This week I am attending the Education Writer's Association's annual meeting in Washington D.C., and I have been enjoying myself and learning a lot about education politics and policy, as well as education coverage in the media.
Tonight the keynote speaker was Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Whether your politics lean toward the views of the Obama Administration, or elsewhere, you have to respect the Secretary's grasp of the issues in K-12 and higher education. Duncan did not say that No Child Left Behind would be re-authorized, but he believes that the act's intentions needed to be refined and better funded. While praising the act's emphasis on closing the racial achievement gap, he believes in growth models and more realistically tracked graduation rates; some students are ready for college after three years, while others will need five years to finish high school.
I asked Secretary Duncan questions about the relationship between the military and the public schools. He said that school choice in Chicago includes Junior ROTC (JROTC) academies, and that the Windy City has more JROTC academies than any other urban center. Duncan was the keynote speaker at the first one that opened under his tenure as superintendent. He said that he is appreciative of the training and discipline the JROTC students receive. And he added that most of the Chicago area JROTC graduates chose to attend college over military service upon graduation.
Secretary Duncan also said that military recruiters should be allowed to visit high schools, but that their visitation privileges should be no greater than they are for college admissions recruiters or organizations--he mentioned Quakers as one example--that have a conscientious objection to combat.
I also asked him about the student disclosure provisions under No Child Left Behind, where schools are required to supply student contact information to the military, although parents may complete opt-out forms and submit them to their school district. He said that he has to think about the issue.
The Obama Administration has been in office for only 102 days, and every Cabinet secretary, including Secretary Duncan, has a full set of issues on their plate. But Secretary Duncan prides himself on transparency and responsiveness to children and parents, above all things. So if you are a parent of a young man or woman who is considering military service, or you are concerned about the relationship between the schools and the military, it would be worthwhile to let Secretary Duncan know what you think. Or ask your elected representatives to pass your thoughts onto him.
The Secretary asked the reporters assembled in the audience to provide him with accurate information about what has, and has not, worked in the public schools. No doubt he will appreciate the words of their customers, too.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
A Tribute to Darts and Valiants
Tonight I read that the Chrysler Corporation is about to declare bankruptcy. I realize that bankruptcy is a term of legal art; it means that the company needs to reorganize and settle debts with creditors, for far less than those creditors would like. But it does not mean that Chrysler is history, at least for now.
The loss of Chrysler would a crying shame, because they used to make some very good cars. If you were to poll people in their mid forties through early fifties and ask them to tell you about their first car, chances are good that they'd tell you that it was a Dodge Dart or Plymouth Valiant. During the early seventies these cars represented more than a third of Chrysler's sales and their Slant Six engines ran forever. And those were the cars that pushed you into a Challenger or a Barracuda or a Charger or a Roadrunner. Or even a more powerful Duster or Demon with a V-8.
The point is that Chrysler had a good product to sell to a young buyer to start building brand loyalty. Now take a trip to your nearest Chrysler dealership. What is there to appeal to a first-time new car buyer, someone who might have gotten hold of a special college graduate interest rate or rebate? The Ram trucks? Possibly, but the Hemi eats more gas than a Chevy or Ford (check the car magazines about this. They all reported it, even Consumer Reports reviews show the poorest gas mileage from Chryslers) The New Dodge Challenger? It looks like the 70s car, but it weighs nearly two tons and it's too expensive (over $30 grand) with the V-8? The PT Cruiser? They had their chance with this model, but it was scheduled to go away after this model year? The Caliper? It has some custom goodies, speakers that drop down from the liftgate and a cooled glovebox to chill beer or soda, but the styling is a cross between a mini-van and a Pontiac Aztek.
Chrysler has a wonderful design and engineering heritage, and with the exception of the current 300 sedan it has been lost. The Dart and Valiant came out in 1960, at the same time as the Ford Falcon and Chevy Corvair, and the Valiant almost always got the highest ratings. The Barracuda was the first "pony car." It came out shortly before the Mustang, and it had a hatchback body before the Mustang did. The Charger and Roadrunner were muscle cars for kids and young adults on a budget. You could buy power for power's sake, and pass up the luxury goodies. And you could buy a car that looked very much like the NASCAR stockers and the drag racers right from your dealer's showroom.
Lee Iacocca also recognized Chrysler's performance heritage. As CEO he green-lighted the Viper as well as turbo-charged four cylinder products built jointly with Shelby and Mitsubishi. An affordable all-wheel drive sports car, the Eagle Talon, came out under his stewardship. Today, the least expensive four-cylinder all wheel drive two-seater is the $40,000+ Audi TT. And Iacocca gets the credit from the other side of the auto spectrum, the family-oriented buyer. He introduced the world to the minivan.
Since Iacocca's retirement Chrysler has had two chances to get young buyers. The first was a cute Neon subcompact that had power, space and handling, and it could be raced in autocross, too. But the car was a piece of junk. However, instead of improving the brand, they scrapped it and built a utility vehicle instead. Their second chance came with the PT Cruiser, which looks like a 40s hot rod. It has a cult following, just like you see with Toyota's Scion brand. And Chrysler was selling PTs before the first Scion dealers opened for business.
But they didn't try to lure the Scion buyer or the Honda buyer into the showroom. Chrysler failed to build a new generation of buyers. Toyota, Honda, Mazda, Mini, Subaru and Volkswagen are the cars of choice among college grads. And the first-time Toyota or Honda buyer is more likely to buy the bigger Toyota or Honda than to switch brands.
Young people have a passion for cars. Chrysler ignored that passion. Maybe the ties to Fiat will change all that; the Italian company sells some striking designs in Europe. But this will be a marriage under suspicion. Chrysler, which has suspect product reliability is about to join forces with a brand that once stood for Fix It Again, Tony. All car enthusiasts can do now is wish Chrysler Mazel Tov. Lee Iacocca is too old to come back for an encore.
The loss of Chrysler would a crying shame, because they used to make some very good cars. If you were to poll people in their mid forties through early fifties and ask them to tell you about their first car, chances are good that they'd tell you that it was a Dodge Dart or Plymouth Valiant. During the early seventies these cars represented more than a third of Chrysler's sales and their Slant Six engines ran forever. And those were the cars that pushed you into a Challenger or a Barracuda or a Charger or a Roadrunner. Or even a more powerful Duster or Demon with a V-8.
The point is that Chrysler had a good product to sell to a young buyer to start building brand loyalty. Now take a trip to your nearest Chrysler dealership. What is there to appeal to a first-time new car buyer, someone who might have gotten hold of a special college graduate interest rate or rebate? The Ram trucks? Possibly, but the Hemi eats more gas than a Chevy or Ford (check the car magazines about this. They all reported it, even Consumer Reports reviews show the poorest gas mileage from Chryslers) The New Dodge Challenger? It looks like the 70s car, but it weighs nearly two tons and it's too expensive (over $30 grand) with the V-8? The PT Cruiser? They had their chance with this model, but it was scheduled to go away after this model year? The Caliper? It has some custom goodies, speakers that drop down from the liftgate and a cooled glovebox to chill beer or soda, but the styling is a cross between a mini-van and a Pontiac Aztek.
Chrysler has a wonderful design and engineering heritage, and with the exception of the current 300 sedan it has been lost. The Dart and Valiant came out in 1960, at the same time as the Ford Falcon and Chevy Corvair, and the Valiant almost always got the highest ratings. The Barracuda was the first "pony car." It came out shortly before the Mustang, and it had a hatchback body before the Mustang did. The Charger and Roadrunner were muscle cars for kids and young adults on a budget. You could buy power for power's sake, and pass up the luxury goodies. And you could buy a car that looked very much like the NASCAR stockers and the drag racers right from your dealer's showroom.
Lee Iacocca also recognized Chrysler's performance heritage. As CEO he green-lighted the Viper as well as turbo-charged four cylinder products built jointly with Shelby and Mitsubishi. An affordable all-wheel drive sports car, the Eagle Talon, came out under his stewardship. Today, the least expensive four-cylinder all wheel drive two-seater is the $40,000+ Audi TT. And Iacocca gets the credit from the other side of the auto spectrum, the family-oriented buyer. He introduced the world to the minivan.
Since Iacocca's retirement Chrysler has had two chances to get young buyers. The first was a cute Neon subcompact that had power, space and handling, and it could be raced in autocross, too. But the car was a piece of junk. However, instead of improving the brand, they scrapped it and built a utility vehicle instead. Their second chance came with the PT Cruiser, which looks like a 40s hot rod. It has a cult following, just like you see with Toyota's Scion brand. And Chrysler was selling PTs before the first Scion dealers opened for business.
But they didn't try to lure the Scion buyer or the Honda buyer into the showroom. Chrysler failed to build a new generation of buyers. Toyota, Honda, Mazda, Mini, Subaru and Volkswagen are the cars of choice among college grads. And the first-time Toyota or Honda buyer is more likely to buy the bigger Toyota or Honda than to switch brands.
Young people have a passion for cars. Chrysler ignored that passion. Maybe the ties to Fiat will change all that; the Italian company sells some striking designs in Europe. But this will be a marriage under suspicion. Chrysler, which has suspect product reliability is about to join forces with a brand that once stood for Fix It Again, Tony. All car enthusiasts can do now is wish Chrysler Mazel Tov. Lee Iacocca is too old to come back for an encore.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
New Approaches to Military Recruiting at High Schools to Reach Congress
During the 2008 presidential campaign, neither Barack Obama nor John McCain discussed the presence of military recruiters in the high schools. Nor did they discuss the requirement that high schools release student contact information to the military, which is a legal requirement under No Child Left Behind. But now, one member of Congress, Rep. Mike Honda (D-California) wants to change this law.
Rep Honda has proposed that the "opt-out" provision that is imposed on parents be changed to an "opt-in." Today, under No Child Left Behind, the schools must release contact information to military recruiters, unless parents and students complete an "opt-out" form, which is a request that the military not make contact. Rep. Honda's proposal is for the opposite: that all student information is confidential, unless parental consent is given.
Honda, a former teacher, principal and school board member, introduced similar legislation four years ago under a proposed Student Privacy Protection Act. However, it's chances for passage under a Republican-dominated Congress were nil at the time. As such, the bill never made it out of committee. Two years later, he reintroduced his legislation, this time with the support of the National Education Association and the National Parent-Teacher Association.
Honda adds that the Department of Defense has already agreed to stop collecting student Social Security numbers, to stop sharing the database of student information with other agencies, and to make it easier for students to be removed from the database. This agreement was the result of a settlement between the DoD and the New York Civil Liberties Union. Honda has argued that parents are unaware that they can opt-out of receiving information about military service.
But Rep. Duncan Hunter, a conservative Republican, and former presidential candidate, has submitted an opposing bill which he has called the Fairness for Military Recruiters Act. His bill proposes to maintain the status quo. Hunter also argues that high school students should be allowed to speak with a military recruiter at school without having to go down to a recruiting station.
But over the past two years there have been new issues, recruiter suicides as well as future funding and physical education credits for the Junior ROTC programs. Currently, the funding for JROTC is shared between the school district and the military. A conservative Republican senator John Cornyn (TX) has taken the lead on investigations into the suicides, but I am not aware of anything regarding the change in the federal share of funding for JROTC.
So, I would like to suggest a trade. Pass Rep Honda's bill one on three conditions: one, that recruiting on high school campuses be limited to the JROTC program; two, that participating schools must make allowances for physical education credit for JROTC, and three, that the military fully fund JROTC, excluding the school district's normal maintence expenses for the training grounds on-campus.
I agree that a military career is a viable option for young men and women and that they should be presented with that option. But I also believe that there is no better orientation to military services than JROTC. It not only provides military training, it also reinforces discipline.. That will obviously serve interested students after they graduate, whether they serve in the military or not. And those students who have liked what they've experienced will have no problem finding the nearest recruiting station.
Rep Honda has proposed that the "opt-out" provision that is imposed on parents be changed to an "opt-in." Today, under No Child Left Behind, the schools must release contact information to military recruiters, unless parents and students complete an "opt-out" form, which is a request that the military not make contact. Rep. Honda's proposal is for the opposite: that all student information is confidential, unless parental consent is given.
Honda, a former teacher, principal and school board member, introduced similar legislation four years ago under a proposed Student Privacy Protection Act. However, it's chances for passage under a Republican-dominated Congress were nil at the time. As such, the bill never made it out of committee. Two years later, he reintroduced his legislation, this time with the support of the National Education Association and the National Parent-Teacher Association.
Honda adds that the Department of Defense has already agreed to stop collecting student Social Security numbers, to stop sharing the database of student information with other agencies, and to make it easier for students to be removed from the database. This agreement was the result of a settlement between the DoD and the New York Civil Liberties Union. Honda has argued that parents are unaware that they can opt-out of receiving information about military service.
But Rep. Duncan Hunter, a conservative Republican, and former presidential candidate, has submitted an opposing bill which he has called the Fairness for Military Recruiters Act. His bill proposes to maintain the status quo. Hunter also argues that high school students should be allowed to speak with a military recruiter at school without having to go down to a recruiting station.
But over the past two years there have been new issues, recruiter suicides as well as future funding and physical education credits for the Junior ROTC programs. Currently, the funding for JROTC is shared between the school district and the military. A conservative Republican senator John Cornyn (TX) has taken the lead on investigations into the suicides, but I am not aware of anything regarding the change in the federal share of funding for JROTC.
So, I would like to suggest a trade. Pass Rep Honda's bill one on three conditions: one, that recruiting on high school campuses be limited to the JROTC program; two, that participating schools must make allowances for physical education credit for JROTC, and three, that the military fully fund JROTC, excluding the school district's normal maintence expenses for the training grounds on-campus.
I agree that a military career is a viable option for young men and women and that they should be presented with that option. But I also believe that there is no better orientation to military services than JROTC. It not only provides military training, it also reinforces discipline.. That will obviously serve interested students after they graduate, whether they serve in the military or not. And those students who have liked what they've experienced will have no problem finding the nearest recruiting station.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Changing the University as We Know It
Yesterday, The New York Times ran a guest column by Columbia University religion professor Mark Taylor that was entitled: End the University as We Know It. Taylor proposes several changes in the ways that colleges and universities do business, including collaborative academic departments shared by multiple universities (now possible because of the Internet and video technology), the replacement of tenure with seven-year contracts, and the training of masters and doctoral students for non-academic pursuits.
But with more questions on the costs versus benefits of a college education than ever before, there is no better time for opinion leaders to step up and question how research universities are run. The phrase "ivory tower" is becoming just as irrelevant as the institutions themselves. But the institutions themselves are also fighting back. For example, today's Chronicle of Higher Education has a feature story that suggests that more and more publicly supported universities will try to go private.
One major reason for privatization is the freedom to set tuition policy, and no doubt other policies, without intervention from state government. The desire for privatization is not only a prevention from intervention, it is also a reaction to cuts in state aid. Why, if the legislature is providing less aid to state schools, should they have the same rights to govern them as if they were totally subsidized?
The answer appears to be no, but privatization will not guarantee reforms in university business practices. In fact, it deregulates schools, so they can maintain the practices Dr. Taylor has criticized, and conduct business as usual. And one outcome is higher tuition. For instance, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill charges approximately $5,400 to in-state students, while Penn State, which is "state-related" charges nearly $13,000.
