Rachel Kipp's pathetic spelling skills, how fishy does THIS sound? Fresh off a national imbroglio over their RA indoctrination program, now the college has the perfect excuse to bring back the program -- or some derivative thereof:
“There is no room for such actions in our community and the university will continue to enforce a zero-tolerance for hate,” UD President Patrick Harker said in a statement.Harker met with more than 30 African-American students this morning to discuss reports of the noose and the students’ concerns about the recent canceling of a residence life educational program.
Harker said UD officials are committed to having a revamped diversity awareness program in place by the time freshmen arrive for the fall 2008 semester.
There have been a number of reports across the country this year of nooses found on college campuses, at high schools, in post offices and elsewhere. One of the most highly publicized was the Jena Six case in Louisiana. In that case, six black teenagers were accused of beating a white student. The incident occurred after nooses were hung from a tree on a local high school campus.
See? In order to prevent this "epidemic" of noose hangings, UD MUST bring back its diversity program! (By the way, notice too the outright phony invocation of a direct relationship between the Jena noose hangings and the subsequent student beating. The two were not related to one another if Ms. Kipp had bothered to do even a smidgen of research. See here, also.)
Could this noose have been a plant? Way too early to tell. (It sure doesn't help that each incident garners major press coverage -- each "incident" is sure to generate some "copycats" just to grab a cheap headline.) "Several weeks ago" brings us back to around Halloween time, so perhaps it was an innocuous (in the owner's mind) decoration. But hate crimes hoaxes unfortunately are all too real (especially on campuses), and the lag time in the Columbia noose investigation -- and now this sudden reopening of an investigation that was dropped because nothing could be determined ... at the exact moment that the university is in the midst of a major diversity program scandal ...
Color me suspicious.
According to the UD student newspaper The Review, 58% of those polled said the program should have been ditched, 25% said it should have been just changed, and 18% said it was fine as is. (It's an Internet poll, so admittedly the results aren't scientific.)
Check out some of the student comments about the matter (all emphases mine):
The initiative seemed like a good idea to begin with but making sense of what both sides have said, it seemed to lack a productive objective. I don't think mandatory participation is a problem -- if it wasn't mandatory then who would go? -- but not everyone is comfortable talking about race issues and minority politics so it requires a light touch. I think such initiatives are important at a non-diverse college like UD after a series of hate crimes and the Cinco de Mayo party scandal but any such program needs a sensitive approach and clear objective. -- Mike Fox.
Bingo, Mike! You just answered your own question. People don't attend bulls**t "training" or "treatment" so you want to make it mandatory?? Don't seek political office, pal.
Let's take a closer look at the overall circumstances. 1) The program is written by Dr. Shakti Butler, whose credentials may be real but who has never had her "treatment" subjected to peer review. I personally searched more than ten major academic indices for her name and all I found were a couple reviews of one of her self-produced videotapes.It's my opinion that residence halls are a place for rest and socialization separate from the rigors of the classroom, and that they should above all else be a "safe place" for the residents - safety in all areas including emotional and psychological dimensions. Every resident student already is faced with a new environment, new neighbors, loss of family connections, and a new culture nearly every year with few exceptions. This is stressful enough to create predictable issues that the R.A.s can readily address or pass up the chain of command. When the University adds diversity training to this mix, it becomes potentially explosive in much more unpredictable manners. -- ES.
In my experience as well, so-called "diversity consultants" or "experts" are anything but. Oh, well, they might have been "experts" in the radical multi-culti agenda that permeates campuses today, but when it comes to REAL diversity -- knowledge of actual cultures, countries, histories, geography -- these "experts" are pitifully uninformed.
And, as ES notes, who the hell wants to go through this indoctrination nonsense in the place where they're supposed to relax and rest??
The university would do well to ditch this program permanently and leave its frosh alone as they experience college life in all its forms without undue PC interference from ideologues.
UPDATE: The Chronicle of Higher Education has a new article up about UD dismantling its indoctrination program.
Check out the nonsense that is Sandra Jones, Co-Vice President of Advocates for Equal Justice-Delaware, speaking at a Cape Henlopen School District board meeting last week. While advocating for school surveillance cameras at some elementary schools (you heard that right -- one Cape elementary school had TWELVE felonies committed by students), Jones devolved into the race-baiting "white privilege nonsense (my emphasis):
Current profiles of the 2006-2007 academic school year for Cape Henlopen School District revealed a total of 14 violent felonies. Thirteen (13) of these felonies were allegedly committed by elementary students. Twelve were from H.O. Brittingham Elementary, and one out of Milton Elementary School. In addition, data suggests that there were numberous violations of Delaware State Laws, which were confident lead to criminal convictions, and a host of African Americans obtaining juvenile records due to the disparities that exist in disciplining students.Because many of you here have and continue to enjoy “White Privilege” you may say, we don’t need surveillance in our elementary school. For the purpose of this request, “White Privilege,” is defined as the ability of whites in America to ignore the issue of race because it privileges them in ways that are most often unrecognized. Things that Caucasian administrators, teachers, staff, and children take for granted, such as fair treatment in Cape Henlopen School District, are not privileges granted to African American students.
There you go -- we need the surveillance cameras to ensure that "white privileged" teachers and administrators do not make use of their "white privilege," and "unconsciously" treat African-American students harsher for their misbehavior. In other words, those twelve felonies at H.O. Brittingham Elementary were the result of "unconscious white privilege" and "unawareness of cultural differences" between Caucasian and African-American students.
Y'know, I (and Felix) have written about this ... nonsense more times than I can count. Whether the claims of ... "cultural difference" (or whatever terminology is in vogue currently) are invidiously self-deprecating or a Catch-22, it ultimately boils down to ... nonsense. I also wonder if Ms. Jones is a product of the University of Delaware's thought-control program.
Here's a thought: Imagine of the school district vigorously demanded surveillance cameras. Ms. Jones (or whoever) would probably find a racial angle to that, too. It's the inherent nature of radical diversophilia: Nothing is right, nothing is wrong. So, no matter what action is taken, no matter what idea is implemented, it is "wrong" or it is "right" depending on the mood of the diversophiles at that moment.
And, as such, it always comes down to this: Nonsense.
John Leo has still more on the fallout from the revelation that University of Delaware RAs were indoctrinating the students in their resident halls. I like this paragraph in particular:
The papers laying out the residential curriculum at the University of Delaware have a number of gassy euphemisms for insisting that students accept the ideas being imposed. One is "competency attainment" - in plain English the acceptance by students of ideas they are told to accept. The same insistence is available in clear language as well, often in sentences that begin "Students will." One example: "Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society."
And what a surprise -- the RAs have been instructed not to discuss the [former] program with the media; however, Leo notes that one parent's UD-attending child said that RAs were instructed to "speak out against FIRE" (the organization that broke the story), and the The Chronicle of Higher Education blog stated that RAs were told to "speak favorably" about their [former] program.
You've gotta read what was dubbed the "Worse One-on-One" (second one listed out of the two if you click the link) by a University of Delaware RA who administered the "treatment" to a Russell Hall undergrad last year. Read the RA's thoughts on the meeting, but the best part is below that -- the answers the undergrad wrote (italics) to the rather intrusive questions (bold):
1) When were you first made aware of your race?
"That is irrelevant to everything. My race is human being."2) When did you discover your sexual identity?
"That is none of your damn business"3) Who taught you a lesson in regards to some form of diversity awareness? What was that lesson?
"My grandparents sometimes make racial comments. And what the hell does that have to do with anything."4) When was a time when you confronted someone regarding an issue of diversity? What was the confrontation about? If you haven't, why not?
"Why would I do something like that? Diversity exists. I like it. Leave it at that."5) When was a time you felt oppressed? Who was oppressing you? How did you feel?
"I am oppressed everyday on basis of my undying and devont feelings for the opera. Regularly passerbys throw stones at me and jeer me with cruel names. Because of this I am exile dand often contemplate suicide. Unbearable adversity. But I will overcome, hear me, you rock loving majority. This is called 'sarcasm.'"6) Can you think of a time when someone was offended by what you said? How did that make you feel? How did you think it made them feel? How did his/her behavior change towards you?
"I offend people everyday just by being alive. They look at me and feel insulted. Then I open my mouth and they are further insulted. I say things like 'good day!' and they take insult. More sarcasm! All right!"
This undergrad is my new hero, yo.
I'm a big proponent of free speech, even granting a lot of leeway to college professors for what they [may] say in class. But is this going too far?
A University of Maine student alleges her former professor offered extra credit to class members if they burned the American flag or the U.S. Constitution or were arrested defending free speech.On the first day of class, associate professor Paul Grosswiler offered the credit to members of his History of Mass Communications class, according to sophomore Rebekah McDade. Disturbed by the comment, McDade dropped the class and intends to take the course again next semester with a different professor.
Grosswiler said, "I don’t intend for students to burn either the Constitution or the flag, and over the years hundreds of students have understood that." Indeed, there seems to be a discrepancy as to whether there actually was an extra credit assignment for the activities. McDade noted that
When Grosswiler listed the extra-credit opportunities, the class of approximately 50 students grew very quiet, and some questioned whether he was serious.
But Univ. of Maine spokesman Joe Carr said that McDade (and others) are taking Grosswiler's lesson "too literally," and that no extra credit would be given for burning a flag or the Constitution.
OK, a few things make me lean towards the prof. in this case. One, The Leadership Institute is the group that made a big issue of this situation. The LI has as its mission "to identify, recruit, train and place conservatives in politics, government and the media, according to the organization’s Web site." In other words, to me, that means they're actively looking for anything that even mildly smacks of liberal bias in the classroom. Second, as a teacher I can understand the ... need to use some of what may be "extreme" examples in order to make a point. As flag burning and Constitution burning are protected by the First Amendment (which certainly may not be known to college students, trust me!), pointing these out, especially in a "provocative" manner, may surely elicit some ... "strong" feelings.
If anything, if I was McDade, I would have just asked the professor if he was serious about the extra credit assignment. I see no evidence that she did that in the article. If she had, that would have nipped the problem in the bud and there would have been no controversy.
Someone explain to me how this pertains to school "spirit":
A Bay Area Middle School has canceled a scheduled cross-dressing or “gender-switch” day after parents complained, according to an Oct. 30 Pacific Justice Institute news release. The Sacramento-based institute is a legal organization that defends parental rights, religious freedom, and other civil liberties.Adams Middle School in Brentwood encouraged students to cross-dress – boys wearing girls clothing, girls wearing boys’ clothing – on the last day of “Spirit Week,” Friday, Nov. 2. Parents were given little notice of the event, said the Pacific Justice Institute, and only found out about it after flyers were posted at the school.
Hmm, we have a "Spirit Week" at my school and this includes things like "Hat Day" and "School Colors Day." Seems as if we just ain't "progressive" enough, eh?
Encouraging student cross-dressing to invite “free thinking” is not unique to Adams Middle School. A 2002 article by the Culture and Family Institute of Concerned Women for America reported how the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) encourages cross-dressing through a curriculum developed for Kindergarten through third grade.
The new Four Rs: Readin', Ritin', 'Rithmetic, and ... Reverse Gender Role-Playin'.
Nice.
Adib Rushdan is a former University of Delaware student who thinks the ridiculous resident dorm thought control program is just fine:
Adib Rushdan of New Castle worked hard to improve understanding between diverse student groups when he was a student at UD because, as a black man and a Muslim, he said he saw the need for it. Incidents on campus made it clear to him that students needed better awareness."In a lot of dormitories, there would be message boards on students' doors where absurd things were written that might have been racially motivated -- swastikas and other symbolic messages and images that speak to racial ignorance. Things of that nature have always been seen. It's necessary to have the type of diversity training that brings in people from different backgrounds."
After a spate of hate crimes, including racial graffiti, in 2005, former UD President David Roselle instituted a "zero-tolerance" policy for hate and hate crimes.
Rushdan said minorities always are the ones who press for such programs.
"The huge push for diversity and forums and discussions -- nine times out of 10 -- comes from those individuals who most of the time are the target groups who feel separated from the majority, " Rushdan said.
What is "a lot," Mr. Rushdan? Two? Three? And "might have been racially motivated?" So, you're not sure, right? And "absurd"? It's COLLEGE, Mr. Rushdan! Young adults do ABSURD THINGS. This doesn't mean that they must go through "treatment" (to use the university's very own term) to "rectify" their absurdity.
And if the "huge push" for these diversity programs comes mainly from minorities -- because they feel "separated from the majority," why do they feel the need then to isolate themselves even further with separate resident halls, student centers, and the like? The university's Ray Street Complex is home to fifteen "special interest communities" which include, among others, an Asian Community, a Latin American Culture Community, and a Sexuality and Gender Community. Then, of course, there's Warner Hall's Women's Interest Community (which, in this era, seems silly since women now make up a majority of undergraduate students at campuses across the US).
Oh well, even though UD has halted (at least temporarily) this inane resident hall program, there are still these incredibly intellectual and thought-provoking "diversity" events scheduled for November:
Cultural Symbols
- Tuesday, November 14th
- 8:00 PM
- Ray Street C Lounge
There are cultural symbols all around us. Do you know what they mean? Symbols often have different meaning based on one's perspective. Join in a simulation style event to understand these symbols and the importance of understanding interpreting these correctly in today's society.
"Simulation style." Boy, THAT oughta knock your socks off, eh? But check out that last sentence -- you can be sure university "officials" will be on hand to make sure that your interpretation of these "cultural symbols" is "correct." And you know what THAT means!
Does the U.S. enable Size-ism?
- Wednesday, November 29 th
- 8:00 PM
- Bacchus Theatre
The pressures our society places on weight and idealistic beauty has caused a great amount of our population to fall to two extremes: overweight and the target of discrimination or extremely thin with many college students suffering from eating disorders. Come discover our society has created these extremes and how not to perpetuate these cycles of discrimination.
So, you see, your weight is a function of society. I'm just wondering how, with all those Fifth Avenue "ideals" of male and female physiques so prevalent in all media, these serve to "cause a great amount of the population" to become obese.
If anything, our society sends mixed messages about body image. On the one hand, fast food advertising is all over the place. On the other, programs and diets can't be missed that encourage fitness. But within our modern university, you don't really expect individuals to be able to make their own choices, right? It's society's fault we have "weight extremes"! Overweight? Not your fault. Underweight? Not your fault. Blame society. (Disclaimer: Yes, I am aware that certain factors can legitimately make one "faultless" regarding their weight, OK? You know what I mean though, right? So don't be silly.)
A bright spot: The News Journal editorial board opines that UD was out of line with this dunderheaded program.
Every now and then someone will say something like "People are more educated today than in the past." For instance, in the course of a very interesting post, Joanne Jacobs quotes a RAND report that says:
Mothers and fathers in 1990 were better educated than their 1970 counterparts. For example, 7 percent of mothers of 15-18-year-old children in 1970 were college graduates, compared to 16 percent in 1990. In addition, 38 percent of mothers did not have a high school degree in 1970, compared to only 17 percent in 1990.[Emphasis Added]
So we know that the parents are "better educated" because they've completed more school. Here's my thought for the day:
Completing more years of school means that a person has experienced "more education," not that they are "better educated."
Here's a big problem with education today: You take a very basic common-sense "No Duh!"-type statement and make it some profound revelation -- like the following leading off a News Journal article from yesterday:
Research shows family engagement in a child's education can lead to greater student success.
Y'see? Research is even needed to "inform" us of this revelation.
Next, you bring in some "consultants" -- like the "60 education and social service leaders from across the state" -- to not only inform you of these revelations, but to make some really head-scratching philosophical judgments and arguments. Take this for instance:
"If you want to change your relationship with families, there's a way to do it," North Carolina-based consultant Laura Weber said. "Change what you're doing."That means shifting the way teachers and administrators view parents, she said.
They are taught to recognize "children's value systems may be different than yours," said Marquita Davis, director of student services. "Try to go beyond the surface."
Rather than approaching parents with the philosophy, "What is wrong with this person, and how can I fix it?", the thinking becomes: "What is strong with this family, and how can we build upon it?"
Rather than assuming the professional must know best, families are seen as the experts in their own lives.
If this sounds really touchy-feelie ... it's because it is. It is just more of the "values-free" and "no judgments" approach to education that has infested it for too long. Granted, I'll be the first in line to stand up for parents being of first importance in children's lives. But one must always be aware of how values-free advocates phrase their sentences -- "... experts in their own lives." What does that mean, precisely? The article, circa the middle, says that sessions are regularly held for parents to get more info on proper nutrition and how to get their kids to succeed in school. "All our parents want our children to succeed. They might just not know the steps to take," Davis said. But then how can families be seen "as the experts in their own lives" if they aren't aware of even basic nutrition, or even the need to arrive on time? (See below.) This is an inherent contradiction of their own philosophy!
Here's what "experts in their own lives" means: You (or I) cannot make a value judgment on someone else because we don't know "their life." As an example, take this from the article:
Last year, they (Edison Charter School) gave out alarm clocks to parents who were perpetually late dropping off their children. This year, 50 students will take home backpacks each Friday filled with nutritious food to carry them through the weekend.
Instead of informing parents of the necessity of getting their kids to school on time, they BUY alarm clocks for them. Are alarm clocks really prohibitively expensive? What kind of message does the school's action send? "Be irresponsible, and things will be done for you." (OK, maybe school officials did inform parents of the need to be on time. But what happens when the alarm clocks don't do what they're supposed to -- not malfunction, but get the kids to school on time?) I am reminded here of what far-left education author Jonathan Kozol once wrote about his teaching experience in a Boston school: He didn't hold his students responsible for stealing because they were poor and minority ... and "historically oppressed."
It seems to me that Kozol, like the education "consultants" of the article, are more interested in advancing their nebulous "revolutionary" education theories than making sure students are best prepared for the real world. Will these future employees' bosses and managers send home alarm clocks if they're perpetually late for work? Will law enforcement not consider it stealing if these former students shoplift ... based on the country's [racial] historical record?
This values-free approach perfectly exemplifies the "bigotry of low expectations." We cannot expect poor (or minority) people to value a work ethic, or to take responsibility for their own actions. This is what it ultimately comes down to, after all. Let's stop beating around the bush. And, as has been noted here at Colossus too often to count, this sort of edu-babble is self-contradicting, elitist, and condescending.
What a day for Delaware in the [politically correct] news. First, FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) comes out with a devastating report on the University of Delaware's outright Maoist approach to thought control by RAs on campus. The report was picked up by uber-blog Instapundit and later by national columnist John Leo.
From FIRE's press release on the UD matter (my emphasis):
The University of Delaware subjects students in its residence halls to a shocking program of ideological reeducation that is referred to in the university’s own materials as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs. The Orwellian program requires the approximately 7,000 students in Delaware’s residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students’ rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech.The university’s views are forced on students through a comprehensive manipulation of the residence hall environment, from mandatory training sessions to “sustainability” door decorations. Students living in the university’s eight housing complexes are required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and one-on-one meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The RAs who facilitate these meetings have received their own intensive training from the university, including a “diversity facilitation training” session at which RAs were taught, among other things, that “[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”
So, there you have it. This is some sick stuff, folks. For all those aghast at George Bush's America supposedly "leading us down the road to fascism," the sad fact is that all you have to do to really find it is just take a trip to Delaware's own Newark (that's pronounced "new ark" for non-Delawareans) campus.
Elsewhere today, we have an incident whereby a white cop supposedly raped a black woman. As with most Wilmington News Journal stories, the article leaves more questions than answers, but the telling part of the article for me was this:
[Plaintiff Gail] Weal’s attorney, Thomas S. Neuberger, called the assault a hate crime. Weal is black, [defendant Kevin] Hovatter is white.“So now a jury and the courts will have to settle this dispute and compensate this victim for a black woman’s worst nightmare - being stopped by a renegade racist white cop in the middle of the night, being violently raped and wondering whether you will be killed,” Neuberger said.
Nowhere does the article state that Hovatter had any racist intentions nor uttered any racist epithets during the alleged rape. Is Neuberger making his case for a hate crime based on some esoteric social science that black women "have nightmares" about being raped by white men? If this is supposed to set some sort of precedent, will white women (or men) be permitted to make accusations of hate crimes based on "nightmares" of being attacked by black people?
Don't count on it. Because if Neuberger is using the same ridiculous psychological mumbo jimbo as the University of Delaware, white Americans shouldn't be allowed to ever invoke hate crime statutes -- because they're all inherently racists in the first place.
Great take on the "conventional wisdom" that is "diversity is inherently a good thing" over at the Daily Texan. H/t to Discriminations where I absolutely love this definition of "diversity" offered by commenter "eddy": "merely a subterfuge for litigation insurance."
Perfectly stated.
It's now been nine days since Columbia University reluctantly handed over surveillance tapes to law enforcement authorities. These tapes (hopefully) will show who hung a noose on a [black] professor's office door.
How long does it take to review such a tape? 'Cause in the meantime there are still opinion writers out there who would like you to believe that a single confederate flag-hanging racist a-hole is indicative of the larger picture -- not only on college campuses, but in the US at large. If the Columbia incident is revealed to be a hoax, will there be as much media coverage about it? Or will it be conveniently forgotten like the incident at George Washington University?
Finally, some sensible judging. Remember this putz from a week ago? Well, a judge recently told him to get lost:
[Brian] Marquis, a 51-year-old paralegal seeking bachelor's degrees in legal studies and sociology, filed a 15-count lawsuit in US District Court in Springfield in January after a teaching assistant graded a political philosophy class on a curve and turned Marquis's A-minus into a C. Marquis contends that the university violated his civil rights and contractual rights and intentionally inflicted "emotional distress."Last week, after a brief hearing with Marquis and a university lawyer, District Court Judge Michael A. Ponsor dismissed the suit. But Marquis said this week he is considering appealing to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Good luck, pal. Lookin' too much like James Brolin ain't gonna help you, either.
I like what UMass-Amherst ombudsman Catharine Porter had to say: "If every student that didn't like his or her grade started to do this, we'd have to hire, I don't know, 25,000 attorneys."
You ain't whistlin' Dixie, sister.
The "hate crime" at Columbia University where someone placed a noose on a [black] professor's office door ... will turn out to be a hoax.
Why? The university stonewalled on turning over surveillance tapes. If you were dead-set on discovering who the hate-filled creeps who hung the noose were, why on earth would you cause delays?? Doesn't pass the smell test.
Place your bets now. My current money is on what this commenter says:
This’ll turn into a “teaching moment”, where the teacher explains she did this to address the on-going issues of racism and biogtry in the nation, that her actions were justified as a means to this end, and that she should not - in any way - be held culpable for what is clearly designed as a stunt.There is NO reason the school would not want the tapes released if there was a real perpetrator. NONE WHATSOEVER.
Is this a great country, or what? Where else can you refuse to say your country's Pledge, let alone change it to what you wish? Of course, judging by the "informal student group's" name -- "Student Worker" -- one wonders what their real agenda is. And if it is that, then these kids' kids won't have the same rights as they once did.
Here's their "new" Pledge:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag and my constitutional rights with which it comes. And to the diversity in which our nation stands. One nation, part of one planet, with liberty, freedom, choice and justice for all."
Check out this IN-context note from the hardcopy version of NEA Today, the monthly teacher's magazine:
Findings in a recent Pew Survey show that support for gay educators is on the rise. Only 28 percent of people think a school board should fire educators based on their sexual orientation."I believe that the national conversation that is happening regarding sexual oritentation, gender identity, and gender self-expression has made a huge difference," says Mary Paradise, co-chair of the NEA Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus. "When more and more people stand up to support their sons and daughters, their neighbors and friends, their home decorators and hairdressers, their teachers and health care providers, it makes a difference."
O ho! How's THAT for stereotyping?! Gotta add those home decorators and hairdressers, huh? What about clothing designers, for goodness sake??
Heh. Just imagine if Bill O'Reilly said the above.
In an unrelated NEA Today tidbit, check out the ominous headline in the "Notepad" section: Numbers of Black Students Dip in New Orleans. Just make sure you read the small article, though -- the number "dipped" a whole four percent, from 93% (pre-Katrina) to 89% (post-Katrina).
Wow. What "news"!
Perennial education scribe Joanne Jacobs has an article up in Reason Magazine which, like more and more articles out there, shreds the rationale behind forced busing:
Proximity is not destiny, educationally speaking. A generation of experience with racial integration has taught a clear lesson: Sitting black kids next to white kids in school is not a silver bullet that zaps unequal achievement.However, the faith that proximity leads to equal achievement remains the cargo cult of education.
That last statement sure is accurate, even here in Delaware. However, that seems to be changing. Dwight L. Davis, a Wilmington resident and neighborhood schools committee member in the Christina District has said (about the district's recently approved compliance with the Neighborhood Schools Law) “I think that’s best for all children. I’m happy that they voted to approve the plans." David is at odds with Wilmington attorney George Evans who "has been a longtime critic of the state Neighborhood Schools Act and he still expressed criticism before voting yes":
“While it causes much concern with re-segregation, the plan does in fact incorporate the use of city schools,” he said. “It also concerns me that given the population numbers at some suburban schools, these schools are off limits to Wilmington students. This is a proposal that brings about separation.”
But Davis, unlike Evans and way too many others, understands the difference between pre-Brown v. Board of Ed. segregation and any segregation that we witness today:
Dwight L. Davis said people in the city are not worried about re-segregation anymore. He said people just want a good education for their children close to home.“I think that’s best for all children. I’m happy that they voted to approve the plans,” Davis said. “It’s still up to the community.”
Davis told The Community News there is a difference between “de facto segregation and de jure segregation.” Davis said despite all attempts to integrate schools, there is de facto segregation in schools as evidenced by where children sit in the cafeteria.
As is often the case, the simplest explanations are right. Like Mr. Davis' above, isn't the education of children more important than some racial bean counter's theories about what is socially, culturally (and educationally) "just"? For instance, much of the rationale behind New Castle County's desegregation plan was based on what Joanne Jacobs calls the "proximity" theory -- that by merely placing poorer, academically needy students next to more affluent academically adequate students, somehow the achievement of the former will improve (my emphasis):
That's been tried too with no effect on academic achievement. The journal Education Next reports on a study of families who moved out of public housing projects and into better neighborhoods in Boston, Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York: "A randomized evaluation of the 'Moving to Opportunity' (MTO) program—a federal housing program piloted in five major U.S. cities that sought to relocate poor families by providing housing vouchers—shows that, contrary to expectations, moving families out of high-poverty neighborhoods has no overall positive impact on children's learning."The new neighborhoods were significantly less poor and their residents were better educated. But researchers found no difference in children's reading or math scores or in behavior or attitudes toward school when comparing families that won the housing lottery with those who didn't. There also was no effect on retentions in grade or suspensions.
Jacobs also notes the [in]famous Kansas City plan which we've noted here at Colossus before.
But again, there seems a general attitude shift about busing in northern Delaware, many feeder patterns of which haven't been changed since the original 1978 federal order. The Community News' Antonio Prado reported back in August that a task force is even investigating a reconstitution of the Wilmington School District (which was dissolved in 1978 in favor of a county-wide district):
The task force has local educators and critics of education talking about whether the Wilmington School District should be reconstituted.Brandywine Board of Education President Joseph Brumskill has appointed himself to the task force. Brumskill told The Community News that he believes in a Wilmington School District “philosophically.” He even told Brandywine officials when they recruited him to run for the school board four years ago that he would have no problem if the Wilmington School District still existed, given the way busing played out.
I wonder how much money has been wasted on educational theories (like forced busing) that have been proven a bust? (Probably as much as has been spent on Iraq!) The sooner all educators focus on teaching children and the sooner parents get their kids ready for that teaching, the sooner we'll witness academic achievement improve overall.
UPDATE: I also wonder how much ink has been wasted on phony "Oh No!" stories like this from today.
Andrew Stuttaford reports via The Corner:
A community college instructor in Red Oak claims he was fired after he told his students that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted. Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at Southwestern Community College sided with a handful of students who threatened legal action over his remarks in a western civilization class Tuesday. He said he was fired Thursday... (Link.)
This is obviously no different from the myriad instances of "historically aggrieved" college students (and their other liberal counterparts) who whine and complain about what they perceive as "racist," "sexist," "homophobic" etc., and then try to get a prof axed.
This "handful of students" need to get a friggin' life. They probably belong on a show like this.
... so cretins like the News Journal editorial board can act all self-important:
In a democracy, even a despot is worth granting a hearing.Unfortunately, some state representatives and Jewish organizations failed to realize this as they criticized Columbia University's invitation to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at the World Leaders Forum on Monday.
If this wasn't so laughable, it'd be incredibly sad. Did the News Journal do up an editorial on "granting the hearing" (and its importance to democracy) to Minuteman Jim Gilchrist? A search of their archives proves not. Did they do up an editorial criticizing the University of California for rescinding an invitation to former Harvard President Larry Summers because he had the audacity to suggest inherent gender differences might actually exist in people that account for interests in different fields of endeavor? Another archives search comes up empty.
So let's see -- the News Journal criticizes people and groups that criticize Columbia University for even inviting Iran's leader to speak in the first place ... a guy who has outright denied the Holocaust happened and advocated genocide against an entire group of people (Israeli Jews). They claim such invitations will "expose [the] fraudulent basis" of his ideas. If that's the case, why not invite any and all crackpots with some nutty idea? Why not invite a Flat Earther to explain why he believes the planet is indeed as thin as a pancake?
Isn't it a university's job to provide a REAL education to its students? Ahmadinejad's assertion about the Holocaust -- an event that is a clear, precise and historically accurate FACT -- is NOT like debating legitimate social issues like Larry Summers was, or legitimate political ones like Jim Gilchrist.
First State Politics has more.
The Venezuelan budding tyrant's latest maneuver: Private schools that refuse to teach a socialist curriculum will be taken over by the state.
A husband-and-wife team of social scientists who left Harvard University three years ago after one was denied tenure is returning to the university's Department of African and African American Studies, officials said yesterday.Marcyliena Morgan and Lawrence Bobo left for Stanford University in 2003 after Morgan was denied tenure under former president Lawrence H. Summers.
Summers, who is in the news again recently because he was dropped as a speaker at a University of California Board of Regents event -- mainly because of "controversial" comments he made about innate ability differences between men and women (which also helped get him ousted as Harvard pres.) -- also had an academic scuffle with African-American Studies prof. Cornel West a few years back. Summers had the gall to ask West to get a bit more serious about his scholarship and help to fight grade inflation. West got all indignant, as did many others. Summers was, of course, lambasted by the PC Left for this horrific act. Nevertheless, it may help explain why he declined to give tenure to Marcyliena Morgan:
Morgan is a linguistic anthropologist and authority on global hip-hop culture who will concentrate on hip-hip's role in AIDS prevention, [Department of African and African American Studies Chair Evelyn] Higginbotham said.
Ten years ago the National Association of Social Work (NASW) "altered its ethics code, ruling that all social workers must promote social justice 'from local to global level.' " The Council on Social Work Education, (the national accreditor of social work education programs), "says candidates must fight 'oppression,' and sees American society as pervaded by the 'global interconnections of oppression.' " (Link.)
You might see where this could head, eh? Fortunately, the National Association of Scholars dissects the crap.
An offensive cartoon published in a student newspaper at Central Connecticut State University has caused a "stir." Gee, what else is new. You know, free speech is all important -- unless said speech is directed at a "protected group." In this case, it is Hispanics:
The three-frame comic, titled “Polydongs,” features two characters who mention locking a “14-year-old Latino girl” in a closet and urinating on her. It was published in Wednesday’s issue of The Recorder, a weekly newspaper distributed free on campus.The university’s president vowed on Friday to cut off advertising in the paper, and its critics have planned a protest on Monday on campus to push for reforms, including the ouster of the paper’s editor, Mark Rowan.
