PARENTS will turn their backs on schools in the next two decades and begin educating their children at home, using tutors and technology paid for as perks by their companies.

The vision of a future in which computers are used by parents to work from home and by their children to tap into educational programmes has been produced by David Hargreaves, professor of education at Cambridge University and a former chief inspector of schools in London.

State schools, whose poor standards have already encouraged an increasing number of parents to teach their children at home, will be left as little more than “custodial” institutions educating an underclass, particularly in the inner cities.

“We have got used to flexibility at work and home yet ignore the rigidity of the traditional classroom,” said Hargreaves. “Some people will be alarmed at the fragmentation of the education system but such changes can be liberating and exciting, just as they have been for workers and families.”

In the past five years the number of families rejecting conventional education and opting instead for home schooling, where parents take on the responsibility for their children’s learning, has doubled to 20,000.

Hargreaves predicts the growing popularity of home schooling is set to continue because of parents’ dissatisfaction with traditional education. “Their motives are in part the protection of their children from the dangerous influence of schools the demotivating effect of institutional life, the exposure to unsavoury peer groups, to drugs, sex, bullying and delinquency,” he said.

Technology is a key stimulus. In the past, people lived in a society where teachers were regarded as almost the sole font of knowledge. But today families can exploit a plethora of information sources, including television, radio and the Internet.

“The technology gives easy access to all the information that the home-based student needs and parents are so much better educated now that they know both what their children need and how to access it,” said Hargreaves.

Further reasons for the growth in education at home stems from many parents’ unhappiness about having to move so as to live near a good school or driving a long way twice a day to pick up their children.

Hargreaves also expects companies to get involved in home schooling. Businesses and industry might sponsor such projects out of benevolence, just as the rich were once benefactors of British public and grammar schools.

Many companies already provide such facilities as crèches for employees, and it is only a small step to extend this by providing either peripatetic tutors or premises for learning. “Many employees will forego a portion of their salaries for these education benefits, which simply become a replacement of the company car and similar conventional perks,” he said.

Businesses will also see their involvement as a means of ensuring they can recruit from a pool of potential employees better able to cope with the needs of the information age than children from traditional schools.

Colin Rose, co-author of Accelerated Learning for the 21st Century, due to be published in September, points out that the only meaningful jobs of the future will be for independent, creative and self-motivated learners. “The school system tends to militate against that objective and is more likely to breed uniformity, dependency and lack of engagement,” he said.

The outcome of the growth in educating children at home is likely to be the most radical educational change since the introduction of mass schooling at the end of the 19th century. Hargreaves argues that traditional schools will continue but many will go the way of factories during the past two decades as “assembly line schooling” gives way to “just-in-time” learning accessed by students when they need it.

Mary Ann Rose, a former teacher, has educated her five children at home in Gloucestershire for the past three years. Every day the children work on five academic tasks, including the basics of English and mathematics, as well as Latin and computer skills. She plans to buy an empty school building nearby where she and other parents with children educated at home will study.

Rose, a local co-ordinator for Education Otherwise, a national group providing advice for parents involved in home schooling, believes her project has attracted wide interest because of dissatisfaction with the education system. “The phone rings with people at their wits’ end,” she said. “If your child is not Mr Average then there’s something severely lacking in the education which schools provide.”

Leslie Barson, a mature student from London, runs the Otherwise Club, a centre for families involved in home schooling since 1993 and now attracting up to 80 children, including two of her own. Two peripatetic teachers help parents to ensure that those who attend get as wide an education as possible.

“We fulfil a role for home schoolers,” said Barson. “All the parents are responsible for their children’s education but this place is an additional resource they can use.”

Her belief in the benefits of home schooling is backed by academic studies in America. Children educated at home have been shown to be two or three years ahead of their peers who learn in traditional classrooms.

The studies also showed that the home-taught children had better social skills and were more mature.

======================================

Cheating is seen as top students’ only vice (Washington Times, 971117)

Most of the nation’s high-achieving high schoolers avoid drugs and sexual intercourse, are happy at home and view their schools as “somewhat challenging.”

But five years of surveys show that these same top students admit to one big no-no: cheating.

Parents are a powerful influence on teen-age behavior, says Paul Krouse, who publishes Who’s Who Among American High School Students, which lists 730,000 students and surveys more than 3,000 of these teen-agers annually for their views of school, society, sex and drugs.

“Clearly, parental involvement, guidance and discipline are the best ways to protect kids from high-risk behaviors,” said Mr. Krouse. Parental disapproval of drinking alcohol and premarital sex, for example, is a major factor in persuading the teen-agers not to do such things, he said.

His advice to parents: “Don’t think that the job is over just because your kids are starting to look like adults. Hang in there for a few more years, because the payoff is fantastic. And if you don’t, the consequences can be deadly.”

Mr. Krouse started publishing the Who’s Who directory in 1967 as a way to show that most teen-agers weren’t drug-using, sexually promiscuous, anti-establishment rebels.

To get into Who’s Who,” teen-agers had to be A or B students and plan to go to college.

In 1970, when 18-year-olds were allowed to vote, Mr. Krouse decided to randomly survey some of the Who’s Who teen-agers to get more details on their views on life.

For instance, a review of surveys from 1993 to 1997 shows that an average of 65% of teens say life at home “is happy and close most of the time.”

This is not completely surprising, notes Mr. Krouse, since a majority of Who’s Who teen-agers live with parents who are married and have middle-class incomes —which means they’re “not confronted by the two worst problems:” divorce and poverty.

Still, 27% of these top students have contemplated suicide, most commonly because of general depression (66%), school pressures (50%) and arguments with parents (43%), the 1997 survey said.

Among antisocial behaviors, the one thing that a majority of teen-agers admit to doing is cheating in school —76% in 1997, down from 78% in 1993.

The most common form of cheating (66%) is copying someone else’s homework; far smaller percentages admitted to plagiarizing, cheating on a quiz or test and using Cliff Notes instead of reading a required text.

But since 1994, more than 90% of cheaters have said they were never caught, which may explain why a two-thirds majority of teen-agers report they cheated because “it didn’t seem like a big deal.”

Regarding other troubling behavior, the percentage of top-achieving teen-agers saying they had had intercourse dropped from 25% in 1993 to 20% in 1997, while the percentages of teens using alcohol and tobacco remained the same —roughly half of students drink at least occasionally and a steady 4% of teens concede to smoking regularly.

Very few of these top students say they use any kind of drugs, but the number who said they’d used marijuana has doubled from 8% in 1993 to 17% in 1997.

Other findings from the annual surveys:

* The largest percentage of teen-agers —35% —say the “greatest crisis” facing the country is the “decline of moral and social values.” This has been the top answer for the last five years.

* A majority of teen-agers consistently give their school a “B” grade and label it “somewhat challenging.”

* Mom is the “greatest influence” in the lives of 41% of the teen-agers. Dad is voted No. 1 by 19% of teens.

* A large percentage of Who’s Who teen-agers —79% —have access to the Internet. Sixty-five percent say they use it for school-related research, 37% say they surf the Web regularly, 31% visit chat rooms and 5% said they use the Web to “find pornography.”

* Seventy-six percent of students said they do volunteer service and 51% said community service should be mandatory for high school students.

======================================

American Pediatricians Condemn Spanking (970407)

ATLANTA — Spanking is no more effective than other methods of discipline for children and causes them to become more physically aggressive in their teen years and as adults, a U.S. pediatricians’ group said on Monday.

Guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics said pediatricians should discourage parents from using spanking as a form of discipline.

Children who have been spanked are more likely to suffer marital conflict as adults and to approve of hitting a spouse, the academy said. The more children are spanked, the more likely they are to spank their own children.

“At best, spanking is only effective when used in selective infrequent situations,” the academy said.

The academy’s Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health concluded that spanking teaches children that aggressive behavior is a solution to conflict, particularly if it is done when a parent is angry.

“It is giving them a message that when they are angry, a way to resolve that anger is physically, which is probably not a good example to set for them,” said Dr. Mark Wolraich, a Nashville pediatrician who chaired the committee.

Spanking becomes less effective with repeated use and makes discipline substantially more difficult when physical punishment is no longer an option, such as with teenagers, the academy said.

“It’s getting into corporal punishment and possibly child abuse when you’re talking about children under two years of age and children over six years of age,” Wolraich said.

The academy said discipline should be based on positive reinforcement, a supportive and loving parent-child relationship and punishment using alternatives to spanking.

The guidelines, published in the journal Pediatrics, recommend taking away a child’s privileges or, with younger children, taking “time out” by removing parental attention.

“Spanking is certainly no better than some other forms of discipline like time out for young children and removal of privileges for older children,” Wolraich said.

“Most of the time spanking is not used in the ideal situation, such as when parents are not angry with their children and where they don’t use instruments other than their hand,” he said.

The pediatricians’ organization, which has 53,000 members, said children should never be struck with an object, struck on parts of the body other than the buttocks or extremities, or struck with such an intensity that marks last more than a few minutes.

The guidelines said it was “unacceptable” to pull a child’s hair, jerk a child by the arm, shake a child, or to punish in anger with intent to cause pain.

The academy said spanking was commonly used as a form of discipline. It said 90% of parents spanked their children and that corporal punishment occurred weekly in one-fourth of all two-parent, middle-class families.

A 1996 study found more than half of 13-and 14-year-olds were being hit an average of eight times per year.

======================================

British win top marks in poll of European universities (London Times, 980503)

BRITISH universities are the best in Europe, according to the first international ranking of higher education for almost a decade. But Oxford and Cambridge were pipped by continental rivals in separate subject assessments.

Thousands of students and professors in 15 European countries contributed to the university rankings, published by the German news magazine Der Spiegel. The ten leading universities chosen to represent Britain were rated well ahead of the Dutch, who came in second place.

British universities also dominated separate rankings of economics, engineering, law and the native language. But the top positions eluded them, as the Dutch, Swiss and Finnish took the honours.

Cambridge enjoyed most success overall, tying with Oxford and Imperial College London for second place in engineering, and finishing second for law, third for English and seventh for economics. Only in economics, where Warwick was placed fourth, did another British university finish higher. A sample of professors chose each country’s representatives. As well as Oxford and Cambridge, the London School of Economics, London University’s Imperial and University colleges, Edinburgh, Southampton, Warwick and York universities were included.

The last European ranking, produced by the French newspaper Libération in 1989, placed Oxford top and Cambridge second. The two ancient universities were among a handful to reach the top ten in all subjects of the latest survey.

The exercise comes as The Times prepares to publish its own wider‑ranging rankings of British universities and will offer five days of information and guidance for prospective degree students.

======================================

Activist says it’s time for public schools ‘exodus’ (Washington Times, 990829)

Christians weary of efforts to reform public

schools are now spreading a new message: Get out. “Christians have got to come to grips with the fact that the government is not going to fix the schools. The government is causing the problem,” says the Rev. E. Ray Moore Jr., national director of Exodus 2000, an organization formed in 1997 to encourage parents and churches to choose Christian education instead of public schools.

“Each effort to fix [public education] makes things worse,” says Mr. Moore, an Army Reserve chaplain who served in the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

The problems of the “government school” system, as Mr. Moore calls it, are “terminal, and the quicker Christian people realize it, the quicker they’ll be able to take action.”

Exodus 2000 — taking its name from the Bible book that describes the Israelites’ journey out of Egypt — uses the slogan “Every Church a School, Every Parent a Teacher.” Based in South Carolina, the organization has a Web site —www.exodus2000.org — and has made headlines in publications ranging from the Wall Street Journal to the Dallas Morning News.

Last year’s shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo. — which sparked increased interest in home schooling, according to Colorado officials — may serve as a catalyst for a Christian exodus from public schools, Mr. Moore says.

The Columbine massacre “embedded itself in the psyche of the American public,” he says. “I think it took away the naivete or innocence of many Christians that the public school system could be fixed. It was a watershed moment — that something was terribly wrong with the schools.”

The shootings, which left 15 dead and 23 wounded, form the introduction of “Let My Children Go,” a new video produced by Exodus 2000 and California-based Jeremiah Films.

“We had just finished the video when [the Columbine massacre] happened, and we had to go back and add that on,” says Mr. Moore. “If you were to look at the speakers all through the video, you’d think the speakers all knew about Columbine, but it was completed before that happened.”

Jeremiah Films co-founder Caryl Matrisciana, who narrates the introduction, said the Colorado shootings “bring out the whole atrocity [of how] schools can be the killing fields.”

Mrs. Matrisciana and her husband home school their own children, she said, and “the biggest marketplace” for their Christian videos “is the disillusioned parents who have been working within the home-schooling movement for the last 20 years.”

The video features conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, authors John A. Stormer and Judith Reisman, and the Rev. Joseph Morecraft, a Presbyterian minister. It quotes 16th-century Protestant reformer Martin Luther: “I am much afraid that schools will prove to be great gates of Hell unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures, engraving them in the hearts of youth.”

“We hope over the next three to six months that several million Christians will see this video,” Mr. Moore says, explaining that about 80% of evangelical Christians still send their children to public schools. “That’s 12 to 15 million children. If they were to leave and go . . . to Christian schools and home schooling, it could seriously cripple the grip that secular humanism holds over our culture now.”

Exodus 2000 is one of a growing number of groups and activists who are calling for Christians to abandon a public school system they see as beyond hope of reform. Among them:

* Rescue 2010, a project of California-based Citizens for Excellence in Education (CEE). Its goal is to remove 20 million children from public schools by the year 2010. Christian activist Bob Simonds founded CEE in 1983 to encourage Christians to “take a stand” in public schools, but now has begun to call for them to leave the schools, where he says their children are being “spiritually raped.”

* Paul Lindstrom, founder of the nondenominational Christian Liberty Academy in Illinois, who argues that the “very concept of public education is fatally flawed.”

* The Exodus Project, led by Brannon House, president of the American Family Institute, who co-authored the “Emergency Education Resolution of 1997” declaring that the problems of American education can only be solved by parents withdrawing their children from public schools.

* The Separation of School and State Alliance. Headed by Marshall Fritz, who appears in the “Let My Children Go” video, this libertarian organization was founded in 1994 and aims to eliminate all government involvement in K-12 education.

Exodus 2000 has gained support from D. James Kennedy’s Coral Ridge Ministries in Florida and other Christian groups, but Mr. Moore admits his movement faces challenges.

One of the biggest obstacles, he says, is that Christian parents believe sending their children to public school fulfills the traditional “salt and light” doctrine, based on Jesus’ teaching that his followers should testify to others as “a light unto the world.”

Among the groups that continue to seek opportunities for Christian outreach in public education is James C. Dobson’s Colorado-based Focus on the Family, which made “Rebuilding Hope for Public Schools” the cover story of the August issue of its magazine. The article by Cheri Fuller said that “as more and more Christian parents get involved and pray, rebuilding is taking place in public schools.”

But Mr. Moore cites a 1998 study by the Kentucky-based Nehemiah Institute showing that public schools substantially erode the faith of Christian students. He says public education has become “thoroughly humanistic, pagan and anti-Christian” in recent decades, and that attempts to reverse the trend are doomed.

Christians “haven’t won any important battles over the public-school system. It’s time people get smart,” Mr. Moore says.

That belief has recently gotten a boost from the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination. Glen Schultz, director of Christian school resources for the SBC, told the Baptist Press, “We’re fooling ourselves to think we can overcome what’s done [in public schools] in six hours a day, five days a week, in one Sunday-school class.”

Mr. Moore says Exodus 2000 is only “saying publicly what a lot of people are thinking privately. We’re giving voice to the secret concerns, anxieties and hopes of many Christian people and pastors.”

So far, Mr. Moore has promoted his ideas mainly through talk shows on Christian radio stations, and is “trying to build a national field organization” that he says is active in about 15 states.

“I do believe we’re having impact,” he said. “We should have done this years ago.”

==============================

Spelling Bee Won By Home-Schooled Student (Christian Coalition, 000700)

On June 1, 2000, the top three spots in the National Spelling Bee were won by home-schooled students. The winner had just placed second in the National Geography Bee one week before.

To win in his bid for the championship at the Seventy-third Scripps Howard National Spelling Bee, George Abraham Thampy (12) correctly spelled “demarche” which means a course of action or maneuver.

In the 1998 spelling contest, George who lives with his parents in a St Louis suburb, tied for fourth and last year finished in a third-place tie. Just a week after winning a $15,000 scholarship for his second-place finish in the geography competition, the Maryland Heights, Missouri, seventh-grader won $10,000 for his efforts. Since it gave him flexibility to choose subjects in which he is interested George said home schooling had helped clinch the win. He said, “Spelling is not a subject taught in schools.”

In this year’s spelling bee of 248 participants, up from 19 last year, 27 were home-schoolers and 178 were from public schools.

George who eventually wants to study medicine emerged as the spelling champion after 15 grueling rounds of competition. In one of the earlier rounds when asked to spell “emmetropia” he said he had a difficult moment. Adding that he prayed often during the contest he said, “But I thought of God and it just popped into my head. I told God before the contest that I’d do my best.”

As an example of what can be achieved, home-school supporters celebrated the home-schooled children’s performance at the bee.

Michael Farris, president of the Home School Legal Defense Association said, “This is outstanding confirmation of the academic excellence of home-schooling. I can’t wait until home-schoolers are winning Oscars and the Presidency.”

In 1997, Rebecca Sealfon of New York City was the first home-schooled winner of the competition.

==============================

Well-rounded curriculum draws students [Christian colleges] (Washington Times, 001002)

By Craig Savoye

SPECIAL TO THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

ST. LOUIS — While a senior last spring at a high school in Platte City, Mo., Elaine Brown had her eye on Southwest Missouri State University, the college her older brother attends.

But a friend was visiting Missouri Baptist College in St. Louis, and Miss Brown hadn’t used up all of her allotted college-visit days. So, on a whim, she decided to make the trip. Result: a new applicant.

“I wasn’t raised in a Christian home,” she says. “My parents really wanted me to go to a secular university, but I didn’t want that.”

Now a freshmen at Missouri Baptist, Miss Brown is one of thousands of students propelling an enrollment boom at faith-based colleges and universities across the country.

In an age when many young people are seeking more moral rigor in their lives, a growing number are choosing to attend religious-affiliated schools, where class sizes are often small and the emphasis on values is overt.

Between 1990 and 1998, the student population at the 100 member schools of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) jumped 35%. It rose 12% over the same period for all institutions with religious affiliations. That compares with a 5% increase at private colleges and 4% at public universities.

“The numbers show that, while parts of society may be drifting deeper into materialism and a me-first attitude about life, there are still . . . millions of parents and students saying there must be something more and better to life, and they want that something to be part of their college education,” says Robert Andringa, president of the CCCU.

A boom in the number of home-schooled students from 1 million in 1992 to 1.5 million today, plus a surge in enrollment at Christian private high schools, has contributed to the recruitment pool for Christian colleges.

But broader cultural factors are at work as well. Some, in fact, see a direct connection between a decline of morality in America and fuller classrooms at faith-based colleges. “There are a lot of people reacting to the direction our culture is taking,” says Alton Lacey, president of Missouri Baptist College. “Those are the people we see coming to our institution.”

The school prohibits alcohol, tobacco and dancing on campus. Its enrollment has tripled in the past 10 years to 3,000.

A buoyant economy may be contributing to the enrollment surge, too. Joel Carpenter, provost of Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Mich., cites surveys showing the upward mobility of evangelical Christians, leaving many better able to afford college.

At the same time, academic standards have risen at faith-based schools. As a result, newly affluent evangelicals are sending their children to Christian colleges, and more evangelicals that were sending their children to secular institutions for the quality of education are switching, too.

But critics of faith-based colleges say religion and scholarship don’t mix. They see some institutions as intolerant of certain scientific theories and a diversity of viewpoints.

Proponents of spiritually based higher education say the opposite is often true: Political correctness on secular campuses can render some subjects, such as religion, taboo.

How much faith itself is a motivating force in the decision by students to attend faith-based colleges is difficult to gauge. A host of peripheral factors often come into play: the small size of the schools, a comeback of liberal arts, the desire of some students for a haven from the pressures of drinking and drugs.

“The so-called safety factor can be important, especially for parents,” says James Mannoia, president of Greenville College in Illinois. “I tell them this is a dangerous place — there’s education going on.”

He and others readily acknowledge that spirituality is only one component of the education they offer. In fact, they shout it from dormitory rooftops: They are seeking to develop the “whole” person —academically, spiritually and socially. They believe that goal gives them an edge over their secular rivals. “People talk a lot about values-added education today,” says Dr. Lacey. “We often say that we’re interested in giving you more than just the means to make a living. We also want to help you make a life.”

Mr. Mannoia says students generally leave high school with attitudes that are black-and-white. At secular colleges, they often move into a relativistic stage, where truth is seen as indeterminate, and the difference between right and wrong gets blurred.

He says his college is attempting to transcend black-and-white thinking, to achieve “critical commitment” — convictions tested by intellect and tempered by faith.

Still, finding the right mix between values and scholarship is a source of debate, even within the religious-college community. “The people of God were led out of Egypt to the promised land,” says Mr. Mannoia. “We have too many religious colleges that just leave them in Egypt — they’re too dogmatic —and too many secular universities that take them into the wilderness and let them wander there the rest of their lives.”

==============================

Spanking ban would hurt us more (National Post, 000700)

When an Ontario judge upheld the right of parents to spank their children last week, disappointed anti-spanking activists once again called the practice barbaric and abusive. Since it’s against the law to strike an adult it should also be against the law to strike a child, they declared.

I’m the first to admit there’s some truth to the argument that spanking sends kids the troubling message that physical force (violence) is the way to resolve conflict — yet I have huge problems with the anti-spanking crowd.

If you shouldn’t do anything to a child you wouldn’t do to an adult why would grounding them or sending them to their room not constitute unlawful confinement? Why would denying them permission to sleep over at a friend’s not infringe on their right to free assembly?

Despite their good intentions, it seems to me the anti-spankers are just another breed of zero-tolerance crusader. With their refusal to recognize shades of grey and their insistence on stamping out all offending behaviour — no matter how trivial — they are among society’s most counter-productive forces.

Rather than focusing their energy on assisting problem drinkers, zero-tolerance crusaders of yesteryear insisted all alcohol should be banned. Rather than focusing on the medical needs of the heroin-addicted, today’s anti-drug crusaders believe anyone with the smallest amount of marijuana should be jailed. Rather than concentrating on ways to stop genuine child abuse, anti-spankers want to saddle parents who occasionally swat their children’s derrières with criminal records.

Most people, I suspect, think it’s great that attitudes about corporal punishment have evolved significantly and that, in many homes and schools, adults now rely on other means to discipline children. Public opinion will doubtless continue to move in this direction.

But that’s not enough for the crusaders. They want a quick fix, a shortcut to that blessed day when child abuse is wiped out completely. And in order to achieve their goals, they’re willing to sacrifice you, your sister and your next-door neighbour.

They want our criminal justice system to squash you if you step out of line even a teensy bit. They want to arrest you in front of your kids, compel you to spend your family’s vacation money on lawyers’ fees, and (as happens to those who have criminal records) impede your ability to find a job or travel.

Just as the war against drugs has jailed truckloads of otherwise law-abiding citizens while leaving drug kingpins largely unscathed, criminalizing spanking would make life miserable for productive, upstanding citizens but there’s no evidence it would prevent horrific cases of child abuse.

Moreover, as a recent National Council on Welfare report titled Justice and the Poor argues persuasively, there’s another reason to think twice about making still more things illegal. Our Criminal Code, it turns out, gets applied rather unevenly. For example, while a young man from a middle-class background who vandalizes private property might never be charged by the police (his parents have the money to pay for the damage and the communication skills to smooth things over with the authorities as well as the property owner), a young man from a poorer neighbourhood would be charged, convicted and perhaps have his life ruined for doing the same thing.

One study of adults found that although it is students and white-collar workers who use marijuana most often, blue-collar users are, by far, most likely to be charged with this crime. In other words, police arrest those who not only fit their stereotype of a likely suspect, but with whom they have frequent contact.

Poor people don’t own large houses with swimming pools in the backyard and so spend more of their lives in public spaces. They are also, according to this report, “more likely to call police for assistance with neighbourhood and family problems, medical emergencies and other types of assistance.” (Wealthier, more sophisticated individuals turn to counsellors and doctors.)

Since this report explicitly points out that zero-tolerance policies hit the poor disproportionately, who do we think would be harmed most by anti-spanking laws?

Middle-class, educated moms in their air-conditioned homes and SUVs? Or the shift-working mom who lives in a sweltering apartment and whose sleep-deprived child is throwing a tantrum on public transit?

==============================

Misguided voucher verdict (Washington Times, 001214)

All eyes were on the United States Supreme Court Monday, so it is understandable that many missed one of the most important judicial decisions of the year. By a 2-1 vote, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Cleveland’s groundbreaking experiment in school choice violated the First Amendment. By failing to exclude religious schools from its voucher program, the court reasoned, the Ohio legislature has “established” religion. This decision is certainly misguided, and will almost as certainly be reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Ohio choice program gives about 4,000 children in Cleveland’s failing public schools the chance to escape by providing their parents the opportunity and the means to select from a menu of schools —public and private, religious and secular — the one they think will provide the best education for their children. The program has nothing to do with advancing religion, and everything to do with helping kids learn.

In fact, the Supreme Court of Ohio had already ruled, in a careful opinion, that the voucher program did not violate the Constitution’s Establishment Clause. So, it came as a surprise to many when, a year ago this month, in an explosion of federal chutzpah, a federal district judge ruled that, by offering low-income children in Cleveland a chance to escape that city’s troubled government schools, the State of Ohio was, in effect, bribing kids to submit to government-sponsored religious indoctrination.

What was perhaps most striking about the district court’s ruling was that, a month earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court had issued a seemingly unremarkable 10-line order staying the a preliminary injunction of the program. But as the whole world now knows, thanks to the Bush vs. Gore case, that stay order should have sent a strong signal to courts and court-watchers that, when the time comes, the court plans to adhere to its recent rulings that the First Amendment requires neutrality, not hostility, toward religious schools. Indeed, the court sent the same signal last June when it reaffirmed, in Mitchell vs. Helms, that education programs do not violate the Establishment Clause merely because some low-income students enjoy the benefits of those programs while attending religious schools.

Given all this, yesterday’s ruling by the 6th Circuit is both surprising and disappointing. Notwithstanding more than 20 years of Supreme Court decisions requiring neutrality, not discrimination, toward religious schools and religious believers, the 6th Circuit ruled — over a forceful dissent — that the Ohio program “clearly has the impermissible effect of promoting sectarian schools.” In the view of the majority, by offering a choice to low-income parents — a chance to rescue them from schools that none of us would choose for his or her own child — and by refusing to discriminate against those parents who choose religious schools, Ohio somehow is unconstitutionally “advancing” religion.

The decision of the 6th U.S. Circuit majority is remarkable for at least two reasons:

• First, it reduces to nearly nothing the significance of a long and growing line of Supreme Court decisions that teach clearly that equal treatment of religion by government is not a state “establishment” of religion.

• Second, and perhaps more disturbingly, the court seemed to embrace — in the dissenting judge’s words — “the familiar anti-voucher mantra that voucher programs are no more than a scheme to funnel public funds into religious schools.” As Justice Thomas highlighted last term in his Mitchell opinion, it has long been a dirty little secret of First Amendment jurisprudence that the court’s aid-to-students cases were shaped as much by a pervasive hostility toward Catholic schools as by constitutional history and common sense. Such hostility, Justice Thomas insisted, was “born of bigotry, [and] should be buried now.” And indeed, the Supreme Court justices have gone a long way toward purging their First Amendment doctrine of anti-parochial-school bias.

The 6th Circuit, unfortunately, seems not to have appreciated these developments.

Two relatively simple principles guide the Supreme Court’s decisions in this area, and will, eventually, lead it to reverse the 6th Circuit, uphold the Cleveland program, and clear the way for much-needed education reform. First, the government must dispense education benefits using criteria that themselves neither prefer nor discriminate against religious institutions and believers. The Cleveland program satisfies this requirement. The 6th Circuit’s observation that few public and non-religious schools have elected to participate in the program is irrelevant to the question whether the program prefers religion.

Second,the decision to direct public benefits to religious schools must be made by private individuals, and not by government officials. Here, too, the Cleveland program passes muster. Under the Cleveland program, no government official decides to send a check to a religious school. Instead, the legislature has decided simply to empower parents by funding education, and it is parents, not the state, who decide where that education should take place. Such a decision no more violates the First Amendment than does an undergraduate’s decision to apply her federally subsidized student loans toward her tuition at Notre Dame or Brigham Young.

If last year’s Mitchell decision is any guide, at least five, and perhaps six, justices agree with these two principles. It seems likely that, in these justices’ view, far from violating the First Amendment, school choice in fact holds out the promise of advancing religious freedom by providing low-income parents with choices that so many of us take for granted. The court should, and —given the conflict between the 6th Circuit’s ruling and the earlier decision of the Ohio Supreme Court — I am confident it will grant review, reverse the 6th Circuit, and reaffirm what its own cases so clearly teach: Empowering parents through equal treatment is not an establishment of religion. School choice is not about funding religious schools, or promoting religious “indoctrination.” It is about equality, freedom and simple justice.

Richard W. Garnett is an assistant professor at the Notre Dame Law School, Notre Dame, Ind.

==============================

British Government Decides Not to Ban Spanking (Foxnews, 011109)

LONDON — The British government decided Thursday that violence against children is unacceptable, but a smack on a naughty child’s behind can be just fine.

After reviewing whether spanking a child constitutes punishment or abuse, officials decided to keep the current law, which says parents and guardians may use corporal punishment as “reasonable chastisement.”

Hitting children with a cane, often until they bled, was a routine classroom punishment in Britain for centuries; it was banned from all schools only in 1998.

Health Minister Jacqui Smith said no new laws to ban parents from hitting their children would be introduced.

The government called the decision to keep the current corporal punishment law “common sense,” but children’s advocacy groups said it sent the wrong message.

“The Dickensian idea of reasonable chastisement has no place in a modern civilized society,” said Mary Marsh, director of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

“Children should enjoy the same legal protection from being hit as that afforded to adults.”

Smith said a ban “would neither command public support nor be capable of consistent enforcement.”

Nor would it “help us to be better parents,” she said.

“We need to balance the needs of children with the reality of the difficulties of parenting,” said Smith, who admitted on a television program that she has occasionally struck her own children.

Many parents, however, see value in an occasional spanking.

In a 1998 government survey, 88% of parents agreed it was sometimes necessary to smack a child that misbehaves.

“Sometimes a well-timed slap is able to teach a child that what they have done is wrong, if that is accompanied by words,” said Ferris Lindsay of Friends of the Family, an evangelical group.

But the government was forced to review its 140-year-old law on “reasonable chastisement” in 1998, when the European Court of Human Rights ruled that a 9-year-old British boy whose stepfather beat him with a cane had had his rights infringed.

The court said Britain had violated a provision of the European Convention on Human Rights that bars torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.

Smith said Britain’s Human Rights Act, which came into force last year, protects children by requiring courts to consider criteria such as the nature, duration and context of a punishment in deciding whether it constitutes reasonable chastisement.

But critics say only a total ban can protect children. Inquiries have been called into two recent cases in which social workers, police and health authorities failed to save children who had been repeatedly battered by their guardians and who eventually died.

Obi Amadi of the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association said such cases show “that once you start to hit a child, there is the possibility that this could be the slippery slope that results in greater physical damage to that child and, in extreme cases, death.”

Thursday’s ruling applies to England and Wales. In Scotland, which makes its own laws on the matter, the government has proposed banning physical punishment of children under 3-years-old. The Scottish legislation would also make it illegal to shake, strike with an implement or hit on the head a child of any age.

Scotland’s justice minister, Jim Wallace, said the changes were necessary because the notion of “reasonable” punishment was too vague.

Susan Elsley, assistant director of the Scottish branch of Save the Children, said Thursday’s announcement “sends out confusing messages to parents who, in theory, could smack toddlers when they cross the border but not before.”

“Children should be safe wherever they live in the U.K,” she said.

Physical punishment of children is illegal in several European countries, including Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Austria.

==============================

School District Hopes Bible Class Passes Constitutional Muster (Foxnews, 020205)

MEMPHIS, Tenn. — For years, public schools have been reluctant to teach about the Bible, fearing it would violate the constitutional separation of church and state. But one religious scholar hopes to change that.

Matthew Hicks, 32, who holds a master’s degree in religious studies from the University of Georgia and a master’s in theological studies from Emory University, has created a high school course entitled “Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures” that he hopes can be legally taught in public schools.

The curriculum, designed for juniors and seniors, takes a scholarly approach to the Old Testament. Students study the way different sects of Christians and Jews interpret the Bible, as well as how Scripture has influenced history and art.

“It presents a very fair, very neutral presentation of the Bible in a way that I think is academically responsible, constitutionally sound and religiously fair,” Hicks said.

Hicks has not written a student textbook, but he has created a set of 35 lesson plans for teachers to use as an outline for a semester-long elective course that could be put to the test as early as this fall.

On Jan. 31, the Shelby County School Board in Memphis approved Hicks’ curriculum 6-0, with one abstention.

This was the second time in as many years that Shelby County educators tried to offer an elective Bible class. The first course, which sought to teach the Bible as a history book, was struck down by state education officials.

But Hicks, who refuses to discuss his own religious views, said his course is so neutral, it would most likely meet state approval.

Even ardent critics of religion in school believe the class passes constitutional muster. But some worry it could open the door to abuse.

“We have to worry about teachers using this as an opportunity to proselytize their own religious faith,” said Cheri Delbrocco of the Public Issues Forum, a grassroots organization that opposes the course.

School officials insist those fears are unfounded.

“We take a very strong position that no proselytizing, no advancing the cause of any particular religion, will be tolerated,” said school board chairman David Pickler. “This is designed as an objective study of a very important book.”

The course focuses exclusively on the Old Testament. While that may help this predominantly Protestant school district escape accusations of Christian evangelism, some parents said they are disappointed that the New Testament was left out to make the class “politically correct.”

Nonetheless, advocates of religious study in school said Hicks’ curriculum is far better than the status quo of ignoring religion altogether.

Reflecting on his own grade school experience, Hicks said, “I was shocked that we asked students to take 12 years of math, but not a single course on religious studies, world religions or Biblical studies.”

==============================

President, First Lady Promote Character Education (Foxnews, 020620)

WASHINGTON — President Bush championed character education Wednesday, saying his administration’s effort to see more schools teach values is key to students’ future success.

Bush used a White House conference hosted by first lady Laura Bush to plug his administration’s tripling of funding this year, to $25 million, for character education in schools. The Education Department grants fund school programs that are geared toward “core values,” such as encouraging respect and discouraging hate and violence.

“We’ve got to do more than just teach our children skills and knowledge,” Bush told students, community organizations and others gathered in the White House East Room. “Our children must learn to make a living, but even more, they must learn how to live.”

Bush was preceded at the forum by Secretary of State Colin Powell. Though presumably consumed by work on the Mideast peace plan that the president is to announce any day now, Powell nonetheless gave a thoughtful and animated address on the importance of giving every child an internal moral compass.

Recalling his childhood surrounded by aunts in the South Bronx, Powell said the strongest deterrent to bad behavior was knowing his family cared.

“They were hanging out the window, watching for me and waiting to turn me in. The speed of the Aunt-net, it was faster than any Internet system,” he said. “I used to think: Send me to my room, anything. Just don’t give me that ‘You shamed the family’ bit, because that was devastating.”

Mrs. Bush said that when children are asked to draw who they want to be like when they grow up, the pictures are often of firefighters or astronauts — the heroes of their imagination. Children just need to be taught early on, she said, that “you don’t have to walk into a burning building to rescue someone ... you don’t have to walk on the moon to change the Earth.”

A host of academics showcased research into moral development, effective educational tools and violence prevention. But Bush said teaching character can be as simple as having children recite pledges, learning about historic and literary figures or practicing manners.

“Respect, tolerance, responsibility, honesty, self-restraint, family commitment, civic duty, fairness and compassion — these are the moral landmarks that guide a successful life,” Bush said.

==============================

What’s Next for School Choice? Lots of possibilities, but also plenty of problems (National Review Online, 020628)

A day after federal judges declared the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has ruled that children can receive publicly supported educational instruction in classrooms with crucifixes on the wall, so long as school vouchers are the funding mechanism.

Yesterday’s Zelman v. Simmons-Harris decision is a crowning achievement for the school-choice movement, and cause for conservative celebration. Among the think-tank set, school choice has been a cornerstone of conservative education policy for more than a decade. It has not met with much popular success so far — ballot initiatives in California, Michigan, and elsewhere have lost by big margins — but the legal conditions for this to change are now firmly in place.

Supporters of Zelman were quick to compare it to 1954’s Brown v. Board of Education, which wiped out a legal regime of racial segregation in public schools, especially in the South. There is, of course, an important difference between the two: Brown required state and local governments to quit something they were doing; Zelman permits state and local governments to start something they aren’t doing.

The Brown comparison will be apt only if Zelman now inspires lawmakers around the country to approve school-choice programs — something they’ve been reluctant to do in the past, in part because the Supreme Court had not ruled on the matter. Many Republicans have been jittery about school choice, sensing that their suburban constituents don’t much care for it because they’ve effectively exercised school choice in deciding where to live. When conservatives have pressed them to support school choice, they’ve been able to say, quite plausibly, that there’s no sense in wasting precious political capital on something the Supreme Court might strip away within a few years.

At the very least, Zelman neutralizes the argument for doing nothing. The political case for not backing school choice has lost a vital plank.

Zelman accomplishes much more than this, too. Because Justice Sandra Day O’Connor embraced the majority opinion fully — she was viewed as a swing vote, and perhaps interested in blunting a sweeping decision — Zelman lays out a few firm precedents. Most important may be the term “true private choice,” appearing in the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist. It provides a clear roadmap for policymakers interested in creating school-choice programs and answers a few thorny questions, such as whether there can be a school-choice program in which too many kids opt for religious schools over secular ones. The answer is no: In Cleveland’s school-choice program, which spawned the Zelman case, 96% of the participating children attend religious schools. Rehnquist said this rate is not too high, and in fact is irrelevant as long as parents and kids have other options available.

The enemies of school choice surely won’t back down. They may have to play a bit more defense than they have in the past, but they’ll also stay on offense. In Milwaukee, which is home to the country’s original and most vigorous school-choice program, the anti-voucher forces play hardball every year during state budget negotiations. If a couple of political races go the wrong way in Wisconsin — and this November may see the election of a hostile governor — school choice’s Ur-program could be squelched.

The good news for school choice — in addition to Zelman clearing the legal fog — is that a growing body of empirical data supports the longstanding conservative contention that vouchers will improve school performance. The Education Gap, a new book by William G. Howell and Paul Peterson, makes this case effectively; for a summary of its findings may be read here. Another good resource is Jay P. Greene of the Manhattan Institute, whose scholarship was cited four times in the Zelman decision; an index of his work may be found here. This accomplishment was made possible by pioneering education reformers in Milwaukee and Cleveland, plus a network of private philanthropists who have created what amounts to privately funded school-choice programs in a handful of cities.

A final thought: Although Zelman displeases the anti-school-choice forces, it also hands them a potentially effective argument they haven’t used before. Zelman lowers the wall separating church and state — which means it also lowers the wall separating mosque and state. A potential problem for school choice is that will enable quirky subgroups to establish quirky schools. For years, Afrocentrism was seen as a possible threat, though it must be said that nobody has yet founded a Leonard Jeffries School for Sun People in either Cleveland or Milwaukee.

But what about jihad schools? Could radical Muslims, at some point in the future, exploit school-choice programs? The answer is probably not, though don’t be surprised if school choice’s foes start talking about how public schools are an essential feature of American unity.

They’ll drape themselves in flags, and say it’s vital for poor kids to keep on attending lousy public schools, where they aren’t supposed to recite that divisive Pledge of Allegiance.

==============================

Prepare for the Empire to Strike Back: The Zelman decision (National Review Online, 020702)

By Peter Ferrara

The five-justice majority opinion in the school-choice decision last week, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, gave school-choice reformers a sweeping doctrinal victory. This was no narrow ruling, as some have claimed. The opinion establishes a clear, bright-line rule broadly supporting the constitutionality of school choice. Even the dissenters say so.

What is equally striking, however, is the enormous gulf between the majority doctrine and the opinions of the four dissenters. Sadly, the dissenters radically reject what is now a long line of Supreme Court precedents leading unambiguously to this decision.

Pro-choice reformers should not be defensive about this decision. If it had been 5-4 the other way, the status quo establishment would now be bellowing that the question is settled once and for all.

But anyone who has battled the Establishment Left knows it doesn’t work like that. Supreme Court decisions that go their way are mighty, landmark precedents that can no longer be questioned. Decisions they disagree with are narrow, dubious edicts subject to further review.

Justice Souter, writing for the four dissenters, says as much. He ends his radical rejectionist opinion by saying, “In the [future] cases we may see, like these, the Establishment Clause is largely silenced. I do not have the option to leave it silent, and I hope that a future Court will reconsider today’s dramatic departure from basic Establishment Clause principle.” What this makes clear is that if school-choice reformers are not prepared to defend this decision, they will ultimately lose it.

I. The legal analysis of the issues raised by Zelman needs first to be brought back down to the real world. School choice actually has nothing to do with religion. It is a wholly secular, economic policy supported and adopted to improve performance through incentives, competition, and the exercise of free choice. Religion becomes involved only because religious schools are allowed to participate in the new system. But religion is not the motivation, the focus, or even the concern of school-choice reform.

It takes a certain amount of hallucinating to see in this secular economic policy the establishment of an official state religion, which is what the Establishment Clause prohibits. Thankfully, the majority is careful and well-reasoned enough to recognize that this economic policy does not transgress on any of the considerable additional gloss the Court has heaped onto the Establishment Clause over the years.

The majority opinion is well grounded in this reality. For the well-reasoned and well-justified rule it announces in this case is simply stated as follows: The mere participation by religious actors and institutions, on equal terms with everyone else, in a general, secular government program, where government funds flow to any institution as a result of the independent choice of individual private citizens, does not violate the Establishment Clause.

The purpose of school-choice programs fitting under this rubric is to advance education — not religion. And the principal effect of such programs is again to advance education, not religion. Where religious actors or institutions merely participate on equal terms with everyone else in a broad, general, secular program, any aid or benefit that flows to them is the same as that flowing to all the other, non-religious participants. So the principal effect cannot be to aid religion. How, then, could merely allowing religious actors or institutions to participate in such a program be considered an establishment of religion?

Indeed, consider whether it would be right to exclude religious actors or institutions from such a general, secular program.

School-choice programs could be designed to exclude religious schools, if necessary. But such a policy would not be neutral towards religion. Rather, it would be actively hostile and harmful to it. For religion would then be excluded from the same general, secular programs that apply to everyone else. It would be like saying that urban worshippers could not ride the government-financed subway to church on Sunday morning. When the government grows to the huge size of the modern welfare state, the banishing of religious actors and institutions from any participation in the public sector is debilitating.

In fact, such exclusion from participation in general government programs would be the true Establishment Clause violation — for that is precisely the sort of thing historical religious Establishments did. They conferred or denied government benefits and rights on the basis of religion. Those from the wrong religion were excluded from full participation in the public sector, and often denied certain rights or benefits that were generally applicable to others. Indeed, the disfavored religions were often denied the public funding for education that was granted to the favored education establishment.

The majority in Zelman confidently recognized that a long line of Supreme Court precedents has been heading in this direction, and led directly to the result in that case. The real breakthrough was Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983), where the Court found no Establishment Clause violation in a Minnesota program authorizing a tax deduction for a broad range of educational expenses in public or private schools, including tuition for both religious and secular private schools. The deduction for private religious school tuition was merely allowing religious actors and institutions to participate in a general secular program on the same terms as everyone else, even though 96% of the participants were families sending their children to private religious schools.

Next, in Witters v. Washington, 474 U.S. 981 (1986), the Court effectively followed the same rule in finding constitutional a scholarship program for the disabled where a beneficiary chose to use the available funds to study at a Christian seminary to become a pastor. The Court noted, “The program is made available generally without regard to the sectarian-nonsectarian, or public-nonpublic nature of the institution benefited” (474 U.S. at 487).

Similarly, in Zobrest v. Catalina, 509 U.S. 1 (1993), the Court found constitutional a federal program that paid for sign-language interpreters in all schools, public or private, religious or non-religious. The Court consequently again upheld the same general participation rule, saying “government programs that neutrally provide benefits to a broad class of citizens defined without reference to religion are not readily subject to an Establishment Clause challenge” (509 U.S. at 8).

In Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997), the Court upheld a federal program providing remedial education to disadvantaged students in all schools, public and private, religious and non-religious. Specially trained public instructors go to the campuses of religious schools to provide such remedial education. The Court explicitly approved programs where the aid “is allocated on the basis of neutral, secular criteria that neither favors nor disfavors religion, and is made available to both religious and secular beneficiaries on a non-discriminatory basis” (521 U.S. at 231).

A raft of other precedents support the same general principle. In Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793 (2000), the Court upheld a federal program providing computers, computer software, and other educational materials to all schools, public and private, religious and non-religious. In Good News Club v. Milford, 121 S. Ct. 2093 (2001), the Court ruled that it was not an establishment of religion for a student religion club to be offered as an after-school activity on the same terms and conditions as other student clubs. In Rosenberger v. Rector, 515 U.S. 819 (1995), the Court held that such a club could be provided funding through student activity fees on equal terms with the other clubs. The list could go on and on.

Moreover, as Justice O’Connor noted in her forceful concurring opinion in Zelman, “Federal dollars also reach religiously affiliated organizations through public health programs such as Medicare… and Medicaid… through educational programs such as the Pell Grant program… and through Child Care programs such as the Child Care and Development Block Grant program.” In all of these programs, religious actors and institutions are again merely allowed to participate in a general secular program on equal terms with everyone else. Such precedents all provide a strong basis for the constitutionality of the Bush administration’s faith-based initiatives program as well.

II. Given that the majority is well-grounded in history, law, and logic, the dissenting opinions seem all but other-worldly in their derisiveness, radicalism, and rejectionism. Despite all the sound and fury, the dissenters never come to grips with the central principle embraced by the majority — that religious actors and institutions may participate by their free choice on equal terms with everyone else in general secular government programs, despite the aid or benefit they may receive as a result. The dissenters never argue against that proposition. Indeed, on the basis of their opinions they don’t seem to even understand that as the principle on which the majority rests.

The central point of the dissenters is reflected in Souter’s opinion, joined by all three of the others. Souter’s argument is based on this ringing declaration from the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Ed., 330 U.S. 1, 16. “No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.” Souter relies on this and other rhetorical flourishes to support a doctrine that any financial aid or benefit to religion of any sort is a prohibited establishment.

But O’Connor teaches Souter a first-year law student’s lesson by pointing out that the ruling in the self-same Everson case was not consistent with Souter’s doctrine, but with the majority’s. In Everson, the Court upheld a government program paying for the public bus fares of all students attending all schools, public or private, religious or nonreligious.

The rhetoric of no aid or benefit to religion continued to be popular for another 25 years or so, but animated few actual decisions. By the Reagan era, even this rhetoric had been mostly consigned to the dustbin of history. Souter’s opinion labors for some time to show how he disagrees with virtually every major Supreme Court decision regarding the Establishment Clause and government aid to religion since the 1983 Mueller case. (Characteristically, Souter doesn’t seem to recognize that this discredits rather than supports his argument.)

The strict no-aid-or-benefit rhetoric relied on by the dissenters is ripped out of context and makes no sense in the modern welfare state. The rhetoric arises from statements made over 200 years ago relating to the historical, official establishment of religion that had been common up until that time. In those establishments, government aid or benefits were provided directly to the preferred, established church — or turned on whether the beneficiary was a member of the established church — to the exclusion of everyone else. Quite rightly, a citizen could not properly be compelled to provide even three pence, in Madison’s words, to the support of any such established church.

But the question today is quite different. The question is what you do with a broad, general, secular program providing aid or benefits to the general public without reference to religion. Do we allow religious actors or institutions to participate on the same terms and conditions as everyone else, or not?

In fact, it is the exclusion of religion from such general, secular programs, and the denial of equal treatment and participation, which raises the true Establishment Clause concern. It was exactly this kind of religion-based exclusion that the old Establishment Clause policies enshrined. The offense is particularly acute, moreover, in the modern welfare state, where the government expands to take over more and more of civil society. To ban the religious everywhere the government writ runs would be to enact the most anti-religion policy ever adopted in the West outside of Communist states.

The dissenters show no recognition of any of these issues, however. They just continue to march lock-step behind the simplistic, out-of-context, no-aid-or-benefit rhetoric.

They also add insult to injury by arguing that allowing school-choice programs with equal treatment and participation for the religious would cause too much social strife. Taxpayer objections to the use of their money for religious teaching, they claim, would become too agitated. The different religious sects would become too agitated in fighting for ever-greater shares and sums of public booty. Again, however, the truth on these issues is just the opposite of the dissenters’ claims.

It is excluding the religious and denying them equal treatment and participation that will cause social strife. Imagine the outcry if school choice swept the country with all private schools eligible except religious ones.

Moreover, where was the Court’s concern for the strife caused by some of its other decisions? Its rulings on school prayer have caused deep social strife for years. Or how about its rulings on school busing? Then there is the little matter of the Court’s decision to step in and dictate the nation’s abortion policies. A little social strife has resulted there, I would say.

Moreover, the controversy surrounding school-choice policies pales beside that stirred by many routine public-school policies. How about the furor over sex ed in the public schools, still robust in many jurisdictions? Or school policies and programs relating to gays? How about the question of how to teach evolution and/or creationism? The public schools naturally stir disputes over such issues because they must impose a one-size-fits-all resolution on everyone.

School choice would greatly reduce that social strife. Those with strong feelings about particular public-school issues could choose a school that meets their preferences. Indeed, we solve most such issues in our society by using the market in this way.

But the dissenters are still looking the other way. Justice Stevens raises the specter of Northern Ireland, the Balkans, and Beirut coming to America if we allow religious schools to be eligible for school-choice programs on the same terms as anyone else. This is what passes for analysis in the fever swamps of the Left these days.

Nevertheless, despite the appalling weakness of the dissents, choice reformers need to recognize that the retro Left never concedes defeat. They will fight to undermine this decision until they win, or until it becomes clear even to them that there is no way they can. If school-choice reformers are going to maintain this win, they must understand this decision and the issues it involves, and stand ready to counterattack in its defense.

— Peter Ferrara is executive director of the American Civil Rights Union and a former associate deputy attorney general of the United States.

==============================

Local Public School System Challenges Homeschoolers (Foxnews, 021203)

CHICAGO — After looking closely at her local public school system, Carol Severson made the choice to homeschool her kids – which she has done for 18 years.

“I decided that (public schools) were not the place for my kids,” she said.

But as hard as she has tried to get away from public schools, they’re now holding Severson accountable for what she teaches her children.

The Seversons are one of nearly 150 families in a three-county area of rural, western Illinois whose homeschool curriculum has come under scrutiny by the public system this year.

Homeschooling – teaching children in the home instead of sending them out to a public or private educational institution – was the norm in the U.S. until about the mid-1800s, when there was a national movement toward establishing a public school system.

Under Illinois law, homeschooled children between ages 6 and 17 must receive an education comparable to that of public-school students. But there’s no language about how that should be enforced.

“My responsibility is to enforce the compulsory attendance law,” said regional school superintendent Bruce Dennison.

So Dennison decided to send truant officers – some in squad cars – to various homes in the three-county area, demanding proof of what homeschoolers were learning.

“We have a very strong sense of accountability,” he said. “What we are asking of homeschools is certainly consistent with what we would expect of the public schools within the state.”

Severson said the superintendent is barking up the wrong tree.

“He says that he is worried they are not getting a quality education,” she said. “I would tell him to look in his own backyard.”

Despite the Illinois controversy, the state actually has some of the most vague and lenient homeschooling laws in the country.

Illinois law allows the term “private school” to apply to homeschool situations, as long as the subjects required in the public system are taught at home, and English is among the skills learned.

Though the burden of proof that their instruction complies with state law does lie with the parents, they aren’t required to alert the school district that they’re teaching their children at home. But because of the gray, vague language, there’s some confusion about how to enforce the legislation.

Severson believes the law is on her side and doesn’t think she should be required to justify her homeschooling setup or divulge the details of her curriculum.

Dennison disagrees, and says he’s required to make sure homeschool families are teaching their children what they’re supposed to. For now, he has no intention of putting the brakes on the squad-car house calls.

In the mid-1800s, states passed compulsory education laws, with Massachusetts leading the way in 1852. That law required public schooling for 12 weeks out of the year for children 8-14 years old and was in large part designed to prevent farmers and miners from keeping their kids out of school to work.

Ironically, one of the earliest reasons for the public school system was to spread a Christianity-based morality. These days, many homeschool parents decide to keep their children at home to infuse their education with religious ideals.

==============================

Seeing A Problem Where None Exists: California Educrats Eye Home Schooling (Free Congress Foundation, 020912)

The next knock on the door of many California homes may send unnecessary shivers down the spines of parents concerned enough about their children’s education to teach them at home. It’s an outrage and something that should get Californians mad enough to make some of the bureaucrats in the California Department of Education write on the blackboard two hundred times: “Home Schooling is not illegal in the state of California.”

But it is just one more chapter in the long-running fight in this country over who knows best how to raise children: the state or the parents. Evidently, but not surprisingly, there is a mindset within some key officials of the California educational-social services complex that is dead-set in its belief that they know better than parents.

That’s not always been the case because throughout much of the 1980s the California Department of Education would inform parents that aspiring home schoolers had two options: educating their children through a private tutoring option or a private school option. As the Home School Legal Defense Association remarks on its website, home schooling was not an official option of the state. Codes allowing the use of private tutors and private schools provided home schoolers with the legal flexibility to teach their children at home.

In fact, the Home School Legal Defense Association says the state department of education once looked upon home schoolers with relative favor. Then, the state’s educrats did a 180-degree turn in the last decade. Yet, no new laws placing added regulations on home schoolers have been placed on the books during that time.

The crux of the current debate is that key officials in the CDE now insist that home schooling can only be done by tutorial exemption by a private tutor who is state “credentialed” to teach the pupil’s grade level.

Superintendent of Education Delaine Eastin is arguing that home schooling is illegal, having sent a letter to county and district boards of education that said parents who lacked certification as teachers could not teach their own children in home schools.

Eastin is purposely ignoring another option permitted by California’s education code that allows private schools to be established provided that they meet regulations, including an instructor who is ‘capable of teaching’ (which does not require being “credentialed”) and that the courses of study mirror those required to be taught in public schools.

HSLDA says that none of the 49 other states require home schoolers to be certified instructors to be able to teach their children at home. Actually, in 1993, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in People v. DeJonge that requiring parents to obtain state certification is unconstitutional.

That is unlikely to matter to Eastin, a liberal who was backed by the California Teachers Association and the state chapter of the National Organization for Women in her last race. (She is not able to seek reelection to her non-partisan position this year because of term limits.)

While Gov. Gray Davis (D-CA) is receiving support from the CTA, the Republican candidate for governor, William Simon, has made clear where he stands. Speaking on September 3rd at the Calvary Christian Center School in Sacramento, Simon said, “We must welcome parents back into the day-to-day lives of their children. Any school that does this, and indeed any school, public or private, that gives a child the chance to succeed, will earn my respect. And, yes, this will include schools that are just one child, or a few, learning at home with their parents. Too often the state has focused too much on strict mandates, and not enough on results. The latest example of this is the state’s assault on home schooling.”

Simon is absolutely right. For the California Department of Education, whose real purview is public schools — not private — should be devoting its time and money to doing its principal job. There’s plenty of room for improvement in most public schools as anyone who has taken a look at the standardized test scores should know.

But home schoolers do very well on such tests as information published by the National Home Education Research Institute clearly shows. NHERI, by the way, shows that home schooled students in states with low regulations did just as well as home schoolers in states with more regulation. Home schoolers clearly do better than their peers in public school schools according to NHERI’s studies.

California home schoolers may hear that knock on the door, but they should not be intimidated. The Home School Legal Defense Association and the Christian Home Educators Association of California have been letting home schoolers know they are very much within their rights and the law to home school their children. HSLDA and CHEA are ready to fight back should any local school district, emboldened by the state Department of Education’s claims, try charging home schooling families with having their children truant. If you know someone being hassled by the educrats, be sure to let them know about the help that the HSLDA and CHEA can offer.

The Home School Legal Defense Association, which has over 15,000 member families in California, worries that even with Eastin’s departure, the bureaucrats within the state Department of Education will continue to press their trumped up case against home schoolers. That some anti-home schooler in the legislature next session may try to place restrictions on home schooling. That’s real cause for concern. Anyone who believes in protecting parental rights and educational freedom should stand be concerned with protecting the freedom to home school in California or anywhere else. I know I am. After all, if a parent cannot have the right to teach his own child in this country, then how much freedom do we really have?

Paul M. Weyrich is President of the Free Congress Foundation.

==============================

School Choice: Give The Public Schools Some Needed Competition (Free Congress Foundation, 021024)

When the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Cleveland voucher case affirming the constitutionality of the program that enables parents in that city to have the choice of sending their children to private or religious schools, it was correctly hailed as a victory by advocates of school choice. President George W. Bush proclaimed the decision to be “a landmark ruling” providing hope that any parent — regardless of what income they earned or what neighborhood they lived in — could have the opportunity to obtain a quality education for their children. And it was a decision that was truly needed too, particularly in America’s inner cities.

Four years ago, when Education Week conducted a survey of 74 urban school districts and the state of Hawaii, they discovered that there were improvements being made in individual schools and even in some districts. But the publication’s writers were forced to concede that negative terms such as “failure,” “despair,” and “corruption” indeed represented an accurate description of many urban school districts and their schools. Furthermore, Education Week came up short in its quest to find a “solidly successful urban district” in which even the students from backgrounds of extreme poverty were able to achieve high-level academic success.

When asked about the progress that has been made in urban school districts since then, Dr. Vernard T. Gant, Director of Urban School Services for the Association of Christian Schools International, insists that there is no evidence on a national level to indicate that things have improved to any significant degree. Urban schools, in which many students are from impoverished backgrounds, can expect to see two-thirds or more of their charges fall below even the ‘basic’ level on national tests.

The key word is ‘expect’ because many students who leave the public schools for private ones do much better. And there is a usually unrecognized beneficiary from school choice, namely the public school system. This month the Manhattan Institute published “Rising to the Challenge: The Effect of School Choice on Public Schools in Milwaukee and San Antonio” by Jay P. Greene and Greg Forster. The researchers determined, “The data in this study seem to indicate that public schools respond to competition from school choice programs by improving educational services.” While tentative in their conclusions, the authors urge more study on the impact that choice has on the public schools.

So the public school systems need the competition. There are many reasons for the failure of public schools, but one is the simple fact that the education-social services complex running the public school systems has every reason to protect the status quo. Change would threaten the status of the administrators and teachers as ‘experts’ (albeit failed ones) much less to say their jobs. Without choice, they have too little pressure to innovate — even attempting something as simple as imposing greater discipline upon the student body.

Right now, two congressmen are lead sponsors of bills to encourage more of that choice.

U.S. Rep. Bob Schaffer (R-CO) has introduced a bill that would provide tax deductions for low and middle-income families with students in K - 12 that is similar to one now in the book of Federal tax regulations that permits deductions for up to $3,000 of higher education expenses. Similar tax credit / deduction measures at the state level are on the books in Illinois, Minnesota and Iowa. Schaffer’s office claims two-thirds of families with children in Catholic elementary schools would be helped by this deduction. So would 45% of families whose children attend Catholic high schools.

Schaffer also has introduced a bill to provide a 50% tax credit for donations by individuals and businesses to both private and public schools and scholarship funds. This proposal would mean that for every dollar the federal government does not collect in taxes from you, two dollars would be invested in improving education. Pennsylvania is one state that has implemented legislation like the Schaffer proposal. So have Florida and Arizona.

But Congress had adjourned before the Schaffer tax deduction proposal could be considered. There is a hope that it might be taken up by the House once it returns on November 12 to take up the continuing resolution to fund the government. But, even if the tax deduction bill were passed, it would not make it past the Senate — at least before the end of the year.

Retiring House Majority Leader Richard Armey (R-TX) was able to pass a school choice bill for the District of Columbia in 1997 in both chambers of Congress only to have it vetoed by President Clinton.

Right now, Armey has a bill to provide scholarships for students in Washington, D.C. to either attend the public or private school of their choice or to obtain supplemental tutoring. While the bill itself would be unlikely to obtain consideration even if an extended lame duck session of Congress is held after the election, he may attach it as an amendment to the appropriations bill for the District of Columbia.

Rhetoric is often heard from legislators such as Ted Kennedy about the importance of public education, usually at the expense of allowing parents a real choice in schools. However, a Heritage Foundation study published earlier this year shows that approximately half of the U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives with school-age children send them to private schools.

There is no reason why citizens — whether inside or outside the Beltway — should wait on Congress to provide greater choice when we can take the lead ourselves either through the initiative process or by a law passed by your state legislature to implement a voucher program. Another option exists too — private scholarships. Indeed, many conservatives favor the idea of private scholarships as opposed to a government-administered voucher system in order to ensure that religious schools are kept free of governmental intrusion.

The growth of private scholarship funds is commendable because they are voluntary bridge-building programs linking people of different races and incomes based on a shared commitment. The fact that they encourage real achievement through hard work by young people is reason enough for conservatives to give them strong support.

A notable program is the Washington Scholarship Fund that was started in 1993 and whose success has spawned many imitators throughout the country. WSF families are picked by a lottery and the parents must be low-income. They are expected to contribute — or find other financing sources for — anywhere from 70% to 40% of the child’s tuition in a private or religious school. So the family has a real investment in making sure their child makes the most of the opportunity.

Many of the participating low-income parents who have been fortunate to receive scholarships are not from Catholic backgrounds but will send their children to parochial schools. For some it is an issue of distance because in Washington there are simply more Catholic schools than those of Protestant denominations. But many parents have come to appreciate the unique discipline and structure of the Catholic schools. Admittedly, the theology taught in the schools may not correspond entirely with the religion that the scholarship students practice at home. But the parents like what they find at their child’s parochial school in comparison to the abysmal values and discipline — much less to say the quality of instruction — found in most of Washington’s public schools. [Note: Recently, the Association of Christian Schools International has increased its own efforts to provide scholarships for inner-city parents and to provide more inner-city schools. ]

A study issued a few years by the Taubman Center on State and Local Government and the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University found that participants in the WSF who were black and in elementary and middle school grades received higher scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills in math and reading than their public school counterparts. Furthermore, they were closing the black-white gap in educational test scores.

WSF estimates that nationally there are 14,000 children fortunate enough to receive assistance to attend a private or religious school. However, 40,000 children are on waiting lists. Says Virginia Walden-Ford of the D.C. Parents for School Choice: “For a parent, it’s devastating to be told they have to wait” to get their child out a failing public school and into a private or religious one. That’s why anyone who can afford to contribute to a local scholarship fund should be encouraged to do so.

It would be good if Congress would decide in the near future to increase the educational options and assistance that are available for parents. That may not prove to be the case. But, in the meantime, let’s not stand still. We can increase choice for parents and we do not have to rely on the Congress or the legislature to do so. So, let’s start taking charge!

Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

==============================

Multi-colored Math, Sensitive Science (Foxnews, 021122)

Native Hawaiian students will be taught Hawaiian-style science, technology, engineering and mathematics, thanks to a National Science Foundation grant to the University of Hawaii at Hilo.

Advanced classes would include rain forest restoration, volcano studies and “ethnomathematics,” which would look at the math of Hawaiian navigation, symmetries in Hawaiian textiles and spatial relationships in fish nets and knots, for example.

Color-coding the curriculum is patronizing and stupid, writes Marc Miyake on Amritas. Most native Hawaiians aren’t primitives in paradise: They’re more into downloading MP3s than casting their nets into the sea. TV beats taro.

There’s no harm in using island examples to teach real science and math: That guy rowing against the current — a staple of my math education — can be a native paddling her outrigger against the tide. That’s math. But it’s not ethnomath. When the ethno comes in, the rigor goes out.

In theory, native Hawaiians’ self-esteem will be boosted by hula-ized curriculum. In practice, hula-izing the curriculum implies that natives can’t learn like other students. As Miyake notes, students of Asian descent learn without abacus training. Dutch-Americans don’t need dike and windmill problems, nor do Italian-Americans do math with Roman numerals.

Typically, ethno-curriculum defines science as white, and therefore cold, while the warm-hearted natives have... spiritual stuff. It’s hard to think of anything more racist. Europeans (and, mysteriously, Asians) get science, math, technology and engineering. Hawaiians get poi.

NSF also is funding research on teaching science to Native Americans via culturally sensitive “science stories.”

There were five or six Native American students in my freshman dorm. Those who’d gone to Bureau of Indian Affairs schools had received fourth-rate educations. An Arizona boy wanted to major in geology or petroleum engineering, but his school hadn’t offered lab science or college-prep math. A girl from the Northwest told me girls did “domestic science” (cleaning the boarding school) while boys did “environmental science” (maintaining the grounds). No other science was offered. These students didn’t need stories about the rain god or story problems featuring Brave Elk and Spirit Woman. They needed to be taught biology, chemistry and physics, algebra, geometry, trig and calculus.

Human beings with gray, wrinkly brains thought up science and math. Humans with gray, wrinkly brains can learn — if they’re taught.

Where in the World is Geography?

Geography students in Britain aren’t taught about mountains and rivers, countries or climates, writes Alex Standish, who taught geography in London. U.K. kids are taught the right (that is, left) way to think about environmental and development issues. And they’re taught “soft skills” such as developing self-confidence, healthier lifestyles and good relationships. Just no geography.

Geography also has gone green and fuzzy in the U.S., writes CalPundit, who has questions from the NAEP geography test. Such as:

Many children all over the world know what rock-and-roll music is. What has made this possible?

According to National Geographic , only 13% of Americans 18 to 24 years old can find Iraq on a map of the Middle East; 11% of Americans couldn’t find the U.S. on a global map.

No Americans in Maryland

A Marylander says his sixth-grade son has to do a family tree for English class. There is no writing involved. There are no grammar or punctuation lessons. But what really bugs the dad is this instruction for the verbal presentation: “Do not refer to yourself as an American unless you are an American Indian.”

The kid’s mom has a couple of American Indian great-grandparents, but the family doesn’t want their son to think that’s the only way to qualify as an American.

We have already helped our son a little with what he is going to say. I expect he will not get an A.

Big book

A stepmother is discovering what schooling is like these days. Her stepson never studies in the evening, yet makes As and Bs. At Open House, a teacher explained that he has students do homework in class, because they cheat if they do it at home. Yet, a second teacher said students are allowed to retake tests and quizzes as many times as they want to raise a bad grade.

They can bring the test home to take it again. So, at this school, which has a high academic rating, you can bring a test home but not the homework. HUH?

When I asked his English teacher what book they are studying now, she said “It’s a big book — Jurassic Park!” Talk about your classic literature...For their current assignment, they are to write a paper on anything they like. Sounds good, except she said they don’t need to worry about grammar or spelling this time around. This assignment is just to have them open up and express themselves creatively. Per the teacher, they will “worry about the grammar and spelling later.”

These are sophomores, two years from graduation. God help them when they enter the real world.

Can’t Fail

Robert Wright writes:

I have a mountain of paperwork to complete on every student I gave an F to on the fall progress reports. I’ve been working at school until 10 p.m. every night this week to meet the deadlines.

Next year, I intend to give credit for just showing up. D- is as low as I’ll go. And for those who don’t show up? I’ll give them independent study on the honor system or life experience credit for being alive.

Wright’s district claims to retain students with failing grades and test scores below the 35th percentile. (It takes so long to report scores on the state exam, taken in May, that 6th grade scores are used to determine a 7th grader’s promotion to 8th grade.)

I found out yesterday that one of our do-nothing 7th graders was removed from the retention list because his low score on the math test was invalidated. What happened? He told the counselor that when he took the test, he wasn’t concentrating because he was listening to a CD player. So, he’s going to the 8th grade next year.

It takes a year to flunk a student. By late September or early October, the teacher must warn parents that the student is at risk of getting Fs on the October progress report. If there’s a low (and valid) test score from the previous spring, the student goes on the risk-of-retention list. An Individual Learning Plan must be in place by Nov. 27. Miss a deadline, and the student can’t be retained. The goal is to protect the district from lawsuits by showing the student was given time to improve and lots of “interventions.” The deadlines mean that a student who’s passing in October is guaranteed promotion, no matter how badly he does for the rest of the year.

Given the paperwork burden on the teacher and the likelihood that the student’s grades will be meaningless, failure is hardly worth the effort.

Grading For Goodness

In response to a crime wave among the educated, high schools in Thailand will compile “goodness” reports on students.

The books will record students’ contributions to their school and community. Suchat said the logs would record high school students’ emotional as well as intelligence quotients. Colleges and universities countrywide would take the goodness records into account when deciding whom to admit.

Critics say it will be hard to standardize goodness evaluations. No kidding.

==============================

Same Sex Schools Show Successes (Foxnews, 020916)

WASHINGTON — When she peeks into classrooms at the Young Women’s Leadership Charter School of Chicago, Joan Hall sees girls working quietly, free from the distractions of teenage boys. The girls pay attention to their teachers, work confidently at lessons and speak up freely in class.

“They have a feeling that they can do whatever they want to do,” said Hall, president of the school’s board of directors. The public charter school has begun its third year with 325 girls — about 260 of whom are black or Hispanic — in grades 7-11. The school has a waiting list of 400.

Noting high demand for the nation’s 11 single-sex public schools, the Bush administration is poised to let other school districts open more, making more money available and relaxing federal rules that now limit them.

Advocates say single-sex schools are good for girls and minorities, but women’s and civil rights groups are urging President Bush to drop the idea. They contend the schools promote sexism and distract from proven ways to improve education.

They also say school programs geared toward girls generally get less public financial support than co-educational ones.

“You are doing girls no favors” by putting them in all-girls schools, said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation.

The foundation is joined by the National Organization for Women and the National Council of Women’s Organizations in opposing any changes to federal rules, which now allow such schools in just a few cases.

Taking the same position are the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Citizens Commission on Civil Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National PTA.

The government, however, will almost certainly change the rules, allowing more new schools to begin operating next fall, a top Education Department official said.

Critics cite the Supreme Court’s landmark 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which found that racially segregated schools are inherently unequal.

Feminists maintain that separating students by gender promotes boys’ sexism and is poor preparation for increasingly integrated workplaces.

“We live in a real world, and that world has got men and women in it,” Smeal said. “They must compete.”

The critics say the idea distracts from the attention that should be paid to other pressing school issues.

“It’s a gimmick, much like vouchers, where you don’t know the impact on the other kids who are left behind,” said Nancy Zirkin, deputy director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, an umbrella group of 185 civil rights organizations.

Zirkin said schools should focus more on academics, discipline, increased funds, smaller classes, more parental involvement and better teacher training.

In comments filed this summer with the Education Department, opponents called the single-sex proposal “a terrible idea” and said it does not address legitimate concerns over sexual harassment — and may actually make school districts less likely to address it elsewhere.

Research on single-sex education, done mostly in private schools, is inconclusive. It suggests the schools are more orderly and that girls tend to do better in math, science, athletics and social situations. But it found the self-esteem of girls attending such schools is not necessarily better than that of girls in other schools.

Overall academic results are mixed. In studies that show academic improvements in single-sex schools, the results don’t hold up when factors such as socio-economic and ability levels are factored in.

That fact — in addition to the little research done on public single-sex schools — would seem to doom them in the eyes of the administration, which insists that all programs be based on solid research.

But the Education Department’s general counsel, Brian Jones, said the lack of research is “a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem” that actually invites more public single-sex schools. “It’s difficult to study these things with any real scientific basis until you’ve got a body of evidence,” he said.

The largest teachers’ unions are at odds over the proposal. The National Education Association opposes single-sex schools, calling any expansion “bad educational policy” that will divert money from proven solutions. The American Federation of Teachers has no formal policy on single-sex schools. AFT President Sandra Feldman said single-sex education is “not a cure-all,” but ought to be an option.

“There’s no evidence that it creates higher achievement, but why not have it as an option?” Feldman said in an interview. “What harm is done?”

Opponents actually point to successful programs such as the Young Women’s school in Chicago, saying what really accounts for their success has less to do with keeping boys out than with bringing more money in.

As a charter school, it can raise money privately, resulting in a $10,000 per-pupil expenditure, more than the average $8,378 for most of Chicago’s other public school students. It also enjoys partnerships with local business, arts and academic institutions.

Hall, the school’s president, attributed much of the school’s success to a willingness to try new ideas, such as a schoolwide reading program that gets struggling readers up to grade level.

“We’re not saying this is for everyone,” she said. “It’s always been an option for rich girls. We’d like it to be an option for some economically disadvantaged girls.”

==============================

AU incident makes top 10 in 2002 campus PC survey (Washington Times, 021219)

Two of the most shameful campus events in 2002 were the probation of an American University student who videotaped a speech given by Tipper Gore and the removal of the word “Confederate” from a dormitory by Vanderbilt University officials, according to a year-in-review survey.

The survey was released by Young America’s Foundation, the country’s largest conservative college-outreach organization. The foundation compiled a list of the top 10 campus events that best reflect what it considers the “deteriorating” status of the country’s education system.

“Our nation’s education system continues to deteriorate in the name of political correctness,” said Rick Parsons, the foundation’s program director.

•At AU, the student was charged with stealing Mrs. Gore’s intellectual property by videotaping her speech, which was open to the public. The student also voiced his concern over the $31,000 lecture fee the university had paid Mrs. Gore.

•Vanderbilt renamed a residence hall, removing the word “Confederate” so students wouldn’t feel uncomfortable. A Vanderbilt professor also wrote a column in which he claimed Confederates were “cowards masquerading as civilized men.” The column was published in the Tennessean, a Nashville daily newspaper. Jonathan David Farley, an assistant math professor, also wrote that “every Confederate soldier deserved not a hallowed resting place at the end of his days, but a reservation at the end of the gallows.”

•Other events included in the list were efforts by two elementary schools in California to bar students from playing the games “Cops and Robbers” and “Tag” during recess because both games depict a “victim,” which officials said could create self-esteem problems.

•Another item was the New Jersey Department of Education’s initial failure to reference the country’s Founding Fathers in the revised draft version of the state’s history standards.

Other incidents on the list:

•School board administrators in Texas revised the curriculum on the state’s independence by suppressing “us versus them” perspectives in lessons about the Battle of the Alamo and the state’s independence from Mexico. Administrators made the change because they didn’t want “Hispanic children, or any children, to feel like we’re teaching a biased approach” to the state’s history.

•Incoming freshmen at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill were required to read “Approaching the Qur’an: The Early Revelations.” UNC Chancellor James Moeser said the book was “chosen in the wake of September 11,” which was a “great opportunity to have a conversation on the teachings of one of the world’s great religions.”

•Officials at Harvard University re-invited poet Tom Paulin after withdrawing the original invitation because students complained of his statements comparing U.S.-born settlers in the West Bank with Nazis and how they “should be shot dead.” The school re-issued the invitation to show support for free speech.

•Homosexual and feminist student activists at Ithaca College in New York demanded that a Young America’s Freedom-sponsored event, which featured political activist Bay Buchanan, be declared “biased” by the school’s Bias-related Incident Committee.

•Staff writers at the conservative student paper at Bucknell University in Pennsylvania came under fire after publishing several articles about free speech. Administrators held a forum where offended students called the articles “hate speech.”

==============================

High schoolers study less, but grades rise (Washington Times, 030128)

High school seniors are studying less but getting better grades than their predecessors, and are spending more time on the computer for both research and fun, according to an annual nationwide study by the University of California at Los Angeles.

“The best interpretation we can make is that grade inflation has been increasing because of all the pressure on teachers from students and parents to help them become more competitive for college,” said UCLA professor Alexander Astin, director of the school’s Higher Education Research Institute and the survey’s founder.

“Each year we think it can’t inflate anymore. And then it does again. The C-grade is almost a thing of the past.”

Thirty-three percent of students said they spent six hours per week or more studying or doing homework — the lowest percentage since the survey question was first asked in 1987 — 46% of whom managed to graduate with an A average in 2001. Only 17% earned A’s in 1968, and 44% did in 2000.

Linda Sax, a UCLA professor and the survey’s current director, partially blamed the decline in homework and study time on increased computer use.

“It is unclear if computer and Internet use has enabled students to complete their homework in less time, or whether the time students spend using the computer simply takes away from the time that they could be spending on their studies,” Miss Sax said.

The survey of 282,549 freshmen at 437 universities shows that they are spending more time on the computer. Frequent use of personal computers hit a record 84% last year, compared with 82% in 2001, the survey showed.

The percentage of students using the Internet for research or homework during their last year in high school increased from 75% in 2001 to 78% last year. The percentage of students surfing the Internet for reasons other than studying or research also rose from 52% in 2000 to 62% last year.

Jacqueline King, director of the Center for Policy Analysis at the Washington-based American Council on Education, said the situation is “a cause for concern.”

“The jury is still out on the increased computer use,” Miss King said. “We don’t know if students are using computers to be more efficient or they are using them to take the easy way out instead of going to the library and doing research that way. But this is a cause for concern.”

The survey also found that this year’s freshmen don’t drink, smoke or party anywhere near as much as their predecessors.

The survey said 46% of freshmen — compared with 74% in 1982 — reported drinking beer either frequently or occasionally during the past 12 months. An additional 36% said they don’t attend any parties during a typical week. Twenty-five percent of freshmen said they spend six hours or more per week partying, down from 27% last year and 37% in 1987.

The percentage of incoming freshmen who smoke cigarettes frequently has dropped for the fourth consecutive year, reaching a 15-year low of 7%. Nine percent of freshmen said they smoked cigarettes in 2001 and 15% in 1967, the survey found.

With the decline in partying has come increased focus on politics.

Among freshmen entering college in 2001, 31% said they regularly kept up with politics. Last year, the number increased to 33% as the first class of freshmen entered school after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

“We don’t know whether it’s a 9/11 blip or part of a trend,” Mr. Astin said.

The all-time low in political interest, 28%, was recorded in 2000 and the all-time high, 60%, in 1966.

==============================

Reflections On The Eve Of War (Free Congress Foundation, 030319)

By Paul M. Weyrich

Soon it appears that we will be taking military action against Saddam Hussein and his henchmen. True patriots are hoping for the best, a quick victory that brings more stability to the region and allows us to leave quickly. No one knows what will happen. We may need to be in Iraq for a long, long time.

Just as we face uncertainty about war and the possibility of terrorism, there are reports of a new respiratory illness that is baffling to modern medicine. It is a glimpse of what may come, whether from terrorism or simply nature. Most Americans, including yours truly, have no memory of the worldwide influenza epidemic at the end of World War I that killed millions. Even polio, once a dreaded disease, has not been a threat for decades now thanks to Jonas Salk.

Regardless of what happens, there is no better time to think about what should be more important in the lives that we are living.

This is something you do not need to ask social scientists, your own child will do.

When the liberal Center for a New American Dream commissioned a poll of children, the results were not reassuring. Surprisingly, 57% of the children expressed a wish that they “would rather spend time doing something fun with their Mom or Dad than go to the mall to go shopping.” Only 32% said they spend “a lot of time with their parents.” Something is amiss.

Either parents are too busy with work or the children themselves, all too often, are overscheduled themselves.

My own father worked very hard just to support his family, but I remember the time we spent on Sundays after church when we would take trips on streetcars together.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, when my own kids were growing up, the demands of organizing the conservative movement required me to spend more time than I wished away from my wife and children. Fortunately, my wife was a fulltime mom and she was always there for our children. A parent who’s there day in, day out at home is much rarer in these times, even in two parent families because both husband and wife are likely to be working.

Mrs. Weyrich began teaching our children reading at age 4 so, by the time they started school, they all were able to read. That gave our children a great advantage. There were many times when I arrived home after work that she told me one or the other of our children had done something bad. So she had told them, “Wait until your father hears about this.” I did the disciplining.

There’s more to our family life than that, of course. We would go to church together, eat together at dinner quite frequently, and spend time together. Like many other parents of faith, we made sure to send our children to religious schools, at least during part of their schooling, to make sure our teaching at home was not undermined by what they learned in school. All our children have turned out to be productive ladies and gentlemen.

Recently, a sociologist named W. Bradford Wilcox at the University of Virginia analyzed survey data and found that dads of more conservative and traditionalist faiths are making it a point to be involved in their children’s lives. Much more so than fathers who are secular or even many who belong to ‘mainline’ faiths. These evangelical and Catholic fathers take it upon themselves to sit down with their children at dinner and to help them with their homework. They also make it a point to discipline their children and to teach them about their family’s religion.

Here’s the way Wilcox put it: “There is no doubt in my mind that part of what is going on here is that these fathers have a strong belief that there is such a thing as a biblical worldview, one that stresses that God wants them to play a vital, active role in their lives. They also believe God wants them to pass this belief on to their children, right there in their homes. So that’s what they’re trying to do.”

I think it’s a good thing because while no one likes to be the killjoy, there is a more serious side to life. It’s fine to take the family on a fun trip to Disneyland. But some of the most important things that parents can teach their children are showing them how to handle money and what it takes to feed and clothe the family and teaching them by example about the importance of hard work. These require time and patience and concentration on the part of both child and parent. It can’t just be ‘fun.’ Even more important is passing on a family’s faith and its heritage to the children.

I’ve expressed disappointment that we as a nation have not experienced the renewal of faith that many of us had hoped we would after the attacks against us on 9/11. But there are some good things that have been occurring even before then like the discoveries that Wilcox has made. A journalist named Colleen Carroll recently spent time studying young adults, particularly those on college campuses, and their views on religion. She found that many were embracing faith and becoming “defenders of orthodoxy.”

Similarly, Senator Lamar Alexander found many Americans were really moved whenever he mentioned his interest in revitalizing the teaching of history and civics in American public schools while campaigning to win his job last year. He thinks it’s time that we all think about “what it means to be an American.”

The last few decades have not been so kind to our nation’s culture and its moral values as they have been to our wallets. Many of us have forgotten what our nation is about and how we should act as individuals and who we are as families. We all have good reason to hope that things work out well in Iraq and that medical professionals can quickly subdue the new illness so things can get back to normal. But we should also hope that more families will come to realize what should matter most in our lives.

Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

==============================

Liberate the Universities: Fair and open faculty hiring would foster educational diversity (NRO, 030407)

That a Columbia University professor should publicly wish upon the U.S. military “a million Mogadishus” should come as no surprise. True, professor Nicholas De Genova’s malediction at an antiwar teach-in is exceptionally despicable. But his loathing of this country is shared, as Daniel Pipes of Campus Watch has shown, by many Columbia professors. It is also of a kind, ideologically, with the anti-Americanism rampant among radical leftist academics throughout the country.

Although radicals are not necessarily a majority on faculties, their politically biased voices speak the loudest. They now control entire academic fields and indoctrinate untold numbers of students. The radical animus against this country worms its way into the minds of millions of people at home and abroad. It erodes the national unity we need above all in this time of war, and it lends moral support to terrorists and terror states.

For these reasons it is significant that De Genova is not just a “prof of something or other,” as the New York Post dismissively described him. He teaches anthropology and Latino studies, which have produced distinguished scholarship but which are now largely co-opted by radicals. Professor Edward Said, also employed by Columbia, has greatly influenced these disciplines and others, such as English, history, and women’s studies. Said, a radical Arab-American literary critic and a long-time activist for the Palestinian cause, has made a life’s work of singling out and demonizing the West and America — in his words — “for imperialist attitudes from ancient Rome to Vietnam.” American foreign policy, Said instructs, is driven by the West’s “untrammeled rapacity, greed, and immorality.”

While vilifying and refusing to acknowledge the achievements of America and the West, professors of Said’s bent turn a blind eye toward the faults of non-Western cultures. Historian Keith Windschuttle observes that they exhibit a “kind of relativism not seen since the days of Lenin and Hitler when class-based and race-based hatreds were morally sanctioned by radical politics.” Thus many radical academics cannot bring themselves to condemn cultural practices repellent to most Westerners, such as human sacrifice, cannibalism and female genital mutilation — for fear of demeaning the culture that fostered them.

This pattern of denial applies particularly to the events of 9/11 and the war on terror. In the 1980s and 1990s, for example, prominent professors of Middle Eastern studies excused away the growing threat of militant Islamism and terrorist attacks on American soil. Almost all of these academics simply refused to study such militancy — or even Islam itself! Prior to the 9/11 attacks, for instance, a Sarah Lawrence College professor accused “the terror industry” of fomenting an “irrational fear of terrorism by focusing…on far-fetched horrible scenarios.”

Even what is still called “American” studies is riddled with anti-American prejudice. Cultural critic Alan Wolfe has surveyed these studies, and he ironically concludes that current academics in the field, such as those at Dartmouth and Duke, display “a hatred of America so visceral that it makes one wonder why they bother studying America at all.” Like Said and his acolytes, these professors condemn the United States as imperialistic. They attack even the concept of our national unity, pronouncing this country to be an “imagined national community” and defining their role as “fracturing the very idea of an American nation, culture, and subject.”

Another school of radicals does some imagining of its own. It envisages an international political monolith with which to replace America and indeed all of liberal democracy in the West. These yearnings are embodied in a doctrine called “transnational progressivism,” which is gaining prominence in law schools, for example, at Princeton and Rutgers. As John Fonte of the Hudson Institute points out, professors in this camp argue for the establishment of a new transnational regime, or world government, that is post-liberal democratic and, in the American context, post-Constitutional and post-American. Within such a regime the key political unit would not be the individual citizen who voluntarily associates with fellow citizens but the racial, ethnic, or gender group into which one is born.

What can be done to counter this widespread academic radicalism? How do we return to intellectual pluralism in our colleges and universities?

A first step lies in reforming the autocratic hiring and promotion practices that permit the likes of De Genova to replicate their ranks and to cement their control of ideas. In an essay titled “Academic Corruption” published in The Monist, John Kekes, a professor at the State University of New York-Albany, explains how this process has been tainted. The choice of new faculty members is now commonly driven by the prejudices of those academics making the selection — not by how qualified the applicants are to uphold the truth as teachers or researchers. Hiring is furthermore influenced by something called “collegiality,” which is a code word for whether the attitude of the applicant — that is, regarding Left-wing causes and social transformation — is to the liking of the committee.

The right of extremist and antiwar professors like De Genova to spew forth their anti-American venom must be protected. But students also have a right to hear the views of traditionalist scholars, and those who would defend our national identity and this country. Fair and open faculty hiring would foster educational diversity on campuses. It is urgent that faculties and higher education governing boards ensure such openness.

— Candace de Russy is a member of the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York. She chairs the board’s Committee on Academic Standards. De Russy was appointed to the Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy by President George W. Bush in 2002.

==============================

Brainwashing preschool peaceniks (WorldNetDaily, 030416)

What are you doing to protect your 3-year-old from the radical anti-war agenda?

Aggressive efforts by blame-America educators to indoctrinate college-age students are well-known. But even toddlers are not safe from peacenik proselytizers.

Example: The nation’s largest and most influential organization of early childhood educators sells a teacher’s guide that depicts the famed Blue Angels, our U.S. Navy’s flight demonstration squadron of F-18 Hornet fighter pilots, as heartless killers threatening to bomb innocent American children.

According to the National Association for the Education of Young Children, which oversees preschool teacher training, curriculum standards and day-care accreditation, “That’s Not Fair! A Teacher’s Guide to Activism with Young Children” is “an exciting and informative” resource for “developing community-building, deep thinking and partnership ... to change the world for the better.”

On page 106 of the guide, co-author Ann Pelo details an activism project she initiated at a Seattle preschool after her students spotted a Blue Angels rehearsal overhead as they played in a local park. “Those are Navy airplanes,” Pelo lectured the toddlers. “They’re built for war, but right now, there is no war, so the pilots learn how to do fancy tricks in their planes ...” The kids returned to playing, but Pelo wouldn’t let it rest. The next day she pushed the children to “communicate their feelings about the Blue Angels.”

Pelo proudly describes her precociously politicized students’ handiwork: “They drew pictures of planes with X’s through them: ‘This is a crossed-off bombing plane.’ They drew bomb factories labeled: ‘No.’”

“Respect our words, Blue Angels. Respect kids’ words. Don’t kill people.”

“If you blow up our city, we won’t be happy about it. And our whole city will be destroyed. And if you blow up my favorite library, I won’t be happy because there are some good books there that I haven’t read yet.”

Pelo reports that the children “poured out their strong feelings about the Blue Angels in their messages and seemed relieved and relaxed.” But it’s obvious this cathartic exercise was less for the children and more for the ax-grinding Pelo, who readily admits that she “didn’t ask for parents’ input about their letter-writing – she didn’t genuinely want it. She felt passionately that they had done the right thing, and she wasn’t interested in hearing otherwise.”

So much for “community-building, deep thinking and partnership.”

On page 115, guide co-author Fran Davidson trumpets her own anti-war biases and her difficult struggle to tolerate pro-military parents’ views:

“During the Persian Gulf War, I became acutely aware of how difficult it is to honor families’ values when those values are different from mine. In the classroom, I emphasized peaceful resolutions to conflicts and talked often with the children about elements of peace. Most families felt comfortable ... but when our conversations about peace expanded to include discussions of the Persian Gulf War, some families became uneasy ... [Some] families talked about the necessity of war to overthrow oppressors and to protect and free people ... This was a really uncomfortable time for me …”

Then get out of the classroom, dear, and let the kids have a teacher (calling Jessica Lynch!) who can lead the ABCs without raising her fist and turning it into a brainwashing session on Anti-imperialism, Blood for oil, and Conflict resolution.

Pelo and Davidson’s guide is also promoted by the Early Childhood Equity Alliance, a network of activist educators. Its statement against Operation Iraqi Freedom argues: “As the still relevant saying from the ‘60s aptly puts it: ‘War is not healthy for children and other living things!’”

(And allowing Saddam Hussein to gas Kurds, imprison children who refused to join the Ba’ath Party, torture their dissident fathers, and use pregnant women to shield his soldiers, is?)

ECEA encourages early childhood educators to “look to alternative sources of information beyond the mainstream media” such as moveon.org, the Clintonite website still fatuously promoting inspections over war.

Dr. Karen Effrem, a Johns Hopkins University-trained pediatrician and researcher who has tracked the radicalization of preschool teacher training, warns that these professional educators’ groups are spreading “a very radical and dangerous curriculum to teachers and child care workers who, in turn, use it on our very youngest and most vulnerable children. This is no small campaign.”

Welcome to the new preschool curriculum: play dough, finger painting and pacifism 101.

==============================

TV-Turnoff Week Is A Coming Attraction (Free Congress Foundation, 030417)

If you are satisfied in having American children be mediocre readers, then read no further. I’m betting that you will not be. That’s why I am not pleased to have to report to you that a recent survey of fourth graders in 35 countries showed American students rank ninth worldwide in overall reading achievement

Perhaps even more worrisome is the fact that our country’s students ranked 13th in comprehension when it came to textbook-style, informational reading.

According to the report, between thirty to forty percent of U.S. fourth graders are simply not proficient readers.

If one of my children had brought home a report card with such mediocre grades, I can assure you Mrs. Weyrich and I would make sure that our son or daughter worked harder because they all had the capability to be good readers. Indeed, Mrs. Weyrich started teaching our children how to read at age 4, well before they even started grade school, which provided them with a great advantage later on in their studies.

Reports like this one that decry the mediocre state of learning by American children have been coming out for decades. While the state of public schools is deplorable, those communities whose public schools have increased competition from school vouchers and charter schools, find it to be beneficial to improving education. But increased choice in education is still too limited in too many communities throughout our nation.

Because that is the case, parents themselves have a particularly important role to play in motivating their children to do better and to be more attentive to their studies. Take television viewing, for example. One shocking fact is that in the early 1990s the average American youth spent 900 hours on average per year in school. But in 2000, the average American youth spent an average of 1,023 hours watching television. Think of it: your child may spend more time watching TV than in school!

There is a cost to heavy viewing. The National Assessment of Education Progress for 2000 found that students who watched three or fewer hours of television each day academically outperformed those who spent more time glued to the tube.

Next week, parents can challenge their children to do better by participating in TV Turnoff Week. Joining in is very simple: just turn the TV off on Monday, April 21st and keep it off until Sunday, April 27th. Try to replace the time without TV by having your child do homework, perhaps even having family reading sessions. After the 27th, why not see if you can keep the TV off or at least reduce its usage in your household? (Christian and Jewish families might want to turn off the TV earlier given that Passover starts on April 16th this year and Easter on the 20th, using the time instead to reflect on the importance of the holiday they observe.)

As one of the organizers of TV-Turnoff Week has remarked, there are many groups interested in exerting control over the media in one way or another, usually expecting action from the Congress, the Administration, the regulatory agencies, or advertisers. Sometimes they advocate worthy goals, but in one way or another they often want the government to become involved, and quite possibly their actions can limit our freedom of speech. But with TV-Turnoff Week, we take the action ourselves. No regulations. No bills to be passed. Just keep the TV turned off for a week. We do not need to wait on Washington, we can take the action ourselves.

Everything has its time and place, but TV certainly commands too central a role in the lives of too many people. (Even Mrs. Weyrich might testify to that as she tries to wrest my attention away from news programs.) But it is not healthy to have our children become couch potatoes at such an early age when their young minds and bodies should be experiencing the real world and what it has to offer. Instead, they are, in too many cases, just devouring the video equivalent of junk food.

Many Christian and home school families have decided to give up TV all together, perhaps just relying on carefully selected videos. They are to be commended for taking a decisive step to remove some of the worst products of our contemporary culture from ever being watched in their homes. But not all parents will want to stop watching TV altogether. In that case, there is such a thing as placing reasonable limits on television viewing and providing careful guidance over what the children may watch.

In the early 1960s, Americans were more willing to challenge themselves. President and Mrs. Bush deserve praise for seeking to reinstill some of that can-do spirit in our nation’s youth by their constant visits to schools to emphasize the importance of education to the students. But we can do even better and one way to start ourselves on that road to self-improvement is to participate in TV-Turnoff Week.

Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

==============================

Homeschooling on the Rise in Black Communities (Foxnews, 030519)

LOS ANGELES — With a 4,000% increase in a 20-year span, homeschooling has become one of the fast-growing phenomenons, especially inside the black community. In fact, black children are now five times more likely to be homeschooled than they were five years ago.

In conjunction with the usual public school concerns, such as safety, many black parents also feel that their African American history is ignored in the curriculum.

Ghia Johnson, a single mother of four, who has been homeschooling for seven years now, is one of the many parents who feel that public schools are dangerous, ineffective and focus too little on African American history.

“That takes precedence over math and science and all other subjects, because if they don’t know who they are or where they came from then I don’t believe they will know where they are going,” Johnson said.

Ironically, many people are accusing black homeschool advocates of turning back the clock on civil rights and integration in public schools.

“What our fathers believed in the 1950s is that if it was a white school, it had to be better,” says Joyce Burges, who has homeschooled four children in Baker, La. “But in the last five years, more and more black parents are saying about those same schools: ‘I’m not going to sacrifice my children to a system where they’re suffering.’”

Others see civil rights as the freedom to educate as one pleases.

Mark Mabson, a homeschooling father, said, “I want to be looked upon as an individual and as an individual I want to do what is best for my family, I don’t have to follow with the majority.”

The Mabson family feels that the public school system is failing on numerous levels and is moving away from what is right to what is politically correct.

“We can teach our own morals, we can still say the Pledge of Allegiance, we can teach them about our country and loyalties,” adds Karen Mabson, Mark’s wife.

This movement is growing by leaps and bounds in black suburban communities, such as Atlanta, Richmond, Va., and Prince George County, Md., according to The Christian Science Monitor, and is partly fueled by groups like the Mocha-Moms. The Atlanta-based Mocha-Moms, which is a group of black housewives turned homeschooling mavens, offers tips and advice on the homeschooling experience.

Some critics say that homeschooled children might be academically challenged but miss out on valuable social experiences.

“The socialization process today is far more difficult than we really know,” Charles Christian, a University of Maryland sociologist, told The Christian Science Monitor. He notes that a lot of parents “are simply saying that [public] school is not where they want to send their children during their formative years.”

==============================

Better Education Through Vouchers (Free Congress Foundation, 030829)

Jose Quizo, 13, of Tucson, Arizona found himself worrying more about schoolyard ruffians than reading and writing. The bullies would push the good kids into a cage and then throw rocks at them. Even the teacher’s assistant was cowed by the bullies and refused to intervene.

Thanks to a scholarship, Jose’s mother, Maria Elena, was able to send Jose to the Push Ridge Academy whose more orderly environment is much conducive to learning.

Similarly, Cecilia and Heriberto Pinnuelas of Tucson have been pleased that several of their children have been able to receive scholarships to attend schools that are instilling the values they deem to be important.

These parents do not receive blank-check scholarships, they work hard to help pay the tuition costs for their children. But they are grateful for the assistance provided by the Arizona School Choice Trust, a program established in 1992 to provide privately funded tuition scholarships for low-income families.

Not enough families throughout this country are as fortunate.

Too many parents this fall will be sending their children to public schools that are flat-out dysfunctional and in desperate need of an overhaul.

Fortunately, in Arizona, a dynamic, creative state legislator named Trent Franks passed legislation six years ago to set up a tuition tax credit system in the state to encourage conscientious individuals to fund scholarships for low-income students to attend private and religious schools. Thanks to Trent Franks’ leadership, Arizona instituted a scholarship tuition tax credit program six years ago. This year alone, more than 20,000 children will be able to attend a school of their parents’ choice thanks to scholarships.

In fact, the number of Arizona taxpayers participating in the tax credit program in 2002 numbered nearly 50,000, an increase of six percent over the previous year.

Now, Trent Franks is serving his first term in the U.S. House of Representatives. He is sponsor of H.R. 2347 — the Children’s Hope Act which would encourage states to institute their own tuition tax credits.

Rather than a mandate, the Children’s Hope Act would provide an incentive for the states to increase the educational options of parents.

The Children’s Hope Act would institute a federal tax credit of $100 ($200 for joint returns) for those who have donated money to a scholarship program that disburses at least half of their scholarships to low-income children.

In order for the taxpayers of a state to be able to claim that federal tax credit, their own state must enact a scholarship tax credit of $250 or more.

Nine states lack an income tax. In those cases, it would be possible to take a dollar for dollar credit against property taxes.

