Hazing by fraternities and other groups on college campuses is ILLEGAL.

When caught, those involved are subject to criminal penalties, and the organizations involved are ordinarily suspended for some period of time, often until all current members have graduated.

That is why the decision to ban the Lambda Phi Epsilon fraternity at the University of Texas came as no surprise when it was determined that an 18-year-old pledge died as a result of alcohol poisoning as a result of hazing activities.

In fact, any other penalty would have been a surprise.

But Lambda Phi Epsilon is special, don't you know. After all, it is a fraternity that is ovewhelmingly Asian, and therefore deserves special treatment -- at least acording to the only Asian in the Texas legislature.

Rep. Hubert Vo wrote UT President Larry Faulkner last week that the university should consider alternative punishments such as probation, community service or alcohol abuse training for the members of Lambda Phi Epsilon, rather than canceling the registration of the entire group.

Group punishment, Vo said, is unfair and could send the wrong message to the Asian community by destroying an important social and support network for Asian students, many of whom are children of immigrants and first-generation college students.

Vo said Tuesday his concern has nothing to do with race and that he doesn't expect Asians to get special treatment at UT.

"This is not about Asians or black or brown or white," he said. "This is about education and cutting off these resources from all the students. It's a big blow for all the students who might have to look for some alternative ways to complete their college degrees."

"The University has stopped short of saying that hazing caused young Mr. Phoummarath's sad death," Vo wrote in the Dec. 22 letter. "Surely there is a solution to this tragic circumstance that also stops short of canceling the fraternity's status while paying tribute to Phanta Jack Phoummarath's yearning for a better future."

So, it has nothing to do with race or ethnicity -- but normal procedures shouldn't be followed because applying standard policy sends the wrong message? Which isit, Hubert? Is it about race or isn't it? You have said it is and it isn't. Would you be taking this position if the fraternity were predominantly white?

And let's not overlook the others who support giving special treatment to a group which is morally culpable in the death of a young man.

But Vo, a Democrat who emigrated from Vietnam about 30 years ago, said UT's decision may discourage Asian students who need all the resources they can get while pursuing their education. "Cutting off a fraternity like this means cutting off the support network for the students," Vo said.

For many Asian students, Vo said, fraternities provide moral support, educational guidance and career advice that parents may not be able to give. He said they also offer vital networking opportunities for minority groups who need a leg up in today's competitive job market.

Lily Truong, board director of the Asian Alumni Association at the University of Houston, agreed that UT should try to find a way to keep the Asian fraternity intact. "They look forward to these fraternities. I know the fraternities are helping them," Truong said of students. "If they don't have the fraternity, they could get lost and I don't think they would know what they're going to do next."

So, Asian students have special needs that should exempt them and their organizations from the same rules and laws that apply to other students. If required to follow the same rules, they will not have the support they need to succeed -- despite the fact that Asian students are among the most successful on any college campus.

Shame on you, Representative Vo. A young man is dead -- one of those very Asian students you claim to support -- and you want those who created teh contditions that led to his death held to a lower standard because they are Asian. Shame!

Posted by: Greg at 04:03 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 689 words, total size 4 kb.

I've wondered how they would cover the failure to remove the perjuring, justice-obstructing adulterer.

The topic is covered briefly in middle school texts. McGraw Hill's "The American Journey" offers a description that is representative of other accounts — balanced and methodical.

"Although there was general agreement that the president had lied, Congress was divided over whether his actions justified impeachment," the book says.

In McDougal Littell's "The Americans," a high school text, the topic merits two paragraphs. The same book gave more space to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868.

"The American Vision," a McGraw Hill high school book written by Brinkley and others, spends five paragraphs on Clinton's impeachment and one more on his uncertain legacy.

"Compression is a tremendous challenge," Brinkley said. "Five paragraphs on a topic is a lot for all but the most important issues."

Sometimes, the language gets blunt.

"A History of the United States," a Pearson Prentice Hall high school text, refers to the impeachment scandal as "a sorry mess" that diminished Clinton and his rivals.

Polls showed most Americans did not believe Clinton's "tortured explanations of his behavior," the book says, but also did not think his offenses warranted his removal.

By the time students get to college, the textbooks, as expected, offer more sophisticated detail of the impeachment and the way it all changed American public life.

Yet at all levels, the salacious details of the Lewinsky affair are nowhere to be found.

Middle school texts describe it as "a personal relationship between the president and a White House intern." In high school books, it is Clinton's "improper relationship with a young White House intern," or Clinton "denied having sexual relations" with an intern.

As a practical matter, I wonder how many US History classes will even reach the 1990s -- and how many teachers will choose to skip the only impeachement of an elected president in US history, out of concern for discussing the pronographic details.

And will the approach change if the Hildebeast is elected in 2008?