Offensive? Sure. Totally poor taste? Check. Free speech? Wellll ...
Of course, the sensitivity/multicultural/PC police are besides themselves, panicking about that "hostile environment" etc. The money quote in this story comes from psychology professor and president of the university’s Latin American Association Francisco Donis:
“We believe the climate here at Central is one that fosters this kind of behavior ... so we want more systematic changes to create a welcoming environment for everyone to feel safe and secure.”
The thought that a college campus "fosters" such behavior is so totally laughable as to be tossed in the landfill. Donis is merely a multiculti opportunist, jumping at the chance to make his university even more PC.
But, on second thought, maybe Donis is right. Maybe the climate at Central does foster the sort of behavior that leads to the offensive cartoon. Maybe politically correct yahoos like Donis are so numerous and so vocal that the student newspaper had simply had enough of their nonsense ... and they just wanted to make a point about free expression. You know, real life as opposed to the ivory tower.
UPDATE: Jay Bergman, a prof at CCSU, sheds more on the university.
Down at the University of Maryland, some a**hole hung a noose near the [black] student center, obviously designed to intimidate African-American students. The university held a "unity rally" in response. All fine and good. I just wonder if article writer Avis Thomas-Lester realizes the following rich irony all within two paragraphs of one another (emphasis mine):
[Student Ugonna] Madueke was among more than 300 students and faculty members who converged on Cole Field House this week for a "speak out" to express their feelings about the noose and to discuss possible solutions to the racism and cultural separatism that led to it.The crudely tied noose was found hanging from a tree just outside the Nyumburu Cultural Center and the Stamp Student Union on Campus Drive, the college's main thoroughfare.
Nyumburu, Swahili for "freedom house," is home to a student-run newspaper, the Black Explosion, as well as the Black Student Union and other programs affiliated primarily with minority students and faculty members, officials said.
Hmm, if "cultural separatism" is a factor in someone feeling the need to hang a crude noose on a tree, what factors lead people to set up racially/culturally identifiable student centers, newspapers and programs?
This article, found in Education Week, seems dismayed at the idea that so many school districts around the country don't have strict standards for their substitute teachers...
But the bar that Congress and most states and school systems have set for such educators is much lower than for regular classroom teachers.
The majority of states don’t require substitutes to have more than a high school diploma. Nor do they require districts to give them any training before they set foot in classrooms.
In Prince George’s County, Md., administrators had to rope in 140 subs for the opening day of classes after the 134,000-student district, located just outside Washington, failed to fill more than 10 percent of vacancies.
We're constantly hearing about the shortage of qualified teachers in this country. (Which really is a shortage of qualified teachers willing to work all day with children for the money that's being offerred.)
Why should it come as a surprise, if we can't get highly qualified people with college degrees and training to be the primary teachers, that we can't find highly qualified people to act as substitutes for less money, no benefits, and no job security?
Still, 90 percent of the substitutes don’t receive any formal training before taking charge of a classroom. “That’s a big area that needs to be addressed and worked on,” Mr. Smith said.
If you had enough substitutes with formal training, don't you think you might not have such a shortage of teachers?
Substitutes are just that: substitutes for the real thing. They are almost always going to be inferior in quality (of course there will be exceptions) to the thing for which they are substitutes. And if we can't get highly qualified teachers at the salaries we're paying, why should we be dismayed that we can't get highly qualified substitutes for even less money?
Education "research" is at it again. This time, Pittsburgh Public Schools hosted Robert Strauss, a professor in the Heinz School of Public Policy and Management at Carnegie Mellon University. Basically, he says,
When it comes to the racial achievement gap, principals or teachers can have a bigger impact on achievement in one year than whether a child is poor or from a single-parent home.
So, does this mean that the "impact" is limited to one year, or does it continue if the students have the same teachers and principals in subsequent years? Gotta read on ...
The study looked at 89 principals, 236 English teachers and 199 math teachers of students taking the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment tests in reading and math in March 2005.He found that some principals and teachers didn't have a positive or negative impact on results. However, 62 principals had an effect on math results -- ranging from scores 17.5 percent higher to those 37.2 percent lower. And 33 principals had an effect on reading -- ranging from scores 15.66 percent higher to 35.65 percent lower.
Among teachers, 148 had a significant impact in math scores and 90 did so in reading, both also by a wide range, positive and negative.
Wow. Sounds impressive. Personally I'm starting to wonder, though, just how the study determined that principals, in particular (let alone the teachers), had a positive or negative impact. Then I read this and my question appears answered:
Dr. Strauss said his study showed that those teachers and principals who made a positive difference helped both white and black students, not just students of one race or the other.Dr. Strauss urged the district to find out what those who make significant differences are doing so other professionals can learn from them.
In other words, Strauss has no idea just what in the hell the teachers did, let alone the principals! If he did, why would he make that last statement? Since this is essentially a "snapshot in time," how can Strauss and co. draw the conclusion that it was the teachers -- and especially the principals -- who exerted the "positive" or "negative" impact? Based on this "research," it's possible that a school could be loaded with the best teachers and principals, yet see their scores in the "lower" category ... because their school(s) have a higher degree of poverty and single-parent homes! In other words, since Strauss doesn't even know what the teachers and principals did, then it just may indeed be possible that poverty and single-parentage CAN (and it's only fair to say "can" since the article says "principals or teachers CAN have a bigger impact on achievement") play a bigger role than the school.
Do not get me wrong. I'm far the negative teacher stereotype that seeks to blame all things negative on everything but him/herself. And I'm certainly all in favor of schools exerting the largest possible positive influence on achievement that they can ... I mean, who the hell wouldn't? But I'm also in favor of seeing a non-BS educational study for once. Oh, and lest I forget that the subject of the article is actually the racial achievement gap, the end of the article provides the following gem:
Linda Lane, deputy superintendent, also gave a presentation on the racial achievement gap, saying that race is a larger factor than poverty.She said that black achievement levels vary widely across schools.
She noted specific efforts to improve achievement, including increasing "the work in ways which are specific to the needs of African-American students."
Here we go again. Let the "well-intentioned deprecation" continue.
First, thank you, Hube, for letting me join the team. That was a lovely, succinct introduction.
Now, on to posting.
I've often marveled at how the modern day teacher often fancies him- (or more often, her-) self as so much more than a teacher. Often because law mandates certain extra-educational behaviors, teachers can come to see themselves as psychiatrists, social workers, even parents. But the job of a teacher is to teach.
It's much like how entertainers come to view themselves as important instruments of social policy: their primary job is to make me smile, not change my vote.
Here's a fine example of why educators (both teachers and administration) should stick to their area of professed expertise. It seems that certain people don't like the idea of Williamson Evers becoming an Assistant Secretary of Education. In the course of attempting to tank his nomination...
"If he was a child in school, you would think he had attention-deficit disorder," said Delaine Eastin, then California's superintendent of public instruction, the highest-ranking education official. "I'm talking about not letting people talk -- being rude, being unprofessional, thinking that because his voice was loudest he should dominate," she said, adding that she knows several people who experienced Evers's "temperament." Like her, she said they are now briefing influential friends in Washington about his unsuitability for the department's post, but doing so quietly.
What does Delaine Eastin know about ADD? My guess is very little if she thinks that someone is psychologically unsound just because he is (allegedly) loud, rude, and overbearing.
This person was in charge of the largest school system in the country. How many kids are being sent in to doctors by teachers who view a strong personality as clinically deficient? We already know that some consider conservatism a pathology. Now, if she's to be taken seriously, psychological non-expert Delaine Eastin is telling us that being loud and obnoxious is a pathology. What's next? Forced medication for people who don't like Baked Brie?
From today's Philly Inquirer on a "positive behavior approach" in Philly schools:
"Fight-free" weeks also are used at times of the year known to be particularly disruptive - the end of October, mid-February and the spring. Classrooms that go several days without physical fights or arguments are rewarded with pizza parties and other treats.
A whole class pizza party -- for going several days without a fight or argument?? In education lingo this is called "extrinsic motivation," and it's supposed to be frowned upon as its opposite -- "intrinsic motivation" -- is preferred. That's probably because the latter serves the long-term interests of students much better; it doesn't teach them to expect tangible rewards every time they act and do things that are normally and regularly expected of them.
Barry McCurdy, a school psychologist who directs the Devereux Center for Effective Schools, claims that a "get-tough" approach doesn't work in schools with major discipline issues. I wonder if a guy named Joe Clark agrees with this. Of course, the silver screen story of Clark's experiences left me wondering about many of the tactics he utilized -- not that disagreed with how he did things, but that he could actually get away with them. For instance, he summarily booted a prodigious amount of students -- perpetual troublemakers -- out of school. This is virtually impossible without running afoul of the law in a big way.
But, I don't teach in Philly schools and I can only guess at the magnitude of their discipline issues. I suppose I'd be willing to try whatever worked to settle kids down. But what will these kids be expecting when they get into the real world? A free pizza for showing up to work on time "several days in a row"?
Spelman College President Beverly Daniel Tatum informed incoming Yale freshmen that
Racism is a system of advantage based on race, a combination of racial prejudice and social power. Because they benefit from this arrangement, almost all white Americans — but not their black peers — can fairly be called racist. (Link.)Tatum's book, Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? And Other Conversations About Race, was mailed home to all froshes and was mandatory reading -- a first ever for Yalies. Isn't that terrific? It's mandatory to have to take in the [ridiculous] definition of racism that holds [virtually] all Caucasians cuplable as racists!
Dean of Freshman Affairs George Levesque said he met last spring and over the summer with residential college deans, freshman and ethnic counselors, and members of student groups such as the Coalition for Campus Unity and Realizing Race, who wanted to see the administration take active steps to raise awareness about racial relations among freshmen upon their arrival in New Haven.
Yeah, right. "Raising awareness" sure doesn't mean offering an alternate official ("official" because of the Yale invite) viewpoint about racism now, did it? No, it was just Tatum. In college (or education in general), whenever you hear the term "raising awareness" it is akin to hearing that we need to have a "real discussion" about race. (Indeed, the article later stresses it is "important" to "have a conversation." See how predictable the campus PCers are?) In other words, what people like Levesque (and Tatum) really want is for whites to "be aware" that only they can be racists (and blacks cannot), and "really discussing" race means listening to folks like Levesque and Tatum spout their views on race while whites should only listen -- and offer nothing in rebuttal.
Sam Ng '09, who spoke on the student panel in Branford and led a small-group discussion, said students were initially reluctant to share their thoughts because they were fearful of giving offense, and many said they had not openly discussed race relations in high school."What about talking about race is so stigmatized?" said Ng, the moderator of Realizing Race.
Gee, what do you think, Sam? When a top university invites another college president to tell [white] students that only THEY can be racist, what do you think would stigmatize young freshmen? What possibly would cause them to be reluctant to express their views?? Let's see ... 17-18 year olds being told they're racists by an Ivy League college and another college president ...
Ye gad.
(h/t: Discriminations.)
Fresh off the revelation that their editorial board is ridiculously PC, today's News Journal "informs us" of the "woes" of some "students of color" in attending the University of Delaware. You know, "there's not enough people who look like me"; that Cinco de Mayo party last year "caused some concern"; and "what is UD doing to attract more minorities."
As freshmen prepared to begin classes this week, several commented that they already had sought out multicultural organizations, such as the Center for Black Culture or Hola. And they were looking forward to a more diverse campus life than what they had experienced in high school.Lynce Jordane Milien, who came to the university from Rockland County, N.Y., said she signed up for the Each One Reach One mentor program through the Center for Black Culture as a way to meet people she knows she has at least one thing in common with -- race. Such bonds, she said, help minorities feel less alone.
Here's an even better way: Try the "historically black" Delaware State University down in Dover! And NO -- I'm NOT saying Milien should go there; the point is that we way too often read about how UD and other universities "have to do something" to make minorities "feel welcome," yet the solutions always prove that the very notion of "diversity" and "multiculturalism" ensnare liberal PCers in their very own net. After all, no one worries about how Del. State "is not diverse." Indeed, in this day and age, the very notion of a Historically Black College (HBC) is an anachronism. And when its [black] president actually attempted to utilize the diversity gambit on DSU, he was excoriated for not "building on DSU's committment to its historical mission," i.e., as an HBC! And, one may wonder if there is a "Center for White Culture" at DSU to make the minority white students there "feel more welcome."
Ugh. This nonsense should have been dead and buried long ago. The rest of the article treats us to "reseachers" who "inform us" as to the "benefits" of diversity. We've heard it all before -- and laughed at all the inherent contradictions. The funny part is that diversiphiles never seem to realize it. After all, check it from the NJ article:
Richard Fry, senior research associate at the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington, D.C., said the college experience isn't just about academic success. Many feel socially isolated, and that factors into dropout rates.Both Hispanics and blacks are less likely than their white peers to complete a four-year college degree in six years, Fry said. Asians are more likely than whites to do so.
Then we read this:
"The climate is more favorable for white students ... which helps in their motivation to succeed," [Assistant Provost of Student Diversity and Success Terry] Whittaker said. "Predominantly white schools have done a good job meeting the cultural needs of predominantly white students, but not as well with minority students."
After you're done laughing at the fact that UD actually has a paid employee with a title "Assistant Provost of Student Diversity and Success," just consider the emphasized parts above: Minority students can "feel isolated" and hence drop out, and that predominately white schools cater to the cultural needs of white students, leaving out minority students. But oh, but by the way -- Asian students are more likely than whites to complete a four year degree!
Unbelievable. In other words, all that "research" goes right down the tubes. But "trust us," they say, anyway!
Here in Delaware teachers have to complete 90 "clock hours" of training/classes/conferences etc. every five years for relicensure. Out in Oregon, teachers "must demonstrate cultural competence." The Oregon Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (TSPC) definition of just what "cultural competence" is can be summed up by Superintendent of Public Instruction Susan Castillo (my emphasis):
... she asserts that the group found a consensus that cultural competence is more than just effectively meeting the needs of all students by providing teachers with the requisite knowledge and skills. Rather cultural competence entails actively challenging the status quo and advocating for equity and social justice. That involves the need to incorporate institutionalized notions of power, privilege, and oppression into the definition...(and) the need to acknowledge power differences and silencing. Thus, for many, Ms Castillo's report continues, cultural competence is transformative and political.
At least she's brazen enough to just come out and say so!
Fortunately, the attempt to codify this nonsense into Oregon law was halted by the state House of Representatives (again, my emphasis):
The Bill never made it to the floor of the House because when Rep. Linda Flores and her legislative staff studied the Bill and the Summit report, they concluded that the law is unconstitutional because the TSPC, guided by the Summit decisions, effectively demanded that individuals be tested to assure that they possess specific attitudes and beliefs as a condition of employment.
This didn't thwart the educrats, though. They forged ahead with their plan. Can't have "non-believers" of the multiculti dogma actually teaching now, can we??
Expect to see court challenges if/when someone is denied relicensure based on this garbage.
A few days ago I wrote about a Globe article that blamed everything but lack of preparation and knowledge for a "teacher gap" in Boston. Now the same Globe has an op-ed that shows not all of their employees are silly:
Inadequate preparation, not cultural bias, is the most likely explanation for the high failure rate among black and Hispanic candidates. Similar to the achievement gap problem between white and minority students, a solution requires educators to target the academic deficiencies of prospective teachers and provide them with remedial support.
Of course, it would be incumbent upon the teachers (or prospective teachers) to seek out that support, unlike the reverse regarding classroom students.
Bravo to the Globe for a sensible editorial.
... not studying/knowing enough. That's the basis of this Boston Globe article that focuses on why more black and Latino teacher applicants fail the state teacher test at rates more than twice that of whites.
The problem is so persistent that a special state task force of teachers, state education officials and hiring directors has been set up to find out why minorities don't do better on the tests.
Oh brother. And what will this task force look for? For some reason I had a feeling that historical personal study habits and overall knowledge base (like GPA, SAT scores) would not be among things considered. I was right:
Some deans of education schools are raising questions about whether the lower results among minority applicants shows the tests are culturally biased and whether the quality of education that minority applicants receive is good enough.
Which is pretty much exactly what I'd expect deans of education schools to focus on. But they'd better be careful on that last point -- someone may take that as a "racist" statement against Historically Black Colleges.
Some minority applicants say the tests includes questions that white applicants and those with liberal arts backgrounds can more readily identify with, such as questions about ancient literature or investing in the stock market.
I see. So if a white person stated that "blacks generally aren't interested in the stock market," that wouldn't be regarded as a racist comment by these black teaching applicants, or by those education college deans, right?
A Cambridge lawyer said he's planning to file a class action lawsuit against the state Department of Education and the testing company on behalf of three minority teachers who failed the test multiple times.
But of COURSE! It's sure a lot easier to file a lawsuit than study up for that exam, right?
File under "What Were You Thinking?"
No one told teacher Barbara Finnan she had to buy $50 worth of chewing gum for her pupils at Baltz Elementary School. She even has a policy of no gum chewing in class, and the school also does not permit it.But she read somewhere that chewing gum helps children think. And so, for a week's worth of testing, she bent the rules a little and bought the gum with money out of her own pocket. To her delight, the scores did go up a little, although she'll probably never know if the gum did it. (Link.)
My emphasis. Ah, she "read somewhere ... "! Must be like too much of that other educational "research" that is so friggin' scientifically flimsy as to be insignificant. Is Ms. Finnan seriously trying to garner sympathy by revealing this anecdote? Puh-lease. And why would she just come out and blatantly admit that she violates her own school's policy? What does this say to the kids, for that matter?
It is indeed no secret that teachers spend out of pocket money for classroom supplies. I'd say on average that I spend $30-50 each year on such supplies. The key is to do it intelligently -- use it for things you know you absolutely need and that are essential. Ms. Finnan (and article author Ed Kenney) sure didn't do us fellow educators any favors by including in the column -- much less LEADING with it -- how spending half a C-note on gum is imperative!
Former Wilmington, DE mayor Jim Sills opines in yesterday's News Journal about how schools and teachers "aren't doing enough for parents" -- specifically those from low-income and minority areas. Basically, Sills says, since schools constantly advocate for parents "to get involved," they must then also put money and personnel behind that advocacy:
More specifically, school officials are rightly criticized for publicly highlighting the significance of parental participation, but yet failing to provide definitive implementation strategies for real parental participation.This absence of parental participation plans (meaning budgeted finances and assigned personnel) has contributed to African-American and low-income parents (a) not feeling any "significant sense of ownership" of public schools, and (b) having low levels of parental participation in Parent Teacher Association (PTA) meetings. Unfortunately, we are left with a very large contingent of low-income parents, who feel ill equipped to give their children sufficient personal support in school settings.
My emphasis. First off, define "real" parental participation. What does this mean? And regarding community: Wrong, Mr. Sills. What has significantly contributed to lack of "sense of ownership" among such parents is the fact that forced busing effectively dismantled the sense of community that [formerly] predominantly minority schools possessed. When nine of the twelve years that [city] kids go to school take place in suburban schools -- which are quite a ways distant from city neighborhoods -- not only is that sense of community shot, but it's that much more difficult to even get to school/teacher meetings, especially for poorer families.
Many minorities feared just this prior to busing in New Castle County. But now that busing was (and in many respects, still is) reality -- meaning that the original plaintiffs got what they desired -- it is now incumbent upon school and teachers to get parents to "get involved"?
Sills continues,
This problem is accentuated by the failure of school boards to hold teachers accountable, in union contracts, for taking more responsibility for interaction with school parents.
Sills should really narrow this down. My district historically has set aside two couple-day spans for parent conferences during the school year, not to mention times during each day when parents can come in for meetings. Is it me, or does this sound like a fairly darn adequate amount of time for teachers to meet with parents? (Not to mention virtually almost any day after school!) But Sills brings up an instance 25 years ago when, as Christina School Board President, he wanted the teachers union to accept language that would have required teachers to attend four or five PTA meetings a year. He rips the union for then fighting a mandate to attend only one meeting per year, and now, for there not being any union language at all regarding such meetings.
Let me see if I got this straight: If there are parents who already won't (or can't) show up at parent-teacher night, at conferences now matter when scheduled, night or day, somehow requiring teachers to attend four to five (or even one!) PTA meetings a year will somehow THEN get these parents to come out?? And does Sills know the average quantity of parents that come to PTA meetings these days?
If Sills is such an advocate for "meaningful" parental participation plans, where is his own? In the article, why does he not even touch on some ideas that would be included in such a plan? I'd be very curious as to exactly what they'd be. Are they actually reality-based or just, unfortunately, more pie-in-the-sky nebulous banter?
The Washington Post reports today on a study that washes away the theory that -- similar to that of forced busing -- mixing neighborhood families by income will improve [poor] children's academic performance.
Many social reformers have long said that low academic achievement among inner-city children cannot be improved significantly without moving their families to better neighborhoods, but new reports released today that draw on a unique set of data throw cold water on that theory.Researchers examining what happened to 4,248 families that were randomly given or denied federal housing vouchers to move out of their high-poverty neighborhoods found no significant difference about seven years later between the achievement of children who moved to more middle-class neighborhoods and those who didn't.
Although some children had more stable lives and better academic results after the moves, the researchers said, on average there was no improvement. Boys and brighter students appeared to have more behavioral problems in their new schools, the studies found."Research has in fact found surprisingly little convincing evidence that neighborhoods play a key role in children's educational success," says one of the two reports on the Web site of the Hoover Institution's journal Education Next.
My emphasis. This will come as sad news, no doubt, to "progressive" education researchers like Richard Rothstein and Richard Kahlenberg (the latter is quoted in the Post article and offers -- surprise -- a critical analysis of the new study). Both were featured prominently -- and favorably (of course!) -- in a Wilmington News Journal article three years ago (not coincidentally around the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Ed.). Besides desiring highly unlikely-to-be-implemented "solutions" (Rothstein wants housing in America to be integrated by income), the two exhibit the "bigotry of low expectations" throughout the article. Rothstein states that schools with a majority "poor" population just cannot match the academic achievement of middle-class schools. How sad. And, unfortunately, schools like Harlem's Frederick Douglass Academy prove him dead wrong.
But, again, it's not a surprise. I suppose it's just the logical progression: The results of [forced] busing proved a bust to the duo's theories, so they have to "move on" to a similar, yet different, approach. Now that's been torn asunder, too.
Always remember this telling factoid about [progressive] educational "research."
That's what Judge John Daniel Tinder said about the constitutional basis of Laura and Scott Bell's school uniform lawsuit. [Mom] Laura Bell says that they're "not going to give up" and she complained about having to possibly pay the school district's legal costs:
“When you’ve got that much money, and they’re going after the little guy?” she said. “Where there priorities?”
"That much money"? Are you serious? When parents file ridiculous lawsuits that not only take up the district's time but MONEY too, the district's priorities are right on target in trying to recoup legal fees. You know, like, it just might dissuade other sue-happy and risible parents from going to court in the future. reading the comments following the article, it appears 99.9% of readers agree with me.
(h/t: Joanne Jacobs.)
Claude Lewis writes in today's Philly Inquirer that "It is a travesty and a tragedy that African American successes largely have been left out of history books."
I'd say that Mr. Lewis hasn't really looked over modern textbooks.
If anything, history textbooks have become hostages to just about every ethnic "interest group" that wants members of its group to be presented in as positive a light as possible. Felix discussed one such instance here a year and a half ago, and mentioned that I was once a member of DeTAC -- the Delaware Textbook Assessment Committee -- back in 2000. One of the functions of that group was investigating this "hostage crisis." What we found was contrary to what Claude Lewis describes; indeed, modern history textbooks do a quite excellent job of covering the history and accomplishments of minority ethnic groups. In some cases, this coverage occurs at the expense of obviously more significant events and/or people. For example, we noted that The American Journey by publisher Glencoe McGraw-Hill (1996 edition) attempts to make all groups
equally important to development of American history ... Inclusion of the contributions of women and minorities is beneficial when it relates to the main themes of historical development, but forcing trivial information into the text to ... increase the number of politically correct paragraphs creates a disjointed and unsatisfactory narrative.
While Mr. Lewis is obviously correct in that in the past "Blacks quietly excelled - one almost wants to write 'quietly,' but it wasn't quiet, it was simply not acknowledged - in the sciences, architecture, inventions, art, and many other fields" ... but the question remains that, in a history textbook, how much emphasis should be placed on these accomplishments in the entire -- and limited by publisher space considerations -- scope of American history? Lewis brings up figures like Garrett A. Morgan who, among other things, developed the traffic light. I knew about Morgan because -- surprise! -- I recall reading about him (and other black inventors) in ... a history book! But how much space in a standard history text should a figure like Morgan warrant?
DeTAC found that two of the three American history texts we reviewed seemed to "go out of its way" to arbitrarily include contributions of women and ethnic minorities merely to assuage "bean counters" and to act as "self-esteem enhancers." And, in addition, many negative aspects of American history in general were emphasized at the expense of the positive. The American Journey was one text; the other was Boyer's The American Nation by Harcourt Brace & Co. (1998). The latter, for example, gave as much space to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II as the Battle of the Atlantic, the Battle of the Bulge, the Allied bombing of Germany and the Normandy invasion put together. Senator Joe McCarthy was portrayed as as big a threat as Stalin, Khrushchev, and global communism in general.
This "victimization" and "ethnic inclusion" theme can be traced to the 1992 National Standards for History whose principal author, UCLA Professor Gary Nash, who stated that American history is the story of outcast groups "struggling under difficult conditions and ... in large and small ways, refusing to submit to abuse, discrimination and exploitation." In these new standards, important uprisings led by Daniel Shays and Nat Turner are given less emphasis than those led by Jacob Leister and the Paxton Boys. The 1848 declaration at Seneca Falls by a conference of feminists gets more coverage than either the Declaration of Independence of the Gettysburg Address. Once word of these new standards got out, the US Senate voted to repudiate them 99-1 and to cut off federal funds for them. But this didn't stop textbook publishers from putting out "safe" texts that "satisfied" as many groups as possible.
I understand and sympathize with Mr. Lewis' concerns. Unfortunately, I don't think he has really examined modern textbooks (and by "modern" I mean within the last 20 years or so). Given his age (he is up there in years) I believe he is perhaps using his [old] personal recollection of texts that did a regrettably disastrous job in covering the events and accomplishments of Africans/African-Americans (and other minority groups).
David Wallace Croft "says he is fighting against the influence of 'Judeo-Christian monotheism.'" You know, the dastardly social effects of singing "Silent Night" at school holiday concerts. A teacher who wore a t-shirt of a Christian university. But the biggest fight of his life is yet to be decided: That moment of silence his kids' school has each morning.
He and his wife, Shannon, are suing Gov. Rick Perry and the Carrollton-Farmers Branch school district, arguing that the state's minute of silence, in effect since 2003, is unconstitutional and amounts to state-sanctioned school prayer.The lawsuit says a Rosemeade teacher told Mr. Croft's son that the minute of silence held each morning was specifically for prayer. She then bowed her head, clasped her hands and began to pray.
"Moment of silence bills have been popping up in additional states," Mr. Croft wrote on his blog. "To have millions of public school children waste a minute of education each day for a practice that has no secular purpose seems to me like a great sin."
Oh GOSH! A whole minute of instructional time -- LOST! That is a "GREAT SIN"! Hey, anyone else detect the irony in Croft using a religious term -- "sin" -- in his description? (And maybe Croft can move to Boston. Wonder if he'd sue those schools for their great sin?) If some of the instances are true -- like a teacher telling his kid that the moment of silence was specifically for prayer, then that certainly is out of line. Croft also had issues with Boy Scout rallies during school hours and a poster that contained the phrase "In God We Trust." These are gray areas that may or may not have legal hassles. For instance, was the Scout rally during an assembly? (Croft claims they recruited during the rallies, which, if true, is out of line, in my opinion.) Was the phrase "In God We Trust" on a poster of a coin or some other U.S. currency?
In my view, I think there'd be less animosity towards folks like Croft and Mike Newdow if there was more consistency by these so-called "activists." Muslims are allowed to actually pray -- even in public schools -- based on some sort of a "reasonable accommodation." It has happened right here in Delaware, and most recently in San Diego. [Public] Universities have installed footbaths for Muslim students. And, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals banned the Pledge of Allegiance but allowed Muslim prayers to be recited as part of a course on religion. But when a very nebulous "moment of silence" is permitted, well then these activists scream STOP EVERYTHING! WE KNOW WHAT YOU'RE REALLY ATTEMPTING TO DO!!
Another thing to consider is the contradiction inherent in this view. Not for Croft, perhaps (he says he is a libertarian), but for all the progressive leftists who demand "tolerance" and "respect" for "diversity." It is evident in the examples I note above regarding Muslims, yet the very same respect and tolerance is rescinded when it comes to the majority. Less, even, as a mere moment of silence where prayer is legally noted as only ONE possible thing to do during it! And demanding an end to religious-themed songs at holiday concerts? Where's the "tolerance" there? Is it wrong for atheists (or Muslims, or Buddhists or whomever) to be exposed to the Judeo-Christian culture via song? I thought diversity was all-important!
From the New York Post:
Activists with ties to the principal of the city's controversial new Arabic-themed school are hawking T- shirts that glorify Palestinian terror, The Post has learned.The inflammatory tees boldly declare "Intifada NYC" - apparently a call for a Gaza-style uprising in the Big Apple.
The organization selling the shirts, Arab Women Active in Art and Media, shares office space on Brooklyn's Third Avenue with the Saba Association of American Yemenis.
Dhabah "Debbie" Almontaser, principal of the Khalil Gibran International Academy, defends the shirts:
"The word [intifada] basically means 'shaking off.' That is the root word if you look it up in Arabic," she said."I understand it is developing a negative connotation due to the uprising in the Palestinian-Israeli areas. I don't believe the intention is to have any of that kind of [violence] in New York City.
"I think it's pretty much an opportunity for girls to express that they are part of New York City society . . . and shaking off oppression."
Uh-huh. I wonder why it is that non-Muslim Americans have to be ultra-sensitive to Muslim feelings at all times, yet the reverse isn't true. I mean, New York City has a very high Jewish population, yet these Muslims don't see anything wrong with selling -- and wearing -- a shirt whose message is equated with Palestinian terrorism against Israelis and Jews in general.
Turnabout is fair play, as they say. Maybe the ADL can bring about a lawsuit accusing the Arab Women Active in Art and Media of a hate crime.
USA Today reports on parents who're suing to allow their kiddies to wear what they wish to [public] school:
Parents Laura and Scott Bell filed suit over an Anderson, Ind., uniform plan that will begin when students return to school Aug. 20. A hearing was scheduled today in federal court in Indianapolis.The Anderson policy requires black, navy or khaki pants or skirts and a solid-color shirt with a collar.
"As a parent, we felt our rights were being violated," says Laura Bell. They have five children, ages 5 to 17.
The Bells' suit makes two claims: that the uniform requirement violates their children's constitutional right of free expression and that it violates the guarantee of a free public education. The Bells would have to pay $641 for five sets of pants and shirts required by the policy, Laura Bell says.
My knee-jerk reaction to this sort of toplofty attitude is one of disdain. And in this case, that reaction holds. Thankfully, the track record of such suits in favor of such plaintiffs is not good:
Most lawsuits against school uniforms fail, says David Hudson, a First Amendment scholar at the First Amendment Center in Nashville. Judges usually decide that uniform policies are meant to improve schools and not to suppress student speech, he says.
