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.

As a teacher, I already have enough to do just to teach my students history and engage in the day-to-day minutiae of managing a classroom. I don't need to be monitoring these additional factors that the Brits are going to impose upon schools (and ultimately, upon teachers) in the very near future.

Schools will be made to keep records of teenage pregnancy rates, pupils' drug problems, criminal records and obesity levels under government plans to give parents a true picture of children's lives.

The ideas, set out in a discussion document from the Department for Children, Schools and Families, suggest schools would become accountable for 18 new targets, from bullying and neglect, to what happens to pupils after they leave school. Sources said the 10-page document, entitled Indicators of schools' performance in contributing to pupil wellbeing, calls for Ofsted inspectors to judge schools on the wide range of measures in addition to existing criteria such as exam results and exclusion rates. The measures could be implemented by Ofsted from 2009, and suggest that schools would become broadly responsible for children's safety, enjoyment and happiness.

So let's see here -- now teachers are going to be somehow held responsible for student "extra-curricular activities" like their sex lives, drug use, and off-campus diet. Schools will be rated not just upon academic indicators, but also upon these "indicators of pupil well-being" -- in other words, based upon criteria that are realistically beyond the control of school officials.

Take that teen pregnancy one. My experience is that most students do not become pregnant at school. We can teach abstinence (our current method here in texas) or supply socialized birth control on top of extensive sex education (the British method), but we cannot stop teenagers from "putting Tab A into Slot B". We are not in control of the diet of students outside of a school setting, or whether or not they do drugs away from school.

Indeed, many of these indicators are less related to school factors than they are to socio-economic or cultural ones. Why make tracking and remedying them the responsibility of relatively low-paid teachers -- most of whom are not trained to remedy them in the first place?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, Faultline USA, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, Cao's Blog, , Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 423 words, total size 4 kb.

For abuse of her position to politically indoctrinate her students and push her agenda of getting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas disinvited as a graduation speaker at University of Georgia.

Associate professor Janet Frick said she was using her two psychology lectures Monday to educate students about the history of Thomas' appointment to the Supreme Court.

"They were barely born when this was going on," Frick said. "They don't know some of this history. We would do our students a favor to educate them on what took place and on each side. It would be doing our job as an institution to examine these issues more fully."

Excuse me, but what on earth is a professor of psychology doing lecturing on US history and political science? Doesn’t she, as a part of her professional obligation to her students, need to be teaching her students about (dare I suggest it) psychology and not her own political agenda? Frick is, of course, more than welcome to speak all she wants about Clarence Thomas and the false charges made by Anita Hill – but not during class time when she is being paid to speak about psychology. But to do so in the classroom is nothing short of propagandizing a captive audience in a Maoist fashion.

H/T NROÂ’s Phi Beta Cons

Posted by: Greg at 10:35 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 2 kb.

These stories always concern me. After all, this kid seemd pretty normal and well-adjusted, and was doing well in school.

COLUMBIA, South Carolina (AP) -- A high school senior collected enough supplies to carry out a bomb attack on his school and detailed the plot in a hate-filled diary that included maps of the building and admiring notations about the Columbine killers, authorities said Sunday.

Ryan Schallenberger, 18, was arrested Saturday after his parents called police when 10 pounds of ammonium nitrate was delivered to their home in Chesterfield and they discovered the journal, said the town's police chief, Randall Lear.

The teen planned to make several bombs and had all the supplies needed to kill dozens at Chesterfield High School, depending on where the devices were placed and whether they included shrapnel, Lear said. Ammonium nitrate was used in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 that killed 168 people.

"The only thing left was delivering the bombs," the police chief said.

Schallenberger kept a journal for more than a year that detailed his plans for a suicide attack and included maps of the school, police said. The writings did not include a specific time for the attack or the intended targets.

He also left an audio tape to be played after he died explaining why he wanted to bomb his school. Lear wouldn't detail what was on the tape except to say Schallenberger was an angry young man.

"He seemed to hate the world. He hated people different from him -- the rich boys with good-looking girlfriends," Lear said.

Clearly there was something up with this kid. How was it missed? Thank God his parents kept close enough tabs on him to discover the plan in time and report them to the police.

On a related note, I wonder if Obama and his supporters rush to the defense of this young man for engaging in activities that will simply be an embarrassment at middle age? Or does THIS bomber merit their condemnation?

Posted by: Greg at 10:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

Here's an interesting church-state issue.

An Ohio middle school teacher says he won't obey an order to remove a Bible from view of students.

John Freshwater said Wednesday he agreed to remove a collage from his classroom that included the Ten Commandments, but that asking him to remove the Bible on his desk goes too far.

Officials with the Mount Vernon School District say they don't oppose religion but are required by the U.S. Constitution not to promote or favor any set of religious beliefs.

Freshwater says being forced to keep the Bible out of sight would infringe on his rights.

Since I started teaching, there has always been a Bible in my classroom Indeed, it has been a necessary part of my teaching material. Back when I taught English, it was a useful tool for bringing in literary references and linguistic choices made by authors who were raising biblical imagery. Teaching history, I ind it useful to refer to certain elements of the Old and New Testaments when relating back to issues in Middle Eastern history (especially the ancient period) and the Christianization of the Roman Empire.

And yes, I do read it at times during my personal time during the day.

But I don't know how I feel about placing it front and center on a teacher's desk by itself, rather than on a book shelf or amongst other books. And this story doesn't give a whole lot of details about the situation and why its presence has become a problem.

Any reaction from readers?

Posted by: Greg at 10:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.

One problem with getting laptops into the hands of students -- especially younger students -- has been the size and weight of the equipment. After all, there is a certain difficulty associated with giving a child a piece of equipment that is over 10% of their weight and 1/3 their height. But now HP is looking to solve that problem.

One more of the world's biggest technology companies is clamoring to enter the growing market for pint-sized computers targeted mainly for pint-sized customers. Hewlett-Packard Co., the No. 1 seller of personal computers worldwide, said Tuesday it's throwing its weight behind a new class of miniaturized laptops, a fledgling market already populated with products from Intel Corp., the world's largest semiconductor company, and Asustek Computers Inc., the world's largest maker of computer motherboards.

The machines are so new the industry hasn't settled on a name for low-cost and scaled-down laptops used primarily for surfing the Internet and performing other basic functions like word processing.

Intel has labeled them "netbooks," and it expects more than 50 million netbooks to be in circulation by 2011.

HP executives say their new machines, which go on sale later this month, are an important piece of the Palo Alto-based company's effort to build market share in schools, where machines had to be smaller and cheaper without losing too many functions.

This will, of course, lead us back to the push for using computers instead of textbooks -- a development I would support. After all, the ability to upload and download various assignments, along with the ability to update texts with new information, would be great for educators and students alike. If we can only get past the cost issue, I think it is doable. And with students currently being issued as much as $500 worth of textbooks every semester, is the cost of a laptop really any more outrageous?

Posted by: Greg at 10:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.

A Letter to the Editor in today's Houston Chronicle captures the sentiments of this teacher and every other teacher I know.

Tired of being scapegoat

The March 29 editorial article "Back to school" is another example of placing the blame for failing students entirely on teachers instead of dealing with the social issues that are the actual cause. I was highly insulted by the statement that "all students will benefit when educators drop the racial, ethnic and class biases" that we supposedly have, thus causing us to lower our expectations for students. That is utter nonsense. I have been teaching disadvantaged students of various races and ethnicity for six years, and I have never expected less of them than I would of students who are Anglo or more affluent. The same is true of my colleagues.

I am tired of being the scapegoat for those who do not have the fortitude to take on the real issues! The only students I, and other teachers, fail are those who choose to fail. The real truth is that many students are not motivated to learn and do not value education. Teachers continually offer after-school tutorials for failing students, but few attend. Also, teachers spend a fair amount of time waking up students and attempting to get them back on task. When I question students about their sleepiness, the usual response is that they stayed up until 1 a.m. or later. Is that my fault?

Teachers are evaluated on the basis of the TAKS scores and failure rates of their students, so it is absurd to believe that teachers would allow students to fail simply because of their race or ethnicity. The statement that teachers have class biases is even more ridiculous. If checked, the editorial board would find that many teachers, because of their low pay, are economically disadvantaged as well! All of the teachers I know, or have ever known, want their students to be successful in school.

Our tax dollars would be better spent on programs that help students realize how valuable education is, that deal with the teen drug problem and help struggling parents with their children. Teachers are caring, giving people who want the best for all children.

SHERRY LLOYD
Houston

I might quibble about some of the policy suggestions at the end, but not much. The rest of the letter, though reflects my attitude on the matter exactly.

Posted by: Greg at 02:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 405 words, total size 2 kb.

It is pathetic that this lying, thieving public official will not do a day in jail.

A scandal that began in 2006 when a TSU regent complimented Priscilla Slade's choice of home furnishings ended Wednesday with a deal that lets the ousted leader of Texas' largest historically black university avoid prison in exchange for paying back $127,672.18.