Posted by: Greg at 12:43 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

More from the education front of the War on Christmas, courtesy of Hub Politics and Blogs for Bush. Seems that one Massachusetts school(couldn't you have guessed that) removed all mention of Christmas from its holiday program -- and even ordered that red trim on elf hats be replaced with white so as to not use traditional Christmas colors!

Even those who are supporteers of the false "sensitivity" of political correctness can recognize the absurdity of the decision.

A Grinch-like Medway middle school has ordered children to ditch religious songs in tonight’s holiday concert, refer to Christmas trees as “magical trees” and even purge the red from their elf hats.

“I can see a religious holiday being offensive to those who don’t celebrate it,” said Dale Fingar, whose sixth-grade son brought home 10 red and green elf hats and requested she replace the red fabric with white. “But red and green hats? Come on.”

Frankly, I don't see how a religious holiday can be offensive to those who don't celibrate it. After all, I'm not offended by Chaunakah or Diwali, despite not being Jewish or Hindu -- and I'm not even offended by Ramadan, except for the fact that some schools go to incredible lengths to acommodate muslim students whild suppressing Christian expression. Frankly, one would have to be a hete-filled bigot (and usually a Leftist) to take offense at someone markign a day that is of significance to them.

The flap has made Medway the new battleground for the Florida-based Liberty

Counsel, a group backed by evangelical Christian minister Jerry Falwell that has waged a nationwide war to protect Christmas.

“What is going through the school administrator’s mind?” said Liberty Counsel president Matthew Staver. “It’s ridiculous and an act of stupidity to call something green and prickly a magical tree when all of the children know that it’s a Christmas tree.

“These actions by the school administrator are not mere ignorance of the law. No one in their right mind thinks the law requires this kind of censorship or hostility,” said Staver, whose group forced Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino to acknowledge that the city’s holiday tree is a Christmas tree.

I'll take it a step further -- such actions are indicative of a blatant hostility toward religion, and particularly towards Christianity, whichis the dominant faith in this country and the one usually marked for such suppression.

Medway parent Tracy Goldrick and her 11-year-old daughter Tess were both disturbed by the schoolÂ’s decision, which came after two parents complained about references to Christmas in the program.

“Aren’t we supposed to embrace each others differences?” said Goldrick, who said she has spoken to at least 20 other parents who are annoyed at “the watering down of Christmas.”

“The solution isn’t to take Christmas out of the (school events). The solution is telling people to lighten up,” she said.

No, Tracy, you haven't got the latest Leftist talking points. You are supposed to embrace the differences of minorities, and cower like a whipped cur in the face of the mavens of political correctness who have decreed that traditional American culture can never be acceptable -- especially when it has Christian roots.

And now comes the idiot educarat -- the sort that this teacher despises and does his best to ignore when one is encountered.

But Medway Superintendent Richard Grandmont said the decisions to pull “Jesus Christ Superstar” songs from the sixth-grade holiday pageant and have the kids switch the red in their elf hats to white is, in fact, the district’s way of embracing diversity.

“In general, it is expected that the staff be sensitive to the culturally diverse environment in which they work and cognizant of their responsibility to avoid activites that could be perceived as a school endorsement of religion,” he said.

Someone was doing "Jesus Christ Superstar" at a Christmas concert? I don't know why, since that is a musical all about holy Week and the death of Jesus the Christ, not his birth. I rather suspect that his reference to "Jesus Christ Superstar" songs is a dismissal of the importance of Christianity and Christian beliefs. His idea of "embracing diversity" and being "sensitive to the culturally diverse environment" is to denigrate the beliefs of the majority as no more relevant than those of the minority -- a demand that we all be diverse in the same way.

One parent, Paul Dehaney, was angry yesterday after leaving a third-grade holiday concert at Memorial School when he heard the tots sing “We wish you a swinging Holiday,” in place of “We wish you a Merry Christmas.”

“I’m not adovocating for a Christian-based celebration,” he said. “But don’t ignore the white elephant in the corner called Christmas.”

And I don't know of anyone who wants schools having religiously-based celebrations. But when the sensitivity police of the political correctness movement insist that we can celebrate a "swinging holiday" without ever mentioning any of the holiday's in question -- not even the one celebrated by all but a pathetically small handful of Americans -- the we have really turned the notion of inclusion on its head and created a system of exclusion.

(LINK TO: Pirates! Man Your Women!)

Posted by: Greg at 08:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 879 words, total size 6 kb.

A column in today's Washigton Post points out how the decision in the Dover case tries to differentiate between science and religion.

The opinion written by Judge John E. Jones III in the Dover evolution trial is a two-in-one document that offers both philosophical and practical arguments against "intelligent design" likely to be useful to far more than a school board in a small Pennsylvania town.