Which brings up the great national concern: why should it be more expensive for a Pennsylvania resident to earn a degree from his flagship university than it should be for a North Carolina resident? I would argue that it shouldn't, provided that Penn State can properly subsidize its neediest students, without the aid of the federal government. If they want to use the wealthier students to help subsidize the needier ones, that is okay, because the "state-related" school is a private school.
Eventually our economy will improve and there will be siren calls to cut government spending. Higher education is a more likely target than most; it has a smaller constituency than such national staples as Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and veteran's benefits. The institutions that figure out how to aid their students, and keep them in school in those times, will be the ones that change the future of the university as we know it.
But with more questions on the costs versus benefits of a college education than ever before, there is no better time for opinion leaders to step up and question how research universities are run. The phrase "ivory tower" is becoming just as irrelevant as the institutions themselves. But the institutions themselves are also fighting back. For example, today's Chronicle of Higher Education has a feature story that suggests that more and more publicly supported universities will try to go private.
One major reason for privatization is the freedom to set tuition policy, and no doubt other policies, without intervention from state government. The desire for privatization is not only a prevention from intervention, it is also a reaction to cuts in state aid. Why, if the legislature is providing less aid to state schools, should they have the same rights to govern them as if they were totally subsidized?
The answer appears to be no, but privatization will not guarantee reforms in university business practices. In fact, it deregulates schools, so they can maintain the practices Dr. Taylor has criticized, and conduct business as usual. And one outcome is higher tuition. For instance, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill charges approximately $5,400 to in-state students, while Penn State, which is "state-related" charges nearly $13,000.
Which brings up the great national concern: why should it be more expensive for a Pennsylvania resident to earn a degree from his flagship university than it should be for a North Carolina resident? I would argue that it shouldn't, provided that Penn State can properly subsidize its neediest students, without the aid of the federal government. If they want to use the wealthier students to help subsidize the needier ones, that is okay, because the "state-related" school is a private school.
Eventually our economy will improve and there will be siren calls to cut government spending. Higher education is a more likely target than most; it has a smaller constituency than such national staples as Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and veteran's benefits. The institutions that figure out how to aid their students, and keep them in school in those times, will be the ones that change the future of the university as we know it.
A Sense of Deja Vu at Kent State
Yesterday's news included a story of a shooting at Ohio's Kent State University. No, it was not a tribute to the massacre nearly four decades ago. It was an actual shooting where police fired rubber pellets (aka: paint balls) and used pepper spray to break up students who were starting a string of street fires off-campus. Sixty four students were arrested and several officers were injured.
I was more astounded by the quote of a student newspaper editor in this story than anything else. His comment: "I think if they just blocked off the street, let kids have that road to party on for that night, it would've just been a party and people would've gone home." But still, the students set fires along a street. They burned furniture and street signs for no possible reason, except to "let off steam." And in the process, they also disrespected the history of a university community that has probably wanted to move on from the more serious events of the Vietnam era. More important, they disrespected a community's desire for peace.
So, the community, through the police, responded in-kind and expressed its desire to protect itself. Good for them. Students confronted the police with weapons: bricks, bottles and rocks. The police were put in the position where they had to fight back. If this had been a bad neighborhood in any distressed urban center--and you can name the city--then the citizenry would have been glad to see the police show up. This "battle" gave the phrase "student ghetto" a whole new meaning. And it's not a good one. I can imagine, from the multiple fires and airborne projectiles reported in the news, that this street could have been used for an episode of The Wire.
There's no question that large state universities like Kent State are often the local economy for the cities they serve. They provide jobs, stimulate small business growth and provide entertainment, in addition to their obvious educational benefits. But these towns, like Kent, are temporary residence for much of their population. Students leave for semester breaks, and of course, graduation. While they are the economic engine for their community, the students do not own their community. They are transients who do not have the right to decide when they want to take over public streets for their own amusement.
Unlike the massacre of forty years ago, this incident was not sparked by political activism or frustration with the leadership of the state or the university. It was meant to be an end-of-semester celebration, an evening of fun. But all that happened were arrests, injuries and the return of some unpleasant memories, as well as paint ball markings and charred remains in the streets. Some party, huh?
I was more astounded by the quote of a student newspaper editor in this story than anything else. His comment: "I think if they just blocked off the street, let kids have that road to party on for that night, it would've just been a party and people would've gone home." But still, the students set fires along a street. They burned furniture and street signs for no possible reason, except to "let off steam." And in the process, they also disrespected the history of a university community that has probably wanted to move on from the more serious events of the Vietnam era. More important, they disrespected a community's desire for peace.
So, the community, through the police, responded in-kind and expressed its desire to protect itself. Good for them. Students confronted the police with weapons: bricks, bottles and rocks. The police were put in the position where they had to fight back. If this had been a bad neighborhood in any distressed urban center--and you can name the city--then the citizenry would have been glad to see the police show up. This "battle" gave the phrase "student ghetto" a whole new meaning. And it's not a good one. I can imagine, from the multiple fires and airborne projectiles reported in the news, that this street could have been used for an episode of The Wire.
There's no question that large state universities like Kent State are often the local economy for the cities they serve. They provide jobs, stimulate small business growth and provide entertainment, in addition to their obvious educational benefits. But these towns, like Kent, are temporary residence for much of their population. Students leave for semester breaks, and of course, graduation. While they are the economic engine for their community, the students do not own their community. They are transients who do not have the right to decide when they want to take over public streets for their own amusement.
Unlike the massacre of forty years ago, this incident was not sparked by political activism or frustration with the leadership of the state or the university. It was meant to be an end-of-semester celebration, an evening of fun. But all that happened were arrests, injuries and the return of some unpleasant memories, as well as paint ball markings and charred remains in the streets. Some party, huh?
Memories of Commencement Speakers
In the past couple of weeks there has been too much ado about commencement invitations, most notably President Obama's upcoming address at Notre Dame. In a small number of cases, colleges have also withdrawn invitations to public figures on the grounds of security concerns.
But it was Notre Dame's decision not to rescind President Obama's upcoming address that got the national secretary American Association of University Professors to issue a public statement. The Association, according to the statement, has been on record as opposing the rescinding of invitations to outside speakers since 1957, even under security concerns. This is considered to be an issue of academic freedom, not to mention an issue of decorum.
As I read more I had to think back on the two graduations where I participated and received a degree. Former congresswoman Millicent Fenwick was the commencement speaker at my college graduation from Rutgers in 1982. A moderate-to-liberal Republican and human rights activist, the pipe-smoking Fenwick was supposedly the basis for the character Lacey Davenport in the Doonesbury cartoons.
I do not know who made the decision to invite Rep. Fenwick, but she would not have been my choice. Not because she was offensive to me personally, but I did not appreciate that a Republican candidate for higher office was being given a potential platform to campaign at the expense of my graduation. I don't know if she was offered a fee, or if Rutgers was asked to make a charitable donation in place of one, but I hope that no money changed hands. And I'm also sure that had the speaker been Bill Bradley, at that time our senior senator, that the Republicans on campus-and many came out of the woodwork after Reagan-would have objected. Of course, Rutgers being Rutgers, there would have been objections by non-partisans, and possibly Democrats, because Bradley is a Princeton graduate!
As it happened, Rep. Fenwick spoke for about five minutes, then she told our assembled class that she had to leave for Washington. Her address was an unmemorable part of an otherwise beautiful day. She gave my brother a good shot for the camera before the class marched in; at least I could have thanked her for that.
So, my first lesson about inviting a speaker is, if they are a political candidate or a cotroversial office holder, be sure they have overwhelming support within the campus community. If Liberty University wants to invite Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin or if the New School in New York wants to invite Bernie Sanders or Nancy Pelosi, then I am sure the speaker will find a friendly audience. Otherwise, the speech brings risk to the school and the speaker.
Rep. Fenwick got a modestly warm reception at my graduation, but I'm sure there were some who were disappointed by the short speech. Which brings me to the second lesson I learned: make sure that the speaker will stick around to finish the speech. Nothing short of a 9-11 attack or an illness or family emergency should force a speaker to leave.
My next graduation was from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and conservative columnist George Will was the commencement speaker. I actually flew in from New Jersey--I had finished my master's degree by long distance--to attend. My politics are not the same as George Will's, but I enjoy and respect his writing. And George Will gave the 20,000+ in U of I's Assembly Hall their money's worth. He didn't take a conservative stance in his speech, but he gave an amusing and thoughtful social commentary, even mentioning his son's past employment in the Baltimore Orioles ticket office!
But George Will was the perfect speaker for our crowd. For one thing, he is a native of the Champaign-Urbana area, and he graduated from the local University High School. Second, in addition to being a noted journalist, he has a doctorate in politics from Princeton as well as degrees from Oxford. So he fit in from the community and academic angles. He was a conservative who was invited to speak in a politically liberal university community, yet there was never a word about security for the speaker.
But there are important lessons about selecting a commencement speaker here, too. Unless you can get the president or vice president of the United States, or the president of your school is the traditional speaker, then bring in someone who has roots to your own community. Bring in an alumnus, an academic or someone who is professionally accomplished who can be trusted to be interesting without setting off temperaments off campus. The most memorable commencement speaker I've watched along this score was Bill Nye, The Science Guy. And his speech at New York's Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute got on C-Span.
I realize that it looks unprofessional to invite a controversial public figure to speak, only to tell him that he cannot come. But you can't take the heat you should never start the oven. It's not fair to ask the speaker or his sponsor to provide additional security; the school cannot predict how they will work with the campus police. For most colleges it is better to be cautious in the first place and not invite someone they cannot protect from the hecklers.
But it was Notre Dame's decision not to rescind President Obama's upcoming address that got the national secretary American Association of University Professors to issue a public statement. The Association, according to the statement, has been on record as opposing the rescinding of invitations to outside speakers since 1957, even under security concerns. This is considered to be an issue of academic freedom, not to mention an issue of decorum.
As I read more I had to think back on the two graduations where I participated and received a degree. Former congresswoman Millicent Fenwick was the commencement speaker at my college graduation from Rutgers in 1982. A moderate-to-liberal Republican and human rights activist, the pipe-smoking Fenwick was supposedly the basis for the character Lacey Davenport in the Doonesbury cartoons.
I do not know who made the decision to invite Rep. Fenwick, but she would not have been my choice. Not because she was offensive to me personally, but I did not appreciate that a Republican candidate for higher office was being given a potential platform to campaign at the expense of my graduation. I don't know if she was offered a fee, or if Rutgers was asked to make a charitable donation in place of one, but I hope that no money changed hands. And I'm also sure that had the speaker been Bill Bradley, at that time our senior senator, that the Republicans on campus-and many came out of the woodwork after Reagan-would have objected. Of course, Rutgers being Rutgers, there would have been objections by non-partisans, and possibly Democrats, because Bradley is a Princeton graduate!
As it happened, Rep. Fenwick spoke for about five minutes, then she told our assembled class that she had to leave for Washington. Her address was an unmemorable part of an otherwise beautiful day. She gave my brother a good shot for the camera before the class marched in; at least I could have thanked her for that.
So, my first lesson about inviting a speaker is, if they are a political candidate or a cotroversial office holder, be sure they have overwhelming support within the campus community. If Liberty University wants to invite Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin or if the New School in New York wants to invite Bernie Sanders or Nancy Pelosi, then I am sure the speaker will find a friendly audience. Otherwise, the speech brings risk to the school and the speaker.
Rep. Fenwick got a modestly warm reception at my graduation, but I'm sure there were some who were disappointed by the short speech. Which brings me to the second lesson I learned: make sure that the speaker will stick around to finish the speech. Nothing short of a 9-11 attack or an illness or family emergency should force a speaker to leave.
My next graduation was from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and conservative columnist George Will was the commencement speaker. I actually flew in from New Jersey--I had finished my master's degree by long distance--to attend. My politics are not the same as George Will's, but I enjoy and respect his writing. And George Will gave the 20,000+ in U of I's Assembly Hall their money's worth. He didn't take a conservative stance in his speech, but he gave an amusing and thoughtful social commentary, even mentioning his son's past employment in the Baltimore Orioles ticket office!
But George Will was the perfect speaker for our crowd. For one thing, he is a native of the Champaign-Urbana area, and he graduated from the local University High School. Second, in addition to being a noted journalist, he has a doctorate in politics from Princeton as well as degrees from Oxford. So he fit in from the community and academic angles. He was a conservative who was invited to speak in a politically liberal university community, yet there was never a word about security for the speaker.
But there are important lessons about selecting a commencement speaker here, too. Unless you can get the president or vice president of the United States, or the president of your school is the traditional speaker, then bring in someone who has roots to your own community. Bring in an alumnus, an academic or someone who is professionally accomplished who can be trusted to be interesting without setting off temperaments off campus. The most memorable commencement speaker I've watched along this score was Bill Nye, The Science Guy. And his speech at New York's Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute got on C-Span.
I realize that it looks unprofessional to invite a controversial public figure to speak, only to tell him that he cannot come. But you can't take the heat you should never start the oven. It's not fair to ask the speaker or his sponsor to provide additional security; the school cannot predict how they will work with the campus police. For most colleges it is better to be cautious in the first place and not invite someone they cannot protect from the hecklers.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
An Isiah Thomas Sighting in Miami
When I pulled this week's Sports Illustrated out of my mailbox, I was anxious to read several of the feature stores about the NFL Draft, Roger Clemens and steroids, Ken Griffey, Jr's return to Seattle and the hard chargers in the NBA. But I was also drawn to a sidebar story on page 26, that Isiah Thomas has been hired as the head basketball coach at Florida International University (FIU).
As if FIU didn't have enough sports-related problems. This Miami-based university already faces four years of athletic probation because various teams used 45 ineligible student-athletes in 15 different sports. The football program had been placed on probation during 2005, and that probation was extended. According to this story at Rival.com, NCAA officials said Florida International didn't expand its compliance department as its athletic program grew and it's football team moved from Playoff Subdivision to Bowl Subdivision play. But as I read that story, I wonder if the FIU officials had any concern about getting caught. And it just so happens that, according to the SI story, the FIU athletic director is a friend of Isiah Thomas.
Thomas, who has a $14 million golden parachute from the New York Knicks, has been a failure in his coaching and executive career. After retiring from a stellar playing career, Thomas became executive vice president and part-owner of the then-expansion Toronto Raptors. He drafted talented players such as Vince Carter, Damon Stoudamire, Marcus Camby and Tracy McGrady but he couldn't mesh them into a winning unit after four seasons. He bought the minor league Continental Basketball Association for $5 million, mismanaged it into bankruptcy, and had the audacity to refuse an $11 million buyout from the NBA to keep the league solvent. He had success as coach of the Indiana Pacers, and drafted good young talent there, too. But he never got past the first round of the playoffs. Then, he came to the Knicks, decimated the team, and embroiled management in a sexual harassment suit that was settled for $11 million.
Thomas has agreed to work his first season for no salary; that's the equal of a donation of $1 million-plus to FIU athletics, but this cannot help the school's reputation or the man's. Thomas is taking over a team that went 13-20 last season in a mid-major conference. The effects of his recruiting efforts might not be felt for another two or three years, and he starts out one scholarship short. And the school will still be on NCAA probation.
I'm sorry to beat this story to death, but I would think that a school that should be trying to cleanse it's reputation should be looking to hire coaches whose ethics and values are close to squeaky-clean.
