But what is to be done?

As I prepare to head back to Shepherd U this afternoon for the start of the spring semester, I thought it would be interesting to post some excerpts from Victor David Hanson on the state of the modern American university. As per usual, this article comes via Instapundit:

I was thinking of all this the other day, remembering the Larry
Summers fiasco, eighty-eight of the Duke faculty weighing in through a
public letter against their own students unjustly accused, the Ward
Churchill mess, and the assorted outbursts of professors since 9/11.

We should at least insist on a little accountability from this
increasingly medieval institution. After teaching some twenty years in
the university and writing about its endemic problems, I keep asking
myself the same questions.

I think Hanson makes a particularly strong point here. There really is no accountability for a tenured college professor. Oh sure, the administration at a university can insist on reviewing a tenured professor but, as we have seen with Ward Churchill, even when a tenured prof. does something disagreeable, there is very little that can be done. Considering the amount of government waste administred by teh federal government for public education, government intervention does not seem to be the way to go. But something must be done.

He continues:

Why? Why? Why?

Why does tuition continue to rise beyond the rate of inflation?

Why does the faculty castigate the free enterprise system that its
own development officers court to ensure competitive faculty
compensation? After all, their much praised socialism ensures
under-funded universities, as we see in Europe where the once great
institutions of higher learning have slipped badly and lack the
resources of a Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Texas, or Berkeley.

Why do such vocal egalitarians stay mum, when part-time faculty and
graduate students often teach classes for a fraction of professors’
pay, in a hierarchical system of exploitation that even the much
maligned Wal-Mart would never get away with?

Why do professors insist after six years on life-long tenure—when
everyone from garbage collectors to lawyers and doctors do not enjoy
such insulation from both the market and accountability about job
performance? If it is for the promise of “academic freedom” and
“intellectual diversity” then the resulting institutionalized
uniformity and mediocrity were not worth the cost. Compare the lopsided
Academic Senate votes about issues extraneous to the operation of the
university from gay marriage to the war in Iraq. There are usually
reminiscent of plebiscites in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or Castro’s Cuba
with majorities of 90-100%.

Why when academia is so critical of other American institutions,
from the Republican party and corporations to churches and the
military, does it ignore its own colossal failures? The level of
knowledge of the today’s graduate is the stuff of jokes, exactly what
one would expect once a common shared instruction in science, history,
literature, languages, and mathematics largely disappeared, replaced by
a General Education potpourri of specialized classes in gender, race,
class, and politics masquerading as knowledge-based?

Here, again, I have to agree. I have had more in my own classes about gender and race equality than I have about anything I really need to know. Racial equality should be saved for Civil Rights classes and after-class workshops, not the core around which an education class is built. I have said before that as I approach the finish line (just over a year left before completing my Secondary Ed: Social Studies degree) I don't feel that i have learned much. Oh there are exceptions--such as my Modern European History class I had last year--but for the most part the "knowledge" I have 'gained' as been based on either rout memorization of facts that slipped away upon completing the unit examination OR on the spouting of ideological theories about equality and race/gender relations in education. Seldom have I struggled with theory or with putting together any sort of orginal research. Instead, I memorize the facts or regurgitate the B.S. put forth by professors attempting to advance their own agenda.

All these thoughts I think explain the tragic-comic position of
today’s university presidents who Janus-like must talk like normal
humans when courting alumni donors only to assume alien characteristics
when dealing with their often lunatic faculty. I noticed once that UC
Berkeley administrators always talked about a beloved “Cal” to their
alumni constituents, but always “Berkeley” to their grim-faced faculty,
as if there were two different campuses. And, of course, there were—the
real tragic one of the present, and the idealized lost one of the past.

And there certainly are two universities: one that the donors and parents/prospective students see. This university is the one of higher education, cultural enrichment and of cutting edge knowledge which parents, students and donors would be proud to be affiliated with. Behind the scenese, though, is a university of elitism and bottom lines. The professors, who see themselves as "intellectuals" and therefore above the "common people" seem to believe they are above and beyond any accountability called for by anybody from outside the ranks of teh university system. Simotaneously, the administration--even as its faculty calls for socialistic revolution in the government--operates teh university as a big coorporation similar to one which its staff so detests. The administrations sole concern lies not with the best interests of the students, but instead with the bottom line: "how much money are we making anyway?"