Jones gives a clear definition of science, and recounts how this vaunted mode of inquiry has evolved over the centuries. He describes how scientists go about the task of supporting or challenging ideas about the world of the senses -- all that can be observed and measured. And he reaches the unwavering conclusion that intelligent design is a religious idea, not a scientific one.

This case is of great interest to me, because the issue it grapples with is an issue I have to deal with as a history teacher. After all, my course involves the origins of homo sapiens sapiens. How do you deal with that issue in a class in which a percentage of students accept the first couple of chapters of Genesis as history rather than allegory? What does one say when a student takes a stance which claims that the entire first week of your class is an assault upon their religion? Those are serious questions -- especially as a teacher whose understanding of human origins are best classified as theistic evolution.

To begin with, I take the bull by the horns. On the first day of class I state that we will be dealing with the origins of mankind from an evolutionary perspective. I acknowledge that there are other belief systems out there, but that evolution is the dominant view within the fields of history and science. I further explain that regardless of whether or not they accept the evolutionary model, they will need to be familiar with it for my class and on the college level. Understanding a point of view is not the same as accepting it. And ineveitably, some kid raises, usually without realizing it, an issue of metaphysics (which includes both the philosophy of religion and the philosophy of science as a part of its overarching mandate).

The same sorts of issue get raised again and againin my world history class. The syllabus does not give me the time to look at the philosophies of Socrates. Plato, or Aristotle in any great depth. Ditto the Renaissance humanists, or the great minds of the Enlightenment. We spend a disproportionate amount of time on Marx, but pnly because students are tested on sociaism and communism as a part of the TAKS test.. Jean-Paul Sartre? No way.

It should be obvious by now what ithink is missing in American education today -- the study of philosophy. Philosophy is a field that teaches the individual not what to think but how to engage in thought. It is a starting point for questioning, not an ending point. It helps to provide a framework for asking the questions that mankind has asked over the ages. And yes, that includes the questions of being that underlie Intelligent Design -- for such question have been asked by philosophers since at least Socrates.

So what say you, my friends -- is there a place for philosophy in the school curriculum today? I, for one, hope so.

(AN INTERESTING POST on whether this decision constitutes an establishment of atheism is found at Blogs for Bush -- and I disagree with Matt on the isue)

Posted by: Greg at 01:33 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 607 words, total size 4 kb.

Once kids reach high school, they tend to slack off in the “teacher gift” department. I’m glad, given the number of cheesy Christmas mugs and ugly Dollar Tree ornaments I’ve received, not to mention one pair of truly strange Christmas socks one I received my first year of teaching. After all, my student count usually exceeds 150 each year, and I would rapidly be drowned in mountains of “stuff” that serves no purpose but it would be rude to dispose of via the circular file. It was with this thought in mind that I read the following in today’s Houston Chronicle.

Now, before parents of school-age children indignantly huff and cross me off their holiday shopping list, or worse, send me a lump of coal, hear me out. I am one of you.

I am a parent. For years before I entered the classroom full time as a teacher, I sent my own elementary children to school toting beautifully wrapped packages containing that cute useless junk. In exchange, a thank you note dutifully penned by exhausted teachers returned home, and I patted myself on the back for my well-meaning gestures.

Until my second full year of teaching, I didn't understand the magnitude of holiday junk that visits elementary teachers each year, the variety of stuff that pours in! And the candy — we mustn't forget the candy! Towers of Chocolate (delicious, expensive, but obscene), candy that can't go to the attic, candy I'm no longer permitted to share with my students per the "Foods of Minimal Nutritional Value" policies. And try as I may to make my family eat it all, it beckons me until it is purged from my home. And then more candy and sweets magically appear, abandoned in the teacher's lounge. Even my big jeans won't fit until March. Trust me, your kids don't need an overweight, sugar-tripping, chocolate-high teacher.

So the non-edible holiday haul accumulates in my dining room. Eventually, it makes its way up to the attic with the rest of the holiday "stuff," and then it reappears the next holiday season as we pull Christmas down for decorating. It gets sent to my kids' school for their class holiday auction, to the nursing home, to Goodwill — or dare I say it, it gets regifted!

But wait — not all of it. That Starbucks card really came to the rescue the morning after that late-night grading marathon, and the movie gift card sure was a treat. The mall or department store gift certificate was an indulgence; I could pick what I wanted. How nice to have La Madeleine, Chili's, Panera, Pizza Hut and even a couple of those McDonald's "dollars" that gave me a night off from cooking dinner for my kids when I had a ton of papers to grade. The manicure gift certificate was prized, as were the gift cards for the bookstore, even the grocery store. One dollar, five dollars, 10 dollars — none of those gifts went to the attic, or to someone else.

I am a reformed Christmas junk-giver. I have taken the oath. My kids' teachers, scout leaders, Sunday school teachers, piano teacher and others get gift cards now, as generous as I can be (and believe me, I do understand the multiplication, with three children times five to seven school teachers each).

