Of all the districts in the Houston area, there is one that really ought to be closed -- North Forest ISD. They have been through superintendent after superintendent in the last 20 years, having fired them over poor performance ratings for the schools, financial mismanagement, and the color of their skin (they canned a white superintendent because he "did not understand the community because he was white". The schools are a mess, the district is a mess, and there seems to be little hope of the place getting better. It really ought to be closed down, with a neighboring district taking over the area. But given the racial makeup of the district, it won't happen because it would be "racially insensitive" (I guess it is more racially sensitive to leave minority kids in failing schools run by minorities).

Well, now they are searching for another superintendent.

Leaders of the North Forest school district soon will pen their "help wanted" ad for a new superintendent, beginning a nationwide search that could prove difficult.

Given the problems facing the northeast Houston district, the job posting could read: Change agent needed to turn around an urban system with declining enrollment, shaky finances and numerous underperforming campuses.

The district's newly hired search consultant, Benjamin Canada of the Texas Association of School Boards, said the pursuit of a top-notch leader will be challenging, but achievable.

"It is a district that doesn't have the best reputation, but it has some outstanding students. It has some outstanding staff," said Canada, a former superintendent. ''But like all districts, it has a need for significant change."

The board has fired or forced out four of its past five permanent superintendents, the last being James Simpson in March.

You can see in the sidebar how rough things have been in the district -- and why any candidate for the job would be nuts to take it.

Add to that the fact that 5 of 11 schools are rated as "academically unacceptable" -- and that is an improvement from a year ago, when 8 of them received that ranking -- and you can see what awful shape the district is in. Indeed, it is probably the only district in the Houston area I would not apply in.

Still, I wish them well -- and can only hope that they find a good leader who can help turn the schools around. And that the racist, over-bearing school board members will allow the new leader to do the job for which he or she is hired without bringing in petty political and personal agendas like those that have brought the district to its current woeful state.

Posted by: Greg at 01:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 451 words, total size 3 kb.

I suppose that she would have been welcome if she were denying the Holocaust, calling for the destruction of Israel, and giving support to those killing Americans – at least if the principal were adhering to the Columbia University understanding of free speech and academic freedom. Instead, a few parental complaints were sufficient to get Alveda King’s speech cancelled.

A decision to cancel a speech by an anti-abortion activist at a Des Moines high school is sparking criticism.

The principal of Roosevelt High School, Kathie Danielson, says she canceled Friday's appearance by Alveda King because some parents complained about her message.

The Iowa chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union says it implies the school is taking sides on the abortion issue. Spokesman Ben Stone says Danielson is doing a "disservice" when she decides she must protect students from controversial viewpoints.

King is a niece of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.

Danielson says it was a good opportunity to hear King on issues such as diversity. But parents complained about her political and social views.

Of interest, though, is the fact that King was not scheduled to speak on abortion at all. Her topic was, by all indication, her lifetime involved with civil rights. After all, as an author and minister and former college professor and state legislator, she might just have something of importance to teach these students on that subject—and about her uncle, whose life and work in that area ought to be an inspiration to every American. Add to the fact that attendance a the speech was voluntary, it seems hard to believe that anyone was going to be coerced, indoctrinated, or proselytized as a member of a captive audience of students.

However, that was not good enough for some.

Danielson explained the decision in an e-mail to the parents. When the school scheduled King in August, the plan was for King to speak about her civil rights journey.

Then Monday, "several community members" called to complain about King's allegiance to anti-abortion issues and abstinence. There was also the sticky possibility of King's expressing her religious beliefs in a public-school setting.

Those still wishing to hear King's message, Danielson added, could see her at either Iowa State or Drake.

Danielson said she called King, had a nice talk and came away impressed.

"She is a wonderful person," Danielson e-mailed, "and our conversation was meaningful and enlightening. We will visit in the near future about the possibility of scheduling a time when she could speak to our parents."

That's good, because King has a compelling story to tell. The students should be allowed to hear it.

The irony of this situation is not lost on me. You see my knowledge of history and constitutional law makes Roosevelt High School in Des Moines a familiar name to me – and it ought to be to any educator.

After all, Roosevelt High School was one of the schools at which the events occurred that gave rise to the Supreme CourtÂ’s seminal decision of freedom of speech in schools, Tinker v. Des Moines. And while the circumstances are different, we again see a small group deciding that there are some ideas, well-within the mainstream of American political belief, that must be suppressed at all cost in the public schools. Such actions were wrong then, and are wrong now.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 629 words, total size 5 kb.