It is only a fraction of the $500,000 in school money Slade was accused of spending, lavishly and improperly, on herself. Her first trial ended last year in a mistrial, and the former, much-beloved president was scheduled to again face judgment Friday.

Wednesday's settlement, reached after hours of negotiations and ending with Slade apologizing, brings the saga to an end.

"I thank God that it's over," Slade told reporters after the plea bargain. "I can move on with my life to bigger and better things."

Slade, a CPA, said she is now working as a consultant but declined to answer any other questions.

Yeah, you saw that right -- the crook will only be required to repay 25 cents on the dollar. In other words, the makes about $325,000 in ill-gotten gains from her abuse of office. That means that we, the taxpayers of the state of Texas, really did get the shaft.

Especially since the crooked college president was not required to even admit guilt as a part of the plea deal.

Mike DeGeurin, Slade's attorney, said she is not admitting guilt and would not be forced to admit she committed a crime. He said she accepts responsibility for not ensuring that proper guidelines were followed.

Sorry -- this Texan believes there should have been a conviction.

I'm curious -- if this had been the president of UT or Texas A&M, or even University of Houston three or four blocks down the street from TSU, would this sort of plea deal have been offered or accepted? Why is it that the head of the dismally-performing open-admission four-year community college that pretends to be a university permitted to get away with her crimes? Heck, why hasn't the legislature abolished this scandal-plagued money pit?

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.

My initial thought was that this was a figure of speech -- but if you get a whole room full of teachers concerned with the words and tone, I have to accept that it was said in a manner that made it something more.

And besides -- if a student said something like this, he'd be in jail, or at least expelled.

A middle school principal threatened to kill a group of science teachers if their students did not improve their standardized test scores, according to a complaint filed with the New Braunfels Police Department.

Anita White, who taught at New Braunfels Middle School for 18 years before being transferred this month to the district's Learning Center, said Principal John Burks made the threat in a Jan. 21 meeting with eighth-grade science teachers.

She said Burks was angry that scores on benchmark tests were not better, and the scores on the upcoming Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills tests must show improvement.

"He said if the TAKS scores were not as expected he would kill the teachers," White said. "He said 'I will kill you all and kill myself.' He finished the meeting that way and we were in shock. Obviously, we talked about it among ourselves. He just threatened our lives. After he threatened to kill us, he said, 'You don't know how ruthless I can be.'

"We walked out of the meeting just totally dumbfounded because it was not a joke," White said.

New Braunfels Police spokesman Mike Penshorn said the incident was filed as a verbal assault, but is being investigated as a terroristic threat.

Of course, I can understand the principal being a bit stressed over scores. I know districts where new principals are told that if their campus has not achieved recognized status after three years, they will be fired. And I have seen departments in my own district decimated when their scores have not made the progress a principal or superintendent desired.

But threatening to kill your teachers? That goes a bit too far. Seems to me that Burks crossed a pretty bright line.

Posted by: Greg at 10:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.

As I’ve mentioned more than once around here, I’m a high school teacher. One of the things about teaching high school is that you end up hearing a lot about colleges and universities, and the various strengths and weaknesses of different programs. In recent years there has been a focus on co-op and internship programs, and how to get students “real world” experience to go along with their classroom learning.

That is one of the reasons I find the industrial engineering program at Kettering University to be intriguing. Kettering University offers engineering co-op programs that don't only provide a classroom education, but the sort of hands-on experience that is so important for young people entering todayÂ’s highly competitive job market. Having a degree isnÂ’t enough today -- you've got to have some sort of work experience to go along with it.

How respected is this program? US News and World Report recently ranked Kettering University as "the #1 University in the nation for Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering". One of the reasons for this ranking was the unique engineering co-op programs, in which Kettering places students in companies beginning in their freshman year, rotating them between school and their co-op job every 3 months so that they gain practical experience. Not only do the students get experience outside the classroom, but they also earn a professional salary.

There are eleven science, business, and engineering programs and seven different majors to choose from at Kettering. Their program is one of the best in the nation. IÂ’ll be encouraging students interested in engineering to at least take a look at Kettering and the opportunities they offer outside of the classroom. It is certainly a program worth examining.

Posted by: Greg at 06:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

Avery DoningerÂ’s case was just heard on appeal by the Second Circuit.

A teen who used vulgar slang in an Internet blog to complain about school administrators shouldn't have been punished by the school, her lawyer told a federal appeals court.

But a lawyer for the Burlington, Conn., school told the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday that administrators should be allowed to act if such comments are made on the Web.

Avery Doninger, 17, claims officials at Lewis S. Mills High School violated her free speech rights when they barred her from serving on the student council because of what she wrote from her home computer.

In her Internet journal, Doninger said officials were canceling the school's annual Jamfest, which is similar to a battle of the bands contest. The event, which she helped coordinate, was rescheduled.

According to the lawsuit, she wrote: "'Jamfest' is canceled due to douchebags in central office," and also referred to an administrator who was "pissed off."

After discovering the blog entry, school officials refused to allow Doninger to run for re-election as class secretary. Doninger won anyway with write-in votes, but was not allowed to serve.

A lower federal court had supported the school. U.S. District Judge Mark Kravitz, denying Doninger's request for an injunction, said he believed she could be punished for writing in a blog because the blog addressed school issues and was likely to be read by other students.

Now I wrote extensively about this case some months ago, and really believe Kravitz dropped the ball here. After all, no one could plausibly argue that the school could impose this sort of ban on her had she appeared on a radio talk show or been interviewed for a television news show and made similar statements. The First Amendment would clearly apply in such a manner as to prohibit the district from taking action against Avery. Similarly, a blog post made from home on personal equipment outside of school hours cannot reasonably be seen as rising to the level of disruptiveness that could possibly justify allowing to school to reach out and punish Avery for a potential disruption of school – especially when the blog post was not discovered for several weeks after it was made and it could be clearly determined that there had been no disruption caused beyond district officials having to field a few extra phone calls and emails from members of the taxpaying public in regards to the operation of the district’s schools.

And most frightening, Judge Kravitz even acknowledged that what Avery had done was to engage in political speech seeking the redress of grievances – something protected explicitly by the Constitution.

My analysis from September still stands.

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 Avery'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.

Indeed, IÂ’d argue that the need to overturn the decision is even more critical now. The school board is now arguing that it has the right to regulate student speech on the Internet precisely because it is a larger forum and can be used more effectively by students to communicate with each other and the public! Rather than preparing students to be citizens of a free society, this district is inculcating the values of a totalitarian countries like Iran, Cuba, North Korea, or Red China which punish their enslaved subjects for speaking out against their dictatorial regimes.

The case has been covered extensively, exhaustively and comprehensively at The Cool Justice Report.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Nuke Gingrich, Allie is Wired, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Global American Discourse, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, , CORSARI D'ITALIA, Conservative Cat, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1815 words, total size 13 kb.

I really have to wonder if the school has a leg to stand on here. After all, there is certainly no rule prohibiting the use of legal tender to pay for one's lunch, is there?

Got pennies!

It's plastered on their shirts and these eighth graders wear it proudly because on Thursday they pulled a prank at the Readington Middle School, paying for their lunches entirely in pennies.

"At first it started out as a joke, then everyone else started saying we're protesting against like how short our lunch is," student Alyssa Concannon said.

Several lunch ladies who had to do the counting didn't think it was funny, even though some of the students put the coins in rolls. They're not authorized to put in their two cents but school officials say they felt disrespected and other students didn't get to eat lunch.

"There are ways to express yourself that are not disruptive to other kids and disrespectful to staff," said Readington Superintendent of Schools Dr. Jorden Schiff.

Eighth grader Jenny Hunt said in hindsight, the prank may have been a bad idea.

"Maybe we should have thought before we did it," Hunt said.

In fact, the penny prank has earned 29 students two days of detention.

Now I will grant that 5800 pennies is a bit of a nuisance -- but given that the pennies are legal tender, I don't know where a public school can refuse them in payment or punish their use. Especially since some of the students in question even brought them neatly rolled.

And I'm curious -- will the principal now dictate that all lunches be paid for with two crisp, non-sequential one dollar bills?

Posted by: Greg at 04:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

Granted, my department is pretty testosterone-laden (only 1/3 female -- which is a 300% increase from a year ago), but I can attest that the number of female teachers significantly exceeds the number of male teachers, especially in the lower grades.

It is an odd, disquieting fact at times. After all, such a discrepancy in regard to any other demographic sub-group would be taken as prima facie evidence of invidious discrimination and mandate serious affirmative action remedies.

According to statistics recently released by the National Education Association (NEA), men made up just 24.4 percent of the total number of teachers in 2006. In fact, the number of male public school teachers in the U.S. has hit a record 40-year low. Arkansas, at 17.5 percent, and Mississippi, with 17.7 percent, have the lowest percentage of male teachers, while Kansas, at 33.3 percent, and Oregon, with 31.4 percent, boast the largest percentage of men leading the classroom.