Let me say that I donÂ’t feel that students have to give me gifts at all, especially given the socio-economic situation of some of their families. But if they do, I would much rather have it be something useful than something cute. Let it be something I can use in the classroom.

And no more mugs.

(Actually, I got a great gift last night. I ran into a former student last night at Walmart, having not seen her in four or five years. I got to catch up on old times and laugh with her as she was getting of work. It did my heart a world of good to be able to see that she had grown up into the very dear young woman I knew she would be – and to share some of her joys and pains. God bless you, Stephanie – and good luck as you start back to college in a few weeks.)

Posted by: Greg at 01:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 721 words, total size 4 kb.

HereÂ’s a suit I hope succeeds. After all, why should immigration criminals get btter tuition than American citizens?

About three dozen students sued the University of California on Wednesday, charging that it had violated federal law by allowing illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates while maintaining higher rates for out-of-state students.

The students, all from out of state, are represented by a legal team that includes Kris Kobach, a former Justice Department official who shaped national immigration policy under former Attorney General John Ashcroft. Kobach said the policy discriminates against out-of-state students who are U.S. citizens and pay higher tuition than students who are in this country illegally.

The move plunges California into the midst of a national debate over how to handle the millions of students living in this country illegally.

Federal law requires state universities that offer in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants to do the same for students from other states, imposing a steep financial barrier to the policy. But since 2001, nine states, including California, have passed laws to circumvent that requirement.

Sadly, Texas is one of those states that passed such a law. Hopefully this lawsuit will lead to the overturning of this travesty.

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.

There are two different versions of the resignation of Professor Paul Mirecki from his position as department chair of the Religious Studies Department at the Kansas University.

One paints the resignation as voluntary.

KU spokeswoman Lynn Bretz, in an e-mail to the Journal-World, said Mirecki met with Romzek on Dec. 6 to discuss the department’s recommendation that he resign from the chairman’s post. After the talk, Mirecki concluded he should submit a resignation, she said.

“At a computer in Strong Hall, away from his departmental office in Smith Hall, Professor Mirecki composed and typed the letter himself, with no one else in the room,” Bretz wrote. “He pushed the print command button, sending the letter to a printer in another room, next to a secretary’s desk. The letter was printed on the letterhead at hand. Professor Mirecki retrieved the printed letter from the secretary, signed it in front of the secretary and left it there. … In addition, Professor Mirecki had told at least one KU administrator on Dec. 5, following the departmental faculty meeting that day, that he felt the need to step down as chair.”

The other, put forth by Mirecki and his lawyer, is a bit different.

In a fiery statement to the Journal-World on Friday, Mirecki said he had “no choice about signing the resignation” and he pointed out the resignation letter was typed on stationery from the office of Barbara Romzek, interim dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

Mirecki’s attorney, David J. Brown, said the issue was a frequent matter of dispute in labor situations.

“If you’re forced to sign a resignation letter, have you voluntarily resigned or have you been fired?” Brown said. “If he’d typed his own resignation letter, it would probably have been on his stationery.”

* * *

“It’s not how he described things to me,” Brown said. “The point he made was very clear that the dean and another administrator made it clear to him that he had to resign.”

In the end, I do not see the differences as significant. The important thin is that Mirecki is out of a position in which he could no longer be effective. His colleagues in the department told him that they wanted him out, presumably because the controversy rendered him tainted goods that would harm the department.

I’ve offered an analogy other places in the blogosphere in comment sections. Imagine that a professor was chairman of the Department of Ethnic Studies at a major university and had a major gripe with the direction that the civil rights establishment was headed. Imagine that he submitted a letter to a semi-public internet forum in which he said he was going to offer a course demolishing the mythology of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement as a “slap in the face” to the “darkies” (or some other slur), and that the letter made it into the press. How long could this professor effectively continue to serve as department chair? How long, in fact, would he be likely to last as a member of the department at all, given his apparent hostility towards a major segment of those about whom he was teaching?

That is precisely the situation in which Mirecki finds himself – caught out in the open as hostile to a major segment of Christianity, using his position to push a hostile agenda, and using bigoted slurs to lash out at those he clearly despises. Personally, I have no problem with dealing with creation stories as mythology in a class – my Old Testament professors did as much when I was in the seminary.

What I see as problematic is the unprofessional agenda-driven nature of the proposal, which he intended to use to discredit the beliefs in a one-sided manner so as to denigrate those who hold them. That is simply unacceptable – and is ample reason for Mirecki’s departure, whether it was voluntary or not. Indeed, I would hope that such unprofessional behavior would be grounds for dismissal.

Posted by: Greg at 02:14 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 683 words, total size 4 kb.

There are two different versions of the resignation of Professor Paul Mirecki from his position as department chair of the Religious Studies Department at the Kansas University.

One paints the resignation as voluntary.

