After reading and reviewing The Unlikely Disciple and its commentary on Jerry Falwell, I asked myself if Martin Luther King could have achieved similar success as the leader, or possibly the founder of an institution of higher education.
Only 39 at the time of his death; it is quite possible, had he not been assassinated, that King would be alive today at age 81. And it was also possible, as politics changed in the country and television technology advanced, that he would have changed the direction of his career.
As I mentioned in my review of the The Unlikely Disciple, the Jerry Falwell in the media behaved like a bigoted fool.
However, I could not deny that Falwell had skillfully used television to turn a local church into a national mega-church and a very small college into a national university. While King resigned pastoral leadership in Montgomery, Alabama to devote full-time to civil rights activism, Falwell remained the pastor of his expanding church as he led conservative causes.
Martin Luther King could have used his oratorical gifts to similar advantage on behalf of higher education. King had a significant presence on television at a time when the three major networks dominated the news coverage. He was not only a skilled orator; he had also won a Nobel Prize. That alone would have given him far more intellectual credibility as a college president than Jerry Falwell could have ever achieved.
But King, like Falwell, would have needed to master developments in television (cable programming as the primary example) in order to build an institution of higher learning. He would have needed to remain front and center with a national audience. And he would have had to rebuild his reputation among moderate "establishment" politicians after his openly public opposition to the Vietnam War.
King could have succeeded with a cable television station, provided he has received the help of a black entrepreneur, or a supportive national foundation. But I do not that it could have become a public television program during the Seventies or early Eighties; it would have had to be a privately sponsored program or network. It is possible that the supporters of a publicly sponsored program featuring King might have prevailed during the middle of the Seventies, but they would have lost the funding over several rounds of Reagan budget cuts during the Eighties.
Political conservatives would have opposed a publicly funded program, citing King's past ties to civil rights activists such as Bayard Rustin and Stanley Levison who were linked to the Communist party, as well as King's extra-marital affairs that were monitored and reported by Hoover's FBI.
King would have run into other obstacles in becoming an institutional leader. He has been accused posthumously of plagiarism in the writing of his undergraduate seminary thesis and his doctoral dissertation from Boston University. I could not imagine a living political figure, even a man of King’s stature, being appointed to lead a university during a conservative political climate with such accusations hanging over him.
Even if a board of trustees were to ignore the accusations and confirm the appointment, they would still place themselves under a cloud of suspicion if King faltered as a leader. I would also need to ask if the black presidents of other historically black schools might have also feared investigations in their credentials as well, in light of a public investigation into the credentials of Martin Luther King.
King might have been a better spokesperson for higher education within the black community than as a leader of an institution. Had he lived, a man of his high profile would have done wonders for the United Negro College Fund, which is the main fundraising arm for the thirty nine privately supported Historically Black Colleges and Universities in this country. He would have helped to educate future generations while protecting his own legacy. And he might have earned the same honors, including the Medal of Freedom that he received posthumously.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Book Review: The Unlikely Disciple, A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University
The Unlikely Disciple is the story of a Brown University student's sophomore spring semester as a student at Liberty University, considered to be the leading institution for evangelical Christians in the country.
I found this story interesting; it was as if I, as a Reform Jew, were to be transplanted into a Lubovitch sect on campus. My observations would have been:it's not for me, but Mazel Tov if you believe that it's for you.
The author of The Unlikely Disciple, Kevin Roose, mentions that the late Reverend Jerry Falwell founded Liberty to "do for the right wing what Harvard does for the left."
While Liberty is the second largest religiously affiliated university in the country (after Brigham Young), its admissions statistics (a 94 percent acceptance rate and SAT's between 900 and 1,100 according to the 2009 U.S. News and World Report College Guide)suggest that the school has a way to go before it can be compared to Harvard.
However, mere numbers are not a fair assessment of a school. Liberty has grown to a student body of over 18,000 full-time and part-time students in only 38 years and there is a very sound pricing strategy. Tuition, fees and room and board are approximately $25,000; to give some comparison, that is lower than the costs for an out-of-state student to attend a public university in Virginia, and only $2,000 more than the costs for a New Jersey resident to attend Rutgers in-state.
Roose mentions that Liberty has been an attractive option for students who attended public schools. Pricing an education close to the charges for a state university has to help. Liberty also enjoys a yield rate, the ratio of admitted students who choose to attend, of over fifty percent. This is extremely high for a private university.
The Unlikely Disciple is an interesting story on many fronts. First, Roose repeatedly states that Liberty students are not what outsiders would perceive them to be. He says that they are homophobic and that they share Falwell's views on abortion, gay rights and global warming, to name examples of three politic issues, but that they are not necessarily politically active and that they often have doubts about their faith and the strict code for on-campus living called The Liberty Way.
The Liberty Way, as Roose describes, makes Liberty University appear more like a military academy than a religiously affiliated university such as Georgetown or Notre Dame. There are no co-ed dorms and there are strict rules about dating (no sex, no kissing, no close hugging only hand holding), room inspections, demerits (but also fines, which is not found at a service academy). Valentines Day is celebrated on campus, but the National Day of Purity, to promote abstinence before marriage is on the same day.
While the strict rules are of discomfort to a transfer from Brown, they were reported to be a reason students chose the school. One comment in the book was that Liberty was the "only school in the country where engineers and football players had the same opportunities for sex."
Roose devotes much time to discussing how various students feel about the Liberty Way. There is surprising disagreement, but also limited student leadership to make changes. However, students do leave. I later found out that Liberty loses twenty eight percent of a freshman class; for comparison's sake, according to the recent U.S News guide religiously affiliated schools such Georgetown or Notre Dame retain nearly every freshman; Brigham Young has a ninety percent retention rate and Baylor's is eighty four percent. Oral Roberts, another Baptist school founded by a televangelist, retains eighty one percent of its freshmen.
It is also interesting that Roose points out that Liberty is more welcoming to other faiths, and more diverse racially than outsiders would expect. Roose cites that ten percent of Liberty's enrollment is African-American (I later found out that sixteen percent of the student body is African American or Hispanic, comparable to state schools). Falwell was a Southern Baptist minister, yet only ten percent of the students share his personal faith. In fact, two-thirds of Liberty students are Protestant or Baptist; at Baylor, a large Baptist-chartered university, this figure is seventy eight percent.
There are also fascinating anecdotes about Liberty classes. Roose enrolls in six courses including Contemporary Issues, History of Life, Evangelism 101, Old Testament Survey as well as Theology and membership for credit in the Thomas Road Baptist Church choir, so that he can observe Falwell outside of campus. He is surprised how academics are capable of reconciling their beliefs in creationism with their secular educations in, for example, the humanities or the sciences. The Liberty curriculum is about indoctrination; not everyone enters the university on firm ground about their beliefs. He adds that church services the Thomas Road way, eventually became more powerfully theatrical than spiritual, with a 300 member choir and technology comparable to any modern television show.
Roose also lands a plum writing assignment that he had never expected to land. He does the last print interview with Jerry Falwell before his death at 73. Because he is a student, he attempts to humanize the man rather than repeat the positives (heralded in a Falwell Museum on campus) as well as the negatives (his opposition to the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960's, his comments about gays and feminists after 9-11). He learns that while Falwell was a very flawed man, he was also capable of many acts of kindness and ran his university with transparency and integrity. Even upon his death, Falwell's Liberty was debt-free and primed to grow.
Before reading The Unlikely Disciple, I had visited other Christian schools in my prior work. They had similar rules, but none had a leader such as Jerry Falwell.
While his conservative views on social issues are quite the opposite of my own, I have to give the man some credit after reading this book. Falwell might have acted like a bigoted fool, and sincerely believed in his world-view, but he must also be considered a social entrepreneur. While the civil rights leaders of the Sixties formed effective non-profit and community organizations, this man founded a university that has grown exponentially over 38 years.
This story made me wonder: what if a man like Martin Luther King Jr., also a charismatic public figure, could have lived to form a college? And that will be the subject of another post.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Book Review: Odd Man Out, A Year on the Mound with a Minor League Misfit by Matt McCarthy
In October, 2007 I wrote a post on whether it paid for high school baseball players to pass up college in favor of a major league contract.
In this post, I concluded that it depended on the amount of the signing bonus, the cost of a college education and the amount of lost income (should the player expect to reach the major leagues in less than four years. I also looked at whether it paid for a top college player to drop out and play professional baseball or stay in school. I won't rehash the story, only say that there is a cutoff amount of money where it might pay to quit and take a shot at the majors.
Then I read a new book: Odd Man Out, A Year on the Mound with a Minor League Misfit written by Matt McCarthy, a Yale graduate, Class of 2002, who decided to take a shot at professional baseball. A left-handed pitcher with a ninety mile per hour fastball, a rare commodity in the pro game,
McCarthy is invited first to try out for the Yankees at their minor league park in Staten Island. Then he is chosen by the Angels in the twenty-first round of the Major League Baseball draft. His signing bonus is $1,000. Non-negotiable. But he later receives an incentive clause that is not given to all rookies who are drafted in a low round. He will receive a $1,000 bonus if he advances to Double-A ball, $1,500 to Triple A, and $5,000 if he makes the major league team.
As I wrote in my earlier post, the signing bonus means everything; every first-year minor league baseball player gets the same starting salary: $850 a month during the season, as well as minimal meal money. Quan Cosby, current NFL wide receiver prospect and McCarthy's teammate in 2002, was drafted by the Angels in the sixth round. He was offered $800,000 to turn down a football scholarship to the University of Texas. It paid for Cosby to give baseball a shot. But now he is getting a second chance in professional sports after he returned to Texas to play football.
McCarthy learns that his molecular biophysics degree from Yale has no value in minor league baseball; scouts who have seen his best games wonder if a man so smart will take baseball so seriously. And immediately after he joins his Provo team, he covers up his intellect, and says that he concentrated on baseball and girls over studying.
But his pitching, which has highs and lows, must do the talking. He is moved from starter to reliever during the season; a lefty starter has a better chance to make the major leagues, so the shifting causes obvious concern.
McCarthy learns that the attention you receive depends on the amount the team has invested in you. In one scene, he describes how Angels management huddles as they watch Joe Saunders, their first-round draft choice from Virginia Tech, warms up in the bullpen. A minor league manager will monitor not only the performance, but also the pitch count of a top minor league pitching prospect. For Yankee fans like me, this practice is known as the Joba Rules, in honor of flame throwing fastballer Joba Chamberlain.