Did the Bells ever complain about the cost of buying notebooks and other school supplies -- based on their aforementioned "guarantee of free public education"? Would the Bells have a problem with girls wearing skintight high shorts in warmer months with revealing halter tops? What about boys wearing their jeans down around their knees while their boxers protrude prominently?
Our school's dress code isn't as strict as Anderson's. We require a collared shirt OR any other type of shirt that has some sort of district/school logo on it (such as phys. ed. t-shirts). Any kind of pants are permitted as long they do not have holes or cut off areas, and are worn properly (ie, the waist not dangling around your knees). Shorts must be of knee-length (this was especially for girls), and no "revealing" tops are permitted.
The actual data on whether dress codes actually improve education and/or the school atmosphere is conflicting. I think, however, a policy such as my school's is quite sensible in that it doesn't really "stifle" what kids want to wear yet enforces a commonsensical guideline on proper manners/attire.
Maciej Murakowski, a student at UD, was suspended by the university for creating an "offensive" website:
One of the allegedly offensive posts involved a listing of fictitious sexual positions including one that mentions gang rape and another called “The Sociopath,” which suggests killing a partner after sex.
Reportedly, a student took offense. One student. And the university determined that the site was “disruptive to the community.” Of course, it was "determined" that the site offended women, a "protected" group especially at universities. A psychiatrist determined Murakowski was not a threat to himself or others, and even though he was allowed back to classes at UD, he still wasn't permitted to live in housing.
I had thought UD had known about that thing called the First Amendment back when a few students attended a party dressed in garb that was offensive to Hispanics. Guess not. Looks like they'll have to learn the hard as Murakowski is suing.
Rhymes With Right links to a NY Times story where a teacher was overruled by an administrator regarding the changing of a student's grade:
Mr. Lampros’s introduction to the high school’s academic standards proved a fitting preamble to a disastrous year. It reached its low point in late June, when Arts and Technology’s principal, Anne Geiger, overruled Mr. Lampros and passed a senior whom he had failed in a required math course.That student, Indira Fernandez, had missed dozens of class sessions and failed to turn in numerous homework assignments, according to Mr. Lampros’s meticulous records, which he provided to The New York Times. She had not even shown up to take the final exam. She did, however, attend the senior prom.
Through the intercession of Ms. Geiger, Miss Fernandez was permitted to retake the final after receiving two days of personal tutoring from another math teacher. Even though her score of 66 still left her with a failing grade for the course as a whole by Mr. Lampros’s calculations, Ms. Geiger gave the student a passing mark, which allowed her to graduate.
Ms. Geiger declined to be interviewed for this column and said that federal law forbade her to speak about a specific student’s performance. But in a written reply to questions, she characterized her actions as part of a “standard procedure” of “encouraging teachers to support students’ efforts to achieve academic success.”
My emphasis. I cannot begin to express what a complete buffoon this woman is. I am happy that Lampros decided to make a stink out of this, as that is precisely what I would do. Lampros did have sort of an indication of what he was getting into, however, as detailed by the school's grading policy:
He took particular note of the stipulation that a student who attended class even once during a semester, who did absolutely nothing else, was to be given 45 points on the 100-point scale, just 20 short of a passing mark.
Let's see, what's an appropriate adjective here? "Ridiculous"? "Ludicrous"?
To make matters worse, Fernandez's mother exemplifies the attitude of way too many parents these days:
“My daughter earned everything she got,” she said. Of Mr. Lampros, she said, “He needs to grow up and be a man.”
That's right, Mrs. Fernandez. Your daughter earned a solid "F." Not what she was given by the preposterous "generosity" of Ms. Geiger. And Mr. Lampros' masculinity is not in dispute. What is is your ability to be a parent. I mean, check it:
Mr. Lampros recalled one comment that Mrs. Fernandez made during their meeting about why it was important for Indira to graduate. She couldn’t afford to pay for her to attend another senior prom in another senior year.
Fortunately, I have never encountered a situation where my principal (or other administrator) demanded that I change a student's grade. In fact, they have been most supportive of my decisions in the [few] instances where there has been some sort of dispute. Admittedly, I do not even know if admins. are allowed to change a grade without a teacher's permission. That's the case in Texas, as Greg at RWR notes in his post -- that is, admins. cannot change a grade without a teacher's OK. Probably the most memorable example of a parent berating me about her kid's grade was very early in my career; mom was upset that the 50% her child had earned got him a grade of "F." She asked, "But can't he get credit for the work he has done?" My reply was, "He has gotten credit. 50%." She still didn't get why this was an "F." And, unfortunately across the US, there are too many administrators who feel likewise -- that virtually any work done by a student warrants at least a passing grade. They believe that failing grades "discourage" students. This was perfectly exemplified years ago here in Delaware during the Adele Jones saga.
Jones was a math teacher in Delaware's Indian River District. The claim was that "she failed too many students." She ended up being fired, but was reinstated when a judge ruled that her due process rights were violated. But the telling item is when this story was told on one of the big networks' news magazine shows ("Dateline" it may have been, if memory serves). One of Jones' administrators came right out and said it: "Bad grades do not motivate students." I was completely flummoxed. In other words, a teacher should not assign a "bad grade" (usually meaning a "D" or "F") to a student -- no matter what the lack of performance -- because "it won't motivate him/her." Hell, Jones should have argued that poor performance reviews and worse, her firing, "don't/wouldn't motivate HER to do better"! You can see just how pathetically ridiculous this all becomes.
What happens when these students (like Lampros' and Jones') move on to the REAL WORLD? It doesn't look pretty.
From the Atlanta Journal Constitution regarding the poor education statistics for black students nationwide:
When analyzing the issue at the school level, such statistics are tied to school policies and practices that work against the academic achievement of black children, some of which include the uneven placement of black children into lower academic tracks, the disproportionate reprimanding of black children for similar infractions in which white children often go unpunished and the over-representation of black children in special education classes.
OK, what's the most telling -- and obvious -- omission here? See if you can figure it out.
What's more, writer Jerome E. Morris (an associate professor of education at the University of Georgia ... be careful right there!), who's leading a "study" (see Hube's earlier post) of black student achievement, thinks African-Americans should collectively get together and sue for "educational neglect":
Clearly, it is the continued educational neglect of black children —- more than 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education —- which should be brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, not the constitutionality of desegregation plans. It appears it will take a Civil Rights type of movement in education to change the present academic trajectory of black children. It will take parents and educators, concerned clergy and community activists, and members of commerce and civic organizations taking to the street —- and the Internet —- en masse, to demand the undelivered promises of Brown.
The word in bold is the answer to the post's question. At least Morris actually mentions it here. But consider his point: "Educational neglect of black children" should be litigated, and yet again we read another misunderstanding of the historic Brown case. Let's consider that all of Morris's desires in the first quote above were rectified, either by litigation or some sort of legislation, but the KEY ingredient remained absent -- parental involvement. Does Morris really think that African-American academic achievement will suddenly and magically benefit? The term "pipe dream" comes to mind.
Let's take Morris' complaints one at a time. 1) African-American children consistently have performed the lowest, or among the lowest, of ethnic groups in various forms of academic assessment. But this somehow doesn't justify placing them in lower academic tracks (in schools/districts that even have academic tracks; many have dismantled them precisely because it is politically incorrect to do so based largely on complaints similar to Morris'.) 2) Discipline statistics in schools nationwide show the high [disproportionate] numbers of black students who've been disciplined. Of course, academics like Morris perpetually contend that this is due to some sinister white privilege power structure that seeks to perpetuate black subservience. It couldn't possibly be that African-American children actually do commit more discipline infractions than their [white] student counterparts. If national crime statistics are any indication, school discipline stats are entirely consistent. Unless, of course, that the national crime stats are due to some sinister white privilege power structure that seeks to perpetuate black subservience, also. 3) Special education figures are tied to point #1. If black students are performing at low levels, how does it make sense to place them in, say, honors classes if they aren't even close to being prepared for such? Or even in an at-grade level class if they're academic performance is two to three years behind? Points #1 and #3 are similar to the argument of those against affirmative action who point out that one of the great under-reported tragedies of college racial preferences is the high number of [black] drop-outs; they are insufficiently prepared for the academic rigors of college, and college administrators only care about the "bean counting" -- how many minorities they have enrolled -- rather than the number that actually stick it out and graduate.
If Morris' wish of such litigation were successful, I cannot think of a more detrimental development. Minority children and parents would look upon such a legal "victory" as an abdication of the personal responsibility needed to get a good education. The many parents that are sadly UNinvolved in their children's academic well-being would say, "See? The law says you must educate my child." Children could sit in class, do nothing, misbehave, all the while knowing that they're not legally responsible for their academics. If they fail, they can go back to court for further legal "remediation." The closest analogy I can think of is if some court ruled in favor of a plaintiff who sued a doctor because he himself refused to take the medication that the doctor prescribed.
It's a recipe for legal -- and cultural -- disaster.
(Thanks to Hube for the link and research assist!)
The latest DSEA newsletter arrived the other day and it features an article blasting the recent US Supreme Court decision which overturned "voluntary" (a misnomer, for sure, but thus quotes the article) school desegregation in Seattle and Lousiville schools. A "friend-of-the-court" brief in support of the districts was signed by groups such as the AFL-CIO, the NAACP, the People for the American Way, the AFT and, of course, the NEA. Some surprise there, huh? At any rate, the article is chock full of lies and half-truths as one would expect from an educrat and diversophile like Reg Weaver, president of the NEA. For example, he invokes Brown v. Board of Ed.:
More than 50 years ago our nation's highest court ruled that the United States Constitution requires schools to be integrated, but now the Court has ruled that our Constitution prohibits voluntary efforts efforts to integrate schools.
My emphasis. I'd say it's "amazing" that the president of such a noted organization as the NEA could so misunderstand what Brown actually did; however, educrats and diversophiles aren't exactly known for their sense of logic and propriety. Once again, Brown did NOT require that [public] schools "be integrated." What it did was tear asunder the legal racially discriminatory barriers that prevented [black] children from attending the same schools as white children. (See Colossus posts on this here, here and here.) In other words, if a black child lived next door to a school that was exclusively white, then henceforth that child was legally permitted to attend that adjacent school.
Some courts -- like the one that decided the northern Delaware desegregation case in the late 1970s -- misread Brown in ways that were to Weaver's liking (even despite real voluntary deseg. plans), but these types of plans weren't exactly the norm. Indeed, if Brown was intended to do just what Weaver states, then now there would (should) be NO "racially identifiable" schools anywhere in the country else they'd be in violation of the Constitution.
Next, we read another fallacy:
NEA urged the court to uphold the value of diversity, which according to a substantial body of research, actually improves the quality of education for all students.
Oh, really? This notion of the "value of diversity" first gained prominence in the Gratz and Grutter University of Michigan affirmative action cases from several years ago. The university's rationale was so laughingly feeble that it is infuriatingly difficult to grasp how the SCOTUS fell for such nonsense in one of the cases (Grutter). UM basically argued that a "critical mass" of diversity is necessary in a learning environment for an "optimal" education. Their "research" was thoroughly shredded by the skeptical justices (especially Antonin Scalia), and, of course, it flies in the face of the logic of other liberally-supported institutions such as HBCs -- Historically Black Colleges.
What does this "research" regarding the benefits of diversity actually say? Is it actual scientific research, or just "fluff" that way too much of education "research" classifies as these days? Real research has demonstrated that "diversity" is nothing more than a "feel good," nebulously beneficial concept with little-to-NO academic benefits for students. (Note, too, Weaver's carefully worded "actually improves the quality of education for all students" above. How is "quality" defined? Is it the supposed quality of instruction? Social interactive benefits? It is telling that Weaver did not state "improves academic performance of all students.") Indeed, the National Assn. of Scholars (NAS) shows the indeterminate nature of the University of Michigan's "research":
[the] University resorts to a methodological confusion, arguing first that racial diversity is positively related to four intermediate "campus experience variables" (i.e., enrollment in ethnic studies courses, attendance at a racial/intercultural workshop, discussion of racial issues, and interracial socialization) and, next, that these are in turn, (though rather weakly and inconsistently), related to the claimed educational benefits."
Liberal groups, as I've noted often before, just cannot get out of the way of their own circular logic when it comes to "diversity" and multiculturalism. Here we read, further in the DSEA newsletter, that the NEA brief in support of the defendants said in part,
Interactions among students of different races -- with different vantage points, skills(?), and values -- are of great consequence not only to the students' development as citizens in a multiracial, democratic society, but also to their intellectual development. The impact of encountering and dealing with racial diversity as part of their education is positively linked to growth in cognitive and academic skills of both racial minorities and white students. These educational benefits are realized not only while children are in school, but in their subsequent lives as well.
Yet these very same advocates stand behind the anachronism that are HBCs, separate dorms for minority students, separate freshman orientations, and even separate graduation ceremonies! Which, of course, begs the question that if diversity is SO all-important as the NEA (and others) profess, then why the constant invocation of separateness?
My God, it really is just too easy to cleave such "research" and "arguments" in half. But what can one expect from those who once championed color-blindness but now color-consciousness ... once championed individual rights but now group rights ... and once championed dismantling barriers to desegregation but now favor race mandates based on some pseudo-scientific notion of "diversity"?
At Berkeley, the purveyors of the course "Computer Science 188: An Introduction to Artificial Intelligence" have decided to be politically correct with an A.I. checkers game. How so? They've renamed the "king" -- wait for it! -- the "AAP" or "Additionally Abled Piece."
If a piece reaches the opposite side, it becomes an AAP (Additionally Abled Piece -- actually, it's called a "king", but we decided to eschew sexist and monarchist nomenclature) and can move both backwards and forwards along the diagonals.
You just gotta laugh, folks.
(h/t: Phi Beta Cons.)
Clarence Thomas, that is, when he said in the recent Supreme Court decision regarding racial assignment in schools "Beware of elites bearing racial theories."
Case in point: The United Kingdom's education ministers, in their "infinite wisdom," are threatening that if all-white (or nearly all-white) schools don't encourage racial and religious "mixing," they'll be labeled as "failing."
Schools with mainly white pupils could be labelled "failing" if they don't encourage children to mix with other races and religions.Ministers will unveil guidance to heads on how to comply with a new legal duty to promote community relations.
Schools in rural or suburban areas will be urged to twin with multi-ethnic schools, for example by staging joint plays or sporting events.
Faith schools should link up with different denominations while schools with no religious affiliation should arrange trips to churches, mosques and synagogues.
Schools should also bring together local parents from different backgrounds by holding coffee mornings, curriculum evenings and parent and child courses.
Ofsted inspectors will be handed powers to check schools are meeting the new duty, which comes into force in September.
Those judged to be falling short face the prospect of their governing bodies taken over by council hit squads or even closure.
The new law is aimed at preventing schools breeding prejudiced attitudes which could lead to extremism.
It appears that there is not a separation between the public and private sphere in the UK like there is here in the US. Notice that this threat extends to "faith schools." In addition, despite the headline and initial paragraph, it seems to me that [virtually] all-minority schools would also be subject to the new laws. These "We Know Better Than You" top-down ruling ministers believe the new requirements will "promote community cohesion." Believe it or not, it went as far as former Education Secretary Alan Johnson proposing that "faith schools to reserve a quarter of places for non-believers," but that was nixed after the Catholic Church voiced opposition.
Teachers, who always bear the brunt of inane educationist edicts, are aware of the nonsense:
Mick Brookes, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said: "This new duty seems like another stick to beat schools with."John Dunford, of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "In many troubled communities, schools are almost the only institutions creating community cohesion, which is why it's so unnecessary to have an extra law."
... Head teachers are concerned at the additional burden the duty will place on schools.
They said schools cannot be expected to solve society's problems and the extra regulation will further detract from the core task of educating children.
'Ya think? But it doesn't matter -- your school could be the best academically performing school in the entire UK, but if you don't have that "proper racial/religious mix," you're going to be labeled as "failing"! How 'bout that?
The Commission for Racial Equality has warned the UK is in danger of becoming a "mini America", with schools separated along religious and ethnic lines.
So? Funny how the United States has thrived as a country since its inception as a nation of immigrants which was frequently separated along religious and ethnic lines. Only people appointed to such a "commission" can make such a statement with negative implications without realizing how ludicrous it is. In the article's comment section, commenter "Georgie" correctly notes that the US already tried "skin color [education] schemes" and they failed. (He must be referring to things like busing.) He's correct; however, as previously mentioned, this doesn't matter in the UK where there isn't the separation between the public and private arenas. In the US, families can avoid silly government edicts (like busing) by electing to send their children to private or parochial schools. No such luck in Britain.
And let's go back to this line: The new law is aimed at preventing schools breeding prejudiced attitudes which could lead to extremism. Is this really a concern with primarily Caucasian schools in the UK? Or can't the ed. ministers voice the government's real worry with regards to "breeding prejudiced attitudes" and "extremism" in schools without violating some sacrosanct politically correct government code, hmmmm?
UPDATE: Back to the Future: Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards will "unveil" later this week a plan to integrate American schools because they "have become segregated by race and income." Though it isn't (at least at first glance) akin to old 1970s-style busing schemes, Edwards seems to base his plan on old theories whose results have proven dead wrong at worst, inconclusive at best. For instance,
The proposals Edwards plans to unveil would encourage income diversity in schools, in the hope that poor students would have more experienced teachers and motivated classmates.
My emphasis. Hope is great; reality and actual results can be sobering things, however.
Somehow I missed this op-ed (from this past week) by former Christina School District Superintendent Nicholas Fischer. Fischer is definitely an old school educational progressive (which sort of sounds like a contradiction in terms) who has the same ridiculously wrong perceptions of what Brown v. Board of Ed. was all about. This excerpt says it all:
What happened in northern Delaware is one example of the changes wrought by Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1954. Brown was finally enforced in Delaware in 1978.Now the U.S. Supreme Court appears to be on the path to reversing Brown in its most recent decisions regarding schools in Seattle and Louisville, Ky.
My emphasis, because as an obviously well-educated man, Fischer could not be more grossly mistaken. As I've written here at Colossus ad nauseum, New Castle County, Delaware's busing scheme was deemed one of the "most draconian" in the entire country. But that's beside the point; Brown did NOT mandate some sort of "proportionate racial mix" of students in public schools as Fischer claims. It disintegrated de jure segregation that prevented [minority] students from attending schools closest to them (in effect, legally separate schools for different races). Only social engineering progressive educationists like Fischer believe that the historic 1954 decision enforced some muddled notion of mandated "diversity" for public schools in the name of the public "good."
Fortunately, Phillip Mink in today's News Journal shreds Fischer:
Former Christina School District superintendent Nicholas Fischer berates us with the toxic ideology that has done so much to destroy public education in northern Delaware. Let's do ourselves the favor of ignoring him.His first salvo is to smear neighborhood schools proponents as segregationists. It's time to put that insult to rest. I lived through school desegregation in rural Mississippi during the 1970s, and there is no doubt Jim Crow is a blight on this nation's history. Those who institutionalized racial discrimination deserve more punishment than they received. Those courageous enough to confront that system deserve more credit.
Fischer apparently fancies himself in the latter group because of his insistence on busing, but that's laughable. If sending students to schools that reflect racially identifiable housing patterns were unconstitutional, then virtually every urban school district in the nation -- New York City, Philadelphia, Washington -- would be under fire. They're not, because the civil rights revolution eliminated state-sanctioned school segregation.
Fischer argues that students benefit academically from diversity. If he's right, 30 years of busing Delaware students should have narrowed the achievement gap. It hasn't. There are striking discrepancies in students' test scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The Delaware State Testing Program has similar results.
Bravo, Phillip. Target acquired and bullseyed.
For a more accurate and detailed report on New Castle County busing, once again I direct you to Raymond Wolters' 1993 report here (.pdf file), and this post of mine from back in April.
Ninety-seven percent of Americans -- 97%!! -- believe that the political bias of college professors is a serious or very serious problem today. (58% say "serious," 39% say "very serious.") Of course, those labeled "very conservative" -- 91% -- believe it a "very serious" problem while only 3% of liberals do. Does this mean then that ... college professors are overwhelmingly ... liberal?
Naawwwww ...
But hey -- there's one discipline on campus where liberals feel marginalized: Economics.
In light of the recent Supreme Court decision outlawing Seattle and Louisville "diversity" plans for public schools, Ward Connerly highlights the illogic of the diversophiles ... and finally brings to light just what that "critical mass" is that University of Michigan administrators argued for in their 2003 affirmative cases:
"Critical mass" means that it is important for a sufficient number of "minorities" to be enrolled on campus so that they not feel "isolated." When the number of blacks dropped at UC Berkeley following the passage of 209, the opponents of 209 argued that the drop in black enrollment created a "hostile environment" for those enrolled. "Critical mass" theory also means that the remainder of the student body needs to see enough black faces so that they can benefit from "diversity."
As Connerly points out, this didn't seem to be necessary for James Meredith, the first African-American admitted to the Univ. of Mississippi. Nor, would I add, does it seem to be necessary for any non-black student currently attending an Historically Black College.
Connerly highlights Justice Clarence Thomas' line in the recent SCOTUS case which stated "If our history has taught us anything, it has taught us to beware of elites bearing racial theories." Indeed. "Critical Mass" is one that we should "beware" of since there is little to no impirical scientific evidence to support it -- much like the theory that "diversity equals [academic] excellence."
The San Diego Union Tribune reports
A San Diego public school has become part of a national debate over religion in schools ever since a substitute teacher publicly condemned an Arabic language program that gives Muslim students time for prayer during school hours.Carver Elementary in Oak Park added Arabic to its curriculum in September when it suddenly absorbed more than 100 students from a defunct charter school that had served mostly Somali Muslims.
After subbing at Carver, the teacher claimed that religious indoctrination was taking place and said that a school aide had led Muslim students in prayer.
An investigation by the San Diego Unified School District failed to substantiate the allegations. But critics continue to assail Carver for providing a 15-minute break in the classroom each afternoon to accommodate Muslim students who wish to pray. (Those who don't pray can read or write during that non-instructional time.)
Emphasis mine. Now, is it me or would such a practice be absolutely anathema for a school district if it involved Christians? Fifteen minutes of classroom time during the school day? If a public school attempted this with religious Christians, the ACLU would be in court so fast that Carl Lewis would be impressed. But in the San Diego case, they're merely "monitoring developments."
The San Diego chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations supports the Carver program.“Our country is transforming demographically, religiously,” said Edgar Hopida, the chapter's public relations director. “Our country has to now accommodate things that are not traditionally accounted for before.”
Is that right? Not if these "things" are constitutionally impermissible, Mr. Hopida. Accommodation is a two-way street, with the onus usually on those who make the move TO a particular country, not the other way around!
Right here in Delaware approximately three years ago, the Christina School District "accommodated" Muslim students by giving them a separate room in which to pray -- during the school day and supervised by a school employee -- during Ramadan. Amazingly, the News Journal then opined (rightly, in my opinion) against Christina's actions, but there was -- surprise! -- no word on any legal action against Christina by the Delaware ACLU. An e-mail from me to the civil rights group about the situation -- another surprise! -- went unanswered.
The Democrat presidential candidates "debated" again last night, this time at the historically black Howard University. You know what that means: Time to declare that "there's still much to do" in the country with regards to race, that "racism" still exists and is still to blame for many ills in society, and that the GOP really doesn't care about black people (with apologies to Kanye West). And you know MSNBC.com's coverage is guaranteed to offer to softball coverage, too! Let's get started ...
“We have made enormous progress, but the progress we have made is not good enough,” said Sen. Barack Obama, the son of a man from Kenya and a woman from Kansas.
Of course!
A historically diverse field of Democratic presidential candidates — a woman, a black, a Hispanic and five whites — denounced an hours-old Supreme Court desegregation ruling Thursday night and said the nation’s slow march to racial unity is far from over.
Irony: "Civil rights activist Al Sharpton and Princeton University scholar Cornel West were among those in the audience."
They stood united against the Supreme Court and its historic ruling rolling back a half-century of school desegregation laws. [Hillary] Clinton said the decision "turned the clock back" on history.
Irony: School desegregation laws, stemming from the monumental Brown decision from 1954, outlawed using race in determining where students could go to school. The recent SCOTUS decision outlawed ... using race in determining where students could go to school. That sure sounds like some "roll!"
Oh, and notice the excellent editorializing in MSNBC's "news" article: "... and its historic ruling rolling back a half-century of school desegregation laws." But it's not surprising. Brown outlawed the use of race in school assignments, but since, this dismantling of desegregation barriers has become synonymous with "diversity." Since "diversity" is a "good" thing," it is therefore OK to use race to achieve it. (Unfortunately, the reality is that "diversity" is actually merely a nebulous "feel-good" concept that has little to no educational benefits.)
Further irony: What Clarence Thomas asked in the SCOTUS case: That if "diversity" is necessary to achieve educational benefits, why does one of the defendants in the SCOTUS case, the Seattle School District, operate a K-8 "African-American Academy" which was established to improve black student test scores?
Even more irony: All this criticism of the SCOTUS decision from a debate ... at a [virtually] all-black university.
Clinton drew a huge cheer when she suggested there was a hint of racism in the way AIDS is addressed in this country. "Let me just put this in perspective: If HIV-AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34 there would be an outraged, outcry in this country."
Actually, Hill, there would not as most people know that irresponsible personal behavior (unprotected sex, intravenous drug use) is by far the main method by which to contract the deadly disease. It doesn't matter what color the person is.
Segregation was not the only issue. In turn, the candidates discussed their hopes to stem poverty, close the economic gap between the rich and poor, fight AIDS and overhaul a judicial system that doesn't always seem colorblind.
Irony: Justice system must be colorblind, education must not.
Lastly, the laugher of the night:
"This issue of poverty is the cause of my life," said John Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee.
'Nuff said.
This is a question I pose to fellow DE bloggers Tommywonk, Nancy "I Blame Wayne Smith For Everything" Willing, and Kilroy. All have opined favorably regarding the recent court decision against the Christina School District's plan to close several schools in the city of Wilmington (the former two moreso than Kilroy), and yesterday Kilroy came out in favor of a reincarnated Wilmington School District.
I've pointed out the inconsistencies of city interest positions, mainly that the forced busing decree that began in New Catsle County in 1978 had as one of its main premises that city children's academic progress would improve when mixed with suburban children. City children had to attend suburban schools for nine of their twelve years (Judge Leo Strine, in his recent ruling, criticized Christina for having city children having to attend suburban schools for only seven) and the old Wilmington School District effectively ceased to exist. Yet, when the state legislature approved the Neighborhood Schools Act in 1999, these same interests (and the News Journal) called it "racist" and "segregationist," yet Christina's plans for their schools, while seemingly quite consistent with the bases of the original desegregation order, were roundly criticized by city interests, taken to court, and ended up losing.
So it all boils down to this: The city's current position using the Neighborhood Schools Act -- allowing [city] children to attend schools closest to their homes -- goes against the very premise of the '78 busing order. Which begs the question which I have yet to hear from those who favored forced busing: Was the 1978 forced busing order a monumental mistake, not only in terms of educational achievement, but in fostering a sense of community in city and suburban neighborhoods as well?
First we saw this laughable example; now it's extended to the college realm:
Thanks to loyal Colossus reader Fred Gregory for sending this along. (The photo originally appeared in the Greensboro, NC News & Record.)
Nnamdi O. Chukwuocha writes in a News Journal op-ed the following gross error:
For example, any time an honor student gets involved in a fight for the first time, he or she is immediately recommended for expulsion. Something is wrong indeed.
Absolutely not. Being in education for some time, I've noticed people frequently confuse "expulsion" and "suspension". Expulsion is a recommendation that a student be, well, expelled from a district's schools. This happens for VERY serious offenses, or constant and repeated lesser ones. It involves a LOT of discussion among district administrators and are actually fairly rare.
Suspension, on the other hand -- and what I think the author actually means in the article -- means a temporary [penalty] hiatus from being able to attend school, usually anywhere from a day to a week. An honor student who got involved in a fight (for the first time) in NO WAY would be expelled or even recommended for expulsion. The only way I can see that happening is if the student had, and used, a weapon in the course of the fight.
There is, and has been, concern that "automatic suspensions" are handed out to those involved in school fights, despite who started it. A kid may get suspended merely for defending him/herself. That is a logical point of contention. I just wish the author would make clear the actual distinction between the terms "expulsion" and "suspension."
The Christina School District "is in violation of Delaware's Neighborhood Schools Act," says Chancery Court judge Leo E. Strine Jr. This means that the district cannot close several Wilmington city schools as it had wished to do.
As noted here previously, the main architect of the Neighborhood Schools Act, former House Majority Leader Wayne A. Smith, was blasted by critics (mainly from the city and the Wilmington News Journal) when he first proposed the Act. "New millenium racism," it was, according to New Castle County councilman Jea Street. And, as I've said before, the irony here is, for lack of a better term, delicious: People like Street -- a big proponent of busing -- just can't make up their minds. The original county busing plan mandated that city children be bused to the suburbs for nine of their twelve school years, while suburban children were bused to the city for only three years. Yet,
in his 73-page ruling, Strine blasted the district's strategic plan, saying it allowed suburban kids to avoid being bused to Wilmington, while most city kids would be forced to travel approximately 15 miles down I-95 for the last seven of their 13-year public school careers."As I understand it, the plaintiffs view Christina's approach to neighborhood schools in terms that bring to mind Chef Emeril Lagasse's term, 'one-sided-tasting food,' " Strine wrote. "Suburban kids get to eat from the tasty, seasoned side of the roast; city kids from the side without flavor."
But what it all boils down to is that all the blustering from Street, the News Journal and others about Wayne Smith and his supposed "true intentions" about the Neighborhood Schools Act was just a bunch of pure CRAP. The implications of "racism" and desire for "newly segregated schools" were the usual Street/News Journal cultural swill. And the proof is right here, folks: Wilmington SUED using Smith's law, the very law they had despised and thought "racist" and "segregationist." And not only that, they sued against the very bases of the original county busing order.
One wonders when Street and the other REAL new millenium racists will finally make up their minds as to what is "racist" and "segregationist." The answer is, of course, "never," because keeping such charges alive is, after all, what keeps them in "business."
UPDATE: University of Delaware Professor Raymond Wolters, who wrote the report about New Castle County's busing saga here, responds to the recent verdict against Christina in an e-mail to me:
My first reaction is to be pleased with Strine's decision. I have made a point of NOT following the recent developments closely. I have grown weary after 30 years of observing the courts and the school bureaucrats mismanage public education. Maybe I like Strine's decision simply because it is a rebuff to the Christina School Board, which has been disregarding the Neighborhood Schools Act for years.It seems to me that the members of the Christina School Board are stuck with the mindset of the liberal integrationists of the 1970s. The members of the Board are deeply committed to racially balanced, integrated education. They don't think black students can learn in neighborhood schools. And they fear another round of white flight if they require suburban students to spend any extra time attending schools in Wilmington. Since they (1) are committed to racially balanced integration, and (2) fear the flight of whites who are sent to Wilmington, (3) they came up with the idea of busing more blacks to the suburbs. But to do this they have to (1) disregard the Neighborhood Schools Act, (2) close schools in Wilmington, and (3) build educational centers in the suburbs that are large enough to accommodate all the students on a few campuses.