In light of recent controversies on California colleges campuses regarding controversial speakers and faculty members and the Columbia University speech by Mahmoud the Mad, Victor David Hanson offers up a criteria regarding who should be welcomed and given a platform at such prestigious institutions of higher learning.

In each of the above cases, the general public has had to remind these universities that their campuses should welcome thinkers who have distinguished themselves in their fields, regardless of politics and ideology. The liberal Chemerinsky, the Clinton Democrat Summers and the conservative Rumsfeld have all courted controversy -- and all alike met the criterion of eminent achievement.

But the propagandist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has not. Unlike Chemerinsky, Rumsfeld and Summers, he used the prestige of an Ivy-League forum solely to popularize his violent views -- and to sugarcoat the mayhem his terrorists inflict on Americans and his promises to wipe out Israel.

Here's a simple tip to the clueless tenured class about why a Larry Summers or Donald Rumsfeld should be welcome to speak, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shunned: former Cabinet secretaries -- yes; homicidal dictators killing Americans -- no.

Sounds like a reasonable standard to me -- what do you think?

Posted by: Greg at 10:14 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.

As a seminary-trained Christian who is also an educator, I find this story quite troubling.

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.

“I’m just a little bit shocked myself that a college in good standing would back up students who insist that people who have been through college and have a master’s degree, a couple actually, have to teach that there were such things as talking snakes or lose their job,” Bitterman said.

What, exactly, did Bitterman say?

Bitterman, who taught part time at Southwestern and OmahaÂ’s Metropolitan Community College, said he uses the Old Testament in his western civilization course and always teaches it from an academic standpoint.

Bitterman’s Tuesday course was telecast to students in Osceola over the Iowa Communications Network. A few students in the Osceola classroom, he said, thought the lesson was “denigrating their religion.”

“I put the Hebrew religion on the same plane as any other religion. Their god wasn’t given any more credibility than any other god,” Bitterman said. “I told them it was an extremely meaningful story, but you had to see it in a poetic, metaphoric or symbolic sense, that if you took it literally, that you were going to miss a whole lot of meaning there.”

Bitterman said called the story of Adam and Eve a “fairy tale” in a conversation with a student after the class and was told the students had threatened to see an attorney. He declined to identify any of the students in the class.

“I just thought there was such a thing as academic freedom here,” he said. “From my point of view, what they’re doing is essentially teaching their students very well to function in the 8th century.”

Now his words are harsh, impolitic, and maybe even mildly offensive -- but that does not mean they are wrong or that they should lead to discipline against him -- especially because they are, in my opinion, more or less correct.

The Genesis account of the creation cannot and should not be taken literally in light of the fossil record. It is best understood as an allegorical tale that communicates the essential truth that everything was created by God, and that our free will leads us to disobey God and to sever/strain our relationship with him. The story of Adam and Eve and the snake is therefore a myth -- but it is also true at its core.

And for those of you who object that the Bible is the revealed word of God (a contention which i whole-heartedly affirm), I offer this for your consideration -- if I can write an allegory, don't you suppose that the omnipotent God we both worship is able to do the same?

But regardless of whether we agree or disagree, and regardless of whether either of us agrees with Bitterman, there remains the question of academic freedom. There is a great body of academic literature which agrees with his position, and to fire him for citing it and teaching about it is not only wrong, but positively anti-intellectual.

It strikes me that Southwest Community College needs to offer a more public explanation of this personnel decision -- and that Bitterman should explicitly authorize them to do so. And if the comments on genesis have anything to do with the firing, Bitterman should be immediately reinstated.

And on a personnel note, I have more than a passing interest in such controversies. I've actually had a parent call my school and demand their child be removed from my class over a similar issue -- the inclusion of evolution in my World History class. Silencing truth in the name of religious sensitivity is simply wrong, whether the perpetrators of Christian, Muslim, or atheist.

A different viewpoint at Stop the ACLU

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Webloggin, Phastidio.net, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Right Voices, Church and State, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 753 words, total size 7 kb.

Columbia welcomes Mahmoud the Mad, but bans the founder of the Minutemen.

Because after all, it wouldnÂ’t do for a university to welcome a hostage-taking, Holocaust-denying, international law-violating, genocide-advocating anti-Semite.

Oh – they ARE welcoming that one.