Let's look at those numbers. Men are represented in the classroom at only 50% of their percentage in the general public nationwide -- and in some states the under-representation rises as high as 65%. Why would that be?

Why the downward trend in male teaching? According to Bryan Nelson, founder of MenTeach, a nonprofit organization dedicated to recruiting male teachers, research suggests three key reasons for the shortage of male teachers: low status and pay, the perception that teaching is "women's work," and the fear of accusation of child abuse.

You have that right, folks. Men are still expected to be the main breadwinner in this society, but we teachers are really not paid enough to do that. The perception of teaching as "women's work" is real -- and often fostered by female teachers and administrator in the lower grades, as well as female professors of education (and some of their neutered male colleagues) who seek to elevate "female" notions of cooperation and collaboration over "male" values like competition and individual achievement. And don't forget the minor detail that any man is presumed to be a sexual predator under modern notions of feminism.

What no one wants to look at is the reality that there actually is discrimination against men who want to go into education, especially in the lower grades.

For men thinking of heading into education, Nelson offered hard-won advice: Be persistent. Get practical experience first. Look for resources to help you get through school, and, when applying for a job, make sure you have thick skin.

"People will ask you inappropriate questions," he said, recalling a recent e-mail he received from an aspiring male teacher who was asked during a job interview, "Why would any healthy male want to work with kids?"

In such situations, Nelson suggests stressing the positive aspects of having a man in the classroom. "When kids see [a man] in front of them on a daily basis, it helps to contradict negative stereotypes," Nelson said.

The magnificent Dr. Helen sums up my reaction to that little bit of "wisdom" from an ADVOCATE for men in the classroom.

So men are told to get a thick skin, get used to handling "inappropriate questions," and learn to contradict negative sterotypes. In other words, if men are discriminated against, it is up to them to deal with the fall-out and to change negative steroptypes and to expect no help from other people. So men are guilty unless proven otherwise.

Dear God -- it is 2008! No one would dream of asking why a "normal" woman or minority would want to be a doctor, lawyer, or President of the United States. What is going on when we are getting the same sort of questions about the normalcy of a man who wants to work with children?

Personal experience on the matter? I've been on the receiving end of the anti-male discrimination. I can point to it 20 years ago. Having completed all but my comprehensive exams for my master's degrees, I found myself work at the start of a school year. A local Catholic school was advertising for a teacher's aide to help teach reading classes. I interviewed for the position -- and was turned down. Four weeks later I got a call from the school offering me the position. I later learned that two women without college degrees had been hired and let go before I, the sole remaining applicant (who was already certified in secondary education), was offered the job.

Shortly after Christmas, I began talking with the two teachers with whom I worked about seeking elementary education certification -- and was discouraged, despite the high praise they gave me for my work with our first and second grade students. After raising the issue a few more times over the next several weeks with some of the other teachers, I was summoned to the office of the principal and informed that I should give up my "silly notions" of teaching on the elementary level -- and that she would see to it that I received no positive recommendations for either the local university elementary education program or any elementary school because "men do not belong in an elementary classroom." A few days later I was informed that my position was to be eliminated at the end of the school year -- but interestingly enough, an identical position was created the following fall and given to a female parishioner without a college degree.

And I won't get into the question of sexual abuse allegations. I've ranted about that one in the past, about seeing male colleagues victimized by false accusations while actual female perpetrators are given light sentences because their actual misconduct is seen as not as severe as the same deeds committed by a man.

Having said all that, I want to mention one positive sign -- and one close to my heart. Last spring, I met up with a former student at the district administration building. I'd lost contact with this young man, an old favorite of mine, after he graduated from high school. I was pleasantly surprised to see he was wearing an ID card from one of the other schools in the district -- and that he was teaching fourth grade. Even better, that spring he was named the rookie teacher of the year at his school. I know it is a little thing, but that this young man made the choice to teach tells me that there are others out there who will follow if our society makes it clear that male teachers -- and teachers in general -- are something that we value.

By the way, kudos to Hube for noting that the media seems intent upon ignoring this story. And thanks to Soccer Dad for contacting us both about the issue.

Posted by: Greg at 12:23 PM | Comments (325) | Add Comment
Post contains 1139 words, total size 7 kb.

Well, that is certainly one way to interpret this statement.

In an effort to persuade the academic community that HarvardÂ’s financial muscle should not be feared, Harvard will make the point that at best it will enroll 200 black freshmen each year. Thus, it will be argued that its new financial aid plan will have a negligible effect on enrollments of blacks at AmericaÂ’s leading state universities.

Now why should it be that Harvard will only enroll 200 black freshmen each year? What happens if more than 200 qualified black applicants apply? Will they be rejected on the theory that more than that number of blacks will unbalance the “diversity” that Harvard seeks? And why this notion that X number of black students somehow belong to public universities?

But more to the point, what is wrong with the possibility that the new Harvard financial aid plan, likely to be adopted by many other top-tier private institutions of higher learning, will siphon away many of the best and brightest students OF EVERY RACE AND ETHNICITY (but especially minority students) into these elite schools? After all, doesnÂ’t making attendance at such elite institutions more affordable go a long way to matching students with the institutions where they best fit academically?

H/T Discriminations

Posted by: Greg at 11:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.

Just one of those reminders about how far we have gone in accommodating illegal aliens in this country – at the expense of every American citizen, including those of Hispanic descent.

As I’ve mentioned, over half of my students are Hispanic of one variety or another. As a result, I have Hispanic students who are in the country illegally, legal resident aliens, naturalized citizens, and US citizens by birth – even some who are third and fourth generation or more. And it is those latter students, American by birth, who have gotten the not so subtle signal that they really don’t count when it comes to programs for Hispanic students.

Yesterday my 10th grade students got their score sheets from the PSAT test they took this fall. The next administration of the test will be this coming fall, and could qualify them as National Merit Semi-Finalists, and also for the National Hispanic Recognition Program run by the College Board.

One of my students did exceptionally well on the PSAT, showing the potential to qualify for one or both of these programs if she continues to work hard and makes sure she participates in the test preparation programs that we offer at our school. This young lady is a very special girl – intelligent, poised, athletic, and well-spoken, as well as very motivated. In other words, she is everything that I or any other teacher could ask for. I took her aside for a moment to offer some praise and to urge her to take advantage of the programs our school offers to prepare students for the PSAT, SAT, and ACT tests. In the course of this, I mentioned the NHRP.

The response I got to the latter suggestion shocked me.

“Oh, no, mister, they won’t take me. I’ve got papers.”

I really didnÂ’t think I heard her correctly, so I asked her to repeat herself.

“I was born here, so they won’t take me.”

Now I was able to fix her misconception by showing her the qualifications for the program on my computer, and assured her that US-born students of Latin American heritage qualified for the program.

But in the back of my mind I was really disturbed, and became even more disturbed as I realized that this perceptive young lady had picked up on an essential truth about our schizophrenic policy regarding illegal aliens.

We throw benefits at illegal aliens, especially illegal alien students. We make special exceptions for them and run special programs for them in our schools. Most people take those programs for granted, and to raise a question about their legitimacy is to risk being labeled a racist.

But this girl, an American of Hispanic ancestry, was not so politically correct as to avoid the truth. She implicitly named the problem – too often the benefits of special problems accrue not to those who follow our laws, but instead to the lawbreakers. And that, my friends, is simply wrong. It is time that we put American citizens and legal aliens first.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, A Newt One- BIG THURSDAY GUEST!, , Leaning Straight Up, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, , The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Newt One, Stageleft, Right Voices, Right Pundits, A Blog For All, 123beta, A Newt One- Shared News!, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, Big Dog's Weblog, , Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, Nuke Gingrich, Allie is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Wolf Pangloss, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 626 words, total size 7 kb.

Expulsion? For this? You must be kidding!

But not if you are dealing with zero tolerance.

Two teenagers have been kicked out of school for kissing on a school bus, and now their families are challenging the decision.

Dominique Goyner and his girlfriend were expelled by the Richland County District Two school board in October for the rest of the academic year.

School officials told Jody Free her son was being removed from school for "sexual misconduct."

But Free saw the tape and says it showed the pair kissing for maybe two minutes. Had it been anything different, she said she would have supported the school's decision.

Her son said he knew he was breaking a rule but was shocked by school's response. He says he hopes the expulsion won't stop him from attending a military academy after graduation.

Was the lip-lock inappropriate. Yeah, probably. But an expulsion? That is insane! But I guess consensual kissing is the equivalent of forcible rape in the eyes of this South Carolina school board, and so the offenders need to be removed from school for the safety of their classmates.