Although the members of the CSB have been thinking this way for years, they (or other like minded people)continue to be elected to the Board. I don't understand why these issues have not been major topics of discussion in school board elections. As I see it, the best thing to do now would be to recruit candidates who would promise to discuss these points in the next school board election.
British academic union members are refusing to participate in what they regard as a "witch hunt." The University and College Union claims
... Muslims are being "demonized" because of new guidelines asking staff to log suspicious behavior in light of concerns that campuses are being infiltrated by extremists recruiting candidates to wage jihad, to vet Islamic preachers who have been invited to campuses, to see that "hate literature" is not distributed among students, and to report suspicious behavior to police.Academics at the union's London Metropolitan University branch will say that "increasingly restrictive measures and the xenophobic language surrounding them" has led to an increase in racist attacks on Muslims.
"Islamophobia and the attempts at increased surveillance on Muslim communities are not only encouraging racist and xenophobic tendencies in Britain but are also leading to measures that threaten civil liberties," they will warn.
Meanwhile, this same union has called for a boycott of Israeli academia because, you know, Israel is like the old South Africa in its policies regarding the Palestinians. Even though, you know, the majority blacks in the old S.A. didn't actually want to completely annihilate their white oppressors like the Palestinians want to do to Israel. That distinction seems to have been overlooked by these "bright" individuals. Of course, too, this isn't seen as a "demonization" of Israel or "Jewishphobia."
How convenient.
(The last two words on the closer poster are "Kids Walk.")
Students who had been planning to walk across the stage at graduation ceremonies this weekend were instead walking a picket line Thursday morning.The Trimble Tech High School seniors marched in front of Fort Worth Independent School District headquarters to protest Wednesday's decision by trustees to bar students who failed the TAKS test from commencement exercises.
About a dozen young people, carrying signs and chanting, began picketing at 8:30 a.m. Thursday. They represent the 613 Fort Worth seniors who did not pass the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills exam. (Link.)
'Ya think? I'd say that dimwitty wrote that sign, but I don't wanna "offend" anybody ...
(h/t: Taranto.)
Probably not: All three Brandywine School District high schools (Brandywine, Concord and Mt. Pleasant) made Newsweek magazine's list of top high schools in the nation. Their formula is "based on the ratio of how many Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate and Cambridge tests their students took, divided by the number of graduating seniors."
So, WDEL's Rick and Ger? Have you been talking about this? Has anyone heard them? Or is Fulcher in particular still going on about his "anonymous" anecdotes regarding how poor the teaching is in the district? (His latest "winner" was him saying that "he knows about Romance languages" and said one of his relatives -- daughter? -- got a high grade she didn't deserve in an unspecified district foreign language class.)
UPDATE: Fulcher's nitpicking reminds me of an instance early in my teaching career. A parent at Open House came up to me and wanted to know why I didn't teach the verb form for "vosotros" to my students. ("Vosotros" is the plural "you" pronoun, and is really only used in Spain.) I explained why to the parent, but she wasn't satisfied. "It's in the book," she insisted. "Yes," I replied. "It is. But there's a reason why it is printed in italics. It's because it's not used in Latin America."
"But it's in the book!" she again told me. I again explained myself. The parent still wasn't satisfied.
Since then I eventually began teaching the "vosotros" form to my students, due in part to that incident ("It's in the book!"), and also because my old Spanish teachers (who only skirted "vosotros" use when I took Spanish with them) said it might be a good idea to teach it since our high schools take trips to Spain. Good enough.
At any rate, I can just imagine Gerry "I Know Something About Romance Languages" Fulcher going on and on about something like that. But he probably thinks these languages are called "Romance" because they sound sexier.
At Harvard, the Black Men's Forum (BMF) and the Association of Black Harvard Women (ABHW) were playing dodgeball and flag football in an area known as the "Quad." Apparently, the noise level (among other things) irritated some students trying to study and eventually the campus police were called.
Uh-oh.
Bryan C. Barnhill II '08, president of the BMF, said that "the call to HUPD was 'disturbing' because of the 'assumption that we didn't belong there.'" Barnhill and ABHW President Anjelica M. Kelly '09 both said they felt racism was involved in Saturday's events.
It wouldn't be an American campus, now, if this assumption wasn't the case, now, would it?
Let's see -- the campus cops asked if the group had permission to use the grounds they were using (permission they needed), asked to see some IDs, and then asked the students to keep the noise down. Then the cops left! This = racism???
Some residents complained that the students were playing on roped-off sections of the Quad lawn, where the grass was being regrown for graduation ceremonies. Others were angry over the fact that the noise came in the middle of reading period, as students studied for exams and worked on papers.
What were these folks thinking? Reading and studying for exams? Working on papers? Who cares! How dare they insist on a bit of quiet in a university setting, let alone from members of a minority group! (Anyone remember the infamous University of Pennsylvania "water buffalo" incident?)
Please. I suppose those studying should have settled for the noise as opposed to being accused of racism. This reminds me of what I heard on the Michael Smerconish radio show the other morning: The guy who worked at that Circuit City that thought something was "fishy" about what some of those Fort Dix terror suspects wanted to copy via DVD was worried about reporting his suspicions because he thought people would think it "racist." He told a co-worker:
"Dude, I just saw some really weird s***." I don't know what to do. Should I call someone or is that being racist?"
Is this what we've come to? Afraid of reporting something because it might be viewed as racist, insensitive or ... worse?
Sheesh. Look, my senior year at UD some of my quad-mates in our Pencader dorm decided to throw a party. I didn't really want to open my room to strangers, but nevertheless I decided to invite my own friends to the party -- in my room only. At one point in the evening the UD police showed up because -- surprise! -- the party got too loud. (Not in my room, but other rooms in the quad.) A cop knocked on my door, asked to see everyone's ID (I made sure everyone in my room was over 21) and then he told me everyone would have to leave. In another room, one of my quad-mates got a little miffed with the cops , and I assisted in settling him down. One of the police shook my hand and thanked me, said "goodnight," and I thought that was that. Two days later I got a university "summons" in the mail informing that I would have to appear at a university hearing about my [supposed] "violations" of university policy. Stunned, I asked one my buddies, and an attendee at the party, to join me.
At the hearing, none of the cops who were present the evening of the party were there. In their place was a small woman officer who read their report. Nowhere in the report were the facts that 1) everyone in my room was over 21 years of age, and 2) how the one officer thanked me for my assistance in settling down that quad-mate, and for helping to disperse the party. My buddy affirmed all of this, and we both asked why weren't we informed of our campus violations that very evening if indeed we were engaging in such violations? The stand-in cop had no answer for that or any of our other questions, so, as a consequence, two days later I received word in the mail that all "charges" against me had been dropped.
What was I supposed to think here? Everyone (and everyone) with me and my room was perfectly in order and one of the cops showed his gratitude for my assistance in calming down an irate student and for dispersing the party. Then I get brought up on charges of violating campus policy?? If I didn't know better, I'd say those campus cops were engaging CLASSISM -- they thought I was probably some rich kid from north Jersey who drove a BMW or something, and they "were gonna show ME!" But hey, I went to the hearing, was polite, stated and then proved my case, and then was happy with the outcome. Case closed.
Way back in 2005 I wrote about a little-known incident in Charleston, South Carolina schools where a white female teacher was being harrassed by her [mostly] black students, and the teacher was reprimanded for "not understanding the kids' culture." Brandy Stokes taught at Brentwood Middle School, and ended up suing her district. To my amazement, Brentwood is settling another such lawsuit, (h/t to Joanne Jacobs) this time by one Elizabeth Kandrac who has the exact same complaint as Stokes:
A white teacher at a black school in Charleston, South Carolina was subjected to a “racially hostile workplace” ruled a federal court because school officials did nothing to protect her from verbal abuse by her middle school students. They argued the profanity — with “white” as the adjective” — was “part of the students’ culture,” writes columnist Kathy Parker. Elizabeth Kandrac, who was fired when she filed a complaint, settled with the district for $200,000.Kandrac’s attorney, Larry Kobrovsky, argued that the repeated use of “white” made these slurs racists in nature. But school officials insisted that because black students were equally abusive to other blacks, the language wasn’t inherently racist.
Other white teachers and students corroborated Kandrac's account, including a male war veteran who testified he would rather return to Vietnam than to Brentwood.
What about Mrs. Stokes? What happened to her and her lawsuit? This is too eerily similar to Ms. Kandrac's suit. I am beginning to wonder if perhaps Kandrac used a pseudonym when she appeared on the O'Reilly show a year and a half ago ...?
The always excellent Heather MacDonald tries -- in vain -- to get some straight answers from University of California at San Diego chief diversity officer(!) Jorge Huerta:
Q: As I understand it, when an academic department at UC San Diego initiates a faculty search, you provide an analysis of that department's racial and gender composition with the aim of helping the department increase its diversity.A: The UC San Diego Office of Academic Diversity and Equal Opportunity completes that analysis. At UC San Diego, we view every recruitment effort as an opportunity to bring us closer to our goal of greater diversity.
Q: Do you believe that there are undiscovered black Ph.D.'s in nuclear physics, say (to choose a field at random), or in other hard science and engineering fields, who have not already been identified by every university in the country seeking to diversify itself? Isn't every university in the country chasing the same very small number of underrepresented minorities in the sciences?
A: UC San Diego is very focused on increasing diversity among faculty in the sciences as well as in other disciplines. It could be said, perhaps, that we are all vying for the same excellent candidates, precisely because they are excellent. This may make the process more challenging but it does not change UC San Diego's level of commitment and long-term goals.
Q: Do you think that without friendly encouragement from yourself or other administrators, a physics department, say (this is a purely hypothetical example) would discriminate against - or even merely ignore - highly qualified and competitive minority physicists?
A: I think all academic departments at UC San Diego are well-aware of the university's strong commitment to achieving greater levels of diversity. UC San Diego's chancellor Marye Anne Fox and I have made it a point to communicate the importance of this goal to all academic leaders and department heads. In addition, I think faculty at UC San Diego realize that a more diverse faculty that more accurately reflects the citizens of California is in everyone's best interests.
Q: If you don't think that a department would discriminate against a competitive minority scientist, might oversight from a diversity officer be interpreted as friendly pressure to make race-conscious hiring decisions?
A: The administration of UC San Diego cannot tell any academic department who to hire. Further, we are prohibited by law (Proposition 209) from using race as a factor in hiring. This makes achieving our goals more challenging but it just means we have to try harder through outreach and other efforts.
Q: You said in the La Prensa article that "you cannot have excellence without diversity." To take a purely hypothetical example, do you think that a cancer lab at UCSD, say, that was composed overwhelmingly of Chinese and South East Asian researchers and that was developing a way to turn off a cancer-prone gene, would be less "excellent" for its lack of underrepresented minorities?
A: I believe that's been taken out of context. Of course, a group of scientists who are not ethnically diverse can conduct excellent research. Our goal at UC San Diego is to achieve greater levels of diversity - ethnically, intellectually, and in terms of gender. Diverse perspectives lead to a more competitive and stimulating marketplace of ideas and the outcome of this is excellence in the greater community.
Q: If you do believe that such a lab would be less excellent than a lab with black or Chicano researchers, do you believe, to repeat my question from above, that there are competitive underrepresented minority [URM] microbiologists that UCSD is overlooking?
A: Those "competitive" URMS may be overlooking UC San Diego.
Heather's final retort (my emphasis):
"When he is not purporting not to pressure departments into hiring by race and gender, Mr. Huerta works with UC San Diego's Cross-Cultural Center, its Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Association, and its Women's Center on a 'Dialogue on Race' to celebrate what Huerta calls 'innovations in equity, diversity and excellence.' Those 'innovations' will presumably not include straight-speaking."
I've often wondered if there are "diversity officers" that are not members of a minority. On top of that, I really wonder if these officers, or "trainers," actually know about the cultures they're supposed to "train" the supposed unenlightened about. If you're ever in a "diversity seminar" for "training," ask the "trainer" if he or she has ever lived abroad in a country whose race/ethnicity/culture they're supposed to be "teaching" about. Don't be surprised if the answer is "no."
University of Delaware President David Roselle said that university students who attended a Cinco de Mayo party with outfits that had insensitive sayings on them (get link) would not face disciplinary measures:
"First Amendment protections are sometimes a little bit inconvenient for us when we want to perhaps punish someone who we think by all rights deserves to be punished," Roselle said. "But it's the law of the land, and it's a wonderful law and one we all should happily abide by. So it is what it is, and you have to deal with it."
Yep. And considering groups like FIRE and its track record, Roselle actually demonstrated that he not only knows the law, but he saved the university some cash in the process. If UD was a private university, then Roselle could most likely do as he wished with the students. Ah, but UD is public, and hence bound by the 'ol Constitution.
The city of Wilmington and several parents are proceeding with their lawsuit against the Christina School District for violating the Neighborhood Schools Act:
John Rago, Wilmington's director of communications, said city attorneys submitted a brief to the court Friday that will outline the city's argument."The city's clear position [is] that Christina has demonstrated a pattern of failure in complying with the Neighborhood Schools Act," he said. "Christina's previous and proposed actions regarding city schools, parents and children are adversely affecting the education of city children, and the mayor cannot and will not allow this to happen."
Nowhere in this article does it mention, however, just what many city officials -- not to mention the very News Journal ITSELF -- thought about the Neighborhood Schools Act just a few years ago:
"Probably, what's going to result ... is we're going to, no doubt, end up resegregating schools ... and you're going to have litigation." -- Attorney George Evans."[The Neighborhood Schools Act is] new millenium racism" -- County Councilman Jea Street.
I detailed the history of New Castle County desegregation here, and the complaints against former State House Majority Leader Wayne Smith's Neighborhood Schools Act were the stuff of [predictable] legend. The irony, as they say, is delicious. I thought this Act was "racist," and would lead to dramatic resegregation! Yet, here are city officials using this very act to force a school district to keep open schools that they want open.
Where is George Evans now? Where is Jea Street, especially, who's never short on words especially when it comes to crying "racism"? Where is Nancy Willing who, as a member of the three-person strong "Delaware Clean Sweep" reiterated the News Journal's claim about how the Neighborhood Schools Act would lead to resegregation (in her typical attacks against Wayne Smith)?
And the News Journal? Heh. Don't expect it to remind its readers what it thought about the Act just a few years ago. *SSSSHHHHHHH!!!*
Winfield Myers shows us all the depths of the ridiculous mindset that college elites have today at the contemporary academy. He notes that 11 academics were give the task: “If you were giving the commencement address at Virginia Tech this year, what is the core of the message you would like to leave with the graduates?” Check out some of the responses:
Edward J.W. Park, who teaches Asian Pacific American Studies at Loyola Marymount, titled his address “I Hope He’s Not Korean.” Park shows no compassion for the victims, whom he barely mentions, in his narcissistic immersion into identity politics:“[A] Latino student quietly shared his anxiety: ‘God, I hope it’s not a Latino.’ Then we heard that the first two victims had been an African-American man and a white woman. ‘I hope it isn’t a black person,’ an African-American colleague told me in the mailroom. ‘If it is, we’re going to catch hell.’ ”
And: “ ‘I hope he’s not Vietnamese’; ‘I hope he’s not Filipino.’ The list went on.”
Park, whose career rests on categorizing Americans by ethnicity, concludes his address, with no irony intended, by imploring students to “see beyond racial and ethnic labels.”
Surpassing Park’s rhetorical substitution of imagined victims for real corpses is Karla Jay’s slander of American troops in Iraq. A professor of “English and women’s and gender studies” at Pace University, Jay wrote: “So, too, can the graduating and current students of Virginia Tech, including the more than 700 members of its cadet corps, now understand how violence and terror affect the innocent. More than 200 Iraqis, also guiltless bystanders, were blown up the very same week of the murders at Virginia Tech in senseless, brutal acts of terror. … If we treat individuals or groups of people as our enemies, those people have no choice but to be our enemies. If we hate them, they will demonize us.”
Is she saying that the mentally distrubed VA Tech killer was "made an enemy of" by the VT community? He was seriously mentally ill, for cripe's sake!
Always remember: When universities speak of "diversity," it NEVER means "diversity of thought or viewpoint." NEVER.
Here's what I wrote about that Cinco de Mayo party that offended "so many" at an off-campus UD house:
Now, I wonder if this same News Journal would actually do some HARD reporting and get into the nitty gritty of the multicultural and sensitivity "seminars" that take place at UD and just about every other campus in the land ... Y'see, such "thought control" methods aren't seen as a danger to a free society by entities like the Journal. What they see as the true danger are kids like at the UD showing their insensitivity to an "oppressed" people.
Did'ja think I was overstating the case? Check it, from today's News Journal (my emphasis):
Jonathan Martinez, a first-year graduate student, said picnics and meetings [discussing the party] won't suffice. He said faculty and staff should be made to attend diversity training just as undergraduate students are made to take cultural awareness classes for graduation.On Monday, he saw the party pictures and said he was "very hurt, in part because this is happening all over campus, and it's just considered normal."
He said when the university's new president begins this summer, he should begin work immediately to address racism on the UD campus.
If this is "happening all over campus," then we surely would be hearing about it much more often. We aren't, so it isn't. Does any rational thinker really believe that if such acts were "happening all over campus" that we WOULDN'T be hearing about it constantly in the [liberal] media? For goodness sakes, last night and this morning this recent story was on all the Philadelphia media -- as a major news item!
And this is a campus! You mean to tell all of us that racism is actually worse on a campus than in the population at large? (I mean, "it's all over!") Then this means that all this multiculti and diversity "training" somehow ain't workin'! And to top it off, to sustain the ever-lovin' self-maintaining industry, we now demand MORE of it!
I wonder if Mr. Martinez has any concerns with the National Council de La Raza's ties with groups like MEChA, the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán. The NCLR offers up familiar excuses for these ties, considering MEChA is an openly separatist -- and racist -- organization. Check out this "explanation":
NCLR has never supported, and does not support, separatist organizations. According to its mission statement, MEChA is a student organization whose primary objectives are educational – to help Latino students finish high school and go to college, and to support them while at institutions of higher education. NCLR freely acknowledges that some of the organization's founding documents, e.g., Plan Espiritual de Aztlán, contain inappropriate rhetoric, and NCLR acknowledges that rhetoric from some MEChA members has been extremist and inflammatory.*NCLR will freely disavow statements we believe are inappropriate, as we did when we criticized a pro-separatist Latino website for its racist and anti-Semitic views, but we have no intention of ceasing support for activities that help more Hispanics enter and finish college. As a case in point, the one $2,500 subgrant that NCLR provided to the Georgetown University MEChA chapter in 2003 was to support a conference of Latino students – mainly from the Southwest and West Coast – who were attending East Coast colleges but who could not afford to travel home for Thanksgiving. These Latino student groups hold mini-conferences with workshops and speakers, bringing together students who are often the first high school graduates and college attendees in their families. In this context, were we to be approached for support by a university MEChA chapter, or any other student group, in the future, we would evaluate the request on its merits.
Again my emphasis. This is akin to a group saying it helps and supports (or will accept help and support) from a group like the Nation of Islam, even though its leader (and many others affiliated with the organization) are outright and even hostilely anti-Semitic and racist. After all, to many, the NOI "does some good things." (The inept drones over at DE Liberal once argued this very point -- "So what, if Louis Farrakhan has said some inflammatory things. His group has done some good," they argued.)
Does anyone really, truly believe that this same sentiment would be acceptable from an overtly racist white organization? That, since the group "does some good," that it is OK to donate to, and accept money/assistance from, that group?
You know the answer to that, and I know the answer to that. It's "no."
And to those who claim that whites "should understand" the NOI and MEChA since these are "oppressed" minority groups, I retort that this is the precise problem with the status of race relations -- and American culture in general -- today. To some, a failure to "understand" the actions of groups like NCLR (and MEChA) and the NOI makes one "insensitive" and even "racist." But they miss a key point: If we are truly to work towards an equal society, then shouldn't everyone be expected to play by the same rules? Shouldn't advocacy groups be expected to be as consistent as the next group? Why can't the NCLR just disavow groups like MEChA completely, and assist Hispanic students without them?
Perhaps if Mr. Martinez gets those mandatory diversity training seminars he wants, he could answer those questions above. My guess is he'd probably have the same answers as the NCLR itself; he'd say that any kind of affiliation with groups like MEChA does not mean NCLR endorses all of its statements. But then I'd ask him what he'd think if a UD student group accepted donations from a group like the National Alliance, or even less "severe," a group like the American Renaissance. Would it be OK for that student group to say "We don't agree with everything (or even anything) the group says, but its money is going to a good cause -- student scholarships"?
What do you think Mr. Martinez's answer would be?
If American science is to meet the needs of all of its citizens, its scientists must reflect the diversity of the country's population. -- Nature Medicine magazine.
Come again?? Like ... why??
The typical American lab is peopled almost entirely with white scientists. That's not reflective of society at large. A shake-up of the way minorities are recruited, trained and promoted could give minority representation in science the boost it so badly needs.
Now, is it me or do people want scientists to actually practice science, not worry about friggin' bean counting to satisfy some diversiphile's notion of "equity" or "correct proportions"? Once again we see the ugly notion of proportionate representation seeping into, this time now, the realm of science. This dictates that there "should be" proportionate numbers of races in virtually ANY field that reflect the numbers in the general population. Or, if you prefer, an "equal outcomes" approach that is, in essence, the very antithesis of "equal opportunity."
Again, why does science "badly need" a boost in minority representation? Do we not want the BEST scientists we possibly can get? And check this out:
In 2000, the US population was 75% white, 12% black and 12% Hispanic. But the proportion of minorities that completed biology PhDs between 1993 and 2002 did not match these numbers: only 2.6% of new PhDs were black and only 3.7% were Hispanic. The proportion of tenure-track biology faculty in 2002 was even more disparate: 89% white, 1% black and 2% Hispanic.
Notice anything? Where's the proportion of Asians?? You know, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans and Indians? Here's why they're omitted: I'd bet good money that the numbers of this group in the science field way outstrip their numbers in the general population. Notice the careful wording in the quote above -- selective use of only biology PhDs, and then tenure track biology faculty. Where's chemistry and physics, among many others?
This really shouldn't surprise anyone who regularly digests the miasma that is diversiphilia and multiculturalism. Asians aren't counted as "minorities" in academia, so why should they in the field of science? Simple: It's because their numbers grate against the dogma of proportionate representation; or, in other words, they "act too white." ("White" according to the multicultis.) They belie the "stigma" that the diversiphiles so readily attach to any field whose population "doesn't match up."
And good for them.
(h/t: Taranto.)
UPDATE: Soccer Dad informs me of another such diversity "concern."
Why can't colleges just use composition courses ... to teach young adults to write?? I don't know if it's just me, but basic writing abilities have really gone to the crapper. Today at work I caught a major spelling boo-boo in something that was going to disseminated far and wide. Good thing it was in time. Too many blogs out there have poor grammar and sentence structure. (See here for a particularly grievous local example.) I've been flummoxed at the entries at Marvel.com -- its many characters' bios are rife with errors. (Many people work at correcting them, thankfully.)
I consider myself a pretty good writer, and I'm always looking to improve. College didn't help me much; I give most of the credit to my high school English teacher during my junior and senior years. Mr. W was one of the most eccentric dudes you'd ever meet, but he showed you -- and then made you use in your compositions -- proper language and writing techniques. At first I thought it was all a waste of time; now, I can't thank him enough.
So, I'll do it again: Thanks, Mr. W!
How 'bout this: You report on the racist, separatist and incendiary language and philosophy of a nutty charter school ... and you get sued for "defamation." Not only that, because you reported the truth, some nutjob felt they had to issue a [phony] bomb threat, and it's YOUR fault that nutjob (or jobs) did what they did.
The Los Angeles Unified School District didn't see any problems with this school other than its low test scores. No problems? No problem with these statements by the school's principal?:
We don't want to drink from a White water fountain, we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We don't need a White water fountain. So the whole issue of segregation and the whole issue of the Civil Rights Movement is all within the box of White culture and White supremacy. We should not still be fighting for what they have. We are not interested in what they have because we have so much more and because the world is so much larger. And ultimately the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction.
Hey, it IS California, after all, right?
This lawsuit should be chucked out of court faster than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi criticize George Bush.
David Arnold of Wilmington has a problem with school tax-increase referendums (specifically what must be the upcoming Brandywine District referendum):
I wish to come out strongly against any rise in school taxes. The district spends more than $15,000 per student, among the highest in the country. Under-utilized buildings and increasing numbers of employees in the face of decreasing enrollment are just poor management. In excess of 50 administrators making more than $100,000 a year plus benefits is ridiculous.
First, from where does Arnold draw that [more than] $15,000 figure? I have seen some figures from Allen Kemp, former head of "Citizens for Fair School Taxes" and now proprietor of the School Watch website that have Brandywine in the $14,000 + range. So, right away, the claim of "more than $15,000 per student," based on a referendum opponent's own figures, is incorrect. Next, Arnold claims that his own erroneous figure is "among the highest in the country." Kemp's website makes the claim that New Castle County's total cost/student is the highest in the entire country. But -- an examination of Kemp's site's bar graphs shows NO comparison to any other state's counties' per pupil cost! That, and Arnold's trying to mix Brandywine's per pupil cost to that of the entire county is quite disingenuous since, for example, the New Castle County Vo-Tech District (according to Kemp's figures) would be included in the entire county's figures -- and their per pupil cost is substantially higher than Brandywine's. So, from what evidence does Kemp (and then, Arnold) make that "highest in the country" claim? Next, Arnold makes no distinction in his diatribe against "administrators" between central office administrators and school administrators. This is a key omission, and I know of very few people who would argue that on-site administrators do not earn their money.
Now, granted, the above section of Arnold's letter is actually not all that "dopey." I don't really expect reference sources in what are frequently-edited readers' letters. He points out his figures and I've countered. What really classifies as "dopey" is the letter's second part:
Being single and having no children, I have grown weary of paying increasing amounts for the education of other people's children. Those with kids in schools should be paying not only any increase but all the costs. I have no say in how these children are raised or educated, nor should I, but my money is taken for this purpose. Oppression of a minority, through taxation, has become our tax system.
I have heard this argument before and it never ceases to make me chuckle. I've also heard that "only homeowners" should be allowed to vote in tax-increase referendums. As if renters won't pay higher rent if property taxes go up! The landlord will just absorb all the costs, right? Sheesh. And how does Arnold not have any say in how children are educated? The school board meets every month and allows for public input.
But more importantly, am I "oppressed" because I have to pay Social Security taxes my entire working life -- to support people like Mr. Arnold?? That Mr. Arnold will collect more in Social Security than the children currently in school will? The young must support the old, but the old must not support the children, is that it? And, do I get a chance to vote every so often on whether I want to raise my Social Security taxes? Hell, no! Yet, that is precisely what the public can do in Delaware when it comes to raising property taxes -- taxes which are the main source of school funding.
UPDATE: Perfect timing. The News Journal has a lengthy article today about how busing hasn't worked, and about calls for a renewed Wilmington-based school district.
*******************
The issue of desegregation has once again reared its head in New Castle County, Delaware, this time in regards to the Christina School District's decision to close three schools in the city of Wilmington proper. Many of the same issues about desegregation have once again come to the fore: Should children go to schools close to their homes, how will the ratios of race/ethnicity be affected in schools, is the decision in violation of law?
To analyze the situation in Christina, it helps to take a look back at how desegregation came about in Delaware in the first place, and the effects of the [quite radical] busing plan that affected New Castle County in the late 1970s. To do this, I got the permission of University of Delaware Thomas Muncy Keith Professor of History Raymond Wolters (now currently on sabbatical) to publish a report he issued at the request of several state legislators regarding a possible [busing] consent decree back in 1993. This consent decree was seriously considered by the state legislature (and then-Governor Carper) as a means to avoid further litigation as the late-70s federal busing mandate was being reconsidered. Wolters offers a brief history of Delaware (and New Castle County) desegregation before analyzing the consent decree. As most Delawareans know, the consent decree was never agreed to, and Judge Sue Robinson in 1996 overturned the federal busing mandate that began in 1978.
The landmark Brown v. Board of Ed. in 1954 affected Delaware as it did schools across the country. As Prof. Wolters notes, Delaware's smaller districts desegregated immmediately, and the Wilmington District "proceeded in stages" with grammar schools in 1954, junior highs in 1955, and finally high schools in 1956. Of course, the racial composition of neighborhoods was pretty much homogenous at this time (mostly all-white or mostly all-black). As Judge Caleb M. Wright stated in 1962, "Discrimination is forbidden, but integration is not compelled." He continued,
Brown held only that a State may not deny any person on account of race the right to attend a public school. Chief Justice Warren, speaking for the court, said, "To separate them (Negroes) from others ... soley because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in a community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." The clear implication of this statement is that if races are separated because of geographic or transportation considerations or other similar criteria, it is of no concern of the Federal Constitution.
"What happened to turn things around?" Wolters asks. The political -- and judicial -- climate shifted, mainly. Judges began to go beyond the stipulations of Brown of maintain that "desegregation" meant actual [mandatory] "integration." Judges, who relied in part on the testimony of sociologists (including, mainly, James Coleman), believed that mandatory busing plans "offered the best solution to the problems of urban education."
In interviews, depositions, and courtroom testimony throughout the country, Coleman and other liberal sociologists and educators touted the benefits that black children would receive if they were dispersed and educated in predominantly white classrooms. It was partly on the basis of Coleman's testimony that Judge J. Skelly Wright in Washington DC, in 1967, concluded that "Negro students' educational achievement improves when they transfer into white or integrated educational institutions."
Nevertheless, this belief was not actually a determining factor in deciding the New Castle County busing case. (That sociologist Coleman had actually changed his position on the effects of "white institutions" on black achievement, notwithstanding.) Instead, Judges Gibbons, Wright and Schwartz based their busing plan on the need to provide a remedy to past "official racial discrimination." They held that "the public schools of New Castle County had never been properly desegregated after Brown."
1971 saw the reopening of the Evans v. Buchanan case, Delaware's "consolidated" desegregation lawsuit. The basis for the reopening was the 1968 Educational Advancement Act which served to consolidate many school districts across the entire state. This Act reduced the number of statewide school districts from 49 to 26, and was specifically designed for districts whose population was between 1,900-12,000 students. Most of this district consolidation occurred in the southern part of the state. The News Journal noted that the Wilmington School District (primarily black) was "specifically excluded" from the Act. Then-Editor John Taylor repeated this claim in a disingenuous editorial. The contention is true. But the News Journal wasn't giving its readers the entire story. (It probably didn't fit their agenda.) The Philly Inquirer outright lied at the time writing that the EAA "excluded only one district from the mergers: Wilmington, home to most of Delaware's black students." Professor Wolters, however, sets the record straight:
Because the Wilmington public schools already enrolled more than 12,000 pupils, they were prevented from joining with other districts during the year of grace (meaning, they had to wait one year -- Ed.) -- as were two large suburban districts, Newark and Alfred I. DuPont. The pro-busing plaintiffs complained that the Educational Advancement Act "was designed to perpetuate and has in fact perpetuated [a] racially discriminatory dual school system."
My emphasis. Wolters goes on to note that the pro-busing camp's claims were "far from incontrovertible" (again, my emphasis):
The sponsors of the EAA had maintained that it was intended to facilitate the consolidation of small, rural districts that had too few students to afford expensive scientific equipment.Hearings on the EAA were held throughout Delaware, and "at no time was integration or racial composition discussed or any figures having to do with race called to our attention ... It was taken for granted that integration of the schools had been completed."