President Ahmadinejad of Iran has accepted an invitation to speak at Columbia University on Monday afternoon at a forum sponsored by the university's School of International and Public Affairs, a spokesman for the university said last night.

The Iranian Mission to the United Nations requested the invitation through a professor in the Middle East department, Richard Bulliet, who is a specialist on Iran.

"Opportunities to hear, challenge, and learn from controversial speakers of different views are central to the education and training of students for citizenship in a shrinking and dangerous world," the dean of SIPA, John Coatsworth, said in a statement. Mr. Coastworth invited Mr. Ahmadinejad to kick off a series of lectures and events about Iran, he said in a statement. The president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, is scheduled to introduce Mr. Ahmadinejad on Monday to an audience that will be made up exclusively of Columbia students, faculty, and a few invited guests.

Mr. Ahmadinejad was invited by SIPA to speak at Columbia last fall, but Mr. Bollinger revoked the invitation on the grounds that he could not ensure that the program would reflect the academic values of the university. In his talk on Monday, Mr. Ahmadinejad will field questions from the audience and from Mr. Bollinger on his government, as well as his views on Israel and the Holocaust. Mr. Ahmadinejad has stated in the past that Israel should be "wiped off the map" and that the Holocaust did not happen.

But on the other hand, it is not in keeping with the values of Columbia to allow an American who loves America to speak after he was driven from the stage by criminals for advocating the defense of American borders and the enforcement of American law.

Jim Gilchrist, founder of the anti-illegal immigration Minuteman Project who was forced off a Columbia University stage last year, will not be coming back for a return engagement at the school.

The Columbia Political Union, a nonpartisan student group that had been planning the forum, said in a statement on its Web site Tuesday that "it has become clear that this event cannot take the form we had originally hoped it would and could not effectively accomplish the goals we had hoped it might."

Last Oct. 4, Gilchrist had to cut short his talk at the school after students from the Chicano Caucus and other groups climbed on stage with banners denouncing the Minutemen Project, which is based in Laguna Hills, Calif., and advocates action to prevent illegal immigration from Mexico.

If Columbia were truly committed to freedom and the free presentation of ideas, Bollinger would be introducing Gilchrist at an officially hosted university forum, and Mahmoud the Mad would be driven from campus by outraged students.

But then again, this is a school which (contrary to the claim of a commenter on an earlier thread), does not permit ROTC to operate on its campus.

As Columbia welcomes Ahmadinejad to campus, Columbia students who want to serve their country cannot enroll in the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) at Columbia. Columbia students who want to enroll in ROTC must travel to other universities to fulfill their obligations. ROTC has been banned from the Columbia campus since 1969. In 2003, a majority of polled Columbia students supported reinstating ROTC on campus. But in 2005, when the Columbia faculty senate debated the issue, President Bollinger joined the opponents in defeating the effort to invite ROTC back on campus.

So got that -- there is no place at Columbia for patriots -- but terrorists and other enemies of America are more than welcome.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Right Celebrity, Faultline USA, Wake Up America, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Republican National Convention Blog, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:28 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 720 words, total size 7 kb.

In light of the handling of the Chemerinsky hiring, there is only one conclusion.

The University of California at Irvine clearly has misdirected its search efforts. It has been looking for a law school dean. But what it really needs is a new chancellor.

Now for all I take issue with Scott Horton's "right wing kooks" assertion in the paragraph before his conclusion, it is beyond doubt that he is correct in his conclusion. But I wonder -- would Horton be so ready to leap to the defense of a conservative scholar whose politics were opposed by "left wing kooks"? Or more to the point, as so often happens on campus, by left-wing faculty members (many of whom might reasonably be described as kooks)? Is it only the right wing which Horton believes should not have a veto? Or is it his belief that no political interest group should be permitted a veto in academic matters?

And would Horton care to engage in a little bit of intellectual honesty and note that many of us "right wing kooks", including some of the most respected voices on the right side of the blogosphere, who spoke out in defense of Chemerinsky?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, The Populist, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, , Conservative Cat, Jo's Cafe, Stageleft, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, and The Pink Flamingo, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:13 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 3 kb.

I long ago came to the conclusion that we send too many students off to college. I know that sounds like heresy coming from a teacher, but the reality is that there are too many students seeking college degrees who donÂ’t have the intellectual or academic capacity to do the work.

Ove at NRO, George Leef makes an excellent case that we need to send fewer, not more, kids on to higher education.