KU spokeswoman Lynn Bretz, in an e-mail to the Journal-World, said Mirecki met with Romzek on Dec. 6 to discuss the departmentÂ’s recommendation that he resign from the chairmanÂ’s post. After the talk, Mirecki concluded he should submit a resignation, she said.

“At a computer in Strong Hall, away from his departmental office in Smith Hall, Professor Mirecki composed and typed the letter himself, with no one else in the room,” Bretz wrote. “He pushed the print command button, sending the letter to a printer in another room, next to a secretary’s desk. The letter was printed on the letterhead at hand. Professor Mirecki retrieved the printed letter from the secretary, signed it in front of the secretary and left it there. … In addition, Professor Mirecki had told at least one KU administrator on Dec. 5, following the departmental faculty meeting that day, that he felt the need to step down as chair.”

The other, put forth by Mirecki and his lawyer, is a bit different.

In a fiery statement to the Journal-World on Friday, Mirecki said he had “no choice about signing the resignation” and he pointed out the resignation letter was typed on stationery from the office of Barbara Romzek, interim dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

MireckiÂ’s attorney, David J. Brown, said the issue was a frequent matter of dispute in labor situations.

“If you’re forced to sign a resignation letter, have you voluntarily resigned or have you been fired?” Brown said. “If he’d typed his own resignation letter, it would probably have been on his stationery.”

* * *

“It’s not how he described things to me,” Brown said. “The point he made was very clear that the dean and another administrator made it clear to him that he had to resign.”

In the end, I do not see the differences as significant. The important thin is that Mirecki is out of a position in which he could no longer be effective. His colleagues in the department told him that they wanted him out, presumably because the controversy rendered him tainted goods that would harm the department.

I’ve offered an analogy other places in the blogosphere in comment sections. Imagine that a professor was chairman of the Department of Ethnic Studies at a major university and had a major gripe with the direction that the civil rights establishment was headed. Imagine that he submitted a letter to a semi-public internet forum in which he said he was going to offer a course demolishing the mythology of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement as a “slap in the face” to the “darkies” (or some other slur), and that the letter made it into the press. How long could this professor effectively continue to serve as department chair? How long, in fact, would he be likely to last as a member of the department at all, given his apparent hostility towards a major segment of those about whom he was teaching?

That is precisely the situation in which Mirecki finds himself – caught out in the open as hostile to a major segment of Christianity, using his position to push a hostile agenda, and using bigoted slurs to lash out at those he clearly despises. Personally, I have no problem with dealing with creation stories as mythology in a class – my Old Testament professors did as much when I was in the seminary.

What I see as problematic is the unprofessional agenda-driven nature of the proposal, which he intended to use to discredit the beliefs in a one-sided manner so as to denigrate those who hold them. That is simply unacceptable – and is ample reason for Mirecki’s departure, whether it was voluntary or not. Indeed, I would hope that such unprofessional behavior would be grounds for dismissal.

Posted by: Greg at 02:14 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 696 words, total size 4 kb.

I'm not a big ACLU fan, but I will acknowledge that they do get things right sometimes.

This is one of those cases.

A Pennsylvania student is off the hook after the American Civil Liberties Union defended his right to wear a political T-shirt to school.

Chris Schiano's T-shirt said "International Terrorist" and had a picture of President Bush.

A security guard at his high school north of Philadelphia told him to take it off. He refused.

Schiano says he's well versed in the First Amendment. He says he "knew right off they had no legal footing to stand on."

The principal says after hearing from the ACLU, school officials realized that the shirt, while potentially offensive, didn't violate the school's dress code. It had no references to sex, drugs, ethnic intimidation or explicit language.

Schiano says he's now wearing the shirt to school and no one's given him a hard time.

In this case, the ACLU is absolutely right -- Treason Boy has the right to wear his shiirt at school.

And every other student has the right to call him an America-hating moron.

Posted by: Greg at 01:19 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

Look at this situation at Lehigh College in Pennsylvania.

As Lehigh University students prepared for final exams this week, they found themselves grappling with the news that the sophomore class president had been arrested for allegedly robbing a bank.
"I didn't believe it when I first heard it," Kathryn Susman, an 18-year-old freshman engineering student from Hereford, Md., said Monday.
The robbery occurred Friday afternoon. Authorities said Greg Hogan, 19, handed a note to a teller at a Wachovia Bank branch, saying he had a gun and wanted money.
Hogan, the son of a Baptist minister, was picked up at his fraternity house later that evening and charged with robbery, theft by unlawful taking and receiving stolen property.
Police said he got away with $2,871.

Hogan admits to the robbery.

I do, however, find this little tidbit somewhat chilling.

When a student is charged with a crime, the university's Office of Student Conduct, a disciplinary committee of teachers, staff and students, decides what action to take regarding the student's status at the school, said Dina Silver, a school spokeswoman. Sanctions can range from a warning to expulsion.