Isiah Thomas would be the last person I would hire as my head basketball coach. I would search for an up-and-coming assistant from one of the major programs; someone who has recruited well in the South would also help. The idea that a school on athletic probation would hire a man who dragged his employer through a multi-million dollar sexual harassment suit by an intern is a head scratcher to me.
Let's hope that FIU takes the money they save on Thomas' s salary, and put it into a rainy day fund to pay the next head basketball coach. And FIU fans should hope that Thomas quits after a year, so they don't have to pay the former coach and the new coach at the same time. This man does not deserve another golden parachute. He got one courtesy of New York Knicks fans. He should definately not get one at the expense of a public university athletic department that has already lost much face.
As if FIU didn't have enough sports-related problems. This Miami-based university already faces four years of athletic probation because various teams used 45 ineligible student-athletes in 15 different sports. The football program had been placed on probation during 2005, and that probation was extended. According to this story at Rival.com, NCAA officials said Florida International didn't expand its compliance department as its athletic program grew and it's football team moved from Playoff Subdivision to Bowl Subdivision play. But as I read that story, I wonder if the FIU officials had any concern about getting caught. And it just so happens that, according to the SI story, the FIU athletic director is a friend of Isiah Thomas.
Thomas, who has a $14 million golden parachute from the New York Knicks, has been a failure in his coaching and executive career. After retiring from a stellar playing career, Thomas became executive vice president and part-owner of the then-expansion Toronto Raptors. He drafted talented players such as Vince Carter, Damon Stoudamire, Marcus Camby and Tracy McGrady but he couldn't mesh them into a winning unit after four seasons. He bought the minor league Continental Basketball Association for $5 million, mismanaged it into bankruptcy, and had the audacity to refuse an $11 million buyout from the NBA to keep the league solvent. He had success as coach of the Indiana Pacers, and drafted good young talent there, too. But he never got past the first round of the playoffs. Then, he came to the Knicks, decimated the team, and embroiled management in a sexual harassment suit that was settled for $11 million.
Thomas has agreed to work his first season for no salary; that's the equal of a donation of $1 million-plus to FIU athletics, but this cannot help the school's reputation or the man's. Thomas is taking over a team that went 13-20 last season in a mid-major conference. The effects of his recruiting efforts might not be felt for another two or three years, and he starts out one scholarship short. And the school will still be on NCAA probation.
I'm sorry to beat this story to death, but I would think that a school that should be trying to cleanse it's reputation should be looking to hire coaches whose ethics and values are close to squeaky-clean.
Isiah Thomas would be the last person I would hire as my head basketball coach. I would search for an up-and-coming assistant from one of the major programs; someone who has recruited well in the South would also help. The idea that a school on athletic probation would hire a man who dragged his employer through a multi-million dollar sexual harassment suit by an intern is a head scratcher to me.
Let's hope that FIU takes the money they save on Thomas' s salary, and put it into a rainy day fund to pay the next head basketball coach. And FIU fans should hope that Thomas quits after a year, so they don't have to pay the former coach and the new coach at the same time. This man does not deserve another golden parachute. He got one courtesy of New York Knicks fans. He should definately not get one at the expense of a public university athletic department that has already lost much face.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Book Review: The Making of a Chef, Mastering Heat at the Culinary Institute of America by Michael Ruhlman
The Making of a Chef is a recently reprinted story of Michael Ruhlman's attendance at the Culinary Institute of America from 1996 through 1998. I believe that the book was reprinted due to the increased interest in television cooking shows such as Top Chef, Hell's Kitchen, Iron Chef and the like where executive chefs have been portrayed as celebrities and successful entrepreneurs, as well as talented "cooks."
According to Ruhlman, in 1996, there were 29,000 students who entered 157 culinary arts degree programs in the U.S, and only two schools, the Culinary Institute (aka, the CIA) and Johnson and Wales offered bachelors degrees in the field. Today, according to the CIA, there are more than 62,000 students enrolled in 301 programs, and 56 schools offer bachelor's degrees. Television, according to Ruhlman, has contributed to making the culinary arts "cool," not only for traditional college-bound students, but also adults who want to make a mid-career change.
I read The Making of a Chef not only because I like to watch some of these cooking shows, but also because I read "inside" tales of schools for an education site. For instance, I previously reviewed Ahead of the Curve, a student-written story about Harvard Business School. But readers should take some care in reading The Making of a Chef . This is a story from a visiting journalist perspective, someone who spent a lot of time on the CIA campus going through the different blocks of the associate degree program, but he was not enrolled to pursue a degree. This has put the book up for strong criticism on Amazon.com. There have been other school-insider books written by journalists before, but this should not be the last stop in researching the CIA or other culinary arts schools.
As I read The Making of a Chef, I was reminded of the numerous comments at judges table by the chefs on Top Chef about the quality of food and mixtures of flavors. I was also reminded of the pace of a busy kitchen on Hell's Kitchen, though there did not appear to be a chef with Gordon Ramsey's temperament among Ruhlman's teachers. However, while Ruhlman did point that CIA students had success in finding externship opportunities in various fine restaurants, he did not collect enough of this information. I have gotten more of that from the cooking shows, too. And I got that information for free.
But I'm reading a reprinted story, so I can't blame the author. This was a case of a publisher sensing a market, but not making an investment to ask the author to update the story. A sequel with more thorough profiles of current students that did not appear to be public relations for the CIA would be in greater demand.
According to Ruhlman, in 1996, there were 29,000 students who entered 157 culinary arts degree programs in the U.S, and only two schools, the Culinary Institute (aka, the CIA) and Johnson and Wales offered bachelors degrees in the field. Today, according to the CIA, there are more than 62,000 students enrolled in 301 programs, and 56 schools offer bachelor's degrees. Television, according to Ruhlman, has contributed to making the culinary arts "cool," not only for traditional college-bound students, but also adults who want to make a mid-career change.
I read The Making of a Chef not only because I like to watch some of these cooking shows, but also because I read "inside" tales of schools for an education site. For instance, I previously reviewed Ahead of the Curve, a student-written story about Harvard Business School. But readers should take some care in reading The Making of a Chef . This is a story from a visiting journalist perspective, someone who spent a lot of time on the CIA campus going through the different blocks of the associate degree program, but he was not enrolled to pursue a degree. This has put the book up for strong criticism on Amazon.com. There have been other school-insider books written by journalists before, but this should not be the last stop in researching the CIA or other culinary arts schools.
As I read The Making of a Chef, I was reminded of the numerous comments at judges table by the chefs on Top Chef about the quality of food and mixtures of flavors. I was also reminded of the pace of a busy kitchen on Hell's Kitchen, though there did not appear to be a chef with Gordon Ramsey's temperament among Ruhlman's teachers. However, while Ruhlman did point that CIA students had success in finding externship opportunities in various fine restaurants, he did not collect enough of this information. I have gotten more of that from the cooking shows, too. And I got that information for free.
But I'm reading a reprinted story, so I can't blame the author. This was a case of a publisher sensing a market, but not making an investment to ask the author to update the story. A sequel with more thorough profiles of current students that did not appear to be public relations for the CIA would be in greater demand.
Book Review: Once a Runner, A Novel, by John L. Parker, Jr.
I am currently working on Tip Offs, my third novel, which will a story about the dynamics and politics of girl's basketball, a sport that has yet to reach the heights of its fanfare. So when I saw Once a Runner, a novel based around competitive amateur track and field, at the Barnes and Noble, I had to pluck down the cash to buy it. I wanted to know how another author built a story around a sport that may be less known than girl's basketball. We don't hear much about track stars in the media, except in Olympic years.
Like my first novels, Once a Runner, was first printed as a self-published book. First printed in 1978, the author sold copies at track meets out of the trunk of his car. Back then, a self-published author owned all of the copies until they were sold; there is no need for that today with print-on-demand processes. But the book gained a following in the U.S. running community. Over thirty years copies were passed on from generation to generation of athletes.
By 2007, Once a Runner, was the most sought-after out-of-print book in the United States. I am hopeful for a better fate for Tip Offs, but the generational success of Once a Runner is inspirational to me, especially since the book is now in print with a traditional publisher.
Once a Runner's main character, Quenton Cassidy, is a collegiate miler at fictional Southeastern University (meant to depict the University of Florida, the author's alma mater). Cassidy is less than a second from achieving his lifelong dream of running a sub-four minute mile when a hypocritical red neck athletic director/football coach demands more disciplined behavior from all athletes, coats and ties as one example, as a reaction to the drug culture and the more radical elements of the student body.
Cassidy, a laid-back party animal who does not take college too seriously, unsuccessfully attempts to defend a teammate caught for possession of marijuana, and he also becomes personally disillusioned by the university-imposed code of conduct and joins in with other athletes to protest. However, he is separated from the track team. Cassidy drops out of school and begins intense training in seclusion with Bruce Denton, a former Olympian, to break the four-minute barrier.
This is an interesting story from the standpoint of understanding the eccentricities and superstitions of track and field athletes, something I knew nothing about. It takes a more sarcastic view of the politics of college sports than I would have liked; the tone in those parts of the story is more like Dan Jenkin's Semi-Tough (both stories were written about sport in the early 1970s, so this is understandable) while the parts more devoted to running are closer to literary fiction.
I can see that a dedicated runner would enjoy this book, and it appears that Parker, who was a collegiate mile champion and U.S. Track and Field national steeple-chase champion spoke directly to that audience. But I don't know if this book made me want to watch more track and field events on TV.
Like my first novels, Once a Runner, was first printed as a self-published book. First printed in 1978, the author sold copies at track meets out of the trunk of his car. Back then, a self-published author owned all of the copies until they were sold; there is no need for that today with print-on-demand processes. But the book gained a following in the U.S. running community. Over thirty years copies were passed on from generation to generation of athletes.
By 2007, Once a Runner, was the most sought-after out-of-print book in the United States. I am hopeful for a better fate for Tip Offs, but the generational success of Once a Runner is inspirational to me, especially since the book is now in print with a traditional publisher.
Once a Runner's main character, Quenton Cassidy, is a collegiate miler at fictional Southeastern University (meant to depict the University of Florida, the author's alma mater). Cassidy is less than a second from achieving his lifelong dream of running a sub-four minute mile when a hypocritical red neck athletic director/football coach demands more disciplined behavior from all athletes, coats and ties as one example, as a reaction to the drug culture and the more radical elements of the student body.
Cassidy, a laid-back party animal who does not take college too seriously, unsuccessfully attempts to defend a teammate caught for possession of marijuana, and he also becomes personally disillusioned by the university-imposed code of conduct and joins in with other athletes to protest. However, he is separated from the track team. Cassidy drops out of school and begins intense training in seclusion with Bruce Denton, a former Olympian, to break the four-minute barrier.
This is an interesting story from the standpoint of understanding the eccentricities and superstitions of track and field athletes, something I knew nothing about. It takes a more sarcastic view of the politics of college sports than I would have liked; the tone in those parts of the story is more like Dan Jenkin's Semi-Tough (both stories were written about sport in the early 1970s, so this is understandable) while the parts more devoted to running are closer to literary fiction.
I can see that a dedicated runner would enjoy this book, and it appears that Parker, who was a collegiate mile champion and U.S. Track and Field national steeple-chase champion spoke directly to that audience. But I don't know if this book made me want to watch more track and field events on TV.
Book Review: The Lonely Soldier, The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq by Helen Benedict
The Lonely Soldier is the story of five women, all non-commissioned officers, who fought in Iraq between 2003 and 2006. Within their stories, Columbia journalism professor Helen Benedict weaves in numerous psychological, physical and social issues confronted by women in the military.
Numerous issues about military recruitment and training and re-emergence into civilian life for men as well as women are also covered. For example, Benedict cites "desire to kill" as having changed from World War II through Vietnam. During World War II, she mentions that only twenty five percent of the soldiers authorized to shoot to kill in battle actually did so. By Vietnam, with changes in the psychological approach to basic training, ninety percent did.
Aside from being non-commissioned officers, all of these women suffered sexual harassment at the hands of men of higher rank. They were all assigned to duties they had not intended to perform when they enlisted. They were also sent into combat, though they were among a very small minority within their unit, and even though military policy states that women are not allowed to serve on the front lines. Lastly, all of them enlisted voluntarily; they wanted to serve their country at wartime, even though men did not want them to serve beside them.
It is easy to read The Lonely Soldier and take one of two positions. One is to resume the much-stated argument against women in the military, which is that they should be excluded from combat for reasons of "unit discipline" and the costs of providing special care (for example, birth control). Those in this camp might challenge Benedict's research and say that the women she interviewed were all "special cases," and that she had excluded female officers as well as women who had served in Afghanistan instead of Iraq. But the author provides enough information where she has not put herself in the position of making generalizations about the entire armed forces.
The other is that the women who serve on the front lines are much braver that we may think they are, maybe braver than the men. They have to worry about protecting themselves from sexual abuse from the comrades, as well as enemy attacks and improvised explosive devices. Benedict is not the only author to make these accounts. They have also been put into assignments based on other factors beyond their abilities in a war that has been poorly managed since "Mission Accomplished."And they were misled into thinking that they would not be sent into combat, although they were afraid to complain, for fear of being perceived as weak.
Benedict takes the latter approach; she believes that women should be allowed to serve, but also that the military culture needs to be more sensitive to them. There are sufficient facts in this book to prove her point, too many to repeat in a blog post.
I recommend The Lonely Soldier to anyone considering military service or anyone who has a say in the decision of a young woman who may want to serve: parents, guidance counselors, school administrators, politicians, and even military recruiters. It provides a good starting point for young women to ask the right questions and demand honest answers.
Numerous issues about military recruitment and training and re-emergence into civilian life for men as well as women are also covered. For example, Benedict cites "desire to kill" as having changed from World War II through Vietnam. During World War II, she mentions that only twenty five percent of the soldiers authorized to shoot to kill in battle actually did so. By Vietnam, with changes in the psychological approach to basic training, ninety percent did.
Aside from being non-commissioned officers, all of these women suffered sexual harassment at the hands of men of higher rank. They were all assigned to duties they had not intended to perform when they enlisted. They were also sent into combat, though they were among a very small minority within their unit, and even though military policy states that women are not allowed to serve on the front lines. Lastly, all of them enlisted voluntarily; they wanted to serve their country at wartime, even though men did not want them to serve beside them.
It is easy to read The Lonely Soldier and take one of two positions. One is to resume the much-stated argument against women in the military, which is that they should be excluded from combat for reasons of "unit discipline" and the costs of providing special care (for example, birth control). Those in this camp might challenge Benedict's research and say that the women she interviewed were all "special cases," and that she had excluded female officers as well as women who had served in Afghanistan instead of Iraq. But the author provides enough information where she has not put herself in the position of making generalizations about the entire armed forces.
The other is that the women who serve on the front lines are much braver that we may think they are, maybe braver than the men. They have to worry about protecting themselves from sexual abuse from the comrades, as well as enemy attacks and improvised explosive devices. Benedict is not the only author to make these accounts. They have also been put into assignments based on other factors beyond their abilities in a war that has been poorly managed since "Mission Accomplished."And they were misled into thinking that they would not be sent into combat, although they were afraid to complain, for fear of being perceived as weak.
Benedict takes the latter approach; she believes that women should be allowed to serve, but also that the military culture needs to be more sensitive to them. There are sufficient facts in this book to prove her point, too many to repeat in a blog post.