First, it isn’t true that the economy is undergoing some dramatic shift to “knowledge work” that can only be performed by people who have college educations. When we hear that more and more jobs “require” a college degree, that isn’t because most of them are so technically demanding that an intelligent high school graduate couldn’t learn to do the work. Rather, what it means is that more employers are using educational credentials as a screening mechanism. As James Engell and Anthony Dangerfield write in their book Saving Higher Education in the Age of Money, “the United States has become the most rigidly credentialized society in the world. A B.A. is required for jobs that by no stretch of imagination need two years of full-time training, let alone four.”

Second, the needless pressure to get educational credentials draws a large number of academically weak and intellectually disengaged students into college. All they want is the piece of paper that gets them past the screening. Most schools have quietly lowered their academic standards so that such students
will stay happy and remain enrolled. Consequently, they seldom learn much — many employers complain that college graduates they hire can’t even write a coherent sentence — but most eventually get their degrees.

Third, due to the overselling of higher education, we find substantial numbers of college graduates taking “high school” jobs like retail sales. It’s not that there is anything wrong with well-educated clerks or truck drivers, but to a great extent college is no longer about providing a solid, rounded education. The courses that once were the pillars of the curriculum, such as history, literature, philosophy, and fine arts, have been watered down and are usually optional. Sadly, college education is now generally sold as a stepping stone to good employment rather than as an intellectually broadening experience. Sometimes it manages to do both, but often it does neither.

Fourth, itÂ’s a mistake to assume that the traditional college setting is the best or only way for people to learn the things they need to know in order to become successful workers. On-the-job training, self-directed studies, and courses taken with a particular end in mind (such as those offered in fields like accounting or finance at proprietary schools) usually lead to much more educational gain than do courses taken just because they fill degree requirements.

How many of our young people would be better prepared for their future with a solid vocational program at the high school level? How many would instead find themselves struggling for an academic credential (whether a bachelors or associates degree) with general studies requirements that are beyond their interest or ability and which serve as an obstacle o their success?

Posted by: Greg at 12:39 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 537 words, total size 3 kb.

When I got my masters degree 20 years ago, my area of focus was US Constitutional law. Over the years, I've worked to keep current in that field. And while I've not always agreed with him, I've always respected the work of Erwin Chemerinsky. His expertise and competence are beyond question, even if his conclusions are not. That is why I am outraged by the decision to dump him from the position of dean of the new University of California -- Irvine law school.

In a showdown over academic freedom, a prominent legal scholar said Wednesday that the University of California, Irvine's chancellor had succumbed to conservative political pressure in rescinding his contract to head the university's new law school, a charge the chancellor vehemently denied.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a well-known liberal expert on constitutional law, said he had signed a contract Sept. 4, only to be told Tuesday by Chancellor Michael V. Drake that he was voiding their deal because Chemerinsky was too liberal and the university had underestimated "conservatives out to get me."

Later Wednesday, however, Drake said there had been no outside pressure and that he had decided to reject Chemerinsky, now of Duke University and formerly of the University of Southern California, because he felt the law professor's commentaries were "polarizing" and would not serve the interests of California's first new public law school in 40 years.

Whether or not there was political pressure brought to bear, the firing of Chemerinsky by a public educational institution over his political orientation is simply wrong. And just as I would in the case of a conservative legal scholar, I wish to register my disgust with the decision to do so. It is clear that Chancellor Drake, not Professor Chemerinsky, needs to go.

And I'm not alone on the right in registering my opposition to this move. They include Hugh Hewitt, Glenn Reynolds, John Leo, Steven Greenhut, Stephen Bainbridge the esteemed crew from Volokh Conspiracy, B. Daniel Blatt (of GayPatriot), and Ed Morissey. I'm proud to stand in such company

UPDATE -- 9/14/07: Today's Washington Post has an interesting overview of the controversy.

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 361 words, total size 3 kb.

Depending on whether or not the judges in Oregon follow the clear and unambiguous language of the statutes passed by the legislature, concealed carry by teachers may be an option in the state very soon.

A high school teacher wanting to carry a gun on campus is fueling a challenge against a Medford School District policy that prohibits possession of a weapon on school grounds.

Portland-based lawyer Jim Leuenberger, with backing from the Oregon Firearms Federation, said in an e-mail sent Friday to the Mail Tribune that he intends to ask a Jackson County Circuit Court judge to declare the policy "illegal and void" for holders of concealed handgun licenaes.

