This has been a rough school year for me, so I have to admit that I've been looking forward to the last day of school for a while now. There were some wonderful high points, but also a number of negative events that just made this year harder than any in the past. And given the reconfiguration of my school and the resultant reassignment of faculty, I was having problems with my enthusiasm for returning to my school next year -- but planned to do so anyway.

Until last week -- when a wonderful opportunity fell into my lap that I think is a change for the better. So next fall I'll be teaching something different in a different school -- and believe I will be refreshed by the change.

I'll be picking up my last three boxes tomorrow, turning in my keys, and preparing to begin a whole new adventure.

Posted by: Greg at 12:04 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

I always love it when students are able to figure out how to handle a situation better than the adults in charge -- and hope the adults in charge make the right choice here.

The state's governing body for high-school sports again finds itself stuck between its rules and what many consider common sense.

This time, the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association faces a protest from Nicole Cochran, a senior at Bellarmine Prep of Tacoma. Cochran finished more than three seconds faster than her competition in the girls 3,200-meter run at the Class 4A state track and field meet in Pasco, but she was disqualified after an official flagged her for running on the inside lane line.

One problem: a video shows she didn't do it.

"I'm still in a little bit of shock," Cochran said Thursday afternoon. "That's pretty much all everyone can talk about."

The video — which shows that a Bellarmine Prep teammate, not Cochran, stepped on the inside lane line — was shot by flotrack.com, a track Web site. Since the event's controversial finish late Friday night, the video has circulated throughout the state's track community, triggering many to call for the WIAA to reverse the disqualification and name Cochran the winner.

That, WIAA executive director Mike Colbrese said, isn't likely to happen.

He said the WIAA must follow the rules of the National Federation of State High School Associations, which prohibits the use of unauthorized video for reviews. In addition, the race official's ruling is considered a judgment call, which Colbrese said is non-reviewable.

Fortunately, there may be a couple of factors that let them overturn the erroneous judgment call.

Cochran and Ellis list several problems with the disqualification ruling, including that the disqualification form indicates the infraction occurred on Lap 7, even though the video shows the official raised his yellow flag on the final turn of Lap 6.

At the same turn on the seventh lap, Cochran moves outside to take the lead.

"Even without looking at the video, you have a disqualification form with the wrong information," Ellis said.

Also, Ellis said the WIAA should consider that one of the two race officials watching that turn refused to sign off on the disqualification.

Sounds to me like the disqualification itself ought to be disqualified here based upon the obvious inaccuracies in it.

But even if it isn't, this shows that our kids do, in fact, know that what is right ought to trump the rules in such a case -- and those involved handled the situation themselves at the meet.

Andrea Nelson, a sophomore from Shadle Park of Spokane, was named the official winner, but she walked off the podium and hung her gold medal over Cochran's neck.

"It kind of gave me chills," Cochran said. "It was really emotional."

Then the rest of the top eight finishers passed their medals down to the person who crossed the finish line ahead of them.

As hard as these kids have worked to get to this level of competition, I can only imagine how hard it was for those eight kids to take a step down the ladder voluntarily -- especially that poor young lady with the eight-place medal who went home empty-handed as a result. I wish they had included her name in the article, because I'd argue that her sacrifice was every bit as heroic as Andrea Nelson's in giving up the gold to the girl she knew had won the race.

Now, can the adults straighten out this mess?

Posted by: Greg at 11:14 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 601 words, total size 4 kb.

Speaking as a teacher, I can understand some students make you want to "vote them off the island". There are a few every year. But we don't do it, as much as we might fantasize about it.

But one teacher apparently lacked the common sense decency to keep such things in the realm of fantasy -- and led her students in the abuse and ostracism of a special needs student in her kindergarten class!

A Port St. Lucie, Fla., mother is outraged and considering legal action after her son's kindergarten teacher led his classmates to vote him out of class.

Melissa Barton says Morningside Elementary teacher Wendy Portillo had her son's classmates say what they didn't like about 5-year-old Alex. She says the teacher then had the students vote, and voted Alex, who is being evaluated for Asperger's syndrome -- an autism spectrum disorder -- out of the class by a 14-2 margin.