I recommend The Lonely Soldier to anyone considering military service or anyone who has a say in the decision of a young woman who may want to serve: parents, guidance counselors, school administrators, politicians, and even military recruiters. It provides a good starting point for young women to ask the right questions and demand honest answers.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Lessons from Hiring Activists
Less than two weeks ago, former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill won a landmark case. His lawyers successfully proved that he had been wrongly fired for research misconduct and that he had been dismissed by the university four years ago for stating politically unpopular views. There have been numerous articles on Churchill and his post 9-11 comments; they were also included in a 2003 book called On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality. It is not necessary to repeat them here.
I believe that Churchill won his case because the university had gone backwards in time to investigate the man's resume. Churchill, who does not hold a doctorate but has a long history of activism on behalf of the Native American community, had been challenged on the scholarly quality of his work and on his true ethnicity; there were various efforts to prove that he was not an American Indian.
Last week, I went to a local bookstore to listen to Amiri Baraka, an African American poet, playwright, activist, author and music critic. While much of Baraka's talk was about the role and importance of music in the African American community, he was unafraid to bring up some aspects of his past. While Baraka, like Churchill, does not hold a doctoral degree--in fact he does not have a college degree--his resume, and his contributions to the African American artistic community merited employment by Rutgers University in Newark and the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He is currently an emeritus professor at Stony Brook; he was formerly the chairperson of the African American Studies department. And Baraka, like Churchill, had made some controversial comments about the state of affairs in the country following 9-11.
Baraka's resume was at least similar to academics who would hold posts as teachers of creative writing, music or other fine arts. He has won an Obie, the American Academy of Arts & Letters award, the James Weldon Johnson Medal for contributions to the arts, and Rockefeller Foundation and National Endowment for the Arts grants. He is also credited with being a founder of the Black Arts movement in Harlem. It is also reasonable to state that Baraka has been as important to the arts in Newark, his hometown, as many of its noted performers including Melba Moore, Sarah Vaughn and Whitney Houston.
The major difference between Churchill's situation and Baraka's, aside from the academics and ethnicity, is that Churchill had been granted tenure and Baraka had not. Baraka, like Churchill, was not shy about expressing his opinions; that no doubt sealed his fate.
What I have learned from Churchill's and Baraka's cases is that when you hire an activist, you not only hire their resume, you hire their voice. I do not know Churchill, but I have heard enough video clips to know that he is not shy about speaking his mind. When I listened to Baraka he made the point that he had a voice, and that it should not be suppressed. There could not be one voice from a university community.
I asked Baraka to tell me, if he were thirty or forty years younger, would he bother working for a university today? With the advent of the Internet and lower cost means to produce and distribute books, poems, music and movies, he could build a platform and answered only to himself. But Baraka answered that there was nothing like the intellectual life of a university, provided that you did not get only one viewpoint. I agree, in the sense that a school made a commitment to hire him, and they were well aware of his politics. To expect him to suppress his political views was unrealistic.
However, I predict that the Churchill decision will lead universities to back away from hiring non-traditional instructors, even if they have an impressive resume of non-academic accomplishments. College presidents and senior faculty now know to ask themselves if they can live with the activist voice after they make the hire, and if they could back the instructor's rights to free speech. The Churchill decision will also force university presidents to ask themselves if they would wish a voice that they cannot control on their successors.
I believe that Churchill won his case because the university had gone backwards in time to investigate the man's resume. Churchill, who does not hold a doctorate but has a long history of activism on behalf of the Native American community, had been challenged on the scholarly quality of his work and on his true ethnicity; there were various efforts to prove that he was not an American Indian.
Last week, I went to a local bookstore to listen to Amiri Baraka, an African American poet, playwright, activist, author and music critic. While much of Baraka's talk was about the role and importance of music in the African American community, he was unafraid to bring up some aspects of his past. While Baraka, like Churchill, does not hold a doctoral degree--in fact he does not have a college degree--his resume, and his contributions to the African American artistic community merited employment by Rutgers University in Newark and the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He is currently an emeritus professor at Stony Brook; he was formerly the chairperson of the African American Studies department. And Baraka, like Churchill, had made some controversial comments about the state of affairs in the country following 9-11.
Baraka's resume was at least similar to academics who would hold posts as teachers of creative writing, music or other fine arts. He has won an Obie, the American Academy of Arts & Letters award, the James Weldon Johnson Medal for contributions to the arts, and Rockefeller Foundation and National Endowment for the Arts grants. He is also credited with being a founder of the Black Arts movement in Harlem. It is also reasonable to state that Baraka has been as important to the arts in Newark, his hometown, as many of its noted performers including Melba Moore, Sarah Vaughn and Whitney Houston.
The major difference between Churchill's situation and Baraka's, aside from the academics and ethnicity, is that Churchill had been granted tenure and Baraka had not. Baraka, like Churchill, was not shy about expressing his opinions; that no doubt sealed his fate.
What I have learned from Churchill's and Baraka's cases is that when you hire an activist, you not only hire their resume, you hire their voice. I do not know Churchill, but I have heard enough video clips to know that he is not shy about speaking his mind. When I listened to Baraka he made the point that he had a voice, and that it should not be suppressed. There could not be one voice from a university community.
I asked Baraka to tell me, if he were thirty or forty years younger, would he bother working for a university today? With the advent of the Internet and lower cost means to produce and distribute books, poems, music and movies, he could build a platform and answered only to himself. But Baraka answered that there was nothing like the intellectual life of a university, provided that you did not get only one viewpoint. I agree, in the sense that a school made a commitment to hire him, and they were well aware of his politics. To expect him to suppress his political views was unrealistic.
However, I predict that the Churchill decision will lead universities to back away from hiring non-traditional instructors, even if they have an impressive resume of non-academic accomplishments. College presidents and senior faculty now know to ask themselves if they can live with the activist voice after they make the hire, and if they could back the instructor's rights to free speech. The Churchill decision will also force university presidents to ask themselves if they would wish a voice that they cannot control on their successors.
Book Review: No Right to Remain Silent, The Tragedy at Virginia Tech by Lucinda Roy
Last Thursday, April 16, was the two-year anniversary of the shooting at Virginia Tech. Seung-Hui Cho, 23, shot and killed 32 students and faculty members in a classroom building that he had locked, before taking his own life.
No Right to Remain Silent takes a different perspective about the shooting, one of a faculty member, Lucinda Roy, who had counseled Cho one-on-one on his poetry. Cho had entered Virginia Tech as a management information systems major, but had switched to English, hoping to express a literary voice. Roy found his skills lacking, but more important, she saw a student who was seriously depressed and in urgent need of counseling. She explained this to the news media covering the tragedy, as well as law enforcement officials, only to find that she had accidently gone against university protocols.
While Roy devotes a significant portion of this book to her attempts to provide academic advice and to encourage Cho to seek professional counseling, she devotes more attention to the campus protocols and the limited counseling and mental health services available to the student body. Virginia Tech is a very large university (26,000 students) and student-faculty interactions are more limited than in high schools or much smaller colleges. Roy cites 10 cultural factors that have the, in her words, "potential to contribute to education's perfect storm" as public education becomes further defunded by state governments. These are:
1) A shortage of teachers and resources in K-12
2) A lack of treatment facilities and services for mentally ill students of all ages
3) The accessibility of guns and bomb-making equipment and manuals
4) The prevalence of mental illness and suicide in the student population
5) A "nonteacherly focus" in high education, meaning a shift in focus from students to revenue raising and the lack of emphasis on training faculty to teach students with different needs.
6) A pop culture that routinely exposes children and youth to excessive violence
7) A growing devide that separates youth culture from adult culture
8) The prevalence of bullying in K-12 (often called "harassment: when it affects the adult community)
9) A rise in alcoholism, drug abuse, and prescription medications in student populations
10) Open campuses with relatively little security or security funding
To this I would add the greater use of the Internet as a social medium by college age youth. Roy regularly points out that Cho felt excluded and rejected within the student body, but he was also feared. The Internet offers a means for the excluded to gain acceptance, even in the act of violence, but it also offers more opportunities for social rejection that could also lead to violent behavior.
Roy also discusses the issues of gun control versus "concealed carry" permits to allow students, faculty, administrators and passers-by who come to the university community to carry guns. She does not take a position opposed to gun control, however, she adds that universities need to provide more funding, as well as provisions for student information access, for mental health counseling. As one example, she mentioned that Virginia Tech did not have a resident psychiatrist who could have adequately counseled Cho. He had to be sent off-campus for observation. In addition, records of Cho's counseling visits were supposedly lost. assumably with concerns over the university's reputation.
No Right to Remain Silent is an interesting book for educators, among others, concerned with the state of higher education at the larger institutions. It also raised several questions for me on the issue of gun control versus "concealed carry" permits. Advocates of "concealed carry" believe that, had students or faculty been in a position to defend themselves, incidents such as this shooting could have be reduced or prevented. But the idea of "concealed carry" within a college community raises questions that Roy, and others, have not yet addressed. for instance:
+ In the event that someone carrying a concealed weapon injures themselves, could the university be held liable?
+ In the event that someone such as Cho was shot by someone carried a concealed weapon, will the university protect them in the event of legal action from the shooter's family?
+ In the event that someone carrying a concealed weapon injures an innocent bystander, for example another student who had been in the classroom with Cho, what is the liability?
+ How will parents of current and prospective students react to the thought of a campus where many individuals carry concealed weapons? Will they feel safer, or the opposite?
+ Is the university willing to invest more to provide support services for its students? I would consider a university campus community at a large school to be much like an urban center; there are densely populated neighborhoods on campus and crimes are more likely to take place in densely populated areas. However, urban centers provide not only police but social services, including counseling, as well.
This past weekend, I attended the Scarlet and White spring football game at Rutgers, which attracted a record crowd of 16,000 fans. Virginia Tech's football team plays a similar game. Before I was allowed to go through the turnstiles, I was asked to open a bag that I was going to take into the stadium; it contained my camera and a sweatshirt in case it got cold. Such searches are not uncommon practice at major sports events, and no sports venue, at least in the New York area allows anyone other than security personnel to carry weapons.
But football games attract more students and graduates than any single event, and they have their fair share of drunken behavior and fights. So, I'm thankful that only the law enforcement officers have guns. But here's a question: would a "concealed carry" school hire more security to collect and hold weapons in a secure area during a football game? It's one thing for the New York Yankees to do it; they just raise ticket prices. It's another thing for a university that is more price-sensitive about public events.
I would be more in favor of the concept of a campus auxiliary force, which would be comprised studenta, faculty and administrators who have prior military or police experience, than the adoption of "concealed carry" practices on college campuses. Such a force would be accountable to campus security and the senior security officers would have the right to investigate the prior work experience of each applicant.
As a work of non-fiction, No Right to Remain Silent has too much inside politics and policy questions to be of interest to a reader of true-crime stories. But as a work that provoke issues and questions on campus safety and community, it rates an A.
No Right to Remain Silent takes a different perspective about the shooting, one of a faculty member, Lucinda Roy, who had counseled Cho one-on-one on his poetry. Cho had entered Virginia Tech as a management information systems major, but had switched to English, hoping to express a literary voice. Roy found his skills lacking, but more important, she saw a student who was seriously depressed and in urgent need of counseling. She explained this to the news media covering the tragedy, as well as law enforcement officials, only to find that she had accidently gone against university protocols.
While Roy devotes a significant portion of this book to her attempts to provide academic advice and to encourage Cho to seek professional counseling, she devotes more attention to the campus protocols and the limited counseling and mental health services available to the student body. Virginia Tech is a very large university (26,000 students) and student-faculty interactions are more limited than in high schools or much smaller colleges. Roy cites 10 cultural factors that have the, in her words, "potential to contribute to education's perfect storm" as public education becomes further defunded by state governments. These are:
1) A shortage of teachers and resources in K-12
2) A lack of treatment facilities and services for mentally ill students of all ages
3) The accessibility of guns and bomb-making equipment and manuals
4) The prevalence of mental illness and suicide in the student population
5) A "nonteacherly focus" in high education, meaning a shift in focus from students to revenue raising and the lack of emphasis on training faculty to teach students with different needs.
6) A pop culture that routinely exposes children and youth to excessive violence
7) A growing devide that separates youth culture from adult culture
8) The prevalence of bullying in K-12 (often called "harassment: when it affects the adult community)
9) A rise in alcoholism, drug abuse, and prescription medications in student populations
10) Open campuses with relatively little security or security funding
To this I would add the greater use of the Internet as a social medium by college age youth. Roy regularly points out that Cho felt excluded and rejected within the student body, but he was also feared. The Internet offers a means for the excluded to gain acceptance, even in the act of violence, but it also offers more opportunities for social rejection that could also lead to violent behavior.
Roy also discusses the issues of gun control versus "concealed carry" permits to allow students, faculty, administrators and passers-by who come to the university community to carry guns. She does not take a position opposed to gun control, however, she adds that universities need to provide more funding, as well as provisions for student information access, for mental health counseling. As one example, she mentioned that Virginia Tech did not have a resident psychiatrist who could have adequately counseled Cho. He had to be sent off-campus for observation. In addition, records of Cho's counseling visits were supposedly lost. assumably with concerns over the university's reputation.
No Right to Remain Silent is an interesting book for educators, among others, concerned with the state of higher education at the larger institutions. It also raised several questions for me on the issue of gun control versus "concealed carry" permits. Advocates of "concealed carry" believe that, had students or faculty been in a position to defend themselves, incidents such as this shooting could have be reduced or prevented. But the idea of "concealed carry" within a college community raises questions that Roy, and others, have not yet addressed. for instance:
+ In the event that someone carrying a concealed weapon injures themselves, could the university be held liable?
+ In the event that someone such as Cho was shot by someone carried a concealed weapon, will the university protect them in the event of legal action from the shooter's family?
+ In the event that someone carrying a concealed weapon injures an innocent bystander, for example another student who had been in the classroom with Cho, what is the liability?
+ How will parents of current and prospective students react to the thought of a campus where many individuals carry concealed weapons? Will they feel safer, or the opposite?
+ Is the university willing to invest more to provide support services for its students? I would consider a university campus community at a large school to be much like an urban center; there are densely populated neighborhoods on campus and crimes are more likely to take place in densely populated areas. However, urban centers provide not only police but social services, including counseling, as well.
This past weekend, I attended the Scarlet and White spring football game at Rutgers, which attracted a record crowd of 16,000 fans. Virginia Tech's football team plays a similar game. Before I was allowed to go through the turnstiles, I was asked to open a bag that I was going to take into the stadium; it contained my camera and a sweatshirt in case it got cold. Such searches are not uncommon practice at major sports events, and no sports venue, at least in the New York area allows anyone other than security personnel to carry weapons.
But football games attract more students and graduates than any single event, and they have their fair share of drunken behavior and fights. So, I'm thankful that only the law enforcement officers have guns. But here's a question: would a "concealed carry" school hire more security to collect and hold weapons in a secure area during a football game? It's one thing for the New York Yankees to do it; they just raise ticket prices. It's another thing for a university that is more price-sensitive about public events.
I would be more in favor of the concept of a campus auxiliary force, which would be comprised studenta, faculty and administrators who have prior military or police experience, than the adoption of "concealed carry" practices on college campuses. Such a force would be accountable to campus security and the senior security officers would have the right to investigate the prior work experience of each applicant.