"There is a state statute that prohibits local governments — including school boards — from restricting possession of firearms by concealed firearm permit holders," Leuenberger said. "The state statute says any such local restrictions are void."

Leuenberger identified the woman only as a high school teacher and said he will file the complaint using "Jane Doe" as the plaintiff.

This particular teacher has a concealed carry permit and a restraining order against her ex-husband. She needs the gun for personal protection.

But the school sees matters differently.

"It's our responsibility to provide a safe learning environment for our students and a safe working environment for our employees," Gerking said. "We feel that would not be fostered by allowing folks, whether they have the authority or not, to bring weapons onto campus, in particular firearms — loaded firearms. We believe that's a recipe for potential disaster."

I guess that means that the school district believes that its policy trumps state law and the Second Amendment. Their lawyers should tell them that such is not the case.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with trained, licensed individuals having weapons on campus – if you look at the statistics in every state, such individuals have a significantly lower rate of abusing those weapons than other citizens. Indeed, here in Texas the number is miniscule during the entire lifetime of the concealed carry statute. I suspect that the same is true in Oregon.

The problem, you see, is not legal, registered guns carried by licensed individuals in schools – it is those carried illegally by unlicensed individuals seeking to do violence.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Link Fest - Week One, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Nuke's News & Views, DragonLady's World, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Allie Is Wired, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Republican National Convention Blog, CommonSenseAmerica, CORSARI D'ITALIA, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 462 words, total size 5 kb.

The alumni elect board members who object to the direction of a liberal administration. The solution -- stack the board with administration appointees.

Dartmouth College announced late Saturday night that its board of trustees would expand to 24 members, two-thirds chosen by the college and one-third elected by the alumni.

Since 1891, Dartmouth alumni have elected eight trustees and the administration has appointed an additional eight, giving the college an unusually small board and an unusual level of alumni power.

The changes come largely in reaction to divisive trustee campaigns over the past three years, in which alumni rejected the candidates officially nominated by the alumni association and instead elected four libertarian or conservative alumni who got onto the ballot through a petition process.

The most telling comment comes from the president of the board, Charles E. Haldeman Jr.

“Dartmouth’s trustee elections have become increasingly politicized, costly and divisive,” he said. “It’s not the results of these elections that are the problem, but the process itself.”

“I know some will ask why we didn’t simply expand the board through an equal number of charter and alumni trustee seats,” he said. “Given the divisiveness of recent elections we did not believe that having more elections would be good for Dartmouth.”

Yeah -- a self-perpetuating oligarchy does have advantages over a democracy.

The main one being that those who govern need not listen to the voice of the people.

So let's just call this what it is -- a coup.

Posted by: Greg at 09:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

Because after all, they inculcate discipline, patriotism, and train people to protect her right to trash the military.

I know why I chose Columbia: the campus is magnificent, the education is top-tier, and my peers are intelligent. I could look at a stranger, tell him or her that I went to Columbia, and hear the predictable, “Wow, you must be smart.”

* * *

My brother ended up liking Annapolis and he has decided to stay. While it has been difficult for me to accept that I have a brother in the military, I must allow him to pursue whatever path he is drawn toward, and he has admitted to me that he feels called to being there. However, for anyone else out there considering a career in the academy, let it be known: the U.S. Naval Academy is not an elite college; it is first and foremost a branch of the U.S. military and the prestige comes at a big price—it taxes parents, siblings, and participants if they do not understand what they were signing up for.

Imagine that -- the service academies are a part of the military! I guess it takes a little left-wing snob from a school that does not even allow its students the option of an ROTC program to tell the rest of us that incredibly insightful observation. Her decision to trash them as "not an elite college" shows her lack of respect for diversity -- it is an elite college, just not in the way that her school is. Indeed it is better, and reflects a call to a purpose higher than that of her school: the preservation of our country.

So while Idris Leppla is busy sucking down her lattes and attending her rallies against the war and mourning the fact that her brother didn't respond to her efforts to get him out of the Naval Academy AGAINST HIS WILL, it is her brother and those like him who are defending the right of ms. Leppla to spit on them with her unAmerican words and actions from the hallowed halls of her "elite" university.

Posted by: Greg at 12:06 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm glad that folks are taking notice of the Avery Doninger case and its potential impact on student rights everywhere. And that support spreads far beyond her Connecticut home.

Support, both financial and moral, for Avery Doninger's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has spread across the country.

