No, I'm serious -- who is responsible for feeding the children? Is it the parents, or is it the government?

That is my reaction to an editorial in today's Houston Chronicle.

Last month, needy children ate more than 2 million free, nourishing meals thanks to the Houston Independent School District. The Galena Park school district fed wholesome meals to 48,000 hungry youngsters.

Both school systems should be commended for recognizing the importance of a reliable, accessible source of food for children whose parents can't provide it. So it's inexplicable that both districts left the same kids utterly adrift when both shut their doors to prepare for the school year.

Now wait just one minute here. What is the business of a SCHOOL district? Is it providing an education for its students, or is it the complete care and feeding of the kids year round? I think the answer is obvious to sensibele, thinking people. That would explain why the Chronicles editorial staff gets the answer wrong.

Now I have to be careful here, because I work in one of these districts, but it seems to me that we have lost focus on the mission of the public schools. That mission is the intellectual, social, and moral education of children. It is not to be a one-stop medical/feeding/day-care center. During the school year, my district offers a free day-care program for the offspring of our students, a free/low-cost heath care clinic for students, and a free/reduced lunch program for all students. This summer it offered free breakfast and lunch for any "child" who walked in off the street, regardless of income -- and "child" was defined as AGE 20 AND UNDER! That's right. We had "children" age 18-20 (what most thinking people would generally refer to as "adults") walking into school buildings and being fed at taxpayer expense. What was even more absurd, the regulations imposed by the federal government forbade the sale of these same meals to school employees who were working in the building, including those of us who were actually teaching summer school!

Now, though, that the program is over, the Chronicle is upset that these districts are shirking some sort of purported moral responsibility to feed the children when there is no school in session.

Like other school districts around the country, Houston and Galena Park are eligible for reimbursement from the federal government for food and operating costs of student free meal programs. The government pays $2.74 for each meal a child consumes, which can be used to hire staff to handle the food and monitor the number of meals served. But as summer school ends and the fall semester starts to loom, school systems apparently find it difficult to keep serving the federally-funded meals on their campuses. Galena Park stopped serving its meals Friday; HISD shut most of its 256 cafeterias several weeks earlier.

This needless lapse in stewardship should not be allowed to happen. Even if entire school systems must close their doors for maintenance, the schools can still act as conduits to get that free food to poor children. Even after a district has ended its program for the summer, it can restart it again as a sponsor for another site, almost until the start of the school year. All the district needs to do is contact nonprofits, whether community centers or churches willing to provide a site where children can eat. Schools can invite teachers or contract cafeteria personnel to freelance as food managers at the interim locations. More than likely, some parents and other community members would be happy to oversee a meal program for free.

Arranging interim food service in the summer might be time-consuming, but what task could be more urgent?

I don't suppose that the Chronicle ever considered proposing that private groups run such programs without government money or oversight. After all, how can we possibly expect there to be positive results without government involvement? And I can't help but laugh at the notion that teachers should volunteer to run such programs -- after all, Texas teacher salaries are only about $6000 below the national average. Why doesn't the Chronicle send its employees out during the middle of the day to run such programs if, as they claim, "there is no task which could be more urgent"? All of this overlooks such antiquated notions as having the children fed a meal at home, prepared by a parent or other family member.

It's certainly feasible: In San Antonio, the schools have organized an almost seamless transfer of summer meals. There is no excuse for Harris County school districts to deny the same services for our own hungry children.

Right now, tens of thousands of Houston children are going without needed meals. Administrators at HISD and GPISD should get on the phone to help them right now. They'll likely find plenty of nonprofits eager to lend a hand. Galena Park Boxing Academy, which is also a child enrichment center, has space for 200 children to eat free meals at once, academy President Kenny Weldon said. The facility can even supply a monitor.

"Of course we'd be willing," Weldon said. "What do you do — take care of kids for one part of the year but not the other?"

But then again, maybe I am too hard-hearted. Maybe the editorial is right. Children need to be fed year-round, and parents are clearly not up to the task.

But what about other school breaks and holidays? These children should not be left to fend for themselves for a week or two at Thanksgiving, Christmas, or Spring Break! Clearly, the cafeterias must remain open during those times off as well.

And what about the irresponsible practice of sending children home on Friday afternoon and closing the cafeterias over the weekend? It seems absurd that we would expect children to survive through a Saturday and a Sunday without a hot breakfast and lunch. School districts need to keep the cafeterias open on the weekend as well, to avoid subjecting our nation's children to two whple days without nutrition.

I've also got a solution to what I see as the "dinner problem". By extending the school day by two or three hours, we can make sure that each student gets a hot dinner, ensuring three square meals a day. The interim time could be devoted to additional instructional time, though I certainly see the objections of those who see the extra classroom time as educators over-emphasizing academics.

But what I've not managed to solve is how to guarantee that evey child gets a bowl of ice cream and a kiss on the forehead before bed. What do you think -- are parents up to such a task?

Posted by: Greg at 02:15 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1136 words, total size 7 kb.

You may remember that some weeks ago I wrote about the Texas Legislature's disrespect of teachers. Well, they are at it again. Those changes in retirement rules for new teacher are going to be extended to ALL teachers -- even those already in the system -- under legislation considered likely to pass during this special session on education (by the way -- there is still no education budget or revised tax scheme -- the original purpose of this special session that ends next week).

A separate bill the Senate may debate later this week would make several changes to the Teacher Retirement System, including raising the minimum retirement age to 60.

Linda Bridges, president of the Texas Federation of Teachers, said the bill "is taking us backwards in our efforts to attract and retain quality teachers."

"The Teacher Retirement System deserves to be solvent. We need to pass a bill so that the Teacher Retirement System doesn't look like Social Security and we have to stand up here and say it's going to be bankrupt in 10 years," [Senate Finance Committee Chair Steve] Ogden said.

Well, Steve, maybe if the state quit funding the system at the statutory minimum percentage (as it has done on an "emergency basis" for the last 10 years) and took the funding level back up to its traditional level at which it was designed to function, then there would be no problem. You would not have to monkey with the plans of teachers approaching retirement -- nor would you have to engage in a practice which federal law bans in the private sector, namely changing the terms of a pension agreement for currently covered workers.

Listen we already make around $6000 a year below the national average, and you balanced the last budget (for the 2003-2004 biennium) on the backs of teachers by cutting our health insurance stipend in half (effectively a $500 annual "teacher tax" out of each of our pockets) and still haven't restored the money for the new biennium as we were promised, nor have you found the cash for an increase in teacher salaries. Retiree health insurance are more expensive because of legislative tinkering. Don't screw around with our retirement benefits as well! And I say that as a teacher who plans on being into the classroom significantly past the minimum retirement age.

But somehow, you have managed to find the dollars to fund this little measure, one that didn't make it through the regular session of the legislature.

The House and Senate haven't agreed on how to cut school property taxes, but both chambers approved bills Tuesday that would boost their own pensions.

The House used a nonrecorded voice vote Tuesday to pass a bill to raise judicial pay and lawmakers' pensions, while Senators voted on the record with two senators casting "no" votes on similar legislation.

Since 1975, legislative pensions have been calculated as a portion of a district judge's salary.

Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, said judicial salaries need to be increased to keep experienced judges from leaving the bench for private practice. But he said he cast a "protest vote" against the bill because it links a district judge's salary to lawmakers' pension benefits.

"I'm just down on that," said Janek.

Currently, lawmakers earn $7,200 a year in pay, and retired lawmakers can begin collecting pensions at age 50 if they have served for at least 12 years.

Under the House and Senate bills, a retired official with 12 years' experience would get $6,431 more a year for a total pension of $34,500. Benefits increase with each year of service.

In other words, you cannot take care of teachers and will vote for measures that cost us money and do nothing to properly compensate us for what you people keep claiming is one of the most important jobs in the state -- but you can guarantee yourself a pension from your PART-TIME JOB that is approximately equal to the state minimum salary for a full-time classroom teacher who has ten years of classroom experience! And you get to retire at age 50 with 12 years of service -- a "Rule of 62" rather thant the current "Rule of 80" that teachers must meet or the "Rule of 90" that you are seeking to impose with this new legislation. Oh, yeah -- and our benefits are equal to only about 70% of our annual salary, not 480% of our annual salary like you guys will be getting. And might I also mention that your annual pension increase approximates the dollar figure by which Texas teachers are paid below the national average.

So I have a message to Texas legislators -- SCREW YOU! You seem intent to keep on screwing me.

Posted by: Greg at 06:24 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 798 words, total size 5 kb.

While perusing this week's ediition of the Carnival of Education, I came across an entry that referenced these two posts on a third blog (yeah, I know -- Tinker to Evers to Chance) about a column on the official website of the NEA dishonestly trashing homeschooling -- and the author's clueless response to criticism.

I'll let you read about the initial coulmn yourself, but let me post you excerpts from the letter critical of the coulumn and the author's response.

Homeschool parent and column critic Dominick Cancilla wrote (as part of a much longer letter that you really should read -- it is priceless):

And socialization -- don't even get me started! No matter how many play dates and group classes or field trips a homeschooler participates in, there are so many lessons that a child can only learn on a public-school playground! This is where kids learn to stick up for themselves, where they discover their place in society, and where they find out who their real friends are. I got a lot of teasing myself when I was in grade school, and the teachers didn't make a big deal every time someone called me a name like my mom would have if she were always hanging around. I learned pretty quickly that I had to take care of these things myself instead of trying to get "authority" to take care of them, and knowing that I need to look out for number one has served me very well in the business world. If I'd been homeschooled, I'd probably let people walk all over me instead of putting them in their place where they belong! And how will a homeschooler, without school-yard experience, know how to handle some idiot who cuts them off in traffic? What'll they do -- just let it go?

I recently read an article about a 13-year-old girl who was taken away from her family and put in a mental institution with no contact with anyone because she had behavioral problems in school. If that kid was homeschooled, would her parents have given her the isolation and anti-psychotic drugs she needed? And how will kids learn how to deal with cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol if they are homeschooled? Not that kids should be using this stuff of course, but if you keep kids completely sheltered from them, they're going to go nuts with the stuff when they become adults. The same is true about sex -- isn't that too important a subject to be left to parents to teach? Again, what does a parent know about sex that a teacher doesn't know much better, particularly if the parent is just going to blindly teach abstinence or have some other unrealistic expectation!

As you can see, the satirical tone of the letter just bleeds through. But I guess it was too subtle for column author Dave Arnold, who replied in part (you really have to read the whole thing):

I deeply appreciate hearing from you and receiving your fantastic comments and compliments concerning my article on the fallacies of home schooling. As you likely gathered from my article, it is a subject that is truly a thorn in my side.

Like I said -- sarcasm and satire are just wasted on some people.

Posted by: Greg at 04:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 563 words, total size 4 kb.

From Catallarchy, and extended by the author (Scott Scheuele) at My Back Pages:

So I Was Teaching Highschoolers Entertainment Law This Morning

And the chapter was about intellectual property.

“Now why,” I asked, “do we need property? Why don’t we just let everything belong to everyone?”

One of my students raised his hand. “Because,” said he, “that’s called Communism. And Communism sucks.”

I have to say that I feel more than a little bit envious of Scott. Sounds like he has skimmed the cream right off the top of the bottle with this bunch.

As a classroom teacher in an urban school with over half my students falling into the lower quarter of the socio-economic system, I feel blessed when I have a kid advance a political opinion beyond "I think Clinton was the greatest president ever 'cause he was a P-I-M-P PIMP, baby!"