Notice – when a student IS CHARGED, not when they are convicted. Seems like they are putting the cart before the horse.

Posted by: Greg at 12:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm not a big fan of zero-tolerance policies, but I see this one as spot-on. What these girls did not only broke school rules, but endangered themselves and others.

Six of the 10 varsity cheerleaders at Clear Lake High School have been removed from the squad for drinking alcohol and sent to an alternative education center.

The names of the cheerleaders were not released because of privacy laws, said Karen Permetti, spokeswoman for the Clear Creek school district.

Nancy Parker, who has served as an officer for the cheer squad's booster club, declined to comment.

While declining to discuss the specific incident, Kelly Worley, whose daughter Nicole remains on the cheerleading team, stressed, "Those removed from the squad were all really good girls. I know them personally. They are honor students from good families and did a lot for school leadership."

In addition, she said, the Clear Lake cheerleading team as a whole is a group of talented athletes whose dedication to hard work has earned them a national title.

Last year, the squad won the national championship in the Big Apple Classic in New York City and later was featured on CBS' The Early Morning Show, Permetti said.

I live in CCISD, and the local kids go to Clear Lake High School. The school board adopted a policy for those who represent the school, and I support it. If you want to be on the team or squad or other extracurricular, you have to conduct yourself properly at all times.

In support of its "zero tolerance" policy, the school board this year passed a code of conduct for extracurricular activities that expanded penalties for the use, sale or distribution of drugs or alcohol during school functions to even non-school related events off campus.

"There was a feeling that student leaders ought to be held to a standard or we ought not make them leaders. They need to accountable," said Joanna Baleson, an at-large district trustee.

The regulation requires that first offenders, such as the cheerleaders, be suspended from the squad and all other extracurricular activities for the remainder of the school year or calendar year, which ever is longer.

A second offense would result in a permanent ban from such activities.

The regulation stipulates the offenders must be moved from the regular classroom to an alternative education center for 30 days. Such centers provide instruction and counseling outside of regular classes in a more strict, structured setting.

Now I might quibble about the alternative school placement. That is't appropriate for out-of-school conduct. Nut inthis case, the alcohol use isn't in a party setting.

The two cheerleading sponsors, Kathy Thiessen and Amy Lardie, were unaware that alcohol was consumed on a school bus before the Nov. 4 football game against Bellaire High School, authorities said.

An unidentified tipster alerted a high school administrator that some of the cheerleaders may have been "under the influence" during the Bellaire game.

The district wants to enforce an alcohol-free environment for cheerleaders who are performing potentially dangerous flips and lifts, authorities said.

They were drinking on a school bus on the way to a school event, and were consuming a substance that increased the risk of injury to themselves or their fellow cheerleaders. That is thoroughly unacceptable, and justifies a harsh action being taken.

I am curouos, though, how it was that the sponsors didn't know that the girls had been drinking. How well supervised were the girls? How closely were they observed before being permitted to perform?

In the end, I applaud those involved in this case for taking the right steps to carry out a an appropriate policy to maintain discipline and student safety.

Posted by: Greg at 05:55 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 630 words, total size 4 kb.

They did it again, shutting down freedom of speech on a college campus. The current victim (other than the US Constitution and the rights of every American citizen) was Ann Coulter, best-selling author, syndicated columnist, and mainstream political commentator.

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter cut short a speech at the University of Connecticut amid boos and jeers, and decided to hold a question-and-answer session instead.

"I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am," Coulter told the crowd of 2,600 Wednesday.

Before cutting off her speech after about 15 minutes, Coulter called Bill Clinton an "executive buffoon" who won the presidency only because Ross Perot took 19 percent of the vote.

Coulter's appearance prompted protests from several student groups. About 100 people rallied outside the auditorium where she spoke, saying she spread a message of intolerance.

"We encourage diverse opinion at UConn, but this is blatant hate speech," said Eric Knudsen, a 19-year-old sophomore journalism and social welfare major who heads campus group Students Against Hate.

No, Eric you moron, you clearly do not encourage diverse opinion at UConn -- other wise you and your anti-civil -liberties goon-squad would have graciously permitted Ms. Coulter to say her piece. Instead, you carve out an exception to the notion that people have a right to speak on political and social issues by calling ideas you don't like "hate speech." What, exactly, was hateful? I doubt you could point to anything.

And what about the rights of Ms. Coulter and your fellow students to explore ideas with wich you disagree. You know, people like this classmate.

UConn junior Kareem Mohni, 20, said he was disgusted by his peers' reaction to Coulter.

"It really appalled me that we're not able to come together as a group and listen to a different view in a respectful environment," Mohni said.

That's right, they don't count -- they are part of the problem of "hate speech" that you have to wipe out, even if it kills freedom of speech in the process.

Posted by: Greg at 10:06 AM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.