This fall, many parents are apprehensive about sending their children back to public schools because they are rightfully worried about their children’s safety and the quality of their instruction. Furthermore, many parents want their children to receive instruction that reinforces the values that they are learning at home.

Legislation like the Children’s Hope Act can make a real difference between realizing the hopes of those parents or having them remain unfulfilled as their children remain trapped in failing schools.

Furthermore, the Children’s Hope Act, if enacted into law, could help to invigorate community spirit, because civic and fraternal organizations, churches and religious institutions, and professional associations would have a real incentive to form scholarship organizations. Virtually everyone pays federal income taxes, and therefore virtually everyone would be eligible to benefit from the Children’s Hope Act provided their state enacts a scholarship tax credit program too.

Plus, the public schools, their monopoly endangered, would be given a real incentive to improve.

Even seemingly modest donations of $50 or $100 to a scholarship fund can be very helpful for a family struggling to send a child trapped in a failing public school to a private or religious school.

The Children’s Hope Act has drawn powerful co-sponsors who serve on the House Education and Workforce Committee, including Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), the chairman, and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), chairman of the Select Education Subcommittee. Significantly, Danny Davis (IL) and Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX), two Democrats representing urban districts, have also signed on as co-sponsors. Both are members of the Congressional Black Caucus. But the drive is still on to find additional co-sponsors for the Children’s Hope Act, which must first wend its way through the Ways & Means Committee before being sent to the House floor.

This is one issue in which the grassroots can make a real difference and it is a timely issue now given the start of a new school year. Calls to radio talk shows, letters to editors, and talks before civic groups can not only inform the public about existing scholarship plans but also explain how enacting state and federal tax credits can help to spur further support.

The difference in enabling children to live meaningful lives is education. Too often, children from low-income families will find their desire to achieve short-circuited by dead-end public schools. Now, thanks to Trent Franks, many parents in Arizona have been able to obtain the quality education for their children that they once could only wish to provide. There is no reason that Arizona’s success with the scholarship tax credit plan cannot be shared by other states and also receive support at the federal level. If Trent Franks is able to have his way, the doors of opportunity may soon be opening for many schoolchildren across the nation who are hoping to move onward and upward in life.

Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

==============================

Topsy-Turvy: American universities are places of dizzying unreality — and this does considerable harm (NR, 031013)

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

Our universities have become odd places. They appear almost eerily out of step with the rest of us in times of national crisis. When all of our institutions become subject to greater scrutiny in wartime, the public begins to grasp just how different academic culture has become from the world of most Americans.

This vast abyss was on view in some lopsided academic-senate votes during the controversy over war with Iraq. In California, as elsewhere, about 70% of the public supported the armed removal of Saddam Hussein. Yet at the University of California, Santa Barbara, the faculty senate voted 85-4 to condemn the war. In fact, most of the state’s university faculty representatives weighed in along the same lines, from Santa Cruz’s 58-0 vote to Chico’s 43-0 — not a single professor voicing support for a position held by seven out of ten Americans. Like plebiscites in Vietnam, Cuba, and the old Iraq, or the embarrassing balloting of the Soviet legislature, the results were as lopsided and predictable as they were meaningless.

We catch equally disturbing glimpses of this strange landscape through the periodic bloodcurdling pronouncements of faculty members at a time of national peril — such as Columbia professor Nicholas De Genova’s wish for “a million Mogadishus” or University of New Mexico professor Richard Berthold’s praise of the September 11 murderers: “Anyone who can blow up the Pentagon gets my vote.”

There were also the predictably wrongheaded pronouncements from purported experts in diplomatic history, political science, and Middle Eastern history — such as Jere Bacharach of the University of Washington, who on March 28, nine days into the Iraq campaign, grandly announced, “The war is over and we have lost,” inasmuch as American armor would soon be “surrounded and forced to surrender.” Yale professor Immanuel Wallerstein warned of the possibility of “a long and exhausting war,” dismissing the scenario of a quick triumph — “Swift and easy victory, obviously the hope of the U.S. administration, is the least likely [outcome]. I give it one chance in twenty” — before concluding that “losing, incredible as it seems (but then it seemed so in Vietnam too), is a plausible outcome.”

In still other instances, academia’s problem shows itself to be one of pure ethics, rather than anti-Americanism or poor judgment. We feel something has radically gone wrong with the training and culture of scholars, for example, when our top professors and recipients of academic praise and prizes — a Joseph Ellis, Michael Bellesiles, or Doris Kearns Goodwin — purvey misinformation or expropriate the work of others.

It is not the lamentable behavior and pessimism of university humanists alone that grates. Institutionalized hypocrisy also is endemic on campus, and casts doubts on the supposedly principled and ethical proclamations issuing from administrators. An entire industry exists to chronicle the pernicious effects of university speech codes and the double standards that allow conservative campus newspapers to be stolen but would cite infringement on free speech if feminist or race-based publications were pilfered. Ethnic and religious slurs are habitually ignored or pardoned — if confined to Israel and fundamentalist Christians. Campus-funded MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán) organizations embrace racist and separatist language (“For the race everything; for those outside the race, nothing”) that would be deemed hate speech if espoused by any other group.

IVIED HALLS OF PROPAGANDA

Anyone who has spent a few years in academic life can corroborate any of these accounts by personal anecdote. After 20 years of teaching I have my own favorites. After I reviewed unfavorably a classicist’s edited book, she bragged to an online worldwide classics list server that she had called the FBI to report my coauthor, John Heath, and me — we wrote Who Killed Homer?, an account of the tragic decline of Classics — as likely suspects in the Unabomber manhunt. The American Philological Association, the scholarly organization of classicists, did nothing in response to such McCarthyite tactics, even though the story was published in the Wall Street Journal — indeed, at the time the culprit was an officer of the group and often active in urging the membership to explore social and gender injustice within the profession.

On another occasion I reported to a department chairman that I had been informed that activist graduate students were stealing some books on military history I had put on reserve on the department’s library shelf for seminar students’ use. In response, he warned me about the controversy of a military historian’s teaching a graduate course on agriculture and war in an academic climate devoted to theory and gender; quickly wrote me a check for my losses; and then came up with the idea that, in the future, I must put false library stickers on all the volumes to fool the students into thinking that the books were university property rather than my own. I did, and the theft abruptly stopped.

I once went to an academic hearing to discuss charges made by unnamed accusers that a professor in our department had said insensitive things about a female colleague — in the privacy of his own office. That the complainers remained unidentified yet confessed to eavesdropping through the walls of someone else’s office to glean “evidence” seemed to make no difference. The transgressions of hearsay, snooping, and anonymous accusations were ignored — as it was a matter of supposed male rudeness and insensitivity.

Most recently our university invited activists and persons convicted of felonies — including blowing up university laboratories — to relate their experiences in a conference on radical environmentalism. The fact that in the post–9/11 environment, and at a time of California budget disasters, it made little sense to invite terrorist felons to campus on the state’s nickel occasioned little controversy — until donors to the university complained about the absence of balance. (No dissenters had been invited.)

The common theme in all these instances is that the embrace of politically correct ideology provided zealous miscreants with immunity from the strictures of common sense if not legality itself. Bearing false witness, character assassination, petty theft, eavesdropping, and felony criminal acts — all this was excusable if done in service to more noble political goals such as the professed struggles for gender sensitivity, pacifism, feminism, or environmentalism.

Such politicized activism would be merely the stuff of black humor if the university were at least doing its job of training literate and reasoned thinkers. But often it is not. Graduating seniors have worse reading and writing skills than the students of 30 years ago. At many campuses of the California State University system, almost 40% of the units taken by first-year students are remedial courses, basic high-school-level classes designed to teach elementary reading, writing, and arithmetic. Tuition consistently rises more rapidly than inflation, as the public is asked to pay ever more for ever more inferior instruction. Education really is a zero-sum game of a finite number of hours in the life of a harried college student: A politicized and therapeutic curriculum comes at the expense of literature, history, and philosophy. It is, after all, easier to talk about gender bias than take a student through Paradise Lost or Hegel.

Although the faculty is a bastion of “progressive” thinking, some of the worst sorts of labor exploitation are also routine on campus. Part-time Ph.D.’s without medical or retirement benefits teach an increasing number of units, creating a 19th-century caste system of tenured versus temporary faculty, a divide that has no real counterpart in the coal mine or steel mill. The creation of all sorts of nonacademic and outreach programs, new administrative positions, and the general reduction of teaching loads from 30 years ago often require cash-strapped universities to cut costs in instruction. Consequently, students at many elite graduate universities rarely encounter full professors in their first two years, but instead are taught by postdoctoral lecturers and graduate-student teaching assistants — often paid per class at 25% or less of the tenured-faculty rate — who are often less qualified and experienced than junior-college teachers.

There are many explanations for this disturbing picture, both institutional and generational. Lifelong employment through tenure can breed complacency, ensure mediocrity, and foster insularity. Underachieving but tenured academics, despite dismal teaching evaluations and nonexistent scholarship, are virtually immune from meaningful censure — docked pay or dismissal — from their peers. Instead, they are like Brahmins from their seventh year to retirement — essentially three decades and more of institutional unaccountability.

Oddly, tenure often does not even achieve its one professed goal of protecting academic independence and eccentricity, as the one-sidedness of those recent academic-senate votes demonstrates. Instead, whether out of peer pressure or in constant pursuit of promotion, grants, good reviews, and book contracts — most adjudicated through peer review and faculty governance — professors who cannot be fired still rarely voice any sentiments at odds with prevailing academic mantras. Saying that George W. Bush is a warmonger might be a brave thing to do in Toledo or Fort Worth, but not in New Haven, Palo Alto, or Madison, where such sentiments are utterly unexceptional.

Principled faculty critics cite the new vocationalism that has ruined the university — the inclusion of nonacademic curricula like hotel management and leisure studies — or the dishonesty of mercenary athletic departments dressed up as amateur collegiate-sports programs. Yet they grow silent when similarly tough questions are asked about their own overspecialization, the use of public grants and sabbaticals to pursue esoteric and often irrelevant research, and the near absence of any readership for academic articles and subsidized university-press books.

An eight-month work year — most of us teach only 30 of 52 weeks — without regular hours required at school outside of class also lends an unreality, a starry-eyed utopianism to professors who count on steady pay raises, permanent work, and an insulation from the hurly-burly of the workplace. That most tenured faculty members in the humanities have never run a business, been laid off, or had their pay cut makes it unlikely that they have suffered dire economic consequences for bad decisions or quirks of fate.

The expansion of the university in the late 1950s and 1960s explains much as well. With over one million bachelor’s degrees granted annually, academia has now become a multibillion-dollar industry, one that must certify rather than educate 21-year-olds for future employment. The boom years of the 1960s created a need for tens of thousands of Ph.D.’s, many of whom simply did not have the talent or training of the far smaller cohort of their predecessors a half-century past. Imagine the quality of athletes and play if we suddenly expanded the National Basketball League to 500 teams, or the NFL to 100.

A CRISIS OF VALUES

But more than the institutionalized academic culture or the absence of talent explains the hostility of most academics to those values held by mainstream America. Something very different, something very unusual, transpired in the 1960s when a combination of events altered the perceived mission of the American university. If the tree-lined campus of old was a home to elbow-patched eccentrics and tweedy idealism, by the time of the Vietnam War it had transmogrified into a counterculture that offered a comprehensive alternative to politics as usual. For thousands of young men facing the draft in an unpopular war, and with sexual, racial, and environmental reform on the nation’s agenda, the university responded with new curricula, new campus policies, and new faculty aimed at righting society’s wrongs by proper training and indoctrination. The old Socratic idea that through give and take students might learn a method of inductive reasoning was considered passé, since the mastery of dialectic could only ensure a method for acquiring wisdom, not ipso facto the “right” thinking.

In the past, humanities professors taught a body of knowledge — historical facts, philosophical doctrines, time-honored themes in novels and plays — that might offer a student the ability to translate the daily chaos of the present into some abstract wisdom of the ages, with an appreciation for beauty thrown into the bargain. But of what immediate relevance were all such distant facts and ideas when old white men in the here and now had ensured that young people were dying in Vietnam and that the planet was suffocated in a gaseous cloud?

Dane Andrew San Francisco 4/4/03

In response, the university took on the Sisyphean task of guaranteeing social change according to the idealistic visions of an often out-of-touch and ill-prepared faculty. The deductive thinking of predetermined results and theories — the ancient creed of the sophists — now triumphed, as the old notions of fairness and two sides to every issue were deemed less important. The right politics were alone the proper corrective: If students were to leave the university equipped to counterbalance the power of corporate America, white males, the Republican party, and the global reach of the United States, there were only four brief years of preparation and no time or need to offer competing “discourses.”

Sometimes we see the results in the proliferation of “Studies” programs — “Ethnic Studies,” “Women’s Studies,” “Environmental Studies,” or “Peace Studies” — as if the traditional missions of philosophy, literature, and history suddenly about 1970 had been found incapable of dealing with age-old issues of class, race, gender, war, and the environment. Take, for example, the list of classes from the University of California, Santa Barbara, for the academic year 2001-2. There are some 62 different courses listed under “Chicano Studies,” among them Introduction to Chicano Spanish; Methodology of the Oppressed; Barrio Popular Culture; Body, Culture, and Power; Chicana Feminism; History of the Chicano; History of the Chicano Movement; History of Chicano and Chicana Workers; Racism in American History; Chicano Political Organizing; Chicana Writers; De-colonizing Cyber-Cinema; and Dance of the Chicanos. In the history department are listed 13 similar courses on Latino and Chicano issues, in addition to more generic classes on race and oppression. In contrast, the entire catalogue has few classes listed on the Civil War, and no real courses dedicated to either the Revolutionary War or World War II.

It is not just that many of these classes are politicized — imagine writing a paper on past corruption in the United Farm Workers Union’s health fund, the fascist Sinarquismo movement of the early 20th century that favored both Prussian militarism and later German Nazism, or ritualized mass murder in pre-Cortés Mexico City in “Methodology of the Oppressed” or “History of the Chicano.” The problem is also that such therapeutic classes as “De-colonizing Cyber-Cinema” do not necessarily teach a broad body of disinterested knowledge — elements of the ancient world, Renaissance, Reformation, or Enlightenment — that is subject to debate and differing analysis, the building blocks of a true liberal education. Instead they reinforce the most unfortunate of youthful tendencies — arrogance coupled with ignorance — as activists with incomplete historical knowledge and without writing and speaking fluency claim wisdom on the basis of their commitment or zealotry in a particular cause.

Two other developments may account for the academy’s sinking reputation. If during the Vietnam War such pernicious ideas about education were confined to activist young professors and graduate students, they are the common currency of that generation now come of age and into institutional authority and responsibility. Yesterday’s assistant professor is today’s college dean, provost, or president. Like swallowed prey making its way through the digestive tract of a snake, the 1960s generation has gone from newly minted Ph.D.’s to tenured radicals and on to university administrators, thus explaining why today’s institutional hierarchies tend to support rather than mitigate often extremist views.

The other development involves the glaring issue of privilege. It is one thing for the public to see poorly paid assistant professors demonstrating against the pathologies of American capitalism in Berkeley’s Free Speech Plaza, quite another to witness the smug disdain of the United States voiced by well-off endowed professors and elite faculty. One of the reasons that a Noam Chomsky or Edward Said wears so thin is precisely that his own radical politics are so at odds with the compensation he receives, the house he lives in, and the places he jets to — all greater than those enjoyed by most of the middle-class Americans whom the professoriate so smugly dismisses. So it is no surprise that the hotspots of activism against the Iraq war were places like Westwood, Santa Cruz, La Jolla, the Berkeley Hills, and Davis rather than Bakersfield and Tulare. Affluence, leisure, and security are an integral part of campus radicalism.

But revolutionary politics and elite tastes are always a bad match. The public that is often a paycheck away from penury has little tolerance for affluent professors who preach American pathology while living off the country’s largess. Perhaps guilt about living lives so at odds with professed radical politics explains unquestioning faculty support for affirmative-action quotas, suspicion of Western civilization, and empathy for opponents of the U.S. military. For every trip to Europe or each child at prep school, psychological penance is achieved by weighing in at little cost on the side of the happily distant other.

A PRICE TO BE PAID

Does this campus tragedy have repercussions in wider society other than the fact that so many of today’s socially aware graduates cannot write well, speak clearly, or do basic computation? The three meae culpae that emerged after September 11 — multiculturalism, cultural relativism, and utopian pacifism — either to excuse or to mitigate the horror of the mass murderers are all explicable only in terms of a contemporary academic ideology that has filtered down to millions in America well beyond our elite media and universities. Multiculturalism on our campuses taught us that the customs of all peoples are more or less equal, one society — whether the Taliban or Saddam Hussein’s Baathists — not being qualitatively better or worse than another. But the public saw that the theocracy in Afghanistan is a different sort of rule from democracy — an exclusive product of Western civilization — and results in the subjugation of women and the crushing of homosexuals by toppled stone walls, not electoral disputes in Florida.

Cultural relativism reprimanded a generation not to judge a people on its customs and practices; there can be no objective criterion of worth, since the very concept is an arbitrary “construct,” created by those in power to maintain their control and privilege. Yet burkas transcend culture: They are hot, make daily tasks excruciatingly difficult, and are often demeaning for women forced to wear them across time and space.

Conflict-resolution classes suggested that war is a product of exploitation, oppression, poverty, or miscommunication — rarely attributable to the aggressive policies of an autocrat who seeks power, fame, status, and honor through attack on perceived enemies. Terrorists must have material, not imaginary religious or ideological, grievances — and thus upscale brats like Mohamed Atta and Osama bin Laden surely must somewhere have been deprived of nutrition, education, or enlightenment in some way that can be traced to an act, policy, or idea of the West.

Thus war is “resolved” through greater understanding and “mediation,” as if we could achieve peace by sitting down with the murderous Mullah Omar — some in our State Department, remember, even floated the idea of a coalition government to include the Taliban — rather than by defeating him. That terrorism is often the domain of the pampered, bored, and conniving makes no sense to academics who have been schooled in the material determinism of Marx and his epigones — and who have never seen anything quite like an Osama or Saddam in the faculty lounge or the halls of the academic senate. Unprofessional deans and hurtful chairmen are one thing; cold-blooded killers who enjoy blowing up children with plastic explosives, nails, and rat poison are quite another — and, of course, usually a world away.

The past two years have done untold damage to the reputation of the contemporary university. Its experts — who neither read nor teach the history of wars — often predicted military defeat in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Campus protests against America and Israel offered anti-Semitic slogans and were organized by creepy neo-Communists who professed support for Fidel Castro and North Korea. The sexism, homophobia, and racism of bin Laden’s fanatics discredited the idea that such pathologies were uniquely Western. And what we saw of the Pakistani street, the parades of ten-year-olds with suicide belts in Gaza, and the madrassas, all gave the lie to the canard that there is no abstract measure to distinguish good from bad.

Mark Ludak New York, N.Y. 3/23/03

In contrast, American armed forces, drawing on a deadly military tradition unique to the Western world and subject to civilian oversight, not only obliterated Saddam’s military in a few weeks but ended the conflict of some twelve years that began in August 1990 through force leading to victory, not negotiations facilitating appeasement. Contrary to university gospel, the military proved not merely strong but moral as well, as it seeks to implant democracy in the difficult arena of postbellum Iraq. In response to all that, what is a postcolonial-studies professor or a lecturer in conflict-resolution theory to do?

Worse still for the campuses, embedded reporting of the American military offered a sharp contrast with the more elite culture of the university that was shown wanting in everything from race relations and inculcating maturity to tolerating dissent. If Hispanic and black Americans often are voluntarily segregated in university “theme houses” and dining halls or participate in racially segregated graduation ceremonies on “liberal” campuses, the military force-feeds integration and allows no such separatism. If 19-year-olds on campus engage in heated debates over perceived slights in campus newspapers and endlessly waste time over strange things like “lookism” and the rights of the “transgendered,” their generational counterparts on aircraft carriers are busy shepherding $40 million jets around crowded tarmacs, death or dismemberment always a few inches away. If faculty and students chant about perceived oppression abroad, college-educated officers and their rugged enlistees brave rifle fire to depose fascists and install democracies in their place.

Nor do Harvard or Stanford undergraduates have any monopoly on popular culture, as their peers in the Marines listen to the same music, wear the same style of sunglasses, and use the same jargon — the military and its officer corps more attuned to today’s adolescents than are frustrated professors who claim contemporary youth do not listen to them as they should. They don’t, and for good reason. If you asked today’s undergraduates at most campuses whether they respected a Gen. Tommy Franks or a Joint Chiefs chairman Richard Myers more than most of their college professors, the vast majority might well weigh in with the military.

Not all is doom and gloom on our campuses. If the faculty was lopsided in its opposition to the American effort in Iraq, according to most polls the students were evenly divided, or in fact favored military intervention. If the complaints of professors about the ideology of today’s undergraduates are any indication, a river of change is about to burst through the Augean stables of most American campuses. With civil rights legislation long ago enacted, the draft now history, controversy on campus about inviting rather than expelling ROTC, far more female than male undergraduates, and the U.S. military at war with right-wing fascists like Noriega, Milosevic, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein, today students do not believe that their own culture is necessarily racist, warmongering, or sexist.

In real dollars, tuition has steadily increased, lending a sense of the practical to today’s undergraduate “consumer.” Maybe it is the characteristic of youth to question authority; maybe today’s indebted students want tangible results for their investment. But whatever the cause, undergraduates more than ever are questioning their professors’ ideology, resent “off topic” meanderings into contemporary politics, and don’t think it is the university’s business to offer bias as “balance” to the supposed wrongs of the dominant culture they will soon enter.

In short, much of our present academic pathology is the cargo of a particular generation, one that is slowly making its way out of the university. Its influence is felt most acutely today as it reaches the apex of power, but as this generation nursed on campus protest passes — and it soon will — there is reason to hope that it may not have replicated itself and so will be remembered as a sad artifact of our recent history.

Mr. Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a professor of classics at California State University, Fresno, and the author of Mexifornia: A State of Becoming (Encounter).

==============================

Waking Up: September 11 has made some students question the orthodoxy of their teachers (NR, 031013)

American universities have long been centers of anti-Americanism. During the Cold War, academic hostility to America took the form of support for the Soviet Union, often buttressed by faulty scholarship and the deliberate hiding of Communist brutality. Since September 11, the anti-American Left has found a new way to express its illiberal undercurrents: It has made an enemy of President Bush and the War on Terror, and a friend (after a fashion) of America’s enemies.

Following the attacks, professors across the country jumped at the opportunity to preach their new dogma: What happened was our fault; we should criticize ourselves; we should not respond in anger or even in self-defense. To many in academe, our strength, our influence, and our unfettered freedom generated legitimate hatred around the world, and we had only to repent.

While conservative student groups and newspapers have for years been battling such sentiments — taking aim at anti-capitalism, cultural relativism, and suspicion of military strength, a few of the orthodoxies that make up the anti-American creed — the events and aftermath of September 11 gave new ammunition and focus to student dissidents. For many, the last two years have brought mounting evidence that the ideology of many of their professors is far from the tolerant humanism they profess. During this time, a new army of student groups has emerged to counter anti-Americanism, to re-legitimize patriotism, and to promote the active defense of American values here and around the world.

Student groups have formed at Columbia, Princeton, Yale, Harvard Law, Brandeis, and Oxford (the last is the work of two Rhodes scholars who also write a popular blog: www.OxBlog.com). Labeling themselves “pro-democracy” or “anti-terror” rather than conservative or Republican, they emphasize shared fundamental values — such as condemnation of terror, belief in universal human rights, and support for national defense — and open debate about the rest. They hope to appeal to the growing number of students who crave a serious defense of America, and rarely if ever hear one from their teachers.

Despite their intentionally broad appeal, these groups know they have their work cut out for them. Students at Brandeis who supported the war in Iraq say they were called “freaks” and “crackpots” by a professor at an anti-war demonstration there. Students at Princeton say administrators consciously avoided patriotic sentiment in memorials for September 11; instead of singing the nation anthem at a vigil immediately after the attacks, all joined in a round of “We Shall Overcome.” At Harvard, over 1,000 students left their classrooms one day last spring to participate in an anti-war rally, while professors condemned the Patriot Act and called on the university to withdraw investments from defense contractors involved in the Iraq war.

But the anti-anti-Americans are nevertheless sanguine about their ability to influence campus opinion, particularly among students. Some say students are increasingly dissatisfied with the radical left-wing views of their professors. Matthew Louchheim, founding president of Yale College Students for Democracy, says, “There’s a growing trend, at least at Yale, of students shifting away from the Left. They’re not necessarily moving all the way to the Right, but they’re disenchanted with leftist ideology in the post-September 11 world.” Others describe a silent mass of students who, until recently, were afraid to express their patriotic sentiments. “The most important thing we did was just founding the group and giving people who supported the war on terrorism a voice, which they didn’t have before,” says Jennifer Thorpe, who started Columbia’s Students United for America. “Now people are no longer afraid to speak their minds.”

Princeton senior Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky, founder of the Princeton Committee Against Terrorism, felt that while speakers and support-the-troops rallies were a start, the problem called for a longer-term solution within the realm of ideas. “We wanted to do something more intellectual, something that would stick,” he says. So he founded a magazine, American Foreign Policy, which began with just a few pages and soon grew into a thicker, biweekly publication that now attracts writers liberal and conservative, and from outside Princeton as well. “We’ve expanded the boundaries of acceptable debate, and we’ve created an alternative point of view” to that which dominated immediately after September 11. [Ed.: A piece by Mr. Ramos-Mrosovsky on a different topic follows this article.]

The Columbia and Yale groups hope to focus their long-term efforts on returning ROTC to campus. Louchheim laments the fact that Yale students have to go off campus to participate in ROTC, and says it means that military careers aren’t afforded the same prestige, or even legitimacy, that most other professions are. Though there’s vocal opposition at both schools to bringing the military back to campus, a poll of undergraduates at Columbia last April showed that 65% believe that the university should not continue to ban ROTC.

Over in Oxford, those Rhodes Scholars — Joshua Chafetz and David Adesnik — started their group OxDem to counter the prevailing perception that American foreign policy is imperialism in disguise. They also wanted to make a principled case for a “strong international democracy position,” particularly against popular opposition to “imposing” democratic values on the rest of the world. So far, they say they’ve gotten positive responses from other students. A debate they held last year with opposing groups filled a large lecture hall, and Chafetz says many students told them afterward that “we had raised points that hadn’t occurred to them before.”

Here at home, the burgeoning anti-anti-American movement is not limited to a small cluster of East Coast schools. At Indiana University, a group called Grand Old Cause was founded, in part to dismantle a “peace camp” of tents stationed illegally on university property by anti-war protesters. Founder Karl Born says that while only two faculty members have endorsed the group — the rest are “probably afraid to reveal themselves” — students were very receptive to their September 11 vigil and support-the-troops rallies. He suspects most students are probably sympathetic, but, like certain faculty, reluctant to come forward.

And at Arizona State University, senior Oubai Shahbandar’s new anti-terror group hosted anti-radical Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes on the second anniversary of September 11. Shahbandar, who was born in Syria, says he’s taken a lot of flack from Muslim and Arab groups for his strong support of America. But he remains undaunted, insisting not only that his fellow students are open to what he has to say, but that many Arab-Americans across the country are sympathetic to his message as well.

Iranian-born Ensieh Sarrami, a senior at Boston College, thinks her origins make students more receptive to her pro–war-on-terror views. This year, she wants to use her position in student government to influence campus-wide sentiment on the war, and eventually start a group of her own. Like many of the others, she observes that students are more and more distrustful of the radical Left: “If you’re actually fighting for democratic values, you can’t buy into the idea that people who died on September 11 actually deserved it.” Sarrami recently traveled to Israel, where she participated in a seminar run by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. She says she used to be “quite liberal” — and staunchly anti-Israel — but that September 11 forced her to confront the brutal reality of terrorism. As for her ability to change minds at BC, she says, “It’s going to be a hard battle, as on any campus, but I think that if you relate to people, you can reach them.”

Yes, these students are nothing if not optimistic. They do garner support from national organizations such as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and Empower America’s AVOT (Americans for Victory Over Terrorism), which brings an all-star line of speakers to campuses. But AVOT’s executive director, Seth Liebsohn, who is also director of policy for Empower America, says that it’s the students who reach out to him, not the other way around. “September 11 changed a lot,” he says. “Younger students saw it for themselves, not through the eyes of their professors. Now they’re looking for a defense of democracy, and they’re often not finding it in academia.” But rather than rely on national groups and politicians to bring their message to campus, the students I spoke to believe that the battle for student hearts and minds is above all theirs to fight. And they’re convinced it’s a battle worth waging.

It’s still difficult to tell whether this optimism is justified. But whether or not these groups succeed in luring their peers from the radical Left, there are reasons to believe that their efforts bode well for the future of universities and perhaps of the country. There are striking similarities between their burgeoning anti-terror, or pro-democracy, movement and the anti-Communist movement that shaped some of today’s most important thinkers and leaders. Both began with a reaction to the illiberal tendencies of the American Left, and both emerged deeply suspicious of the academic world and elite opinion more generally. Most important, both saw the difference between the rhetoric of tolerance and human rights and the reckless politics of the rhetoricians.

If nothing else, then, the next generation will have learned to be suspicious of rigid ideology, and that’s already a good sign for both scholarship and politics.

Rachel Zabarkes Friedman is on the editorial staff at Commentary.

==============================

Listening for Unicorns: Is the SAT biased or are college presidents nuts? (NRO, 040121)

Pitzer College alumni and donors may be wondering about the decision-making process of their president, Laura Skandera Trombley, after reading her Jan. 18 Los Angeles Times op-ed piece against the SAT. Because “we have a deep commitment to social responsibility,” Trombley writes, Pitzer will no longer require applicants to submit SAT scores if they have at least a 3.5 grade-point average and are in the top-ten percent of their high-school class.

Why? Because references in the SAT test “that are relevant to my way of life,” Pitzer explains, “might be completely alien to yours.” She continues:

Here, for example, is an actual SAT question: “Aware of the baleful weather predicted by forecasters, we decided the — would be the best place for our company picnic. (A) roof (B) cafeteria (C) beach (D) park (E) lake”

Now, if I had grown up on the East Coast, my immediate choice would be “cafeteria,” as my assumption would be that “baleful weather” would indicate rain or maybe even snow. But in fact, I lived for many years on the western side of the Pacific Coast Highway, so “baleful weather” could indicate high waves — meaning that my company picnic would be best, and more pleasantly, relocated to a lake.

On the other hand, if I had lived in Iowa (and I did for five years), baleful weather might indicate flooding. Obviously my company picnic would be best held on the roof. What to do? What to choose?

Context: the framework within which we make sense of the world.

So no more SATs at Pitzer. “We felt that requiring the SAT — a test on which white students score 206 points higher then average than nonwhites, according to Psychology Today — was inconsistent with our values,” Trombley explains.

For those unfamiliar with its values, Pitzer — a member of the Claremont Colleges in southern California — is a small liberal-arts college dedicated to diversity and social responsibility and is the lead Claremont College for its black-studies program. The website features a picture of “President Trombley’s electric vehicle” and a quote from her about how much she likes it: “Driving along at a top speed of 25 miles per hour, with the wind in our hair, we love hearing the birds instead of an engine.”

I don’t think she’s affecting the royal “we” here, by the way; Trombley looks in the picture like a pleasant, unpretentious woman. Apparently she just never drives even an electric car except when carpooling. She’s that socially responsible.

Now as it happens, I had no idea that “baleful” had anything to do with weather until reading Trombley’s piece; I’d only ever heard it used to describe someone’s look or manner.

But since a baleful expression is a gloomy expression, and gloomy weather means rain, the correct answer to that SAT question is obviously (B) cafeteria. I doubt there are many reasonably intelligent ten-year-olds who wouldn’t also be able to figure this one out.

Trombley might argue that because I grew up in a house with lots of books and limited television time — i.e., a racist society in which only white children like myself were allowed in the public library — I had an unfair advantage.

To which I could balefully respond that since this was also a brutal, patriarchal culture in which I was viciously distracted by Barbie dolls and makeup, it’s a wonder I ever read anything besides the fashion captions to Seventeen magazine and ought to be awarded extra credit for obstacles overcome.

Actually, the SAT question Trombley cites happens to be an example of a perfectly unbiased question, because you don’t need to know the word “baleful” to answer it correctly. (Of course it helps if you aren’t determined, like Trombley apparently is, to think not of horses or even zebras when you hear hoof beats, but unicorns.)

The question’s rather fretful tone, and the information that weather is involved, are all the clues you need to realize that (B) cafeteria is the right answer, because it’s the only choice that’s indoors. You’d realize that even if the question began, “Aware of the zzzyrrk weather prediction by forecasters...”

And this, as Trombley well knows, has always been the point of the SAT: to identify inherently bright students who for various reasons — poverty, familial dysfunction, bad schools — don’t have stellar academic records or access to lots of GPA-enhancing AP classes, but still might be able to benefit from a rigorous college education.

But never mind the SAT. What really should concern Pitzer College after reading Trombley’s piece is her frightening tendency to turn an inconvenience like rain at a company picnic into an institutional catastrophe.

She used to live near the beach, on the sandy side of Pacific Coast Highway, and says she therefore thinks it sensible to drag everyone to a lake to avoid high ocean waves. Since she’s an academic I suppose that might have been in Malibu, home of Pepperdine.

So come on, everybody, let’s get in Laura Skander Trombley’s electric vehicle and drive away from those high waves over to the nearest lake, which is...let’s see...probably somewhere in the western San Fernando Valley. At a top speed of 25 miles per hour it shouldn’t take more than half a day or so, give or take a few mudslides, and we can listen to the birds on the way.

Fortunately, the Claremont Colleges are inland, so perhaps Trombley has overcome her seaside-influenced assumptions by now. But then there’s the insidious pull of those five years in Iowa.

Looks like rain? Then for goodness sake, everyone, to the roof, to the roof! People drown in cafeterias, don’t you know that? No? Well, it’s an Iowa thing; you wouldn’t understand.

I think we can all see the potential for disaster here: a black-studies professor lost in a flash flood; a major donor zapped by lightning at President Trombley’s soggy rooftop picnic. We can only hope that Pitzer College trustees check the weather report regularly and remind her to stay indoors. Because apparently this really is one academic who doesn’t know to come in out of the rain.

— Catherine Seipp is a writer in California who publishes the weblog “Cathy’s World.”

==============================

N.C. Parents Angry Over Gay Children’s Book (FN, 040318)

WILMINGTON, N.C. — The parents of an elementary school pupil are fuming over the book their daughter brought home from the school library: a children’s story about a prince whose true love turns out to be another prince.

Michael Hartsell said he and his wife, Tonya, first became worried about “King & King” when the story related how a queen told her stubbornly single son she had already been married twice at his age.

The couple, who say they read with their daughter Olivia every weeknight before bed, went from surprise to disbelief when the leading character, Prince Bertie, waves off a bevy of eligible princes before falling for Prince Lee.

The book ends with the princes marrying and sharing a kiss.

“I was flabbergasted,” Hartsell said. “My child is not old enough to understand something like that, especially when it is not in our beliefs.”

The 32-page book, by Dutch writers Linda De Haan and Stern Nijland, was translated and published in March 2002 by Tricycle Press, the children’s division of Ten Speed Press of Berkeley, Calif. A follow-up, “King & King & Family,” was recently published.

The publisher’s Web site lists the books as intended for readers age 6 and up.

A message left after business hours Wednesday at the company’s headquarters was not immediately returned.

Barbara Hawley, librarian and media coordinator at Freeman Elementary School, said she ordered the book in 2002 and it has been on the library’s shelves since early last year.

The Hartsells can’t believe the book was ever there, let alone checked out by a first-grader. They want to make sure it doesn’t happen again, and say they are keeping the book until they get assurances it won’t be circulated to other pupils.

Hawley said that puts the school in a difficult position, because librarians are champions of intellectual freedom and if a book is to be removed, it will have to be discussed.

All New Hanover County schools have a committee for reviewing books after questions of appropriateness come up, and the Hartsells must make a written complaint and return the book for the committee to review, she said.

The Hartsells said they intend to file a complaint soon, and are considering transferring Olivia to another school, Tonya Hartsell said.

Hawley said she couldn’t comment on the book’s appropriateness because she hadn’t seen it and wouldn’t want to prejudice any review. She declined to say whether she knowingly selected a book on gay marriage, saying she used numerous selection guides to help choose material for the school’s diverse community of students, teachers and partners.

“We have a lot of diversity in our schools,” said Elizabeth Miars, Freeman’s principal. “What might be inappropriate for one family, in another family is a totally acceptable thing.”

==============================

Single-Sex Schools Score Big Victory (FN, 040323)

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is following through on a promise to make it easier for school districts across the country to operate girls-only and boys-only schools, drawing praise from advocates who say parents will now have more choices for improving their children’s education.

“We think we are going to see all-boys schools and all-girls schools popping up all over the country,” said Tom Carroll, founder and chairman of Brighter Choice Charter Schools in Albany, N.Y. “[The administration] is basically stopping a 30-year effort to stamp out the efforts of single-sex schools. They’re basically calling off the dogs, so to speak.”

But not everyone is happy with the plan. Paving the way for girls-only and boys-only public schools and classrooms means tinkering with Title IX of the 1972 Educational Amendments Act. Critics say the administration is undermining three decades of gender-based civil rights progress.

“Single-sex education basically says we will separate, but everyone will have an equal education,” said Nancy Zirkin, deputy director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a coalition of 180 civil rights organizations. “We know that in the context of race that is unacceptable, and we don’t know how in the context of gender it can be acceptable.”

“It would turn back the clock to a time when girls were excluded from athletics and various levels of advanced education — when girls were not expected to rise to the level or complete the task,” said Jocelyn Samuels, vice president of the National Women’s Law Center, who added that separating boys and girls will revive old stereotypes and undermine efforts to teach tolerance and understanding.

Over the years, Title IX regulations have been synonymous with providing equal access for females to scholastic sports, though it addresses anti-discrimination in all educational settings.

The most well-known element of Title IX are restrictions on publicly-funded high schools and colleges only to offer male sports programs when they can also provide an equal number of female programs. Title IX rules also say a single-gender classroom can be established as long as there is equal access to the same programs for the opposite gender.

As part of “No Child Left Behind,” educational reforms enacted in 2002, the Bush administration was permitted to take a look at Title IX stipulations and perhaps relax them to allow school districts to open single-gender schools without being forced to open a mirror school for the opposite gender. The new rule, which is expected to go into effect after a 45-day public comment period on the proposal, states that districts only have to ensure that the same educational opportunities exist for the other gender, and that they can be offered in a nearby co-ed school.

As far as same-sex classes within a co-ed school are concerned, according to the new rule, the district will still have to justify the need, and offer equal opportunities for both genders, but the requirements are more relaxed under the administration’s proposal.

Department of Education officials say girls-only and boys-only schools are and always will be voluntary for districts and parents.

Single-gender schools are already operating. The Young Women’s Leadership Foundation, which runs a successful girls-only school in the Harlem section of New York City, has achieved a 100% college placement rate. Its administrators hail the changes as opening up new opportunities for minority, inner-city youth.

“Single-sex education is not for everyone, it is a choice,” said foundation director Maureen Grogan. “Parents and students in public schools deserve the opportunity to choose single-sex schools, just like their peers in private, parochial and yeshiva schools.”

Supporters of girls-only and boys-only schools also say evidence is mounting to indicate that boys and girls can learn better in such atmospheres. Carroll said girls can achieve more in non-traditional subjects like math and science. Boys, particularly those coming from disadvantaged families and with emotional problems, benefit from more focused, disciplined curricula. Both have positive results from stripping away social pressures of co-education.

“We found in our schools, in the last year and a half, tremendous differences where the boys and girls were learning because academically, we’ve been able to tailor to what their needs are,” he said. Brighter Choice runs two schools — one for boys and one for girls, from kindergarten through grade 10. The Brighter Choice schools have been receiving public money because they comply with the old Title IX rules.

Opponents of girls-only and boys-only schools say there is no hard evidence to suggest that separating the genders in school will help solve these problems. Currently, 24 publicly-funded girls-only and boys-only schools in the United States are subjects of educational studies that have yet to be concluded.

While some critics say they worry that splitting the sexes will hurt girls trying to achieve academic equality, supporters point to all-female schools to show that the freedom to break free of gender expectations has resulted in exceptional female leaders and academicians.

“If my child is a young girl, and I see promise in mathematics and science but she is shy in social settings, I may come to the conclusion that she would do better in a single-sex setting,” said Deborah Perry Piscione, senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum and co-author of “Unfinished Business: A Democrat and a Republican Take on the 10 Most Important Issues Women Face.”

“I want to put her in the position where she is going to excel,” Piscione said.

But Samuels said she fears just the opposite will happen.

“We’d be teaching kids that stereotypes would be permissible, like parental beliefs that girls are less interested in math and science,” she said.

==============================

Education Secretary States Preference for Christian Schools (FN, 040410)

WASHINGTON — Education Secretary Rod Paige on Wednesday stood by his comments favoring schools that appreciate “the values of the Christian community,” but said he was not trying to impose his religious views on others.

At a hastily called news conference, Paige told reporters, “I understand completely and respect the separation of church and state.” He called himself a “fiery advocate” of public education.

Critics, including some Democratic lawmakers and the Anti-Defamation League, seized on Paige’s comments in a story run by the Baptist Press, the news service of the Southern Baptist Convention.

“The reason that Christian schools and Christian universities are growing is a result of a strong value system,” Paige was quoted as saying. “In a religious environment the value system is set. That’s not the case in a public school, where there are so many different kids with different kinds of values.”

Paige said Wednesday that he meant only that schools with broad missions and diverse populations face grater challenges than those with a focused content and message. Communities should decide on values taught in schools, provided they follow the law, he said.

Paige contended that his comments were taken out of context because he was referring to universities and not public elementary and secondary schools.

“I can’t honestly say this sounds like much of a clarification,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Paige said his record as a school board member, school superintendent and education secretary proves that he respects religious diversity. He challenged critics to find “any modicum of a situation where there was some imposition of my views on another person.”

Congressional Democrats want to meet with Paige to discuss issues such as race and religion.

“For Secretary Paige to say that the upbringing of one class of children offers superior morality compared to other children is offensive and hurtful,” said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., urged Paige “to repudiate these divisive comments and reaffirm your commitment to students of all religions.”

Paige said he understood his critics’ desire for clarification, but added: “I don’t think I have anything to apologize for.” He said it was proper for the nation’s public school leader to express personal views.

“I grew up with my faith,” said Paige, a Baptist. “I grew up with who I am.”

William Bennett, education secretary under President Reagan and author of The Book of Virtues, came to Paige’s defense.

“He’d prefer to have a child in a school that has a strong appreciation for the values of the Christian community. Who’s opposed to that?” Bennett said.

Paige oversees a public school system that serves roughly 47 million students and his agency also helps set higher education policy.

The Baptist Press story quoted Paige as saying: “All things equal, I would prefer to have a child in a school that has a strong appreciation for the values of the Christian community, where a child is taught to have a strong faith. Where a child is taught that, there is a source of strength greater than themselves.”

A recording of the interview shows Paige was responding to a question about whether Christian, public or private schools offer the best deal.

“That would vary, because each of them have real strong points and some of them have vulnerabilities,” Paige answered. “But you know, all things being equal, I would prefer to have a child in a school where there’s a strong appreciation for values, the kind of values that I think are associated with the Christian communities, so that this child can be brought up in an environment that teaches them to have strong faith.”

==============================

Southern Baptists eye exiting public schools (Washington Times, 040512)

A resolution urging Southern Baptists to remove their children from public schools has been proposed by an Alexandria man for the denomination’s annual convention in Indianapolis next month.

Thomas C. Pinckney, a retired Air Force brigadier general and former second vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention, and Bruce Shortt, a Houston lawyer, co-submitted the resolution on April 29.

“It dawned on us that academics were going downhill,” said Mr. Pinckney, who edits the monthly Baptist Banner newspaper, which he said has a circulation of 20,000. “That was the beginning of our awakening.”

The resolution urges Southern Baptists to “remove their children from all government schools and see to it they receive a thoroughly Christian education.” It also instructs the denomination, which is the nation’s largest non-Catholic sect at 16.2 million members, to “counsel parents regarding their obligation to provide their children with a Christian education.”

It notes that public school students receive “an anti-Christian education,” that public schools teach the acceptance of homosexuality and that student-run clubs friendly to homosexuals are spreading in public schools.

Quoting a biblical passage comparing children to “arrows in the hands of a warrior,” the resolution notes: “Just as it would be foolish for the warrior to give his arrows to his enemies, it is foolish for Christians to give their children to be trained in schools run by the enemies of God.”

The resolution will be one of several dozen submitted to the SBC’s Resolutions Committee, which decides whether to present it to the full convention during the annual June 15-16 meeting. If the committee favors the resolution and sends it to the floor, it will need a simple majority to pass.

If rejected by the committee, Mr. Pinckney will introduce the resolution on the floor, which would need a two-thirds majority vote to pass.

He said many Christian parents eventually will boycott public schools.

“Some public schools are doing a good job, as are some teachers who are Christians,” he said. “But they are in a system that is officially and legally godless.”

Last year, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson created a stir by suggesting that California parents remove their children from any elementary schools where homosexuality is presented as an acceptable lifestyle.

But Barrett Duke, vice president for public policy for the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said Southern Baptists have never taken such a position against public education.

“We have suggested parents make sure their children are receiving appropriate instruction in public schools and that they remain engaged with all of their children’s education,” he said. “We are also concerned about what happens in public schools, some of which is contrary to Southern Baptist faith and sensitivities. But we’ve never said public education is incompatible with Christian life.”

==============================

Southern Baptists Reject Private Schooling Initiative (FN, 040617)

WASHINGTON — A proposal that would have encouraged the mass exodus of Southern Baptist children from the public school system was killed at this year’s annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, supporters say because leadership felt it was too radical for the organization.

Though the resolution, sponsored by two members from Texas and Virginia, sparked debate and publicity, members of the resolution committee refused on Wednesday to send the proposal to the full floor for a vote by the membership, which is conducting its convention in Indianapolis. A subsequent attempt by one of the sponsors to attach it to another resolution on the floor was also defeated.

“I would never impose on anyone how they should be educating their children,” said Rev. Tommy Green, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Brandon, Fla., who serves on one of the committees to the convention and opposed the resolution from the outset.

The proposal, sponsored by retired Air Force General Thomas Pinckney and home-school advocate and attorney Bruce Shortt, suggested that each parent in the estimated 16 million-membership of the SBC take their children out of the public school system because, they say, it has long fostered an anti-Christian world view.

“I often tell people that public schools are killing our children morally, spiritually and academically,” Shortt told Foxnews.com. “Certainly, any side of that should be a concern to any parent.”

Shortt said the sponsors were not upset at the measure’s failing, but glad it got so much publicity and has sparked debate among the membership.

“Frankly, it’s the end of the beginning,” he said, explaining that the proposal was “just too radioactive” for the SBC leadership.

The 21-paragraph resolution used strong religious and biblical references to argue that members cannot expect their children to be educated to Christian standards in the public schools, which they say in the last decades have developed a “godless,” even anti-Christian, worldview. It also complains that the schools have accepted and promoted a pro-homosexual agenda.

“What is being taught in our government schools today is antithetical to the Christian faith and antagonistic to the Christian faith,” said Voddie Bauchum, a Texas preacher and lecturer who attended the convention this week to support the resolution.

While the resistance to prayer and any religious expression by the public school establishment has been a topic of discussion for years among the SBC, which represents an estimated 43,000 Baptist churches in 50 states, the Pinckney-Shortt resolution was considered by many to be the most strident introduced on the subject in the last decade.

Sources said the idea of asking for a mass walk-out of the public schools was not very palatable to the leadership, despite strong feelings about the issue.

Green said that while he and many others support the ventures of home-school education and private Christian institutions, they believe that public schools serve their purpose. Furthermore, many members have personal investments in public education.

“We have teachers, administrators, educators who are part of our churches and we stand firmly with them in their roles in public education,” said Green. “Are there things that need to be changed in certain parts of the country? Certainly yes. But encouraging our 16 million Southern Baptists out of the public schools will never be supported.”

Green said that while he understands that the anti-religious sentiment in the schools today has created “a downward spiral in the culture,” he believes millions of children in the U.S. need the government’s assistance when it comes to getting an education.

“The majority of children are coming from broken homes, they don’t have the right kind of parental role models. They are facing tremendous challenges before they even arrive at their schools,” he said.

The 10-member resolution panel typically sends about eight final proposals to the floor out of an average of 40 that are submitted to the body, according to sources. The delegates, or “messengers,” who travel from the churches each year to participate in the convention — around 15,000 this year — vote from the floor on the measures, which serve as non-binding guidelines for churches across the country.

On Tuesday, the messengers voted to secede from the Baptist World Alliance, which represents 46 million Baptists in over 200 denominations. The SBC, which represents about a third of the Alliance’s annual income, concluded that the larger group was becoming too liberal, particularly on issues such as abortion and female clergy.

Those who wanted to walk away from the public schools say even though they lost, the debate has been healthy for the convention.

“There is something very important going on here,” said Jim Babka, who is behind the GetTheKidsOut.org campaign, which is both religious and libertarian in nature. The campaign argues that government schools are finished.

“We need individual families to make the decision to leave. If they do, the system will implode,” he told Foxnews.com.

Babka acknowledged that the Pickney-Shortt resolution’s radical goals may have hobbled its success. “[The meeting leaders] believe it’s a lightning rod and they don’t want to touch it,” he said.

Some opponents complained that the committee may have considered the partisan implications of passing a resolution that in any way cast a critical glare on public education during President Bush’s re-election campaign. The president, who spoke via satellite to the membership on Tuesday, draws a great deal of support from Christian conservatives like Southern Baptists.

But Green and others said they didn’t agree with the resolution simply because Southern Baptists cannot cut themselves off from the world, especially when their faith requires them to serve as messengers.

Some parents like Rev. Grady Arnold, however, whose 9- and 11-year-old children are home-schooled, said they don’t believe the children are supposed to suffer bad education for their faith.

“My children are not evangelical tools,” said Arnold, pastor at Forestwood Baptist Church in New Caney, Texas. He said he lobbied for the resolution because of the “immorality and the inferiority of the education in public schools.”

Despite the failure of the original resolution to get to a vote, Arnold said he was happy it got the publicity it did.

“People are now grappling with the idea, ‘Should I pull my kid out for home-school or Christian school?’” he said. “I think there’s a majority who have never thought of it before.”

==============================

Behavior problems hurt teachers, students (Washington Times, 040512)

Unruly behavior in middle and high schools is a serious and pervasive problem that drives out teachers and undermines students’ academic achievement, according to a study released yesterday.

The study, which is based on surveys of teachers and parents by the nonprofit research group Public Agenda, said schools have gotten better at responding to problems such as weapons and drugs, but everyday behavior problems that don’t draw as much public attention still take their toll.

“This may be one of the most serious impediments to successful academic outcomes there is,” Public Agenda President Ruth Wooden said.

The report, titled “Teaching Interrupted,” says behavior problems mean students have less time to learn, partly because the teacher uses class time to discipline a few troublemakers but also because the troublemakers create an atmosphere that is not focused on learning.

“If you have a child in your classroom who is difficult to work with and they are setting a tone, you can have anything from a five-minute distraction to the loss of half a class period,” Tina Dove, a six-year teacher on hiatus, told the Associated Press.

“If you try to deal with that child in a way that’s going to have the least impact on everyone else,” said Ms. Dove, who lives in Alexandria, “that can take up an amazingly large period of your class. Before you know what happened, you’re behind.”

According to the report, the problem’s persistence has caused 34% of teachers to seriously consider quitting. The same percentage reported that teachers in their schools actually had left because they were fed up with student behavior.

A vast majority — 82% of teachers and 74% of parents — blame parents’ failure “to teach their kids discipline,” although smaller majorities of parents and teachers also identified pervasive disrespect in society and school overcrowding as causes.

Disrespect in society was identified by 73% of teachers and 68% of parents as a cause of discipline problems; overcrowding was identified by 62% of teachers and 54% of parents as a contributor to the problem.

Most teachers — 58% — also blame parents who challenge school-discipline decisions, 55% blame school districts that back down in such cases because they are worried about lawsuits, and 52% blame teachers who ease up on discipline because they worry that parents and administrators won’t back them up.

“The insertion of litigation and lawyers into the process ... makes the stakes a little higher, makes the bill a little higher and slows the process down,” said Julie Underwood, general counsel for the National School Boards Association.

Ms. Underwood also cited U.S. Supreme Court rulings that students have a right to due process that has to be balanced against discipline.

“I think that the issue of student discipline has been an issue in education since we had the first student and teacher,” she said.

The report also cites new teachers who often don’t enter schools with training on how to deal with discipline problems.

For example, it quotes one second-year teacher who said, “It is kind of a sink-or-swim program right now. You are just thrown in there [to] see if you can handle it.”

The report, which was based on a mail survey of 725 public middle- and high-school teachers and a phone survey of 600 parents of public-school students, also suggested potential solutions. The survey was taken in March and April and was preceded by six focus groups. It has a margin of error of four percentage points and was financed by the legal-reform group Common Good.

Most teachers said they think schools can prevent serious discipline problems by enforcing small rules and confronting routine misbehavior such as talking out of turn, horsing around, cheating, arriving late, showing disrespect, bullying and acting rowdy.

“What I find amazing — and I teach middle school, seventh- and eighth-graders — is this lack of morals,” a New Jersey teacher was quoted as saying in the report.

“There’s just a disrespect for classroom materials; they’ll write all over things, desks, rulers,” the unnamed teacher said. “I don’t even think they think it’s wrong, and it just amazes me.”

Among teachers, 85% said the biggest discipline problem comes from a few students, and 78% said that, for the good of all, these students should be removed from regular schools.

Also, the survey found, 42% of teachers and 46% of parents strongly supported limiting parents’ ability to sue and receive monetary awards in discipline cases.

Holding parents more accountable for their children’s behavior won the support of 69% of teachers.

National Education Association spokesman Michael Pons said increased parent-teacher communication, reduced class size and reduced school size also could help improve discipline, though he also pointed out that complaints about student behavior problems are nothing new.

“If you go back 2,000 years, you hear Roman philosophers say, ‘Kids today just don’t have the same respect,’ “ he said.

Given the longevity of the problem, not everyone expects a change. Bruce Smith, the editor of Phi Delta Kappa magazine, said the issue comes up every year in the publication’s annual survey.

“It has been among the top three problems for more than 30 years,” he said, “and I don’t think I’m going out on a limb by saying that 30 years from now they’ll still be saying that.”

==============================

Schools Experiment With Single-Sex Education (FN, 040513)

NEW YORK — For nearly 30 years in the United States, single-sex education, by law, has been allowed only in private schools.

But at a public middle school in Boynton Beach, Fla., 12-year-old boys and girls share only hallways and elective classes; they’re separating this year for English, math and science.

“You get to concentrate on your work ... more than on the girls,” said sixth-grader Benjamin Florestal.

Boynton Beach’s Odyssey Middle School is one of 97 public schools nationwide touting the success of single-gender programs.

The No Child Left Behind Act, signed by President Bush, gives states the legal power to separate the sexes — same curriculum, same access, but the only difference, supporters say, is that there are fewer distractions and better results.

In March, the U.S. Department of Education announced a change in its rules to amend Title IX, the 1975 anti-discrimination education law. The change would allow schools to offer single-sex classes without having to offer identical settings for both boys and girls.

“Our coed schools reinforce gender stereotypes,” said Leonard Sax of the National Association of Single-Sex Public Education. “Single-sex schools break down gender stereotypes. It’s counterintuitive — but it’s what that data shows.”

Single-sex advocates said grades are up across the board, with girls in particular showing dramatic improvement and interest in math, science and computers.

But the National Organization for Women disputed the data and said separate classrooms are a dangerous step backwards — reinforcing stereotypes and breeding sexism.

“I think it’s very difficult to make separate equal, even if you were to have the same teachers and the same curriculum, you don’t have the same lively exchange and debate that you have if you leave out an entire gender,” said Kim Gandy, NOW’s president.

==============================

Study: Big Spike in Non-Reading Americans (FN, 040708)

NEW YORK — The reading of books is on the decline in America, despite Harry Potter and the best efforts of Oprah Winfrey. A report released Thursday by the National Endowment for the Arts says the number of non-reading adults increased by more than 17 million between 1992 and 2002.

Only 47% of American adults read “literature” (poems, plays, narrative fiction) in 2002, a drop of 7 points from a decade earlier. Those reading any book at all in 2002 fell to 57%, down from 61%.

NEA chairman Dana Gioia, himself a poet, called the findings shocking and a reason for grave concern.

“We have a lot of functionally literate people who are no longer engaged readers,” Gioia said in an interview with The Associated Press. “This isn’t a case of ‘Johnny Can’t Read,’ but ‘Johnny Won’t Read.’”

The likely culprits, according to the report: television, movies and the Internet.

“I think what we’re seeing is an enormous cultural shift from print media to electronic media, and the unintended consequences of that shift,” Gioia said.

The decline came despite the creation of Oprah’s book club in 1996 and the Harry Potter craze that began in the late 1990s among kids and adults alike. Reading fell even as Barnes & Noble boasted that its superstore empire was expanding the book market.

In 1992, 72.6 million adults in the United States did not read a book. By 2002, that figure had increased to 89.9 million, the NEA said.

“Whenever I hear about something like this, I think of it as a call to arms,” said Mitchell Kaplan, president of the American Booksellers Association. “As booksellers, we need to look into what kinds of partnerships we can get into to encourage literacy and the immediacy of the literary experience.”

In May, the nonprofit Book Industry Study Group reported that the number of books purchased in the United States in 2003 fell by 23 million from the year before to 2.22 billion.

The NEA study, titled “Reading at Risk,” was based on a Census Bureau (news - web sites) survey of more than 17,000 adults.

The drop in reading was widespread: among men and women, young and old, black and white, college graduates and high school dropouts. The numbers were especially poor among adult men, of whom only 38% read literature, and Hispanics overall, for whom the percentage was 26.5.

The decline was especially great among the youngest people surveyed, ages 18 to 24. Only 43% had read any literature in 2002, down from 53% in 1992.

Gioia said the electronic media that are contributing to the problem do offer possible remedies. He praised Winfrey’s use of television to promote literacy and said he wished for a “thousand variants” of the idea.

“There’s a communal aspect to reading that has collapsed and we need to find ways to restore it,” Gioia said.

The title “Reading at Risk” is modeled on “A Nation at Risk,” a 1983 government study that warned of a “rising tide of mediocrity in elementary and secondary schools” and led to numerous reforms. But Gioia avoided specific proposals in the NEA report.

“I don’t believe the NEA should tell the culture what to do,” he said. “The reason we are bringing this study out is that we consider it a crisis situation that requires a national conversation.”

==============================

Literature at Risk: The state of our reading habits (NRO, 040719)

By Peter Wood

In April 1983, the U.S. Department of Education’s National Commission on Excellence in Education issued “A Nation at Risk,” which memorably declared: “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.”

Most official government reports are little noted, and not long remembered, but ANAR hit its mark. Issued just four years after Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education, the report gave a thump of national recognition to what a lot of people already knew: namely, that American schools were, by and large, doing a poor job of educating students.

ANAR launched two decades of sometimes frantic and often desultory school reform — and two decades of opposition from the teachers’ unions. ANAR’s greatest success was in changing the terms of debate, for even those most invested in maintaining the system as it was in 1983 soon adopted the rhetoric of “reform.” We entered the era of the Ukrainian Easter-Egg Curriculum: elaborately decorated on the surface, hollow within. These eggshell reforms are to be found in every other decrepit part of the educational enterprise too, from teaching technique to teacher training, and from school funding to public oversight.

The fruits of these decades of reform are visible in the brand-new official government report issued under a partly familiar title: “Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America.” Released earlier this month, this report comes from the National Endowment for the Arts’s Office of Research and Analysis, under the direction of Mark Bauerlein. RAR reflects the intellectual seriousness of Bauerlein and his boss, NEA Chairman Dana Gioia. Gioia is not, by temperament, an optimist, at least in his poetry. Here he is in “Instructions for the Afternoon”:

Leave the museums. Find the dark churches in back towns that history has forgotten, the unimportant places the powerful ignore where commerce knows no profit will be made.

— a poem that ends with the “failing vision” turning into a revelation of:

The grim and superannuated gods

who rule this shadow-land of marble tombs,

bathed in its green suboceanic light.

Not a vision to pursue, and yet

these insufficiencies make up the world.

Strange how all journeys come to this: the sun

bright on the unfamiliar hills, new vistas

dazzling the eye, the stubborn heart unchanged.

It is a wonder that we have an NEA chairman who is a writer of poems that bear quotation. We have, if we care to look, more of this man’s soul than we are likely to glimpse of any other figure in corridors of government. On the testimony of his poems, Gioia is alive to the beauty of this world, gently humorous, but touched almost everywhere by the impending shadows. He describes “Men After Work” drinking coffee, “holding each sip/lukewarm in their mouths, this last taste of evening.” In “Insomnia” he invokes, “The terrible clarity this moment brings,/the useless insight, the unbroken dark.” And his vision might be summarized by the line in “Daily Horoscope,” when, after warning against false auguries, he writes, “you touch, you see, you press against/the surface of impenetrable things.”

The NRO reader who has made it this far is surely eligible to be a sympathetic reader of “Reading at Risk.” The NEA report is not about how many or how few Americans are literate in the sense of deciphering labels on soup cans or Paul Krugman columns. Rather, RAR gives us a detailed analysis of the “literary reading” habits of 17,000 adults. As Gioia says in his preface, the report is a “descriptive survey” and “not a collection of anecdotes, theories, or opinions.” Yet an opinion certainly hangs over these numbers. Gioia’s: that we have experienced a “huge cultural transformation” away from literature and toward “electronic media for entertainment and information.” This shift impoverishes us by diminishing “irreplaceable forms of focused attention and contemplation that make complex communications and insights possible.”

RAR is rich with carefully analyzed data, but the essential picture is that only 56.6% of Americans read a book in 2002, down from 60.9% in 1992. That’s a 7-percent rate of decline. The relative decline in those who read a work of literature is even larger. In 2002, 46.7% of Americans read a literary book; in 1992, 54% had. The declines register in almost every demographic cross section: men, women, whites, African Americans, and Hispanics. (The enterprising “other” category, however, achieved a slight increase in literary reading in the last decade: up from 42.7% to 43.7%.) The decline shows up at every educational level, including college graduates: from 82.1% having read at least one literary work in the preceding year in 1982, down to 74.6% in 1992, and down again to 66.7% in 2002.

The drop in literary reading, however, is most pronounced when the data are analyzed by age. The overall rate of decline in reading literature between 1982 and 2002 was 18%; but comparing 18-24 year olds in 1982 to their counterparts in 2002, the decline is 28%.

Regionally, the mountain states (Arizona to Montana) are the place to find the highest concentration of readers of literature (53.4%). The lowest: Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee (40.9%).

Some results are a bit puzzling. Folks who do read literature average 2.7 hours of television watching each day. Folks who don’t read literature watch an average of 3.1 hours.

In families that earn less than $10,000 per year, 29.6% of the individuals in the survey read literature. The percent of readers steps up in correlation to income until it reaches 59.4% among families earning $75,000 or more. That is to say, among the poor, almost a third do read literature; and among the affluent, over a third don’t.

Together with all its technical appendices, RAR is under 40 pages and well worth the close reading that 56.6% of us are potentially capable of giving.

But what does it mean?

When I was in graduate school, I was friends with an Icelandic couple who were, as many Icelanders are, very proud of their heritage. They never tired of retelling a particular statistic: that Icelanders read more books per capita than anyone else in the world. To this day, I am glad for the Icelanders, and I hope that the land of geysers and puffins does not succumb to the temptations of some saga-less Snorri Instapunditsdottir.

But I never could really work up much envy of Icelandic bookishness. Maybe it is because I have always had friends who are not readers of literary works, but who are nonetheless interesting people with lively minds. I just don’t feel a deep need for an America where everybody reads short stories, novels, plays, poetry, and reflective essays.

But, of course, that isn’t really what’s at stake. Gioia, Bauerlein & Co. at the National Endowment for the Arts are really pointing to the thinning out of a certain kind of cultural sensibility in the United States. Their statistics can only “press against/the surface of impenetrable things.” Their report would, no doubt, have met with derision had they attempted to distinguish between reading supermarket novels and serious literature. They veer instead to the opposite extreme by including “popular genres” in the definition of “literary works,” and declaring, “No distinctions were drawn on the quality of literary works.” The numbers of readers reported in “Reading at Risk” therefore represent an inflated estimate.

Judith Krantz, Robin Cook, and Danielle Steel count as much as Jane Austen, Herman Melville, and Theodore Dreiser. A Harlequin Romance, a Star Trek novel, or even murkier “fiction” passes the NEA’s lenient test of what counts as a “literary book.” Reading is reading; a novel is a novel; and that’s that.

I give due allowance to this view. It may be possible (though hardly likely) to read a book by Jane Austen almost as superficially as a book by Danielle Steel. But Austen resists that kind of reading. She asks better of her readers and gives us reasons to want to meet her at that better level, while a writer like Steel offers only what amounts to a slovenly solicitation. Melville’s first novel, Typee, offers as wild a ride as anything by Robin Cook. The difference is that Melville is also coming to grips with a profound discovery of the fragile boundary between his civilization and a world that lies beyond it. Because literature isn’t always easily recognized, we ought to be generous in allowing auditions. But that doesn’t mean we have to allow all comers. I have to wonder what the NEA’s calculation of 56.6% of Americans having read a book in 2002 would look like if we could somehow factor out the Harlequin Romances and other bits of obvious dreck.

Real literature pushes us into a place where we have to make judgments and rely on discernment. And those are matters of deep concern to conservatives — at least those conservatives who believe that real human communities are built on traditions of moral striving in a world of imperfect individuals. Literature may not mean much to the Gradgrinds who think society can be reduced to a good set of rules coupled with proper incentives. Nor is literature likely to rank high in the estimation of people infatuated with newness. They need a bulletin board more than a Mark Twain or a George Eliot. And literature, of course, lives a thin life in the world of ideologues, who can accommodate it as long as it stays on message. But real literature seldom does.

Since this is NRO and “The Corner” is lurking nearby, let me pick up just one of those threads. Clearly one of the lures drawing intelligent people away from literature is the blogosphere. It is a place of quicker satisfactions than the novel: the reader’s and the writer’s equivalent of speed dating, as opposed to the old rituals of courtship. The self-generation of this new form of communication is, in many respects, a marvel. Certain kinds of news get heard and vetted far better than in older channels of communication. But just as clearly, blogging helps to dilute that relatively slow, resistant kind of reading that good literature cultivates. “Fisking” a poorly thought-out New York Times article is an intense and engaged way of reading, but it is in the end just a fiercer approach to ephemera. Bloggers, blog on, but keep reading good books too.

“Reading at Risk” is, I suppose, unlikely to ignite the sort of fires that “A Nation at Risk” started in 1983. The prices we may pay as a nation and as a culture for failing to read good literature are inevitably more obscure than those that come from simple illiteracy, innumeracy, and ignorance. The main prices of being ill-read are cultural superficiality, loss of historical context, susceptibility to ideological provocations, and a certain kind of spiritual aimlessness. Granted, these tax some people more than others. We do not need to be an Iceland, where everybody has read Njal’s Saga — or, in our case, The Last of the Mohicans. But if we are to sustain ourselves as a civilization, we need men and women self-sufficient enough to read and to love books.

— Peter Wood, a professor of anthropology at Boston University, is the author of Diversity: The Invention of A Concept.

==============================

Faster Is Smarter, Pumping Up Parents (Foxnews, 040924)

Accelerating the best students helps them intellectually and socially, says A Nation Deceived, a new report from the University of Iowa. The Des Moines Register reports:

A new University of Iowa report seeks to debunk myths that accelerated learning for gifted students is unfair, expensive for schools and causes students to be social outcasts, gifted-education experts said Monday.

Time recites the standard fears about children pushed too fast, but concedes there’s evidence many very smart students are very bored:

For the smartest of these kids, those who quickly overpower schoolwork that flummoxes peers, skipping a grade isn’t about showing off. Rather, according to a new report from the University of Iowa, it can mean the difference between staying in school and dropping out from sheer tedium. “If the work is not challenging for these high-ability kids, they will become invisible,” says the lead author of the report, Iowa education professor Nicholas Colangelo. “We will lose them. We already are.”

...In a 2000 study for Gifted Child Quarterly, Joseph Renzulli and Sunghee Park found that 5% of the 3,520 gifted students they followed dropped out after eighth grade. Astonishingly, that’s almost as high as the 5.2% of nongifted kids who dropped out. Untold numbers of other highly intelligent kids stay in school but tune out.

I survived by reading surreptitiously in class. For many years, I averaged five to seven books a week. My sister skipped a grade, but the higher level work still was too easy for her.

Getting to ‘No’

Middle-class parents need to learn how to say “no” to their children, says a Newsweek story.

This generation of parents has always been driven to give their kids every advantage, from Mommy & Me swim classes all the way to that thick envelope from an elite college. . . . Now, a growing number of psychologists, educators and parents think it’s time to stop the madness and start teaching kids about what’s really important — values like hard work, delayed gratification, honesty and compassion. In a few communities, parents have begun to take action by banding together to enforce limits and rules so that no one has to feel guilty for denying her 6-year-old a $300 Nokia cell phone with all the latest bells and whistles. “It’s almost like parents have lost their parenting skills,” says Marsha Moritz, 54, who helped found the Parent Engagement Network, a support group in Boulder, Colo.

The parents need a support group? What wimps!

When my daughter said, “I want” too much, her father would sing, “You can’t always get what you want” till she begged him to stop. I just made it clear that nagging, whining and sulking never would be effective strategies. Keep asking and what you get is a mean, crabby mother.

The World Is Catching Up

According to an international study, the rest of the world is catching up to the U.S. in educational attainment. Some 87% of Americans 25 to 34 have finished high school, which ranks 10th in the world, reports the Detroit News.

“They’re catching up with you in the proportion that finish school (and) the proportion that go to college,” said Barry McGaw, director of education for the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which develops the yearly rankings.

“The one area you remain ahead is how much you spend,” McGaw told U.S. reporters Monday. “They don’t need to catch up with you on quality, because many of them are already ahead.”

The U.S. ranks second, behind Canada, in the percentage of adults with a four-year college degree: 38%. But other countries are sending more young people to college, narrowing the gap.

The U.S. spends an average of $10,871 per student, more than any other country.

While U.S. teen-agers have average academic skills, they have lofty ambitions, notes USA Today.

...U.S. students’ reading performance sits around the middle of a 27-nation pack, just five points higher than average; math performance is five points lower than average...

But when asked what kind of job they expect to hold by the time they’re 30, 80.5% of U.S. students said they’d have a white-collar, high-skilled job, far exceeding the average of 62.2%.

America’s best students are as good as the best in the world; our worst students drag down average scores.

Dunce Caps Are Chic in France

French nostalgia has made a hit out of a reality show that puts 24 students into a 1950’s-style boarding school that recreates the strict discipline and rote learning of the past. Students who misbehave must copy long passages from Flaubert in longhand, wear a dunce cap or mop the floor, reports the New York Times. All take cod liver oil every morning.

In a nationwide poll released on Friday by the TNS Sofres Group, 80% of parents of children from 10 to 16 surveyed said they were worried about their children’s academic achievement. Only half that number said they were worried about their relationship with their children. In another poll released this week, almost half of parents of school-age children surveyed said that they would like to reinstate uniforms in public schools.

French schools in 2004 are more rigid than American schools, with a centralized curriculum and ability grouping. And the education ministry is planning to “return schools to traditional learning techniques, including a much greater emphasis on reading of required texts, memorization and recitations, taking dictation and writing structured essays.”

Joanne Jacobs writes about education and other issues at JoanneJacobs.com. She’s writing a book, Ride the Carrot Salad, about a start-up charter high school in San Jose.

==============================

A Long-Term Choice: Vouchers keep kids in school (National Review Online, 040930)

Nobody needs to be told that urban education is in lousy shape. Only half of America’s black and Hispanic students graduate from high school. Gigantic increases in per-pupil spending over many decades haven’t raised the graduation rate. Schools have pursued fad after fad — ability tracking, ability detracking, less vocational ed, more vocational ed, multiple-intelligence curricula, etc. — without noticeable success.

On the other hand, some types of larger structural reform have been shown to raise student outcomes. And when it comes to getting more kids all the way through school, one reform in particular shows real promise: choice. There’s already a consensus among high-quality studies that school choice boosts test scores. Now, in a new study sponsored by School Choice Wisconsin, I find that it also keeps kids in school.

The nation’s oldest and largest urban voucher program is in Milwaukee, a city that’s no stranger to education problems. I estimate that the graduation rate in Milwaukee’s public schools is a dismal 36%. And you don’t have to take my word for it: If you use an alternative estimation method developed by the Harvard Civil Rights Project and the Urban Institute, you get an equally dismal graduation rate of 39%.

It’s precisely because things are so bad in Milwaukee that the city was open to experimenting with vouchers. And the research shows that the experiment is working. Previous studies have established that the program raises test scores both for participants and for students in nearby public schools, which have to shape up in response to competition from vouchers.

Now we have our first look at how vouchers are doing at preventing dropouts. My study finds that Milwaukee students going to private schools on a voucher have a graduation rate of 64%. That’s a rate any big city would love to have. Using the Harvard Civil Rights/Urban Institute alternative method puts the choice graduation rate at 67%.

Of course, skeptics might object that choice students could have special advantages over regular public-school students that explain their better graduation rates. But that’s a hard pill to swallow. To get into the Milwaukee program you have to be from a low-income background, and research suggests that participants are also more likely to be minorities and to come from broken homes — and that they have below-average test scores when they enter the program.

But it’s true that voucher students might be advantaged in other ways we can’t measure directly. Maybe they have parents who care more about their children’s education. So let’s put the data to a hard test.

Milwaukee has six public high schools that are academically selective. You can’t go to these schools unless you meet certain criteria for achievement. Meanwhile, schools accepting vouchers must take all comers, and have to choose by random lottery if they have more applicants than open seats. If any available public-school comparison group is likely to be more advantaged than the city’s choice students, it’s the kids in these six schools.

The graduation rate at Milwaukee’s selective public schools is 41%. These advantaged kids are a whopping 23%age points below the kids using vouchers to escape the public-school system. So it looks like student demographics can’t explain choice students’ higher graduation rates.

Vouchers in Milwaukee are keeping a lot more kids in school. This helps confirm all the earlier studies finding that vouchers result in higher test scores for both the kids who use them and the kids who remain in public schools. Other cities would do well to learn from Milwaukee’s example.

— Jay P. Greene is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute’s Education Research Office.

==============================

Study: Secularist Schools Indoctrinate Even Christian Kids (Crosswalk.com, 041125)

Agape Press

A researcher has revealed some disturbing trends regarding the sets of beliefs Christian students in public schools have about the most important issues in life.

Dan Smithwick is the founder and president of the Nehemiah Institute, a group that provides a biblical worldview testing and training service to Christian educators. He is the developer of what is called the “PEERS test,” a tool to assess the worldviews of young people, and says the majority of public school students from evangelical Christian homes consistently score in the “socialist” category on the test.

According to Smithwick, this outcome should come as no surprise, considering the fact that secular humanists are currently shaping America. He notes that socialism, a political and economic philosophy that commonly emphasizes government control and redistribution of wealth over personal responsibility and private ownership, often goes hand in hand with secularist attitudes and a generally non-biblical worldview.

Smithwick’s worldview test consists of a series of statements carefully designed to identify a person’s worldview in five categories: Politics, Economics, Education, Religion, and Social Issues (PEERS). Each statement is framed to either agree or disagree with a biblical principle.

When it comes to major moral and social issues, the Nehemiah Institute spokesman contends there is a dramatic difference in thinking between students in public schools and those in Christian schools. This is because, while Christian school students are generally taught curricula predicated on a biblical worldview, students educated in public schools, even when they grow up in Christian homes, tend to a very high degree to adopt the non-biblical and socialistic worldviews of the secular humanists in control of their education.

“In the last hundred years,” Smithwick asserts, “and especially in the last 30 years, this is the audience that is shaping the public square in America, hands down. And they didn’t really have to fight for it — we [in the Church] gave it to them. Somewhere along the way we decided that the public square really wasn’t our business. It wasn’t our playground; they could have it, and they’ve had their way with it.”

As a result, the Christian education advocate says, even Christian students are growing up to become a part of a society with an increasingly secular-humanistic and socialistic worldview. “Now we’ve got a mess on our hands,” he says, “and it’s really our fault. So we’ve got to change that. We’ve got to repent before God. We’ve got to go back and understand that worldview means God is interested in everything he created.”

Undoing the Damage Done by Dewey

Unfortunately, Smithwick says, many Christian young people today are not being taught to think biblically in all areas of life. That is why he urges parents, pastors and Christian teachers to take advantage of the Nehemiah Institute’s worldview testing, training, and resources. And this is why he has been promoting the Institute’s programs this week at the Alliance for the Separation of School and State Conference in Washington, DC.

Undoing Dewey — that’s the goal of the program, according to Smithwick. He refers to the secular humanist principles of John Dewey (1859-1952), the philosopher and education reformer whose principles have shaped public education in America. Dewey promoted a philosophy of education with the premise that learning by doing (experimentalism) should form the basis of education, and any idea or concept is validated by its practicality (pragmatism). Some Christian educators consider these ideas to be precursors to “values clarification” and other questionable teaching models that advocate moral relativism, but which are commonly taught in teacher education and used in U.S. public schools.

Smithwick says his program of PEERS testing indicates that Christian students are by no means immune to the secular humanism being taught in public schools, but have in fact been dramatically influenced by it. “The way we got this was by testing youth groups in evangelical churches,” he says. “The majority of the kids are in public schools. In many cases, 100% of them are in public schools.”

The Nehemiah Institute president says many pastors like to call these young people their “best kids” since this group, at least, are involved in a church youth group. Still, he asserts that these kids have not escaped with an intact biblical worldview. “They’re in public school,” he says, “and they’re buying into the philosophy of life that’s being put before them five days a week, six or seven hours a day.”

Smithwick recommends PEERS testing as an aid for Christians who want to make sure their young people develop a distinctly biblical worldview. He advises Church parents to disconnect from government schooling and, along with pastors and other Christian educators, to engage in worldview assessment and training.

==============================

Textbook Publishers Define Marriage to Appease Texas Board (Foxnews, 041105)

AUSTIN, Texas — The State Board of Education approved health textbooks for Texas high school and middle school students on Friday, after publishers changed the wording in some of the approved textbooks to reflect marriage as being between a man and a woman.

A day earlier, some board members had said the books attempted to nullify Texas’ law banning the recognition of same-sex civil unions because the books used terms like “married partners” but do not define marriage as an institution between a man and a woman.

One of the publishers changed its text to include a definition of marriage as a “lifelong union between a husband and a wife.”

Board member Mary Helen Berlanga asked the panel to approve the books without the changes.

“We’re not supposed to make changes at somebody’s whim,” Berlanga said. “It’s a political agenda, and we’re not here to follow a political agenda.”

The decision could affect dozens of states because books sold in Texas, the nation’s second-largest textbook buyer, often are marketed elsewhere.

The elected board, which includes 10 Republicans and five Democrats, is allowed to reject books only because of factual errors or failure to follow state-mandated curriculum.

==============================

Southern Baptist Home-School Debate Continues (Christian Post, 041211)

Although the controversial resolution to home-school Southern Baptist children was tossed and buried during the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)’s annual meeting in June, it seems the issue is far from dead: The resolution resurfaced at 11 individual state conventions in October and November, where it received considerable support.

While each of the state resolutions differed in format and wording, the underlying message was the same: every Baptist child deserves access to a Christian education in lieu of a highly secularized public education system.

According to Bruce Shortt, one of the drafters of the original SBC-wide resolution, the controversial issue is now on the table and will not likely “go away.”

“We had ten sponsors who said they would be interested in bringing for the resolution at the state conventions, and another sponsor added his name,” said Shortt. “The general response has been to try to stifle any discussion on the subject on the vain hope that it will go away, but it will not go away.”

While the bulk of the states tossed the resolution, some states came close to passing it, and Missouri actually passed it.

“Roger Murand of the Missouri Baptist Convention passed the resolution. His resolution is very different from the original one we drafted for the national convention. However if you understand the substance, you will see that they are essentially the same,” said Shortt.

Shortt, a home-school father with a Stanford Ph.D, explained why he believes Christian education is crucial for Southern Baptist youth.

“For more than 20 years the SBC has benefited from strong and godly leadership. As a result, the SBC now stands on sound doctrinal ground. The next step is to align our practice fully with our doctrine by cultivating faithfulness in the K-12 Christian education of our children. I am confident that the SBC leaders will come to see in time why Christian children must not be educated in public schools and that K-12 Christian education, either Christian day schools or home schooling, is an indispensable component of our obedience to Christ,” he said.

Shortt also said he understands why the issue would be “so contentious.”

“It is a contentious issue because there are a lot of parents who are accustomed to public schools and a lot of parents accustomed to sending off their children in the morning and picking them up in the afternoon. Some parents also think they don’t have the time or money to teach their children at home,” said Shortt.

“However,” he added, “we must be responsible for the education of our children.”

Shortt explained that contrary to public opinion, home schooled children do better intellectually and fair well at college admissions.

“Government schools are killing our children intellectually so we need to take our children out. In the latest string of international comparisons on the US verses the rest of the world, our academic performance is dropping and falling. This is the sort of news that keeps coming every week or two.” Shortt said. “There are also hidden statistics that have been surfacing about violence in schools and the rise in exclusion rates.

“How much time gets wasted in [public] schools? A child must ride the bus and go back and forth from classrooms and lockers before starting their studies,” he added. “We, on the other hand, get right down to business and it leaves a lot of free time. My older sons are fluent in several languages, and it is great fun to spend time with them.”

Pointing to a chapter in his newly released book entitled, “The Harsh Truth About Public Schools”, Shortt explained that top tier university admissions officers on many instances praised home-schooled children as a better model student than those educated in public institutions.

“It sounds counter-intuitive but admissions officers say they like to try and admit as many home-schooled children because these youths are less outrageous and more prepared for the college life,” Shortt said.

When asked why reformation is not possible within the public school walls, Shortt said such reforms are impossible at this point and time.

“First of all from the view of a conventional view, we’ve been working on school reform for 50 years…and it has been absolutely futile,” he said. “People say give the schools more money for reform, but nothing substantial has ever come from that.”

“Secondly, there is a deeper point. The people who agree with us believe we have an obligation to give our children an education grounded on a Christian basis,” he explained. “And you can’t do that in our time.”

And to those parents worried about the lack of time to homeschool their children, Shortt explained that there were a number of “hybrid models” that can deliver higher level education at a much lower cost.

“People need to stop thinking of education in what they call a bipolar continuum where there is the traditional school on one end and homeschool on the other end with nothing in between,” said Shortt. “There are a lot of hybrid models that can deliver higher leve education at a much lower cost. One example is the university model school. Those schools provide classical classroom education 2-3 days a week and home-schooling on other days. I also know some Baptist leaders in Texas who have their children go to schools in the church classrooms. There are also Christian mom schools and a host of things that can be done.”

All the while Shortt said he believes the fundamental reason why schooling has come to this point is because of the lack of concern within the Protestant churches.

“Ultimately the problem is that churches have been missing in action,” he said. “The only church that has been consistently serious about that is the Catholic Church.

“Take the Southern Baptist Convention for example. We have over 43,000 churches, but only 650 schools; now that’s a scandal,” said Shortt.

Therefore, according to Shortt, the resolution for home-schooling is crucial especially for an organization like the SBC.

“The main purpose for the resolution is not to make an abrupt change, but rather to inform the parent of what has been happening in our schools. The real purpose is to engender a debate,” he explained. “Unlike other denominations, we are a bottom-up kind of organization, so the passing of a resolution does not result in any action whatsoever. It is just an expression of those who are gathered, that we as a body are concerned about what is happening in our public schools.

“It is a process and it is a marathon not a sprint. But we feel this is a good way to get debate started within the churches, or it just isn’t going to happen.”

The state Baptist convention effort was coordinated by the Exodus Mandate Project, of which Shortt takes part.

==============================

Liberals Teaching in College (National Review, 041227)

(On the Record)

No reader of this magazine will be surprised to hear that the faculty at American universities are overwhelmingly left-wing. It always helps to quantify a phenomenon, though — and here comes Daniel Klein, an associate professor of economics at Santa Clara University, with actual numbers. In a series of careful studies, Professor Klein discovered that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans on university faculties ranged from 3 to 1 among economists to 30 to 1 among anthropologists; that voter-registration records revealed a 9 to 1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans on the faculties of Berkeley and Stanford; that Democrats outnumbered Republicans about 7 to 1 in the humanities and social sciences nationwide; and so on. What on earth accounts for these colossal disparities? For an answer, the New York Times went to — who else? — a Democrat on the Berkeley faculty. Liberals, explains George P. Lakoff, just make better academics. “Unlike conservatives they believe in working for the public good and social justice, as well as knowledge and art for their own sake.” Western civilization is in good hands, then. Thank heavens! For a moment we thought there might be something wrong.

Hamilton College, a small liberal-arts school in upstate New York, announced the appointment of Susan Rosenberg as an “artist/activist-in-residence,” teaching a half-credit seminar in January. Ms. Rosenberg’s credentials? She belonged to the Weather Underground, most violent and futile of all post-Sixties left-wing movements. She was an accessory to the 1981 Brinks armored-car robbery in which a guard and two cops were murdered. Three years later, she was caught with a cache of weapons, including 740 pounds of explosives. This domestic Baathist insurgent was convicted and imprisoned, but freed in the rush of Bill Clinton’s midnight pardons. Hamilton thus continues the tradition of its most famous alumnus, Ezra Pound, who, however, only hailed murderous regimes, without plotting actual murders himself. How did a college named for Alexander Hamilton come to this?

Tasked by her teacher with writing a Thanksgiving poem, fifth-grader Kaeley Hay of the Lincoln-Franklin Elementary School in Garwood, N.J., came up with this charming little idyll: “Leaves are falling out of the air, / Piles of leaves everywhere. / Scarecrows standing high up with the corn, / Farmers harvest in the early morn. / Pilgrims thank God for what they were given, / Everybody say . . . . happy Thanksgiving!” Kaeley’s classmates liked her work so much they voted to display it on the school’s bulletin board November 10, just in time for parent-teacher night. The poem was duly posted . . . . but not before a vigilant staff member, sensing danger to the Republic, had struck out the word “God.” The child’s mother complained. After consulting their attorneys, the school board reinstated the offending word. Another constitutional crisis narrowly averted! Thank goodness we have attorneys to tell us what we may do.

==============================

Dumb Bright Guys (National Review, 041227)

William Buckley

NEW YORK, NOVEMBER 19

When Robert Bork was a professor at the Yale Law School he had a call from the young editor of the Yale Daily News, who was in a tizzy. The paper was going to press with its findings on the faculty vote in the upcoming election, President Lyndon Johnson vs. Senator Barry Goldwater. The editor explained that the paper was kind of embarrassed: As things stood, the next day’s edition would reveal that only a single member of the Yale faculty (of approximately 1,000) was going to vote for Barry Goldwater on Tuesday.

“Who is that?” Professor Bork asked.

“Some loony in the international relations department,” the editor said. “We know you have right-wing leanings, Mr. Bork. Is there any chance we could give your name as supporting Goldwater? Otherwise it would be pretty unbalanced.”

Bork shrugged and said, Okay, count me in. When the paper appeared, he had a call from the one other Goldwater supporter: Would Bork lunch with him? “I did,” Bork tells, smiling. “The kid was right. He was loony.”

Forty years later, the New York Times has published a revealing article by reporter John Tierney titled, “Republicans Outnumbered in Academia, Studies Find.” We are told that the political imbalance among U.S. faculty is as pronounced as ever. “At the birthplace of the free speech movement, campus radicals have a new target: the faculty that came of age in the 60s. They say their professors have been preaching multiculturalism and diversity while creating a political monoculture on campus.”

Several studies are cited. One of them, a national survey of more than 1,000 academics, shows that Democratic professors outnumber Republicans by at least seven to one in the humanities and social sciences. “That ratio,” we are told, “is more than twice as lopsided as it was three decades ago, and it seems quite likely to keep increasing, because the younger faculty members are more consistently Democratic than the ones nearing retirement.” As the shrewd observer of the scene David Horowitz points out, “Right now, conservative students are discouraged from pursuing scholarly careers, because they see very clearly that their professors consider Republicans to be the enemy.”

Another faculty study found a nine-to-one ratio of Democrats to Republicans on the faculties of Berkeley and Stanford. That study included the hard sciences and engineering (where good sense is reputed to prevail).

The imbalance continues, and doesn’t much bother anybody except, perhaps, students left to ponder the asymmetries. Learning brings wisdom, right? Waal, not on this campus.

It was thataway at Yale 15 years before Goldwater ran for president, and a book remarking the phenomenon was hooted out of town (though its author lived on to write this column). Four years after Goldwater, a poll at Princeton registered that 70% of the faculty had voted for Humphrey, 7% for Richard Nixon, and 7% for Dick Gregory, the black comedian. Postgraduate humor.

And these aren’t just wispy afterthoughts of a staid community that, one wild day, dived into the swimming pool with their clothes on. No no, these are earnest fellows. For the first time last year, universities were “at the top of the list of organizations ranked by their employees’ contributions to a presidential candidate,” according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. In first and second place in per capita contributions were: 1) the University of California system, and 2) Harvard (runners-up were Time Warner and Goldman Sachs).

When the jury found O.J. Simpson not guilty of killing his wife and her companion, the American people reacted along racial lines. Seventy percent of whites thought him guilty, 70% of blacks thought him not guilty. What everyone could see was an epistemological divide.

That divide is there in the academic world. The people who elected the government of the United States see things differently from those who trained them in how to weigh public issues. “Our colleges have become less marketplaces of ideas than churches in which you have to be a true believer to get a seat in the pews,” writes Stephen H. Balch, president of the National Association of Scholars. On the other hand, those who get only standing room in the academies, get also the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.

==============================

Major math problems (Washington Times, 041221)

It has been more than two decades since the federal government issued its 1983 landmark education report, “A Nation at Risk.” Rightly decrying the “rising tide of mediocrity” within America’s schools, the report warned that the nation’s inadequate education system “threatens our very future as a nation and a people.”

The subsequent “reform” movement set wonderful objectives, which were embodied in the “Goals 2000” movement. By the millennium, according to these goals, U.S. students would be the first in the world in math and science. Federal spending on education soared. State legislatures across the nation raised sales-tax rates; property taxes went through the roof; lotteries were established with promises to earmark money for schools; state and local income taxes were either instituted or raised. From 1980 to 2002, measured in inflation-adjusted dollars indexed to the 2001-2002 school year, spending per pupil in public schools increased by $3,600, rising from $5,400 per student to $9,000. That is a two-thirds spending increase.

One indisputable result from two decades of reform and soaring spending is that American educators have done a wonderful job instilling self esteem into the hearts and minds of American students. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recently conducted a multinational study among 250,000 15-year-olds, including more than 5,000 from the United States. The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) asked students to assess their own math skills. Compared to students from South Korea and Japan, U.S. students had great confidence in their math abilities. Unfortunately, their self esteem far exceeded their grasp of math. Among the 29 industrialized nations of the OECD, the math scores of South Korean (542) and Japanese (534) students were the second- and fourth-highest, respectively. Finland’s students finished first (544). Against an average of 500, U.S. teens tied for 21st place with a score of 483. When the OECD included the scores of 10 other nations that aren’t OECD members, the U.S. ranking fell three more notches.

Results from another major survey, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), revealed that younger American students continue to lag behind many nations in math and science. Last year, three years after U.S. students were to be No. 1 in the world in math and science, TIMSS ranked U.S. fourth-graders 12th out of 25 nations in math and sixth in science. Among the 45 countries included in the TIMSS survey of eighth-graders, U.S. students finished 15th in math and ninth in science. In the wake of skyrocketing spending on schools, taxpayers must now ensure that students’ math and science skills begin to approach the students’ highfalutin views of themselves.

==============================

Upstart Virginia team beats Oxford in debate (Washington Times, 041210)

England’s Oxford University is widely known for producing some of the world’s best debaters, such as British Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.

But last weekend, the school’s moot court team was defeated by two former home-schoolers from a small Virginia college named after American Revolution patriot and orator Patrick Henry.

Matt du Mee, 22, and Rayel Papke, 21, who attend Patrick Henry College, pulled off a victory against their British competitors in the first moot court tournament between one of the world’s most renowned universities and the 4-year-old Christian college in Purcellville.

Andrew Graham, master of Balliol College at Oxford, said Thursday the United States victory did not surprise him because the students were well prepared.

“It was a fine judgment and a difficult situation,” said Mr. Graham in a telephone interview from his office in England. “There were extraordinarily impressive performances. Both teams were very polished, very professional and very well prepared.”

The fierce three-day competition held on Oxford’s campus judged the students on a set of criteria, including debating skills, presentation and courtroom demeanor. Eight students competed in the event, four of them from Patrick Henry.

The students, who competed in four two-member teams, had to argue a fictitious breach-of-contract case involving millionaire Foghorn Leghorn who sued sculptor Melvin Muttley over a disputed purple boll weevil statue.

The students had to argue the case before Thomas Henry Bingham of Cornhill, the senior law lord of the United Kingdom, whose position is equivalent to that of the U.S. Supreme Court chief justice. Brian Hutton, who serves as a lord of appeal, also judged the event. The men are distinguished alumni of Balliol, one of the most prestigious law schools in England.

Mr. du Mee, of Peoria, Ariz., and Miss Papke, of Queen Creek, Ariz., had a month to prepare their arguments and learn the intricacies of British contract law, a set of judicial fiats about which neither student knew much.

“We didn’t really have any parallels or anything we could work off of,” Mr. du Mee said. “We just had to buckle down and learn the material.”

The students also had to adjust to the British form of moot court competition, which meant they had to learn new forms of legal address. The Patrick Henry students addressed their British competitors as “my learned friend opposite” and the judges as “my Lord,” instead of “your Honor.”

The last day of competition stretched into the evening hours, which forced the students to argue their case by candlelight since the competition took place in Balliol Hall, one of the oldest on campus.

Mr. du Mee said his team was the underdog going into the competition, but the tide began to turn during the last round.

“It was really exhilarating because by the time we got to our last speech,” he said. “I felt like we really had a good chance of winning.”

Michael Farris, president of Patrick Henry College and coach of its moot court teams, said he was thrilled with his students’ victory.

“It was exciting,” he said. “Having watched a lot of rounds of moot court. I was pretty sure they won, but I’m obviously biased. To hear these two members of the highest court of Britain declare them the winners ... was very encouraging.”

Patrick Henry students David J. Shaw, 21, of Arlington Heights, Ill., and Kyle Pousson, 21, of Purcellville, also competed in the tournament. They were eliminated in preliminary rounds, but assisted Mr. du Mee and Miss Papke in researching for the final round.

Patrick Henry College is a liberal arts school with a student population of 277. It was founded in the fall of 2000 as a separate, tax-free institution by the Purcellville-based Home School Legal Defense Association, a nonprofit national membership organization of families who home-school their children.

The college graduated 40 students last May.

Since its opening, the school has experienced significant academic success and boasts student SAT and ACT scores comparable to the nation’s elite colleges. Many Patrick Henry students are required to work in an apprenticeship or internship, depending on their majors. Seven of the nearly 100 interns who worked at the White House last spring attended Patrick Henry.

Almost all of the students come from home-schooling backgrounds. The college’s namesake is a famous Virginian who also was a product of home schooling.

The U.S. students’ courtroom performance impressed their British counterparts. After the competition, the teams were treated to dinner by the Younger Society, a prestigious law group of past and present Balliol College students.

“They were good,” Mr. Graham said. “If I would’ve been in my mid-20s and had to appear in front of Supreme Court judges and be cross-examined by them, I imagine it would’ve been terrifying.”

The Oxford teams will visit the United States next spring for a rematch. The teams will argue another case based on U.S. law.

==============================

Publik Skule vs. Home School (townhall.com, 050108)

Doug Giles

I was sitting at our neighborhood pool New Year’s morning, enjoying the great South Florida weather while trying to grind out a couple of chapters for my new book, when three high school girls took the chaise lounges next to me and started talking about their New Year’s Eve party with their high school mates.

Seemingly still semi-drunk from the party, the 16- and 17-year-old girls began to recount how much coke, weed, vodka, guys and girls they did the night before. Listening to the F-bomb riddled report of the previous night’s peccadilloes left me thinking, how sad … and … what a waste … and … thank God my wife and I yanked our kids out of the public school system and away from these visionless, dissolute and spoiled morons.

It’s been eleven months since we pulled our teenage daughters out of the public school system and started to home school them, and I could kick myself for waiting so long. The educational, emotional, spiritual and physical progress they have made has been amazing. Not that they were anti-intellectual psychologically teetering bloated decadent nut jobs before they started home schooling, it’s just that I’ve been ecstatically stunned at how they have aggressively embraced this new lease on their educational life.

Now … they actually get to study the basics, pursue their educational and athletic interests, without waiting for the 186% overcrowded class to decide to cease fighting and copulating long enough that the teacher can teach the students how to write their name so that they can endorse their unemployment check later on in life.

Also, it seems that our alpha females really do not miss …

· Having everything they hold dear from a Christian standpoint trashed like a hotel room with Sum41 in it, by secular and atheistic teachers and students,

· Enduring the daily physical assaults and threats made by the multitudinous scum bag thugs and punk gang bangers on campus,

· Watching the constant drug trafficking, and

· Trying to ignore the lesbian, queer and over-the-top heterosexual make-out sessions during their lunch break.

Instead of being the goofy-looking home-schooled inbred stooges portrayed by TV and movies, my ladies are sharp, solid and full of holy chutzpah. Yeah … they’re clipping along at a nice pace, taking classes like macro-economics, logic, Latin, intelligence and national security, and afterward, pursuing the martial art of jiu-jitsu from the world-famous Gracie family, surfing and occasionally going with me big game hunting and fishing. Getting away from the prison-like public school system has caused their spirit and vision to soar even higher as they have resolutely separated from the pack and decided to run their own lives, rather than schlep with the lemmings.

My ClashPoint is this: parent … home schooling isn’t as tough as you think it is. With the advent of online virtual schools, plus the tens of thousands of people who have bailed out of the system, there are afforded to you, the home schooling parent and student, amazing resources, local networks of like-minded families and world-class curricula, to help you help yours be the leaders God intends for them to be.

