Against Complicating Matters

I enjoyed this opinion piece in the Feb. 29 issue of The Chronicle Review: "Not to Complicate Matters, but...". Here UCLA history professor Russell Jacoby takes some fashionable nonsense to task, namely the postmodernist (or otherwise trendy) "devotion to complexity". Or put otherwise, unnecessarily complicating matters with the result being a conceptual fog of uncertainty and confusion. Yet another silly trend rightfully criticized... thanks Professor Jacoby.

Indoctrinate U

I have not yet seen the documentary film Indoctrinate U (from On the Fence Films), but it looks interesting. Here is the trailer.

CHE Highlights

I've been getting caught up recently on The Chronicle of Higher Education from the past couple of months. Here are some items I found interesting for various reasons... worth a read if you have an interest in any of these topics (some require subscription to access directly at CHE's site, so I'll try to provide links to free versions online):

"Don't Require Colleges to Spend More of Their Endowments", an 11/9 opinion piece that responds to the 11/2 cover news story. Many good points are made about legal and other technical hurdles to government proposals to force Harvard or others with huge endowments to spend more of that money sooner. Nor is it likely that a group of government bureaucrats will know best how and when such funds should be spent. However, the biggest question isn't raised: why should government be telling colleges how to spend their endowments? This is not a proper use of government force! This essential moral point is, as usual in such situations, not brought up. Otherwise, this is a good opinion piece though.

"Are Sacred Texts Sacred? The Challenge for Atheists", a 9/21 piece by Carlin Romano. Lots interesting stuff here, including much that should give bible literalists pause to say the least. But I agree with the Letter to the Editor in the 10/12 edition, from John T. Goldthwait (Prof. Emeritus of philosophy at SUNY, Plattsburgh), that Romano "gets the rules of the debate wrong". Romano's conclusion and suggestion is that Atheists should be polite to believers, and that is fine as far as it goes -- but it doesn't go very far. No need for an atheist to go out of his way to cruelly attack believers and the texts they call sacred -- but that doesn't mean that critics (Dawkins, Hitchens, et al.) of religions and their texts can't go on the offensive in books or articles they write. Believers aren't forced to buy those books or read those articles if they will find them offensive. Here is part of Goldthwait's letter on this matter:

Romano writes, "That behooves atheists, then, to have a clear definition of the sacred... and also a clear definition of text or book." But it is not up to the atheist to supply those definitions. The believer is the one who has claimed that a text -- some version of either the Old Testament, the New Testament, or the Koran -- is a sacred text and a source of revealed religion. That is what needs proving... Romano suggests characteristics for a sacred text. However, he assumes that there are such things as sacred texts... If there isn't any God, what becomes of a text whose alleged value is that it relates to God? The believer has the responsibility to establish the meaningfulness of his claim by establishing the existence of the referent of this explanatory term. If he cannot thus support his claims, we do not owe him our attention. Romano has not put before us a serious challenge, but merely a nice lesson in politeness.

Agreed. I look forward to writing some further thoughts on concepts like "sacred" in the future, but for now, I'll let this go.

The Intellectual Responsibility of Educators. In this brief "On the Contrary" piece, David Horowitz takes on the issue of indoctrination in the classroom, and is critical of the new report "Freedom in the Classroom" from American Association of University Professors.

Veiled Politics, by Joan Wallach Scott (11/23). Some interesting background on an issue (Islamic women, the veil, and rights) that is big in Europe, but that we don't hear as much about as a major political issue here in the USA.

The Two Faces of Al-Qaeda, by Raymond Ibrahim (9/21). The author makes clear the two types of messages that Al-Qaeda leaders send, and the importance of the message intended for their own followers and would-be recruits (the radical, theological message and the anti-Western civilization message) as opposed to what is intended for Western readers (criticism of USA foreign policy, etc.).

Rigid Scholarship on Male Sexuality, by Camille Paglia (9/21). Though I'm usually only in partial agreement with her views, Paglia is one of those authors that I always find interesting to read (like Christopher Hitchens). This review of three related books on male sexuality didn't disappoint. I haven't read any of these books, so I can't say whether her analysis of them is on-target or not. But I did like her taking one of them to task for postmodernist jargon, fashionable namedropping, and making leftist-academic assumptions common in so many social science and humanities departments these days -- I trust Paglia's opinions on that issue, bigtime.

The Choc Doc, by Piper Fogg (9/14, Academic Life). An interesting article about Patrick Fields, a professor who studies and teaches about the history and culture of chocolate. Fields treats chocolate as seriously as many people treat wine.