1 you can't be fucking serious, has anyone on the left said anything as horrific as Coulter the cunt? (as she is so lovingly called by The Rude Pundit) Maybe there have been some, but no one with the media exposure the this stupid tweat gets.

Posted by: I'm an effin left-wing traitor at Thu Dec 8 11:25:50 2005 (Sfcu+)

2 Actually, I haven't encountered anything "horrific" out of Ann COulter -- and even if I had, that would not negate her right to freedom of speech and the right of her audience to hear her.

As for the Left, I diret you to the hateful comments of Cindy Sheehan and Ward Connerly, for starters -- not to mention the current brouhaha in the Surrendercrat Party.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Dec 8 11:37:12 2005 (uXfhz)

3 It's hard to imagine that anybody is more disgusted by Coulter and her brand of inflammatory attention-begging than I am, but I have to agree that IF this story has a shred of truth to it (a big IF wherever Coulter is involved), then the morons at UConn who participated deserve all the abuse you can dish out. But, somehow, I suspect the facts are not quite what is being spread right now.

Posted by: Dan at Thu Dec 8 13:54:58 2005 (aSKj6)

4 Unless you think she managed to get to the wire-service to present the facts with a pro-Ann slant, I don't see how you can think there is some slanted version floating around.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Dec 8 14:45:19 2005 (sC23U)

5 Well, reading the story you link to, it doesn't say that she was shouted down or that the students prevented her from doing her speech. If it's just a matter of a few boos, then who cares, and the people who are trying to make it into a bigger deal are getting fooled. But, I certainly wasn't there, so I don't know what really happened.

Posted by: Dan at Thu Dec 8 15:07:20 2005 (aSKj6)

6 http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-coulter1208.artdec08,0,2591762.story?&track=rss

This might provide a little more clarity for you regarding what was done to rape free expression at UConn. Wanna reevaluate now?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Dec 8 22:58:43 2005 (HmynK)

7 Sure - that's a good article from a respectful source, and it sounds like they did shut down her speech, which was the wrong way to deal with her (though she was able to carry on with a Q&A - your choice of the word "rape" is a little overblown).

She is a hateful person, but shutting her message down is wrong. The UConn students who cranked the music should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by: Dan at Fri Dec 9 01:23:05 2005 (aSKj6)

8 I believe the real reason liberals don't like Ms. Coulter is the fact that the Republican/Conservative women are ALWAYS Prettier than the liberal women.

Pelosi/klinton/boxer/sheehan

compared to

Laura Bush/Coulter/Michelle Malkin

I mean come on, there is no comparison.

Ok, that aside, the truth is, if this happened on a conservative campus, not likely, the liberals would be screaming from every tree top about how their rights were oppressed.

Yet it seems it is fine for them to suppress the rights of those with which they disagree.

Seems communism/fascism is alive and well, but under a different political name, liberalism/progresiveness.

Posted by: Scubachris at Fri Dec 9 03:25:12 2005 (AktpP)

9 First and foremost, you are right in that there is such a thing as freedom of speech, and therefore anyone should be able to open their mouths and speak whatever trash they want. That said, allow me to point out some reasons why Coulter has built quite the hate following:

* To New York Observer reporter George Gurley on Oct. 22, 2002, Coulter said “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”

* From a 2001 column in the National Review Online, with regards to muslims:
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

* In January of 2002 to CPAC she equated being a liberal to being a traitor:
"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

There are other examples out there if you wish to find them...

Posted by: Luke at Fri Dec 9 07:26:11 2005 (BHNvD)

10 Actually, I don't see anything wrong with any of those statements -- other than her preferred target.

I would have preferred to see McVeigh hit the UN.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Dec 9 10:32:27 2005 (fI2Yv)

11 Sorry, RWR, you can only get away with talk like that if you're a decent looking whorish blonde who shows a lot of flesh. In other words, you're no Ann Coulter.

But you're kind of cute when you say outrageous things to beg for attention.

Posted by: Dan at Fri Dec 9 16:40:23 2005 (aSKj6)

12 That's an outrage. How dare these students speak over the beautiful and wise Ann Coulter. Those morons must think the First Amendment applies to them as well.

I thought they were in college to educated and they don't realize that freedom of speech doesn't apply those who disagree with the Predisent. Pathetic.

Fortunately there are a few like that last student who understand. Booing and jeering isn't the way to create a respectful enviroment. If they want a respectful enviroment they need to approach things the way ms coulter did; by calling people buffoons and stupid.

Posted by: Mr.GOP at Sat Dec 10 06:45:00 2005 (YAEN3)

13 Would you mind trolling somewhere else, dude? You've yet to make a significant contribution to this site.

And when people behave like stupid buffoons it is appropriate to point that out -- you stupid buffoon.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Dec 10 07:32:28 2005 (YMzHW)

14 I agree! It's completely respectful to call someone a stupid buffoon. I mean, just think WWJD. That's what I do. You think Jesus would let somebody dare disagree with him without slapping them with an insult? OF COURSE NOT.