Initially, I was a bit concerned about how home schooling was going to work within the insanity which is the Giles household, but it has been relatively painless. The adjustments my wife and I have had to make to our routine to accommodate our daughters for greatness are far less painful than the worry and concern we had sending them off to the monkey jungle which is the Public School system.

Doug Giles’ provocative weekly one-hour radio program, ‘The Clash’, has re-launched with several new features. Go to clashradio.com and hit ‘listen live.’

==============================

Christians Crowded Out of Public Schools (Christian Post, 050111)

Southern Baptists are advocating Christians to exodus from public schools, decrying a “staggering loss of faith and morals in children who attend the ‘officially neutral’ public schools,” says GetTheKidsOut.org. More and more, cases are revealing that Christians “lack power” in the school system.

Four families have recently sued the Plano Independent School District over its ban on traditional Christmas colors and on students handing out religious-themed gifts. This is cited as evidence by AgapePress that the schools are increasingly hostile to Christians.

According to Houston attorney and Baptist activist Bruce Shortt, the recent censorship attempts in Plano can be seen as growing evidence that U.S. public schools are hostile to Christianity and not the best place to raise Christian children. He states, “The shameful behavior by the Plano ISD conclusively demonstrates that Southern Baptists and other Christians who deny that government schools are aggressively anti-Christian are deluding themselves.”

Plenty of anti-Christian bigotry such as the Christmas colors restrictions and gift bans at Plano ISD, Arnold says most Southern Baptists are still reluctant to pull their kids out of public schools, causing the Christian education advocate to wonder whether local Christian parents have any idea what is going on in the school district.

GetTheKidsOut.org, a group that advocates a Christian exodus from public schools says many Christian pastors are afraid to speak out against the discrimination of Christians in government-funded schools.

“I think it all boils down to feeling like you’re going to offend somebody who’s a public school teacher or public school administrator who does attend your church,” says Arnold, Houston attorney and a Baptist activist.

GetTheKidsOut exists to help Christians alert parents of “the staggering loss of faith and morals in children who attend the ‘officially neutral’ public schools,” and assist them in finding ways to move children into Christian schools or home-schooling situations.

==============================

Bush Pushes For More School Testing (Foxnews, 050112)

WASHINGTON — President Bush is beginning his push to require high school seniors to take the math and reading tests now required of younger students under the No Child Left Behind law, the most ambitious item on the president’s slate of second-term education proposals.

Bush was outlining his proposals for high schools Wednesday at J.E.B Stuart High School in Falls Church, Va., a Washington suburb. The school, which has 1,380 students, was the lowest-performing school in Fairfax County, Va., in 1997, but met its academic goals under No Child Left Behind in the 2003-04 school year.

Bush’s speech was part of a White House campaign to highlight the president’s domestic agenda for the next four years. Bush has spent the past two weeks talking about curbing class-action lawsuits and medical malpractice awards and revamping Social Security and the tax code.

In education, Bush’s focus is on high schools and on expanding the No Child Left Behind law that is designed to raise achievement among poor and minority children and penalize schools that don’t make adequate yearly progress.

Under the law, states now are required to give fourth- and eighth-graders the National Assessment of Education Progress tests. To raise high school graduation rates, Bush has proposed giving states $250 million to require two more years of math and reading tests in high schools. It’s part of his campaign pledge to improve high school standards and enhance the value of high school diplomas.

Rep. George Miller of California, ranking Democrat on the House Education Committee, has said the idea of adding testing “is going to have rough sledding, not just on Capitol Hill but I think in communities all across the country.” Miller says schools are struggling to keep up with the financial burden of their existing federal requirements, let alone new ones.

Like Miller, many Democrats, who supported No Child Left Behind when Bush signed it into law three years ago, now criticize the administration for what they call lackluster spending and enforcement. Critics, including teachers’ unions, argue that the funding increases have not been enough to cover the costs of the new requirements, including the expense of creating tests and processing results.

Federal spending on programs covered under No Child Left Behind has increased 40% since Bush took office, from $17.38 billion to $24.35 billion. But spending went up only 1.7% this year, about the same rate of increase the entire Education Department received.

Focusing on high school is a good idea, Steve Nousen, a federal lobbyist for the National Education Association, a teachers’ union, said Tuesday. But he said expanding No Child Left Behind would take even more money.

“If you look at the graduation rates nationwide, there is great room for improvement,” Nousen said. “We have to do something to prepare these kids for college or to be lifelong learners in the world of work. The funding in the pre-kindergarten through eighth grade is not adequate. If we try to extend it (NCLB) into the high schools, obviously it’s going to take more money.”

Among other proposals Bush has announced for high schools:

—$200 million for the “Striving Readers” literacy program. Bush asked Congress for $100 million for this fiscal year and received $25 million for the initiative, which provides grants to schools to give extra help to middle and high school students who have fallen behind in reading.

—$12 million to expand the state scholars program nationally to better prepare more students for college or the workplace. Currently, only 13 states offer the program, which requires participating students to take a course load that includes four years of English, three years of math and science and 31/2 years of social studies.

—$500 million for states and school districts to reward teachers whose students show improved achievement.

— $200 million for schools to use eighth-grade test data to develop performance plans for students entering high school.

—Redirect money allocated to the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education program to what is called a Secondary and Technical program. The program, dubbed Sec Tech, requires that participating schools offer a more rigorous curriculum for technical education students and require states that receive Perkins funds to participate in the testing Bush is proposing for 12th-graders.

==============================

The Secret to Your Child’s Academic Success (Focus on the Family, 050112)

Research tells us that the key to academic achievement is engagement. This means that regardless of intelligence, economic status or other social factors, students who are involved, active participants do better in school than students who are uninterested. Oh yeah, and their parents are engaged too!

So how do you ensure that your children are engaged?

1. Create a home environment of acceptance, firmness and responsibility. Parents are the primary factor in their child’s academic success, but not for the reason you might think. Read this summary of interesting research about why you are the primary factor in your child’s education.

2. Make sure your children place first priority on their education — before sports, leisure and other activities. You can do this by making your home, whether you’re a home schooler or not, a place of informal and formal learning. Be a direct participant by choosing to teach your child personally. This can be as involved as home schooling or as simple as including them in one of your interests.

3. Adopt a parenting style that contributes to your child’s academic success. We know that “authoritative” parents provide a balanced environment of acceptance and discipline. This style is most conducive to children’s success in life.

4. Learn and know about the needs of your children. Individuals learn in a variety of manners. Some are very visual, others are very auditory, and still others need physical touch and movement to learn best. Get to know your child’s learning style and do what you can to make your teaching technique and environment match that style.

5. Select the best educational option for each child. Today, most communities offer multiple options for educating your children.

* Home school allows for flexible schedules and curricula.

* Many public schools offer a variety of special programs.

* Private schools are often established around a founding set of ideas.

Find the program that best meets your priorities. Some public-school parents fill in the gaps by teaching certain subjects at home, while homeschoolers join co-operatives to satisfy social and activity needs.

6. Surround your child with other achievers. Peers have the most profound influence on student achievement, often outweighing even parental influence. This explains why selecting the right program for your child is so important.

7. Equip yourself by also being a learner. Visit Focus on the Family’s Online Resource Center for some interesting home school resources.

— Marc Fey

==============================

How Many Degrees Does It Take To Be Educated? (Focus on the Family, 050112)

by Drew Dyck

Getting along with family can be challenging. Getting family members to get along with each other can be downright impossible. Especially when they come from opposing sides of the relational isle. You’ve been there — holding your breath as your hardcore Republican uncle meets your ardent Democrat Aunt. Please, you whisper, don’t bring up politics. My sister-in-law calls such dreaded meetings “worlds colliding.” After years of steering incompatible people clear of each other, she’s become something of an expert on the topic and I believe her advice on the subject is sound: Avoid these cosmic clashes at all costs. If you can’t avoid them, just hang on and brace for an impact.

That’s exactly how I felt three months ago at my own college graduation party. As newlyweds, my wife and I just wanted everyone to get along. Members from both families attended. I knew that my grandparents had disparate views from my new in-laws. They were all Christians, but they varied sharply when it came to the value of intellectual pursuits. Since it was a college graduation party I knew the topic would surface. And it did ... like a dead body.

“I’m glad Drew is starting his Masters program this summer,” my father-in-law intoned, once everyone was seated at the dinner table. “I think he should go right through and get his Ph.D.” My grandfather is hard of hearing. Maybe he didn’t hear, I hoped. No luck. He was shaking his head and scowling, as he worked down a mouthful of steak. “No, no I think that would be a mistake. Knowledge puffeth up. Too much worldly wisdom can distract us from Christ.”

Awkward silence.

“More juice anyone?” My offer was ignored.

“I’m sorry, but I disagree,” my father-in-law countered. “I think higher education could actually help him grow in his faith.”

Several more exchanges — the fuse was lit and shortening rapidly. Luckily others intervened before it hit the dynamite. Though no consensus was reached, they both gracefully disagreed and moved on from the discussion. I started breathing again.

At the time I was too busy sweating bullets to consider how conflicted I was on the topic. But when it came to the relationship between my intellect and my faith I found myself doing an awkward dance.

Both sides had good points and I straddled the divide. Throughout my undergrad career at a secular university I had clung to the exclusive claims of the faith, unpopular though they were. Though immersed in pluralistic thought, I never discounted the words of Jesus himself. Christianity was not merely one of many paths to God, I insisted. All worldviews and philosophies were not equally valid. The softheaded brand of “tolerance” so popular on campus was not only philosophically incoherent; it was theologically dangerous. On the other hand I saw much wisdom in the western philosophical tradition and I justified higher learning with the hopes of growing adept at conveying my faith to fans of postmodernism.

It was as I pursued my higher degrees that I slammed into the debate again. It had been raging for centuries, I learned, with its most ancient reification coming in the writings of two early church fathers, Justin Martyr (c.150) and Tertullian (c.160-240). I set out to examine the arguments of both men and determine who was right. The fight between these two couldn’t be called on the specs alone — they were both heavyweights. Both were philosophers and lawyers with towering intellects. Both were adult converts who became apologists for the faith. There was only one difference. Tertullian shed his philosopher robes. Justin Martyr did not.

Though they didn’t directly correspond, their writings, when placed side by side, read like a lively debate.

Justin Martyr: We are taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have shown that He is reason (Word) of whom the whole human race partake, and those who live according to reason are Christians ... Next to God, we worship and love the reason (Word).

Tertullian: It is this philosophy that is the subject matter of this world’s wisdom, that rash interpreter of the divine nature and order. In fact, heresies are themselves prompted by philosophy.

Justin Martyr: Whatever has been uttered aright by any men in any place belongs to us as Christians ... all the authors (Philosophers) were able to see the truth darkly, through the implanted seed, of reason dwelling in them.

Tertullian: Wretched Aristotle! ... ever handling questions but never settling anything. What is there in common between Athens and Jerusalem? What between the Academy and the Church? What between heretics and Christians? Away with all projects for a ‘Stoic,’ a ‘Platonic’ or a ‘dialectic’ Christianity! After Christ Jesus we desire no subtle theories, no acute enquiries after the gospel.”

Both arguments were compelling. Tertullian viewed philosophy as inimical to Christian theology — a pernicious diversion from the only truth. Justin Martyr however agreed with other early Christian writers like Clement, who portrayed philosophy as a “schoolmaster to bring the Greek mind to Christ.” Nearly two millennia later the battle still rages in churches, lecture halls and, in my case, at family parties. Should we pursue the knowledge of the world, seeking advanced degrees in secular institutions, gleaning truth from other ideologies? Or should we concentrate on Christian doctrine alone?

I’m tempted to agree with Tertullian. Why should proprietors of divine truth mess around with what the world has to offer? In his writings, Tertullian derides the Philosophers with surgical precision. He pops holes in the most popular systems of his day — Neoplatonism, Stoicism, Epicureanism — you name it. As I read, he had me so convinced I almost missed the fact that his erudition was implicitly undermining his own point. He needed knowledge of these Philosophies to write his brilliant apologetic of Christianity.

Of course I should go easy on Tertullian. After all he’s not around to defend himself. Besides I have twenty thousand reasons to agree with Martyr. That’s the number of dollars I took in student loans to pay for my education. Over the course of the next decade, as I choke down macaroni and cheese while paying them off, it would be deeply troubling to think it was all for nothing. Still I see other reasons to agree with Martyr. Turning a blind eye to secular modes of thought has given rise to the anti-intellectualism plaguing the church. Relinquishing all intellectual pursuits to the world betrays the church’s rich heritage as a bastion of light and learning. I also believe that Christians have a responsibility to understand the ideological climate of our day in order to express the gospel in a clear and relevant way.

Yet as I consider years of further education, I inevitably hear my grandfather’s voice. He’s no intellectual slouch. In fact I have yet to meet a more scintillating theological thinker. But he is quick to remind me of the vanity of man’s wisdom. And his caveats are well taken. For my college graduation he handed me his favorite commentary. On the inside cover he wrote me a note, finishing with a quote from Martyn Lloyd Jones:

“But knowledge in the truly Christian sense is never merely intellectual. That is so, because is it the knowledge of a Person. The purpose of all doctrine, the value of all instruction, is to bring us to the Person of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

No matter how much knowledge we acquire or how high we ascend in academia, I think this is a vital reminder for us all. It’s given me a yardstick by which to measure every intellectual endeavor in my future. The end goal of learning is not a cold set of beliefs or impersonal philosophy; it’s the warmth of Christ’s embrace. I’ll never forget. Thanks grandpa.

==============================

Spelling Bee — Too Competitive? (Foxnews, 050201)

Rhode Island’s Lincoln School District called off it annual spelling bee, insisting that because spelling bees have winners and losers they violate the No Child Left Behind Act, which says all students should reach high standards. Lincoln’s assistant superintendent of schools quoted by the “Woonsocket Call” newspaper says, “You have to build positive self-esteem for all kids so they believe they’re all winners.” The former host of the spelling bee, however, said that’s nonsense since spelling bees are, “Just a fun time.” And the school district now tells FOX it won’t cancel the spelling bee after all.

==============================

Canceled spelling bee reinstated (WorldNetDaily, 050202)

Administrators thought it violated ‘No Child Left Behind’

A school superintendent in Rhode Island reversed a decision by administrators who canceled the district’s annual spelling bee because they thought the event’s awarding of just one winner violated the federal No Child Left Behind Act’s aim that all children should succeed.

John Tindall-Gibson, superintendent of schools in Lincoln, R.I., told the Woonsocket Call newspaper his job is to make sure schools aren’t dull and dreary places.

“These sorts of competitions can be motivational and exciting for students, so that’s something we will have to consider,” said Tindall-Gibson, who acquired his post after the decision was made to cancel the event.

As WorldNetDaily reported, the district’s assistant superintendent, Linda Newman, said she and elementary school principals made a unanimous decision to cancel their local competition shortly after the January 2004 event, agreeing that a spelling bee does not meet the criteria of all children reaching high standards, the paper said.

She argued that professional organizations now encourage elementary school children to participate in activities that avoid winners and losers, which is why sports teams have been eliminated for that age group.

“You have to build positive self-esteem for all kids, so they believe they’re all winners,” Newman told the Call. “You want to build positive self-esteem so that all kids can get to where they want to go.”

The competition, sponsored by Scripps Howard newspapers, pits students in 4th through 8th grade against each other in a district round, with the winner advancing to a state playoff and the chance to move on to the national finals in Washington, D.C.

Mary Carvalho, principal at Lonsdale Elementary, told the Woonsocket newspaper the decision to cancel was based on research discouraging competition at lower grade levels and standards that say, “all children should be given the same opportunities.”

The district plans to hold school-based spelling bees beginning today through Feb. 8, with a district-wide competition Feb. 17.

==============================

Anti-intellectualism among the academic elite (townhall.com, 050202)

Walter E. Williams

Dr. Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard University, has been excoriated for suggesting that innate differences between men and women might be one of the reasons fewer women succeed in the higher reaches of science and math. Adding insult to injury, he also questioned the role of sex discrimination in the small number of female professors in science and engineering at elite universities.

Professor Nancy Hopkins, an MIT biologist, attended the National Bureau of Economic Research conference titled “Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce” where Dr. Summers gave his lecture. She had to leave the lecture, explaining to a Boston Globe (Jan. 17, 2005) reporter, “I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.” In today’s campus anti-intellectualism, it’s acceptable to suggest that genetics explains some outcomes, but it’s unacceptable to use it as an explanation for other outcomes. Let’s try a few, and guess whether Professor Hopkins would barf.

Suppose a speaker said that sickle cell anemia is genetically determined and occurs almost exclusively among blacks. Would Professor Hopkins stomp out of the room, charging racism? What if it were said that a person’s chances of being a carrier of the gene for Tay-Sachs disease, a disease without a cure, is significantly higher if he is an Eastern European (Ashkenazi) Jew? Would Professor Hopkins barf and charge the speaker with anti-Semitism?

Jon Entine, in his book “Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports And Why We’re Afraid to Talk About It” (1999), says, “All of the 32 finalists in the last four Olympic men’s 100-meter races are of West African descent.” The probability of such an outcome by chance is all but zero. The genetic physiological and biomechanical characteristics that cause blacks to excel in some sports — basketball, football and track — spell disaster for those who have aspirations to be Olympic-class swimmers. Entine says, “No African American has ever qualified for the U.S. Olympic swim or dive team. Indeed, despite a number of special programs and considerable funding that have attracted thousands of aspiring black Olympians, there were only seven blacks who could even qualify to compete against the 455 swimmers at the 1996 Olympic trials.”

Do you suppose Professor Hopkins would charge Entine with racism? The only behavioral genetic explanation that campus anti-intellectuals unquestioningly accept is that homosexuality has genetic origins.

What about women in the professions? In my colleague Thomas Sowell’s 1984 book “Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality,” there’s a chapter titled “The Special Case of Women.” He says, “The economic ramifications of marriage and parenthood are profound, and often directly opposite in their effects on men and women.” Marriage increases male labor-force participation and reduces that of women. Marriage increases career interruption for women but not men. That’s important for career advance and selection. If you’re a good computer technician, engineer or specialist in the higher reaches of science and technology, and you leave your job for a few years, much of your skills and knowledge will be obsolete when you return. The same obsolescence is virtually absent in occupations such as editor, librarian and schoolteacher. This factor, instead of sex discrimination, might explain some of the career choices made by women.

But what about the flap over Dr. Summers’ suggestion that genetics or innate differences might play a role in the paucity of women in science and engineering? It’s not that important whether Dr. Summers is right or wrong. What’s important is the attempt by some of the academic elite to stifle inquiry. Universities are supposed to be places where ideas are pursued and tested, and stand or fall on their merit. Suppression of ideas that are seen as being out of the mainstream has become all too common at universities. The creed of the leftist religion is that any difference between people is a result of evil social forces. That’s a vision that can lead to the return to the Dark Ages.

==============================

The National Association of Scholars (townhall.com, 050202)

Mike S. Adams

Dear NAS (www.nas.org):

This morning I got tired of listening to a feminist complain about her husband’s erectile dysfunction, and decided to take a walk across campus to get some peace and quiet. I dodged the feminist administrators who were passing out condoms on the way to the library. I also plugged my ears to block the sound of skinny white guys beating out the latest anthem of cultural diversity on African drums in the student amphitheater.

When I got to the library, I discovered that the bottom floor had been converted to a coffee shop. That made it too loud for me to do any thinking, much less any reading. So, off I went to the student union which, to my great disappointment, featured Jerry Springer on nine of the ten color TVs in the lounge/dining room. I got frustrated after listening to people talk (on national television, no less) about having sex with their in-laws. That was when I decided to I move on.

I tried working off my frustrations in the university recreation center, but exercising to the sound of gangster rapper CDs was a bit of a distraction. All of that talk about killing “bitches” and “whores” with a 9mm was not my idea of recreation. In fact, it made me feel pretty uncomfortable and, quite possibly, created a hostile learning environment.

Needless to say, all of these distractions got me thinking about the decline of Western civilization. So, I decided to go home early and start again tomorrow.

I cannot tell you how thrilled I was when I checked my mail at home and discovered that you had sent me a brochure describing the purpose and activities of your fine organization. When I saw the slogan “For Reasoned Scholarship in a Free Society” printed on the cover of the brochure, I immediately sensed that we shared a set of common ideals.

The idea of joining an organization of professors, graduate students, college administrators and trustees committed to rational intellectual discourse has never been more appealing. Your assertion that an informed understanding of the Western intellectual heritage is necessary to sustain our civilization’s achievements is undeniable. You are also correct to point out that current “perspectives” in higher education reflexively denigrate our Western intellectual heritage. I agree that such denigration is accomplished only through willful indifference to both logic and evidence.

Among the sixteen “issues of concern” highlighted in your brochure, allow me to enumerate seven I consider to be particularly important:

* The decline of academic standards in higher education.

* The politicization of scholarship and teaching.

* The use of sexual, racial, and other criteria unrelated to merit in hiring, promotion, and student recruitment.

* Dogmatic hostility to Western civilization, and turning the study of non-Western cultures into an instrument for denouncing American society.

* Unfair treatment of colleagues suspected of holding “politically incorrect” views.

* The decline of civility on college and university campuses. And, perhaps most importantly,

* The suppression of students’ freedoms of speech and association.

I look forward to interacting with the state, local, and campus groups NAS has formed to foster support for its educational philosophy. I also look forward to receiving your quarterly newsletter, NAS Update. Finally, I hope to have the opportunity to submit some of my work to your quarterly journal Academic Questions.

I am pleased that you can accept my payment of $42.00 for a one-year membership on-line at http://www.nas.org. I look forward to working with you in the coming year.

Sincerely,

Mike S. Adams

==============================

W. Churchill: A sad look at a sick academic bubble (National Review Online, 050209)

The recent controversy over the writings of Ward Churchill, radical activist, faux Indian, and tenured professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado, raises a number of serious academic issues — which, let me underscore, does not mean that Churchill himself is in any way serious. On the contrary, Churchill is as unserious as anyone ever paid to stand in front of a classroom, an intellectual featherweight whose ideas are less politically scandalous than buffoonishly wrongheaded. Case in point is his assertion that the victims of the World Trade Center attack got what was coming to them: “If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it.”

Churchill’s own attempt to clarify what he meant by this is telling: “I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as ‘Nazis.’ What I said was that the ‘technocrats of empire’ working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of ‘little Eichmanns.’ Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.”

To make sense of Churchill’s clarification, a reader has to accept the following premises: 1) the United States government is actively and intentionally engaged in genocide; 2) the hijackers, contrary to their own claims, were attempting to defend individual freedom rather than advance a totalitarian spiritual regime; 3) the ideological agenda of the hijackers represents the true aspirations of the people on whose behalf they claim to act.

Each of these premises is false based on a preponderance of evidence. But that understates the point; all three are so utterly false that failure to recognize their falsehood, in effect, betrays a cognitive disability. Yet I’d estimate ten percent of American college professors — and I’m low-balling that figure — would accept them as probably or at least partially true. (If you substitute “corporate capitalists” for “the United States government” in the first premise — i.e. “Corporate capitalists are actively and intentionally engaged in genocide” — assent among college faculty probably rises to 25%.) These are credentialed adults who are initially hired to instruct, and who are eventually tenured to profess...yet they’re professionally, stupendously, tenaciously, defiantly, demonstrably wrong.

That is the gist of the problem.

If we take as axiomatic the principle that colleges exist in order to pursue and disseminate the truth, it follows that no accredited mathematics department would employ a teacher who denied, say, that base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal; that no physics department would employ a teacher who denied the force of gravity; that no chemistry department would employ a teacher who denied that protons and neutrons are found in the nuclei of atoms; that no biology department would employ a teacher who denied that green plants convert light energy into chemical energy by photosynthesis. The hard sciences, in other words, are bound in their fidelity to truth not only by traditional logic and empirical evidence but by a demand for coherence within a framework of what is already known. Faculty in hard sciences seek to push the envelope of knowledge, not to “deconstruct” it. (Deconstruct v.t. To affect intellectual depth by teasing out secondary and tertiary senses of a term until it belies its original meaning.) It is exceedingly rare, therefore, to find a professor in a hard science espousing irrational, unsupportable theories.

Not so in the social sciences. To be sure, no history department would, in the current academic climate, employ a teacher who openly argued that the Holocaust never happened. But this is a matter of political expediency, not material certainty. On the contrary, many history departments employ teachers steeped in postmodern thinking, who hold, for example, that the perception of a reality existing independently of thought and language is illusory, that “reality” is in fact a linguistic construct of the phenomena of subjective experience which is continually adjusted in response to a fluid social consensus. But if there’s no such thing as an independent reality, then there can be no reality check. There’s no test for truth. And that, my friends, is Holocaust denial — one step removed. Postmodern thought has taken root across the social sciences, spawning all manner of loopy theoretical posturing in history, psychology, sociology, anthropology, linguistics, political science, and even philosophy itself.

Still further down the epistemological food chain come literature and art, pseudo-disciplines hoist on the ouija-board wonkery of aesthetic judgment. The truth value of a work is gauged neither by correspondence with an independent reality nor even, for the last quarter century, by it coherence within a canonical framework; rather, truth value is a function of whether the work pleases the teacher. Subjectivity, therefore, rules. Literature and art departments often employ faculty members whose theories are not just at variance with one another but are mutually exclusive. It is not unusual, nowadays, for two students at the same college to sign up for the same survey course the same semester with two different professors and discover they’re learning nothing in common.

But the epistemological nadir of any university is found in the wacky world of ethnic and gender studies: black studies, Africana studies, Chicano studies, Latino studies, Puerto Rican studies, Middle Eastern studies, Native American studies, women’s studies, gay and lesbian studies, et al. The suggestion that “studying” is involved in any of these subjects is laughable; they are quasi-religious advocacy groups whose curricula run the gamut from historical wish fulfillment (the ancient Egyptians were black; the U.S. Constitution was derived from the Iroquois Nation) to political axe grinding (the Israelis are committing genocide against the Palestinians; the U.S. is committing genocide against the people of Cuba) to gynocentric self-help (reasoning from verifiable data is a tool of male domination, to which the experiential impressions of women are a necessary antidote) to circumstantial special pleading (Lincoln was gay because, well, he was a nice guy; Hitler, not so nice, therefore not gay). Contesting the status quo is the raison d’etre of these departments. No idea is beyond the pale — except, of course, the suggestion that the status quo might somehow be valid.

Which returns us to Ward Churchill, professor of ethnic studies, University of Colorado. In one sense, he’s like a thousand other burnt-out refugees from the 1960s who avoided a full-time job long enough to acquire multiple university degrees. Along the way, however, he convinced lots of people that he was a Cherokee Indian — apparently on the basis of an honorary tribal membership — and thus tapped into the vast reservoir of white liberal guilt flowing through the halls of academia. Most critically, he found outlets to publish crypto-Marxist rants and thereby distinguished himself from the vast majority of his invincibly ignorant peers. That publishing record, in turn, allowed him to command not only his tenured professorship, but activist committee posts and lucrative speaking engagements at campuses nationwide.

So who published Ward Churchill?

Well, there’s AK Press. Publisher’s mission statement:

AK Press is a worker run book publisher and distributor organized around anarchist principles. . . . Our goal is to make available radical books and other materials, titles that are published by independent presses, not the corporate giants, titles with which you can make a positive change in the world.

Then there’s South End Press. Publisher’s mission statement:

Since our founding in 1977, we have tried to meet the needs of readers who are exploring, or are already committed to, the politics of radical social change. . . . In this way, we hope to give expression to a wide diversity of democratic social movements and to provide an alternative to the products of corporate publishing.

Finally, there’s City Lights Books. Manuscript submission guidelines:

City Lights Books is a publisher of fiction, essays, memoirs, translations, poetry, and books on social and political issues. We publish a dozen new books a year and are committed to providing the finest works of vanguard literature and oppositional politics.

In other words, Churchill hooked up with like-minded lefties, networked himself into book contracts, parlayed these into academic prestige and political name recognition — and thus a wholly unserious man who says wholly unserious things wound up being taken very seriously. In a more rational world, Churchill would be an amateur conspiracy theorist with a chip on his shoulder, the type who spends an hour on hold with CSPAN to spew 15 seconds of venom before Brian Lamb cuts him off.

In our world, Churchill is a cause célébre.

So what’s to be done with him?

The fact that he has tenure must, I’m afraid, be taken into account. Firing him, or forcing him to resign, might be morally satisfying but would be a tactical error. It would confer martyr status on him, and it would be interpreted by his students, and by Churchill himself, as punishment for speaking the truth to power. Besides, the fault here does not lie with Churchill; he’s a symptom, not a disease. The fault lies, generally, with the sick academic culture in which he has thrived, and, specifically, with the administrative weasels at the University of Colorado who have repeatedly rewarded his dubious critical achievements. What should be done with Churchill, therefore, is...nothing. His notoriety should stand as an ongoing monument to the decay of intellectual standards in higher education, and his professorship as an ongoing monument to the intellectual cowardice of the school which hired and tenured him.

Thus, inadvertently, Ward Churchill might teach us all a lesson.

— Mark Goldblatt’s novel, Africa Speaks, is a satire of black hip-hop culture.

==============================

Sex on the Religious Campus: God on the Quad is a fascinating study (National Review Online, 050209)

Stanley Kurtz

Naomi Schaefer Riley’s God on the Quad is one of the most interesting books about sex I’ve read in some time. God on the Quad appears to be a prim study of religious institutions of higher learning. In fact, it’s a fascinating account of how the problem of sex gets resolved at colleges where “anything goes” doesn’t go.

Take the contrast between a small conservative Catholic college, like Thomas Aquinas, and that Mormon giant, Brigham Young University. At Thomas Aquinas, public displays of affection are strictly forbidden. Yet ubiquitous pairs of Brigham Young lovers stroke and caress, even during Sunday religious lectures. Radical as this difference may seem, each school is channeling its students’ desire for sex into the quest for marriage.

Thomas Aquinas is a very small school, where a shared great-books curriculum nurtures an intense community spirit. That spirit would be weakened by open displays of affection between couples. Yet the tight sense of community is responsible for the fact that most graduates of Thomas Aquinas end up marrying fellow students. In any case, if they don’t find a spouse during their college years, Thomas Aquinas graduates know they will still be able to meet fellow Catholics after graduation.

Brigham Young, on the other hand, is not only a big school with a broad curriculum, it’s the most concentrated collection of young, eligible co-religionists a young Mormon is ever likely to encounter. Mormons believe they will live on eternally in heaven with their families. In this and other ways, marriage is absolutely central to Mormonism. The years at BYU are the ideal time during which to meet and marry a fellow Mormon. So by graduation, about half of BYU students are married. Getting there means that BYU is a cauldron of romantic intensity, with whirlwind courtships and dramatic scenes of broken engagements the order of the day. Premarital sex may be forbidden at both BYU and Thomas Aquinas, but that doesn’t stop these institutions from treating sex in radically different ways.

Riley could have made fun of the rules and conventions surrounding sex at religious colleges. Instead, she helps her readers make sense of even the most extreme restrictions. At Magdalene, a small Catholic religious college in rural New Hampshire, students eat in assigned seats that are regularly rotated to prevent the formation of cliques (and perhaps pairs of lovers). Magdalene students even carry around a clean pair of shoes to change into whenever they enter buildings. They readily accept this restriction because, in a further exercise in character building, it’s the students who perform the school’s janitorial work. Magdalene is unusually strict. Students are forbidden to date. Yet Magdalene’s students swear by the system, which by removing the complication of sex, actually encourages male-female friendship. Many Magdalene students get married shortly after graduation — with marriages more likely to last, since they’re based on the real and deep friendships developed at school.

Sex is part of life, in Christian schools no less than anywhere else. But as Riley shows, the sexual pressures experienced by students at secular schools are transformed at religious colleges into the pressure to find a spouse. Religious students who come to these colleges from secular high schools are shocked and excited by all-of-the-sudden being surrounded by attractive and eligible mates. As a woman interviewed by Riley put it: “The guys think, ‘Wow, there are Christian girls here. And they’re actually cool.’ They haven’t seen that. The tendency is, “I have to go get that right away.’” So at every religious college Riley visited, the mantra was, “Ring by Spring” (i.e. get engaged by spring of senior year). There’s a rash of weddings after every graduation.

All this is consistent with the idea that religious folks marry early and have lots of kids. But there is a countertrend. Although women at religious colleges may know nothing of Gloria Steinem or Carol Gilligan, they have clearly been affected by the changing role of women in American life. Women now outnumber men at America’s secular colleges, and the imbalance in favor of women is even greater at religious schools. This may be because women tend to be more religious than men. Parents’ desire to sexually protect their daughters may also be at work. But as Riley points out, particularly on issues of marriage and family, even the most conservative religious schools may actually have a subtly secularizing influence on women — if only by orienting them toward delayed marriage and careers.

As Riley shows, the end result is not so much outright secularization as a complex accommodation between religious traditionalism and modern attitudes toward women. Many female graduates of religious schools may postpone marriage and go on to professional careers, yet they remain fairly traditional theologically. No doubt, Riley is right about that. But if even women from the growing number of religious colleges increasingly postpone marriage and child bearing, the effects on fertility rates will be real.

As the battle over Social Security heats up, and as Americans grow ever more aware of the demographic crisis facing not only this country but Europe, I think we’re going to begin to look at women’s issues in a new light. The tension between career women and stay-at-home moms has heretofore hinged on the sometimes conflicting emotional needs of women and children. In other words, the question has been how you feel about feminism. Soon, though, we’re going to be thinking at least as much about the demographic consequences of the move toward working women as about the emotional significance of this change. So when Riley emphasizes the number of women at even religious colleges who are delaying marriage and child-bearing for the sake of careers, we need to think about what this means for fertility rates.

We’re beginning to hear talk about possibility that religious Americans from the red states might soon outnumber secular liberals from the blue states, simply because religious folks have more kids. (I explore this and related issues, in my new piece for Policy Review, “Demographics and the Culture War.”) God on the Quad doesn’t exactly contradict that view. After all, we’ve already seen that the “ring by spring” ethos of early marriage is still hugely influential among students at religious colleges, even as the practice of early marriage has virtually disappeared among educated secular liberals. Yet Riley makes it clear that the trend toward early marriage may be moderating, even at religious schools. So although fertility differences between religious Americans and more secular (or religiously liberal) Americans will no doubt remain, fertility rates will probably continue to drop among all American groups — even the strongly religious.

Phillip Longman’s new book, The Empty Cradle, features a striking comparison between fertility rates in Utah and Vermont. According to Longman, in Utah, where 69% of residents are Mormon, 90 children are born every year for every 1,000 women of child-bearing age. Longman pointedly contrasts this to Vermont, “the only state to send a socialist to congress, and the first to embrace gay unions,” which produces only 49 children per 1,000 women of child bearing age. But Riley’s study makes me wonder how long the discrepancy will be this large, and how many states other than Utah it will apply to. Maybe Longman’s comparison is a bit misleading, since Mormons seem to stress early marriage more intensely than other religious groups. Again, I think the religious red states will continue to out-reproduce our secular cities. But it could well be that the degree of difference — and with it, America’s overall fertility rate — is destined to fall.

So long as women continue to pursue graduate education and serious careers in large numbers, the fertility rate will go down. From the third world to the United States, nothing correlates more closely with reduced fertility than greater education for women. And worldwide, the trend toward more education for women and falling fertility rates cuts across all cultures and religions. The red states may slow this trend, but in the absence of a demographically induced economic crisis (all too possible), the direction of fertility seems to be downward. Even so, if falling fertility precipitates the sort of economic-cultural crisis I discuss in “Demography and the Culture Wars,” traditional religious ideas about marriage and family will still be around — and could easily enough be revived.

What’s interesting about Riley’s book is its complicated picture of a religious America that is successfully fighting the secular tide, even as it is partially coopted by some aspects of secular culture. As Riley shows, while enrollment at secular schools is stable, enrollment at religious colleges is up. Yes, religious schools are, in some measure, being changed by the secular society that surrounds them. Yet as Riley argues, the population of these religious schools is rapidly growing, and so these institutions are clearly making the country more conservative.

I’ve concentrated on sex (and marriage), but Riley’s book is a delightful and wide-ranging study of the renaissance of America’s religious colleges. In addition to sex, Riley has fascinating stuff on more serious issues — like rock-n-roll. It turns out that religious schools resolve the music problem just as variously as they approach the challenge of sex — with schools doing everything from banning all pop music (including religious pop), to reveling in the rise of rock-influenced Christian music.

And believe it or not, Riley even has something to say about...education. Yes, Riley does divert her attention from sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll long enough to give us a fascinating account of the struggle in the classrooms of these religious colleges. Each of the schools Riley visited has adopted its own way of reconciling religion with the shibboleths of secular education. And again, the paths to resolution are extraordinarily varied. For all the sex, the best part of Riley’s book may be her case studies of particular colleges. Notre Dame is probably the most “liberal” of the religious schools Riley visited — he one that straddles the religious and secular divide most fully. The contrast between Notre Dame and Riley’s case study of that small Catholic great-books school, Thomas Aquinas, poses the problem of contemporary American Catholicism very sharply. The other case studies — of Bob Jones, Baylor, Yeshiva, and Brigham Young, are all riveting. Riley visited and talked with the folks at each of these schools, and her hard work shows.

This is a fascinating book. Riley is clearly sympathetic to these religious colleges, but she doesn’t shout her opinions. Nor does Riley hesitate to be gently critical when that seems warranted. If you want a fascinating report from the frontlines of a growing and relatively unknown side of American higher education — a report from what in some ways is the core of red-state America — this is your book. And if you or your child are interested in attending a religious institution of higher education, this book is a must.

Oh, and if you’re just looking for a cool book about sex, look no further than Naomi Schaefer Riley’s delightful, God on the Quad.

==============================

Are We Raising a Nation of Wimps? (Christian Post, 050208)

To be honest, I look at the magazine Psychology Today as something of a trade journal for the therapeutic culture. The magazine spins out seemingly endless cover stories on how to be happy, self-actualized, and successful, but its worldview is light years from classical Bible-based Christianity. Nevertheless, this magazine is really on to something with its recent article, “A Nation of Wimps,” written by Hara Estroff Marano. This article is must reading for every parent.

Marano begins her article with a portrait of cushioned childhood. “Maybe it’s the cyclist in the park, trim under his sleek metallic blue helmet, cruising along the dirt path . . . at three miles an hour. On his tricycle.” From there, Marano moves to cite the “all-rubber-cushioned surface where kids use to skin their knees,” and the fact that the kids aren’t even allowed to play alone. Their mommies and daddies are playing with them, making sure that the little darlings don’t experience even the slightest scrape, scratch, or scare. “Few take it half-easy on the perimeter benches, as parents used to do,” Marano explains, “letting the kids figure things out for themselves.”

To the contrary, today’s parents are now spending a great deal of their time doing little more than protecting their children from life. Marano describes this as “the wholly sanitized childhood, without skinned knees or the occasional C in history.” The result of all this? Our kids are growing up to be pampered wimps who are incapable of assuming adult responsibility and have no idea how to handle the routine challenges of life.

David Elkind, a prominent child psychologist, counters, “Kids need to feel badly sometimes. We learn through experience and we learn through bad experiences. Through failure we learn how to cope.”

That seems to be a foreign concept to many of today’s parents. Coddled by a generation of Baby Boomers, today’s parents have turned into hyper-protectors. Kids are not allowed to play, because they might get hurt. In today’s highly competitive environment, kids have to excel at everything, even if parents have to actually do the work or negotiate an assisted success. The routine play of childhood—even the pointless chatter, nonsense, and aimless play of children—is now considered wasted time or worse. “Messing up” is simply out of style, Marano explains. “Although error and experimentation are the true mothers of success, parents are taking pains to remove failure from the equation.”

“Whether we want to or not, we’re on our way to creating a nation of wimps,” Marano warns. She fast-forwards to college and university campuses, where “the fragility factor” is now most clearly evident. As she explains, “It’s where intellectual and developmental tracks converge as the emotional training wheels come off. By all accounts, psychological distress is rampant on college campuses.”

This statement is easily verified by observing the reports issued by academic institutions. Psychological distress—sometimes evident in the mild form of anxiety and, in other cases, in binge drinking, self-mutilation, and even suicide—are now major concerns of college administrators.

As Steven Hyman, Harvard University’s provost and former director of the National Institute of Mental Health lamented, the problem “is interfering with the core mission of the university.”

What is the source of this problem? Observers are zeroing in on parental pampering as the most critical factor behind this pattern of student “disconnect.” Smothered by parental attention and decision-making during childhood and adolescence, these young people arrive on the college campus without the ability to make their own decisions, live with their choices, learn from their experiences, and grapple with the issues of adult life.

But the academic issues do not show up only on college campuses. Today’s kids must be successful, at least in the view of their insistent parents. Even in pre-kindergarten programs, parents now show up with a list of special demands, insisting that their child must be treated with special care. Inevitably, these are often transformed into diagnoses of learning disabilities that will require special instructional accommodations. If this trend is not reversed, virtually all students will be diagnosed with some form of learning disability and the entire classroom experience will break down.

Marano blames this on parental “hyperconcern.”

John Portman, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Virginia, suggests that American parents “expect their children to be perfect—the smartest, fastest, most charming people in the universe. And if they can’t get their children to prove it on their own, they’ll turn to doctors to make their kids into the people the parents want to believe their kids are.” Inevitably, what the parents are actually doing is “showing kids how to work the system for their own benefit.”

By the time these kids get to college, some parents are just getting warmed up. “Talk to a college president or administrator,” Marano advises, “and you’re almost certainly bound to hear tales of the parents who call at 2 a.m. to protest Brandon’s C in economics because it’s going to damage his shot at grad school.”

The article goes on to cite the experience of psychologist Robert Epstein of the University of California San Diego. When Epstein announced to his class that he “expected them to work hard and would hold them to high standards,” he received an outraged response from a parent—using his official judicial stationery—accusing the professor of mistreating the young.

Epstein, himself a former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today, later filed a complaint with the California Commission on Judicial Misconduct, and the judge was censured by that body for abusing his office. Nevertheless, this is just one more incident in what is becoming a normal experience on too many campuses.

How special are today’s students? Well, according to their report cards and diplomas, they are very special. The problem of “grade inflation” now means that, in terms of an actual measure of academic excellence, grades are now virtually useless. On some campuses, the average grade is approaching an A. Lawrence Summers, Harvard University’s embattled president, discovered when he assumed the university’s presidency in 2001 that 94% of the college’s graduates were receiving graduating honors. Peter Stearns of George Mason University argues that grade inflation “is the institutional response to parental anxiety about school demands on children.” As Marano expands, “It is a pure index of emotional over-investment in a child’s success.”

In an interesting twist, Marano focuses on one particular technology that betrays the inability of today’s children to establish their own identity and responsible decision-making—the cell phone. “Even in college—or perhaps especially at college—students are typically in contact with their parents several times a day, reporting every flicker of experience,” Marano observes.

When parents play along with this dependency, they “infantalize” their children, “keeping them in a permanent state of dependency.” Life is lived in an endless present tense, with no need to frame long-term decisions, make plans, or engage in sustained inter-personal conversations.

Who is at fault here? Marano presents this situation as rooted in bad parenting and the unwillingness of parents to allow their children to fail. Undoubtedly, this is part of the problem. Today’s parents often see their children as little trophies to be polished. Many see life as a competitive game, and they are determined to do whatever it takes to get their children on top—even if it means cutting corners, changing the rules, and even writing little Johnny’s term papers.

No doubt, Marano was on to something here. As one college student lamented to his counselor, “I wish my parents had some hobby other than me.”

David Anderegg, a professor at Bennington College, warns that parents must not try to protect their children from life. “If you have an infant and the baby has gas, burping the baby is being a good parent,” she explains. “But when you have a 10-year-old who has metaphoric gas, you don’t have to burp him. You have to let him sit with it, try to figure out what to do about it. He then learns to tolerate moderate amounts of difficulty, and it’s not the end of the world.”

Christian parents can fall into this same game, pushing our children as if worldly markers of success are to be our greatest goals and hallmarks of achievement. We must push our children toward excellence, but define excellence in biblical terms consistent with the Christian Gospel. Our concern should be that our children are raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and are pointed to God’s purpose for their life. A life spent in self-sacrificial service, on the mission field, or devoted to the cause of the Gospel will not win the plaudits of the world.

Marano’s article should serve to warn us all that we must not protect our children from the process of growing up into adulthood. While we are charged to protect our children from evil, and to guard them from harm, we are not to shield them from reality. As our children grow older, they should demonstrate an increasing maturity that allows them to deal with the problems of life—not to run from them.

Beyond this, we must expand our concern to the young people as well as their parents. Without doubt, hyperattentive parents who coddle their children are part of the problem. Nevertheless, we also face the reality of a generation that seems, in all too many cases, unwilling to grow up, assume responsibility, and become genuine adults.

Hara Estroff Marano’s article is a bracing alert addressed to today’s generation of parents. This article demands our attention, even as Christians will want to press its arguments further. Let’s be thankful for the lessons learned from skinned knees, routine disappointments, and hard work. Otherwise, we too will be raising a generation of wimps.

__________________________________________

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

==============================

‘Anti-Racist’ Message in Mass. Math Class (Foxnews, 050210)

In some public schools math teachers do more than teach algebra and geometry — they give their students lessons intended to purge what they consider racism.

The “anti-racist education” program in place at Newton Public Schools in Newton, Mass., a wealthy, liberal niche of the Bay State, has angered some parents who believe the school district is more concerned about political correctness than teaching math skills.

According to benchmarks for middle school education, the top objective for the district’s math teachers is to teach “respect for human differences.” The objective is for students to “live out the system-wide core value of ‘respect for human differences’ by demonstrating anti-racist/anti-bias behaviors.”

Priority No. 2 is where the basics come in, which is “problem solving and representation — students will build new mathematical knowledge as they use a variety of techniques to investigate and represent solutions to problems.”

The benchmarks, which could not be found on the district’s Web site, were faxed to FOXNews.com by Tom Mountain, a columnist for The Newton Tab who has followed the district’s education system and, specifically, the rise of the “antiracist” education agenda there. His Jan. 12 column on the topic received so much attention, he said, his e-mail inbox was flooded with over 200 responses.

“I was surprised that this issue resonated so much with the general public,” Mountain said in an interview of what he called “PC nonsense” going on at Newton. “It would be silly and innocuous if it didn’t have an effect on the school’s standing, but it has.”

Newton Superintendent Jeffrey Young did not return several phone calls from FOXNews.com seeking comment. FOXNews.com also wanted to obtain copies of the benchmarks directly from the school but could not because school officials refused to return phone calls.

On the district’s Web site where the math benchmarks for grades K-8 are mentioned, the Web page says: currently in process of curriculum review.”

‘Anti-Racist’ = ‘Anti-American?’

Some parents say their students not only are in desperate need of math help but that some students also don’t know the basics of U.S. history and that antiracist policies are getting in the way of teaching the basics.

“The ‘antiracist’ and, actually, ‘anti-American’ curriculum permeates the school environment,” Lillian Benson, whose children, ages 8 and 11, attend the district’s schools, told FOXnews.com in an e-mail.

“My children do not know Christopher Columbus, except that he was a racist who caused the death of many innocents or the founders of the nation. They have hardly heard of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln even though we live in the area that began it all. What they do know about is the wonders of Ghana, Mexico and China,” she said.

Another parent, Julie Agarkov says it’s ridiculous that people living in the community pay top dollar so their kids can attend good public schools, yet she still pays to send her son to the Boston area’s Russian School of Mathematics “to ensure that he gets a good math education.”

The Russian School of Mathematics is a private, after-school math institution for kids grades K-12. Iness Rifkin, founder of the school, told FOXNews.com that of the 700 kids now enrolled in her school, 400 of them are from the Newton district; 120 of them are middle schoolers. She began the school out of her home seven years ago with her two children and a few of their friends.

“Now, seven years later, I have 700 students, mainly from Newton public schools … I can’t even accommodate all the people who want to be in the school this year,” Rifkin said.

Rifkin said she approached Young to offer to either teach Newton teachers how to better teach math or to have the district give kids a choice to either attend Math at Newton or at her school at no extra charge to the district; parents already are paying to send their kids to her school. This way, kids wouldn’t have to take math at two different places.

“He didn’t want to listen to that,” she said. “Parents tell me they feel sorry for their kids to spend double time — time in public school and time in my school.”

The district’s benchmarks reflect the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ (NCTM) Principles and Standards for School Mathematics from 2000, as well as “Newton’s commitment to active anti-racist education,” according to the district’s “rationale” for its math teaching.

NCTM President Cathy Seeley told FOXNews.com that her group, however, doesn’t specifically address “anti-racism.”

“One of our principles is equity and making sure all students have access to math. There’s certainly no direct comments in regards to anti-racism,” Seeley said. “We don’t have a formal position on that [‘anti-racist’ education] but I think it’s hard to argue with that basic concept.”

The challenge that schools face now is how to do that in a way that addresses all the content areas with integrity and still maintains a basic respect for kids of all races and ethnic backgrounds, Seeley added.

‘Few Students Are Too Dumb to Learn’

Encouraging “anti-racist” education in schools is part and parcel with what’s called “multicultural education,” a movement that’s been afoot for years as some educators try to infuse more of a varied cultural insight into the classroom. This thinking is evident in many of Newton’s schools.

The principal’s page for Memorial Spaulding Elementary School, for example, reads: “We know that the context for optimal learning is a school which has a passion for children and for democracy, an intolerance for racism and for prejudice, a commitment to the creation of an anti-racist, prejudice-free learning environment, and a genuine desire to turn the concept of ‘just society’ into reality. We hope to be that school.”

But some educators say some schools are taking the idea too far.

“How many more years of declining scores will it take for the school committee and state officials to put a stop to this educational malpractice on schoolchildren?” asked Peter Murphy, a New York education consultant. “Values education should be done without gutting the state’s math standards.”

Academic advocates of multicultural education say anti-racist education and multicultural education are very close in definition and say many people don’t have a good idea of exactly what racism is, so they don’t understand efforts to combat it in the classroom.

“I think of [multicultural education] as a set of practices that confront the various forms of racism and institutionalized racisms that do exist in schools, as well as the larger society, and thinking of ways of breaking down and deconstructing forms of racism,” Christine Sleeter, professor emeritus at California State University at Monterey Bay and co-editor of “Multicultural Education, Critical Pedagogy, and the Politics of Difference,” said. “I think that a whole lot of people are fumbling around with, ‘what are the issues?’”

But in classes like math?

“One of the ways I would apply anti-racist education to math is to ask, ‘why is it that, generally speaking, white kids get better access to upper-level math learning than low-income kids and kids of color?’” Sleeter said. “[And] in what ways might math and science serve as tools for understanding and dealing with various social issues?”

The National Association of Multicultural Education did not return phone calls for this story.

Joanne Jacobs, a former San Jose Mercury News columnist who currently writes about education and other issues at JoanneJacobs.com, said pushing an “anti-racist” math agenda all the time in class perpetrates the idea that kids of different colors can’t learn the same way and actually works to widen the racial divide.

“I think if you racialize kids all throughout their education, all they think about is, ‘has a black person done that before?’” Jacobs said. “If we would simply say, ‘these are subjects that other human beings have found learnable, you’re a human being, you can learn it, and try to deracialize the way we teach, it can work … very few students are too dumb to learn.”

At the very least, Jacobs and others said, push the political-correctness in a separate, or more relevant class, but not math.

“I personally think it would be far healthier for kids, if you want to talk about culture, talk about it in Social Studies but don’t talk about it in every single class,” Jacobs said. “It’s a waste of their time in math and science, and I think it’s fundamentally wrong.”

==============================

McCarthyism at Marquette (townhall.com, 050211)

Mike S. Adams

Dear Dean McCarthy (414.288.1412):

Recently, I browsed the Marquette University website www.mu.edu and found the following mission statement:

“Marquette University is a Catholic, Jesuit university dedicated to serving God by serving our students and contributing to the advancement of knowledge. Our mission, therefore, is the search for truth, the discovery and sharing of knowledge, the fostering of personal and professional excellence, the promotion of a life of faith, and the development of leadership expressed in service to others. All this we pursue for the greater glory of God and the common benefit of the human community.”

Below your mission statement, I found other statements, which suggest that you seek to attract students to your university by promising “unfettered pursuit of truth” with a curriculum that expresses your “Catholic identity.” You also speak of the “sponsorship of programs and activities devoted to the cultivation of (y)our religious character, (y)our ecumenical outlook, and (y)our support of Catholic beliefs and values.” Finally, you state that as you “seek the truth about God and the world” you are “firmly committed to academic freedom as the necessary precondition for that search.”

In light of those statements, I have a few comments.

On January 31st, the College Republicans (CRs) accused you of violating your supposed commitment to academic freedom by suspending an approved “Support our Troops” table set up to benefit Adopt a Sniper, which, as you know, is an organization helping our troops in the Middle East. The CRs have accused you of confiscating signs and other materials they intended to use for the benefit.

I placed two calls to your administration in the last week seeking verification of these accusations. No one seems to take my calls seriously.

You have been quoted, Dean McCarthy, as saying that the CR benefit does not “comport to the University’s mission.” Your communications office (414.288.7445) has issued an official statement accusing the CRs of “having a cavalier attitude toward the taking of a human life.”

I found the university’s official statement to be interesting since your own library refers to Planned Parenthood as “an excellent resource for information on women’s health and global reproduction issues.” Furthermore, Marquette’s Association of English Graduate Students (http://www.marquette.edu/aegs/) is allowed to promote Planned Parenthood on your website. Could it be argued that Planned Parenthood has “a cavalier attitude toward the taking of a human life?”

I also noticed that there will be a Gay and Straight Alliance (http://www.marquette.edu/um/pastoral/glb/) “rose sale” on Valentine’s Day at Marquette University. Does that sale “comport” with the university’s mission of promoting a “Catholic identity?”

You have, according to my research, at least two gay organizations on campus. Both organizations seem to enjoy “unfettered pursuit of truth” at Marquette. They are allowed freedom of speech on your website and freedom of association on your campus. Although, as a private school, you are not bound by the First Amendment, you seem to grant these organizations certain rights voluntarily, in the name of academic freedom.

So, how are we to resolve the university’s position that, a) pro-abortion speech is permissible, b) pro-gay speech is permissible, and c) pro-war speech is impermissible?

The answer is simple: Marquette University is not committed to serving God or the Catholic Church. It is committed to advancing the policies of the Democratic Party.

Clearly, the true purpose of your university has not been revealed to potential students at Marquette. Instead, they have been fraudulently induced into paying $22,950 per year in tuition under the false promise of, among other things, academic freedom.

Accordingly, I hereby demand a tuition refund in the amount of $23 million. This refund should be distributed to the 1000 members of the College Republicans at Marquette immediately. Since you are the 124,873rd person to receive this letter from me, it is likely that others will be calling upon you (at 414.288.1412) to do the same.

If, for some reason, you refuse to refund the full amount in 30 days, I will ask the CRs to stop engaging in right wing or, as you say, “provocative” tactics, such as the organization of an Adopt a Sniper benefit. Instead, I will urge them to engage in more liberal tactics. Specifically, I will urge the 1000 members to overtake your office with a sit-in, just like the radical leftists did on campuses in the 1960s.

Finally, Dean McCarthy, I apologize if the title of my letter suggests a comparison between you and Senator Joe McCarthy. Such a comparison is unfair. Senator McCarthy’s patriotism and love of country were beyond question.

==============================

Pols Want to Ban Political Bias at Colleges (Foxnews, 050217)

CLEVELAND — Several Ohio state lawmakers want to pass legislation that they argue is needed to ban political bias on college campuses.

“Students should be free to give their opinion without fear of retribution,” said Ohio GOP State Sen. Larry Mumper.

According to Mumper, professors in the Buckeye State are discriminating against students who don’t hold the same political views, and the bias is usually a liberal one. He points to a recent study by a Santa Clara University researcher that found Democrats outnumber Republicans eight to one among social science and humanities faculty as evidence of the left slant.

Similar legislation is being debated in a dozen statehouses this year. It’s already law in Georgia. Ohio’s bill goes one step further than other states and sets up a grievance system for complaints.

Opponents say the legislation amounts to unnecessary meddling.

“We shouldn’t limit discussion, open debate, and limit our universities from having ... what I believe is a free market system of ideas,” said Ohio Democratic State Sen. Teresa Fedor.

Supporters of the bill say it would not limit ideas, but rather ensure fairness.

“We’re not trying to legislate thought, we’re not trying to take away free speech, we simply think we should have parity,” Mumper said.

==============================

Media Violence Spurs Fear, Aggression in Kids (Foxnews, 050218)

When violence appears on TV, in a movie, or on computer screens, it can color the thoughts, emotions, and behavior of the kids who see it.

For years, experts have debated whether (or how) media violence affects kids. Now, two British experts from England’s University of Birmingham add to the debate.

“There is consistent evidence that violent imagery in television, film and video, and computer games has substantial short-term effects on arousal, thoughts, and emotions,” write Kevin Browne, PhD, and Catherine Hamilton-Giachritsis in The Lancet’s Feb. 19 edition.

The pair reviewed six studies on kids and media violence. All of the studies were done in North America. Two papers focused only on TV and movies; the other four projects also included violence in videos and computer games.

Violent imagery increases “the likelihood of aggressive or fearful behavior in younger children, especially boys,” write the researchers, who work at the university’s Centre for Forensic and Family Psychology.

Media violence’s long-term impact and effects on older children and teens are less clear, write the researchers. They also found only weak evidence directly linking media violence to crime.

Many studies have given a thumbs-down review to media violence. Some note that the consequences of violence are rarely shown. In one U.S. report, 42% of the violent scenes studied were played for laughs. That could give impressionable young kids unrealistic ideas about violence, say critics.

Which Kids Are Most Affected?

Some kids may be more affected by media violence than others. Besides age, personality could play a role.

The sex of the children also matters. Boys were more affected than girls, but more work is needed in that area, write the researchers.

Mental health problems might also make a difference. Little research has been done in that area, the researchers write.

Viewers’ families are important. It’s been suggested that dysfunctional families affect responses to media violence, write the researchers.

“For example, growing up in a violent family and being a victim of violence or witnessing violence between others is known to have a strong effect on a person’s predisposition to act aggressively,” they write.

Media violence isn’t just tied to aggressive behavior. It can also frighten children. For young kids, that was especially true for news programs depicting disasters such as the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Putting Media Violence in Perspective

Ideally, producers would be sensitive to the power they wield, and parents would know what their kids are viewing, write the researchers.

But in the real world, it can be hard for parents to monitor their children’s media habits. With TV, movies, videos, and computer games, many parents don’t know what their kids see every day.

“The availability of video film, satellite, and cable TV in the home allows children access to violent media inappropriate for their age, developmental stage, and mental health,” write the researchers.

They add that computer games have become much more sophisticated, drawing the player into the games’ virtual worlds, many of which are violent. “Games with human characters had more effect than abstract violence,” they note.

If parents can’t be censors, they should watch violent material — fictional or factual — with their kids and encourage them to think critically about what’s shown, write the researchers.

Talk about realism, justification, and consequences of the violence, they suggest. “In this way, caregivers can reduce the effect of violent imagery.”

==============================

Bucking the Deans at Dartmouth (Weekly Standard, 050222)

A new challenge to the university monolith on the hill.

WHEN WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY founded National Review in 1955 at the age of 29, he lit the fire that sparked the modern conservative movement. Buckley had already achieved notoriety—if not celebrity—with the publication of God and Man at Yale in 1951. He attacked the undergraduate education on offer at Yale for its hostility to Christianity and its adulation of collectivism and sought to dispel the indifference of Yale alumni to their supervisory responsibility, calling on them to grasp the nettle of university governance.

Yale was, of course, only the example which laid closest to Buckley’s hand. Mutatis mutandis, as Buckley himself might say, he undoubtedly could have written the same book about any of America’s most prestigious universities. In the ensuing decades the conservative movement as a whole has experienced successes that must exceed even Buckley’s visionary imagination. Yet the university remains untouched by Buckley’s call to action. In fact, it understates matters considerably to say that circumstances on campus have not improved since 1951.

University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill and Harvard president Lawrence Summers have recently served to illustrate the absurd conditions that prevail in the university. Churchill is the tenured professor of “ethnic studies” producing bogus scholarship and anti-American vitriol in roughly equal measure. He appears to have qualified for his post on the basis of a claim to Indian lineage that turns out to have been of the cigar-store variety. In the meantime, Churchill has become a campus celebrity who speaks before enthusiastic student audiences. Academic bystanders refrain from passing judgment, instead waving the banner of academic freedom.

On the other hand, President Summers can testify to the powerful taboos enforced on university campuses. For the sin of offering informed speculation about possible gender-based differences giving rise to the numerical disparities between men and women “in high-end scientific professions,” Summers has been subjected to a ferocious reeducation campaign.

In the film Cool Hand Luke, prison authorities sought to maintain order by teaching the film’s hero to “get [his] mind right.” Luke refused to conform and met with an unhappy ending. President Summers is not as hard a case as Luke; he has quickly set out to prove to the faculty that he has got his mind right all on his own. The success of his efforts, however, remains in doubt; conformity may not be enough. The faculty is not as easily appeased as Luke’s keepers.

The adversary culture that has been widely institutionalized and ruthlessly enforced in the university is so out of step with the rest of America that it is perhaps time to wonder whether it can survive the publicity it has received in recent weeks. Next month’s election of two trustees to the Dartmouth College board may provide a portent.

LAST YEAR Cypress Semiconductor chief executive officer T.J. Rodgers waged a successful insurgent campaign—the first in 24 years—for election to the Dartmouth board against three candidates selected by the alumni council nominating committee. Rodgers leans libertarian and shuns characterization on the left-right divide; he says he was motivated to run by “the degradation of freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly . . . at [Dartmouth] today.” Rodgers initially promoted his candidacy via a website and mailed alumni to solicit signatures (500 are required) to have his name placed in nomination for election to the board.

This year the alumni council nominating committee has presented a slate of four alumni candidates for two board positions. Following in Rodgers’s footsteps, Peter Robinson and Todd Zywicki have set up websites and solicited signatures to have their names placed in nomination in addition to the four pre-selected candidates. They have both secured signatures sufficient to be added to the ballot that will be presented to alumni in the election that takes place next month. Rodgers supports their candidacies.

The rules governing election to the Dartmouth board restrict speech to a great degree. As Patricia Fisher, Dartmouth’s director of alumni leadership, explained to me, the restrictive election rules enforce “a level playing field.” Electioneering is prohibited; once Robinson and Zywicki are certified as candidates after they submit their petition signatures this week, their websites will come down (as did Rodgers’s last year). The campaign will be limited to the candidates’ 400-word-personal statements and capsule biographies that accompany the ballots submitted to alumni.

And in a bow toward the information age, the rules have been modified this year to allow the candidates to send two email messages and to post a short video for alumni, provided they are reviewed and approved in advance by the alumni council balloting committee. Despite these severe constraints, the election should be interesting.

Peter Robinson is the Hoover Institution fellow and former Reagan speechwriter who wrote the earth-shaking 1987 “tear down this wall” speech. Todd Zywicki is a professor of law at George Mason University Law School and a blogger at The Volokh Conspiracy. In addition to their desire to preserve Dartmouth’s traditional character as an institution devoted to undergraduate education, Robinson and Zywicki share concerns about the repressive atmosphere and rigid orthodoxy of political correctness on campus. (Zywicki’s site links to a Dartmouth Daily article by student Dan Knecht, The Monolith on the Hill. Knecht writes, “In my almost four years at Dartmouth, I have encountered more than a handful of dyed-in-the-wool liberals. I have yet to meet one conservative professor.”)

The election has been the subject of a fascinating article in the local Dartmouth-area newspaper, the Valley News, which quotes Hans Penner, a retired religion professor and former dean of the faculty. Penner reveals more than he intends, observing: “It always seemed to me that alumni [trustees] that wanted to get into the actual workings of the college make more trouble than it’s worth. They don’t know what’s going on . . . It’s the faculty and the administration that they should trust.”

Given the constraints under which the election operates, Robinson and Zywicki are only nominally running against the four candidates selected by the alumni council; the views of those four candidates are unknown to anyone outside the council’s nominating committee. Robinson and Zywicki are running against the Dartmouth administration and the state of affairs on campus. With any luck, another wall or two will be torn down.

Scott Johnson is a contributor to the blog Power Line , a contributing writer to The Daily Standard, and a 1973 graduate of Dartmouth College.

==============================

Prevention 101: An anti-Ward Churchill strategy (National Review Online, 050224)

University of Colorado Ethnic Studies professor Ward Churchill deserves to be excoriated and shunned. Churchill, as widely reported, likened Americans killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11 to “little Eichmanns.” At the same time he celebrated the “gallant sacrifice” of those terrorist “combat teams” who had annihilated them. Elsewhere, Churchill declared that the United States should be put “out of existence”; “it may be,” he also stated, “that more 9/11’s are necessary.” Both public officials and private citizens should exercise their right to free expression by scathingly criticizing such odious speech.

But — barring evidence of violations such as academic or resume fraud — boards such as UC’s Regents should not fire Churchill, and not only because punitive action taken by a government appointed body against a public employee, on grounds of even the most vicious and intellectually nugatory speech, would set a dangerous precedent.

No, to fire Churchill would also obscure the larger underlying problem, which is the long overdue need to root out the institutional corruption within higher education. How is it, we must ask, that the tenured and erstwhile department head Churchill, like so many other extremists of his ilk, has risen to the top of the academic pyramid?

Such persons routinely enter and advance in the ranks of the professoriate because of hiring and promotion procedures in the academy, which routinely and unquestioningly advantage those with views at the left of the political spectrum. The likes of Churchill are hired, and elevated within departments and universities, because their professorial peers (who control these processes) share, or at least cannot bring themselves openly to condemn, their fanatical views. Those few remaining faculty members who hold different views have long ago learned that their own career prospects will be yet further damaged, and their social relations with their colleagues poisoned, if they speak out.

This political monopoly has nearly killed the healthy exchange of views, the to-and-fro of forceful academic criticism which spawns strong theorizing and original research, in the major areas of the humanities and the social sciences. Because the likes of Churchill are subject to no serious evaluation or criticism, nothing stands in the way of their spouting ever more extremist venom (all those who work for large corporations are, he says, “little Eichmanns”). This in turn spawns conditions which are intellectually unhealthy not only for Churchill’s hapless students but also for him and the entire academic profession.

John Kekes, a former philosophy professor at the State University of New York-Albany, explains how “the ranking [of prospective faculty recruits] is influenced by...prejudices, preferences...and extra-institutional loyalties of members of the search committee...The ranking [has]...at best only the most tenuous connection with the applicants’ likely teaching and research.” As Kekes and other critics make clear, these entrenched practices subordinate education to mainly politically leftist purposes; instead of being educated, Kekes writes, students are “conscripted as footsoldiers in the army fighting — usually — for left-wing causes.”

As has been well documented, and as every professor of conservative leanings knows, existing procedures for hiring and promotion on campuses have led to a leftist tilt in curricula and research in the humanities and social sciences. The Left’s consolidation of power in university decision-making then carries over to the selection of campus speakers and of recipients of honorary degrees, among many other aspects of daily campus life. As a new survey at 50 top campuses by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni indicates, half of all students — not just conservatives — say their professors interject their political opinions in the classroom, and almost one-third of them feel pressure to agree with those opinions to receive a good grade.

The leftist establishment on campuses actively suppresses the speech of students who disagree with its nostrums. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, repressive speech codes and “re-education” in diversity-sensitivity abound in colleges. Many students have been stigmatized and even expelled. There have been numerous incidents of the theft and destruction of college newspapers by left-leaning groups intent upon banning speech with which they disagree. As David French of FIRE points out, “80 to 85 % of the cases brought before the organization involve censorship by the left.”

Today’s campuses, in other words, respect every kind of diversity but the one most central to the very mission of higher education, namely intellectual diversity. In order to ensure unfettered intellectual exchange, the sine qua non of a true education and of rigorous academic research, university governing boards should reassert the academic principles that prevailed before 60s leftists commandeered and politicized higher education.

The Academic Bill of Rights, which is being promulgated nationwide by Students for Academic Freedom, provides a means for boards to signal their concern that these principles be restored and respected. The SAF, founded in 2003, has already spawned 130 chapters. The bill it proposes admonishes campuses to prevent discrimination against faculty and students on the basis of their political, social, or religious views; to foster a plurality of scholarly perspectives and methodologies in the classroom; and to encourage a selection of speakers and other campus activities that reflect intellectual pluralism. The bill’s provisions are in harmony with those first enshrined in the 1915 Declaration of Principles, and then in the 1940 Statement, of the American Association of University Professors. Legislative movement toward adopting some form of the bill is underway in 19 states, and in Colorado presidents of major universities recently adopted a variation thereof as a compromise with the state legislature.

On January 25, I proposed that the SUNY Board of Trustees, working with faculty, students, and campus administrators across the system’s 64 campuses, explore how the bill’s provisions can be appropriately incorporated into existing policies on academic decision-making and student life throughout the state-university system. Upon adoption of the bill, implementation by campuses would proceed without board micromanagement and, most emphatically, without the substitution of new ideologically based criteria, monopolies, or quotas (for example, litmus tests based on political affiliation in faculty hiring) in place of those that now exist. The only “enforcement mechanism” necessary, to quote National Association of Scholars president Steve Balch, would be “the clear expectation that each campus community will apply its creative imagination to solving the problems identified by the bill, and then report back as to what has been accomplished.”

At the very least, implementation would entail a serious and long-overdue review of faculty hiring and promotion practices, among other academic procedures subject to current abuse. This review would shine light on the byzantine, monopolistic, academically destructive, and often tyrannical control of so many parts of contemporary higher education by the left.

Adoption of the bill by the SUNY board, and other higher-education trustees throughout the country, would bring much-needed openness and accountability to a corrupt process that is all too often better at fostering extremism than it is at educating students.

In the words of cultural critic Roger Kimball, “the silver lining in this sordid affair will be fully revealed when attention shifts from Churchill to the repudiation of liberal learning, academic standards, and moral probity that informs so much of what infects cultural life, especially academic cultural life, today.”

Let the light shine on the dark undergrowth of our nation’s academic institutions from out of which Churchill slithered.

— Candace de Russy is a trustee of the State University of New York and an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute.

==============================

Believing the true believers (townhall.com, 050301)

Thomas Sowell

While the media have been focusing on the flap at Harvard growing out of its president’s statement about the reasons for the under-representation of women in the sciences, a much worse and more revealing scandal has unfolded at the University of Seattle, where a student mob prevented a military recruiter from meeting with those students who wanted to meet with him.

At first, the university president said that the student rioters should apologize. But the storm this created forced the typical academic administrator’s back-down under pressure.

One of the student rioters explained that she didn’t want anyone to be sent overseas to be killed. Apparently it never occurred to her that what she wanted was not automatically to be imposed on other people, with or without mob violence.

Back in the days of the divine rights of kings, it might be understandable why a given monarch might think that what he wanted was all that mattered. But, in an age of democracy, how can millions of people live together if each one asserts a divine right to impose his or her will on others?

Surely our educational system has failed if it has not taught something so basic in logic or morality. But too many of our schools and colleges have been so busy pushing particular forms of political correctness that they have not bothered to explain why other views by other people cannot be ignored intellectually or disregarded politically.

When the propagandizing activities of educational institutions were recently criticized in this column, a defender of these institutions sent an e-mail, claiming that there was nothing wrong with pushing particular beliefs, if those beliefs were correct.

Violating my New Year’s resolution to stop trying to reason with unreasonable people, I replied, asking if this man would feel all right, if he were a member of a jury, to vote after having heard only the prosecution’s case or only the defendant’s case.

His reply was that he would — if the people presenting one side of the case were people he knew and trusted.

Bizarre as that might sound, it is by no means as unusual as it might seem, even though most people who act on that basis do not spell out such a reason to others — nor probably even to themselves. They don’t say that they believe people on a particular issue because those are people with whom they feel simpatico. But that is often how they act.

An example of this mindset was recounted in a recent essay by Ralph de Toledano, who told of being a young reporter, years ago, during a case involving Whittaker Chambers against Alger Hiss. Chambers claimed that Hiss had been a spy for the Soviet Union, operating at the highest levels of the American government.

The charges against Hiss began as just one man’s word against another’s. No one knew who was lying but virtually everyone took sides.

Among the reporters and the intelligentsia, it was widely assumed that Hiss was innocent and Chambers was lying. De Toledano recalled that those few reporters who thought that Hiss might be the one who was lying were immediately ostracized by other reporters.

Why? Because Hiss was in so many ways one of them — in politics, in manner, in lifestyle. He was a New Deal liberal, an Ivy League-educated young man, trim, erect, well-spoken, a member and leader of the kinds of prestigious organizations that liberals looked up to. Chambers was a paunchy old man in rumpled clothes who slouched and was obviously anti-Soviet.

To the reporters, Hiss was one of Us and Chambers was one of Them. Like today’s young man who would be content to reach a verdict after hearing only one side of a case, the press chose to believe Hiss, their fellow true believer.

Many chose to continue to believe Hiss even after the evidence that came out at the trial sent him to prison — and some continue to believe even today, despite information from the secret files of the former Soviet Union which added more damning evidence against Hiss.

The time is long overdue for our media and our educational institutions to start presenting both sides of issues — and for our schools and colleges to start teaching students how to think, instead of telling them what to think.

==============================

Christians parent no different than ‘world’ (WorldNetDaily, 050303)

Study: Having kids educated more important than their following Christ

According to a newly released study, born-again Christian parents are more likely to put an emphasis on seeing that their children get a good education than seeing them enter adulthood as followers of Christ.

The study, released this week by the Christian research company Barna Group, finds born-again Christians in the U.S. don’t parent much differently than the population at large.

The telephone survey of parents across America include 707 respondents, 366 of whom were born-again Christians.

Four out of every 10 parents, or 39%, listed getting a good education as a critical outcome for their children they were committed to facilitating.

Helping children to feel loved was the second most frequently mentioned outcome at 24%, with enabling them to have a meaningful relationship with Jesus Christ was cited by 22%.

Other desirable outcomes cited by parents were fostering a sense of security, 16%, helping children to feel affirmed and encouraged, 14%, and providing a firm spiritual foundation, 13%. Ten percent also said it was crucial to help their children feel happy.

Establishing appropriate moral values was cited as a critical outcome by 4% of those surveyed.

George Barna, who led the research, broke down results of the born-again Christian parents surveyed.

“Only three out of 10 born-again parents included the salvation of their child in the list of critical parental emphases,” he stated on the company’s website. “Parents cannot force or ensure that their kids become followers of Christ. But for that emphasis to not be on the radar screen of most Christian parents is a significant reason why most Americans never embrace Jesus Christ as their savior. … The fact that most Christian parents overlook this critical responsibility is one of the biggest challenges to the Christian church.”

Another section of the survey dealt with biblical absolutes and whether or not parents teach their children that they exist. Of all parents polled, 43% said they teach there are some moral absolutes, while 45% said they teach that there are no such absolutes.

The Barna study found most parents take a laissez-faire attitude when it comes to monitoring media their kids consume.

A majority of parents, 56%, said they gave their youngsters general guidelines about the amount and quality of media they were allowed to access and then let the children regulate their media intake by themselves. One-third of all parents, or 36%, strictly limited the amount and quality of TV, music and other media the children were allowed to access.

Another survey question attempted to ascertain how parents determine whether they have been successful in raising their children. By more than a two-to-one margin, 62% to 28%, parents define success as having done the best they could, regardless of the outcomes. Less than three out of 10 parents say the fruit of their efforts is the defining factor.

Parental attributes

The Barna study found 36% of those polled say having patience is a necessary attribute for parents to be effective, while 32% cited demonstrating love.

The next most frequently cited attributes of effective parenting were enforcing discipline and being understanding. Each of these qualities was named by 22% of parents.

Having a significant faith commitment and an identifiable set of religious beliefs was mentioned by just one out of every five parents as an ingredient required for parental success, the study found.

Several other qualities were named by at least one out of every 10 parents. Those included having good communication skills, 17%, being compassionate, 14%, knowing how to listen, 12%, and being intelligent, 11%.

Barna was surprised by the lack of difference between born-again Christian parents and those who were not.

“You might expect that parents who are born-again Christians would take a different approach to raising their children than did parents who have not committed their life to Christ – but that was rarely the case,” Barna said. “For instance, we found that the qualities born-again parents say an effective parent must possess, the outcomes they hope to facilitate in the lives of their children, and the media monitoring process in the household was indistinguishable from the approach taken by parents who are not born again.”

Barna said there was one distinction he noticed.

Said the researcher: “Born-again parents were twice as likely as others to teach their children that there are certain moral absolutes they should obey. However, even on that matter, less than six out of 10 born-again parents took such a position.”

Barna says the results of the new study are not unlike previous surveys he has done.

“For years we have reported research findings showing that born-again adults think and behave very much like everyone else,” he said. “It often seems that their faith makes very little difference in their life. This new study helps explain why that is: Believers do not train their children to think or act any differently. When our kids are exposed to the same influences, without much supervision, and are generally not guided to interpret their circumstances and opportunities in light of biblical principles, it’s no wonder that they grow up to be just as involved in gambling, adultery, divorce, cohabitation, excessive drinking and other unbiblical behaviors as everyone else.”

==============================

Colorado to dump Christian prof (WorldNetDaily, 050309)

Popular award-winner claims political, religious reasons

While University of Colorado officials defend controversial professor Ward Churchill in the name of free speech, an evangelical Christian professor at the school claims he’s about to be dismissed for religious or political reasons.

Professor Phil Mitchell, who has a doctorate in American social history from the university, says he recently was informed his contract would not be renewed after this year because “his teaching was not up to the department standards,” according to Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi.

Mitchell, winner in 1998 of the prestigious SOAR Award for teacher of the year, told the columnist he has wondered how long he would last.

“I’ve had enough. I am clearly being closed out for political or religious reasons,” Mitchell says. “I am one of the top-rated professors in the history of the department.”

A colleague, William Wei, described by Harsanyi as “hardly a conservative,” said, “Phil is a great person, a good teacher and highly regarded by his students.”

Harsanyi said Mitchell, who has taught at the Hallett Diversity Program for 24 straight semesters, upset the head of the department by presenting a diverse opinion.

After quoting respected black intellectual Thomas Sowell in a discussion about affirmative action, Mitchell was berated as a racist.

“That would have come as a surprise to my black children,” said Mitchell, who has nine children, two of them adopted African-Americans.

Then, says Harsanyi, the professor used a book on liberal Protestantism in the late 19th century.

Harsanyi writes: “So repulsed by the word ‘god’ was one student, she complained, and the department chair fired him without a meeting.”

The columnist points out that unlike Churchill’s case, there was no protest by faculty and students.

Mitchell later was reinstated, Harsanyi said, but never was able to teach in the history department again.

“People say liberals run the university. I wish they did,” Mitchell told the Denver columnist. “Most liberals understand the need for intellectual diversity. It’s the radical left that kills you.”

Mitchell said he has stuck it out this long “to create enthusiasm and love for history. And I am successful at that. I love the classroom, and I love my students.”

Controversy erupted around Churchill last month, when one of his essays made it into the national spotlight.

Written shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, it describes the thousands of American victims who died in the World Trade Center inferno as “little Eichmanns” – a reference to notorious Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann – who were perpetuating America’s “mighty engine of profit.” They were destroyed, he added, thanks to the “gallant sacrifices” of “combat teams” that successfully targeted the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.

Churchill resigned his position as head of the Colorado University ethnic studies program but kept his $96,000 per year teaching post. He steadfastly has refused to apologize for his comments.

He’s also come under fire for claiming an American Indian heritage, training terrorists, and meeting with Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi in the 1980s when the U.S. had banned travel there.

In addition, he’s accused of writing essays with passages “almost identical” to those of other authors and of copying an original art piece and claiming it as his own.

The University of Colorado Regents is probing whether Churchill has violated tenure and expects to announce a decision this month.

==============================

Who Stole Harvard? Big Sisters and Larry Summers (National Review Online, 050322)

By Christina Hoff Sommers

The Harvard faculty of arts and science just last week passed a motion expressing a lack of confidence in the leadership of President Lawrence Summers. Such censure is unprecedented in Harvard’s near 400-year-history. Summers unwittingly stepped on the third rail of university politics when he speculated that innate differences between the sexes might be one reason there are fewer women than men at the highest echelons of math and science. To understand the hornets’ nest Summers has stirred up, one needs to have a close look at the main hornets.

To an outsider, the controversy must look very strange. Nothing Summers said was a threat to the advancement of a single competent woman in any of the sciences. The statistical fact that more men tend to score in the top-five percent of math-aptitude tests makes no predictions whatsoever about the abilities of any particular man or woman. Far from being outrageous or sexist, Summers’s comments were completely respectable and altogether mainstream. But not in the academy. As one outraged Harvard feminist professor of ethics, Mahzarin Banaji, told the Harvard Crimson, “In this day and age to believe that men and women differ in their basic competence for math and science is as insidious as believing that some people are better suited to be slaves than masters.”

The January 14 conference where Summers spoke was organized by the National Bureau of Economic Research. While many members of the audience found his remarks measured and thought-provoking, a few were deeply offended that he entertained the idea that natural differences between men and women played a role in career paths. The press has widely reported on the overreaction Nancy Hopkins, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist and feminist activist who says she almost became physically ill. What many press stories fail to mention is that this is not the first time Professor Hopkins had been offended by perceived sexism.

In the late 1990s, she accused MIT of bias against herself and several of her female colleagues. Instead of bringing in objective outsiders to evaluate her complaints, MIT put Hopkins herself in charge of investigating her own charges. She spearheaded a gender-bias study that concluded — surprise, surprise — that there was insidious bias against women at MIT. The study proved to be a travesty. It was altogether unscientific. Hopkins and her co-investigators did not produce any hard data. Most of the “evidence” came in the form of anecdotes about hurt feelings and perceptions of invisibility and discomfort. One critic aptly described the study as part of the dubious legacy of postmodernism: “evidence-free, feelings-based research.” In 1999, The Chronicle of Higher Education called Professor Hopkins the “poster child for gender bias,” and said that that she had done for sex discrimination what Anita Hill did for sexual harassment. MIT met all of her demands; she was invited to speak on campuses around the country; the Ford Foundation donated a million dollars to her cause, and she was treated like a heroine by the Clinton White House.

Soon after Summers uttered his fateful speculations, the New York Times ran a front-page story that purported to be an objective survey of the latest scholarship on sex differences. Except that the lead reporter, Natalie Angier, is anything but objective. In 1999, she published a book entitled Woman: An Intimate Geography. That book is a manifesto for the “gender is a social construction” school of feminism. Gloria Steinem was completely blown away by it and called it “liberation biology.” An excited reviewer from Elle magazine said of Angier’s book “If Our Bodies, Ourselves has become the bible of women’s bodies, let Woman: an Intimate Geography be our Shakespeare.” Never mind the hundreds, if not thousands, of serious researchers — geneticists, endocrinologists, neuroscientists, developmental psychologists — who disagree with Angier and who provide compelling evidence for many innate differences and against the social construction thesis. Though she mentions one such critic in passing, readers of Angier’s article in the New York Times are given no hint of the power and extent of the research on biological differences that affect aptitudes and preferences. Quite the contrary, Angier made it look as if Summers was way out on a limb even to have entertained his tentative speculations about biologically-based difference.

Angier and her sisters-in-arms, recognize only one explanation for why there are fewer women than men teaching math and physics at Harvard or MIT: sexist bias. That there are more male than female math prodigies; that women, as a group, are less obsessively focused on careers and more likely than men to find fulfillment in taking care of children, is not an acceptable explanation.

For her article, Angier interviewed Yale astrophysicist Megan Urry. Times readers were not informed that Urry is even more hard-line than Angier herself on the topic of gender bias — if that is possible. In the 90s, Urry was part of a feminist campaign to rename the Big Bang Theory. As she told a CNN interviewer, “A lot of the style is very macho, and that can be off-putting to young women, and ‘big bang’ is just another little grain of sand in that big sandbox.”

What is she talking about and what sandbox? And what kind of young woman with a serious interest in science would be put off by a graphic description of a momentous cosmic event — only someone like Professor Urry carrying a gender bias chip on her shoulder.

A week or so after she was quoted in the Angier article, Urry entered the fray with her own attack article on Summers in the Washington Post. She sees bias and sexism in the choice made by many women to leave science and stay home with children. She does not regard such choices as freely made: “What troubles me is that I rarely saw men making...the choice to stay home with kids.” It simply never occurs to her that men and women might actually be wired differently when it comes to preferences for a domestic life style.

In her allegedly objective article on the state of gender research, Angier cites not only the authority of Urry, but also the views of Virginia Valian, a psychologist at Hunter College. Who is Virginia Valian? In 1998, she wrote a book for MIT press called Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. Of course, she assumes that women’s progress has been slow. For feminists like Valian, good news is no news. For Valian as for Urry, sexist bias and sexist socialization are the only acceptable explanations for the different career choices men and women make. One passage tells you all you need to know about her mindset. She asks readers to share her horror at the injustice that women perennially suffer:

If she lies in bed while the baby cries, telling her husband that it is his turn to get up, she is perceived as cold and unfeeling. Even though it is his turn and he should know that without being told — he should be subliminally listening for the baby’s cry and leap out of bed the moment he hears it — he is not a monster — either to himself or to the baby’s mother — if he does none of those things but mumbles that he is too tired. From the perspective of fairness, none of this makes sense.

Well, from the perspective of common sense and human nature, it makes perfect sense. And what is her remedy for this pervasive, endemic and age-old injustice that even women reinforce? She wants all children to be socialized to androgyny. “Egalitarian parents can bring up their children so that both boys and girls play with dolls and trucks.”

As I said, Natalie Angier cited the expertise of both Urry and Valian in her Times article. And, just as had happened with Megan Urry, Valian was invited to write her own article for the Washington Post.

Think of these women: Nancy Hopkins, Natalie Angier, Megan Urry, and Virginia Valian. It is rare to meet such people in everyday life — but the academy is their natural habitat and there you find them in dismayingly large and indignant numbers. A few Harvard women have come to Summers’s defense: the literary scholar, Ruth Wisse, the economist Claudia Goldin. But few women and even fewer men stand up to the hard-liners in the academy, who are ever eager to show that “men just don’t get it.” Some male faculty have openly supported Summers (most notably, Steven Pinker and Stephan Thernstrom) but it appears that most have run for cover, or joined the pack of Summers’s tormenters.

The Harvard faculty is in very bad shape right now. Summers could be forced out and replaced by a right-thinking woman. The forces of resentment have the power to do that. But, what they do not have is the power to repeal the laws of nature. Mother Nature does not play by the rules of political correctness. And not even Harvard can flourish when intellectual freedom is forced to play by twisted feminist rules.

And speaking of play, boys are not going to play with dolls: They will continue to resist all and every efforts to resocialize them in accordance with specifications worked out by Virginia Valian and her sister ideologues. Women too are going to continue to disappoint Big Sister for they will remain attached to their children and homes in special ways deplored by Summers’s accusers.

Of course, offending feminist professors was not Summers’s only crime. He is outspoken, direct, and does not suffer fools gladly. Not only did he violate the holy dogma of social constructionism, he regularly violates a sacred commandment of modern education: Thou shalt be sensitive, nurturing, and protective of everyone’s self-esteem. Such “virtues” now count for more in an academic leader than integrity, intellectual vision, or a commitment to free inquiry and free expression. If Summers goes down at Harvard, it will seriously damage the standards and traditions of American higher education.

— Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. This essay is adapted from a talk she recently gave there. Her new book, One Nation Under Therapy: How the Helping Culture is Eroding Self-Reliance, co-authored with Sally Satel, will be published next month by St Martin’s Press.

==============================

The outrages taxpayers and parents pay for (townhall.com, 050328)

Phyllis Schlafly

The reluctance of the University of Colorado to fire professor Ward Churchill is showing the public that colleges and universities are nests of subsidized radicals. Churchill is no anomaly; like-minded professors hold forth on campuses all over the country.

Repeated surveys report that Democratic professors outnumber Republican professors by about 10 to 1, but that ratio doesn’t begin to reveal the outrageous leftist culture to which college students are subjected. Many professors are Marxists or other varieties of radicals who hate the United States.

The Churchill episode confirms left-wing professor Richard Rorty’s boast that universities are now “the power base for the left in America.”

Churchill’s Ethnic Studies, Women’s Studies, Gay and Lesbian Studies, and African-American Studies are not merely studies or departments; they are university-financed “movements” of the left.

Churchill and the 199 University of Colorado faculty members publicly defending him claim the mantle of academic freedom for his offensive statements likening the Sept. 11, 2001, victims to “little Eichmanns” and referring to the “gallant sacrifices” of the “combat teams” that killed 3,000 Americans. They want academic freedom to shield him from charges of plagiarism, false claims of Indian status in his affirmative action job application and misrepresentation of sources in his academic writings.

Public opinion supports the verdict that Churchill was guilty of “conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional integrity,” which is the University of Colorado’s standard for dismissal of tenured professors. Instead, University of Colorado President Elizabeth Hoffman resigned, saving herself from the task of either firing or defending Churchill.

The most frequent complaint I hear from college students is that professors inject their leftist political comments into their courses even when they have nothing to do with the subject. An anti-Bush tirade, for example, might stream forth without warning in math class.

This politicizing of academia is confirmed by a survey commissioned by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. It reported that 46% of students at the 50 top U.S. universities and colleges say professors “use the classroom to present their personal political views.”

The survey also showed that 74% of students said their professors made positive remarks about liberals while 47% reported negative comments about conservatives.

Of more concern is the survey’s report that 29% of students said there are courses in which students must agree with the professor’s political or social views in order to get a good grade. That sort of intellectual oppression ought to be exposed in the evaluations of professors that students fill out each term, but according to 83% of the students polled, there isn’t anything on the evaluation form to report a professor’s imposing his irrelevant political and social ideology on the class.

Professorial bias against conservatives in general and President George W. Bush in particular is exceeded only by the bias against traditional morality. We are indebted to columnist John Leo for revealing the shockers at Wesleyan University: “the naked dorm, the transgender dorm, the queer prom, the pornography-for-credit course, the obscene sidewalk chalking, the campus club named crudely for a woman’s private part,” and more.

Prospects for change in campus bias any time soon are dim because of the lock radicals have on the hiring of new professors, the granting of tenure, and selection of publications by academic journals and the university press.

Meanwhile, tuition and fees were up 10.5% last year and 14% the year before. Over the last 25 years, tuition increases have annually exceeded the consumer price index by 3.5%.

The scandal that more than 30% of university students do not graduate within six years is a direct consequence of the easy availability of government grants and loans. Why hurry if your easygoing campus lifestyle is heavily subsidized, even for taking remedial courses to learn what you failed to learn in high school?

On the other hand, university presidents are doing better and better: 42 presidents of private colleges and 17 presidents of public universities draw salaries of more than $500,000 a year. Nine universities pay their presidents more than $700,000.

There is no evidence that the taxpayers are getting more for their money, or that students are learning more, or even that additional revenues are spent on instruction. The average score on the Graduate Record Exam is lower today than in 1965.

The exorbitant rise in tuition is largely caused by increased amounts of government money spent without accountability or any kind of market discipline. Federal grants and loans to students provide a direct financial incentive to colleges to raise the sticker price of tuition in order to extract more from the government as well as from students and their parents who don’t receive financial aid.

The only way to put a lid on tuition prices is to eliminate the tremendous incentive caused by government subsidies. Follow the money.

==============================

Emancipating children (townhall.com, 050407)

Marvin Olasky

Rep. Trent Franks, 47, works out of his office in the Longworth Building just south of the Capitol, where a bust of Lincoln and a small statuette titled “Jesus With Children” are on display. From that small office is coming legislation that could free thousands and then millions of children from bondage to public schools harmful to their educational health.

Franks, a second-term congressman from Arizona, pushed through his state legislature in 1997 the Arizona Scholarship Tax Credit Bill. That law allows Arizona taxpayers to receive up to a $500 dollar-for-dollar state income tax credit when they make private, voluntary contributions to charities that use at least 90% of the money to provide scholarships that allow children to attend the school of their parents’ choice.

Since 1997, Arizona taxpayers have made 120,000 donations, and this year the program is likely to raise $30 million for scholarships. Through the program, over 24,000 scholarship-receiving students in Arizona are attending a private school this year. Franks says: “Even the poorest child now becomes royalty in the system. In the past, only wealthy parents could afford their children such an opportunity.”

As Arizona goes, so goes the nation? That’s the congressman’s goal, but only two other states now have scholarship tax credits. In Florida, corporations can transfer up to 75% of their corporate income tax liability to non-profit Scholarship Funding Organizations; currently, over 30,000 parents have applied for scholarships for their children. Pennsylvania also has a scholarship tax credit for businesses. Franks wants to give 47 other states incentives to follow these leaders.

The Children’s Hope Act, to which Franks has attracted nearly 70 co-sponsors, tells state legislators that if they enact a scholarship tax credit of $250 or more, all residents of their state will be eligible to take part in an additional federal tax credit. The additional federal tax credit is only $100 ($200 for joint returns) and only for those individuals contributing to organizations that distribute at least half of their scholarships to low-income children, but that’s what Franks believe will get some state legislatures moving.

He accurately points out that a dollar-for-dollar tax credit is much more of an incentive than a deduction of 10% to 38%. A tax credit is also better than a voucher, in that vouchers require governments to distribute money that already has come in — with tax credits, officials never get their hands on the funds and have far less opportunity to attach strings. Tax credit funding of scholarships to religious as well as secular schools is clean sailing constitutionally, since parents and not officials are making the educational decisions.

That’s why conservative pillar Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation praises the Children’s Hope Act: It provides “a powerful incentive that encourages the principal reform effort to be undertaken at the state and local level, rather than a sweeping master plan whose purse strings will be controlled at the federal level by bureaucrats cloistered in offices at the Department of Education. Furthermore, because the scholarships are delivered to parents, it is they who have full power to choose the school their child attends.”

The Children’s Hope Act now has support from the GOP House leadership — but opposition, as well, from legislators, including some Republicans, who are sour on school choice. Others are concerned about the federal deficit, but the estimated cost of $200 million over the first three years of the plan is, sadly, chickenfeed in Washington these days — and it could readily be offset by the slaughter of even one of the educational turkeys that federal officials keep on feeding.

==============================

Time in the Trenches: Campus conservatives need to toughen up (National Review Online, 050413)

When I picked up the April 4 issue of The Nation, I had a Rod Serling moment: I was in total sympathy with one of its headlines. “The New PC,” it announced, was the keening of “Crybaby Conservatives” — particularly on college campuses. My alarm had less to do with the magazine’s left-wing orientation than with its usual “radical” posturing and ritual straw-man immolations. I agreed with these guys? If these guys get it, we’re really in trouble.

Folks, meet the crybabies. Time was when conservatives complained about academia’s liberal atmosphere — fog, let’s call it — the way one does about persistent bad weather. The fog might darken one’s mood, but even if it lasted for four years, it would give way one day to the daylight of thick-skinned adult discourse. The new crybabies disagree: Left-wing bias is nothing less than a bio-toxic cloud, poisoning virgin minds, requiring a sort of legal HAZMAT crew to disperse it. The clean-up, if they have their druthers, will not be the task of brave students or their outspoken professors, or pundits, for that matter. In Ohio, for starters, there’s a piece of craven legislation, Senate Bill 24, being considered that demands that universities “provide students with dissenting sources and viewpoints.”

Dissent? Viewpoints? Words like these give us a whiff of our favorite trillion-dollar Superfund wasteland — the liberal academy’s pious fuming.

Of course, it’s a conservative’s solemn charge to anticipate the worst, so we must assume that the fog is more chlorine gas than methane. The recent Ward Churchill flap demonstrated that this can be the case. Is that so terrible, though? An important and singularly unpleasant part of Basic Training in the U.S. Army is a stroll through the gas tent, in which soldiers must remove their masks for a taste of the worst. It’s a matter of preparation. Conservatism’s hyperbolic whiners ought to regard their college travails as a turn in an ideological gas tent, not a reason to petition the government for a hostage rescue.

Pardon the analogy’s extremity and you’ll find that it’s accurate. During my tenure as a Dartmouth Review editor, I marked two things of special significance to this debate. The first is the admirable readiness, even desire, of young conservatives to suffer — in the limited context of grades, recommendations, and social approval — for their printed words. Yes, for many of our pea-green kamikazes, it was Cs and romantic rejection before dishonor. (A note to the fearful: Occasionally, rabid reactionary sentiment works in one’s favor. It was Nietzsche who said, somewhat overstating the reality, that wisdom is a woman and can only love a warrior.)

The second phenomenon I observed was the array of weak responses from our left-wing peers: frustration, pique, speechless outrage, even anonymous pre-dawn raids of vandalism and theft on our offices.

What I rarely saw was calm, persuasive, and informed reaction to conservative ideas. Two weeks prior to “Shock and Awe,” at an “open-mic discussion” (read: anti-war bongo jam), I saw the best minds of Dartmouth’s progressive Free Press destroyed by such verbal bunker-busters as “What do you mean by imperialism?” I saw the same dunderheaded hipsters, starved for approval, looking to their radical “Peace Studies” clerics for the answers.

These were not unintelligent students, and I only mean to mock them a little. What they were — and still are — is woefully misled about the underpinnings of the ideas they espouse and of the ones they attack. They enjoyed the frisson of being told they “got it,” presumably because what they “got” was presented to them as self-evident. In their professors’ universe, there had never been a Russell Kirk, a WFB, a (forgive this obsequy) National Review Online. There had only been the sinister spawn of Joe McCarthy.

Readers of NRO are probably aware of David Horowitz’s proposed “Student Bill of Rights” — a.k.a. “Senate Bill 24, Part Two: This Time It’s National!” It gets one key thing right: There ought to be more political and intellectual diversity on campus. Students and their parents are shelling out formidable sums of money for something more than conservative boot camp or left-wing reeducation. The question is, diversity for whose benefit? The conservative student gets his education elsewhere, on this or other websites, while his liberal peer is left with half of one. I don’t wish to be accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, but wouldn’t we be better served to harden ourselves against political gladiators than against scarecrows?

— Stefan Beck is assistant editor of the New Criterion.

==============================

Germany Seeks More Christian Schools (Christian Post, 050419)

The demand for entry into nearly 2,000 Christian schools in Germany far exceeds supply, at least according to a key evangelical leader in the nation.

The reason for the increase can be attributed to three different factors, according to Jurgen Frank, the head of education for the Evangelical Church of Germany.