Looks to me like the Richland Taliban Party has won control of that school board.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Random Yak, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, , Pet's Garden Blog, third world county, A NEWT ONE- PLEASE UNITE NOW!, The Pink Flamingo, A Newt One- bloggers rountable, Celebrity Smack, Wolf Pangloss, A Newt One, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 3 kb.

UPDATE: It appears that Francisco Nava is behind the threats and inflicted his own injuries. In keeping with my previous policy of condemning false hate crimes, I wholeheartedly condemn his actions.

In light of this development, I believe that Nava needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as well as having appropriate disciplinary action taken against him by Princeton – which, in my opinion, should be expulsion. That said, the anemic reaction of Princeton University to earlier reports of threats – and to the current ones – is distressing, even if they originated with Nava. Princeton would have no doubt gone into crisis mode, as it did with the gay students noted in the McGinley columns referenced below, had the earlier threats (frauds that they were) been received by an outspoken minority student. If they had done so at that time, Nava's misdeeds would have been uncovered then and the later incidents would not have occurred. My fear is that this point will be missed in all the discussion of this serious series of incidents being fabricated. It should not be.

And before anyone asks, I specifically do not offer an apology to columnist Jason Sheltzer. I believe my assessment of his column, which was shared by numerous letter-writers published by the Daily Princetonian, is accurate. His column was motivated by the very sort of bias and bigotry that he condemned in the Anscombe Society -- and fell well-short of any standard of intellectual rigor.

An interesting situation has come into being at Princeton this week, one which is antithetical to the purpose of a university -- and which shows just how far down the path of fascism one side of the political/social/moral divide has descended.

Some quick background. A group of students organized a group called the Anscombe Society at Princeton University and obtained recognition two years ago. They have held a national conference, helped organize chapters on other campuses, and have recently seen one of their members named a Rhodes Scholar. They are an organization that promotes traditional moral values with regard to sexuality and gender -- positions that were definitely mainstream within my lifetime, and which are still overwhelmingly held by a majority of Americans. they seek to promote their views through debate, discussion and intellectual persuasion. And that is something that is threatening to the Left, and which cannot be allowed to remain unchallenged.

And so Princeton students awoke on Wednesday, December 12, to find the group attacked in in the Daily Princetonian a column by columnist Jason Sheltzer.

The Anscombe Society deserves a closer look, and what one uncovers isn't pretty.



I spent a few hours browsing through the Anscombe Society's website and reading the "Articles of the Week" distributed to their listserv. I found much more than benevolent admonitions to wait until marriage. Instead, the Anscombe Society has taken a strong stance against equal rights for gays and lesbians and is in favor of a return to "traditional gender roles."

In other words, Sheltzer declared the Anscombe Society to be a hate group. Interestingly enough, Sheltzer does not actually take the time to refute any of the positions the group takes or any of the arguments made in articles he quotes (I suspect he lacks the intellectual capacity to do so). Instead, he simply implies that the members of the Anscombe society are not "morally conscious" and that they promote "religious propaganda", and that they preach "wrongheaded notions."

Now perhaps it is purely coincidental, but within hours of the publication of Sheltzer's screed, someone acted upon it, seeking to ensure that such
wrongheaded notions" ceased being preached by those who are not "morally conscious".

Four officers of the Anscombe Society and a prominent conservative politics professor received threatening emails Wednesday evening from off-campus email addresses.

The five individuals received identical messages telling them they would "suffer," ordering them to "shut the fuck up" and declaring that "you are not welcome here." "We will destroy you," the message said.

Though the message did not explicitly mention the Anscombe Society, the four students who received emails were Anscombe vice president Jonathan Hwang '09, president Kevin Staley-Joyce '09, former president Sherif Girgis '08 and administrative committee chair Francisco Nava '09. Politics professor Robert George — who has publicly supported conservative causes, including the Anscombe Society's goal of promoting chastity — also received the message.

"It would be safe to say that the Anscombe Society is a common factor linking all of us," Hwang said. "It is the most intense reaction to the Anscombe Society that I've ever received."

University spokeswoman Cass Cliatt '96 said the University is investigating the threat but declined to elaborate because of security concerns. "The normal protocol for these types of threats is for public safety to determine the credibility and proceed to investigate," she said in an email.

Now I won't claim that Sheltzer is in any way morally, legally, or personally responsible for these threats -- though I would be willing to bet that Sheltzer would make precisely such an assertion if a conservative student had written such a piece against a liberal group and it had been followed immediately by death threats against that group's officers and adviser. After all, it would be the clearly foreseeable consequence of such speech, he and his fellow liberals would no doubt argue, claiming that such speech had created a hostile environment for and diminished the safety of the members of whichever protected class the group represented. Such threats would have become the university's top priority -- and "normal protocol" would have been suspended by the University, with the threats being immediately treated as serious and solidarity shown with the threatened group.

That didn't happen.

Indeed, it hadn't happened the last time Anscombe Society members had received such threats.

It is tempting to believe that this is only an isolated incident. It is not. These tactics are part of a pattern designed to silence members of our community who speak out against the hookup culture and sexual liberationist ideology.

Francisco Nava '09 returned to Princeton after the summer break feeling a new sense of intellectual liberation. He had resolved to a kind of political coming-out, deciding that he would, as he told me, "no longer mask my views on contemporary moral issues."

And so he joined the Anscombe Society as an active member. He spoke up in class and precept in order to defend the beliefs that do not just belong to him — they define him and his faith. It was then that he was first faced with personal intimidation here at Princeton University. Anonymously scrawled on a piece of paper and laid hauntingly in his mailbox, Nava found the aggressive message: "YOU HAVE FOUND THE WRONG CAUSE."

Though rendered a little "afraid and paranoid" by the malice behind such a threat, Francisco tried to let it slip from his mind. Mustering the courage to continue to speak out, he published a well-argued opinion piece in these pages entitled "Princeton's Latex Lies." Heralded by some and denounced by others, the article prompted campus-wide discussion of pertinent issues of health and morality.

Two days passed. Returning from Sunday morning church services, Nava discovered a new note written with the same ominous green and black ink as the first. It read, chillingly: "ONE MORE ARTICLE AND YOU WON'T LIVE TO SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY."

He wrote to me: "For several days I lived in fear of saying, writing or even thinking anything controversial in class or informally among my friends." Nava's foray into intellectual openness came to an abrupt, horrible stop. And only a week later, a third threat with the same message was placed in his mailbox.

On the afternoon of the second threat, Public Safety dutifully arrived on the scene and collected the letter as evidence. Presumably a report was filed and, as Nava, an alternate RCA, informed me, all reports involving students are forwarded to the administration. Herein lies the most disturbing detail: The administration of Princeton University knows that a member of its student body has had his life threatened. And nothing happened.

After nearly a month of waiting, he received a two-line email from Public Safety. But from Butler College, from Nassau Hall, from West College, there was nothing.

As Princetonian columnist Brandon McGinley points out, this stands in stark contrast to how Princeton had responded to another such incident around the same time.

It is instructive here to compare the treatment of Nava, the morally conservative Mormon student, with the administration's swift and forceful reaction to another incident on Princeton's campus.

Returning from Fall Break, some homosexual students found obscenities — apparently phalluses and other images — sketched on the blackboards outside their rooms. Within a few hours, Whitman College had RCAs, counselors and two deans to the scene. The LGBT Center sent out a notice about the event and encouraged students to mount pink triangles in their windows and doors to show solidarity.

On the afternoon of Sunday, Nov. 11, Nava sat alone in his room. There were no counselors. There were no deans. There was no University-sponsored center to raise awareness, offer support and encourage solidarity. There was just Francisco.

It seems pretty clear who is valued and protected by the university, isn't it -- and that if you are a conservative student with traditional religious values, you are not valued and will not be protected by the university when your life is threatened. You certainly will not receive the sort of outspoken, public support that gay students will receive when confronted with disgusting images. After all, what is one potentially dead conservative religious student when there are offended homosexuals to be comforted and lifted up? Such a conservative is not the victim of a hate crime (and, unlike the offended gay students, Nava was the victim of a crime) -- and besides, with his positions he deserves to be hated, reviled and harassed, right?

Now this would be a scandalous enough situation if the story ended there. It didn't.

Francisco Nava '09 was physically attacked by two men in Princeton Township Friday evening, sustaining a concussion but no other serious injuries. The assault comes on the heels of several threatening messages recently sent to Nava, apparently in connection with his involvement with the socially conservative Anscombe Society.

Details of the incident have not been confirmed by Princeton Township Police or the University Medical Center at Princeton, but Nava said in an interview Friday evening that he was walking from a borrowed car to the house of a boy he is mentoring when he was stopped by a man dressed in black and wearing a ski cap. According to Nava, the man said that someone was hurt and asked for his help. A second assailant, who was waiting around the corner, grabbed Nava from behind. Together, the two men checked him against a wall and repeatedly hit his head against the bricks.

"Eventually I just blacked out," Nava said in an interview last night. "I don't remember what happened; I just saw a bunch of white." When he came to, he said, the two men were still hitting him.