As a work of non-fiction, No Right to Remain Silent has too much inside politics and policy questions to be of interest to a reader of true-crime stories. But as a work that provoke issues and questions on campus safety and community, it rates an A.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Tea Parties, Secession Made Quantum Realities
I am reading these stories about the various "tea parties" conducted across the country yesterday, and I swear that, for a few moments, I had leaped into multiple quantum realities. Americans were mixing the ideas of taxation without representation, secession from the union, and civil liberties at the same events.
As I read this, there are two reasons for the events. One is symbolic, to protest excessive taxation on Tax Day, April 15th. Fine, such protests have been a fact of life in America since before the Revolutionary War, and before we had anything close to the government we have today.
But I can't understand why 112,000 people (some sites report more) protest tax increases on the wealthy, when they are not wealthy themselves, and their taxes are actually going down. They want to punish a president who has been in office for less than four months over the administration that had sent their country into deep deficits to fight an unconstitutional war in Iraq. I always thought that true conservatives were strict interpreters of the Constitution. I guess the most extreme among them treat the Constitution the same way as they do the Bible: our interpretation is the only one that matters, and extremism in the defense of liberty has no vice (couldn't resist that).
The second reason for these protests appears to be the release of a report by the Department of Homeland security that warns of "right-wing conservatives." But that report does not talk about the mainstream Republican party or Libertarians; it talks about right-wing militants whose actions border on terrorism. I know many Republicans and Libertarians. True, they want tax cuts and less government, who doesn't? But those who button up for work do not ask for a violent overthrow of a Democratic presidency.
Go back forty years to a Republican Nixon Administration received regular briefings from J. Edger Hoover about the "left-wing radicals" on the college campuses, as well as those within the civil rights movement. Conservatives had no problem with the thought of imprisoning members of the Weathermen, who had actually bombed buildings.
But conservatives made a huge mistake: they lumped the non-violent elements of the anti-war movement and the civil rights movements in with the more violent factions. And they linked those who protested to the Democratic Party, even though the most active of activists had protested against the Johnson Administration as well as Nixon's. And years later, when Barack Obama ran for the presidency, they lumped him in with a Weatherman, saying that he "paled around" with a terrorist.
So now, because of the state of the economy, we have a house more divided than ever. And we now know that conservative Republicans are better obstructionists than Democrats. Next thing you know there will be "freedom tea," backed by a right-wing business person, sold in your grocer's aisles. If that day comes, I hope that saner minds will buy out the stock of these teabags and toss them into the trash. In non-violent protest, of course.
As I read this, there are two reasons for the events. One is symbolic, to protest excessive taxation on Tax Day, April 15th. Fine, such protests have been a fact of life in America since before the Revolutionary War, and before we had anything close to the government we have today.
But I can't understand why 112,000 people (some sites report more) protest tax increases on the wealthy, when they are not wealthy themselves, and their taxes are actually going down. They want to punish a president who has been in office for less than four months over the administration that had sent their country into deep deficits to fight an unconstitutional war in Iraq. I always thought that true conservatives were strict interpreters of the Constitution. I guess the most extreme among them treat the Constitution the same way as they do the Bible: our interpretation is the only one that matters, and extremism in the defense of liberty has no vice (couldn't resist that).
The second reason for these protests appears to be the release of a report by the Department of Homeland security that warns of "right-wing conservatives." But that report does not talk about the mainstream Republican party or Libertarians; it talks about right-wing militants whose actions border on terrorism. I know many Republicans and Libertarians. True, they want tax cuts and less government, who doesn't? But those who button up for work do not ask for a violent overthrow of a Democratic presidency.
Go back forty years to a Republican Nixon Administration received regular briefings from J. Edger Hoover about the "left-wing radicals" on the college campuses, as well as those within the civil rights movement. Conservatives had no problem with the thought of imprisoning members of the Weathermen, who had actually bombed buildings.
But conservatives made a huge mistake: they lumped the non-violent elements of the anti-war movement and the civil rights movements in with the more violent factions. And they linked those who protested to the Democratic Party, even though the most active of activists had protested against the Johnson Administration as well as Nixon's. And years later, when Barack Obama ran for the presidency, they lumped him in with a Weatherman, saying that he "paled around" with a terrorist.
So now, because of the state of the economy, we have a house more divided than ever. And we now know that conservative Republicans are better obstructionists than Democrats. Next thing you know there will be "freedom tea," backed by a right-wing business person, sold in your grocer's aisles. If that day comes, I hope that saner minds will buy out the stock of these teabags and toss them into the trash. In non-violent protest, of course.
Book Review: Admission, a Novel by Jean Hanff Korelitz
I never thought that is was possible to make the college admissions process sound interesting in literary fiction, but Jean Hanff Korelitz has done that, in Admission. Korelitz succeeds because she has chosen an interesting point of view. Her main character, Portia Nathan, has been an admisssions officer for sixteen years, first at Dartmouth, then later and at Princeton.
There are two meanings for admission in this novel. The first is the labor-intensive and paper-intensive process of selecting a freshman class at one of the nation's most selective schools. Even the Internet has not removed the need for personal visits to high schools, cross-checking, multiple readings and hands-up votes by the admissions committee. It is also interesting to have a perspective on how an admissions committee addresses diversity within a class when there are record numbers of applicants.
Through the story, I saw that Portia's job was especially draining because she is told to encourage as many students as possible to apply to Princeton, knowing full well that the vast majority will be rejected. It is too difficult to tell the high-achievers she meets that there is no "magic formula," whether it be creativity or connections, to get in. But Portia also stays within her role; she does not try to do a guidance counselor's job and help students find a school that might be a better fit. But I got a sense that she wished she could. Korelitz did an excellent job of getting inside the head of an admissions officer on-the-job.
The second definition of admission is Portia's search for meaning within her own life. Her long-time relationship, including a shared home, is ending. While Mark, her (and I hate this term) significant other, has cheated on her, she admits that she was never sure if she had been truly happy in the relationship. Or any other relationship for that matter, including her activist single mother who raised in the progressive Five College community in Massachusetts, and a college boyfriend who had gotten her pregnant during her sophomore year at Dartmouth.
Portia sees herself as unremarkable, and not wanting to stand out, at Dartmouth or Princeton, places where everyone has been, and likely will continue to be, a high-flyer with an impressive resume of achievements. Korelitz has done an excellent job of making a "face" of a school to be a more complex character.
Portia is attracted to the principal of an alternative school that has never sent a graduate to Princeton; its students have never given much thought to college. And she is challenged to back an applicant, Jeremiah Vartan Balakian, from this school who has scored eight perfect "fives" on advanced placement examinations, despite a transcript with poor grades, and no advanced placement classes. She is drawn to this boy's promise and he reminds her of her own unremarkable past. I was left to believe that she wanted Princeton to take a chance on Jeremiah because Dartmouth had taken a chance on her.
As someone who writes about education issues, I found Admission to be very interesting, thought-provoking and well written. I give it a strong recommendation to any college-expectant parent, or any college bound student, who also loves to read.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Parks and Recreation's Parody on Local Government
Last week, I watched, with anticipation, the pilot episode of Parks and Recreation, a docu-comedy about the day-to-day in a local government office. I began my working life in state government, and later did consulting work with several New Jersey suburban governments, so I might have had a higher level of interest in the show than most other prospective viewers. But I also enjoyed Amy Poehler's portrayal of Hillary Clinton on Saturday Night Live. That gave me another reason to check out her new show.
In Parks and Recreation, Poehler plays a ditzy Leslie Knope. At 34, she has become assistant director of a local park system. Unlike most real government workers her age, Knope has not lost her enthusiasm or her idealism. But much like real government workers, her supporting cast mocks her behind her back. The cynicism of these characters is more like the local governments I have visited in my working life than anything else in the show.
Poehler's character is, however, a blend of several stereotypes of the young, over-zealous government worker. She does not realize that she has little authority, and that her over-zealousness can border on insubordination. She is also incredibly stupid. For instance, she surveys kids playing in a parks as if they are adults, and she goes on a "fact-finding" mission into a dirt pit in a hard hat and a business suit, instead of securing the pit for safety reasons.
I've run into Leslie Knopes in local governments, but they were more like 24 than 34, or they had been out of a workplace for some time before coming to government. Or they were people who just said "they were doing their jobs" without questioning illogical decisions.
But people like Leslie Knope are an exception, not the rule of local government. In real life, the bright young people shake off their initial idealism, as well as their disappointments, and find new ways to channel their skills. Some remain in positions where their idealism is a better fit, for instance social workers become school guidance counselors. Others go for arenas where they can make more money, for instance, urban planners work for real estate developers. And still, many others go to law school and become attorneys.
I know this first-hand, because I was one of those people. I started out as an urban planner, left the field to pursue a MBA, and then I went into new lines of work. I know of at least three former planners who work in other fields. One became a rabbi, another a landscape architect, and another a telecommunications siting expert. Another friend, who has been a planner for twenty five years, is studying for a master's degree in counseling.
The people who stay behind are not necessarily incompetant, though some are. However, a municipal business administrator or a public school superintendent who can improve the quality of public services, get along with people and keep local tax increases to a minimum is very rare and highly desired. But I've met many such people in my working life. They also control budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars and manage more than a hundred people. If you took the budget and personnel under their supervision, and translated that into a large private corporation, you would learn that the government manager is quite underpaid.
And there are Leslie Knopes in the private sector, too. I challenge you to compare the quality of your local government to your auto or health insurance company. I'm sure the insurance company had a more frustrating bureaucracy, and that they raised their rates more steeply than your local government raised your taxes. You would see that local governments are more customer-focused that you might think. Angry people who become energized to remove their elected officials have far more success than the policy holders who would like to punish the senior executives of their insurance company for their misdeeds.
I realize that Parks and Recreation is a comedy, but the conservative punch lines about government first uttered by Ronald Reagan remain popular: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" or "Government is not part of the solution, it's part of the problem." Reagan defined, and disgraced, the perception of the government worker for twenty eight years. I am hopeful that President Obama will do his best to undo that perception. We need so much from government right now. As Americans, we have every right to point out impropriety and incompetence, but we need to show more confidence in the capable people, too.
I do not know if viewers will laugh with Poehler et al, or if they will laugh at them for as long as Parks and Recreation is on the air. My hunch is that viewers will do both. I can only hope that they will not take the disillusionment and incompetence shown in the show as atypical of local governments that are trying to do the right things. Yes, disciples of Ronald Reagan, there are plenty of local governments doing their best to help.
In Parks and Recreation, Poehler plays a ditzy Leslie Knope. At 34, she has become assistant director of a local park system. Unlike most real government workers her age, Knope has not lost her enthusiasm or her idealism. But much like real government workers, her supporting cast mocks her behind her back. The cynicism of these characters is more like the local governments I have visited in my working life than anything else in the show.
Poehler's character is, however, a blend of several stereotypes of the young, over-zealous government worker. She does not realize that she has little authority, and that her over-zealousness can border on insubordination. She is also incredibly stupid. For instance, she surveys kids playing in a parks as if they are adults, and she goes on a "fact-finding" mission into a dirt pit in a hard hat and a business suit, instead of securing the pit for safety reasons.
I've run into Leslie Knopes in local governments, but they were more like 24 than 34, or they had been out of a workplace for some time before coming to government. Or they were people who just said "they were doing their jobs" without questioning illogical decisions.
But people like Leslie Knope are an exception, not the rule of local government. In real life, the bright young people shake off their initial idealism, as well as their disappointments, and find new ways to channel their skills. Some remain in positions where their idealism is a better fit, for instance social workers become school guidance counselors. Others go for arenas where they can make more money, for instance, urban planners work for real estate developers. And still, many others go to law school and become attorneys.
I know this first-hand, because I was one of those people. I started out as an urban planner, left the field to pursue a MBA, and then I went into new lines of work. I know of at least three former planners who work in other fields. One became a rabbi, another a landscape architect, and another a telecommunications siting expert. Another friend, who has been a planner for twenty five years, is studying for a master's degree in counseling.
The people who stay behind are not necessarily incompetant, though some are. However, a municipal business administrator or a public school superintendent who can improve the quality of public services, get along with people and keep local tax increases to a minimum is very rare and highly desired. But I've met many such people in my working life. They also control budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars and manage more than a hundred people. If you took the budget and personnel under their supervision, and translated that into a large private corporation, you would learn that the government manager is quite underpaid.
And there are Leslie Knopes in the private sector, too. I challenge you to compare the quality of your local government to your auto or health insurance company. I'm sure the insurance company had a more frustrating bureaucracy, and that they raised their rates more steeply than your local government raised your taxes. You would see that local governments are more customer-focused that you might think. Angry people who become energized to remove their elected officials have far more success than the policy holders who would like to punish the senior executives of their insurance company for their misdeeds.
I realize that Parks and Recreation is a comedy, but the conservative punch lines about government first uttered by Ronald Reagan remain popular: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" or "Government is not part of the solution, it's part of the problem." Reagan defined, and disgraced, the perception of the government worker for twenty eight years. I am hopeful that President Obama will do his best to undo that perception. We need so much from government right now. As Americans, we have every right to point out impropriety and incompetence, but we need to show more confidence in the capable people, too.
I do not know if viewers will laugh with Poehler et al, or if they will laugh at them for as long as Parks and Recreation is on the air. My hunch is that viewers will do both. I can only hope that they will not take the disillusionment and incompetence shown in the show as atypical of local governments that are trying to do the right things. Yes, disciples of Ronald Reagan, there are plenty of local governments doing their best to help.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
The Showdown over Junior ROTC in the San Francisco Schools
Last Thursday, a California state legislator introduced a bill to require the San Francisco (CA) public school system to restore Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps (JROTC) instruction in grades 9 through 12.
The legislation, sponsored by Republican assemblywoman Fiona Ma, would overturn a majority vote of the San Francisco Board of Education that was taken three years ago, in opposition to JROTC. The board opposed JROTC on the grounds of the military recruitment policy of "don't ask, don't tell" and to military recruitment on school grounds. The board voted 6-3 to phase out JROTC in the high schools within three years. Two years later, the voters in San Francisco passed Proposition V, by a vote of 55 to 45 percent in support of JROTC. However, because of the school board vote, June 1, 2009 is the day of reckoning for the program.
Ma's bill made it out of committee last week and would be brought to the floor for a vote by the state assembly. Ma, who is also the Assembly Majority Whip, said that JROTC “has a proven track record – over 90 years in SFUSD, over 90% of students from communities of color, over 90% of students go on to higher education.” And while Ma is a Republican, there is bi-partisan support for her legislation. One hundred students enrolled in JROTC chanted slogans in supported of their program on the capital steps last Thursday.
JROTC is not a new program. It was first funded by Congress in 1916 under the National Defense Act. It is not mandatory for public school systems to participate in JROTC, but this is a significant tool for military training and recruiting. JROTC is offered by boarding schools and traditional day schools, as well as military schools across the country. Within the Army alone, there are 281,000 JROTC cadets with 4,000 instructors at 1,645 schools, mainly active duty retirees, across the U.S.