“Firstly, families are generally smaller and parents want to provide their children with a good education. Secondly, they want the education their children receive to meet their individual needs, and thirdly they want a progressive, modern education, system,” Frank said, according to report by Deutsche Welle.

One parent, Christoph Hermann, says that Christianity was a part of his upbringing, and added that he sends his son to an Evangelical school because he doesn’t want his son to misunderstand Christianity as being “fundamental.”

“We live in an increasingly secular society and I don’t want him to grow up seeing Christianity as something fundamental because he hasn’t been exposed to it in an everyday kind of way,” Hermann said.

In Germany, Christian schools are required to adhere to the same curricular options as state run schools. The only difference is that in addition, religious education is required for two hours every week.

According to Deutsche Welle, since the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, the ECG has approved the construction of 70 new evangelical schools, with 50 more that are currently waiting.

Frank added that a study by the ECG following a recent student assessment report showed that “...the educational climate at Christian schools is better than in state schools, and that the quality on offer at demoninational schools genuinely does live up to its reputation,” he said.

The background of students in Christian schools varies by denomination according to the ECG. Catholic schools have emphasized “accepting children who are being brought up within the framework of the faith,” while the Evangelical Church is more relaxed in its requirements, hoping to achieve a “good social mix.”

Most new school projects are initiated by concerned parents who trust the good educational reputation of Christian schools, according to Deutsche Welle. However there are obstacles to starting new schools.

Recently, the ECG had been giving out grants to help new schools get off the ground until they could support themselves, However, the money available for the projects is decreasing and it’s difficult to support everything.

Although parents are expected to contribute monthly fees, many who can’t pay are exempted. Frank believes that parents are spending much more on entertainment than school.

“It’s horrifying how little people are prepared to invest in learning,” he said. “They spend ten times more on entertainment than they do on education.”

==============================

Texans Homeschool for Religious Reasons, Study Shows (Christian Post, 050420)

Most Texan parents who home-school their children are reportedly doing so for moral and religious reasons.

Some 70% of parents who homeschool their children choose such an educational option for religious reasons, according to a report released by the Texas Home Educators (THE) to the McKinney Courier-Gazette. Sixty percent of the parents cited academics as a reason to homeschool their young, while 30% pointed towards the overall well-being of their children.

Homeschooling has increasingly become an option widely accepted as a good alternative to public education. According to Dr. Brian D. Ray, founder and president of the National Home Education Research Institute, the number of homeschooled children was approximately 1.7 to 2.1 million nationwide and 120,000 to 155,000 in Texas alone. That number has been increasing at a rate of seven to 10% per year. Some estimate the Texas number to be at 300,000.

According to Julie Marshall, the co-president of McKinney Area Christian Homeschoolers (MArCH) in McKinney, Texas, this growth in homeschooling can be explained by the nature of why parents choose this route.

“We feel it is God’s will for our family, and we are committed to educating our children at home, for now, because of our conviction for the spiritual training, character development as well as the social and academic welfare of our children,” said Marshall, “Most people who do homeschool, feel they have been called by God to do so.”

According to Marshall, who home-schools her four children, there are many advantages to tutorial-style education, such as its ability to present academic subjects from a biblical perspective and to include spiritual and character training are some of its advantages.

“We feel our children will develop confidence and independent thinking away from the secular peer pressure to conform and in the security of their home,” Marshall added.

Marshall also said homeschooling allows her children to experience more “unity, closeness and mutual enjoyment of one another,” according to the gazette.

Meanwhile, in regards to the long-running question of whether home-schooled children could learn to appreciate different people and cultures as well as publicly schooled youth, Marshall said there are plenty of opportunities to build diverse relationships even at home.

“Children can build lasting friendships with people of all ages as they interact with church and family friends,” Marshall said. “In real life, we are surrounded by people of all ages and rarely only interact with people the same age as we are.”

Marshall also explained that homeschool can eliminate the negative effects of peer-pressure.

“Many believe that extensive peer contact during childhood can cause undesirable peer dependency,” said Marshall. “Children are more likely to be influenced by the majority than to be an influence on them.”

“Children who are educated outside the home are prone to accept their peers’ and teachers’ values over those of their parents,” explained Marshall, who added that “Godly principles of interaction” can be taught and reinforced thorugh home-schooling.

As for challenges, Marshall acknoweldged that establishing a homes-schooling environment may be overwhelming to some. However, she said the dedication is well worth it.

Said Marshall: “The responsibility is vast, but well worth the glorious rewards as you see your children’s ‘light-bulbs’ go off for yourself and the strong character and virtues coming into development and see their full potential of what God has in store for their purpose in life.”

==============================

Pushing the positive forward (Washington Times, 050420)

George W. Bush came to Washington in 2001 with what many in the educational establishment considered a radical idea: we can educate our children better if we insist on high standards and hold schools accountable for meeting them.

The centerpiece of the president’s education reform was the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, with its “carrots and sticks” approach rewarding progress and disciplining — even dissolving — schools that consistently fail. It passed Congress with bipartisan support. But its critics charged the act’s emphasis on testing and accountability would unfairly penalize schools with many poor and minority students.

The president, for his part, famously countered the “soft bigotry of low expectations” largely accounted for the educational decline among poor and minority children.

For some time, the argument was in an empirical vacuum, each side guided more by pre-determined attitudes than evidence.

Today, however, the numbers are in, and the direct evidence clearly demonstrates standards work. In fact, not only do standards work for children as a whole, they may have their most beneficial effect on precisely those disadvantaged students some feared would be left farther behind.

The No Child Left Behind Act was in fact a nationwide expansion of reform efforts already under way in schools around the country. So we have data that go back several years. Some of the most compelling comes from a 2001 Education Trust that identified 4,500 schools serving more than a million very poor and minority students. Yet, their students performed among the top one-third of schools in their states. And they often outperformed predominantly white schools in advantaged communities.

These schools often had common features: They used state standards in designing curriculum and evaluating students and teachers, they monitored student progress and gave extra support to those who needed it, and they held teaching professionals accountable.

A similar 2000 study came to the same conclusions: The secret of success — by now an open secret — is setting high expectations focused on real achievement measured by frequent testing, not fuzzy, feel-good criteria dictated by some educator’s whim. Also important, the study found successful schools aligned their curriculum to meet state standards and — not surprisingly — provided extra help for students in need.

A recent Stanford University study dramatically corroborated these findings, and should finally put to rest the education establishment’s hand-wringing over the supposedly deleterious effects of standards and testing. The Stanford study demonstrated high accountability and extensive testing led to high scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, particularly among African-American and Hispanic students. Stronger accountability did not increase dropouts, or cause more students to be left behind, as some feared. On the contrary, the analysis showed greater progress for both at-risk and gifted students.

Perhaps the most surprising finding, at least to some, is that strong accountability reduced teacher turnover.

This of course runs contrary to what many educators still say: that it is unfair to hold teachers in disadvantaged schools to high standards and it will only cause many of them to change schools or drop out of education all together. The finding is intuitive, however, if one assumes most choose to teach out of love for it and are naturally happier in an evidently working system that promotes success rather than wallows in excuses.

It seems clear the No Child Left Behind Act will continue pushing these very positive trends forward. There are, however, several areas where improvement may be desired.

We may want to expand beyond the tests’ exclusive focus on math and reading (and science in 2007) to other important subjects such as history, civics and writing. Less expensive and time-consuming computer-adaptive tests would allow more frequent sampling and enable schools to respond to their students’ educational needs in “real time.” Parent and student surveys can be especially important to those who do not feel challenged enough and might, through school choice, opt for a more rigorous educational experience.

Finally, national standards and testing would enable educators across the country to compare systems, and over time militate toward the adoption of best practices nationwide.

In the meantime, the lesson is clear: Standards work. No Child Left Behind is nationalizing a reform movement that promises to lift American education out of its long decline. Some educational holdouts now suggest weakening its requirements. Their counsel should be resisted. America should stay the course, accelerate reform and bring opportunity, which only a standards-based education can provide, to all its children.

Herbert J. Walberg is a member of Hoover Institution’s Koret Task Force on K-12 Education and a contributor to the Koret Task Force’s new book, “Within Our Reach: How America Can Educate Every Child.”

==============================

Targeting the Schools—Gay Activists and the Day of Silence (Christian Post, 050421)

Thousands of schools all over America observed the “Day of Silence” yesterday, an event sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network [GLSEN]. The program, now in its tenth year, represents an effort by gay activists to push their agenda in the schools and to argue that homosexuals, lesbians, and transgendered persons have been “silenced” in the educational curriculum.

Started in 1996, the Day of Silence originated at the University of Virginia, where 150 students participated in the first observance. As the GLSEN Web site explains, The Day of Silence has become the largest single student-led action towards creating safer schools for all, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.”

GLSEN claims that nearly 100 colleges and universities participated in the second Day of Silence, held in 1997. This year, organizers claim over 4,000 colleges and high schools as participating institutions. To date, the largest Day of Silence action was held in 2002, when Gray Davis, then-Governor of California, issued a proclamation declaring April 10, 2002 to be an official Day of Silence in his state.

Organizers of the Day of Silence see themselves as leading a protest movement, like those that emerged in the 1960s. In the “Organizing Manual” published by GLSEN, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee [SNCC]—made famous during the civil rights movement—is cited as a precedent and inspiration for this act of homosexual advocacy.

The theme is “direct action organizing,” and the goal is explicit. As the manual explains, “Organizing is our ability to change our communities: to identify problems and develop solutions, to bring people together, to plan strategies and campaigns, to hold elected officials and corporations accountable to the communities they serve. It is rooted in the power of people. Individuals working together as a group and/or community have the power to bring about change.”

In typical protest fashion, the Day of Silence calls for students to demonstrate their political advocacy by organizing together. In this case, the protest action takes the form of silence, as students are encouraged to hand out cards indicating that the reason for their silence is the oppression of homosexuals. The message, also printed on stickers and t-shirts, is straightforward: “Please understand my reasons for not speaking today. I am participating in the Day of Silence, a national youth movement protesting the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and their allies. My deliberate silence echoes that silence, which is caused by harassment, prejudice and discrimination. I believe that ending the silence is the first step towards fighting these injustices. Think about the voices you are not hearing today. What are you going to do to end the silence?”

As the manual makes clear, “The Day of Silence Project is about more than being silent for a day.” The goal is political action and the kind of consciousness-raising by which such groups hope to change minds and influence public policy. In this case, many of the minds they target are very young.

Why the protests? Organizers claim that the climate in many schools is hostile to homosexuality. Thus, “Students might be forced to hide their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression because they fear physical or verbal harassment. They might be made invisible by school curriculum that makes no mention of LGBT people and events. Or your school might simply be a place where students, teachers, and staff could learn more about diversity and acceptance. Regardless of what situation you find yourself in, the Day of Silence is an effort that can raise awareness on these issues, prompting people to talk and think about them.”

Participation in the Day of Silence “enables participants to show, in a highly visible way, everyone they encounter, that they support LGBT rights.” Of course, organizers are seeking to do far more than consciousness-raising. They are pushing for the explicit inclusion of lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexual persons in the school curriculum, and an effective endorsement of homosexuality at every level of the school’s life.

In taking their cue from the protests movements of the 1960s, the organizers of the Day of Silence attempt to claim the mantle of the civil rights movement for their effort to normalize homosexuality. The organizing tactics and strategies suggested in the GLSEN manual represent merely an updated methodology for political protest and action. The group calls for schools to adopt anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies for homosexuals and to address “the exclusion of LGBT people and history from the curriculum.” It doesn’t stop there.

Day of Silence organizers suggest that the energy of the protest can be channeled into other events, including a “Night of Noise,” that would bring together performance artists, musicians, poets, and others ready to push the agenda.

In terms of the Day of Silence itself, the GLSEN Web site offers tactics to use in convincing principals and other school administrators to support or allow the protest. If necessary, students are urged “to plan a campaign to influence the decision-maker.” These tactics appear to be working, as more and more schools participate in the protest. This year, organizers claim participation from all 50 states and Puerto Rico, embracing at least 450,000 students.

The rapid expansion of the Day of Silence program is one indication of the speed with which the homosexual rights movement has advanced across the political landscape. In just one decade, the Day of Silence has spread from one university to over 4,000 institutions. This represents a vast wave of social change, bringing a moral revolution in its wake.

GLSEN, the organization sponsoring the event, became a national organization only in 1994. The group first launched a “Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual History Month” and began pressing for the inclusion of homosexual concerns in school curricula. It then expanded its scope to include direct action movements in schools, programs to “educate” teachers about gay concerns, and public awareness campaigns to shape public opinion.

GLSEN has been highly successful, and many schools and school systems allow the group to review curricula and even train teachers. GLSEN knows that those who control the agenda and curricula of the schools will shape the worldview of the coming generation.

Make no mistake. GLSEN is targeting our children with its Day of Silence program. Are those who oppose this agenda willing to speak out?

____________________________________________

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

==============================

Texas School Board OKs Bible Class (Foxnews, 050427)

ODESSA, Texas — The school board in Odessa, Texas, voted unanimously to add a Bible class to its high school curriculum.

Hundreds of people, most of them supporters of the proposal, packed the board meeting Tuesday night. More than 6,000 area residents had signed a petition supporting the class.

Some residents, however, said the school board acted too quickly. Others said they feared a national constitutional fight.

Barring any hurdles, the class should be added to the curriculum in fall 2006 and taught as a history or literature course. The school board still must develop a curriculum, which board member Floy Hinson said should be open for public review.

The board had heard a presentation in March from Mike Johnson, a representative of the Greensboro, N.C.-based National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, who said that coursework designed by that organization is not about proselytizing or preaching.

But People for the American Way and the American Civil Liberties union have criticized the council, saying its materials promote religion.

==============================

Getting Hell from Hanover: Dartmouth alumni take on the American higher-ed establishment. (National Review Online, 050427)

It’s only Spring yet, but Dartmouth is simmering. Controversies at elite schools are common enough, but this most recent one, over an election for two open seats on the board of trustees, is worth paying attention to — and not just if you’ve got a connection to Dartmouth.

This all started last spring during a bizarre election for a single seat on the board. As per an 1891 agreement, the Alumni Association, whose membership includes all living alumni, elects half the board — but the candidates are chosen by the Alumni Council, a separate organization largely handpicked by Dartmouth’s administration. But there is a backdoor to the process, and T. J. Rodgers ‘70, a well-regarded Silicon Valley CEO, slipped in by gathering 500 signatures, thus earning a place on the ballot as a petition candidate.

He ran on a highly open and critical platform: Dartmouth’s students suffered from lapses in “thinking and reasoning” due to curricular failures; “diversity by mandate” should be dropped because it “demeans those it intends to help”; there ought to be sensible reforms to bring the college governance process out of the smoky backrooms and into the light of day. But above all, he wanted speech restrictions scrapped. His views apparently resonated with alumni; Rodgers clobbered the competition, garnering well over 50% of the vote — in a four-way race.

For free-speech advocates on and off campus, the Rodgers election was the first positive omen in some time, a sure sign that Dartmouth may have finally turned away from the rampant political correctness of the ‘90s. But college president James Wright refused to attribute his election to widespread discontent. He chalked it up instead to alumni preference for a CEO-type over an academic-type.

Enter this year’s petition candidates, who no one will argue aren’t academic types: Peter Robinson ‘79, former Reagan presidential speechwriter, T.V. moderator, and Hoover Institute fellow (and a frequent NRO contributor), and Todd Zywicki ‘84, a tenured law professor at George Mason, 2001 winner of that school’s “Professor of the Year” award, and a senior research fellow at George Mason’s James Buchanan Center for Political Economy. Both set up websites (Robinson’s here and Zywicki’s here) questioning the Wright administration’s priorities on numerous issues, but free speech was front and center. Both expected some internecine squabbling, but neither was prepared for what was to come.

With their signatures certified, Robinson and Zywicki were shackled by election rules that prohibited campaigning by the candidates and their supporters — ironic, given the central premise of Robinson’s and Zywicki’s campaign. Candidates were limited to a few e-mails (Zywicki’s and Robinson’s), a brief online statement, a web video, and some online questions that bordered on ridiculous. Despite all this, Robinson and Zywicki dismantled their websites and agreed to play along. And that’s when the election went to the dogs.

The vitriol flew with astounding rapidity, and it came from all directions. An alumnus was bold enough to lay out specific criticisms in the daily paper of the same type Zywicki and Robinson had cited. He met with a swift reprisal from the powers that be: The dean of the faculty shot back, along with the chairman of the government department, a former trustee, and the college provost. They all painted rosy, sun-drenched portraits of the college’s policies — simply denying that extensively documented failures existed — and also of its relationship with alumni — even as alumni groundswell for Zywicki and Robinson rendered impotent such Pollyanna pronouncements.

Other professors and administrators took to the Internet with websites and e-mails, accusing the petition candidates of holding “destructive views of the College,” or calling them “right wing ideologues,” even though Robinson and Zywicki, both conservatives, avoided left-right issues. Former administrators under the mantle Alumni for a Strong Dartmouth (ASD) vowed to halt the petition juggernaut in its tracks — this accomplished through a website and e-mails chock-a-block with ad hominem attacks. (The group’s organizer, Geoff Berlin ‘84, chastised Zywicki for taking two years off from teaching — it was actually only one — to work at the Federal Trade Commission. Somehow, petty slurs like this were supposed to undermine Zywicki’s and Robinson’s credibility.) Nevertheless, seven former trustees, a bevy of Alumni Council members, and even some folks on Dartmouth’s payroll joined the ASD pigpile.

President Wright got in on the action, too — he jetted around the country giving speeches that amounted to point-by-point refutations of Zywicki’s and Robinson’s criticisms. But he refused to debate them on the issues. In fact, he denied that there were issues. There aren’t restrictions on free speech, he proclaimed, and — voila! — a controversial letter he had written disappeared from the college’s website. It read, in part, that “it is hard to understand that why some want still to insist that their ‘right’ to do what they want trumps the rights, feelings, and considerations of others. We need to recognize that speech has consequences for which we must account.”

Robinson and Zywicki took the beating quietly, in accordance with the election’s rules. Their supporters, however, weren’t as deferential. One professor dismissed Dartmouth’s shameful campaign as nothing more than “dean speak,” while others called it “self congratulatory fluff” and “gauzy defensiveness.” And in a welcome moment of levity, a few alumni created a website colorfully titled “Alumni Asking WTF?” that slammed the anti-petition campaign for what it was: a concerted effort flouting ill-conceived campaign rules, and aimed at thwarting the democratic process.

All the armchair pundits seemed to miss the greatest irony of all: The petition candidates, whose platforms were based in large part on bringing free speech back to campus, were about the only ones who went along with the campaign’s silly restrictions.

Just why was there so much acrimony? Robinson and Zywicki followed the rules. They were straight-forward with their views, and civil with their detractors. Their only real sin seemed to be one of taste: Their opinions on free speech, accountability, athletics, and diversity didn’t square with the current administration’s (post)modern shibboleths. Polite bickering — not to mention some actual adult debate — would have been understandable, maybe even expected, but the shrill misprision implied a much deeper contempt.

What all the anti-petition commentary had in common was an underlying air of desperation, like a condemned man trying feverishly to exculpate himself as he’s led to the gallows. Here, then, was their true offence: Robinson and Zywicki had blasted Dartmouth’s — and, by extension, higher education’s — blind faith in its own twisted agenda. They demanded answers and explanations, not sticky bromides. They attacked the underlying rationale of the diversity university, and they did so publicly. Robinson and Zywicki wanted the governing apparatus to be open and accountable. And, of course, they wanted free speech for everyone.

Dartmouth’s administrators and faculty understand what’s at stake, and after missing the boat with Rodgers last year, they’ve mobilized accordingly. If Robinson and Zywicki can beat the smear campaign and emerge victorious, Dartmouth’s administrators will probably dismiss the election, once again, as nothing more than a fluke. But even if they do, everyone else will see what is as plain as day: The illiberal stranglehold on higher education may finally be loosening.

Dartmouth Grad?

Due to widespread election irregularities, the balloting period, which began in late March, has been extended until May 6. Dartmouth alumni can still vote online here, and alumni who have not received a ballot should contact the Alumni Relations office.

— Alston B. Ramsay is an associate editor of National Review.

==============================

Dad arrested after protesting ‘gay’ book (WorldNetDaily, 050429)

‘Our parental requests for our own child were flat-out denied’

A father who protested a pro-homosexual book his 6-year-old son had been given in school spent a night in jail after being arrested by police.

David Parker, 42, confronted officials at Joseph Estabrook School in Lexington, Mass., Wednesday after his son brought home a copy of “Who’s in a Family,” a storybook that includes characters who are homosexual parents, the Boston Herald reported.

According to the report, Parker refused to leave a meeting after Lexington Superintendent Bill Hurley rejected his request that he be notified when his son is exposed to any discussion about same-sex households as part of classroom instruction.

Police arrested Parker for trespassing and he spent a night in jail before posting a $1,000 personal surety, Boston’s WCVB-TV reported.

“Our parental requests for our own child were flat-out denied,” Parker said in a statement.

Parker said school officials have continued to tell him he has no right to control whether or not his child is taught about same-sex marriage.

“What I am saying is, because of the same-sex marriage law, people are treating it as a mandate to teach the youngest of children. It is not a mandate to teach the youngest of children, particularly if parents say, ‘Hold on, I want to be the gatekeeper of the information. It is not that I don’t want my child to ever learn it, it is I want to control the timing and manner,’” Parker told the TV station.

Brian Camenker, director of the traditional-values organization Article 8 Alliance, told the Herald Parker also asked that his son be pulled from discussions involving homosexuality that arise spontaneously.

According to the Lexington Minuteman, Parker spoke at a school committee meeting Tuesday and complained that schools have “unfettered ... access to children’s psyches.”

==============================

Charter schools & choice: What is all the fuss about? (townhall.com, 050501)

Debra England

At a recent conference on education held at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, a panel of MBA alumni working in the field of education were asked by their moderator what each one thought was the single most important innovation or reform necessary to improve the K-12 public education system. Answers varied widely from “better governance” to “more highly qualified teachers” to “improved reimbursements for charter schools”. The panel included the principal of a charter school, the founder of a web-based teacher professional development site, a boutique Wall Streeter who invests in for-profit educational companies, and a senior-level administrator brought in by the State of California to turn around a failed school district. Each offered a sensible and eminently reasonable tactical suggestion based on his or her personal professional experience in the field.

What the panel respondents did not provide, however, was a strategic overview of the field. It would have been illuminating had they stepped back from the tactical level to respond to that question. The overarching strategic driver of substantive educational gains visible in the public school system today is the mechanism of free market-based competitive pressure exerted through parental choice options. The introduction of competition is the single most important innovation necessary to improve the K-12 public education system.

In The Road to Serfdom, a brilliant treatise on the dangers of collectivist ideologies, Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek demonstrated the contradictions inherent between command economies and personal liberty. Hayek deftly illustrated how attempts to control entire economies – or even significant portions of an economy - result inevitably in the growth of totalitarianism and a commensurate loss of personal freedom. Where better to apply Hayek’s analysis today than to the $400 billion anachronistic government monopoly that is our public K-12 educational system?

Despite wave upon wave of touted educational “reforms” over the past several decades, this failed government monopoly has succeeded in producing a sclerotic bureaucracy that has flatlined American K-12 academic achievement for the past 35 years. Interestingly, this same timeframe has seen the birth and rapid growth of modern teachers’ unions and a nationwide explosion in average annual per pupil spending, which has more than doubled since 1970 - from $4,700 to roughly $10,100 today in constant dollars. Basic economics tells us that when expenditures increase by more than 100% while outputs remain unchanged, we are witnessing a huge productivity decline in the public education sector. Money is clearly not the problem.

Enter the Charter School.

Charter schools are free public schools whose existence is largely dependant upon their ability to achieve good enough student academic growth – as measured by their transparent performance on all required state testing – to attract parents and students and to justify renewed chartering by their authorizing agents. In exchange for operating in this high-accountability environment with lower government reimbursements, charter schools are freed from much of the onerous bureaucratic and union regulations burdening regular public schools. This permits them to allocate resources more flexibly and efficiently to achieve greater academic gains for their students. Most charter schools target the lowest-end socio-economic demographics where the most at-risk children are likely to be trapped in wretched urban public schools which augur poorly for their futures. Not surprisingly, parental demand outstrips supply and most charter schools must utilize a lottery system to allocate available student positions.

Given the sturm und drang which has accompanied the arrival of charter schools on the public education scene, one might be surprised to discover that charter schools enroll only 1.5% of the public school students nationwide. Three times as many U.S. children are home schooled as are educated in charter schools. What, then, accounts for the vehement resistance charter schools have encountered including state caps on the numbers permitted, localized fights against granting charters, and union attacks on charter school achievements?

Here again, economics provides the answer. The educational bureaucracies and their political allies have largely managed to maintain what Milton Friedman rightly calls “a tyranny of the status quo” in their fight against school vouchers for impoverished inner-city children trapped in the most dysfunctional parts of this failed government monopoly. But they have been less successful in their fight against charter schools. Thus, despite the near-epic battle waged against the introduction of any form of parental choice, charter schools have become the camel’s nose inside the educational bureaucracies’ tent.

Not only do charter schools support parental choice by providing a variety of educational alternatives to regular public schools, they also create competition by the nature of their existence. It is a rare monopoly that voluntarily gives up the advantages of monopolistic control for the rigours of competitive free markets. Charter schools, vouchers, tax-credits for corporate-funded scholarships, home schooling – these all introduce market-based competition into the educational arena by providing choice to parents whose socio-economic status had previously ensured their children were trapped in undesirable or failing public schools.

The threat these competitive innovations represent to “business as usual” among the various educational unions and bureaucracies is genuine and they have responded quite rationally with fear and defensive attacks which serve to underscore the fact that their first priority is not to optimize the educational achievements of children under their control but to serve the needs of their own members’ survival. A valuable rule of thumb when confronting histrionic accusations or suspect “research findings” leveled at the vehicles of school choice: ask yourself who is the source of the claim and what is their stakeholder value in supporting the status quo? In short, do they have a dog in that fight?

One of the most frequent charges brought against charter schools is that support for any competitive educational option undermines the regular public education system by snatching desperately needed dollars away from the system. Public K-12 schools receive government reimbursements based largely on average daily attendance. If parents have the freedom to remove their children from undesirable or failing schools, those attendance dollars are lost to the school. The educational bureaucrats and unions would have you believe that parents freed to seek the best educational opportunities for their children will thus bankrupt or severely wound the public school system.

In fact, the introduction of parental choice through the availability of competitive options also introduces an incentive for public schools to respond to parental demands and to be accountable for producing educational achievement. When regular public schools must compete with charter schools, vouchers, or other forms of competition, these formerly unresponsive bureaucratic monopolies are forced to find ways to improve the educational outcomes of the children they serve in order to compete successfully for students. The greater the competitive pressures, the greater their incentives to find ways to improve educational outcomes for students. This is how free markets work in theory, and this is how extensive research and empirical evidence show us that free markets are working in the K-12 educational arena. Competition is the closest thing we are likely to find to a “silver bullet” for K-12 public education.

==============================

False promises of academic freedom (townhall.com, 050506)

David Limbaugh

If you want to get a real glimpse of the thought-tyranny of the academic Left, you should look at the case of Scott McConnell, who was recently expelled from Le Moyne College in Syracuse, N.Y., because his personal beliefs didn’t fit within the school’s indoctrination grid.

The Left, through an extraordinary process of self-deception, routinely congratulates itself for its enlightenment and open-mindedness, but the slightest scrutiny of its behavior in academia alone puts the lie to its claims. Sadly, the Left has even sunk its tentacles into Jesuit colleges like Le Moyne.

McConnell was pursuing a masters in education at Le Moyne. He achieved a 3.78 grade-point average for the fall semester and an “excellent” evaluation for his outside classroom work at a Syracuse elementary school when he made the mistake of relying on the university’s promise to honor students’ academic liberty and due process.

In its handbook, Le Moyne boasts, “As a comprehensive college, accredited by the State of New York and the Middle States Association, Le Moyne shares the ideals of academic freedom found in American institutions of higher education.”

Among McConnell’s unforgivable sins were his audacious dissent from the university’s dogma extolling multicultural education and his gross insubordination in asserting in a paper that “corporal punishment has a place in the classroom.”

Notably, McConnell received an A- on his blasphemous paper from Prof. Mark J. Trabucco, who also wrote him a note saying his ideas were “interesting.” But when Trabucco forwarded the paper to the department chair, Cathy Leogrande, McConnell got his academic head served to him on a platter.

On Jan. 13, 2005, in an act of compassion that liberals are so famous for, Leogrande sent McConnell a terse letter summarily ejecting him from the graduate program. In the introductory paragraph, Leogrande reminded McConnell, conveniently, that he had been “accepted to the Le Moyne College Graduate Education program on a conditional basis.”

In the second paragraph, Leogrande slapped him in the face with this lightening bolt: “I have grave concerns regarding the mismatch between your personal beliefs regarding teaching and learning and the Le Moyne College program goals. Based on this data, I do not believe that you should continue in the Le Moyne M.S.T. (Masters of Science for Teaching) Program. You will not be allowed to register for any additional courses. Your registration for Spring 2005 courses has been withdrawn.”

Note that Leogrande did not list McConnell’s academic performance as a reason for his dismissal, merely that his personal beliefs weren’t in synch with the school’s propaganda. Note also that Leogrande didn’t give McConnell any opportunity to respond prior to kicking him out on his ear. She merely told him, perfunctorily, that if he wanted to discuss the matter further he could contact a certain person to schedule an appointment. How touchingly sensitive!

McConnell then wrote a letter to Dr. John Smarrelli Jr., Academic Vice President, informing him that he wished to appeal the decision to expel him. He reminded Smarrelli that in expelling him, the college had violated its own mission of academic freedom and that nothing in any information provided by the college indicates that a student’s “personal beliefs would or could play a part in my ultimate acceptance to or continuing involvement with the program.”

Smarrelli, rather than responding directly to points McConnell raised in his letter, copped out, repeating that McConnell would not be permitted to appeal because he had only been “conditionally accepted.”

Fortunately, McConnell is not taking this injustice sitting down. He has filed a lawsuit seeking reinstatement and damages for wrongfully expelling him. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a nonpartisan civil liberties organization dedicated to defending individual rights in higher education, is assisting McConnell with his case.

I contacted FIRE’s president, David French, who told me, “This is one of the most brazen examples of censorship and summary expulsion for the expression of dissenting views I have ever seen.”

French made two other excellent points. First, it’s fine for a private school to make up its own rules, but it ought not to be permitted to hold itself out as a bastion of academic freedom and then deliver censorship. Second, if the school chooses to recognize only one educational philosophy, it is honor bound to notify its applying students in advance so those who run afoul of it don’t end up wasting serious amounts of money and a year of their lives, as in the case of Mr. McConnell.

McConnell’s mistake is that he dared challenge politically correct dogma concerning corporal punishment and multiculturalism. Here’s hoping he prevails in his lawsuit, and, in the process, exposes Leftist academic tyranny, censorship and hypocrisy for what it is.

==============================

A picture is worth a thousand words (townhall.com, 050506)

Oliver North

EN ROUTE TO IRAQ — My bosses at FOX News have sent me on assignment to the “sandbox,” as our troops have taken to calling Iraq. There, I will spend time with some of the most impressive young men and women this country has ever produced. These soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Guardsmen never cease to amaze me. Their dedication, enthusiasm and resilience, even in the unforgiving heat and atmosphere of an Iraqi summer, are second to none.

On the day before my departure, The Washington Times carried a front-page photo of an unidentified American soldier cradling a young Iraqi child in his arms. The child was severely wounded by terrorists in Mosul, who used a car bomb to plow through a group of neighborhood children to attack an American patrol. The blast killed two children and injured 15 other Iraqis. Some might say the photo is an example of the horrors of war. It would more accurately be described as portraying the horrors of terrorism.

There is something else striking about this photo. The soldier portrayed, though donned with the accoutrements of battle, is cradling the child in his arms with love and care, affection and tenderness. He has wrapped the young Iraqi child in a blanket to keep her warm; to give her comfort; to protect her dignity. The soldier is holding the child close to him, with his head nestled in close to her small body. It looks as though the soldier is either weeping or praying over her. In fact, it’s likely he’s doing both. You get the sense from the emotion displayed in the photo that, when not just a soldier, this man is a father, the kind of dad that probably takes the whole Little League team out for ice cream after a game.

The love and respect this stranger in an American uniform shows for the wounded Iraqi child is evident. It is yet another example of the many profound acts of kindness, charity and bravery that have been displayed throughout the war by young Americans in uniform. We’ve heard the stories or seen the photos of a Marine sharing his last drop of water with a thirsty Iraqi child. The Internet — unlike many of our major newspapers — is abuzz with pictures of American warriors sharing laughs with Iraqi youth and weeping over the shattered victims of terrorists. I’ve had the great fortune to witness many of these acts of kindness firsthand.

Unfortunately, if you are a college student or a law school student in America today, you are unlikely to know just how remarkable your peers who serve in the military are. Worse yet, your college administrators deny you the opportunity to decide for yourself whether or not you’d like to join their ranks. The Ivory Tower academic elitists in many of America’s most “prestigious” colleges and universities today are waging war against the military and working to keep recruiters off of their campuses.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up a case in which “elite” universities are suing the Pentagon to keep military recruiters off their campuses so they don’t “corrupt” the academic environment. Their beef is a federal statute known as the Solomon Amendment, originally passed in 1994, which provides that federal funding may be withheld from institutions of higher education that refuse military recruiters the same opportunities afforded to recruiters from other companies.

Thirty law schools have joined under the banner of the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, claiming that they are being forced by the Solomon Amendment to “actively support military recruiters” who engage in “discriminatory hiring practices.” The target of their protest, they claim, is the Clinton administration’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy toward open homosexual service in the military.

In fact, colleges and universities have been trying to keep military recruiters and ROTC programs off campus for decades. Harvard, the school leading the charge against the Solomon Amendment, banished ROTC in 1969, forcing cadets to walk across town to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for the past 36 years. Yale, Stanford, Columbia and Brown are among many other institutions that have shunned ROTC for decades.

Today’s military relies on educated individuals joining the ranks as surgeons, JAG lawyers, chaplains and engineers. These vital roles could more easily and efficiently be filled but for the bitter opposition on campuses by elitist professors, students and administrators.

Ironically, their freedom to protest is defended by the very people they are protesting. And, in so doing, they are spreading ill will toward people like Mark Bieger. Mark Bieger is a father of three, and according to his wife, Amy, “is very compassionate and has a huge heart.” Bieger is also a graduate of West Point, a major in the United States Army and, it was revealed a few days later, the soldier shown in the photograph described above.

Michael Yon, a freelance journalist embedded with Bieger’s unit, told FOX News that after the terrorist attack in the Mosul neighborhood, “there were so many wounded children around. Maj. Bieger found that little girl, and he and the medic worked the best they could” to save her life. Yon reported that Bieger made a command decision to use some of the helicopter firepower that might have been needed against the terrorists to transfer the wounded girl to a medical unit. Unfortunately, to Bieger’s distress, the young girl died.

But, Yon said, the unit later returned to the same neighborhood and “the people welcomed (the American military) into their homes. The children came out on the streets, waving, smiling. We were very welcomed in that neighborhood,” he said.

It’s more than a shame that honorable, decent, caring, compassionate and heroic people like Maj. Mark Bieger and his fellow soldiers aren’t welcomed on America’s college campuses.

==============================

Cinderella Story: Two conservative underdogs emerge victorious in Dartmouth’s alumni trustee elections. (Weekly Standard, 050513)

THE PETITION CANDIDATES DID IT. In a stunning—at least to their critics—upset, Peter Robinson and Todd Zywicki each won an alumni seat on Dartmouth College’s board of trustees. The results were made public yesterday afternoon, following two months of electronic and mail-in voting.

Chalk up another victory for the “New Media”—namely, for the conservative blogosphere. Robinson and Zywicki relied heavily on the Internet to publicize their efforts. They had been the insurgents in the race: the grassroots nominees who worked their way onto the ballot by garnering 500 signatures apiece. They entered a field with four other candidates handpicked by the school’s alumni council.

Dartmouth trustee rules bar candidates from electioneering—but only once they’ve been certified. So as they labored to acquire the requisite 500 petitions, Robinson and Zywicki were free to tout their platforms on personal websites and friendly blogs. They called chiefly for ending Dartmouth’s de facto campus speech code and improving the undergraduate experience.

Since Robinson and Zywicki are well-known conservatives—Robinson is a Hoover fellow and former Reagan speechwriter (“Tear Down This Wall” came from his pen), while Zywicki teaches law at George Mason University and blogs at the Volokh Conspiracy site—the race had political overtones. But both stressed that their principal issues—protecting free speech and renewing Dartmouth’s commitment to its undergrads—were nonpartisan.

Yet almost overnight, blogs sprang up to denounce them. Concerned alums—including such groups as “Alumni for a Strong Dartmouth” and “Dartmouth Alumni for Social Change”—zinged Robinson and Zywicki for their “reactionary” politics and criticism of Dartmouth president James Wright.

They had a good reason to be startled by the two outsiders. In 2004, another petition candidate, Silicon Valley tycoon T.J. Rodgers, won election to the board of trustees—the first to do so since 1980. Rodgers, a self-described libertarian, ran on a platform similar to those of Robinson and Zywicki.

Now, thanks to the petition process, three center-right alums in two years have gained positions on the board by campaigning against the Dartmouth administration and against politically correct speech codes. To say this has raised eyebrows and ruffled feathers in Hanover would be an understatement. Robinson and Zywicki—like Rodgers before them—challenged the reigning academic establishment head-on and emerged victorious. They join the board officially in June, following Dartmouth’s commencement exercises.

Robinson spoke to The Daily Standard Friday morning about the significance of his win. He emphasized the Internet angle above all. “The victory represents a victory for alumni participation in the governance of Dartmouth College,” Robinson said. “What made that possible was the blogosphere.” Blogs “made it possible for me to reach alums” and “keep up reporting and interest in the campaign.”

More broadly, he added, blogs offer a novel way for graduates to stay in touch with their alma mater. “I learned more in three months of reading these blogs about the actual state of affairs in Hanover, New Hampshire, than [I did] in 25 years of reading the alumni magazine.” Blogs thus pose a mortal threat to the “propaganda machines” of major universities, Robinson said. “That strikes me as a sea change.”

Duncan Currie is a reporter at The Weekly Standard.

==============================

The Return of the Parents (Christian Post, 050519)

Students are approaching the final days of this educational year but increasingly parents are heading back to school. While many students will soon be thinking of summer jobs, administrators, teachers and parents will not be getting a break. Controversies involving schools and social issues will be keeping the adults busy for the foreseeable future.

Weekly it seems a new situation comes into the public consciousness where schools are the centers of controversy over what to teach regarding sexuality and sexual orientation. Here is a sampling of the most recent situations:

- Two parent groups in Montgomery County, Maryland sued the school board over a proposed health education curriculum partially based on resources provided by homosexual advocacy groups. The curriculum and accompanying resources were so biased that a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order to halt the implementation of the changes. The order was recently continued until December, 2005.

- One of the groups involved in the Montgomery County, Maryland lawsuit was recently rejected in its bid to exhibit its literature at the national convention of the National Parent-Teacher Association (PTA). PFOX is crying foul because a comparable group, the Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), was allowed to exhibit at no cost last year and is back again this year. At least one of the state PTA associations is not happy. The Mississippi chapter of the PTA is supporting the right of PFOX to be at the national convention.

- The Iowa State Board of Education will soon determine if the Pleasant Valley (IA) School Board was correct to limit a pro-gay children’s book to the middle school. After a father complained, the school board voted 4-3 to remove The Misfits by James Howe from the elementary school as a read aloud book. The author of the book has said publicly that he wanted to write The Misfits with a gay character in order to change beliefs concerning homosexuality.

- In Massachusetts, a father was arrested because he refused to leave his son’s elementary school until the principal agreed to follow Massachusetts parental notification law concerning sexual content in instruction. The father, David Parker, wanted to introduce the subject of homosexuality to his 6 year old rather than the school taking that role. Schools officials declined to notify the father as required by law and provided books to kindergarten students that portrayed gay couples along side heterosexual couples.

- At this year’s annual meeting, the Southern Baptist Convention will be considering a resolution proposing that churches investigate whether the schools in their town promote homosexual advocacy. If schools do and will not listen, parents will be encouraged to find other educational options.

What are we to make of these eruptions of controversy?

The educational establishment, as represented by the National Education Association, would have us believe these parents are closed minded or maybe even uncaring. When asked about the Southern Baptist resolution, Melinda Anderson, a spokeswoman for the NEA huffed: “It really baffles me how a caring parent could find fault with public schools for trying to teach children to be respectful of others.”

What baffles me is how groups like the NEA and PTA can miss the significance of these parental uprisings. In states blue and red, mainstream parents are becoming organized in unprecedented ways to express frustration over how homosexuality is being taught to children from kindergarten to high school. The mantra recited by the educational establishment comes off sounding like a feeble attempt at a Jedi mind trick – ‘what we teach about homosexuality is none of your concern; you want safe schools don’t you?’ Waving the club of tolerance, the educational establishment smugly proceeds to denigrate one set of beliefs regarding homosexuality in order to promote another.

Parents such as those who brought suit in Montgomery County are offended by the continual specter of unsafe schools raised by the educational establishment. Are schools unsafe because of traditional beliefs concerning homosexuality? Where is the research to that effect? The school system has produced no evidence.

Mainstream parents appear to be fed up with being told that their values and beliefs are intolerant, homophobic and even worse, responsible for the bullying of children. Read again the NEA statement concerning the Southern Baptist resolution. Ms. Anderson suggests that all the public schools are trying to do is teach respect; parents would like a little of that respect.

If the educational establishment does not make some moves to insure moral neutrality in instruction, I predict we will see lawsuits such as Montgomery County’s case replicated throughout the land.

In short, more parents will be coming back to school.

__________________________________________________

Warren Throckmorton, PhD is Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of College Counseling at Grove City (PA) College.

==============================

Dartmouth, the NYT, and more. (Weekly Standard, 050523)

From the May 23, 2005 issue: Tear down this Board!

The Dartmouth Insurgency (cont.)

In a stunning (at least to their critics) upset, Dartmouth alums Peter Robinson and Todd Zywicki have each won a seat on the college’s board of trustees. Robinson, a Hoover fellow and former Reagan speechwriter (“Tear down this wall” came from his pen), and Zywicki, who teaches at George Mason University’s law school, had run Internet petition drives to get on the ballot, an effort chronicled in these pages by Duncan Currie (“The Dartmouth Insurgency,” April 25). The results were made public last week, following nearly two months of electronic and mail-in voting.

Chalk up another victory for the “new media”—namely, for the right-leaning blogosphere. Robinson, a past contributor to this magazine, and Zywicki, who blogs at the Volokh Conspiracy site, relied heavily on online word-of-mouth to publicize their uphill efforts against four candidates handpicked by the alumni council.

Dartmouth rules bar trustee candidates from electioneering—but only once they’ve been certified. So as they labored to acquire the requisite 500 petition signatures, Robinson and Zywicki were free to tout their platforms on personal websites and friendly blogs. Though their candidacies were uncoordinated, each championed similar goals: ending Dartmouth’s de facto campus speech code and improving the undergraduate experience.

Although both stressed that these issues were nonpartisan, blogs sprang up almost overnight to denounce them as ideological threats. Groups such as “Alumni for a Strong Dartmouth” and “Dartmouth Alumni for Social Change” zinged Robinson and Zywicki for their “reactionary” politics and criticism of Dartmouth president James Wright.

The Dartmouth establishment had a good reason to be startled by the two outsiders. In 2004, another petition candidate, Silicon Valley tycoon T.J. Rodgers, won election to the board of trustees—the first petition candidate to do so since 1980. Rodgers, a self-described libertarian, ran on a similar platform to those of Robinson and Zywicki.

Now three center-right alums in two years have gained positions on the 18-member board by campaigning against the Dartmouth administration and against politically correct speech codes. To say this has raised eyebrows and ruffled feathers in Hanover would be an understatement. Robinson and Zywicki—like Rodgers before them—have gone at the academic establishment head-on and emerged victorious. They join the board officially in June, following Dartmouth’s commencement exercises. Their first meeting will probably take place next September.

Trustee-elect Robinson spoke to The Scrapbook last week, calling the outcome “a victory for alumni participation in the governance of Dartmouth College.” He emphasized that blogs “made it possible for me to reach alums” and kept up “interest in the campaign.”

More broadly, he said, graduates everywhere can now stay in much better touch with developments at their alma mater. “I learned more in three months of reading these blogs about the actual state of affairs in Hanover, New Hampshire, than [I did] in 25 years of reading the alumni magazine.” Blogs thus pose a mortal threat to the “propaganda machines” of major universities. Said Robinson: “That strikes me as a sea change.”

Physician, Shrink Thyself

Remember how, back on February 1, 2004, New York Times op-ed page editor David Shipley wrote a column describing the high standards he used to select the articles that appeared in his pages? “Our decisions about which essays to publish aren’t governed by a need for editorial variety alone,” Shipley wrote. “Among other things, we look for timeliness, ingenuity, strength of argument, freshness of opinion, clear writing and newsworthiness.”

And remember how, two days later, on February 3, 2004, Shipley published an essay by Erin Sullivan—the author of Saturn in Transit and The Astrology of Midlife and Aging—which used astrological tables to predict the outcome of the 2004 Democratic primaries? “If seeking the presidency is like reaching for the stars, then why not look to the stars—and the other heavenly bodies—for insights on the candidates,” Sullivan wrote. “John Kerry . . . is a Sagittarius with four Gemini planets in the public relationship sector of his birth chart. . . . Born with the rare Mars retrograde, he entered life with a rage—a deep, inner need to overcome (the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. also had the Mars retrograde). . . . The long-term picture depicts him achieving his highest goals.” Oops.

When we read Sullivan’s essay last year—title: “The Stars Have Voted”—The Scrapbook chuckled softly to ourselves; how witty and sophisticated, we thought, that Shipley would make fun of his own pretentious “high standards” by publishing a piece of credulous pseudoscience not a week later!

But maybe it wasn’t a joke at all. Last Wednesday, May 11, the Times printed an op-ed by Belinda Board headlined “The Tipping Point.” Board is described as a “clinical psychologist based at the University of Surrey” who moonlights as “a consultant on organizational psychology,” and her article was just as laughable as Erin Sullivan’s—except it wasn’t preceded a few days earlier by a haughty note from the Times’s op-ed editor. There was nothing remotely ironic about it, in fact.

Board’s point, best we can make of it, is that Undersecretary of State John Bolton, the president’s distinguished if embattled nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a psychopath . . . not that there’s anything wrong with that. Writes Board: The “characteristics of personality disorders can be found throughout society and are not just concentrated in psychiatric or prison hospitals.” Case in point: John Bolton, who “has been described as dogmatic, abusive to his subordinates and a bully.” Yet the president continues to support him. Why? “Sometimes the characteristics that make someone successful in business or government can render them unpleasant personally. What’s more astonishing is that those characteristics when exaggerated are the same ones often found in criminals.” Board’s conclusion: Successful executives like Bolton “share personality characteristics with psychopaths.”

Her advice to Congress: Weigh carefully Bolton’s combination of “extreme characteristics,” contrasting the “characteristics that have propelled” him “to prominence” against those that “can cause untold human wreckage.”

Incidentally, Thomas Lifson subsequently pointed out at AmericanThinker.com that Board is identified by the University of Surrey as a Ph.D. candidate. As he points out, “the ‘research’ on which she based her op-ed was done in 2001, four years ago. We have to wonder what her status was at the time. An undergraduate?”

Our advice to the New York Times: Go back to running horoscopes.

As the Crow Hears

We missed this at the time, but there was a classic mistranscription in the International Herald Tribune’s coverage of Pope John Paul II’s funeral last month: “His folded hands intertwined with a rosary, the body of Pope John Paul II was laid out inside the papal palace on Sunday as the balance of power in the Roman Catholic Church began its shift to the unnamed man who will soon replace him. . . . Tucked under his left arm was the silver staff, called the crow’s ear, that he had carried in public.” As the correction sheepishly noted: We “used an incorrect term to describe the silver staff of Pope John Paul II. It is a crosier.”

The Guardian later noted, forgivingly: “This kind of thing often happened, particularly in the Guardian, in days when stories had to be phoned through to copytakers, which is how we came to review a work called Lazy Luminations, by Britten.”

==============================

Group admits giving out ‘gay’ sex book (WorldNetDaily, 050520)

High schoolers received ‘hard-core porn’ homosexual ‘how-to’

After strong denials, a homosexual activist group admitted it made available to middle school and high school students an AIDS handbook described by critics as a “hard-core pornographic homosexual ‘how-to.’”

The Boston Chapter of the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, GLSEN Boston, said the distribution at an April 30 event at Brookline High School violated its policy that no sexually explicit materials be made available.

A Massachusetts-based group involved in opposition to same-sex marriage, the Article 8 Alliance, said the booklet was “prominently distributed at the first table, right after registration, where everyone would be sure to go.”

Entitled “The Little Black Book – Queer in the 21st Century,” the booklet contains what Article 8 calls “deadly misinformation on health.”

Included in the publication are graphic descriptions of homosexual conduct, including “fisting,” along with a photo-spread discussion of condoms and instructions on how to put them on.

Also included is a list of homosexual bars and clubs in the Boston area “for the discerning queerboy.”

The booklet mentions abstaining from risky activity, and then states, “But how much fun is that?”

GLSEN Boston insisted it has maintained and enforced a strict policy by assigning monitors to every workshop.

“Our standards are very high, and we work hard to ensure that the material made available to students is appropriate,” the statement said.

The group said it found out Wednesday that a “small number of copies of the HIV prevention pamphlet were available on their vendor table. This is new information that contradicts what we knew [Tuesday].”

“I can assure that at GLSEN Boston we will re-double our efforts to make sure that not only our material, but the material brought in by other organizations is age appropriate,” the statement said. “Again, we are deeply sorry. We regret the fear it has resurrected.”

As WorldNetDaily reported, a Massachusetts father who recently protested a pro-homosexual book his 6-year-old son had been given in school spent a night in jail after being arrested by police – an incident the activist group mentions as further evidence of a pro-”gay” attitude by officials.

==============================

‘Educational’ smut for kids (townhall.com, 050526)

Here’s a rich irony: I’m writing today about a new children’s book, but I can’t describe the plot in a family newspaper without warning you first that it is entirely inappropriate for children.

The book is “Rainbow Party,” by juvenile fiction author Paul Ruditis. The publisher is Simon Pulse, a kiddie lit division of the esteemed Simon & Schuster. The cover of the book features the title spelled out in fun, Crayola-bright font. Beneath the title is an illustrated array of lipsticks in bold colors.

The main characters in the book are high school sophomores — supposedly typical 14- and 15-year-olds with names such as “Gin” and “Sandy.” The book opens with these two girls shopping for lipstick at the mall in advance of a special party. The girls banter as they hunt for lipsticks in every color of the rainbow:

“Okay, we’ve got red, orange, and purple,” Gin said. “Now we just need yellow, green, and blue.”

“Don’t forget indigo,” Sandy said as she scanned the row of lipstick tubes.

“What are you talking about?”

“Indigo,” Sandy repeated as if that explained everything. “You know. ROY G. BIV. Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet.”

“That’s seven lipsticks. Only six girls are coming. We don’t need it.”

What kind of party do you imagine they might be organizing? Perhaps a makeover party? With moms and daughters sharing their best beauty secrets and bonding in the process?

Alas, no. No parents are invited to this get-together. A “rainbow party,” you see, is a gathering of boys and girls for the purpose of engaging in group oral sex. Each girl wears a different colored lipstick and leaves a mark on each boy. At night’s end, the boys proudly sport their own cosmetically sealed rainbow you-know-where — bringing a whole new meaning to the concept of “party favors.”

In the end, the kids in the book abandon plans for the event and news of an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases rocks their school. But the front cover and book marketing emphasize titillation over education, overpowering any redeeming value the book might have. Indeed, according to Publisher’s Weekly, the bound galleys sent to booksellers carried the provocative tagline, “don’t you want to know what really goes down?”

The author and publisher of the book seem to have persuaded themselves that they are doing families a favor. Simon & Schuster did not return my call seeking comment, but Bethany Buck, Ruditis’ editor, told USA Today the intention was to “scare” young readers (uh-huh), and Ruditis told Publisher’s Weekly:

“Part of me doesn’t understand why people don’t want to talk about [oral sex],” he said. “Kids are having sex and they are actively engaged in oral sex and think it’s not really sex. I raised questions in my book and I hope that parents and children or teachers and students can open a topic of conversation through it. Rainbow parties are such an interesting topic. It’s such a childlike way to look at such an adult subject — with rainbow colors.”

Teenage group orgies are “an interesting topic”? Is Ruditis out of his mind? We can only pray Simon & Schuster keeps him away from the preschool “Rubbadubbers” books.

In a small sign that decency and common sense still survive in the marketplace, a number of children’s book sellers are refusing to stock “Rainbow Party.” But as Ruditis’ comments indicate, it’s just a matter of time before the book ends up on public school library shelves in the name of “educating” children and helping them “deal with reality.” The teen lit market is now awash in sexually explicit books that would require brown-paper wrapping if sold at 7-11; their authors are being hailed as “edgy.”

For once, radio shock jock Howard Stern has my sympathy. When Oprah Winfrey aired a show last year in which a guest joked bawdily about teenage “rainbow parties” under the guise of enlightening parents, Stern pointed out the regulatory double standards. Why should he be punished for indecent broadcasts while Oprah escaped scrutiny for equally explicit — and exploitative — content?

Stern is in the wrong line of work. If you want to peddle smut with society’s approval, children’s books and sex ed is where it’s at.

==============================

Sex-ed opponents part of movement to reclaim schools (Washington Times, 050527)

Parents who stopped a new sex-education curriculum in Montgomery County, Maryland are at the nexus of a national trend in parental activism in school matters.

“Montgomery County has become a symbol for parental activism,” said Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America.

Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, said parents “are beginning to take matters into their own hands and are looking for ways to collaborate with other like-minded parents to protect their kids.”

Mr. Throckmorton works with former homosexuals and wrote a 51-page critique of the Montgomery County sex-ed course. He said he has heard from parents in Fayetteville, Ark.; Pleasant Valley, Iowa; and Toms River, N.J., who have found objectionable material in school libraries and are challenging their school boards to remove the books.

The Montgomery County school board voted 7-1 Monday to dissolve the curriculum and the citizens committee that approved the course. In November, the board had voted 6-0 to adopt the course.

Curriculum supporters said the course taught tolerance for homosexuals and included factual instruction on how to deal with homosexual feelings.

But parents who formed the group Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum (CRC) said the course promoted homosexuality and promiscuity, disregarded scientifically proven health risks and denigrated traditional, religious views about sex.

A federal judge ruled in CRC’s favor when he granted a temporary restraining order against the course on May 5.

“What this really illustrates is that parents have a particular set of principles and values. They work hard to instill those in the home, and they don’t want this undermined in the health class,” said Melissa Pardue, social welfare policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

Mrs. Pardue, who co-wrote “What Do Parents Want Taught in Sex Education Programs?” last year, said the Montgomery County controversy “is the first time we’ve seen national attention to parental concern, but I think this is happening all over the place.”

Julie Underwood, general counsel for the National School Boards Association, said public schools “are at the heart of the culture wars, and you see that played out in curriculum issues.

“For the last few years, we have seen the culture wars escalating quite dramatically,” Miss Underwood said.

The group Advocates for Youth (AFY), which asserts that children are sexual beings and which contributed many of the materials for the discarded curriculum, could not be reached for comment.

Adrienne Verrilli, spokeswoman for the Sexuality Education and Information Council of the United States, which is allied with AFY, said: “I think more conservative people have felt empowered to make moves against the gay and lesbian kids in their schools, given the current environment.”

Parents across the country are taking action against sex-education instruction with which they disagree.

Last month, David Parker was arrested in Lexington, Mass., and spent the night in jail after he refused to leave a meeting with the school principal who refused to take his 6-year-old child out of discussions about same-sex parents.

Parents also are making an impact in the debate over evolution and intelligent design in places such as Dover, Pa.; Bluffton, Ind.; and the state of Kansas, said Albert Mohler, a national evangelical Christian leader and president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.

“Certainly, conservative Christians are at the forefront of this, but are hardly alone. The success of this in Montgomery County is evidence of this. This is blue-state America,” Mr. Mohler said.

“Sex education is a special case. Here you deal with the most intimate details of morality and sexuality and the institution of marriage. This is where parents have the front-line responsibility and concern for their children,” he said.

==============================

Baptists revive anti-public-school resolution: Calls for pulling kids out, warning members of ‘toxic spiritual nature’ (WorldNetDaily, 050601)

The Southern Baptist Convention Resolutions Committee will consider for the second consecutive year a resolution calling for church members to pull their children out of public schools.

Similar to one that failed last year, this resolution also asks churches “to lovingly warn all of their members concerning the toxic spiritual nature of the government school system.”

Grady Arnold, a pastor in Texas who also directs GetTheKidsOut.org, is submitting the measure along with David Scarbrough, minister of education at a Souther Baptist church in Tennessee.

“Southern Baptists have been playing the ‘ostrich with its head in the sand’ routine long enough,” Arnold said. “The time is way overdue that we acknowledge the devastating effects public school is having on the faith of our children.”

Arnold takes issue with Baptist leaders who argue that having their children in public schools is being “salt and light,” a Christian influence and witness.

But Arnold points to the denomination’s own data — the SBC Council on Family Life Report of 2002 — which says 88% of those Southern Baptist children after graduating from government high school are leaving the church.

The Arnold-Scarbrough Resolution: “(a) applauds Christians working in the government schools as missionaries, (b) calls on churches to warn their members of the devastating effects of sending their children to a totally secular institution for their education, (c) calls on churches to become aggressive and pro-active in starting Christian schools and in supporting homeschooling.”

Scarbrough says the issue is “of utmost importance.”

“Like in the days after Joshua (Judges 2) we are on the verge of losing an entire generation,” he said. “We are trying to help as many Southern Baptists as we can see their responsibility to educate their children according to the scripture. And help them see what’s wrong with the government school system.”

As WorldNetDaily reported, a proposed resolution last year, written by Baptist activists T.C. Pinckney and Bruce N. Shortt, author of “The Harsh Truth About Public Schools,” called on members to take their kids out of public schools and either homeschool them or send them to Christian schools.

The resolution, which made national headlines and received the support of the Home School Legal Defense Association, stated: “Government schools are by their own confession humanistic and secular in their instruction, [and] the education offered by the government schools is officially Godless.”

Noting that “the millions of children in government schools spend seven hours a day, 180 days a year being taught that God is irrelevant to every area of life,” the proposed resolution said, “Many Christian children in government schools are converted to an anti-Christian worldview rather than evangelizing their schoolmates.”

==============================

Schools need to go back to basics (townhall.com, 050608)

Cal Thomas

HAWKSHEAD, England - At the grammar school where the romantic poet William Wordsworth studied in the late 18th century, one can still learn lessons that might, indeed should, be applied in English and American schools.

Apparently believing more than 200 years ago that an idle mind can be the devil’s playground, Wordsworth and his classmates spent 11 hours a day in school, five days a week, and half a day on Saturday. They didn’t study sex education, or the environment, or any of today’s trendy subjects that masquerade as a real education.

Instead, says the school’s guide, they studied just three academic subjects: Latin, Greek and mathematics. If they missed three church services during the term, they could be expelled. No ACLU existed then, thank God (then, you could).

One nonacademic subject they also studied was a little booklet called “The Rules of Civility; or The Maxims of Genteel Behavior.” While many of the rules can be discarded today (such as the proper placement of one’s sword at meals), others recall a lost tradition in human relationships designed to protect and honor half of the human race and to civilize the other half.

There are instructions on how to respect and treat women, often referred to as “ladies.” My personal favorite teaches the “proper” way to greet ladies: “It is not becoming a Person of quality, when in the Company of Ladies, to handle them roughly; to put his hand in their necks, or bosoms; to kiss them by surprise; to tear their fans; to snatch away their Handkerchiefs.”

England may not be returning to such days, but it is paying homage to the past by reverting to the way it used to teach children to read before the social experimenters began using kids as guinea pigs for their untested schemes.

Beginning in September next year, English grammar school children will again learn to read using “synthetic phonics,” requiring they be taught the sounds and letters of the alphabet within the first 16 weeks of school. In recent years, teachers were instructed to encourage children to memorize words by their shape and guess at them by their context. The results proved disastrous.

As in America, phonics in England was abandoned in the 1960s in favor of “look and say.” That this approach produced kids who couldn’t read, or read up to their grade levels, did not seem to bother education “experts” and bureaucrats who refused all appeals for returning to the old, successful method.

A recent Scottish study showed that students taught to read with phonics were three years ahead of their peers. Politicians are now mustering the political will to roll back the failed “progressive education” approach to reading. It helps that one of the prominent figures in the pro-phonics movement, Andrew (now Lord) Adonis, is currently Prime Minister Tony Blair’s junior education minister.

Prince Charles has announced plans to setup his own teacher training institute to “fill the gap many in education believe has existed for too long.” The prospect of school vouchers are now being debated here, as in the United States, because of dysfunctional public schools.

It has always been a peculiarity that human beings seem discontent with what works and feel compelled to change, or “improve,” what for centuries produced desired results. The English, as well as Americans, managed to successfully instruct generations of children using proven principles. They also believed it was not enough to feed knowledge into someone’s head, unless his or her heart and soul were also nourished.

Were parents surveyed and did those surveys reveal they did not want their children educated the way they and previous generations were taught? Who decided that the basic and classic knowledge taught to William Wordsworth and his classmates was not as good as that which is acquired in our modern age? Who concluded that the wisdom of the ages had expired like a “don’t sell” label on perishable food?

The answer is that no one did. It was forced on English and American societies by tiny elites who thought they knew better than everyone else.

An excerpt from Wordsworth’s “Lines Written in Early Spring” seems an appropriate response to this educational madness:

“And much it grieved my heart to think

What Man has made of Man.”

==============================

Separating school and state (townhall.com, 050613)

Jeff Jacoby

Three recent dispatches from the education battlefront:

* Kansans have been debating how the development of life on earth should be taught in public schools — as the unintended result of random evolution or as the complex product of an evolution shaped by intelligent design. The board of education held hearings in May, and is to decide this summer whether the current science standards should be changed. Kansas is just one of 19 states in which the Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design contest is being fought. Emotions have been running high, as they often do when the state takes sides in a clash of fundamental values and beliefs.

* In Massachusetts, the Boston Globe recently reported, a father named David Parker found himself in a war with his local school board when he objected to a kindergarten “diversity” curriculum that depicted gay and lesbian couples raising children. Parker, a Christian opposed to same-sex marriage, showed up at Estabrook elementary school in Lexington to request that he or his wife be notified — in keeping with state law — when homosexual themes were going to be brought up in their 6-year-old’s class. School officials wouldn’t agree to do so and “urged” Parker to leave. When he didn’t, they had him arrested.

* Luke Whitson, a 10-year-old at the Karns Elementary School in Knoxville, Tenn., liked reading the Bible with his friends during recess. But when a parent complained, the public school’s principal “demanded that they stop their activity at once, put their Bibles away, and . . . cease bringing their Bibles to school.” That language is from a lawsuit Luke’s parents have filed in federal court, where they are asking a judge to rule that school officials cannot prohibit religious expression during a student’s free time.

Once there was a solid consensus about how the nation’s public schools should be run. In 1911, the Encyclopedia Britannica could assert with confidence that “the great mass of the American people are in entire agreement as to the principles which should control public education.” But as the battles in Kansas, Massachusetts, and Tennessee — and countless others like them — make clear, that day is past.

From issues of sexuality and religion to the broad themes of US history and politics, public opinion is fractured. Secular parents square off against believers, supporters of homosexual marriage against traditionalists, those stressing “safe sex” against those who emphasize abstinence. Each wants its views reflected in the classroom. No longer is there a common understanding of the mission of public education. To the extent that one camp’s vision prevails, parents in the opposing camp are embittered. And there is no prospect that this will change — not as long as the government remains in charge of educating American children.

Which is why it’s time to put an end to government control of the schools.

There is nothing indispensable about a state role in education. Parents don’t expect the government to provide their children’s food or clothing or medical care; there is no reason why it must provide their schooling. An educated citizenry is a vital public good, of course. But like most such goods, a competitive and responsive private sector could do a much better job of supplying it than the public sector can.

Imagine how diverse and vital American education could be if it were liberated from government control. There would be schools of every description — just as there are restaurants, websites, and clothing styles of every description. Parents who wanted their children to be taught Darwinian evolution unsullied by leaps of faith in an Intelligent Designer would be able to choose schools in which religious notions played no role. Those who wanted their children to see God’s hand in the miraculous tapestry of life all around them would send them to schools in which faith played a prominent role.

Rather than fight over whether reading should be taught with Phonics or Whole Language, parents who felt strongly either way could choose a school that shared their outlook. Those who wanted their kids to learn in single-sex classes would send them to schools organized on that model; other parents would be free to pick schools in which boys and girls learned together. Some schools might reflect a Christian or Jewish or Muslim philosophy; others would be quite secular. In some, athletics would have a high priority; in others, there might be an emphasis on music, language, technology, or art. And no doubt many parents would stick with schools that resembled the ones their children attend now.

With separation of school and state, the roiling education battles would come to a peaceful end. Robust competition and innovation would dramatically lower costs. Teachers, released from their one-size-fits-all straitjacket, would be happier in their chosen profession. Children would be happier, too — and, perhaps best of all, better-educated to boot.

==============================

Presbyterians: Pull kids from public school: Pastor follows Baptists’ lead in presenting resolution to denomination (WorldNetDaily, 050615)

Following the lead of Baptist activists, a Tennessee pastor from the Presbyterian Church in America today is scheduled to introduce a resolution to the denomination’s General Assembly to urge members across the nation to pull their children out of public school.

As WorldNetDaily reported, a group of Baptists last year presented a resolution to the Southern Baptist Convention that eventually was killed.

Noting that “the millions of children in government schools spend seven hours a day, 180 days a year being taught that God is irrelevant to every area of life,” the resolution said, “Many Christian children in government schools are converted to an anti-Christian worldview rather than evangelizing their schoolmates.”

Similar in tone, the Presbyterian resolution is considerably shorter than the Baptists’. It states:

Whereas, The Bible commands fathers to bring up their children in the training and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4), and all parents who have had a child baptized in the Presbyterian Church in America have taken a vow to strive by all the means of God’s appointment to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (BCO 56-5), and

Whereas, The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3), and any instruction that does not teach the centrality of Jesus Christ for understanding all of life cannot impart true wisdom and knowledge, and

Whereas, The public school system does not offer a Christian education, but officially claims to be “neutral” with regard to Christ, a position that Christ Himself said was impossible (Luke 11:23), and

Whereas, The public schools are by law humanistic and secular in their instruction, and as a result the attending children receive an education without positive reference to the Triune God, and

Whereas, Some courageous teachers in our congregations disregard this law. Obeying God rather than men, they try to give their students a truly Christian education (Acts 4:18-20). This resolution should not be construed to discourage these adult believers who faithfully labor as missionaries to unbelieving colleagues and students. However, these rare exceptions should not lead anyone to believe the public schools are regularly giving children a truly Christian education.

Whereas, Sending thousands of PCA children as “missionaries” to their unbelieving teachers and classmates has failed to contribute to increasing holiness in the public schools. On the contrary, the Nehemiah Institute documents growing evidence that the public schools are successfully converting covenant children to secular humanism, and

Whereas, We are squandering a great opportunity to instruct these children in the truth of God’s word and its application to all of life;

Therefore, be it resolved that the 33rd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America encourages all her officers and members to remove their children from the public schools and see to it that they receive a thoroughly Christian education, for the glory of God and the good of Christ’s church.

The leader of the resolution effort is the Rev. Steve Warhurst, pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Kingsport, Tenn.

He explained that the Presbyterian Church in America, or PCA, General Assembly has three option when a resolution is introduced. It can vote on it immediately – an unlikely choice; it can refer it to a committee that will debate the issue and refer it to the Assembly floor with a recommendation; or the committee can appoint a “study committee,” which would research the issue and bring it forward the following year.

Warhurst says he expects something to be decided by the end of the Assembly Friday.

The General Assembly normally consists of about 1,000 voting members. This year’s gathering is being held at the Chattanooga Convention Center in Chattanooga, Tenn. The denomination consists of 1,248 churches and about 350,000 total members.

PCA left the larger Presbyterian Church USA in the early ‘70s due to disagreements on doctrine. Warhurst’s denomination is more conservative.

The pastor says those who started PCA “weren’t pleased with the liberalism in the bigger denomination.”

Warhurst says he knows the men behind the Baptist resolution and was inspired to make a similar move at his denomination’s annual conference.

Though many are pessimistic about the resolution’s chances, Warhurst is hopeful.

“Almost everybody I talk to says it doesn’t have a chance,” he told WND, “but I’m more optimistic.

“There are a lot of folks who support Christian education in the PCA.”

Warhurst says the denomination stresses that there is a difference between the education offered at its college, Covenant College, and secular institutions, and the same argument should hold for K-12 schooling.

“They want people to come to their college, so they say it has something preferable to a state university,” he explained, “particularly a Christian world view.”

Continued Warhurst: “It’s really pretty basic that Christian people would want to give their children a Christian education. … I don’t know what has happened to us over the past century or so, but for some reason people don’t think they have to give their children a Christian education anymore, but I think it’s biblically required.”

Warhurst homeschools his own six children.

One of the PCA pastors that has signed on to the resolution is the Rev. D. James Kennedy, pastor of the nearly 10,000-member Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and host of the “Coral Ridge Hour” national television program.

Also supporting the resolution is Joel Belz, founder of World magazine and a PCA elder.

Meanwhile, a new Baptist resolution that urges churches to investigate the level of homosexual advocacy in their local school districts is in the denomination’s Resolutions Committee and could be considered by the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole at its gathering next week.

Yesterday, proponents of the resolution issued a letter addressed to Dr. Gene Mims, chairman of the Resolutions Committee, signed by almost 50 statewide pro-family groups from around the nation urging him to move the proposal out of committee.

==============================

Blaming Homosexuals and Running from Public Schools (Christian Post, 050621)

One of the greatest fears some evangelical Christians hold in contemporary society is homosexuality, and more specifically, the acceptance of homosexuality in public schools.

This fear is at the heart of home-school resolutions pending in several conservative denominations, including the Southern Baptist Convention, where parents are being urged to remove their children from secular educational institutions.

One of the resolutions being considered lists nearly a dozen ways the homosexual lobby is working to “penetrate” the public school system and calls on Baptist churches to remove their children from schools that “treat homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle” or have “one or more homosexual clubs.”

As Christians, we should view homosexuality as a sin, but should not demonize those who practice it. Homosexuality, like violence, adultery and promiscuity, is a symptom and consequence of larger societal failures within the families and schools.

Wanting to remove children from our public schools is understandable, if it is to protect their impressionable eyes, ears and minds from that fallen culture. However, we should not blame “the homosexual agenda” for whatever societal failures exist in our school systems.

Instead, we should view ourselves as salt and light, and work as a catalyst for change in this dark world. Light is greater than darkness, just as the sword of the Gospel is sharper than that of the world. Evangelicals should, therefore, teach their children the word of God, and trust the Gospel will lead them in the right direction.

The greatest prophets and strongest Christians were raised in harsh, secular environments. And though we should not intentionally endanger our children, we should not run from the darkness of the world. It’s time we take back the culture for Christ by engaging in it. We must act as salt and light and teach our children to do the same. If not, the society will fall further away from God and evangelicals – like Pharisee – will lose all relevance in the world we were called to reach.

==============================

Dubya’s school reforms pay off (townhall.com, 050727)

Debra Saunders

For years, nothing helped. America’s children weren’t reading as well as they should. An achievement gap showed black and Latino students trailing behind their white counterparts in reading and math. Educators and politicians agreed Something Must Be Done, but they made halting progress. Until now.

This month, the National Assessment of Educational Progress — also known as the national report card — released good news on long-term educational trends in America. Reading competency for 9-year-olds has reached its highest level since NAEP began measuring progress in 1971.

What is more, the achievement gap is narrowing. The gap between black and white 9-year-olds tested for reading was 44 points in 1971 to 26 points in 2004, while the gap between white and Latino students narrowed from 34 points in 1975 to 21 points in 2004. Half the gap-narrowing has occurred since 1999.

Of course, educrats are scrambling to make sure that no credit goes to President Bush or his No Child Left Behind program. The American Federation of Teachers issued a statement through an official, who noted that efforts that led to the higher scores predate the Bush presidency.

The AFT is right. The reforms that boosted scores predate the Bush presidency.

That said, when he was governor of Texas, Bush had the good sense to jump on the right horse. He believed in pushing basic literacy, even if he wasn’t as strong on phonics as I would have liked. He urged better testing to hold failing schools accountable. The approach paid off. When Bush was governor, black eighth-graders in Texas led the country in math and reading.

While Bush was on the right horse, some teacher groups and top educrats were leading a stampede of bad horses, carrying American children headlong toward ignorance. They eschewed phonics, dispensed with multiplication tables, denounced testing — unless it gave credit for wrong math answers with clever essays — and preferred failed bilingual education programs to English immersion programs for children learning English.

Look at any reform that has boosted student performance — phonics, direct instruction, English immersion — and the chances are, the educrats were against it.

When parents revolted against whole language — which teaches children to read language as a whole, without teaching them to decode words — the educrats argued against a return to phonics, which they dismissed as “drill and kill.”

When reformers pushed for tests that could show which curricula worked best, educrats denounced testing. If children steeped in phonics scored well on reading tests, they were not impressed — it was because the children were brainwashed, not literate. And if whole-language learners scored poorly, well, it was because they were so creative.

When Bush and company demanded accountability, they complained that standards would hurt poor children — as if under-educating poor and minority students didn’t hurt poor and minority kids.

The educrat lobby in California opposed the switch from bilingual education to English immersion. Fortunately, California voters, not educrats, had an opportunity to switch to English immersion programs, and now more immigrant children have mastered English.

Over time, classroom teachers have seen their students make progress. Many have come to see the wisdom in emphasizing phonics — it may be boring for teachers, but it helps kids learn to read better.

Bush packaged his approach under his promise to fight “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” For years, educators blamed parents, demographics, money — you name it — for poor student performance.

Bush didn’t want to hear the excuses — and his Texas swagger paid off. As Hoover Institution fellow and sometime Bush adviser Bill Evers noted, “There’s no doubt that high expectations and trying to hold the system accountable from top to the bottom is having an overall positive effect.”

And so the educrats are left with weak criticisms. They complain that No Child Left Behind is underfunded — even as Bush budgets money for the Department of Education. They argue that students have no motivation to apply themselves when they take tests — and still the NAEP numbers are up. They note that NAEP high-school scores are flat without acknowledging that they opposed reforms that are helping more of today’s 9-year-olds read.

==============================

Are your kids reading rot? (townhall.com, 050817)

Rebecca Hagelin

Reading isn’t always good for our kids.

How’s that for an opening sentence to stir a little controversy among the educational elites?

We’ve been bombarded by so many messages about how reading expands the mind, excites the imagination and enhances the vocabulary (all of which are true) that many parents have forgotten that the benefit of reading for our children very much depends on what they’re reading. And, I’m afraid that many children spend hours reading what often turns out to be pure rot.

With school starting all over the country between last week and just after Labor Day, it’s time for a reading warning: Parents, beware.

In many cases the very liberal American Library Association exerts great influence over what reading materials teachers assign their students. But that material may be highly inappropriate for your child. Don’t let the following scenario unfold in your home:

Mrs. Jones hands out a book report assignment that includes several books for her class to choose from. Mom dutifully drives Suzi to the local library and browses while Suzi selects her book. Within half an hour, book in hand, everyone is feeling rather satisfied that they have been so responsible in starting on the project early. Mom and Suzi arrive home, and while mom begins making dinner, the conscientious and responsible Suzi heads to her room and begins to consume what turns out to be highly sexualized, vulgar garbage, filled with four-letter words and enough verbal porn to embarrass even an ole’ salt.

Mom doesn’t have a clue that her daughter’s innocence has just been molested in the privacy of her own bedroom. She won’t ever know because Suzi, a bit stymied by the fact that Mom took her to get a book that her teacher assigned, will be too embarrassed and confused to ever tell. Yet, she’s just had sexuality, relationships and acceptable behavior defined for her by some perverted author most folks have never heard of. And the kid was simply trying to get her homework done.

While researching my book, Home Invasion: Protecting Your Family in a Culture That’s Gone Stark Raving Mad, I took an ALA-recommended reading list for 13- and 14-year-olds to my local library and headed to the “Young Adult” section (code for “pre-teen” and “teen”). I found some books from the list; others were already checked out. One book, the librarian told me, had just been returned but hadn’t been re-shelved, so I patiently waited while she went into the back room to retrieve it.

With several items in hand, I headed back to the Young Adult section, where I couldn’t help but notice pre-teen and teen girls and guys in various stages of development and maturity, dutifully searching the shelves for assigned books. I sat down on a reading bench and began flipping through the pages of the book that had just been returned.

There’s something very moving about holding a book in your hand that a child has just finished reading. But the warmth in my heart soon turned into a sickening feeling in my gut when I began to read passages so cheap and trashy that I could scarcely believe my eyes. I only had to get to page four before the first of many uses of the term “motherf——” showed up. Several scenes described, in graphic detail, sexual acts between teenagers.

In the interest of decency, there’s no way I can give you word-for-word examples. And I refuse to give the trashy book and its loser author free publicity in a column that often gets forwarded around the World Wide Web. I’d rather parents and other adults who care about our children and their education — and whether or educational elites indoctrinate them in immorality — actually go to their local library and research the reading lists themselves.

Lest you think the first book was put on the list in error, the next recommended teen item I thumbed through was equally as nauseating. A sexual act between fourth-graders was a “highlight,” as well as graphic details of sex between teens, including a homosexual encounter. And this is the garbage that today’s educators pass off as great literature for our children? The great classics, meanwhile, are all but missing. One list I reviewed for eight-graders contained about 20 authors — none recognizable save the lone great Mark Twain. And they call this education?

The lesson here is simple. Moms and Dads, don’t just naively drive your kids to the library — you must be careful to help them choose books that reflect your values. Even if your kids are in private school, you’re hardly safe — many of the best schools blindly use ALA lists. Of course, if you home school your kids, you’re probably already aware of the moral problems of many ALA decisions, but even if you’re using a good curriculum guide, it’s always best to preview the books first.

The ALA is quick to call anyone who questions its decisions a “censor.” But remember, part of our responsibility and privilege as parents is to be the ones who determine what is and is not appropriate for our own children.

==============================

Homeschoolers Score Higher than National Average on ACT (Christian Post, 050823)

Home-schooled children do better on the ACT college entrance exam than the national average, according to statistics released by the Home School Legal Defense Association.

“Homeschoolers continue to excel academically,” said Michael Smith, President of the HSLDA.

Many Christian parents take-up home-schooling as an alternative to what they view as a secularized public education system. While the public has become more open to home-schooling in recent years – an estimated 2 million children are home-schooled and the number of home-schooled youth grows seven to 15% per year – the general opinion that home-schooled children receive inferior education largely remains.

Supporters of homeschooling hope the latest statistics will help buck this common misconception about at-home education.

This year, the 8075 homeschool graduates who took the ACT college entrance exam scored an average of 22.5, which is several points higher than the national average. In both 2002 and 2003, the national homeschool average was 22.5, while the national average was 20.8.

Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) is a 22 year old, 80,000 member non-profit organization and the preeminent association advocating the legal right of parents to homeschool their children.

==============================

Smart ‘problems’ (townhall.com, 050913)

Thomas Sowell

During my first semester of teaching, many years ago, I was surprised to encounter the philosophy that the brightest students did not need much help from the teacher because “they can get it anyway” and that my efforts should be directed toward the slower or low-performing students.

This advice came from my department chairman, who said that if the brighter or more serious students “get restless” while I was directing my efforts toward the slower students, then I should “give them some extra work to do to keep them quiet.”

I didn’t believe that the real difference between the A students and the C students was in inborn intelligence, but thought it was usually due to differences in attitudes and priorities. In any event, my reply was that what the chairman proposed “would be treating those who came here for an education as a special problem!”

A few days later, I handed in my resignation. It turned out to be only the first in a series of my resignations from academic institutions over the years.

Unfortunately, the idea of treating the brighter or more serious students as a problem to be dealt with by keeping them busy is not uncommon, and is absolutely pervasive in the public schools. One fashionable solution for such “problem” students is to assign them to help the less able or less conscientious students who are having trouble keeping up.

In other words, make them unpaid teacher’s aides!

High potential will remain only potential unless it is developed. But the very thought that high potential should be developed more fully never seems to occur to many of our educators — and some are absolutely hostile to the idea.

It violates their notions of equality or “social justice” and it threatens the “self-esteem” of other students. As a result, too often a student with the potential to become a future scientist, inventor, or a discoverer of a cure for cancer will instead have his time tied up doing busy work for the teacher.

Even so-called “gifted and talented” programs often turn out to be simply a bigger load of the same level of work that other students are doing — keeping the brighter students busy in a separate room.

My old department chairman’s notion that the better students “can pretty much get it without our help” assumes that there is some “it” — some minimum competence — which is all that matters.

People like this would apparently be satisfied if Einstein had remained a competent clerk in the Swiss patent office and if Jonas Salk, instead of discovering a cure for polio, had spent his career puttering around in a laboratory and turning out an occasional research paper of moderate interest to his academic colleagues.

If developing the high potential of some students wounds the “self-esteem” of other students, one obvious answer is for them to go their separate ways in different classrooms or different schools.

There was a time when students of different ability levels or performance levels were routinely assigned to different classes in the same grade or to different schools — and no one else collapsed like a house of cards because of wounded self-esteem.

Let’s face it: Most of the teachers in our public schools do not have what it takes to develop high intellectual potential in students. They cannot give students what they don’t have themselves.

Test scores going back more than half a century have repeatedly shown people who are studying to be teachers to be at or near the bottom among college students studying in various fields. It is amazing how often this plain reality gets ignored in discussions of what to do about our public schools.

Lack of competence is only part of the problem. Too often there is not only a lack of appreciation of outstanding intellectual development but a hostility towards it by teachers who are preoccupied with the “self-esteem” of mediocre students, who may remind them of what they were once like as students.

Maybe the advancement of science, of the economy, and finding a cure for cancer can wait, while we take care of self-esteem.

==============================

“God Fearing” Dartmouth: Ivy overreaction. (National Review Online, 050927)

It’s become a truism that student government is the bailiwick of shallow, egotistical resume-padders. Tracy Flick, the junior-varsity Lady Macbeth of the 1999 movie Election, was instantly recognizable, as was her nemesis, Tammy Metzler. Remember Tammy’s speech? “The same pathetic charade happens every year, and everyone makes the same pathetic promises just so they can put it on their transcripts to get into college.” Hard to argue with that. The odd thing is that sometimes the Tracy Flicks go off to college and do it all over again.

A few days ago, a friend of mine pointed me to a Convocation speech given by Noah Riner ‘06, Dartmouth’s student-body president, to the class of ‘09. I scanned the page, a pastiche of quotes by Martin Luther King Jr., Shakespeare, Bono. Why had my friend given me this? “It mentions Jesus,” he explained. “People will go berserk.”

So it does. It mentions Jesus, and then Bono mentions Jesus, and then Riner passes the baton to Dr. King — perhaps thinking nobody will wise up to the Lord’s presence. I confess that at this point, I thought my friend was indulging a bit of right-wing paranoia. Surely nothing as banal, as reliably soporific, as Riner’s address could rankle anyone. Surely people didn’t even listen to these things.

As it happens, I couldn’t have been more wrong. The bored work in mysterious ways, and a number of Dartmouth students saw the speech as a fine occasion for an attention-grabbing moral tantrum. The Daily Dartmouth’s “Verbum Ultimum” allowed that “Riner had every right, as a member of a community that values the freedom of speech, to speak freely about what matters to him.” But he chose an “inappropriate forum” — perish the thought — and “[preached] his faith from a commandeered pulpit.” Clearly, Riner is corrupting the youth of Hanover. Somebody fetch the hemlock.

The Student Assembly’s vice president for student life (savor that deliciously Orwellian title), Kaelin Goulet ‘07, resigned immediately. “I consider his choice of topic for the Convocation speech reprehensible and an abuse of power,” she said. Addressing Riner directly, she wrote: “Your first opportunity to represent Student Assembly to the incoming freshmen was appalling. You embarrass the organization; you embarrass yourself. . . . I pity the freshmen in Leede Arena yesterday.”

Got all that? Pity is something you feel for hurricane refugees, not for the “victims” of a convocation speech. Woe betide the student who hears Christ’s name in an “inappropriate forum”! It’s almost as though Goulet saw Riner as Father Karas and the freshmen as a host of demons, writhing in agony beneath a spray of verbal holy water. This is condescension distilled to its essence. Usually it’s the college acting in loco parentis, not the other students. What we are witnessing here is trickle-down ideology, with students acting as a sort of Securitate for their administrative overseers.

Could Goulet really have felt anything like the outrage and disappointment on display in her letters? Let’s examine Riner’s sole reference to Jesus:

Jesus’ message of redemption is simple. People are imperfect, and there are consequences for our actions. He gave His life for our sin so that we wouldn’t have to bear the penalty of the law; so we could see love. The problem is me; the solution is God’s love: Jesus on the cross, for us.

It may be unusual for a student speech, but the Edict of Worms it is not.

Another Student Assembly member, Tim Andreadis ‘07, complained that Riner “did not clearly label his religiously charged comments as reflecting his own beliefs.” A lack of clear labels — that’s the real problem, isn’t it? Just as Andreadis doubtless expects his plastic baggies to be clearly labeled a choking hazard, so he expects every word out of a fellow student’s mouth to be accompanied by an explicit disclaimer. Who needs in loco parentis when so many students are big enough to pull their own Huggies on?

And let’s not leave out Paul Heintz ‘06, whose crudely hieroglyphic “Guy & Fellow” comic strip “parodied” Riner’s speech. In the strip, a stick figure with Riner’s head says, “Jesus, together you and I shall rule the world and vanquish all those infidels and looters and rioters.” Pot-smoking Jesus replies, “Yo, chill out, dawg. Take a hit of this sh** and chill the f***out.” Pot-smoking Jesus! How marvelously transgressive! Now have a gingersnap and back to the nursery with you.

As responses to the speech go, this had at least the merit of being too demotic to match the self-righteousness of all those pompous op-eds and public resignations. Of course, this made it no less embarrassing.

Is it worth training the Doppler radar on this teacup tempest? Higher education will always have its dull speeches, its Tracy Flicks, its outsize outrage. After a while, most students will forget about this and go on to something useful. But none of that is the real story. The fascinating — and disappointing — thing is that something as ordinary and blameless as religious belief should seem such a terrifying menace to college students. And what delicate little Hummels those students have become: They use tepid terms like “community” and “inappropriate” and “alienating” and then congratulate themselves for their sensitivity. I pray they never have to face something more trying than words — but I certainly wouldn’t count on it.

— Stefan Beck is assistant editor of the New Criterion.

==============================

Noah Riner ‘06 Welcomes Class of ‘09 (Dartmouth Review, 050920)

By Noah Riner | Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Editor’s Note: Student Body President Noah Riner ‘06 spoke to the incoming class of ‘09 at today’s Convocation.

You’ve been told that you are a special class. A quick look at the statistics confirms that claim: quite simply, you are the smartest and most diverse group of freshmen to set foot on the Dartmouth campus. You have more potential than all of the other classes. You really are special.

But it isn’t enough to be special. It isn’t enough to be talented, to be beautiful, to be smart. Generations of amazing students have come before you, and have sat in your seats. Some have been good, some have been bad. All have been special.

In fact, there’s quite a long list of very special, very corrupt people who have graduated from Dartmouth. William Walter Remington, Class of 1939, started out as a Boy Scout and a choirboy and graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He ended up as a Soviet spy, was convicted of perjury and beaten to death in prison.

Daniel Mason ‘93 was just about to graduate from Boston Medical School when he shot two men – killing one – after a parking dispute.

Just a few weeks ago, I read in the D about PJ Halas, Class of 1998. His great uncle George founded the Chicago Bears, and PJ lived up to the family name, co-captaining the basketball team his senior year at Dartmouth and coaching at a high school team following graduation. He was also a history teacher, and, this summer, he was arrested for sexually assualting a 15-year-old student.

These stories demonstrate that it takes more than a Dartmouth degree to build character.

As former Dartmouth President John Sloan Dickey said, at Dartmouth our business is learning. And I’ll have to agree with the motto of Faber College, featured in the movie Animal House, “Knowledge is Good.” But if all we get from this place is knowledge, we’ve missed something. There’s one subject that you won’t learn about in class, one topic that orientation didn’t cover, and that your UGA won’t mention: character.

What is the purpose of our education? Why are we at Dartmouth?

Martin Luther King, Jr. said:

“But education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society…. We must remember that intelligence is not enough. Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education.”

We hear very little about character in our classrooms, yet, as Dr. King suggests, the real problem in the world is not a lack of education.

For example, in the past few weeks we’ve seen some pretty revealing things happening on the Gulf Coast in the wake of hurricane Katrina. We’ve seen acts of selfless heroism and millions around the country have united to help the refugees.

On the other hand, we’ve been disgusted by the looting, violence, and raping that took place even in the supposed refuge areas. In a time of crisis and death, people were paddling around in rafts, stealing TV’s and VCR’s. How could Americans go so low?

My purpose in mentioning the horrible things done by certain people on the Gulf Coast isn’t to condemn just them; rather it’s to condemn all of us. Supposedly, character is what you do when no one is looking, but I’m afraid to say all the things I’ve done when no one was looking. Cheating, stealing, lusting, you name it - How different are we? It’s easy to say that we’ve never gone that far: never stolen that much; never lusted so much that we’d rape; and the people we’ve cheated, they were rich anyway.

Let’s be honest, the differences are in degree. We have the same flaws as the individuals who pillaged New Orleans. Ours haven’t been given such free range, but they exist and are part of us all the same.

The Times of London once asked readers for comments on what was wrong with the world. British author, G. K. Chesterton responded simply: “Dear Sir, I am.”

Not many of us have the same clarity that Chesterton had. Just days after Hurricane Katrina had ravaged the Gulf Coast, politicians and pundits were distributing more blame than aid. It’s so easy to see the faults of others, but so difficult to see our own. In the words of Cassius in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, “the fault, dear Brutus is not in our stars but in ourselves.”

Character has a lot to do with sacrifice, laying our personal interests down for something bigger. The best example of this is Jesus. In the Garden of Gethsemane, just hours before his crucifixion, Jesus prayed, “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” He knew the right thing to do. He knew the cost would be agonizing torture and death. He did it anyway. That’s character.

Jesus is a good example of character, but He’s also much more than that. He is the solution to flawed people like corrupt Dartmouth alums, looters, and me.

It’s so easy to focus on the defects of others and ignore my own. But I need saving as much as they do.

In the words of Bono:

[I]f only we could be a bit more like Him, the world would be transformed. …When I look at the Cross of Christ, what I see up there is all my s— and everybody else’s. So I ask myself a question a lot of people have asked: Who is this man? And was He who He said He was, or was He just a religious nut? And there it is, and that’s the question.

You want the best undergraduate education in the world, and you’ve come to the right place to get that. But there’s more to college than achievement. With Martin Luther King, we must dream of a nation – and a college – where people are not judged by the superficial, “but by the content of their character.”

Thus, as you begin your four years here, you’ve got to come to some conclusions about your own character because you won’t get it by just going to class. What is the content of your character? Who are you? And how will you become what you need to be?

==============================

No notice to parents in ‘diversity’ classes: District takes hard line after arresting concerned father (WorldNetDaily, 050926)

While the trial of a Massachusetts parent arrested while attempting to secure a promise from school officials to notify parents before teaching about homosexuality in his son’s kindergarten class has been postponed until next month, the school district is taking a hard line against such notification.

Paul Ash, the superintendent of schools in Lexington, has announced his instructions to all teachers in the district to give no notice to parents of efforts to teach “diversity” lessons about “alternative lifestyles” – even in primary grades.

David Parker, parent of kindergartner, stands before Judge Robert McKenna in Concord District Court April 28 after spending the night in jail (Photo: Article 8 Alliance)

In April, David Parker of Lexington spent a night in jail and was charged with criminal trespassing after refusing to leave a scheduled meeting with officials at the Estabrook Elementary School unless they provided parental notice of such lessons and gave him the option of pulling his child out of those classes.

Parker says the officials had indicated they would agree to a notification policy, then suddenly refused. He insists he has done nothing wrong and is willing to contest the charge rather than plea-bargain.

David Parker’s son brought home the book ‘Who’s in a Family?’ in school’s ‘Diversity Book Bag’ (Image: Article 8 Alliance)

The dispute began last spring when Parker’s then-5-year-old son brought home a book to be shared with his parents titled, “Who’s in a Family?” The optional reading material, which came in a “Diversity Book Bag,” depicted at least two households led by homosexual partners.

The illustrated book says, “A family can be made up in many different ways” and includes this text:

“Laura and Kyle live with their two moms, Joyce and Emily, and a poodle named Daisy. It takes all four of them to give Daisy her bath.”

Another illustrated page says:

“Robin’s family is made up of her dad, Clifford, her dad’s partner, Henry, and Robin’s cat, Sassy. Clifford and Henry take turns making dinner for their family.”

Following the meeting in which he was arrested, Parker was also ordered to keep off school grounds. He says he is not even permitted to pick up his own child from the school.

Meanwhile, Ash explained in a written statement on the controversy that the school district has no obligation to provide parental notification of such lessons because they are not about “human sexuality,” but rather about “tolerance and respect.”

Massachusetts state law requires parental notification of discussion of human sexuality issues in the classroom. Gov. Mitt Romney, in fact, has stated the law should apply in this Lexington case. Ash disagrees.

He said in his written statement: “The Massachusetts Department of Education, which is responsible for administering Section 32A, has explained that activities and materials designed to promote tolerance and respect for individuals, including recognition of differences in sexual orientation ‘without further instruction on the physical and sexual implications’ do not trigger the notice and opt out provisions of Section 32A. Under this standard, staff has no obligation to notify parents of discussions, activities, or materials that simply reference same-gender parents or that otherwise recognize the existence of differences in sexual orientation. Accordingly, I expect teachers to continue to allow children access to such activities and materials to the extent appropriate to children’s ages, to district goals of respecting diversity, and to the curriculum.’”

==============================

Is the School Library Safe? (Christian Post, 050927)

A roiling controversy in Arkansas may serve to awaken many parents to the reality of what is found in many public school libraries—explicitly sexual material.

This controversy centers in Fayetteville , Arkansas, where Laurie Taylor, a mother of two young teenage girls, complained to the local board of education about three library books that contained explicit descriptions and depictions of sexual activity. Later, Taylor would form a group called Parents Protecting the Minds of Children, and her list of three troubling books would be expanded to dozens of others.

Predictably, national library associations and anti-censorship groups quickly jumped into the fray, charging Mrs. Taylor with launching a crusade to take the Arkansas public schools back to the dark ages.

In response to her concerns, the Fayetteville Board of Education first decided to move the three books in question into a special parents-only section of the school libraries. Nevertheless, the board later rescinded that decision and, by a one-vote margin, decided to return the books to the main collection where they would be accessible to students.

This particular controversy tells us a great deal about how much influence parents can wield over local school boards and the administration of the schools. In a nutshell, this case proves that, even in the heartland of America, parents are denied much influence at all.

I do not know Laurie Taylor, but a quick visit to her organization’s web site should be enough to raise the temperature of any concerned parent. The three books of her immediate concern, It’s So Amazing, It’s Perfectly Normal, and The Teenage Guy’s Survival Guide, contain hair-raising material. It’s So Amazing, intended for children in kindergarten through the fourth grade, deals with a wide range of sexual issues. It’s Perfectly Normal, designed for third through sixth graders, includes cartoon drawings of a couple having sex, of homosexual relationships, and of a boy masturbating. Those readers that require proof of this content can simply visit the group’s web site.

The Teenage Guy’s Survival Guide encourages the use of pornography as “natural and fine.” Backward parents who think otherwise will find themselves isolated by the liberal elite and attacked by advocates for libraries and librarians, who seem to have no concern for what parents believe to be appropriate for their children.

The Little Rock newspaper, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, editorialized against Laurie Taylor’s crusade. Referring to the excerpts from offensive books Mrs. Taylor and her group assembled, the paper responded: “They can be shocking. And often on the basis of those inflammatory excerpts, she’s rallied support from others with concerns that mirror hers. In the name of protecting her kids from books she finds distasteful, she’s unavoidably created obstacles for others who don’t feel the way she does.” The paper went on to accuse Mrs. Taylor of seeking to ban books and argued that her effort amounts to a form of unconstitutional censorship.

When Mrs. Taylor suggested that parents might decide to “opt out” their children from school libraries, the paper described her proposal as “a curious way to approach education, preventing your kids from using the school library.”

One might think that the newspaper would be more concerned with the use of a school library as an environment for indoctrinating children into the sexual revolution. The Little Rock paper suggested that the school district should simply “flag each student’s record with parental restrictions on what books their own kids can check out.” In other words, parents could decide that they could prevent their children from checking out a specific list of books. Of course, nothing would prevent the children from gaining access to the books while in the library.

Undoubtedly, some persons would assume that this is all about sex education in general. But the books Laurie Taylor and her team have listed are, in the main, not about biology and the “birds and the bees.” To the contrary, the books she lists are among some of the most explicit and pornographic to be found anywhere in literature.

Many parents are simply unaware that the category of literature now known as “young adult fiction” is filled with some of the most graphic sexuality to be found in contemporary literature. Many of the titles normalize homosexuality and describe homosexual acts while others cover issues ranging from incest to sexual abuse and matters of heterosexual technique.

Some would undoubtedly be surprised to learn that this controversy is localized in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Nevertheless, as reporter George Archibald of The Washington Times explains, Fayetteville, the home of the University of Arkansas, is marked by “the self-consciously liberal instincts of a college town” but is “surrounded by a conservative, church-going county in the heart of the Bible Belt.” Bobby C. New, the superintendent of Fayetteville’s public schools, went so far as to describe the parents’ effort to identify sexually explicit books as “almost a cancer that grows within the total body of our school district.” Even as he pledged to work with the parents on the issue, he insisted that librarians must make the final decisions. “I will defend our librarians to the bitter end,” he said. “They are professional, trained, serious [teachers] who totally, totally have a process of reviewing everything that is ordered, to include reviewing critics, national critics that have been identified by the American Library Association as being credible.” [sic]

Therein lies the problem. The American Library Association is hardly a disinterested party to this controversy. As a matter of fact, the ALA takes predictably liberal positions on almost every issue, especially when it comes to matters of pornography and censorship. The ALA steadfastly opposes the use of any internet filters, arguing that such mechanisms represent an unconstitutional form of censorship. The ALA and its associated groups have opposed laws that would protect children from access to sexually explicit material and pornography.