The two men told Nava to "shut the fuck up" as they left him lying on the ground. Though he was carrying a wallet, credit cards and a cell phone, the assailants did not take any of Nava's belongings.

Indeed, Nava draws the obvious connection between this act of physical violence designed to silence him and the threats that have been coming for months with no significant action by the university.

There have been two very interesting and eloquent posts on The Prox, the blog of the Daily Princetonian. Also interesting is the lack of comment there from columnist Jason Sheltzer. I guess his moral consciousness is out at the dry cleaners or some such thing.

And, for that matter, so was the moral consciousness of the Princeton University community as a whole. The scheduled event expressing solidarity with the conservative victims of these hate crimes did not happen after all. I guess they don't have enough PC points to qualify for support. But it appears that conservative students at Princeton plan on standing firm for their principles.

And somehow, neither the local paper nor the national media can be troubled to report the story. maybe its because Princeton itself refuses to issue an alert to students about the incident or take any serious action in response to the threats or the attack.

More At Instapundit, RedState, Right Coast, Fausta's Blog, TigerHawk, Gateway Pundit.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Midnight Sun, sTIX bLOG, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, nuke's, Wake Up America, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Global American Discourse, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, The Yankee Sailor, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:26 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 2226 words, total size 19 kb.

We've got public colleges and universities installing special Muslim footbaths and other accommodations that would never be given to Christians, Jews, or other religious groups. Now we've got one school that has effectively created a mosque in what is supposedly a non-sectarian "meditation room".

Last week, I visited a Muslim place of worship. A schedule for Islam's five daily prayers was posted at the entrance, near a sign requesting that shoes be removed. Inside, a barrier divided men's and women's prayer space, an arrow informed worshippers of the direction of Mecca, and literature urged women to cover their faces.

Sound like a mosque?

The place I'm describing is the "meditation room" at Normandale Community College, a 9,200-student public institution in Bloomington.

Architectural features have been added to "accommodate" Muslims. Students are directed to follow Muslim practices when they enter the room. The only literature available there is Muslim. There is nothing there that accommodates members of any other faith group. And what's more, attempts by members of other religious traditions to use the facility have been met with acts of bigotry and intolerance from Muslim students.

Confrontations also erupted in the sex-segregated meditation room, according to Lunaas. "Muslim students just took it over. They made people who were not of the Muslim religion feel very uncomfortable, especially if they were female."

One female student tried to use the room when Muslim students were in it, said Lunaas. "She believed she should be treated equally. They were telling her to leave, to take off her shoes, to go to the other side of the divider."

The response of college officials?

[Dean of Student Affairs Ralph] Anderson said that in the incident involving the young woman, "both sides were probably out of line."

Both sides were probably out of line? How, exactly, was the young woman out of line? By trying to make use of a university provided facility? By refusing to follow a religious tradition not her own? While I am sure that there is significantly more to the story than we are told in this commentary piece, it seems pretty clear that refusing to abide by demands that she not use the space as an equal and in a manner that is in accord with her religious tradition is not "out of line". And if Anderson believes the young woman was "out of line" for making a forthright, and perhaps even heated, defense of her right to not be treated as a second-class citizen in a public space on a public college campus where she is a student, I think it is fair to say that the college is out of line in employing him in any capacity.

But then again, perhaps the reality is that we have reached an Orwellian situation where certain animals are more equal than others. And rather than the communist pigs of Animal Farm being more equal than the rest, perhaps at Normandale Community College we are dealing with Muslim pigs seeking to dhimmify the other animals on campus.

H/T Captain's Quarters, Powerline

Posted by: Greg at 10:46 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 519 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Because everyone knows what Mohammed's Little Darlings can do if they should ever get Upset (TM)... And the Islamic Caliphate continues its march to Global Triumph. Does the Koran have any commandments as to what predators are to eat after they've killed off all their prey?

Posted by: Ken at Fri Dec 21 08:14:16 2007 (+37RF)

2 comment1, need 5000 loan overnight
, %-), No Credit Check Car Loans All Here
, >:-], Good 1000 loan payday
, > P, military loans
, nsqvpm, personal loan for poor credit
, 0412,

Posted by: John at Mon Apr 27 21:42:21 2009 (Ae6mK)

3 comment4, debt consolidation non profit
, %]]], Discount cheap california auto insurance
, %]]], automobile insurance rules
, > PP, Budget Car Insurance Now
, %-[[, Best whole life insurance
, gbazc,

Posted by: Robert at Thu Apr 30 20:56:39 2009 (0Jwqn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I’m a public school teacher – and used to be a private school teacher.

I attended public schools – and also attended private schools.

I attended public universities – and one private one.

My cousin home schools her kids – and many of my top students have at least some home schooling background.

What IÂ’m suggesting is that I see the benefits and drawbacks of different sorts of education, and the appropriateness of different types of education for different kids.

But I wonder if the “pro-education” folks in South Carolina would consider me fit to serve on – much less head – the state board of education.

WednesdayÂ’s choice of a home-schooling educator to be the State Board of EducationÂ’s chairwoman in 2009 signals a new dynamic in the stateÂ’s crusade to fix its troubled public schools.

Kristin Maguire, of Clemson, would be the nationÂ’s only home-schooling educator to lead a state school board if she took office this year, according to the National Association of State Boards of Education.

Maguire lobbied intensively for legislation that created a statewide charter school system and has voiced support for Sanford allies who want the Legislature to OK financial incentives for parents who send their children to private schools or educate them at home.

Maguire says political or philosophical differences she might have with others won’t distract her from being an advocate for improving education “for all children.”

Of course, Maguire just infuriates those who support monopolistic public education.

Others see Maguire’s election as a step backward — or at the least, a distraction.

Molly Spearman, a former educator and lawmaker who heads the S.C. Association of School Administrators, said, “It’s time for public school supporters to take the election of legislators and appointments to state boards more seriously. We need people who are going to make sure we have people committed to moving public education forward.”

Spearman, of course, has it exactly wrong. What we need on the state and national level are people who are going to move EDUCATION, not PUBLIC EDUCATION, forward. And part of that involves recognizing and acting on the reality I pointed to above, namely that a traditional public school classroom is not necessarily the best option for every student. That is why I support charter schools. That is why I support private schools (both religious and non-religious). That is why I support home schooling. They each meet the educational needs and desires of a subset of students and their families better than the traditional public school classroom that I teach in. And there is no sound reason – educational, constitutional, or moral – for not providing state funding and assistance to each and every one of those sorts of educational formats. After all, we need to ensure that every child receives the opportunity for a quality education that helps develop the student to the fullest. That is a simple matter of equity, of justice, and of decency.

Not that Spearman was alone in her assessment.

Leaders from the public education establishment were displeased by her election.

Sheila Gallagher, president of the S.C. Education Association, a teachers’ group, called the vote “a missed opportunity.” Gallagher said the DuBard family is well known in the Pee Dee area as public education advocates.

“His children attend public schools, and he knows what is happening there,” Gallagher said.

Business leaders had a mixed reaction.

Jim Reynolds, a Columbia businessman active in business group activities focusing on education, said, “I don’t think it’s going to hit the radar.”
Reynolds said South Carolinians are focused on finding solutions to public education problems and not the debate about funneling state aid to support private schools.

“Those are the things that capture the attention of South Carolina and the nation rather than the selection of the position of chair of the State Board of Education,” Reynolds said.

Lee Bussell of Columbia, the 2007 state Chamber of Commerce businessman of the year, said MaguireÂ’s election is shocking.

“It’s like having a CEO of an airline who has no experience flying,” he said. “I don’t think (home-schoolers) ought to be put in a leadership position in something as important as public education. It is the foundation for everything we need to do to improve our state. The one place we don’t need partisan politics is in our school.”

Some Democrats were quick to criticize MaguireÂ’s selection.

“Having Kristin Maguire chair the State Board of Education is akin to Dick Cheney teaching a gun safety course,” said state Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler.

“What does a woman who home-schools her four children know about South Carolina public schools?”

LetÂ’s notice the condescension in all of those comments. They assume that government-operated schools are the only option. They assume that those who home school are ignorant and know nothing of education generally and public schools in particular. And worst of all, they make a mockery of the notion that citizens who exercise their right to directly oversee the education of their own children should have a voice in the direction of public education, despite the fact that they are taxpayers whose tack money is being spent on public schools they are not using. Such a position is a rejection of the

And I love the juxtaposition of the statements of the Chamber of Commerce representative and the Democrat hack – one declaring that we don’t need politics in our schools, and one explicitly politicizing the selection of Maguire with partisan insults. But then again, the supporters of the status quo in education lack any real answers to the tough questions that get asked about improving education, and they lack any new solutions to the problems that have arisen doing things their way. So instead of engaging their opponents, they actively seek to “kill the messenger” when change agents like Maguire achieve a position that allows them to actually influence education policy. And that is not merely bad policy, it is also a rejection of the basic civic value of public participation in government.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, Chuck Adkins, nuke's, Wake Up America, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, Church and State, The Yankee Sailor, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1082 words, total size 9 kb.