What is frightening to me is that the local DA has already determined that this doesn't meet the definition of emotional abuse of a student. That may be the case, but I'd like to think the determination might take a bit longer, with the teacher left twisting in the wind.

Here's hoping that we'll at least see her teaching credentials revoked.

Posted by: Greg at 09:56 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.

I've often got a lot of criticism of the Houston Chronicle, but one thing I have always appreciated about the paper is its annual feature on the top graduates at every local high school in the Houston area -- along with a database of every kid scheduled for graduation at those schools. This is something that a lot of big city newspapers stopped doing years ago due to the number of schools and students involved, but it is still a priority to the Chronicle. I just want to voice my appreciation.

And yes, offer my congratulations to all the graduating seniors in the Houston area.

Posted by: Greg at 09:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

I've had parents call me on the phone to schedule meetings, and then blow me off. Indeed, at least twice a year I get a message from the front office telling me that a parent has demanded a meeting with all his/her child's teachers -- only to find myself sitting around a conference table with seven other teachers and an assistant principal twiddling our thumbs when the parent doesn't bother to show up.

I'd never think of reporting such an inconsiderate parent to CPS for child abuse. That would obviously be a false report.

But in New York City, that's what they did in the case of a parent of an honor student who couldn't make a meeting that the school asked for.

Bronx HS of Science senior Michel Dussack has a "B" average, an 1890 SAT score and an almost full college scholarship for the fall.

But Dussack's mother was accused of "educational neglect" two weeks ago and was reported to the city's child-services agency - because she missed a scheduled meeting to discuss her son possibly failing gym.

Karen Dussack, 40, is now under investigation by the Administration for Children's Services, the city's welfare agency that protects kids from neglect and abuse.

Two caseworkers from the ACS showed up at Dussack's door in Bayside, Queens, on May 14. The ACS interviewed Karen and her husband, also named Michel, as well as their two children, Michel and his sister, Deborah, 11. They checked the home for smoke and carbon-monoxide detectors and examined the contents of the refrigerator.

The visit lasted two hours. Afterward, someone from the agency interviewed a representative from Deborah's school, MS 158 in Queens, and the family pediatrician over the phone.

"It was humiliating," Karen said.

What's the problem? It seems that Michel has missed 8 days of school this semester and has not been participating in gym class because of his asthma -- and Mrs. Dussack missed a meeting with school officials because she had to take her other child to the doctor due to an injury to her foot.

So a school guidance counselor decided that the best way to handle the situation was to report Mom as a child abuser -- an action justified by the school's principal as an effort to force her to attend to her child's education.

Oh, and interestingly enough, in doing so, the counselor violated school district policy, because Michel's eight absences fell below the district standard of 10 for making such a report.

There seems to me to be a perfectly appropriate way of handling this -- charge both the counselor and the principal with making a false report of child abuse or neglect, and have the district make a generous financial offer to the Dussack family that will more than cover the college tuition of both Dussack children in the hopes that the Dussack family does not file a multi-million dollar civil suit over this bad-faith action by employees of the district.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Alabama Improper, 123beta, Right Truth, Shadowscope, DragonLady's World, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Pet's Garden Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Nuke Gingrich, third world county, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, Alabama Improper, The Pink Flamngo, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:42 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 604 words, total size 6 kb.

I can accept that an organization giving a grant for research can control when and if the research is published.

But grant money controlling the speech of the entire university -- including over the terms of the agreement itself? That goes too far.

On campuses nationwide, professors and administrators have passionately debated whether their universities should accept money for research from tobacco companies. But not at Virginia Commonwealth University, a public institution in Richmond, Va.

That is largely because hardly any faculty members or students there know that there is something to debate — a contract with extremely restrictive terms that the university signed in 2006 to do research for Philip Morris USA, the nation’s largest tobacco company and a unit of Altria Group.

The contract bars professors from publishing the results of their studies, or even talking about them, without Philip Morris’s permission. If “a third party,” including news organizations, asks about the agreement, university officials have to decline to comment and tell the company. Nearly all patent and other intellectual property rights go to the company, not the university or its professors.