Matt also learns lessons in money management. Because he has received such a small signing bonus, his housing options are limited to sharing an overcrowded apartment or a budget hotel room with his teammates (he tries both) or living with a host family in Provo, Utah where his team plays. After trying to live with teammates, he moves in with a Mormon host family that, to his surprise, is quite generous and well-to-do. The host family even gives him access to a vehicle,a huge bonus, because Matt cannot afford a car on his own.
But most of Odd Man Out is not devoted to McCarthy's efforts to remain in baseball, as much as the chemistry, or lack of it, on his Provo team. He plays with future major leaguers, but also young men with no college education who have limited employment prospects outside of baseball as well as Dominican players who keep to themselves and speak only Spanish in the clubhouse.
McCarthy finishes his first season and makes it to camp to begin a second season only to be assigned to another low minor league team. Then he gets an unexpected break: the Angels Triple-A team in Salt Lake City needs a left-hander. He finishes his first Triple-A inning shell-shocked, having given up two of the longest fly outs of his career, well-hit balls that could have been home runs. Almost immediately after this outing he gets his release. Six months later, he enrolls in Harvard Medical School.
Odd Man Out is a fun story, and it presents the more realistic situations of minor league ballplayers. The numbers are not in their favor, and too few have an education to fall back on. It was easy for Matt McCarthy to walk away from the game because he had other options. Enjoy this book, but I hope you take that lesson away from the story.
In this post, I concluded that it depended on the amount of the signing bonus, the cost of a college education and the amount of lost income (should the player expect to reach the major leagues in less than four years. I also looked at whether it paid for a top college player to drop out and play professional baseball or stay in school. I won't rehash the story, only say that there is a cutoff amount of money where it might pay to quit and take a shot at the majors.
Then I read a new book: Odd Man Out, A Year on the Mound with a Minor League Misfit written by Matt McCarthy, a Yale graduate, Class of 2002, who decided to take a shot at professional baseball. A left-handed pitcher with a ninety mile per hour fastball, a rare commodity in the pro game,
McCarthy is invited first to try out for the Yankees at their minor league park in Staten Island. Then he is chosen by the Angels in the twenty-first round of the Major League Baseball draft. His signing bonus is $1,000. Non-negotiable. But he later receives an incentive clause that is not given to all rookies who are drafted in a low round. He will receive a $1,000 bonus if he advances to Double-A ball, $1,500 to Triple A, and $5,000 if he makes the major league team.
As I wrote in my earlier post, the signing bonus means everything; every first-year minor league baseball player gets the same starting salary: $850 a month during the season, as well as minimal meal money. Quan Cosby, current NFL wide receiver prospect and McCarthy's teammate in 2002, was drafted by the Angels in the sixth round. He was offered $800,000 to turn down a football scholarship to the University of Texas. It paid for Cosby to give baseball a shot. But now he is getting a second chance in professional sports after he returned to Texas to play football.
McCarthy learns that his molecular biophysics degree from Yale has no value in minor league baseball; scouts who have seen his best games wonder if a man so smart will take baseball so seriously. And immediately after he joins his Provo team, he covers up his intellect, and says that he concentrated on baseball and girls over studying.
But his pitching, which has highs and lows, must do the talking. He is moved from starter to reliever during the season; a lefty starter has a better chance to make the major leagues, so the shifting causes obvious concern.
McCarthy learns that the attention you receive depends on the amount the team has invested in you. In one scene, he describes how Angels management huddles as they watch Joe Saunders, their first-round draft choice from Virginia Tech, warms up in the bullpen. A minor league manager will monitor not only the performance, but also the pitch count of a top minor league pitching prospect. For Yankee fans like me, this practice is known as the Joba Rules, in honor of flame throwing fastballer Joba Chamberlain.
Matt also learns lessons in money management. Because he has received such a small signing bonus, his housing options are limited to sharing an overcrowded apartment or a budget hotel room with his teammates (he tries both) or living with a host family in Provo, Utah where his team plays. After trying to live with teammates, he moves in with a Mormon host family that, to his surprise, is quite generous and well-to-do. The host family even gives him access to a vehicle,a huge bonus, because Matt cannot afford a car on his own.
But most of Odd Man Out is not devoted to McCarthy's efforts to remain in baseball, as much as the chemistry, or lack of it, on his Provo team. He plays with future major leaguers, but also young men with no college education who have limited employment prospects outside of baseball as well as Dominican players who keep to themselves and speak only Spanish in the clubhouse.
McCarthy finishes his first season and makes it to camp to begin a second season only to be assigned to another low minor league team. Then he gets an unexpected break: the Angels Triple-A team in Salt Lake City needs a left-hander. He finishes his first Triple-A inning shell-shocked, having given up two of the longest fly outs of his career, well-hit balls that could have been home runs. Almost immediately after this outing he gets his release. Six months later, he enrolls in Harvard Medical School.
Odd Man Out is a fun story, and it presents the more realistic situations of minor league ballplayers. The numbers are not in their favor, and too few have an education to fall back on. It was easy for Matt McCarthy to walk away from the game because he had other options. Enjoy this book, but I hope you take that lesson away from the story.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Designing the Better Sex Ed Class
This past week, Time magazine ran a story entitled How to End the War Over Sex Ed. Most of the story covers a two-year effort by the school system in a conservative South Carolina county to teach comprehensive sex education in the classroom.
There are two stand-out facts in this story: the impetus for the program came from the executive director of the county's United Way, and that $40,000 was raised to hire the district's designated sex education instructor, who was fresh from the campus of Clemson University. While the story does not say if the United Way was a direct financial contributor to the instructor's salary, it states that the organization's president raised the funds with the help of friends.
I mention this point because a Buffalo United Way decision to fund teen sex education programs in that city was protested by pro-life groups. For decades,according to the Buffalo News story the United Way had a “position statement” against funding for any agency “involved in the delivery of abortion services.”
The Time story, however mentioned that there had been no opposition to the sex education program in District 3 within the Anderson County (SC) schools because of the quality of instruction students have received from their dedicated teacher. The teacher, Kristen Jordan, provides counseling to high school students and teaches middle school students about decision making and basic sexuality. Jordan opens the course materials and her classes to parents, too. As a result of Jordan's efforts, the number of teen births within the school district has dropped over the past three years from 19, to just two.
Jordan points out that the challenge is to get parents and students to take sex education seriously. Having written a story about this subject, I agree. There is no other subject that incites so much fear among parents, yet there is actually very little for them to complain about. Which led me to think, aside from Jordan's content, what else should be part of a sex education class?
I have to admit that as I researched my story, which later became The Sex Ed Chronicles, that I have never taught sex education, nor had I taken a class in the subject. It was not a state mandate thirty one years ago, nor was our school system pressured to offer sex education (though I did see at least one young mom with a baby at my graduation practice). I thought of sex ed as a health class taught by a gym teacher, and our gym teachers did not even get much respect teaching driver's ed--a subject that allof us wanted to pass.
But in addition to the decision-making and medical issues, I would hope to see modules on family life (Sex education was called Family Life Education in New Jersey, with the idea that students should know what it means to be parents) as well as male-female stereotypes and how they have become outdated. Student attitudes come from parents, and parents have not always had this education. But their attitudes about human relations are formed from these stereotypes. The stereotypes might have evolved outside a student's family, but they also have to evolve at home.
Such education is not cheap, but it has worthwhile savings later on.
There are two stand-out facts in this story: the impetus for the program came from the executive director of the county's United Way, and that $40,000 was raised to hire the district's designated sex education instructor, who was fresh from the campus of Clemson University. While the story does not say if the United Way was a direct financial contributor to the instructor's salary, it states that the organization's president raised the funds with the help of friends.
I mention this point because a Buffalo United Way decision to fund teen sex education programs in that city was protested by pro-life groups. For decades,according to the Buffalo News story the United Way had a “position statement” against funding for any agency “involved in the delivery of abortion services.”
The Time story, however mentioned that there had been no opposition to the sex education program in District 3 within the Anderson County (SC) schools because of the quality of instruction students have received from their dedicated teacher. The teacher, Kristen Jordan, provides counseling to high school students and teaches middle school students about decision making and basic sexuality. Jordan opens the course materials and her classes to parents, too. As a result of Jordan's efforts, the number of teen births within the school district has dropped over the past three years from 19, to just two.
Jordan points out that the challenge is to get parents and students to take sex education seriously. Having written a story about this subject, I agree. There is no other subject that incites so much fear among parents, yet there is actually very little for them to complain about. Which led me to think, aside from Jordan's content, what else should be part of a sex education class?
I have to admit that as I researched my story, which later became The Sex Ed Chronicles, that I have never taught sex education, nor had I taken a class in the subject. It was not a state mandate thirty one years ago, nor was our school system pressured to offer sex education (though I did see at least one young mom with a baby at my graduation practice). I thought of sex ed as a health class taught by a gym teacher, and our gym teachers did not even get much respect teaching driver's ed--a subject that allof us wanted to pass.
But in addition to the decision-making and medical issues, I would hope to see modules on family life (Sex education was called Family Life Education in New Jersey, with the idea that students should know what it means to be parents) as well as male-female stereotypes and how they have become outdated. Student attitudes come from parents, and parents have not always had this education. But their attitudes about human relations are formed from these stereotypes. The stereotypes might have evolved outside a student's family, but they also have to evolve at home.
Such education is not cheap, but it has worthwhile savings later on.
Book Review: Joker One, A Marine Platoon's Story of Courage, Leadership, and Brotherhood by Donovan Campbell
During my research to write Defending College Heights, my upcoming novel, I read two accounts, one real and one fictional, about a military platoon leader's first command under fire. The fictional account I read was The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien. The non-fictional account was One Bullet Away, by former U.S. Marine lieutenant Nathaniel Fick. But I wish that I also had the opportunity to read this recent Marine account by Donovan Campbell.
Joker One, A Marine Platoon's Story of Courage, Leadership, and Brotherhood, is less a war story than a story of leadership, camaraderie and shared purpose among 150 men who were ordered to hold down the Iraqi city of Ramadi. Campbell, whose handle was "Joker One-Actual" commanded one of the infantry platoons with forty men under his command.