Saudi Arabia Puts Its Billions Behind Western-Style Higher Education, by Zvika Krieger (9/14). This article gives a lot of info on the increased funding of higher ed in Saudia Arabia, including the creation of the first co-ed institution in the country, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology. While there are many good signs here, I consider the prospects for real success to be quite poor. The goal is to create a highly educated workforce, and more importantly, to create critical thinkers, creative thinkers, and entrepreneurs. That seems pretty unlikely, given the repressive and restrictive culture of Saudi Arabia (mostly because of its brand of Islam). Consider another university that is getting a lot of funding right now, in the hopes of reaching those goals:

Alfaisal [University] will also be coeducational, a big improvement for female
students, many of whom are taught by men through closed-circuit television at the country's women's colleges. Unlike at King Abdullah University, though, men and women will not be allowed to interact, in accordance with the country's legally mandated gender segregation. The university will have split-level classrooms, where women attend the same lectures as men but from balconies surrounded by one-way glass. An underground entrance for women — dropped off by their drivers — will lead directly to stairwells, elevators, and floors strictly segregated by gender. But since even those accommodations would raise many eyebrows in Saudi Arabia, Alfaisal is starting with male students only to gain social credibility first. "Philosophically, I would like to see women from Day 1, but the reality is difficult," Mr. Goodridge says. "We're probably a little ahead of where they're going."

Wow. They are going ridiculous lengths they are going to segregate the education of women from that of men. And that is just one example of why I just don't see how "throwing money at the problem" is really going to lead to major success. Consider this other blurb about Saudi Arabian culture:

But the country is a tough sell: Most public entertainment is prohibited (there are no movie theaters, for instance), alcohol is banned, and women must cover themselves almost completely in public and are not allowed to drive.

I have to agree with the Letter to the Editor from Ayesha Razzaque in the 10/12 issue -- it seems unlikely that we'll see major success in Saudi Arabia until significant cultural changes occur. A huge amount of educational content won't be taught, even at these new "liberal" schools, either because of outright bans or because of fear that the professor would get in trouble for even broaching the subject. How is free thought, critical thinking, creative thinking, and so on ever going to flourish in such a climate?

Hamline Student Suspended and Required To Take Mental Exam

A Hamline University student has been "suspended a student after he sent an e-mail suggesting that the Virginia Tech massacre might have been stopped if students had been allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus." But it gets worse... for him to return to school, he must take a mental health exam! See the FIRE press release, and the supporting docs too.

It never ceases to amaze me... the rights-violating things that some university officials will do these days. Thank goodness we have FIRE around to fight for the rights of students, and to fight back against such irrationality. Out of all the great cases that FIRE has fought and raised awareness of over the years, I think this one is in my top-10 -- or bottom-10 in the sense of being the most bizarre and wrong. To claim that someone who makes a common, sensible, and quite defendable (whether you agree with the conclusion or not) argument in an email is actually a threatening person who must have his head examined to be allowed to return to class... wow. It doesn't get much worse than that!

Vicipaedia

Now here is something I wouldn't have thought of... a Latin version of Wikipedia. It is called Vikipaedia. Apparently this is a good place for people to practice their latin skills.

The Scandal of Social Work Education

The National Association of Scholars released a study, The Scandal of Social Work Education, this week that is highly critical of social work education as being dominated by leftist ideology. No big surprise there, but it is nice to see the study be out there. See the NAS press release which summarizes the study's results. I found out about this via a news blog item at the CHE.

Praise for the Teaching Company from WSJ Opinion

Wilfred McClay, a professor from University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, wrote a nice opinion piece for the WSJ singing the praises for The Teaching Company's products. Since I am a happy customer -- I have listened to over a dozen of their courses, on a wide range of subjects -- I like to see positive press for this company.

Archaeologist Takes on Bible-History Pseudo-Scientists

I don't know anything about archaeologist Eric Cline, but I heard this 10-minute CHE audio clip tonight about his book From Eden to Exile: Unraveling Mysteries of the Bible. While I'm not particularly interested in the subject of biblical history, I did find this audio clip interesting and I am intrigued by his book. He is taking on what he considers to be a wave of "junk science" that is taking over Bible Studies programs.

Hillsdale Says No Thanks to State Aid

A few weeks ago I wrote about Hillsdale College, the school that refuses federal aid on principle. Now, as the CHE reports (see also the news item from Hillsdale itself), they are going to cease taking state aid as well. It doesn't seem like their students were using a lot of it anyway, nor was the state of Michigan interfering with the college. But the important point here is one of principle, so again I congratulate Hillsdale for taking this stand.