Although I will concede that said observation on the merits of the Clinton presidency may be more astute than that made by a kid who, when confronted about his Che t-shirt told me "He wasn't a Communist; he was an agrarian reformer." -- and then could not define "agrarian reformer" for me.

Posted by: Greg at 05:47 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm always troubled by school district policies that seek to ban the Confederate flag. It is a symbol with a multiplicity of meanings, depending upon the wearer and the observer. Is it a racist hate symbol? The iconic image of ancestral heritage? A signe of rebelliousness? Or simply an advertising slogan (we have a "blody-art shop near school, patronized by all ethninc groups, called Southern Boys', that uses the banner as its logo)? What should schools do about the flag> And what CAN they do?

Personally, I think this district stepped over the line in its response to the Confederate flag. They want to ban every flag except the American flag, unless specific advance permission is obtained to celebrate a certain heritage on a particular day.

The proposed ban, which would be unique in the Tampa Bay region, was drafted by a district committee examining changes to the student code of conduct. In addition to barring students from wearing the Confederate flag, the proposal would keep them from wearing the flag of any other country, unless there is "a designated ethnic recognition activity held at the school."

The scope of the flag ban could make it vulnerable to litigation. Becky Steele, director of the West Central Florida region of the American Civil Liberties Union, said it was "overly broad" and would create "serious first amendment problems."

Barbara Renczkowski, president of the Hernando County council of PTAs and a member of the committee that proposed the change, said the ban had come up because officials wanted to head off students who might wear the Confederate flag to school. Members then decided to expand the ban rather than keep it narrow, Renczkowski said.

"It was an observation that it could possibly cause problems," Renczkowski said. "They just felt it would be easier to ban them all (except the American flag) instead of just one."

Now I see a couple of issues. First, there is the issue of Tinker v. DsMoines. Are these flags causing a disruption in school? It seems not, with the possible exception of the Confederate flag. But the article doesn't list any problems in this school. And even if the wearing of the flag makes some uncomfortable, does it rise to the level of a disruption under Tinker? After all, the First Amendment exists to protect speech that makes people uncomfortable.

Second, does this ban constitute the establishment of a political orthodoxy by the school district? In permitting the American flag at all times, but banning all others except when permitted by schools, does it have the effect of endorsing one position and penalizing all others? If so, it would seem to go beyond the limits set in the 1943 Flag Salute case.

Still, I'm interested inthe thoughts of others. What do you think?

Posted by: Greg at 12:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 471 words, total size 3 kb.

Good grief -- if this young man has this exceptional talent and range, why deny him the right to compete on a fair and equal basis with the girls?

Singing soprano is for girls only in Texas' All-State Choir, eliminating a 17-year-old boy's chance to audition for a statewide honor and raising questions about gender and vocal performance.

The Texas Music Educators Association denied a petition by Mikhael Rawls of suburban Fort Worth to audition this fall for the elite ensemble as a soprano, a part traditionally sung by girls.

Rawls sings countertenor, a little known male voice part that has surged in popularity in classical and operatic circles in the past decade. He can sing an octave and a half higher than most boys his age, and he feels most comfortable singing in that range. He has even won first place as a soprano in the University Interscholastic League's competition two years in a row.

The association, however, does not allow boys to sing soprano, or alto or girls to sing tenor or bass. Association spokeswoman Amy Lear said the group adopted the rule two years ago because of concerns that girls auditioning for tenor parts were hurting their voices by singing too low.

"If you make a rule one way it has to work both ways,"

Actually, no you don't have to make it both ways. On the one hand, you have individuals being harmed by exceeding their abilities. On the other, you have someone trying to sing in their natural range. No reasonable judge in the world would see it differently.

Oh, that's right, I just used a non-sequiter -- "reasonable judge".

The young man, though, hits the nail right on the head in his letter to the association.

"This is an education association that is supposed to be fostering and developing young singers," said Maguire, who wrote a letter to the Texas group urging them to approve Rawls' petition. "Keeping someone from singing what is essentially natural to them is not fostering them."

Fortuantely, colleges are already looking at this fine young man. He'll get to sing on the college level -- and well beyond, if I do not miss my guess.

Good luck, Mikhael! I long to hear your voice some day.

Posted by: Greg at 01:59 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 2 kb.

We are always told that teenagers have a right to privacy and reproductive choice. So what is the deal here? On what basis is this nurse insisting that a student take a pregnancy test? Especially since the basis of her demand is a rumor that the girl herself denied.

A 15-year-old San Marcos girl and her father have filed a federal lawsuit against her school nurse, who allegedly forced the girl to take a pregnancy test.

The lawsuit claims nurse Dyanna Eastwood called the girl to her office and told her that a student at another school claimed he impregnated her.

Eastwood insisted the girl take the test, according to the lawsuit.

The girl said she did not have sex with the boy and denied that she was pregnant.

The girl's lawyer also said she was not pregnant.

The suit, which was filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Austin, claims the girl's privacy and constitutional rights were violated during the January event.

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, claims Eastwood violated the girl's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.

There are a couple of fundamental problems here, from my point of view. more...

Posted by: Greg at 03:14 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 457 words, total size 3 kb.

I’m glad to know that I, as a history teacher, am in good company with one of out top contemporary American historians – David McCullough.

"We're raising a generation of Americans who are historically illiterate," McCullough said during a speech here Monday. "What they don't know about our history is staggering."

We are a society that has come to value immediacy over context. Too often there is a focus on the contemporary issues to the exclusion of the past. Imagine the shock of my students when they find out that slaves in the Greco-Roman world were white. And I won’t get in to the issue of how many of them insist on correcting me when I try to tell them about the Reformation and Martin Luther – they all shout out “King” the first time I mention the man whose 95 Theses are one of the most important documents of the last millenium. The American Revolution, and Great Depression are mysteries to them, and all they know about the Civil War is slavery. World War II is nothing but the Holocaust to them.

I’m only about 40 years old, but I knew this stuff at a significantly younger age. So did my peers, and our parents. How can we stem the tide that may result in the loss of much of our heritage in the space of a generation?

Posted by: Greg at 01:18 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Ya know I've been thinking the same thing, believe it or not. I am a few years older you, and I work with several twenty-sonethings that are utterly clueless about our own hustory let alone the history of the world. I began to notice this when I heard about the "new emphasis" that our actions @ Hiroshima & Nagasaki were "immoral", and there was no corrosponding discussion about Pearl Harbor, or the Rape of NanKing. Maybe you and I (political differences put aside) should work together to do a history blog.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at Tue Jun 14 14:24:36 2005 (aHbua)

2 Hmmmm....

An intriguing thought.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 14 17:06:58 2005 (HMt1E)

3 Yeah, sad to see these things happen. They need to learn to put their shoes in that era to see why these things happen. Truman was absolutely distraught in deciding whether to bomb the cities or not.

One thing tho, are we seeing a balance in history for other races who had helped contributed in the making of the United States? It's been more than 20 years since I was in high school and yet my oldest daughter will be in the 7th grade. It'd be interesting to see what her history book says. Watch out for those PC lines in history books.

Posted by: mcconnell at Wed Jun 15 03:01:18 2005 (JRKms)

4 I just recently found out, a Great Uncle was slated to be in the first wave to attack Japan, if a ground war was to happen.

Without the use of those two bombs, would I have my uncle and my cousins? I seriously doubt it.

To listen to him talk about the preparations, the military had already written off the first 2 waves that would storm the shores of Japan.

The soldiers were being prepared to fight the elderly and the women and children of Japan.

Don't know about any of you, but I am glad I was not there, and have nothing but respect for those soldiers preparing to invade Japan.

Something kids today don't do is listen and hear the stories of WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam from those older relatives they have that were there, and did the actual fighting.

Instead they get liberal indoctrination as soon as the 1st grade, in some states.

I would be interested in the History blog if you B can do it without political spin.

You can never know everything, and learning should be an everyday thing!

Posted by: scubachris at Wed Jun 15 04:21:47 2005 (AktpP)

5 My great uncle was killed by a Japanese sniper by putting a bullet into his back on one of the islands in the Pacific during WWII.

Posted by: mcconnell at Wed Jun 15 10:18:12 2005 (LmcbS)

6 Also, my cousin was killed by a hand thrown grenade tossed into a tent shared by many sleeping troops in Kuwait prior to the 2nd Iraq war at Camp Pennsylvania. The tosser was none other than one of their own.

Posted by: mcconnell at Wed Jun 15 10:22:21 2005 (LmcbS)

7 Hey when it comes to history there is no politics as far as I am concerned, there are facts (sometimes inconvenient) and there are myths(always inconvenient, and almost always wrong), I think if I were to do this I would make sure that opinions were advertised as such.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at Wed Jun 15 13:30:07 2005 (aHbua)

8 McConnell: I don't think I'll get any rounds of disagreement from anyone when I say that the person who did that to your cousin was an absolutely vile person.

I am sorry for your loss, and respect your cousin's desire to do his or her duty and protect both our lives, and the lives of the Iraqi people. Nothing can repay such sacrifice, but I'd like to find out that we honor the soldiers that fight for us now as best we can.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Wed Jun 15 14:23:10 2005 (r/FBF)

9 Thanks Sub. I never knew him. Just my mother's cousin (Betty Lenzi) whose son was killed. My mom knew him when he was a toddler. However, I can you tell you thing. There is one person who have frequented this board who said that Maj. Gregory Stone deserved to be buried rotting 6 ft under. A very vile individual indeed. Dirty mouth and all.

Posted by: mcconnell at Wed Jun 15 17:37:58 2005 (JRKms)

10 Exact words:

"...second, to make fun of his dead, mangled cousin who is rotting six feet under the cold ground."
http://ridor.blogspot.com/2005/04/reminder-for-bitch-session-iv.html

That alone proves how some people prefer to side with the enemy and put them on a pedestal instead. In this case, his hero seems to be Sgt. Akbar.


In any U.S. wars we should honor and remember the dead. Even some of the enemies such as the ones in Japan and Germany. They were the victim in the politics of war. Many of them were forced into battle. So many young men..literally boys who never gotten a chance at a good life.

I've seen a PBS show or something similar where both Japan and U.S. WWII veterans met each other for the first time on one of those Midway islands. Many veterans were happen to have reconciled knowing it was a vile time in history. I thing reconciling such past events is therapeutic and helps heal wounds.

Posted by: mcconnell at Wed Jun 15 17:51:52 2005 (JRKms)

11 I feel bad about anyone who dies in war. They're almost always kids who are either conscripted, brainwashed, misguided, or otherwise actually doing the right thing. What they rarely are is people that are flat out evil and wrong.

Now - the LEADERS of the countries that are evil and wrong...well...let's just say Saddam has none of my sympathy.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 16 00:15:32 2005 (r/FBF)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I’m glad to know that I, as a history teacher, am in good company with one of out top contemporary American historians – David McCullough.

"We're raising a generation of Americans who are historically illiterate," McCullough said during a speech here Monday. "What they don't know about our history is staggering."

We are a society that has come to value immediacy over context. Too often there is a focus on the contemporary issues to the exclusion of the past. Imagine the shock of my students when they find out that slaves in the Greco-Roman world were white. And I won’t get in to the issue of how many of them insist on correcting me when I try to tell them about the Reformation and Martin Luther – they all shout out “King” the first time I mention the man whose 95 Theses are one of the most important documents of the last millenium. The American Revolution, and Great Depression are mysteries to them, and all they know about the Civil War is slavery. World War II is nothing but the Holocaust to them.

IÂ’m only about 40 years old, but I knew this stuff at a significantly younger age. So did my peers, and our parents. How can we stem the tide that may result in the loss of much of our heritage in the space of a generation?