While the major thrust of U.S. forces were concentrated on capturing Fallujah, Joker Company had the sole responsibility of protecting Ramadi and preventing the city from falling to insurgents. One hundred fifty men had the responsibility for securing a city of 350,000 people. And these Marines did not allow Ramadi to fall into enemy hands.
Only 24 when he assumed command of his platoon, Campbell had taken a slightly longer path towards assuming leadership within the Marines. While he had attended Officer Candidate School (OCS) during the summer after his junior year at Princeton, he disliked the experience enough to consider other career opportunities. But he was reminded of the words of one of his training instructors: "Candidate, the currency in which we trade is human lives. Do you think you can handle that responsibility?" (For more about the Marine OCS program, read Fick's One Bullet Away. Campbell devotes only a half-page to this subject in Joker One)
After graduating from Princeton, Campbell embarked on a lengthier training program which had three parts: infantry officer training, scout sniper training and ground intelligence training. Joker One was Campbell's second deployment to Iraq. His first deployment had been as an intelligence officer preparing reports for superior officers.
I had the opportunity to listen to Campbell in person; our local Barnes and Noble invited him to do a reading and lead a discussion about the book and his experiences in Iraq. He said that Joker One was a story he had written to honor the deeds of his men; he believed that they had been inadequately rewarded for their service. He said that promotion and rewards in the Marines are quite structured, but that his men considered them less important than the survival of the unit. Campbell added that Marines who successfully come through a deployment in good mental health typically have a strong sense of faith, family, country and unit.
Campbell said that he did not want to write a "war story." He wanted to let readers know less about military practices and strategy than about the deeds and character of his men. Campbell added that veterans typically prefer not to tell stories about their service; they believe people who have not served would not understand what it was like to lose a member of their team, or to be under fire by insurgents. Campbell said, as a result of their experience, that those who have served honorably are often quite humble. This is a remarkable story, though Campbell has said that his men did not have the time to notice how remarkable it was.
Joker One is an excellent book for anyone considering the military as a career; you get the "feel" of command, as opposed to jaw-dropping awe of weapons or tactics. Joker One is also a story that parents of potential officers, as well as career counselors should add to their reading. It is an authentic story of a young man's first opportunity to lead, his successes and the seriousness of his failures. Campbell has written a story that will do his men and the Marine Corps proud without sounding like public relations for their service.
Joker One, A Marine Platoon's Story of Courage, Leadership, and Brotherhood, is less a war story than a story of leadership, camaraderie and shared purpose among 150 men who were ordered to hold down the Iraqi city of Ramadi. Campbell, whose handle was "Joker One-Actual" commanded one of the infantry platoons with forty men under his command.
While the major thrust of U.S. forces were concentrated on capturing Fallujah, Joker Company had the sole responsibility of protecting Ramadi and preventing the city from falling to insurgents. One hundred fifty men had the responsibility for securing a city of 350,000 people. And these Marines did not allow Ramadi to fall into enemy hands.
Only 24 when he assumed command of his platoon, Campbell had taken a slightly longer path towards assuming leadership within the Marines. While he had attended Officer Candidate School (OCS) during the summer after his junior year at Princeton, he disliked the experience enough to consider other career opportunities. But he was reminded of the words of one of his training instructors: "Candidate, the currency in which we trade is human lives. Do you think you can handle that responsibility?" (For more about the Marine OCS program, read Fick's One Bullet Away. Campbell devotes only a half-page to this subject in Joker One)
After graduating from Princeton, Campbell embarked on a lengthier training program which had three parts: infantry officer training, scout sniper training and ground intelligence training. Joker One was Campbell's second deployment to Iraq. His first deployment had been as an intelligence officer preparing reports for superior officers.
I had the opportunity to listen to Campbell in person; our local Barnes and Noble invited him to do a reading and lead a discussion about the book and his experiences in Iraq. He said that Joker One was a story he had written to honor the deeds of his men; he believed that they had been inadequately rewarded for their service. He said that promotion and rewards in the Marines are quite structured, but that his men considered them less important than the survival of the unit. Campbell added that Marines who successfully come through a deployment in good mental health typically have a strong sense of faith, family, country and unit.
Campbell said that he did not want to write a "war story." He wanted to let readers know less about military practices and strategy than about the deeds and character of his men. Campbell added that veterans typically prefer not to tell stories about their service; they believe people who have not served would not understand what it was like to lose a member of their team, or to be under fire by insurgents. Campbell said, as a result of their experience, that those who have served honorably are often quite humble. This is a remarkable story, though Campbell has said that his men did not have the time to notice how remarkable it was.
Joker One is an excellent book for anyone considering the military as a career; you get the "feel" of command, as opposed to jaw-dropping awe of weapons or tactics. Joker One is also a story that parents of potential officers, as well as career counselors should add to their reading. It is an authentic story of a young man's first opportunity to lead, his successes and the seriousness of his failures. Campbell has written a story that will do his men and the Marine Corps proud without sounding like public relations for their service.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Republicans Have Forgotten Some of Their History
It's been quite amusing listening to Republicans in the news these days. They have offered little in the way of alternatives to President Obama's policies, except the old, and now tired rhetoric that helped them win elections in the past. So, I decided to search down memory lane for Republican-driven initiatives that some (but not all) members of the GOP might feel proud of. The Grand Old Party was not always the "party of No."
To start, Republicans once expressed support for equal rights and equal pay, and they expressed it before the Democrats did. In 1940, according to political scientist Christina Wolbrecht. the Republicans included support for an equal rights amendment in their party platform, while the Democrats did not. The Democrats embraced it four years later, and an equal rights amendment passed the U.S. Senate, a Republican-majority Senate in 1953. Republican candidates Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford supported an equal rights amendment, as did the first President Bush when he campaigned against Ronald Reagan.
Dwight Eisenhower campaigned as a fiscal conservative and supported limited government as well as a strong national defense. Yet he also signed two civil rights acts, in 1957 and 1960, and backed the formation of the National Defense Student Loan Program as well as the National Highway Administration. And while John F. Kennedy called for a man to be on the moon before the end of the 1960's during his first State of the Union address, NASA had already been formed under the Eisenhower Administration. And it was Eisenhower who made the first landmark action for school desegregation, when he ordered National Guard troops to Little Rock, Arkansas.
Barry Goldwater is credited as being the first presidential candidate of the modern conservative movement, on economic issues as well as social issues. Yet in his final Senate term he became pro-choice (his wife was a founding member of Planned Parenthood in Arizona) and opposed voluntary prayer. He disliked the leadership of the emerging right wing of the Republican Party, once saying that "Every good Christian should kick [Jerry] Falwell in the ass."
And lastly, while Richard Nixon's presidency ended in disgrace, there were some significant domestic policy accomplishments on his watch: the formation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the eighteen year old vote and the acceleration of desegregation in the public schools. He also became a convert to deficit spending to fix a weak economy.
Looking back on this history, I have to ask if a Republican platform of civil liberties, targeted infrastructure funding and tax credits to business to spur innovation might be possible. But first, they have to take the mike away from Rush Limbaugh.
To start, Republicans once expressed support for equal rights and equal pay, and they expressed it before the Democrats did. In 1940, according to political scientist Christina Wolbrecht. the Republicans included support for an equal rights amendment in their party platform, while the Democrats did not. The Democrats embraced it four years later, and an equal rights amendment passed the U.S. Senate, a Republican-majority Senate in 1953. Republican candidates Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford supported an equal rights amendment, as did the first President Bush when he campaigned against Ronald Reagan.
Dwight Eisenhower campaigned as a fiscal conservative and supported limited government as well as a strong national defense. Yet he also signed two civil rights acts, in 1957 and 1960, and backed the formation of the National Defense Student Loan Program as well as the National Highway Administration. And while John F. Kennedy called for a man to be on the moon before the end of the 1960's during his first State of the Union address, NASA had already been formed under the Eisenhower Administration. And it was Eisenhower who made the first landmark action for school desegregation, when he ordered National Guard troops to Little Rock, Arkansas.
Barry Goldwater is credited as being the first presidential candidate of the modern conservative movement, on economic issues as well as social issues. Yet in his final Senate term he became pro-choice (his wife was a founding member of Planned Parenthood in Arizona) and opposed voluntary prayer. He disliked the leadership of the emerging right wing of the Republican Party, once saying that "Every good Christian should kick [Jerry] Falwell in the ass."
And lastly, while Richard Nixon's presidency ended in disgrace, there were some significant domestic policy accomplishments on his watch: the formation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the eighteen year old vote and the acceleration of desegregation in the public schools. He also became a convert to deficit spending to fix a weak economy.
Looking back on this history, I have to ask if a Republican platform of civil liberties, targeted infrastructure funding and tax credits to business to spur innovation might be possible. But first, they have to take the mike away from Rush Limbaugh.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Kentucky Community College System Abolishes Tenure for New Hires
Yesterday, the regents of the Kentucky Community and Technical College System voted to abolish the traditional tenure system for faculty hires. New faculty will be offered one-year contracts for each of their first three years of teaching, and will have the opportunity to be offered two-year contracts after that.
No further information is available as to any performance incentives for effective teaching based on either student or peer faculty evaluations. Kentucky is only the second state to abolish tenure in its community college system. Tenure was abolished in the Virginia system in 1971, although there is a "perception of retention" after a faculty member has been on-board for six years.
Community colleges are not like four-year schools. They do not pretend to be research institutions. They do not require academic doctorates of their faculty. Community colleges rely more heavily on non-academic personnel who do not have tenure to help drive student success. Community colleges devote a greater share of their resources to counseling and remedial instruction than four-year schools. And the majority of their students do not enroll to pursue degrees. Rather, they take courses for employment or enrichment.
An institution that has significant community responsibilities needs to have flexibility. It will need to drop and add courses much faster than a four-year college. And that means that a community college will have a more difficult time assuring permanent employment for their faculty.
But the regent's decision does not come without risks. The Kentucky community college system must still compete with other schools to attract new teachers. Tenure is connected with academic freedom, it is protection for instructors who have unorthodox viewpoints or teaching methods. Tenure is something that serious academics want to earn.
Unless a candidate lives within a short commuting distance, he/she will have little reason to accept a contract position over a tenure track position. Those who accept the contract position are likely to leave if they have enough mobility to go elsewhere. The positive evaluations they receive will end up becoming references for their next teaching position. And the community college may not have candidates available close by who can replace the teacher who left. Had New York City's system made the decision to abolish tenure, this would be less of an issue. But a community college in a rural Kentucky county might face a different situation.