The EAA did not change the boundaries of the Wilmington public schools ... not did it prevent Wilmington from coalescing with other schools districts. It simply exempted Wilmington (and [the] two other school districts) from the temporary interval when this could be done without a referendum. The 12,000 student limit (which also applied for only one year) was included in the education act because Wilmington had traditionally been the largest school district in a small state, and because in the 1960s there was much talk about the importance of community involvement in the public schools. (Link.)
Wolters goes on to note that "no one of prominence" wanted a merger of the large school districts -- not the Wilmington School District Board of Education, "nor any black organization in Delaware." The four African-Americans in the state legislature voted for the EAA. Most of the Act's opposition came from downstate because many there "feared a loss of local control."
In 1974, the US District Court ordered the state to submit desegregation plans. Then-News Journal Editor John Taylor again misinformed his readers when he wrote
The remedy phase of the court suit was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Murray Schwartz, who sincerely believed the Delaware General Assembly would approve a desegregation plan. But the Legislature refused to even consider one.
My emphasis. But Taylor obviously didn't get together with others at his paper, for a month and a half prior, the News Journal printed a "desegregation timeline" which clearly notes "U.S. District Court rejects state desegregation plans and says plan must include Wilmington and its surrounding districts." (This was in 1976.) Then, in 1977, the timeline says "State devises plan for busing black students out of Wilmington." If memory serves (from past reading, and I was a middle school student in northern DE schools at the time), this was a voluntary busing plan that the state legislature devised. Nevertheless, Judge Schwartz rejected the 1977 plan. Did Taylor outright lie or was he merely woefully ignorant?
Schwartz ordered a "9-3" plan to begin in 1978. Suburban students would attend city schools for three of their twelve years, while city students would attend suburban schools for nine of their twelve years. The first year witnessed substantial upheaval -- "white flight," bureaucratic confusion, and a two month-long teachers' strike. The strike was not due to the deseg. order itself; it was due to the fact that, although all New Castle County schools were now consolidated into one large single district, the state wanted to continue paying teachers at their old, now-defunct district salaries! Old Wilmington District teachers collectively had the highest salaries at that time; now-county district teachers wanted to utilize that pay scale for the new New Castle County School District.
And so it went for almost 20 years. The only substantive change since the original 1978 order was that the single county-wide district was permitted to truncate into four smaller districts (in 1981) which exist to this day: Brandywine, Colonial, Red Clay and Christina. In the early 1990s, the judicial atmosphere had changed and the US Supreme Court had made it "easier" for districts to get out from under court-ordered desegregation. Delaware took advantage of this in 1993 when the Delaware State Board of Education petitioned the District Court to declare that New Castle County schools had achieved "unitary" status -- that is, they were successfully desegregated. A group called the Coalition to Save Our Children had taken up the mantle, so to speak, on behalf of city children and opposed the State Board's request. The Coalition threatened further litigation if the Board went ahead.
The Coalition (and others) pointed out the "disproportionately large number of black students who have been subjected to disciplinary actions, and to the continued lagging of black scores on standard tests, as evidence that, despite busing, the public schools of northern New Castle County have not eradicated some important vestiges of discrimination." (Link.) Judge Schwartz ordered the State Board of Education and the Coalition to attempt ot reach a settlement. They crafted a Consent Decree in November of that year.
The state legislature was wise to reject the Consent Decree. I happen to have a copy of the Decree from back then, as well as then-Governor Tom Carper's (favorable) statement regarding it. (He called it "fair and equitable.") Prof. Wolters notes, the Decree was
... an amalgam of legalese, educatorese, and social science. There is talk about "minority enrollment ratios," "school paramaters," [sic] and "culturally-sensitive performance based assessment systems."
Wolters dissects the Consent Decree (also here) to a degree that the News Journal would be (was) loathe to do. Included in the Decree were:
Further, on page 14 of Prof. Wolters' report,
My emphasis. The Consent Decree was to be in effect for only four years; however, the Coalition to Save Our Children "demanded that the governance of the school districts be changed so that the policies [noted above] would be perpetuated." A compromise was reached over Thanksgiving weekend of 1993 that would have changed how school boards are elected, thereby virtually guaranteeing minority representation on school boards.
Wolters' recommendations to the legislature are on pages 15, 16 and 17 of his report. Nevertheless, the Consent Decree was not agreed to by the state legislature. They were quite confident that they would prevail in court, and indeed, the Coalition had threatened further litigation anyway after the four-year limit on the Decree if New Castle County's districts went too far astray from what they deemed as "racially balanced."
Their confidence paid off for in 1996 Judge Sue Robinson declared the New Castle County school districts had achieved "unitary" status. Judge Robinson did not buy the Coalition's contentions that, although there was racial balance in the schools, discrimination was nonetheless pervasive due to imbalances within the schools. She wrote in part (my emphasis):
First, although the district court's findings of classroom racial balance exclude special education classes, there is no clear error. In our 1978 desegregation order we expressly excepted "students presently attending and who in the future may attend . . . special education school facilities and such other similar special school facilities as presently exist or may be hereafter established . . . ." JA 128 (Evans v. Buchanan, Civil Action Nos. 1816-1822, Order at 11 (D. Del. Jan. 9, 1978)). The rationale for this exception is obvious and compelling: students -- black or white -- should not be mainstreamed (i.e., denied special education meant to address special learning needs and problems) merely to effect a racial balance.Appellant is also unpersuasive in asserting that students are placed in special education programs (such as "intensive learning centers") simply because they are black. Although in each of the four districts the percentage of black students in special education programs exceeds the percentage of blacks in the overall student population, the record demonstrates that the school districts classify students based on neutral, non-discriminatory state and federal criteria. Additionally, the districts make periodic re-evaluations of special education students to determine when they can return to regular classes. Id. Placement is not mandatory, because at several junctures, parents are empowered to reject the school's recommendation to place their child in special education classes.
Perhaps most telling, at least from my perspective, is Judge Robinson's noting of the following (again, my emphasis):
Although the Constitution requires that all of its citizens have equal access to the pursuit of education, and that they be given equal breaks while attending school, it does not insist that they all finish even. The proper test under the Constitution is equality of opportunity, not of results. On this point we would do well to recall Edmund Burke's pithy formulation: "[A]ll men have equal rights, but not to equal things." And indeed, Appellant articulated its commitment to this principle at oral argument: "[w]e have never suggested that the measure here is ultimate equal outcomes."
It is well worth reading all of Judge Robinson's opinion since she carefully and meticulously dissects, and then dismantles, the Coalition's contentions. It was my belief then, as it is now, that too much of the Coalition's arguments were based in emotion rather than fact, law and logic. As anyone who happened to watch former State Rep. Al Plant's Sunday night discussion show on local cable channel 28 back then, Coalition member (and present-day New Castle County Councilman) Jea Street would regularly appear and consistently utter the most caustic and derogatory comments at those with whom he disagreed. Yet, actual facts always seemed to elude his protestations.
In 1997, a federal appeals court upheld Judge Robinson's decision, and that was pretty much that regarding the desegregation order that had once held New Castle County in its grip. That is, until 2000 when the state legislature passed the Neighborhood Schools Law which mandated that school districts send children to schools closest to their homes. Former House Majority Leader Wayne A. Smith was the bill's primary sponsor. As could be predicted, the News Journal was critical of the bill claiming it would lead to "resegregation" in the county's schools.
Attorney George Evans at the time said, "Probably, what's going to result ... is we're going to, no doubt, end up resegregating schools ... and you're going to have litigation." He was right, but not exactly in the way he expected. More on that in a moment. Now-former Coalition to Save Our Children member Jea Street called the Neighborhood Schools Law an example of "new millenium racism." In the 2006 State House campaign, a hastily-organized group dubbed "Delaware Clean Sweep" (which numbered approximately three people!) listed as one of Smith's "negatives" his sponsorship of the bill because it "would guarantee heavily segregated public schools."
In the News Journal article Wayne Smith retorted, correctly in my view, that racial identifiability is neither good nor bad, and the law he wrote is not unconstitutional. "What matters is quality education, parental satisfaction and the ease with which parents get to participate in a school," he said. Indeed, Brown, as originally decided, was not argued as an effort to forcibly integrate children in schools via specific mathematical ratio. It was intended to -- and did -- break down the walls of legal segregation that prevented black children from attending schools with white children, especially ones closest to their homes. This is why Smith's bill is clearly consistent with the concepts laid down in Brown. In addition, with school choice law in the state of Delaware, and the incredible growth of charter schools, "forced resegregation" was (and is) not much of a legitimate argument. More on that later, too.
Even with the implementation of the Neighborhood Schools Law, the "Big Four" districts in New Castle County as a whole changed their existing feeder patterns only marginally. Colonial District complied with the law most stringently, changing feeder patterns to reflect attendance zones. Red Clay District mostly reconfigured elementary grade feeders, whereas Christina modified feeders to a moderate degree, and the Brandywine District claimed "hardship" status and didn't change feeder patterns at all.
Now, still in the news today, is the largest (population-wise) school district in the state, Christina, and its decision to close three schools within the boundaries of the city of Wilmington. Ironically, after many apparent spokespeople (like Jea Street) and outlets like the News Journal scoured the Wayne Smith-sponsored Neighborhood Schools Law, the very city of Wilmington itself, in conjunction with two parents of children attending one of the affected schools, is suing to keep their school (and the others) open because to allow their closure ... would violate the Neighborhood Schools Law!
The city and Southbridge parents Annette Harden and Rose Thomas contend that the district's plan to close the school during the next school year is "in willful violation" of the Delaware Neighborhood Schools Act, which the suit says aims to provide fair and equitable education to all northern New Castle County children. The state law requires that certain districts, including Christina, assign children to the school closest to their homes, the court filing says.
How about that? I wonder what the spokespeople like Street, Evans and others, to whom the News Journal devoted so much space to criticize the bill when it was first being debated, would think of this? Wilmington city government itself -- saying that the law "aims to provide fair and equitable education to all northern New Castle County children"! The irony has come full circle, it seems.
And back to charter schools -- the News Journal, still as race-conscious as ever, recently lamented how Delaware charter schools are "resegregating" the state's schools (again). But Newark Charter School head Gregory Meece hits the implication of the term "segregation" where it hurts (my emphasis):
Delaware Charter Schools Network leaders challenge the assertion that their schools are causing "resegregation." They called the term misleading and inflammatory because of its association with segregation and desegregation, saying those are forced conditions."We're talking about voluntary choice here," said Board President Gregory Meece, who is principal of Newark Charter School.
"It is significant that there are six charter schools out of 17 that serve mainly African-American populations," he said. "This report never really asks any parent why they choose those schools."
"Forced conditions" is the heart of the matter. There is no compulsion for "resegregation" with regards to charters. People -- black and white -- are free to choose the school they wish, which, by the way, is the case with virtually any Delaware public school due to the state's school choice law. This, once again, is quite different from the mandate of Brown. Brown overturned compulsory segregation in schools. Recall Judge Caleb M. Wright's statement: "Discrimination is forbidden, but integration is not compelled." But over the decades, "desegregation" has transformed into "diversity" which has come to be synonymous with "good (or at least "better") education." This is an erroneous assumption.
So, where do we now stand? Those representing [black] students' interests have had their contentions [legally] defeated by Judge Robinson which effectively dismantled forced busing in New Castle County. A decade later, these same interests are back in court -- utilizing a law they once damned to make their case for what would be primarily African-American schools. Many of the former Coalition's arguments before Judge Robinson appear to have actually made some headway in the state of Florida. There, the "achievement gap" between majority and minority students is the subject of a class-action lawsuit:
... in a class-action lawsuit that has Pinellas County's top educators on the defensive, the plaintiffs say the policy of equal access has failed the school district's 20,000 black students.Black kids, they contend, will need uniquely tailored programs if the district ever hopes to erase an education gap that has them lagging behind every other ethnic group in school performance.
The case of William Crowley vs. the Pinellas County School Board - seven years old and finally headed for trial - may be the only one of its kind in the nation.
It is my opinion that if this suit is decided favorably for the plaintiffs, it will be a disaster for minority (black) children. First, it relies on pseudo-science that blacks, collectively, "learn differently." Second, its belief is that the achievement gap is essentially based on past de jure discrimination. But in that regard, I'd be most curious as to what the "gap" was when segregation was legally sanctioned. It's almost a double-edged sword for the plaintiffs, regardless of what these statistics mights show. If the gap was greater in the days of official segregation, then the subsequent shrinking of the gap shows that the broken segregation barriers have worked -- and are working. Still, the argument for special programs tailored specifically for black children might still be persuasive (aside from their specific racial components, that is, which unfortunately seem to be part of the plaintiffs' contention). On the other hand, if the gap was less in the days of the legal segregation, then the legal argument becomes much more problematic: How do you explain how [black] children are doing worse academically with no racial barriers to impede their academic progress? The obvious thing that comes to mind is that maybe the problem is not the schools, nor the law.
Professor Wolters' full 1993 report can be viewed here. (.PDF file.)
A [liberal] Seattle Times columnist realizes how absurd the city school district's program on ferreting out "racism" is:
As part of its well-meaning quest to rid itself of racism, the Seattle School District has found a program it considers racially biased.Summer break. The 10-week hiatus from school is institutionally racist, said the district's Equity and Race Relations director. That means it's something that "results in less access to services and opportunities of a society based on race."
As I noted here, that Equity and Race Relations director is Ms. Caprice Hollins. In an interview where she pointed out the "problem" with summer break, she stated that "she found no specific district program that was institutionally racist." Maybe she realized that her job may be in jeopardy if she didn't actually "find" anything racist in the district? This is why there was more emphasis put on "racist" summer break? After all, what is an Equity and Race Relations director to do if there's ... equity? And good ... race relations?
Writer Danny Westneat wonders aloud what I wrote: If summer break is a "problem," then essentially all that is needed is some enrichment programs:
Wouldn't struggling white students benefit from more time in school, too? Can't students who need to catch up go to summer school now?If we want to extend the school year, then let's talk about that. What's skin color got to do with it? More importantly, how will declaring that summer break is racist actually lead to any better education for kids?
To answer that last question, I think, Danny, it's what I noted above: Ms. Hollins has to justify her position!
You know things are getting ridiculous when liberals have had enough of the "everything-is-racist-somehow" educationist dogma. Westneat puts it succinctly near article's end:
There's no question race matters. We don't live in a colorblind society. But this school district is so focused on race it's fueling an atmosphere of division. It's blinding the district to what matters even more than race — its job to educate any kid who walks in the door.
Being so obsessed leads to things like ... discovering racism in schools' summer break. When things get that silly, the "atmosphere of division" must really be a nightmare, unfortunately.
Ever hear of the historical atrocity called The Holocaust? If you're in certain British schools, you may not any longer -- especially if you have Muslim classmates:
Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Governmentbacked study has revealed.It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.
There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.
But I wonder if any of these Muslim students called another kid "gay" -- would they be treated like this 11 year old boy? (Sounds familiar, doesn't it?)
(h/t to The Corner.)
That Seattle School District is really nutty. Hube and I have written about that nuttiest here at Colossus in the past (see here, here, here and here); looks like we'll have to do it again because now it's looking for a new superintendent. And, of course, as before, one of -- if not THE -- main topics the candidates need to address is racism in the schools!
Midway through a January meeting about choosing a new superintendent, Seattle School Board member Darlene Flynn suggested candidates have a "clear understanding of institutionalized oppression" when it comes to improving grades of African-American students.
Yeah. Just imagine if [white] teachers and administrators said the following about black students:
Harsh stuff, right? Well, some of that is almost exactly what those advising the Seattle schools have said -- they themselves African-American! But this isn't the sort of "institutionalized oppression" that Ms. Flynn is talking about -- the kind of "bigotry of low expectations" that way too many educationists flout about. No sir. It's white institutionalized racism. After all, how dare white teachers expect their black students to sit still! Don't these teachers know that their students' future bosses in the real world will allow them to roam around the office at will because they have "have louder, more direct speaking styles" and "more physical [working] styles"? Aren't they aware that black students aren't "talking back" -- they're just accustomed to "speak[ing] to adults more as equals than as authority figures"? Of course, we all know that these future job holders should expect their bosses or managers in the real world to be aware of just this, and not reprimand and/or FIRE them for speaking to said boss as "an equal," right? And hell, why should office managers prevent two African-American employees from "play fighting" around those office cubicles, eh? I mean, "these mock battles are [merely] more prevalent among African American boys"!
Remember: It is permissible for minorities to express [negative/potentially negative] stereotypes about themselves, but most especially about the majority (Caucasians). This is what the essence of "institutionalized racism" is all about -- that whites are inherently racist, mainly due to long-established cultural norms. (Just don't attempt to use any of this same logic in reverse because you'll just go nuts trying to make sense of it all.)
You'd think that Seattle, one of the most liberal areas of the country, would be much less susceptible to racism and bias. Curious, then, that they pay a six-figure salary to someone to help "combat" their district's "institutional" prejudice. (I could never figure out, similarly, why so many colleges do the same thing since these institutions are supposed to be the most "enlightened" and "safest" places for minorities to be.)
Since 1986, the district has launched at least three plans to close the achievement gap between African-American students and other groups. An effort in 2002 pledged to erase racial disparities in three years. But last year, 73 percent of white 10th-graders passed all three parts of the Washington Assessment of Student Learning, compared with 23.8 percent of black students.The district has sought to determine how discrimination affects student learning, and its mission statement, adopted in 2004, reads: "We must recognize the impacts of institutional racism on student success and question any excuses for not making necessary changes."
I got the title of this post from that last quote. I wonder what would happen if an educator (not an educationist) suggested that "we should question any [minority] students' and/or educationists' excuses for their lack of achievement." I do believe if that happened that there is a significant possibility the "R" word might be invoked.
Institutional racism, as defined by the district, is "an indirect and largely invisible process that operates automatically and results in less access to services and opportunities of a society based on race."
This is virtually akin to a religious belief: "Indirect" and "invisible." "It's not tangible, but trust us -- it's there, all right!" And again, where precisely are access, services and opportunities being denied to minority students in Seattle schools?
To combat bias, Superintendent Raj Manhas in 2004 created the Office of Equity and Race Relations and appointed its first director, Caprice Hollins, a licensed psychologist, charged with examining curriculum, textbooks and other policies.She also runs workshops on cultural diversity for administrative staff and oversees teams of teachers, principals and parents who monitor race relations in schools.
I wonder if Ms. Hollins has ever traveled abroad at all. How intensively has she studied the cultures that make up the Seattle schools? (Keep in mind, too, that being OF a particular ethnic group does not make one "an expert" on that culture.) Being located in the Pacific Northwest, I'd surmise that there is a fairly significant Asian population in the district. Has Ms. Hollins spent a good amount of time in China? Japan? Korea?
In a recent interview, Hollins said she found no specific district program that was institutionally racist, but she pointed to summer break as an example of systemic problems. Initially devised to allow school-age children to help with farm labor, summer break serves no educational purpose, Hollins said, and the disruption puts struggling students further behind.
I'll restate from above: "But trust us -- it's there, all right!"
Summer break is the best she can come up with? Hey, I got it: Establish academic programs (just like summer school) in the summer for the struggling students! Problem solved! And here I did this for free! How much does Ms. Hollins get paid? Too much, if the following quote is any indication:
"Jewish folks hid their cultural identity. Irish changed their name. Some groups can assimilate and others can't. There's one thing that will never change -- and that's the way I look," said Hollins, an African American. "When people target you [a white person] for being racist because you're white, people associate you with their collective experience. It's about the power dynamic, understanding how your whiteness impacts people of color."
Once again, consider if a white person targeted a black person (or people) for epithets and/or criticism because of his/her "collective experience" with black people. Would this be socially acceptable? Of course not. But, somehow, it is in reverse. Don't try to figure it out!
Last year, Hollins' Equity and Race Relations Web site attracted national attention when she defined "individualism" and a "future time orientation" as "those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and whiteness and devalue, stereotype and label people of color ... "After an outcry, she removed the statement, and has yet to finalize a new one. Her interim message reads: "Our intention is not to put up additional barriers or develop an 'us against them' mindset; nor is it to continue to hold onto unsuccessful concepts such as a melting pot or colorblind mentality."
So it was her! Hube addressed the part in bold here back last June.
While districts across the nation struggle with raising test scores of minority students, it's difficult to find language similar to what's in Seattle's official statements.
Maybe that's because other districts across the country aren't as preposterously PC and laden with liberal edubabbler guilt?
Thank goodness Seattle is 3000 miles away, that's all I can say.
UPDATE: See the addendum to this post here.
Not mine, but from the school Rhymes With Right teaches at. Check it:
It isn’t unusual to have pregnant girls in class at our school. One girl in my colleague’s class is getting very close to giving birth, and so has begun reading up on how to care for her baby. Today she said the following to this colleague.“Mr. C., I keep reading that breast milk is better for babies than regular milk, but I can’t find out where to get it or how much it costs.”
*Sigh*
Interesting story from the NY Times where a group of black teachers in the West Windsor-Plainsboro (NJ) school district "complained to administrators ... that they were being treated in unfair and insensitive ways." Now, this itself isn't such a novel story. But I thought this was:
Among other problems, they said they were being asked to "over-represent" their race, administrators said. Other teachers would come to them for help in working with black students.Black teachers have stressed that it wasn't racism they were dealing with but a lack of cultural sensitivity that became a problem as more black teachers were hired, school officials said.
"For example, if you're an African-American teacher, a (nonblack) teacher may come to you for advice about an African-American student's problem," said school human resource specialist Katherine Taylor. "But you can't always be a representative of your race. As teachers, we need to see students as students (rather than races)."
My emphasis. I certainly agree with that emphasized part. But, again, we see the plethora of inherent contradictions found in the "multi-culti diversity" movement. For example, article author Zack Needles writes "...the administrative and teaching staff are primarily white, which can sometimes make it more difficult for minority students to relate to members of the faculty and staff." Needles is hardly alone in this sentiment. It is virtually a conventional wisdom among the edu-babblers. So, if this is the case, how is it "insensitive" for white staff members to seek advice on dealing with African-American students? Don't get me wrong -- as I noted above, I agree with Ms. Taylor. But if the multi-culti diversity crowd insist upon theories that children "relate and learn better" if their teacher is of the same race/ethnicity (among others), then it is merely a logical outcome of this belief that white teachers will -- should -- seek advice from colleagues of different races/ethnicities. After all, imagine if they did not -- and they "saw students as students": They'd be labeled "insensitive" then!!
As I said, it's all full of inherent contradictions. Stay tuned for a detailed (and fairly large) post about the recent imbroglio over the Christina School District's decision to close two city schools, and the inherent contradictions involved in that with regards to past theories of desegregation and the Delaware Neighborhood Schools Law.
Alison Kepner's report in yesterday's News Journal deals with the "fairness" issue in state testing -- is it fair that disabled students get all sorts of accommodations during the DSTP?
The accommodations are meant to level the playing field for students with disabilities, decreasing the chance the disability will keep them from demonstrating what they know, but some worry the number and extent of modifications sometimes means teachers and parents no longer get a true reflection of what a student knows."Accommodations are provided with the very best of intentions, attempting to provide good access for kids with disabilities, but the implementation is so flawed that it limits confidence in results obtained," said Elizabeth Siemanowski, associate psychology professor at Wesley College and retired Delaware school psychologist. "We live in a very high-stakes educational testing environment. The current accountability model ... puts undue pressure on kids and school administrators to obtain the best scores for kids."
I'd add, is it fair that kids labeled "special ed." can only be suspended from school no more than 10 total days for the school year? Is that "fair" to the other kids in class (and the school) ... the further disruptions they may cause once that ten day limit is reached?
Back to state testing, is it "fair" that a school can get a negative rating merely because ONE subsection of a school's [up to] 30+ total subsections (the divisions of students by race, gender, socioeconomic status, etc.) did not show a gain? That a school could show gains in all the 30+ other subsections, but because ONE subsection was stagnant or didn't show any gain, the entire school (via its No Child Left Behind rating) suffers?
What about these issues of "fairness"?
In today's News Journal, its esteemed editors have "taken the stance" that a school's student "should enjoy same freedoms adult Americans share." But right from the get-go, they seem to show complete ignorance of how American law functions:
Washington state's Legislature recently passed a bill that would protect high school and college journalists from prior review and other censorship, and would make student editors solely responsible for their newspaper's contents. For public high schools, this bill could negate the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's 1988 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier decision, which granted principals impressive powers to censor publications if they can produce reasonable educational justifications.
How can an individual state's law (bill, at this point) "negate" a United States Supreme Court decision, pray tell? I can just imagine what the WNJ editors would be writing if an individual state passed a bill outlawing all abortions; would they be writing (favorably) that this bill "could negate" Roe v. Wade?
Students once enjoyed more protection. A 1969 Supreme Court ruling, Tinker v. Des Moines, decreed that student expression could not be censored unless it substantially disrupted school activities or invaded someone's privacy. Students do not, Tinker insisted, "shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate." Today, they often must do so.
The editors cite a few examples:
Without knowing precisely what these instances had to deal with, let's take look-see one at a time:
One of the deleted articles covered the issue of student pregnancy and included interviews with three students who had become pregnant while attending school. (There was also an article about several students whose parents had been divorced, however their names were disclosed in the article.) To keep the students' identity secret the staff used pseudonyms instead of the students' names. The principal said he felt the anonymity of the students was not sufficiently protected and that the girls' discussion of their use or non-use of birth control was inappropriate for some of the younger students at the school.
Would the WNJ editors be OK with the "outing" of one of their own daughters who happened to have become pregnant -- because of such an article? Would the WNJ editors have no problem with their young (and underage) daughters (say a 13-14 yr. old 9th grader) reading a graphic discussion about intercourse -- and NON-use of birth control? Perhaps they would. But school authorities have to deal with -- as appropriately as possible -- the educational environment for ALL students, and taking age (appropriate level of behavioral and social development, that is) into account is quite important. And, obviously, the SCOTUS agrees. ( Hazelwood was a 5-3 decision.)
The WNJ editors insist that 1969's Tinker v. Des Moines grants students more rights. Two things: One, Tinker could not "compel a public school to affirmatively sponsor speech that conflicts with its 'legitimate pedagogical goals.' " Two, the SCOTUS used Tinker as a basis for their decision in Hazelwood. 'Nuff said.
Mike Hiestand, a Student Press Law Center attorney, assesses the situation pessimistically, saying, "It's easy to persuade people in the general public that censorship of student expression is OK."It's not OK. It sends students the troubling message that they do not enjoy full First Amendment opportunities to express opinions and report substantive news. They often grow passive, and censor themselves.
Tinker, which the editors cite favorably, does exactly that, however! Reasonable people recognize that students are not yet adults (excepting 18 yr. old HS seniors). To argue that their constitutional rights being "restricted" is in general a "bad" thing is just silly, especially since the Constitution already limits non-adult rights. Age is a limiting factor all over the document. Is a 16 yr. old genius' constitutional rights "violated" because he cannot vote? Is a 15 yr. old's Second Amendment rights violated because he is not permitted to purchase a handgun?
The WNJ editors close by repeating their devoid-of-civics-understanding canard:
The encouragement here is for someone -- perhaps a coalition of students, parents and teachers -- to adopt Student Press Law Center guidelines in fashioning an "anti-Hazelwood" bill to be considered by state legislators. Naturally, student journalists would still be expected to abide by professionally accepted standards for libel and defamation.Delaware should follow Washington state's lead by shaping legislation that would reverse the restraints that are today so deeply embedded in scholastic journalism.
Again, how do state legislatures have such power? How can they overturn a US Supreme Court decision merely by passing a law? This is ridiculous. Just imagine if the Delaware State House passed a law allowing for prayer in public schools, say, in reaction to what happened in the Indian River School District last year. Would we read the WNJ editors be clamoring that this law would "reverse the restraints" of overzealous exclusion of religion from the public realm? Ha.
Let's be clear: I am quite a proponent of the First Amendment. But with any amendment -- individual right -- there are restraints. The 'ol not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. Chaplinsky's "fighting words" standard. The Second Amendment doesn't give a right to own a howitzer. Etc. And clearly, the highest court in the land recognizes that certain restrictions are appropriate for underage students in an educational setting.
Jessica Bryan, a "professor" at North Idaho College, apparently told one of her classes that "'anyone who's ever voted Republican' should be executed."
But ... she said it "with a smile."
Oh, well, OK then! And what does Bryan teach? English composition! So, naturally discussions of politics where the GOP is disparaged is a natural occurence, right?
Bryan specifically is alleged to have said that George Bush won the 2000 election "because people can't read," and then the "execution/death penalty" comment:
"First we line up everyone who can't think and right behind them, anyone who's ever voted Republican."
Well, geez, if we did that then only Independents would remain!
Steven Halpern of Philly repeats the old canard that the plague of violence in Philly schools is due to ... lack of funding.
According to statistics, most students expelled from school end up in prison. Today, anyone living in the United States has a better chance of going to prison than citizens of almost any other nation in the world.
So, students who want to learn, teachers and administrators should tolerate thugs who threaten and utilize violence nearly every day in the school setting because we don't want these thugs to ... end up in prison. Oh. Makes "sense."
Today, school funding per-student in Philadelphia is much less than what it is in some suburban communities. Who suffers from this gross funding inequality? Answer: the students.Whom does Vallas want to punish for the horrid state of the school district? Answer: the students. The problem with the Philadelphia School District is not the students. The problem lies with the politicians who run a system funded at much less than the rate of suburban public schools.
Inner-city schools across the country have some of the highest per-pupil funding in the whole nation. Take a look at Washington DC schools, for example. Their per-pupil spending leads the United States, yet their schools are a disgrace. And, as if lower per-pupil funding is an excuse for violent student behavior. Blame the students indeed. Sheesh.
The problem also lies in the fact that these politicians feel it is fine for gross inequalities to exist, where some students have more than they could ever use, while others do not have enough food to eat.
Ah, now it all hangs out. The politicians aren't doing enough to redistribute the wealth adequately! Government, government, government. You're not "doing enough."
And, therein lies the problem, obviously. The mindset that clamors for ever-more governmental solutions to what are largely social, cultural and personal issues. The more we remove the onus from the personal to the collective (government), the more the existing problems in our schools (and elsewhere) will be exacerbated. In other words, it's the "it's not my fault" justification.
UPDATE: This letter from Melissa Castle-Caine in the Philly Daily News helps to make my point:
When we start taking parental responsibility for the incorrigibility of our children, only then can things change. It's not the schools or the teachers. It all comes down to who is ultimately responsible for the conduct of these out-of-control kids - the parents.
In addition, this other observation of hers is spot-on:
Why is it that we expect the schools to handle these issues instead of us, the parents? Why is it OK for a student to attack or harass a teacher (with minimal repercussions), yet as soon as a teacher tries to gain some type of order or respect, a parent is either on the phone or at the school demanding "justice" for his child?
My emphasis. Excellent point. Seen such instances quite often, Melissa. Unfortunately.
Girl hits principal at N. Phila. school is a headline in the Philly Inquirer today. The offender is a special ed. student and as such can only be suspended for a maximum of fifteen days total for the entire school year. Any further measures have to be approved by the state.
How 'bout that? You can be one of the most disruptive and violent kids in the school, but if you're a special ed. student, fifteen days is all you can be put out of school. Too bad for all those other kids in the building, eh?
Also occuring in Philly schools the last couple days:
Perceptive Statement of the Day courtesy of Philly Schools CEO Paul Vallas:
"Clearly, kids are getting much more physical and they're becoming much more violent. We definitely live in a different time."