“There is restrictive language in here,” said Francis L. Macrina, Virginia Commonwealth’s vice president for research, who acknowledged that many of the provisions violated the university’s guidelines for industry-sponsored research. “In the end, it was language we thought we could agree to. It’s a balancing act.”

Excuse me, but the public has a right to know about agreements made by a public university. It has a right to expect -- indeed demand -- candor and disclosure from the officials of the school. And to allow for a complete gag on all researchers is intolerable.

And most frightening is the contention by Phillip Morris that the company has similar contracts with other universities. The company will not, however, disclose how many or which ones. If they are public institutions, that is simply unacceptable.

Posted by: Greg at 10:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

I have to tell you -- I am not a particular fan of Phyllis Schlafly, even when I agree with her on the issues. I think her rhetoric is often too extreme, and some of the positions she takes wrong. But love her or hate her, she has been one of the most influential women in American political life for the last half century -- and it is appropriate that her alma mater honor her with an honorary degree, even if some whiny political opponents disagree.

Washington University Chancellor Mark Wrighton sent an e-mail to the university community this afternoon in which he apologized for the anguish that the university's decision to honor Phyllis Schlafly has caused for many people.

But he said that after consulting with the Board of Trustees, the university has decided to fulfill its commitment to award her the honorary degree. Wrighton noted that the school's long-standing process for awarding honorary degrees was followed. Schlafly was nominated by a community member. Her nomination was reviewed by the board's honorary degree committee, which includes faculty, students, trustees and administrators. Schlafly, along with the other nominees, were then unanimously recommended to the board. The board voted to award her the degree at its May 2007 meeting.

I'm glad that the University decided not to give in to the anguish-mongers. After all, anyone "anguished" over the decision to give an honorary degree to a political activist has to be pretty weak mentally and emotionally -- and I'd suggest is probably unfit to be either a student or faculty member in a university setting due to their inability to tolerate views that differ from their own. After all, what about the concept of diversity, and of the free exchange and discussion of divergent ideas and points of view?

But I think the most important part of this article comes at the end -- and involves someone whose politics I've not always agreed with but whom I have admired since I met her 20 years ago when I was doing a brief internship with the ACLU in St. Louis as a part of a graduate program (it is a long story -- and let it suffice for now to say that i requested the placement).

He said that at Friday's commencement, trustee emeritus Margaret Bush Wilson has volunteered to read the citation to award the degree to Schlalfy.

"As the first woman of color to serve as the national chair of the NAACP, the second woman of color admitted to practice law in Missouri, and as a prominent St. Louis civil rights attorney for more than 40 years, she provides a strong voice for the importance of tolerance and discourse as hallmarks of the Washington University community," Wrighton said.

Bravo for Margaret Bush Wilson, who is teaching a valuable lesson by her decision to read the degree citation. An unabashed opponent of much of what Schlafly stands for, she is recognizes that suppression of one side of the debate and closing it off from discussion and recognition is a betrayal of the University's mission -- and of American values.

And to the anguish-mongers who tried to revoke this honorary degree, I offer this point for consideration -- we conservatives have been offended for decades by the honorary degrees offered to your fellow left-wingers and to undistinguished entertainers and trendoids who mouth liberal platitudes. We have, however, respected the process and not demanded a political litmus test be imposed to meet our objections. Why don't you grow up and do the same?

Posted by: Greg at 10:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 606 words, total size 4 kb.

I have to tell you -- I am not a particular fan of Phyllis Schlafly, even when I agree with her on the issues. I think her rhetoric is often too extreme, and some of the positions she takes wrong. But love her or hate her, she has been one of the most influential women in American political life for the last half century -- and it is appropriate that her alma mater honor her with an honorary degree, even if some whiny political opponents disagree.

Washington University Chancellor Mark Wrighton sent an e-mail to the university community this afternoon in which he apologized for the anguish that the university's decision to honor Phyllis Schlafly has caused for many people.