I consider military service to be a public service, and JROTC is voluntary for all but those students in a military academy, so it is fair to look at enrollment in JROTC against other public service programs. The total enrollment for example, in Americorps, a national level of service programs for adults of all ages is slightly more than 70,000. City Year, another volunteer program, engages slightly more than 10,000 per year. Obviously, the military has had a long head start on other public service programs, but there has been significant interest in exposure to military service as well.
I understand the opposition to "don't ask, don't tell" and I have made my own opposition to that policy clear on previous posts. I can also understand people's discomfort with military drills being conducted on public school grounds. The image, especially in a nation at war, is very powerful. I can also understand the financial issues; the military does not pay 100 percent of the costs of supporting JROTC. But this is a popular and very inclusive voluntary program with a history of educational and human development benefits.
JROTC is not perfect, but a school board cannot (ethically, not professionally) make an autocratic decision that goes against the voters in a city and the students in a program. JROTC has enrolled 1,600 students in San Francisco area high schools, and 179,000 voters asked the school board to reinstate it. I expect Assemblywoman Ma's legislation to pass and be signed by Governor Schwarzenegger, although the school board may elect to challenge the legislation, just as they defied the voters.
So, this showdown will have national implications. It tests the viability of "don't ask, don't tell" and the expansion of JROTC and ROTC at the college level that is desired by the military. It may be up to Congress and the Obama Administration to work out conditions for expansion of officer's training programs. One condition might be the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," while another might be the curtailment of the more aggressive military recruiting practices at high school campuses, especially in the wake of recruiter suicides.
But if it takes a showdown to create a win for all concerned: the military, the schools and the voters, then so be it. That's the plus of democracy in this country.
The legislation, sponsored by Republican assemblywoman Fiona Ma, would overturn a majority vote of the San Francisco Board of Education that was taken three years ago, in opposition to JROTC. The board opposed JROTC on the grounds of the military recruitment policy of "don't ask, don't tell" and to military recruitment on school grounds. The board voted 6-3 to phase out JROTC in the high schools within three years. Two years later, the voters in San Francisco passed Proposition V, by a vote of 55 to 45 percent in support of JROTC. However, because of the school board vote, June 1, 2009 is the day of reckoning for the program.
Ma's bill made it out of committee last week and would be brought to the floor for a vote by the state assembly. Ma, who is also the Assembly Majority Whip, said that JROTC “has a proven track record – over 90 years in SFUSD, over 90% of students from communities of color, over 90% of students go on to higher education.” And while Ma is a Republican, there is bi-partisan support for her legislation. One hundred students enrolled in JROTC chanted slogans in supported of their program on the capital steps last Thursday.
JROTC is not a new program. It was first funded by Congress in 1916 under the National Defense Act. It is not mandatory for public school systems to participate in JROTC, but this is a significant tool for military training and recruiting. JROTC is offered by boarding schools and traditional day schools, as well as military schools across the country. Within the Army alone, there are 281,000 JROTC cadets with 4,000 instructors at 1,645 schools, mainly active duty retirees, across the U.S.
I consider military service to be a public service, and JROTC is voluntary for all but those students in a military academy, so it is fair to look at enrollment in JROTC against other public service programs. The total enrollment for example, in Americorps, a national level of service programs for adults of all ages is slightly more than 70,000. City Year, another volunteer program, engages slightly more than 10,000 per year. Obviously, the military has had a long head start on other public service programs, but there has been significant interest in exposure to military service as well.
I understand the opposition to "don't ask, don't tell" and I have made my own opposition to that policy clear on previous posts. I can also understand people's discomfort with military drills being conducted on public school grounds. The image, especially in a nation at war, is very powerful. I can also understand the financial issues; the military does not pay 100 percent of the costs of supporting JROTC. But this is a popular and very inclusive voluntary program with a history of educational and human development benefits.
JROTC is not perfect, but a school board cannot (ethically, not professionally) make an autocratic decision that goes against the voters in a city and the students in a program. JROTC has enrolled 1,600 students in San Francisco area high schools, and 179,000 voters asked the school board to reinstate it. I expect Assemblywoman Ma's legislation to pass and be signed by Governor Schwarzenegger, although the school board may elect to challenge the legislation, just as they defied the voters.
So, this showdown will have national implications. It tests the viability of "don't ask, don't tell" and the expansion of JROTC and ROTC at the college level that is desired by the military. It may be up to Congress and the Obama Administration to work out conditions for expansion of officer's training programs. One condition might be the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," while another might be the curtailment of the more aggressive military recruiting practices at high school campuses, especially in the wake of recruiter suicides.
But if it takes a showdown to create a win for all concerned: the military, the schools and the voters, then so be it. That's the plus of democracy in this country.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Proposal: The Golden Ticket to College Plan
There is an interesting opinion piece out of Education Sector, a non-partisan Washington D.C based think tank that suggests that the college admissions process should be redesigned to resemble a lottery. Students who meet certain minimum standards: grades, test scores, courses completed, and so on, would be randomly selected for admissions, much like a computer selects the winner of the Power Ball or the Pick 6.
At first I was not sure about the idea. For one thing, admissions officers at the leading public and private schools, while harried and dealing with more uncertainty than ever in a difficult economy, have historically done an excellent job at selecting a class.
Buy a copy of the U.S. News college guide. Ignore the rankings for a moment, but consider this: each and every one of the Top 50 national universities retains at least 88 percent of its freshman--and only one school, Yeshiva University was at 88 percent, while the rest were over 90 percent--and each and every one of the top 50 liberal arts colleges does the same. The best-of-the-best schools also have the highest graduation rates.
I must believe that successful retention has to do with the admissions process the school put in place. If someone were to say, "well, they like legacies or athletes," then you'd have to answer that the role of an admissions officer is to find the best students that a)have your school among their top choices and b)are most likely to stick around to earn their degree. A dedicated and serious faculty would certainly take it upon themselves to ensure that no one slides by because they have a special non-academic gift.
I doubt that you could replace the admissions officer at a selective private school with a computer and end up with an equally successful class. A true lottery would place more importance on numbers, but little else. There would be pressures to diversify the class or to set-aside a number of applications where the numbers become less important, for example, to consider artistic portfolios or musical compositions or original writing or research.
But a modification of the lottery idea might make sense for a large state university system where the applicant pool is so large and the statistical profile of each individual student is more important to an admissions decision. A lottery would not only need to select a class that meets academic standards; it would also need to select a class that is reflective of the demographics of the state. So, for example, if a state is ten percent African American or Hispanic, then the class should be the same.
And unlike the selective private schools, state universities are quite often the safety schools for the best and the brightest. It seems foolish for a state university admissions office to aggressively woo students who did not intend to go to their school from the get-go. But that's what has been happening in the pressure to improve rankings and admissions profiles. That's unfair to the students whose hearts are elsewhere as well as the students who are most serious about the state school.
With these issues in mind I would like to take the lottery idea a step further: ask state governments to create a "golden ticket" to college plan.
Students who meet some achievable standards (B or B+ average, scores on SAT II math and language arts exams as well as two other exams in other subjects of the student's choice)would go into the ticket pool. Those who win a golden ticket would be assured a full-tuition scholarship at a state-supported school for four years, provided they earn a B average or better, with strings attached. Only state residents would be eligible for golden tickets. The demographics of the winners, as previously mentioned, would be reflective of the demographics of the state.
Those who want a golden ticket must apply early, the fall of their senior year, and they would receive a decision before Christmas, so they have enough time to apply for other options. But they cannot use their golden ticket to shop elsewhere. They must commit to their first-choice state school and withdraw any other applications outstanding.
You might say this is no different than the state-supported merit scholarship programs, and you would be partially right. Every applicant would have met a predefined set of academic standards, regardless of their family's resources, and they would receive a tuition-free college education. But in this case, the applicant must make a binding commitment to attend a public university in order to redeem their golden ticket. If the applicant wants to go elsewhere, she forgoes the money.
That will scare off, for example, the Rutgers applicant who comes from a well-to-do family and has her heart set on Princeton. And it will motivate any high school sophomore or junior who has their heart set on Rutgers to maintain their numbers. It will also scare off the athlete who is highly sought after by many schools. But it would also help the Rutgers admissions staff acquire a class of students who are more enthusiastic to go there. And that enthusiasm may yield better numbers and more dollars in the long run.
At first I was not sure about the idea. For one thing, admissions officers at the leading public and private schools, while harried and dealing with more uncertainty than ever in a difficult economy, have historically done an excellent job at selecting a class.
Buy a copy of the U.S. News college guide. Ignore the rankings for a moment, but consider this: each and every one of the Top 50 national universities retains at least 88 percent of its freshman--and only one school, Yeshiva University was at 88 percent, while the rest were over 90 percent--and each and every one of the top 50 liberal arts colleges does the same. The best-of-the-best schools also have the highest graduation rates.
I must believe that successful retention has to do with the admissions process the school put in place. If someone were to say, "well, they like legacies or athletes," then you'd have to answer that the role of an admissions officer is to find the best students that a)have your school among their top choices and b)are most likely to stick around to earn their degree. A dedicated and serious faculty would certainly take it upon themselves to ensure that no one slides by because they have a special non-academic gift.
I doubt that you could replace the admissions officer at a selective private school with a computer and end up with an equally successful class. A true lottery would place more importance on numbers, but little else. There would be pressures to diversify the class or to set-aside a number of applications where the numbers become less important, for example, to consider artistic portfolios or musical compositions or original writing or research.
But a modification of the lottery idea might make sense for a large state university system where the applicant pool is so large and the statistical profile of each individual student is more important to an admissions decision. A lottery would not only need to select a class that meets academic standards; it would also need to select a class that is reflective of the demographics of the state. So, for example, if a state is ten percent African American or Hispanic, then the class should be the same.
And unlike the selective private schools, state universities are quite often the safety schools for the best and the brightest. It seems foolish for a state university admissions office to aggressively woo students who did not intend to go to their school from the get-go. But that's what has been happening in the pressure to improve rankings and admissions profiles. That's unfair to the students whose hearts are elsewhere as well as the students who are most serious about the state school.
With these issues in mind I would like to take the lottery idea a step further: ask state governments to create a "golden ticket" to college plan.
Students who meet some achievable standards (B or B+ average, scores on SAT II math and language arts exams as well as two other exams in other subjects of the student's choice)would go into the ticket pool. Those who win a golden ticket would be assured a full-tuition scholarship at a state-supported school for four years, provided they earn a B average or better, with strings attached. Only state residents would be eligible for golden tickets. The demographics of the winners, as previously mentioned, would be reflective of the demographics of the state.
Those who want a golden ticket must apply early, the fall of their senior year, and they would receive a decision before Christmas, so they have enough time to apply for other options. But they cannot use their golden ticket to shop elsewhere. They must commit to their first-choice state school and withdraw any other applications outstanding.
You might say this is no different than the state-supported merit scholarship programs, and you would be partially right. Every applicant would have met a predefined set of academic standards, regardless of their family's resources, and they would receive a tuition-free college education. But in this case, the applicant must make a binding commitment to attend a public university in order to redeem their golden ticket. If the applicant wants to go elsewhere, she forgoes the money.
That will scare off, for example, the Rutgers applicant who comes from a well-to-do family and has her heart set on Princeton. And it will motivate any high school sophomore or junior who has their heart set on Rutgers to maintain their numbers. It will also scare off the athlete who is highly sought after by many schools. But it would also help the Rutgers admissions staff acquire a class of students who are more enthusiastic to go there. And that enthusiasm may yield better numbers and more dollars in the long run.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Maryland Legislator Puts Kibosh on Porn at College Park
Today, I just read a story in Inside Higher Education that a Maryland state senator threatened to amend Maryland’s annual budget to deny funding to any institution that allowed a public screening of a XXX-rated film.
While such an amendment was never brought to the floor, the University of Maryland's vice president for student affairs cancelled the screening of Pirates II Starnettis Revenge, a pornographic version of the Pirates of the Carribean trilogy.
According to the story, Andrew Harris, the Republican legislator who sponsored the amendment, refused to return calls. However, the Democratic state senate president made this comment to the Baltimore Sun: "That's really not what Maryland residents send their young students to college campus for, to view pornography,"
This is the first time that I ever saw state legislators get worked up over something so insignificant on a college campus. I have been out of college for almost 30 years and porn movies were shown on campus "back in our day." There were usually two outcomes to porn movies: "take back the night" events where women protested pornography and students saw the movie. Those who opposed the movie and those who wanted to go had their chance to express their views. And those who opposed the movie had the chance to influence the attendance, which is more than fair.
But this story is embarassing on both sides. A legislator stuck his nose into student affairs, then refused to defend his stand. That shows cowardice. And the amendment could not be brought to the floor because elementary school students were touring the capital that day. I don't know who would have blushed more if the amendment was discussed,their teachers or the lawmakers.
But the university also attempted to use porn as a means to educate. their student program board was going to combine the screening with a presentation by Planned Parenthood. I could imagine that a Planned Parenthood presenter would feel awkward about making a presentation before hundreds of students anxious to watch porn. I can't imagine how many counselors raised their hand to volunteer for that assignment.
It would have more effective to allow a "take back the night" presentation before the movie, something that would be student-run, as opposed to a schpiel by Planned Parenthood. At least the students who would have objected to the movie would have had the opportunity to ask other students not to go. It says more for a school when students show that they are capable of discussing and resolving these issues on their own.
While such an amendment was never brought to the floor, the University of Maryland's vice president for student affairs cancelled the screening of Pirates II Starnettis Revenge, a pornographic version of the Pirates of the Carribean trilogy.
According to the story, Andrew Harris, the Republican legislator who sponsored the amendment, refused to return calls. However, the Democratic state senate president made this comment to the Baltimore Sun: "That's really not what Maryland residents send their young students to college campus for, to view pornography,"
This is the first time that I ever saw state legislators get worked up over something so insignificant on a college campus. I have been out of college for almost 30 years and porn movies were shown on campus "back in our day." There were usually two outcomes to porn movies: "take back the night" events where women protested pornography and students saw the movie. Those who opposed the movie and those who wanted to go had their chance to express their views. And those who opposed the movie had the chance to influence the attendance, which is more than fair.
But this story is embarassing on both sides. A legislator stuck his nose into student affairs, then refused to defend his stand. That shows cowardice. And the amendment could not be brought to the floor because elementary school students were touring the capital that day. I don't know who would have blushed more if the amendment was discussed,their teachers or the lawmakers.
But the university also attempted to use porn as a means to educate. their student program board was going to combine the screening with a presentation by Planned Parenthood. I could imagine that a Planned Parenthood presenter would feel awkward about making a presentation before hundreds of students anxious to watch porn. I can't imagine how many counselors raised their hand to volunteer for that assignment.
It would have more effective to allow a "take back the night" presentation before the movie, something that would be student-run, as opposed to a schpiel by Planned Parenthood. At least the students who would have objected to the movie would have had the opportunity to ask other students not to go. It says more for a school when students show that they are capable of discussing and resolving these issues on their own.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Book Review: Underground, My Life with SDS and the Weathermen by Mark Rudd
Through my research to write my upcoming novel, Defending College Heights, I came across many accounts of campus protest during the Sixties and Seventies. I also based my story in New York, so it has been timely to read Mark Rudd's memoir about his experiences as a campus leader for the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) at Columbia, and later as a leader within the Weathermen, which was a more militarist splinter group of the SDS.