The greater concern among academics would be that Kentucky's decision could serve as a model for other community college systems to follow. This is a cost-cutting move; if it proves to significantly reduce costs as other outcomes (for example: student retention, degrees awarded, successful transfers to four-year schools)improve or remain unchanged, then other states will try to move in the same direction.
No further information is available as to any performance incentives for effective teaching based on either student or peer faculty evaluations. Kentucky is only the second state to abolish tenure in its community college system. Tenure was abolished in the Virginia system in 1971, although there is a "perception of retention" after a faculty member has been on-board for six years.
Community colleges are not like four-year schools. They do not pretend to be research institutions. They do not require academic doctorates of their faculty. Community colleges rely more heavily on non-academic personnel who do not have tenure to help drive student success. Community colleges devote a greater share of their resources to counseling and remedial instruction than four-year schools. And the majority of their students do not enroll to pursue degrees. Rather, they take courses for employment or enrichment.
An institution that has significant community responsibilities needs to have flexibility. It will need to drop and add courses much faster than a four-year college. And that means that a community college will have a more difficult time assuring permanent employment for their faculty.
But the regent's decision does not come without risks. The Kentucky community college system must still compete with other schools to attract new teachers. Tenure is connected with academic freedom, it is protection for instructors who have unorthodox viewpoints or teaching methods. Tenure is something that serious academics want to earn.
Unless a candidate lives within a short commuting distance, he/she will have little reason to accept a contract position over a tenure track position. Those who accept the contract position are likely to leave if they have enough mobility to go elsewhere. The positive evaluations they receive will end up becoming references for their next teaching position. And the community college may not have candidates available close by who can replace the teacher who left. Had New York City's system made the decision to abolish tenure, this would be less of an issue. But a community college in a rural Kentucky county might face a different situation.
The greater concern among academics would be that Kentucky's decision could serve as a model for other community college systems to follow. This is a cost-cutting move; if it proves to significantly reduce costs as other outcomes (for example: student retention, degrees awarded, successful transfers to four-year schools)improve or remain unchanged, then other states will try to move in the same direction.
Now All They Have is a Berth in a Final Four
Last week, I wrote a post about the Lady Lions women's basketball team at The College of New Jersey (TCNJ) after they had clinched the New Jersey Athletic Conference championship. This week, with a record of 27-4, they will play Friday in the NCAA Division III Final Four at Hope College in Holland, Michigan.
I went to the Web site for the D-III Final Four. I knew nothing about Hope College until I went to the site, where I saw pictures of a sold-out DeVos Fieldhouse (the school hosted last season's woman's final, too.) I have no doubt the noise level will be as high as it is at U-Conn or Tennessee.
Approximately 2,700 people will get to see this Final Four and it is a bargain. Tickets for the games on both days are only $20 to $25. That's less than the cost for a Division One regular season game at Rutgers! Fans can even buy a pre-game breakfast in the campus dining hall for only six bucks!
The contestants in this years final: TCNJ, George Fox University (OR), Amherst College (MA) and Washington University (MO) will have traveled far to get to Holland, just as the Division I finalists will have a long road to St. Louis over the next couple of weeks. But I'd take bets that the D-III finals will be more fun to attend.
I went to the Web site for the D-III Final Four. I knew nothing about Hope College until I went to the site, where I saw pictures of a sold-out DeVos Fieldhouse (the school hosted last season's woman's final, too.) I have no doubt the noise level will be as high as it is at U-Conn or Tennessee.
Approximately 2,700 people will get to see this Final Four and it is a bargain. Tickets for the games on both days are only $20 to $25. That's less than the cost for a Division One regular season game at Rutgers! Fans can even buy a pre-game breakfast in the campus dining hall for only six bucks!
The contestants in this years final: TCNJ, George Fox University (OR), Amherst College (MA) and Washington University (MO) will have traveled far to get to Holland, just as the Division I finalists will have a long road to St. Louis over the next couple of weeks. But I'd take bets that the D-III finals will be more fun to attend.
Book Review: One-Party Classroom, How Radical Professors at America's Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine our Democracy by David Horowitz
Some time ago, I wrote a post about God and Man at Yale, William F. Buckley's first book about the politically unbalanced education that Yale offered during the early 1950's. In God and Man at Yale,
Buckley wrote about how liberal economic and political viewpoints dominated the faculty, although the university was run by conservative trustees. Since Buckley's book was devoted exclusively to a single school, I labeled it as the first college guide. I should have said that it was the conservative's guide to the Yale of that era.
David Horowitz is among the many writers who are taking up Buckley's cause, though he has looked at several schools and how members of their liberal arts faculty try to indoctrinate students to lean towards their political viewpoints. In this latest book, One-Party Classroom, How Radical Professors at America's Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine our Democracy, Horowitz provides examples of politically biased courses at twelve schools, nine public or state-related institutions, and three private research universities: Columbia, Duke and the University of Southern California.
In each school-focused chapter, One-Party Classroom starts by praising the reputations of departments that are not under review, as well as the general reputation of the institution. He also provides academic examples of courses where one political philosophy, usually liberal or socialist, is overly taught in the classroom, the faculty members who teach them. A disproportionate number of the courses examined in this book are in relatively new majors such as African-American Studies or Women's Studies. These subjects trace their roots to the student and faculty activism of the Sixties and Seventies.
In some cases, such as Penn State and Temple, Horowitz adds some interesting points. Penn State has a policy, called H.R. 64, which expressly forbids indoctrination, and instructs professors to train students to "think for themselves, and provide them access to those materials which they need in order to think intelligently." Horowitz provides some thoughtful analysis as to how some Women's Studies courses did not comply with the policy. He also does a thorough job of discussing Temple's introductory writing program, which used noted, but liberal-leaning titles. Horowitz mentions that his commentary had some influences over changes in the books and instruction so that it was more "balanced."
I do not consider myself to be a conservative, but Horowitz makes valid points. There are academic faculty who let their viewpoint dominate class discussion, and while that has a place in some advanced courses, it does not belong in the broad introductory surveys of a major field.
However, this book is incomplete. I did not learn, for example, how popular these courses were among the student body or if the instructors were known to grade unfairly. These are important points, since a university is a marketplace of ideas. After completing general requirements, students are free to major in any subject they want and, in the liberal arts, choose from a large selection of course in their major. I was a poli-sci major in college, and I concentrated on American government courses. I did not take foreign governments or political theory. I was more interested in public policy and elections.
So, it is important to know: did students sign up for a professor's classes because of her political views? Did they want to be indoctrinated? Or did the students who signed up for these classes get an unpleasant surprise? One-Party Classroom is heavily weighted with course descriptions, but it provides very little in the way of course evaluations or complaints. That was a shame because One-Party Classroom could have used that material to spark some more relevant and lively debate. If these courses are oversubscribed there is good reason for concern; there should be more of a balance among viewpoints. If they are drawing nothing but flies, then there is good reason for concern on the budget front.
Universities are eclectic places. I have graduated from two public institutions and I ran into liberal, as well as conservative academics who had their biases. Occasionally, they would bring their viewpoints into a lecture, but for the most part they graded fairly, whether you agreed with their politics or not.
And I also ran into professors who made no effort to teach; they considered the students a burden and an imposition on their time. Compared to the liberals or conservatives who were biased instructors, the do-nothings were far more dangerous.
Buckley wrote about how liberal economic and political viewpoints dominated the faculty, although the university was run by conservative trustees. Since Buckley's book was devoted exclusively to a single school, I labeled it as the first college guide. I should have said that it was the conservative's guide to the Yale of that era.
David Horowitz is among the many writers who are taking up Buckley's cause, though he has looked at several schools and how members of their liberal arts faculty try to indoctrinate students to lean towards their political viewpoints. In this latest book, One-Party Classroom, How Radical Professors at America's Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine our Democracy, Horowitz provides examples of politically biased courses at twelve schools, nine public or state-related institutions, and three private research universities: Columbia, Duke and the University of Southern California.
In each school-focused chapter, One-Party Classroom starts by praising the reputations of departments that are not under review, as well as the general reputation of the institution. He also provides academic examples of courses where one political philosophy, usually liberal or socialist, is overly taught in the classroom, the faculty members who teach them. A disproportionate number of the courses examined in this book are in relatively new majors such as African-American Studies or Women's Studies. These subjects trace their roots to the student and faculty activism of the Sixties and Seventies.
In some cases, such as Penn State and Temple, Horowitz adds some interesting points. Penn State has a policy, called H.R. 64, which expressly forbids indoctrination, and instructs professors to train students to "think for themselves, and provide them access to those materials which they need in order to think intelligently." Horowitz provides some thoughtful analysis as to how some Women's Studies courses did not comply with the policy. He also does a thorough job of discussing Temple's introductory writing program, which used noted, but liberal-leaning titles. Horowitz mentions that his commentary had some influences over changes in the books and instruction so that it was more "balanced."
I do not consider myself to be a conservative, but Horowitz makes valid points. There are academic faculty who let their viewpoint dominate class discussion, and while that has a place in some advanced courses, it does not belong in the broad introductory surveys of a major field.
However, this book is incomplete. I did not learn, for example, how popular these courses were among the student body or if the instructors were known to grade unfairly. These are important points, since a university is a marketplace of ideas. After completing general requirements, students are free to major in any subject they want and, in the liberal arts, choose from a large selection of course in their major. I was a poli-sci major in college, and I concentrated on American government courses. I did not take foreign governments or political theory. I was more interested in public policy and elections.
So, it is important to know: did students sign up for a professor's classes because of her political views? Did they want to be indoctrinated? Or did the students who signed up for these classes get an unpleasant surprise? One-Party Classroom is heavily weighted with course descriptions, but it provides very little in the way of course evaluations or complaints. That was a shame because One-Party Classroom could have used that material to spark some more relevant and lively debate. If these courses are oversubscribed there is good reason for concern; there should be more of a balance among viewpoints. If they are drawing nothing but flies, then there is good reason for concern on the budget front.
Universities are eclectic places. I have graduated from two public institutions and I ran into liberal, as well as conservative academics who had their biases. Occasionally, they would bring their viewpoints into a lecture, but for the most part they graded fairly, whether you agreed with their politics or not.