Teaching Company Plugged at CHE

I was mostly pleased to read "What I've Learned From Recorded Lectures" by Thomas H. Benton in the August 10 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education. While he notes that there are many providers of recorded lectures, he notes that the biggest such company is The Teaching Company. I really like this company's products (we have over a dozen of their courses on CD), though some are better than others of course.

It seems that Benton generally has benefited from Teaching Company courses as well, so I was pleased to see this mostly positive plug for them. He mentions a few "gripes", but I really find these to be either minor or not well-informed. First, he complains about the introductory music for each -- but that goes by so fast, is it really an annoyance worth mentioning? He complains that he has heard "canned applause", but I've never heard any of this, so I wonder about that: I think some of the lectures are taped in front of an actual class, so perhaps that is what he is hearing? Or perhaps there is some canned applause for some lectures, and I just haven't heard those ones -- there are hundreds of courses to choose from, one of the great things about their catalog!

He also complains about their pricing, where courses are highly priced for most of the year, but then go on sale a few times a year at greatly discounted prices. But The Teaching Company is quite clear about why this is -- they mass produce each course a few times a year, and when they do they get a significant volume discount on production. They don't hide this fact, but rather are quite upfront about it and encourage customers to watch for sales on anything they are interested in but don't have to have immediately. I've never bought any of their products at full price, as I always wait for the sales -- and every product in their catalog goes on sale at least once a year. And, as Benton notes, you can always try the secondary market, like eBay, where I've gotten some recorded courses as well (not Teaching Company ones, though many of these are constantly available on eBay).

But my biggest complaint about Benton's piece is that while he asks some good questions, and encourages the reader to think of these lectures in a positive way, he also at some points seems apologetic for having used recorded lectures to help him learn, prepare courses, and so on. For instance, he rightly asks why recording lectures for commercial sale isn't something that is well-respected in academia. But then he also writes "There is something a little shameful, perhaps, about a professor using a commercial product to develop course material." But there is nothing shameful in this at all! You don't need to apologize for using such materials! If they are valuable materials -- accurate, well-done, scholarly, and so on -- then why not? Those who should be ashamed are any academics who persist in having anti-commercial attitudes to the use of such products, whether for learning, to aid in course prep, or whatever.

Hillsdale College: Flourishing Without Government Funds

A recent issue of Imprimis, a monthly one-article publication from Hillsdale College with a wide distribution and readership, gave a very readable history of the college. As an atheist I really have no interest in the school's religious aspects (it was formed by Freewill Baptists in 1844, though has been "non-denominational" since its inception). But what I find praiseworthy and remarkable about the school is its refusal to accept government funding -- neither direct federal aid or even indirect aid in the form of student aid from the government. As a result, it remains free of government interference as well. This proves that it is possible to do: always has been possible and remains possible today. This article in Imprimis tells their tale nicely... keep up this principled stand Hillsdale!

Postmodern Learning?

My confusion-radar perks up whenever I see the word "Postmodern" used, and especially when it is used in some neologistic phrase that I've not heard before.

The May 14 issue of BusinessWeek magazine had a commentary piece by Michelle Conlin titled "Cheating -- or Postmodern Learning?". It mentions Duke Business School, and reports that they recently had 10% of their class of 2008 caught cheating on a take-home final exam. It doesn't mention any details of the Duke situation, such as what kind of final exam it was, or exactly how the students supposedly cheated. That would have been very helpful for the rest of this commentary, as you'll see. Instead the commentary wants to raise the notion that there is a fuzzy ethical line in such contexts between "sharing" or "collaborating" and outright "cheating".

I don't see it all. She writes:

It's easy to imagine the explanations these MBAs, who are mulling an appeal, might come up with. Teaming up on a take-home exam: That's not academic fraud, it's postmodern learning, wiki style. Text-messaging exam answers or downloading essays onto iPods: That's simply a wise use of technology.

One can understand the confusion. This is a generation that came of age nabbing music off Napster and watching bootlegged Hollywood blockbusters in their dorm rooms. "What do you mean?" you can almost hear them saying. "We're not supposed to share?"

Well, hold on. Teaming up on a take-home exam is OK if the professor has said it is OK, otherwise the assumption must be that your exam should reflect your understanding and work only. That is the basic difference between an exam and a group-project. Text-messaging each other answers during an exam is cheating, pure and simple. The folks who "nabbed music off Napster" were stealing property, pure and simple. The fact that most of a generation of young people don't understand this doesn't change the facts: it just speaks to a massive failing of education and personal responsibility in this country.