Doninger is seeking an injunction to overturn the 2008 class officer election results of Lewis S. Mills High School on the grounds that school officials unconstitutionally denied her candidacy. Although she won the election with write-in votes by her classmates, school officials still refuse to allow her to take the 2008 class secretary position.

Doninger alleges she was stripped of her junior class secretary title and not allowed to run for senior class office because she exercised her right to free speech and expressed a grievance on a blog site from her home computer.

On Aug. 31, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Kravitz denied Doninger's motion for a temporary injunction, issuing a 34-page memorandum on his ruling 45 minutes after the close of court.

"A battle is lost, the war is not over," said Avery's mother, Lauren. "We now head to the 2nd Circuit to appeal the denial and continue to seek injunctive relief. Additionally, we will file trial paperwork. Unlike the very rushed hearing, this will be a jury trial."

With the appeal expected to cost approximately $20,000, not including payment to attorney John Schoenhorn for his representation, Doninger set up an online donation site. She did not expect support for her appeal would ripple across the nation.

As I've pointed out in previous posts, this is a decision with potentially devastating effects upon the First Amendment rights of students -- after all the speech for which this student is being punished took place away from school outside of school hours, but the school wants to regulate it and discipline based upon it.

I'm particularly struck by the wisdom of this commentator.

Greg Aydt, a world history high school teacher and right-wing conservative from Houston, Texas, also posted a link to Doninger's fund on his site, http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu. He said he put the link on his site because very often he sees school administrators take a very narrow and cramped view of students' rights.

"When you are in your home at [9 p.m.] on your computer, that's not a place the school has any right to intrude, unless it presents a direct threat to student or school safety," Aydt said. "In this case, we have administrators who got their knickers in a twist because you have a student who isn't deferential to them 24 hours a day."

Yeah, I was contacted the other day requesting an interview. I'll concede, its a first. And while I don't know why Jacqueline Manning chose to describe me as a "right-wing conservative" rather than merely as a conservative (I'm the only person whose political orientation is noted). But that's neither here nor there. I was honored to be asked and even more honored to be included in the article. Heck, I'm simply honored to be able to lend my voice in support of a good cause.

And by the way, here is a way to help Avery and her mom continue their fight for freedom of speech.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, The Populist, The Uncooperative Radio Show! Aug. 07, 08 and 09, 2007, Shadowscope, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, 4 Time Father?, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Random Yak, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, The Bullwinkle Blog, , Conservative Cat, Jo's Cafe, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Gone Hollywood, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:16 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 675 words, total size 8 kb.

Ask any teacher -- a good substitute is worth his or her weight in diamonds and gold. And when retired teachers come back into the classroom as substitutes, they are usually the ones you want to get.

Especially since qualifications to work as a substitute are even lower than the pay for the work.

Qualifications for substitutes vary from system to system, with some requiring a bachelor's degree and others only a minimum number of college credits. The pay also varies, from about $75 a day to $103 for retired teachers.

My district does require some college to substitute -- a whole 30 hours of college credit. In other words, you can have kids who graduated the previous year coming back as substitutes if they took a couple of summer school classes and AP or dual-credit during their high school career. Fortunately, the district tries to keep them out of the high schools.

And don't fool yourself -- substitutes are a big expense for a district. Mine spent $1.7 million on subs last year -- for a variety of reasons, ranging from personal days and conferences to illnesses and maternity leave. And as it was, there were still classes that were covered by administrators, teacher, and even secretaries if there was no substitute available through our system.

Probably the best news I've gotten is that one of my recently retired colleagues is coming back as a substitute after a year of retirement. I know I will fight to schedule him into my class if i know in advance that I will be out of school.

Posted by: Greg at 03:30 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

And if the decision in Avery Doninger's case is upheld down the road, it appears that this ruling will effectively mean that no student has First Amendment rights to speak on any matter related to school at any time or in any place free from the heavy hand of censorship and punishment by the school administration.

Avery Doninger may have been off campus when she wrote an Internet post calling officials in her Burlington school district a derogatory name.

But school officials were within their rights when they punished her for the comment as if she had made it on campus, a federal judge ruled Friday, because Doninger's writing related to school and was likely to be read by other students.