Posted by: Mr.GOP at Sat Dec 10 08:14:34 2005 (YAEN3)

15 Actually, Jesus called folks fools and vipers on a number of occassions.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Dec 10 09:22:06 2005 (YMzHW)

16 Well as I knew you would, you blew off the hateful Coulter/cunt comments as nothing to be upset about. You sir are a clueless fucktard conservative ass hat. Your opinions are not worth one ounce of the fecal matter that the Houston sanitation system flushes into the Gulf of Mexico. You refused to answer my previous question about your fellow clueless fucktard conservative Michael Steele. Maybe because you have no answer other than to denigrate those that disagree with you, and snidely call them "liberal" in as pejorative a manner as you can muster. So all in all, a big go fuck yourself from the blue states that provide your asses with the tax money from the federal government, that you use to keep state taxes low you fucking imbecile.

Posted by: effufuckface at Sun Dec 11 09:17:33 2005 (Sfcu+)

17 I think, Bubba, that you've proved all that needs to be proved about civility from the Left & Right.

You spew vile, hate-filled, intellectually vacant personal attacks.

I call folks "liberals" with a contemptuous tone.

Yet you claim that I am the hate-monger -- especially after referring to a mainstream political commentator and best-selling author with a misogynistic obscenity. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds!

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Dec 11 11:38:27 2005 (2i8mE)

18 gxacfb ucjndbo hcou

Posted by: sex at Fri Jun 20 07:45:31 2008 (Fy7gw)

19 yuoj qdzftmv

Posted by: sex at Fri Jun 20 12:43:29 2008 (UGTOF)

20 xybcdwv lrpdyf citfgp

Posted by: teenage models at Fri Jun 20 23:57:57 2008 (UGTOF)

21 hzomjvi fvbrs

Posted by: large labia galleries at Fri Jun 27 23:35:05 2008 (OSZSF)

22 jbicwfa oydsgfr cdvlm calnfq

Posted by: teenies at Fri Jul 4 02:39:04 2008 (8212Q)

23 gqas ankgzs

Posted by: postyourgirls at Sat Jul 5 02:12:41 2008 (kzO74)

24 noicgax

Posted by: princess blueyez at Sun Jul 6 08:10:19 2008 (JcU0m)

25 frise sbdrph

Posted by: anime sex movies at Sun Jul 13 08:17:14 2008 (nVQ0q)

26 dalgv hkjbvts imogtv

Posted by: richardsrealm com at Fri Jul 18 19:36:10 2008 (Ofu1o)

27 ybofwvc aqco

Posted by: lightspeed university at Sat Jul 19 20:25:46 2008 (wMMRd)

28 ywbafne ivbyfx

Posted by: lesbian 69 at Sat Jul 26 14:22:43 2008 (cSTIi)

29 ikyep

Posted by: sex stories post at Sat Jul 26 19:47:07 2008 (MmEcy)

30 zoinqpw

Posted by: erotica lick sapphic at Tue Jul 29 17:28:26 2008 (iuM4d)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

What other bits of information are school personnel not permitted to disclose to parents, and how are we to know?

A federal judge ruled that a lesbian student can sue her school district and her principal for revealing her homosexuality to her mother.
Charlene Nguon, 17, may go forward with her suit claiming violation of privacy rights, U.S. District Judge James V. Selna ruled in a decision dated Nov. 28 and announced Thursday by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

Orange County's Garden Grove district had argued that Nguon openly kissed and hugged her girlfriend on campus and thus had no expectation of privacy.

However, the judge ruled that Nguon had "sufficiently alleged a legally protected privacy interest in information about her sexual orientation."

No trial date was set. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.

"This is the first court ruling we're aware of where a judge has recognized that a student has a right not to have her sexual orientation disclosed to her parents, even if she is out of the closet at school," said Christine Sun, an ACLU attorney who brought the case.

Now this creates quite a quandary, in my opinion? How are we, as teachers, supposed to know what students have and have not disclosed to parents – especially when information is public in the school setting? After all, this girl was very public about her sexuality at school. And does this same measure of privacy also include other details of a sexual nature, such as a teacher becoming aware that a child is sexually active (but not being abused)? Where are the lines? This ruling leaves me very unsure.

MORE (AND DIVERSE) DISCUSSION AT: American Madness
, My Amusement Park, Boots and Sabers, Althouse, Right on the Left Coast, Pliwood Munkee, Education Wonks, Eyes of Faith, Digital Brownshirt, Left Turn On Rights, Just to the Left, New World Man, Right Side of the Rainbow, The Colossus of Rhodey.

Posted by: Greg at 01:12 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 3 kb.