Conlin continues:

That's not to say that university administrators should ignore unethical behavior, if it in fact occurred. But in this wired world, maybe the very notion of what constitutes cheating has to be reevaluated. The scandal at Duke points to how much the world has changed, and how academia and corporations are confused about it all, sending split messages.

We're told it's all about teamwork and shared information. But then we're graded and ranked as individuals. We assess everybody as single entities. But then we plop them into an interdependent world and tell them their success hinges on creative collaboration.

Is this really all that confusing? I don't think so. I don't think we need to "reevaluate what constitutes cheating." If a professor's instructions for a final exam or a class project are vague or unclear, then they are at fault. And perhaps professors need to be even more clear about what constitutes cheating and what does not, in light of the growing emphasis on collaboration in so many aspects of life (which is a good thing of course). But assuming that the professor is clear that their final exam is what most final exams are (whether take home or in-class) -- that they are intended to be assessments of the knowledge or skills gained by each individual -- independently of others -- then I just don't see that the students have much of a defense if they are caught copying each others work or whatnot. So that is why the lack of any additional information about the Duke case is so important here -- without knowing that, we can't make a judgement as to whether the Professor was vague or the students cheated. In either case though, I don't see the emergence of a fuzzy-ethics conundrum.

Her paragraph that begins "We're told..." is blantant context-dropping with the purpose of obfuscation of the issues. Teamwork and sharing information are praiseworthing in certain contexts only. Exams, typically, are for evaluating individuals. And the fact that we "plop them into an interdependent world" and "tell them that their success hinges on creative collaboration"... so what? This doesn't negate the fact that final exams are traditionally used to evaluate individuals as individuals, everyone knows this, and assuming the professor hasn't said otherwise, it would be bizarre to now just assume otherwise.

To be fair, her next paragraph shows that Conlin does understand the need to evaluate individuals as individuals:

The new culture of shared information is vastly different from the old, where hoarding information was power. But professors--and bosses, for that matter--need to be able to test individual ability. For all the talk about workforce teamwork, there are plenty of times when a person is on his or her own, arguing a case, preparing a profit and loss statement, or writing a research report.

And then her final paragraph she also writes: "This is in no way a pass on those who consciously break the rules." So that is good to see.

But I just think she is giving way to much strength to the potential claims of cheaters that they were somehow confused by "mixed messages" from society. As long as there are no mixed-messages or ambiguities coming from their instructor, there is no problem here and cheaters have no excuse.

And finally, getting back to the use of "Postmodern Learning" in the title of her commentary, what is "Postmodern" about it (whatever that even means)? And to what extent is the type of thing being described in this commentary "Learning" at all? I don't deny that people can learn by working together, collaborating on a project, and so on -- that is all obvious. But one example in the commentary was from a Stanford professor, who spoke approvingly of someone who "found somebody to help you write an exam". Well again, if the exam is a traditional one that was intended to test the knowledge of each individual, then this is cheating -- it isn't an assessment of learning, of any variety, postmodern or otherwise.

Art Bollocks and the Gibberish Industry

David Thompson has written an outstanding essay on the sad state of art criticism, postmodernism, and related trends in academia and other institutions. It is a very good read, and I was pleased to see the quotations from both Jeremy Stangroom and Ophelia Benson's Why Truth Matters, and even more so, from Stephen Hicks's Explaining Postmodernism. Hicks's book should be considered required reading for anyone interested in investigating the strange world of postmodernism.

Report and Database from FIRE

As a followup to my last posting, see also the impressive Report and Database provided by FIRE. Here is a Dec. 6 press release that describes these resources. Here is a snippet from the press release:

The report’s findings include:

• Public colleges and universities are disregarding their constitutional obligations. More than 73% of public universities surveyed maintain unconstitutional speech codes, despite numerous federal court decisions striking down similar or identical policies.
• Most private colleges and universities promise free speech, but usually do not deliver. Unlike public universities, private universities are not legally bound by the First Amendment. However, most of them explicitly promise free speech rights to their students and faculty. For example, Boston University promises “the right to teach and to learn in an atmosphere of unfettered free inquiry and exposition.” Unfortunately, it also prohibits speech that would be constitutionally protected in society at large, such as “annoying” electronic communications and expressions of opinion that do not “show respect for the aesthetic, social, moral, and religious feelings of others.”