I've got no use for teachers who sexually abuse students. If this guy did this thing, I hope he rots. But the details here leave me asking one question.

On Nov. 30th, Antrim brought the teen to his home in Rogers, Minn. where she spent the weekend. She called her father and told him she was staying at a friendÂ’s house. According to the charges, Antrim had sex with his player on the night of Dec. 1 to Dec. 2.

In a statement, Antrim told police he gave her the cell phone and iPod as gifts. He admitted sending suggestive text messages and said he had been having “issues” lately. He admitted having sex with the teen the previous weekend.

Nathan Paul Antrim is in police custody and faces up 15 years in prison and a $30,000 fine if convicted.

So, does anyone want to guess the odds of this guy getting a sentence like all these buxom young (and not-so-young) have gotten? I'm willing to bet that he does the full 15 years. After all, there does remain a double standard in the application of the law that no one wants to address.

Posted by: Greg at 02:27 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm wary of disciplining teachers for their online writings -- especially since I'm a teacher who writes a controversial political blog and who has been attacked by my political opponents. I've even had a couple attempt to interfere with my employment because they don't like what I write. But even without that experience, my natural inclination is to be supportive of the First Amendment rights of my fellow educators.

But I think this one probably went far enough that action should be taken.

Bloggers and free speech advocates are calling on prosecutors not to file charges against a teacher arrested for allegedly posting an anonymous comment online praising the Columbine shooters.

Some were disturbed by the post police say James Buss left on a conservative blog, but other observers said it was a sarcastic attempt to discredit critics of education spending.

The suburban Milwaukee high school chemistry teacher was arrested last week for the Nov. 16 comment left on http://www.bootsandsabers.com, a blog on Wisconsin politics. The comment, left under the name "Observer," came during a discussion over teacher salaries after some commenters complained teachers were underworked and overpaid.

Buss, a former president of the teacher's union, allegedly wrote that teacher salaries made him sick because they are lazy and work only five hours a day. He praised the teen gunmen who killed 12 students and a teacher before committing suicide in the April 1999 attack at Columbine High School.

"They knew how to deal with the overpaid teacher union thugs. One shot at a time!" he wrote, adding they should be remembered as heroes.

The comment disturbed at least one teacher, who called police in West Bend, 40 miles north of Milwaukee and home of the blog's administrator. Police traveled to arrest Buss at his home in Cudahy, south of Milwaukee, last week after the blogger gave them the anonymous poster's IP address.

After his arrest, Buss spent an hour in the Washington County jail before he was released on $350 bail. He did not return phone messages and e-mails seeking comment, and it was unclear whether he had a lawyer.

How should this be handled? I'm not entirely sure, but I think that a good place to start would be to consider how a student who wrote that comment would be dealt with by both the law and the school. I suspect that there might be criminal charges -- at least a misdemeanor -- if this were a student. I'm certain that the student would face expulsion from school over words like these, which would be appropriately seen as a threat due to the lack of any context that could make them appear otherwise.

Obviously, Buss should receive a similar treatment -- and I can't help but argue that such misconduct could be legitimate grounds for termination. And given some of the cases in which I've supported the free expression rights of teachers and students who have done things I find distasteful outside of instructional time, I hope you realize how difficult it is for me to take such position.

And best regards to the guys at Boots and Sabers for their fine way of handling the issue. Their post on the incident is here.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 542 words, total size 4 kb.

Kids of Spanish-speaking parents raised in an English-speaking society and educated in English-language schools are proficient in English.

Most children of Hispanic immigrants in the United States learn to speak English well by the time they are adults, even though three-quarters of their parents speak mainly Spanish and do not have a command of English, according to a report released yesterday by the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington.

Only 23 percent of first-generation immigrants from Spanish-speaking countries said they spoke English very well, the report found. But 88 percent of the members of the second generation in Latino immigrant families described themselves as strong English speakers, a figure that increased to 94 percent for the grandchildrenÂ’s generation.

“The ability to speak English and the likelihood of using it in everyday life rise sharply from Hispanic immigrants to their U.S.-born adult children,” the survey reported.

You could have gotten that data from any teacher in public schools. Of course our second and third generation Hispanic students speak better English than our first generation Hispanic students.

Indeed, that has been the pattern with EVERY immigrant group over the last 150-200 years.

What shocks me is that someone felt the need to conduct the study.

Posted by: Greg at 11:09 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.

As a rule, I consider anything said by Naomi Wolf to be nothing but a steaming pile of crap. However, she does get the central point correct in her piece in today's Washington Post.

Is America still America if millions of us no longer know how democracy works?

When I speak on college campuses, I find that students are either baffled by democracy's workings or that they don't see any point in engaging in the democratic process. Sometimes both.

Take it from a guy who regularly teaches American Government to students in that age group -- they just don't get it. I've had classes in which less than a third of my students are registered to vote, and even those are cynical about the system.

According to a recent study by the National Center for Education Statistics, only 47 percent of high school seniors have mastered a minimum level of U.S. history and civics, while only 14 percent performed at or above the "proficient" level. Middle schoolers in many states are no longer required to take classes in civics or government. Only 29 states require high school students to take a government or civics course, leaving millions of young Americans in the dark about why democracy matters.

A survey released by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute in September found that U.S. high school students missed almost half the questions on a civic literacy test. Only 45.9 percent of those surveyed knew that the sentence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" is in the Declaration of Independence. Yet these same students can probably name the winner of "American Idol" in a heartbeat.

The study also found that the more students increase their civic knowledge during college, the more likely they are to vote and engage in other civic activities. And vice versa -- civic illiteracy equals civic inaction.

Now my high school students know that quote from the Declaration of Independence -- they hear it from me frequently enough that they can actually recite it along with me -- but they often struggle with what it means. And my college students are not much better in that regard, which frightens me because they are in a program preparing for a career in the legal field. Indeed, those older students are shocked when I start the class off with the requirement that they actually read the Constitution, including all 27 amendment -- despite the fact that their eventual career will likely require a reasonable familiarity with some portions of it.

Now Wolf tries to lay a large part of the problem at the door of No Child Left behind.

In recent years, the trend away from teaching democracy to young Americans has been at least partly a consequence of the trend of teaching to the standardized tests introduced by the Bush administration. Mandated by the federal No Child Left Behind Act, the tests assess chiefly math and reading comprehension. Basic civics and history have suffered. As a result, teenagers and young adults often have no clue why the United States is different from, say, Egypt or Russia; they have little idea what liberty is.

Interestingly enough, the tests here in Texas include a social studies component with heavy emphasis on the foundations of the American republic. However, a multiple choice test is necessarily a limited tool, and the state's sequencing of social studies courses is absurd -- the first half of American history is taught in 8th grade, and the subject is not returned to until the 11th grade, while Government is reserved for seniors who are already counting the seconds until graduation. Is it any wonder that the kids don't find themselves particularly engaged by the American system (or American history, for that matter)? It isn't even taught in a systematic manner!

But I think Wolf hits upon a bigger reason for the disaffection here.

Young Americans have also inherited some strains of thought from the left that have undermined their awareness of and respect for democracy. When New Left activists of the 1960s started the antiwar and free speech student movements, they didn't get their intellectual framework from Montesquieu or Thomas Paine: They looked to Marx, Lenin and Mao. It became fashionable to employ Marxist ways of thinking about social change: not "reform" but "dialectic"; not "citizen engagement" but "ideological correctness"; not working for change but "fighting the man."

During the Vietnam War, the left further weakened itself by abandoning the notion of patriotism. Young antiwar leaders burned the flag instead of invoking the ideals of the republic it represents. By turning their backs on the idea of patriotism -- and even on the brave men who were fighting the unpopular war -- the left abandoned the field to the right to "brand" patriotism as it own, often in a way that means uncritical support for anything the executive branch decides to do.

In the Reagan era, when the Iran-contra scandal showed a disregard for the rule of law, college students were preoccupied with the fashionable theories of post-structuralism and deconstructionism, critical language and psychoanalytic theories developed by French philosophers Jacques Lacan and Jacques Derrida that were often applied to the political world, with disastrous consequences. These theories were often presented to students as an argument that the state -- even in the United States -- is only a network of power structures. This also helped confine to the attic of unfashionable ideas the notion that the state could be a platform for freedom; so much for the fusty old Rights of Man.

Herein lies the most important aspect of her argument. All too often, American government is presented by educators, the media, and even political figures as a broken, oppressive system that does not answer the needs of the American people. Rather than focus upon what is right with the American system, too many of those who educate our young people (either directly or indirectly) communicate what is wrong with that system. Add to that the fact that they take as the basis of their analysis philosophies that reject even the basic underpinnings of democratic values, and it is clear why our education about American government -- too often, the message communicated by those who teach about it is that there is no reason to believe in that form of government at all.