And I also ran into professors who made no effort to teach; they considered the students a burden and an imposition on their time. Compared to the liberals or conservatives who were biased instructors, the do-nothings were far more dangerous.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
How Textbooks Can Build Stronger Minds and Healthier Bodies
This week I read about the completion of an open-source physics textbook that was authorized in September by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The textbook, also known as a "flexbook" was a collaborative effort between state government, contributing physicists and the CK-12 Foundation, a non-profit organization based in Palo Alto, California, the home of Stanford University and Silicon Valley. CK-12 was founded in January, 2007 with a mission to reduce the cost of textbook materials for the K-12 market both in the US and worldwide, but also to empower teacher practitioners by generating or adapting content relevant to their local context.
An open source "flexbook" is an online book versus the traditional paper textbooks that we dreaded carrying and opening when we went to school. And instead of being stuck with a text that is static for years, aging on school bookshelves, a "flexbook" is continually edited by the contributing writers. Instead of multiple schools carrying multiple editions of the same book, everyone works off the same page. To date, the physics text is to be made available free; that has to be the most attractive incentive to financially strapped school systems.
The introduction of the "flexbook" made me wonder: what if, in the future, schools could issue a mini laptop to each student with each and every textbook for the school year accessible through a secured portal.
Each student would be limited access to the text books, as well as problem sets that they use in their classes. Given the costs of mini laptops--they start at around $300, and school systems could no doubt get discounts--there would be serious cost advantages to using the technology versus purchasing and stocking the current editions of the paper books. Each student would be responsible for the care and maintenance of their laptop; no doubt, this will become an increasingly important skill for the next generation of knowledge workers anyway.
And I have to believe that students would be healthier from the switch from traditional texts to technology. The weight of all of those textbooks, plus lunch, in a child's backpack has only become more crippling. But the mini laptops weigh about three pounds. Parents would be just as happy to see good posture as well as a good mind.
All we need is laptop batteries that can go longer than a school day on a single charge, and a foundation or government-business partnership to get the mini laptops into schools in needy communities. Both are certainly achievable goals for government, business and educators to collaborate. And they don't require a stimulus-level investment.
The textbook, also known as a "flexbook" was a collaborative effort between state government, contributing physicists and the CK-12 Foundation, a non-profit organization based in Palo Alto, California, the home of Stanford University and Silicon Valley. CK-12 was founded in January, 2007 with a mission to reduce the cost of textbook materials for the K-12 market both in the US and worldwide, but also to empower teacher practitioners by generating or adapting content relevant to their local context.
An open source "flexbook" is an online book versus the traditional paper textbooks that we dreaded carrying and opening when we went to school. And instead of being stuck with a text that is static for years, aging on school bookshelves, a "flexbook" is continually edited by the contributing writers. Instead of multiple schools carrying multiple editions of the same book, everyone works off the same page. To date, the physics text is to be made available free; that has to be the most attractive incentive to financially strapped school systems.
The introduction of the "flexbook" made me wonder: what if, in the future, schools could issue a mini laptop to each student with each and every textbook for the school year accessible through a secured portal.
Each student would be limited access to the text books, as well as problem sets that they use in their classes. Given the costs of mini laptops--they start at around $300, and school systems could no doubt get discounts--there would be serious cost advantages to using the technology versus purchasing and stocking the current editions of the paper books. Each student would be responsible for the care and maintenance of their laptop; no doubt, this will become an increasingly important skill for the next generation of knowledge workers anyway.
And I have to believe that students would be healthier from the switch from traditional texts to technology. The weight of all of those textbooks, plus lunch, in a child's backpack has only become more crippling. But the mini laptops weigh about three pounds. Parents would be just as happy to see good posture as well as a good mind.
All we need is laptop batteries that can go longer than a school day on a single charge, and a foundation or government-business partnership to get the mini laptops into schools in needy communities. Both are certainly achievable goals for government, business and educators to collaborate. And they don't require a stimulus-level investment.
The 30th Anniversary of the Beginning of the Bird-Magic Rivalry
It is hard to believe but March 26 will mark thirty years since Larry Bird and Magic Johnson faced off with their respective teammates in the NCAA Championship. Back then I was more interested in that game than most others since because Rutgers had been the last team to beat Larry Bird's Indiana State Sycamores, and that was in the previous season's NIT.
Bird-Magic I took place during my freshman year in college. I was hoping for an Indiana State-Rutgers rematch, only this time in the Final Four. Rutgers chances were better than most might have thought. Led by All-America candidate James Bailey, our Scarlet Knights defeated Georgetown in the first round of the tournament in Providence--and I was there! Rutgers went onto the Sweet 16, but lost to St. John's, a team that our Knights had beaten twice during the regular season. St. John's went on to lose to Penn in the Elite Eight, denying them a shot at facing Magic Johnson and Michigan State. Not that it mattered. Magic's Spartans handily dispensed with the Quakers at the final in Salt Lake City.
The road to Bird-Magic I is well-chronicled in CBS analyst Seth Davis's new book, When March Went Mad, The Game that Transformed Basketball. As soon as I spotted the cover, a 1970's illustration of the two stars, I had to read. As I get older, it shakes me to realize that I saw history. When March Went Mad tells the back story of the two teams. This is still the highest rated championship game in NCAA tournament history.
It would be rare for a squad such as Indiana State's to go undefeated into the NCAA tournament today as there is an extra round that can easily knock off a small college upstart (with apologies to any George Mason fans reading this post).
Bird's dominance within his conference certainly helped, but he also shared the court with Carl Nicks who would also become a first round NBA draft choice. When March Went Mad tells Bird's story in sufficient detail. Formerly signed by Indiana legend Bobby Knight, Bird quit school, became a garbage truck driver and attended a community college before re-surfacing at Indiana State. Bird also earned a degree in education, which I didn't know until reading this book.
Michigan State had a much tougher road to the Big Ten title; they dropped a game to a losing Northwestern team along the way. But Magic also had a fine supporting cast. Two of his teammates, Greg Kelser and Jay Vincent were also NBA draft picks. Kelser went fourth in the same draft as Magic and Vincent would become the top pick in the second round in 1981. When March Went Mad tells the story of Magic's local ties to Michigan State, as well as the recruiting battle between Michigan State and Michigan.
Bird-Magic I is a very special sports rivalry, probably the only one I know that started in a collegiate championship game and continued into the pros. Bird's Boston Celtics and Magic's Los Angeles Lakers would face each other for the NBA championship in 1984, 1985 and 1987, with the Lakers taking two out of three. Collectively, they would win eight titles (five for Magic, three for Bird) and three MVP awards apiece. Both would later coach in the NBA (Bird with more success in Indiana) and build business careers (Magic with more success opening a bottling distributorship, Starbucks franchises and cinemas). And they would be forever tied together, not only as rivals but friends off the court.
And When March Went Mad does an excellent job of telling you how it all started.
Bird-Magic I took place during my freshman year in college. I was hoping for an Indiana State-Rutgers rematch, only this time in the Final Four. Rutgers chances were better than most might have thought. Led by All-America candidate James Bailey, our Scarlet Knights defeated Georgetown in the first round of the tournament in Providence--and I was there! Rutgers went onto the Sweet 16, but lost to St. John's, a team that our Knights had beaten twice during the regular season. St. John's went on to lose to Penn in the Elite Eight, denying them a shot at facing Magic Johnson and Michigan State. Not that it mattered. Magic's Spartans handily dispensed with the Quakers at the final in Salt Lake City.
The road to Bird-Magic I is well-chronicled in CBS analyst Seth Davis's new book, When March Went Mad, The Game that Transformed Basketball. As soon as I spotted the cover, a 1970's illustration of the two stars, I had to read. As I get older, it shakes me to realize that I saw history. When March Went Mad tells the back story of the two teams. This is still the highest rated championship game in NCAA tournament history.
It would be rare for a squad such as Indiana State's to go undefeated into the NCAA tournament today as there is an extra round that can easily knock off a small college upstart (with apologies to any George Mason fans reading this post).
Bird's dominance within his conference certainly helped, but he also shared the court with Carl Nicks who would also become a first round NBA draft choice. When March Went Mad tells Bird's story in sufficient detail. Formerly signed by Indiana legend Bobby Knight, Bird quit school, became a garbage truck driver and attended a community college before re-surfacing at Indiana State. Bird also earned a degree in education, which I didn't know until reading this book.
Michigan State had a much tougher road to the Big Ten title; they dropped a game to a losing Northwestern team along the way. But Magic also had a fine supporting cast. Two of his teammates, Greg Kelser and Jay Vincent were also NBA draft picks. Kelser went fourth in the same draft as Magic and Vincent would become the top pick in the second round in 1981. When March Went Mad tells the story of Magic's local ties to Michigan State, as well as the recruiting battle between Michigan State and Michigan.
Bird-Magic I is a very special sports rivalry, probably the only one I know that started in a collegiate championship game and continued into the pros. Bird's Boston Celtics and Magic's Los Angeles Lakers would face each other for the NBA championship in 1984, 1985 and 1987, with the Lakers taking two out of three. Collectively, they would win eight titles (five for Magic, three for Bird) and three MVP awards apiece. Both would later coach in the NBA (Bird with more success in Indiana) and build business careers (Magic with more success opening a bottling distributorship, Starbucks franchises and cinemas). And they would be forever tied together, not only as rivals but friends off the court.
And When March Went Mad does an excellent job of telling you how it all started.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Is Hartwick College's Three Year Program an Academic Innovation?
Recently, I saw several announcements that Hartwick College (NY) is offering what they have described as an "innovative three year degree program" beginning in the fall of 2009. I was curious, so I decided to go to the college's Web site to take a look. Hartwick, a school with approximately 1,500 students, has designed this program to help students save approximately $40,000 in expenses off the cost of a liberal arts degree.
Basically, the program compresses four years of course credits into three for 22 of the school's 30 majors by allowing students to take an additional eight to twelve credits a year for no extra charge. A student would typically take 19 to 21 credits in the fall and spring semesters combined with a three credit course during the college's January Term.
In effect, this is not so much an academic innovation as a tuition discount, where students get up to twelve additional credits per year for no extra charge.