Overall, the report reveals that more than 68% of the colleges and universities surveyed maintain policies that “both clearly and substantially restrict freedom of speech.” Overbroad and vague speech codes from the 2005-2006 academic year include:

• Macalester College bans “speech that makes use of inappropriate words or non-verbals.”
• Furman University bans any “offensive communication not in keeping with community standards.”
• At the University of Mississippi, “offensive language is not to be used” over the telephone.
• The University of North Carolina–Greensboro prohibits “disrespect for persons.”

I hope fire keeps up their good work! You can keep updated on their work through their RSS feeds... go to their homepage and scroll down a bit and see the RSS links on the right under "syndication".

Thought Reform at Michigan State University

I keep tabs on the work of FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), and I encourage anyone interested in maintaining freedom of thought to do the same. This organization brings to light some very disturbing, rights-violating practices of administrators and policy-makers at campuses across the country.

Their most recent alarm was sounded over the "SAC" (Student Accountability in Community) program at Michigan State University. Read the entire FIRE press release on this (which includes links for more info), but here is a snippet:

“Michigan State’s SAC program is simply one of the most invasive attempts at reeducation that FIRE has ever seen, yet it has been allowed to exist at the university for years,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “As bad as it is to tell citizens in a free society what they can’t say, it is even worse to tell them what they must say. Michigan State’s program is an immoral and unconstitutional program of compelled speech, blatant thought reform, and pseudo-psychology.”

According to the program’s materials, SAC is an “early intervention” for students who use such “power-and-control tactics” as “male/white privilege” and “obfuscation,” which the university cryptically defines as “any action of obscuring, concealing, or changing people’s perceptions that result in your advantage and/or another’s disadvantage.” Students can be required to attend SAC if they demonstrate what a judicial administrator arbitrarily deems aggressive behavior, past examples of which have included slamming a door during an argument or playing a practical joke. Students can also be required to attend SAC for engaging in various types of constitutionally protected speech, including “insulting instructors” or “making sexist, homophobic, or racist remarks at a meeting.” When participation in SAC is required, “non-compliance typically results in a hold being placed on the student’s account,” an action that leaves the student unable to register for classes and thus effectively expelled from the university. Students are required to pay the cost of the SAC sessions.

Once in the program, students are instructed to answer a series of written questionnaires. In their answers, students must specifically describe how they are taking “full responsibility” for their offensive behavior and must do so using language that the director of the session deems acceptable. Most students will be asked to fill out this questionnaire multiple times, slowly inching closer to what administrators deem to be “correct” responses.

Wow... Orwellian to say the least.

Open Access and the Future of Journals

I check in with Peter Suber every so often, to get the latest on the Open Access movement in academic journals. Until 2003 Peter was a fulltime professor of philosophy at Earlham College. Since then he has a variety of positions in the "Open Access" movement, and currently calls himself a "policy strategist for open access to scientific and scholarly research literature."

If you aren't familiar with the idea of "Open Access", you can see Peter's very good overview of what it is about (highly recommended). He also maintains a blog (since 2002!), Open Access News, where he provides the latest news (initiatives, trends, etc.) in Open Access. And you can read his monthly SPARC newsletters here, the most recent of which includes his Open Access predictions for 2007.

Open Access is an exciting movement, and one that I hope continues to see success in spreading. And Peter does the best job of anyone I know of gathering together all the latest news and events in this area.

Becker and Posner on Women in Science and Engineering

Judge Richard Posner has commented and critiqued the recent 'NAS' study titled "Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering". Then Nobel-prize winning economist Gary Becker adds his further comments on it. Some very good questions and concerns raised here.

Grant to Create Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship

I recently heard the outsanding news that the Philosophy Department at Rockford College has been given an unprecedented grant of $925,000 from the BB&T Foundation to create a Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship. You can read this announcement for more info.

The Philosophy department at Rockford is chaired by my friend Stephen Hicks . In addition to his work in the area of business ethics, he is also author of a truly oustanding book Explaining Postmodernism (the best work in philosophy I've read in recent years). He is also on the board of directors of EpistemeLinks, Inc., the not-for-profit created to help my EpistemeLinks website project grow in the future.

Congratulations Stephen on this great opportunity, and I look forward to seeing the fruits of your endeavors!

Khatami at Harvard is a Disgrace

Recently former Iranian "president" Mohammed Khatami gave a speech at Harvard titled "Ethics of Tolerance in the Age of Violence". As reported by Harvard's Gazette, he did denounce Bin Laden. But he characterized America as imperialist, similar to pre-WWII Europe. This demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of America's intentions and what "imperialist" means. America has no plans or desire to take over any country on the planet, period. We are interested in trade, not in takeovers -- and this is the key distinction -- the trader principle vs. the initiation of force.