It is clear from her writings that Naomi Wolf does not like Ronald Reagan. But I think that this quote from his Farewell Address of January 11, 1989, which I use in my sig line at school, is one she would agree with as an appropriate goal for all who educate students about the American system of government.

An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world?

...We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It's fragile, it needs protection.

I don't have to agree with Naomi Wolf's politics to agree with her diagnosis of this problem. Indeed, I think it better that I don't -- because it shows, in a truly American fashion, that all sides of the political debate can and should be united in our efforts pass on the values that allow us to govern ourselves as a free people.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Stix Blog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Phastidio.net, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Chuck Adkins, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, , Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Walls of the City, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Stageleft, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 04:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1348 words, total size 11 kb.

And if you can't afford a baby, you should not be sexually active.

But young sluts on college campus are instead angry that their promiscuity is no longer being subsidized.

In health centers at hundreds of colleges and universities around the country, young women are paying sharply higher prices for prescription contraceptives because of a change in federal law.

The increases have meant that some students using popular birth control pills and other products are paying three and four times as much as they did several months ago. The higher prices have also affected about 400 community health centers nationwide used by poor women.

The change is due to a provision in a federal law that ended a practice by which drug manufacturers provided prescription contraception to the health centers at deeply discounted rates. The centers then passed along the savings to students and others.

Some Democratic lawmakers in Washington are pressing for new legislation by yearÂ’s end that would reverse the provision, which they say was inadvertently included in a law intended to reduce Medicaid abuse. In the meantime, health care and reproductive rights advocates are warning that some young women are no longer receiving the contraception they did in the past.

Want an example of the ditzy young floozies who are impacted by this change? Here's one.

“The potential is that women will stop taking it, and whether or not you can pay for it, that doesn’t mean that you’ll stop having sex,” said Katie Ryan, a senior at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, who said that the monthly cost of her Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo, a popular birth control pill, recently jumped to nearly $50 from $12.

Ms. Ryan, 22, said she had considered switching to another contraceptive to save money, but was unsure which one to pick. She has ended up paying the higher price, but said she was concerned about her budget.

“I do less because of this — less shopping, less going out to eat,” said Ms. Ryan, who has helped organize efforts to educate others on campus about the price jump. “For students, this is very, very expensive.”

Let's see -- you'll go through 13 of these prescriptions a year. Multiply that by the $38 dollar price increase and we are talking less than $500 dollars a year -- about $1.35 a day, by my count. I suppose you could have one fewer bottle of soda a day, or perhaps not drop by Starbucks every day. Maybe you could do what people on a limited income have done for years -- eat out less, economize at the grocery store, and not buy as many luxuries. Heck, Katie -- maybe you could quit doing the horizontal mambo with your boyfriend, or start asking him to chip-in to cover the cost. After all, giving it away for free is not really morally superior to selling it -- and if you think that a buck-and-a-quarter makes you cheap, what does free make you (besides easy)?

Now some folks are waxing eloquent about forcing women to make a decision -- “For them this is like a choice — groceries or birth control.” But the last time I checked, one is a necessity and the other isn't. In the great scheme of things, the choice between food and f*cking is not a contest.

And then there is this absurd comment from New York Congressman Joseph Crowley.

“We’re talking about adults, responsible adults who want to do the responsible thing.”

Congressman, I hate to tell you, but you are wrong. Responsibility consists in taking responsibility for your decisions an being prepared to make hard choices. it does not consist in insisting that you want it all and demanding that someone else subsidize your sex life for you.

Here's a really crazy idea for these girls to consider -- if you can't afford the costs associated with having sex, maybe you need to not have sex.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Nuke's, Three Forces Of Evil, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, Global American Discourse, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog's Weblog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:01 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 720 words, total size 5 kb.

There really is no legitimate reason to prevent licensed gun owners -- especially those with concealed carry permits -- from taking their gun onto a college campus with them. These students recognize that, and are trying to do something about it.

Mike Guzman and thousands of other students say the best way to prevent campus bloodshed is more guns.

Guzman, an economics major at Texas State University-San Marcos, is among 8,000 students nationwide who have joined the nonpartisan Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, arguing that students and faculty already licensed to carry concealed weapons should be allowed to pack heat along with their textbooks.

"It's the basic right of self defense," said Guzman, a 23-year-old former Marine. "Here on campus, we don't have that right, that right of self defense."

Every state but Illinois and Wisconsin allows residents some form of concealed handgun carrying rights, with 36 states issuing permits to most everyone who meets licensing criteria. The precise standards vary from state to state, but most require an applicant to be at least 21 and to complete formal instruction on use of force.

Many states forbid license-holders from carrying weapons on school campuses, while in states where the decision is left to the universities, schools almost always prohibit it. Utah is the only state that expressly allows students to carry concealed weapons on campus.

College campuses are different from other public places where concealed weapons are allowed. Thousands of young adults are living in close quarters, facing heavy academic and social pressure - including experimenting with drugs and alcohol - in their first years away from home.

But let's consider the reality here -- how many school shootings have been perpetrated by folks legally carrying legally owned guns? I may be wrong, but I believe the number falls somewhere between 1 and -1. And in every case, the person using the weapon to commit mayhem was in violation of the school's gun-free campus victim disarmament policy.

And I'm really struck by opponents of allowing guns on campus.

W. Gerald Massengill, the chairman of the independent panel that investigated the Virginia Tech shootings, said those concerns outweigh the argument that gun-carrying students could have reduced the number of fatalities inflicted by someone like Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho.

"I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment," said Massengill, a former head of the Virginia state police. "But our society has changed, and there are some environments where common sense tells us that it's just not a good idea to have guns available."

I always love the "living Constitution" folks who want to explain how time and social changes are the basis for restricting our right to defend ourselves from violent criminals. One would think that after the massacre he investigated, common sense would tell Massengill that student safety could not be any more compromised than it was that day unless the victims had been required to wear targets to assist their murderer with his aim.

And then there is this comment from a leader a major gun-grabbing froup.

His view is echoed by Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, who says campus safety concerns cannot be addressed by adding more guns to campuses.

"If there's more we need to do, we certainly need to do that, but introducing random access to firearms is not the solution," said Hamm. "You have more victims, not fewer victims."

I suppose that Hamm's comment would be relevant if we were talking about random access to firearms. The reality is that what is being proposed folks licensed to carry guns be allowed to carry guns just like they can in most places -- which has not increased the number of "victims" according to most studies of the issue, and which has reduced violent crime. Indeed, the gun-free campus victim disarmament policy at Virginia Tech certainly did a bang-up job of minimizing the number of victims there, didn't it? After all, students ad faculty members cowering in fear as a madman stalked them were obviously much better protected than they would have been if even one of them had been armed and capable of stopping the rabid animal seeking to end their lives.

There are, of course, other reasons for allowing students to exercise their statutory and constitutional right to carry firearms. Many colleges and universities are located in areas with higher crime rates. Why should students be put at risk from those random crimes. In addition, the policies interfere with the right of these students to carry their weapons elsewhere, rendering them unsafe away from campus as well as while attending classes. The time has come to treat the adult students on college campuses like adults.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Big Dog's Weblog, Chuck Adkins, Adeline and Hazel, Public Domain Clip Art, third world county, MyHTPC, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 857 words, total size 7 kb.

The girls came up with a cheer deemed unacceptable by their sponsor, as it included mooning the crowd.

The girls performed the routine anyway.

The principal suspended the insubordinate cheerleaders.

Seems about right to me – if not letting them off easy

But not to the girls.

Six cheerleaders are fighting suspensions after they flashed football fans a message on their underpants.

Vice Principal Ken Goeken ordered the girls to serve suspensions Tuesday and Wednesday for defying their coach and going ahead with a special cheer they choreographed for the last day of the football season. At the end of the cheer, the girls bent over, lifted their skirts and showed the crowd the words "Indians No. 1" on their bloomers.

The girls, who missed reading scenes from William Shakespeare's "Macbeth" and fear their grades will suffer, are asking to make up coursework and instead be banned from cheering at an upcoming basketball game.

I’ve got a better idea. Keep the suspension – and toss the girls from the cheerleading squad for their insubordination. After all, they have shown that they cannot be trusted to appropriately represent the school. They have also shown that they are unwilling to follow the legitimate decisions of their cheerleading sponsor. Why should they remain on the squad at all?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Random Yak, guerrilla radio, Right Truth, The Populist, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, Allie Is Wired, third world county, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wake Up America, CommonSenseAmerica, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:41 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 4 kb.

Given the history of scandals at the school, I'm not hopeful.

Texas Southern University is proposing top-to-bottom changes to ease the concerns of state lawmakers, including greater oversight from regents, tighter controls over spending and the involvement of outsiders in academic and financial matters.