But he said that after consulting with the Board of Trustees, the university has decided to fulfill its commitment to award her the honorary degree. Wrighton noted that the school's long-standing process for awarding honorary degrees was followed. Schlafly was nominated by a community member. Her nomination was reviewed by the board's honorary degree committee, which includes faculty, students, trustees and administrators. Schlafly, along with the other nominees, were then unanimously recommended to the board. The board voted to award her the degree at its May 2007 meeting.

I'm glad that the University decided not to give in to the anguish-mongers. After all, anyone "anguished" over the decision to give an honorary degree to a political activist has to be pretty weak mentally and emotionally -- and I'd suggest is probably unfit to be either a student or faculty member in a university setting due to their inability to tolerate views that differ from their own. After all, what about the concept of diversity, and of the free exchange and discussion of divergent ideas and points of view?

But I think the most important part of this article comes at the end -- and involves someone whose politics I've not always agreed with but whom I have admired since I met her 20 years ago when I was doing a brief internship with the ACLU in St. Louis as a part of a graduate program (it is a long story -- and let it suffice for now to say that i requested the placement).

He said that at Friday's commencement, trustee emeritus Margaret Bush Wilson has volunteered to read the citation to award the degree to Schlalfy.

"As the first woman of color to serve as the national chair of the NAACP, the second woman of color admitted to practice law in Missouri, and as a prominent St. Louis civil rights attorney for more than 40 years, she provides a strong voice for the importance of tolerance and discourse as hallmarks of the Washington University community," Wrighton said.

Bravo for Margaret Bush Wilson, who is teaching a valuable lesson by her decision to read the degree citation. An unabashed opponent of much of what Schlafly stands for, she is recognizes that suppression of one side of the debate and closing it off from discussion and recognition is a betrayal of the University's mission -- and of American values.

And to the anguish-mongers who tried to revoke this honorary degree, I offer this point for consideration -- we conservatives have been offended for decades by the honorary degrees offered to your fellow left-wingers and to undistinguished entertainers and trendoids who mouth liberal platitudes. We have, however, respected the process and not demanded a political litmus test be imposed to meet our objections. Why don't you grow up and do the same?

Posted by: Greg at 10:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 606 words, total size 4 kb.

I have to tell you -- I am not a particular fan of Phyllis Schlafly, even when I agree with her on the issues. I think her rhetoric is often too extreme, and some of the positions she takes wrong. But love her or hate her, she has been one of the most influential women in American political life for the last half century -- and it is appropriate that her alma mater honor her with an honorary degree, even if some whiny political opponents disagree.

Washington University Chancellor Mark Wrighton sent an e-mail to the university community this afternoon in which he apologized for the anguish that the university's decision to honor Phyllis Schlafly has caused for many people.

But he said that after consulting with the Board of Trustees, the university has decided to fulfill its commitment to award her the honorary degree. Wrighton noted that the school's long-standing process for awarding honorary degrees was followed. Schlafly was nominated by a community member. Her nomination was reviewed by the board's honorary degree committee, which includes faculty, students, trustees and administrators. Schlafly, along with the other nominees, were then unanimously recommended to the board. The board voted to award her the degree at its May 2007 meeting.

I'm glad that the University decided not to give in to the anguish-mongers. After all, anyone "anguished" over the decision to give an honorary degree to a political activist has to be pretty weak mentally and emotionally -- and I'd suggest is probably unfit to be either a student or faculty member in a university setting due to their inability to tolerate views that differ from their own. After all, what about the concept of diversity, and of the free exchange and discussion of divergent ideas and points of view?

But I think the most important part of this article comes at the end -- and involves someone whose politics I've not always agreed with but whom I have admired since I met her 20 years ago when I was doing a brief internship with the ACLU in St. Louis as a part of a graduate program (it is a long story -- and let it suffice for now to say that i requested the placement).

He said that at Friday's commencement, trustee emeritus Margaret Bush Wilson has volunteered to read the citation to award the degree to Schlalfy.