The Gazette notes that "Khatami repeatedly praised the international spread of democracy, calling it the 'discourse of our time' and repeatedly condemned violence." Well, 'discourse of our time' is very vague. And emphasis on and promotion of democracy, much to the shame of the Bush Administration, is not what we should be doing. Far more important than democracy, we should be promoting liberty, individual rights, justice, free-trade -- in a word, capitalism. There is a big difference between that and just "democracy".

Quoting a bit more: "He called on the Islamic world and the Middle East to embrace democracy and to modernize, but cautioned that those changes can't just be copied from the West." I suspect that this is exactly the problem: he favors voting for people and policies that are anti-liberty, anti-individual-rights, anti-free-trade, and anti-capitalism. (Hamas, for example, was elected recently via democracy -- thereby proving that "democracy" is not even close to being sufficient.) Further, "modernize" is vague. Terrorists don't mind using modern technologies: cell phones, video cameras, weapons of various kinds, even nuclear technology. What he needs to mean by "modernize" is, again, exactly what I think he means by 'Western-style changes' -- which he is apparently against: being pro-liberty, individual rights, justice, free-trade, capitalism, etc.

I agree with the Ayn Rand Institute's release on this visit and speech: it is outrageous and a disgrace.

FIRE's Speech Code of the Month

The September "winner" of FIRE's Speech Code of the Month is: Drexel University. In summary: jokes aren't allowed.

Of Diversity, Faked Photos, and Collectivism

Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe had a great column Sacrificing Truth on the Alter of Diversity (thanks to Stephen Hicks for the link). Here he chronicles publishers who put non-handicapped kids in wheelchairs to meet quotas for images of disabled in textbooks. Other bad practices include using images of people who "look like" a particular racial or ethnic minority group, even though they are not of that group. Another is the banning of images deemed to stereotype a particular group, which amazingly includes outlawing images of African children who are barefoot, because they would imply they are poor. You'd think that the more attention that could be drawn to the plight of the poverty-stricken on that continent, the better... but apparently not.

There are other good examples in this brief article, but I was especially pleased to see the author correctly identify the underlying problem that all of this exposes: "By reducing ``diversity" to something as shallow and meaningless as appearance, they reinforce the most dehumanizing stereotypes of all -- those that treat people first and foremost as members of racial, ethnic, or social groups." Without naming it, the author has exposed the root issue here: the promotion of collectivism.

Just give me good grades

Shawn Klein has posted on Consumerism in Education, and he makes several interesting points on the complaint that too many college students have "the view that since they are paying for the class, they should get an A or more direct control over the classroom itself." He first notes that consumerism isn't the problem per se, but rather that "students (and others: parents, administrators, educators, politicians, etc.) have the wrong idea of what is being consumed." He then makes a very insightful analogy:

Educational institutions are selling access and opportunity for education; the student has to get that education himself. An analogy to personal fitness training is apt here. If Sally purchases a year of personal fitness training at her local gym, she is not buying fitness; she is buying access to a trainer who has knowledge about fitness and can direct her efforts towards her goals. She is buying the access to facilities and equipment. She is purchasing the opportunity to get herself fit. If Sally became upset because the trainer was pushing her and challenging her during her sessions or because she failed to reach her fitness goals due to her own sloth or lack of effort then Sally is seriously misplacing her disappointment.

The same applies for education. When Tommy pays tuition at an education institution he is purchasing access to experts who can direct him towards his goals (and even help him determine these goals); he is purchasing access to facilities such as libraries and research centers. He is buying the opportunity to get an education, but he has to work to achieve these goals, much like Sally has to work to achieve her fitness goals.

If more students viewed education in this way, consumerism would be a benefit to them and to educators. Paying for one’s own education provides a powerful incentive to actually do the work that will help in achieving one’s goals. Even for the more apathetic students, I think the attitude would shift from “I paid for the credits, give me the A” to “I paid for the credits, I better do something about it”. This would be similar to the experience many have after buying a gym membership: “well, I paid for the membership; I might as well make use of it”.

His whole posting is a good read...

Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism

The latest issue of the newsletter of National Association of Scholars had several items of interest to me, including the article "More Academic Mischief" by president Stephen Balch, as well as the description of his address of the Pennsylvania legislature (both the item on page 3 and the exec. summary on pg. 5 are good reads). Then the item "NAS Challenges NCATE and ABA Accreditation Authority" too.