There is nothing wrong with this discounting policy, provided that Hartwick offers a program that allows students to go on towards their next academic or professional objective. I took a look at some of the sample three year degree programs the college posted. It is possible, based on the college's information, that a student could complete course requirements for medical school within three years or earn a liberal arts degree to prepare for other fields. I did note that the sample programs posted by the college included physical education courses, but this, according to the school's catalog, is already a degree requirement for all Hartwick students.
But is not possible, for example, to earn an accounting degree with all of the credits that a student would need to take the CPA examination. The school also warns students that courses in some majors are not offered every year, so careful planning is needed. This is not a program where students would be likely to seek the professors they want, as much as the courses they need to finish their degree.
But give Hartwick credit for trying. They have offered a three year program without making dramatic changes to their school or to academic offerings. There are programs offered by other colleges by such names as 3-1, 3-1-1 and 3-2 that combine a bachelors degree at one school with an advanced degree at the same or another school. But unlike those programs, Hartwick graduates can go to the graduate or professional school of their choice and still finish their degree a year early. That's an attractive advantage.
The Hartwick three-year program appears to be an excellent option for motivated students who have educational expenses beyond college in their plans or want to get an earlier start in the workforce. It is not the best option, however, for students who are unsure about what they want to do or wish to pursue a pre-professional degree that requires more than 120 credits.
Basically, the program compresses four years of course credits into three for 22 of the school's 30 majors by allowing students to take an additional eight to twelve credits a year for no extra charge. A student would typically take 19 to 21 credits in the fall and spring semesters combined with a three credit course during the college's January Term.
In effect, this is not so much an academic innovation as a tuition discount, where students get up to twelve additional credits per year for no extra charge.
There is nothing wrong with this discounting policy, provided that Hartwick offers a program that allows students to go on towards their next academic or professional objective. I took a look at some of the sample three year degree programs the college posted. It is possible, based on the college's information, that a student could complete course requirements for medical school within three years or earn a liberal arts degree to prepare for other fields. I did note that the sample programs posted by the college included physical education courses, but this, according to the school's catalog, is already a degree requirement for all Hartwick students.
But is not possible, for example, to earn an accounting degree with all of the credits that a student would need to take the CPA examination. The school also warns students that courses in some majors are not offered every year, so careful planning is needed. This is not a program where students would be likely to seek the professors they want, as much as the courses they need to finish their degree.
But give Hartwick credit for trying. They have offered a three year program without making dramatic changes to their school or to academic offerings. There are programs offered by other colleges by such names as 3-1, 3-1-1 and 3-2 that combine a bachelors degree at one school with an advanced degree at the same or another school. But unlike those programs, Hartwick graduates can go to the graduate or professional school of their choice and still finish their degree a year early. That's an attractive advantage.
The Hartwick three-year program appears to be an excellent option for motivated students who have educational expenses beyond college in their plans or want to get an earlier start in the workforce. It is not the best option, however, for students who are unsure about what they want to do or wish to pursue a pre-professional degree that requires more than 120 credits.
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Education of a West Pointer
Over the past three years there have been at least three accounts written by young, well educated military officers that have opened to very strong reviews: One Bullet Away: The Making of a Marine Officer by Nathaniel C. Fick (written in 2005), Joker One: A Marine Platoon's Story of Courage, Leadership, and Brotherhood by Donovan Campbell (coming out next week) and The Unforgiving Minute: A Soldier's Education by Craig M. Mullaney which was released the middle of last month.
Mullaney's story, however, is different from Fick's and Campbell's because his journey began at West Point and ends with his post-military experience as an instructor at the U.S. Naval Academy. Among the steps in his journey, he is selected as a Rhodes Scholar, he earns his Army Ranger tab and commands a platoon in Afghanistan. Mullaney left the military as a captain and is now a member of the Obama-Biden Transition Project.
Prior to reading The Unforgiving Minute, I had read three books about West Point classes. David Lipsky's Absolutely American chronicles the four year progress of a cadet class; oddly enough it is the class that enters during Mullaney's junior year. In a Time of War: The Proud and Perilous Journey of West Point's Class of 2002 by Bill Murphy, devotes most of its space to the first military assignments of five cadets, not only to their jobs but also their family lives. The last book was The Long Gray Line by Rick Atkinson, which focuses on graduates from the sixties, including one, Dan Wheeler, who becomes a leading proponent for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington.
I liked Mullaney's book better than all but Atkinson's, and that was because Atkinson's was the most detailed about the lives of its main characters. I found that book very hard to put down.
I liked The Unforgiving Minute because, while Mullaney was clearly fit enough and academically qualified to handle West Point, he did not find the experience easy. However, through demonstrated effort (for instance, trying to make a Division 1 wrestling program as a long shot)he is able to succeed there. He goes a step further to explain why all of the details, for example, demanding plebes to recite history or verse on sight, has any value. It is to remind him or her that an officer must pay attention to details in order to complete their mission and keep their men alive. Mullaney also adds that all of the education is directed at preparing cadets for their first job as a platoon leader, which requires that a cadet learn followership as well as leadership.
But it seemed that Mullaney's defining moment as an officer-in-training is not at West Point, but in Ranger School, when he is told by his instructors that the training is not about him, but about his men.
Mullaney also experienced some unique transitions in life after West Point. There is considerable space devoted to his time as a Rhodes Scholar living at Oxford and what that education is like. And he also shows that he is smart enough to check the education, and the ego, at the door when he assumes his first command.
If there is any disappointment in The Unforgiving Minute, it is the chapters on Mullaney's command in Afghanistan. It is not that they are poorly written or chronicled--in fact, the opposite--it is just that it appears that he was trying to stretch a chapter too long. And his story is too similar to others, including his respect for his platoon sergeant.
I recommend The Unforgiving Minute to any family that has, or hopes to have, a member attend West Point. Mullaney shows how he made the most of the experience, including its unexpected rewards. He also shows that a man who has been trained to serve in battle can serve well in peace.
Mullaney's story, however, is different from Fick's and Campbell's because his journey began at West Point and ends with his post-military experience as an instructor at the U.S. Naval Academy. Among the steps in his journey, he is selected as a Rhodes Scholar, he earns his Army Ranger tab and commands a platoon in Afghanistan. Mullaney left the military as a captain and is now a member of the Obama-Biden Transition Project.
Prior to reading The Unforgiving Minute, I had read three books about West Point classes. David Lipsky's Absolutely American chronicles the four year progress of a cadet class; oddly enough it is the class that enters during Mullaney's junior year. In a Time of War: The Proud and Perilous Journey of West Point's Class of 2002 by Bill Murphy, devotes most of its space to the first military assignments of five cadets, not only to their jobs but also their family lives. The last book was The Long Gray Line by Rick Atkinson, which focuses on graduates from the sixties, including one, Dan Wheeler, who becomes a leading proponent for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington.
I liked Mullaney's book better than all but Atkinson's, and that was because Atkinson's was the most detailed about the lives of its main characters. I found that book very hard to put down.
I liked The Unforgiving Minute because, while Mullaney was clearly fit enough and academically qualified to handle West Point, he did not find the experience easy. However, through demonstrated effort (for instance, trying to make a Division 1 wrestling program as a long shot)he is able to succeed there. He goes a step further to explain why all of the details, for example, demanding plebes to recite history or verse on sight, has any value. It is to remind him or her that an officer must pay attention to details in order to complete their mission and keep their men alive. Mullaney also adds that all of the education is directed at preparing cadets for their first job as a platoon leader, which requires that a cadet learn followership as well as leadership.
But it seemed that Mullaney's defining moment as an officer-in-training is not at West Point, but in Ranger School, when he is told by his instructors that the training is not about him, but about his men.
Mullaney also experienced some unique transitions in life after West Point. There is considerable space devoted to his time as a Rhodes Scholar living at Oxford and what that education is like. And he also shows that he is smart enough to check the education, and the ego, at the door when he assumes his first command.
If there is any disappointment in The Unforgiving Minute, it is the chapters on Mullaney's command in Afghanistan. It is not that they are poorly written or chronicled--in fact, the opposite--it is just that it appears that he was trying to stretch a chapter too long. And his story is too similar to others, including his respect for his platoon sergeant.
I recommend The Unforgiving Minute to any family that has, or hopes to have, a member attend West Point. Mullaney shows how he made the most of the experience, including its unexpected rewards. He also shows that a man who has been trained to serve in battle can serve well in peace.
Do Lotteries Really Help Pay for Education?
Last week, I completed reading The Lottery Wars, Long Odds, Fast Money, and the Battle Over an American Institution. Written by New York-based journalist Matthew Sweeney, The Lottery Wars is a very readable history of lotteries in America and discusses whether or not they meet their intended public purpose: to support public services, especially education.
Sweeney provides many interesting tidbits about lotteries; for example, the average American adult spends approximately $500 per year on lottery tickets, with ranges from under $100 per person per year in California to over $900 in Massachusetts. Obviously, the amount spent has much to do with the chance of winning prizes. Massachusetts pays out over seventy percent of its lottery receipts in prize money, while California pays out less than sixty percent.
But lotteries, according to Sweeney's book, are more of a pain than a panacea for politicians. And after deducting the costs for administration, marketing and prizes, they pay out approximately 15 percent of revenues for public purposes. Those revenues may represent one or two percent of a state's education budget, but heaven forbid that a lottery fall short of revenue projections. Then it becomes a source of embarrassment to a sitting governor as that money was not only expected to help finance education (in Georgia, for example, the lottery is a funding source for the Hope Scholars college scholarship program), but also the senior executives of the lottery earn compensation similar to corporate marketing executives.
Aside from the moral dimensions of lotteries--they are legalized gambling, after all--they make little sense from the revenue collection and economic development points of view. For instance, Sweeney points out that in 2006, the North Carolina Department of Revenue spent $75 million to collect $13.2 billion in taxes. By comparison, the state lottery cost $180 million to administer and raised $450 million for education. At least casinos, and we have many in my home state of New Jersey, create jobs and provide entertainment besides gambling. Not to mention the house provides more chances to win than the lottery does.
When someone like me, who does not play the lottery, reads this book, they would think that lotteries make virtually no economic sense. The ticket charges are a regressive tax, preying more on the poor than any other income group, in order to enhance the wealth of a select few. They create very few jobs, in fact, this book points out that much of lottery management can be sold or outsourced. And governors are investigating options to privatize their lotteries so that they can wash their hands of them.