Still, even with all these vary valid points made, Hanson fails to make any recommendations for improvement. I have some ideas, but I'll save those for another time...

Technorati Tags: Education

powered by performancing firefox

It makes it hard to disagree...

Stuff like this makes it hard to convince people that arming teachers isn't such a good idea after all...

Letters have been sent home with Reagan High school students to advise parents of an attempted assault on a teacher there.

Meanwhile, the Texas Youth Commission is trying to locate the teen who may been responsible. Nathan Manuel Mendoza, 18, did not return to the Turman Halfway House in Austin on Tuesday afternoon.

Mendoza is accused of holding scissors to the teacher's throat and threatening to sexually assault her.

District police say the teacher had allowed him to sit in her classroom after school to work on an assignment.

Mendoza is a registered sex offender. The Texas Youth Commission said the teen should be considered very dangerous.

Anyone with information about his whereabouts should call police immediately.

Related post: Arming Our Teachers

Arming our teachers

In light of the school shootings which have seemed to spread like the plague the past few weeks, there has been much consideration regarding arming our teachers, very much in the way we keep an armed Air Marshal on many of our flights now. Utah is doing just that:

More than a dozen teachers and public school employees will spend part of their UEA weekend in a classroom — learning how to use a gun.

Clark Aposhian is offering a free class today to public school employees seeking to get their concealed- weapons permit.

"It is self-defense," he told the Deseret Morning News on Thursday. "But because teachers and school administrators and custodians are typically surrounded by students all day, any threat to any individual with a firearm would also be a threat to those students."

The concealed-weapons instructor's offer was met with opposition from some teachers and union representatives at the Utah Education Association's conference in Salt Lake City.

"We've always resisted the idea of arming school employees," said Susan Kuziak, executive director of the 18,000-member teachers union. "Though the intentions may be good, ultimately, the potential for harm is too great."

The intent is pretty clear:

"A shooter going in there may pause to reflect," he said. "Because they may find a teacher carrying a firearm for self-defense."

But I'm not convinced that the outcome will be quite as successful.

I'm going to act like a liberal for a minute...I'm going to rant and complain about how the current policy (or the policy being developed) isn't good, but I'm going to pose absoluely ZERO alternatives. REady? Here we go:

I do not like the idea of arming our teachers. Frankly it scares me. Although this may come as a shock to some, there are teachers out there that aren't nice people, that shouldn't be allowed to have readily accessible weapons with them at all time, that frankly, I wouldn't trust with a sling-shot made from a rubber band. Aside from the potential for a deranged looney-tune teacher, aren't we transforming teachers from what they're supposed to be (compforting, knowledgable, trustworthy role-models) to rigid armed gaurds? That is just not their place.

I also do not like the talk about chaining our school doors shut, putting 8' tall security fences with razor wire on the top around our schools and having armed gaurds at the front door. School is supposed to be a comfortable place. Now I understand that one cannot be comfortable if he feels threatened that at any moment a psychopath could walk through the front door and start mowing down students, but I do not think any student will feel any better if he is forced to sit in a classroom surounded by razor wire, as if he is in some sort of high security prison. That's just not acceptable.

Many schools (particularly high schools) already have armed officer of the law on campus most if not all of the time. There is talk of expanding that program. That could be the best method.

Like I said, I'm not really looking to offer any real alternatives--I'm acting like a liberal and refusing to do so, but I did want to get that little rant off my chest.

Holy Shmokes

Watch what you say, or the P.C. police might arrest you... No seriously:

A teenage schoolgirl was arrested by police for racism after refusing to sit with a group of Asian students because some of them did not speak English.

Codie Stott’s family claim she was forced to spend three-and-a-half hours in a police cell after she was reported by her teachers.

The 14-year-old - who was released without charge - said it had been a simple matter of commonsense and accused the school and police of an over-the-top reaction.