In a June 24, 2005 editorial, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette celebrated the fact that the National Coalition Against Censorship had written a letter to Superintendent New, urging him to resist the efforts of Laurie Taylor and other concerned parents. According to the paper, the NCAC’s letter was “so unspeakably reasonable that it should be required reading.” With arrogant condescension, the paper continued: “But that would probably bring another objection from the would-be censors, who keep finding more reading material they want kept from impressionable kids. The coalition’s arguments against hiding books from the kids makes so much sense they would probably scare the aginners [i.e., people against something] as much as any of those books do.”

The paper argued that parents should not be making decisions about which books should be available in public school libraries. “The coalition says the decision about what books belong in a school library is the proper job for librarians and teachers who work with kids. And who should not be making such judgments? Individual parents. That’s right, the parents shouldn’t be making these decisions. Hold your outrage, mom and dad. Listen to the coalition: ‘Parents may be equipped to make reading choices for their own children, but, no matter how well-intentioned, they simply are not equipped to make decisions that address the needs of the entire district’s student body.’”

In other words, the paper told the parents to back off and go back home where they belong. According to the editors, “We trust the teachers, teachers’ aides, librarians, principals, and even school boards and superintendents to do what’s right by all the kids.”

That kind of condescension—not to mention liberal arrogance—and the decision by the Fayetteville school board suggests why so many parents are withdrawing their children from the public schools and choosing other options.

While the newspaper’s editors are waxing poetic against the dangers of censorship and celebrating the NCAC’s open letter to superintendent New, perhaps they should actually make a visit to the NCAC Web site. There they would find a white paper entitled “Identifying What Is Harmful or Inappropriate for Minors.” That paper, written by Marjorie Hines, director of the NCAC’s “Free Expression Policy Project,” claims: “Experts in human sexuality agree that there is no body of scientific evidence establishing that minors are harmed by reading or viewing pornography.”

Later, the same paper asserts: “Correlations do not establish causation, but they can be suggestive. Studies have found, for example, an inverse correlation between youthful exposure to pornography and sex offending among adolescents and adults. That is, sex offenders generally have less, not more, exposure to pornography as youths. One possible inference is that sex offending is causally related not to youthful exposure to sexually explicit material but to its opposite: youthful repression, conflict, and guilt.”

Let’s see the editors of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette cite that passage in an editorial. The NCAC has published a paper suggesting the “possible inference” that shielding adolescent males from explicit pornography can actually lead to “sex offending.”

At least one of the paper’s columnists, Mike Masterson, had the courage to defend Laurie Taylor. Noting the hatred directed at Mrs. Taylor, Masterson observed, “Her offense? Being a concerned local parent who politely took to the stage to plead for a community with divergent views to unite to mastermind an enlightened plan where each parent’s desires for his or her own child’s development could be met.”

Masterson also informed his readers that it was Laurie Taylor who had asked the Fayetteville school district why Christmas had been left off of the 2004 elementary public school calendar, while Kwanzaa, Ramadan, and Hanukkah were listed. According to Masterson, Mrs. Taylor had even offered to pay for the reprinting of new calendars which would have listed Christmas Day. As he reported, the district’s reply was, “No sale.”

Many Americans would undoubtedly be shocked to observe that Fayetteville, at least as represented by a majority of its school board and a large number of its politically active citizens, is turning itself into something of a Berkeley in the Ozarks. This controversy should alert parents to look closely at the materials available in their own local school libraries. If you still question what is at stake, simply visit the Parents Protecting the Minds of Children web site. So much for trusting “professionals” to make these decisions for our children.

__________________________________________________

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

==============================

The Empire Strikes Back: Dartmouth’s alumni association tries to keep the school’s alumni in their place. (Weekly Standard, 051016)

EARLIER THIS YEAR, in a stunning rebuke to the school’s administration, Dartmouth alumni elected two insurgent petition candidates to the college’s board of trustees—Hoover Institution fellow and former Reagan speechwriter Peter Robinson and George Mason University Law School professor Todd Zywicki. Both Robinson and Zywicki had run against the administration on issues ranging from free speech and political correctness to the athletic program and class sizes.

The election of Robinson and Zywicki last spring followed on the heels of the election of insurgent alumnus T.J. Rodgers last year. After the election returns were in, it seemed as though conservatives had the liberal Dartmouth establishment on the ropes, but the most recent installment of the saga calls to mind The Empire Strikes Back.

ALUMNI PARTICIPATION in trustee elections at Dartmouth is governed by the constitution of the college’s alumni association. Last month an alumni association task force released the draft of a proposed new constitution that would, among other things, drastically alter the manner by which alumni participate in the election of trustees to the board—that is, the half of the board that is elected by alumni (the remainder of the board serve ex officio, or are selected by the trustees themselves). It’s a little difficult to get a handle on the proposed new constitution—it’s over 6,500 words long—which seems a bit much compared to the 1,600-word existing constitution, or, for that matter, the 4,500-word U.S. Constitution.

DESPITE ITS OPACITY, certain qualities of the proposed constitution shine through. The proposed new constitution complicates and degrades the election process in ways both gross and subtle. Joseph Asch commented on some of the key changes in a column for the Dartmouth. Dartmouth students Scott Glabe and Joe Malchow have also provided shrewd analysis and commentary in the Dartmouth Review and at Malchow’s Dartblog.

Among other things, the proposed constitution gives the alumni association greater control over potential insurgent candidacies and substitutes a “preference” voting system for the current “approval” voting system. As Asch, Glabe, and Malchow note, one can fairly infer that the principle rationale of the proposed changes is the erection of additional obstacles to the election of insurgent alumni candidates in trustee elections.

One feature of the proposed constitution that opens a window into the collective mind of its authors is the allocation of a block of seats on the elected alumni assembly to designated alumni groups, including Asian, black, gay/lesbian/bisexual and transgender, and Native American alumni. As Malchow observes, “This is, on its face, outrageous, undemocratic, and wrong.” It is in fact symptomatic of the ills that plague Dartmouth and so many elite educational institutions, ills that in part prompted the candidacies of Rodgers, Robinson, and Zywicki in the first place.

SO NOW WHAT? Next weekend alumni will be drawn to Dartmouth for homecoming. The alumni association will convene a meeting on Sunday at 11:00 a.m. and at that meeting Dartmouth alumni will elect members of the association’s executive committee. In a scenario that sounds familiar, a slate of insurgent petition candidates pledged to protect the current petition-trustee electoral process has qualified to run for the leadership of the association. There’s just one wrinkle: Alumni association rules restrict voting to alumni in attendance at the meeting.

Both Robinson and Zywicki have alerted alumni to the significance of the upcoming meeting, while withholding comments on the candidates or the proposed new alumni constitution. They seem to be of the view that Dartmouth alumni are smart enough to get the picture.

Scott Johnson is a contributor to the blog Power Line , a contributing writer to The Daily Standard, and a 1973 graduate of Dartmouth College.

==============================

Students show almost no gains in reading (WorldNetDaily, 051020)

In the latest snapshot of how well American schoolchildren are learning, national test results showed a small gain in math proficiency in the past two years but nearly zero improvement in reading scores since 1992 despite more than a decade of focus on boosting student achievement.

The achievement gap between students of different races narrowed slightly, but about 70% of students nationwide still are scoring below grade level on math and reading tests, according to the latest scores on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests released Oct. 19.

Only about 30% of the nation’s fourth- and eighth-graders scored high enough to be considered proficient in reading in 2005, nearly the same average as in any year since state NAEP scores were first reported in 1992. In math, the number of students scoring at grade level rose to 33% in 2005 from 30% in 2003, compared to only 17% in 1992.

Results from the state NAEP tests, also called “The Nation’s Report Card,” are reported by the National Center for Education Statistics in the U.S. Department of Education and have been given to a national sample of fourth- and eighth-graders in reading and math every two years since 1992. The tests track student achievement by gender, race and income.

In 2005, states scored highest in fourth-grade math but lost ground in eighth-grade reading. Seven percent more fourth-graders in Arkansas and Louisiana, for example, scored higher in math between 2003 and 2005, the largest increases in the nation. Massachusetts students outscored the rest of the nation by nearly every measurement in reading and math.

No state had a higher average eighth-grade reading score in 2005 than in 2003, and seven states — Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Utah and West Virginia — had significantly lower scores.

The report showed a significant achievement gap between races still remains, with white and Asian students scoring higher than black and Hispanic pupils. The gap narrowed between each group between 2003 and 2005, but by less than 1%.

The NAEP results disappointed education advocates hoping to see bigger payoffs in student achievement as a result of education reforms at the state and federal level in the past decade.

“To me, this goes beyond disappointing,” said former West Virginia Gov. Bob Wise, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Alliance For Excellent Education, an advocacy group that promotes high school reforms. “It shows that we are failing to gain ground on the very conditions we need to reverse to improve our graduation rates and produce more students who are ready for college and the workforce.”

NAEP tests are separate from the state assessment tests required by President Bush’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law, which requires all students in grades 3 to 8 be tested annually in reading and math and penalizes states that fail to improve student scores. NCLB aims to raise all students to proficiency by 2014.

States have reported across-the-board gains in student achievement on state NCLB exams since the law went into effect in 2002. But the latest NAEP test results likely will raise questions about the more glowing reports coming from state-developed standardized tests.

Chester E. Finn Jr., president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit group that supports achievement-based school reforms, said the NAEP results raise questions about states’ abilities to “stick to their accountability guns.”

“Plenty of governors and state school chiefs have rushed to the microphone to announce strong gains on state tests that evaporate under the scrutiny of ‘the nation’s report card,’” Finn said in an email. An analysis of state assesments released by the Fordham Foundation Oct. 19 showed that nearly 20 states reported gains in reading proficiency between 2003 and 2005.

The latest NAEP scores are consistent with other national standardized tests, such as the SAT, ACT and PSAT, which all have shown flat achievement rates in reading, said Jack Jennings, director of the Center on Education Policy, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that tracks state implementation of NCLB.

“Despite what the (Bush) administration was claiming, this is an indication that No Child Left Behind may not have made much of a difference because these are the same results we saw before the law was in effect,” Jennings said.

U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings said the NAEP results “confirm that we are on the right track with No Child Left Behind,” especially among younger students and black and Hispanic students. However, Spellings said the results also showed that middle-schoolers and high school students are lagging behind.

“It does show us that we’re going to need to accelerate our progress at all grade levels and with all kids if we’re to meet our goal” of 100% proficiency, Spellings said in a telephone news conference.

Spellings announced that President Bush soon will propose a “Striving Readers Initiative” to target middle and high school literacy.

NAEP’s proficiency standards are set much higher than state standards, said Bruce Hunter, director of public policy for the American Association of School Administrators. Hunter said that it’s too soon to expect the NCLB law to produce noticeable changes in NAEP results.

“I don’t see three years into any program in a nation as large and diverse as ours as being long enough to say it’s possible to know how effective it is,” Hunter said. “It will take eight to 10 years before we know for sure.”

The national results showed dramatic differences in performance of students among states.

Traditionally, New England states such as Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont score at the top. In contrast, states in the South such as Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana, and some Western states such as New Mexico, consistently score lower than the rest of the nation.

However, ranking states based on this approach has resulted in unfair comparisons between high-performing states with fewer poor students and low-performing states with higher proportions of low-income students, according to a first-of-its-kind analysis of NAEP scores released Oct. 18 by Standard and Poor’s (S&P) School Evaluation Services.

S&P’s education statistics clearinghouse, SchoolMatters.com, found that when state NAEP results from 2003 were adjusted based on their level of student poverty, most states performed similarly. The report is the first to analyze NAEP data based on student poverty levels, which are considered the strongest indicator of academic performance, said SchoolMatters.com director of research Paul Gazzerro.

Mississippi, for example, has the highest percentage of poor students and has finished last among 50 states in reading proficiency since 1992. But when state poverty levels are factored into the ranking, poor students in Mississippi performed no worse than economically disadvantaged students in most other states. Texas ranked 25th in 2003 in math proficiency but outperformed states with similar levels of student poverty, the report found.

“From a policy-making and benchmarking perspective, state officials ought to know not only which states are performing at a higher level, but also which states are getting better results given the number of economically disadvantaged students they serve,” Thomas Sheridan, vice president of S&P’s School Evaluation Services, said in a prepared statement.

==============================

Two-Faced Beast: No Child Left Behind — the good and the bad. (National Review Online, 051028)

If there’s one memorable takeaway from last week’s release of the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results in reading and math, it’s a timeless one: incentives work. They alter behavior in education and government, just as they do in capitalism. Unfortunately, they don’t always alter behavior for the better.

On the positive side, the 2005 NAEP scores for African-American, Hispanic, and poor children were slightly higher than in 2003, thereby narrowing a bit the nation’s longstanding “achievement gaps.” Among 4th-grade students the average scores of black youngsters bumped up two points in reading and four in math (on a 500-point scale). Hispanic students gained three points in reading and four in math, while low-income children rose two points in reading and three in math. All those gains are “statistically significant” and are good news for our democracy and society.

The president’s much-discussed No Child Left Behind Act can take some credit for the modest gains of the past two years. By holding schools to account for the learning of all their students, especially minority and needy children, the law has captured the attention of educators nationwide. One hopes (and the data imply) that schools are raising expectations, redistributing resources (such as quality teachers), and putting their noses to the grindstone in order to help disadvantaged youngsters achieve basic standards in reading and in math (and to avoid the harsh sunlight, embarrassing comparisons, and unwelcome sanctions of the federal law).

But there are perverse incentives at play here, too. No Child Left Behind seeks to help all students reach “proficiency” by 2014, and requires states to develop tough accountability systems to ensure that their schools are making progress toward that end. (If schools are not progressing, they face a cascade of interventions, exiting students, and other consequences). But here’s the catch: The states define “proficiency” however they like. So if you’re a governor or education commissioner, and you want your state’s schools to look good, you have a strong incentive to relax your definition of “proficiency” in reading and math and make your own state tests easier. Last week’s good news is shadowed by early evidence that some states may be doing just that.

We analyzed data from state tests as well as the national assessment, and looked at states’ progress on both over the past two years (see here). The result? Nineteen states (of the 29 with available and comparable data) reported their 8th-grade students made progress on state reading exams. But only three of these states show any gains on NAEP, and even then, only at the “basic” level. (Eighth-grade NAEP reading results were disappointing almost everywhere, and the national average fell by a point.)

Consider Arizona. Its own test results show the number of eighth graders proficient in reading rose 8 points (from 55% to 63%) between 2003 to 2005. Yet the percentage of Arizona eighth-graders scoring at NAEP’s “proficient” level actually fell two points during the same biennium. (The percentage of Arizona’s students reaching NAEP’s lower “basic” level also dropped by a point.)

States may say that such discrepancies merely reflect the different subject matter they test versus the content assessed by the feds. California, for example, has laudably rejected “whole language” reading instruction and other faddish ideas that have partially infected the national test. Perhaps this is why the Golden State posted gains of 9 points in its proportion of eighth-graders reaching proficiency on reading, while its percentage of students reaching “basic” and “proficient” on NAEP dropped a point each. But surely that’s not the case for all states. The larger trend line is clear: The news is much rosier if you believe state reports than if you believe the national assessment.

What about the concern that the federal law, by focusing on students at the lower end of the achievement range, will give educators incentives to ignore top-performing pupils? Here the news is mixed. In reading, there’s disturbing evidence that our top students are stalling; those at the 90th percentile lost ground in both 4th and 8th grades since 2003. In math, however, students at all levels showed progress. This is something to watch in future years. While closing the achievement gap is a priority, so is closing the “economic-competitiveness” gap with other nations. We can’t afford to zap the talent of our most gifted kids.

“Behaviorism” is at least as risky in public policy as it is in psychology. When Washington knowingly holds out carrots and sticks, sunshine and sanctions, to alter the established practices of states, districts, schools, and teachers, unintended and undesirable changes are at least as likely to result as the kind that lawmakers expect.

— Chester E. Finn Jr. is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, where Michael J. Petrilli is a research fellow. They are president and a vice president respectively of the

Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a school-reform organization in Washington.

==============================

Bashing the Bling: A Principal Draws the Line (Townhall.com, 051102)

by Chuck Colson

At high schools across the country, the prom has gone from being an adolescent rite of passage to an indicator of social status to, now, the kind of extravagant thing that can affect the Gross Domestic Product. Whereas, not too long ago, the expenses associated with attending the prom were the price of the tux or dress and a corsage, today they can exceed what some hardworking families earn in a year.

That’s why one courageous and morally serious Long Island principal said, “Enough already!”

The principal was Kenneth Hoagland of Kellenberg Memorial, a Catholic high school in Uniondale, New York. Hoagland, a brother in the Marianist order, was weary of the stories he heard about the Long Island school’s spring prom: “Students putting down $10,000 to rent a house in the Hamptons for a weekend bash . . . Fathers chartering a boat so their kids could go out on a late-night ‘booze cruise.’”

What bothered Hoagland wasn’t only, or even primarily, the “sex, booze, and drugs.” It was the “the flaunting of affluence . . . a pursuit of vanity for vanity’s sake—in a word, financial decadence . . . “

So, Hoagland took the almost unimaginable step: At the start of this school year, he wrote parents a 2,000-word letter informing them that Kellenberg would no longer “put on the spring prom.” Parents are free to continue to do as they please, but the school would have nothing to do with what he called an “orgy.”

As expected, students were dismayed by Hoagland’s decision, calling it—what else?—”unfair.” Only slightly less expected was the reaction of some parents. One parent told Associated Press that school officials don’t “have a right to judge what goes on after the prom . . . “

Obviously, the entire point of sending kids to a Catholic, rather than public, high school is lost on this parent.

Fortunately, it isn’t lost on Hoagland. His actions are a reminder of two basic, if often-forgotten, truths: First, adults are supposed to set limits on kids. This is especially vital in our culture where most of the time teenagers function within an essentially adult-free subculture.

Without adult intervention, peer pressure, affluence, and the need to “fit in” almost invariably lead to the kinds of excesses that drove Hoagland to cancel the prom. It’s sadly telling that it took a celibate cleric to relieve parents of the pressure imposed on them by kids’ ever-escalating demands.

The other lesson is about the place of money in a Christian worldview. To hear some of our critics, our worldview is only about sex and Darwinism. According to some Christians, the only thing a Christian worldview has to say about money is “send us yours.”

Hoagland’s actions remind us that both are wrong. Flaunting affluence is injurious to the good life—yours and others’. A society that pursues vanity for its own sake cannot be called good, even if it abstains from “sex, booze, and drugs.”

So, three cheers for a courageous principal who in saying, “Enough already!” reminds us that what matters is not what we have but, rather, the way we live.

==============================

A Herd of Academic Minds (Townhall.com, 051103)

by Edwin J. Feulner

If there’s one word any college student knows, it’s “diversity.” Every university, it seems, is “committed” to diversity — or at least says it is. For example, Arizona State says on its Web site that it “champions diversity.” But the reality is sometimes a bit different.

At the start of the year, ASU offered two English classes, ENG 101 and 102, taught by Professor G. Lynn Nelson. His Web page claimed, “My classes seek to help people discover within themselves the intertwined power of literacy and peace.” Apparently they do that through segregation. You see those classes were, “For Native Americans only,” as the site put it.

The university says it’s fixed the problem, and that the classes are, in fact, open to everyone. “ASU promotes equal opportunity in educational programs and promotes respect for diversity,” Executive Vice President Milton D. Glick wrote in a letter to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

Sadly, even if this particular example has been fixed, it’s symptomatic of a larger problem. When it comes to political philosophy, the modern American academy presents a grim front of uniformity — an almost religious orthodoxy. That ought to trouble thoughtful people on both the right and the left.

Professor Stanley Rothman of Smith College examined the politics of more than 1,600 college faculty at almost 200 schools. He found that in “all faculty departments, including business and engineering, academics were over five times as likely to be liberals as conservatives.” In fact, he determined that a leftist political viewpoint was almost as important a factor in hiring decisions as tangible academic achievements, such as publications and awards.

In The Chronicle of Higher Education, Professor Mark Bauerlein of Emory University points to three factors that explain why the academic world tends to exclude conservatives:

1. The Common Assumption. “The assumption is that all the strangers in the room at professional gatherings are liberals,” he writes. “There is no joy in breaking up fellowship feeling, and the awkward pause that accompanies the moment when someone comes out of the conservative closet marks a quarantine that only the institutionally secure are willing to endure.”

2. The False Consensus Effect. “That effect occurs when people think that the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population.” Bauerlein gives as an example the infamous statement ascribed to a New York Times film critic: “I don’t know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don’t know anybody who voted for him.” The same thing was certainly said in many academic halls after the 2004 election.

3. The Law of Group Polarization. “When like-minded people deliberate as an organized group, the general opinion shifts toward extreme versions of their common beliefs,” Bauerlein writes. In old left circles, this meant racing to embrace Stalin. Nowadays, the far left does not simply oppose the war in Iraq. Instead it argues, “BUSH LIED!” or asserts that neoconservative Israeli loyalists have hijacked our government.

Since they operate in an environment where their prejudices are supported and dissent has been thoroughly demonized, most teachers and administrators really do not understand what conservatives are so upset about.

There will, however, be consequences. As the radical polarization of the academy continues, more people will turn away from academic life, which will only make the problem worse.

What type of diversity does our higher educational system really need?

Our free, self-governing society requires the open exchange of ideas, which in turn requires a certain level of civility rooted in mutual respect for each other’s opinions and viewpoints.

Liberals need to accept that conservatives deserve a place at the table and that we have productive ideas to discuss. That would be a critical step toward starting a real dialogue. But it won’t happen until America’s higher education community reaches out to include conservatives, instead of locking us out like so many non-Native American ASU students.

Dr. Edwin Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation, a Townhall.com Gold Partner.

==============================

Hannity igniting revolt against left-wing profs: Sick of indoctrination, Sean urges students to expose propaganda (WorldNetDaily, 051128)

College students bombarded with the personal political views of their professors are being urged by talk-show host Sean Hannity to fight back with hard evidence of purported indoctrination.

“All you college kids out there, check your state laws, check your campus laws,” said Sean Hannity on his national radio program.

“Get your little tape recorders if legal, and I want you to start recording these left-wingers. Bring it to this program and we’ll start airing it every single time on this program. I’m sick of this indoctrination. I’m sick of this left-wing propaganda.”

Hannity’s call to action to comes in the wake of the case of Rebecca Beach, a 19-year-old freshman at Warren County Community College in Washington, N.J., who, as WorldNetDaily first reported, was sharply rebuked by an English professor for her announcement of a campus program featuring decorated Iraq war hero Lt. Col. Scott Rutter.

In an e-mail from professor John Daly to Beach, Daly wrote: “Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors.”

He also said he would ask his students to boycott the event and vowed “to expose [her] right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like [Rebecca’s] won’t dare show their face on a college campus.”

“That’s free and open exchange of ideas and opinions on a college campus,” Hannity commented sarcastically. “That’s really cultivating freedom of thought.”

WND broke the news that Daly submitted his resignation Tuesday just moments before an emergency meeting by the college’s board of trustees to decide his fate.

But according to Hannity, the resignation is not the end of the case, saying, “This ought to be the beginning.”

“This is now the new paradigm that I want to see college kids around the country pick up on,” he said. “That is whenever you have the left-wing professors that are abusive to conservatives, that degrade you, that call you names, that use ad-hominem attacks, that are punishing you for your political point of view, that are purposely trying to indoctrinate you with extremist left-wing views – if it is legal, tape them. If it is not legal, take verbatim notes, get witnesses, bring these articles to the school newspapers, bring it to the local media. Expose these people for the abusive professors that they are, and I guarantee you when there’s a series of these instances where we expose these people, I guarantee you this indoctrination process is going to stop dead in its tracks. ...

“Fear is a great motivator, and the fear that these left-wingers are going to get fired or be held accountable for their mean-spirited comments against people or their indoctrination is going to be the single-biggest motivation we ever see to get them to stop doing what they’re doing to college kids around the country.”

Beach agreed, telling Hannity, “It is intimidating, and [professors] will tell you things to make you not want to stand out and expose them. The American people need to know what they’re paying for, what they’re paying for their children to receive at these schools. It’s not an education, it’s indoctrination, and they’re intimidated from speaking out the truth that they know.”

The scant newspaper coverage of the case was also blasted by fellow talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, who noted the headline in New Jersey’s Express-Times newspaper Wednesday read, “Provoked professor leaves WCCC post.”

“Provoked professor? Unbelievable!” exclaimed Limbaugh. “Not that the student was provoked, not that the school was provoked, not that the Iraq war vet was provoked, and not that the commanding officers in Iraq were provoked, because it was suggested by this guy that they be shot.”

On that aspect, Beach told Hannity, “They really turned the tables and they make it look like I am restricting his free speech rights now as an American citizen where that’s not even what it was to begin with. ... It makes me look like the bad guy.”

Hannity offered to speak at the college to help defend Beach, and is hoping to face Daly in person, despite the fact he quit his position.

“It’s really brave of him to pick on a 19-year-old girl,” Hannity said. “I want to see him send such an e-mail to me. And I dare this guy to come and debate me at this college. I’ll even pay him to come debate me. And he needs a job now.”

==============================

Caution: Your professor may have PMS (townhall.com, 051128)

At the end of my recent column highlighting the tolerance, integrity, and competence of Warren County Community College Professor John Daly, I promised my readers some insight into why he seems so angry. Part of that anger might be explained by the fact that Daly graduated from Keane University.

Perhaps while he was studying at Keane he heard the following remarks by Khalid Abdul Muhammad of the Nation of Islam – remarks delivered at that institution when it was still called Keane College:

“If the white man don’t get out of town by sundown, we kill everything white in South Africa. We kill the women, we kill the children, we kill the babies. We kill the faggot, we kill the lesbian, we kill them all. Kill the old ones too …push them off a cliff in Cape Town. Kill the blind, kill the crippled, and when you get through killing them all, go to the graveyard, dig up the grave, and kill them again …

“The so-called Jew is a European strain of people who crawled around on all fours in the caves and hills of Europe, eating juniper roots and eating each other. You (Jews) slept with your dead for 2000 years, smelling the stench coming up from the decomposing body. You slept in your urination and your defecation ... The so-called Jews are bloodsuckers of the black nation . . . That’s why you call yourself Rubenstein, Goldstein and Silverstein, because you’ve been stealing rubies and gold and silver all over the earth …

“Everybody talks about Hitler exterminating six million Jews. That’s right. But don’t nobody talk about what they (the Jews) do to Hitler. They supplanted, they usurped, they … undermined the very fabric of society.”

Of course, the speech delivered by Muhammad really wasn’t the cause of Daly’s anger. In fact, he probably wasn’t there to hear this message from an adherent of the so-called “religion of peace.” But, the relationship between the speeches of bigots like Daly and the late Muhammad stem from a common cause, namely; PMS.

In the case of the late Khalid Muhammad, PMS stands for Paranoid Muslim Syndrome. And, of course, this syndrome can be found in abundance in the 21st century. The leader of Iran has it as do the leaders of the Palestinian Authority. And many have died from it including many “insurgents” in Iraq and the architects of the attacks of 9/11.

And the bad news is that PMS has spread to another faction that shares two vital characteristics with these paranoid Muslim extremists: 1) a deep-seated hatred of America and 2) a proven track record of slaughtering innocent Jews.

It appears that, without question, Professor Daly is suffering from Paranoid Marxist Syndrome, which is also known as PMS.

For those who have never considered the similarities between radical Muslims and radical Marxists, it is time to take heed. While the attacks of the former have been well-documented over the last few years, insufficient attention has been paid to the attacks of the latter.

Our college campuses have become the last safe haven of Marxists, largely because its adherents have never had to survive in the real world, much less in a communist dictatorship. Indeed, there are more communists teaching in the State of North Carolina than there are in the former Soviet Union.

Look carefully at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Few campuses have more avowed Marxists within the ranks of the faculty. And few schools have done more to present a kinder, gentler version of Islam – one that omits every reference to the killing of “infidels.”

And the same pattern seen in comparisons between different schools can be seen within them as well. As one who teaches at a school with fewer Marxists than UNC-CH, a similar pattern emerges. The proponents of Marxism are also the greatest supporters of those who kill our troops in Iraq.

For the most part, academics are silent about the blood-letting that inevitably ensues once a nation is governed by radical Islam or by the principles of Marxism. And if anyone dares to state the obvious, the subsequent willingness to distort the “atrocities” of this nation knows no bounds. That is why colleges tolerate the likes of Professor Daly.

At some point we must ask ourselves why it is that simultaneous sympathy for both radical Islam and radical Marxism is to be found almost solely on the campuses of the nation most responsible for the existence of Israel and the non-existence of the Berlin Wall.

Few who listen to the words of radical Muslims and radical Marxists can find comfort in the fact that so many who belong in mental institutions reside comfortably in our institutions of higher learning. [comments by Kwing Hung: haha!]

And that is really the problem. Very few are listening.

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and is a regular columnist for Townhall.com.

==============================

How to reform the public schools (townhall.com, 051129)

by Bill Murchison

The story goes that James A. Garfield defined the ideal college education as Mark Hopkins (a Garfield mentor at Williams College) on one end of a log and a student on the other end. I like to muse on this piece of splendid wisdom whenever — now for instance — moans and complaints rise from an education establishment — the one in Texas, for instance — that somehow never has enough money.

The Texas Supreme Court having just mandated an overhaul of the state’s school finance system without simultaneously mandating a spending increase, the moans will rise fortissimo.

Well, you know what? Tough. Particular schools might need special grants. As for the Texas system as a whole, we would do well to appropriate, instead of more cash, the justices’ insight — “[M]ore money does not guarantee better schools or more educated students.”

It sure doesn’t — in Texas or anywhere else, because if it did, the huge infusions of cash our public schools have enjoyed for the past four decades would have produced the best schools in the world. Instead, American public schools — with honorable exceptions — produce a deteriorating product: in turn, the product of a deteriorated cultural commitment to rigorous standards of study and performance.

The Supreme Court invites the Texas Legislature, as it seeks next year to remodel the school finance system, to consideration of significant reforms. We can start by seeing whether Mark Hopkins’ log can be found lying anywhere about; then we can take on a public school establishment described by the justices as “firmly entrenched and powerfully resistant to meaningful change.”

That is to say, before the Legislature proceeds to beef up the public school establishment, it should consider the fruits of competition.

That would liven up the debate for sure. If there’s anything the public school establishment hates, it’s the idea of competition. Never mind that competition is the force that perennially drives the American economy. We really wouldn’t want to see a tax-supported and government-regulated automobile industry. We’d prefer, I think, an industrial environment in which performance is rewarded and non-performance punished.

Our inability to reward or discipline the public schools in accordance with their achievements, or lack of same, helps explain the schools’ general mediocrity. We seem sometimes to suppose that the whole purpose of public education is providing jobs and perquisites to the teachers’ unions and the education bureaucracy, when what you want is a school system that polishes young minds to as high a gloss as possible. No one pretends that Texas public schools are achieving this admirable goal. Not when, say, more than half of Hispanic students and 46% of black students never reach the 12th grade.

How do we get where we need to be? Possibly by following the advice of a Hoover Institution task force that studied Texas public education, concluding, “The key to improving performance in Texas schools is a system that rewards schools, teachers and principals who reward student achievement.” In other words, you base pay raises and other financial rewards on success. Imagine that!

The task force promotes choice and deregulation in high degree: the expedients least loved by the rigid and lazy. For instance, why not let state vouchers follow — yes, even to private schools! — a student who has opted out of failing public schools? Whose success should have priority here — the kid’s or his old school’s?

Furthermore, the task force argues for wider resort to state-chartered schools that enjoy flexibility in teaching methods. Try ‘em out; see what the marketplace says.

Anyway, what an opportunity their Supreme Court has handed Texans — the chance to show what the marketplace can do, educationally speaking. I wouldn’t bet on that particular nettle’s being grasped in Austin with full force and enthusiasm, given the power of the teacher unions and the public education lobby. Nor would I bet against the power of freedom to erode negativism and irrationality: even the negativism and irrationality of those hired, supposedly, to unmask, to undo, to drive away those dark forces.

==============================

Intellectual diversity hoax (Washington Times, 051221)

By Herbert London

Without exception, every official in higher education cites the need for diversity. Most usually mean racial, ethnic and geographic diversity, but occasionally intellectual diversity enters the picture too. However, there is a disparity between racial diversity and intellectual diversity now reaching public consciousness.

In June 2005, the American Council on Education and 29 institutions of higher education issued a “Statement on Academic Rights and Responsibilities” affirming support for “intellectual pluralism and academic freedom.” It seems this statement was designed to offset growing concern about the ideological homogeneity on campuses.

In an effort to capitalize on the ACE statement, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) sent a letter to the signatories as well as the presidents and chancellors of major universities and colleges seeking information about steps taken to carry out the principles enunciated in the statement.

Remarkably “not one of the more than 100 institutions that received ACTA’s letter reported specific concrete steps to implement the principles.” “It’s all talk and no action,” said ACTA President Anne Neal. “Higher education simply can’t have it both ways. Colleges and universities presidents say they, alone, are able to correct the situation in the classroom, but then they refuse to do anything but offer lip service to the idea of intellectual diversity. If the academy were faced with just one study showing racism or sexism in the classroom they would take immediate actions to address the problem. Here we see study after study pointing out a breathtaking lack of intellectual diversity on campus and nothing is done about it. The double standard is outrageous.”

From a purely pedagogical viewpoint, students at many institutions are shortchanged. Instead of being presented with a variety of perspectives and encouraged to think for themselves, they are often fed an orthodoxy which they must regurgitate for their professorial masters.

Not everyone, of course, is complacent about this, notwithstanding the conspicuous silence to the ACTA letter.

Benno Schmidt, chairman of the City University of New York’s Board of Trustees, said, “ACTA deserves great credit for highlighting the critical issues of intellectual diversity and pluralism in American colleges and universities, and for doing so in a way that scrupulously safeguards academic freedom.”

Todd Zywicki, Dartmouth College trustee, noted, “I applaud ACTA for tackling this tremendously important issue that goes to the very heart of a modern liberal arts education.”

Says Judith Richards Hope, former Harvard Corp. member: “Universities have been aware of the growing lack of intellectual diversity and, for the most part, looked the other way.”

It is indeed remarkable that in this land of the free, universities have become islands of soft oppression where students either adhere to the prevailing orthodoxy or face withering chastisement. A faculty political tilt along with political correctness has resulted in campuses resembling indoctrination centers more than open forums for free exchange of ideas.

Overlooked in most colleges is that academic freedom is a right granted to professors in exchange for a sacred trust, to wit: They will not use the classroom as a soap box for pet causes and personal politics. Moreover, this freedom comes with a duty to employ competence in an area of study and to rely on reason for discovery of knowledge.

Curiously, many in the academy have lost sight of this fundamental academic principle. In this era, academic freedom is often interpreted as freedom to say and do what a faculty member pleases. But that interpretation flies in the face of its actual intent and purpose. Professors are obliged to teach, not preach. A classroom is not a church and doctrinal recitation is not the purpose of higher education.

It is remarkable these rudimentary points must be restated. Alas, these lessons from the past must be relearned.

ACTA should be commended for its role in bringing to the fore the tragic dimensions of an emerging orthodoxy in the academy. I hope someone is listening, for what is at stake is the very future of our children.

Herbert London is president of the Hudson Institute. He is also the author of “Decade of Denial” (Lexington Books).

==============================

Stalinism’s Bad Rap & Assorted Hijinks: McCarthyism and the Modern Language Association (National Review Online, 060109)

The Modern Language Association holds its annual convention each year during the week between Christmas and New Year’s Day. Washington, D.C. was the venue for 2005 as thousands of English and Humanities professors descended on the nation’s capitol to hold forth not only on literature and pedagogy but also on politics, globalization, and the war on Islamic terrorism. Hijinks, therefore, ensue. Where else but an MLA Convention can you sleep in fancy hotel, order a continental breakfast, then head downstairs and hear a well-dressed, highly credentialed academic seriously insist — as happened last week — that the term “Stalinism” has gotten a bad rap and needs to be reclaimed by the intellectual Left?

I attend these gatherings nowadays for their sheer entertainment value, for three days of comic relief. So, for example, I poked my head into a panel discussion called “Poets in Debate: Poetry and Politics” just in time to hear a tenured professor from Bard College — a senior fellow at the college’s Institute for Writing and Thinking — declare that “America’s primary need as a national entity is to exploit the planet’s natural resources.”

I’m guessing her duties at the Institute focus more heavily on writing than on thinking.

To my mind, however, the most memorable panel this year was called “Academic Work and the New McCarthyism” — a talk arranged by the reliably dimwitted Radical Caucus in English and Modern Languages. Of course the McCarthyism to which the title refers is not the intellectually bullying knee-jerk leftism that permeates college campuses but the recent movement, sparked by conservative commentator David Horowitz, to address that ideological imbalance — a movement that has coalesced around Horowitz’s Academic Bill of Rights.

I should confess, at this juncture, I have significant qualms about the Academic Bill of Rights. Though it contains much commendable language about intellectual freedom and diversity, the bill also insists that faculty should be “hired, fired, promoted and granted tenure” not only “on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise” but, in the case of the humanities, social sciences, and arts, “with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives.” In practical terms, given the current ideological makeup of the American professoriate, this last stipulation would seem to require a kind of affirmative action for conservative scholars. Like all affirmative-action programs, it’s sure to produce a disproportionate share of incompetents — and thereby further stigmatize conservatism on campus. Then, too, there’s the question of whether a scholar hired for his conservative outlook would be compelled to maintain that perspective, regardless of where his research and conscience led him. Finally, there’s the problem of whether insisting on “a plurality of methodologies and perspectives” paves the way for Holocaust deniers, alien abductees, and, come to think of it, Noam Chomsky.

So, again, I’m no fan of the Academic Bill of Rights. Still, after sitting through 90 minutes of “Academic Work and the New McCarthyism,” it’s hard not to sympathize with Horowitz’s efforts. The panel began with a talk by a youngish assistant professor from Kingsborough Community College. She announced that she’d “adopted an antiwar curriculum” for her freshman English class, then recounted how she’d designed her syllabus around readings meant to expose the lies and treachery of the Bush administration. Though she couldn’t be sure how many minds she’d actually changed, she added, with a trace of pride, that she “might have helped to stop some of my students from joining the military.”

Next up was another young-looking (or am I just getting old?) professor from the University of Cincinnati who bragged that she’d done graduate research on the expansion of American imperialism and therefore understood full well that the prisoner-abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib “exists within a continuum of racial violence” perpetrated by the U.S.. She had organized an entire English course around a close linguistic analysis of the U.S. Patriot Act. She conceded that her students had struggled with the legalistic text throughout the semester, but in the end she felt confident that several students who’d favored the legislation at the start had had their consciousness raised by the experience.

She was followed to the podium by a professor of women’s studies, also rather young, from Penn State University who passed around a sheet of cherry-picked quotations by conservative commentators on the leftist bias in academia. As she read them out loud, without analysis, the response from the audience alternated between horrified gasps and loud snickering. Afterwards, she called the Academic Bill of Rights an “assault on critical thinking” and decried “the political tyranny and proto-fascism of the government.”

Once the panelists had said their piece, the floor was opened for questions and comments from the audience. I was the first person the moderator called on, and I directed my question to the first speaker, the assistant professor from Kingsborough Community College. I asked her whether she’d have a problem if a colleague of hers suddenly decided to adopt a pro-war curriculum, and whether, more broadly, she’d have a problem hiring a new teacher who seemed likely to take such an approach.

She replied that she did not currently serve on hiring committees, so she had no control over who joined the faculty at KCC . . . but she would indeed have a major problem if a colleague of hers were to adopt a pro-war curriculum.

She left it at that.

Someone then asked a question about Derrida, whom one of the panelists had faulted for his lack of commitment to radical causes, and I thought, for a moment, my point would be lost. Apparently, however, the KCC prof’s response did not sit well with several members of the audience — who felt compelled to answer me themselves. An older man was the next person called on; he turned in my direction and said that he’d served on many hiring committees and that he would never hire a teacher who seemed likely to adopt a pro-war curriculum . . . for the same reason he wouldn’t hire a teacher who seemed likely to espouse creationism or intelligent design. The issue isn’t political, he explained. It’s that the theory is simply wrong. A pro-war curriculum would, by necessity, be rooted in falsehoods and false logic. The classroom, he insisted, is a place for truth.

The next comment was also addressed to me, by a young man sitting in the back. He said that, in theory, he would not be opposed to hiring a teacher who supported the war in Iraq . . . but that situation was unlikely to come up because people who teach in the humanities are trained in critical thinking, and no one who thinks critically could support the war in Iraq.

Several audience members nodded vigorously. Their reactions indicated that the matter was now settled.

I smiled and sank back in my chair; I’d gotten my laugh.

Except it’s not really funny. In retrospect, the panelists and audience members for “Academic Work and the New McCarthyism” inadvertently made the strongest possible case for the Academic Bill of Rights. If you’ve come to equate support for the war in Iraq with creationism, then you’re no longer capable of critical thinking on the subject; you’ve surrounded yourself with too many like-minded people. If the ideological bias of academia turns faculty minds into mush, imagine its effect on students.

Still, there is a kind of morbid punch line for the episode. It came in the form of a resolution to oppose the Academic Bill of Rights submitted by the Radical Caucus in English and Modern Languages — the same folks who sponsored the panel discussion — for approval by the MLA’s delegate assembly.

The resolution passed overwhelmingly.

— Mark Goldblatt is a tenured professor at Fashion Institute of Technology of the State University of New York.

==============================

Education: then and now (townhall.com, 060112)

by Thomas Sowell

Recent news that school children in Charlotte, North Carolina, had the highest test scores among children in big cities across the country had a special impact on me. Back in the late 1930s, I went to school in Charlotte and, while I don’t know what the test scores were then, I do know that we were far behind the children going to school in New York.

That became painfully clear when my family moved north and I enrolled in a school in Harlem in 1939. From being the top student in my class down in North Carolina I was suddenly the bottom student in my class in Harlem — and struggling to try to catch up.

Decades later, my research turned up the fact that the kids I couldn’t keep up with in that school back then had an average IQ of 84. Contrary to fashionable beliefs, it was not the racial segregation that made the education inferior in Charlotte, since the school in Harlem was also a black school.

It was common in those days for a kid from the South to be set back a full year when he entered school in New York. The difference in educational standards was that great.

I had somehow persuaded the principal to let me be an exception. It was a mistake on his part and mine. I was clearly a year behind the kids who had gone to school in Harlem.

Three years later, I had caught up and pulled ahead, and was now assigned to a class for advanced students, where the average IQ was over 120.

That does not mean that IQs don’t matter. It means that I had a lot of work to do to get my act together in the meantime, in order to overcome the disadvantage of an inferior education in North Carolina.

Fast forward a few more years. I am now in the Marine Corps, going through boot camp at Parris Island, South Carolina. When the mental test results from my platoon were tabulated, the man in charge expressed amazement at how many high scores there were.

“Where are you guys from?” he asked. “New York? Pennsylvania?”

We were from New York — and the high quality of our schools at that time was undoubtedly a factor in the high test scores we made.

No one in those days would have thought that Charlotte schools would end up turning out better educated students than the schools in New York. I don’t know what has happened in Charlotte but I do know what has happened in New York.

Some years ago, when I looked at the math textbooks that my nieces in Harlem were using, I discovered that they were being taught in the 11th grade what I had been taught in the 9th grade. Even if they were the best students around, they would still be two years behind — with their chances in life correspondingly reduced.

New York City has two kinds of high school diplomas — its own locally recognized diploma, that is not recognized by the state or by many colleges, and the state’s Regents’ diploma for high school graduates who have scored above a given level on the Regents’ exam.

The Regents diploma is for students who are serious about going on to a good college. Only 9% of black students and 10% of Latino students receive Regents diplomas.

That a Southern city’s school children would now top the list of big city test scores may be due to the fact that the South has not jumped on the bandwagon of the latest fads in education to the same extent as avant garde places like New York City, where spending per pupil is about 50% above the national average.

These fads now include the dogma that racial “diversity” improves education, as does emphasis on racial “identity.” In reality, a recent study shows that black students who perform well in racially integrated schools are unpopular with their black classmates. They are accused of “acting white,” a charge that can bring anything from ostracism to outright violence.

The same is not true to the same extent among blacks attending all-black schools. Hispanic students’ popularity likewise falls off sharply — even more so than among blacks — as their grade-point average rises.

Is it surprising that white and Asian American children do better without these self-inflicted handicaps to academic achievement? Is it surprising that New York City schools are now paying the price for avant garde educational dogmas?

==============================

The education of a judge (townhall.com, 060116)

by Michael Barone

In his opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, Judge Samuel Alito told the senators where he comes from. First, Hamilton Township, N.J., the modest-income suburb of Trenton, where he grew up.

“It was a warm, but definitely an unpretentious, down-to-earth community,” he said. “Most of the adults in the neighborhood were not college graduates. I attended the public schools. In my spare time, I played baseball and other sports with my friends. And I have happy memories and strong memories of those days, and good memories of the good sense and the decency of my friends and my neighbors.” All positive memories.

Then Alito described Princeton, “a full 12 miles down the road,” where he attended college. “And this was a time of great intellectual excitement for me. Both college and law school opened up new worlds of ideas.” Still all positive. But then he sounds a negative note: “But this was back in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was a time of turmoil at colleges and universities. And I saw some very smart people and very privileged people behaving irresponsibly. And I couldn’t help making a contrast between some of the worst of what I saw on the campus and the good sense and the decency of the people back in my own community.”

To some of the senators, this must have seemed a jarring note. For them, universities like Princeton are places where young people are trained to renounce the racism, sexism and all the other evil -isms that are thought to be endemic in places like Hamilton Township. But Alito, a man of the highest intellectual ability and deep learning, sees the contrast another way. Witnessing radicals shut down a college and bomb university buildings, he saw the left-liberalism of the campus as an attack on one of civilization’s highest institutions. And he did not think that campus radicals had higher moral standing than the middle-class people among whom he had grown up.

The late 1960s and early 1970s were a time of cultural conflict, a battle between what I have called the beautiful people and the dutiful people. While Manhattan glitterati thronged Leonard Bernstein’s apartment to celebrate the murderous Black Panthers, ordinary people in the outer boroughs and the far-flung suburbs of New Jersey like Hamilton Township were going to work, raising their families, and teaching their children to obey lawful authority and work their way up in the world.

The glitterati in the 1970s seized and still hold the cultural commanding heights of our society — the universities, the media, the Upper East Side of Manhattan and the Westside of Los Angeles. But, as the success of Sam Alito shows, they have not entirely won the hearts and the minds of the people.

I recently traveled through both Hamilton Township and Princeton. The contrast between the million-dollar-plus homes and fancy shops of Princeton and the modest-to-downright-depressing neighborhoods and strip malls of Hamilton Township was stunning. So, too, are the voting figures. Princeton voted 76% for John Kerry in 2004. Hamilton Township voted 49.3% for George W. Bush and 49.8% for Kerry.

Our universities today have become our most intellectually corrupt institutions. University administrators must lie and deny that they use racial quotas and preferences in admissions, when they devote much of their energy to doing just that. They must pledge allegiance to diversity, when their campuses are among the least politically diverse parts of our society, with speech codes that penalize dissent and sometimes violent suppression of conservative opinion. You can go door-to-door in Hamilton Township and find people feeling free to voice every opinion across the political spectrum. At Princeton, you will not find many feeling free to dissent from the Bush-equals-Hitler orthodoxy.

It’s interesting that Sen. Edward Kennedy tried to charge Alito with racism and sexism because he once belonged to an alumni group critical of Princeton. Evidently in Kennedy’s mind, dissent from campus orthodoxy is prima facie evidence of bigotry.

Judge Alito, I think, is a better example of the things that American universities before his time stood for: intellectual excellence, free inquiry, civility in the face of disagreement, commitment to patriotism.

Yes, you can still find those things at Princeton and other great universities, here and there — in the scholarship of Princeton Professors Sean Wilentz and Robert George, for example. But, to paraphrase William F. Buckley, I think we’re better off seeking guidance from the first 100 names in the Hamilton Township phone book than from a random sample of the Princeton faculty. It’s comforting that Judge Alito evidently thinks so, too.

==============================

South Korean Christians Rally Thousands against New School Reform Law (Christian Post, 060119)

Some 7,000 Christians in South Korea began a large protest movement Thursday against the recently passed private school reform law.

The Christian Council of Korea – the representative Protestant Christian association in Korea which includes over 50 Korean Protestant denominations – led a massive prayer meeting at Young Nak Presbyterian Church in Seoul, drawing pastors, lay people and private school officials to act in opposition to the revised law that requires one fourth of the board of directors be chosen by faculty members and parents.

Affecting all religious and non-religious private schools alike, the measure aroused concerns among Christians throughout the country who said such measures would give more power to the Korean Teachers and Educational Workers’ Union, an organization they believe is made up mostly of left-leaning teachers.

Officials of private schools foundations and some parents also argued that the revision infringes upon private schools’ autonomy that is based on individual property rights. Cardinal Kim Soo Hwan, head of the Catholic Church in South Korea, stated last month that the new bill “destroys the founding principles and independence of all private schools, be they religious or otherwise,” according to Ohmy News International.

Loud prayers on Thursday rang throughout the Young Nak Church among the 7,000 people gathered whose plans are to spread the movement to every region across the country. Participating Christians at the emergency prayer meeting in Korea decided to start up a petition to gather ten million signatures in opposition to the revision.

Protestant churches, Catholic churches, and private school owners criticized the controversial law, which passed parliament on Dec. 9, 2005, saying it infringes on the people’s religious freedom and the protection of property rights of private foundations as the Constitution grants.

Bishop Sundo Kim, pastor of Kwang Lim United Methodist Church of Seoul, Korea, noted that communism, in such countries as China and North Korea, first began with private schools falling under the regulation of the government, according to Korea Christian Today.

With concerns looming within the Korean Christian community over further action that could be taken by the government, their fiery prayers were followed by a march with Christians holding a large wooden cross and signs that read “Abolish the private school law” and “Defend private schools.”

==============================

Keeping the Faith: Diversity goals should include respect for religious identity. (National Review Online, 060126)

Last year, Joshua Hochschild, a professor of medieval philosophy, converted to Roman Catholicism. Wheaton College, the elite evangelical institution where he taught, considered the situation and then fired him.

Earlier this month, Daniel Golden, a staff writer for the Wall Street Journal, picked up the story and revealed that Wheaton only hires “faculty who embody the institution’s evangelical Protestant convictions.” Hochschild was hired as a Protestant and then fired when he became a Catholic — precisely as the guiding mission of Wheaton College requires.

So why does this rate a full-page story in the Wall Street Journal? Isn’t Wheaton fully within its prerogatives? Golden equivocates. He acknowledges that, technically, Wheaton is within it rights to fire someone who eschews Protestantism as “vaguely defined” and having “a weak scholarly tradition.” But Golden accounts for Wheaton’s decision as a “conservative reaction” against secular America. He doesn’t say but strongly implies that a religious college that fires people of other faiths is intolerant and self-defeating. In sum, he believes that religious colleges are duty-bound to bend to the times.

Golden’s unsympathetic account of Wheaton’s decision to fire Hochschild resonates at the moment because of a peculiar twist in the Samuel Alito confirmation as a justice on the United States Supreme Court. Earlier this month, some Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee attempted to make much of Alito’s minor involvement in a conservative campus group of Princeton — Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) — in the early 1980s. Princeton alumni formed CAP to try to protect older college traditions against an onslaught of leftist ideology, so the Democrats peered into CAP documents in an effort to tag Alito with something sinister. Though their efforts to halt Alito’s confirmation will fail (it already did in committee), this story from 20 years ago highlights a problem many of us have observed for decades, a problem not of conservative reaction but rather colleges and universities led by professors and administrators of bad faith.

Contrary to Golden, a religious college that sticks to its traditions is not — or at least not automatically — guilty of intolerance. Is it really intolerance as Golden intimates when Notre Dame’s new president, Rev. John Jenkins, worries that almost half of the professors at his Catholic university are non-Catholic? Doesn’t the institution, at some point, morph into a different school, either secular or something else, if most of its professors reject Catholic teachings?

And who is being small-minded at (Catholic) Boston College? Those who steward its legacy? Or those members of the faculty who are “resistant” to hiring anyone who is committed to the college’s religious mission?

And what is going on at Baylor University when the provost undercuts the new president, John Lilly, by promising that he won’t be allowed to interview new candidates for faculty positions?

To bolster his case, Golden invokes the prestigious Phi Beta Kappa Society, which, when asked about Hochschild’s termination, affixed its seal of disapproval through its public relations person: “...the society wants to uphold what it sees as the values inherent in the liberal arts and sciences, such as tolerance for diverse points of view.”

The honor society’s view on diversity is knotty, as not one single evangelical college among the 102 that belong to the Council on Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) has a chapter of their organization. As president of an evangelical college that is not a member of CCCU and one that has Roman Catholics teaching on its faculty, I do not pretend to speak on behalf of the Council, but it seems peculiar that an honor society which includes Quaker schools and Catholic institutions does not include evangelicals. Perhaps Phi Beta Kappa should think about evangelical colleges the way in which it thought about women and blacks more than a century ago when it opened up membership to them.

So which is it? Is a religious college that sticks to its mission guilty of following a familiar path of intolerance when it declines to employ its declared opponents? Or has Mr. Golden missed the subtler and more significant issue about institutions and organizations that distance themselves from their defining missions when those become unfashionable?

Upon closer examination, the Phi Beta Kappa Society has its own problems carrying on its founding purpose or even acknowledging that it has one. On its web site, the society excised the fact that the five College of William and Mary students who established the society in December of 1776, took an oath and summoned “the holy Evangelists of Almighty God” to attest their covenant. So is it any surprise that the society is uncomfortable affirming those institutions that make no apology for their religious roots?

Dealing with the purposes of the founders can be a mixed bag. Few organizations fulfill every detail of the original understanding. In some cases, this is due to a founder having held patently offensive views: For example Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, spoke about sterilizing the unfit. And Martin Luther held views that gave every appearance of being anti-Semitic.

But scrubbing the founders and their views from an institution can also become a form of re-shaping the past for the comfort and convenience of the present. Often our society seems determined to avoid the awkward fact that religious people — most of whom look very much like the evangelicals of today — founded the oldest and most prestigious colleges and universities in America.

Harvard University, for example, was established in 1636 to “train a literate clergy.” In its earliest rules, the mission was clearly laid out: “Let every student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed, to consider well [that] the maine end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternall life, Jn. 17:3, and therefore to lay Christ in the bottome, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and Learning.” Unbeknownst to most people, including Harvard alumni, the original name for its graduates was the “Sons of the Prophets” (meaning the Biblical prophets), which was later changed to the “Sons of Harvard.” And the motto on the school seal is still the Latin equivalent of “For Christ and his Church.”

Similar commitments underpin the founding of Dartmouth, Princeton, Yale, and most of the best schools in America — but none of these schools even pretends to be interested in the purposes and mission of its founders.

This litany of examples should be enough for us to see that we are amply provided with the kind of schools Golden approves: those that treat their original missions as a dead letter. In the name of diversity, however, we might make room for the few that do take their original purposes seriously.

In 1994, while still a Yale undergraduate, Professor Hochschild wrote an elegant and perceptive article for The Yale Free Press entitled “Corpus Yalensis,” in which he portrayed Yale as little more than a corpse, with its buildings bereft of its mission. “She is destroyed,” Hochschild lamented, “her spirit separated from her body. Those who remember her life are left to wonder whether her spirit could survive the separation, and, if so immortal, whether the body will admit to resurrection.”

If Hochschild concluded that Yale should be criticized for abandoning its ancient purpose, one might think that he would, despite losing his job over it, stand behind Wheaton for courageously affirming its commitment to its own founding principles. Unfortunately, Hochschild doesn’t see it that way. He told Golden, “I see no reason why I should be dismissed from the College upon joining the Roman Catholic church.” Not so long ago, he could think of one. [KH: how disingenuous!]

— J. Stanley Oakes, Jr. is president of the King’s College in New York City.

==============================

No, Private Schools Aren’t Worse (townhall.com, 060210)

by Greg Forster

Opponents of school choice have just released two major studies claiming to show that public schools actually perform better than private schools. One study made the front page of the New York Times. Unfortunately, both of them are seriously flawed. What’s more, a much larger body of much better studies reaches the opposite conclusion.

The studies were released within about a week of each other, and by the same organization: the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education. While this may have made it a good week for the center in terms of publicity, it was an awful week in terms of scientific credibility.

The first study found that when you control for demographic factors like race and income, public school students actually have higher test scores than private school students. The authors have been aggressively touting this study as though it showed that public schools were better than private schools.

In fact, it shows nothing of the kind. They take snapshots of student achievement in isolated years rather than tracking achievement over time. That may not sound important, but it’s crucial. If you don’t track students over time, you can’t find out why one student has a higher score than another.

Single-year test scores mostly reflect student quality, not school quality. A student with high test scores is usually just a good student. It takes a student whose test scores are rising to prove that the school is good.

A much more likely explanation for these data is that the students who enter private schools tend to be slightly worse students than those of the same race and income who enter public schools. That makes perfect sense, because within each racial and socioeconomic group it’s the low performers whose parents will want to make the sacrifices necessary to put them in private schools.

The other study looked at Cleveland’s ten-year-old voucher program. Using a new statistical model to analyze a previously existing data set, it finds that kids remaining in Cleveland public schools do better than voucher users.

This study is even more flawed than the previous one. The data set it analyzes does not allow for valid comparisons between similar student populations. The voucher students and the public school comparison groups in the data set are dissimilar not only because one group uses vouchers and the other doesn’t, but also in a host of other ways, and there’s no way to disentangle what’s really causing the test score difference. The study compares apples and oranges.

As it happens, numerous studies that avoid these methodological problems find that private schools do better. Most convincing are seven studies that compared students who won a random lottery to use a school voucher at a private school to similar students who lost the lottery and stayed in public schools. All seven found that voucher kids did better. Studies using other methods also favor private schools overwhelmingly.

Not all of the work sponsored by this organization is as bad as these two studies. It has promoted good, solid research showing that competition from school choice improves public schools. That’s even more impressive given that it’s housed at Columbia University’s Teachers College, the greatest academic stronghold of the teacher unions anywhere in the nation.

But the center also has a dark side. From time to time it will release badly flawed studies purporting to show the inferior performance of private schools. With these two studies, it has just had probably its worst week ever.

Let’s hope this misleading research doesn’t distract from the real scholarly consensus finding that private schools do better, and that school choice works.

==============================

Pa. School Board Votes to Cut ‘Anti-American’ Learning Program (Foxnews, 060221)

PITTSBURGH — An internationally recognized educational curriculum has been eliminated by the school board in an affluent suburb for being liberal despite an outcry from parents and students.

The Upper St. Clair school board voted 5-4 Monday to cut the International Baccalaureate Programme, whose curriculum some school board members have alleged is anti-American.

Others have questioned the need for the program, run by the Geneva-based International Baccalaureate Organization, saying it’s too costly. The district has said it costs about $85,000 annually.

The program is offered at more than 1,700 schools in 122 countries, including 677 schools in the United States. Founded in 1968, IB says its mission is to “develop inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect.”

President Bush cited the program in his State of the Union address, calling for Advanced Placement and IB programs to be expanded to low-income students by training 70,000 more teachers in math and science.

School Board President Dr. Bill Sulkowski did not immediately return a call for comment Monday night. He has said that he is not philosophically opposed to the program, but that it has no value when compared with the district’s Advanced Placement and honors programs.

Earlier this month, school board member Dr. Mark Trombetta cited an exam that asked students to “discuss the link between a specific marriage form (e.g. monogamy, cross-cousin marriage or arranged marriage) and gender relations” as an example of what he finds troubling about the program.

“I want to know what that has to do with education,” Trombetta said.

Upper St. Clair is about 10 miles southwest of Pittsburgh. About 700 of the district’s 4,200 students participate in the IB program.

==============================

The lessons of school choice (Townhall.com, 060221)

by Rebecca Hagelin

Choosing how your children are educated should be as routine in America as the ability to choose your neighborhood, your church, and your place of employment.

It stuns me that in 2006, the vast majority of students in failing schools are still trapped there. My husband and I have enjoyed the marvelous blessing of choosing freely between private schools, public schools and home schooling for our children. Yet, the reality for most parents is no real choice at all.

The No Child Left Behind Act, enacted in 2002 by a large majority of Congress, was aimed at correcting the “soft bigotry of low expectations,” in President Bush’s memorable phrase. Academic achievement would be boosted by demanding accountability — and educators would be held accountable by testing students regularly and measuring their progress. The parents of students in failing schools were supposed to have at least some choice to move to schools that perform.

Four years after NCLB was enacted, folks on both ends of the ideological spectrum are unhappy with the results and what it has failed to deliver. A bipartisan commission has been formed to figure out how to address the failings of NCLB before the legislation comes up for renewal next year.

It’s easy to see why liberals object to NCLB. One of their most diehard constituencies, teachers’ unions, reacts to the notion of accountability with fear and dread. How dare those know-nothing parents demand to know whether their children are learning! The nerve!

Still, there’s more to a good education law than testing and accountability (which are certainly needed). As conservatives have consistently noted, parents of all income levels should have more choices in where their children are educated. In a recent story for Family News in Focus, Heritage education expert Jennifer Marshall says policymakers need to return to promoting choice in education, which was part of NCLB’s original intent.

Yes, some choice is contained in NCLB: “But it’s important to remember that this was a very, very limited amount of choice and that this limited amount of choice has not been well implemented,” Marshall said. As the law ground through the legislative process, the amount and scope of choice it contained became significantly watered down.

The lack of choice is pathetic, considering how much increased choice can help students. A Heritage paper written by Kafer and Heritage analyst Kirk Johnson at the same time NCLB was born, focused on a study by researchers at Harvard University, Mathematica Policy Research and the University of Wisconsin that shows how choice in education equals improved education. The three-year study of the correlation between voucher-like scholarships offered by the School Choice Scholarships Foundation and low-income student achievement in New York City revealed:

• Standardized reading and math test scores for black students who used the vouchers to attend private schools for three years were 9.2%ile points higher than those of comparable black students who did not attend a private school.

• Overall test scores for black voucher recipients who attended a private school for at least one of the three years were, on average, 7.6%ile points higher than those of black students who had never attended a private school.

• Parental satisfaction with their child’s school was higher among parents of students who attended a school of choice. When asked to assign a grade to their children’s school, 42% of voucher parents gave their school an “A,” while only 10% of the parents of the control group public school students did likewise.

The benefits of school choice can be observed in other parts of the world, too. A chapter in the 2006 Index of Economic Freedom highlights how many poor parents in Lagos, Nigeria, make every sacrifice possible to send their children to private schools because of the public schools there are so deplorable. And it pays off: “In Lagos State, the mean math score advantage over government schools was about 15 and 19%age points, respectively, more in private registered and unregistered schools, while in English it was 23 and 30%age points more,” the Index notes.

And how does choosing to home school your children affect their education? Study after study (available on the website of the Home School Legal Defense Association) proves that home schooled students, as a whole, are better educated than their peers in public schools. Take math and reading: One comprehensive study revealed that while K-12 public-school students were scoring, on average, in the 50th percentile for both subjects, home schoolers were in the 82nd percentile for math and the 87th percentile for reading. Yet, the education “establishment” still strong arms our government into sending the cash their way instead of providing tax relief, vouchers or any real financial incentives to help make home schooling a reality for more families. It’s a disgrace that in 2006, our education system neither rewards nor even recognizes obvious success.

Children deserve the best education possible, and the way to make that happen is to empower parents to choose how their children will be educated. It’s essential to the future of our children and our country that we make school choice the centerpiece of a renewed No Child Left Behind Act.

==============================

Postponing reality (Townhall.com, 060221)

by Thomas Sowell

Let’s face it: Reality can be stressful and can sometimes get very rough. Everyone has an incentive to postpone it. Most of us, however, learn the hard way that postponing reality only makes it far worse than facing it early on.

The problem gets more complicated in politics, where one set of people has the power to postpone facing reality and a different set of people have to pay the price later on.

Our educational system is a classic example. Nothing is easier than to lower the standards today, avoiding all sorts of problems that arise with students and their parents when higher standards are imposed.

Today’s “educators” can simply pass the students along to the next grade and eventually send them out into the world with nice-looking diplomas and little else to enable them to cope with the complexities and challenges of work and of life. These students then pay big time for the rest of their lives.

California is one of a number of states that has belatedly begun to recognize what a disaster this policy has been. In 1999 a law was passed saying that students would receive a diploma only if they could pass a standard test to show that they had some real knowledge, instead of just an acceptable attendance record.

These tests do not require genius. We’re talking basic math and English. We’re talking multiple choice questions where the passing grade is 55% — and you can get 25% by just guessing.

Like other states with high school graduation exams, California has postponed forcing students to pass that exam as a condition for receiving the diploma. This year, the state has decided that it is finally going to enforce this law passed in 1999.

Maybe it will and maybe it won’t. Attorney Arturo Gonzalez has filed a lawsuit to stop this graduation requirement from being enforced.

The requirement is not “fair,” Mr. Gonzalez says. The schools where a high percentage of the students don’t pass the test are predominantly low-income and minority schools.

This is not to say that most of the students in predominantly low-income and minority schools do not pass. It is just that the schools where fewer than 70% pass are predominantly low-income minority schools.

Are these tests “fair”? Of course not. Life itself is not “fair” in the sense of offering equal chances of succeeding in any kind of endeavor.

It is hard even to imagine how life could conceivably be “fair” in the sense of equal chances of doing specific things, when there are so many factors at work differently for each person.

Different families and different cultures produce different habits, different values, different behavior patterns. They don’t even want the same things to the same degree, much less have a willingness to sacrifice to the same extent to get those things.

The only kind of fairness we can hope for is applying the same rules and the same standards to everyone.

It certainly wasn’t fair, in Mr. Gonzalez’s sense of the word, for the schools I attended as a child to require me to take the same tests as children from families with more than twice as much education and several times as much income.

What would have happened if the schools had been “fair” to me in that sense? I would have learned less, had a much easier time in school — and would have gone out into the world not even knowing enough to realize how little I knew.

By now, I might have been on welfare or in prison. But my teachers would have felt good about themselves for giving a poor boy from the ghetto a break.

Admittedly, at the time I didn’t always appreciate all the heavy stuff my tough teachers were laying on me. But, at the time, I also didn’t know that the world was going to be a lot tougher than school if I didn’t learn.

Fortunately, those teachers were not into “fairness” and there was no Mr. Gonzalez around to file lawsuits to protect me from having to meet the same standards as everybody else.

Reality had to be confronted early on, not postponed.

==============================

Indoctrination of our youth (townhall.com, 060222)

by Walter E. Williams

Let’s start off with a few quotations, then a question. In reference to the president’s State of the Union: “Sounds a lot like the things Adolf Hitler used to say.” “Bush is threatening the whole planet.” “[The] U.S. wants to keep the world divided.” Then the speaker asks, “Who is probably the most violent nation on the planet?” and shouts “The United States!”

What’s the source of these statements? Were they made in the heat of a political campaign? Was it a yet-to-be captured leader of al Qaeda? Was it French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin? Any “yes” answer would miss the true source by a mile. All of those statements were made by Mr. Jay Bennish, a teacher at Overland High School in Aurora, Colo.

During this class session, Mr. Bennish peppered his 10th-grade geography class with other statements like: The U.S. has engaged in “7,000 terrorist attacks against Cuba.” In his discussion of capitalism, he told his students, “Capitalism is at odds with humanity, at odds with caring and compassion and at odds with human rights.”

Regardless of whether you’re pro-Bush or anti-Bush, pro-American or anti-American, I’d like to know whether there’s anyone who believes that the teacher’s remarks were appropriate for any classroom setting, much less a high school geography class. It’s clear the students aren’t being taught geography. They’re getting socialist lies and propaganda. According to one of the parents, on the first day of class, the teacher said Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” was going to be a part of the curriculum.

This kind of indoctrination is by no means restricted to Overland High School. School teachers, at all grades, often use their classroom for environmental, anti-war, anti-capitalist and anti-parent propaganda. Some get their students to write letters to political figures condemning public policy the teacher doesn’t like. Dr. Thomas Sowell’s “Inside American Education” documents numerous ways teachers attack parental authority. Teachers have asked third-graders, “How many of you ever wanted to beat up your parents?” In a high school health class, students were asked, “How many of you hate your parents?”

Public education propaganda is often a precursor for what youngsters might encounter in college. UCLA’s Bruin Standard newspaper documents campus propaganda. Mary Corey, UCLA history professor, instructed her class, “Capitalism isn’t a lie on purpose. It’s just a lie,” she continued, “[Capitalists] are swine. . . . They’re bastard people.” Professor Andrew Hewitt, chairman of UCLA’s Department of Germanic Languages, told his class, “Bush is a moron, a simpleton, and an idiot.” His opinion of the rest of us: “American consumerism is a very unique thing; I don’t think anyone else lusts after money in such a greedy fashion.” Rod Swanson, economics professor, told his class, “The United States of America, backed by facts, is the greediest and most selfish country in the world.” Terri Anderson, a sociology professor, assigned her class to go out cross-dressed in a public setting for four hours. Photos or videotape were required as proof of having completed the assignment.

The Bruin Alumni Association caused quite a stir when it offered to pay students for recordings of classroom proselytizing. The UCLA administration, wishing to conceal professorial misconduct, threatened legal action against the group. Some professors labeled the Bruin Alumni Association’s actions as McCarthyism and attacks on academic freedom. These professors simply want a free hand to proselytize students.

Brainwashing and proselytization is by no means unique to UCLA. Taxpayers ought to de-fund, and donors should cut off contributions to colleges where administrators condone or support academic dishonesty. At the K-12 schools, parents should show up at schools, PTAs and board of education meetings demanding that teachers teach reading, writing and arithmetic and leave indoctrination to parents. The most promising tool in the fight against teacher proselytization is the micro-technology available that can expose the academic misconduct.

==============================

The End of Summers: What Larry Summers’s resignation means for Harvard and the university system. (Weekly Standard, 060222)

IT WOULD BE A GRAND UNDERSTATEMENT to call Lawrence H. Summers’s stewardship of Harvard tumultuous. In his five year tenure, Summers careened from one controversy to another. Oft-times Summers cut a sympathetic figure as he upended the sacred cows of political correctness that have become fixtures of the modern university. Other times, Summers’s troubles resulted from personal skills that even his defenders concede didn’t evidence much social dexterity.

The Summers reign came to a shockingly abrupt denouement yesterday when he submitted his resignation, effective at the end of the current academic year. When he leaves the president’s office, Summers will resume the humble life of a tenured Harvard economics professor who has one of the most accomplished records of anyone in his field.

As for what is in store for Harvard, that remains to be seen.

SUMMERS’S TROUBLES began shortly after he assumed his office. Acting far more like a modern CEO than a modern university president, Summers tried to run Harvard as a hands-on manager. This is the opposite tack taken by most university presidents, who are content to be their school’s fundraiser-in-chief and public figurehead.

Instead, Summers declared that the Harvard faculty should be more involved with undergrads. He challenged the scholarship of some of his tenured faculty members, making a particular cause of celebrity professor Cornel West’s sometimes untraditional pursuits. These attempts to supervise the faculty were often met with reactions ranging from disdain to hostility.

And then there were Summers’s political stands. Summers belittled a campaign that urged divestment in Israel.

Later, in the wake of 9/11, he urged that the university’s denizens be more patriotic. He was edging closer and closer to the unforgivable.

SO SUMMERS already had a sizeable group of enemies by the time he stood before an academic conference and mused that a contributing factor to the under-representation of women in the hard sciences might perhaps be due to different intrinsic abilities between the sexes. The furor that followed wasn’t really caused by these comments. As even his fiercest critics conceded at the time, it was merely “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

The net result of that controversy was the faculty narrowly passing a no-confidence referendum on Summers’s leadership. That was almost a year ago.

Summers waged a contrition campaign which lasted for almost a year. He repeatedly apologized for his comments and avoided any of the blunt utterances that had previously characterized his tenure. His name faded from the newspapers and when it did appear it was because Summers was doing something typical of university presidents, such as announcing a fund-raising coup—as he did when Saudi Prince Alwaleed bestowed $20 million on the university for its Department of Middle Eastern Studies. (Alwaleed had previously earned a measure of infamy shortly after 9/11 when New York mayor Rudy Giuliani rejected his $10 million gift to help rebuild New York because of offensive comments he had made regarding America’s foreign policy and Israel.)

This campaign to save his job, however, was doomed from the start. Summers’s detractors on the faculty were quite clear all along that there was no way their relationship with their president could be mended.

But he did succeed in agitating his supporters. Professor Ruth Wisse, perhaps Summers’s most vocal champion, expressed dismay that he apologized for comments that were “unexceptional.” Like many of Summers’s supporters, Wisse had several occasions for disappointment as Summers scrambled to make amends with the faculty.

At some point it had to become apparent that having a faculty that loathed its president was untenable for Harvard. In a battle to the death between the faculty and the president, the president never had a chance.

WHERE DOES Harvard go from here? Professor Wisse is not sanguine about what Summers’s abdication portends for the university. She suggests that the issues in dire need of addressing regard the faculty, not the outgoing president. As she notes, it is indeed a bizarre circumstance that the Harvard faculty, which was so vocal about its president’s every putatively offensive utterance has expressed no qualms about accepting Prince Alwaleed’s largesse, nor any curiosity regarding how the Saudi prince’s gift will be used.

And what of the student body? In a development that seems to have surprised virtually all Crimson observers, only 19% of Harvard undergrads thought Summers should resign.

This poll perhaps signifies the contradiction at the heart of the modern academy. Students think universities should focus on educating their charges. Undergrads know, however, that their famous professors are often far more interested in their scholarship than in teaching. Summers was probably popular amongst the undergraduates because they knew he was their champion.

Summers’s resignation is a sign that, at least at Harvard, the professoriate will brook no dissent on their view of the university system.

Dean Barnett writes about politics and other matters at soxblog.com. He graduated from Harvard University in 1989.

==============================

R.I.P. Harvard President Lawrence Summers (townhall.com, 060222)

by Ben Shapiro

Lawrence Summers, we hardly knew ye. This week, the embattled Harvard president fell on his sword rather than face a no-confidence vote from the faculty of arts and sciences or a possible Harvard Corporation firing squad. The behavior of the faculty is a disgrace to the university and a dramatic example of the totalitarian control that the campus left exerts over its administrators.

Summers has been in hot water since he took over the Harvard University presidency. When he arrived on campus in 2001, he quickly let the student body know that he would not tolerate anti-military policy, stating, “We need to be careful about adopting any policy on campus of non-support for those involved in defending the country. … Every Harvard student should be proud that we have in our midst students who make the commitment to ROTC.” In October 2001, Summers said that patriotism was a word “used too infrequently” at universities. In June 2002, he spoke at the ROTC commissioning ceremony. Naturally, that led certain professors to question his leadership ability — backing ROTC’s presence on campus and uttering the forbidden word, “patriotism,” was like waving a red cape before the bull that is the Harvard faculty.

In January 2002, Summers further endeared himself to the faculty by speaking out against Harvard’s massive grade inflation (Harvard allots 50% of its grades to A’s and A-minuses). “To some extent, (this is because) the quality of students has gotten better over time, but not completely,” Summers pointed out.

Meanwhile, Summers placed himself even further in the professors’ doghouse by questioning the commitment of Cornel West, a highly eccentric professor of Afro-American Studies. West was too busy making horrible rap CDs, leading perennial presidential candidate Al Sharpton’s campaign and writing pop-culture books on radicalism and race to bother actually teaching his students. Summers called West to account on his cavalier performance. In response, West called in his allies, Jesse Jackson and Sharpton. Jackson portentously proclaimed, “The tension at Harvard is having an impact across the country.” Sharpton simultaneously threatened to sue Harvard University. “The one thing that I do not tolerate is disrespect, being dishonored and being devalued,” West huffed before taking off for Princeton.

Then, in September 2002, Summers made the speech that likely stamped his presidency DOA: He explained that those stumping for divestment from Israel on campus were “anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent.” “Where anti-Semitism and views that are profoundly anti-Israeli have traditionally been the primary preserve of poorly educated right-wing populists,” Summers posited, “profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities.” The anger at Summers continued to mushroom as professors like John Assad and J. Lorand Matory thundered against Summers’ intolerance of idiocy.

The capper was, of course, Summers’ remarks at a conference in January 2005 during which he theorized that the lack of women in hard sciences was possibly due to “issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and … those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination.” He added, “I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong.” Harvard professors didn’t bother proving Summers wrong — instead, they dragged out the guillotine. On Feb.15, 2005, the Harvard faculty of arts and sciences held a meeting at which professors got up and lambasted Summers, one after another. Many lobbied for a vote of no-confidence. Eventually, Summers retreated from his comments, and the university decided to allocate $50 million to attract women to the university’s science programs.

That controversy never abated, however, and Summers faced the uniform wrath of the arts and sciences professors. Those professors were lobbying for the Harvard Corporation to fire Summers. And despite the fact that three out of four Harvard students supported Summers, despite the fact that deans at every graduate school supported him, despite the fact that Summers has restored Harvard’s image as a moderate left, not radical left, institution, this is the end for El Presidente.

All of which goes to show that for Harvard professors, the university doesn’t matter. The students don’t matter. All that matters is that professors be allowed to pick up their fat paychecks, sit in their tenure-sized offices, spout what they want to spout and buy off students with easy A’s. With Summers’ resignation, Harvard’s faculty adds yet another black spot to their increasingly egregious resume.

==============================

Another academic casualty (townhall.com, 060223)

by Thomas Sowell

The resignation of Lawrence Summers as president of Harvard University tells us a lot about what is wrong with academia today.

When he took office in 2001, Summers seemed like an ideal president of Harvard. He had had a distinguished career in and out of the academic world, including having been a professor at Harvard, so there was no obvious reason why he would not fit in.

His fatal flaws were honesty and a desire to do the right thing. That has ruined more than one academic career.

Dr. Summers’ problems started early on. He called in Cornel West for a private discussion of West’s scholarly activities — or rather, Professor West’s lack of scholarly activities.

It was not that Cornel West was inactive. He was active as a great showman on television, he was active in politics, he was active on the lucrative lecture circuit, and he was even active in entertainment, writing and performing rap music. He was also popular with students, as any professor who gives out lots of A’s is likely to be.

The kind of activity that Lawrence Summers wanted to see from West was the kind of activity expected from full professors at a leading university — scholarly research and writing. Cornel West wrote lots of things in lots of places but even an editor of the liberal New Republic characterized West’s books as “almost completely worthless.”

Although the discussion between Summers and West was private, Cornel West himself made it a public issue — and a public scandal. West and his supporters made this a racial issue. That made facts and logic irrelevant.

Summers apologized.

That should tell us all we need to know about Harvard and about academia in general. Neither truth nor standards matter when it comes to one of the ideological raw nerves like race.

Lawrence Summers touched another ideological raw nerve last year, when discussing why there were not more tenured women professors in science. Since he was addressing a scholarly symposium, Summers cited hypotheses and data that might explain the under-representation of women at the top in science.

Summers advanced what he called “the high-powered job hypothesis.” Mothers have a hard time reaching the top in jobs where people work long hours and put everything else aside when the job requires it.

He cited another well-known and unchallenged fact. Although women and men have similar average IQs, men are over-represented at both the lowest and the highest IQ levels. Men outnumber women among both idiots and geniuses.

Since top scientists are drawn disproportionately from people at the highest levels, that is another possible factor in differences between women and men in high-end science.

Summers also cited other factors, including socialization and discrimination but this did not prevent another ideological firestorm from erupting. Summers was simply demonized and the faculty turned against him.

The only politically correct explanation is discrimination.

Summer apologized — again. But, in the end, these hasty retreats did not save his job.

Despite incessant repetition of the word “diversity” in academe, the tragic fact is that the academic world is one of the most intolerant places in America when it comes to diversity of ideas. Even the president of Harvard dare not step out of line.

Parents pay the kind of money on which whole families could live, in order to have their children “educated” at elite academic institutions, hearing only one side of a whole range of issues — race and sex being just two.

Even if every conclusion with which students are indoctrinated were true, unless those students develop their own ability to weigh opposing arguments, these conclusions will become obsolete as new issues arise in the years ahead. These “educated” people will have developed no ability to analyze opposing sides of issues.

Students are getting half an education at inflated prices and learning only how to label, dismiss and demonize ideas that differ from what they have been led to believe. Their “educated” ignorance is a danger to the future of this country.

==============================

Sex, culture, and the college student (townhall.com, 060224)

by Brent Bozell

When parents think about the pitfalls of popular culture for their kids, they usually focus on their younger children, the innocent ones for whom it gets harder every day to shield from an onslaught of sexual themes in everything on television and the radio, including the commercials. Throw in the Internet, and it’s surround-sound sex.

Even things that some adults might see as relatively harmless — models marching around in underwear in TV ads for Victoria’s Secret, or Jessica Simpson tempting a teenage boy for Pizza Hut like she’s a mozzarella-bearing Mary Kay LeTourneau — are what others see as more proof of sexuality creeping into every crevice of the boob tube.

But parents should also worry about their children even as they leave for college, pulling their knees out from under the family table to navigate the world on their own. It’s impossible for parents to keep up with the moral atmosphere of most American colleges and universities today. Oftentimes, the “collegiate culture” focuses less on majoring in English literature or theoretical physics and more on free-flowing beer and casual sex.

That was a theme of Tom Wolfe’s recent novel “I Am Charlotte Simmons,” which chronicled a not-so-fictional world in which a brazen campus transforms a bright-eyed Christian freshman girl fresh from the South. John Derbyshire of National Review saw Wolfe reporting on an “oppressive cult of coolness,” and coarseness, a world in which God is dead and “the soul is of no importance or interest to these kids because their elders believe it does not exist — one of Charlotte’s lecturers tells her this in so many words.”

The evidence is all around us, as college faculties press “transgressive” notions of sexuality, and students discover that the campus culture encourages them to turn their pursuit for recreational sexual conquests into an intellectual cause.

The Associated Press reported that Yale University held another bold experiment in “Sex Week,” just as they did in 2004. The lecture halls were cleared to make room for a sales talk: “a middle-aged sex-toy saleswoman demonstrates her technique and hands out free products to an eager crowd.” Sessions also included “a panel of porn stars and stripping lessons from a Playboy Channel hostess.” No one asks much about how this educates rather than titillates. The student sponsors insist they were promoting “sexual awareness,” not sex.

Newsweek reports that DePaul University in Chicago recently announced it’s offering a new minor in “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Queer Studies.” That may sound “transgressive,” but it’s even more shocking in that DePaul was founded by the Roman Catholic followers of Saint Vincent DePaul, who majored in God (and in aiding the poor). One speculates safely that he didn’t minor in “queer studies.” Newsweek reports this in the typical way, with students arguing that this is a happy step for “free inquiry.”

Pope John Paul II offered his flock a “theology of the body,” but it’s a worldview that’s the polar opposite of the collegiate consensus, an antithesis of the campuses who dance to the vogue of “queer studies” and Eve Ensler “Vagina Monologues” stagings and “Sex Week.” The “pro-sex” evangelists would claim they’re simply in favor of sex, and frank sex talk, of a human body and mind at peace in persistent sexual experimentation and release. But they are advocating, at bottom, the worship of sex, the indulgence of the body and the infallibility of its desires, which can never be wrong.

This is a powerful message for college students. This is the most sexually liberated of ages, recently freed from parental inhibition, and in TV land, it’s a demographic that’s largely forgetful of how wild sexual media content can affect the young.

So it’s not surprising that Nielsen Media Research announced it will include college students in its national TV ratings early next year, marking the first time that the company has added viewing outside the home to its calculations. The company will measure viewing for students living in dorms, sorority and fraternity houses, and off-campus apartments.

Hollywood and its sex-pushers are no doubt thrilled. The obvious result of this change is to goose the Nielsen numbers for every “O.C.” orgy and MTV “Spring Break” marathon, not to mention what it will do for sophomoric sex-themed cartoons on Comedy Central or Cartoon Network’s “Adult Swim” hours.

How ironic. Children leave home to experiment with the culture of sex in college, and now, albeit indirectly, they will be encouraging more inculcation of their newfound values through television.

Parents need to worry about the effects of popular culture on their children after their sexual maturation, and not only before. The cultural commissars in the colleges and entertainment factories see it as their duty to pound out every “primitive” inhibition out of college-age youth that parents spent 18 years trying to instill.

==============================

Paid Speech in our Classrooms (townhall.com, 060309)

by Todd Manzi

Jay Bennish is a teacher who collects paychecks for teaching Colorado high school students about geography. Here is a sample from one of Bennish’s classes:

“Do you see how this economic system [capitalism] is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It is at odds with human rights. Anytime you have a system that’s designed to procure profit, when profit is the bottom motive, money, that means money is going to become more important potentially than what? Safety, human lives, etcetera.”

According to Tustin Amole, Public Information Officer for the Cherry Creek School District, the above statement and the other Bennish statements captured on tape by one of his students are within the context of the geography class. The main issue the school district has with Bennish is that he didn’t provide balance by presenting an opposing point of view.

Apparently, it’s acceptable in the Cherry Creek School District for a geography teacher to use 20 minutes of class time for a left wing, fanatically whacko, socialist diatribe, providing he has made arrangements for Ann Coulter to tell the class what she thinks of communism. Isn’t public education great?

Here’s a better idea. Spend the forty minutes in geography class teaching kids about geography. Then set up an after-school debate to watch Coulter clean the teacher’s clock.

Bennish has hired David Lane as his attorney and takes the position that he should be able to say anything he wants in class. In an interview with the CBS affiliate in Denver, Lane said, “No action should be taken against someone who is exercising their rights under the First Amendment.”

According to Lane’s logic, when the receptionist of his law firm answers the phone, she should be able to express the opinion that all of the attorneys there are incompetent and then provide the caller with phone numbers of better counsel.

Sane people, on the other hand, would think that since Lane and his firm are paying the receptionist, she does not have free speech to answer the phones anyway she wants. Sane people realize the receptionist should be fired if she doesn’t answer the phones exactly as her boss directs. She is not free to speak, she is paid to speak.

The same is true for Bennish. He is paid by taxpayers to teach geography. He can do whatever he wants with his own time, but in the classroom, he should refrain from telling his students that Al-Qaeda didn’t think they were killing innocent people, but that they were attacking legitimate military targets. How on earth does he know what Al-Qaeda thinks? Even if the school district invites a terrorist to come into class and give balance—the correct interpretation of what they are thinking—the taxpayers might prefer class time be used to prepare students for geography tests.

Bennish’s First Amendment right prevents our government from prosecuting him when he compares Bush to Hitler. It does not protect him, or any other employee, from keeping their job when they say something their employer does not like.

Who determines what a teacher can and cannot say? Many teachers like Bennish think it should be the teacher. The school districts think it should be them. Lawyers and teachers unions think it is the teacher. How about the taxpayer? Isn’t there a reasonable expectation that the tax dollars funneled to government schools are not used for propaganda against the capitalist system that generated them?

The Constitution provides no authority for the Federal Government to subsidize education. I think the Department of Education is unconstitutional. How would the education establishment react if teachers started teaching their classes my opinion?

What Bennish said about capitalism and Al-Qaeda has been spiked by the national mainstream media. Sean Allen, the student who recorded Bennish, indicated he has received emails from others aware of teachers doing the same thing Bennish did. We will never hear about those teachers, because the mainstream media is not interested in this story.

On the Today Show, Bennish said, “My job as a teacher is to challenge students to think critically about issues that are affecting our world and our society.”

Many parents might think Bennish’s job is to teach their children geography.

After the Today Show appearance, the AP filed a dispatch that might as well have been a press release issued by Bennish and his attorney. Too bad the AP doesn’t think its job is to challenge taxpayers to think critically about the way their money is being spent by the public school system.

==============================

Colorado Teacher in Bush-Hitler Flap Reinstated (Foxnews, 060310)

DENVER — A teacher who was placed on leave after comparing President Bush’s State of the Union address to speeches by Adolf Hitler has been reinstated, school officials said Friday.

Social studies teacher Jay Bennish had been on paid leave from Overland High School in suburban Aurora since March 1 while administrators determined whether he violated a district rule that teachers must present balancing viewpoints in the classroom.

During a Feb. 1 lecture in a geography class, Bennish said some of Bush’s State of the Union address the night before “sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler used to say.”

Bennish later said the lecture was intended to stimulate his students to think critically. He has also said that he always presents balancing viewpoints, but not always at the same time.

“He realized School district officials scheduled to announce decision on teacher’s future after 2 p.m. MST that a mistake he probably made was when you put something controversial out there you should immediately put out the other side,” Bennish’s lawyer David Lane said Friday.

The investigation began after a student recorded 20 minutes of the Feb. 1 lecture and gave copies of the recording to KOA radio in Denver. Excerpts have been widely broadcast and published.

The [Democratic] state Senate on Friday rejected a proposal authorizing schools to fire teachers who routinely present one-sided views in the classroom and instead agreed to a measure saying teachers who violate school policies can be dismssed.

“I think we are just trying to score political points based on what’s happening on talk radio, and I don’t think we ought to legislate like that,” said Sen. Peter Groff, D-Denver.

==============================

College girls go wild, drink on spring break (Washington Times, 060309)

Leading researchers have discovered the obvious: College kids, booze and bikinis are a dangerous mixture.

Spring break has become an unhealthy “binge-fest,” says the head of a major medical association, citing a poll that shows that 74% of female college students agree that alcohol is an excuse for outrageous behavior.

“Spring break is broken,” Dr. J. Edward Hill, president of the American Medical Association, said yesterday.

Many spring break promoters spend months marketing trips to college students that tout opportunities for drinking alcohol, he said. For example, one promoter’s Web site told students not to worry about the quality of water in Cancun, Mexico, “because you will be drinking beer.”

In the AMA survey of 664 women, ages 17 to 35, who are current or former college students:

• More than 90% said it was “easy” for underage students to drink on spring break.

• 74% said women used drinking as an excuse for “outrageous behavior,” such as public nudity, dancing on tables and participating in drinking contests.

• 83% said they had friends who drank most nights while on spring break.

• 59% said they knew people during spring break who had been sexually active with more than one partner.

“What was a traditional time to relax and take a break from college studies has turned into a dangerous binge-fest,” said Dr. Hill, citing reports of fatalities, rapes, assaults and accidents associated with spring break destinations.

He recommended that colleges restrict on-campus alcohol advertising and increase promotion of “alternative” spring breaks that feature alcohol-free tours or community service.

In the United States, “spring break” typically falls between late February and early April, with most college campuses closing during the first or second week of March.

In 2000, at least 1.25 million students spent $1 billion at spring break gatherings, Murray Sperber says in his book “Beer and Circus.” Mr. Sperber also estimated that companies spent $50 million promoting their products to students on spring break trips.

Numerous spring break Web sites offer low-cost package deals to sites in Mexico, Florida, Texas, Jamaica and the Bahamas. The Web sites typically promote drinking opportunities. One has listed Cancun bars that are back in operation after the devastation of Hurricane Wilma in October.

Joseph A. Califano Jr., former secretary of health, education and welfare, decried industry support for this “Roman bacchanalia of sex, drugs and booze.”

College coeds are especially at risk because women become addicted to alcohol, drugs and tobacco faster and easier than men, said Mr. Califano, chairman of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University, which last month released “Women Under the Influence,” a book about female substance abuse.

Parents should resist the pressure to pay for spring break trips for their college-age children, he added. “This is not a rite of passage.”

==============================

Homeschooling, sweet homeschooling (townhall.com, 060310)

by Nathanael Blake

Last week a New York Times article profiled the ordeal of academic applications: essays, interviews, application consultants, tuition of $10,000 a year or more, and the stress of separating families.

The article was about private preschools in New York City. The following is representative of the tribulations chronicled among well-heeled parents. “When Ms. Malloy, a federal prosecutor, applied for her twins, a boy and a girl, she asked her husband to write the application essay. “I was so nervous,” she said, “and I’m someone who took the LSAT, who’s written for the federal judiciary and in law review.”

The family applied to four schools. “There’s not a week that goes by that I don’t regret that I didn’t apply to three or four more,” Ms. Malloy said. And so the hamster-wheel rat-race is now beginning at the ripe old age of two.

For me, reading this story increased my determination that if probability wins out and I marry and have children (I’m archaic enough to believe that to be the proper order), they will be homeschooled.

But though over one million children are homeschooled in America, there’s a surprising amount of resistance to the idea, even from many who support other alternatives to the state schools (i.e. charter and private schools).

When I tell people about my plans for my (hypothetical) children, I invariably hear the same infratentorial objection, which is that they won’t “socialize” properly. No one ever tells me that homeschooling will stifle my children’s academic ability.

The stereotype is quite the opposite: homeschoolers are smart but socially inept. There are, to be sure, examples of failed homeschooling, but its general record is better than the government’s schools.

There are occasional comments about the difficulty of homeschooling.

To be sure, it takes sacrifice, and there are some families that cannot undertake the task. Yet what are we to make of the wealthy New Yorkers who send their toddlers to pre-schools with tuition higher than my university’s? They aren’t driven by necessity, but by the desire to get their children out of the home and out of the way. This begs the query: why have children if you don’t want them to interfere with your life?

I think that the least parents can do is to match the Spartans and allow the kids to be raised at home for the first seven years. Longer is better—even through high school.

But the cry goes up that they must be socialized. In response, most homeschoolers point out the many activities available to them, from sports to music to church.

They’re right: as homeschooling usually teaches more in less time, it leaves more time for both play and social activities. And I can attest that most of the long-term homeschoolers I know posses fine social abilities.

Nevertheless, this view concedes too much. Why do we even assume that modern schools are a healthy way to socialize a child and set a standard homeschooling must match? The socialization of our school system is profoundly anti-social. Edmund Burke wrote of civilization as a partnership “between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.” In the schools, society doesn’t even consist of the various generations of the living.

The standard (though rarely articulated) definition of successful socialization is to “fit in” with a lot of immature little savages raised by television, video games, and the internet. Spending at least 35 hours a week, nine months of the year, with 20-30 kids of one’s own age (with a harried adult supervising) is the antithesis of what is needed in order to learn how to function in society.

Give me the shut-in homeschoolers any day; from their family and their books, they will at least have some notion of life beyond their cohort and how to interact with it.

Enough with socialization; let us look at a case for homeschooling.

The strongest argument for homeschooling is the education that takes place in the public schools, or rather, the lack thereof. Reports on the sorry state of America’s schools come out regularly, and it’s always interesting to see how many spots we’ve fallen and what tiny nations (like Luxembourg and the Czech Republic) outscored us academically.

The problem isn’t a lack of funding.

Rather, much of it is due to a fondness for egalitarian gestures. As Christopher Lasch observed, “Given the underlying American commitment to the integral high school – the refusal to specialize college preparation and technical training in separate institutions – make-work programs, athletics, extracurricular activities, and the pervasive student emphasis on sociability corrupted not merely the vocational and life-adjustment programs but the college preparatory course as well.” People have varying intellectual abilities, and however much it may offend liberals, half the population is below average.

Some people are ready for college work in their early teens and others will never be ready for it, but the school system is largely incapable of adjusting for this. Despite the burgeoning popularity of AP classes and the like, the brightest intellects are still stymied by years of waiting for their peers to catch up. Furthermore, the notion that schooling equates to an education has diluted the currency of a degree, as higher education has become a certification program.

Albert Jay Nock noted, “While very few can be educated, everyone who is not actually imbecile or idiotic can be trained in one way or another,” thereby influencing the decision to “convert our schools, colleges, universities into training schools…but continue to call them educational institutions.”

The rot extends from preschool to the universities, and there is no easy program for rejuvenation. But if you want the best for your children in their higher education, think about what and with whom they’re learning in their lower levels, and consider taking a hand in their education. Not all families can homeschool, but it deserves more respect than it gets, and I think it the best option available.

==============================

Colorado Teacher On Leave After Alleged Anti-Bush Remarks (Foxnews, 060302)

AURORA, Colo. — At least 150 Overland High School students walked out of class Thursday to protest administrators’ decision to put a teacher on leave while they investigate remarks he made about President Bush during class, including that some people compare Bush to Adolf Hitler.

Cherry Creek School District administrators were investigating whether geography teacher Jay Bennish violated a policy requiring balancing viewpoints in the classroom, district spokeswoman Tustin Amole said.

Amole said Bennish was placed on administrative leave Wednesday to avoid further disruption at the school in this east Denver suburb.

She said the school had heard rumors about the protest, which included some students who objected to Bennish’s comments. Students were told to return to class, but she said no disciplinary action was taken.

“It was peaceful. The students yelled, but there was no fighting,” Amole said. “Most of them did return to class.”

Sophomore Sean Allen recorded about 20 minutes of Bennish’s class during a Feb. 1 discussion about Bush’s State of the Union speech and gave the recording to his father, who complained to the principal, Amole said.

“After listening to the tape, it’s evident the comments in the class were inappropriate. There were not adequate opportunities for opposing points of view,” she said.

A telephone number listed for Bennish, who has been teaching social studies and American history at Overland since 2000, had been disconnected.

No action has been taken against Bennish, Amole said. She said the investigation should be complete by late next week while officials continue to talk to students, parents and faculty members.

Amole said Bennish told school officials he had received threats as news of the allegations spread, but she did not speculate on what the threats were and who made them.

She said he was the subject of similar complaints a few years ago, but said that case was resolved after Bennish met with a parent and the school principal.

Allen stayed home from school Thursday to avoid any backlash, Amole said.

==============================

Classroom brainwashing (townhall.com, 060314)

by Thomas Sowell

Governor Bill Owens of Colorado has cut through the cant about “free speech” and come to the defense of a 16-year-old high school student who tape-recorded his geography teacher using class time to rant against President Bush and compare him to Hitler.

The teacher’s lawyer talks about First Amendment rights to free speech but free speech has never meant speech free of consequences. Even aside from laws against libel or extortion, you can insult your boss or your spouse only at your own risk.