But of greatest interest for me is the recognition of the new Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism (see pg. 7). From the Institute's website: "Founded in the fall of 2005 with a generous grant from the BB&T Charitable Foundation, the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism is dedicated to exploring the moral, legal, constitutional, political and economic foundations of capitalism. The Clemson Institute is particularly devoted to fostering a serious examination of a free society."

Their mission statement includes the following: "Through teaching, scholarship and community outreach programs, the Clemson Institute provides a public forum for investigating the underlying principles and institutions of capitalism (e.g., individual rights, private property, contracts, voluntary associations, entrepreneurship, the rule of law, limited government, and free trade )."

Most notably, Institute founder and Clemson professor C. Bradley Thompson notes that "the Clemson Institute is the first and only university-related program in the United States that takes as its core mission the defense of capitalism as the moral and just social system."

Their academic advisory council is loaded with talent: Gary Becker and Vernon Smith (both Nobel Prize winners in Economics), Gordon S. Wood (Pulitzer Prize winner for History), Alan Charles Kors (co-founder of FIRE), and other top names.

Oh, and one last thing to note here... it doesn't surprise me that BB&T's foundation is what launched this new Institute. To see why, review the info at their corporate philosophy page, especially the page detailing their values. How many corporations -- like a bank -- have such a meaningful and focused mission statement and set of values? How many quote Aristotle on their website? How many banks will actually take a stand on their values and principles, like BB&T's policy on eminent domain (posted 1/25/2006)... here is the first sentence of the press release:

BB&T Corporation today said it will not lend to commercial developers that plan to build condominiums, shopping malls and other private projects on land taken from private citizens by government entities using eminent domain.

Stats on Student Aid for College

Neal McCluskey had an interesting item for Cato today, Don't Believe the Ivory Hype. A few highlights are:

• Previous warnings in 2004 that the Chinese were going to graduate 600,000 engineers compared with only 70,000 for the US were wrong. Engineers with four-year degrees: China 350,000 compared to USA 140,000. Not nearly as big a difference. (I read elsewhere that part of this distortion came from originally including two-year degree students).
• According to the College Board's own numbers, between the 1994-95 and 2004-05 academic years, total inflation-adjusted federal student aid more than doubled, from $44.5 billion to $90.1 billion.
• And not just loans: Real Pell Grant funding rose from $7 billion to $13.1 billion, supplemental grants increased from $743 million to $771 million, work-study rose from $965 million to $1.2 billion, and federal tax benefits increased from nothing to more than $8 billion.
• Again according to College Board data, between 1994-95 and 2004-05 inflation-adjusted grant aid per student from both federal and other sources ballooned 51 percent, from $2,965 to $4,479, and overall aid rose 61 percent, from $6,261 to $10,119. Moreover, both grant and overall aid increases outpaced the growth in college costs.

National Assoc. of Scholars blogging on Nifong

I just read the recent NAS (National Association of Scholars) blog entry by K.C. Johnson, a History professor from Brooklyn College CUNY, on the subject of prosecutor Mike Nifong. It is an outstanding review of key aspects of the Duke Lacrosse Team / Rape case, with a focus on the shameful actions of prosecutor Nifong. This is such an excellent writeup, I can't just select a few quotes to include here.

Student howlers and more laughs

Philosophy professor Stephen Hicks has posted What I Have Learned About the History of Philosophy from My Students. These are all funny (so go read all of them!), but some of my favorites:

• For Aristotle, the virtuous person can be known as temperature, someone who is under complete control. Aristotle thinks the Principle of Noncontradiction is an axiom is because it is one.
• In feudal times, jobs were passed on from fathers to sons. For example, if your father was a priest, you would probably become a priest too.
• Marx says the broughers who employ the workers can and do enslave the proliterate workers. So Marx promoted socialism which operates the production of products produced by the society. Social­ism is an ideal, but come on now! Let's be realistic!
• Against Marx, Rand advocates free enterprise and selfishness, but her philosophy is sort of controversial, in a sense. She commits the fallacy of hoc poc der doc.

"Hoc poc der doc"? Not sure what that is.

Perhaps the best one, because unlike the others Stephen reports this one kinda made me think a little, is this: "Mysticism is the direct and immediate experience of the scared." That actually sounds like one of Nietzsche's aphorisms.

I've added a link to this page at the list of Philosophy Fun and Humor at EpistemeLinks. Here you will find hours of philosophy-related laughs. Some great stuff here! One link included there is another listing of student howlers like the above.