The incident happened in the same local education authority where a ten-year-old boy was prosecuted earlier this year for calling a schoolfriend racist names in the playground, a move branded by a judge “political correctness gone mad.”

Codie was attending a GCSE science class at Harrop Fold High School in Worsley, Greater Manchester, when the incident happened.

The teenager had not been in school the day before due to a hospital appointment and had missed the start of a project, so the teacher allocated her a group to sit with.

“She said I had to sit there with five Asian pupils,” said Codie yesterday.

“Only one could speak English, so she had to tell that one what to do so she could explain in their language. Then she sat me with them and said ‘Discuss’.”

According to Codie, the five - four boys and a girl - then began talking in a language she didn’t understand, thought to be Urdu, so she went to speak to the teacher.

“I said ‘I’m not being funny, but can I change groups because I can’t understand them?’ But she started shouting and screaming, saying ‘It’s racist, you’re going to get done by the police’.”

Codie said she went outside to calm down where another teacher found her and, after speaking to her class teacher, put her in isolation for the rest of the day.

A complaint was made to a police officer based full-time at the school, and more than a week after the incident on September 26 she was taken to Swinton police station and placed under arrest.

“They told me to take my laces out of my shoes and remove my jewellery, and I had my fingerprints and photograph taken,” said Codie. “It was awful.”

After questioning on suspicion of committing a section five racial public order offence, her mother Nicola says she was placed in a bare cell for three-and-a-half hours then released without charge.

There's no need for me to comment, as Sister Toldjah says it all perfectly. Read what she's got to say about it.

Homosexuals on the moon?

In theory anyway. From WorldNetDaily:

Fly me to the moon? No thanks, said a 13-year-old girl who refused, because of her faith, to write an assignment for her health and physical education class about being the only heterosexual in a lunar colony with 10 homosexuals.

The class at Windaroo Valley State High School, made up of 13- and 14-year-old girls, was given the scenario and told to answer 10 questions, including how it felt to be a "minority" and what they would do to cope with their situation. They were also
told to discuss where ideas about homosexuality came from.

While many of the students were uncomfortable with the assignment or said they didn't understand the questions, one girl instantly refused because of her religious faith. "It is against my beliefs and I am not going there," she told the teacher.

For this, she was given her first-ever failing grade in a health and physical education class. According to the Brisbane Sunday Mail of Australia, students were told that details of the assignment were to remain in class and they weren't to discuss it with their parents.

And there's the real problem. The worst part isn't the assignment, or even the 'F' the girl recieved for not doing the assignment, but rather that the kids were told not to discuss school with the parents. If the assignment is one that shouldn't be discussed with parents--aside, of course, from those cheeseball assignments were the kids make their mommies and daddies something nice for Mother's Day or Father's Day, though I don't think that kind of stuff is allowed any more--then it shouldn't even be brought up in class. Not that such tactics can prevent assertive parents from getting to the root of the problem:

"I went to the school thinking there might have been a personality clash with the teacher," said the teen's mother, who only learned of the assignment after her report card was sent home. "When I started to read it I thought, 'Oh my God' ... I was shocked by the content," she said of the assignment.

"My daughter said she didn't want to do the assignment because she did not believe in homosexuality and did not want to answer the questions. She was being challenged, but she should not be challenged like that at her age."

No 13 year-old student should be challenged like this. Kids don't even get a childhood now. Though I sound like an old man when I say this, I honestly do not remember it being this way just 8 years ago when I was 13. Kids barely know what they belief at this point, challenging them on why they believe it is just uncalled for.

"It's no wonder our kids are struggling with the basics when the government is allowing this sort of rubbish to be taught in the classroom," Queensland, Australia Opposition Leader Jeff Seeney said.

The government "has created a system that tries to tell kids what to think instead of teaching them how to think," he said. "It is completely out of line for students to be graded on their moral beliefs. It's not the job of our schools to politicize our children. It is their function to provide our kids with the basics, like reading, writing and math."

The revelation of "faith-based grading" came to light in the same week Federal
Education Minister Julie Bishop announced plans to take control of the schools from Australia's separate states.