Unfortunately, there is much confusion about both free speech and academic freedom. At too many schools and colleges across the country, teachers feel free to use a captive audience to vent their politics when they are supposed to be teaching geography or math or other subjects.

While the public occasionally hears about weird rantings by some teacher or professor, what seldom gets any media attention is the far more pervasive classroom brainwashing by people whose views may not be so extreme, but are no less irrelevant to what they are being paid to teach. Some say teachers should give “both sides” — but they should give neither side if it is off the subject.

Academic freedom is the freedom to do academic things — teach chemistry or accounting the way you think chemistry or accounting should be taught. It is also freedom to engage in the political activities of other citizens — on their own time, outside the classroom — without being fired.

Nowhere else do people think that it is OK to engage in politics instead of doing the job for which they are being paid. When you hire a plumber to fix a leak, you don’t want to find your home being flooded while he whiles away the hours talking about Congressional elections or foreign policy.

It doesn’t matter whether his political opinions are good, bad, or indifferent if he is being paid to do a different job.

Only among “educators” is there such confusion that merely exposing what they are doing behind the backs of parents and taxpayers is regarded as a violation of their rights. Tenure is apparently supposed to confer carte blanche.

The Colorado geography teacher is not unique. A professor at UCLA wrote an indignant article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, denouncing organized efforts of students to record lectures of professors who impose their politics in class instead of teaching the subject they were hired to teach.

All across the country, from the elementary schools to the universities, students report being propagandized. That the propaganda is almost invariably from the political left is secondary. The fact that it is political propaganda instead of the subject matter of the class is what is crucial.

The lopsided imbalance among college professors in their political parties is a symptom of the problem, rather than the fundamental problem itself.

If physicists taught physics and economists taught economics, what they did on their own time politically would be no more relevant than whether they go swimming or sky diving on their days off. But politics is intruded, not only into the classroom, but into hiring decisions as well.

Even top scholars who are conservatives are unlikely to be hired by many colleges and universities. Similarly with people training to become public school teachers. Some in schools of education have said that, to be qualified, you have to see teaching as a means of social change — meaning change in a leftward direction.

Such attitudes lead to lopsided politics among professors. At Stanford University, for example, the faculty includes 275 registered Democrats and 36 registered Republicans.

Such ratios are not uncommon at other universities — despite all the rhetoric about “diversity.” Only physical diversity seems to matter.

Inbred ideological narrowness shows up, not only in hiring and teaching, but also in restrictive campus speech codes for students, created by the very academics who complain loudly when their own “free speech” is challenged.

So long as voters, taxpayers, university trustees, and parents tolerate all this, so long it will continue.

==============================

The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics In America (Free Congress Foundation, 060307)

So now we have a geography teacher suggesting that President George W. Bush is sort of like Adolph Hitler. This teacher’s entire rant attacked capitalism, our conduct abroad, just about everything we hold dear. Geography was one of my favorite topics going back to the sixth grade. I even took a geography course in college. This is geography?

I just did my radio show (the Right Hour on the Rightalk Radio Network) with David Horowitz about his new book, exposing the 101 worst academics in America. I asked him what’s next? The 101 worst kindergarten teachers in the USA? Of course, we are not speaking of their ability to teach. That is a wholly different subject. The open radicalism on college campuses these days is mind-boggling.

I was taught once at the University of Wisconsin by a member of the Communist Party. His assigned readings were all from the left and he worked overtime to discredit the founders of our once great nation. However, he had to hide his efforts. He was careful as to what he said in the classroom. There was one student who came to class who was a well read conservative. His father was very strict and he feared getting bad grades from this professor, with whom he often tangled in class. At that time the University of Wisconsin procedure was to issue an interim grade. Both the conservative student and I got a C. While my folks were not happy about that, they were sympathetic when I explained to them what happened in this Commie’s class. My friend had no such sympathy. He literally was beaten down, if not beaten up, by his father. He came to class defeated. Then I watched as he slowly but surely began to agree with the Communist Professor. I quoted scripture to my fellow student about his gaining the whole world but losing his soul. He, as I, had a strong Christian background. He hung his head and walked away from me. My final grade for that semester was a C. His final grade was an A. Same for the second semester. This was more than 40 years ago so we have had this problem for a long time. Whereas 40 years ago this academic went out of his way to hide his real identity, today he would be openly touting his membership in the Communist Party. And at that time he dared not flunk me because my academic work did not deserve it. Today I probably would have been awarded an F.

What is shocking about the Horowitz book and is even more shocking when you hear him recount it is the sheer brazenness of the professors and other instructors who go out of their way to brag about their affiliation. They didn’t bomb enough. They didn’t do enough to damage America’s imperialism.

Horowitz estimates that there are about 60,000 of these radical professors in every part of the nation, at small colleges and large - at prestigious Eastern schools, where you would expect them, but even at widely acclaimed Baptist and Catholic colleges and universities. Think of it: 60,000, the size of a small city. We are not talking about liberals here. Horowitz is clear that while he thinks liberals are wrong they are entitled to their opinions. Rather, we are talking about the most vile, America-hating Stalinist-style professors who will accept no dissent. They preach tolerance and then practice the opposite.

I asked Horowitz if he were a parent who was spending a substantial sum of money to send his son or daughter to a college or university and his offspring encountered one of these professors what would he do? Horowitz stressed that the parent should want to send his son or daughter to one of the decent schools. There are not many, he said, but there are some. If the student already is in college, see to it that he stays in contact with the many (and growing) campus conservative organizations. And the parent should put the kid in touch with conservative websites. They are invaluable in finding material to counter the way-out liberal message.

David Horowitz is a hero. Every man, woman and child in the United States owes him a debt of gratitude. Ever since his conversion from the far left he has worked tirelessly to expose the left for what it is and to sound the trumpet on the right that we must be more militant and more willing to sacrifice for our beliefs. He has had a close call with death and having recovered has maintained a schedule which would tire someone thirty years younger. The reason he is so effective is because he knows the other side’s playbook. He has been there. He recognizes all that is being done and he is fearful that America is not waking up in sufficient time to turn things around.

His book is truly a must read. The title: THE PROFESSORS: THE 101 MOST DANGEROUS ACADEMICS IN AMERICA. It is available everywhere books are sold.

Paul M. Weyrich is the Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

==============================

‘Gays’ history in the making: Progress for gender-neutralizing bill that could nix mention of ‘mom,’ ‘dad’ (WorldNetDaily, 060407)

A bill requiring students to learn about the contributions homosexuals have made to society and that could remove gender-specific terms including “mom” and “dad” from textbooks is making progress in California.

The state’s Senate Judiciary Committee has approved SB 1437, which would mandate grades 1-12 buy books “accurately” portraying “the sexual diversity of our society.” It also requires students hear history lessons on “the contributions of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America.”

It also precludes textbooks, teaching materials, instruction, and “school-sponsored activities” from reflecting adversely upon persons based on their sexual orientation, or actual or perceived gender.

“School-sponsored activities include everything from cheerleading and sports activities to the prom,” said Karen England of Capitol Resource Institute, a traditional-values organization. “Under SB 1437 school districts would likely be prohibited from having a ‘prom king and queen’ because that would show bias based on gender and sexual orientation.

“Under SB 1437 school districts would also likely have to do away with dress codes and would have to accommodate transsexuals on girl-specific or boy-specific sports teams.”

England says the measure amounts to unneeded social experimentation.

“SB 1437 disregards the religious and moral convictions of parents and students and will result in reverse discrimination,” she said.

Sponsored by Democratic Sen. Sheila Kuehl – a lesbian actress best known for playing Zelda in “The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis” in the ‘60s – the legislation would add “gender” (actual or perceived) and “sexual orientation” to the law that prohibits California public schools from having textbooks, teaching materials, instruction or “school-sponsored activities” that reflect adversely upon people based on characteristics like race, creed and handicap.

“We’ve been working since 1995 to try to improve the climate in schools for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender kids, as well as those kids who are just thought to be gay, because there is an enormous amount of harassment and discrimination at stake,” Kuehl told the San Jose Mercury News. “Teaching materials mostly contain negative or adverse views of us, and that’s when they mention us at all.”

“In textbooks, it’s as if there’s no gay people in California at all, so forget about it,” she added.

==============================

University rebuffs ‘gay’ profs, warns librarian not to retaliate: Christian staffer called ‘sexual harasser’ for recommending ‘Marketing of Evil’ (WorldNetDaily, 060420)

Warning him that “retaliation in any form is prohibited,” Ohio State University yesterday officially informed a Christian librarian that charges of sexual harassment leveled at him by two homosexual professors – just for recommending “The Marketing of Evil” to the freshman class – were without merit.

In what has been widely reported as one of the most bizarre cases of campus mistreatment of Christians, Scott Savage was condemned by a 21-0 faculty vote (with nine abstentions) on March 13 to be formally investigated for sexual harassment. Several professors had become extremely upset over Savage’s nomination of David Kupelian’s acclaimed but controversial best-seller, which includes a chapter exposing the marketing strategies and tactics of the “gay rights” movement.

Savage is a pious Quaker who, like the Amish, rides a horse and buggy to the university where he works as head of Reference and Instructional Services at the Bromfield Library on Ohio State University’s Mansfield campus.

In a March 9 inter-faculty e-mail, Buckley, one of the accusing professors, had reacted this way to Savage’s recommendation that “The Marketing of Evil” be required reading for incoming freshmen: “As a gay man I have long ago realized that the world is full of homophobic, hate-mongers who, of course, say that they are not. So I am not shocked, only deeply saddened – and THREATENED – that such mindless folks are on this great campus. ... You have made me fearful and uneasy being a gay man on this campus. I am, in fact, notifying the OSU-M campus, and Ohio State University in general, that I no longer feel safe doing my job. I am being harassed.”

However, in a letter dated April 6 – but mysteriously not postmarked until April 18, and received by Savage yesterday – the university informed Scott Savage that the faculty had overstepped their bounds:

Dear Mr. Savage:

On March 16, 2006, Gary Kennedy, Associate Professor and Faculty President, filed an allegation of discrimination/harassment complaint on behalf of Norman Jones, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of English and James Buckley, Ph.D., Associate Professor of English, all of whom are faculty members of The Ohio State University Mansfield regional campus, against you.

Based on the statements, interviews and documentary evidence provided into this inquiry, it is determined there is no finding of discrimination/harassment on your part.

However well intentioned the actions of Professors Jones and Buckley, the fact remains their claims of discrimination and/or harassment based on your suggestion of a book does not meet established university policy criteria for filing such a claim. …

If the complaint violated “established university policy criteria,” why did the entire faculty vote in favor of the claim?

“I’d say it’s for the same reason about a third of the faculty completely abstained from voting,” commented Kupelian. “Those nine faculty members knew the charges of sexual harassment against this poor librarian were ridiculous and that they couldn’t vote yes. But they also didn’t want to be accused by the rest of the faculty of being homophobes and bigots. So they didn’t vote. The entire faculty – those who voted yes, and those who abstained from voting – wanted to be certain they were not tarred as haters and Neanderthals.”

“Those nine abstentions are just one more proof that the OSU Mansfield campus is a place of fear and intimidation, not one of openness, robust inquiry and free speech as the faculty members imagine,” Kupelian added.

“What boggles my mind,” said David French, lead attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, which has taken up Savage’s case, “is that nobody voted against accusing a librarian of sexual harassment for recommending a book.”

After informing Savage the allegations were unfounded, the letter suggested a new round of anti-discrimination and harassment training was in order.

“What colleges normally do in this situation,” explained French, “is to first do what is necessary to defuse the immediate crisis. Then they go into the ‘re-education process,’ where they bring in the experts to discuss how hurtful and painful it is when people discuss Judeo-Christian morality on campus.”

Indeed, among the letter’s “Recommendations” was this:

Promote frank, open and respectful discussion among faculty and library staff, in particular and among all staff in general. Dr. Jones had indicated that maybe he could be a liaison person to spearhead this effort.

Ironically, Jones – who had just falsely accused Savage of sexual harassment, and strongly attacked Kupelian’s book – was being suggested as the point man responsible for leading the faculty in “open and respectful discussion” of differences.

More ominously, the letter to Savage – signed by T. Glenn Hill of the university’s Office of Human Resources – appears to end with a warning to the party who had been falsely accused:

… keep in mind that retaliation in any form is prohibited, per university, state and federal law.

But as WorldNetDaily reported, attorney French says the damage to his client’s reputation and career has been done. In fact, Savage has already filed a complaint against the three professors for false accusations of harassment, and he is discussing with ADF a more “substantial” response – including possible litigation.

“Ohio State University allowed its resources to be used in a campaign of slander and defamation,” said French, adding Savage “wants to do something substantial to deter any future tyranny or bullying of others.”

Since WorldNetDaily broke the story Saturday, it has been reported by Sean Hannity, MSNBC, Fox News, the New York Post, Human Events, and dozens of bloggers and talk show hosts.

Released in August, “The Marketing of Evil” has been widely praised by Dr. Laura, David Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, D. James Kennedy and many others and garnered over 100 five-star reader reviews on Amazon.com.

As a direct consequence of being “banned” as “hate literature” and “homophobic tripe” by the OSU faculty, “The Marketing of Evil” has become one of the hottest-selling books in the country, topping Amazon.com’s “Current Events” bestseller chart for the past three days.

==============================

Baptists: Plan exit from government schools: New resolution tells churches to develop strategy for pulling kids out (WorldNetDaily, 060426)

A group of Baptists activists who two years ago tried to get the Southern Baptist Convention to approve a resolution urging the faithful to pull their children out of government schools announced they are proposing a similar measure this year.

The new resolution, sponsored by Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee member Roger Moran and Dr. Bruce Shortt, urges churches to develop an “exit strategy” for removing their kids from public school.

Moran, a leader in the Missouri Baptist Convention, and Shortt, co-sponsor of the 2004 and 2005 Christian education resolutions and author of “The Harsh Truth About Public Schools,” note the new proposal urges that particular attention be given to “the needs of orphans, single parents and the disadvantaged.”

The resolution also urges the agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention to assist churches as they develop their exit strategies and commends Christians working in government schools.

This year’s resolution was inspired by a column written by Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in which he advocates the “exit strategy” approach. Shortt called Mohler “the SBC’s leading theologian.”

In a statement announcing the new resolution, Moran said today’s public schools have had “a major role in infiltrating and destroying the faith of those we have been commanded to train up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Dr. Al Mohler’s call for responsible Southern Baptists to develop an exit strategy from the public schools was not only wise, but courageous, for multitudes of our own people still don’t see the inherent dangers. The time has come for the debate to begin.”

Added Shortt: “The government’s schools haven’t merely failed; they are destroying our children spiritually and morally. Academically, the public school system is as dead as Elvis. Unfortunately, many Christian pastors and leaders still try to evade the cold, hard facts by talking about ‘school reform’ and ‘salt and light.’ Well, we’ve tried that strategy for 40 years and more, and, after trillions of dollars of reform, anyone who takes a serious look at the consequences of our government school habit can see that the Church has been hemorrhaging children for more than a generation and that the public schools are stuck on stupid morally and academically.

“If you approve of a school system that is indoctrinating children with cultural Marxism and dogmatic Darwinism, devoting increasing time and resources to instructing children in the colorful folkways of homosexuality, and preparing them for a future as hewers of wood and drawers of water, by all means continue talking about ‘reform’ and children as missionaries. Responsible Christians, however, will plan so that no child is left behind.”

In 2004, the resolution, which called on members to take their kids out of public schools and either homeschool them or send them to Christian schools, failed to be referred to the floor of the Baptist body after being heard in the Resolutions Committee.

Last year, Shortt and Dr. Voddie Baucham Jr., a Southern Baptist lecturer, introduced a resolution urging churches to investigate the level of homosexual advocacy in their local school districts. That resolution passed in an even stronger form than introduced.

This year’s SBC Annual Meeting will be held June 13-14 at Greensboro, N.C.

==============================

‘Day Of Truth’ offers students a chance to hear what they’re missing (townhall.com, 060427)

by Alan Sears

Which is easier for you to deal with... an unpleasant truth, or an intimidating silence?

Which would you rather have your kids face at school?

That’s not a choice a lot of our young people get to make on many high school and college campuses around the country. For nearly a dozen years now, advocates of homosexual behavior have been linking hands with the guardians of political correctness to inflict an event known as the “Day of Silence” on American teenagers, quietly brow-beating them into a tacit endorsement of homosexual behavior and the national homosexual legal agenda.

Here’s how it works: young people are enlisted to attend an entire day of school in absolute silence. If called upon to answer a question in class or by schoolmates or staff around campus, they are instructed to present a card, explaining their collective mime act as a show of non-verbal support for allegedly oppressed “homosexual, bisexual, and transgender” students everywhere.

On some campuses, the silent treatment becomes quite the fad, with even teachers and administrators participating. Those who elect to keep talking have it impressed upon them, through a thousand little looks and gestures from the ever-tolerant, that they are embodying the notorious American insensitivity to the tender spirit of sexual iconoclasts.

It’s an interesting approach: education through verbal vacuum. Integration through intimidation. Impressionable minds, encouraged to imagine – and be struck dumb by – the injustices perpetrated on fledglings to homosexual behavior by a callous public and the cold constraints of that old-time-religion.

No facts. No studies. No discussion. No presentation of alternative viewpoints. No examination of the possible physical, emotional, or spiritual consequences of homosexual behavior. Just a few hours of propagandistic pouting.

It’s working.

A 2001 poll by Zogby International found that 85% of high school seniors supported something called “homosexual rights.” Two-thirds supported legalizing same-sex “marriage,” and 68% favored same-sex couples being allowed to adopt children. Another 79% endorsed so-called anti-discrimination laws specifically designed to protect those who engage in homosexual behavior, and 88% backed “hate crimes” legislation.

That was five years ago. And the numbers are only getting worse.

Such attitudes are infecting the whole population, as the organized advocates of the homosexual agenda synchronize and expand their efforts in the courts, in popular entertainment, and even in mainline Protestant churches, steadily eroding the traditional moral standards of our nation.

But the loud leftists and their Day of Silence are not the only contributors to the confusions of our youth. When it comes to homosexual behavior, too many kids are getting an earful of silence from their parents, their pastors, and their political leaders. If the mentors our children respect are ashamed or afraid or embarrassed to speak out against the increasingly-aggressive homosexual agenda... why are we surprised when the activists step into that void?

Silence – from their parents or their peers – doesn’t teach kids anything. It just leaves their still-forming consciences open for exploitation by those who are emboldened by the silence of others (and the complicity of the educational establishment). It’s not enough for our young people not to hear out-loud lies from the homosexual activists – they must hear the truth that counters the homosexual intimidations.

This year, a lot more students will hear that that truth, thanks to the candid conversations prompted by “Day of Truth” events on campuses all over the country. These events – scheduled for April 27, one day after the “Day of Silence” – will counter the intimidating tactics of the homosexual activists with something that used to be a given in our public schools: a little honest give-and-take.

“Day of Truth” participants will hand out their own cards between classes, explaining their intent to invoke their First Amendment rights of free speech by sharing another view of homosexual behavior – not out of hatred or contempt, but out of a sincere desire to bring healing and understanding through a clear examination of the facts.

Of course, not everyone is interested in hearing the factual implications of homosexual behavior, or a Christian perspective on the homosexual agenda. But unlike “Day of Silence” participants, “Day of Truth” teens will limit their overtures to between-class discussions, for those who want to participate – an invitation to respectful conversation, rather than silent condemnation.

It’s a forum that celebrates freedom, confronts without condemning, promotes real learning and communication between different viewpoints, and helps young people come to a clearer understanding of what they believe, and why.

Not bad, for a day at school.

Who knows? The students might even learn something... if they just keep talking.

==============================

Christians at 700 high schools in ‘Day of Truth’: Nationwide event today counters homosexual-activist ‘Silence’ (WorldNetDaily, 060427)

Christian students at more than 700 high schools across the nation will join today in an event to counter homosexual activism.

The number of participants in the “Day of Truth” has doubled over last year, according to the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, which is sponsoring the event.

ADF President, CEO, and General Counsel Alan Sears sees the “Day of Truth” as an opportunity to express a different perspective than the “Day of Silence,” promoted by the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Educational Network.

“Allowing the communication of one viewpoint and claiming it’s the only viewpoint is advocating, not educating,” Sears said.

The event takes place one day after the “Day of Silence,” which urges students to remain silent for an entire day to express support for the homosexual agenda.

Students participating in the “Day of Truth” will wear T-shirts and hand out cards during school hours – between classes – with the following message:

I am speaking the Truth to break the silence. Silence isn’t freedom. It’s a constraint. Truth tolerates open discussion, because the Truth emerges when healthy discourse is allowed. By proclaiming the Truth in love, hurts will be halted, hearts will be healed, and lives will be saved.

“The ‘Day of Silence’ seems more concerned about silencing other viewpoints than providing complete information to students,” said Sears. “Silence doesn’t teach anything. However, an open, honest, and respectful discussion allows Truth to rise to the surface.”

ADF launched the “Day of Truth” last year, with about 350 schools participating.

==============================

Concerned Parents Battle Gay Advocacy in Schools (Christian Post, 060506)

BOSTON (AP) - Ever since her 5-year-old brought home a book from kindergarten that depicted a gay family, Tonia Parker has felt that her parenting has been under attack in the only state that allows same-sex marriage.

She and her husband, David, didn’t want to discuss sexual orientation yet with their son, and were shocked that the book was included in a “diversity book bag” last year. David Parker subsequently got arrested for refusing to leave a Lexington school after officials refused to meet his demand that he be notified when homosexuality was discussed in his son’s class.

Now the Parkers and another couple have sued school officials in federal court, claiming Lexington officials violated their parental rights to teach morals to their own children.

The way they and other opponents of gay marriage see it, the 2003 ruling that cleared the way for same-sex weddings has emboldened Massachusetts gay rights advocates to push their views in schools and ignore those who feel homosexuality is immoral.

“In many parts of the United States, we could have presented our concerns and our objections, and it wouldn’t have been a problem,” Tonia Parker said.

Glenn Koocher, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, said there is no pro-gay campaign in the schools, just isolated cases exaggerated by anti-gay marriage activists who suffer from “narcissistic activist personality disorder.”

Carisa Cunningham, spokeswoman for the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, said school curriculums haven’t changed, just the reaction to them by gay marriage opponents. “Maybe the impact of the law is that it has made people much more defensive and much more afraid,” she said.

In Massachusetts, like most of the nation, there is no official education policy on when or how to discuss homosexuality in the classroom.

“It’s done purposely to make sure local school boards reflect the values of the local district,” said Martha Kempner, a spokeswoman for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.

Just 10 states have laws that deal with teaching sexual orientation, two of which require some teaching of it and eight of which put restrictions on how it’s presented, according to New York-based SIECUS.

Massachusetts guidelines say only that teachers should define the different sexual orientations by the fifth grade. Each school district decides how to do that, and in the past year, Lexington has emerged as the center of debate.

Officials there say that since same-sex marriage is part of life in Massachusetts, it comes up naturally and that it’s impossible to notify parents every time the issue is discussed.

“It certainly strengthens the argument that we need to teach about gay marriage because it’s more of a reality for our kids,” said Paul Ash, superintendent of schools in Lexington. “The children see married, gay couples.”

An “opt out” provision in state law requires parental notification and the chance to remove their kids from the classroom if the curriculum “primarily involves human sexual education or human sexuality issues.” But same-sex marriage comes up in current events classes and other forums where it’s not the primary focus and, educators say, not subject to the “opt out” law.

Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which opposes gay marriage, says educators are using the perceived loophole to bypass parents. Since the marriages began in May 2004, his organization has compiled about 20 reports from media and parents in towns from Medford to Newton that highlight what his group feels is inappropriate teaching of homosexuality.

Among recent incidents: Parents Joseph and Robin Wirthlin joined the Parkers in the federal suit after a second grade teacher in Lexington read to her class the fairy tale “King and King,” which tells the story of two princes falling in love.

Last April, a sexually explicit pamphlet aimed at helping gay men avoid sexually transmitted diseases was distributed at a Brookline High School conference on gay and lesbian issues. School officials said the booklet was mistakenly displayed.

==============================

Fatigue May Be Reason for Dip in SAT Scores (Foxnews, 060512)

BOSTON — At three hours, 45 minutes, the newly expanded SAT exam can be a grueling marathon of essays and multiple-choice bubbles, many high schoolers say. Now, with preliminary figures showing a small but noticeable drop in scores this year, some experts wonder if student fatigue is to blame.

That could further pressure the College Board to let students take different sections of the test on separate days — an issue on the agenda at the nonprofit’s SAT committee meeting that was underway Friday in New York.

“Right now, it’s longer than the GRE, the LSAT and the GMATs, and those are all taken by college students or college graduates,” said Brad MacGowan, a guidance counselor at Newton North High School in Massachusetts, who has asked the College Board to let students split up the exam.

Counting tests taken through January, scores for the upcoming college freshman class are down between four and five points on the combined math and critical reading sections, according to the College Board, which owns the SAT. Full-year numbers are expected to show a “small additional decline.”

The change, over two sections totaling 1600 points, is not unprecedented; scores have changed as much as eight points per year over the last quarter century. But it would be the biggest jump in at least a decade, and sticks out because it coincides with changes made to the test. The College Board added a writing section and made other adjustments to the new test, which debuted in March 2005, but insisted scores would remain comparable.

Some colleges, however, are reporting substantial declines. The University of California system saw a 15-point drop, whileLa Salle University in Philadelphia saw a 12-point drop — even as their applicants looked better than last year’s group by other measures.

“I’ve never seen better (students’) records, and lower scores. Never seen it in 36 years,” said Bob Voss, La Salle dean of admission.

There may be other explanations.

Typically, students’ scores rise a combined 30 points on the math and critical reading sections on a second try. While more students are taking the SAT, fewer are taking it multiple times, said College Board spokeswoman Chiara Coletti. The price of the test has risen from $28.50 to $41.50, though fees are sometimes waived.

Jeff Olson, executive director of research at test-prep company Kaplan, said some high-achieving students may have decided to stick with the good scores they got on the old SAT. But he said fatigue could have played a role, too.

When Kaplan surveyed 2,000 test-takers in March 2005, 37% said they feared the length would affect their scores. Also, nearly half of test-takers surveyed after last June’s test reported they hadn’t been allowed to snack during breaks, Olson said.

More students were able to snack at subsequent tests, after the College Board changed its guidelines. But some students taking the SAT before that change may have simply run out of gas.

The College Board says it surveyed research on test-taking fatigue and, before debuting the new SAT, conducted its own study, which concluded scores would not be affected by the additional 45 minutes.

But MacGowan said that simply didn’t ring true to his experience with 16- and 17-year-olds. He re-examined the research cited by the College Board and wrote up his findings in a paper posted on his Web site. Some of the research the College Board relied on dated back as far as 1921, and often involved older students and shorter tests. The College Board’s own study included just 97 students, divided into three groups.

“The fatigue studies were nowhere close to conclusive,” he said.

Coletti said College Board was conducting a more extensive study on fatigue, based on actual SAT exams. But she said the College Board believes it is unlikely fatigue is a factor.

The latest debate is unrelated to the recently revealed scoring errors on last October’s SAT, but it could hurt the College Board’s effort to restore its credibility after that episode. Colleges depend on SAT scores being comparable year to year because it can play a major role in determining financial aid packages, and sudden jolts can upset those formulas.

“Maybe it’s all a fluke, but we’re going to make adjustments for next year, I’ll tell you that,” said La Salle’s Voss.

Bob Schaeffer of the group FairTest, a longtime College Board critic, said it’s unclear whether fatigue played a role, but said this “may be another piece of fallout from the fact that they rushed the test into the marketplace” after the University of California system threatened to abandon the SAT unless changes were made.

Bob Sweeney, a guidance counselor at Mamaroneck High School in New York, said his students reported being exhausted by the test. “I hope this will give (the College Board) some pause to say ‘Maybe this needs to be fixed,” he said.

==============================

Fear and Loathing at Commencement: Condi Rice, John McCain, and spoiled brats. (National Review Online, 060523)

What a bargain: At a cost of a mere $100,000 or so, a northeastern college can take your child and transform him into a delicate flower incapable of handling opinions at odds with his own. It can close his mind and vacuum-seal it against opposing views. And it can, as a bonus, perhaps make him rude and incorrigible.

These have been the benefits of liberal education on display this commencement season, as graduating students have risen up against the affront of having to listen to the U.S. secretary of State or a distinguished war hero for a half-hour or so. Students complain that Condoleezza Rice and Sen. John McCain don’t represent them. But since when has it been a requirement that speakers on campus be representative of—in the sense of totally agreeing with—student views? If there were such a requirement, few commencement addresses would ever be given by anyone to the right of filmmaker Michael Moore.

Students at the liberal New School in New York City circulated a petition to have McCain disinvited as the commencement speaker. “McCain does not speak for me,” they declared. Well, of course not. No one would ever mistake the (mostly) conservative senator from Arizona as a mouthpiece for the flagrantly tattooed and pierced left-wingers who attend the Greenwich Village college. But why would they only want to hear someone saying things that they already thought and believed?

The slogan was similar at Boston College, where students objecting to Condi Rice getting an honorary degree and delivering the commencement address said, “Not in my name.” That phrase makes it sound as though some atrocity were being committed. The anti-Rice students maintain that her support of the Iraq war violates the Catholic teachings to which the Jesuit college is devoted. But the Vatican has never formally condemned the Iraq war. Protesters would be on firmer ground objecting to Rice’s pro-choice position on abortion, but respecting unborn life is a fundamental Catholic teaching that no one bothered to mention.

All the rhetoric about “not speaking for me” and “not in my name” indicates a certain self-obsession. At the New School it was in full flower. As McCain spoke about the lessons of his life, students yelled, “It’s not about you!” and “It’s about my life, not yours!” Apparently what they wanted to hear was: “I’m here to tell you that every unexamined prejudice you hold is absolutely correct. You represent the summit of human wisdom, and in all the years you have left on this Earth, you will never learn anything important that you don’t already know as a snotty 21-year-old. And don’t let anyone ever dare to tell you otherwise.”

McCain’s speech was largely a self-effacing account of his own folly as an arrogant, know-it-all youth. Students who heckled and turned their backs on the senator as he delivered this message must recognize irony only when it appears on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. The point of turning your back on someone is to demonstrate a fundamental disrespect. Students at BC were far and away better behaved than the New School mob, but some of them did the same to Rice. It is a gesture appropriate in response to a member of the Klan, but when applied to McCain or Rice, it says more about the protester than the speaker.

It’s not surprising that students are sophomoric, even if, as graduates, they are supposed to be beyond that. But faculty at both schools joined in the agitation. The opposition to Rice at BC was jump-started by a faculty letter, and some New School faculty turned their backs on McCain. It is these sort of professors who set the tone at top colleges. They act like a medieval guild protecting a monopoly on thought. Dissenting points of view send them into an angry, defensive crouch.

And just think: For a substantial fee, they will mold the mind of your child.

==============================

Be Not Afraid: Is there room for Catholic teaching at a Catholic commencement? (National Review Online, 060530)

When the students, faculty, and staff of the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minn., elected Ben Kessler as “Tommie of the Year” and student speaker for this year’s commencement, they got more than they bargained for.

Kessler, a straight-A student and ESPN Academic All American football player who plans to be a Catholic priest, shocked the crowd at his May 20 commencement by delivering an address that elicited catcalls, boos, and obscenities. The controversial content of Kessler’s speech led several professors and students to walk out of the ceremony, while other audience members chanted “Stop it! Stop it!” One graduate told the St. Paul Pioneer Press that Kessler “ruined the day” and another told InsideHigherEd.com that Kessler’s words made her cry. Two days later, University of St. Thomas president Rev. Dennis Dease apologized for the remarks in a prepared statement that included an apology from Kessler for any hurt feelings he had caused.

So what did Kessler say to incite such hysteria in this mild-mannered Minnesota crowd and compel an official apology from the president of his Catholic university? Judging from the reactions, one might assume that he had rattled off racist epithets or intoned neo-Nazi chants. In fact, Kessler did something that has become nearly as controversial on many Catholic campuses today: He defended the Catholic Church’s teaching on sexual ethics.

Kessler began the contested portion of his speech by reflecting on his university’s newly instituted travel policy, which prevents unmarried and gay faculty members from sharing rooms with their sexual partners while chaperoning students on official school trips. Kessler argued that his school was right to enforce Catholic values lest the Catholic-university community be “scandalized” by unmarried partners putting their own desires ahead of the common good. He then cited contraception as another example of individuals choosing self-gratification over lasting happiness and the welfare of others, and defended the Catholic Church’s proscription against contraception. “Birth control is not good for the female, the male, nor the long-term health of the relationship,” Kessler said. “Birth control is selfish.”

As many in the audience booed and some cheered, Kessler continued in a steady voice: “We all make selfish choices. I am no different in this. We all do. You can ask my parents, you can ask my friends, you can ask my rector, who sit with you today. I also make selfish choices. I am no different in this. I am no different. Regardless of the past, regardless of what’s happened in the past, we must change for the future.”

Kessler then hailed his fellow graduates as a sign of hope and urged them to reject selfishness and find “true, lasting happiness” by following the examples of “Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., St. Thomas Aquinas [and]—dare I say it?—Jesus Christ. … I can only hope to meet each of you years from now and see that you are happy, truly happy. Truly happy because you gave, gave, gave, and gave with the end of the community in sight. Truly happy because you lived unselfishly.”

Kessler’s remarks may have been more pointed than the typical self-congratulatory commencement fare, but they hardly constitute a hate crime. Nor did they warrant a university apology. Whatever one thinks about the Catholic Church’s teachings on contraception or extramarital sex, Kessler’s speech was consistent with his school’s mission statement, which reads: “Inspired by Catholic intellectual tradition, the University of St. Thomas educates students to be morally responsible leaders who think critically, act wisely and work skillfully to advance the common good.” True to the award that he received—which is given “to a senior who exemplifies the ideals of the university”—Kessler challenged his peers to think critically about their moral choices in a hyper-sexualized culture that mocks traditional values. He called them to question the wisdom of the world and spend their lives serving others. He reminded them that true joy is found not in sensual pleasures but in self-emptying love.

That such basic Catholic themes provoked an uproar from students who have received four years of Catholic education and the professors who have delivered that education to them says far more about the Catholic character of the University of St. Thomas than it does about Kessler. University officials there should be commended for instituting a travel policy consistent with Catholic moral teaching, but their decision to issue an official apology after a student publicly defended Catholic teaching at a university event does not bode well for their future battles over Catholic identity.

Of course, such retreats have become commonplace at Catholic schools, from Georgetown University—where a dean issued a quasi-apology to offended faculty members after Cardinal Francis Arinze defended Catholic sexual morality in his 2003 commencement speech—to the University of Notre Dame, where President Rev. John Jenkins, C.S.C., recently caved to faculty pressure and allowed the Vagina Monologues to be performed on campus despite his own conviction that the play opposes Catholic values. More than 15 years after the late Pope John Paul II promulgated Ex Corde Ecclesiae, a landmark apostolic constitution intended to reclaim the soul of Catholic higher education, many Catholic-university officials remain conflicted about the Catholic identity of their schools and cowed by the faculty members who reject that identity. Too often, the only views not tolerated on Catholic campuses today are those of the Catholic Church.

The only antidote to this “dictatorship of relativism,” as Pope Benedict XVI has called it, is courageous leadership from Catholic-university officials and the bishops who are charged with ensuring that universities deliver the Catholic education they promise. Instead of apologizing and appeasing, Catholic leaders should take a cue from students like Ben Kessler, who are not afraid to debate their ideas in the public square and challenge conventional wisdom when it contradicts the deepest values of their faith.

— Colleen Carroll Campbell, an NRO contributor, is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a former speechwriter to President George W. Bush, and author of The New Faithful: Why Young Adults Are Embracing Christian Orthodoxy.

==============================

America’s 12th Graders Dumbing Down in Science (Christian Post, 060601)

Dumb and Dumber was not only a 1994 comedy classic; it might also be the phrase the industrialized world uses to describe the science performance of American high school students for years to come. Last week, the Department of Education reported that science aptitude among 12th-graders has declined across the past decade. America continues to graduate students who know less and less about the world because Americans, dominated by lust for material consumption and personal comfort, raise kids who lack vision for learning directed at making the world a better place.

In our American meritocracy education is a means to a comfortable lifestyle, not a means of gaining knowledge to improve our world. Children are told to study so that they may personally escape poverty, not because they are expected to contribute to overall human flourishing. Grades–not preparation for a vocation directed at the good–are the bottom line for too many American parents.

The 12th-grade results came from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), a 2005 national comprehensive test administered by the Department of Education to more than 300,000 students in 50 states. The examination measured very basic knowledge of earth, physical, and life sciences and translated those scores into three achievement levels: advanced, proficient, and basic. For high school seniors, there has been sharp decline with only 54% performing at or above basic level, compared with 57% in 1996. Eighteen percent performed at the proficient level, down from 1996 levels of 21%.

As expected, educators are scrambling to find the culprit to blame for the lower scores. In a New York Times story about the NAEP report, Assistant Secretary of Education Tom Luce said the declining science scores reflect a national shortage of fully qualified science teachers, especially in lower income areas, where physics and chemistry classes are often taught by teachers untrained in those subjects. “We have too few teachers with majors or minors in math and science,” Mr. Luce said.

This confirms a now 4-year-old prophecy issued by the National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, a prestigious group of U.S. scientists and engineers that offers advice to Congress and the government. The Council reported in 2002 that U.S. students continued to perform among the worst of all industrialized countries because schools have a critical shortage of qualified teachers in science, math and technology.

Some educators, of course, also blame low teacher salaries. However, a 2005 American Federation of Teachers report revealed that the average public school teacher’s salary is $46,597, including average starting pay of $31,704. How is this low? Granted, these levels are not among the highest of all professions, but considering the summer vacation and the non-monetary reward of influencing the world’s future, it is not a bad deal.

The problems are much deeper than salary I’m afraid. First, teaching is no longer a respected profession and our best and brightest citizens develop a social aversion to pursuing it. Many Americans continue to embrace the stupid adage that “those who can, do and those who can’t, teach.” If teachers can’t “cut it” then why do people continue to send their kids to school? Why is there no honor given to those are charged with equipping, forming, and shaping the hearts and minds of our world’s future?

Second, students are not encouraged to value learning about the world. Often students will say silly things such as, “Why do I need to learn physics? I can get a good job without it.” Visionless parental pragmatists actually dissuade their children from taking courses that they don’t “need” if there’s not a direct future financial benefit. How can you not “need” more knowledge about the world furnished by any legitimate area of intellectual inquiry?

This attitude not only obscures the moral value of education. Ironically, a seemingly pragmatic obsession with financial reward also obscures its economic value. In an ever-changing world, what appears to be a viable career today may disappear ten years from now. Students educated in a broad range of fundamental disciplines–including physics–will be able to adapt more easily to the changing demands of a dynamic economy. Concepts such as acceleration, Newton’s three laws, coefficients of friction, centripetal force, and inductance benefit the life of the mind (as well as having practical applications for many careers).

Unless we refocus, as a culture, on the value of education beyond material pragmatism, we run the risk of sabotaging an entire generation’s ability to meet the future, unpredictable needs of our complex and broken world.

_________________________________________________

Anthony B. Bradley is a research fellow at the Acton Institute.

==============================

University presidents battle for honors in spinelessness (townhall.com, 060501)

by John Leo

It’s time for this column to announce its Sheldon Award, given annually to the university president who does the most to look the other way when free speech is under assault on campus. As all Sheldon fans know, the prize is a statuette that looks something like the Oscar, except that the Oscar shows a man with no face looking straight ahead, whereas the Sheldon shows a man with no spine looking the other way. The award is named for Sheldon Hackney, former president of the University of Pennsylvania and a modern legend in looking the other way.

College presidents who say and do nothing about newspaper thefts or unconstitutional speech codes usually make it to the Sheldon finals. But not this year. The competition was too keen. At least five colleges suffered thefts of newspapers in April 2006 alone, too many for even the most relentlessly silent president to make much headway toward a Sheldon.

In earlier years, Georgia Tech’s president might have won for allowing a speech code that prohibits “denigrating” comments based on “characteristics or beliefs,” as in, “You must be out of your mind to disagree with the professor.” What would happen to the character of campus life if universities suddenly allowed beliefs to be challenged openly? Sad to say, it’s very possible that feelings might be hurt.

John C. Hitt, president of the University of Central Florida, drew attention for his awesome silence when a student was brought up on charges for a campus Web site calling another student “a jerk and a fool.” But Hitt gave up his bid for a Sheldon when FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) forcefully called his attention to the First Amendment.

Penn State president Graham Spanier caught the eye of Sheldon judges when his campus’s School of Visual Arts canceled an exhibit on Palestinian terrorism because it “did not promote cultural diversity” (i.e., it irritated campus leftists and Muslims). Oddly, with the Sheldon nearly in his grasp, Spanier caved to free-speech pressure. He restored the exhibit and came out for freedom of expression. This is like a leading contender for the papacy announcing that he thinks Jesus was a fictional character.

President V. Lane Rawlins burst onto the Sheldon scene when his university, Washington State, organized and financed the disruption of a controversial student play. FIRE showed that the university had paid for the tickets of students who shouted down the actors and stopped the performance. The play, “Passion of the Musical” by Chris Lee, was a satire starring Jesus and Lucifer among others. It managed to offend gays, Jews, blacks, Christians and other groups on campus. Rawlins defended the disrupters, saying they had “exercised their rights of free speech in a very responsible manner.” Moist-eyed Sheldon judges said admiringly, “Anyone who defends the stopping of a play as a free speech right, and finances the operation, has our full attention.”

Rawlins broadened his Sheldon appeal in the highly publicized case of student Ed Swan, who was threatened with expulsion from the Washington State teacher-education program after he expressed conservative religious and political views. Swan was told he could stay if he underwent mandatory diversity training and special faculty scrutiny. Instead, he called FIRE. Rawlins and the university backed down.

Another heavyweight Sheldon contender is the Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider, president of DePaul, a Catholic university in Chicago. Though in office only 22 months, Holtschneider has already presided over three Sheldon-attracting controversies:

# A veteran, part-time teacher with a good record, Thomas Klocek, was suspended without a hearing after a verbal run-in with pro-Palestinian students at a school fair. He refused an order to apologize, and balked at the university’s plan to put a monitor in his classes. Then he sued.

# The college Republicans were found guilty of violating a campus prohibition against “propaganda” after handing out fliers criticizing an upcoming lecture by radical professor Ward Churchill.

# Sponsors of a mock bake sale satirizing affirmative action were hauled on the carpet. The were found not guilty of harassment, but then censured because the university said their application for table space was faulty. Holtschneider denounced the sale as “an affront to DePaul’s values of respect and dignity.”

Judges agreed they had never seen two candidates as eminently qualified as Rawlins and Holtschneider. Calling the pair “the Ruth and Gehrig of modern Sheldonism,” the judges awarded the golden no-spine statuette to both. Congratulations, Sheldon laureates 2006.

==============================

Charter Progress: What has worked, and what hasn’t. (National Review Online, 060503)

By Chester E. Finn Jr. & Michael Petrilli

Over the past decade, champions of bold K-12 education reform, ourselves included, have often termed charter schools the most promising innovation, and indeed they are. If chartering is embraced and replicated by the traditional public-education system, the impact will be profound. So it’s fitting that this week—National Charter Schools Week—educators, reformers, and policymakers are examining where the charter movement stands and where it’s headed.

We’ve noticed three main trends. First, charter schools are educationally diverse (though they can be grouped into useful categories). Second, they face severe obstacles, both financial (see “Charter School Finance: Inequity’s Next Frontier”) and political (here’s one such example). Third, and perhaps most importantly, authorization—that is, the act of chartering or licensing these schools—is the most important factor in creating high-quality charter schools (see our new report by researcher Rebecca Gau, Trends in Charter School Authorizing).

To be sure, there’s little you can find in charter schools that doesn’t also exist somewhere in the vast and varied world of public and private schools. But the practice of authorizing new public schools—allowing them to open, overseeing their progress, even shutting them down if necessary, but not actually running them as traditional public schools are—is entirely new. This different approach to school regulation points to a promising “third way” between the laissez-faire approach of most voucher programs and the crippling red tape of the traditional school system. Getting the balance right is hard, but this is essential if charter schools are to thrive, and if the charter movement is to fulfill its great promise.

How many of today’s charter “authorizers” are doing it right? To find out, we surveyed all of them and asked how they tackled their jobs. The results are illuminating.

We learned, for example, that when authorizers don’t renew a charter school’s contract, it’s usually for academic reasons. This is how it’s supposed to be, but it flies in the face of conventional wisdom. Charter friends and critics alike have complained in recent years that authorizers don’t take strong enough action to terminate academically failing schools. Yet our data indicate that’s exactly what they’re doing. A good thing, too—the charter movement’s credibility depends on bad schools not continuing.

As for closing schools before their contracts are up, authorizers typically act not because of low test scores, but because schools are self-destructing financially or organizationally. This, too, is appropriate. Raising student achievement takes time, and, except in unusual circumstances, new schools deserve the three to five years of their contracts to prove that they can do this. But if a school is falling apart or children are in harm’s way, patience is not in order.

Authorizers are also becoming choosier on the front end, deciding less frequently to grant new charters. Over the past two years, they’ve become significantly more selective, lowering the national approval rate from 70% in 2003 to approximately 50% today. Contrary to what we expected to find, state-mandated caps on the creation of new schools turn out not to be the main reason for this; authorizers in states both with and without caps have reduced their approval rates similarly.

This is healthy. It’s hard to run a successful charter school, and, while authorizers should remain open to promising but unproven approaches, they are right to be skeptical about half-baked ideas or wannabe school leaders who lack the educational or business acumen to get the job done. It’s important that authorizers feel comfortable saying no.

This study’s other major finding is less surprising and less welcome: almost half of all authorizers practice limited oversight of their schools, demonstrating scant concern either for school quality (e.g., not screening applicants rigorously and not holding schools accountable for student achievement, etc.) or for compliance (by ensuring fiduciary responsibility, enforcing federal laws, etc.). At the other end of the spectrum, 31% of authorizers are aggressive about both quality and compliance.

Only one in ten authorizers practices the “tight-loose” model upon which the original charter concept rests: a strong focus on quality and results coupled with a more laid back approach towards compliance and procedure. What happened to the mantra, “Accountability in return for autonomy”?

What happened was that reality hit hard. Experience authorizing charter schools in Ohio speedily revealed that we needed to be as concerned about the niggling details of finance and regulation as about achievement and accountability. After all, if a school is accused of fiscal malfeasance or procedural missteps, the political reaction can be swift and severe. Thus, authorizers committed to quality education soon learn to be attentive to compliance issues.

The least enthusiastic and most numerous authorizers are traditional school districts. Only a handful of them are serious about quality and compliance, and practically none would recognize the “tight-loose” model if it landed in their laps. Lawmakers need to understand this, since the public-education establishment ceaselessly presses them to restrict authorizing to local school systems.

Who takes authorizing more seriously? After reviewing all seven types of authorizers, we conclude that nonprofit organizations and independent chartering boards—like the one Congress created in the District of Columbia—show the greatest promise. They engage in chartering by choice, not coercion, have ample resources to draw from (financial and human), and can skillfully navigate the treacherous politics of charter authorizing. As more of them jump into the chartering fray, let us hope they continue to succeed at scale.

Now that we know that many authorizers neglect their fundamental oversight duties, it is clear that legislators should give this weighty responsibility to organizations that want it and take it seriously. We wouldn’t force educators to start a charter school against their will; the same rule should apply to authorizers. That’s the best way to make sure that the charter-school movement grows in quality and quantity in the years to come—and that National Charter Schools Week is worth celebrating.

—Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Michael J. Petrilli are president and vice-president, respectively, of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

==============================

Thinking that Makes the World Worse: Reunited and it feels to bad. (National Review Online, 060605)

Americans are used to hearing how academia is out of touch with the real world. Stories from college campuses even periodically make front-page news. Conservative speakers are heckled on campus. Harvard president Larry Summers speculates about innate gender differences—something most Americans consider common sense—and is censured and essentially forced out by the faculty. Yale University enrolls a former Taliban official. Colorado University professor Ward Churchill compares victims of the September 11th attacks to Nazis.

These are some public examples of campus radicalism in action. Yet the big embarrassing stories aren’t the only reason we should be concerned about universities. The real crisis is the grinding, daily bias on college campuses that’s so bland it’s easy to ignore.

I was reminded of this insidiousness when I returned to Harvard for the five-year reunion of my graduation from the Kennedy School of Government. I looked forward to catching up with friends, but the weekend was classic KSG. In addition to the usual cash-bar receptions and class dinner, the school offered panel discussions with names like “The UN’s Footsoldiers,” “Mobilizing Adaptive Work,” and “What We Can Learn From Non-Profits.”

Now that’s the self-important, government-celebrating, liberal elitism that I remember! These titles brought back memories of countless lectures celebrating the nobility of “public service.” The message was always the same: While businesspeople are fueled by an ugly desire for dollars, government officials are servants of the people. Self-sacrificing and motivated by the public good, those toiling in agencies and public offices deserve a special kind of reverence.

It’s perhaps understandable for a school of public policy to celebrate government officials, many of whom sincerely want to make the world a better place. Yet the sanctimonious reverence surrounding “public service” conceals a darker message: “Only we are fit to comment on or craft the country’s future—people concerned with pedestrian concerns like business or family should leave governance to us.”

An amusing aspect of attending a school of government was witnessing the regular triumph of bad management. The cash bar at the welcoming reception featured a line that unnecessarily twisted into the next room. In Soviet fashion, guests first paid for a drink ticket, moved two feet, handed over the ticket, and repeated their orders to a bartender. A make-work program, no doubt.

No reunion would be complete without fundraising. During the dinner, for example, class officers encouraged us to donate to a scholarship program. Two current recipients took to the podium to thank the class and describe why they needed the support.

One student, an immigrant from Africa named Daniel, had been putting himself through school by renting out an apartment in Chicago. That plan collapsed when the renter stopped paying. Daniel went to court—four times—for an evection order but was shocked at the difficulty of removing the squatter. All the laws, he said, favored the tenant over the property owner. So far he’s out more than $20,000 in foregone rent, with thousands more for legal bills and plane tickets from Boston to Chicago. Yet the tenant still was living in his home, rent-free, with no penalty. Daniel told me he’s given up hope of recouping the lost income and now is focused simply on reclaiming his stolen property. If it weren’t for this scholarship, he would have had to drop out of school.

Daniel shouldn’t have had to thank the Harvard alum for his scholarship. It is the thoughtless liberalism inculcated at such “schools of government” that have created the very laws that made him financially needy in the first place. At dinner, my fellow graduates applauded Daniel and shook their heads in sympathy at his desperate situation. But if we were back in school (likely in a class named something like “Creating Equality Through Access to Affordable Housing”) they would readily have been cheerleaders for laws that favor the poor tenant—unable to afford the market rent—over the greedy property owner.

No one dug further into the true lessons of Daniel’s story or considered what it says about the liberal policies that universities like Harvard promote. The honored alum instead toasted their noble sacrifice to “public service,” patting themselves on the back for helping a victim that they helped create. A more fitting metaphor for government today I can’t imagine.

—Carrie Lukas is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex and Feminism and the vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women’s Forum.

==============================

The joys of school creation (townhall.com, 060608)

by Marvin Olasky

Thousands of Southern Baptist leaders assemble in North Carolina next week for the denomination’s annual meeting. They plan to discuss and vote on a bunch of resolutions, including one particularly fascinating one: a call for Southern Baptist agencies to develop an “exit strategy from the public schools that would give particular attention to the needs of orphans, single parents, and the disadvantaged.”

That resolution includes something old and something new. Some Southern Baptists have long proposed an exodus from public schools, and an attempt last year to make that denominational policy failed. This resolution, though, combines a desire for Christian education of church kids with mercy toward those whom some churches ignore — but God does not.

We have a similar combo approach in Austin: Our 75-student City School brings together children of privilege with those facing economic or academic obstacles. Keeping it running has been hard work, but we’ve just finished our fourth year, and reports from the children themselves are worth passing on to those who wonder whether to support the “exit strategy.”

Our kindergarten kids, asked for their “favorite thing about City School,” offered statements like “learning about God in Bible,” “worshipping in chapel,” “reading Bible stories.” Similar responses could not come from public school students.

First-grader Zach wrote, “Math time is really awesome. Reading is really cool. We learn from books. Praying time is really cool. We get to learn more about God.” His classmate Genesis declared, “When we read it’s like family and it is fun being together. I like field trips. I like science so I can learn about Jesus’ creations. I like Bible and praying for people.”

Second and third graders mentioned spiritual growth but also their challenges. David wrote that “City School inspires me to read.” Stephen recalled, “I ran in the half-mile run at Field Day and thought I would collapse if I didn’t have a drink of water.”

Fifth and sixth graders relayed some personal history. Julia stated, “I learned more in one year here than I learned in three years at my old school. I can now read a whole book on my own. I am almost caught up in my math.” Zachary remembered, “When I first came here, I was eight and I was scared. But after a few minutes I realized that the people were nice. The thing that I have enjoyed learning most is the Civil War. It is very interesting.”

The 7th and 8th graders showed the most self-awareness. Denise reflected, “At my old school I hated learning, but when I came to City School I got the one-on-one instruction I needed, and now I love learning.” Raul wrote, “I like City School because it has helped me on my English. When I got here five years ago I went to a different school, and I couldn’t learn any English. Then I came to City School, and now look at me: I’m writing in English.”

Armando observed, “At my old school I didn’t understand the way they did math, but when I came to City School, I began to understand math better and I started liking it more. City School also has helped me learn to be a gentleman and to be respectful.” And Michelle summarized an even more important lesson: “I have learned to love people and see through their color, looks, athletic ability, and learning disabilities.”

So, back to the choice Southern Baptists face: Should the 2006 Annual Meeting resolve to begin the hard process of creating thousands of new schools? The resolution suggests the development of partnerships between churches in high and low income areas, with the goal of giving both the affluent and the disadvantaged alternatives to public schools.

It will be very hard work.

It will demand a reordering of priorities.

But what’s a child’s future worth?

==============================

Professor Simon Says (townhall.com, 060711)

By Mike S. Adams

One characteristic of liberal professors is that they actually get dumber as time goes by. Conservative professors just keep getting smarter because we’re always under fire from the liberals. Nonetheless, most professors are still fighting like mad to ensure that our institutions of higher learning continue to function as ideological echo chambers – just as they have for the last fifty years.

One such professor is Marc. V. Simon ( msimon@bgnet.bgsu.edu ), associate professor and chairman of the department of political science at Bowling Green State University. In a recent newspaper column called “Myths, realities about academic freedom,” Simon says that he has been “struck by the number of articles and opeds on (academic freedom) and how divorced they are from the reality (he sees) on university campuses.” Simon also says he’d “like to dispel some myths” about academic freedom.

Whenever a college professor characterizes his opponents as “divorced from reality” and commences to tell them about the “real world” the reader is usually in for a treat. What Simon says about academic freedom doesn’t disappoint.

In an effort to wed his readers to reality, Simon’s says one myth concerning academic freedom is that “Professors can say anything they want in the classroom.” Simon says this isn’t true. In fact, Simon says that “When professors go over the line, whether or not a student complains, university administrators take it seriously, and will sanction a professor appropriately.”

I am relieved to hear that some of the professors who have gone “over the line” at my school will soon be sanctioned “appropriately.”

For example, in 1996, a student complained about an untenured professor who was keeping men out of her Women’s Studies class. The complaint was made to a tenured male professor in her department. He later voted to give her tenure anyway. Because of what Simon says, I will continue to wait for the appropriate sanctions. After all, it’s only been ten years.

In 2000, a student was threatened with expulsion from a class for ridiculing a feminist professor’s ideas outside the hearing of the professor. The feminist even admitted that she didn’t hear the remark in her letter of complaint to the department chair. Nonetheless, she succeeded in running the student out of the class for the crime of not taking a feminist seriously. Because of what Simon says, I will continue to wait for the appropriate sanctions.

In 2003, an untenured professor cancelled all of her classes (for an entire week) just to protest the Iraq War. She was awarded tenure about six months later. Because of what Simon says, I continue to wait for the appropriate sanctions. Maybe she’ll be denied promotion to full professor by the UNC system as an appropriate sanction. Or maybe she’ll move to Israel and strap herself to a bomb in Tel Aviv.

Also in 2003, a biology professor stated in class that Christians are “stupid” because they still think Christ is coming back after 2000 years. Because of what Simon says, I know that sometime in the next 2000 years, we’ll see the appropriate sanctions for this bigoted professor. I’m not stupid. I just have the patience of Job.

Of course, when Simon says that it’s a myth that “Professors can say anything they want in the classroom” you know he’s telling the truth. But what about the stories of feminists at my school who attack their previous husbands in the classroom? And what about the feminist who attacks her father for having an affair after 39 years of marriage to her mother? And the feminist who lectures about losing her virginity, or the feminist who talks about the time she was raped? Are these just myths or legends?

If they are real, are we to believe these professors are well within the subject matter they are teaching? Remember that Simon says they wouldn’t use the classroom to just “say anything” regardless of its relevance to the subject.

Simon also says it is a myth that professors indoctrinate students. He claims this “myth” is based on false assumptions, including the assumption that “professors have inordinate power to shape the political and religious views of (their) students.” But, certainly - as a political science professor, no less - Simon is aware that a) 52% of incoming freshmen students report attending church or other worship services on a regular basis and b) by the end of their junior year, the number drops to 29%. This represents over a million students per year turning away from their traditional faith practices. How, exactly, did they get from point “a” to point “b”?

If you believe what Simon says, such trends have nothing to do with irreligious leftist professors. Like human life itself, the views of these students simply evolve from a lower to a higher (and more complex) form. And forget about the fact that students graduate from college – even from religious colleges – holding more liberal views on every important issue, from same-sex “marriage” to abortion.

I guess it just happens this way, even in the absence of heavy-handed indoctrination. Simon says “The fact is that professors have little impact on the political or religious views that students hold.” Simon teaches political science. But no one really listens to what Simon says.

In this column, Simon also says it’s a myth that balanced teaching is better. In the very next sentence, he makes an imbalanced statement by describing David Horowitz as “the leader of a group that attacks academic freedom.” That group, by the way, is called “Students for Academic Freedom.” The suggestion that David Horowitz is at war with academic freedom is about as plausible as the suggestion that Bill Clinton is at war with fat Jewish interns. Simon has a right to say it, but his credibility suffers.

But Simon says something even more irresponsible later in the same paragraph. In a blatant attack on logical coherence, Simon says that balanced teaching “would mean that a public health professor would have to give all sides of the issue of whether smoking causes cancer.” At this point, it looks like Simon is simply trying to portray liberals as advocates of obvious truths and conservatives as advocates of obvious falsity. But, perhaps, he is simply suffering from severe intellectual hernia.

Just in case it’s the latter, here’s a better analogy that I’ll allow Simon to use free of charge: Balanced teaching would mean that a public health professor teaching that smoking is the only cause of lung cancer would have to teach about the effects of asbestos, too.

Clearly, what Simon says reveals he is incapable of balanced teaching -even on the subject of balanced teaching.

A final myth that Simon enumerates is that higher education needs government oversight. I hear this argument from a lot from professors who alternate between begging the legislature for more money to fund higher education and demanding that the legislature stay out of higher education.

Nonetheless, I think Simon is finally on to something. It is time for the legislatures to get out of the business of higher education and de-fund public universities altogether. Professors can say anything they want in class, indoctrinate students, and engage in imbalanced teaching all they want at some private university. But the taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for it.

As I finish this column and look out my window, I see a blind squirrel that occasionally stumbles upon an acorn or a peanut in my back yard. A picture of that squirrel provides a good synopsis of what Simon says.

==============================

Temple looks right on academic rights (Washington Times, 060724)

Temple University responded to complaints about left-wing bias by beefing up its academic-rights policy, handing the academic-freedom movement the biggest victory of its three-year history.

The school’s Board of Trustees adopted Thursday a three-page document titled “Student and Faculty Academic Rights and Responsibilities,” which includes provisions protecting students from ideological discrimination and outlining grievance procedures against faculty bias.

David Horowitz, the conservative writer spearheading the academic-freedom movement, applauded the board, saying the decision makes Temple, in Philadelphia, the first university to “address student rights and not just faculty privilege.”

“I’m thrilled with this,” said Mr. Horowitz, adding that the policy reflects the recommendations of his Academic Bill of Rights proposal. “What the Temple policy does is put students into the equation for the first time.”

He predicted that other universities would follow before the end of the year.

“This will make it easier for other universities to adopt similar policies,” he said.

Critics said the policy change hardly merits such hoopla. William Cutler, a Temple professor of history and educational policy studies, said that although he hadn’t had a chance to compare the old and revised policies, the new version appeared to differ little from current policy.

“The revised version is pretty much a straightforward call for faculty and students to respect well-argued views and the principles and standards of academic discourse,” Mr. Cutler said. “That’s always been the case at Temple.”

Mr. Cutler was among those who testified before a state legislative committee on academic bias at Pennsylvania state universities. The committee, which held a series of hearings from January to May, is expected to release a report of its findings this fall.

At the Temple hearings in January, Marlene Kowal, president of the campus chapter of Students for Academic Freedom, cited examples of professors praising communist leaders such as Mao Zedong and Che Guevara while criticizing the Bush administration.

“The radical left is dominating our universities. If we allow this trend to continue, they will indoctrinate our youth,” Miss Kowal said.

But Mr. Cutler disagreed, saying the hearings showed no proven evidence of ideological bias.

“I heard every word at those hearings, and it was demonstrated pretty conclusively that there was no academic bias problem at Temple,” he said.

Jaime Horwitz, spokesman for Free Exchange on Campus, argued that, contrary to Mr. Horowitz’s assertions, the Temple policy did little more than incorporate some of Mr. Horowitz’s language.

Mr. Horwitz’s organization has fought state legislation aimed at establishing academic-freedom policies at universities. About 25 states have introduced resolutions and bills aimed at curtailing academic bias, although no bill has passed.

“This isn’t the same as passing a law, and it’s certainly nothing new that universities have laws protecting students,” Mr. Horwitz said.

Mr. Horowitz countered by pointing out several key distinctions: The new policy outlines a specific grievance procedure for students that requires violations to be submitted each semester to the Board of Trustees.

In addition, the policy, which takes effect Aug. 1, will be included for the first time in the university catalog and on the university Web site, said Mr. Horowitz, who has long argued that many students are unaware of their rights regarding faculty.

“One thing that we highlighted [at the hearings] is that these policies often exist, but they don’t really recognize students; the students don’t really know what they are,” Mr. Horowitz said.

State Sen. Gibson C. Armstrong, the Pennsylvania Republican who chaired the hearings, praised Temple for its decision.

“I think it’s a great step forward for students’ rights and something that will help ensure diversity on campus.”

==============================

Smearing education choice (Townhall.com, 060726)

By John Stossel

This month, papers all around America reported that according to the U.S. Department of Education, “children in public schools generally performed as well or better in reading and mathematics than comparable children in private schools.”

The New York Times put the study on its front page, along with a quote from teachers’ union president Reg Weaver, who claimed it showed “public schools were doing an outstanding job.”

Please.

Most public schools are far from outstanding. America’s government schools have rigid one-size-fits-all rules that reward mediocrity. Despite raising per-student spending to more than $10,000 (at least $200,000 per classroom!), test scores have stayed flat. On international tests, Americans now lag behind students from less developed nations like Poland and Korea that spend a fraction as much money on education.

The people who run the international tests told us, “the biggest predictor of student success is choice.” Nations that “attach the money to the kids” and thereby allow parents to choose between different public and private schools have higher test scores. This should be no surprise; competition makes us better.

It’s true in America, too, as we know from the few tiny choice experiments that have squeaked past the restrictions of the unions and the education bureaucrats. There are now eight studies from some of the places where choice has been tried. All show that when parents are given choices, kids’ performance improves. But those studies didn’t make the front page of The Times.

Why? Were they inferior to the new study? Not at all. Many were the best kind of controlled studies — they followed students who were assigned by lottery to get a ticket out of the regular public schools. That gave the researchers two nearly identical populations to compare. Again and again, kids who won the lottery did better than those who were stuck in the standard government schools.

Then why did the new study conclude that public schools performed as well?

The researchers tortured the data.

It seems the private school kids actually scored higher on the tests, but then the researchers “dug deeper.” They “put test scores into context” by adjusting for “race, ethnicity, income and parents’ educational backgrounds to make the comparisons more meaningful.”

Maybe it’s unfair to call that “torturing the data.” Such regression analysis is a valid statistical tool. But it’s prone to researcher bias. Statistical hocus-pocus is not the best way to compare schools. “Ideally, to ascertain the difference between the two types of schools, an experiment would be conducted in which students are assigned (by an appropriate random mechanism) to either public or private schools.” That quote, believe it or not, is from the study. But the ever-scrupulous journalists at The Times didn’t find that “fit to print.”

In any case, it’s telling that they put so much emphasis on 4th and 8th grade tests. That’s just the beginning of a student’s education. American 4th graders do pretty well in international competitions. It’s by 12th grade that Americans are so far behind. The longer they spend in America’s bureaucratic schools, the worse they do. I’d like to see The Times publish results of 12th grade comparisons, but I won’t hold my breath.

Why are the mainstream media so eager to defend a unionized government monopoly? Maybe The Times gave the “adjusted” test data (and an earlier version of it published in January) so much play partly because of the editors’ dislike of “conservative Christian” schools (which did poorly in the study) and the Bush administration (which has talked about bringing market competition to education).

But I suspect the biggest reason is that the editors just don’t like capitalism and free markets.

==============================

Dorm Brothels: Is Promiscuity Obligatory? (Christian Post, 060811)

By Mark Earley

At Maryland’s Loyola College, ethics professor Vigen Guroian was lecturing on Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Students were comparing the novel – in which sexual promiscuity is required by law – with life in their own freewheeling dorms. Guroian pointed out the difference: Promiscuity on campus is voluntary, whereas in Brave New World, it’s mandatory.

After class, a young woman came up to Guroian and told him he was wrong. Peer pressure and living arrangements on campus make promiscuity “practically obligatory,” she said. “When it seems like everyone else is ‘doing it,’ it is hard to say no,” she added. “It is more like Brave New World here than you think.”

Guroian was not altogether surprised. He attended college himself in the late 1960s, when colleges gave up the responsibilities of in loco parentis. Up until then, separate dorms for men and women, along with stringent rules regarding visitors of the opposite sex, “made it possible for a female student to say ‘no’ and make it stick,” he writes. While the rules were not always followed, they established the boundaries and norms of acceptable behavior.

Today, these boundaries no longer exist. In his new book, titled Rallying the Really Human Things, Guroian writes that the abdication of in loco parentis “opened the floodgates to the so-called sexual revolution, inviting much of what goes on today in college dormitories.” Men and women share dorms and even bathrooms at some schools. It’s not unusual, he says, for dorms to have a designated room set aside for casual hook-ups.

In effect, he says, colleges have “gone into the . . . brothel business.” Meanwhile, college administrators ignore the truth: Coed dorms work to the advantage of male sexual aggression. And the results are tragic.

“I know that young people are getting hurt, some permanently scarred for life,” Guroian says. “I hold colleges like my own morally accountable, if not complicit in this harm. The colleges know what is going on, and they [simply] shovel out self-serving rhetoric about respecting college students as adults. And,” Guroian says, “when those ‘adults’ get hurt, they order up more psychologists . . . to bandage the casualties, my children and yours.”

Guroian is right: These appalling conditions are both terrible and tragic. Students today need a great deal of wisdom to navigate a course of integrity in dormitory life. But the journey should not be made more difficult by college administrators who seem unable, or unwilling, to acknowledge the truth about human nature: Putting healthy young men and women together in close quarters only promotes promiscuous behavior. In the short term, these living conditions interfere with the students’ ability to learn. In the long term, they damage their ability to form successful marriages.

Before sending their kids off to colleges, parents ought to investigate the living arrangements. Alumni can also put pressure on their schools, demanding that they offer at least one non-coed dorm for women. And students themselves should ask administrators why they are being forced to live in surroundings that degrade them – a setting that turns college dormitories, according to Guroian, into virtual brothels.

==============================

College: Is It Worth It? (Foxnews, 060813)

Two-hundred thousand dollars.

That’s what four years of college could wind up costing entering students at a top-tier liberal arts school this fall.

Is it worth it?

More specifically: do the ends justify the combination of time, effort, money and sacrifices necessary to earn a college degree?

Jenna Patterson of Monroe, N.Y. is heading off to college soon, but Jenna and her parents have yet to decide on the best college for Jenna, and are struggling with how they will pay for it. In the first installment of this FOX series, Jenna doesn’t want to compromise her dreams, but Jenna’s father says he must be happy with the decision too.

Risk versus reward is a basic mantra preached by almost every investment adviser, and the same logic applies when deciding whether to choose a backpack and books over a workplace ID.

Simply put, a college education does not come cheap.

In 2002-2003, the average annual cost (tuition, room and board) at a typical four-year public university was $9,828, while a year at a mid-range private institution averaged more than twice as much, $23,940, according to Department of Education statistics.

That should put the average cost of a bachelor’s degree at between $40,000 and $100,000. But government statistics don’t come close to telling the real story.

First, tuition — the basic cost of attending classes — at a public university is cheapest for in-state students. Attend an out-of-state public institution and the tuition could triple. Get accepted at a top-tier liberal arts college and the annual cost of tuition and fees could run more than $42,000.

Now, throw in books (it’s not unusual for a 100-page paperback text to cost $50 or more), fees for lab and research access, campus activities and events, academic copying and printing, library use and parking... and, well, you get the picture.

But that’s not all... there’s also the cost of kegs, cars and clothes.

Transportation — the cost of a car, gas, insurance, and in some cases, four round-trip airfares a year — can run more than $5,000 a year.

Then there’s the price of off-campus entertainment and activities (after all, you don’t want to sit in your dorm all the time), and clothing, computers, and other electronic necessities such as an iPod — even a plasma TV.

Now, multiply everything by four years, and — not even figuring for inflation, or arbitrary increases in tuition and fees (research shows tuition increasing at a rate of about 10% annually) — you now have a bill that’s more than able to bring any student or parent to their knees.

Even writing a check to pay for it all can be costly if you take out loans. The College Board, an association of colleges and universities, reports that student who borrow to pay for college graduate with an average $20,000 of debt. You could end up feeling this bill for up to 10 years after you graduate.

Had enough?

Well, there’s some good news. First, those well-cited government statistics about the average cost of tuition are about as accurate as a hotel’s posted prices. It’s the “rack rate,” and most colleges offer an abundance of financial aid that at least can knock down the cost of tuition.

Still, tens of thousands of dollars (at minimum) is a big financial investment for anything, including an education.

So what are the potential rewards?

Here’s where government statistics might make you smile.

In 2005, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that college graduates earned about $51,000 a year. Compare that to a typical wage earner without a high school diploma earning an average $18,734 a year, and workers with a high school diplomas earning $27,915, and it doesn’t take rocket science to see that a college degree can at least double your money-making potential.

“The more you learn, the more you earn — and the less likely you are to be unemployed,” according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Earnings increase and unemployment decreases with additional years of education. But completing a program is worth more than attending college without earning a degree.”

The payoff in personal enrichment might be harder to quantify, but it’s just as important.

“What college hopefully will do for [my daughter] Sasha and for all my kids would be to expose them to things that they hadn’t thought of, so that they grow as people, they become more rounded, more open, more tolerant,” said Steve Ozahowski, whose daughter Sasha is going to Roger Williams University in Rhode Island.

“The knowledge is important, but I don’t think it’s as important as the overall experience and ... the four-year commitment,” Ozahowski said.

==============================

Christian Colleges Top ‘Stone-Cold Sober Schools’ List in Latest Rankings (Christian Post, 060825)

Students nationwide rated their schools for this year’s best colleges and Christian institutions took top spots as prayer-filled and “Stone-Cold Sober Schools.”

While the Texas Longhorns was ranked the country’s top party school with lots of beer and lots of hard liquor, Wheaton College in Illinois and College of the Ozarks in Missouri placed in the top five as “stone-cold sober schools,” clean of the beer and drugs that many Christian leaders say are now common on the college campus.

The lists are part of Princeton Review’s 2007 edition of “The Best 361 Colleges: The Smart Student’s Guide to Colleges” with rankings in more than 60 categories. Wheaton College also placed high in the “Best Quality of Life,” “Best Campus Food,” and “Town-Gown Relations Are Great” lists.

While prayer prevails throughout the aforementioned Christian colleges, the annual guide also ranked colleges where “students ignore God on a regular basis.”

Reed College in Portland, Ore., topped the list as the most unreligious school.

Christian leaders have expressed concern over students leaving the nest for a campus that now has more dangers than before and where many end up leaving their faith. David Wheaton, author of University of Destruction had labeled secular college campuses as “the most radical aspect of society” with sex, drugs, alcohol and humanism rampant in the independent student spheres.

Nevertheless, the unreligious aspect of such colleges as Reed has not taken away from a good academic experience. According to the Princeton Review report, Reed was within the top five colleges where “students never stop studying” and that provides the “best overall academic experience for undergraduates.”

On an academic rating, the University of Chicago provides the best overall academic experience for undergraduates, followed by Stanford University, Rice University and Columbia University.

Robert Franek, author of the Princeton report, said the lists are simply meant to provide more information for high school students, according to the Associated Press.

“But the real challenge for applicants and parents is finding the college that’s best for them,” he said in a released statement. “That’s why our profiles and unique ranking lists report in depth what the colleges’ customers – the students themselves – tell us about their schools and their experiences at them.

“It’s simply finding that community both inside and outside of the classroom that I think is the challenge for many students.”

The survey is based on ratings from 115,000 students at 361 top colleges who were asked 80 questions about their school’s academics and administration, campus life, student body, and themselves. Ninety-three percent of the surveys were done online and seven percent on paper.

==============================

Princeton Gets Top Place in U.S. News & World Report Rankings (Foxnews, 060818)

Princeton takes the top spot in the latest U.S. News & World Report college rankings, breaking a three-year tie for No. 1 with Ivy League rival Harvard.

Yale again took the No. 3 spot in the controversial but closely watched rankings, followed by the California Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford — all tied for fourth. The University of Pennsylvania drops from fourth to seventh, and Duke from fifth to eighth.

The guide to “America’s Best Colleges,” hitting newsstands Monday, again names Williams the top liberal arts college. The University of California, Berkeley, is the top-rated public university, tied for No. 21 overall.

The formula for the rankings includes variables such as graduation and retention rates, faculty and financial resources, and the percentage of alumni donating money to their alma mater. The biggest single variable is a reputation assessment by peer institutions.

The Job Hunt: How to Start a Successful Career

For tools and tips on planning financially for college, visit FoxnewsBusiness.com’s College Planning Page.

Many colleges criticize the rankings, but they take them seriously. The University of Chicago, facing complaints from alumni about its ranking, says this year it re-examined figures it was submitting in categories such as financial resources and concluded it was underreporting. The school’s ranking shot up from 15th to No. 9.

“If schools move up a couple points, down a couple points, that’s not really meaningful to us,” said executive editor Brian Kelly. “The difference between 1 and 10 is minuscule. Whether that’s minuscule or not to a reader, that’s up to them.”

It was the seventh straight year Princeton has been at least tied for the top ranking.

The university issued a statement saying the institution was “pleased that our commitment to providing the highest quality undergraduate education continues to be recognized.” But, it continued, “no methodical ranking can capture an institution’s individual distinctiveness.”

The top national universities were:

1. Princeton University

2. Harvard University

3. Yale University

4. California Institute of Technology

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Stanford University (tie)

7. University of Pennsylvania

8. Duke University

9. Columbia University

Dartmouth University

University of Chicago (tie)

==============================

SAT Score Drop Biggest in 31 Years (Christian Post, 060830)

The high school class of 2006 recorded the sharpest drop in SAT scores in 31 years, a decline that the exam’s owner, the College Board, said was partly due to some students taking the newly lengthened test only once instead of twice.

Fatigue wasn’t to blame, the College Board insisted, even though this year’s class was the first to take a new version of the exam which added an essay. It now takes an average of three hours and 45 minutes to complete the test, not counting breaks.

The results come several months after numerous colleges reported surprisingly low SAT scores for this year’s incoming college freshmen. The nonprofit College Board, which had said scores would be down this year, released figures Tuesday showing combined critical reading and math skills fell seven points on average to 1021.

The average critical reading score fell from 508 to 503, while math dropped from 520 to 518. On the new SAT writing section, the class scored 497 on average, with girls scoring 11 points higher than boys.

In addition to the new writing section, the exam taken by the class of 2006 had other new features, including higher-level math and the elimination of analogies.

The College Board noted the drop in math scores amounts to one-fifth of one test question, and the reading to one-half of one question. But over about 1.5 million test-takers such drops are significant, and this was the biggest year-to-year decline since the class of 1975.

The results come two weeks after it was announced the class of 2006 had posted the biggest score increase in 20 years on the rival ACT exam. The ACT, which is also accepted by almost all colleges that require standardized tests, is generally more focused on material covered in high school classes than the SAT, which is more of a measure of general ability. But more students in traditional SAT states like Connecticut and New Jersey appear to be taking both exams to try to improve their applications to selective colleges.

The initial indication SAT scores were down this year prompted speculation students may have been tiring out toward the end of the marathon exam.

But in announcing the scores, the College Board said an analysis of 700,000 critical reading and math exams taken in the spring and fall of 2005 showed students were performing about the same early and late in the exam.

Instead, the College Board explained the drop by saying fewer students were taking the exam a second time, which typically boosts scores 30 points. The price of the test has risen from $28.50 to $41.50, though fees are sometimes waived.

Experts say the changeover in exams probably affected how students approached the test, and thus the scores. Students in the class of 2006 had the chance to take both the old SAT exam, until midway through their junior year, and the new SAT after that. If they did well the first time out, some may have opted to stand pat with those scores. Some colleges continued to accept scores from the old test during the bridge period.

“When a new test is introduced, students usually vary their test-taking behavior in a variety of ways and this affects scores,” College Board President Gaston Caperton said in a news release.

On the SAT, boys’ scores fell eight points from 513 to 505 in critical reading and from 538 to 536 in math. Girls’ scores fell from 505 to 502 in reading and from 504 to 502 in math.

Average reading scores for black students rose 1 point from 433 to 434, while math scores fell two points from 431 to 429.

The College Board lists three categories for Hispanic students. Scores for Mexican-Americans rose three points overall, Puerto Ricans’ fell two points and scores of students who identified themselves as “Other Hispanic” fell 11 points.

==============================

Evangelicals Intensify Calls for Parents to Pull Kids from Public Schools (Christian Post, 060903)

NEW YORK (AP) — Public schools take a lot of criticism, but a growing, loosely organized movement is now moving from harsh words to action — with parents taking their own children out of public schools and exhorting other families to do the same.

magnifier Enlarge this Image

school

Led mainly by evangelical Christians, the movement depicts public education as hostile to religious faith and claims to be behind a surge in the number of students being schooled at home.

“The courts say no creationism, no prayer in public schools,” said Roger Moran, a Winfield, Mo., businessman and member of the Southern Baptist Convention executive committee. “Humanism and evolution can be taught, but everything I believe is disallowed.”

The father of nine homeschooled children, Moran co-sponsored a resolution at the Southern Baptists’ annual meeting in June that urged the denomination to endorse a public school pullout. It failed, as did a similar proposal before the conservative Presbyterian Church in America for members to shift their children into homeschooling or private Christian schools.

Still, the movement is very much alive, led by such groups as Exodus Mandate and the Alliance for Separation of School and State. One new campaign aims to monitor public schools for what conservatives see as pro-gay curriculum and programs; another initiative seeks to draw an additional 1 million children into homeschooling by encouraging parents already experienced at it to mentor families wanting to try it.

“Homeschoolers avoid harmful school environments where God is mocked, where destructive peer influence is the norm, where drugs, alcohol, promiscuity and homosexuality are promoted,” says the California-based Considering Homeschooling Ministry.

Though the movement’s rhetoric strikes public school supporters as extreme, some of its leaders are influential. They include R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who last year said the denomination needed an “exit strategy” from public schools, and the Rev. D. James Kennedy, pastor of 10,000-member Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale and host of a nationally broadcast religious program.

“The infusion of an atheistic, amoral, evolutionary, socialistic, one-world, anti-American system of education in our public schools has indeed become such that if it had been done by an enemy, it would be considered an act of war,” Kennedy said in a recent commentary.

Overall, public schools are in no danger of withering away. The latest federal figures, from 2005, show their total K-12 enrollment at 48.4 million, compared to 6.3 million in private schools — most of them religious.

However, the National Center for Education Statistics said private school enrollment has grown at a faster rate than public schools since 1989, and it expects that trend to continue through 2014. Moreover, the private school figures don’t include the growing ranks of homeschoolers — there were at least 1.1 million of them in 2003, according to federal figures, and perhaps more than 2 million now, according to homeschool advocates.

According to a federal survey, 72% of homeschooling parents say one of their primary motivations is to provide stronger moral and religious instruction.

The president of the largest teachers’ union, Reg Weaver of the National Education Association, says public school critics use increasingly harsh language, “but they’re not as successful as they’d like to pretend.”

“The overwhelming majority of our folks,” Weaver said of his union members, “are not being pulled off the agenda of great public schools for all children.”

Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center, a non-partisan civil liberties group, said public education leaders should work harder to convince parents they aren’t against religion by encouraging non-sectarian teaching about the Bible and the formation of student religious clubs.

“School leaders know they’re facing the perception that public education has somehow become hostile to religion,” Haynes said. “They understand there’s no time to be lost.”

Some districts have moved proactively to address parents’ concerns, he said, “but many more have put their heads in the sand over this, afraid of controversy or litigation.”

Haynes says public school critics have gained an audience with shrewd Internet-based communication tactics, quickly spreading anecdotes — real or exaggerated — of incidents perceived as anti-religious or too approving of homosexuality and teen sexual freedom.

For example, word spread among conservatives last year that school officials in the Dallas suburb of Plano had banned students from wearing red and green because the colors represented Christmas. The district sent e-mails to parents denying the “false rumor.”

“Parents all over the country get the few bad stories and believe this is what public schools are all about,” Haynes said.

Enrollment at conservative Christian schools is overwhelmingly white, as are the ranks of homeschoolers, but faith-based disenchantment with public schools transcends racial boundaries.

Joyce and Eric Burges of Baker, La., founded an association seeking to encourage more black families to follow them into homeschooling.

“African-American children have been beat up so bad in public schools — more parents are looking at the Christian alternative,” said Joyce Burges.

Black or white, parents can be financially challenged by a move away from public schools.

Tim Sierer, headmaster of a Christian academy in Brookhaven, Pa., helped launch a website in March — DiscoverChristianSchools.com — to assist parents considering the switch.

“It’s not a decision to take lightly,” said Sierer, noting that Christian school tuitions in his region range up to $10,000.

Some activists say the financial challenges can be overcome with creativity.

Houston lawyer Bruce Shortt, author of “The Harsh Truth About Public Schools,” says some homeschooling parents are forming co-ops to pool their resources. Evangelical churches should offer space for such programs, he says, perhaps with a computer-based component in which students are taught online by accredited teachers.

“There are many new models evolving for Christian education,” said Shortt, who homeschools his three sons. “We need to create a new school system, not supported by tax dollars but public in the sense that it’s open to anyone.”

The head of Christian Educators Association International, which represents devout teachers in public and private schools, urges parents to reflect carefully on their choices. “One size does not fit all,” says Finn Laursen, arguing that public, private and at-home education all might be good options.

“Don’t just hammer public schools,” Laursen said. “Go in there and take them back.”

However, Mohler, the Southern Baptist seminary president, says court rulings and government mandates have sharply limited the ability of parents and local school boards to control public education.

It’s become a “new normal” for younger parents to consider alternatives, he said. “It’s a very different assumption from their parents’ generation.”

Yet even as he urges an “exit strategy,” Mohler says there will be a cost to America if the call is widely heeded.

“One of the great missions of the public schools was to bring together children of divergent backgrounds — I benefited from that,” he said. “There is a loss in this.”

==============================

Advancement: Promoting the end of social promotion. (National Review Online, 060913)

Should the grade-level a student is in be based entirely on how old he is or at least partially on how skilled he is? This is the fundamental question underlying the debate over social promotion — the practice of moving students to the next grade regardless of whether they have acquired the minimal skills covered in the previous grade. Advocates of social promotion suggest that it is best to group students by age rather than by skill. Students who are held back a grade are separated from their age-peers and, the argument goes, this social disruption harms them academically. Opponents of social promotion favor requiring students to demonstrate minimal skills on a standardized test before they receive automatic promotion to the next grade.

Until now the bulk of the research favored social promotion. Most studies found that students who were retained tended to fare less well academically than demographically similar students who were promoted. The problem with this previous research is that it was never entirely clear whether retained students did worse because they were retained or because whatever caused them to be retained led to worse outcomes. This is especially a problem because these previous studies examined retention based on educator discretion. If teachers decide that one student should be retained while another demographically similar student should be promoted, they probably know something about those students that suggests that the promoted student has better prospects than the retained student. When researchers match students on recorded demographic factors they cannot observe or control statistically for what a teacher saw that led that teacher to promote one student while retaining the other.

But in a new study we conducted for the Manhattan Institute that avoids the pitfalls of earlier research, we find that holding low-performing students back helps them academically. We examined a policy in Florida that required third-grade student to perform at a certain level on the state’s reading test to receive an automatic promotion to fourth grade. Students who performed below the required level and repeated third grade made significantly greater academic progress than similar students who were promoted despite their lack of skills. The benefit of being retained grew so that by the end of the second year the retained students entered fifth grade knowing more than the promoted students did leaving fifth grade — this despite the fact that the retained students had not yet been exposed to the fifth grade material.

Of course, the key question is how do we know that we are comparing similar students when earlier researchers had so much difficulty making apple-to-apple comparisons? We are helped by the fact that retention decisions in Florida were based on the adoption of an objective, test requirement rather than educator discretion. This allowed us to pursue two strategies for making apple-to-apple comparisons. First, we could compare the academic progress made by low-performing students the first year the requirement was adopted to the progress of similarly low-performing students the year before the policy was put in place. These two groups hardly differed except in the year in which they happened to be born. Whether students in these two cohorts were promoted or retained did not vary according to unrecorded qualities that informed a teacher’s decision, but by whether they happened to be born in one year or another.

Second, we could compare the academic progress of students who were barely above the minimum test score (almost all of whom were promoted) to the progress of students who were barely below the required test score (most of whom were retained). Since there is some random error in testing, students barely above the testing threshold are hardly different in their academic ability from those barely below the threshold. The luck of answering one more question correctly might be all that distinguishes students in the two groups. So, the two groups would be very similar but one was likely to be retained while the other was not. Again, this allowed for a very nice apple-to-apple comparison.

Whichever way we looked at it, the result was the same: retained low-performing students made significantly greater academic progress than promoted low-performing students. Of course, this study does not definitively prove that test-based retention is beneficial. For one thing, researchers using similar methods analyzing a similar program in Chicago found that retained students fared no better or slightly worse than promoted students. There are important differences between how test-based promotion was implemented in Florida and Chicago that could explain these different results.

The point is that we have strong evidence from Florida that test-based promotion requirements can significantly enhance the achievement of low performing students. If those positive results continue and can be replicated in New York or Texas, where similar programs also exist, we may have to rethink the widespread idea that students have to be grouped in grade-levels by age rather than by skill level. Perhaps more students will benefit by being taught at a level appropriate to their skills. And perhaps school systems will be motivated to ensure that students acquire the required skills if they can’t simply pass students along regardless of their achievement.

— Jay P. Greene is endowed chair of education reform at the University of Arkansas and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, where Marcus A. Winters is a senior research associate. They are authors of the book Education Myths.

==============================

‘How-to-be promiscuous’ plan considered by schools: ‘Black Book’ also promotes ‘gay’ agenda, abortion and calls God ‘fat black dyke’ (WorldNetDaily, 060919)

A sexually-explicit guide written in a way that condemns traditional North American values and promotes homosexuality and abortion to young girls learning about sex is being considered for use in public schools, and leaders at a family-values think tank are horrified.

“We have to find a way to stop this from happening,” Joseph Ben-Ami, the executive director of the Institute for Canadian Values, told WND. “People don’t know this is happening.”

The project is called, “The Little Black Book – A Book on Healthy Sexuality Written by Grrrls (sic) for Grrrls” and was assembled by a group including the St. Stephen’s House community service organization.

The Toronto project, now online after earlier published versions, is, according to Ben-Ami, “a thinly veiled propaganda piece that undermines healthy parent-child relationships, substitutes voodoo myths for actual science, and provides advice that, if followed, will certainly result in real and serious harm to those who follow it.”

For example, the guide states that “only 10% of the population is heterosexual – the rest being ‘mixed’ or bi-sexual,” but mentions no evidence. It also promotes homosexuality and labels parents “homophobes.”

“So are children until they get minds of other own,” it said.

“One section devoted to lesbian sex is entitled, ‘My First Time F***ing a Girl!” This in a book intended for young girls, Ben-Ami noted.

Neither an e-mail nor a telephone call to St. Stephen’s was returned. St. Stephen’s reports it was started by the Anglican Diocese in 1962, and “was” a Christian-based settlement house providing community services. It became “independent” in 1974.

“The guide promotes the use of devices to reduce the risk of contracting disease and infection through sexual activity, referring to this as safe-sex. No meaningful attempt is made to warn the reader of the failure rate of these devices,” Ben-Ami said.

And in a swipe at anyone with a religious background or beliefs, the book includes the comment that, if “you need someone to represent God The Holiness, then for me, it’s a fat black dyke.”

“What this statement has to do with healthy emotional and sexual development is beyond us,” Ben-Ami said.

He said his concern is that government authorities now are reviewing the guide for its possible uses. In Canada, which legalized same-sex marriage about a year ago, school curricula that refers to a man-and-woman as a couple has to be dropped.

Schools and teachers, he said, therefore are looking for new materials reflecting the change in the law, and he fears this will be chosen.

“Our understanding is that the Manitoba Ministry of Education is currently assessing whether the book is appropriate,” he said.

St. Stephen’s, the originator of the concept, is being funded this year by three levels of government, city, provincial and federal, with allocations totaling almost $8 million, he said.

The Institute for Canadian Values is a public policy think tank that is faith-based, but does not focus on a single belief system.

“The reason we’re able to work with so many faith groups is because we don’t have a particular religious agenda,” Ben-Ami said. “We’re just saying the traditional moral views in a lot of these areas are consistent with good social policy, good social science.”

He said, for example, although he is not Catholic he recognizes the inherent benefits to society from the Catholic church’s teachings on sexual abstinence. If that were translated to public policy with regards to the crisis of sexually transmitted diseases in Africa, he said, those diseases could be virtually eliminated in a generation.

“We ought not to be in a wholesale abandonment mode of traditional ways of doing things,” he said, “simply because they happen to be identified as closely associated with religious groups.”

Modern society, he said, appears to be implementing “bad social policy” almost in principle as a badge of not being religious.

“‘The Little Black Book’ is one of the most obscene and irresponsible ‘educational’ books we have come across,” said the institute. “Canadians from all walks of life need to take action now to ensure that children are not exposed to its harmful influence.”

Reminding readers that it’s intended for fairly young girls, it honors the 40th anniversary of the Barbie doll with a list of recommendations for the occasion.

Those include “Shave her head and give her a nose ring,” “Have Barbie marry another Barbie,” “Have her take part in an orgy,” and “Give her leather bondage gear, a whip and chains.”

It also lists “Fun alternatives to intercourse: Petting, Cyber sex, phone sex, kissing, making out, blowjob” and others.

It also offers tips about having sex that “help you make the jump and land with a smile.”

==============================

High-tech cheaters making the grade at Canadian universities, colleges (Calgary Herald, 060925)

CALGARY - Text messaging has replaced glancing over a classmate’s shoulder at exam time for some student cheaters, causing headaches for post-secondary administrators trying to strike a balance between freedom and integrity.

With college and university classes in full swing, many campus officials are struggling to stay one step ahead of tech-savvy students studying at highly competitive institutions.

Often, cheating students are bound only by their imaginations.

“We had an impersonator last year, someone posing as another student to write a test,” said Seamus O’Shea, vice-president academic at the University of Lethbridge in southern Alberta. “They assumed we wouldn’t check their ID. They were wrong.”

The student was expelled. A black mark on his academic transcript will follow him the rest of his life.

Blatant, cut-and-paste plagiarism from the Internet appears to be the most frequent, ongoing problem at several southern Alberta schools, according to officials.

“I’ve been in the business 25 years and there used to be shades of plagiarism,” said Alex Reed, registrar at Calgary’s SAIT Polytechnic. “Now it’s blatant and people think they can get away with that.”

But it’s text-messaging answers between friends, or using a phone or other electronic device to store information, that is gaining steam at colleges and universities.

“That’s a new problem for us,” Reed said. “So we finally put a ban on electronics during exams.”

The U of L has not banned cellphones because it hasn’t turned into an issue, but it is on the watch list, O’Shea said.

“It’s one thing to ban them and it’s another to make a policy work. Some of these things look remarkably like calculators and other electronics, so it’s not enough to have a rule banning something; you have to have a way of implementing it effectively,” he said.

“There’s not a great tidal wave of people out there cheating that concerns us. It’s the nature of cheating that’s changed.”

While the exact numbers pertaining to cheating are generally difficult to nail down at local institutions, recent reports indicate it’s not uncommon for students to try anything to prosper.

New research focused on Canadian and U.S. graduate business schools indicates 56 per cent of students admit to cheating, compared with 47 per cent of their peers in non-business programs.

The study, by professors from Rutgers, Washington State and Penn State universities, surveyed more than 5,000 students from 11 Canadian schools and 21 in the U.S. from 2002 to 2004. The authors declined to name the Canadian business schools.

The study found the severity of penalties and knowledge of academic-integrity policies were not deterrents, and many students cited peer behaviour and competition in the workforce as influences.

In the United Kingdom recently, 237 university students were caught cheating when officials used a computer program designed to detect Internet plagiarism. Seven students were expelled and dozens of others cases are under review.

Coventry University officials used a program called Turnitin, which made waves in Canada two years ago when a McGill University student refused to have his paper vetted for plagiarism by the computer program.

The then 19-year-old successfully challenged the new rule, but not before receiving a zero on his paper.

Turnitin, and programs like it, compare a student’s work with a database of academic articles.

While the software is used with discretion at U of L, it is not used at University of Calgary, Mount Royal College or SAIT, according to officials.

A controversy erupted at SAIT last year when several students were accused of cheating after their papers were run through the software and flagged. The students were cleared, but the controversy hasn’t gone away.

“We’ve looked at couple programs and are still in the process of doing so, but there’s quite a debate in the post-secondary world about intellectual properties,” Reed said.

There were 55 first offences last year at SAIT, five ending in suspension or expulsion for various violations of the academic code, although officials declined to break down the nature of the offences.

The SAIT Students’ Association is opposed to the use of Turnitin.

“It’s not worth it,” said student president Jessica Powless. “There are going to be cheats, they can’t be stopped. But it should be left up to the instructors to catch these people because no student wants their work, their words, to end up in a database.

“We lose academic integrity if we take that route.”

O’Shea said it’s up to professors to decide if they want to use the software. Many rely on intuition.

“We use it as a way to keep people honest,” he says. “Professors notice when you use someone else’s material. It’s a sudden change of gears.”

At Calgary’s Mount Royal College last year there were 133 reports of “academic integrity” issues, which include cheating and plagiarism. Five of those went before a board, but officials won’t say what or how many punishments, if any, were meted out.

Susan Gottheil, executive director of enrolment management and registrar at MRC, said although the numbers appear high, it’s due in part to the fact that the code of conduct was written in 2003, but no one was assigned to administer it until a year later.

Once the policy came into effect and word spread around campus, the numbers spiked.

“Now we have faculty incorporating plagiarism and cheating definitions into course outlines,” Gottheil said.

Sometimes students simply don’t know any better, some officials say.

At Calgary’s Bow Valley College, where as many as 10 per cent of students cheat, staff are working with students to understand the difference between citing and stealing material.

“It’s a question of learning the limits,” said Anna Kae Todd, vice-president of learning, adding impersonation cases have also occurred at the college and text-messaging cheating was a problem until cellphones were banned. “And sometimes it’s simply the sophistication level of the student.”

Julia Christensen Hughes, an associate professor at Guelph University in Ontario and an expert in cheating trends at post-secondaries, blames “a cheating-to-win culture.”

She’s poised to release results of a comprehensive study, examining cheating habits at 20 Canadian universities.

Aside from texting, she’s also seen a spike in the number of students buying papers from the Internet and passing them off as their own.

She encourages school officials to take some responsibility.

“Universities have an obligation to motivate students to learn with integrity,” Christensen Hughes said. “Professors can be so focused on fact-based regurgitation, as opposed to critical thinking, that cheating often becomes a game.”

==============================

InterVarsity Files Suit Against University of Wisconsin: The Christian Ministry Wants Equal Treatment on Campus (Christian Post, 061004)

InterVarsity Christian Fellowship faces another boot out of a university campus for alleged discrimination in its leadership. The major campus ministry filed suit on Monday against the head of the University of Wisconsin to be reinstated as a campus organization.

In a press conference Tuesday, InterVarsity President Alec Hill said, “For over 40 years the student group affiliated with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship has been active at the University of Wisconsin-Superior. That is until eight months ago.”

The university derecognized the ministry chapter for the 2006-2007 school year in February claiming that InterVarsity’s requirements for leadership went against the school’s anti-discrimination policy. InterVarsity requires its leaders to affirm the ministry’s Basis of Faith. InterVarsity-Superior believes that the university’s position denies any religious organization the ability to maintain its own identity.

“As we understand it, the university’s action was taken simply because InterVarsity requires the students’ leaders, not its members but just the leaders, to sign our statement of faith,” said Hill. “Frankly, the university’s position defies common sense.

“Does this mean, for example, that Hillel (a Jewish campus organization) must accept holocaust deniers as leaders? Does this mean that the young Republicans must accept Democrats as their leaders?”

Speaking along the same lines, David French, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund which filed the lawsuit, said it’s common sense that Christian students groups can and should be led by Christians.

“But this is not just a matter of common sense. It is also the binding law in this jurisdiction,” said French in a released statement. “What’s amazing is that the university is willing to openly defy the law in its efforts to marginalize or censor Christian influence on campus.”

The InterVarsity chapter at the University of Wisconsin has about 50 members and “de-recognition” deprives the student group of access to campus facilities and student funding.