Posted by: Greg at 01:18 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Ya know I've been thinking the same thing, believe it or not. I am a few years older you, and I work with several twenty-sonethings that are utterly clueless about our own hustory let alone the history of the world. I began to notice this when I heard about the "new emphasis" that our actions @ Hiroshima & Nagasaki were "immoral", and there was no corrosponding discussion about Pearl Harbor, or the Rape of NanKing. Maybe you and I (political differences put aside) should work together to do a history blog.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at Tue Jun 14 14:24:36 2005 (aHbua)

2 Hmmmm.... An intriguing thought.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 14 17:06:58 2005 (HMt1E)

3 Yeah, sad to see these things happen. They need to learn to put their shoes in that era to see why these things happen. Truman was absolutely distraught in deciding whether to bomb the cities or not. One thing tho, are we seeing a balance in history for other races who had helped contributed in the making of the United States? It's been more than 20 years since I was in high school and yet my oldest daughter will be in the 7th grade. It'd be interesting to see what her history book says. Watch out for those PC lines in history books.

Posted by: mcconnell at Wed Jun 15 03:01:18 2005 (JRKms)

4 I just recently found out, a Great Uncle was slated to be in the first wave to attack Japan, if a ground war was to happen. Without the use of those two bombs, would I have my uncle and my cousins? I seriously doubt it. To listen to him talk about the preparations, the military had already written off the first 2 waves that would storm the shores of Japan. The soldiers were being prepared to fight the elderly and the women and children of Japan. Don't know about any of you, but I am glad I was not there, and have nothing but respect for those soldiers preparing to invade Japan. Something kids today don't do is listen and hear the stories of WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam from those older relatives they have that were there, and did the actual fighting. Instead they get liberal indoctrination as soon as the 1st grade, in some states. I would be interested in the History blog if you B can do it without political spin. You can never know everything, and learning should be an everyday thing!

Posted by: scubachris at Wed Jun 15 04:21:47 2005 (AktpP)

5 My great uncle was killed by a Japanese sniper by putting a bullet into his back on one of the islands in the Pacific during WWII.

Posted by: mcconnell at Wed Jun 15 10:18:12 2005 (LmcbS)

6 Also, my cousin was killed by a hand thrown grenade tossed into a tent shared by many sleeping troops in Kuwait prior to the 2nd Iraq war at Camp Pennsylvania. The tosser was none other than one of their own.

Posted by: mcconnell at Wed Jun 15 10:22:21 2005 (LmcbS)

7 Hey when it comes to history there is no politics as far as I am concerned, there are facts (sometimes inconvenient) and there are myths(always inconvenient, and almost always wrong), I think if I were to do this I would make sure that opinions were advertised as such.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at Wed Jun 15 13:30:07 2005 (aHbua)

8 McConnell: I don't think I'll get any rounds of disagreement from anyone when I say that the person who did that to your cousin was an absolutely vile person. I am sorry for your loss, and respect your cousin's desire to do his or her duty and protect both our lives, and the lives of the Iraqi people. Nothing can repay such sacrifice, but I'd like to find out that we honor the soldiers that fight for us now as best we can. Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Wed Jun 15 14:23:10 2005 (r/FBF)

9 Thanks Sub. I never knew him. Just my mother's cousin (Betty Lenzi) whose son was killed. My mom knew him when he was a toddler. However, I can you tell you thing. There is one person who have frequented this board who said that Maj. Gregory Stone deserved to be buried rotting 6 ft under. A very vile individual indeed. Dirty mouth and all.

Posted by: mcconnell at Wed Jun 15 17:37:58 2005 (JRKms)

10 Exact words: "...second, to make fun of his dead, mangled cousin who is rotting six feet under the cold ground." http://ridor.blogspot.com/2005/04/reminder-for-bitch-session-iv.html That alone proves how some people prefer to side with the enemy and put them on a pedestal instead. In this case, his hero seems to be Sgt. Akbar. In any U.S. wars we should honor and remember the dead. Even some of the enemies such as the ones in Japan and Germany. They were the victim in the politics of war. Many of them were forced into battle. So many young men..literally boys who never gotten a chance at a good life. I've seen a PBS show or something similar where both Japan and U.S. WWII veterans met each other for the first time on one of those Midway islands. Many veterans were happen to have reconciled knowing it was a vile time in history. I thing reconciling such past events is therapeutic and helps heal wounds.

Posted by: mcconnell at Wed Jun 15 17:51:52 2005 (JRKms)

11 I feel bad about anyone who dies in war. They're almost always kids who are either conscripted, brainwashed, misguided, or otherwise actually doing the right thing. What they rarely are is people that are flat out evil and wrong. Now - the LEADERS of the countries that are evil and wrong...well...let's just say Saddam has none of my sympathy. Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 16 00:15:32 2005 (r/FBF)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

It seems that a liberal gay Hispanic is no longer enough to make one immune from censorship on one California campus.

Writer Richard Rodriguez, invited to speak at the California State University East Bay commencement in Hayward on Saturday, has decided to withdraw from the program after some graduating students threatened to boycott the event.

Rodriguez, author of the acclaimed memoir "Hunger of Memory," drew criticism from some students for his views against bilingual education and affirmative action.

"I'm a bilingual educator," said student Leah Perez, 32, who is graduating with a master's degree in urban teacher leadership and protested Rodriguez's presence at the graduation. "He believes in assimilation and rejection of one's cultural identity, and we don't feel that is what we stand for in our program, and we don't want him representing us."

Views such as Rodriguez's go against the mission of the university, she said, noting that CSU East Bay has an education curriculum that produces bilingual teachers and emphasizes social justice.

Uh, no it doesn't -- especially since bilingual education goes against state law out in California, as dictated by the voters several years back. Besides, isn't it also part of the idea of a university to encourage the expression of diverse thought?

more...

Posted by: Greg at 02:00 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

A mother in England has three daughters, age 16 and under, who have all given birth within the last few months. Three of them. So of course, when asked why this has happened, she blamed. . . the schools, and later still, the government as a whole.

Julie Atkins' three daughters fell pregnant within a few short months of one another. Natasha recently gave birth to a girl, just around her 16th birthday. Her sister Jade, 14, also gave birth to a girl.

However, the first of the three sisters to deliver a baby was 12-year old Gemma, who gave birth to a boy. She named him T-Jay, which presumably means something in 12-year-old circles, and was chosen, of necessity, without consultation with the 14-year old father, who has made himself scarce.

Nor does 14-year old Jade seem to have any great expectations of seeing the father of her baby any time soon either, noting off-handedly that she became pregnant as a result of "a one-night stand".

Their twice-divorced mother, who lives with her daughters and their babies in a free three-bedroom council house told the papers, "Frankly, I blame the schools."

When the neighbors, reading this, lost no time in calling the papers to report that Mrs. Atkins had been allowing her then-11-year old daughter to have sex with her 13 year old boy friend in the family home, Mrs. Atkins widened her sphere of culpability for her daughters' pregnancies to include "the government."

more...

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 1103 words, total size 6 kb.

Here is a man talking simple common sense about race in contemporary society. When are we going to do away with government-sponsored segregated graduation ceremonies at colleges and universities?

Because our daughter is African American, we had the dubious honor of attending two ceremonies — one for African Americans only, and then the next day, one for the general population of graduates. This was our third child to graduate from college, and all three universities — two in California and one in Washington — had these twin exercises.

Posted by: Greg at 01:57 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 694 words, total size 4 kb.

Looks like a little bit of common sense might be injected into Texas school disciplinary proceedings if a bill recently passed by the Texas Legislature is signed.

A bill that would give school officials more discretion in discipline matters by allowing them to evaluate individual circumstances before expelling students for certain infractions is awaiting Gov. Rick Perry's approval.

The measure, House Bill 603, co-authored by Rep. Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands, would have a significant effect on cases in which students unknowingly bring weapons to school.

"There are circumstances when students don't realize they have brought illegal items to school and this bill would offer them some protection," said bill supporter Lonnie Hollingsworth, director of governmental relations with Texas Classroom Teachers Association.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 12:05 PM | Comments (69) | Add Comment
Post contains 465 words, total size 3 kb.

Forgive my language, but it seems like too many senior pranks this year revolved around shit. Cow manure, chicken feces, and, in one case, even elephant dung were spread around American high schools by graduating seniors, who were just trying to be funny. They weren't -- though the elephant manure did sort of raise the bar for originality.

That is why the senior prank at Montpelier High School in Vermont is such an exceptional one. A group of kids broke into school over the weekend and painted a mural on the lobby ceiling (a picture is included with the article). And the official reaction to the prank is one that demonstrates that administrators can exercise common sense and common decency in carrying out their responsibilities.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 02:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 523 words, total size 3 kb.

East Lynne School District in Cass County, Missouri had ten teachers an one principal/superintendent this year. Right now, they have two teachers and one principal/superintendent. The events that happened there this year are a classic example of what happens when the person in charge is an idiot who is more concerned about being obeyed than about the safety of his students and the input of his staff.

Seven of 10 classroom teachers in a tiny school district resigned after a colleague was fired for helping an 11-year-old girl who was left alone in a playground to pick up rocks as punishment.

The fourth-grader in the East Lynne School District in Cass County was assigned the task last September for refusing to do her schoolwork, but she was unsupervised except for a security camera. The playground was near a road but inside a fence.

The fired teacher, Christa Price, went to the principal — who is also the district superintendent — and asked him to reconsider the punishment, but he wouldn’t. So on her free period, Price helped the girl pick up rocks. Other teachers watched the girl the next day.

At contract time in March, Superintendent Dan Doerhoff recommended firing Price, a popular teacher who had had good performance evaluations, for insubordination. Seven other teachers then chose not to return their contracts.

“If a teacher who advocates on behalf of safety of a student is not fit to be a teacher at East Lynne or anywhere in Missouri according to this administration, then none of us are fit to teach at East Lynne,” the teachers who resigned said Tuesday in a statement.

Now let's look at this situation. The punishment is one that served no particular educational purpose, and the nine-year-old student was left unattended by a road with only a security camera observing her. That is great if you want to have a grainy tape of an unidentified man shoving a struggling child into the back of a non-descript van with an obscured license plate. On the other hand, it doesn't do much to protect the child from possible abduction or a car hitting her.

The fact that this administrative idiot then chose to fire the teacher, who he had given high evaluations over the course of four years, is absurd. He apparantly doesn't like being challenged or questioned -- even if they involve genuine issues of student safety.

But it gets even worse. Not only did he make sure she would not be back at the school, he also has tried to make sure that Ms. Price would never be permitted to teach anywhere ever again.

Doerhoff also refused to sign the certification renewal that Price needs to get another teaching job, saying doing so would have been inconsistent and “could put me in a pickle.”

Yeah. It might make people realize that you are an absolute asshole -- but since everyone already knows that, so why not just sign it as a sign of your good will.

Fortunately, the appropriate state agency is taking notice, and doing its best to see that justice is done.

Jim Morris, spokesman for the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, said the departmentÂ’s Kansas City-area supervisor has offered to speak to certification officials on PriceÂ’s behalf.

My advice to teachers -- stay far away from this district.

My advice to the school board -- fire this administrator.

My advice to the citizens of the district -- vote out the board if they don't.

Posted by: Greg at 02:00 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 593 words, total size 4 kb.

Well, the Texas Legislature has done it. They have once again kicked the teachers in the teeth and said we don't mean squat to them.

Look at this story about the future of teacher retirement benefits.

Legislation aimed at stabilizing the $91 billion Teacher Retirement System won tentative House approval Monday, despite some claims that it pits active teachers against retired teachers.