"As the first woman of color to serve as the national chair of the NAACP, the second woman of color admitted to practice law in Missouri, and as a prominent St. Louis civil rights attorney for more than 40 years, she provides a strong voice for the importance of tolerance and discourse as hallmarks of the Washington University community," Wrighton said.

Bravo for Margaret Bush Wilson, who is teaching a valuable lesson by her decision to read the degree citation. An unabashed opponent of much of what Schlafly stands for, she is recognizes that suppression of one side of the debate and closing it off from discussion and recognition is a betrayal of the University's mission -- and of American values.

And to the anguish-mongers who tried to revoke this honorary degree, I offer this point for consideration -- we conservatives have been offended for decades by the honorary degrees offered to your fellow left-wingers and to undistinguished entertainers and trendoids who mouth liberal platitudes. We have, however, respected the process and not demanded a political litmus test be imposed to meet our objections. Why don't you grow up and do the same?

Posted by: Greg at 10:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 606 words, total size 4 kb.

I was initially hesitant to comment on this story. After all, I presumed that the University of Toledo was a private school, and therefore entitled to impose any sort of fascistic speech code it chose on its students and employees. Indeed, such a school might even legitimately subordinate notions of academic freedom to a greater mission of promulgating a world-view, however wrong-headed a notion that might be.

But then I found out that the University of Toledo is a taxpayer-supported public university – and that makes all the difference in the Crystal Dixon case

The University of Toledo has suspended with pay one of its administrators for writing a newspaper op-ed that questions whether homosexuality is a civil rights issue. The school said the administrator was suspended precisely because her views on homosexuality do not comport with those of the university, a state institution.

Crystal Dixon, associate vice president of human resources at the Ohio-based university, sparked controversy Apr. 18 when she wrote in the Toledo Free Press that she did not agree with comments by the newspaper's editor that portrayed homosexuals as civil rights victims.

In the column, "Gay rights and wrongs: another perspective," Dixon said she was not speaking on behalf of the university, but was writing privately as "a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo's Graduate School, an employee and a business owner."

Please note that Dixon took great pains in her commentary to indicate that her stance on homosexuality is a personal one, not the official position of her employer. And note as well that her column was in response to a column that appeared in two weeks earlier by its editor-in-chief of the paper. As such, Dixon was acting as an American citizen, participating in the general dialogue on important matters of public concern.

However, the exercise of such freedom seems to scare the top level officials at this public university – and they will not tolerate it. Not only did the school’s president see fit to officially denounce Dixon, he has instituted personnel action against Dixon in retaliation for her exercise of her constitutional rights – action that now appears to include her termination. Apparently in the great scheme of things, the rights of gay people to go about unoffended trump the civil rights of an African-American Christian woman to be free violation of her First Amendment rights by politiKally Korrect Kluxers acting under color of law. Any outcome short of the full reinstatement of Crystal Dixon to her position – and the termination of those university officials involved in this civil rights violation – is unacceptable.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT McCain Blogs, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Kodera's Korner, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, , Conservative Cat, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:03 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 494 words, total size 5 kb.

Maybe I've become a prude now that I'm in my 40s, but I find this trend disturbing for a number of reasons.

Erik Youngdahl and Michelle Garcia share a dorm room at ConnecticutÂ’s Wesleyan University. But they say thereÂ’s no funny business going on. Really. They mean it.

They have set up their beds side-by-side like Lucy and Ricky in “I Love Lucy,” and avert their eyes when one of them is changing clothes.

“People are shocked to hear that it’s happening and even that it’s possible,” said Youngdahl, a 20-year-old sophomore. But “once you actually live in it, it doesn’t actually turn into a big deal.”

* * *

At least two dozen schools, including Brown University, the University of Pennsylvania, Oberlin College, Clark University and the California Institute of Technology, allow some or all students to share a room with anyone they choose — including someone of the opposite sex. This spring, as students sign up for next year’s room, more schools are following suit, including Stanford University.

What do I find troubling here? A couple of things.

1) The potential for sexual assault/harassment created by this situation. To what degree will a school be liable?