And for less than $8 you can get more laughs by purchasing Non Campus Mentis: World History According to College Students. This had both Susan and I laughing throughout!

Committee Reports on Ward Churchill

A nice post by Diana Hsieh, a graduate student at Univ. of Colorado, on the recent university investigative committee's report on Ward Churchill. Her post includes the excellent op-ed written by the chairman of the UC philosophy department, Robert Pasnau.

Letters to WSJ Regarding Hashemi at Yale

As further followup to my several earlier posts about Mr. Hashemi attending Yale, and in particular John Fund's continuing columns on this issue for the WSJ, here are links to some letters to the WSJ that are interesting. First two from 4/4 that are in support of Yale, and then three from 4/11 that are, like Fund, critical of Yale. (Thanks to Chris Grieb for providing me these links.)

Another followup on Fund on Yale

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal continues his writing on the case of "Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, the 27-year-old Taliban ambassador-at-large turned Yale student". I first blogged about this here, and then updated here.

The latest items from Mr. Fund are worth reading as well. See his 3/27 article and then his 3/30 article and then today's 4/3 article.

Yale Followup

Since my posting on 3/16, John Fund has continued to post on the issue of Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi at Yale. See his 3/16 post "Temporarily Relieved", and even more so his 3/20 post "Sayed and de Man at Yale". The latter provides some additional info, and gives details of two other, somewhat similar situations in Yale's past -- involving two prominent Yale professors who were later found to have been Nazi sympathizers in their past. The reaction at Yale to those situations was quite different to the policy of near-silence Fund observes today.

Update: See also Fund's 3/23 piece.

Yale: Nearly a laugh but really a cry!

By now you may have already heard about Yale admitting (essentially) a Taliban spokesperson as a student. No really... 'tis true. As a result of this, Yale is the first to receive my "Nearly a laugh but really a cry" award.

Background: Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, a former spokesman for Afghanistan's Taliban government, was admitted to Yale University last year as a special student in a nondegree program; this spring, he plans to apply as a regular student. It seems he has a fourth-grade education, with a high-school equivalency degree. Unless an extra spot was created just for him, then presumably other, more qualified students based on educational merit, were passed over in favor of Hashemi. In fairness, apparently he is doing well so far, with a 3.33 GPA.

For more on this, read Cathy Young's (Boston Globe, Reason Magazine) column. Excellent piece, and includes a great quote from a Yale senior defending relativism by not criticizing or defending the misogyny of the Taliban.

Also see John Fund in the WSJ. He provides good info, and includes this: "There are many poor, bright students--American and foreign alike--who would jump at the opportunity to attend Yale. Why should Mr. Rahmatullah go to the line ahead of all of them? That's a question Yale alumni should ask when their alma mater comes looking for contributions."

Fund also wrote this piece, which is subtitled: "A university official calls Taliban critics 'retarded' while the university maintains a stony silence." How very PC of the Yale rep.

On the more fundamental question of Hashemi's admission into the US on a student visa, see Senator John Cornyn's letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff.

But perhaps the most fun read of all is from RadioBlogger. This provides a letter from a Yale alumni and political leftist, Christina Bost Seaton, who thinks Yale made a mistake here. (See also the next post there, for a Yale quasi-response.)


My view: Is this the desire for "diversity on campus" gone way too far? Ethical relativism -- at least when considering certain non-Western, non-American folks -- deeply ingrained in college bureaucrats? Yet another example of political-correctness on a campus? Take your pick. There is some grounds for favoring a diverse college environment, but there is a context for this. Some things are surely out of bounds. Diversity programs are usually focused on race, ethnicity, gender, etc. -- not so much on increasing the numbers of rapists, murderers, nazis, or even high-school dropouts. Similarly, I wouldn't have thought they would want to increase their number of representatives of misogynist, fascist, brutal regimes that torture women, murder homosexuals, grind their economy into the ground, and commit numerous other atrocities. That is certainly a culture, and a type of "lifestyle choice", but not one to be represented anywhere. Or perhaps Yale has changed its Diversity Mission Statement without the rest of the world noticing? Perhaps they have this as a new category, and can brag to their Ivy League competition "Yale: 1; The rest of you: 0".

Lastly, to be fair, this award should really be given to both Yale and the US government. The deeper problem than his being admitted to a special program at Yale would seem to be his being admitted into the US at all. But since I'm sure the feds will get this award so many times in the future, I didn't want to start off with them! Too easy...