Rep. Craig Eiland, the House sponsor of the measure, said if lawmakers do nothing to change the system, retired teachers won't be able to get a retirement payment increase for the next 12 to 15 years.

They haven't had one since 2001, he said.

It's also important to preserve the system as a defined benefit plan as opposed to a defined contribution plan, said Eiland, D-Galveston.

The system covers about 850,000 employees and about 240,000 retirees. The fund has $11 billion of unfunded liabilities and is 88 percent funded.

The bill would increase the retirement age to 60 from 55, although the change would affect only teachers who start working on or after September 2007.

It also attempts to stop incentives for early teacher retirement.

"We cannot afford it," Eiland said. "The whole purpose of this bill is to change retirement patterns, retirement behavior."

The proposal would change the base of retirees' benefits to the highest five years of their salary instead of the highest three.

Rep. Jim McReynolds, D-Lufkin, tried unsuccessfully to change that provision of the proposal.

"These are tough votes," McReynolds said. "It kind of pits us between our active teachers and our retired teachers." But in the end he voted for the bill, which tentatively passed 115-16. Some others who criticized parts of the bill abstained from voting.

Senators approved a similar proposal last week. If the Senate does not agree with changes made on the House side, a committee of a few lawmakers from each chamber will meet to work out the differences.

Later retirement. Lower benefits. A continued refusal of the state to make up the state contributions that were reduced more than a decade ago, creating this fiscal shortfall. We are still paid below state average, and the one "perk" that has been discussed this year will not start until after many teachers quit the classroom and will not benefit childless teachers or those who enter the classroom later in life or with older children.

Consider this retirement plan change, for a group of part-timers who make only $7200 a year plus their per diem when they meet in odd number years.

Senators and representatives earn $7,200 a year for their part-time jobs. They receive $128 per day for expenses during the 140 days they meet every other year.

The low pay is a result of Texas founding fathers' desire for citizen-legislators who would bring their real world experience to their law-writing duties.

But while the pay is low, the benefits can be good. The state pays for health insurance for lawmakers and their families.

Retired lawmakers can begin collecting pensions at age 50 if they serve for at least 12 years. Under SB 368, a retired official with 12 years' experience would get $6,431 more a year for a total pension of $34,500. Benefits increase with each year of service.

So the legislators, with their fully funded health insurance (like other state employees -- except teachers, who would be "too expensive to include" despite being promised equivalent benefits over a decade ago), will see an increase in their pension nearly equivalent to their entire annual salary. That will push their annual benefit above what many teachers get from TRS, and their retirement age and years of service are both lower than those of teachers.

Yep, you folks really have showed what great value you place on teachers.

Posted by: Greg at 11:38 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 635 words, total size 4 kb.

I never particularly enjoyed teaching English, though I did it for six years of my teaching career. The thing I most enjoyed, though, was the literature that I got to deal with on a recurring basis, teaching it year after year. Closest to my heart each year were the weeks I spent walking my student's through Harper Lee's great novel, To Kill A Mockingbird. I always asked them, after the first reading assignment, to tell me what the narrator says the story is about in the first chapter. If you can't remembr, I'll tell you at the end.

My students were always fascinated that Ms. Lee became a recluse, rarely speaking to the press or making public appearances -- or even leaving her apartment -- while I am intrigued by the reports that the dear lady has completed several other manuscripts, which will be duly shipped off to publishers after her death. So it is with great interest that I saw this article -- photo included! -- about one of Ms. Lee's rare public outings.

Harper Lee, who has been dodging publicity for decades since she published her only book, To Kill a Mockingbird, made a rare step into the limelight to be honored by the Los Angeles Public Library.

Lee, 79, stopped giving interviews a few years after she won the Pulitzer Prize for her 1960 coming-of-age book exploring racial prejudice in the South. She has turned down most requests for appearances.

But she couldn't refuse an invitation from Veronique Peck, the widow of actor Gregory Peck, who won an Oscar for his starring role as lawyer Atticus Finch in the 1962 film version of the book and became a lifelong friend with Lee.

Mockingbird co-star Brock Peters, who played the black man falsely accused of rape in the film, presented the award to Lee.

After Veronique Peck whispered in her ear, Lee gave her only remarks of the evening: "I'll say it again. Thank you all from the bottom of my heart."

Maybe this isn't the most significant piece of news I will ever write about. Maybe no one will give a rip at all about my affection for this woman. And perhaps many of you hated reading her one published book during your high school years. But I have to agree with Mrs. Peck's words about the woman who created the character who became her husband's greatest role.

Veronique Peck said Lee is "like a national treasure."

"She's someone who has made a difference with this book," she said. "All the kids in the United States read this book and see the film in the seventh and eighth grades and write papers and essays. My husband used to get thousands and thousands of letters from teachers who would send them to him."

By the way, does anyone remember what that long story was ostensibly about? As I always reminded my students at the end of the novel, it was the story of how Scout's brother Jem broke his arm.

And so much more -- so very much more.

Posted by: Greg at 03:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 3 kb.

I cannot begin to express my level of admiration for Marc Epstein, Dean of Students at Jamaica High School in New York. He has come out and said to the public what many of us on the frontlines of the education wars have been saying privately for years -- bring back vocational education, and dump the notion that a college education is appropriate for every student.

In the old days, dropouts were an unfortunate-but-accepted part of school life. It was assumed that some kids didn't want to go to school, no matter what the authorities tried to do to keep them in.

But unskilled jobs were plentiful back then, and anyone willing to put in a hard day's work could find employment. Today, we can't expect that a class of illiterate hard-working ditch-diggers will make their way successfully through life in these United States.

Now I would have to differ with Epstein on that last point. There are plenty of such jobs out there -- why do you think we have 12 million border-jumping mexicans living and working in this country without legal documentation. They are here because there are those jobs out there, and people can work at them and make something of a living. It is a lousy way to get by, but these people are proof that you can get by that way. Of course, they have a work ethic, and the students who are not coming to school don't, believing that they can hustle their way on the streets to be the next Scarface or Snoop Dogg.

It's not unusual for our large high schools to have upwards of 300 students over the age of 17 who are still classified as freshman. If you add the 15- and 16-year-olds who are on that same treadmill, as much as one third of a 2,500-student enrollment is making little or no progress.

Many enter school late and leave early. It is left to the NYPD to round them up and bring them to truancy centers. Rarely do any of them reform.

I teach on a campus that has only grades 9 & 10 -- grades 11 & 12 are on another campus (this way we qualify as one 4000 student 5A school in football). I cannot begin to tell the problems I have with students who call themselves "freshmores". I would guess that we have about 200 of them at my school. They are in their second year of high school, but started that second year with fewer than the six credits required to be classified as grade 10. We spend an inordinate amount of time and money trying to keep these kids in school -- "credit recovery" labs where they can do the on computer the alleged equivalent ofwhat they wouldn't do in class, a special school program for them that keeps a very few in school only half a day, and other programs that keep our drop-out rate lower than 5%.

But the real problem is that these are kids who, for the most part, are not academically inclined. They need a high school diploma and some marketable job skills. Sadly, our career education program has only a limited number of slots, so acceptance into the classes is with teacher approval only. That eliminates from consideration any student with an attendance, grade, or discipline problem -- the very students who might most benefit from being in such classes. I suspect the same is true at Epstein's school, which leads him to the following conclusion.

So what is to be done? For starters, small technical-training programs that point kids towards acquiring a trade, a state license and a GED are in place. But at present there are few seats, limiting the large numbers who might thrive in this setting.

Bill Clinton stated, "College isn't for everyone." The time for tracking kids based on interests and abilities is long overdue.

It shouldn't be viewed as discrimination. We're warehousing tens of thousands of kids until the age of 21, when they have made no progress since coming to high school. This breeds crime, wastes valuable education dollars and in the end leaves these kids with the same skills they'd have had if they'd dropped out after the eighth grade.

We've spent the past four decades killing these kids with kindness. Enough is enough.

Yes, indeed. Enough is enough. Let's make the commitment to track such students early (their behavior is generally evident before they enter high school) and put them into programs that fit their needs. We do that with special education students as a matter of law, even when they are mainstreamed into regular classes. Why not do the same for those who have clearly demonstrated that they need something other than a college prep program and a university education? It isn't leaving children behind -- it is getting them to success by a different route.

Posted by: Greg at 06:44 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 830 words, total size 5 kb.

In an attempt to raise the overall scores of students at Lincoln Middle School in Vista, California, the principal plans to end the district’s last remaining program for gifted students in the hopes that placing those students in regular classrooms will result in improved performance overall. Parents of the gifted students are concerned about the special needs of their students being sacrificed and ignored, while parents of Latino students object to the possibility that the gifted program might survive in some form or fashion.

"All students should be treated equally," Latino parents said in a letter to the board and district administrators. "We believe that the school should not create differences between students who know more and students who know less."

Doesn’t anyone recognize the absurdity of that statement? Why shouldn’t we treat our best and brightest to an education that meets their needs, just as we do those in special education programs? On what basis do we hold back the top kids and dragoon them into providing free tutoring for their slower classmates in the hopes that it will raise the other students’ scores. Especially when you consider what the source of the problem is.

The student body at Lincoln is 63 percent Hispanic or Latino. Of the school's 1,293 students, 437 are English-learners, and 99 percent of those speak Spanish.

That group has pulled down test scores, putting Lincoln on "program improvement" status under the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

So what this really comes down to for these Latino parents is that they want THEIR children put first, not some other parents’ children. I guess it is a simple case of Leave No Latino Child Behind – and screw the rest.

When are we going to get rid of the notion that helping our brightest kids reach their potential is a bad thing?

Posted by: Greg at 01:22 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

In an attempt to raise the overall scores of students at Lincoln Middle School in Vista, California, the principal plans to end the districtÂ’s last remaining program for gifted students in the hopes that placing those students in regular classrooms will result in improved performance overall. Parents of the gifted students are concerned about the special needs of their students being sacrificed and ignored, while parents of Latino students object to the possibility that the gifted program might survive in some form or fashion.

"All students should be treated equally," Latino parents said in a letter to the board and district administrators. "We believe that the school should not create differences between students who know more and students who know less."

DoesnÂ’t anyone recognize the absurdity of that statement? Why shouldnÂ’t we treat our best and brightest to an education that meets their needs, just as we do those in special education programs? On what basis do we hold back the top kids and dragoon them into providing free tutoring for their slower classmates in the hopes that it will raise the other studentsÂ’ scores. Especially when you consider what the source of the problem is.

The student body at Lincoln is 63 percent Hispanic or Latino. Of the school's 1,293 students, 437 are English-learners, and 99 percent of those speak Spanish.

That group has pulled down test scores, putting Lincoln on "program improvement" status under the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

So what this really comes down to for these Latino parents is that they want THEIR children put first, not some other parents’ children. I guess it is a simple case of Leave No Latino Child Behind – and screw the rest.

When are we going to get rid of the notion that helping our brightest kids reach their potential is a bad thing?

Posted by: Greg at 01:22 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

I donÂ’t usually support a school giving a punishment for statements made off school grounds and outside of school hours. But in this case, I think the nexus between a school event, the statement in question, and illegal conduct is such that the punishment is appropriate in this case.

A senior at a Frederick's Governor Thomas Johnson High School has been barred from attending her prom this Saturday because she told a newspaper she planned to drink alcohol on prom night.

Shawnda Lawson, 18, told The Frederick News-Post earlier this month that she had refused to sign a pledge that she wouldn't drink -- and she told the paper she likes drinking.