I've dealt with this issue previously. I don't have much more to add other than that if Delaware does implement a "performance-based" teacher pay plan, it had better make sense.
In addition, I have a suggestion: Since the DSTP (Delaware State Testing Program, which begins this week, by the way) only tests math, reading and writing (the social studies and science tests later this year do not count towards grade advancement/promotion), why not pay math and english teachers more right off the bat? It is they who have all the pressure of preparing students to take these tests, after all. It is they who have to deal with the repercussions of the results, positive or negative. As it is, it's already tough to attract good math teachers because they can make more in industry. With the pressure of the DSTP, it's even worse.
Which leads me to another idea: Why not set pay scales based on the relative market for the subject the teacher teaches? For example, again, math and science teachers are typically the most difficult to attract/find. Ditto for foreign language teachers (yay!). Set those pay scales higher. Social studies and phys. ed. usually have a glut of potential hires. Set those scales lower.
With these two brainstorms, math teachers would be making the most as the market for those teachers has the greatest scarcity, and they have the added "pressure" of the DSTP. English, foreign language and science teachers would rank somewhere thereafter, followed by social studies and phys. ed. Other subjects' markets would determine where they would fall on the scale.
Thoughts?
'Ya gotta love education professors.
Check out this quote from a Philly Inquirer article about ways to stop the tide of violence in the city's schools:
At West Philadelphia High, where teachers were critical of the handling of assaults and threats, teachers' union representative Pat O'Hara said he was glad "there will be some consequences attached."Others, however, said the move would further criminalize youths, many of them troubled and hurting.
"We're turning our schools in a lot of ways into pathways to jail," said Howard Stevenson, an associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Graduate School of Education.
Adults, who have "emotional power" over youth, sometimes provoke a child who already is troubled, he said.
"There are things that lead up to those aggressions. Very rarely do you have a kid who has no concern for human life or dignity that would act out," he said.
Stevenson called for a "tribunal" of adults to evaluate assault cases before punishment is meted out.
Here's why Stevenson teaches at the cushy confines of Penn: He wouldn't last a day in a Philly public school preaching his theories about dealing with student discipline. The classroom would pedagogically disintergrate around him. I mean, come on -- check out the "emotional power" bit. This is classic educationist talk. Sure, a teacher shouldn't raise his voice and attempt to discipline a kid who is harrassing the living s*** out of a fellow student or making verbal threats of violence because ... it may "provoke" a kid who's already troubled! Of course, the fact that the individual teacher may not have any idea that the kid is emotionally troubled doesn't enter the equation. Or the fate of the rest of the class the teacher has to teach. It should be something like, "Oh, please Johnny ... you need to be aware that threatening to cut off your classmate's fingers with an Exacto blade is not an appropriate thing to say. Please apologize to him."
And who would this "tribunal" be composed of? It's a safe bet that an educationist like Stevenson would desire a "child advocate" in the group to "speak for the chronically disruptive pupil." You know, to inform everyone else assembled that Johnny has a "right" to an education in the "least restrictive environment" yada yada yada.
This reminds me of a classic educationist class I took my first year of grad school inappropriately titled "Discipline and Classroom Management." Our textbook was a farce, but the kicker was when we viewed a film distributed by some educationist outfit whereby they said discipline incidents should result in a "meeting of equals" between the [offending] student and teacher (with administrators and/or counselors also attending). You could audibly hear the guffawing groans of the teachers watching this tripe. "Meeting of equals"?? Well, hell -- if that's the case, I shouldn't even have to teach at times! I can just ask one of my "equal" students to take over! In a class assignment where we had to evaluate the various sorts of "discipline" we were "taught," one of our instructors called my views "visceral" because I said in so many words that most of what we were "taught" hadn't a chance in a real world classroom situation. (I got an "A," however, because I backed up my assertions with copious amounts of sources and footnotes, natch.)
Thankfully, in Philly, schools CEO Paul Vallas doesn't agree with Stevenson:
"We shouldn't make excuses for violent behavior," he said. "We're always trying to find a reason to justify antisocial behavior. We're growing up in a blameless society. No one takes responsibility for their actions."
Amen. However, the paper goes on to offer an example of how not every violent incident merits an automatic mandatory suspension and arrest:
Richard Mantell, principal of Frankford High School for 11 years, said each student's circumstances must be taken into account. On Thursday, two days after the district's new assault policy was announced, a ninth grader pushed an assistant principal - which, by policy, could have resulted in suspension and arrest.According to Mantell, his assistant principal chose not to call police after she learned that the new student had been released from a psychiatric hospital five days earlier. The administrator called the girl's parents, who said she had been kidnapped and raped, Mantell said.
Such a [rare] situation surely is an exception, but as Mantell rightly points out, "She gets pushed into a large, comprehensive high school. Is anyone really surprised that these issues present themselves in our schools?"
Yep. The fact that a girl in that situation has to attend a traditional educational environment is just plain ridiculous and only serves to exacerbate existing problems ... and acts as a potential catalyst for further violence and disruptions.
From the Philly Inquirer:
Around 11 a.m., a trash fire was set in an unoccupied classroom, one in a series of small blazes set by students in protest of the removal of the principal this week. Students were evacuated onto 48th Street, and when one teacher tried to tell students to get off a car, a ninth-grade girl punched him in the jaw, police said.Another girl and a boy also tried to hit the teacher, Hubert Morton, 53, a long-term substitute.
Morton was taken to the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, where tests were being performed last night.
Sorry situations like these, and the ridiculous hurdles that need to jumped over to get rid of continually disruptive students, sadly lead to quotes like these:
"It's terrible - you've got people that are scared to come to school," [Sophomore Shantel] Powell said. "You're not getting an education, and education is so desperately needed in this community. We come to school to do nothing.""They should send the troublemakers out, and let the rest of us learn."
"We can't learn," Aisha Matthews, a sophomore, said. "Even if we try to learn, someone sets something on fire. It's been hell - riots, everything."
What Philly schools need is a Joe Clark, of "Lean On Me" fame who uttered these classic lines in his biopic (my emphasis):
I want all of you to take a good look at these people on the risers behind me. These people have been here up to five years and done absolutely nothing. These people are drug dealers and drug users. They have taken up space. They have disrupted this school. They have harassed your teachers. And they have intimidated you. Well, times are about to change. You will not be bothered in Joe Clark's school. These people are incorrigible. And since none of them could graduate anyway ...... you are all expurgated. You are dismissed! You are out of here, forever. I wish you well!
Here's a perfect cartoon from the Philly Daily News today which exemplifies the current Philly school situation.
A couple days ago we heard of a story where a Mormon student got disciplined for her comments, but not those who were harassing her; now there's the ridiculous situation at Savannah State University in Georgia:
... the university first punished the group (a Christian group called "Commissioned II Love") for "hazing" after the university discovered that group members voluntarily engaged in the ancient Christian practice of "foot washing." The practice sounds strange to some, but it is taken directly from one of Jesus' most famous acts and involves, well, literally washing (with soap and water) the feet of another member of the group as a symbolic act of humility, love, and service. The university construed this action as endangering the "physical health" of their students. After suspending the group for "hazing" and "harassment" (yes, in the eyes of the university, students sharing their faith constitutes "harassment"), the university imposed the ultimate punishment — expulsion — when the group members had the audacity to go to an off-campus, weekend event together (a Christian music concert). In other words, the very act of collectively hanging out off campus was enough to impose the ultimate penalty on the group.
Thankfully, the National Litigation Foundation and the Alliance Defense Fund have filed a lawsuit against the college for this insanity.
kavips' comments over at this First State Politics post really made me chuckle. In a sarcastic way, that is. He wrote:
There are three parts to education: the teachers, the administration, and the parents. Parents have the least influence.
My emphasis. I am aware of certain studies that claim teachers have more impact on children['s education] than parents, but I've yet met anyone who actually believed this. This is no way an attempt to "absolve" me or any other educator from their responsibilities in the classroom. It is, however, pointing out the reality of the situation. I will never forget a good friend of mine who relayed to me (years ago) what his [education] professor told him off the record in one of his masters classes: That he could accurately predict how a student would do in school just by knowing his SES (socio-economic status) and home situation.
Ask any teacher what their #1 concern is in school. A majority of them will indicate discipline. I highly advise you all to check out today's Philadelphia Inquirer. One report notes that the Philly School District is "losing control" due to chronically disruptive students. Another details the severe beatings of a couple of teachers in Philly schools -- one who recently suffered a broken neck, and another recuperating from a busted jaw.
Philly schools CEO Paul Vallas nails the gist of the problem, in my opinion, right here (again, my emphasis):
"Some schools are getting it right. Some schools aren't," said Vallas, the district's chief executive officer. "The bottom line is this: There are two things that you need, and it goes far beyond coordination. You need to be able to expedite the discipline process, and you need to be able to expel students permanently."He maintained that state law, which allows expelled students to return to regular schools eventually, and other regulations tied the district's hands.
Indeed. If "expelled" students are permitted back into regular classrooms, it is not actually an "expulsion." It is a "suspension." Being able to actually make it an expulsion would certainly help classroom discipline by making permanent the absence of the chronically disruptive.
However, there are those who believe it is the "right" of any student to "get an education." First, that phrase "get an education" is a total fallacy. They are not getting an education. What chronically disruptive students do is prevent others from getting an education by their constant misbehavior. I am always fascinated by this [liberal] belief in individual rights when it comes to education. Usually more concerned with the group, this worry is of no apparent consequence when it comes to the collective known as "the classroom." Education is a right, sure. But it not an absolute right. No right is absolute.
Now back to kavips' assertion. Do parents have "the least influence" -- especially when it comes to student [mis]behavior? One thing that has always intrigued me is how many parents of the chronically disruptive are nowhere to be found when teachers/administrators attempt to contact them and inform/discuss what is happening with their child. However, the moment their child is suspended, arrested or threatened with expulsion, then these parents are at the school in a flash -- supporting the "rights" of their child to the Nth degree. They may also have an attorney with them or a "child advocate" to tell the school in no certain terms about the child's "rights." Of course, the concern for the other children in that chronically disruptive student's classes is non-existent.
Be sure to view the Philadelphia Teacher Survey here (.PDF file).
UPDATE: More in today's Philly Inquirer.
Hassle a fellow student about being a Mormon by pestering her with "she has 10 moms"? No biggie. But if said Mormon student responds by saying "That's so gay," well, WAIT A SECOND! GET TO THE PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE NOW!
That's what happened to Rebekah Rice in (you guessed it!) California. Yep -- she got disciplined while those harassing her didn't get any punishment. Rice's parents are now suing, mostly on free speech grounds (with which I disagree -- schools have consistently been allowed to restrict certain speech that can impede the educational environment).
Rice says her utterance was merely to signify "That's so stupid/silly/dumb," and I believe her. I hear this type of thing in school quite often. I am not saying it is right; far from it. I've informed students when I've heard this in my class that it is inappropriate and that I don't want to hear it again. Unfortunately, Rice is correct in her contention that the synonymity of "gay" to "dumb" in such an expression is all too common, especially among teens.
But Rice's reprimand really is not the issue. The issue is that she got reprimanded while those mocking her religious beliefs were not! It is this and this alone which her parents should be pissed off about (but still not enough to sue, mind you).
Just yet another example of how the multicultis don't really mean it. Certain things are allowed to be dissed.
Screen capture from News Journal's main webpage, circa 7:20pm:
Thanks as always, News Journal, for the laughs! (Story link is here.)
Delaware State University was ... "fortunate" to have former NAACP chief Benjamin Chavis speak recently. Why the quotes? Mainly 'cause Chavis offered Jesse Jackson-esque rhymes like the following:
"Our young people don't need to be chased; they need to be embraced."
This was in reference to a scene in Wilmington that he witnessed where police were giving chase to a group of black men. You see? No worries as to exactly what the cops were giving chase for; just "embrace" these men! It'll do good for all! Kumbayah!
Chavis, who co-founded the Hip Hop Summit Action Network with music mogul Russell Simmons in 2001, talked to the crowd about making money, obtaining power and gaining respect. Calling himself a "50-something hip-hop head," he said the network is designed to use the musical genre to fight poverty and injustices across the country.He sees similarities between youth of the civil rights movement and the hip-hop generation.
"Both came up in protest," he said. "Both want to connect with the rest of the world and not go with the status quo. Hip-hop is impatient with poverty, impatient with police brutality, impatient with the lack of economic opportunity."
Indeed. Hip hop is all about "making money," "gaining respect" and "obtaining power." Just ask Jae Dolla$, profiled in February 18th's News Journal. In order to "make money," Dolla$ gave up his legitimate job (cell phone salesman) to ... sell drugs! Guess Dolla$ got "more respect" selling the rock than by selling phones, and with "more respect" and more money naturally flows "more power." That, and a chance to be a hip hop artist! (At least, according to Mr. Jae Dolla$, that is!) After all, people like Dolla$,
They think making it big in the hip-hop world is their only ticket out of the 'hood. They are willing to risk going to jail or getting shot -- the occupational hazards of selling dope on a corner -- to realize their dreams.
Isn't that a shame? "Only ticket out ..."? The News Journal ridiculously left this impression unchallenged, for the most part. There was the continued emphasis on "get rich quick or die tryin'," to paraphrase 50 Cent, as if this is either a "good thing" or the only thing. Which obviously, to anyone with a brain, it is not.
Granted, Chavis did not condone people like Dolla$; however, I believe he is mistaken that hip hop is synonymous with the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s. Then, dejure discrimination and all of its associated effects struck a resonant chord with most Americans because ... Martin Luther King Jr. and co. were not only legally correct, they were morally correct.
Hip hop, on the other hand, with its glorification of images of exploitation of women, crimes, drugs and easy money, turns many Americans completely off. Is it really society's fault that guys like Jae Dolla$ aren't willing to work their way up [corporate/work] ladder for better money making opportunities? Is it society's fault that the African-American out-of-wedlock birth rate is over 66%, thereby leaving countless kids growing up without fathers? Is it society's fault that too many of these children (and their parents) do not take advantage of the free education opportunities at their disposal?
Unlike the 50s-60s Civil Rights movement, many (most?) Americans view these problems as something that must be largely solved by Black Americans themselves. Hip hop that inspires such efforts is laudable, and Chavis is probably correct in that "most hip-hop artists are hardworking and law-abiding people." Unfortunately, it is this image that is barely getting through.
In conclusion, hip hop is just one other thing in American society that has pretty much embraced the concept of "it's all about me". But it's surely not limited to inner-city African-Americans. College students (the so-called "Generation Y") are #1 in narcissism, according to a recent study.
(Thanks to Hube for the research/writing assist.)
I've often wondered about this; today the Maryland Conservatarian brings the issue to the fore again (my emphasis):
“Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and Rep. Albert R. Wynn marked Presidents' Day yesterday at the state's oldest historically black university [Bowie State] with a call to expand diversity in higher education.” (Link.)I especially like Congressman Wynn’s recommendation towards this:
“Wynn (D-Md.) said it is important to "preserve and expand" the roles of the nation's historically black campuses in higher education.”
It really is amazing how diversiphiles cannot see the contradictions they pose. If "diversity" is such remarkable asset (to higher ed., employment, whatever), then why is there not a call to reverse the expansion of HBCs (Historically Black Colleges)? After all, keeping these institutions "majority minority" would be a detriment to the much-celebrated diversity cause!
(h/t: Soccer Dad.)
Drake University has taken a novel approach to teaching foreign languages: Do it without foreign language instructors, and instead use a system "based on study abroad and individualized online instruction."
The Modern Language Association is putting the finishing touches on a report that will call for radical shifts in how undergraduate and graduate programs in foreign languages are taught, with a shift away from a language/literature model to one that places much more emphasis on culture, history, economics, politics and more. Philosophically, there are parts of the Drake program that appear consistent with the MLA push — both approaches argue that traditional teaching methods need to change, and that students need a broad understanding of the cultures whose languages they are studying, not just vocabulary and literature.But there are key differences as well. Most notably, the MLA views faculty members as not only part of, but crucial to, instruction. Drake, as a university that did away with language departments, takes a different view, with most of the learning taking place in small student groups of four — coached not by a professor, but by a native speaker of the language, typically an international student.
Emphasis mine. This, in my view, is an interesting idea. I'm a big proponent of study abroad -- it really is the only way by which to gain fluency in a language (if that's your goal), and utilizing native-speaking international students may indeed serve as a catalyst for making that move to studying in a foreign country. However, a FL professor quoted later in the article makes a very good point:
Even if there is functional literacy, many say that the definition of college-level language instruction is being devalued and that the student experience is being cheapened. “There’s more than just the ability to learn to speak a language, which you could do in Berlitz,” said Ginny Lewis, who lost her job teaching German when Drake eliminated all the language faculty positions.Lewis, who is now on the faculty at Northern State University, in South Dakota, said that “the students in my classroom have access to me around the clock — not only am I an educator with knowledge that goes beyond that of a 22-year-old native speaker, who doesn’t understand the how or why of language, but I offer students encouragement. I offer students a lot of background knowledge of why they are learning what they are learning.”
Lewis has an excellent point here, in part. For instance, would a 22-year old native Spanish-speaking student be able to tell us gringos when to use "por" and "para" -- the two most common terms for the English word "for"? Could this student adequately explain how to use the subjunctive mood in Spanish -- indeed, even explain just what the hell it is?
The article details what may explain why Drake made such a move: Language profs concentrate too much on language mechanics and literature. Students want to delve into more of the nitty-gritty of everyday language:
Robert Sanders, assistant professor of Spanish and coordinator of first-year courses at Portland State, said he was excited about adding the small group sessions on to more traditional language instruction. He said he viewed this approach as consistent with the “culture and languages across the curriculum” in which foreign language is not viewed through literature alone, but as part of a broader educational experience.“The literature degrees have their place,” he said, but programs all over the country suffer because of “this institutional creep in which everyone is trying to copy the Ivy League and reproduce specialists in literature,” rather than focusing on globalization or culture or any number of other topics. “We need to break out of the fetish of literature,” he said.
Personally, I agree with that. I detested the literature courses I had to take in college. I would have much preferred something like the Drake approach instead of analyzing a novel (in Spanish). Discussing politics, economics, etc. would be quite intriguing and certainly would prepare students better for their travels abroad more than being versed in Cien Ańos de Soledad.
But even if innovative, the Drake approach -- using international students instead of professors -- sounds to me too much like the "cooperative learning" method used in [primary/secondary] schools where the teacher becomes a "facilitator" innstead of a teacher and merely "guides" students in their "learning." So, at Drake, instead of gutting the whole department, why not just utilize the expertise of your language professors in the revamped program? This seems like the sensible middle ground, especially when it comes to the instances where expertise is required (as I note above). And, as another professor (Rosemary G. Feal, the MLA’s executive director and a former Spanish professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo) mentions in the article,
“The first step in studying a language is acquiring basic fluency,” she said, and the Drake approach is well suited.But as students advance, it’s time to ask questions like: Are there courses offered in the literature of Latin America? Feal noted that she could find plenty of English courses at Drake teaching foreign authors in translation, but wondered where the other courses were. And she stressed that this extends beyond literature.
“The question is: What comes next? After the foundational experiences, colleges and universities need to offer the opportunity to delve into academic content — in history, economics, popular culture, film,” Feal said, questioning how much of this could be taught without professors. She added that “professors with advanced degrees in languages are uniquely qualified” to offer such instruction.
Be sure to read the comments below the article where both sides of the debate (and the middle!) are represented [for the most part] intelligently and cogently.
This week's winner is Smyrna's George Bespalko who thinks Delaware teachers are to blame for the increased violence and disruptions in schools today:
The News Journal editorial must be applauded again for its stand on leaving state retirement at 30 years, except for police officers and prison guards.Now some are trying to make the case that teachers should be included because there are many incidents of violence, threats and disruptions. This did not happen over night, but over time with some teachers losing control of classrooms and maybe entire schools. Now we have some teachers with tenure, 180-day school years, a health and retirement package paid by the taxpayer and who now want to retire earlier.
Ah, yes. George is obviously of the "blame the teachers for everything" crowd. Indeed, just think about how ludicrous the claim is that teachers "lost control of classrooms/entire schools" as if they would willingly do so. The fact is that teachers' discipline and classroom management hasn't really changed much at all over the years. What has happened is that removing chronically disruptive students from class and/or disciplining them has become more and more of a legal tinderbox. That, and the changing attitudes of [too] many parents who will side with their children over the teacher at virtually any cost. You might imagine the effect these would have on teacher attitudes.
If anything, George, teachers (and administrators) have responded to these factors in obvious ways (see if you can figure 'em out, Sherlock) ... which may make it appear that they have "lost control."
(And keep in mind I'm not even addressing the 25 year retirement for teachers that George doesn't like. Maybe I will sometime in the future.)
UPDATE: This comment from a Joanne Jacobs post helps to illustrate my point.
How 'bout that University of Delaware hosting "balanced" Black History-themed events? Thanks in part to posts past from Colossus' Felix, we see what an utter joke the term "balance" means to the modern university:
First up is the screening of Spike Lee’s HBO documentary “When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts.”
On March 5, Black Panthers cofounder Bobby Seale and Young Lords cofounder Felipe Luciano will take part in “Beyond Barriers: Coalition Building in African-American and Latino Communities. ”
NAACP Chariman Julian Bond will lecture on “Contemporary Civil Rights: How Do We Gauge Progress 7 p.m. March 14.
Yeah, how 'bout that even-keeled Julian Bond?
These folks aren't just on the left side of the fence, they're out of bounds.
Wonder why an African-American conservative couldn't have been invited? Perhaps someone like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, J.C. Watts, or Ward Connerly?
UPDATE: Well, how 'bout that??
In the latest Academic Questions (the National Association of Scholars' quarterly journal), Mel Livatino has an unintentionally (perhaps intentionally) hilarious article titled "In Quest of Fame at the 4Cs." The "4Cs" is the annual College Composition and Communications Conference. (You can find the descriptions of many of the courses Livatino discusses here, in .pdf format.) In it, he describes numerous lectures and seminars whose topics, unfortunately, are all too common in this day and age. Check out this sampling of lecture/seminar titles:
And, perhaps the best title of all:
For more "excitement," be sure to check out the 2007 "4Cs Preview." Included are these soon-to-be classics:
John Rosenberg notes how Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the ever-nebulous concept of "diversity" is a good -- and authentic -- thing:
"The benefits of a diverse student population are not theoretical but real," said Ginsburg, who cited a 2003 Supreme Court decision to uphold the affirmative action policy at the University of Michigan's law school.
Unfortunately for Justic Ginsburg, that's pretty far from an accurate (and scientific) statement. As the National Association of Scholars has detailed, the so-called "benefits" of diversity are anything but real:
Unable to show a connection between the racial diversity of a student body and alleged educational benefits, the University [of Michigan] resorts to a methodological confusion, arguing first that racial diversity is positively related to four intermediate "campus experience variables" (i.e., enrollment in ethnic studies courses, attendance at a racial/intercultural workshop, discussion of racial issues, and interracial socialization) and, next, that these are in turn, (though rather weakly and inconsistently), related to the claimed educational benefits."The University falsely concludes from this that a positive relationship has been established between racial diversity and supposedly beneficial educational outcomes," said [the NAS's] Mr. [Thomas] Wood, "but because the Cooperative Institutional Research Program database on which the University relies took account of the four intermediate variables and still found no relationship between racial diversity and educational outcomes, the inference is patently false, as the University and its spokesmen should know."
"Diversity," and the supposed "benefits" associated with it, appear to be becoming as sacrosanct as the belief that humans are responsible for most of our current global warming.
Constitutionally protected free speech means the right to burn the United States flag. So, imagine what a public university's officials would say if a group of radical students did just that in a campus square. "What CAN we do?" they'd ask. "It's protected speech." And they'd be 100% correct.
Not so at San Francisco State University. Oh, well, if it was an American flag you can be there'd be no hassle whatsoever. However, the flags stomped on were those of Hamas and Hezbollah, and those doing the stomping were the College Republicans. (There are Republicans in 'Frisco??)
After students filed a complaint claiming they were offended because the flags bore the word "Allah," SFSU initiated an investigation into accusations of incitement, creation of a hostile environment, and incivility.
But of course! That is the very mantra of the Campus Left -- "hostile environment," "incivility," and that nonsense. But the only things "hostile" and "uncivil" were the ideas of the protestors -- hostile and uncivil to the [Campus] Left. And to the Left there is virtually no greater sin than to go against their prevailing orthodoxy. After all, Hamas and Hezbollah aren't really terrorist organizations, they're "freedom fighters" against the oppressive, imperialist American capitalist state, and that of the Zionist entity (y'know, Israel), and it is blasphemous to be "hostile" to people who are already "awash" in hostility.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has come to the aid of the College Repubs, writing to SFSU:
In a free society, neither SFSU nor any other agency of the government has the power to investigate a group simply for disrespecting a religious symbol. By continuing this investigation, SFSU is not just charting new territory in campus repression, but its actions come into direct conflict with the United States Constitution. The charges against the College Republicans must be immediately dismissed.
I caught a segment of "The O'Reilly Factor" the other night dealing with first, Joe Biden's use of, among other terms, "articulate" when describing Barack Obama; second, President Bush using the exact same term to describe the exact same guy (Obama). Both of O'Reilly's guests (both of whom were black) agreed that the term "articulate" is condescending when used to describe blacks. When I jibed Biden in this post, I made fun of him for his "cultural unawareness." After the O'Reilly segment however, I began thinking about this more, especially when host Bill offered to his guests that white Americans -- many -- see no problem with "articulate." They see it as a compliment.
Why would many white Americans see "articulate" as a compliment? For starters, does anyone recall the controversial "Ebonics" debate when the Oakland School Board wanted to utilize Ebonics instruction in the classroom? Even Jesse Jackson, never at a loss for a cause African-American (perceived or otherwise), thought the idea was silly. However, many scholars feel that Ebonics (or "African-American Vernacular English") is a legitimate dialect of Standard [American] English, or even its own separate language. So, if even some of these opinions are to be taken as legitimate, then Ebonics (AAVE) is clearly different from Standard American English. (Standard American English being what the vast majority of Americans, hence majority of white Americans included, speak.)
If AAVE is clearly different from SAE and is indeed a legitimate dialect or even separate language, then the question arises: Why do African-Americans consider it condescending when whites use the term "articulate" when a black American utilizes Standard American English ... and utilizes it well?
Unbelievably, I feel Jesse Jackson has it pretty much correct. (Don't think I'd ever say that.) AAVE is not the same as, say, Jamaican English. In Jamaica, that is the form of speaking among [the vast majority black] population. Here in the US, African-Americans comprise approximately 11-12% of the population. As Jackson states,
"While we are ... fighting to teach our children so they become more qualified for jobs, in Oakland some madness has erupted over making slang talk a second language. You don't have to go to school to learn to talk garbage."
And isn't that the bottom line, after all? Don't we want to teach [African-American] children the means by which to be most successful and productive when they're out in the working world? How would giving ... "legitimacy" to Ebonics as a separate language assist these children in the job market?
Linguist Charles J. Fillmore has a different take on this:
The way some African American children speak when they show up in Oakland's schools is so different from standard English that teachers often can't understand what they are saying. Such children perform poorly in school and typically fail to acquire the ways of speaking that they'll need in order to succeed in the world outside their neighborhoods. Schools have traditionally treated the speech of these children as simply sloppy and wrong, not as evidencing skills and knowledge the children can build on. The proposed new instructional plan would assist children in learning standard English by encouraging them to compare the way they speak with what they need to learn in school, and this cannot be accomplished in a calm and reasoned way unless their teachers treat what they already have, linguistically, as a worthy possession rather than as evidence of carelessness and ignorance.
This certainly makes sense from an educational perspective. It would be harsh to belittle a student who comes to school speaking Ebonics or something akin to it, instead of carefully and tactfully educating him/her on Standard English usage. Historically, when Africans were first brought to [North] America, they weren't permitted an education, and this obviously contributed to the formation of AAVE as the enslaved essentially "did what they could" with their new adopted language. But slavery has been extinct for a century and a half, and black Americans have been the recipients of formal, standardized education for some time now. It is certainly reasonable to expect African-Americans to maintain some (much?) of the AAVE that has been cultivated over the centuries. But, again, being a distinct minority in the United States has even greater disadvantages if there is a refusal to accommodate -- and adopt -- the main tongue of the country.
Fillmore notes that the state Superintendent of Public Instruction of California, Delaine Eastin, "worr[ied] that the decision to 'recognize' AAVE could lead students to believe 'that they could prosper with it as their primary language outside the home.' " This would be my fear as well, as it certainly seems to jibe with what Jesse Jackson was worried about. After all, in California, the decades-old controversy over bilingual education recently led to state ballot initiatives for English-only classes as many believed current bilingual programs in schools only served to perpetuate students' native language usage instead of mastering English -- the supposed intent of bilingual instruction. Many educationists believe that English-only classroom instruction is "destructive" to immigrant students' culture and self-esteem. The more radical of these educationists tie in English-only proposals to "white supremacy" and "white privilege"; however, I've not seen a call by the advocates of English-only instruction in [public] schools for immigrants to speak English outside of school, like in their own homes and such. That would be ludicrous.
I would worry that the teaching of Ebonics could lead to something like the curriculum of Afrocentrism that has been introduced into numerous schools across the country over the last couple of decades. Why is this worrisome? Just the fact that such a curriculum does little to prepare students for what they will face here in the United States -- our political system, laws, and especially economics. (Refreshingly, several years ago a black educator-turned consultant ran a workshop at our school and he denounced Afrocentrism in the strongest possible terms. I say "refreshingly" because public schools are usually prone to promoting theories that are on the polar opposite side of the philosophical spectrum than what this gentleman had delivered to us.)
In conclusion, back to the initial query: Is the use of "articulate" really a negative stereotype against African-Americans? I still believe that it is, given myriad other cultural factors other than just the legitimacy given to concepts like Ebonics. But certainly educationist-type ... "movements" like those praising Ebonics (and/or aspects of Afrocentrism) inadvertantly give a degree of seemliness to the interrogative and/or statement of "articulate" since they are "at odds" with the national standard (Standard American English). My "solution," for lack of a better term, is for everyone to just lighten up! We're becoming a nation of the aggrieved and of hurt feelings, and in this age where video camera-phones and such are everywhere, the unreasonable expectation that people's speech be "correct" in every and all instances is not only silly, but will lead to one bland -- and politically correct -- citizenry.
Wow, what an experience. Talk about having one's intellect stretched and challenged! And it was a lot of fun. The title of the colloquium was "Liberty, Markets and Voluntarism in the Progressive Era City." It may sound, well, "dry," but the discussions were superb, and you didn't have to be an "expert" in the field to participate adequately or to offer intriguing insights. That being said, the collective brainpower assembled (excluding myself, for the nonce) was impressive to say the least. University of Alabama's David Beito of the Liberty and Power blog (and who invited me to the conference) was highly enjoyable to listen to, and moderator Peter Mentzel of Utah State I could hear lecture all day. His knowledge is prodigious. I want to extend a hearty "thank you" to David Beito for his generous invitation and I'd surely love to participate in any future Liberty Fund event!
While in Indy, I met up with Greg of Aeropagitica! Greg generously bought me lunch at a great brew house (reminded me quite a bit of the Washington St. Ale House, for all you Delawareans) and we shared a couple hours of great conversation covering a gamut of topics. Below is a snap of Greg and I, after lunch, in my hotel's lobby. (Apologies for the poor quality; I don't think the concierge knew precisely how to operate my phone-camera!)