U.S. District Judge Mark Kravitz's ruling marked the court's first stance on a lawsuit that Doninger's mother, Lauren, filed against two officials in the Region 10 school district after Avery Doninger, then 16, was prohibited from seeking re-election as secretary for her class at Lewis S. Mills High School in May. Punishing Avery Doninger for the comment - she called school officials "douchbags" (sic) in her Internet blog - violated her right to free speech, the Doningers argued.

Friday's ruling didn't decide the case, but resolved a request by Doninger's attorney for an injunction to allow Avery Doninger to run for class secretary. Kravitz's ruling denying the request noted that Doninger had not shown "substantial likelihood" that she would succeed in challenging the constitutional validity of her punishment.

But Kravitz's ruling also foreshadowed a case involving far more than a misspelled insult posted on the Internet. It concerns what kind of expression schools can regulate, whether schools can sanction behavior outside school, and just what can be considered on- or off-campus in the Internet age.

"The whole issue of blogs and off-campus e-mails is coming to the fore. Courts themselves are kind of feeling their way along," Kravitz said in court Friday. "These are difficult issues."

Now as one commentator notes, the Courant article is not completely accurate in its characterization of this decision, because this decision dealt with the issue of a pretrial injunction rather than the actual merits of the case. However, it does show that the judge is initially predisposed to rule in favor of the district based upon an initial presentation and examination of the facts at hand.

But let's consider the judge's opinion itself (34 pages long, yet miraculously issued a mere 45 minutes after closing arguments!).

In the opinion, Judge Kravitz states that the internet presents new challenges for school administrators, and that the courts have yet to fully shape the boundaries of school authority when it relates to the Internet. But in his recitation of the facts of the case, Judge Kravitz makes one important factual concession that shows his decision to be wrong.

Avery, J.E., P.A., and T.F. decided to send an email to various taxpayers, informing them of the situation and requesting that they contact the school superintendent, Paula Schwartz, in the LMHS central office to demand that Jamfest be held in the auditorium on April 28.

This email, which urges the public to contact public officials on a matter related to the operation of a public school, clearly qualifies as political speech. And given that Avery's later posting on her LiveJournal site reproduced the email in its entirety, it is virtually impossible to argue that the LiveJournal post does not similarly constitute political speech -- and it is that post which was used as the basis to prevent Avery from seeking reelection to her class officer position AND which later led the school to refuse to count write-in votes for her and to attempt to hide the ballots and the vote tally when repeated FOIA requests were made for them.

Now the judge conflates the standards found in the Morse and Fraser cases to argue that the school's action is justified in this case because the speech was disrespectful, uncivil, and potentially disruptive (despite the fact it took place away from school, the judge ruled that Internet speech can be treated as on-campus speech if any member of the school community can read it). But in doing so, he ignores Justice Alito's concurring opinion in the Morse case, which essentially controls and limits the reach of school authority in cases of political speech.

I join the opinion of the Court on the understanding that. . . (b) it provides no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue. . . .

As such, the most recent Supreme Court decision regarding student speech, which Judge Kravitz uses to permit the school to take action against Avery Doninger, clearly prohibits the school from doing so. And given that the standard in Tinker requires the speech to cause a substantial disruption before it can be suppressed, A side-by-side reading of the two decisions must lead to the conclusion that the school's actions were wrong.

As for the application of the Fraser standard, it needs to be remembered that the lewd sexual language in that case occurred in a middle school auditorium, before a captive audience of students. No one can maintain that the facts here are even remotely similar. Calling an administrator a "douchbag" on a webpage might be uncivil, rude, and (arguably) inappropriate, but no one who does not voluntarily access the page is exposed to that message -- and it is possible to prevent any disruption caused by blocking the page from the school computers. The facts simply do not fit with the Fraser precedent.

In light of that analysis, I'd go further. Judge Kravitz cites a series of cases in which courts have held that students have no right to participate in extracurricular activities. While I am generally in agreement with him, I think the reasonable application of the Tinker and Morse standards is necessary here. If, in fact, students do not shed their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate, and if schools may not restrict political speech, then it is absurd to argue that a student might be banned from extracurricular activities for their speech on political or social issues. No rational legal scholar would argue, for example, that the Tinker children could not be suspended or expelled for the black armbands but could be denied a place in the school band, on an athletic team, or in student government for that same anti-war speech. No judge would rule that an administrator could bar a student who maintained a blog that commented against abortion or in favor of gay rights from membership on the debate team or the chess club. And more to the point, it would be seen as frighteningly un-American if a school district were to impose an extracurricular ban upon students who maintained a website opposing a school bond issue.