Approximately half of Underground is devoted to Rudd's involvement with the SDS; the remaining half covers accounts of his involvement with the Weathermen, his years as a fugitive and his post-fugitive life as a teacher and anti-war activist.
During April 1968, the Columbia SDS and supporters from inside and outside the campus community occupied several campus buildings, including the president's offices. They occupied five buildings for eight days to protest the university's connections to the Institute for Defense Analysis, the administration's tacit support of the Vietnam War (transcripts showing poor grades were sent to draft boards) and a university business decision to acquire a public park in Harlem to build a university gym. The most significant accomplishment of the eight day protest is that the university gym was never built. Forty years later, according to Rudd, this site is still a public park. That is a huge success by any measure of community organization.
However, there were 700 students arrested as the New York City Police stepped in to recapture the campus buildings by force. Bystanders, including faculty members, were injured by police. It is hard to say who was "wrong" from reading Rudd's account and others such as the Time magazine coverage in 1968. The university administration took a hard line with the students, but the students also did the same with the administration. For example, at one point Rudd is quoted as saying that the university should grant the students access to the burser's office so that they can make the payroll.
In reading Rudd's account of Columbia '68, I saw failures on both sides. Columbia's president, Grayson Kirk, lost the respect of the students, hid from the spring graduation, and resigned before the start of the Fall, 1968 semester. Rudd was kicked out of Columbia. He would not earn a college degree until 1980, when he became a teacher at a New Mexico vocational-technical school for high school graduates from economically disadvantaged families.
Rudd could brag on tour that the SDS had stopped the university from intruding into New York's black community, but he did not change the administration's attitudes towards the Vietnam War. However, it is also interesting to add that the Columbia University of today is quite resistant to having a ROTC program return to campus. One might be tempted to give Rudd et.al. some credit for cultural transformation.
The later chapters of Underground bothered me, in that Rudd tried to rationalize the irrational acts of the Weathermen, including bombings of select (though vacant) builings and alliances with political factions that would be considered too extreme to be inclusive of more mainstream college students and recent graduates. The SDS leaders, as well as the leaders of other groups such as the Black Panthers, were also not inclusive with respect to women in leadership. That led women to form their own groups to address issues the men had missed and fragmented the larger anti-war effort.
I had to consider a comparison between the members of the original SDS, which operated from 1960 through 1969, to the conservative Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), which also started in 1960 and has lasted for fifty years. The YAF has survived because its student members had a new place to continue their activism: the national Republican Party. YAF members who helped to elect conservatives to office could latch their careers onto their candidate's stars, including Ronald Reagan. Or they could find high-paying positions through the connections they had made.
By contrast, the most extreme members of the SDS turned into stealth revolutionaries who were also fugitives from justice, until the time was right to cut a deal with the government they once protested. During their tenure as student leaders they had kept their distance from established politics; they blamed the Democratic leadership for Vietnam. It is also interesting that the education sector, which they had protested, would later welcome former Weathermen as colleagues.
Today Mark Rudd is a school teacher, while William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, a husband and wife who were among the more active leaders of the Weathermen, are college educators. I can respect them for their personal commitments to social equity; they live it through their work. But I felt, after reading Underground, that they should have done some time for their crimes.
Approximately half of Underground is devoted to Rudd's involvement with the SDS; the remaining half covers accounts of his involvement with the Weathermen, his years as a fugitive and his post-fugitive life as a teacher and anti-war activist.
During April 1968, the Columbia SDS and supporters from inside and outside the campus community occupied several campus buildings, including the president's offices. They occupied five buildings for eight days to protest the university's connections to the Institute for Defense Analysis, the administration's tacit support of the Vietnam War (transcripts showing poor grades were sent to draft boards) and a university business decision to acquire a public park in Harlem to build a university gym. The most significant accomplishment of the eight day protest is that the university gym was never built. Forty years later, according to Rudd, this site is still a public park. That is a huge success by any measure of community organization.
However, there were 700 students arrested as the New York City Police stepped in to recapture the campus buildings by force. Bystanders, including faculty members, were injured by police. It is hard to say who was "wrong" from reading Rudd's account and others such as the Time magazine coverage in 1968. The university administration took a hard line with the students, but the students also did the same with the administration. For example, at one point Rudd is quoted as saying that the university should grant the students access to the burser's office so that they can make the payroll.
In reading Rudd's account of Columbia '68, I saw failures on both sides. Columbia's president, Grayson Kirk, lost the respect of the students, hid from the spring graduation, and resigned before the start of the Fall, 1968 semester. Rudd was kicked out of Columbia. He would not earn a college degree until 1980, when he became a teacher at a New Mexico vocational-technical school for high school graduates from economically disadvantaged families.
Rudd could brag on tour that the SDS had stopped the university from intruding into New York's black community, but he did not change the administration's attitudes towards the Vietnam War. However, it is also interesting to add that the Columbia University of today is quite resistant to having a ROTC program return to campus. One might be tempted to give Rudd et.al. some credit for cultural transformation.
The later chapters of Underground bothered me, in that Rudd tried to rationalize the irrational acts of the Weathermen, including bombings of select (though vacant) builings and alliances with political factions that would be considered too extreme to be inclusive of more mainstream college students and recent graduates. The SDS leaders, as well as the leaders of other groups such as the Black Panthers, were also not inclusive with respect to women in leadership. That led women to form their own groups to address issues the men had missed and fragmented the larger anti-war effort.
I had to consider a comparison between the members of the original SDS, which operated from 1960 through 1969, to the conservative Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), which also started in 1960 and has lasted for fifty years. The YAF has survived because its student members had a new place to continue their activism: the national Republican Party. YAF members who helped to elect conservatives to office could latch their careers onto their candidate's stars, including Ronald Reagan. Or they could find high-paying positions through the connections they had made.
By contrast, the most extreme members of the SDS turned into stealth revolutionaries who were also fugitives from justice, until the time was right to cut a deal with the government they once protested. During their tenure as student leaders they had kept their distance from established politics; they blamed the Democratic leadership for Vietnam. It is also interesting that the education sector, which they had protested, would later welcome former Weathermen as colleagues.
Today Mark Rudd is a school teacher, while William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, a husband and wife who were among the more active leaders of the Weathermen, are college educators. I can respect them for their personal commitments to social equity; they live it through their work. But I felt, after reading Underground, that they should have done some time for their crimes.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
To Go Greek or Not Go Greek is Still a College Question
The movie Animal House came out just before I started my freshman year of college, though I did not see it until after I had started my classes. Then, I visited some fraternities during rush week and I got the now familiar greeting: "Eric Stratton, damn glad to meet you."
While I knew the greeter was trying to have some fun with me, I got a subtle message that I might not be the best pledge for his fraternity. I also looked at the cost; four years of fraternity membership dues would cost me the same as a car. For a car guy like myself, the decision not to pledge was easy.
Yesterday, I read a story about a survey conducted by a student affairs administrator at Western Michigan University. She had asked 1,500 undergraduates at her school and at Wichita State University about their interests in pledging fraternities. The director of the survey, Kristin Fouts, reported that nearly 60 percent of students who did not participate in the pledge process noted that the “source of [their] knowledge/understanding of social fraternities and sororities” came primarily from television shows and movies.
I found that observation interesting, since Animal House also gave classmates of mine good reasons to pledge a fraternity: free beer, parties, a place to park a car on-campus (more value than you'd possibly know if you went to Rutgers during the late Seventies as I did), access to exam files, contacts, and a chance to do all of the rowdy things you wanted to do once you got free from your parents. I read enough about colleges to know that hasn't changed.
But there might be one thing the survey missed. One thing that I did not like about fraternities was that a fraternity row was little different from the social cliques in high school. There was a "jock house," a "preppy house," an "animal house," a "nerd house" and so on. I wore thick glasses back then, so my guess was that "Eric Stratton, damn glad to meet you," meant "check out the Jewish house down the block." And if you didn't like enough of the people in the house that had the people that were the most like you, then the pledge process would be quite uncomfortable.
There is something to be said for the bad public relations that fraternities receive. If so many people believe that the pledge process is arduous, and possibly dangerous, then it is the responsibility of the fraternities, not the university administration, to address the problem. There is risk to doing nothing, namely the loss of a charter.
Check out the comments on this survey story. You might be led to believe that some college administrators would just as soon see fraternities close their doors. They might not visit all of the houses on their campus, but they have well-developed perceptions of them.
While I knew the greeter was trying to have some fun with me, I got a subtle message that I might not be the best pledge for his fraternity. I also looked at the cost; four years of fraternity membership dues would cost me the same as a car. For a car guy like myself, the decision not to pledge was easy.
Yesterday, I read a story about a survey conducted by a student affairs administrator at Western Michigan University. She had asked 1,500 undergraduates at her school and at Wichita State University about their interests in pledging fraternities. The director of the survey, Kristin Fouts, reported that nearly 60 percent of students who did not participate in the pledge process noted that the “source of [their] knowledge/understanding of social fraternities and sororities” came primarily from television shows and movies.
I found that observation interesting, since Animal House also gave classmates of mine good reasons to pledge a fraternity: free beer, parties, a place to park a car on-campus (more value than you'd possibly know if you went to Rutgers during the late Seventies as I did), access to exam files, contacts, and a chance to do all of the rowdy things you wanted to do once you got free from your parents. I read enough about colleges to know that hasn't changed.
But there might be one thing the survey missed. One thing that I did not like about fraternities was that a fraternity row was little different from the social cliques in high school. There was a "jock house," a "preppy house," an "animal house," a "nerd house" and so on. I wore thick glasses back then, so my guess was that "Eric Stratton, damn glad to meet you," meant "check out the Jewish house down the block." And if you didn't like enough of the people in the house that had the people that were the most like you, then the pledge process would be quite uncomfortable.
There is something to be said for the bad public relations that fraternities receive. If so many people believe that the pledge process is arduous, and possibly dangerous, then it is the responsibility of the fraternities, not the university administration, to address the problem. There is risk to doing nothing, namely the loss of a charter.
Check out the comments on this survey story. You might be led to believe that some college administrators would just as soon see fraternities close their doors. They might not visit all of the houses on their campus, but they have well-developed perceptions of them.
Outsourced Courses Good Idea, but Today They Spur Campus Revolt
Today, I found an interesting debate over the merits of online courses versus traditional college instruction. This debate is being spurred by students at Fort Hays State University, a school of 10,000 students in Kansas. These students, who set up a Facebook page, are bothered that their university has contracted with a for-profit provider to grant academic credit for basic courses that are taught online for a fee of $99 per month.
The outsource company, StraighterLine, which is based in Washington D.C., offers the following pitch on its Web site: Can you really GO TO COLLEGE for LESS THAN the cost of your monthly CELL PHONE BILL? We can't say that this is true in ALL cases--hey, you might have a GREAT cell phone plan. But maybe its your cable bill, electric bill, or your GAS bill...From what I have read of the debate between StraighterLine and the Fort Hays students, the marketing pitch is part of the problem.
I understand where the Fort Hays students and faculty are coming from. They do not like the idea that a course in which the students would pay $161 per credit to take through their online university or $118 to $370 a credit on the brick and mortar campus could be had for only $99 a month. Faculty do not like the idea that they have little say in the content of courses they did not develop.
In addition to Fort Hays State, StraighterLine has agreements with four other institutions, one a non-traditional state university for adult students, the others are for-profit schools. Burck Smith, the CEO of StraighterLine, has aggressively defended StraighterLine's approach to basic education, reporting that the company's courses are as rigorous as any offered through other means such as Advanced Placement or an online course that is offered by the academic department of a community college or a traditional university. Smith has proved quite willing to interject himself into debates between the education press and detractors to make his points.
On the surface, as a businessperson, this is a brilliant idea: find the basic courses that are offered by any two-year or four-year school, identify an academically acceptable course materials and offer the course at an affordable price to students at any number of contracted schools. The ball is in the school's courts to decide if StraighterLine's package has a syllabus and instructional standards (level of attention to students and the direction of a qualified teacher being the two most important to faculty and administrators).
It is also wise for the school to consider the value of these courses in terms of student recruitment. For instance, if completing the course spots you three credits towards a degree at Fort Hays State, will Fort Hays State get more students? So far, that has not proven to be the case. And if you do not go to Fort Hays State, can you use those credits elsewhere? I do not know if that has been the case either.
But I still find the StraighterLine business proposition interesting; it might be something for the more frugal of colleges to consider as they try to cut costs. The largest percentage of faculty time at any school is devoted to introductory courses that the faculty members least like to teach. What if these schools could outsource them instead, especially during a time when it will be difficult to add new faculty?
Why couldn't, for instance, a network of several community colleges or non-traditional schools across the country work with a company such as this to offer a basic composition or math course? These courses do not need to be taught by instructors who hold doctorates in English or mathematics.
I wrote a previous post about an open source Virginia high school physics textbook that has garnered far fewer questions and comments that StraighterLine's approach to online courses. The difference, instead of using a single published text from a company such as McGraw Hill, a team of academics would co-develop open-source texts. An open source text should enable the course provider to keep prices down, while improving the quality of the course materials.
While it would take time for a vendor to gain consensus from academics to develop the materials, that vendor might be rewarded with contracts across multiple schools. Not to mention that vendor would be helping colleges reduce costs while making some introductory courses more affordable and accessible. Quality can be developed to a lower price point. It is up to educators and business people to try.
The outsource company, StraighterLine, which is based in Washington D.C., offers the following pitch on its Web site: Can you really GO TO COLLEGE for LESS THAN the cost of your monthly CELL PHONE BILL? We can't say that this is true in ALL cases--hey, you might have a GREAT cell phone plan. But maybe its your cable bill, electric bill, or your GAS bill...From what I have read of the debate between StraighterLine and the Fort Hays students, the marketing pitch is part of the problem.
I understand where the Fort Hays students and faculty are coming from. They do not like the idea that a course in which the students would pay $161 per credit to take through their online university or $118 to $370 a credit on the brick and mortar campus could be had for only $99 a month. Faculty do not like the idea that they have little say in the content of courses they did not develop.
In addition to Fort Hays State, StraighterLine has agreements with four other institutions, one a non-traditional state university for adult students, the others are for-profit schools. Burck Smith, the CEO of StraighterLine, has aggressively defended StraighterLine's approach to basic education, reporting that the company's courses are as rigorous as any offered through other means such as Advanced Placement or an online course that is offered by the academic department of a community college or a traditional university. Smith has proved quite willing to interject himself into debates between the education press and detractors to make his points.
On the surface, as a businessperson, this is a brilliant idea: find the basic courses that are offered by any two-year or four-year school, identify an academically acceptable course materials and offer the course at an affordable price to students at any number of contracted schools. The ball is in the school's courts to decide if StraighterLine's package has a syllabus and instructional standards (level of attention to students and the direction of a qualified teacher being the two most important to faculty and administrators).
It is also wise for the school to consider the value of these courses in terms of student recruitment. For instance, if completing the course spots you three credits towards a degree at Fort Hays State, will Fort Hays State get more students? So far, that has not proven to be the case. And if you do not go to Fort Hays State, can you use those credits elsewhere? I do not know if that has been the case either.
But I still find the StraighterLine business proposition interesting; it might be something for the more frugal of colleges to consider as they try to cut costs. The largest percentage of faculty time at any school is devoted to introductory courses that the faculty members least like to teach. What if these schools could outsource them instead, especially during a time when it will be difficult to add new faculty?