And almost as important as the conference (!) was a discovery late last evening on the TV while I was packing for home: Remastered original series "Star Trek" episodes!! The episode "The Doomsday Machine" last night was absolutely sensational with the updated special effects, sounds, and colors. But it was done tastefully -- the F/X were clearly not 2007 quality, but were improved just enough to really make the suspense -- and overall story -- greatly enhanced!
John Derbyshire writes in The Corner about his son's upcoming choice of foreign language in his middle school years. He says
We just got a flyer from the school board asking him to choose a foreign language class. The choices are: French, Italian, Spanish.My advice to him (which of course he will ignore) is just to be hard-headed about it & pick the language most likely to give him an "edge" in future employment.
That rules out Spanish, since the USA is choc-a-bloc with Spanish-speakers, so the market value of this skill must be low.
My emphasis. Question: Do you believe this to be an accurate assertion? Sure, Spanish is by far the most popular lingo in the US after English, but wouldn't being fluent (or close to it) thus be an advantage when entering the job market -- especially for one coming out of a good college (like Derbyshire's kid probably will)? Not only in the US but what about the growing opportunities with NAFTA and now CAFTA?
Derb recommends his son take Italian because he (the dad) likes opera. Wha-a-a ...?
If you want your son to "get an edge" in future employment, Derb, get the middle school to offer Arabic!
SCSU Scholars reports on how Internet creator and fledgling documentarian Al Gore failed to show up at a scheduled interview about global warming. Maybe it's 'cause the interviewer, Bjorn Lomborg, is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. At first, Gore attempted "to change the terms of the interview 24 hours before the meeting," then he just backed out completely.
How come, Al? Maybe because there is ample evidence to counter your contentions?
Also, great minds think alike: SCSU's Janet writes the following:
Today, there is no doubt the planet is warming yet in the 1970's we were told we were entering another ice age. What is it? "Climate" is weather over a long period of time - not just the last N years - take your pick, whatever fits your agenda.
Based on what Stephen Bainbridge says:
I'm 48 years old. I spent 11 years in college and graduate school, with the latter 7 years spent at elite institutions. I've spent 18 years teaching at law schools ranked in the top 25, which I think safely qualify as elite institutions. Having thus spent 60% of my life hanging out with elite professors, I feel confident in saying that: If all I know about a view was that professors held it more, and elite professors even more so, I would be inclined to be skeptical of that view.To be sure, when it comes to their area of expertise, elite professors deserve a degree of deference. When it comes to matters outside their area of expertise, such as whether God exists (the question Galt and Hanson are discussing), elite faculty deserve no more deference than any other smart people. Indeed, they may deserve less deference than a representative cross section of the general public.
Being a 16 year grizzled veteran teacher, I've often read about the pros and cons of merit pay for teachers -- that is, bonuses and/or salary increases for superior teacher performance. On the surface, it sounds like a pretty easy concept. When you delve into the details, however, it gets more complicated. Don't get me wrong -- I am in no way opposed to a merit pay scheme that makes sense and is logically functional. But that's the rub. Many merit pay ideas (that I've seen) fail those criteria and/or fail to address other concerns.
Just to give you an example of what I mean by "making sense" and "logically functional," the state of Delaware wanted (wants?) to evaluate state teachers partially (20%) on the test scores of the students. On the surface, this sounds somewhat reasonable. However, since the state test (DSTP) measures ONLY mathematics and English, how exactly can an art teacher's evaluation be tied to students' test scores? Or a science teacher's? Many of you know that I am a Spanish teacher. How come 20% of my evaluation is based on my students' math and English test scores? Talk about "incentive" -- this turns the incentive on its head! Why waste my time teaching Spanish -- I should be tutoring my students in math and English!
Soccer Dad alerted me to an Opinion Journal piece in support of teacher merit pay. It states in part:
That column, "How One School Found a Way to Spell Success," described how teachers at the Meadowcliff School, formerly full of student underachievers, were promised bonuses linked to improvements in the standardized test performance of each student. (The column is available on OpinionJournal here.) The size of the bonus increased relative to the student's year-over-year test gains. A 4% improvement earned a $100 bonus, rising to $400 if the student gained 15% (some did). Everyone in the school was in the bonus plan, including the cafeteria ladies, who started eating with the kids rather than in their own lounge. It worked. Scores improved. Twelve teachers got bonuses from $1,800 to $8,600. The checks were handed out in a public ceremony. Oprah would love Meadowcliff.
Again, sounds great on the surface. No doubt. But I have questions. What subjects did the standardized tests measure? How exactly did art teachers -- or Spanish teachers -- affect these [standardized test] subjects? And how in the world do cafeteria workers affect them?? The above plan states teachers' pay was tied to student performance; so, cafeteria workers can get bonuses too ... for eating lunch with students? Wow. Apparently there were individual bonuses and group (school) bonuses. And there's a nit I have with this comment (from the linked article in the above blockquote): "This straight-line pay-for-performance formula awarded teachers objectively in a way that squares with popular notions of fairness and skirts fears of subjective judgment. In most merit-based lines of work, say baseball, it's called getting paid for 'putting numbers on the board.'" Doing away with as much subjectivity in teacher evaluations (for bonuses) is a good thing; however, the analogy to baseball is far from perfect. Baseball players have only to rely on themselves for their performance. They control all the "factors of production," so to speak. On the other hand, teachers [also] have to rely their students, obviously. That is a pretty significant factor of production with aspects outside of teacher control, is it not?
When you tie teacher pay (or bonuses) to student test performance, you need a basis from which to start -- a "benchmark," if you will. A student takes a test at the beginning of the [school] year and then continously throughout the year. You can thus verify improvement. But the way many schools are currently configured means that students have many different teachers over the years (and subjects), especially in the upper grades. This is probably a "minor" structural issue, however; subject/grade configurations could be modified to permit a more concrete measurement.
But what about my subject (again, Spanish)? Students come to my class with no knowledge (or virtually no knowledge) of the subject matter. How would a "benchmark" test work in this regard? (I am asking this not out of skepticism, but out of real ignorance.) Or, would the standardized final exam at the end of the year be a sufficient measure of my teaching abilities? If so, what percentage of my students would need to pass it in order for me to get my bonus? Does that percentage get raised each year? Or, does a certain "bell curve" grade distribution need to be realized for my bonus?
I Googled "merit pay teachers" the other day and the first page of articles dealing with the subject were overwhelmingly negative. The very first article is by education researcher Richard Rothstein and is titled "Merit Pay Won't Work." I must admit I am very skeptical of Rothstein, especially after reading [one of] his devoid-of-reality "solution" to inner-city education problems. Rothstein argues that "... despite the oft-repeated notion that 'merit pay' contributes to corporate success, it is hard to find private sector examples for such proposals." He goes on to point out various studies to support his point, but in my opinion they are weak. And as a point of personal anecdotal evidence to the contrary, my job before teaching was in credit card collections. Each employee who reached his/her monthly percentage goal received a bonus.
Rothstein then quotes Brooklyn-Queens Archdiocese Superintendent Guy Puglisi who says
"We have many schools where test scores are low. But if the teachers are working hard, the scores are not that much of an indication of anything. The teachers might be working doubly hard, but the scores are low because of the social conditions they face."I don't think merit pay is that great an idea ... what motivates teachers is the opportunity to do challenging work, and then being told how much they are appreciated."
If the teachers are working hard. There's certainly no doubt that what motivates many teachers is effecting positive change in the learning of youth. Personally, I did not go into teaching for the money! I don't know of anyone who did. But the fact remains that there are many teachers who are lemons -- and the question remains: Is it fair that these lemons get paid the same (or more, based on years of experience and/or education level) as an exceptional teacher?
One point where I believe Rothstein pretty much hits the mark is this: The evaluations needed to support a merit pay system in education are inconceivable with schools' currently weak administrative structures. Administrators' main focus these days is dealing with student discipline, and many are now hired solely for this purpose. Thus, I'd argue these folks do not have the aptitude to evaluate teacher performance, especially in key subject areas. But, again, utilizing standardized test scores on which to base (whole, or in part) teacher evaluations could certainly alleviate some of the "load" from administrative "judgment."
Myron Lieberman, like Rothstein, dismisses the notion that merit pay is much more widespread in industry (as opposed to education):
Conservatives often exaggerate the extent to which merit pay is the practice in our labor force. In dozens of industries, merit pay seldom applies to employees below the supervisory level. In fact, merit pay does not affect airline pilots and several other occupations in the public and private sectors. Superior performance often leads to promotions to positions in which merit pay is operative, but this is true in education as well.
I don't know how accurate that last sentence is; in my experience excellent teachers wouldn't touch administration with a 50-foot pole. Lieberman goes on to ask one of my main queries from above (my emphasis):
Even if teachers, teacher unions, and school management agreed that merit pay was a good idea in principle, the problems of implementing the idea would be difficult to resolve. To cite just one problem, how can we compare merit among teachers of different subjects and grade levels? With the best will in the world, different interests will lead to differences of opinion on this issue.
And that's just it. As I stated from the beginning, I have little hassle with merit pay. I just want a system that makes sense -- and wasn't put together to satisfy someone's notion of political expediency, like the proposed Delaware teacher evaluation plan. In addition, Lieberman notes how school administrators would be wary of utilizing a merit pay plan due to [its possible] subjectivity -- "This is not something administrators look forward to, especially since it's always possible to criticize the criteria or the applications of the criteria for merit pay," he writes. It's a good point, for as Greg over at Rhymes With Right notes, just as teachers know which fellow teachers are doing their jobs, they also know what adminstrators are doing their jobs, too. You could be a phenomenal teacher who's "led" by an inferior principal, have disagreements over proper education policy (the teacher clearly being right in this case) and as a result your evaluation is poor -- "payback," if you will. Does this sound familiar to any teachers out there?
The debate will continue to rage. I recommend all teachers, especially, check out the many differences of opinion regarding merit pay at the Google link above. To restate, I personally have no objection to merit pay, as long as a fair system is established to implement it. The Meadowcliff School's example may to be such a system; I'd like to see more specifics to make a concrete evaluation. Delaware's system (not merit pay, mind you, but 20% of a teacher's evaluation that can affect pay) as current constructed is not such a system.
Jason at DE Liberal seems to have found a new job. See the screen capture below (since corrected, thankfully):
La Shawn Barber opines on the Oprah Winfrey "controversy" surrounding her recent opening of a school in South Africa, and her comments about American education:
"Say what you will about the American educational system—it does work," she says. "If you are a child in the United States, you can get an education." And she doesn't think that American students—who, unlike Africans, go to school free of charge—appreciate what they have. "I became so frustrated with visiting inner-city schools that I just stopped going. The sense that you need to learn just isn't there," she says. "If you ask the kids what they want or need, they will say an iPod or some sneakers. In South Africa, they don't ask for money or toys. They ask for uniforms so they can go to school."
I've encountered this ... "sentiment" both here and abroad. During my travels in Costa Rica, I noticed that all public school students wear uniforms and kids will walk miles to get to school (especially in rural areas). Costa Ricans literally go out of their way to get to school!
Here, I've similarly noticed this attitude ... but mostly from immigrant students or parents. I'll never forget the [Indian, from India] mother of one of my students (way back in my first year of teaching) who was exasperated at the devil-may-care attitude of too many American students. "Indian students would LOVE to have what American students have in their schools. You have everything you need to get a great education ... and more"she said. Yet, there exists an atmosphere of "being spoiled" here. Is this the price America must pay ... for success? Have we become soft and spoiled as a people? La Shawn thinks so:
We Americans, black and white, are so spoiled. We take for granted things like free government education, proper sanitation, an economic system under which we can make a decent living if we actually work, private ownership rights, access to safe, plentiful, and relatively cheap food — the ingratitude is sickening.
Is this accurate? I mean, is it a "Why bother with an education when even the most uneducated among us can have things and live in conditions which people who live in REAL [Third World] poverty would give their eye teeth for?"
In a related matter, ABC's Director of Foreign News, Chuck Lustig, praises Oprah for her generous donation to South Africa, asking "is there something wrong with our educational priorities in this country that a college coach can make so much money at a time when many of our country's school districts are wrangling with huge deficits?" Ironic that Chuck missed Oprah's actual pertinent statements about this country's school districts, eh?
I could ramble on and on about this topic, but I'm interested in hearing what YOU have to say. I'll ask the post's title again: Is Oprah (and La Shawn) right?
Soccer Dad alerted me to a transcript of a graduation speech given by Chris Hedges -- author of American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America and the subject of my post yesterday.
Frankly, it is bewildering that a college would want someone like Hedges to deliver a commencement address. Shouldn't commencement be a time of uplift and motivation? Nothing like a radical like Hedges to spew his cultural hatred upon those entering the real world. Oh, wait -- we're talking about a college. At least some of the crowd took exception to such a lecture at their graduation and booed. And this prompted Rockford College President Paul Pribbenow to grab the microphone and state
My friends, one of the wonders of a liberal arts college is its ability and its deeply held commitment to academic freedom and the decision to listen to each other's opinions. (Crowd Cheers) If you wish to protest the speaker's remarks, I ask that you do it in silence, as some of you are doing in the back. That is perfectly appropriate but he has the right to offer his opinion here and we would like him to continue his remarks.
This would be nice -- if it were really a belief of college administrators. In fact, too often it is the belief of college administrators when the speaker is of like political philosophy ... like Hedges. Do you think a speaker for the Minutemen would be [verbally] defended by a college administrator in the middle of a protest? Hell, Ivy League Columbia didn't even do that! The protestors were permitted to stop the Minutemen's speech and force them off the stage. One was even attacked. Conservative speakers are the targets of this quite often on campuses. Major disruptions of talks/speeches. Pies and other food items thrown at them.
It'd actually be a refreshing change if conservative speakers were "merely" met by boos and hisses. At least then, they'd probably be able to finish what they have to say. But remember why "mere" boos and hisses are insufficient protest for leftists against conservative speakers: What conservatives say isn't just wrong, it's evil and wicked. And as such, it must be halted at all costs.
Former NY Times reporter Chris Hedges has a new book out titled American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. The book's promotional materials offer the following:
The Christian Right, like these early fascist movements, does not openly call for dictatorship, nor does it use physical violence to suppress opposition. In short, the movement is not yet revolutionary. But the ideological architecture of a Christian fascism is being cemented in place. The movement has roused its followers to a fever pitch of despair and fury. All it will take, Hedges writes, is one more national crisis on the order of September 11 for the Christian Right to make a concerted drive to destroy American democracy. The movement awaits a crisis. At that moment they will reveal themselves for what they truly are — the American heirs to fascism.
If this is isn't the biggest bunch of bullsh** I've read in a long time (excluding the usual drivel here) I don't know what it is. Even the NY Times itself didn't give the book a favorable review which, in this case, especially is a good indicator the book is crap. Not because the Times is so adept at reviewing books; but, because the Times, never at a loss for causes liberal, doesn't want to go too far and throw in with the loonies ... and realizes this book is just way out there.
Laughingly, the Hedges promo also offers this: His book reminds us of the dangers liberal, democratic societies face when they tolerate the intolerant. What delicious irony! What better "warning" for the American people of the American Left, that which essentially owns popular culture, including the education establishment. It is at American universities, especially, where this tyranny is most evident. Campuses take "the danger of tolerating the 'intolerant'" to the extreme: They enact speech codes (can't tolerate "intolerant" speech), bypass normal due process procedures (can't tolerate "intolerant" judicial operations), and utilize "guilty until proven innocent" when it comes to people of certain class/race (can't tolerate "intolerant" typical legal procedures created by white males).
Why do they do this? At least the Right has the "excuse" of national security in [some of] their desires for, say, a streamlined due process in times of a terrorist war. But the Left? They truly believe in their philosophy. To believe otherwise is akin to heresy and dissenters must not only be punished, but made into "unpersons." For excellent examples of what I'm talking about, just peruse FIRE's website. In addition, see what La Shawn Barber has to say about the Duke "rape" case and how 88 -- 88!! -- Duke professors said "Screw due process!" to the accused rapists by taking out a full-page ad in the Duke Chronicle where
The professors definitively asserted that something "happened" to the accuser, while saying "thank you" to campus protesters like these, who had called the players "rapists" and distributed a "wanted" poster with lacrosse players' photos. The statement's author, Wahneema Lubiano, gleefully labeled the players the "perfect offenders," and, as ESPN reported, fully understood that "some would see the ad as a stake through the collective heart of the lacrosse team." (Source.)
Contrast that to the only THREE Duke professors that have actually criticized prosecutor Mike Nifong's gross misconduct in the case. As author KC Johnson says,
The behavior we've seen from Duke's faculty — the frantic rush to judgment coupled with a refusal to reconsider — was all too predictable. The Group of 88's statement was fully consistent with basic ideas about race, class, and gender prevalent on most elite campuses today. Reconsidering their actions of last spring would have forced the Group of 88, and sympathetic colleagues, to reconsider some of the intellectual assumptions upon which the statement was based.
The modern university's views on race, class and gender do not gibe with, among other things, the Bill of Rights. Or, at least not the way the Bill of Rights has been interpreted over history. Since the Bill of Rights is an invention of privileged white males, there needs to be a "modern interpretation" of these rights in an era of great demographic change. As discussed here at Colossus previously, ideas such as "Critical Race Theory" hold that the First Amendment should be adjusted to allow minorities an "equal footing" on which to debate. In other words, since the majority (whites) hold institutional power, merely "matching words with words" does not suffice for a minority when attempting to deal with a member of the majority. The majority still "holds the power." Thus, legal safeguards need to be put in place to quell the majority from using "hurtful" speech.
Look at which speakers get shouted down and are prevented from voicing their opinion at universities. They are not leftist speakers. They are speakers who, like the head of the Minutemen, articulate a point of view which is anathema to leftists: proper [national] border enforcement. Leftists abhor this viewpoint because 1) the people affected are "people of color," 2) the white oppressors "stole" the land originally from said people of color, and 3) since they (leftists) disdain concepts like private property in the first place, national borders are moot.
Universities often get away with this sort of nonsense because leftists form a monopoly on thought there. Liberal/Democrat professors outnumber their conservative/Republican brethren by a huge margin. Quite hypocritical for institutions that harp "diversity" more than any other catchword, but the most important type of diversity you'd expect at a place of learning is pooh-poohed. And again, conservatives/Republicans aren't just wrong -- they are to be completely disregarded for their beliefs.
And why is it that the media, like the academy, are so fearful of true diversity? The number of liberals/Democrats in the media mirror those of universities. How dangerous is it that the Fourth Estate -- unregulated at that, unlike the three political branches -- is controlled by one political philosophy? This is just one more element that makes Hedges' hypothesis akin to that of global warming hysteria or any other sort of "crisis mongering." With these two elements of American culture firmly in the camp of liberals/Democrats, it is beyond difficult to imagine Christian radical rightists scheming to transform -- and succeeding -- American democracy into the next 1930s Germany or Italy.
UPDATE: Darren has a post up that adds an exclamation point to my own, here. He notes a statement by the Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby: "This helps explain why the left is so often infatuated with the idea of its own benevolence -- and why liberals are so quick to accuse their opponents of being not just wrong, but wicked."
Sorry, but I just have to wince every time I see a spot for the new Hilary Swank film "Freedom Writers." If this isn't just a sappy remake of Michelle Pheiffer's "Dangerous Minds" for all intents and purposes, I'll eat my hat. Certainly, teachers that are dramatized by Swank, Phieffer and others are nothing short of miracle workers. And, their stories can be uplifting. But one thing that annoys me is the seeming Hollywood mantra of a "Great White Hope" that is "needed" for these tough, inner-city classrooms. Remember how Pheiffer was virtually terrified in her first few days in the classroom. But hey -- she is determined to "reach these kids" by, among other things, "understanding" where the kids come from. Swank is obviously keen on doing likewise. Matthew Perry in "The Ron Clark Story" is another. Meryl Streep in "Music of the Heart" is yet another.
If you know me by my past writings, I'm certainly not one to endorse the multiculti philosophy that kids will learn "better" if they are taught by teachers who "look like them." And surely, middle-class whitebreadish teachers like Pheiffer, Swank et. al. will have to make necessary adjustments to whatever teaching methods they learned in order to be successful with high-need urban students. But this isn't my point. The point is that Hollywood seems to believe that these stories are "inspirational" in part because these middle-class whitebreadish teachers "gave their all" to help these destitute pupils -- they sacrificed and were devoted beyond measure -- when they could've taken a cushy suburban teaching job that would have been much easier. They're "Great White Hopes" as I said before.
But what about the stories of teachers who DO "look like their students" who have been there since day one doing their utmost to get through to these kids? How many of you have seen (or even heard of) the excellent film starring Samuel L. Jackson titled "187"? Jackson plays a teacher who was nearly killed, yet he moves to California and gives teaching a go again (at yet another "tough" HS). It's gritty, dark and realistic, and being that the number "187" stands for murder under the California penal code, you know it's gonna be a macabre flick.
More commonly known is "Lean On Me" starring Morgan Freeman as no-nonsense principal Joe Clark (Freeman) who turns an inner-city school around primarily by means of "old school"-style discipline and punishment. This obviously pisses off the typically "touchy-feelie" educrats and the bureaucrats who then conspire against Clark.
"Stand and Deliver" stars Edward James Olmos as Bolivian math teacher Jaime Escalante. He teaches at a primarily Latino populated school and uses this to his advantage in motivating his students to excel at the subject -- going all the way to calculus. One of the things he notes is how the native civilizations of the Americas (particularly the Maya) were geniuses at mathematics -- "You have math in your blood!" he tells his class. In such a setting, it is difficult to imagine a Michelle Pheiffer or Hilary Swank making such a rapport.
Lastly, one of my favorite all-time movies about teachers is called just that -- "Teachers." Nick Nolte and Judd Hirsch star in the over 20-year old film that really holds up well today. I agree with what a commenter had to say at the IMDB:
While the story takes some liberties with realism this is actually a very good film. As a 25 year teacher I can honestly say that what may have appeared outrageous in 1984 is pretty close to reality today.Frustrated teachers, out of the loop administrators, a total lack of discipline, students bringing a smörgĺsbord of baggage to class and a stubborn school board that puts the money above the needs of the students.
What I like about "Teachers" is that it portrays professionals that truly place the needs of the students first even if their methods are unconventional. Give me one teacher like Nick Nolte's character instead of 10 Dittos. Forget the mantra "looks good, is good" and admit mistakes. The community responds best to the truth.Students in any school situation respond to the sincerity of their teachers. Put the young people first and don't be afraid to walk around in their shoes once in a while.
No, the film doesn't deal with (mainly) one particular ethnic group, but a fairly well-mixed group such as the district in which I teach. Nolte's character is initially shown to be a slacker (he has to be called by the school secretary to even get out of bed and come to work), but he later demonstrates that he's probably the best teacher in the school. He has a terrific connection with his students, and in one of my favorite scenes he forgoes a day's lesson plan because the heater in his room is broken. "So," he tells the class, "Today we're going to enter the world of heater repair" and the students all gather around to watch him fix the heater. Talk about your "teachable moment"! He goes above and beyond to reach a kid (played by Karate Kid Ralph Macchio) who everyone else has given up on, and willingly takes an administrative hit for it (by allowing him to use school equipment to take embarrassing photos around school that get out to the local media).
Nolte also faces a situation I actually encountered in real life very early in my teaching career. While attending a conference with Macchio's character's mom, the mom is completely disinterested in what's happening to her son. Nolte asks, "Mrs. Pilikian, don't you care about your son's education?" To which she responds, "Isn't that YOUR job, Mr. Jurel?" (In my real life situation, I heard a parent chastise an administrator for even bothering to contact her about her son's constant misbehavior. "YOU'RE the educator," she said. "YOU'RE the professional. This is YOUR problem." Isn't that nice?)
The best symbolism is Richard Mulligan's character -- a mental patient -- who unintentionally serves as a substitute teacher. Before he's discovered, he ends up being one of the most beloved teachers in the whole building -- his off-the-wall antics have endeared his kids to him (just check out he and his class re-enacting Washington's crossing of the Delaware!) ... the obvious message being that you really have to be [a little bit] crazy to teach, and being so actually helps you relate to the kids better.
"Christina public forum draws one parent" is a headline in today's News Journal. One parent. OK, the Christina School District has had a lot of problems of late, but inviting public input is just what they should do -- and have done -- and look at the result. Now, imagine if they held a closed-door session on the matter. Angry parents would be calling local talk radio to rip the district. In this, WDEL's Gerry Fulcher (whom I've criticized often in the past) was dead-on in some of his commentary yesterday when he lectured his listeners that THEY have the power to change things they do not like -- all THEY have to do is show up, make THEIR voices heard, and get active. In this case Ger was referring to the state legislature; they same principle certainly applies to public school districts.
Natana DeLong-Bas -- joining the ranks of the "distinguished" moonbattery of Kevin Barrett, William Woodward and Craig T. Furlong.
(h/t: Phi Beta Cons.)
Wow, I always knew many professors were a bit looney, but this guy might take the cake:
A black professor at MIT has threatened to go on a hunger strike and "die defiantly" outside the provost's office if the university does not grant him tenure, which he said was denied because of racism.For two years, stem cell scientist James L. Sherley has asked senior administrators at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to overturn the decision by his department head not to put him forward for tenure. On Monday, he was told by provost L. Rafael Reif that the decision would stand.
"I will either see the provost resign and my hard-earned tenure granted at MIT, or I will die defiantly right outside his office," Sherley wrote in a letter he circulated this week among the MIT faculty.
Shirley said if MIT fails to take action, he'll start his hunger strike Feb. 5.
"This is the strength of my conviction that racism in (America) must end," Sherley wrote. "What better place to kill a small part of it than at a great institution like MIT."
What I find amazing is that at of all places, a guy is taking the ultimate step (suicide) at a university -- because the university practices racism?? This is almost akin to claiming that North Korea is a model democracy. Sherley offers no substantiation for his charges other than accusing "former MIT provost Robert A. Brown of making a racist remark that was reported to him by a colleague." That's it?? A supposedly racist epithet heard second-hand? OK, sure, that may not be all, but ya'd think that if a dude is planning to waste himself away he'd offer up quite a bit more evidence against MIT, right?
(h/t to Liberty and Power whose own post title I elaborated on.)
Via The Guardian (UK):
An influential group of academics is demanding a change in the law to ensure scholars are given complete freedom of speech in universities, it emerged today.More than 60 UK academics from Academics for Academic Freedom are calling for laws to be extended to ensure that academics are free to "question and test received wisdom, and to put forward unpopular opinions".
Gosh! Imagine that! At universities, no less! But "complete," surely, is a misnomer. I'm sure professors do not want the "right" to yell incitements to violence or the proverbial "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre." Also, especially in Europe, would "question and test received wisdom," and "to put forward unpopular opinions" mean something like Holocaust denial? Surely this is "testing received wisdom" and definitely is an "unpopular opinion." But should professors be allowed to preach such in a classroom unfettered? I say unequivocally, "No."
Why? Because that would amount to educational malpractice, that's why. That the Holocaust occurred is an indisputable historical fact, well documented. To use a college classroom to espouse ridiculous [anti-Semitic] theories to the contrary is irrational.
Similarly, I'd argue the same about Andrew McIntosh, professor of thermodynamics at Leeds University who believes the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old. He also believes the theory of evolution is wrong, but that is something else entirely. Evolution, though the currently strongest theory out there that accounts for differing species and the like, can be academically disputed (though usually not very well) mainly because it is just that -- a theory. But claiming the Earth is 6,000 years old when solid scientific evidence (such as carbon dating) clearly proves otherwise is, again, malpractice.
Admittedly, it's a tough call on some issues. And, I'm not advocating silencing anybody; professors, as with anyone else, are entitled to whatever opinion they wish. But using a classroom with a captive audience to disseminate an "opinion" that is thoroughly controverted by all the facts is a different issue.
Which leads to a related issue: Should Holocaust deniers be jailed for voicing this ... opinion? David Irving was recently ordered released (reduced sentence) in Austria after serving 13 months in jail.
Irving was also on trial for saying the November 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom against the Jews was not the work of the Nazis, but of “unknown” people who had dressed up as storm troopers, and that Adolf Hitler had in fact protected the Jews.He was found guilty on all three denial counts by an eight-person jury.
Irving was prosecuted under an Austrian law targeting those who “deny the genocide by the National Socialists or other National Socialist crimes against humanity.”
Austria is among 11 countries that have laws against denying the Holocaust, in which some six million Jews were slaughtered by Nazi Germany, mainly in the later years of World War II.
Wow -- eleven countries. I was unaware of that. I would imagine most, if not all, of those countries are in Europe. But ... jail time for an ... opinion? Is this a dangerous precedent? Could it lead to something else? I certainly understand -- and even sympathize with -- the sentiment behind the laws as the Holocaust was European atrocity of unparalleled proportion, but shouldn't more speech be the weapon against halfwits who deny the genocide? What if the United States attempted to jail people for denying the Atlantic slave trade?
As a whole, I find the idea of using imprisonment for mere speech (again, excluding obvious instances, noted above) abhorrent. I (and Felix) have weighed in enough on the attempts to punish "incorrect" speech at American college campuses, especially regarding issues like affirmative action, diversity and preferences. I'd like to think we're being as consistent as possible.
After over a month's hiatus, Campus News Confab is back with a vengeance -- four new hilarious posts about the inanity of diversity-think at American universities. Check 'em out.
More American teenagers can name three of the Three Stooges than can name the three branches of government -- 59% to 41%. (Link.)
Nyuk nyuk.
From the Arizona State University News & Information Center:
Studies show that students exposed to greater racial and ethnic diversity in college exhibit enhanced intellectual skills. As a result, experts say improving curricula is critically important.
I, like Phi Beta Cons' Mark Bauerlein, have YET to discover one -- just one -- study which "proves" the point that ASU claims above. And believe me, I've looked (as has Hube). And I'm not talking about anecdotal studies or "research."
Just imagine if a campus "socialist workers organization" or some other such "group" protested in between classes the American war in Iraq by laying an American flag on the street -- and then walking/jumping all over it. If I was there, I'd grin, shake my head, and merely walk away. Why? These buffoons were exercising their freedom of expression. I wouldn't like their expression (hence my walking away), but that's what, in part, makes America great -- the buffoons can trample on that flag all they wish to make their point. (The US Supreme Court has deemed burning the flag is protected speech, by the way.)
In addition, you can be sure that the college administrators at this campus would be squarely in these radicals' corner. "We must protect freedom of speech and expression, especially ideas which are repellant to most of us," they'd say. Any attempt to bring about any sort of disciplinary action would be met -- rightly -- by threats from the ACLU and who knows who else.
San Francisco State University would probably fit the above description pretty well. Except, however, that at SFSU the actual folks doing the flag stomping were college Republicans, and the flags on which they stomped were the flags of the terror organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. The university's reaction in this case?
Preceding an ongoing investigation into SF State College Republican behavior, the Associated Students board unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the student group for purposely stomping on flags containing the Arabic symbol for God."Associated Students, Inc. deems the College Republicans' actions as contrary to university values and feel they should be held accountable by the university for their actions," the resolution says.
The Nov. 15 resolution comes on the heels of several student and student organization complaints at board meetings and the Office of Student Programs and Leadership Development, or OSPLD, which has also sparked a separate investigation and assembly of a special panel to decide if the College Republicans did indeed violate the university's conduct rules.