The state education systems, she told a history teachers' conference, had been hijacked by leftist "ideologues" promoting ideas "straight from Chairman Mao."

Regarding Windaroo Valley's homosexuals-on-the-moon assignment, Bishop
said it was one more reason to be concerned about Australia's schools.

"This is another example of a politically-correct agenda masquerading as curriculum," she said. "Parents need to know the content of school curriculum so they can be confident their children are receiving a high quality education that is also consistent with their values."

"Knowing the content," said the girl's mother, was precisely what Windaroo Valley High did not seem to want, noting that school officials seemed more concerned about how parents learned of the assignment than her daughter's religious beliefs.

"That's what concerns me most ... the parents had no opportunity to even see the assignment," she said.

The school website had this to say about the school:

That should be good news for one 13-year-old girl at Windaroo Valley High
where the school's website makes this promise:

"Ultimately we offer choice, opportunity and potential. There is something for everyone with new additions being made every year to enhance our progressive curriculum. We want students to be happy."

This stuff has to stop. Period.

Multiculturalism

I'm no fan of this trending multiculturalism stuff, but it seems to be the way of the future. Here's an interesting story from Little Green Footballs on a case of multiculturalism that may have gone a little far--though the courts are upholding it:

Here’s a case of multiculturalism gone berserk, in a Supreme Court ruling that must have greatly pleased CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood: Appeal on school’s lesson in Muslim culture is rejected. (Hat tip: LGF readers.)

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday by evangelical
Christian students and their parents who said a Contra Costa County school district engaged in unconstitutional religious indoctrination when it taught students about Islam by having them recite language from prayers. [They did quite a bit more than simply recite prayers, as you’ll see below. —ed.]

The court, without comment, left intact a ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco last November in favor of the Byron Union School District in eastern Contra Costa.

The suit challenged the content of a seventh-grade history course at Excelsior Middle School in Byron in the fall of 2001. The teacher, using an instructional guide, told students they would adopt roles as Muslims for three weeks to help them learn what Muslims believe.

She encouraged them to use Muslim names, recited prayers in class, had
them memorize and recite a passage from the Quran and made them give up something for a day, such as television or candy, to simulate fasting during the month of Ramadan. The final exam asked students for a critique of elements of Muslim culture.

The students and parents who sued argued that the class activities had crossed the line from education into an official endorsement of a religious practice. A federal judge and the appeals court disagreed, saying the class had an instructional purpose and the students had engaged in no actual religious exercises.

UPDATE at 10/4/06 12:45:52 pm:
Some important context on this, from LGF reader ‘nonic:’

It must be noted that the Supreme Court did NOT “approve” the Ninth Circuit’s decision by not taking the appeal.

This is standard practice in the Supreme Court. And the more conservative the court (as we have now), the more you will see this sort of thing, i.e., NOT jumping at the first possible opportunity to overturn a lower court – UNTIL there are several such lower decisions, and preferably conflicting decisions, so that it can be assumed that the issue has received full debate with vigorous support on both sides.

UPDATE at 10/4/06 1:02:39 pm:
The Islamic immersion course is
now also being taught in Oregon: Students Wear Islam Dress For Class. (Hat tip: zombie.)

NYSSA, Ore. — Officials at a public school in Oregon are defending a
seventh-grade social studies unit on Islam that included students dressing in traditional Islamic dress.

Kendlee Garner of Nyssa told the Ontario Argus Observer that she
objected to the amount of time dedicated to the unit on Islam — four weeks — as well as the wearing of religious garb and the lack of parental notification. She said her son told her about the activity, and when she objected, he got an alternate assignment in the library. Nyssa school officials respond that teaching about Islam is not promoting the religion. Superintendent Don Grotting said it’s part of meeting state standards that call for students to “understand the importance of the rise of Islam and its interaction with Europe.”

It'd be interesting to see how this would pan out if it where Christian 'culture' being forced upon them. If they were being instructed to memorize Bible versus or Catholic 'rituals.' I doubt the courts would be so eager to uphold the comparable practice...