After the story was published, Lawson said she was told by her principal she was banned from the prom and told she was an embarrassment to the school.

County schools spokeswoman Marita Loose said school dances are a privilege, not a right.

Another student, Nicole Taylor, also told the newspaper she planned to drink on prom night. There is no word if she also faces punishment.

We lost a girl from my school several years ago when a drunk hit her boyfriend’s car on the way to his prom. We had several students injured – including one with a broken neck that could have left her paralyzed – in a wreck on the Galveston Causeway the year before that, but alcohol was not a factor. In reality, we have managed to dodge the tragedy of a car full of kids dying in a fiery wreck after getting liquored up. But when it is our turn to face such a prom tragedy, it will be the school (not the parents) that everyone expects to put a stop to the drinking – despite the fact that kids are searched by constables going in to prom and cannot leave the cordoned-off area of the hotel during the dance.

Therefore, I think this is a good, proportionate response to the statement made by Ms. Lawson to the newspaper. She may go out and get loaded, but no one will be able to complain that the school “should have done something”.

Posted by: Greg at 12:21 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

You can claim to be an Indian, Professor Churchill – but you can’t make the Indians claim you.

The statement, issued May 9 in the name of the tribal leader, Chief George Wickliffe, and posted on its Web site Tuesday, does not mince words:

"The United Keetoowah Band would like to make it clear that Mr. Churchill IS NOT a member of the Keetoowah Band and was only given an honorary 'associate membership' in the early 1990s because he could not prove any Cherokee ancestry."

The tribe said that all of Churchill's "past, present and future claims or assertions of Keetoowah 'enrollment,' written or spoken, including but not limited to; biographies, curriculum vitae, lectures, applications for employment, or any other reference not listed herein, are deemed fraudulent by the United Keetoowah Band."

That should settle the matter for anyone with a shred of integrity – though Churchill and his apologists will probably still make the fraudulent claim. His attempt to assert “Indian-ness” based upon an honorary membership in the tribe is like trying to claim the title of “Dr.” based upon an honorary degree.

The matter is very clear, according to the tribe.

"Mr. Churchill was never able to prove his eligibility in accordance with our membership laws," the statement said.

The chief said his tribe had decided to honor Churchill with the associate membership because Church-ill had promised to write the tribe's history and had pledged "to help and honor the UKB."

"To date Mr. Churchill has done nothing in regards to his promise and pledge."

So, to settle the matter once and for all – Ward Churchill’s claim to be an Indian is as fraudulent as his scholarship.

Comment on Churchill's claim -- SCSU Scholars

Posted by: Greg at 12:19 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

Fairleigh Dickinson University saw fit to treat its graduating seniors to the anti-American rantings of so-called journalist Seymour Hersh -- who proceeded to outrage a large number of them.

Journalist Seymour Hersh described U.S. soldiers in Iraq as "victims," eliciting jeers and cheers from an audience of about 6,000 people at a college commencement on Monday.

Hersh, speaking to graduates of Fairleigh Dickinson University and their families, said American soldiers are "doing an admirable job under terrible conditions" but don't know much about the war they are fighting.

"They are as much victims as the people they are sometimes forced to kill," Hersh said.

The comment was greeted by a loud expletive from one member of the audience. Booing and more swearing followed, but other audience members stood and cheered.

Now I'm sorry, but I've long had a problem with the concept that a commencement address is a forum to engage in a political speech. The event isn't about the speaker -- it is about the graduates, and when it gets abused by the speaker for some other purpose I take offense. I think that's why so many folks objected to Hersh's anti-American comments -- especially when he dishonored the warriors fighting in the War on Islamofascism that began only a few miles from the campus during the first weeks of the graduates' college career.

And I am particularly taken aback by Fairleigh Dickenson's decision to bring in the anti-American Hersh given their actions earlier in the semester. Yeah, I am referring to the firing of a professor because of his un-American beliefs.

[Professor Jacques] Pluss said he was dismissed in March because university officials learned of his involvement in the National Socialist Movement, which bills itself "America's Nazi Party." School officials said he was let go for missing too many classes.

The 51-year-old professor bristles when he is called a white supremacist or racist.

"The world is made up of different cultures, all of which have a place, all of which have a direction and all of which should have a say in determining their own futures," he said.

University officials declined to elaborate on Pluss' ouster. It was unclear what role -- if any -- Pluss' political views played in the decision.

Pluss, who had taught at the university since 2002, said he joined the neo-Nazi group in February but kept his views a secret on campus.

Yeah, I guess that there is a double standard on campus -- un-Americans on the right get fired, but un-American Leftists get honored. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't go whole-hog and just invite Ward Churchill, the poster child for un-American college faculty who get to keep their job in the name of "academic freedom."

Posted by: Greg at 03:23 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 469 words, total size 3 kb.

Just when I thought that Zero Tolerance stupidity couldn't get any more extreme, I encounter this little gem from the Atlanta area.

Two seniors at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. High School will miss their baccalaureate -- but make their graduation -- after a stink that started over a cake knife.

Because of the school's zero tolerance policy on weapons, Ashley Pickens and Candace Grier, both honor students, were suspended from school for 10 days and told they would not be allowed to attend their baccalaureate ceremonies. The DeKalb school superintendent upheld that punishment but decided to allow the girls to walk with their classmates during graduation.

The trouble started when the girls brought a cake to school and looked for a knife to cut it. They say they found a butter-type knife in the school's band room and tried to return it, but the door had since been locked.

One of the girls put the knife in her book bag. Then a teacher saw it.

"He said it really didn't matter [that it was used for a cake]," Pickens said. "[He said] it's a knife on school grounds, and you have to be written up for it -- you ought to be glad we didn't have you arrested."

Now let me get this straight -- they used a school utensil and for that have been punished. Someone must be out of their mind!

But there is some hope.

School officials claimed they enforced clearly written codes of conduct. Wednesday, a school tribunal will hear the girls' appeal to attend baccalaureate ceremonies.

Maybe someone will recognize that a butter knife is not a weapon, but is instead a tool that they were using appropriately.

Posted by: Greg at 02:07 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

The University of Oregon has a policy of offering special small section classes in the Math & English departments, limited to 18 students, with the first 10 slots reserved for African-American, Asian-American/Pacific Islander, Chicano/Latino, Native American or multiracial students.

Why?

University Senior Instructor Michel Kovcholovsky, who teaches the OMAS's math classes, said the classes were created to foster a comfortable environment for minorities. "That was the basic idea, so that they don't feel afraid to raise their hand and ask something."

The school does no favor to students by allowing them this sheltered environment. Furthermore, it violates the law by limiting access based upon race or ethnicity.

And I’m curious – would the university consider a special “white’s only” section to create a comfortable environment for white students who are afraid ask questions in front of minorities? I think we all know the answer to that.

Posted by: Greg at 11:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

I understand dissection in a classroom. I mean, it is a legitimate tool for study of biology. But when it comes right down to it, you are working with a dead crature that will in no way feel pain or be harmed – and generally are using a frog, which is not one of the higher creatures on the intellectual/emotional ladder.

But vivisecting a dog in a high school class is something else entirely.

A biology class lesson in Gunnison, Utah involving the dissection of a live dog has outraged some parents and students, according to a report.

Biology teacher Doug Bjerregaard, who is a substitute teacher at Gunnison Valley High School, wanted his students to see how the digestive system of a dog worked.

Bjerregaard made arrangements for his students to be a part of a dissection of a dog that was still alive.

The dog was still alive, but the teacher said it was sedated before the dissection began.
With the students watching, the sedated dog's digestive system was removed.

"It just makes me sick and I don't think this should go on anywhere and nobody's learning from it," student Sierra Sears said.

The teacher said the lesson would allow students to see the organs actually working.

"I thought that it would be just really a good experience if they could see the digestive system in the living animal," Bierregaard said.

The school's principal, Kirk Anderson, said notifications went to parents explaining the dog was going to be euthanized and that the experiment would be done with the dog's organs still functioning.

The teacher is standing by his decision and calls it the ultimate educational experience.

Principal Anderson said he supports the lesson and it will be allowed to continue because the students are learning.

The dog used in the experiment was going to be euthanized despite the class project.

I’m sorry, but this is inappropriate – not while the creature was alive. I’m reasonably confident there is some animal cruelty law being violated by this.

Posted by: Greg at 11:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.

This story has some interesting issues in it, but I’m not sure what I think.

Kerry Lofy figures that girls get to wear dresses to the Lake Geneva Badger High School prom, so why couldn't he?

But now that he has been suspended from school for three days, is being forced to miss his last track meet (and a chance for the school's pole vaulting record) and has to pay a $249 ticket for disorderly conduct, Lofy's not so sure he picked the right battle to fight.

"Things got a little crazy," Lofy said Tuesday from home, where the 18-year-old senior is serving the suspension after Saturday night's antics.

High school officials are not returning calls for comment on the case, but to hear Lofy tell it, this is a classic case of the price you pay for fighting for your rights of self-expression.

Lofy said he thought it would be funny to show up at his senior prom Saturday wearing a dress. Lofy went to the prom with Victor Anderson, a friend. Lofy says the school did not have any problem letting two males attend prom together, but school officials who had heard of Lofy's plan to wear a black dress warned him that he would not be allowed in the dance if he showed up dressed as a woman.
Lofy says he is not gay. He says he agreed to go with Anderson, who is gay, because Anderson is his friend and he wanted to go to the prom but didn't have a date. Anderson confirms this. Lofy concedes that he was uneasy going to prom with another male, and wearing a dress was a way to deflect other people's suspicions.

Are girls permitted to wear traditionally male attire – such as a tuxedo?

Would the dress have been acceptable if it had been wore by the gay student?

What about if the gay student self-identified as a “transgendered” individual?

Does any of that matter?

Like I said, there are issues here, and I don’t even begin to know where to begin to address them.

But I was struck by this sentence at the end of the article.

Lofy plans to go to Colorado Mountain College in the fall and major in ski hill management.

Ski Hill Management is a major?

Posted by: Greg at 11:52 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 389 words, total size 2 kb.

This story has some interesting issues in it, but IÂ’m not sure what I think.

Kerry Lofy figures that girls get to wear dresses to the Lake Geneva Badger High School prom, so why couldn't he?

But now that he has been suspended from school for three days, is being forced to miss his last track meet (and a chance for the school's pole vaulting record) and has to pay a $249 ticket for disorderly conduct, Lofy's not so sure he picked the right battle to fight.

"Things got a little crazy," Lofy said Tuesday from home, where the 18-year-old senior is serving the suspension after Saturday night's antics.

High school officials are not returning calls for comment on the case, but to hear Lofy tell it, this is a classic case of the price you pay for fighting for your rights of self-expression.

Lofy said he thought it would be funny to show up at his senior prom Saturday wearing a dress. Lofy went to the prom with Victor Anderson, a friend. Lofy says the school did not have any problem letting two males attend prom together, but school officials who had heard of Lofy's plan to wear a black dress warned him that he would not be allowed in the dance if he showed up dressed as a woman.
Lofy says he is not gay. He says he agreed to go with Anderson, who is gay, because Anderson is his friend and he wanted to go to the prom but didn't have a date. Anderson confirms this. Lofy concedes that he was uneasy going to prom with another male, and wearing a dress was a way to deflect other people's suspicions.

Are girls permitted to wear traditionally male attire – such as a tuxedo?

Would the dress have been acceptable if it had been wore by the gay student?

What about if the gay student self-identified as a “transgendered” individual?

Does any of that matter?

Like I said, there are issues here, and I donÂ’t even begin to know where to begin to address them.

But I was struck by this sentence at the end of the article.