The resolution cited a rule outlined in the university's Strategic Plan saying, "SFSU facilitates teaching, learning and work experiences among students, faculty and staff that promote equity and social justice within a respectful and safe environment."
Yes -- the College Republicans should "be held accountable for their actions" ... because, apparently, they did not behave in accordance with the [leftist] definition of "equity," "social justice" and "safe environment." (Of course, "equity" and "social justice" permit the burning of the American flag because, after all, where else but in the United States is there so little of these components?)
Perplexingly, the College Repubs' actions were met with anger at, of all places, an anti-terrorism rally. Wait -- scratch that. It is not perplexing. It's San Francisco. Hamas and Hebollah are not terrorist organizations. They're "freedom fighters" against the Zionist racists (Israel) and its chief supporter (the US). How silly of me. After all, these pieces of historical information are irrelevant, right?
The College Republicans said they will take legal action against the university if sanctions are imposed upon them, citing their First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
Darn tootin'. Contact FIRE. Their track record is pretty damned good. But keep in mind it's 'Frisco. Most colleges are wary of groups like FIRE getting involved because it means negative press. Y'know, can't have being a complete hypocrite out in the media, right? But 'Frisco could probably care less about that. They most likely actually believe that there's no 1st Amendment hypocrisy involved in this matter. It's the same mode of thinking that has given us things like Critical Race Theory.
The Judeosphere has quite a bit more on this and other SFSU history.
(h/t: Darren.)
There's lots of coverage lately of the SCOTUS (US Supreme Court) hearing arguments from Louisville and Seattle schools defending their practice of using race to assign pupils to various schools ... for "proper diversity balance." Some, like the Chicago Sun Times' Mark Sherman, have attempted to link these cases to the historic Brown v. Board of Education which outlawed lawful school segregation. He writes:
A half century after the Supreme Court outlawed state-sponsored school segregation, five of nine justices indicated Monday that using students' race to promote diversity may run afoul of the Constitution.
But Brown had nothing to do with "diversity" and everything to do with eliminating color as a barrier to which school a student could attend. Amazingly (but, sadly, not surprisingly) Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg shows she doesn't get it:
''What's constitutionally required one day is constitutionally prohibited the next day? That's very odd,'' Ginsburg said, sentiments shared by her three liberal colleagues.
John Rosenberg, as usual, has plenty of enlightening analysis over at Discriminations.
UPDATE: La Shawn Barber chimes in, too.
I've been fascinated by this "theory" since first encountering it in college (surprise!). Right Wing News has a blurb about it today:
Whites tend not to recognize that race has little meaning without reference to the power structures that have historically supported and are currently supporting white domination. Whites see whiteness as the norm, an absence of race. Along with whiteness come privileges that are invisible to whites. Instead of seeing privilege resulting from the historical domination of whites in this country as the source of our success, whites interpret any benefits we receive as reward for individual merit and hard work. In fact, the myth of the "American Dream" has imbued in white Americans a sense of entitlement. The myth tells us that so long as we work hard, we deserve to and will succeed unless obstacles are placed in our way. By the same token, whites consider racism and discrimination as evils committed by other individuals, not something that whites are responsible for as a group. Race discrimination is defined in Title VII disparate treatment theory as individual action resulting from a conscious intent to harm. This definition furthers the perpetrator's perspective by assigning guilt to one individual employer and alleviating most whites of responsibility for systemic means that reinforce racism and white privilege.
Not only does this ... theory automatically toss all white people into the "racist" pot (and hence, how is this not racism itself?), another thing it does (not mentioned here) is that it seeks to limit the First Amendment (my emphasis):
The inherent power imbalance in the legal system and in racial hegemony means that such racist speech by the racial majority member cannot be countered by "more speech" by the racial minority member, as is the usual recommendation in the case. The whole "I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, and counter it with my own free speech in vengeful disagreement" thing.
In other words, since whites are the majority in the country, their speech should be restricted when it comes to "hateful" (always a subjective nightmare, that) speech because minorities -- merely because of their status as minorities -- cannot legitimately overcome the majorities' "hurtful" speech. Got it?
And why do you think so many American campuses have instituted (or attempted to institute) their [in]famous speech codes? Well, because, CRT (Critical Race Theory) and the modern multicultural/diversity-philic university go hand in hand, natch! But thankfully, many of these moronic speech codes haven't fared well when challenged, but that sure hasn't stopped deans and radical professors from continued trying. For instance, a group dubbed the "Transnational Racial Justice Initiative" contends
"...there is a clear difference between free speech, which many nations value, and speech with the purpose of inciting violence against individuals or groups based on their race. Such 'hate speech' should not receive any legal protection as it does in the United States. The right to live free of violence and intimidation should certainly outweigh any 'right' to speech that threatens the safety of others and incites violence"
The problem with this view, as I'm sure you can figure out, is just what is "hate speech"? If someone says "Affirmative action sucks," do they get cuffed and fined? After all, a white person saying this "has more power" than any minority and hence is demonstrating his majoritarian institutional racism, right? And check out what Mari Matsuda, author of the book Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment says:
"Too often victims of hate speech find themselves without the words to articulate what they see, feel, and know. In the absence of theory and analysis that give them a diagnosis and a name for the injury they have suffered, they internalize the injury done to them and are rendered silent in the face of continuing injury"
Isn't that cool? Without the Matsuda's of the academic world to give us this grand theory (CRT), the "victims" of "hate speech" just can't "grasp" what it is that has been "done" to them when someone may utter an idiotic epithet -- or even a challenge to a political hot-button issue. But they now have the CRT, and now they don't have to take it anymore! All that's required is a complete overhaul of First Amendment law and history, so that those "internalized injuries" no longer have to continue unabated!
In an act of "point-making" similar to those "affirmative action bake sales," the Boston University College Republicans are promoting a "'Caucasian Achievement and Recognition Scholarship' that requires applicants be at least 25 percent Caucasian."
"Did we do this to give a scholarship to white kids? Of course not," the scholarship reads. "Did we do it to trigger a discussion on what we believe to be the morally wrong practice of basing decisions in our schools and our jobs on racial preferences rather than merit? Absolutely."The scholarship, which is privately funded by the BUCR without the support of the university, is meant to raise awareness, group members say. BUCR member argue that racial preferences are a form of "bigotry." The group has a similar view on affirmative action.
The application for the $250 scholarship, due Nov. 30, requires applicants be full-time BU undergraduate students and one-fourth Caucasian and maintain at least a 3.2 cumulative GPA. Applicants must submit two essays, one describing the applicant's ancestry and one describing "what it means to you to be a Caucasian-American today."
Now now now, people! You know who you're gonna piss off, right??
La Fuerza Co-Chair Sara-Marie Pons, who is also on the Admissions Student Diversity Board, said although she agrees with BUCR's claim that racial preference is "contradictory to our American ideals of freedom and equality," she feels American history justifies today's affirmative action." Our country oppressed people of color for centuries while everyone else who was 'preferred' continued to succeed and lead our country in all aspects," the School of Management senior said in an email. "The goal of a university in striving to admit more students of color is a positive movement to increase the diversity of its institution."
There you have it in a nutshell. Even though Ms. Pons believes racial preference is "contradictory to our American ideals of freedom and equality" (not to mentioned actually codified in the 14th Amendment and subsequent civil rights acts), "oppression" still makes its "OK." (What would you expect from one who co-chairs a group called "The Force" -- as in "against oppression"? Thanks, Hube.) Oh, and don't dare bring up the silly notion that Asians are also people of color, and that they are disproportionately affected by racial preference even more than whites in many respects. Y'see, since Asians as a group tend to be quite successful, they are not "officially" people of color nor are included when it comes to ever-malleable notion of "diversity."
Pons said the university's diversity creates a "better learning environment" and "dynamic discussion." She said she believes minority-specific scholarships serve an important function.
Oh yeah! As I said -- those ever-malleable (and totally unscientific) "benefits" of diversity.
But hey, look -- Boston U. is a private university and as such should be able to do just what the hell it wants regarding "diversity." Which makes the College Repubs' idea to point out the college's educational/moral/cultural hypocrisies all the more pertinent.
SEMI-RELATED STORY: John Hopkins University "has endorsed that the institution achieve 50 percent representation of women in senior faculty and leadership positions by 2020." Ah, yes -- the ever-popular bean-counting. I wonder if JHU will do a similar study, and then endorse, the proposition of 50% representation of males in public schooling across the country, especially elementary ed. where men are a distinct minority.
Nahhh ....
Can someone explain why Washington State University has a Chief Diversity Officer with a full-time staff of 55 and a three million dollar budget?? Especially since there is NO real scientific basis for "diversity" being some sort of educational benefit? The University of Michigan in the [in]famous Grutter and Gratz cases was supposed to have displayed some evidence of these benefits. However, they engaged in pure charlantry. Consider -- the educational "benefits" of diversity which allowed colleges to use race as "one" factor in college admissions were:
1) breaking down racial stereotypes, 2) promoting cross-cultural understanding, 3) preparing students for a global marketplace, and 4) promoting spirited classroom discussions.
Imagine that young adults need a Chief Diversity Officer with a full-time staff of 55 to "prepare" students to "accept" these exceptional "benefits." Hah. It's pure excrement, folks. As Peter Kirsanow writes (my emphasis),
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recently held a hearing to consider whether, as the [Seattle School] District (which is engaged in its own Supreme Court case using "diversity" as its racial bean-counting rationale) contends, racially diverse K-12 schools do, in fact, promote critical-thinking skills and whether students in racially isolated schools have lower test scores and achievement levels. Most of the testimony at the hearing showed that the evidence in support of the District's contentions is scant, and, to the extent it does exist, highly dubious.The problem is that the purported benefits cited by supporters of affirmative action elude precise measurement. Students aren't tested or graded on things such as "breaking down racial stereotypes". The alleged benefits are so nebulous that even obtaining consensus on the appropriate metrics is difficult. Whether students are "better prepared for a global marketplace" as a result of attending a racially diverse school is a proposition difficult to prove or disprove.
Ah yes, but what it does do is make the racial bean counters feel good about themselves! All 55 of those full-time Diversity Dept. employees are out there making people "better" students and citizens! Or, as John Derbyshire puts it,
Here is a free and open society whose intellectual elites are in the grip of a bogus ideology founded on nothing but sentimentality and the desire to assert one's own moral superiority, and that is contradicted by everything we actually know about human nature.
Kirsanow goes on to note that the above mentioned US Comission on Civil Rights hearing asked diversity proponents if "there are any studies showing that racial/ethnic diversity improves student performance, as demonstrated by grades or standardized test scores, in any of the following subjects":
· Arithmetic · Reading · Spelling · Writing · Phonics · English · Penmanship · Algebra · Geometry · Trigonometry · Calculus · Biology · Physics · Anatomy · Geology · Economics · Geography · Speech · History · Archaeology · Anthropology · Religion · Health · Physical education · Home economics · Shop
The results?
The witnesses at the hearing, each an expert in the area and familiar with the extant literature on the subject, could cite only one study that suggests that racially diverse schools improved student performance as defined above. And that improvement pertains to just one of the 26 subjects listed above — spelling. But even that study is disputed.
Truly amazing, isn't it? "Diversity" is a term currently used more by colleges than any other institution, and for what? Some nebulous philosophy that supposedly makes people feel good, cuddly and warm -- so much so that the US Supreme Court gave it "compelling state interest" status in Gratz and Grutter. Well, it isn't the first time. The Supreme Court fell for dubious science, too, when it OK'd numerous forced busing plans in the 1970s. But it sure made the social engineers feel just groovy, didn't it?
Via Free DePaul:
Newly released evidence has revealed that the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) worked privately to pressure DePaul University to fire adjunct professor Thomas Klocek for telling Muslim activist students that their views on Middle-East issues were wrong. According to a letter to DePaul’s President from CAIR’s executive director M. Yaser Tabbara, “In light of …Mr. Klocek’s biased remarks, we are requesting that the University…reprimand Mr. Klocek for his conduct by permanently dismissing him from any teaching post at DePaul University.”
I wrote about Klocek first back in June. Did DePaul buckle under to CAIR's pressure? Sure looks like it. Still no update on the lawsuit Klocek filed for defamation, nor on where various "academic freedom" groups are on this matter.
Probably still "concerned" about Ward Churchill ...
(h/t: Daled Amos.)
Check it out from Down Under (my emphasis):
Teachers are being warned to watch what they write and say about students because of the risk of being sued for defamation.New South Wales schools have also been urged to closely vet student scripts for theatrical performances and postings on school websites, blogs or electronic bulletins.
At least one former Year 12 student complained he had been defamed in the school magazine and threatened to sue everyone involved.
Parents as well as students have threatened legal action over comments made by teachers or pupils at school.
Geez, I could really be in trouble since I'm often -- jokingly, that is -- "busting" on my students for things like asking about directions on an assignment, especially after I just went over them like some seven times ... and they weren't paying any attention.
Mr Freakley urged teachers to "always be circumspect in relation to comments – written or oral – you make about staff, students and parents".The advice comes as anger has exploded in schools over new student reports which grade students on a scale of A to E for academic performance.
Already some parents have expressed disappointment to their school over their child receiving E grades – a scenario many teachers believe labels the student as a failure.
Parents obviously are now falling into the trap that teachers "give" children grades -- that children don't earn what grade they receive. And how about this simple and effective method of avoiding the "failure" label: Work harder.
Teachers' Federation vice-president Angelo Gavrielatos said threats to sue meant Australia was "importing the worst of American culture"."It reflects, regrettably, that we do live in an increasingly litigious society and that is sad," he said.
You got that right, Angelo.
The National Education Association (NEA) thinks that if its teachers believe in color-blindness, well, frankly, they're misguided. In the latest issue of NEA Today, the monthly highlights, of all places, Seattle schools which utilize the severely divisive "Courageous Conversations" and have a rather ... unique definition of racism are now making use of a teaching "strategy" dubbed "culturally responsive teaching." They believe it the key -- the KEY -- to closing the ever-present "achievement gap," that chasm between white student academic achievement and that of minority (black, primarily) students.
"The challenge is to find better ways to connect to the realities of what students know and live," says Jacqueline Jordan Irvine, an Emory University researcher and advocate for culturally responsive teaching. Oh, in other words do what good teachers would be expected to do! Good thing we have "researchers" like Ms. Irvine to guide our teachers, eh? And what are some good examples of "culturally responsive teaching?" Take a look:
Culturally responsive teaching is not about one lesson on Martin Luther King Jr. during Black History Month. It is not serving tacos in the cafeteria on Cinco de Mayo. Beyond heroes and holidays, it is about understanding students' home life, their language, music, dress, behavior, jokes, ideas about success, the role of religion and community in their lives, and more. It is bringing the experiences of their 24-hour day into the seven-hour school day to give them information in a familiar context. Like the teacher in Atlanta who conducts a geometry lesson by talking about geometric patterns in Mexican pottery and African kente cloth and has students bring in examples from home.
I'd be incredibly interested in just how many Hispanic students would be "drawn in" to such a geometry lesson because "Mexican pottery" was utilized, or how many black students would be enthralled by the use of an "African kente cloth." Do African-American students really get motivated by things like a kente cloth?? Wouldn't examples closer to home be more relevant? Let's go even further -- why not make it really relevant in some students' cases? Teachers could make up test questions like the sample SAT question proposed by Professor James Loewen (author of the book Lies My Teacher Told Me):
Saturday Ajax got an LD:a) He had smoked too much grass
b) He tripped out on drugs
c) He brought her to his apartment
d) He showed it off to his fox
e) He became wised up(Via Illiberal Education.)
Would that be "teaching in the context of [the students'] community" as Magda Costantino, a Washington researcher and academic who designed a reading curriculum that incorporates American Indian culture, says?
In the late 1990s, however, Meany Middle School's reputation was dismal and race could no longer be ignored. Test scores were low. Discipline problems were high. Although the neighborhoods surrounding it are now seeing more middle-class growth, they were then largely poor. Race and poverty are the most significant factors in Meany's students' performance, says principal Princess Shareef, so when Seattle Public Schools decided to start implementing culturally responsive teaching district-wide four years ago, her school was a ripe target for the improvement it could bring.
"Race and poverty are the most significant factors ..."? How so? Poverty can play a tangible role in education (lack of proper nutrition, poor living conditions) but how precisely does race play a "significant" factor in student performance -- other than how it may be connected with some other factor? Glenn Singleton, founder of "Courageous Conversations," would have you (teachers, actually) believe that the "most devastating" factor contributing to [black] student underachievement is institutionalized racism:
"It is our belief that the most devastating factor contributing to the lowered achievement of students of color is institutionalized racism," Singleton writes (with co-author Curtis Linton) in his recent book Courageous Conversations About Race. White teachers (and minority teachers co-opted into the white power structure) stymie black and Hispanic students because they fail to understand their cultures and how daily racial oppression affects their outlook. They also push a curriculum tooled for whites, and are ignorant of the special ways that blacks and Hispanics communicate."We will shine the light on racial dominance to uncover how Whiteness challenges the performance of students of color while shaping and reinforcing the racial perspective of White children," Singleton and Linton promise.
This is the program by which Seattle (and other) school districts actually hope -- and "hope" is the key word -- will close the achievement gap. Consider: It is not poverty, it is not lack of an educationally conducive homelife, it is not lack of [parental] structure ... factors like these that are primarily responsible for the achievement gap. It is because white teachers "perpetuate the white power structure" and thus hinder minority student progress. Amazing then, that Asian students -- despite the "ravages" of this despicable institutionalized racist white power monolith -- manage to outperform their white "masters."
Consider the irony: During the Civil Rights movement, Americans were taught to "see each other without regards to race" ... that we were all Americans regardless of color. In other words, "color-blindness." But we've come full circle now, so to speak. Now, disregarding race can get you in hot water:
Despite Seattle's top-to-bottom adoption of a culturally responsive approach, "we have wonderful teachers and leaders who don't get it," Caprice Hollins, director of the district's office of equity and race relations, says. Not because they're bad teachers. Rather, "they think that this should be a colorblind society where race doesn't — or shouldn't —matter."
There you have it. You may be a terrific instructor, but if you don't buy into the notion that race is some educationally all-encompassing behemoth, "you don't get it." "You don't get it" if you believe in a color-blind society. And what conclusion does this logically lead to? If you refuse to "get it," if you continue your belief that Americans should treat each other without regards to race, then you are ... racist.
Today at John Rosenberg's excellent Discriminations is a perfect example of leftist "new-think" with regards to the philosophy of color-blindness:
It (color-blindness) was merely a tactical first step on the road to his (Berkeley law prof. Ian F. Haney López) version of equality. When that tactic was no longer useful, it was sloughed off like the dead skin of a snake, and its opposite — a demand for color conscious racial preference — was conveniently embraced. Colorblindness came to be seen as the problem, not the solution, in large part because racial discrimination was no longer regarded as the primary evil to be cured.
A few years ago, Harry Brighouse, professor of philosophy and affiliate professor of education policy studies UW-Madison, and contributor to the left-leaning Crooked Timber blog, dissected this entire philosophy (specifically "Courageous Conversations"). Some of the more powerful excerpts (my emphasis):
True, an achievement gap remains even after we control for wealth. But a good part of that gap closes when we control for grandparental wealth. The injuries of class take a long time to heal.Some part of the achievement gap does seem to be explained by race, though much less than the district assumes.
The second assumption the Conversations approach makes is that what is explained by race can by addressed by making teachers face up to their own privilege and racism. The problem, in other words, is in the attitudes of teachers and other district employees. But we have evidence to the contrary.
... the Conversations approach demoralizes teachers, without any demonstrable benefit for disadvantaged children. Any one of the measures I've described above, unglamorous as they are, might actually benefit the disadvantaged, without demoralizing anyone. Teachers are not the problem, and they should not be told that they are.
Indeed. The most recent edition of Academic Questions, the quarterly journal of the National Association of Scholars, is just the latest scholarly report which refutes Singleton's thesis that institutionalized racism is the main factor contributing to the achievement gap. It features an article that states schools can actually do very little to slim the achievement gap as the "gap" begins at the earliest ages -- the prime years for personal cognitive development. Family influences prior to age 5, the report says, result in just about all of the achievement gap by age 11.
(Thanks to Hube for the research and writing assist.)
Here's one possible way to get State Auditor Tom Wagner off of the Christina School District's back: Claim his motives for the audit are "racist."
Christina’s former financial chief today defended her administration, saying state officials haven’t proven a $28 million deficit exists or that the school district misspent money meant for special-needs students.Thresa Giles, who followed former Superintendent Joseph Wise to Duval County, Fla., also accused state Auditor R. Thomas Wagner Jr. of being racist, saying his scrutiny and repeated audits of Christina began after Wise appointed her, a black woman, over Wagner’s preferred candidate, a white man.
The fun really begins in earnest now, eh?
The News Journal has some give and take on the Vision 2015 proposal, a plan to make Delaware's education system "number one" by the year 2015. Phillip Kaplan's op-ed nails it, however, and it pretty much sums up what I commented on over at First State Politics regarding the issue. As Kaplan notes, "Vision 2015 merely hints at how they intend to do this ..." regarding implementation of discipline and parental involvement issues, and as such, it is essentially just another "grand vision" -- with not very many specifics about actualization. For instance, Vision 2015 says this:
And require accountability for student success from all involved, including parents, community groups, teachers, principals, business leaders, and public officials.
Again, [much] easier said than done. The state couldn't even come up with an accountability plan that made sense for possibly the easiest component of that group above -- teachers. So, how in the world does Vision 2015 make parents accountable? Community groups? Business leaders? What -- do we impose fines on them, or what? Good luck.
One of my favorite blogger/writers, Benjamin Kerstein, is back with a couple must reads: Here and here.
Via Joanne Jacobs comes word of a 14 year old student who was arrested for ... wanting to work with English-speaking students in her classroom (emphasis mine):
A teenage schoolgirl was arrested by police for racism after refusing to sit with a group of Asian students because some of them did not speak English.Codie Stott's family claim she was forced to spend three-and-a-half hours in a police cell after she was reported by her teachers.
The incident happened in the same local education authority where a ten-year-old boy was prosecuted earlier this year for calling a schoolfriend racist names in the playground, a move branded by a judge "political correctness gone mad."
Codie was attending a GCSE science class at Harrop Fold High School in Worsley, Greater Manchester, when the incident happened.
The teenager had not been in school the day before due to a hospital appointment and had missed the start of a project, so the teacher allocated her a group to sit with.
"She said I had to sit there with five Asian pupils," said Codie yesterday.
"Only one could speak English, so she had to tell that one what to do so she could explain in their language. Then she sat me with them and said 'Discuss'."
According to Codie, the five - four boys and a girl - then began talking in a language she didn't understand, thought to be Urdu, so she went to speak to the teacher.
"I said 'I'm not being funny, but can I change groups because I can't understand them?' But she started shouting and screaming, saying 'It's racist, you're going to get done by the police'."
Cripes, what's the name of this school -- 1984 Thought Control High? What kind of "teacher" would respond in such a manner to a completely reasonable query? Wait -- I know. "Teachers" who've been thoroughly sucked into this sort of nonsense:
[Columbia University's] Teachers College’s Conceptual Framework, which represents the “philosophy for teacher education at Teachers College,” requires students to possess a “commitment to social justice.” Moreover, students are expected to recognize that “social inequalities are often produced and perpetuated through systematic discrimination and justified by societal ideology of merit, social mobility, and individual responsibility.”
Indeed. Those "silly" concepts of individual merit and responsibility! (The Columbia TC's "Conceptual Framework," by the way, is awfully familiar to the since-retracted definition of "cultural racism" utilized by the Seattle Public Schools which, among other things, claimed that "having a future time orientation" and "emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology" were racist.)
Sigh. All this garbage is is neo-Marxism reconfigured into a new type of overly verbose edu-babble. As I noted yesterday, good thing there are groups like FIRE to bring these loonies to the fore. To coin a cliché, "sunlight is the best disinfectant."
John Rosenberg, Hube's "blog father" over at Discriminations, brings to light an article that raises the discomforting -- though, not surprising -- fact of Asians/Asian-Americans being discriminated against in university admissions:
Many counselors — during and after the session — said that they have little doubt that when applying for undergraduate admission to research universities, white applicants are getting admitted with lower test scores and grades than Asian applicants are. One high school guidance counselor told the panel of experts that a sign of the distrust of the system is that he is increasingly asked by Asian American students if they would be better off applying to college if they declined to check the race/ethnicity box on the applications.[Jon] Reider [a counselor at University High School, in San Francisco and former admissions officer at Stanford] said he thought the article and the question of "Too Asian?" that it posed was "shameful" and said that he was "embarrassed" as an American that such a piece would appear today. He asked whether anyone would think of publishing an article called "Too Latino?" and compared the bias to the kind of bigotry that for decades limited the enrollment of Jewish students at top private universities. "This is a racist question," he said.
Perhaps it is, Jon. However, that doesn't make it not accurate -- that Asians are indeed being discriminated against in a manner that Jewish college applicants were in days gone by. We've seen it already with Asians and white students where, in the name of "diversity," black and Latino students are admitted over them even though they have lower SAT scores and GPAs. Now, it's Asians with regards to whites. Can't have "too many" of those overly studious [Asian] pupils mucking up "diversity," now can we?
In a semi-related tidbit over in yesterday's Wilmington News Journal, Lois Johnson, the chief of the Northeast Region of the National Association of Black School Educators, told a group of potential new members that "We have teachers who do not look like our children." The meeting's main focus was how to best address the "achievement gap" between white and black students. The obvious implication here is that if there were more black teachers, black student achievement would improve.
How many Asian teachers are there across the country? Do Asians have teachers "who look like them" in "sufficient" numbers? Depending on just what the definition of "sufficient" in this case would be, my [somewhat educated] guess is no, they do not. Yet, despite this, Asians as a group academically outperform every other [ethnic] group out there.
Why is this?
UPDATE (10/15): Stan Stein of Dover writes in the News Journal today:
The media regularly depict some version of racism. Whether it's violence, an immigration controversy or schools, white people seem to take the blame.A retired New York principal visiting here insinuated that black and Hispanic students would do better if they had teachers that looked like them. How racist is that?
The woman, who is black, also grouped Asians in with white people. Maybe this aspiring anthropologist can determine where native Americans fit in.
The East Coast portion of my family are mostly teachers. I will not let my wife, daughter and son in-law be labeled as some sort of educational detriment, so someone can make excuses for parents who make little time and effort to become involved in their children's education. Saying there is a problem because people look different is beyond the standards of racism and should be a wake-up call to school boards and legislators.
Headline from today's News Journal: Philly Campus Kick-Off fits into college tradition of free expression.
College tradition ... of free expression?? Philly??
Via the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE): "Free Speech Lawsuits Filed Against Penn State and Temple." Temple is rated as a "red" university by FIRE for its restrictive "speech codes."
The case against Temple (PDF) is more complicated and not only challenges Temple’s speech code (here’s a sample: it defines “Gender Harassment” as “[g]eneralized sexist remarks and behavior…that convey insulting, degrading or sexist attitudes about women and men”) but involves discrimination and retaliation against a student in the military who appears to have been punished for disagreeing with a professor’s antiwar views.
The University of Pennsylvania, another Philly higher ed. bastion, currently has a "green" speech code rating from FIRE, but it certainly isn't without its history of restrictive political correctness when it comes to speech. Anyone remember the infamous "water buffalo" flap?
Other nearby colleges:
Hilariously, since one of the more "popular" aspects of speech codes is "anti-gender bias" speech, these colleges are just gonna love rapper Fat Joe.
The latest NEA (National Education Association) newsletter features a Q&A with Dolores Huerta, who co-founded the United Farm Workers with César Chávez, regarding how to best educate farm workers' children.
But Republican educators beware: As Felix pointed out back in April, Huerta detests the GOP! She said "Republicans hate Latinos," and "Large numbers of the Republican Party are anti-immigrant or anti-Latino." Her "proof"? Repubs have sponsored numerous "anti-immigrant" bills in Congress. Not "anti-illegal immigrant" bills, mind you, but "anti-immigrant" bills.
Sigh.
Another NEA monthly nugget that always intrigues me are the floating statistics that pop up at various spots throughout the pages, sort of like Sergio Aragones' little cartoons in Mad magazine. One says "70: the percentage of Americans who say Congress should restore funding for NCLB and special education." The source is the National School Boards Association. I've never heard of that group, but that aside, the wording of this bit suggests that Congress has cut off funding for these programs. Since that isn't the case, we'll assume this meant to say "restore full funding. Which then begs the following: What constitutes "full funding"? It's a fairly safe assumption what the NEA's answer would be.
The reason it's a safe bet that the NEA meant "full funding" above is because in the previous two pages, another stat is presented that says "85: The percentage of Americans who believe Congress is cheating children when it doesn't fully fund educational programs." This is interesting because the federal government is the one government least responsible for education funding. State and local governments are primarily responsible for those monies. And, again, what is meant by "fully funded"? Based on whose criteria?
If the NEA is inferring unfunded federal mandates in these examples, so be it. That can be a legitimate gripe worthy of debate. But (again) as Felix noted elsewhere, consider another unfunded mandate that the NEA supports: that of [mandated] state support for illegal immigrants.
Consistency? Nope.
Got my spankin' new "United We Stand, Educated We Understand" shirt today. Fully embroidered, it is an awesome buy at $19.99. You can read about the entrepreneur, David Jackson, the creator of Partnerships for Global Education, here.
You can e-mail Mr. Jackson here and let him know you'd like a shirt.
Candace de Russy reports on a Muslim effort to "tone down [textbook] lessons on terrorism carried out with religious motivation.” She mentions the views of Gil Sewall, president of the American Textbook Council, who I had the pleasure of meeting once when I was a member of the Delaware Textbook Assessment Committee (DeTAC). He says current texts aren't “calling attention to radical Islam as they should.”
Well, of course! In California, a proposed bill wants teaching materials to not portray any group "negatively."
I wonder if Cali textbooks "tone down" things like the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the philosophy of Manifest Destiny? Nah, probably not because ... well, you know why.
California. It's been said they set the trend for the nation. Hopefully not in this case:
A controversial bill that would allow illegal immigrants to get state financial aid while attending California's public colleges and universities is now in the hands of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has until the end of this month to sign or veto.The bill's author, state Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, called on the governor Wednesday to "invest in California's future'' by signing SB 160, also called the California DREAM Act, into law. Opponents say the state should not give money to lawbreakers.
DREAM Act, eh? More like a Nightmare Act.
Cripes, how many times does it have to be said? We're talking about people in the country illegally. And California wants to reward -- yes, reward -- this by granting financial aid to them? How much more can common sense be turned on its head?
The Legislature approved SB 160 on Aug. 31, voting largely along party lines with Democrats in support. If it becomes law, undocumented students who graduate from California high schools would be eligible to compete for state financial aid.
Compete. Yes, they can compete with citizens and legal residents who played by the rules to live, work and go to school in the United States. And if you've wondered (and I know you have!) why Democrats across the country aren't absolutely mopping the floor against their GOP rivals, here's yet another reason. Democrats favor lawlessness over law in California. This is a dread insult to citizens' and legal residents' sense of fair play, and it ultimately can lead to anarchy. Which laws should be followed? Which ones can be ignored in the name of "investment in the future" or some other such PC culti-babble?
"These students, among the best and the brightest young minds in our state, should not be punished for their parents' pursuit of greater opportunities,'' Cedillo said.
Another exa