The lawsuit calls for the re-recognition of InterVarsity as a student organization on campus, which the university has refused to grant.

InterVarsity was among six evangelical groups that were recently barred from Georgetown University. They were denied privileges to reserve rooms on campus for meetings and to use Georgetown’s name. Three years ago, InterVarsity faced de-recognition at Rutgers University in New Jersey. Rutgers reversed its decision and re-recognized the campus ministry after several months.

“We’re not asking for special treatment,” said Hill. “We’re just asking for equal treatment.”

InterVarsity Christian Fellowship has been a Christian ministry working on U.S. college campuses sine 1941. It currently oversees 843 student chapters on 573 college and university campuses across the U.S. and is one of the largest Christian campus ministries.

==============================

Parents, authors and even some teachers rebel against homework (Seattle Post, 061005)

[KH: They try to defeat their own education system.]

Is homework a waste of time?

For years, students have whined that their book reports, math problems and science projects were pointless. Now, several authors, and even some parents, agree that homework isn’t worth much, at least for early grade-schoolers.

“Homework generally is worthless. It’s all pain and no gain,” said Alfie Kohn, author of “The Homework Myth: Why Our Kids Get Too Much of a Bad Thing.” “No study has ever demonstrated any academic benefit to doing homework before high school.”

The anti-homework gang is not the popular clique on the school policy playground, with far more parents and teachers supporting take-home assignments. It develops study habits, reinforces lessons and builds self-confidence, educators say.

But the backlash against homework touches a nerve among today’s overscheduled two-career families. Parents see their kids struggling with far heavier workloads then they ever carried. And parents have less time to help.

Critics worry that the homework burden can strip kids of their passion to learn, challenge assertions that it builds good habits and argue that it cuts into such valuable family time as dinner.

Around Seattle, homework loads vary, even from public school to public school. The district has 23-year-old homework guidelines for different elementary grades, but they remain guidelines, so principals can set their own policies.

This fall second-grader Julian Forester has had plenty of homework, causing nothing but frustration inside his family’s Ballard home.

Many evenings Julian and his mother, Anne, sat down at 5:30 to tackle two sheets of work and finished at 7. The district’s guidelines say Julian shouldn’t have more than 10 minutes of homework a night.

The ordeal led to tears, eye rubbing and ultimately one exhausted 7-year-old.

“It was shocking how he was just so frustrated,” Forester said. “He was being so difficult, and he’s not a difficult child.”

So Forester pushed back. After a friend sent Julian’s Loyal Heights Elementary teacher an e-mail complaining about the work, Forester did the same, and the teacher responded. Now after Julian spends 15 minutes on one worksheet he can stop, as long as he has a note.

Parents like Forester worry that homework robs their sons and daughters of the little time they have to daydream, goof off and just be kids.

“I just don’t think it’s necessary,” the 39-year-old former grade-school teacher said.

But some Seattle teachers and principals say there is a smart way for kids to hit the books after school.

At Graham Hill Elementary, Patsy Yamada simply teaches her kindergarteners how to do homework. She also boosts their self-confidence by asking them to read their homework to the rest of the class. Finally, she doesn’t ask them to work more than 15 minutes a night.

“I don’t want to burden them down,” Yamada said.

Even so, 15 minutes is too much, according to the district’s guidelines.

One floor above Yamada in Connie Thomas’ first-grade class, parents ask for more homework, not less. Thomas does not oblige.

“I never had any parent tell me it’s too much homework,” said Thomas, who has taught for the past 14 years.

The problem is there isn’t a lot of definitive research supporting or opposing homework loads, though educators and parents seem to agree kids have more work these days.

A Duke University study found a link between homework and student achievement, but it was much stronger among high school and junior high students than those in elementary school, according to Harris Cooper, lead author and a clinical psychologist. [KH: meaning a positive correlation even for elementary school]

“I would suspect most of the (homework) decisions that are being made on a daily basis (by teachers, principals and school boards) are a matter of judgment and not a matter of research,” said Nathalie Gehrke, a professor of teaching and curriculum at the University of Washington’s College of Education.

The wide range of opinions about homework is obvious among Seattle schools.

The Seattle School District allows principals and teachers freedom to interpret its homework policy for elementary students. That means over at Daniel Bagley Elementary, principal Birgit McShane encourages reading but not worksheets.

“I am one principal who has always told their teachers please do not burden them (with) homework,” McShane said. “If they would only give them reading, I would be a happy principal.”

Homework also varies at private school. At The Valley School, teachers don’t assign any homework until second grade, and even then it’s minimal. “We are not down (on) homework. We are down on it too soon,” said Gail Mensher, admissions director at the private school in Seattle’s Madison Valley.

This year the anti-homework folks may have grabbed a corner of the spotlight — “The Homework Myth” ranks 11th among Amazon.com’s best-selling parenting books — but most parents still like homework.

Nearly 60% of parents were content with their kids’ homework load, while only 19% said their children had too much, according to an Associated Press/AOL poll released earlier this year.

The statistic may be a little misleading because parents can have a hard time complaining. They don’t want to admit that their kid can’t keep up, worry he or she will get labeled and feel isolated among homework-pushing parents, said Nancy Kalish, a reformed homework pusher and co-author of “The Case Against Homework.”

With two new homework-bashing books, parents are getting bolder, says Anne Forester, the Ballard parent who got her son’s homework cut. “I think people are getting fed up,” she said.

==============================

Survey: College Professors More Religious than Commonly Believed (Christian Post, 061012)

BOSTON (AP) – Contrary to stereotype, most college professors are not atheists or agnostics, according to new research.

In fact, only about one-quarter of professors deny God exists or claim it is impossible to know, according to survey results analyzed by sociologists Neil Gross of Harvard University and Solon Simmons of George Mason University. The rest say they believe in God at least part of the time, or at least in some kind of higher power.

College professors are less religious than the general population, the authors report. For example, about 40% of professors frequently attend religious services, compared to 47% for the general population. But the authors say religious commitment levels are higher than indicated by previous surveys, which did not include professors at community colleges.

Community college professors are more religious than those at elite, doctoral universities. But even at the elite universities, a majority of professors are neither atheistic or agnostic, and 20% say they have no doubt God exists.

==============================

Baptist ‘exit strategy’ means get kids out of public schools: Groundswell of support building in 16 million member group for homeschooling (WorldNetDaily, 061020)

If you like sexually transmitted diseases, shootings and high teen pregnancy rates, by all means, send your children to public schools. That’s the word from a leader in the fast-growing movement within the 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention for parents to pull their children from those schools in favor of homeschooling.

The program is called Exit Strategy and Pastor Wiley Drake, whose home state of California has done some things especially offensive to Christians this year, is a leading promoter.

In an interview with WND, he said that those problems and others are prevalent in public schools, and some Christian leaders even have said it could be considered child abuse just to register children in such a facility.

That’s why resolutions encouraging members of the nation’s largest Protestant church organization to exit public schools have been submitted in every SBC state and regional convention in the U.S., he said.

“Basically, (the education system) has been saying, ‘You have to let us teach your kids anything we want,’” said Wiley, citing some of the pro-homosexual material being required in public education.

“Well, we don’t like it and we’re not going to put up with it,” he said.

The “Exit Strategy Resolution” is based on Albert Mohler’s recommendation in 2005 that, in light of the “spiritual, moral, and academic decay in the government schools, Southern Baptists develop an exit strategy from the public schools.” It also coordinates with work done by ExodusMandate.org, which works to have parents move children to Christian teaching.

Mohler is president of the SBC’s flagship seminary, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville and one of the SBC’s leading theologians.

“Dr. Mohler is right, Southern Baptists, and Christians generally, need to plan a Christian educational future for our children,” Wiley said. “First, Christian parents are obligated to provide their children with a Christ-centered education. Anyone who thinks that a few hours of youth group and church will have more influence on a child’s faith and worldview than 40 to 50 hours a week of public school classes, activities, and homework is simply not being honest with himself.

“Second, the open collaboration between homosexual activists and many school districts, together with the overall level of crime and violence in the public schools, make the public schools an unsafe place for our children,” he said.

“Although changing the hearts and minds of people is often a slow process, attitudes about how we educate our children are changing within Southern Baptist life,” said Roger Moran, a member of the SBC’s executive committee. “Increasingly we are recognizing that if we are going to profess the name of Christ, then our lives should be a testimony to authentic Biblical Christianity. Yet, how can we expect our children to have that testimony when they are ‘trained up’ in secular public schools to have a secular mindset that excludes the acknowledgement of God and the Word of God at every point?”

“The experiment with government schooling has failed,” said Bruce Shortt, a co-sponsor of the “Exit Strategy” resolution. “What Baptists need to do now is create a new public education system, a system that is public in the sense that it is open to everyone and that takes into account the needs of orphans, single parents, and the disadvantaged. With our existing buildings, our talented people, and the educational technology available today, it is now possible to create rapidly an affordable, effective Christian education alternative to the government schools.”

There are numerous estimates that homeschooling in the United States, already one of the fast-growing segments of education, involves 2.5 million students. The nation’s largest home educator’s organization, the Home School Legal Defense Fund, has more than 80,000 member families alone. It’s estimated that the curriculum, materials and supplies for those students already surpass $1 billion a year.

But if, in fact, a large-scale movement within the SBC would develop, its 16 million members could double or triple or more the size of the homeschool community literally at will.

Those families belong to 42,000 churches in 1,200 local associations and 41 state conventions and fellowships.

Drake said the call for abandonment of government-run secular institutions didn’t develop overnight.

“We’ve been hoping against hope that somewhere along the line we could wake them up and get their attention,” he said. “We did our best, we hung in there with them as long as we could. We just can’t put up with them any longer.”

“All of this is based on the fact that schools have been teaching a New World Order rather than an Old World order, a Biblically-based world order, as it applies to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

“We finally had to do something,” he said.

College-level education also needs to be addressed, because 50 years ago when chewing gum and spitwads were the problems in school, Princeton, Yale and Harvard essentially were seminaries where students would learn the Bible, and then move into politics, medicine and the law.

The decision follows by a resolution in the SBC Annual Meeting urging churches and parents “to investigate their public schools to determine, among other things, whether they are endangering children in their care by collaboration with homosexual advocates.”

Rick Scarborough, founder of Vision America and author of “Liberalism Kills Kids,” said schools have long since stopped providing positive reinforcement of traditional values.

“In fact, they are not even neutral on many crucial issues which are important to people of faith. Unfortunately, public education has been hijacked by people who reject Biblical teachings on man’s origin, the proper role of sex and the acceptability of homosexuality. These are non-compromising issues for Christians.”

The resolution notes that federal judges have allowed that “parents have no constitutional right … to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise …” and specifically permitted government schools to teach Darwinism and the acceptability of homosexuality.

Since the convention already owns buildings that could be used, has on staff many teachers who could contribute, and can take advantage of satellite and Internet technologies, there should be no major obstacles, officials said.

Drake, pastor of First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif., is in a state where the problem probably is more easily defined, because of issues addressed by the most recent state Legislature.

That group approved several different plans that would have required local public schools to teach sensitivity to the “discrimination” against alternative sexual lifestyles and integrate “tolerance training” into history and social science curriculums. A required program would have forced students not only to learn a “new definition” of tolerance, but would have required them to accept and advocate for homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism.

Another plan would have prevented any school teaching materials or activities from “reflecting adversely” upon homosexuals, bisexuals or transgenders.

Former Assemblyman Larry Bowler, R-Elk Grove, said in his six years as a member of the Assembly Education Committee, “Never, never, in all the thousands of bills that I voted on in that committee, did I ever see anything even close to the destructive decadence of these three bills.”

These three were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, but family advocates believe there will be similar proposals in the future. The governor did sign into a law a plan to force Christian colleges – if a single student is attending on a state grant – to promote transexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality.

==============================

On the ‘sin’ of sending kids to public school: Author shares harsh campus realities, urges parents to pull children (WorldNetDaily, 050207)

The man who helped push the issue of public education onto the national agenda of the Southern Baptist Convention has written a new book that blows the lid off government schools, showing parents the kind of worldview and values their children are influenced by 180 days a year.

Bruce Shortt, author of “The Harsh Truth About Public Schools,” presents myriad reasons why government institutions are failing America’s children and thumbing their noses at parents with a religious worldview.

As WorldNetDaily reported, last year Shortt helped spearhead an unsuccessful effort to have the Southern Baptist Convention pass a resolution urging its members to remove their children from public school.

In “The Harsh Truth About Public Schools,” Shortt, writing from a biblical perspective, presents rigorous research about the agenda and effect of government schooling on the nation’s young people.

Shortt especially wants to educate Christian parents, millions of whom send their kids off to public school every day.

“Contrary to what many Christians have been led to believe, there is no such thing as a ‘neutral’ education,” Shortt writes. “All education is religious and conveys a worldview, and there is no more important decision that we make as parents than how we educate our children.”

Continues Shortt: “Unfortunately, Christian parents allow an aggressively anti-Christian institution to form the minds of their children, and the fruit of that choice is bitter. The overwhelming majority of children from evangelical families leave the church within two years after they graduate from high school; only 9% of evangelical teens believe that there is any such thing as absolute moral truth; and, our children are being forcibly indoctrinated to believe that homosexual behavior is acceptable.”

While Shortt wants Christian parents who use the government schools to read the book, he also encourages homeschooling parents to read it.

“Homeschool parents must have this book to minister to their Christian friends and neighbors, pastors and skeptical relatives. Our government-school habit is sowing the wind, and unless Christians turn from this gross sin we will reap a whirlwind that is unimaginable,” Shortt says.

In the book, Shortt documents the pitfalls of public schools, saying the anti-Christian thrust of the governmental school system produces inevitable results: “moral relativism (no fixed standards), academic dumbing down, far-left programs, near absence of discipline and the persistent but pitiable rationalizations offered by government education professionals.”

Shortt also urges pastors to read the book so they might “understand why the church can no longer abdicate its historic role in the education of our children.”

Says Short: “‘The Harsh Truth About Public Schools’ makes it clear why no Christian child should be left behind in government schools. Our Christian children are perishing because parents and pastors lack knowledge. The information in this book exposes the ‘salt and light’ and the ‘our schools are different’ rationalizations for educating Christian children in pagan schools for the contemptible falsehoods they are.

“Any parent or pastor who genuinely desires to be faithful in the education of Christian children needs to find out what the public schools are actually doing, rather than relying on what they are saying they are doing or on memories of the public schools as they may have existed 10, 20 or 30 years ago.”

Shortt makes his argument by citing a school district in Texas.

“There is no public school district in the country that has more Christians in the community or in the schools than that of Plano, Texas,” he said. “In fact, the largest and most powerful church in the state of Texas, Prestonwood Baptist, is located in Plano. Yet, it took a court order to force the Plano schools to allow Christian school children to privately give classmates Christmas gifts that had a Christian message. Moreover, the school district had even prohibited schoolchildren from bringing red and green napkins to the school ‘holiday’ parties for fear the colors might remind someone of Christmas.

“The truth is that the public school policy and curriculum decisions that matter to Christians are not made locally. They are largely dictated by federal and state court decisions, federal and state legislation and regulations, and the teachers’ union and other professional associations connected with the public schools.”

But what about reforming the public schools? Isn’t that a solution?

Responds Shortt: “Public schools cannot be reformed to provide a Christian education, and the evidence is overwhelming that even conventional secular reforms to reinstate traditional academic and moral standards will continue to fail. But even if you think that we should nevertheless try to reinstate traditional academic and moral standards in the schools, taking your children out is the most effective thing you can do to help the children whose parents have left them behind in the public schools. Only the threat of a collapse of the entire public school system offers even the remotest prospect of positive change. Traditional reform efforts are a waste of time.

“Even if you believe that there is nothing wrong with institutionalizing Christian children in public schools, you need to read this book because you may be wrong. Remember, you only get one chance to educate your children. There are no do-overs.”

==============================

Achtung! Germany drags homeschool kids to class: Authorities haul crying children away to avoid ‘danger’ from parental teachings (WorldNetDaily, 061025)

A Nazi-era law requiring all children to attend public school, to avoid “the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions” that could be taught by parents at home apparently is triggering a Nazi-like response from police.

The word comes from Netzwerk Bildungsfreiheit, or Network for Freedom in Education, which confirmed that children in a family in Bissingen, in the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, have been forcibly hauled to a public school.

“On Friday 20 October 2006 at around 7:30 a.m. the children of a home educating family … were brought under duress to school by police,” the organization, which describes itself as politically and religiously neutral, confirmed.

A separate weblog in the United States noted the same tragedy.

Homeschoolblogger.com noted that the “three children were picked up by the police and escorted to school in Baden-Wurttemberg, with the ‘promise’ that it would happen again this week.”

The Network for Freedom in Education, through spokesman Joerg Grosseluemern, said the Remeike family, “have been home educating their children since the start of the school year, something which is legal in practically the whole of the (European Union).”

“However, on this morning, they were confronted by police officials, who, in an incredibly inconsiderate manner, forced their crying children into a police car and drove them to the school. The police stated that they had been instructed to continue this measure in the coming week,” the network statement said.

The network noted that the previous Minister of Education, Annette Schavan, had said such actions were not needed, because “…the children are generally not lacking in any other respects.” Officials at that time, in 2002, confirmed that “forcible methods” generally are “not in the long-term interests of either the children or the police.”

However, the network noted the priorities of current officials obviously are different.

“The family involved emphasizes that their children are neither truant nor school deniers, which are the cases for which such measures were intended,” said the network’s statement, a translation from the original German. “The Remeike family is fulfilling their children’s right to an education by educating them at home, with the support of teachers from a distance learning academy, which also supplies the necessary material.”

School arguments that homeschooling endangers the welfare of the children “lacks any factual foundation,” the network statement said.

“Tearing the children from the bosom of their family by forcing certainly does not contribute to their welfare. The result is more likely to be traumatisation and the development of an aversion to instruments of state authority,” the statement said.

No comment could be obtained immediately from school or police officials.

“The Netzwerk Bildungsfreiheit strongly empathises with the Romeike family, whom many of us know personally to be an intact and conscience-driven family. We condemn the degrading act carried out by the police as a blatant breach of the personal rights of individual family members and call for the Mayor of Bissingen, as well as the Office for Education of the District Authorities of Esslingen, to end these sanctions…”

The American blog noted that several other homeschooling parents recently have been fined or imprisoned for brief jail terms for teaching their children at home.

The blog reported that one mother spending a few days in jail for providing homeschooling for her child “ended up leading a Bible study for women who have begged her to come back.”

It reported another family was fined $2,250 and members were being attacked emotionally so that the father handed a nervous breakdown that landed him in a hospital. The family put their two children in a public school “but it was so awful, they pulled them out again … and put them in a public Catholic school.”

It also contained reports that Waldemar Block, the father of nine, was arrested at his work earlier this month and jailed for 13 days, while Olga Block, his sister-in-law, was jailed for 10 days for not paying fines after she sent her children to a Christian school in Heidelberg.

The Home School Legal Defense Association, the largest homeschooling group in the U.S. with more than 80,000 families, also has been working to raise attention in the international community to the plight of German homeschoolers, including several families in the Baden-Wurttemberg region.

The group suggested contacting the German embassy, which had an answering machine attached to the telephone line when WND left a request for comment yesterday.

The HSLDA said that contact is:

Wolfgang Ischinger Ambassador German Embassy 4645 Reservoir Road NW Washington, DC, 20007-1998 (202) 298-4000 or it can be e-mailed from its its website.

The U.S. organization also noted that homeschooling has been illegal in Germany probably since 1938 when Hitler banned it. It recently announced a campaign to address the persecution Christians in Germany are facing from education authorities.

Ian Slatter, a spokesman for the HSLDA, said it was launched after a mother was arrested and jailed on criminal homeschooling counts.

In that case, according to a report in the Brussels Journal, Katharina Plett was arrested and ordered to jail while her husband fled to Austria with the family’s 12 children.

The latest police-state actions follow by only weeks a recent ruling from the European Human Rights Court that affirmed the German nation’s ban on homeschooling.

The Strasburg-based court addressed the issue on appeal from a Christian family whose members alleged their human rights to educate their own children according to their own religious beliefs are being violated by the ban.

The specific case addressed in the opinion involved Fritz and Marianna Konrad, who filed the complaint in 2003 and argued that Germany’s compulsory school attendance endangered their children’s religious upbringing and promotes teaching inconsistent with the family’s Christian faith.

The court said the Konrads belong to a “Christian community which is strongly attached to the Bible” and rejected public schooling because of the explicit sexual indoctrination programs that the courses there include.

The German court already had ruled that the parental “wish” to have their children grow up in a home without such influences “could not take priority over compulsory school attendance.” The decision also said the parents do not have an “exclusive” right to lead their children’s education.

The family had appealed under the European Convention on Human Rights statement that: “No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”

But the court’s ruling said, instead, that schools represent society, and “it was in the children’s interest to become part of that society.

“The parents’ right to education did not go as far as to deprive their children of that experience,” the ruling said.

==============================

College Degree Worth Extra $23,000 a Year (Foxnews, 061026)

WASHINGTON — How much is a bachelor’s degree worth? About $23,000 a year, the government said in a report released Thursday.

That is the average gap in earnings between adults with bachelor’s degrees and those with high school diplomas, according to data from the Census Bureau.

College graduates made an average of $51,554 in 2004, the most recent figures available, compared with $28,645 for adults with a high school diploma. High school dropouts earned an average of $19,169 and those with advanced college degrees made an average of $78,093.

“There appear to be strong incentives to get a college degree, given the gaps that we observe,” said Lisa Barrow, senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

The income gap narrowed slightly from five years earlier, when college graduates made nearly twice as much as high school graduates. But the differences remained significant for men and women of every racial and ethnic group.

Eighty-five percent of people 25 and older had at least a high school diploma or the equivalent in 2005, according to the Census Bureau’s 2005 Current Population Survey. In 2000, 80% had a high school diploma or the equivalent, and a little more than half did in 1970.

Twenty-eight percent had at least a bachelor’s degree, compared with about 24% in 2000 and 11% in 1970.

“I think we’ve done a very good job of getting individuals into college,” said Cecilia Rouse, professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University. “But we don’t fully understand why we don’t do as good a job of graduating them.”

Chester Finn, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute in Washington, said too many high school graduates are unprepared to succeed in college.

“If you don’t emerge from high school having done at least the equivalent of advanced algebra, you are not going to be ready for college math,” Finn said. “You can make similar points about English.”

Among the other findings in the report:

— Minnesota, Utah, Montana, New Hampshire and Alaska had the highest proportions of adults with at least a high school diploma — all at about 92%.

— Texas had the lowest proportion of adults with at least a high school diploma, about 78%. It was followed closely by Kentucky and Mississippi.

— Connecticut was the state with the highest proportion of adults with at least a bachelor’s degree, nearly 37%. It was followed closely by Massachusetts, Maryland and New Jersey.

— Nearly 47% of adults in Washington, D.C., had at least a bachelor’s degree.

— West Virginia had the lowest proportion of college graduates, at 15%. It was followed at the bottom by Arkansas, Kentucky and Louisiana.

==============================

So, You Mean I’m Not Really Good at Math? (Mohler, 061019)

The Brookings Institution released a report yesterday on an interesting phenomenon that has appeared in recent years. American students do comparatively poorly in math compared to students of other nations — but they feel really good about themselves anyway. As a matter of fact, they think they are really good at math.

As Jay Mathews of The Washington Post reports, “countries such as the United States that embrace self-esteem, joy and real-world relevance in learning mathematics are lagging behind others that don’t promote all that self-regard.”

According to the Washington think tank’s annual Brown Center report on education, 6% of Korean eighth-graders surveyed expressed confidence in their math skills, compared with 39% of U.S. eighth-graders. But a respected international math assessment showed Koreans scoring far ahead of their peers in the United States, raising questions about the importance of self-esteem.

In Japan, the report found, 14% of math teachers surveyed said they aim to connect lessons to students’ lives, compared with 66% of U.S. math teachers. Yet the U.S. scores in eighth-grade math trail those of the Japanese, raising similar questions about the importance of practical relevance.

Tom Loveless, the report’s author, said that the findings do not mean that student happiness causes low achievement. But he wrote that his analysis of the international math assessment, the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, shows that U.S. schools should not be too quick to assume that happiness is what matters in the classroom.

What a revolutionary thought — maybe happiness is not what matters most in the classroom?

At USA Today, Greg Toppo reported, “The more kids like math and say they do well in it, the less likely they are to do well.”

The happiness factor plays a minimal role in math achievement for millions of children, says study author Tom Loveless, who calls the difference in scores “huge” between the happiest and unhappiest nations.

The data suggest simply making math relevant and enjoyable isn’t enough, he says. “If we want the United States to be high-achieving and among the world’s best nations, obviously we have to do something beyond that.”

In the text of the report, Loveless remarks:

Educational progressives made happiness a central theme of the “child-centered” practices advocated in the early twentieth century. Boredom was targeted as particularly evil. Reformers argued that subject matter should correspond to students’ interests, not to ancient disciplinary standards or intellectual merits. Book learning, subject matter knowledge, and learning for learning’s sake were eschewed in deference to activity-based learning, learning “how to learn,” and learning for self-awareness and personal growth. These principles remain paramount among many school reformers today. When Bill Gates tours the “no books, no lectures” school with Oprah Winfrey and declares that projects are “the way to go,” he is echoing the sentiments of one of the earliest advocates of progressive education, William Heard Kilpatrick, whose essay, “The Project Method,” was published in 1918.

Happiness is a great gift, but it should be grounded in reality — not in the false culture of self-esteem that substitutes good feelings for achievement. Self-regard is not substitute for actually knowing math.

If nothing else, this study demonstrates that American 8th graders — like all other sinners — are capable of incredible self-deception. The self-esteem movement just makes that lie all the more attractive.

==============================

Political Science 101: In 2006, college professors bankrolled Democrats. (National Review Online, 061121)

By Matthew V. Smith

William F. Buckley Jr. once said that he would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phonebook than by the Harvard faculty. While the professors aren’t heading down to D.C., in the aftermath of this month’s Republican wipeout the darlings of this nation’s intellectual elite have taken over Congress.

Professors and other educators donated more than $12 million to political candidates in this last election cycle, with 69% of their contributions going to Democratic candidates and PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CPR).

The overwhelming majority of this giving came from the higher-education sector, judging from the CRP’s top-20 list: Employees at major colleges and universities accounted for 17 of the 20 biggest sources of donations. The University of California system led the way, with contributions totaling $406,000 (87% for Democrats), followed by Harvard ($315,000, with 90% for Democrats) and the University of Pennsylvania ($196,000, with 94% for Democrats).

In Senate elections, educators donated 75% of their contributions to Democratic candidates, for a total of nearly $2.7 million. Republicans received less than $875,000. Nine of the ten leading recipients of these donations were Democrats, with Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York far ahead of all the others. In her virtually uncontested reelection, she raised more than $682,000 from educators — almost five times the amount given to the next highest recipient, Senator-elect Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who received more than $148,000.

The top ten also included two other victorious Democratic challengers: Ben Cardin of Maryland and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. The only Republican among them was Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who lost to Casey. He received $121,000.

In the House, Democrats also dominated, sweeping the top-ten altogether. First among them was New Jersey Democrat Albio Sires, who now occupies the former seat of Sen. Menendez. He received $101,000. The top GOP recipient, Rep. Ric Keller of Florida, placed a distant 11th, with $39,000. The second-place Republican was Rep. Tom Reynolds of New York, who came in 18th, with $31,000.

These patterns in 2006 are nothing new. In 2004, when political giving kicked into overdrive for the presidential race, educators contributed $36.8 million to candidates, with 78% going to Democrats.

Voters have heard a lot about America’s “50-50” political divide, but college professors are overwhelmingly liberal. Last year, a study in The Forum, an online political science journal, found that 72% of college professors nationwide identify themselves as “liberal,” compared to only 17% who consider themselves “conservative.”

My own university, Notre Dame, is certainly no bastion of conservatism, based on the political contributions of professors: 17 gave money to Democrats this cycle, and only two gave to Republicans. Notre Dame sits in Indiana’s 2nd congressional district, which featured one of this year’s most contested House elections, between GOP Congressman Chris Chocola, a conservative stalwart, and Democratic challenger Joe Donnelly. Two years ago, Chocola beat Donnelly by nine points; this year, however, Donnelly prevailed by the same margin. Among Notre Dame professors, Donnelly (who is an alumnus) raised nearly $10,000, compared to just $2,200 for Chocola.

The only major school that was a source of more money for Republicans than Democrats in 2006 was the University of Arizona, which gave 61% of its $115,156 to Republicans. Yet this statistic is a product not of their faculty, but of basketball coaching legend Lute Olson, who gave $37,555 in this cycle to the Republican National Committee and Santorum. When Olson is factored out, the GOP took a considerably more modest 28%.

Even more telling than the overall totals is the concentrated source of these donations. Of the $28.7 million the education sector gave to Democrats during the 2004 elections, 15% came from the faculties of just ten private universities — Harvard, Stanford, Georgetown, Yale, and NYU among them. Contributions to Republicans ran in single-digit percentages at seven of those schools. Even the University of Chicago — the school in this bunch that contributed at the highest rate to Republicans — gave just 13% to the GOP.

It doesn’t take a visit to Harvard Yard to know that the Ivory Tower leans to the Left. Indeed, as our nation’s professors empty their pocketbooks into the coffers of Democrats, the tower is on the verge of toppling over. What may one expect in their classrooms? The answer is a complete diversity of everything but ideas.

— Matt Smith is a junior at the University of Notre Dame and is campus editor of The Irish Rover.

==============================

When the Gender Line Isn’t Clear? (Mohler, 061204)

The New York Times ran a major article on transgender children on December 2, adding considerable visibility to an issue that had, until recently, hardly been mentioned in public. [See my article of October 18, 2006, “Gender Confusion in the Kindergarten?”]

In “Supporting Boys or Girls When the Line Isn’t Clear,” reporter Patricia Leigh Brown explained:

Until recently, many children who did not conform to gender norms in their clothing or behavior and identified intensely with the opposite sex were steered to psychoanalysis or behavior modification.

But as advocates gain ground for what they call gender-identity rights, evidenced most recently by New York City’s decision to let people alter the sex listed on their birth certificates, a major change is taking place among schools and families. Children as young as 5 who display predispositions to dress like the opposite sex are being supported by a growing number of young parents, educators and mental health professionals.

This reporter ventures rather deeply into the issue, noting that in addition to allowing children to pose, dress, and be recognized as the opposite of their birth sex, some parents have gone so far as to use “blocking” drugs to delay puberty. As Brown explains, this raises “a host of ethical questions.”

The reporter also acknowledges a divide within the community of activists and specialists dealing with the question. In her words, “The prospect of cross-dressing kindergartners has sparked a deep philosophical divide among professionals over how best to counsel families. Is it healthier for families to follow the child’s lead, or to spare children potential humiliation and isolation by steering them toward accepting their biological gender until they are older?”

The appearance of this article in the Times, along with the acknowledgment of a split among the authorities it cites, perhaps indicates that even a considerable percentage of Times readers are not ready for cross-dressing kindergartners—especially their own children and grandchildren.

The reporter suggests that the parents of these children bear the authority, at least at present, to determine how their child is to be recognized. As Brown explains, “Legal trends suggest that schools are now required to respect parents’ decisions.”

The article contains some amazing statements. A first-grade teacher in the Boston area laments the fact that many teachers were “unnerved” when a boy showed up wearing a dress. Some teachers, she explained, did not see first-graders as “sophisticated enough to verbalize their own feelings.”

Tom Little, director of the Park Day School in Oakland, California (where at least one cross-dressing kindergartner has been enrolled) explained that teachers at his school are taught a “gender-neutral” vocabulary and are told to line up children by sneaker color instead of by gender.

His comment takes the cake: “We are careful not to create a situation where students are being boxed in. We allow them to move back and forth until something feels right.”

One specialist cited in the article, Dr. Kenneth Zucker, who has treated about 500 children dealing with this issue, claims that about 80% of these children grow out of the behavior. His approach is to help children “be more content in their biological gender.”

Contrast that with Dr. Edgardo Menvielle, who takes the opposite approach: “The goal is for the child to be well adjusted, healthy and have good self-esteem. What’s not important is molding their gender.”

As a society, we are falling (or diving) deeper and deeper into gender confusion. A considerable percentage of the policy-making elite has bought into the ideology of fluid gender and absolute self-expression. Once that idea takes hold, the reality of cross-dressing kindergartners becomes inevitable.

This is where the Christian worldview runs into direct collision with the new sexual ideologies. Christians see the reality of biological identity as a gift—one important way the Creator has told us who we are and how we are to glorify Him with our lives. No one should suggest that negotiating the gender issues in a fallen world is easy. And I am hard pressed to imagine a more difficult parenting challenge than that faced by the parents interviewed for this article. But surrendering to the confusion cannot be the right answer — leaving young children “to move back and forth until something feels right.”

==============================

Sumo Nonsense: The new “Yellow Peril.” (National Review Online, 070110)

By Thomas Sowell

A hundred years ago, there was talk of a “yellow peril” because of Chinese and Japanese immigration to the United States in general and to California in particular. Today, there are echoes of that notion in a front-page headline on the education section of the January 7 New York Times.

“At 41% Asian, Berkeley could be the new face of merit-based admissions. The problem for everybody else: lots less room at elite colleges.”

Anybody of any race who takes a place at any college leaves one less place for somebody else. Does an Asian American take up any more space than anybody else? Are they all Sumo wrestlers?

This hand-wringing about too many Asians is an echo of the past in another painful way. Back in the early 20th century, various elite colleges decided that there were “too many Jews” applying and set quotas to restrict the number of Jewish students admitted.

One of the institutions that did not do this was the College of the City of New York, which admitted students according to their academic qualifications. Jewish students seemed to be an even higher percentage of the students at CCNY then than Asian students are today at Berkeley.

Because CCNY was both free and a high-quality academic institution, it became known as “the poor man’s Harvard.”

That was then. Today, CCNY has long since succumbed to the siren song of “inclusion” and flung its doors open to all and sundry, with no old-fashioned notions of academic qualifications. No one calls it a poor man’s Harvard any more. Few would even call it adequate.

In the long and rambling New York Times article about Berkeley — titled “Little Asia on the Hill” — there is lots of space devoted to racial representation among the student body and remarkably little mention of qualifications and achievement. You might never guess that a university has purposes other than presenting a demographic profile that is politically correct.

In addition to such omissions, there is also misinformation. For example: “In California, the rise of the Asian campus, of the strict meritocracy, has come at the expense of historically underrepresented blacks and Hispanics.”

There have been more black students in the University of California system than there were before affirmative action was outlawed. Black students have not been denied a college education. They have been redistributed within the University of California system, with fewer going to Berkeley and more going to Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz and other institutions within the same system.

Something similar has happened within the University of Texas system after affirmative action was outlawed. Fewer black students went to the flagship campus at Austin but more went to the University of Texas system as a whole.

Back in the days when affirmative action or racial quotas were in full force, most black students admitted to Berkeley never graduated. Nor was Berkeley unique in that respect.

Critics of affirmative action have been saying for decades that putting black students in institutions where they are overmatched academically reduces their chances of graduating. This creates a wholly unnecessary problem, when most of those same black students would have far better chances of keeping up and graduating at other institutions where the rest of the students have similar academic qualifications.

The sheer speed at which material is taught can make it nearly impossible to keep up when the pace is geared to students with far higher SAT scores in math and English — even though students with lower scores may be perfectly capable of learning the same material when taught at a more moderate pace.

What has happened to graduation rates of black students after being redistributed within the University of California system? Those who have asked that question have been denied the information. And of course the New York Times reporter does not even discuss such things.

Asians are no menace to blacks. They could serve as an example to blacks, as Bill Cosby once suggested. He told some black students: “They always get A’s. That’s why they call them Asians.”

==============================

From Top Conservative Colleges to ‘The Dirty Dozen’ (Christian Post, 070110)

A conservative movement for America’s youth released its third annual “Top Ten Conservative College” list for students seeking an alternative to the liberal status quo.

Young America’s Foundation ranked the best colleges in the United States that allow students to explore conservative ideas through coursework in conservative thought.

The chosen top 10 colleges “avoid trends in academe by continuing to study Western Civilization instead of straying toward the study of Marxism, feminism, sexuality, postmodernism, and other modern distractions,” according to the Foundation.

The top 10 conservative colleges in alphabetical order are:

1. Christendom College in Front Royal, Va.

2. College of the Ozarks in Point Lookout; Mo.

3. Franciscan University of Steubenville in Steubenville, Ohio

4. Grove City College in Grove City, Pa.

5. Harding University in Searcy, Ark.

6. Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Mich.

7. Indiana Wesleyan University in Marion, Ind.

8. Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va.

9. St. Vincent College in Latrobe, Pa.

10. Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula, Calif.

The colleges listed include traditional Catholic campuses, a robust Christian school, and an evangelical Christian university.

Young America’s Foundation insists that it is not a college rating organization. The top 10 list was produced in response to a frequently asked question of which colleges the organization recommends to those seeking conservative colleges.

Other schools the conservative organization recommends that are not liberal arts colleges include military colleges such as West Point and Annapolis.

Just prior to the release of the most conservative colleges, Young America’s Foundation listed “The Dirty Dozen” - the more bizarre, politically correct college courses in the nation, or what the Foundation called “troubling instances of leftist activism.”

Based on research on scores of courses from hundreds of the nation’s leading schools, “The Dirty Dozen” are:

1. Occidental College - The Phallus

2. University of California-Los Angeles - Queer Musicology

3. Amherst College in Massachusetts - Taking Marx Seriously: “Should Marx be given another chance?”

4. University of Pennsylvania - Adultery Novel

5. Occidental College - Blackness

6. University of Washington - Border Crossings, Borderlands: Transnational Feminist Perspectives on Immigration

7. Mount Holyoke College - Whiteness: The Other Side of Racism

8. University of Michigan - Native American Feminisms

9. Johns Hopkins University - Mail Order Brides: Understanding the Philippines in Southeast Asian Context

10. Cornell University - Cyberfeminism

11. Duke University - American Dreams/American Realities

12. Swarthmore College - Nonviolent Responses to Terrorism

Other courses that could have easily made the list (“Dishonorable Mentions”) include UC-Berkeley’s Sex Change City: Theorizing History in Genderqueer San Francisco; Cornell University’s Sex, Rugs, Salt, & Coal; Hollins University’s Drag: Theories of Transgenderism and Performance; and Hollins University’s Lesbian Pulp Fiction.

“The Dirty Dozen demonstrates that professors still have an obsession with dividing people on the basis of their skin color, sexuality, and gender,” Young America’s Foundation spokesman, Jason Mattera, said in the report.

The conservative foundation further cited recent studies that found only one in four Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms protected by the First Amendment while more than half can name at least two family members of “The Simpsons.” Also, only 31% of college grads could read and comprehend complex books and 40% of college students need remedial work in math and English.

==============================

Defining Literacy Down — Do Your Kids Read Books? (Mohler, 070124)

Every generation worries about the next — and usually with good reason. Here is another reason for worry about today’s adolescents and young adults — they don’t read. That is a generalization, of course. But the generalization seems to be holding true.

Thomas Washington, librarian at a Washington, DC area private school, recently contributed a “lament” to The Washington Post. The kids are privileged and have no problem of access to books, but they do not read. As he reports:

I’m a librarian in an independent Washington area school. We’re doing all the right things. Our class sizes are small. Most graduating seniors gain admission to their college of choice. The facilities are first-rate.

Yet from my vantage point at the reference desk, something is amiss. The books in the library stacks are gathering dust.

In the minds of the students ( and of many librarians) the library is now not about books, but about “information literacy,” the Internet, and database searches.

As Mr. Washington explains, many librarians are no longer called librarians, but “media and information specialists.” Further:

The buzzword in the trade is “information literacy,” a misnomer, because what it is really about is mastering computer skills, not promoting a love of reading and books. These days, librarians measure the quality of returns in data-mining stints. We teach students how to maximize a database search, about successful retrieval rates. What usually gets lost in the scramble is a careful reading of the material.

Do these students eventually settle down to a love for books? Washington does not think so:

Conventional wisdom has it that teenagers don’t read because they’re too busy. Only after high school, sometime midway through college, do young adults reconnect with their childhood love of reading and make books their partners for life. I don’t think so anymore. The 2004 Reading at Risk report by the National Endowment for the Arts concluded that literary reading was in serious decline on all fronts, especially among the youngest adults, ages 18 to 24, whose rate of decrease was 55% greater than that of the total adult population.

Other reports indicate similar patterns. Young people are adept at using the Internet and they are avid consumers and users of electronic media in all forms. They will watch a DVD rather than read a book — even the book upon which the film is based.

Those who share Thomas Washington’s lament risk being dismissed as cranks and antiquarians. After all, it is a new age and the kids have figured it out. Who needs books? Who needs to read?

Librarians and secular educators have ample reason for concern, but Christians must look at this reality with an even greater concern.

Reading is an important Christian discipline. Further, growth as a Christian disciple is closely tied to the reading of the Bible, as well as worthy Christian books. This is why the Christian church has championed the cause of literacy. It is why the Reformers fought for the translation of the Scriptures into vernacular languages.

A loss of literacy and respect for the book amounts to grave danger for the Christian church. The transmission of Christian truth has been closely tied to scrolls, codices, and books throughout the history of the Church — a legacy inherited from the Jews, who often protected the sacred scrolls with their lives.

The electronic media have their places and uses, and I am thankful for the accessibililty of so much worthy and important information through digital means. Nevertheless, the electronic screen is not the venue for lengthy, thoughtful, serious reading. The vehicle for serious reading is the book, and the Christian should be a serious reader.

Do our own young people read books? Do they know the pleasures of the solitary reading of a life-changing page? Have they ever lost themselves in a story, framed by their own imaginations rather than by digital images? Have they ever marked up a page, urgently engaged in a debate with the author? Can they even think of a book that has changed the way they see the world . . . or the Christian faith? If not, why not?

==============================

Fool Me Twice: No Child Left Behind again. Only worse. (National Review Online, 070214)

By Chester E. Finn Jr. & Michael J. Petrilli

With all the trappings of an IMPORTANT WASHINGTON EVENT, including the presence of the top Democrats and Republicans on the Senate and House education committees, the Commission on No Child Left Behind yesterday unveiled a report that should be called “No Idea Left Behind.” That’s not meant as a compliment.

With George W. Bush’s signature domestic program, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act, headed for reauthorization, this bipartisan, blue-ribbon panel, led by two stellar ex-governors and funded by Gates and other big-deal private foundations under the aegis of the august Aspen Institute, was supposed to provide a blueprint for the law’s rewrite.

Quantitatively, it succeeded. Its sprawling 200-page report, capped with 75 separate recommendations, proffers solutions to almost every problem ailing U.S. education. What it doesn’t do is sketch a coherent vision for NCLB version 2.0. If conservatives thought Bush’s original law was a dubious venture, heavy as it is on big-government mandates and light on school choice, this version would be markedly worse. It’s the antithesis of what you might expect from former Wisconsin governor and commission co-chair Tommy Thompson, one of America’s foremost proponents of school choice (and of state flexibility in welfare reform), who must have been consumed by his nascent presidential campaign and left the drafting to staff.

The future the commission depicts gives Washington yet more power over the nation’s schools; its summary recommendations use the word “require” (often followed by the word “states”) at least 35 times. By contrast, we found just half a dozen “allows” or “permits.” Seems the panel is six times more interested in issuing new federal mandates than providing flexibility to states, districts or schools.

This approach to NCLB reform ignores the big lesson of the past five years: It’s hard enough to force recalcitrant states and districts to do things they don’t want to do; it’s impossible to force them to do those things well. By deploying enough regulations, enforcement actions and threats of monies withheld, Washington may coerce compliance with the law’s letter. Yet when it comes to the hard, messy work of improving schools (and teachers, principals, etc.), compliance doesn’t cut it. What’s needed is a new federal-state compact, focused single-mindedly on school results and truly flexible as to how they’re produced, freeing states, schools, and educators to innovate and take risks, leveraging America’s federalist system rather than pretending it doesn’t exist.

That’s not the commission’s approach. Insofar as its report has a theme, it’s “Do more of what Uncle Sam tells you.” If NCLB 1.0 ran 700 pages, the enacted version of this one would likely take 1700. It fixes a few flaws but mostly piles new mandates on top.

Some are plumb dreadful. The worst — ominously listed first — would “require all teachers to produce student learning gains and receive positive principal or teacher peer review evaluations to meet the new definition of a Highly Qualified and Effective Teacher (HQET).” That Orwellian recommendation illustrates the basic flaw in this approach: Start with a sound instinct (gauging teachers’ effectiveness by their impact on pupil achievement). Then pretend that the U.S. Department of Education is a National Education Ministry, able to micromanage complicated processes (like vetting teachers) from Washington. Neglect to undo the mistakes of NCLB, so that instructors must also still meet the current law’s paperwork-laden, credential-heavy “highly qualified teachers” requirements (which mostly serve to keep talented people out of the classroom) even if they do prove effective at boosting student achievement. If past is prologue, the U.S. Department of Education will most likely muck up this entire enterprise, setting back a promising idea (evaluating teachers based on their impact on student learning) for a generation.

Other vexing NCLB problems get neglected. Current law promises kids stuck in low-performing schools that they can exit for better ones in their districts. Yet this isn’t happening because most such districts have few decent schools with empty seats. The answer is to expand supply and create more choices, via more charter schools, letting kids cross district lines, even including private schools. None of these expanded options appears in the report. (The phrase “private school” never appears and charters get only glancing attention.)

To be sure, there are some currants in this pudding: The commission would make it easier for families to access to the law’s free tutoring program. It would give principals the authority to bar weak teachers from their schools. It would consider year-to-year student learning gains when determining whether schools make the grade. (This is especially important for charter schools, which often enroll students who start out several years behind.) It tries to assure that needy schools get their fair measure of state and district resources before federal dollars are added on top. And it sketches an interesting approach to national standards, which we regard as a precondition for giving states true freedom to operate their schools as they think best.

Amazingly, the administration’s recent NCLB proposals are bolder and sounder. One might think pride of authorship would constrain the Bush team while dispassionate scrutiny would energize the commission to think fresh. Didn’t happen. Most likely this group saw its charge as drafting a set of technocratic proposals that Congress could approve swiftly. What’s especially worrying is that Congress, at least its new majority, might even go along — the more so since the commission’s executive director is now moving to Capitol Hill to shepherd the law’s renewal.

Some have claimed that NCLB reauthorization is a chance for bipartisan comity and action. If this report is to serve as the blueprint, we urge Congress (especially Republicans) to try for immigration reform instead.

— Chester E. Finn is a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution and president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, where Michael J. Petrilli is a vice president. Both have served Republican administrations in the U.S. Department of Education.

==============================

Public Schools: Parental Rights in Jeopardy (townhall.com, 070222)

By Paul Weyrich

One of the clearest measures of a society can be found in its public school system. For example, it is no accident that in totalitarian states, such as North Korea, what may be taught comes directly from the government. Children are indoctrinated early to believe their “Dear Leader” never is wrong even though many do not have enough food to eat. And in war-torn countries or those which are deeply divided by religious differences there are few, if any, functioning public schools.

By contrast the United States has a proud history of public education for all of its children. Or at least it did. I have watched as American public schools have gone from generally good to abysmal because of the many changes in our society and because of government meddling. From forced school- busing to classes taught in every language except English, to removing “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, our State and Federal Governments have been butting into the business of local schools for more than 30 years and the schools are the worse for it.

One of the latest developments in public education is that schools believe they are the de facto parents of the children who attend them. With so many children living with only one parent or two parents who work, with who knows who looking after them, it is no wonder. Now some States are trying to require girls entering the sixth grade to be immunized against something called HPV (Human Papilloma Virus), a virus that only can be transmitted through sex and which causes certain kinds of cancer. What does that say about our public schools and about the state of our culture?

There are so many things wrong with the idea — and the fact that the immunizations would be mandatory rather than voluntary — that it is difficult to know where to begin. However, I shall try. First, the obvious: what do we know about the vaccine? We know it is made by Merck & Company, Inc., a very large pharmaceutical firm that has been busy hiring lobbyists and advertising the drug, called Gardasil (registered trademark), in magazines and on television. We know that immunization consists of a series of three shots at a cost of approximately $400.00 per child and that making the vaccine mandatory is a Merck goal. We know that Merck lobbyists have descended upon State capitals throughout the country and created a group called Women in Government, which has samples of the “correct” legislation posted on its website. And we know that the Federal Food and Drug Administration approved the vaccine late last year.

What we do not know is whether the vaccine is safe. There has been no long-term study as to the possible side effects of the vaccine - which include nausea, headaches and fevers — and the few short-term studies were on college-age women, not the young girls the legislation is targeting. Unfortunately, many State legislatures appear to have little reluctance and are falling down like bowling pins, rushing to do Merck’s bidding. Among many others, Kansas, South Carolina, Indiana and Colorado all either have bills pending or have already have approved the plan. The latest State to approve legislation to make the vaccine mandatory is the usually sensible State of Virginia, while Texas Governor Rick Perry — who many believe has aspirations to higher office — has just signed an executive order requiring the same thing.

Certainly, a vaccine that prevents any type of cancer is the sort of medical breakthrough for which many of us pray. The vaccine against HPV may yet prove to be safe but requiring vaccinations after so little research sets a dangerous precedent.

Of course, there are the obvious cultural and moral implications. What does it say about our society that eleven and twelve-year old girls might need protection against a virus which can infect them only if they are sexually active? Why on earth should young girls be given this vaccine? This sends the message that educators and parents and guardians simply don’t care. More importantly, how do we as parents send a message to our children and grandchildren that they should stay abstinent until marriage when the schools require them to get vaccinations designed for the sexually active? It makes no sense at all. Gardasil (registered trademark) is not a vaccine for polio or even chicken pox, both of which were eventually - after several years of study and gradual introduction - required by law for all school-age children. The HPV virus cannot be spread through sneezing, coughing or playing with other children.

Finally, there is the matter of enacting any law that would force all children or all boys or all girls to be immunized. It should not be mandatory for anybody, adult or child, to get a vaccine for a disease that is not a public health threat. Such treatments always should be voluntary, yet over the last few decades it seems many things have come down from on high and citizens were just told, “Deal with it. It’s the law.” What happened to “Opting in” if you wish to go along with a program or a new technology or new medical treatment? When did we decide it was okay to force our citizens and their children to abide by new policies?

Let the parents decide whether or not their daughters should receive this vaccine. And only after there are more studies done on the vaccine itself, about which we know very little except one thing: we do know that a mandatory inoculation program costing $400 per child with approximately 2,000,000 girls in the appropriate age cohort (11-12) currently in the United States would equal an awful lot of money for a pharmaceutical company that is very much in favor of this legislation.

==============================

Germany: Psych tests ordered for homeschooling parents: Ruling in appeal escalates case of 15-year-old taken from family (WorldNetDaily, 070313)

A German appeals court has not only affirmed a lower court’s decision that ripped a 15-year-old homeschooler from her family and subjected her to a forced stay in a psychiatric hospital because she is homeschooled, but also ordered her parents to be given psychiatric evaluations, an international rights organization says.

Joel Thornton, president of the International Human Rights Group told WND that fears the state will use those court-approved tests to destroy the family of Melissa Busekros are very valid.

“The trouble is this emboldens the state again, only now it’s at a higher level, and the courts still are agreeing with them. This could put Melissa back into the psychiatric system where she could disappear from sight entirely,” he said.

The family’s five other children also are endangered now because of potential court rulings that could be based on any evaluation of the parents, he said.

The appeals court ruling came despite the fact that all three of the lawyers representing Melissa Busekros clearly stated in their request to the court the family had accepted a compromise offered by a lower court for her to return home under government supervision.

“In spite of [that] … the appeals court held that the family refused the court’s initial compromise to let Melissa become an outpatient,” Thornton said.

For the Busekros family, it’s a huge setback.

“[A] fear is that Melissa will be returned to the psychiatric clinic system in Germany and ‘disappear.’ This would leave the family with no way to know where Melissa is or how she is doing. She could become a ward of the state and completely lost to her family,” Thornton said.

Besides the other children in the family, there are further ramifications, too, with the decision raising questions of larger government attacks on homeschoolers in Germany, where that choice of education is illegal because the government wants to stamp out any “parallel” societies utilizing a worldview different from the state’s.

Thornton said the problem is that the original psychiatric evaluation was so vague, anyone could have been determined to need treatment under its conclusions.

“It’s easy to see … if they want to, the government could take more of the children away from this family using the same process. And there is an increased fear among homeschoolers about whether their children are next,” he said.

Even those German families who already have fled to other countries because of Germany’s homeschool ban are moving into hiding because of the possibility they could be returned to face German fines or jail time for homeschooling, Thornton said.

He said the IHRG is working on several fronts, including having several German lawyers evaluate their options for an appeal, all the way to the European Court of Human Rights if needed.

“Additionally, we are working with U.S. government officials to bring pressure from the U.S. We are working to set up a meeting with the U.S. Ambassador in Berlin so that the Ambassador can be informed regarding the situation and given a chance to hear the truth directly from Hubert and Gudrun Busekros [Melissa’s parents],” Thornton said.

The organization also is calling on Christians worldwide to pray for the family, and people still are being asked to contact the government in Germany regarding the situation.

“We are now looking to set up a wide boycott of German goods in honor of Melissa and her family,” the IHRG said.

Just a little earlier, in a response published on a blog to a letter expressing concern about Melissa’s case, Wolfgang Drautz, consul general of the Federal Republic of Germany, said that the government “has a legitimate interest in countering the rise of parallel societies that are based on religion or motivated by different world views and in integrating minorities into the population as a whole.”

The case involves the schoolgirl who had fallen behind in math and Latin, and was being tutored at home. When school officials in Germany, where homeschooling has been illegal since Adolph Hitler decided he wanted to control the educating of all children, discovered that fact, she was expelled. School officials then took her to court, obtaining a court order requiring she be committed to a psychiatric ward because of her “school phobia.”

She later was moved, and then put in a foster home, and although she’s been allowed a brief meeting with her parents, they still are not allowed to know where she is living or under what circumstances.

Drautz cited the German constitution that places the entire school system under the supervision of the government. “Homeschool may be equally effective in terms of test scores,” Drautz wrote. “It is important to keep in mind, however, that school teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct, encourages dialogue among people of different beliefs and cultures, and helps students to become responsible citizens.”

Members of the German homeschool community previously have taken their battle for the right to teach their children Christian basics to the Human Rights Court for the European Union, asking for affirmation of the statement in the European Convention on Human Rights that: “In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”

However, that court just last year affirmed a German court which had ruled the parental “wish” to have their children grow up without anti-Christian influences “could not take priority over compulsory school attendance.”

The international court said schools represent society and “it was in the children’s interest to become part of that society.”

The Youth Welfare Office in Erlangen, which was integral in launching the case against Melissa, also has been defending its actions.

In a statement that was translated from German to English, the officials said their responsibility is to “intervene when a youth is endangered, physically or psychologically.”

Others, however, weren’t waiting for explanations. One group has posted on the Internet a boycott proposal. “Parents Of The World Call For A Boycott Of All German Goods Until Melissa Busekros Is Returned Without Threat Or Condition To Her Family…” the website announces. It warns against purchasing products from Porsche, Siemens and other German corporations.

The German government’s defense of its “social” teachings came to light during an earlier dispute on which WND reported, when a German family wrote to officials objecting to police officers picking their child up at home and delivering him to a public school.

“The Minister of Education does not share your attitudes toward so-called homeschooling…,” said a government letter in response. “You complain about the forced school escort of primary school children by the responsible local police officers… In order to avoid this in future, the education authority is in conversation with the affected family in order to look for possibilities to bring the religious convictions of the family into line with the unalterable school attendance requirement.”

In Melissa’s case, the local Youth Welfare Office arrived at the family home with about 15 uniformed police officers to take her into custody. They had in hand a court order allowing them to take her into custody, “if necessary by force.”

The Home School Legal Defense Association, the largest homeschool organization in the U.S. with more than 80,000 member families, said the case is an “outrage.”

The HSLDA said it was watching about 40 other families with court cases in various stages.

Practical Homeschool Magazine noted one of the first acts by Hitler when he moved into power was to create the governmental Ministry of Education and give it control of all schools, and school-related issues.

In 1937, the dictator said, “The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing.”

American homeschoolers should be concerned, as WND has reported, because the ease with which similar restrictions on free choice could be imposed in the United States.

Michael Farris, cofounder of the HSLDA, has called for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect the right of parents to educate their children at home, in light of such developments in Europe.

==============================

Homeschoolers Find University Doors Open (Christian Post, 070320)

LOS ANGELES (AP) - David Sample wanted to attend the University of California at Riverside but thought it was a lost cause because he had been homeschooled.

The University of California system is known for being tough on nontraditionally schooled applicants. For them, the best ticket to UC has been transferring after taking community college classes or posting near-perfect scores on college entrance exams.

“For homeschoolers, it was basically a shut door for us because of the restrictions,” Sample said.

Last fall, however, UC Riverside joined a growing number of colleges around the country that are revamping application policies to accommodate homeschooled students.

The change came just in time for the 18-year-old Sample to apply and get accepted with a substantial scholarship.

Under UC Riverside’s new policy, homeschoolers can apply by submitting a lengthy portfolio detailing their studies and other educational experiences.

Sample’s package showed he had studied chemistry, U.S. history and geometry, rewired a house and helped rebuild a medical clinic in Nicaragua.

The U.S. Department of Education reports that 1.1 million, or 2.2% of all students in the nation, are homeschooled.

Some private colleges have eagerly recruited those students for years and tailored application processes to include them. Homeschoolers still face challenges when applying to many public universities, but their chances of being considered are improving.

In 2000, 52% of all colleges in the country had a formal evaluation policy for applications from homeschoolers, said David Hawkins, director of public policy for the National Association for College Admission Counseling.

Four years later, the number jumped to 83%. During that time, 45% of colleges reported receiving more applications from homeschoolers, he said.

Major schools that now post application procedures for homeschoolers on their Web sites include Michigan State University, Oregon State University and the University of Texas.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is also willing to consider homeschoolers. The highly regarded school does not require a high school diploma. As part of its admissions process, it considers scores from college entrance exams and asks applicants to submit a 500-word essay, detail five extracurricular activities and offer two teacher evaluations.

“We evaluate every student based on who they are,” said Merilee Jones, dean of admissions at MIT.

UC Riverside is actively recruiting homeschoolers, said Merlyn Campos, interim director of undergraduate admissions.

“There are a lot of students out there that are very prepared for a college level education,” she said. “They are kind of being forced into going into a community college.”

Frank Vahid, a UC Riverside computer science professor, was among those who lobbied for the change, contending the school could gain a competitive advantage because homeschoolers have a lot to offer.

Vahid’s own children are taught at home. His 15-year-old son also takes community college classes and will likely try to transfer into to a public university.

The homeschooling movement has its roots in religion, but families pull their children out of traditional schools for a variety of reasons. When many of those students reached college age in the 1990s, colleges began considering their qualifications and potential more closely.

“Colleges are far more familiar with the backgrounds of homeschoolers and their needs,” said Ian Slatter, director of media relations for the Home School Legal Defense Association. “We have had fewer and fewer problems.”

Harrison Hartley has been homeschooled in Burbank since kindergarten. Now 13, he will start community college classes this year and hopes to transfer to a university as a junior before he turns 18.

“I just want him to start out with taking a couple of fun classes,” said his mother, Beverly Hartley. “Then we’ll throw him into things that are more serious.”

Sample lives in Redlands with his parents and three younger siblings, who are also homeschooled. He got acceptance letters from colleges in Illinois and Texas but wanted to attend UC Riverside, the local university.

Now a freshman, he is adjusting well to college classes and shrugs when his peers complain about the way a professor teaches.

“You are already used to teaching yourself,” he said about homeschooling. “Forget the teacher, forget the class, I am just going to read the book and figure it out myself.”

==============================

Tales from the School-Choice Wars (townhall.com, 070502)

By John Stossel

I’ve been on the road lately, giving speeches at universities, think tanks, and community groups to let people know about the release of the paperback edition of “Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity”. On the book tour I notice that the people who seem the most energized are school-choice advocates.

Many of them are under attack.

When the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF), a nonprofit dedicated to advancing individual liberty, criticized the Washington state teachers union’s use of dues to politick against school choice, the union attacked the organization with full-page newspaper ads and prime-time 30-second radio spots. The ads called EFF a “right wing extremist ‘think tank’” that uses “bundles of cash” to promote its agenda. Union spokespeople also called them “trolls,” “lying dirt bags,” and “evil ... zealots.” According to one union supporter, “Those scum are lower than sewer water, and smell less pleasant.”

EFF uses “bundles of cash”? That’s some myth. Its budget is nothing compared to the state’s teachers union, which spends eight times more money on politics than the state’s Republican and Democratic parties combined. EFF gets its money from people who volunteer, rather than lifting it from paychecks of teachers who have no choice in the matter. EFF contributors include people like housekeeper Gussie Hoff. Gussie gave Evergreen $30 a month for 11 years, and even though she’s now unable to work, she still sends money — with an apology for not being able to do more.

Attacks from powerful unions haven’t dimmed the passion of school-choice advocates. It’s as if they say to themselves, “You can call us names, but we know what we are doing is morally right.”

In San Antonio, Texas, Jim and Cecilia Leininger have spent $10 million of their own money to give private-school scholarships to 8,000 students who were struggling in government schools.

At a meeting of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Jim said, “We hadn’t had this program going for one month, and the principal of a school in San Antonio called us and said, ‘I’ve got two black kids in my school that are identical twins. They’ve just entered the sixth grade. They’re 11 years old. They’re good kids. They’re good students. They don’t want to be in a gang. The gang is after them. And if you don’t give them a scholarship on an emergency basis, they’re going to get killed.’”

The horror stories went on and on. “We had one little girl who was told the very first day she got to middle school that at 11 years old, she was too pretty to be a virgin,” Leininger said. “These guys tried to rape her right in the classroom at the end of the day. Purely by God’s grace, the teacher came back into the room and started screaming just before this little girl was violated.

“A little blond first-grade girl was going to a school on the far west side of San Antonio. Nine older boys sharpened pencils and ran in circles around her, stabbing her with these pencils. She was stabbed 39 times.

“One mom we talked to, her child was hiding in the closet, kicking and screaming, afraid to go to school. He’d just entered the sixth grade, just met the gang. She was crying when she called us and said, ‘I can’t send him back there where the gangs are after him, but what can I do?’”

Leininger gave her and the other desperate children “emergency scholarships.”

Unfortunately, thousands more who would like to escape the government school monopoly cannot. Leininger hopes that some day all Texas kids will have the opportunities his scholarship recipients get.

For advocating vouchers that would allow that to happen, reporters called him “evil.” The San Antonio Express News even characterized the school-choice debate as voucher advocates vs. “pro-education” candidates.

Voucher proponents are not pro-education? Give me a break.

==============================

Questionable subject matter fuels questions about Virginia Tech shooter (townhall.com, 070508)

By Phyllis Schlafly

What was the motive behind 23-year-old Cho Seung-Hui’s killing of 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech? Why was he consumed with hate, resentment and bitterness?

Cho was an English department major and senior. As a frequent lecturer on college campuses, I have discovered that the English departments are often the weirdest and/or the most left-wing.

A look at the Webs ites of Virginia Tech’s English department and of its professors reveals their mindset. We don’t yet know which courses Cho took, but it could have been any of these.

Did he take professor Bernice L. Hausman’s English 5454 called “Studies in Theory: Representing Female Bodies”? The titles of the assigned readings include “Black Bodies, White Bodies: Toward an Iconography of Female Sexuality in Late Nineteenth Century Art, Medicine, and Literature,” “The Comparative Anatomy of Hottentot Women in Europe, 1815-1817,” “Selling Hot Pussy: Representations of Black Female Sexuality in the Cultural Marketplace,” “The Anthropometry of Barbie: Unsettling Ideals of the Feminine Body in Popular Culture,” and “Foucault, Femininity, and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power.”

One of the assignments in this course (worth 10% of the total grade) is to “choose one day in which they dress and comport themselves in a manner either more masculine or more feminine than they would normally.”

Is this really a course taught by the English department? It sounds like just the thing to confuse an already mixed-up kid.

Hausman uses “feminist pedagogy” theory, believing that sex and gender are merely “rhetorical constructs” resulting from cultural experiences, and that “students are more responsible for the creation of knowledge.” She lists her areas of expertise as “sexed embodiment, feminist and gender theory, and cultural studies of medicine.”

Other titles authored by professor Hausman include “Changing Sex: Transsexualism, Technology, and the Idea of Gender,” “Do Boys Have to Be Boys?”, and “Virtual Sex, Real Gender: Body and Identity in Transgender Discourse.” Perhaps Cho took professor Bernice Hausman’s English 3354 on “Fundamentals” for which the syllabus promises an understanding of “deconstruction” (a favorite word in English departments).

Did Cho get evil egotistical notions from professor Shoshana Milgram Knapp’s senior seminar called “The Self-Justifying Criminal in Literature”? Indeed, that could serve as his own self-portrait.

Did Cho take professor J.D. Stahl’s senior seminar, English 4784, on “The City in Literature”? The assigned reading starts with a book about an urban prostitute who finally kills herself and a book about a violent man who kills his girlfriend.

Virginia Tech’s distinguished professor of English, Nikki Giovanni, has built a reputation as a “renowned poet,” even though many of her so-called poems feature violent themes and contain words that are not acceptable in civil discourse. She specializes in diversity, post-modernism, feminism and multiculturalism.

Giovanni appeared last year at a public celebration to open Cincinnati’s new Fountain Square. She used the occasion to call Ken Blackwell, then the Republican candidate for Ohio Governor, an “SOB”, and when challenged, simply repeated the slur. (Note: Nobody suggested giving her the Don Imus punishment.) Did Cho take a course from professor Paul Heilker, author of another peculiar piece called “Textual Androgyny, the Rhetoric of the Essay, and the Politics of Identity in Composition (or The Struggle to Be a Girly-Man in a World of Gladiator Pumpitude)”?

Or maybe Cho preferred the undiluted Marxism espoused by English instructor Allen Brizee, who wrote: “Everyday, the capitalist system exploits millions of people. ... Our role in the capitalist system makes us guilty of oppression!” Victim Ross Alameddine (one of the students who was tragically killed) sat a few feet from Cho for months in a class on “Contemporary Horror.” The students in this class were required to keep what were known as “fear journals.”

Cho was a frequent user of eBay. He bought and sold many books about violence, death and mayhem, including several books he had used in his English classes.

Other books Cho sold on the eBay-affiliated site Half.com included books by three authors whose writings were taught in his Contemporary Horror class. He sold “Men, Women, and Chainsaws,” “The Best of H.P. Lovecraft: Bloodcurdling Takes of Horror and the Macabre,” and “The Female of the Species: Tales of Mystery and Suspense.”

At the campuswide convocation to honor the victims, professor Nikki Giovanni read what purported to be a poem. On behalf of the English department, she declaimed:

“We do not understand this tragedy,/

We know we did nothing to deserve it.”

Maybe others will render a different verdict and ask why taxpayers are paying professors at Virginia Tech to teach worthless and psychologically destructive courses.

==============================

Survey Suggests University Faculty Bias Toward Evangelicals (Christian Post, 070509)

Over half of non-Evangelical university professors say they hold unfavorable views of Evangelical Christians, a new study showed. This group of believers was the only major religious denomination to elicit highly negative responses from faculty.

According to research by the Institute for Jewish & Community Research (IJCR), only 30% of non-Evangelical university faculty says they hold positive views of Evangelicals while 56% of faculty in social sciences and humanities departments holds unfavorable views. Overall, 53% of non-Evangelical university faculty have unfavorable views.

“This survey shows a disturbing level of prejudice or intolerance among U.S. faculty towards tens of millions of Evangelical Christians,” said Gary Tobin, president of IJCR, in the report. “What’s odd is that while a good number of faculty believe in a close, personal relationship with God and believe religion is essential to a child’s upbringing, many of those same people feel deeply unfavorable toward of Evangelicals.”

Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, told The Washington Post that the poll does not reflect a form of religious bias, but rather “a political and cultural resistance” probably caused by “the particular kind of Republican Party activism that some Evangelicals have engaged in over the years, as well as what faculty perceive as the opposition to scientific objectivity among some Evangelicals.”

According to the study, 71% of all faculty agreed: “This country would be better off if Christian fundamentalists kept their religious beliefs out of politics.”

The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and one of America’s pre-eminent Evangelical leaders, argued, “The fact that such bias exists is significant in its own right, considering the fact that a majority of Americans at least claim to be Evangelical Christians,” he wrote in his weblog on Tuesday. “The ideological chasm that increasingly divides the academic elite from the larger culture is in full view here. Many academics, by their own admission, look down upon Evangelical students, evangelical churches, and Evangelical citizens.”

The IJCR survey also found that faculty’s views of Evangelicals is likely linked to personal religiosity and political affiliation. Only 20% of those who say religion is very important to them and only 16% of Republicans have unfavorable views of Evangelicals. Among those who say religion is not important to them and among Democrats, 75% and 65%, respectively, hold unfavorable views.

On views toward other religious groups, one-third of all faculty hold unfavorable views of Mormon, 3% hold unfavorable feelings towards Jews, 4% towards Buddhists, 13% toward Catholics, and only 9% towards non-Evangelical Christians. Only 18% hold unfavorable views towards atheists.

==============================

Religion, Bible Popularity on Campuses Still on Rise (Christian Post, 070507)

Colleges across the nation are finding more students engaging in religious activities and conversations on campus.

“All I hear from everybody is ‘yes, there is growing interest in religion and spirituality and an openness on college campuses,’” Christian Smith, a professor of sociology at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, told The New York Times. “Everybody who is talking about it says something seems to be going on.”

Some of the nation’s largest campus ministry groups have expanded to more secular campuses and have recorded increasing numbers of student membership and decisions for Jesus Christ.

Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC) has grown to 1,163 American colleges and universities and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship is on a five-year course to add 75 more campuses to its list of over 565 colleges where it is already established.

But even before the launch of InterVarsity’s expansion model last year, growth was already happening. “In the last two school years we have seen exciting growth in the number of students who have come to faith in Jesus Christ,” said Terry Erickson, director of evangelism for InterVarsity.

Large increases of students accepting Christ were seen in the last two years during a period when conversion numbers were relatively stable for much of the last decade. InterVarsity reported 1,025 student conversions through their ministry events in the 2006-2007 school year, and last fall 1,466 students studied the life of Jesus Christ in InterVarsity GIGs (Groups Investigating God).

“Approximately one quarter of students in InterVarsity are self-identified non-Christians,” said Erickson. “That shows some basic interest in exploring spiritual issues that we believe is widespread among the student body.”

UCLA researchers found that more than two-thirds of students entering college said they prayed and almost 80% believed in God. The 2004 research surveyed 112,000 freshmen, nearly half of whom said they were seeking opportunities to grow spiritually.

CCC spokesman Tony Arnold said there’s a “deep hunger for something in their lives,” according to an interview with CBS.

Harvard University professor Peter J. Gomes, the university preacher, told The New York Times that “there is probably more active religious life now than there has been in 100 years.”

Not only are Christian campus ministries seeing a surge in interest and participation, but religion courses are also being filled up.

“I can fill basically any class on the Bible,” said Lesleigh Cushing, an assistant professor of religion and Jewish studies at Colgate University in Hamilton, N.Y., according to the New York Times. “I wasn’t expecting that.

Even seminaries are seeing record enrollment numbers, including Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. The flagship institution of the Southern Baptist Convention reached an all-time high in enrollment this semester with more than 4,200 students, SBTS president R. Albert Mohler Jr. announced last month. That’s double the number since 1995.

While SBTS houses future pastors, more evangelicals have been taking their faith to secular campuses, including Ivy League schools, where reports of a surge of interest in religion began around two years ago.

“This is the unintended consequence of having a more diverse student body. As these elite institutions have recruited geographically…they’ve also produced religious diversity, so there are more evangelicals going to places like Harvard, Dartmouth, Princeton, Yale, than there were in the past,” Michael Lindsay, a Ph.D. candidate at Princeton University, said earlier.

“Students are looking for answers that define themselves spiritually as well as shape their careers,” stated InterVarsity president Alec Hill. “The campus is the strategic point where you can impact the world because of who these students will become. We want to develop students and faculty to change the world.”

==============================

Homosexual Curriculum Bill Passed by Calif. Senate (zcp, 070525)

A controversial bill that bans bias against homosexuals, transgenders, and bisexuals in public schools was passed on Thursday by the California Senate, unleashing a wave of concern through those opposed to normalizing homosexuality.

SB 777 went through by a 23-13 vote, and would prohibit all classes, textbooks, and teachers from any instruction that “reflects or promotes bias against” those perceived with gender issues. All instructional materials and school activities would then have to positively portray all of these sexually alternative lifestyles, something many refuse to support.

Children starting from kindergarten would learn about the practices, as a result, and would be forced to accept them as socially acceptable, pro-family conservatives argue.

“SB 777 is designed to transform our public schools into institutions that disregard all notions of the traditional family unit,” said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute (CRI), in a statement. “This reverse discrimination is an outright attack on the religious and moral beliefs of California citizens.”

Voting for the bill went strictly along party lines with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed, passing a slim margin of three votes. No Republican senator made an address to oppose the legislation.

SB 777 is much like a previous bill that was passed in the last session of the California legislature, SB 1437, but was subsequently vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“Parents are angry at the Democrats for passing this school sexual indoctrination bill and frustrated that Republicans did little to fight it,” explained Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), a California-based pro-family organization, in a statement. “We call on Arnold Schwarzenegger to pledge that he will respect parents, protect children, and veto this bad bill, just like he did last year.”

As part of the bill, which was authored by Senator Sheila Kuehl, a lesbian, the language also redefined what the word “gender” means, stating that “gender” means “sex” but that a person’s gender identity and related appearance can constitute “sex” despite the person’s assigned “sex” at birth. SB 777 also erased the current definition of “sex” from the education code, which originally defined it as the biological condition of being male or female.

Several parents, Christians and non-Christians, have voiced their concern over schools regulating what their children should think is acceptable. They feel their children should not be forced to support homosexuality and other non-traditional gender lifestyles as being normal and healthy.

“The notion of forcing children to support controversial sexual lifestyles is shocking and appalling to millions of fathers and mothers,” added Thomasson. “Parents don’t want their children taught to become homosexual or bisexual or to wonder whether they need a sex-change operation. SB 777 will shatter the academic purpose of education by turning every government school into a sexual indoctrination center.”

Under the bill, school districts must comply with the new standards or else they will be regulated by the California Department of Education. In addition, teachers do not need parental permission to teach about the subjects to their students.

According to CRI, the Los Angeles Unified School District has already implemented the policies in this bill.

“In that district, boys who perceive themselves as girls may enter the girls’ locker room and restroom,” described Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for CRI, in a statement. “Teachers and school officials are required to hide the gender identity of a transgender student if the parents are unaware of what’s taking place at school. This astonishing policy will be expanded to every school in the state if SB 777 becomes law.”

Students up to the twelfth grade would be affected by the bill.

==============================

Rising Test Scores Seen Under ‘No Child Left Behind’ (070607)

WASHINGTON — In Iowa, nationalized student achievement scores have been going up in recent years, and that’s a good thing. But are kids learning better?

Steve Dunbar, a University of Iowa professor who directs the office monitoring public school testing in the state, says he doesn’t know for sure, and that’s one of of the rubs of standardized testing, which is more widespread and holds more consequence for schools since enactment of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act.

But that’s why NCLB needs to be reauthorized this year, he said. From Dunbar’s standpoint, the reauthorization would continue a needed national program to assess quality of education. In the process, reauthorization would need to offer more money to areas of the program that are underfunded, and some of the problems that have been identified would need to be fixed.

“I actually do believe that test scores can serve as an indicator for student achievement. They are not one in the same thing, but you need to have some general indicator. ... And I believe test scores are able to do that,” Dunbar told FOXNews.com Wednesday in a telephone interview.

While proponents stress the need for NCLB reauthorization in Congress, a number of plans introduced in the Senate and House seek to reform the act. Lawmakers intend to complete work on reauthorization by the end of this year, but without action by year’s end, it is unlikely to get another look until 2009, after the next presidential and congressional elections.

Those pushing for reauthorization may have a new tool to prod fellow lawmakers. On Tuesday, the Center on Education Policy, a nonpartisan Washington, D.C., think tank released its findings on one of the broadest assessments on the federally mandated tests scores under the No Child act, and what they found was encouraging to the bill’s supporters.

In their study — which included data from all 50 states — the group found that most states were showing improvement in reading and math scores. The most gains were made in mathematics at the elementary school level — where 22 out of 25 states showed gains in the both ways they looked at the data.

But gains were made in middle and high schools also, for instance: reading scores improved in 20 out of 39 states; and high school reading improved in 16 out of 37. The study also pointed out that test scores show a narrowing of the achievement gap between white students and minorities, including black, Hispanic and low-income students.

The new study is a boost for reauthorization efforts, said a spokeswoman for Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate committee that is developing the reauthorization bill.

“It’s helpful,” said Kennedy spokeswoman Melissa Wagoner, adding that she believed the authorization could happen this year. “We’re very hopeful. I think the senator wants to see the promises made five years ago made good.”

The study notes that there’s no way to tell whether the increases are because of NCLB policy, a point taken up by the American Federation of Teachers union president, Edward McElroy.

“Test results reflect the accumulation of many years’ work,” McElroy said in a prepared statement.

“The upward trend dates from before the No Child Left Behind Act, and we believe it is likely that these results primarily reflect standards-based reforms put in place in the 1990s,” he said, adding, “Our members tell us that the overemphasis on testing and test preparation, which has intensified since NCLB’s passage, has led to a narrowing of the curriculum.

“We urge Congress to take heart in these results but also to be thoughtful about what brought them about,” McElroy said.

And National Education Association President Reg Weaver issued a cautionary statement over the findings.

“We should be cautious and remember that NCLB was not and is not the only education reform effort in place. ... If anything, this report should sound an alarm that we are drawing conclusions without all the facts,” Weaver said. “Essentially, the report reinforces that NCLB has done very little to improve accountability and not nearly enough to close the achievement gaps.”

But Dunbar said it is good news to hear that numbers are trending positively for the achievement gap.

“It is really evidence of where this law, I think, was directed. ... It is where we should expect to see, we would hope to see, the greatest effects,” Dunbar said.

One of the problems before NCLB, Dunbar said, is that some schools weren’t taking steps to make sure all students were taking achievement tests, including minority groups that generally test at lower levels than white counterparts.

In a statement Tuesday, Kennedy said the study “proves that progress is possible in our public schools,” but he pointed to data showing some states declined against national benchmarks. “Every student deserves an opportunity to learn at high standards, regardless of where they live or study,” he said.

At least on the Senate side, Kennedy hopes to introduce the reauthorization later this summer and send it out of his committee by the end of August, preparing it for consideration on the floor by the end of the year.

Dunbar said he also hopes the reauthorization comes through.

“It would be premature to radically disrupt the work that states have done all over the country to try to develop testing programs that would satisfy the requirements,” of NCLB, he said, adding: “I think they might miss the opportunity to nudge this legislation in a direction that would, I would say, improve student learning — as well as raise test scores.”

==============================

Leftist Speakers Dominate 2007 College Graduations (Christian Post, 070607)

Liberal speakers dominated this year’s college graduation ceremonies, according to a conservative campus watchdog group.

Since this year’s graduating class began tossing off their commencement caps, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer addressed the class of 2007 at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa.; top-rated TV talk show host Oprah Winfrey urged Howard University’s class to maintain their integrity; and former president Bill Clinton told 6,500 University of Michigan graduates that private U.S. citizens have more power today than ever before and Americans have to do their part in solving the world’s problems.

At the nation’s top 100 colleges – ranked by U.S. News & World Report - there were roughly seven commencement speakers on the “Left” for every one speaker on the “Right,” a survey by Young America’s Foundation (YAF) found. Moreover, leftist speakers were “awash with activists,” including “anti-war thumpers and global warming pushers,” according to YAF. And those in the “Right” category were elected officials or presidential appointees, not conservative activists.

While more liberal media personalities such as Blitzer, NBC’s Tim Russert and former Nightline anchor Ted Koppel were invited to speak to the class of 2007, notable conservative media personalities from The Fox News Channel – the most watched cable news network – and popular talk radio shows were absent, the survey pointed out.

“For 14 years, we’ve shown that college administrators are using commencement ceremonies to send their students off with one more predictable leftist lecture,” said YAF spokesman Jason Mattera.

Other 2007 commencement speakers in the “Left” category include global warming activist Jared Diamond at California Institute of Technology; West Wing actor Bradley Whitford at Princeton University; former Clinton consultant Benjamin Barber at Texas Christian University; and history professor Leon Litwack at the University of California-Berkeley.

Prominent colleges and universities have also held separate graduation ceremonies for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) students, the survey revealed. Schools holding such functions called “lavender” ceremonies include Yale, Harvard, Dartmouth, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of California-Los Angeles.

The dominance of leftist speakers at graduations is not new. The nation’s top elite schools, including Yale, Harvard and Dartmouth, have more likely chosen such speakers over the past decade.

“Once again, commencements look like another dose of leftist indoctrination rather than a fresh start for the class of 2007,” YAF stated.

==============================

Do Away With Public Schools (Townhall.com, 070613)

By Jonah Goldberg

Here’s a good question for you: Why have public schools at all?

OK, cue the marching music. We need public schools because blah blah blah and yada yada yada. We could say blah is common culture and yada is the government’s interest in promoting the general welfare. Or that children are the future. And a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Because we can’t leave any child behind.

The problem with all these bromides is that they leave out the simple fact that one of the surest ways to leave a kid “behind” is to hand him over to the government. Americans want universal education, just as they want universally safe food. But nobody believes that the government should run nearly all of the restaurants, farms and supermarkets. Why should it run the vast majority of the schools - particularly when it gets terrible results?

Consider Washington, home of the nation’s most devoted government-lovers and, ironically, the city with arguably the worst public schools in the country. Out of the 100 largest school districts, according to the Washington Post, D.C. ranks third in spending for each pupil ($12,979) but last in spending on instruction. Fifty-six cents out of every dollar go to administrators who, it’s no secret, do a miserable job administrating, even though D.C. schools have been in a state of “reform” for nearly 40 years.

In a blistering series, the Post has documented how badly the bureaucrats have run public education. More than half of the District of Columbia’s teenage kids spend their days in “persistently dangerous” schools, with an average of nine violent incidents a day in a system with 135 schools. “Principals reporting dangerous conditions or urgently needed repairs in their buildings wait, on average, 379 days ... for the problems to be fixed,” according to the Post. But hey, at least the kids are getting a lousy education. A mere 19 schools managed to get “proficient” scores or better for a majority of students on the district’s Comprehensive Assessment Test.

A standard response to such criticisms is to say we don’t spend enough on public education. But if money were the solution, wouldn’t the district, which spends nearly $13,000 on every kid, rank near the top? If you think more money will fix the schools, make your checks out to “cash” and send them to me.

Private, parochial and charter schools get better results. Parents know this. Applications for vouchers in the district dwarf the available supply, and home schooling has exploded.

As for schools teaching kids about the common culture and all that, as a conservative I couldn’t agree more. But is there evidence that public schools are better at it? The results of the 2006 National Assessment of Educational Progress history and civics exams showed that two-thirds of U.S. high school seniors couldn’t identify the significance of a photo of a theater with a sign reading “Colored Entrance.” And keep in mind, political correctness pretty much guarantees that Jim Crow and the civil rights movement are included in syllabi. Imagine how few kids can intelligently discuss Manifest Destiny or free silver.

Right now, there’s a renewed debate about providing “universal” health insurance. For some liberals, this simply means replicating the public school model for health care. (Stop laughing.) But for others, this means mandating that everyone have health insurance - just as we mandate that all drivers have car insurance - and then throwing tax dollars at poorer folks to make sure no one falls through the cracks.

There’s a consensus in America that every child should get an education, but as David Gelernter noted recently in the Weekly Standard, there’s no such consensus that public schools need to do the educating.

Really, what would be so terrible about government mandating that every kid has to go to school, and providing subsidies and oversight when necessary, but then getting out of the way?

Milton Friedman noted long ago that the government is bad at providing services - that’s why he wanted public schools to be called “government schools” - but that it’s good at writing checks. So why not cut checks to people so they can send their kids to school?

What about the good public schools? Well, the reason good public schools are good has nothing to do with government’s special expertise and everything to do with the fact that parents care enough to ensure their kids get a good education. That wouldn’t change if the government got out of the school business. What would change is that fewer kids would get left behind.

==============================

Tase Him, Bro! (Ann Coulter, 070626)

Democrats should run Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for president. He’s more coherent than Dennis Kucinich, he dresses like their base, he’s more macho than John Edwards, and he’s willing to show up at a forum where he might get one hostile question — unlike the current Democratic candidates for president who won’t debate on Fox News Channel. He’s not married to an impeached president, and the name “Mahmoud Ahmadinejad” is surely no more frightening than “B. Hussein Obama.”

And liberals agree with Ahmadinejad on the issues! We know that because he was invited by an American university to speak on campus.

Contrary to all the blather about “free speech” surrounding Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia, universities in America do not invite speakers who do not perfectly mirror the political views of their America-hating faculties. Rather, they aggressively censor differing viewpoints and permit only a narrow category of speech on their campuses. Ask Larry Summers.

If a university invites someone to speak, you know the faculty agrees with the speaker. Maybe not the entire faculty. Some Columbia professors probably consider Ahmadinejad too moderate on Israel.

Columbia president Lee Bollinger claimed the Ahmadinejad invitation is in keeping with “Columbia’s long-standing tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate.”

Except Columbia doesn’t have that tradition. This is worse than saying “the dog ate my homework.” It’s like saying “the dog ate my homework” when you’re Michael Vick and everyone knows you’ve killed your dog.

Columbia’s “tradition” is to shut down any speakers who fall outside the teeny, tiny seditious perspective of its professors.

When Minutemen leader Jim Gilchrist and his black colleague Marvin Stewart were invited by the College Republicans to speak at Columbia last year, the tolerant, free-speech-loving Columbia students violently attacked them, shutting down the speech.

Imbued with Bollinger’s commitment to free speech, Columbia junior Ryan Fukumori said of the Minutemen: “They have no right to be able to speak here.”

Needless to say — unlike Ahmadinejad — the university had not invited the Minutemen. Most colleges and universities wouldn’t buy a cup of coffee for a conservative speaker.

Fees for speakers who do not hate America are raised from College Republican fundraisers and contributions from patriotic alumni and locals who think students ought to hear at least one alternative viewpoint in four years of college.

And then college administrators turn a blind eye when liberal apple-polishers and suck-ups shut down the speech or physically attack the speaker.

Bollinger refused to punish the students who stormed the stage and violently ended the Minutemen’s speech.

So the one thing we know absolutely is that Bollinger did not allow Ahmadinejad to speak out of respect for “free speech” because Bollinger does not respect free speech.

Only because normal, patriotic Americans were appalled by Columbia’s invitation of Ahmadinejad to speak was Bollinger forced into the ridiculous position of denouncing Ahmadinejad when introducing him.

Then why did you invite him?

And by the way, I’ll take a denunciation if college presidents would show up at my speeches and drone on for 10 minutes about “free speech” before I begin.

At Syracuse University last year, when liberal hecklers tried to shut down a speech by a popular conservative author of (almost!) six books, College Republicans began to remove the hecklers. But Dean of Students Roy Baker blocked them from removing students disrupting the speech on the grounds that removing students screaming during a speech would violate the hecklers’ “free speech.” They had a “free speech” right to prevent anyone from hearing a conservative’s free speech.

That’s what colleges mean by “free speech.” (And by the way, my fingers are getting exhausted from making air quotes every time I use the expression “free speech” in relation to a college campus.)

“Tolerance of opposing views” means we have to listen to their anti-American views, but they don’t have to hear our pro-American views. (In Washington, they call this “the Fairness Doctrine.”)

Liberals are never called upon to tolerate anything they don’t already adore, such as treason, pornography and heresy. In fact, those will often get you course credit.

At Ahmadinejad’s speech, every vicious anti-Western civilization remark was cheered wildly. It was like watching an episode of HBO’S “Real Time With Bill Maher.”

Ahmadinejad complained that the U.S. and a few other “monopolistic powers, selfish powers” were trying to deny Iranians their “right” to develop nukes.

Wild applause.

Ahmadinejad repeatedly refused to answer whether he seeks the destruction of the state of Israel.

Wild applause.

He accused the U.S. of supporting terrorism.

Wild applause.

Only when Ahmadinejad failed to endorse sodomy did he receive the single incident of booing throughout his speech.

Responding to a question about Iran’s execution of homosexuals, Ahmadinejad said there are no homosexuals in Iran: “In Iran we don’t have homosexuals, like in your country. In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have it.”

I already knew that from looking at his outfit. If liberals want to run this guy for president, they better get him to “Queer Eye for the Islamofascist Guy.”

==============================

Teaching Homosexuality to Kids (townhall.com, 070706)

By Rebecca Hagelin

Quick question: Who thinks there isn’t enough frank sexual information forced on today’s kids? Is the bar for acceptable sexual behavior still too high? You would think so when reading a recent Washington Post article titled “A More Candid Approach to Sex-Ed.”

As many parents know, most sex-ed classes are already candid enough, thank you very much. The last thing we need is for anyone to spice them up or further complicate what should be a pretty simple subject. But that’s what schools in Montgomery County, Maryland plan to do by introducing lessons on homosexuality to 8th and 10th graders — lessons that serve to further the radical homosexual activist agenda.

Those in 8th grade, for example, may be asked to ponder their “gender identity.” Is this the same thing as your actual gender, which should be, ummm, obvious by this time? No. Students are told that it’s “your identification of yourself as a man or a woman, based on the gender you feel to be inside.” You could be a boy trapped in a girl’s body, or vice versa. Or something in between, it seems. Since when did knowing one’s gender get so … difficult? My goodness, isn’t there enough out there to confuse our children without asking them to question whether they are really a boy or truly a girl? Have we gone mad?

Whatever your true identity, though, you can bet it is “innate,” the 8th graders are told. To be certain they understand, the curriculum defines “innate” as “determined by factors present in an individual from birth.” In short, gays are born, not made, so “straights” can’t say homosexuality or bisexuality is wrong. (Does that apply to those who prefer bestiality or pedophilia? Just wondering …) What’s needed, then, is “tolerance,” which the curriculum says is “the ability to accept others’ differences and allow them to be who they are without expressing disapproval.” Does the same logic apply to other abnormal or harmful behaviors? Do we say, “Oh, so you’re an alcoholic — good for you!” Or, “Tendencies toward kleptomania? Well, don’t let me stand in your way!”? I think not.

Students in 10th grade, meanwhile, read “coming out” stories from homosexuals, a bi-sexual and one “transgendered” individual. “Esperanza,” for example, tells them:

“I’ve known for a long time that I am a lesbian. When I was a little girl, my grandfather would read me a bedtime story before I went to sleep. Sometimes, he would read fairy tales about a beautiful princess and a charming prince who fell in love, got married and lived happily ever after. When he read those stories, I knew that when I grew up, I would marry the beautiful princess, not the prince. I didn’t begin to realize until I was much older that these kinds of feelings made me different from the other girls at school.”

The curriculum contains a nod to abstinence, which it correctly notes, is “the only 100% effective way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.” But this is one sentence tucked into an explicit “Condom Use Demonstration Lesson.” That’s right — a condom demonstration. Bet no one is sleeping through that class! But I do wonder what’s going on the minds of the girls and boys as they are forced to sit through such humiliating and degrading conversations and “instruction.” Do they think that adults expect them to behave like animals? Do their young, impressionable souls feel crushed at how little character we think they have? As I point out in my book, Home Invasion, and in my speeches nationwide, the underlying message our young people are getting is this: We adults believe you have no morals, no self-control, no courage, no conscience.

We are teaching our children a lie — a lie that robs them of the joys of childhood and their best futures. Why shouldn’t we expect the very best from them? And why are we afraid to teach them the truth? We would never tell our little boys and girls to engage in “safe drug use” or to “smoke responsibly.” We don’t hesitate to put our foot down in other areas of life. So why should it be different when it comes to setting standards for sexual behavior?

Besides, exposing kids to graphic sex-ed is just plain stupid. As the mother of two teenage boys, I’m amazed at the naivetè of those who believe that young men have the ability to listen to detailed discussions of condom usage and sexual activities in one class and then concentrate on such exciting topics as, say, algebra and chemistry in the next.

Just as significant is what the Montgomery County sex curriculum doesn’t say. There’s no emphasis on the serious health risks associated with homosexual behavior. And, as the grassroots group Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum (CRC) notes, “Nowhere is abstinence or sex placed within the context of marriage. The word marriage is not mentioned in the 8th or the 10th grade lessons.” Not surprising, really: According to CRC, the 10th grade resource was developed by a homosexual advocacy group named Project 10, which is “dedicated to providing educational support services to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth who attend public school campuses.”

Not every school community is as bad as Montgomery County. But some are, and others fall somewhere in between. Do you know what your schools teach? If not, I encourage you to stop by and check out the sex ed curriculum over the summer. If it’s offensive to core values and decency, if it degrades your sons and daughters, do what the brave folks at CRC did and make your voice heard.

As a parent, you have the right and responsibility to ensure that your children aren’t being bombarded or brainwashed by radical activists. The good folks at CRC can give you guidance on how to organize. Learn from others — you’re not alone.

==============================

Pro-Gay Sex-Ed Curriculum Passes Md. Board Despite Pro-Family Efforts (Christian Post, 070706)

Pro-family groups are upset over a ruling in Maryland this week that has approved a homosexual-friendly sexual-education curriculum.

The Maryland State Board of Education wrote a 17-page opinion paper Tuesday in which they explained that they found nothing illegal as part of the new curriculum which addresses sexual orientation as well as condom use. Since the board could only throw out the program if it broke the law, the panel members will back the Montgomery County Board of Education’s new education layout.

Leading pro-family groups are now deciding whether they want to take the case to federal court to try and reverse the decision.

“There are many parents here in Montgomery County who are opposed to the curriculum,” explained Michelle Turner, spokeswoman for the community group Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, to the Washington Post.

As part of the new curriculum, 90 minutes of course material would be added to the current health class schedules. In the fall for eighth and tenth graders, students would learn about differing sexual orientations and accepting alternative lifestyles. Tenth graders would also watch a DVD on the correct use of a condom.

Parents have been fighting the issue for about five years now, noting that the classes are mandatory and that their children should not be forced to learn about such issues.

While members on the Maryland board did agree that parents should have a say in how to raise their children, they say “that right is not absolute.”

“It must bend to the State’s duty to educate its citizens,” wrote the state board.

The curriculum could only be overturned if it was found to break any current laws. For example, a similar curriculum was first proposed in 2005 by the Montgomery School Board but was thrown out by a federal judge because materials criticized religious fundamentalism.

Pro-family groups brought up about 12 allegations about the current issue, but the school board dismissed every account as legal.

Opponents still disagree with the ruling and argue that the curriculum suppresses religious students’ voice to express homosexuality as a sin. The classes are one-sided, leaning towards a favorable view of alternative lifestyles, explained religious proponents.

The curriculum challengers were also upset that they could not address the panel before they voted on the changes. The board held a closed session with seven people signing the opinion paper and four abstaining.

“I wish we had had an opportunity to address the board,” added Turner.

Parents are also worried that the new lectures may spread to other counties after it is initiated within Montgomery County.

The controversy is similar to a recent curriculum bill, Senate Bill 777 (S.B. 777), that is currently being voted on in the California legislature. The legislation would ban all bias against homosexuals, transgenders, and bisexuals at public schools. The bill has already passed the Senate and the California Assembly Judiciary Committee.

==============================

Jesus Christ, You Can’t Say That in Our School (Unless You’re Cursing) (Townhall.com, 070831)

By Jon Sanders

So according to the wisdom of the public education establishment, a high-school valedictorian should lose her diploma for – not cheating, not plagiarism, but 30 seconds of telling her classmates about her faith in Jesus.

The U.S. Constitution compels them, you see. It’s clearly there under the Separation Clause that everyone in education knows about. Funny thing about that, though...

But first, here’s what happened. There were 15 valedictorians in the graduating class of 2006 at Lewis-Palmer High School in Monument, Colorado, and Erica Corder was one of them. With so many top students and so little time, the school decided to allot them 30 seconds apiece of condensed remarks at the graduation ceremony. When her time came, Corder thanked her teachers, parents, and peers for their support and encouragement, and then she said:

“We are all capable of standing firm and expressing our own beliefs, which is why I need to tell you about someone who loves you more than you could ever imagine. He died for you on a cross over 2,000 years ago, yet was resurrected and is living today in heaven. His name is Jesus Christ. If you don’t already know him personally I encourage you to find out more about the sacrifice he made for you so that you now have the opportunity to live in eternity with him.”

Heathen forfend! Corder, showing the lively spark of mind that helped her to achieve so highly in high school, had purposefully neglected to include that portion of her remarks in rehearsals so as not to disobey the inevitable order to shut up.

School officials responded typically, immediately meeting with Corder and demanding she apologize or not receive her diploma. They were most insistent that she include the phrase “I realize that, had I asked ahead of time, I would not have been allowed to say what I did.” Corder buckled before the pressure, issued the demanded recantation, and received her diploma. But she was quite upset about this trespass against her First Amendment rights, and she obtained representation by Liberty Council, who wrote on her behalf to Lewis-Palmer High, demanding an apology. This request went unheeded, so Corder brought suit.

School officials insist that their actions were “constitutionally appropriate.” Well, they may have been in keeping with the present-day interpretation of the First Amendment, but were they really appropriate?

Here’s the test: Follow the coercion. The First Amendment protects individuals’ rights of religion, speech, assembly, and petition. Religious freedom is the very first freedom it secures against government interference. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” (sealing citizens against the fear of a State Church), “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

It should not escape anyone’s notice that the Free Exercise clause is immediately followed by the prohibition against Congress (and by application, all government) “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” These all proceed in logical order. A free individual is free to believe, follow, and express his faith, and it follows that he is free to speak and publish as he pleases, meet with whom he pleases, and not be hindered even from airing grievances with the government.

No “Separation Clause” there; that phrase hails from Pres. Thomas Jefferson’s January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Jefferson used the phrase “a wall of separation between Church & State” to describe what the First Amendment had accomplished, so that the Baptists need not fear state governments’ declarations of days of prayer and fasting as abridging their religious rights. The First Amendment protects religious expression even by individuals in government, and even in public halls and government buildings – an idea Pres. Jefferson solidified by concluding his letter with a reference to “the common father and creator of man.”