The sweeping set of reforms comes after nearly two years of turmoil at the state's largest historically black university and could lead to an infusion of money from the state.

While the additional funding is an immediate and critical need, campus leaders characterized the proposed strategy as the best chance for improving a school with myriad of problems, including declining enrollment and low graduation rates.

The long-range plan calls for new policies that would require the governing board to be more involved than before, especially in money matters. At the same time, it says the regents' first priority should be to hire a permanent president.

The problem, of course, is that TSU has had these systemic problems for at least a generation. Indeed, this is not even the first time that the school will seek to bring in a reforming president to provide greater accountability and stronger financial management. After all, the last time they took that path, they hired Priscilla Slade.

Of course, that isn't the only problem with TSU.

On the academic side, TSU would use improved tests to assess the college readiness of applicants and strengthen advising and counseling programs to design "a plan for success" for each student. The university would advise students seeking job skills rather than a bachelor's degree to enroll elsewhere.

TSU, however, would not introduce entrance requirements, and doing so would be a fundamental change from its long-standing commitment to accept anyone who wants to pursue higher education, Lewis said.

"We're not concerned with your previous record, as long as you're committed from this point on," he said. "If you're committed, we can work with you."

Still, the university may ease out of the costly remedial education business, possibly transferring responsibility for improving basic math and English skills of its students to Houston Community College, according to the reorganization plan.

TSU estimates that roughly 70 percent of first-time freshmen arrive on campus without the skills needed to do university-level work. More than half do not make it to their sophomore year.

The university's enrollment plunged to its lowest point in five years with 9,544 students this fall. Although campus leaders are hopeful the numbers will stabilize next year, there is concern over a new state law that requires some students who do not complete specified high school coursework to attend a community college.

To reverse the enrollment decline, TSU must increase the number of transfer students from community colleges, said Gayla Thomas, vice president for enrollment management.

"The community college pipeline will be the wave of our future," she said.

The problem, of course, is that given the low standards at TSU, the academic life of the university is a step down for many community college transfers. Indeed, I've heard too many folks over the year describe the school as a four year community college with graduate programs. I find it ironic that the African-American community in the region take such great pride in an institution founded little more than a half-century ago in order to keep black students out of better, more prestigious schools. Indeed, it appears that the commitment to keeping things relatively unchanged is the equivalent of embracing the agenda of the racist Democrats who sought to keep blacks in their place -- that being a sub-standard segregated educational institution.

In the past, I've advocated for TSU to be folded into the University of Houston system in order to raise academic standards at the school, which is located just blocks from the main campus of the University of Houston. I've repeatedly heard objections to this from UH alums of all ethnic backgrounds. I can't help but see their point -- after all, UH has raised its academic standards and become a respected institution of higher learning. Why would we want to damage that by incorporating the sub-standard TSU into that system?

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 692 words, total size 4 kb.

If the exercise of religious rights is an American value, why would anyone find this move troubling? And if absences can be excused based upon legitimate religious observances, why wouldn't this be included?

At Marshall University, pagan students are now allowed to miss classes to observe religious holidays or festivals.

A new policy makes the university in Huntington, W.Va., with an enrollment of about 14,000, possibly the only college in the country to protect pagans formally from being penalized for missing classes, although many institutions have policies intended to protect students of every faith.

One Marshall student, George Fain, took advantage of the policy on Thursday, missing class in observance of Samhain, a pagan and Wiccan holiday honoring the dead.

“I think we may have opened a door,” Ms. Fain said of the policy. “Now that we know we can be protected, that the government will stand behind us and we feel safe, it’s going to be more prevalent.”

The decision to allow pagan students to make up missed work is an extension of existing policy toward members of other religious groups, said Steve Hensley, the dean of student affairs at Marshall.

“I don’t think there are a lot of students here who have those beliefs,” Mr. Hensley said, “but we want to respect them. It was really just a matter of looking into it, and deciding what was the right thing.”

Students are responsible for establishing that they are religious believers and that the holiday in question is important to their faith by filing a written request with Mr. Hensley.

Paganism experts say they are not aware of any other university with such a policy.

For all that we are a nation founded upon a historically Judeo-Christian framework, there can be no argument that our laws and Constitution enshrine freedom of religion as a fundamental value. Indeed, I believe our nation's civil rights laws would require this accommodation for all religious groups if a university granted it to any. It isn't a question of political correctness -- it is an acknowledgment of religious freedom. If Christians, Jews, and Muslims enjoy such an accommodation, why shouldn't pagans?

Posted by: Greg at 02:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 375 words, total size 3 kb.

When noose was found on the door of a black professor, there was national outrage and campus protests. Will we get the same level of outrage in this case, over an incident in the same building? Or will Columbia University prove that it is the hotbed of anti-Semitism that it has been accused of being in recent years?

A swastika was found spray-painted on a Jewish professorÂ’s office door yesterday morning at Teachers College at Columbia University, the second time in less than a month that one of the collegeÂ’s professors has been the target of bias.

The professor, Elizabeth Midlarsky, a clinical psychologist who has done studies on the Holocaust, said the collegeÂ’s associate provost called to notify her of the swastika. Ms. Midlarsky said it was actually the third time in recent weeks that she had been the target of bias.

On Oct. 17, she said, she found an anti-Semitic flier in her mailbox at work. She said she found two more copies of the same flier in her mailbox on Oct. 24. She said she reported those incidents to Columbia officials.

“I see this as an attack of extreme hate and extreme cowardice by someone trying to make a point,” Dr. Midlarsky said yesterday. The police said they had no suspects.

The school employs scholars who deny the legitimacy of Israel -- including one that denies Jews ever occupied the area that is today Israel. Students have been harassed and belittled by professors because of their Jewish faith and Israeli citizenship. Will this act of anti-Semitism be treated as seriously as the incident of racism a couple of weeks back? Or are some groups more equal than others at Columbia?

Posted by: Greg at 10:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

One good thing is coming out of the decision to allow schools in one Maine community to dispense birth control to children as young as 11. These same schools will now start following state law and require the reporting of sex involving those under the age of 14 to the authorities.

Portland's school-based health centers have not been reporting all illegal sexual activity involving minors as required by law, but they will from now on, city officials said Thursday.

Cumberland County District Attorney Stephanie Anderson questioned the health centers' reporting practices after the Portland School Committee decided last week to offer prescription birth control at the King Middle School health center.

The King Student Health Center has offered comprehensive reproductive health care, including providing condoms and testing for sexually transmitted diseases, since it opened in 2000. The school serves students in grades 6 to 8, ages 11 to 15.

Maine law prohibits having sex with a person under age 14, regardless of the age of the other person involved, Anderson said.

A health care provider must report all known or suspected cases of sex with minors age 13 and under to the state Department of Health and Human Services, she said. Abuse also must be reported to the appropriate district attorney's office, Anderson said, when the suspected perpetrator is someone other than the minor's parent or guardian.

"When it's somebody under age 14, it is a crime and it must be reported," Anderson said. "The health care provider has no discretion in the matter. It's up to the district attorney to decide."

It seems that school officials hadn’t bee following the law, including the health care “professionals” at the school clinic. I hope that while the local DA subpoenas the records of the clinic to determine whether past criminal violations have not been reported, and that appropriate sanctions are taken against the licensure of those who failed to follow the law.

After all -- we in education have a legal obligation, not to mention a moral one, to protect the children in our care.

Posted by: Greg at 12:15 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.

Is anyone else disgusted that a public university would cave in to a request like this?

Yesterday, the University of Delaware asked Asaf Romirowsky to step down from an academic panel at the University of Delaware because another panelist, University of Delaware political scientist Muqtedar Khan, didn't want to share the podium with anyone who served in the Israeli Defense Forces. Romirowsky, who holds joint American/Israeli citizenship and lives in Philadelphia, had been invited to join Khan, his colleague in political science, Stuart Kaufman, a staff member of the National Security Council during the Clinton administration, and a graduate student to discuss anti-Americanism in the Middle East. The program was organized by the College Republicans, the College Democrats, and the Students of Western Civilization Club. The Leadership Institute provided the funds for the panel, which met on the University of Delaware campus on Wednesday evening. The students offered Romirowsky the opportunity to come to campus next week and speak alone, with no other panel members who might object to his presence.

Khan is not just a faculty member at the university – he is also a staff member of the Brookings Institution and spoke the same day at the Pentagon. That he would make the request indicates his inability to fairly deal with any Israeli student – and perhaps any Jewish student. It also indicates that he is someone who has no place helping to guide and direct the formation of our national defense policy.

But more disturbing than the request is the willingness of a public university to give in to the demands of an anti-Semitic pig like Khan. The appropriate response would have been to rescind the invitation to Khan – and to review his employment status in light of the questions raised by the request. To take the path they did was to cave in to dhimmitude.

Posted by: Greg at 12:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 326 words, total size 2 kb.