Lofy plans to go to Colorado Mountain College in the fall and major in ski hill management.

Ski Hill Management is a major?

Posted by: Greg at 11:52 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 395 words, total size 2 kb.

Let me get this straight – a principal found a shirt with these two messages offensive and disruptive?

A teenager was back in class on May 6 after receiving a one-day suspension for wearing a T-shirt with slogans including “freedom of expression” and “don’t drink and drive” that school administrators considered disruptive.
Hanna Smith, 18, a junior at Tift County High School, said Principal Mike Duck told her that if she wore the shirt again she would be suspended for the remainder of the year.

The principal was arrested six years ago for DUI and running a stop sign, The Tifton Gazette said May 6 in a story on SmithÂ’s suspension. Duck made a public apology for the DUI and was himself suspended for five days.

SmithÂ’s mother, Tracy Fletcher, said she would defend her daughterÂ’s right to express herself, even if it meant hiring an attorney and taking the case to court.

“They want everyone to fit into a mold, and there’s no room for individuality. These kids are our future, I think they should be treated with a little more respect. Their opinions count. Their thoughts count,” Fletcher said.

The principal confirmed that Smith was back in class on May 6 without the banned T-shirt, which also had a peace symbol on the front and “Veritas,” which means truth, written on the back.

Now let’s look at this and try to discern what is offensive here. A peace sign? Hardly. The word “Veritas”? Most kids probably couldn’t pronounce it, much less tell you what it means. Could it be “Freedom of Expression”? One would hope not, given that teaching the concept is mandatory in any American government or history class. Well then it must be “Don’t Drink and Drive”. I guess that the drunk who the school board unwisely allows to run a high school had his feelings hurt by that message, one which simply urges that the laws of the state (and common sense and common decency) be followed. Certainly there isn’t anything that would disrupt school in any of those messages, so that must be it.

But I love this quote from Principal Mike Duck.

The school systemÂ’s dress code forbids disruptive clothing, grooming and symbols. Principals decide whatÂ’s disruptive.

“I have an obligation to maintain an orderly environment,” Duck said. “The courts give me the authority and the right to make those decisions and as long as I’m sitting in this chair that’s what I’m going to do.”

Frankly, sir, based upon that addled comment I’m surprised you are sitting in the chair instead of falling out of it trying to get to that bottle of Smirnoff you keep in the back of your desk drawer to calm your DTs. But if you want a quick primer on the rights of students, might I direct you here and here. In case your hangover is giving you too much trouble, I’ll give you the highlights – Tinker v. Des Moines, “Students don’t surrender their rights at the school house gate”, First Amendment, civil rights and liberties, arbitrary abuse of power. You know, the same stuff I keep writing about regularly on this site and on my previous one.

And I cannot help but admire the stand taken by this young adult, 18-year-old Hanna Smith.

“I think it’s silly that we can’t practice the freedoms that they teach us here,” Smith said. “You would think that school officials would have respect for the law and people’s rights, or at least they should.”

You’ve got it exactly right, Hanna – it is impossible to teach our students to be citizens of a free society while granting them no greater liberty than an inmate in a maximum security penitentiary, for the habits necessary to survive as the latter are not those necessary to prosper as the former.

Posted by: Greg at 12:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 648 words, total size 4 kb.

DonÂ’t you love it when some geeks get a neat idea into their head and run with it?

Suppose it is the future - maybe a thousand years from now. There is no static cling, diapers change themselves, and everyone who is anyone summers on Mars.

"The odds of a time traveler showing up are between one in a million and one in a trillion," says Amal Dorai, who conceived the convention.

What's more, it is possible to travel back in time, to any place, any era. Where would people go? Would they zoom to a 2005 Saturday night for chips and burgers in a college courtyard, eager to schmooze with computer science majors possessing way too many brain cells?

Why not, say some students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who have organized what they call the first convention for time travelers.

Actually, they contend that theirs is the only time traveler convention the world needs, because people from the future can travel to it anytime they want.

"I would hope they would come with the idea of showing us that time travel is possible," said Amal Dorai, 22, the graduate student who thought up the convention, which is to be this Saturday on the M.I.T. campus. "Maybe they could leave something with us. It is possible they might look slightly different, the shape of the head, the body proportions.

The event is potluck and alcohol-free - present-day humans are bringing things like brownies. But Mr. Dorai's Web site asks that future-folk bring something to prove they are really ahead of our time: "Things like a cure for AIDS or cancer, a solution for global poverty or a cold fusion reactor would be particularly convincing as well as greatly appreciated."

I love the notion that there need be only one, as time travelers can always get there from any other point in the future. It reeks of the sort of cleverness that Douglas Adams showed in The Restaurant At the End Of The Universe.

And I love this explanation of why folks should come out for the party.

"If you can just give up a Saturday night, there's a very small chance at it being the biggest event in human history," he said.

Well, it certainly beats the reason for attending the annual St. Flatulus Day party back when I was in the seminary.

Posted by: Greg at 01:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 405 words, total size 2 kb.

Every rule has to admit that there are situations that are exceptions. Such exceptions often are tacit rather than written down. ShouldnÂ’t common sense have let there be one here?

A high school student was suspended for 10 days for refusing to end a mobile phone call with his mother, a soldier serving in Iraq, school officials said.

The 10-day suspension was issued because Kevin Francois was "defiant and disorderly" and was imposed in lieu of an arrest, Spencer High School assistant principal Alfred Parham said.

The confrontation Wednesday began after the 17-year-old junior got a call at lunchtime from his mother, Sgt. 1st Class Monique Bates, who left in January for a one-year tour with the 203rd Forward Support Battalion.

Mobile phones are allowed on campus but may not be used during school hours.

When a teacher told him to hang up, he refused. He said he told the teacher, "This is my mom in Iraq. I'm not about to hang up on my mom."

The word “Iraq” would have led me to turn a blind eye – and I would have been supported by every administrator on my campus. We all banded together a couple of years ago to look out for one of our boys when his mom, dad, and older brother all deployed at the same time. I know for a fact that he had the home and cell phone numbers of at least a half dozen teachers in his wallet, as well as personal email addresses. He had "walk-in" privileges at the principal's office, something that we teachers don't have. I somehow doubt that Kevin has been afforded any such consideration, despite the fact that his mother is his only living parent.

What I'm saying is that I wish this school had shown a bit more concern about this student's psychological and emotional well-being.

But then again, I may be biased.

After all, my dad was a Navy officer who we once figured was gone for six of my first 12 years, including multiple tours in Vietnam, so I can really identify with this boy.

Other takes on this story -- Michelle Malkin, Zero Intelligence, Outside The Beltway, Cam Edwards.

Posted by: Greg at 01:08 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 379 words, total size 2 kb.

Now I chose that title very deliberately. That isnÂ’t the way the story is being presented in the media, or being argued by the teacher and his lawyers. But when one cuts through all the rhetoric, histrionics, and outcry, that is what this story comes down to.

A Gwinnett County teacher was fired early Friday after refusing to raise a student athlete's grade he lowered because the student appeared to be sleeping in class.

The Gwinnett County School Board voted 4-1 early Friday _ after a marathon Thursday night meeting _ to fire Dacula High School science teacher Larry Neace, said school system spokeswoman Sloan Roach.

Neace left the building after the ruling and would not comment.
His lawyers said they planned to appeal the dismissal to the State Board of Education within 30 days.

Now that sounds pretty damning, doesn’t it. It certainly has all the right villains – student athlete, building administrators, school board members – arrayed against one poor defenseless teacher who is trying to stand up for excellence in education. Unfortunately, that isn’t what I see going on here. What I see is a teacher using a poor educational practice in direct contravention of district policy, and then engaging in insubordination when directed to conform his grading and classroom management practices to district policy.

Neace, who has taught at Dacula High for 23 years, was removed from class after he refused to raise the grade he had given a football player on an overnight assignment. Neace said he cut the student's perfect grade in half because he thought the student had fallen asleep at his desk the day the assignment was made.

School officials said they gave Neace a chance to restore the football player's grade. When he refused, they sent him home. He has not been allowed back at school since April 14, when he was told he could resign or face being fired.

Superintendent J. Alvin Wilbanks recommended to the board that Neace be fired.
"He cannot have a policy that supersedes board policy," Wilbanks said. "He had no right to do that."

Neace said he had a practice of reducing the grades of students who waste time or sleep in class. His course syllabus warns that wasting class time can "earn a zero for a student on assignments or labs."

No administrators had previously complained about the practice, which he adopted more than a decade ago, Neace said.

Let’s look at what happened. You had a kid who may or may not have fallen asleep in class on Wednesday (a pet peeve of mine that earns kids a d-hall with me the following afternoon, I might add) being penalized on a homework assignment that was not required to be completed or turned in until Thursday morning (I’m speculating on the days of the week to make the point). The student completed the assignment within the allotted time, and did it well – but was given a failing grade instead of the grade he earned. That isn’t reasonable, and it violates district policy. The superintendent has the matter exactly correct when he says that teachers do not get to override board policies with which they disagree.

Nease says he has done this for years. What that means is that he has been lucky. No one has complained that he has been dealing with disciplinary matters by lowering grades. Someone who knew what was allowed finally complained, and the administration became aware what the teacher was doing. When they attempted to enforce district policy, the teacher refused to comply with a legitimate and legal directive. That is insubordination. Case closed – fire him.

The fact that we are dealing with a football player is essentially irrelevant to the issue. The Board says that such grade penalties are forbidden. Neace could have given a detention, referred the student to the office, called the parents, or even called the coach (something athletes at my school seek to avoid at all costs). Instead he decided to apply a penalty that is forbidden to he, and he got slapped down when the parents complained about the violation. When it comes right down to it, Larry Neace is the guy who thinks he is above the rules, not the student athlete and his parents.

Let's look at some of the grading policies in my district. By Board policy, the grading scale is set, the percentage weight given to test and non-test assignements is set, and grades cannot be docked for behavior that doesn't involve academic dishonesty. Under Texas law, no one other than me can change a grade I assign without me signing off on it -- unless it can be documented that I have assigned a grade in violation of School District policy or state or federal law, in which case the superintendant or his designee (the building principal) can make the change if I refuse. That law preserves the integrity of my grades, but prevents me from being arbitrary and capricious in my grading.

For those of you who work in private industry, especially if you own a business, look at the situation objectively. What happens to employees who violate management policies and, when ordered to follow them, refuse to do so and claim management is unreasonable? They get fired, and it is rare that such terminations ever become an issue.

Do I have a concern here? Sure I do – I’d love to know why the administration didn’t know that Neace was applying a penalty that was forbidden under Board policy. That needs to be looked at by the Board. But the belated decision to make a teacher comply with the same rules that apply to every other teacher in the district is not a problem in my book.

Others, though, have a variety of views on the case, including Zero Intelligence, The Force Arena, Palm Tree Pundit, Ramblings' Journal, Michelle Malkin and Winfield Myers.

Posted by: Greg at 12:24 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1006 words, total size 6 kb.

I'm not going to get into the rude behavior of the folks who protested Ann Coulter last night in Austin. I'm not going to point out that fart noises, gestures of mastubation, nise-makers, and obscene questions are beyond the bounds of civility in a polite society. I won't even argue that such folks deserve to be removed from the university community for antics which disgraced the school, showing them unfit for higher education.

No, I want to focus on the bias of The Daily Texan in reporting on the speech and the opponents of freedom who disrupted it.

First, there was the news story.

Incessant heckling and shouting culminated in an arrest Tuesday night during a speech by Ann Coulter, an extreme right-wing pundit, at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum.