Why couldn't, for instance, a network of several community colleges or non-traditional schools across the country work with a company such as this to offer a basic composition or math course? These courses do not need to be taught by instructors who hold doctorates in English or mathematics.
I wrote a previous post about an open source Virginia high school physics textbook that has garnered far fewer questions and comments that StraighterLine's approach to online courses. The difference, instead of using a single published text from a company such as McGraw Hill, a team of academics would co-develop open-source texts. An open source text should enable the course provider to keep prices down, while improving the quality of the course materials.
While it would take time for a vendor to gain consensus from academics to develop the materials, that vendor might be rewarded with contracts across multiple schools. Not to mention that vendor would be helping colleges reduce costs while making some introductory courses more affordable and accessible. Quality can be developed to a lower price point. It is up to educators and business people to try.
“Fly with US. Read with Kids.®” Campaign Soars Again
US Airways (LCC) joined with Reading Is Fundamental (RIF) for a second year to celebrate the wonder of reading through the “Fly with US. Read with Kids.®” campaign. It features the online Read with Kids Challenge and supports RIF programs serving children across the nation.
The 2008 Read with Kids Challenge achieved overwhelming success in its first year with more than 16,000 participants logging 3.8 million minutes of reading. This year, the challenge is climbing to new heights with a goal of collectively logging 5 million minutes spent reading with children from April 1–June 30. Participants can register and log their minutes online.
Registrants can join individually, or new for this year, create a team of three or more adults. All participants will be entered to win a grand prize drawing of a Walt Disney World® Resort vacation package from US Airways Vacations, US Airways gift cards, and other great prizes. The team determined by random drawing will win the opportunity to select a featured RIF program, as well as a school in their community, to receive a special children’s book collection.
“US Airways is proud to team up with RIF to help children throughout the country discover the joy of reading and provide them with a better foundation for success,” said Doug Parker, Chairman and CEO of US Airways.
US Airways—the official airline of RIF—is also encouraging customers, employees, and readers nationwide to support children’s literacy by making a donation to RIF. Donors can receive a special edition of Off You Go, Maisy!—a children’s book by best-selling author Lucy Cousins—and be eligible to receive up to 5,000 US Airways Dividend Miles.
“RIF is grateful to US Airways for their continued support,” said Carol H. Rasco, President and CEO of RIF. “We hope to build on the incredible success of last year’s campaign—not only raising awareness of the importance of reading, but encouraging participants to support the children in RIF programs across the country, which provide books to children who otherwise might not have access to them.”
US Airways’ campaign with RIF, the nation’s oldest and largest children and families’ literacy nonprofit organization, also provides books and literacy services to children served by RIF programs throughout the country. US Airways’ employee volunteer corps, the Do Crew, will participate in RIF book distributions and reading rallies in communities where the airline has a large concentration of employees and passengers: Boston; Charlotte, N.C.; New York City; Philadelphia; Phoenix; Pittsburgh; and Washington, D.C.
The 2008 Read with Kids Challenge achieved overwhelming success in its first year with more than 16,000 participants logging 3.8 million minutes of reading. This year, the challenge is climbing to new heights with a goal of collectively logging 5 million minutes spent reading with children from April 1–June 30. Participants can register and log their minutes online.
Registrants can join individually, or new for this year, create a team of three or more adults. All participants will be entered to win a grand prize drawing of a Walt Disney World® Resort vacation package from US Airways Vacations, US Airways gift cards, and other great prizes. The team determined by random drawing will win the opportunity to select a featured RIF program, as well as a school in their community, to receive a special children’s book collection.
“US Airways is proud to team up with RIF to help children throughout the country discover the joy of reading and provide them with a better foundation for success,” said Doug Parker, Chairman and CEO of US Airways.
US Airways—the official airline of RIF—is also encouraging customers, employees, and readers nationwide to support children’s literacy by making a donation to RIF. Donors can receive a special edition of Off You Go, Maisy!—a children’s book by best-selling author Lucy Cousins—and be eligible to receive up to 5,000 US Airways Dividend Miles.
“RIF is grateful to US Airways for their continued support,” said Carol H. Rasco, President and CEO of RIF. “We hope to build on the incredible success of last year’s campaign—not only raising awareness of the importance of reading, but encouraging participants to support the children in RIF programs across the country, which provide books to children who otherwise might not have access to them.”
US Airways’ campaign with RIF, the nation’s oldest and largest children and families’ literacy nonprofit organization, also provides books and literacy services to children served by RIF programs throughout the country. US Airways’ employee volunteer corps, the Do Crew, will participate in RIF book distributions and reading rallies in communities where the airline has a large concentration of employees and passengers: Boston; Charlotte, N.C.; New York City; Philadelphia; Phoenix; Pittsburgh; and Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
An April Fool's Joke Gone Too Far, NASCAR and Politics Don't Mix
I have been a car enthusiast since I was six years old, and I was six a long time ago. But a story like this (below my commentary) is going to get my attention, even if it was an April Fool's joke. The online version of Car and Driver, which carried this story, has already issued a public apology. But I managed to copy the story before it was pulled, as did other bloggers.
I voted for President Obama, and have no regrets for my decision. But the author of this Car and Driver story paid little sensitivity to politics. NASCAR is still popular, even in a weak economy and it is a tourist magnet throughout the country, especially in the South.
An Obama administration would not have done something so foolish as to tell troubled automakers to withdraw from NASCAR competition, considering that the president won many states where the sport is hugely popular, including Florida, Indiana, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia. A decision such as this would have been political suicide, not only in the states where NASCAR is popular, but also those where cars are still made.
But this article might have inadvertantly presented an opportunity. NASCAR is about large cars. I was more of a NASCAR fan during the late Sixties and early Seventies when the cars actually looked like the Chevy or Dodge that my father, and later I, could buy off the showroom floor. While the underpinnings, the engine, transmission and suspensions, were designed by the racing crews, the bodies were stock.
That is not the case today; only the front end clips distinguish one car from another. The rest is a so-called Car of Tomorrow, where every car is essentially identical to prevent cheating and level the playing field. A Chevy in NASCAR is nothing close to what you will find in a Chevy showroom. GM has even killed the Chevy Monte Carlo, the last stock car that actually looked like a NASCAR race car.
But I do believe that "win on Sunday, sell on Monday" has helped many brands, just not in the NASCAR of today. Subaru, for example, sold thousands of cars based on their road rally pedigree--and those rally cars look more like the Subaru you can find at the dealership than any NASCAR stocker.
Hondas, Mazdas, Mini Coopers, Subarus and Volkswagens are regularly raced at sports car club events, with major alterations being for traction and safety. It is interesting that these foreign brands have a stronger following among young drivers than the Cars of Tomorrow in NASCAR.
If I were a politician, I would want racing to soldier on, though I would want to see NASCAR cars that looked more stock, and races that looked more global. How many things would do more for American pride than to see a Chevy, Ford or Dodge best a BMW 3-series, a Hyundai Genesis or a Nissan GT-R (or Maxima) in a fair fight on the track?
The Car and Driver story is below---------------
President Obama orders Chevrolet and Dodge out of NASCAR!
In a move sure to spark outrage, the White House announced today that GM and Chrysler must cease participation in NASCAR at the end of the 2009 season if they hope to receive any additional financial aid from the government. Companies around the globe—Honda and Audi, to name two—have drawn down racing operations, and NASCAR itself has already felt the pinch in the form of reduced team spending. A complete withdrawal from America’s premier racing series is expected to save more than $250 million between GM and Chrysler, a substantial amount considering the drastic measures being implemented elsewhere.
“Automakers used to operate on the principle of ‘win on Sunday, sell on Monday,’ but the Auto Task Force’s research just doesn’t validate that as true,” said the statement from President Obama. While fans have decried the Car of Tomorrow for heavily limiting what little personalization the cookie-cutter series had previously allowed to participating manufacturers, and drivers have slammed its brick-like aerodynamics and unpredictable handling, even the governmental oversight committee sees that the full-scale regulation of the cars leaves the manufacturers very little space for research and development. “NASCAR is a racing series that regulates down to the smallest detail of the cars, where a car badged a Chevrolet or Dodge differs only marginally from a Ford or a Toyota. There’s no technological development to speak of.”
The statement goes on further to say the same demand will be made of Ford if it asks for government assistance. “In order to receive this money, corporations must demonstrate they will spend it wisely. Racing has been said to improve on-road technology, but frankly, NASCAR almost flaunts its standing among the lowest-tech forms of motorsport. NASCAR is not proven to drive advancements that transfer from the racetrack to the road, and this nation’s way forward does not hinge on decades-old technology. We need new, and we need innovation.”
The President realizes this will be an unpopular call, but stands behind the decision, saying, “This is an obvious cut to make, but it is not an easy one. This administration is not ignoring the tremendous sentimental value and emotional appeal NASCAR holds for so many Americans. But now is not the time for sentiment and nostalgia; now is a time for decisive financial action. If our automotive industry is to emerge from this recession intact, then these difficult decisions must be made.”
Both Chevrolet and Dodge see the move as only temporary, and fully expect to resume racing in NASCAR as soon as they have stabilized and the government’s hand in their operations is minimized. “There is nothing really to say at this point,” said one representative, who wished to remain anonymous. “We’ve been doing this since the beginning, and we always assumed we’d be doing this until the end. Heck, nobody ever thought to think that there would be an end. But we ain’t done. As soon as this is over, we’re taking back our spot at the top.”
NASCAR officials remain tight-lipped about the call, but sources say series president Mike Helton and team managers are exploring several options, including other manufacturers to fill Chevrolet and Dodge’s vacated positions. Given the company’s recent interest in motorsport and the steady cash-flow and V-8 engine provided by its new Genesis sedan, sources indicate that NASCAR is pinging Hyundai to gauge the Korean company’s interest in occupying a spot in NASCAR. “Toyota was not well-received their first year in the sport, nor was their first season an easy one,” the source says. “But they learned, they applied the lessons, and they have proven very competitive this year.”
If Hyundai does indeed join the series, there will no doubt be a steep learning curve, and the move would leave Ford the lone domestic battling a pair of Asian makes in America’s most popular racing series. We wonder, however, how long NASCAR could hold that title without two of its most storied participants.
I voted for President Obama, and have no regrets for my decision. But the author of this Car and Driver story paid little sensitivity to politics. NASCAR is still popular, even in a weak economy and it is a tourist magnet throughout the country, especially in the South.
An Obama administration would not have done something so foolish as to tell troubled automakers to withdraw from NASCAR competition, considering that the president won many states where the sport is hugely popular, including Florida, Indiana, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia. A decision such as this would have been political suicide, not only in the states where NASCAR is popular, but also those where cars are still made.
But this article might have inadvertantly presented an opportunity. NASCAR is about large cars. I was more of a NASCAR fan during the late Sixties and early Seventies when the cars actually looked like the Chevy or Dodge that my father, and later I, could buy off the showroom floor. While the underpinnings, the engine, transmission and suspensions, were designed by the racing crews, the bodies were stock.
That is not the case today; only the front end clips distinguish one car from another. The rest is a so-called Car of Tomorrow, where every car is essentially identical to prevent cheating and level the playing field. A Chevy in NASCAR is nothing close to what you will find in a Chevy showroom. GM has even killed the Chevy Monte Carlo, the last stock car that actually looked like a NASCAR race car.
But I do believe that "win on Sunday, sell on Monday" has helped many brands, just not in the NASCAR of today. Subaru, for example, sold thousands of cars based on their road rally pedigree--and those rally cars look more like the Subaru you can find at the dealership than any NASCAR stocker.
Hondas, Mazdas, Mini Coopers, Subarus and Volkswagens are regularly raced at sports car club events, with major alterations being for traction and safety. It is interesting that these foreign brands have a stronger following among young drivers than the Cars of Tomorrow in NASCAR.
If I were a politician, I would want racing to soldier on, though I would want to see NASCAR cars that looked more stock, and races that looked more global. How many things would do more for American pride than to see a Chevy, Ford or Dodge best a BMW 3-series, a Hyundai Genesis or a Nissan GT-R (or Maxima) in a fair fight on the track?
The Car and Driver story is below---------------
President Obama orders Chevrolet and Dodge out of NASCAR!
In a move sure to spark outrage, the White House announced today that GM and Chrysler must cease participation in NASCAR at the end of the 2009 season if they hope to receive any additional financial aid from the government. Companies around the globe—Honda and Audi, to name two—have drawn down racing operations, and NASCAR itself has already felt the pinch in the form of reduced team spending. A complete withdrawal from America’s premier racing series is expected to save more than $250 million between GM and Chrysler, a substantial amount considering the drastic measures being implemented elsewhere.
“Automakers used to operate on the principle of ‘win on Sunday, sell on Monday,’ but the Auto Task Force’s research just doesn’t validate that as true,” said the statement from President Obama. While fans have decried the Car of Tomorrow for heavily limiting what little personalization the cookie-cutter series had previously allowed to participating manufacturers, and drivers have slammed its brick-like aerodynamics and unpredictable handling, even the governmental oversight committee sees that the full-scale regulation of the cars leaves the manufacturers very little space for research and development. “NASCAR is a racing series that regulates down to the smallest detail of the cars, where a car badged a Chevrolet or Dodge differs only marginally from a Ford or a Toyota. There’s no technological development to speak of.”
The statement goes on further to say the same demand will be made of Ford if it asks for government assistance. “In order to receive this money, corporations must demonstrate they will spend it wisely. Racing has been said to improve on-road technology, but frankly, NASCAR almost flaunts its standing among the lowest-tech forms of motorsport. NASCAR is not proven to drive advancements that transfer from the racetrack to the road, and this nation’s way forward does not hinge on decades-old technology. We need new, and we need innovation.”
The President realizes this will be an unpopular call, but stands behind the decision, saying, “This is an obvious cut to make, but it is not an easy one. This administration is not ignoring the tremendous sentimental value and emotional appeal NASCAR holds for so many Americans. But now is not the time for sentiment and nostalgia; now is a time for decisive financial action. If our automotive industry is to emerge from this recession intact, then these difficult decisions must be made.”
Both Chevrolet and Dodge see the move as only temporary, and fully expect to resume racing in NASCAR as soon as they have stabilized and the government’s hand in their operations is minimized. “There is nothing really to say at this point,” said one representative, who wished to remain anonymous. “We’ve been doing this since the beginning, and we always assumed we’d be doing this until the end. Heck, nobody ever thought to think that there would be an end. But we ain’t done. As soon as this is over, we’re taking back our spot at the top.”
NASCAR officials remain tight-lipped about the call, but sources say series president Mike Helton and team managers are exploring several options, including other manufacturers to fill Chevrolet and Dodge’s vacated positions. Given the company’s recent interest in motorsport and the steady cash-flow and V-8 engine provided by its new Genesis sedan, sources indicate that NASCAR is pinging Hyundai to gauge the Korean company’s interest in occupying a spot in NASCAR. “Toyota was not well-received their first year in the sport, nor was their first season an easy one,” the source says. “But they learned, they applied the lessons, and they have proven very competitive this year.”
If Hyundai does indeed join the series, there will no doubt be a steep learning curve, and the move would leave Ford the lone domestic battling a pair of Asian makes in America’s most popular racing series. We wonder, however, how long NASCAR could hold that title without two of its most storied participants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)