But they will always be popular with voters as long as there's a chance of winning something. Ask a voter if he would be willing to pay an extra $500 towards education and it's clear the answer will be no. Especially if you're asking him to give up his chance of hitting a Pick Six.
Sweeney provides many interesting tidbits about lotteries; for example, the average American adult spends approximately $500 per year on lottery tickets, with ranges from under $100 per person per year in California to over $900 in Massachusetts. Obviously, the amount spent has much to do with the chance of winning prizes. Massachusetts pays out over seventy percent of its lottery receipts in prize money, while California pays out less than sixty percent.
But lotteries, according to Sweeney's book, are more of a pain than a panacea for politicians. And after deducting the costs for administration, marketing and prizes, they pay out approximately 15 percent of revenues for public purposes. Those revenues may represent one or two percent of a state's education budget, but heaven forbid that a lottery fall short of revenue projections. Then it becomes a source of embarrassment to a sitting governor as that money was not only expected to help finance education (in Georgia, for example, the lottery is a funding source for the Hope Scholars college scholarship program), but also the senior executives of the lottery earn compensation similar to corporate marketing executives.
Aside from the moral dimensions of lotteries--they are legalized gambling, after all--they make little sense from the revenue collection and economic development points of view. For instance, Sweeney points out that in 2006, the North Carolina Department of Revenue spent $75 million to collect $13.2 billion in taxes. By comparison, the state lottery cost $180 million to administer and raised $450 million for education. At least casinos, and we have many in my home state of New Jersey, create jobs and provide entertainment besides gambling. Not to mention the house provides more chances to win than the lottery does.
When someone like me, who does not play the lottery, reads this book, they would think that lotteries make virtually no economic sense. The ticket charges are a regressive tax, preying more on the poor than any other income group, in order to enhance the wealth of a select few. They create very few jobs, in fact, this book points out that much of lottery management can be sold or outsourced. And governors are investigating options to privatize their lotteries so that they can wash their hands of them.
But they will always be popular with voters as long as there's a chance of winning something. Ask a voter if he would be willing to pay an extra $500 towards education and it's clear the answer will be no. Especially if you're asking him to give up his chance of hitting a Pick Six.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Are Teachers Happier in Their Work?
Last week, Met Life released the results of a survey that they have conducted annually about the teaching profession for the past 25 years. Their findings about teachers, as stated in the press release were astounding.
For instance, the survey reveals that a majority of today’s teachers (62%) are very satisfied with their careers, compared to 40% in 1984. Two-thirds (67%) of teachers think that the training and preparation teachers receive does a good job of preparing them for the classroom, compared to 46% in 1984. However, today, less than half (48%) of teachers favor use of standardized tests to measure student achievement, compared to 61% of teachers who favored testing in 1984 as a tool for having their performance measured
I couldn't go solely on what I read in the press release, so I decided to download the survey. A survey is an expression of the opinions of a sample of people; the sample is designed to reflect the profession. For instance, it must include experienced versus fairly new teachers and teachers in urban versus suburban schools. I have to wonder if the opinion of a relatively new teacher should be folded in with the opinion of a teacher who is close to retirement.
You can read the survey for yourself; it's a public document, and Met Life has even posted a library of all of the surveys should you be so adventurous. But I want to hone in on the opinions of the younger teachers, the ones have a personal decision to make: do they remain in the profession, or pursue a new career?
Approximately half of all teachers who become teachers after they graduate from college leave the profession within five years. Board certified teacher and author Brian Crosby cited a study by the California State University system that mentioned inadequate support, bureaucratic impediments, undisciplined students and rude parents as reasons that teachers seek new careers. He adds that teachers have little career mobility.
Teachers are also "sourced" differently than they were 25 years ago as alternate teaching certifications, soldier-to-school programs and organizations such as Teach for America have come on line.
So, I want to know, from the Met Life survey, if these teachers are happier than those who entered the field before them.
This survey has some good news. New teachers with less than five years experience are more likely than mid-career teachers--those who have worked between six and twenty years--to be satisfied with their careers and more principals are satisfied with the quality of new teachers than they were in the past. More new teachers are "very satisfied" with their career than mid-career teachers. They also believe that they are more likely to earn a decent salary.
Part of the reason for greater job satisfaction might be that new teachers are more likely to work with experienced teachers; the survey stated that almost six in ten meet with a more experienced hand at least once a week. They are also more willing to use technology and fit it into lesson plans. That's important, because education reform, among other things, has necessitated the use of the Internet and other technology in the classroom.
This is a useful survey for policy makers, as well as educators, but Met Life should consider doing a separate, and more detailed, annual study of new teachers. Most education reform policies, especially No Child Left Behind, have expectations for proficiency and mastery for the future.
The younger teachers who have most recently entered the classroom are more likely to have responsibility for meeting those expectations. It will be useful for the public to know not only if these teachers are still satisfied with their careers, but also if their school districts had done a better job of putting them in a position to succeed.
For instance, the survey reveals that a majority of today’s teachers (62%) are very satisfied with their careers, compared to 40% in 1984. Two-thirds (67%) of teachers think that the training and preparation teachers receive does a good job of preparing them for the classroom, compared to 46% in 1984. However, today, less than half (48%) of teachers favor use of standardized tests to measure student achievement, compared to 61% of teachers who favored testing in 1984 as a tool for having their performance measured
I couldn't go solely on what I read in the press release, so I decided to download the survey. A survey is an expression of the opinions of a sample of people; the sample is designed to reflect the profession. For instance, it must include experienced versus fairly new teachers and teachers in urban versus suburban schools. I have to wonder if the opinion of a relatively new teacher should be folded in with the opinion of a teacher who is close to retirement.
You can read the survey for yourself; it's a public document, and Met Life has even posted a library of all of the surveys should you be so adventurous. But I want to hone in on the opinions of the younger teachers, the ones have a personal decision to make: do they remain in the profession, or pursue a new career?
Approximately half of all teachers who become teachers after they graduate from college leave the profession within five years. Board certified teacher and author Brian Crosby cited a study by the California State University system that mentioned inadequate support, bureaucratic impediments, undisciplined students and rude parents as reasons that teachers seek new careers. He adds that teachers have little career mobility.
Teachers are also "sourced" differently than they were 25 years ago as alternate teaching certifications, soldier-to-school programs and organizations such as Teach for America have come on line.
So, I want to know, from the Met Life survey, if these teachers are happier than those who entered the field before them.
This survey has some good news. New teachers with less than five years experience are more likely than mid-career teachers--those who have worked between six and twenty years--to be satisfied with their careers and more principals are satisfied with the quality of new teachers than they were in the past. More new teachers are "very satisfied" with their career than mid-career teachers. They also believe that they are more likely to earn a decent salary.
Part of the reason for greater job satisfaction might be that new teachers are more likely to work with experienced teachers; the survey stated that almost six in ten meet with a more experienced hand at least once a week. They are also more willing to use technology and fit it into lesson plans. That's important, because education reform, among other things, has necessitated the use of the Internet and other technology in the classroom.
This is a useful survey for policy makers, as well as educators, but Met Life should consider doing a separate, and more detailed, annual study of new teachers. Most education reform policies, especially No Child Left Behind, have expectations for proficiency and mastery for the future.
The younger teachers who have most recently entered the classroom are more likely to have responsibility for meeting those expectations. It will be useful for the public to know not only if these teachers are still satisfied with their careers, but also if their school districts had done a better job of putting them in a position to succeed.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
All This D-3 Team Won Was a Championship
Last Saturday, I had the privilege of seeing The College of New Jersey (TCNJ) woman's basketball team win the New Jersey Athletic Conference championship. TCNJ did not clinch their victory on ESPN, or with Dick Vitale screaming praises in your face. In fact, they won their title in front of less than 1,000 people. But that did not make their victory less sweet.
TCNJ, like all but two New Jersey public colleges, plays Division III ball; none of their players are on athletic scholarships. Yet three of TCNJ's players: senior center and conference player of the year Hillary Klimowicz, senior guard Alyssa Michella, and sophomore guard Keri Washington all transferred from scholarship programs to play there.
Klimowicz, who was the subject of a Sports Illustrated story two years ago, cited the heavy time commitment and the lack of chances to take part in other extracurricular activities as her reasons for transferring out. And she had been successful as an athlete and a student at her previous school. On Saturday, you could not help but be impressed as Klimowicz slashed her way for points and rebounds, quite often between two defenders. She averages nearly twenty points and eleven rebounds a game, a valued double-double.
TCNJ might play at a "lower division" but the quality of play by their team, as well as their opponent, Kean University, was higher than it was for any of the NCAA Women's Final Four games that I saw last season in Tampa. Both teams played a hard-fought physical game. Only the gym was different. All that was missing was the noise and the pep bands.
And like Division I teams, TCNJ has earned an NCAA tournament bid. Division III ball is different when it comes to determining host sites; the higher seed plays host in regional action. And there is no revenue sharing with the top schools. But there are 63 teams, only two fewer than the more publicized tournament and there is a championship trophy at the very end. And in this day and age, that's still what matters.
TCNJ, like all but two New Jersey public colleges, plays Division III ball; none of their players are on athletic scholarships. Yet three of TCNJ's players: senior center and conference player of the year Hillary Klimowicz, senior guard Alyssa Michella, and sophomore guard Keri Washington all transferred from scholarship programs to play there.
Klimowicz, who was the subject of a Sports Illustrated story two years ago, cited the heavy time commitment and the lack of chances to take part in other extracurricular activities as her reasons for transferring out. And she had been successful as an athlete and a student at her previous school. On Saturday, you could not help but be impressed as Klimowicz slashed her way for points and rebounds, quite often between two defenders. She averages nearly twenty points and eleven rebounds a game, a valued double-double.
TCNJ might play at a "lower division" but the quality of play by their team, as well as their opponent, Kean University, was higher than it was for any of the NCAA Women's Final Four games that I saw last season in Tampa. Both teams played a hard-fought physical game. Only the gym was different. All that was missing was the noise and the pep bands.
And like Division I teams, TCNJ has earned an NCAA tournament bid. Division III ball is different when it comes to determining host sites; the higher seed plays host in regional action. And there is no revenue sharing with the top schools. But there are 63 teams, only two fewer than the more publicized tournament and there is a championship trophy at the very end. And in this day and age, that's still what matters.
Message to the GOP: Why Not Call on Ron Paul?