Shouts became so pervasive during the question-and-answer session that Coulter informed the organizers she would no longer take questions if the hecklers were not silenced. For a time, the shouts were considerably lessened, until the issue of gay marriage was broached.

Coulter said she supported the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman on the basis that a good woman civilizes and inspires a man to strive for something better, leading to a question that was met with a stunned silence

Then there was the opinion column.

To be honest, I was surprised there weren't more protesters.

When the auditorium filled up to see Ann Coulter last night, I only saw about 15 people in the back with signs. They looked like the usual protest crowd. Earth tones, shaggy hair, somber faces, folks who have their own wipe-board signs to adapt for every situation.

I guess for a conventional extremist like Ann Coulter there is no good rallying point for the local upstarts. She does not particularly irritate any specific campus community.

She just generally rubs all liberals the wrong way. Yet, one can always rely on that most reliable of protest groups, the one-size-fits all International Socialist Organization.

Who gets labeled in politically unflattering terms? Is it the folks who engage in low-grade terrorism to prevent free speech in a public place? Or is it their victim?

It is, of course, An Coulter, not the folks who deserve to be labeled as totalitarians-in-training for their attempt at speech suppression.

Maybe this is an issue that needs to be examined by the UT administration -- the failure of the journalism department to teach proper journalistic standards like fairness and balance, and the failure of the school paper to implement them.

UPDATE: For another overwrought view of AnnCoulter, visit here.

Posted by: Greg at 09:48 AM | Comments (48) | Add Comment
Post contains 452 words, total size 3 kb.

The friendly folks at Fresh Politics share their take on this bit from National Review.

College administrators have been enthusiastic supporters Eve Ensler’s play The Vagina Monologues and schools across the nation celebrate “V-Day” (short for Vagina Day) every year. But when the College Republicans at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island rained on the celebrations of V-Day by inaugurating Penis Day and staging a satire called The Penis Monologues, the official reaction was horror. Two participating students, Monique Stuart and Andy Mainiero, have just received sharp letters of reprimand and have been placed on probation by the Office of Judicial Affairs. The costume of the P-Day “mascot” — a friendly looking “penis” named Testaclese, has been confiscated and is under lock and key in the office of the assistant dean of student affairs, John King.

You have got to read about the over-reaction of the administration to this satire by the ever-outrageous Roger Williams University College Republicans. The free speech implications here are clear, given the officially sponsored antics of the Vagina Warriors who put on The Vagina Monologues.

And remember -- unlike the last censorship case I wrote on involving the play, this involves college students on a college campus.

I'm particularly amused by the administrator who thought that Testacles was a giant mushroom.

UPDATE: For additional commentary, visit Joanne Jacobs, Number 2 Pencil, The Education Wonks, and Moonbat Central.

UPDATE 2: Here is a really funny take on the play and the story.

Posted by: Greg at 02:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

Principal John Brucato of Milford High School in Milford, Massachusetts, sees the issue as a very clear one. The shirts that a few students wore to school on Tuesday were inapporpiate, and had to go.

"It's analogous to somebody wearing a slogan T-shirt that's an advertisement for drugs or alcohol -- that's against our philosophy," he said.

What were the horrendous words on the shirts? Why, they were pro-life messages. They said that "Abortion Kills" and "Abortion Is Homicide".

In Brucato's defense, he was merely upholding a school policy that reads as follows.

The Milford High School Student Handbook states, "Individual attire that is disruptive to the educational process or causes distraction to others will not be tolerated. Inappropriate dress will be defined as any clothing/accessory that disrupts the regular learning process and leads to distraction or is offensive, vulgar or provocative to other students, faculty, staff or administration."

It also details the banned items as, "clothing which displays tobacco or alcohol advertising, profanity, racial slurs, disruptive images or words, drug or gang related symbols" and "offensive images or words that would be considered socially, culturally or ethically inappropriate and disrupt the educational process."

Unfortunately, that would appear to conflict with the following two policies. There is this one.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is generally known as the First Amendment, and it was extended to cover state actors, including school districts, by the Fourteenth Amendment, as is noted in Tinker v. Des Moines.

The other may be found here in the Massachusetts Constitution.

Article XVI. Liberty of the Press; Freedom of Speech. - The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state: it ought not, therefore, to be restained in this commonwealth. The right of free speech shall not be abridged.

That amendment is further amplified in Pyle v. School Committee of South Hadley

The principal, though, claims that the message on the shirts worn by a couple of high school girls caused a disruption. His evidence?

Principal John Brucato said about three or four students brought the shirts to the attention of Assistant Principal Kevin Maines.

"They were very upset that these slogan T-shirts were being displayed by kids," Brucato said. "One was upset enough to have left school and maybe a couple of others visited the adjustment counselor."

Brucato said it is his job to protect all students and he does not believe anyone's rights were violated.

"Everybody has a right to self-expression, however the law states very clearly that school buildings are limited open forums for self-expression," Brucato said. "The reason the law states that is because it grants school authorities the ability to protect everybody as a whole."

So, Principal Brucato, the fact that you have three or four kids who don't like the message is enough to shut that message down? It strikes me that the problem is the failure of your school to teach the principles contained in the First amendment and Article XVI. After all, these students should know that the right the mere fact that they are offended or upset is not a basis for the government to prohibit speech. Heck, I'm rather concerned that you are unaware of the controlling legal principles here.

So tell me, sir, objectively, what was wrong with these shirts? Not the subjective issue of "someone got upset and complained," but an actual objective standard that applies so that these students would have known that the shirts were a violation of the policy. Your own words indicate that there isn't one.

Under your explanation, a couple of Yankees fans could come to you sniffling and weeping and you would have to ban Red Sox jerseys and t-shirts from your school. All they have to do is claim to be distraught and offended. I'm sure your Muslim students will be glad to know that they can ban any Christian expression in school in precisely the same manner. And of course, you have now given the students on your campus who oppose homosexuality the tool they need to shut down any pro-homosexual propagandizing by their classmates -- they just need to burst out in tears and beg to see the "adjustment counselor." After all,such messages would have caused a disruption of similar size and nature, and you are supposed to "protect everybody as a whole."

And that is what you said in explaining why you don't believe this is a free speech case.

"These young ladies have the right to express their views and opinions -- they have not been denied those rights," he said. "What we said simply was this type of advertisement is offensive to others in the community. I've been consistent. If even one or two individuals finds something offensive I'm going to ask that individual to remove it. I'm exercising my authority and judgment as a school administrator to administrate to the population as a whole."

Principal Brucato, you had better be damned even-handed in the future, because you have set the standard here -- having knowledge of one or two individuals complaining now REQUIRES that you apply EXACTLY THE SAME STANDARD in every case. You are no longer the principal of Milford High School -- you are the Supreme Censor. Enjoy your new role.

My closing comment is this -- I admire the young ladies in question, and think they behaved appropriately in this case. While I would have liked to have read that Amanda Chattman, Autumn Gerami and their classmates had told Supreme Censor Brucato to take a flying leap, I understand their reluctance to do so. The article does not make clear what disciplinary threat Brucato bullied them with to get them to forego the liberties guaranteed them under not merely one, but two separate constitutions, so I cannot judge if they surrendered their freedom too cheaply. I just hope that they do pursue the litigation that is clearly warranted, and that in the mean time they hold Brucato's feet to the fire by monitoring what other messages are allowed and by making complaints regarding ANY they find offensive (and maybe even a few they really don't, just to make the point). Good luck, girls!

Posted by: Greg at 05:54 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1085 words, total size 7 kb.

Not long ago, The UK's Association of University Teachers decided to boycott two Israeli Universityies and examine the possibility of expanding that boycott to cover all Israeli schools. There has been an uproar since then, and now it appears that the boycott will never go into effect. Why not? Because of a grassroots rebellion by union members, some of whom have resigned while others are circulating a demand for an emergency meeting to repeal the ban.

The first academics to resign from the AUT, Shalom Lappin and Jonathan Ginzburg, have circulated an open letter calling on members to join them in breaking away from the union.

"For the past several years an ugly campaign of anti-Jewish provocation has been building on the margins of the Israel hate-fest that the boycott supporters have been promoting on campuses throughout the UK," they said in the letter.

"There comes a time when an organization discredits itself to the point that it can no longer be taken to stand for the values that it purports to represent. When this point is reached, one has no alternative but to disassociate oneself from it."

It seems that, contary to the expectation of the union's anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic leadership (more on that later on) , Jewish professors and supporters of israel would not stand by silently while the union supported terrorists who advocate a new Holocaust.

The condemnation has not just come from within Great britain, but has also been heard from around the globe.

A letter from the New York Academy of Sciences told the AUT that its resolution, "by selecting individuals and universities for boycott, is a very clear reminder of 'McCarthy-like' tactics of accusation."

The letter concluded: "We call upon the AUT to take immediate steps to rescind their regressive vote and join forward-looking academics the world over in voting for cooperation and not boycott."

In the mean time, the repeal movement has already gained significant headway.

Chris Fox, lecturer in Computer Science at Essex University, told The Jerusalem Post that the 25 signatures by AUT local association members required to submit a motion calling for the repeal of the boycott resolutions were being collected.

The motion would be heard in an emergency national meeting. Fox said that if the executive failed to call such a meeting, the AUT could expect further resignations.

"I will be resigning in the next few days if the national executive of the union fails to indicate an intention to act directly to reconsider or rescind the boycott," said Fox....

One Oxford Middle East studies professor has responded to the boycott by insisting that he be added to the boycott list, standing in solidarity with colleagues at the two boycotted universities.

Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi, of the Middle East Center at St. Anthony's College at Oxford University, has written to AUT general-secretary Sally Hunt requesting to be included in the boycott.

"Oaths of political loyalty do not belong to academia. They belong to illiberal minds and repressive regimes," wrote Ottolenghi. "Based on this, the AUT's definition of academic freedom is the freedom to agree with its views only. Given the circumstances, I wish to express in no uncertain terms my unconditional and undivided solidarity with both universities and their faculties.

"I know many people, both at Haifa University and at Bar Ilan University, of different political persuasion and from different walks of life. The diversity of those faculties reflects the authentic spirit of academia. The AUT invitation to boycott them betrays that spirit because it advocates a uniformity of views, under pain of boycott."

"In solidarity with my colleagues and as a symbolic gesture to defend the spirit of a free academia, I wish to be added to the boycott blacklist. Please include me. I hope that other colleagues of all political persuasions will join me," Ottolenghi conclude.

Now some of you may argue that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. That argument has always been a weak one, but one British author and columnist makes it clear that, especially in this case, they are one and the same.

Author and columnist Howard Jacobson said that the boycotts underlined the fact that "Anti-Zionism is, after all, anti-Semitism."

Referring to Sue Blackwell, the Birmingham University lecturer who tabled the boycott motions, Jacobson said that "For Blackwell, the argument of history is only circular anyway. It is no defense of Israel that it has had to fight against being driven into the sea, because the sea, in her view, is where it belongs."

Howard also said that Blackwell's "feverishly pro-Palestinian Web site is under investigation by a Common's Committee [for] possible links with a site blaming Jews for 9/11." Blackwell later said that her Web site had included the link "inadvertently."

Blackwell has posted a triumphant message on her Web site, entitled: "Victory to the academic intifada!" Underneath a photograph of herself wearing a dress made from the Palestinian flag, and flashing a victory sign, the lecturer told readers: Yes folks, we won.

"Anti-Zionism, now, is anti-Semitic," said Jacobson, "because by the actions of its members, the Association of University Teachers has made it so."