2) The further erosion of standards. There was a time when co-ed floors were a limited experiment for those who chose them. Now they are mandatory at some universities -- to the point that students with religious scruples against what they view as the immodest living arrangements are told to either violate their moral beliefs or apply at another university. Will the next step be the assignment of students to co-ed rooms without regard for preference or religious/moral standards that reject the practice?

3) Right now, the bulk of those in co-ed rooms are doing so for non-sexual reasons. Will that change? And if schools wish to prevent that, will it be necessary for them to engage in intrusive snooping into the sex lives of students -- and will that same standard be applied to gay/lesbian students in relationship with roommates?

Do I have a problem with co-ed couples getting an apartment off campus? In all honesty, I don't. But to create such situations on campus -- especially in situations where students are mandated to live in dormitories as a condition of attendance at the school -- strikes me as a step too far. Men and women are different and are not interchangeable. Acting as if they are by breaking down all barriers between them seems to be a particularly bad idea.

Posted by: Greg at 02:48 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

The reality of Oral Roberts University is that it was built upon the cult of personality that was/is Oral Roberts. When he handed the school -- and his ministry -- off to his son, Richard, the decline of the school began.

Now that the improper actions of Richard Roberts and his wife have been exposed and they have been forced from leadership, the school remains damaged by their misdeeds.

During the past school year, TV evangelist Richard Roberts, son of school founder Oral Roberts, resigned as president after being accused of misspending university funds to live in style. Also, it was disclosed that the school was more than $50 million in debt.

Among other things, Roberts and his wife were accused of spending school money on shopping sprees, home improvements and a stable of horses for their daughters. They are also alleged to have sent a daughter and her friends on a Bahamas vacation aboard a university jet.

Projected enrollment for the fall semester could be 150 students fewer than the 3,166 who attended last fall, interim President Ralph Fagin said in an interview last week. Two university employees who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation said they have been told a much higher figure: around 400.

That would amount to a startling drop of almost 13 percent.

Can the school restore its reputation? Can it reestablish its credibility? My expectation is that it probably can do both -- but that the break between school and ministry is going to be a source of trauma for several years. Only once there is evidence that the problems of the past are truly in the past will the school be able to achieve some sort of distinction in the public eye. My guess is that it will have to shed the Oral Roberts name and the close association with the ministry for it to do so.

Posted by: Greg at 02:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 326 words, total size 2 kb.

Though there remains some resistance at Texas Southern University to even this small step forward by that failed institution of what is misleadingly called "higher education."

Which is quite scary, given the minimal standards that are being set.

The admissions proposal includes:

•Requiring all entering students to have a 2.0 grade-point average in high school.

•Requiring that they take either the SAT or ACT, although no minimum score has been set.

•Students who don't meet the standards would have to attend a summer program; if they don't successfully complete that, they will be referred to community college but accorded status as students at both TSU and the two-year school. TSU would provide counseling and their community credits would transfer to TSU, said interim Provost James Douglas.

•The best teachers would be shifted to freshmen classes, and all students would be required to attend class.

Imagine that -- being required to show that you can keep your head above C-level in high school before being admitted to a four-year "university". Being required to take one of the national college admissions test -- even though that is the entire requirement, as no minimum score is set by the school. That anyone would object to these proposals (other than to say they are insufficiently rigorous) is absurd.

Over six decades ago, Texas Democrats established the Texas State University for Negroes (now Texas Southern University) in an effort to ensure that blacks in the state of Texas continued to have fewer educational opportunities than whites, received a poorer education, and received degrees that were of inferior quality than those received by the (white) students of the state's top-tier schools, the University of Texas and Texas A&M. It is sad to see that in 2008, there are still those who want to ensure that the vision of those racist segregationist Democrats is fulfilled by failing to hold the overwhelmingly African-American student body to even minimal academic standards.

Of course, the best option available option would still be to fold TSU into the much more successful University of Houston system -- especially since TSU and the main UH campus are mere blocks apart. But if we are going to continue to allow the school to survive as a stand-alone institution, these new standards are the very least that should be accepted -- and the taxpayers of the state of Texas should be demanding much more.

Posted by: Greg at 10:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 419 words, total size 3 kb.