Last week, two special events happened that have an impact on the perception, and therefore the future of the Republican Party. The first was Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's response to President Obama's State of the Union address. The second was the meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).
Jindal's address was only seven minutes and it was a disappointing performance for a young politician of considerable intellect. Only 37, Jindal has run Louisiana's public health system. served as chancellor of a state university system, been elected to Congress twice, and now he is a first-term governor.
I am neither conservative, nor Republican, but from listening to Sunday's edition of 60 Minutes, I have no doubts about this governor's intentions or his integrity. He is governing away from the traditions of Louisiana politics while testing the waters on some of the conservative chestnuts such as intelligent design and vouchers.
However, he blew it on his day to shine for the nation. He made the usual Republican arguments: stimulus spending and taxing the wealthy would leave a huge debt for future generations and would create only a bloated bureaucratic government while solving none of our pressing economic problems.
Fine, that's the party line. Then he went off about "volcano monitoring," a $140 million update of USGS technology to help track the potential for volcanic eruptions, which may be as likely as Category 3+ hurricanes. Conservative Republicans always seem to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to science. That, and Rush Limbaugh, may prove to be among the acts that will lead to the Republican Party's undoing.
If the GOP is to become more inclusive and actually have a chance to influence policy as a minority party, they need ideas. Which made me wonder: why don't they spend more time talking to Ron Paul?
Ron Paul is a bit of a gadfly. He has spoken about the need to eliminate the Federal Reserve and during his presidential run he stated that the country could close down the IRS and replace it with nothing. But he was also the only GOP candidate to oppose the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq. Today, one headline on his Web site reads: Ten Reasons Why Conservatives Should Oppose War in Iran. Then remember, John McCain sang Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran to the tune of the Beach Boys Barbara Ann. Which conservative sounds more intelligent now? I don't know if Ron Paul has ever stuck an earmark in an appropriations bill, but if he has not, I would consider him to be a conservative who lives up to his words.
Why shouldn't the GOP give Ron Paul greater license to speak? He was the Republican only candidate to come close to matching the Obama team's prowess at Internet fund raising. He might not have come close to raising as many dollars as Obama, but he has gained considerable traction. He tied for second with Sarah Palin as a preferred candidate in last week's CPAC straw poll. And he's still a resource for the reporters.
Ron Paul has the most impressive resume of any of the noted conservatives who are still considered presidential aspirants. He has served ten terms in Congress; he has spent more time in Washington than any other GOP candidate in this last election cycle, excluding John McCain. He is a member of the House Finance Committee; the stimulus legislation had to get passed there, with or without his support. And he is a physician who makes credible arguments for the pro-life crowd, as well as on health care policy.
What more could conservatives want? They have another William Buckley right under their noses. Better yet, he is not likely to run for President. He would be 77 in 2012. He can get a day in the sun, and give the GOP a chance to float some real ideas. And they can find a younger disciple who can organize a campaign around them. Imagine a young telegenic figure on a modified version of a Ron Paul platform. The Obama braintrust would see that as serious competition.
I spliced a few comments together from Ron Paul's official site, CampaignforLiberty.com and from RonPaul.com, as if the congressman were asked to respond to Obama's address.
"An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes. We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s."
"If President Obama keeps spending like this, he will at one point be faced with no other choice but to raise taxes on all Americans, rich, middle class, and poor. This is of course nothing new. Taxes have been rising in the US for the past century under Democratic and Republican presidents."
"The American people have realized that they need to save more and consume less, so as to provide for economic progress and more efficiency in the future, and to restore balance to the economy as a whole. It means that people have understood that too much of the existing capital stock has been consumed and has deteriorated."
"This is the causality that the majority of pundits and economics professors that one can hear talk every evening on the news simply don't understand. All their theories and policies are ignoring this one crucial fact: That Americans are done consuming for the time being."
"And recently, it has come to light that there is little to no accountability to the people on the part of the Federal Reserve. While the citizens of this country are required by law to give an accounting of every penny they come in contact with, the Federal Reserve has never been held to the same standard. During this time of extreme economic crisis, the people deserve an accounting of where our money is going. We pay the tab; we have a right to know where our money is going."
"It is time to cut back and restore sanity and balance. Individuals have realized this and are doing the right thing. The government has not understood this fact at all. It is trying to keep alive failed businesses that should release resources for more demanded projects. It is trying to make up for the "lack of consumption" in the private sector. All these attempts will fail miserably. All they will accomplish is to slow down the corrective phase and turn it into a decade of agony."
Now compare these comments, written by contributors to Ron Paul's Web sites, as if they were part of a Ron Paul speech, to Governor Jindal's bungled address or Rush Limbaugh's tirades. Or any speech by Sarah Palin.
But Ron Paul is not a leader in the conservative clique that dominates the Republican Party. Rather he is the product of an earlier era of conservatism where individual freedom was as important to a party platform as limited government. The Bush Administration went in the opposite direction, curbing individual liberties and running up a then-record budget deficit, yet Rush Limbaugh still speaks as though the George W. Bush years were fat,grand and golden.
Personally, for the sake of the Republican Party, I hope that there is a Ron Paul revolution. Democrats and Republicans govern better under a strong two-party system, where each party is as inclusive as possible. And Barack Obama knows it. Sadly, the minority party has shown a shrill voice, as if it were a baby who has lost his rattle.
Jindal's address was only seven minutes and it was a disappointing performance for a young politician of considerable intellect. Only 37, Jindal has run Louisiana's public health system. served as chancellor of a state university system, been elected to Congress twice, and now he is a first-term governor.
I am neither conservative, nor Republican, but from listening to Sunday's edition of 60 Minutes, I have no doubts about this governor's intentions or his integrity. He is governing away from the traditions of Louisiana politics while testing the waters on some of the conservative chestnuts such as intelligent design and vouchers.
However, he blew it on his day to shine for the nation. He made the usual Republican arguments: stimulus spending and taxing the wealthy would leave a huge debt for future generations and would create only a bloated bureaucratic government while solving none of our pressing economic problems.
Fine, that's the party line. Then he went off about "volcano monitoring," a $140 million update of USGS technology to help track the potential for volcanic eruptions, which may be as likely as Category 3+ hurricanes. Conservative Republicans always seem to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to science. That, and Rush Limbaugh, may prove to be among the acts that will lead to the Republican Party's undoing.
If the GOP is to become more inclusive and actually have a chance to influence policy as a minority party, they need ideas. Which made me wonder: why don't they spend more time talking to Ron Paul?
Ron Paul is a bit of a gadfly. He has spoken about the need to eliminate the Federal Reserve and during his presidential run he stated that the country could close down the IRS and replace it with nothing. But he was also the only GOP candidate to oppose the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq. Today, one headline on his Web site reads: Ten Reasons Why Conservatives Should Oppose War in Iran. Then remember, John McCain sang Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran to the tune of the Beach Boys Barbara Ann. Which conservative sounds more intelligent now? I don't know if Ron Paul has ever stuck an earmark in an appropriations bill, but if he has not, I would consider him to be a conservative who lives up to his words.
Why shouldn't the GOP give Ron Paul greater license to speak? He was the Republican only candidate to come close to matching the Obama team's prowess at Internet fund raising. He might not have come close to raising as many dollars as Obama, but he has gained considerable traction. He tied for second with Sarah Palin as a preferred candidate in last week's CPAC straw poll. And he's still a resource for the reporters.
Ron Paul has the most impressive resume of any of the noted conservatives who are still considered presidential aspirants. He has served ten terms in Congress; he has spent more time in Washington than any other GOP candidate in this last election cycle, excluding John McCain. He is a member of the House Finance Committee; the stimulus legislation had to get passed there, with or without his support. And he is a physician who makes credible arguments for the pro-life crowd, as well as on health care policy.
What more could conservatives want? They have another William Buckley right under their noses. Better yet, he is not likely to run for President. He would be 77 in 2012. He can get a day in the sun, and give the GOP a chance to float some real ideas. And they can find a younger disciple who can organize a campaign around them. Imagine a young telegenic figure on a modified version of a Ron Paul platform. The Obama braintrust would see that as serious competition.
I spliced a few comments together from Ron Paul's official site, CampaignforLiberty.com and from RonPaul.com, as if the congressman were asked to respond to Obama's address.
"An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes. We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s."
"If President Obama keeps spending like this, he will at one point be faced with no other choice but to raise taxes on all Americans, rich, middle class, and poor. This is of course nothing new. Taxes have been rising in the US for the past century under Democratic and Republican presidents."
"The American people have realized that they need to save more and consume less, so as to provide for economic progress and more efficiency in the future, and to restore balance to the economy as a whole. It means that people have understood that too much of the existing capital stock has been consumed and has deteriorated."
"This is the causality that the majority of pundits and economics professors that one can hear talk every evening on the news simply don't understand. All their theories and policies are ignoring this one crucial fact: That Americans are done consuming for the time being."
"And recently, it has come to light that there is little to no accountability to the people on the part of the Federal Reserve. While the citizens of this country are required by law to give an accounting of every penny they come in contact with, the Federal Reserve has never been held to the same standard. During this time of extreme economic crisis, the people deserve an accounting of where our money is going. We pay the tab; we have a right to know where our money is going."
"It is time to cut back and restore sanity and balance. Individuals have realized this and are doing the right thing. The government has not understood this fact at all. It is trying to keep alive failed businesses that should release resources for more demanded projects. It is trying to make up for the "lack of consumption" in the private sector. All these attempts will fail miserably. All they will accomplish is to slow down the corrective phase and turn it into a decade of agony."
Now compare these comments, written by contributors to Ron Paul's Web sites, as if they were part of a Ron Paul speech, to Governor Jindal's bungled address or Rush Limbaugh's tirades. Or any speech by Sarah Palin.
But Ron Paul is not a leader in the conservative clique that dominates the Republican Party. Rather he is the product of an earlier era of conservatism where individual freedom was as important to a party platform as limited government. The Bush Administration went in the opposite direction, curbing individual liberties and running up a then-record budget deficit, yet Rush Limbaugh still speaks as though the George W. Bush years were fat,grand and golden.
Personally, for the sake of the Republican Party, I hope that there is a Ron Paul revolution. Democrats and Republicans govern better under a strong two-party system, where each party is as inclusive as possible. And Barack Obama knows it. Sadly, the minority party has shown a shrill voice, as if it were a baby who has lost his rattle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)