So, what we have here is a group of terrorist supporters who have hijacked a union and politicized it in favor of their political goals. In this case, it is acting in support of those who murder Jews for being Jews, and who wish the six million Jews of israel to join the six million Jews of Europe slaughtered by Hitler. Fortunately their anti-Semitism has not spread so far into academia that there is no opposition.

And when they are through dealing with the jew-haters in their midst (indeed, among their leaders), maybe the membrship of the Association of University teachers will consider the issue of whether that corrupt organization needs to exist at all.

Posted by: Greg at 05:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 979 words, total size 6 kb.

At the University of California – San Francisco, it will be "Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day" on Thursday, with the program sponsored by the Center For Gender Equity. Unfortunately, the term “Gender Equity” has quite an Orwellian meaning. All you have to do is look at the scheduled program to understand that the program is being run in a manner that can only be described as “separate and unequal.”

For example, the 9- and 10-year-old daughters are being invited to participate in 17 hands-on activities such as working with microscopes, slicing brains, doing skull comparisons, seeing what goes on in the operating room, playing surgeon, dentist or nurse for a day, and visiting the intensive care unit nursery, where they can set up blood pressure cuffs and operate the monitors.
They can learn about earthquake and disaster preparedness, how to use a fire extinguisher, how to operate several types of equipment -- even fire a laser.

And what do the boys get to do?

Learn about "gender equity in fun, creative ways using media, role playing and group games" -- after which, the boys can get a bit of time in with a microscope or learn how the heart works.

Yeah, you’ve got it – the girls get to experience all the neat things the University has to offer, while the boys get political indoctrination in Double-Plus-Good feminist thought. The Center’s director defends the two-track program this way.

Longtime center director Amy Levine, however, tells us the program isn't intended to give boys and girls the same learning opportunities -- nor, she says, is it a career day.

"It's about dealing with effects of sexism on both boys and girls and how it can damage them," she said.

Hence, while the boys undergo gender sensitivity training, the girls focus on their capabilities -- be it handling a scalpel or microscope.

Well, at least they are not claiming that the programs are equal – but I am a little bit scared that Ms. Levine is so proud of fostering discrimination at a public university using public dollars. What led to the decision to set up the two tracks?

UCSF tried mixing the boys with the girls a few years back, but Levine says it just didn't work out.

"It mirrored the same sexism that occurs in the classroom daily," she said, "where boys raise their hands more often, demand more attention and have discipline problems."

So now the boys have their own gender sensitivity program, where "they learn about violence prevention and how to be allies to the girls and women in their lives," Levine said.

So because boys acted like boys and girls acted like girls, there needs to be a separate program to emasculate the males and turn them into pathetic little Alan Aldas and Al Frankens. I hope that parents at UCSF have the courage to just say no to this pathetic attempt at social engineering, and that UCSF either mends it or ends it by the time next year rolls around.

Posted by: Greg at 10:54 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 514 words, total size 3 kb.

At the University of California – San Francisco, it will be "Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day" on Thursday, with the program sponsored by the Center For Gender Equity. Unfortunately, the term “Gender Equity” has quite an Orwellian meaning. All you have to do is look at the scheduled program to understand that the program is being run in a manner that can only be described as “separate and unequal.”

For example, the 9- and 10-year-old daughters are being invited to participate in 17 hands-on activities such as working with microscopes, slicing brains, doing skull comparisons, seeing what goes on in the operating room, playing surgeon, dentist or nurse for a day, and visiting the intensive care unit nursery, where they can set up blood pressure cuffs and operate the monitors.
They can learn about earthquake and disaster preparedness, how to use a fire extinguisher, how to operate several types of equipment -- even fire a laser.

And what do the boys get to do?

Learn about "gender equity in fun, creative ways using media, role playing and group games" -- after which, the boys can get a bit of time in with a microscope or learn how the heart works.

Yeah, you’ve got it – the girls get to experience all the neat things the University has to offer, while the boys get political indoctrination in Double-Plus-Good feminist thought. The Center’s director defends the two-track program this way.

Longtime center director Amy Levine, however, tells us the program isn't intended to give boys and girls the same learning opportunities -- nor, she says, is it a career day.

"It's about dealing with effects of sexism on both boys and girls and how it can damage them," she said.

Hence, while the boys undergo gender sensitivity training, the girls focus on their capabilities -- be it handling a scalpel or microscope.

Well, at least they are not claiming that the programs are equal – but I am a little bit scared that Ms. Levine is so proud of fostering discrimination at a public university using public dollars. What led to the decision to set up the two tracks?

UCSF tried mixing the boys with the girls a few years back, but Levine says it just didn't work out.

"It mirrored the same sexism that occurs in the classroom daily," she said, "where boys raise their hands more often, demand more attention and have discipline problems."

So now the boys have their own gender sensitivity program, where "they learn about violence prevention and how to be allies to the girls and women in their lives," Levine said.

So because boys acted like boys and girls acted like girls, there needs to be a separate program to emasculate the males and turn them into pathetic little Alan Aldas and Al Frankens. I hope that parents at UCSF have the courage to just say no to this pathetic attempt at social engineering, and that UCSF either mends it or ends it by the time next year rolls around.

Posted by: Greg at 10:54 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 521 words, total size 3 kb.

We got new textbooks at school last year. As I began to flip through them, I noticed that they used the traditional B.C./A.D. dating convention rather than the newer B.C.E./C.E. convention that has become more popular in recent years. Personally, I donÂ’t have a problem with using either system, but it seems that folks on both sides of the debate are somewhat more worked up over it.

In certain precincts of a world encouraged to embrace differences, Christ is out.

The terms "B.C." and "A.D." increasingly are shunned by certain scholars.

Educators and historians say schools from North America to Australia have been changing the terms "Before Christ," or B.C., to "Before Common Era," or B.C.E., and "anno Domini" (Latin for "in the year of the Lord") to "Common Era." In short, they're referred to as B.C.E. and C.E.

The life of Christ still divides the epochs, but the change has stoked the ire of Christians and religious leaders who see it as an attack on a social and political order that has been in place for centuries.

For more than a century, Hebrew lessons have used B.C.E. and C.E., with C.E. sometimes referring to Christian Era.

This raises the question: Can old and new coexist in harmony, or must one give way to the other to reflect changing times and attitudes?

Now I don’t see why both sides cannot exist in harmony. The breaking point is still the same, and that is the life of Christ. But while I am generally accepting of the B.C.E./C.E., I was initially taught it as Before Christian Era and Christian Era. In my classes, I present both dating systems, and discuss the underlying reasons for using each. I also tell my students that they ultimately have to make a choice in what system to use, and that either one is acceptable – and then proceed to use B.C. and A.D myself for the rest of the year.

Now I am particularly shocked at this criticism that shows up in the article, indicating extreme ignorance or extreme bias.

Although most calendars are based on an epoch or person, B.C. and A.D. have always presented a particular problem for historians: There is no year zero; there's a 33-year gap, reflecting the life of Christ, dividing the epochs. Critics say that's additional reason to replace the Christian-based terms.

Hold on just one moment. There is no 33-year gap between the eras. The year 1 B.C. is followed by 1 A.D., marking the traditional year of the birth of Christ (who probably was born between 7 B.C. and 4 B.C.) – there are no years floating around in limbo, falling into neither category. And the lack of a Year 0 is a rather absurd idea as well. After all, when we start counting something, we do not begin by labeling the first one as zero. No, we count them out sequentially, beginning with the number one. The arguments the article makes are just plain stupid, and I cannot imagine any serious scholar offering them.

Now there is a legitimate argument to be made against using B.C. and A.D., and that is the fact that it makes every date into a statement about a religious figure who is rejected by about 75% of the people of the world – more, if one recognizes there are a lot of folks out there who call themselves Christian who have no particular faith in Christ. I certainly understand where making a religious profession every time one uses a calendar might trouble them.

"When Jews or Muslims have to put Christ in the middle of our calendar ... that's difficult for us," said Steven M. Brown, dean of the William Davidson Graduate School of Jewish Education at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City.

I accept that argument, which is why IÂ’m not troubled by the usage of B.C.E. and C.E. as meaning Before Christian Era and Christian Era. It accurately acknowledges the reason for the reason for making a change in dating in the traditional Western calendar system, but avoids requiring anything that resembles a profession of faith. At the same time, it does not engage in religious cleansing, in that it acknowledges the historical centrality of Christianity in the Western world.

Not everyone agrees with me, though.

Candace de Russy, a national writer on education and Catholic issues and a trustee for the State University of New York, doesn't accept the notion of fence-straddling.

"The use of B.C.E. and C.E. is not mere verbal tweaking; rather it is integral to the leftist language police -- a concerted attack on the religious foundation of our social and political order," she said.

For centuries, B.C. and A.D. were used in public schools and universities, and in historical and most theological research. Some historians and college instructors started using the new forms as a less Christ-centric alternative.

"I think it's pretty common now," said Gary B. Nash, director of the National Center for History in the Schools. "Once you take a global approach, it makes sense not to make a dating system applicable only to a relative few."

Now I think de Russy overstates the case. The original use of the term in Hebrew schools was designed to be sensitive to both Christians and Jews, and I think that principle certainly extends beyond those two groups and into the world as a whole. But I think Nash carries the argument too far, given that the logical implication of his position is that we should develop a whole new calendar that begins with the year 1 B.W.S.S. (Because We Say So). And that ignores the fact that for some 15 centuries, dates in the West have been calculated according to the system set up by Dionysius Exiguus. It has become the de facto dating system of the world.

In the end, I find myself coming down on the same side as the Professional Association of Georgia EducatorsÂ’ Tim Callahan.

"Is that some sort of the political correctness?" said Tim Callahan, of the Professional Association of Georgia Educators, an independent group with 60,000 educator members. "It sounds pretty silly to me."

The entire debate is rather silly. There are much greater issues for us to look at. In the end, any of the usages should be considered acceptable. This is a battle that does not need to be fought by either side, and from which all should disengage with an understanding that all three dating conventions will be tolerated. Anyone who cannot do that does not deserve to be taken seriously.

Posted by: Greg at 02:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1103 words, total size 7 kb.

IÂ’m not an Ann Coulter fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I feel I should comment on this story. It shows the hypocrisy of liberal academics when it comes to conservative speakers.

The Rev. Dennis Dease, President of MinnesotaÂ’s University of St. Thomas, condemned a speech by author and columnist Ann Coulter given last week at his school.

The president of the University of St. Thomas on Monday condemned a speech at the Catholic school last week by conservative author Ann Coulter, saying "such hateful speech vulgarizes our culture and goes against everything the University of St. Thomas stands for."

The Rev. Dennis Dease wrote in Bulletin Today, a university newsletter, that "although her presentation may have been meant as an 'act' or a 'shtick' to entertain by provoking those who disagree, such behavior unfortunately contributes to the growing dark side of our culture -- a disrespect for persons and their sincerely held beliefs."

Now I find Coulter a bit to vituperative for my taste, but you wonÂ’t find me condemning her speech at St. Thomas. After all, I wasnÂ’t there, and havenÂ’t seen a transcript.

That didn’t stop Dease. You see he didn’t attend the speech either, but has merely relied on second-hand accounts of the event. It’s sort of telling when an intellectual feels he can condemn the content and tone of a speech that he didn’t attend. Doesn’t THAT go against everything the University of St. Thomas stands for? Or does Rev. Dease think that “respect for persons and their sincerely held beliefs” doesn’t include giving them a fair hearing before condemning them for expressing those sincerely held beliefs? And would Dease have made the same sort of statement against Ward Churchill?

Posted by: Greg at 11:25 AM | Comments (97) | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.