And quite frankly, the judge probably needs to consider the Supreme Court ruling in Cohens v. California as well. If the word "fuck" is protected speech in a political context, it is impossible to argue that "douchbag" (or its correctly spelled version) does not maintain similar protected status -- especially given that no action was taken against a student who posted a comment on the blog referring to the district superintendent BY NAME as a "dirty whore".

Another issue to consider is the fact that Judge Kravitz has ruled that speech on the Internet can be considered on-campus speech if it relates to school and students can see it at any time, including while at home using their privately-owned computers. This treats the Internet in a manner different from any other media, and essentially exempts it from First Amendment protection. I seriously doubt, for example, that Judge Kravitz would have ruled that Julia's use of the word "douchbag" on a picket picket-sign on a public sidewalk in front of the administration building during a protest of the cancellation of Jamfest could be treated as on-campus speech, even if students passing by on vehicles saw the sign. Similarly, were the protest covered by the news media, photos or video of such a sign in the press coverage could not convert her speech into an on-campus disruption of the educational process. Neither would placing signs in her yard, posters in public places, or an ad in the local newspaper. And were she to write a column on the issue that appeared in the press -- perhaps in a local alternative newspaper -- I cannot imagine any judge declaring her use of the word "douchbag" to be on-campus speech merely because a fellow student could read it. On what legitimate basis does the judge treat the Internet differently and place it beyond First Amendment protection under Tinker, Fraser, and Morse?

At this point, the only individuals directly harmed by this decision are Avery Doninger and the students who wrote her name in during the class election (incidentally, she won the office according to a tally of the ballots when they were eventually obtained under the states FOIA). And yet the speech of every student in her school is chilled by the decision allowing even a temporary victory to the officious administrative douchebags who chose to make an example out of her for her exercise of her First Amendment rights in her home using her own computer outside of school hours. But the potential for damage to the First Amendment rights of every American student is even greater. Judge Kravitz's decision must be overturned.

UPDATE: I've been in touch with Avery's mom, and she assures me that they are appealing to the Second Circuit. However, the pursuit of this lawsuit is a financial drain. Would you consider helping out?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Right Truth, Inside the Northwest Territory, Nuke's News & Views, , Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, , Conservative Cat, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, and CORSARI D'ITALIA, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:09 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1705 words, total size 13 kb.

Could you imagine the outrage if any mainstream publication were to publish an article like this about any racial or ethnic group?

A new working paper from economists Victor Lavy of Hebrew University and Analía Schlosser of Princeton attempts to unpick the peer effects associated with gender, using data on nearly half a million students passing through Israel's school system in the 1990s. They compared consecutive year groups passing through the same school, figuring that if one year's group was 55 percent boys and the next year's was 55 percent girls, that difference was very likely to be random and thus susceptible to meaningful number crunching.

Their answer chimes perfectly with the conventional wisdom: Boys benefit from being in a classroom with girls, but girls do not benefit from being in a classroom with boys. What is interesting about Lavy and Schlosser's work is that it uses survey data provided by the children to work out what is causing the effects. The survey questions ask, for example, about violence in school, respect for teachers, classroom distractions, and relations among students.

Boys pollute the educational system, it seems, for a number of unmysterious reasons: They wear down teachers, disrupt classes, and ruin the atmosphere for everyone. And more boys are worse than fewer boys, not because they egg each other on but simply because more of them can cause more trouble in total.

One could, using the same sort of evidence, make similar claims regarding racially-mixed educations. A look at disciplinary records and academic performance data would likely bear that out. But is that a basis for advocating a return to racially segregated education? No -- and indeed, it has been the basis for arguing that there is a crisis in schools and that more resources need to be devoted to making sure that minorities do better in school and that steps be taken to end the "bias" in discipline.

And then there is this little gem at the end.

A social planner might thus conclude that all education should be single-sex. The difficulty is to combine this perspective with the principle of parental choice. I have the answer: a congestion-charge-style tax on parents who insist on polluting girls' education with their testosterone-fuelled little monsters. The money could go toward hiring extra teachers—and riot police.

Again, could you imagine the outrage if someone were to write an argument arguing that there should be a congestion-charge-style tax on parents who insist on polluting whites' education with their Spanish and Ebonics speaking little gang-bangers? But in this case, the silence will be deafening.

I guess you just have to choose the right target for your bigotry.

Posted by: Greg at 03:23 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 453 words, total size 3 kb.