And this is true liberty – allowing all manner of religious expression. It is the cardinal opposite of the current teaching on the First Amendment as it pertains to schools and government; i.e., forbidding all manner of religious expression. That, of course, is tyranny.

Follow the coercion. If a teacher or administrator forces students, regardless of creed, to hew to his religious beliefs, then that would be an unconstitutional abridgment of their religious rights. If a teacher or administrator cited a personal belief in God — or a personal disbelief in God — without any response forced upon the students, then no First Amendment rights would have been violated. The former involves coercion, the latter doesn’t.

Where was the coercion in Monument? Was it used against the audience hearing a student’s declaration of belief in Jesus Christ and encouraging her listeners to join her? Were they prevented from leaving or forced to agree or pledge fealty? Or was it used against the student? Does the First Amendment protect government officials forcing a specific kind of speech – a specifically worded apology – from someone under their power?

Follow the coercion. That’s where you can see the tyranny that our Founders sought to protect us against.

==============================

Kindergarten cops rule: Witches in, Bibles out: ‘Sounds the death knell for religious freedom’ (WorldNetDaily, 070831)

A court decision that opens the doors of Culbertson Elementary School in Pennsylvania to books about witches – but rejects the Bible as being too “proselytizing” – is being challenged.

The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund has submitted amicus briefs in a lawsuit filed when a kindergarten student, under an assignment in which parents were invited to read their child’s favorite book, was denied permission to have his mother read a Bible story.

A decision in U.S. District Court that sided with the school’s decision to ban the Bible reading, while allowing teachers to suggest reading books about “witches and Halloween,” effectively “sounds the death knell for religious freedom in public schools,” the ADF argues.

“By transmuting private religious speech into government speech, granting school officials carte blanche authority to determine what religious speech is ‘too religious,’ and holding that a school’s desire to avoid a perceived Establishment Clause violation justifies viewpoint discrimination, the lower court’s opinion permits a blatant violation of the Constitution,” the group said.

“The school’s decision to ban religious speech is nothing more than blatant viewpoint discrimination,” said ADF Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “This was not about proselytizing anyone,” continued ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman. “It was about letting students tell the class about what things are important to them, and the Bible is important to this student.”

The classroom assignment was called “All About Me,” and was intended to provide an opportunity for children to “identify individual interests and learn about others,” the ADF said. The activity at the school – which lists an unspecified “religious holiday” in September but a “winter recess” in December – allowed students to talk about their interests through the use of their favorite stuffed animals, posters, snacks and games and books.

When his turn came, Culbertson Elementary student Wesley Busch asked his mother to read from his favorite book, the Bible. But the ADF said school officials told Donna Kay Busch that the school viewed the Bible as “proselytizing” and as “promoting a specific religious point of view,” banning it from the class.

Officials with the Marple Newtown School District had defended their actions as reasonable, and the trial court judge agreed.

However, the ADF’s brief argued “the lower court’s radical departure from settled First Amendment law poses a serious threat to religious expression.”

The brief noted that the school allowed discussion of religion in the “All About Me” assignment. “Because Wesley liked to go to church, he created a poster that included a picture of a church with the words, ‘I like to go to church’ below it. This poster was displayed on the wall.”

But the Bible reading Wesley requested was rejected because the Bible promotes “a specific religious point of view” and the teacher instead suggested Wesley’s mother “read a book ‘about witches and Halloween’ instead.”

The ADF said the district court erred in assuming that such private speech would be attributed to the school.

“Indeed, the Bible reading at issue in this case is Wesley’s speech: his mother came to the class at his request, to read his book selection, so that he could share himself with his classmates,” the ADF said.

The filing also noted the dangers the district court ruling left in its wake.

“The lower court presumes that certain religious speech – i.e., religious speech that crosses some indeterminate threshold where it becomes ‘too religious’ – automatically violates the Establishment Clause and thus may constitutionally be censored. This holding is plain legal error under controlling precedent. Moreover, it impermissibly interjects government officials into the affairs and doctrines of religion.”

==============================

Canada: McGuinty’s indefensible stance on schools (National Post, 070905)

Andrew Coyne, National Post

Hypocrisy, in Catholic doctrine, would surely count as a venial, rather than a mortal sin. So if all that could be said of Dalton McGuinty’s stated opposition to public funding of religious schools was that it was hypocritical — if one were confined to pointing out that he himself attended Catholic school, that his children did likewise, and that his wife teaches in the Catholic school system— that would be galling, but not sufficient in itself to condemn it. A thing can be hypocritical, and still be right.

He might even be arguing against his own self-interest, which far from hypocritical, would be admirably public-minded. Catholic schools in Ontario are, after all, publicly funded — the only faith to be thus favoured. If the Premier were so convinced of the evils of public funding of religious schools — if, as he was saying the other day, it amounted to encouraging “children of different faiths to leave the publicly funded system and become sequestered and segregated in their own private schools” — if he were so dedicated to the principle of separation of church and state as to demand that public funds be withdrawn from Catholic schools, then we should only applaud the sincerity of his conviction, the consistency of his position, and the rigour of his analysis.

But Mr. McGuinty is not saying that. Rather, the position he is attempting to defend is that public funding should be available to schools professing the Catholic faith, and no other. The opposition Conservatives’ position, that funding should be available equally to all religious schools, is consistent, at least as between faiths — though why religious schools should be preferred to secular is a question the Tories might wish to answer. But the Liberal position is simply incoherent.

The current situation in the province’s schools, obnoxious as it may be to generally accepted notions of equality, has at least the virtue of being the status quo. If that is the position the Liberals wish to maintain, they had only to do nothing. Moreover, the Catholic school system’s entitlement to public funds is guaranteed in the Constitution, part of the Confederation bargain (a reciprocal obligation was imposed on Quebec with regard to Protestant schools). So Mr. McGuinty, asked to respond to the Tory proposal, might have simply shrugged and said: “Not my policy.” Or, seized of the unfairness of funding one religion over others, he might have followed Quebec’s lead, and amended the Constitution to remove any reference to religious schools.

But Mr. McGuinty did not do that. Instead, in a calculatedly inflammatory move, he chose to make religious schools the central issue of the campaign. “I’m hoping to grab Ontarians by the earlobes,” Mr. McGuinty told reporters, “and say, ‘It’s not just another election, it’s not just business as usual. It’s about the kind of Ontario you want.’” Then that business about students being “segregated,” followed by a sweet-faced appeal to “bring our kids together, so that they grow together and learn from one another.”

So the Premier cannot disavow the passions he might thus have ignited: That was his intent — to “grab Ontarians by the earlobes,” to warn them of ? what? What dark fears does he wish to arouse? Or to be specific, why does he believe other religions would “segregate” their kids, when that has not been the case with the Catholic schools?

I don’t want to say this is an entirely illegitimate concern. There are zealots out there who would teach intolerance of other faiths given half a chance, and I won’t pretend they are evenly distributed across the population. But is it so beyond human ingenuity to guard against this — to insist, as the Tories propose, that public funding be conditional on teaching a common curriculum, using accredited teachers, and so forth. Or if it is, then why permit these schools to exist at all?

But wait a minute. Wasn’t the Premier right, as I wrote at the time, to decide against allowing sharia courts to operate within Ontario’s legal system? Isn’t this just the same issue? No, and the differences in the two cases illustrate the point. First, Mr. McGuinty did not discriminate between religions in the sharia case, but applied the same principle to all religious tribunals — much to the chagrin of the existing Jewish courts.

And second, the whole point of the law is that there should be one law for all. Remember that the issue with the sharia courts was not whether they should exist —people are free to settle their private disputes in any way they wish — but whether the decisions they hand down should be given the imprimatur of the state, including its powers of enforcement.

But whereas justice is one of the core functions of the state — indeed its raison d’etre — education is not so clear cut a matter. Ensuring access to education has rightly become a state responsibility, at least at the primary and secondary level. But we have traditionally allowed a great deal of latitude with regard to the actual business of teaching — how students are taught, and even what they are taught, within limits.

Justice is necessarily a collective matter: It is our shared understanding of what is just that gives the law its power. But in matters of education, let a hundred flowers bloom.

==============================

Forced Education in Homosexuality and Evolution Leads to Exodus of Mennonites from Quebec (AAC, 070816)

MONTREAL, August 16, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A community of a dozen Mennonite families in Quebec is ready to leave the province rather than succumb to provincial government demands that would require their children to be taught evolution and homosexuality. While the government sees its actions as nothing more than enforcing technical regulations, many view the case as intolerance of Christian faith.

The community runs a small Mennonite school out of a church in Roxton Falls where eleven children in elementary grades were expected to commence studies this Fall. Subjects include reading, writing, math, science, geography, social sciences, music and French. However, they are not schooled in evolution and homosexuality (sex education) as demanded by the official provincial curriculum.

Quebec Education Ministry Spokesman Francois Lefebvre told LifeSiteNews.com that the province has two requirements for approval of private schools. “That the teachers are certified and that the provincial curriculum which is mandatory in all Quebec schools is followed,” he said.

Ronald Goossen, a spokesman for the families, told LifeSiteNews.com the community rejects both demands. With regard to certified teachers, he said, “we have pulled our students out of public schools and by asking us to have certified teachers they are asking us to send our teachers to public school. So basically they’re asking something of us that we don’t feel we can do.”

Regarding the curriculum, Goosen said, “Some of the things - the theory of evolution would be a problem, the attitudes portrayed, the lifestyles we don’t ascribe to, making it look that single motherhood is fine, that alternate lifestyles are fine - gay ‘marriage’, we’d be very much against that.”

After visiting the Mennonites in November, the Ministry of Education told the school that their teaching was not up to standard and threatened them with legal action. Parents were informed that their children must be enrolled in government-approved schools by the fall.

Given other incidents in the province, Goossen was concerned that if they don’t comply, children might be taken from their families by social workers. In 2002, social workers in Aylmer removed seven children from a Mennonite family because the family used spanking as a form of discipline.

This move is an enactment of the Ministry of Education’s decision last year to shut down schools that don’t teach the full government-approved curriculum. The Ministry threatened to shut down private Evangelical schools that didn’t want to teach evolution and sex-education (See http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06102404.html ).

The Mayor of Roxton Falls, Jean-Marie Laplante, said that the majority of non-Mennonites in his town support the school. Laplante has complained to the education department and Education Minister Michelle Courchesne to save the school from being shut down.

“We want to keep these people here - they’re part of our community,” the Mayor told the National Post. “They’re good neighbours. They integrated into the community, they work hard, they have farms, they work in businesses in the region.”

The prospect of losing the families, said the Mayor, “hurts economically, but it also hurts because everybody loves these people and we’re saying, ‘Why? Why is this happening?’” (Contact the Mayor here: roxton@cooptel.qc.ca )

Goosen told LifeSiteNews.com that the families are serious about moving and will be gone in a couple of weeks when school commences. He noted that most have already rented housing in Ontario. Should the government reconsider and allow them the freedom to educate their children within the boundaries of their faith, the community would gladly stay he said.

Lefebvre told LifeSiteNews.com that the school had not yet applied for permission to run privately. However, Goosen responded that the ministry of education had all the required information and his application was not ‘officially’ submitted only due to a technicality related to the online submission process.

Moreover, said Goosen, “we have been informed that our application would be rejected since they require certified teachers and adherence to the curriculum.”

Lefebvre at first seemed conciliatory. He claimed that the regulations “do not exclude giving other courses or teachings related to their religious convictions, but at this moment it is outside of the official program of education.”

LifeSiteNews.com asked whether a compromise could be reached, whether it would be possible to eliminate from the school’s curriculum the offensive parts which deal with evolution and homosexuality. Lefebvre replied, “It’s difficult to say because the educational program insists that students acquire competence in the whole program therefore how could you eliminate one part of the program and still have a general competence?” He referred to religious schools in Quebec, emphasizing that they also have to “respect the program of education (curriculum) of Quebec.”

Goosen told LifeSiteNews.com that the Mennonite community has its own curriculum which is accepted in seven other Canadian provinces. “Our own curriculum system has served us well and produced good results,” he said.

The option of home schooling is permitted, Lefebvre stated in answer to another question, as long as the progress of the children is reported as satisfactory to the local education ministry. He told LifeSiteNews.com that homeschoolers in the province must be receiving an equivalent education as those in public schools, which means the provincial curriculum must be followed. That curriculum, with its pro-gay sex education and its teaching of evolution, remains unacceptable to many.

==============================

Indoctrination 101 (townhall.com, 070911)

By John Leo

In 1997, the National Association of Social Work (NASW) altered its ethics code, ruling that all social workers must promote social justice “from local to global level.” This call for mandatory advocacy raised the question: what kind of political action did the highly liberal field of social work have in mind? The answer wasn’t long in coming. The Council on Social Work Education, the national accreditor of social work education programs, says candidates must fight “oppression,” and sees American society as pervaded by the “global interconnections of oppression.” Now aspiring social workers must commit themselves, usually in writing, to a culturally left agenda, often including diversity programs, state-sponsored redistribution of income, and a readiness to combat heterosexism, ableism, and classism.

This was all too much for the National Association of Scholars. The NAS has just released a six-month study of social work education, examining the ten largest programs at public universities for which information was available. The report, “The Scandal of Social Work,” says these programs “have lost sight of the difference between instruction and indoctrination to a scandalous extent. They have, for the most part, adopted an official ideological line, closing off debate on many questions that serious students of public policy would admit to be open to the play of contending viewpoints.”

Nine of the ten programs, the NAS reports, require students to accept the ideology-saturated NASW code of ethics to get a degree in social work. The University of Central Florida says students “must comply” with the code of ethics if they wish to remain in school. Failure to accept the code constitutes “academic misconduct” in the University of Michigan program and “can result in disciplinary action” at the University of Minnesota—Twin Cities.

“Diversity/multiculturalism” and “oppression” were among the most common themes in coursework. The report notes, “Although it’s certainly true that racism has been oppressive in American history, it seems question-begging to assume that ‘oppression’ is a leading cause of poverty in the modern U.S. And it is far from clear that the only pathway to a non-racist or egalitarian society passes through the gateway or multiculturalism.”

The NAS called on government agencies at the federal, state and local level “to cease requiring that social workers hold degrees from CSWE accredited programs in order to be hired.” By associating themselves with the ideological tests in the CSWE standards and NASW code, “such agencies violate constitutionally protected freedoms of speech and religious conscience.”

At schools of education, the buzzword “dispositions” carries the message of politicized advocacy. Ed schools once required aspiring teachers to display only competence and knowledge. Then the amorphous criterion of “dispositions” appeared, referring vaguely to habits and attitudes that teachers must have. The National Council for Accreditation of Teachers of English (NCATE) said education departments could “include some measure of a candidate’s commitment to social justice”—in effect ruling that public school teachers could be evaluated on their perceptions of what social justice requires.

This opened a door to reject candidates on the basis of thoughts and beliefs. It also allowed ed schools to infer bad character from a political stance that the schools opposed. At Washington State University, where the college of education tried to expel a conservative student, the dean was asked whether Justice Antonin Scalia could pass a dispositions test at her school. “I don’t know how to answer that,” she replied.

Interventions by free speech and religious liberties groups induced a few schools to back down in well-publicized cases of abuse. At Missouri State University’s undergraduate social work program, Emily Brooker received a “C” after complaining that professor Frank Kauffman “routinely engaged in leftist diatribes.” Kauffman instructed Brooker’s class to write the state legislature urging legal approval of adoption by gays. She refused on religious and moral grounds. As a result, Brooker was brought up on very serious charges; to get her degree, she had to promise to abide by the NASW code. After graduation, she sued and won a settlement.

In an attention-getting article, Stanford education school professor William Damon wrote that ed schools “have been given unbounded power over what candidates may think and do, what they may believe and value.” In what seemed to be an exercise in damage control, NCATE president Arthur Wise said he agreed with Damon that it is not acceptable for ed schools to assess social and political beliefs.

Still, the ideology behind disposition theory and social justice requirements is intact and strongly holds sway in the schools. It dovetails with the general attitude on campuses that promoting liberal advocacy in the classroom is legitimate and necessary. So long as government agencies collaborate with the social work programs and ed schools, reform will remain a long way off.

==============================

Cheating college students (Washington Times, 070919)

Cal Thomas

“If you can read this, thank a teacher,” says the bumper sticker on the car in front of me. But literacy is more than the ability to read a bumper sticker. It includes the accumulation of basic knowledge combined with a way of thinking that allows an individual to lead a life that is personally productive and contributes to America’s health and welfare.

For the second year in a row, America’s elite universities and colleges have failed to rise above a “D plus” on tests of basic knowledge about civics and American history, maintains a study commissioned by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI). In 2005, ISI contracted with the University of Connecticut’s Department of Public Policy (UConnDPP) to administer tests of basic historical and civic knowledge to 14,000 students at 50 top schools, including Yale, Harvard, Cornell, the University of Virginia, Brown and Duke. The survey found students “were no better off than when they arrived in terms of acquiring the knowledge necessary for informed engagement in a democratic republic and global economy.” Since an education at top colleges can cost as much as $40,000 a year, it would appear those paying the bill are being cheated.

ISI’s final report titled “The Coming Crisis in Citizenship: Higher Education’s Failure to Teach America’s History and Institutions,” presented four pivotal findings:

(1) The average college senior knows very little about America’s history, government, international relations and market economy. Their average score on the civic literacy test was 53.2%. “No class of seniors scored higher than 69%, or D plus.”

(2) Prestige doesn’t pay off. “An Ivy League education contributes nothing to a student’s civic learning. ... There is no relationship between the cost of attending college and the mastery of America’s history, politics, and economy.”

(3) Students don’t learn what colleges don’t teach. “Schools where students took or were required to take more courses related to America’s history and institutions,” says the ISI, “outperformed those schools where fewer courses were completed. The absence of required courses in American history, political science, philosophy and economics suggests a negative impact on students’ civic literacy.”

America’s most prestigious colleges had the worst scores. Many schools that typically were most popular scored among the lowest in advancing civic knowledge. Generally, the ISI study found, the higher the ranking by U.S.News and World Report in its annual survey of institutions of higher education, the lower the rank in civic learning. “Even when controlling for numerous variables that influence learning, seniors at schools with reasonably strong core curricula — for example, Rhodes, Calvin and Wheaton — had double the gain in civic learning compared with those seniors at schools without a coherent core curriculum — for example, Brown, Cornell and Stanford.”

(4) Greater civic learning goes hand-in-hand with more active citizenship. “Students who demonstrated greater learning of America’s history and its institutions were more engaged in citizenship activities such as voting, volunteer community service and political campaigns.” The study found “86% of the students at the four highest-ranked colleges had exercised their right to vote at least once. At Colorado State, ranked second overall, 90% of seniors had voted at least once. ... Higher civic learning and greater civic involvement are closely associated.”

Here are three of the test questions. Even partially informed people who believe American history is a better teacher than fascination and fixation on the latest news about Britney Spears and O.J. Simpson ought to be able to answer them correctly. The entire 60 multiple-choice questions can be found on ISI’s Web site, www.isi.org.

• Which battle brought the American Revolution to an end: (a) Saratoga, (b) Gettysburg, (c) the Alamo, (d) Yorktown, (e) New Orleans?

• The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964) was significant because it: (a) ended the war in Korea, (b) gave President Johnson the authority to expand the scope of the Vietnam War, (c) was an attempt to take foreign policy power away from the president, (d) allowed China to become a member of the United Nations, or (e) allowed for oil exploration in Southeast Asia.

• Which of the following is the best measure of production or output of an economy (a) gross domestic product, (b) Consumer Price Index, (c) unemployment rate (d), prime rate (e) exchange rate?

Everyone should take the test. No cheating and no, I’m not going to give you the answers. If you’re interested enough to read this column, you ought to be smart enough to know them. If not, then you paid too much college tuition, or didn’t take college seriously enough to get a real education.

In 1777, John Adams wrote to his son about the importance of education. He said it was necessary to teach the next generation about America’s Founding principles to preserve the freedom and independence so many of his fellow countrymen sacrificed to achieve. Only when we know and embrace those principles can we pass on to a new generation that which we inherited from the past. The ISI study reveals severe cracks in that foundation; cracks that need immediate attention and repair.

==============================

Superhero Science? Zombie Studies? Colleges Offer Offbeat Courses (Foxnews, 071101)

In the hallowed halls of some of America’s most elite — and expensive — educational institutions, students are taking classes in subjects like garbage, superpowers and zombies.

And the sticker price? As much as $5,000 a pop.

The offbeat offerings appear on the rosters of public and private colleges of all stripes at a time when professors are vying for students who have an increasingly large selection of courses to choose from.

Environmental studies professor Virginia Matzek has taught “The Joy of Garbage” at Santa Clara University for two years, and has proposed the course at California State University in Sacramento, where she’s just accepted a tenure-track position.

She opens by having her class root through several bags of trash — dry, she’s quick to point out, minus food remnants like banana peels.

“The first day, the students have to find some joy in garbage,” Matzek said. “We go through it as if we were archeologists. ... How societies deal with their waste says something about how they take care of their environment.”

For those attending Santa Clara, the per-course cost is about $4,000 to $5,000 within the tuition of $33,000 a year.

But “Garbage” students who think they’re taking a fluff course might get a rather rude awakening — and not just because of the stench at the dumps and recycling centers they visit. Matzek says she teaches them cold, hard science using trash and waste as the central focus.

So, for instance, they learn that landfills — and flatulent cows — emit methane, which is a greenhouse gas.

“I think they find it unexpectedly hard,” Matzek said. “They take it thinking it’s just going to be fun, and I try to make it fun, but it’s all solidly grounded in scientific concepts. The ‘yuck factor’ helps students not naturally good at science to get it.”

Matzek isn’t the only professor taking a creative approach to learning. There’s also “The Science of Superheroes” at the University of California at Irvine.

Michael Dennin is teaching the freshman seminar again this semester, and said the course focuses on the very real principles of physics using the very fictitious superpowers wielded by the likes of Spider-Man, Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman.

“It gives me a chance to talk about real science but in a context that is very familiar to the students,” said Dennin.

They study the physics of flying and fluid dynamics that allows Superman to zoom through the air, and discuss spider silk, which Spider-Man relies on for his death-defying swings from skyscraper to skyscraper and real spiders use to spin their webs. (The substance is currently being developed for human use because of its incredible strength.)

Full-time UC Irvine students pay about $1,000 per course as part of their $23,000 annual tuition and fees.

At a time when the cost of college has doubled that of inflation and students are graduating with more debt than ever before, such courses raise questions about what value they lend to a student’s overall education and whether they’re just a ploy to get people to sign up.

Robert Shireman, executive director of the nonprofit Project on Student Debt, sees nothing wrong with classes like “The Science of Superheroes” because in the case of that one, he said, it’s a clever way to teach physics to students who might not otherwise seek out the subject.

But since a growing number of college undergraduates are taking five or six years to graduate, rather than the standard four — which adds to their debt — he advises against taking fun electives unless there’s really room for them in the schedule and they’re more than just froth.

“If frivolous courses are adding to the time it’s taking to complete your degree, then certainly it’s something that students should be very cautious of,” Shireman said. “I would look at the academic content.”

Science isn’t the only discipline that professors are putting a spin on. At Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio, students look at the role of swine in American history.

Karim M. Tiro teaches “A History of the Pig in America,” which deconstructs everything from the origin of the 16th-century word “buccaneer” (it comes from “boucans,” which were grills on which they cooked pork) to the skirmishes that British colonists had with Native Americans over pigs brought to the New World from the Old.

And if a history class on pigs in America sounds strange, consider a media studies course at Columbia College in Chicago that examines the presence of zombies in pop culture. “Zombies in Popular Media,” taught by Brendan P. Riley, covers the fascination with the brain-eating walking dead, which has manifested itself in voodoo in Haiti, movies like “White Zombie” and video games including “Resident Evil.”

Or what about “The Zoo: Conservation, Education and Recreation,” a class at California State University’s newest Channel Islands campus that teaches about the inner workings of a zoo. It’s no monkey business, said Alexander W. McNeill, the biomechanics professor who co-runs the course.

The cross-disciplinary class that melds economics and biomechanics studies the zoo as a business and a social institution, analyzing everything from how it is run and where it gets its funding to its dual role as an educational entity and a recreational facility. Most sessions take place at the Santa Barbara Zoo and are led by various people who work there.

“We are trying to get students to understand that organizations like zoos are much more complex than they appear to be at first glance,” said McNeill. “There are just so many things to be learned.”

He said the zoo class is “enormously popular” and is usually filled a couple of hours into registration. A maximum of 24 students can enroll.

At New York University, Joe Cutbirth has his students study Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert in “Media & Society: Fake News, Politics & Public Policy.” NYU undergraduates pay about $48,800 a year in tuition and fees — which includes their $4,000 courses.

Cutbirth’s class examines the role of comedians and their spoof newscasts, like “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart” and “The Colbert Report,” in the public’s perception of politics and the media. Students have to choose one of the two shows to watch four times a week.

But those who think the course is just about sitting in front of the TV, beware, says Cutbirth: He assigns lots of reading from complex texts like Sigmund Freud’s “Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious” plus requires several papers, billing his as a critical studies class using media satire as the focus. Lessons on literary tools like allegory, parody and the “village idiot” are among those taught.

“We examine what’s gone wrong in the country, not in the relationship we have with politics but in the relationship we have with mass media,” he said. “I look at the history of political humor and satire... I don’t get people saying, ‘I didn’t get my money’s worth.’ I get people who say, ‘This is too much work.’”

Among other unusual-sounding electives: “Kitchen Ecology” at Hampshire College in South Amherst, Mass., “The Final Four Experience” at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., “American Gun Policy” at the University of Toledo in Ohio, “Foundations of Business: A Christian Perspective” at Lipscomb University in Nashville, and “The Science of Well-Being and Character Strengths” at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.

A one-time Vanderbilt University class for freshmen last fall used the hit TV series “Lost,” about plane crash victims on a desert island, as the primary “text.”

Professor John M. Sloop said the show is “rich for analysis” for a cultural studies class because of its potpourri of characters, religion-versus-science themes and intricate plotlines.

“I wasn’t teaching about ‘Lost’ so much as I was teaching a course about metaphor,” he said. “The same way you would use ‘Ulysses’ or ‘Moby Dick,’ we watched episodes outside of class to talk about different critical concepts.”

Sloop admitted he did take some heat for offering “Lessons From ‘Lost’: A Case Study.”

“Anybody teaching a class like that can expect some ribbing,” he said. “You do worry. From the outside, it can sound trite.”

And though his ‘Lost’ students were good and enjoyed the course, Sloop said it was tricky at times to keep them on point.

“Since they loved the show so much, it was often more difficult to get at the critical concepts,” he said. “I had to fight that more than I wanted to.”

==============================

Advice To College Students: Don’t Major in English (townhall.com, 071002)

By Phyllis Schlafly

The bad news is that Shakespeare has disappeared from required courses in English departments at more than three-fourths of the top 25 U.S. universities, but the good news is that only 1.6% of America’s 19 million undergraduates major in English, according to Department of Education figures. When I visit college campuses, students for years have been telling me that the English departments are the most radicalized of all departments, more so than sociology, psychology, anthropology, or even women’s studies.

That’s why it was no surprise that Cho Seung-Hui, the murderer of 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech, was an English major.

In the decades before “progressive” education became the vogue, English majors were required to study Shakespeare, the pre-eminent author of English literature. The premise was that students should be introduced to the best that has been thought and said.

What happened? To borrow words from Hamlet: “Though this be madness, yet there is method in it.” Universities deliberately replaced courses in the great authors of English literature with what professors openly call “fresh concerns,” “under-represented cultures,” and “ethnic or non-Western literature.” When the classics are assigned, they are victims of the academic fad called deconstructionism. That means: pay no mind to what the author wrote or meant; deconstruct him and construct your own interpretation, as in a Vanderbilt University course called “Shakespearean Sexuality,” or “Chaucer: Gender and Genre” at Hamilton College.

The facts about what universities are teaching English majors were exposed this year by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. English majors are offered a potpourri of worthless courses.

Some English department courses are really sociology or politics. Examples are “Gender and Sociopolitical Activism in 20th Century Feminist Utopias” at Macalester College; “Of Nags, Bitches and Shrews: Women and Animals in Western Literature” at Dartmouth College; and “African and Diasporic Ecological Literature” at Bates College.

Many undergraduate courses focus on extremely specialized subjects of interest only to the professor who is trying to “publish or perish,” but of virtually no value to students. Examples are: “Beast Culture: Animals, Identity, and Western Literature” at the University of Pennsylvania; and “Food and Literature” at Swarthmore College.

Some English departments offer courses in pop culture. Examples are: “It’s Only Rock and Roll” at the University of California San Diego; “Animals, Cannibals, Vegetables” at Emory University; “Cool Theory” at Duke University; and “The Cult of Celebrity: Icons in Performance, Garbo to Madonna” at the University of Pennsylvania.

Of course, English professors now love to teach about sex. Examples are: “Shakesqueer” at American University; “Queer Studies” at Bates College; “Promiscuity and the Novel” at Columbia University; and “Sexing the Past” at Georgetown University.

Some English-department courses really belong in a weirdo department. Examples are: “Creepy Kids in Fiction and Film” at Duke University, which focuses on “weirdoes, creeps, freaks, and geeks of the truly evil variety”; “Bodies of the Middle Ages: Embodiment, Incarnation, Practice” at Cornell University; “The Conceptual Black Body in Twentieth-Century and Contemporary Visual Culture” at Mount Holyoke College; and “Folklore and the Body” at Oberlin College. Replacing the classics with authors of children’s literature is now common. Assigned readings for college students include Dr. Seuss, J.K. Rowling, The Wizard of Oz, and Snow White.

Twenty years ago, University of Chicago Professor Allan Bloom achieved best-seller lists and fame with his book “The Closing of the American Mind.” He dated the change in academic curricula from the 1960s when universities began to abandon the classic works of literature and instead adopt multicultural readings written by untalented, unimportant women and minorities.

Bloom’s book showed how the Western canon of what educated Americans should know - from Socrates to Shakespeare - was replaced with relativism and the goals of opposing racism, sexism and elitism. Current works promoting multiculturalism written by women and minorities replaced the classics of Western civilization written by the DWEMs, Dead White European Males.

Left-wing academics, often called tenured radicals, eagerly spread the message, and students at Stanford in 1988 chanted “Hey hey, ho ho, Western civ has got to go.” The classicists were cowed into silence, and it’s now clear that the multiculturalists won the canon wars.

Shakespeare, Chaucer and Milton have been replaced by living authors who toe the line of multicultural political correctness, i.e., view everything through the lens of race, gender and class based on the assumption that America is a discriminatory and unjust racist and patriarchal society. The only good news is that students seldom read books any more and use Cliffs Notes for books they might be assigned.

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni says “a degree in English without Shakespeare is like an M.D. without a course in anatomy. It is tantamount to fraud.” [KH: !!!]

College students: Don’t waste your scarce college dollars on a major in English.

==============================

Exodus Mandate Celebrates 10 Years in Homeschooling Movement (Christian Post, 071011)

One of the leading advocates for Christian-based home schooling education celebrated its tenth anniversary Tuesday, marking a decade of influence in the home schooling movement in America.

Around 200 banquet attendees celebrated the anniversary of Frontline Ministries’ Exodus Mandate project at the Columbia Conference Center in Columbia, SC.

The Exodus Mandate promotes K-12 Christian and home-based education as an alternative to state-run public schools.

During its ten years in service, the group has helped to reframe the K-12 education national debate from reforming public education toward an emphasis on Christian families and churches choosing Christian schools or home schooling, according to E. Ray Moore, director and founder of the Exodus Mandate

There are around 1-2 million kids who are home schooled, according to the U.S. Dept. of Education. Moore, however, estimates the real figure to be around 2.1 to 2.5 million children.

Moore, who believes the Great Commission also calls for Christian education of children, observed that the track record for kids who are home-schooled has been both positive and encouraging.

“Home schooling is now proven to be superior in many cases to a public school education in terms of academics, socialization and especially the transmission of the Christian and moral values of the family and Church,” Moore told The Christian Post, noting that exceptions exist “as utopia is not possible in any arena.”

The retired Army Reserve chaplain and Gulf War I veteran added, “With home schoolers gaining admission to Ivy League schools and military academies as well as local colleges and universities, we now know that home schooling works well in the academic arena.”

During the banquet, Moore presented the “Dr. Robert Dreyfus Courageous Christian Leadership Award” to Dr. Bruce Shortt and retired Air Force Brig. Gen. T.C. Pinckney for their work in promoting K-12 Christian education and home schooling in the Southern Baptist Convention – America’s largest Protestant denomination.

Prison Fellowship Ministries President Mark Earley delivered the main address, calling for a “renaissance” in Christian education among the wreckage of a “collapsed and decayed” culture.

Earley emphasized the role of churches in renewing a fallen culture. He urged churches to support parents in fulfilling their responsibility of education their children. Furthermore, he drew from lessons in the Book of Amos to remind churches that renewing the culture doesn’t involve “asking them to change, but it’s about the church delivering.”

Guests at the gathering said they were pleased with hearing about the group’s progress.

“We’re on the right track, making a difference in the Christian community,” said Elise Edson, an Exodus Mandate staff member who home-schooled her four daughters. “Tonight was an encouragement to keep on keeping on.”

Besides the Exodus Mandate project, Frontline Ministries also offers a mentoring network for parents called Home Schooling Family to Family and operates a chaplaincy service to provide Christian ministry in the workplace.

==============================

27-0 at the University of Iowa: Diversity is for Democrats. (National Review Online, 071015)

By Mark Moyar

It’s not the score of a Hawkeye football game. It’s the number of Democrats versus the number of Republicans in the University of Iowa history department, and it has Iowans in an uproar. So, too, do charges published by Mark Bauerlein that left-wing bias has influenced the department’s hiring process. In response to the revelations, department chair Colin Gordon announced that the department had committed no wrongdoing, and neither he nor the university has expressed any concern about the total absence of intellectual diversity. Rarely have the hypocrisy and mendacity of academia been so thoroughly exposed as in the history department’s damage-control campaign.

Professor Gordon contended that the history department cannot discriminate against Republican or conservative job applicants because it does not know the political ideology of applicants. But the University’s own hiring manual states that search committees must “assess ways the applicants will bring rich experiences, diverse backgrounds, and ideology to the university community.” So they are obligated to understand applicants’ ideology, and to make sure not to overlook people with differing ideologies.

Determining a historian’s ideological inclinations is actually very easy in most cases. When I applied to the University of Iowa history department for a professorship in the United States and world affairs, my résumé listed membership in the National Organization of Scholars, which is an organization that everyone in academia knows to be ideologically to the right of the average academic organization. A quick search on Google or Amazon, moreover, reveals that my two books on the Vietnam War have widely been characterized as conservative.

Contrary to his recent protestations, Professor Gordon understands very well the ideological associations of my research on Vietnam. In the leftist publication New Internationalist, he wrote that interpretations of Vietnam similar to mine were part of a “shallow, cynical, and selective” effort by American conservatives who wish to justify global military domination in the spirit of “the aggressive imperialist Teddy Roosevelt.” Similarly well-informed is Professor Stephen Vlastos, the chair of the search committee, who wrote an entire book chapter denouncing historians who interpret Vietnam as I do.

The assertion that ideology doesn’t matter in the history department is discredited further by the support given by Professor Gordon and nine other department professors to the organization Historians Against the War. This organization recently convinced the American Historical Association to ratify a resolution calling on association members to “do whatever they can to bring the Iraq war to a speedy conclusion.” Thus, Professor Gordon and at least nine others believe that a historian’s ideology should not only be a matter of interest to other historians, but should conform to the ideology of other historians.

After learning that I was not among the eight applicants to advance past the screening of résumés, I submitted a freedom of information request asking how the search committee had assessed the ways I would “bring rich experiences and diverse backgrounds and ideology to the university community.” The history department replied that it had not assessed my candidacy in this manner. That fact, combined with the 27-0 imbalance in the department and a university policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of “creed” and “associational preference,” led me to file a complaint with the university’s Office of Equal and Opportunity and Diversity.

Unfortunately, the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity proved unwilling to enforce the university’s policies on either equal opportunity or diversity. The office defended the history department’s failure to assess my “diverse backgrounds and ideology” by explaining that “The University does not expect hiring departments to make this type of assessment of every candidate.” Only a select group of finalists must be assessed in this manner, the office claimed. But the university’s hiring manual makes no such qualification, and it is not a general practice of “equal opportunity” hiring to ignore diversity until a few finalists have been extracted from the applicant pool.

In any case, I should not have needed bonus points for diversity to receive an interview. Professor Gordon accused Professor Bauerlein of characterizing other applicants as less qualified than me without knowing their qualifications, but in fact Professor Bauerlein did know their qualifications, which are posted on the internet. The department offered the job to someone who lacked the type of accomplishments most cherished by history departments at research universities like the University of Iowa: this person had not received degrees from top-tier universities and had been out of graduate school for eight years without publishing a book.

In its communications with the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity, the search committee did make a feeble attempt to justify rejection of my application. Search committee members stated that they had read my book Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965 and that it “did not consider any Vietnamese sources.” Triumph Forsaken actually contains over two hundred citations of Vietnamese-language sources.

The Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity cast further doubt on its integrity by dismissing as “not relevant” a series of articles I had presented as evidence of “associational preference” and “creed” discrimination on campus. An Associated Press article on the University of Iowa, for example, stated,

Some conservative students said they cloak their political leanings to appeal to professors.... Conservatives say the abundance of Democratic professors affects course offerings, reading selections and class discussions, shaping impressionable minds.... Some conservative students complain their political views are not just absent, but criticized when professors show political cartoons mocking President Bush or allow Republican bashing.

Students, parents, alumni, taxpayers, and politicians should pressure the University of Iowa’s administration to enforce the university’s non-discrimination policies, and to create new faculty positions for conservatives beyond the reach of other professors’ tentacles, as other schools have started doing. They should demand that the university use its lecture series to bring in conservative speakers, not just liberals and radicals. In the meantime, students must realize that the university is not a free market of ideas, but a one-party state that strives to convert the impressionable and unwary by hiding half of the political spectrum.

==============================

Montreal schools grapple with racially-charged swarming (National Post, 091023)

MONTREAL — Parents of 1,500 students at an English-language Montreal high school dealing with the fallout from a swarming incident last week are frustrated with the lack of communication over the incident and will get to express that at a meeting Wednesday.

The question-and-answer session, conducted by administrators of Lester B. Pearson High School and senior school-commission staff, will be held one week after two of Pearson’s students, both 14-year-old girls, were swarmed in an adjacent park.

The two were repeatedly punched and kicked last Wednesday, shortly after one of the girls had uttered a racial epithet.

Under heavy and visible surveillance by both police and private security hired by the school, students returned Tuesday following disruptions Thursday and Friday that had thrown Pearson into turmoil.

Tuesday’s police presence was equally strong at nearby Henri Bourassa, a French-language school attended by four female students who each face assault and other charges in connection with last week’s attacks on the two girls.

The swarming burst to prominence after a graphic, disturbing 64-second video of the sequence of events was posted briefly on YouTube. The four suspects are black. The two girls attacked are white.

Two of the suspects, age 14 and 16, pleaded not guilty Tuesday in Youth Court to assault, assault causing bodily harm and uttering threats. They were allowed to return home with their families after agreeing to several conditions. They must not go within 100 metres of Pearson, have any contact with the two victims or their co-accused, or go where the attack took place.

Minutes before the park attack, after she was hit by an ice cube being tossed around at a nearby fast-food restaurant, one of the two who was beaten told a group of largely black Henri Bourassa students: “Stop it, you f—king niggers,” the girl told the Montreal Gazette on Friday.

The term nigger, the Random House dictionary states, is now probably the most offensive word in English, and its degree of offensiveness has increased markedly in recent years.

The recent incidents have marked the second time in three years the word has served as a the spark that ignited a powder keg of hurt, resentment and real or threatened violence between two schools that normally get along.

In 2004, 200 students from Henri Bourassa marched on Pearson because they heard one student at Pearson shouted the slur at another.

“You call somebody the N-word and instinctively they react,” said Egbert Gaye, a radio panelist and editor of Community Contact, a biweekly newspaper for Montreal’s black community. “Why? Because it’s a word that was born in hatred, that still invokes hatred and and ugliness. It reminds people of an ugly time.”

Mr. Gaye doesn’t condone the violence, but notes that students who perhaps already feel alienated are not the best at restraining themselves. “There’s a lot of angry young people out there ... Violence is easy to come by.”

Problems between the two schools are exacerbated by the fact that Pearson has more affluent students, while those at Bourassa are largely from one of the city’s poorest regions.

“If you have black kids who are out on the sidelines, on the verge of dropping out or joining a gang, you can’t call them names on top of that,” Mr. Gaye said.

==============================

School to Offer Full Range of Birth Control to Students Over 11 (Christian Post, 071020)

A middle school in Maine will become one of few in the nation to make contraceptives, including birth-control pills, available to students as young as 11.

After an outbreak of pregnancies among middle school girls, education officials in Portland decided in a rare move to allow a health center at King Middle School to offer a full range of contraception.

Parents were appalled they were even debating the issue at all.

“We’re not educating our kids,” said one parent during a school committee meeting Wednesday in Portland, according to CNN. “We’re actually avoiding our responsibility. And that’s sad.”

Portland’s school nurse coordinator, Amanda Rowe, defended the new policy saying that although they sit down with students and advise them intercourse is not a good choice, some are going to do it anyway.

“[T]here are some who persist – even though we don’t like to think about that – in being sexually active, and they need to be protected,” said Rowe.

Five of 134 students who visited King Middle School’s health center last year reported being sexually active. There were seven pregnancies reported in the last five years at Portland’s three middle schools, said Douglas Gardner, director of Portland’s Health and Human Services Department, according to The Associated Press.

Although a full range of contraception will be made available at the health center – where condoms have been available since 2000 – the birth control will be given out only after extensive counseling, and no prepubescent children will get it, according to Portland School Committee member Robert O’Brien.

Furthermore, the committee approved on Wednesday a plan in which students are required to get parental permission to access the school’s health center, although treatment is confidential under Maine state law.

Expressing concern that kids would have access to any form of birth control with the support of parents, Michael Heath, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, said, “It’s at best troubling, at worst an outrage,” according to AP.

Parents, meanwhile, are concerned that teaching kids to delay sex and then supporting contraception distribution in middle school sends a mixed message.

Patty Devine, who oversees women’s health services clinics for the Erie County Health Department, however, said studies have shown that knowledge about sexual activity and contraception does not lead to increased sexual activity.

“The higher the [sex] education level, the more likely they are to delay sexual activity,” she said.

And according to studies, most kids want to learn about both contraception and abstinence.

A 2005 Pew Forum study found that 78% of kids want public schools to teach about birth control and 76% think schools should teach kids to abstain from sex until marriage.

At the same time, a recent study by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy showed that 76% of teens think religious leaders should do more to educate them about the risks of teenage sex and nearly half (47%) say parents influence their decisions about sex more than friends, religious leaders, siblings, teachers, media and sex educators.

==============================

No Ideologue Left Behind: The American Association of University Professors defends indoctrination. (Weekly Standard, 071112)

by David Horowitz

In its latest response to complaints about the politicization of higher education, the American Association of University Professors has embraced a novel view: “It is not indoctrination for professors to expect students to comprehend ideas and apply knowledge that is accepted as true within a relevant discipline.” Under this precept, put forth in the AAUP’s recent report “Freedom in the Classroom,” teachers are no longer held to standards of “scholarly” or “scientific” or “intellectually responsible” discourse, but to whatever is “accepted as true within a relevant discipline.” With this formulation, the AAUP jettisons the traditional understanding of what constitutes a liberal education and ratifies a transformation of the university that is already well advanced.

Since the 1960s, many newly minted academic disciplines have appeared that are the result not of scholarship or scientific developments but of political pressures brought to bear by ideological sects. The discipline of Women’s Studies, the most important of these new fields, freely acknowledges its origins in a political movement and defines its educational mission in political terms. The preamble to the Constitution of the National Women’s Studies Association proclaims:

Women’s Studies owes its existence to the movement for the liberation of women; the feminist movement exists because women are oppressed. Women’s studies, diverse as its components are, has at its best shared a vision of a world free not only from sexism but also from racism, class-bias, ageism, heterosexual bias—from all the ideologies and institutions that have consciously or unconsciously oppressed and exploited some for the advantage of others. . . . Women’s Studies, then, is equipping women not only to enter society as whole, as productive human beings, but to transform the world to one that will be free of all oppression.

This is the statement of a political cause not a program of scholarly inquiry.

The AAUP has issued its defense of indoctrination fully cognizant of the fact that these new academic disciplines view their mission as using the classroom to instill an ideology in their students. These programs include, in addition to Women’s Studies, African American Studies, Peace Studies, Cultural Studies, Chicano Studies, Gay Lesbian Studies, Post-Colonial Studies, Whiteness Studies, Communications Studies, Community Studies, and recently politicized disciplines such as Cultural Anthropology and Sociology. At the University of California Santa Cruz, the Women’s Studies department has actually renamed itself the “Department of Feminist Studies” to signify that it is a political training facility. It has done so without a word of complaint or caution from university administrators or the AAUP.

Under the AAUP’s new doctrine, these sectarian creeds are shielded from scrutiny by the scientific method. In the new dispensation, political control of a discipline is an adequate basis for closing off critical debate. The idea that political power can establish “truth” is a conception so contrary to the intellectual foundations of the modern research university that the AAUP committee could not state it so baldly. Hence the disingenuous compromise of “truth within a relevant discipline.”

Some years ago, Robert Post of Yale, a member of the AAUP subcommittee that drafted the report, summarized the principles that have informed university governance for nearly a century. A “key premise” of the AAUP’s classic 1915 “Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure,” Post wrote, “is that faculty should be regarded as professional experts in the production of knowledge.” Post explains, “The mission of the university defended by the ‘Declaration’ depends on a particular theory of knowledge. The ‘Declaration’ presupposes not only that knowledge exists and can be articulated by scholars, but also that it is advanced through the free application of highly disciplined forms of inquiry, which correspond roughly to what [philosopher] Charles Peirce once called ‘the method of science’ as opposed to the ‘method of authority.’”

The method of authority is precisely the method now recommended by the AAUP—the authority of the discipline. Virtually every Women’s Studies department throughout the university system teaches a curriculum premised on the controversial thesis that gender is “socially constructed.” Women’s Studies presents and explores this doctrinal claim as though it were an established truth, and students in Women’s Studies are expected to apply it as knowledge.

The social construction of gender, however, is merely academic nomenclature for the primacy of nurture over nature, an idea that is essential to an ideological movement—radical feminism—that proposes the use of political means to reshape social relations. But the claim itself is contested. It is contested by the findings of modern neuroscience, and evolutionary psychology, and biology (as readers of Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate know). To force students to accept as true a doctrine that is controversial among biological scientists is precisely what is meant by indoctrination.

At the time its report was finalized, a new edition of the AAUP’s official journal, Academe, featured two articles defending the feminist indoctrination of university students. The first was “Impassioned Teaching,” by AAUP chapter president Pamela Caughie, head of the Women’s Studies department at Loyola University. Caughie wrote: “I feel I am doing my job well when students become practitioners of feminist analysis and committed to feminist politics.” This is the attitude of a missionary seeking to ground her students in feminist dogma, not a professor seeking to educate them about women. In the second article, Professor Julie Kilmer of Olivet College describes the need to publicly expose and intimidate students who “resist” such indoctrination and suggests how to do this. The publication of two such articles can hardly be regarded as coincidental. It reveals the slope on which the AAUP now finds itself.

It is a slope slippery in more ways than one. The doctrine of “truth within a relevant discipline” opens the university to political factions. Suppose antagonists of Darwin’s theory of evolution were to establish the academic field of Intelligent Design Studies. What academic principle would prevent them from teaching their contested theories as truth? The same would apply to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, or animal rights activists, or racists—in fact, to any ideology that was able to take control of a university department and structure its curriculum as a new academic “discipline.”

Some defenders of the AAUP’s position say indoctrination is not really indoctrination if the student can object to a professor’s classroom advocacy without fear of reprisal. But how would students know that there was no penalty for refusing to embrace a professor’s political assumptions? How would they deal with Professor Kilmer’s threats to “expose” them and break down their “resistance” or with the pressure implicit in Caughie’s “impassioned teaching”?

Even the very term “impassioned teaching” is a significant departure from an older understanding of higher education. The AAUP’s 1940 statement on academic freedom, which is part of the template of most modern universities, states that scholars and educators should be “restrained” rather than impassioned, and should show appropriate respect for divergent views: “As scholars and educational officers, . . . [professors] should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint [and] should show respect for the opinions of others.”

Under the old guidelines, professors had an obligation to hold back their ardor, to teach students to be skeptical, to assess the evidence, to respect opposing views, and to support the pluralism of ideas on which democratic culture rests. It was their professional duty to provide students with materials that would allow them to weigh more than one side of controversial issues, and so learn to think intelligently and to think for themselves. It is that central purpose of the university that the AAUP would now betray.

==============================

College Students & Privacy: Do Your Homework (townhall.com, 071108)

By Rebecca Hagelin

If you have a child in college, you obviously want to know how he’s doing academically. You want to know about his health, safety and general well-being. After all, you didn’t stop being a loving parent just because your child turned 18 and flew off to college on his own, right? Just don’t be surprised if you call the university or one of his professors and are told: Sorry, pal. We can’t disclose that information to you without your son’s consent.

Game over? Not exactly. It seems that some of our educators need educating here.

As a mother of two sons in college, it’s more than disturbing to hear college faculty announce — in front of the students, no less — that they cannot give me any information about my sons without their permission. Citing legal privacy rights for anyone 18 years old or over, the educators say they are legally forbidden to speak with me unless my sons say they can.

The truth is, there are circumstances under which a school can release information to parents — even without the consent of the son or daughter. But ignorance of those circumstances is widespread, which recently prompted Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings to issue guidelines that clarify exactly what information colleges can — and can’t — provide the parents of college students.

The Department of Education has prepared a brochure to let parents know the facts. It’s understandable that confusion might crop up in an area where the interested parties are trying to balance safety and privacy, and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) does, generally speaking, require schools to get written consent from a student before disclosing his or her information. But parents are hardly powerless here. And FERPA also requires colleges and universities to take key steps to maintain campus safety.

“Nothing is more important to Americans than the safety of their children, and the guidance we are making available today will help make America’s schools safer,” Spellings said as she and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff announced the guidelines last week. “FERPA is not intended to be an obstacle to school safety, and the brochures will enable parents, teachers and administrators to safeguard students in our education system.”

According to the new brochure:

When a student turns 18 years old or enters a postsecondary institution at any age, all rights afforded to parents under FERPA transfer to the student. However, FERPA also provides ways in which schools may share information with parents without the student’s consent. For example:

— Schools may disclose education records to parents if the student is a dependent for income tax purposes.

— Schools may disclose education records to parents if a health or safety emergency involves their son or daughter.

— Schools may inform parents if the student who is under age 21 has violated any law or its policy concerning the use or possession of alcohol or a controlled substance.

— A school official may generally share with a parent information that is based on that official’s personal knowledge or observation of the student.

That last point covers a lot of ground, and is designed to allow a teacher or professor to share information with you about the general well-being of your child. Let’s face it: Decent teachers don’t want to see their new students spiral out of control or become overwhelmed with the pressures of college anymore than you do. The problem is, many of them are afraid to let mom and dad know when they sense a student is having trouble because administrators have misinformed them about the law. It just might be up to you to set the record straight.

Schools must also come clean with parents about their safety records and security procedures. Indeed, under the Clery Act, federal law requires it and mandates certain penalties, including stiff fines and the loss of financial aid, if schools fail to comply. The new brochure notes that colleges must “provide timely warnings of crimes that represent a threat to the safety of students or employees and to make public their campus security policies.”

Why would such a law be necessary? Because college officials are naturally reticent to say anything “negative” about their schools. All public information is carefully choreographed to present a perfect image. But no place on earth is totally crime-free, and university campuses are no exception. In fact, they’re often worse than many suburban neighborhoods. According to Security on Campus, a group I had the privilege of working with in the 1990s:

Surveys by rape crisis centers have concluded that rape and sexual assault are commonplace on many campuses. One in 10 women will be raped during their years in college. Studies have revealed that 80% of crime is student on student. Alcohol is involved in 90% of college crime. Date-rape drugs are creating thousands of victims.

Security on Campus was founded by Connie and Howard Clery. The Clery Act is named after their daughter, Jeanne, a student at Lehigh University who was raped, tortured and killed by a fellow student. Like many moms and dads, these loving, wonderful parents lacked information about the lax security situation on their daughter’s campus. But they don’t want to see other children suffer the same fate, and other parents suffer as they have. So today, Security on Campus works to inform and empower parents — and save lives.

My point is this: Parents do not become invisible partners when their kids enter college. Many colleges are mistaken about the law. They don’t know that the federal law allows colleges to give information about dependent students to their parents.

Thanks to Secretary Spellings and the Department of Education, we know otherwise. Don’t allow your son’s or your daughter’s school to intimidate you. And don’t assume that all of them are trying to leave you out. Many professors, teachers and administrators are just ignorant about the laws. Get the new brochure, arm yourself with the facts, and stay involved in the lives of your young, adult children. They need your guidance, care and love in college, too.

==============================

Research Reveals Critical Needs of Christian College Freshmen (Christian Post, 071113)

Youth leaders who haven’t yet called their graduates-turned-college freshmen might want to pick up the phone soon, suggest ministry directors researching the Christian youth fallout.

Fuller’s Center for Youth and Family Ministry (CYFM) conducted interviews with former student leaders currently in their sophomore year of college as part of their wider College Transition Project, a longitudinal study researching the critical period when high school seniors enter college. For the most part, faith didn’t prevail.

A college freshman’s biggest priority is to establish friendships and figure out where they fit in, according to CYFM directors Kara Powell and Brad Griffin and Fuller Theological Seminary faculty member Cheryl Crawford.

“Across the board, the freshmen we interviewed indicated that these first two weeks are absolutely critical for creating a social life. The primary – and most accepted – way to do this in college is to engage in the party scene,” they stated, as reported in the November/December issue of The Journal of Student Ministries.

College life during the first few months can be “incredibly” lonely for students away from family and close friends for the first time, CYFM research affirmed. So many tack on to their roommates and floormates to find friends, typically at a party scene.

While their youth leaders may have told them what not to do when they get to college, many students have found themselves ill-equipped with healthier strategies for finding friends and other needs.

According to CYFM, Christians who enter the party scene place their faith on the back shelf by not committing to Christian campus groups because they feel hypocritical or by shelving their faith altogether throughout college to enjoy the party scene “guilt-free” for a while.

“Students recognize that faith is ‘good for them’ in some way as part of an adult lifestyle, but see it as something to put on hold in order to attend to the more immediate needs of their college lifestyle,” according to the report.

Sociologist Tim Clydesdale labels the freshman phenomenon “identity lockbox.” Quoting one freshman, Clydesdale stated, “I feel like God dropped me off at college and said, ‘I’ll be back to pick you up in four years.’”

“It is not that his religious identity was unimportant (quite the contrary), only that he did not see its relevancy to his college education and campus experience,” Clydesdale said in his article, “Abandoned, Pursued, or Safely Stowed?: The Religious Life of First Year Undergraduates.”

CYFM interviews also confirmed that alcohol consumption is a major part of the college scene. A majority of full-time college students drink, according to a recent Columbia University study.

Reasons students gave for drinking and participating in the party scene were that’s where “everyone” is and students become aware of their new-found freedom away from their parents.

With all that partying and drinking, the young interviewees said they were on a downward spiral in their faith. Many said they missed the “feeling of God.”

What might have helped in their transition to college was a phone call from their high school youth group and more practical training describing the college context and relevant issues they might face along with discussion on how to make transition easier, according to the two most consistent responses among the students who completed their freshman year.

Many also said they wish they had maintained contact with friends or youth group leaders post-graduation.

Encouraging youth leaders to make that phone call to their graduated youth, directors at CYFM caution not to give students a sermon on why they shouldn’t be drinking or having sex.

“Their primary need is to be known and loved for who they are,” they noted. “We can be a voice who assures them of their identity in Christ and of God’s unchanging love, while also reminding them that their extended faith family can be a safe place to be real about the struggles they are facing.”

==============================

Superbug in the Classroom: A mathematical epidemic. (National Review Online, 071128)

By Michelle Malkin

Do you know what math curriculum your child is being taught? Are you worried that your third-grader hasn’t learned simple multiplication yet? Have you been befuddled by educational jargon such as “spiraling,” which is used to explain why your kid keeps bringing home the same insipid busywork of cutting, gluing and drawing? And are you alarmed by teachers who emphasize “self-confidence” over proficiency while their students fall further and further behind? Join the club.

Across the country, from New York City to Seattle, parents are wising up to math fads like Everyday Math. Sounds harmless enough, right? It’s cleverly marketed as a “University of Chicago” program. Impressive! Right? But then you start to sense something’s not adding up when your kid starts second grade and comes home with the same kindergarten-level addition and subtraction problems — for the second year in a row.

And then your child keeps telling you that the teacher isn’t really teaching anything, just handing out useless worksheets — some of which make no sense to parents with business degrees, medical degrees, and Ph.D.s specializing in econometric analysis. And then you notice that it’s the University of Chicago education department, not the mathematics department, that is behind this nonsense.

And then you Google Everyday Math and discover that countless moms and dads just like you — and a few brave teachers with their heads screwed on straight — have had similarly horrifying experiences. Like the Illinois mom who found these “math” problems in the fifth-grade Everyday Math textbook:

A. If math were a color, it would be —, because —.

B. If it were a food, it would be —, because —.

C. If it were weather, it would be —, because —.

And then you realize your child has become a victim of “Fuzzy Math,” the “New New Math,” the dumbed-down, politically correct, euphemism-filled edu-folly corrupting both public and private schools nationwide.

And then you feel like the subject of Edvard Munch’s The Scream as you take on the seemingly futile task of waking up other parents and fighting the edu-cracy to restore a rigorous curriculum in your child’s classroom. New York City teacher Matthew Clavel described his frustration with Everyday Math in a 2003 article for City Journal:

The curriculum’s failure was undeniable: Not one of my students knew his or her times tables, and few had mastered even the most basic operations; knowledge of multiplication and division was abysmal....what would you do, if you discovered that none of your fourth-graders could correctly tell you the answer to four times eight?

But don’t give up and don’t give in. While New York City remains wedded to Everyday Math (which became the mandated standard in 2003), the state of Texas just voted before Thanksgiving to drop the University of Chicago textbooks for third graders. School-board members lambasted the math program for failing to prepare students for college. It’s an important salvo in the math wars because Texas is one of the biggest markets for school textbooks. As Texas goes, so goes the nation.

Meanwhile, grassroots groups such as Mathematically Correct (mathematicallycorrect.com) and Where’s The Math? (wheresthemath.com) are alerting parents to how their children are being used as educational guinea pigs. And teachers and math professionals who haven’t drunk the p.c. Kool-Aid are exposing the ruse. Nick Diaz, a Maryland educator, wrote a letter to his local paper:

As a former math teacher in Frederick County Public Schools, I have a strong interest in the recent discussion of the problems with the math curriculum in our state and county. . . . The proponents of fuzzy math claim that the new approach provides a ‘deep conceptual understanding.’ Those words, however, hide the truth. Students today are not expected to master basic addition, subtraction and multiplication. These fundamental skills are necessary for a truly deep understanding of math, but fuzzy-math advocates are masters at using vocabulary that sounds good to parents, but means something different to educators.

Members of the West Puget Sound Chapter of the Washington Society of Professional Engineers also stepped forward in their community:

For 35 years, we have been subjected to a failed experiment, ‘new math.’ Mathematics depends on individual problem-solving ability to arrive at the correct answer. Math does not lend itself to ‘fuzzy’ answers. The solution is to recognize the failure of the Constructivist Curriculum as it relates to mathematics and science, eliminate it and return to the hard core basics using texts like the Singapore Math.

If Fuzzy Math were a color, it would be neon green like those Mr. Yuk labels warning children not to ingest poisonous substances. Do not swallow!

==============================

Cross-dressing day sparks school exodus: Parents pull students from district, citing conflicts with biblical rules (WorldNetDaily, 071128)

A public school’s “gender-bender” cross-dressing event, where boys were supposed to dress as girls and girls as boys, has prompted at least dozens, perhaps hundreds, of students to flee the tax-supported institutions in Iowa.

Many of the parents apparently are members of the Christ Apostolic Temple in Des Moines, which teaches a biblically based doctrine of rejecting the world’s values.

“Christ Apostolic Temple Inc. Fellowship ... is a Bible-based organization that believes one must ‘come out from among them and be ye separate.’ (2 Cor. 6:14-17),” the organization’s website says.

The Des Moines schools are celebrating a centenary, but have lost students this year because of one school’s promotion of cross-dressing

That apparently includes cross-dressing, an event which has found sponsorship in other arenas from the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, which has promoted a school lesson plan for teaching boys and girls to cross-dress.

State officials in Des Moines confirmed to WND that at least 80 children whose parents were alarmed by the “Gender-Bender Day” during homecoming week at the city’s East High School have moved their children from the various districts in the area into homeschooling plans. Several parents told WND that the number could be in the hundreds.

One parent, writing on a blog shortly after the cross-dressing promotion, hardly could contain the outrage.

In bold red type, the parent wrote, “TUESDAY AT ONE OF OUR LOCAL HIGH SCHOOLS THEY HAD WHAT IS CALLED ‘GENDER BENDER DAY!’ IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THAT IS THEN LET ME EDUCATE YOU REAL QUICK … IT IS WHERE THE BOYS DRESS LIKE GIRLS AND VICE VERSA!!”

The author continued, “THIS WAS ALLOWED AND CARRIED OUT AT OUR SCHOOLS!!! … I IMMEDIATELY PULLED MY CHILD OUT OF THE DES MOINES PUBLIC SCHOOL! WE ARE NOW HOMESCHOOLING ALONG WITH SEVERAL HUNDRED OTHER PARENTS!”

“I AM GETTING MAD WHILE I TYPE THIS … SO I NEED TO SHUT IT DOWN…”

Barb Heki is a board member for the Network of Iowa Christian Home Educators, and was ecstatic about the parental response.

“I’m just praising God there is a church with so many families that would take a biblical stand and decide that we’re not going to put our children under anti-Christian indoctrination any longer. That’s refreshing and encouraging,” she told WND.

A mother whose children were taken out of the public schools because of the cross-dressing promotion didn’t want to be identified, but told WND she knows of probably 200 families who filled out state-required paperwork to withdraw their children from public schools.

“What it is is we’re following the Bible,” she told WND. “There was a situation that took place, which was the gender bender day. Our children were to participate in the cross-dressing. When they refused they were told they would get a bad grade...”

“The situation came out, and everybody was disgusted,” she said. “Well, we’re not doing it. All we did was pulled our kids out. Nothing more to be said or done.”

Officials with Christ Apostolic Temple, which describes itself as an apostolic holiness fellowship, couldn’t be reached for comment. But parents who talked to WND said it was a move of parents, nothing mandated or organized by the church.

An advertisement in the Des Moines newspaper said the event was part of the theme days for the school’s homecoming events. “Tuesday, dress in clothing of the opposite sex for Gender Bender Day,” were the instructions. Other days were “Movie Theme Day,” and “Spirit Day.”

Phil Roeder, a spokesman for the Des Moines schools, told WND that the event was nothing unusual.

“There were a couple of calls at the office at the school from parents that were concerned,” he told WND. But he said the district itself had not seen any unusual activity regarding homeschooling.

“Let’s just say the numbers you are hearing are greatly exaggerated,” Roeder told WND. “Events like this at a high school are part of homecoming week activities and certainly are not mandated events. They’re voluntary activities that the students put on.

“Now if the parents had any indication that their students were coerced or bullied then that’s another matter. They’ve not brought that to my knowledge,” he said.

State officials said the list of 80 students they had reviewed included students from virtually all grades and dozens of schools in several districts, making it unlikely a single district would have a large number of students affected.

East High recently was the chosen location when Iowa Lt. Gov. Patti Judge announced a new state award highlighting increased diversity in the state.

“The “One Iowa Award” recognizes those who are working to create a “unified Iowa.”

Judge said making that a reality takes input from Iowans “regardless of their race, age, gender, nationality or sexual orientation.” The announcement had been staged to include East High students talking about the importance of diversity.

State law in Iowa also provides parents a tax credit for some costs of students attending “accredited” schools, but does not allow homeschooling parents the same benefit.

State Education Department officials said they had provided information to the church members about their rights and responsibilities should they choose to start a private school, or pursue homeschooling options.

“Let us see what the word of God says about the matter…” wrote the parent blogger. “Deut. 22:5. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”

The Pacific Justice Institute reports that in a prior school year, a California school dealt with the same issue.

Officials at Adams Middle School in the Bay Area had announced a “gender switch” day.

“The mother of a seventh-grade student … was alarmed when she heard that on the last day of the school’s ‘Spirit Week,’ students were being encouraged to dress like the opposite sex. Perhaps even more disturbingly, parents were given virtually no advance notice from the school and found out about the event after flyers were posted throughout the campus,” PJI reported.

“The parent contacted Pacific Justice Institute on Monday, which advised her on enlisting other parents’ support and communicating with the school. PJI also began laying the groundwork to hold the school accountable… In a 180-degree turnaround, the flyers posted about the gender switch day had disappeared by Tuesday morning, and the school confirmed the event had been canceled.”

The principal, Adam Clark, had said he wanted to encourage students to be “free thinkers,” but the “overall message wasn’t coming across clear.”

“We commend the parents in this school who said, ‘Enough is enough’ and challenged the administration to re-think its position,” Brad Dacus, president of PJI, said at the time. “No student should be made to feel uncomfortable at school simply because he doesn’t want to cross-dress.”

==============================

Study: Students Who Pull All-Nighters Have Lower GPAs (Foxnews, 071214)

ALBANY, N.Y. — Students who rely on all-nighters to bring up their grades might want to sleep on that strategy: a new survey says those who never study all night have slightly higher GPAs than those who do.

A survey of 120 students at St. Lawrence University, a small liberal arts college in northern New York, found that students who have never pulled an all-nighter have average GPAs of 3.1, compared to 2.9 for those who have. The study, by assistant professor of psychology Pamela Thacher, is to be included in the January issue of Behavioral Sleep Medicine.

“It’s not a big difference, but it’s pretty striking,” Thacher said. “I am primarily a sleep researcher and I know nobody thinks clearly at 4 in the morning. You think you do, but you can’t.”

A second study by Thacher, a clinical psychologist, had “extremely similar” results showing lower grades among the sleep skippers.

Many college students, of course, have inadequate or irregular sleep, for reasons ranging from excessive caffeine to poor time management.

Prav Chatani, a St. Lawrence sophomore who wasn’t involved in either study, said the findings made sense. The neuroscience major has been pulling fewer all-nighters, but recently stayed up until “around 4 or 5 in the morning” to prepare for an organic chemistry test and a neuroscience presentation, he said.

He found himself unable to remember some of the things he had studied.

“A lot of students were under the impression all-nighters were a very useful tool for accomplishing work, that caffeine intake was very useful in meeting deadlines and stuff like that,” said Chatani, who had a 3.4 GPA last semester and doesn’t expect to do too badly this semester, either.

Dr. Howard Weiss, a physician at St. Peter’s Sleep Center in Albany, said the study results make sense.

“Certainly that data is out there showing that short sleep duration absolutely interferes with concentration, interferes with performance on objective testing,” he said.

Some night owls do get good grades, of course, which may be explained by circadian rhythms, Weiss said. Circadian rhythms can be tracked through body temperature and hormonal transmissions.

Some people have different 24-hour body clocks than others, and may do better depending on class and testing times, Weiss said.

ChloJe LaFrance, a St. Lawrence junior from Elizabethtown majoring in psychology and English, said she’s never studied all night. “If I get less than six hours of sleep I just do not function at all,” she said.

LaFrance, who has about a 3.7 GPA, said she’s never had a situation where she couldn’t get all her work done.

“I’m in a crunch period right now,” she said. “I just find I work better when I get sleep. I’m actually more productive.”

In Thacher’s first study, 65 students said they had pulled one or more all-nighters, and 45 said they hadn’t done any. The survey was conducted in Psychology 101 classes, and included students in a variety of majors.

==============================

Student Sues History Teacher Over Anti-Christian Comments (Christian Post, 071217)

A lawsuit filed by a high school honors student and his parents against a California history teacher for anti-religion bias has ignited debate about the role of a teacher’s convictions in the classroom.

Sophomore Chad Farnan tape-recorded his teacher’s alleged “derogatory remarks” about traditional Christian viewpoints and comments that exhibited “hostility” toward Christianity.

Some of the comments by his teacher, James Corbett, included, “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth” and “Conservatives don’t want women to avoid pregnancies – that’s interfering with God’s work.” The comments were made while he was teaching Advanced Placement European history at Capistrano Valley High School.

“It just shocks me that someone would think that and say that,” Farnan said in a report by Orange County Register. “He’s my teacher, and I’ve lost respect for him. I’m offended.”

In the suit filed last Wednesday, the 16-year-old and his parents charged the instructor of violating the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government from advancing religion or promoting hostility toward religion.

“Corbett causes students who hold religious beliefs to feel like second-class citizens because of their protected religious expression, beliefs and conduct,” stated an announcement by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a Christian legal group representing Farnan.

Farnan, who took the class as a requirement for college admission, said he taped the lectures with the recorder in plain sight on his backpack.

“Corbett has made derogatory remarks about Christian viewpoints regarding homosexuality, Viagra, birth control and sexual activities of teenagers. As a result of Dr. Corbett’s hostility toward Christianity, Mr. Farnan has filed this federal lawsuit for a violation of his First Amendment rights,” added the law firm.

The firm said the family will not seek monetary damages if Corbett is removed from the classroom, according to The Los Angeles Times.

Robert Tyler, the general counsel for Advocates, said the “blatant disregard for relevant topics of what can and should be discussed in a high school history class goes beyond moral reasoning.”

“Students come to class to learn, not to be forced to listen to the personal, demoralizing rantings of their teacher.”

Many, however, came to the history teacher’s defense.

“I don’t agree with everything he says, but that’s not the point,” said Capistrano Valley High graduate Erica Bashaw, 18, now a freshman at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, to the Orange County Register. “Can you tolerate someone saying something that you don’t agree with? Can you have a fiery debate about ideas? It scares me that that’s not acceptable.”

A Christian faculty member also supported Corbett. [KH: a nominal Christian??]

“Corbett has been a powerful reminder to me that we ‘Christians’ do not have the monopoly on truth,” Capistrano Valley High geography and history teacher Tom Airey wrote in the Orange County Register’s opinion section. “… In an age where there is probably too much emphasis on teaching to the standards and getting ‘the facts’ right, Corbett is training young students to think critically.”

Farnan disagrees. “He’s only giving one side – that’s not thinking critically at all,” he said. Critics say Corbett, who often discusses current events, promotes his own liberal viewpoints and leaves little room for students to interject.

Meanwhile, the school’s principal, Tom Ressler, described Corbett as a “solid” teacher, the local Times reported. Ressler noted that Corbett’s class has a high pass rate.

Farnan, who took the class as a requirement for college admission, said that he will stay in school but stop attending Corbett’s class until the lawsuit is resolved.

“He’s against Christianity and bashes it all the time. He’s been indoctrinating us and not teaching the class; we don’t need to be hearing his political views during school time when we should be learning,” the sophomore told the Times.

One parent, Lynley Rosa, said she pulled her son out of Corbett’s class this year because of the teacher’s anti-religious tone.

“The mockery of religion was a main focus in the classroom,” Rosa told the Orange County Register. “[I]t felt like he wasn’t learning what he should be curriculum-wise, so I pulled him out.”

The complaint filed by the Farnan family is not the first lawsuit in which Corbett is listed as a defendant.

In 1993, Biology teacher John Peloza, who was challenging the school district’s mandate on evolutionary theory education, listed Corbett as one of the defendants with “class-based animus against practicing Christians” who used “harassment and intimidation” to force him into teaching evolution.

==============================

Not Your Father’s Campus: Academic intimidation. (National Review Online, 071218)

By Thomas Sowell

There is an article in the current issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education — the trade publication of the academic world — about professors being physically intimidated by their students.

“Most of us dread physical confrontation,” the author says. “And so these aggressive, and even dangerous, students get passed along, learning that intimidation and implied threats will get them what they want in life.”

This professor has been advised, at more than one college, not to let students know where he lives, not to give out his home phone number and to keep his home phone number from being listed.

This is a very different academic world from the one in which I began teaching back in 1962. Over the years, I saw it change before my eyes.

During my first year of teaching, at Douglass College in New Jersey, I was one of the few faculty members who did not invite students to his home. In fact, I was asked by a colleague why I didn’t.

“My home is a bachelor apartment” I said, “and that is not the place to invite the young women I am teaching.”

His response was: “How did you get to be such an old fogy at such a young age?”

How did we get from there to where professors are being advised to not even have their phone numbers listed?

The answer to that question has implications not only for the academic world but for the society at large and for international relations.

It happened because people who ran colleges and universities were too squeamish to use the power they had, and relied instead on clever evasions to avoid confrontations. They were, as the British say, too clever by half.

“Negotiations” and “flexibility” were considered to be the more sophisticated alternative to confrontation.

Most campuses across the country bought that approach — and it failed repeatedly on campus after campus, when caving in on one set of student demands led only to new and bigger demands.

The academic world has never fully recovered. Many congratulated themselves on the restoration of “peace” on campus in the 1970s. Almost always, it was the peace of surrender.

In order to appease campus radicals, all sorts of new ideologically oriented courses, programs and departments were created, with an emphasis on teaching victimhood and resentments, often hiring people whose scholarly credentials were meager or even non-existent.

Such courses, programs, and departments are still with us in the 21st century — not because no one recognizes their intellectual deficiencies but because no one dares to try to get rid of them.

One of the rare exceptions to academic cave-ins around the country during the 1960s was the University of Chicago. When students there seized an administration building, dozens of them were suspended or expelled. That put an end to that.

There is not the slightest reason why academic institutions with far more applicants than they can accept have to put up with disruptions, violence or intimidation. Every student they expel can be replaced immediately by someone on the waiting list.

In case of more serious trouble, they can call in the police. President Nathan Pusey of Harvard did that in 1969, when students there seized an administration building and began releasing confidential information from faculty personnel files to the media.

The Harvard faculty were outraged — at Pusey. To call the cops onto the sacred soil of Harvard Yard was too much.

It just wasn’t politically correct. And, as a later president of Harvard, Lawrence Summers, could tell you, being politically correct can be the difference between remaining president of Harvard and having to give up the office.

Authority in general, and physical force in particular, are anathema to many among the intelligentsia, academic or otherwise. They can always think of some “third way” to avoid hard choices, whether on campus, in society, or among nations.

Moreover, they have little or no interest in the actual track record of those third ways. Having to learn to live with intimidation by their own students is one of the consequences.

==============================

College President Resigns After Controversial Tenure (Christian Post, 080214)

The president of the College of William & Mary resigned Tuesday after a controversial tenure that included the removal of a cross from the nation’s oldest college chapel and a green light for a sex workers’ “art show” on campus.

Gene Nichol, whose resignation took effect immediately, publicized his decision in an e-mail sent Tuesday to the university community.

He was told over the weekend that his contract would not be renewed when it expires on June 30.

“Mine, to be sure, has not been a perfect presidency,” Nichol wrote in the e-mail. “I have sometimes moved too swiftly, and perhaps paid insufficient attention to the processes and practices of a strong and complex university. A wiser leader would likely have done otherwise.”

Nichol, the former dean of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s law school, took office at the public college in Williamsburg , Va., in 2005.

In October 2006, Nichol came under heavy criticism after removing a cross from permanent display in Wren Chapel, saying it might offend those of non-Christian faiths.

His move sparked protests and outrage from thousands of students and alumni who signed petitions to have the cross returned. One donor rescinded pledges to give $12 million to the school. Some dismayed students and alumni also sought to remove Nichol from office.

The cross was returned to the chapel’s altar last August where it remains in a locked, Plexiglas-like case. It can be removed from the case and placed on the altar by request.

Nichol’s most recent controversy stemmed from his approval for the Sex Workers Art Show to appear on campus last week. The show, which also caused a stir at Duke University last week, featured monologues and performances by porn actors, strippers, homosexual prostitutes, and other sex workers. Despite strong criticism by conservative alumni and legislators, Nichol said his decision was backed by the First Amendment.

According to the departing college president, he and his family were victims in a “committed, relentless, frequently untruthful and vicious campaign” on the internet and the media. He alleged in his resignation e-mail that the House of Delegates Committee had effectively threatened board appointees if he had not been fired, according to The Associated Press.

Del. Mark Cole, R-Spotsylania and chairman of the House Privileges and Elections Committee, denied that the meeting last Thursday in which nominees to the William & Mary Board of Visitors were questioned about Nichol’s recent decisions was an attempt to remove the president.

“We never threatened anybody, never made his job removal a litmus test,” Cole told AP. “To say we did this just to try to get him fired is ridiculous. It’s just sour grapes.”

Nichol also criticized the Board of Visitors, the college’s governing board, for offering him and his wife “substantial economic incentives” if they would agree to not characterize the decision by the Board as “based on ideological grounds” or make statements about his departure without prior approval from the Board.

The Board of Visitors confirmed Nichol’s resignation in its statement Tuesday and said the decision to not renew his contract was “extremely difficult.”

“This decision was not in any way based on ideology or any single public controversy. To suggest such a motivation for the Board is flatly wrong,” the statement read.

“He is a truly inspirational figure who has enjoyed the affection of many,” stated the Board of Visitors.

“After an exhaustive review, however, the Board believed there were a number of problems that were keeping the College from reaching its full potential and concluded that those issues could not be effectively remedied without a change of leadership.”

The Board said it would continue supporting a scholarship program for low-income Virginians that was introduced by Nichol and promised to not make changes to the compromise reached on the Wren Chapel’s cross.

A conservative pro-family group commended those who took action to end Nichol’s controversial term.

“Universities have pushed the envelope in censoring Christianity and promoting pornography. Under the leadership of Gene Nichols, the College of William & Mary, a respected, historic institution, became the poster child of the degradation of higher learning,” Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said in a statement.

Supporting Cole, she added, “Virginia Delegate Mark Cole and his colleagues in the Virginia House of Delegates boldly held the public university accountable and helped bring that institution back on track to focus on education, not demoralizing the students.”

Dean W. Taylor Reveley has been appointed as president until a permanent leader is found, said the Board.

Nichol, who taught at William & Mary two decades ago, said he will join the faculty at the college’s school of law and resume teaching and writing.

==============================

Court’s homeschool ban creating ‘panic’: Ruling, if unchanged, could be used against tens of thousands (WorldNetDaily, 080305)

A ruling from an appeals court in California that a homeschooling family must enroll their children in a public school or “legally qualified” private school is alarming because of the way the court opted to order those results, according to a team of legislative analysts who have worked on homeschooling issues in California for decades.

The ruling, when it was released several days ago, sent ripples of shock through the homeschooling community.

WND has reported on the order handed down to Phillip and Mary Long over the education being provided to two of their eight children.

The decision from the 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles granted a special petition brought by lawyers appointed to represent the two youngest children after the family’s homeschooling was brought to the attention of child advocates. The lawyers appointed by the state were unhappy with a lower court’s ruling that allowed the family to continue homeschooling, and specifically challenged that on appeal.

Roy Hanson, chief of the Private and Home Educators of California, said the circumstances of the Long family left the court with the option of handling such a ruling for their particular circumstances in a juvenile court setting.

“Normally in a dependency court action, they simply make a ruling that will affect that family. It accomplishes the same thing, meaning they would force [the family] to place their minor children into school,” he said.

Such rulings on a variety of issues always are “done in the best interests of the child” and are not unusual, he said.

But in this case, the court said went much further, essentially concluding that the state provided no circumstance that allowed parents to school their own children at home. “We find no reason to strike down the Legislature’s evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the ‘general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence.’ We agree … ‘the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education,’” the ruling said.

Specifically, the appeals court said, the trial court had found that “keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children’s lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents’ ‘cloistered’ setting.”

Further, the appeals ruling said, California law requires “persons between the ages of six and 18” to be in school, “the public full-time day school,” with exemptions allowed only for those in a “private full-time day school” or those “instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught.”

Such a holding, if unchanged, could ultimately be used against the tens of thousands who currently are homeschooling in California by fulfilling the state’s requirements to establish a private school in a home, and enrolling the family’s children in that school, observers said.

For homeschoolers in California, Hanson said, “there may be everywhere from concern to panic, just based on not knowing what the [ultimate] results will be.”

He said his group has worked to defeat similar arguments in the past, and because of those previous results, he wondered whether the court or the children’s lawyers were pursuing some sort of “agenda” with the case.

“They either were trying to put on an agenda, or they were so frustrated they felt this was their only option,” he said. But in either case, the decision is “not very sound.”

The Home School Legal Defense Association, the world’s premiere international advocacy organization for homeschoolers, emphasized that the ruling made no changes in California law regarding homeschooling at this time.

While the decision from the appeals court “has caused much concern among California homeschoolers,” the HSLDA said, there are no immediate changes any homeschoolers need to address.

The group said it is looking at the background of the case to determine its “implications,” and will be releasing its analysis soon.

The Longs earlier told WND they were considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court because of the impact of the order for their family, as well as the precedent that could be construed.

They have disputed with local officials over homeschooling and other issues for years, they said. In at least two previous decisions, courts affirmed their right to homeschool, they said.

The current case was brought by two attorneys who had been appointed by the state to represent the family’s minor children in a dependency case stemming from accusations of abuse that resulted from the parents’ decision to impose discipline on their children with spankings. The case actually had been closed out by the court as resolved when the lawyers filed their special appeal.

According to unpublished court documents, there also are in the past a series of other allegations that a family acquaintance molested one of the children as well as claims regarding physical punishment relating to one child’s decision to disobey household rules about being out at night. Many of the allegations contained in the unpublished documents are, according to the court itself, disputed by different people involved.

But the results of the situation, until this point, always had been court rulings that affirmed the parents’ right to homeschool their children.

Phillip Long told WND one of the early disputes arose some 15 years ago because his family was homeschooling with no “umbrella” organization. That’s why the youngest children most recently had been working under an independent study program with Sunland Christian Academy, he said.

The court ruling, however, revealed a judicial dislike of that school, since the judges specifically ordered the children would not be allowed to participate in its programs.

Phillip Long also told WND his children had written to the court objecting to the attorneys’ actions, without effect.

The appeals court words held echoes of similar ideas expressed by officials from Germany, where homeschooling has been outlawed since 1938 under a law adopted when Adolf Hitler decided he wanted the state, and no one else, to control the minds of the nation’s youth.

Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, has said “school teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct, encourages dialogue among people of different beliefs and cultures, and helps students to become responsible citizens.”

Phillip Long earlier told WND that he would be working on an appeal. He has re-confirmed that is one of his goals.

The appeals decision also rejected religious concerns.

The family’s “sincerely held religious beliefs” are “not the quality of evidence that permits us to say that application of California’s compulsory public school education law to them violates their First Amendment rights.”

The father said he objects to the pro-homosexual, pro-bisexual, pro-transgender agenda of California’s public schools, on which WND previously has reported.

“We just don’t want them teaching our children,” he told WND. “They teach things that are totally contrary to what we believe. They put questions in our children’s minds we don’t feel they’re ready for.

“When they are much more mature, they can deal with these issues, alternative lifestyles, and such, or whether they came from primordial slop. At the present time it’s my job to teach them the correct way of thinking,” he said.

A number of groups already have assembled in California under the Rescue Your Child slogan to encourage parents to withdraw their children from the state’s public school system.

It’s because the California Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger worked together to establish Senate Bill 777 and Assembly Bill 394 as law, plans that institutionalize the promotion of homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and other alternative lifestyle choices.

“First, [California] law allowed public schools to voluntarily promote homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality. Then, the law required public schools to accept homosexual, bisexual and transsexual teachers as role models for impressionable children. Now, the law has been changed to effectively require the positive portrayal of homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality to 6 million children in California government-controlled schools,” said Thomasson.

Even insiders joined in the call for an abandonment of California’s public districts. Veteran public school teacher Nadine Williams of Torrance said the sexual indoctrination laws have motivated her to keep her grandchildren out of the very public schools she used to support.

The Discover Christian Schools website reports getting thousands of hits daily from parents and others seeking information about alternatives to California’s public schools.

WND reported leaders of the campaign called California Exodus say they hope to encourage parents of 600,000 children to withdraw them from the public districts this year.

The new law itself technically bans in any school texts, events, class or activities any discriminatory bias against those who have chosen alternative sexual lifestyles, said Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute.

There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however. Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.

“SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values. These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger’s unbelievable decision. The terms ‘mom and dad’ or ‘husband and wife’ could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured,” she said.

Karen England, chief of CRI, told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including “mom” and “dad.” But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias and the effect will be to ban such terminology.

“Having ‘mom’ and ‘dad’ promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of ‘mom’ and ‘dad’ or include everything when talking about [parental issues],” she said. “They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory.”

The California plan still is facing a court challenge on its constitutionality and a possible vote of the people of California if an initiative effort succeeds.

==============================

Homeschooling Families Threatened by Court Ruling (Christian Post, 080306)

Tens of thousands of parents could be subject to criminal sanctions after a California appeals court ruled parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children.

“Are you kidding me?” said Kevin McCullough, conservative radio talk show host, on Thursday.

The court ruled last week that minor children must attend a public school unless the child attends a private school or is taught by a teacher with a valid state teaching license. And religious convictions of families do not guarantee a right to homeschool their children.

Parents must have teaching credentials to educate their kids at home.

“This decision is a direct hit against every homeschooler in California,” said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which represents the Sunland Christian School, which specializes in religious home schooling. “If the state Supreme Court does not reverse this . . . there will be nothing to prevent homeschool witch hunts from being implemented in every corner of the state of California,” as reported by The Los Angeles Times.

The institute estimates there are 166,000 California students who are homeschooled.

The ruling stems from a case involving Phillip and Mary Long, parents of eight children. One of the children reported “physical and emotional mistreatment by the children’s father.”

All of the children had been enrolled in Sunland Christian School, an institution that coordinates independent study programs for homeschooling families. They were educated by their mother at home and occasionally took tests at the school.

An attorney for Children and Family Services requested to a juvenile court that it require the children to physically attend a public or private school. The trial court refused, citing the parents’ right under the California Constitution to homeschool their children.

The children’s lawyer, however, appealed to the 2nd District Court of Appeal. Although the parents told the court that their religious beliefs for homeschooling “are based on biblical teachings and principles,” the appellate panel ruled that the family is violating state laws since Mary Long does not have a teaching credential.

“I have sincerely held religious beliefs,” said Phillip Long. “Public schools conflict with that. I have to go with what my conscience requires me.”

Long said he doesn’t believe in evolution, among other topics, that are taught at public schools.

Sunland Christian School called the appellate court’s ruling “a bad decision” and stated, “While this case could have negative implications for California homeschoolers, nothing has changed to your right to homeschool. There is no need to panic or make any changes to your current situation.”

Advocates for homeschooling families vowed to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.

Currently, the California Department of Education allows homeschooling as long as parents file paperwork with the state establishing themselves as small private schools, hire credentialed tutors or enroll their children in independent study programs run by charter or private schools or public school districts.

==============================

Lawmaker: Reject homeschooling opinion: ‘Supreme Court says parents have a right to direct children’s education’ (WorldNetDaily, 080310)

Just days after California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger blasted a court ruling that threatened homeschooling in his state, a member of the California State Assembly has introduced a resolution recommending the decision be overturned.

And advocates for homeschooling confirm they are telling their constituents to continue with their plans and make preparations to leave the “immoral” government public school system, despite the conclusion from Judge H. Walt Croskey.

“This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts, and if the courts don’t protect parents’ rights, then, as elected officials, we will,” Schwarzenegger said in a recent statement, after a ruling from a state appellate court essentially concluded California law allows no option for parents to school their children themselves.

“Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children’s education,” the governor said.

The latest move comes from California Assemblyman Joel Anderson, according to an announcement from Capitol Resource Institute.

“Shockwaves continue to reverberate throughout the country after last week’s unbelievable Court of Appeals for the 2nd Appellate District ruling that attacked parents’ rights to homeschool in California,” the organization said in a statement.

“Assemblyman Joel Anderson has taken the first step in protecting parents’ rights to homeschool by introducing a concurrent resolution in the Assembly, calling on the California Supreme Court to reverse the lower court’s decision,” the group said.

The proposal notes that homeschoolers in California are now in “responsible positions as parents, as students in and graduates of colleges and universities, in the workplace, and as citizens in society at large. …”

It also notes “the United States Supreme Court has ruled that parents have a fundamental constitutional right to direct the education and upbringing of their children. …”

“On Feb. 28, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Appellate District in Los Angeles issued an opinion in the case of In Re: Rachel L. holding that homeschooling without a teaching credential is not legal… [and that] denies California parents’ primary responsibility and right to determine the best place and manner of their own children’s education,” the resolution says.

It calls on the state Supreme Court to reverse the decision.

Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, said the ruling was disturbing.

“The ruling is so alarming because the state appeals court judges actually wrote that ‘parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children.’ The judges said that parents without teaching credentials cannot teach. This ruling is a radical slam against homeschooling,” his organization said.

However, Thomasson said parents should not do anything extreme.

“Despite this intolerant, anti-parent ruling, California homeschoolers must not panic.… California homeschooling families should continue homeschooling, and parents who are considering homeschooling as a way to exit the immoral government school system should continue with their plans,” he said.

Thomasson’s group said such families should considering being part of an organization that coordinates resources and provides a defense for families who face unfair attacks, recommending the Home School Legal Defense Association.

Thomasson said that’s reasonable, since “some bureaucrats may now use this court ruling to selectively persecute homeschool parents.”

The homeschool organization is working on a petition to made the ruling “non-binding.” “Such an order would mean this awful ruling is limited to only the facts in the case, is not binding precedent,” according to CCF.

One homeschooling analyst noted, however, there was one further danger written into the ruling, a reference to “the child’s rights under California’s compulsory public education law.”

That reference appears to be linked to the U.N. principle of educational “rights” for children, meaning their parents are liable if they are now allowed to exercise those “rights.”

“That, in itself, is a threat,” the analyst told WND. If such “rights” are established in law, then parents could be targeted with legal action on behalf of the children for violating those “rights.”

Croskey, whose opinion was joined by two other judges, ordered: “Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program.”

WND previously reported Brad Dacus, chief of the Pacific Justice Institute, has confirmed plans for an appeal to the state Supreme Court on behalf of the school in which the Long children were enrolled.

“We are hoping enough common sense prevails for everyone to wait and see how this plays out before the state Supreme Court,” he said.

But in California, such appellate level rulings are binding on lower courts when they are issued, said Dacus.

The family in the case, Phillip and Mary Long, previously told WND they were reviewing their options for an appeal themselves but had not confirmed specifics yet.

There are an estimated 166,000 children in formalized homeschool situations in California, but Dacus estimated there are others “under the radar” that would be several times that number.

The Longs previously told WND of their concerns with the public school district’s advocacy for alternative sexual lifestyles.

“The parent-child relationship existed long before any government and makes it the responsibility of the parent to educate the child,” Phillip Long told California reporters.

He said the responsibility includes protecting children from things that are hazardous “emotionally” as well as physically.

The Los Angeles court decision granted a special petition brought by lawyers appointed to represent the two youngest children after the family’s homeschooling was brought to the attention of child advocates. The lawyers appointed by the state were unhappy with a lower court’s ruling that allowed the family to continue homeschooling and challenged it on appeal.

Dacus previously warned there are potential dangers from social services situations now too. He said the California legislature has adopted “education neglect” rules that could be used “as grounds for the removal of a child from a family.”

“We are advising our homeschoolers to continue, but to keep both eyes open,” he told WND.

Candi Cushman, an education analyst for Focus on the Family, said the timing was horrible, because of new statutes facing school children in California, an issue which WND previously has reported.

“This takes away recourse from thousands of parents in California who want to escape the government-enforced indoctrination in public schools,” she said. “The Legislature recently passed a law that basically ensures that students get a one-sided, positive portrayal of homosexuality and same-sex ‘marriage.’”

WND broke the story of the ruling, which reversed a decision from Superior Court Judge Stephen Marpet, who said “parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home.”

As WND has reported, the Longs had their children enrolled in Sunland Christian School, a private homeschooling program.

But Croskey, without hearing arguments from the school, opined that the situation was a “ruse of enrolling [children] in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent.”

==============================

High School Graduation Rates Plummet Below 50% in Some U.S. Cities (Foxnews, 080401)

WASHINGTON — Seventeen of the nation’s 50 largest cities had high school graduation rates lower than 50%, with the lowest graduation rates reported in Detroit, Indianapolis and Cleveland, according to a report released Tuesday.

The report, issued by America’s Promise Alliance, found that about half of the students served by public school systems in the nation’s largest cities receive diplomas. Students in suburban and rural public high schools were more likely to graduate than their counterparts in urban public high schools, the researchers said.

Nationally, about 70% of U.S. students graduate on time with a regular diploma and about 1.2 million students drop out annually.

“When more than 1 million students a year drop out of high school, it’s more than a problem, it’s a catastrophe,” said former Secretary of State Colin Powell, founding chair of the alliance.

His wife, Alma Powell, the chair of the alliance, said students need to graduate with skills that will help them in higher education and beyond. “We must invest in the whole child, and that means finding solutions that involve the family, the school and the community.” The Powell’s organization was beginning a national campaign to cut high school dropout rates.

The group, joining Education Secretary Margaret Spellings at a Tuesday news conference, was announcing plans to hold summits in every state during the next two years on ways to better prepare students for college and the work force.

The report found troubling data on the prospects of urban public high school students getting to college. In Detroit’s public schools, 24.9% of the students graduated from high school, while 30.5% graduated in Indianapolis Public Schools and 34.1% received diplomas in the Cleveland Municipal City School District.

Researchers analyzed school district data from 2003-2004 collected by the U.S. Department of Education. To calculate graduation rates, the report estimated the likelihood that a 9th grader would complete high school on time with a regular diploma. Researchers used school enrollment and diploma data, but did not use data on dropouts as part of its calculation.

Many metropolitan areas also showed a considerable gap in the graduation rates between their inner-city schools and the surrounding suburbs. Researchers found, for example, that 81.5% of the public school students in Baltimore’s suburbs graduate, compared with 34.6% in the city schools.

In Ohio, nearly 83% of public high school students in suburban Columbus graduate while 78.1% in suburban Cleveland earn their diplomas, well above their local city schools.

Ohio Department of Education spokesman Scott Blake said the state delays its estimates by a few months so it can include summer graduates in its calculations. Based on the state’s methodology, he said Columbus graduated 60.6% of its students in 2003-2004, rather than the 40.9% the study calculated.

By Ohio’s reckoning, Columbus has improved each year since the 2001-2002 school year, with 72.9% of students graduating in 2005-2006, Columbus Public Schools spokesman Jeff Warner said.

Warner said the gains were partly because of after-school and weekend tutoring, coordinated literacy programs in the district’s elementary schools and bolstered English-as-a-second-language programs.

Cleveland’s current graduation rates are also higher than the statistics cited in the new report, school district spokesman Ben Holbert said.

Spellings has called for requiring states to provide graduation data in a more uniform way under the renewal of the No Child Left Behind education law pending in Congress.

Under the 2002 law, schools that miss progress goals face increasing sanctions, including forced use of federal money for private tutoring, easing student transfers, and restructuring of school staff.

States calculate their graduation rates using all sorts of methods, many of which critics say are based on unreliable information about school dropouts. Under No Child Left Behind, states may use their own methods of calculating graduation rates and set their own goals for improving them.

The research was conducted by Editorial Projects in Education, a Bethesda, Md., nonprofit organization, with support from America’s Promise Alliance and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The alliance is based on a joint effort of nonprofit groups, corporations, community leaders, charities, faith-based organizations and individuals to improve children’s lives.

==============================

More Catholic Schools Closing Across U.S. (Christian Post, 080414)

MIAMI GARDENS, Fla. (AP) - For 46 years, crime, recessions and hurricanes proved no threat to the daily ritual of St. Monica School, where the entire blue-and-white uniformed student body gathered outside each morning to join in prayer.

Come June, though, the tradition will fade away, and “amen” will close St. Monica’s morning recitations for the last time. The school, a home-away-from-home for mostly minority students, will close.

As Pope Benedict XVI next week makes his first trip to the U.S. as pontiff, Catholic schools across the country, long a force in educating the underprivileged regardless of their faith, face the same fate as St. Monica.

About 1,267 Catholic schools have closed since 2000 and enrollment nationwide has dropped by 382,125 students, or 14%, according to the National Catholic Education Association. The problem is most apparent in inner cities, in schools like St. Monica with large concentrations of minorities whose parents often struggle to pay tuition rather than send them to failing public schools.

“We lose the kids. They can’t afford it. And then as the school gets smaller, you have to raise the tuition to pay the costs and it’s a vicious cycle,” said Sister Dale McDonald, the association’s director of public policy and education research.

The pope will gather with Catholic educators during his visit, but not those who run elementary schools — the meeting is with college presidents.

St. Monica has been operating on a deficit for about a decade. Enrollment went from 368 students in 2004 to 196 today. Requests for financial aid increased. The Archdiocese of Miami devoted more than $2.7 million in subsidies over the past seven years to keep it open.

“There’s not the numbers there to keep going,” said Kristen Hughes, superintendent of schools for the archdiocese. “The economy really has had a huge impact.”

McDonald notes Catholic schools have been closing since their peak in the 1960s, when there were 12,893 schools with about 5.25 million students. Today, there are 7,378 schools with 2.27 million students. The decline in enrollment is accelerating, fueling further school closures.

The recent economic downturn is being blamed for some of them, but McDonald said dioceses’ huge payouts to settle sex abuse lawsuits could have played a role too.

“We have no direct correlation,” she said, “but as the dioceses have gone into financial debt the funds to subsidize these schools would be diminished.”

High school enrollment has remained roughly the same and schools are opening in suburbs, particularly in the West and Southwest. The Northeast and Midwest have been hit hardest.

Some dioceses have turned to public-private partnerships to keep schools open, and others have created consortiums of schools to share resources. In the Archdiocese of Washington, officials plan to convert seven schools into publicly funded charter schools this fall.

Taking taxpayer money means sacrificing the core element of Catholic schools: their faith. The schools won’t be able to have prayers, and will have to strip religion from the curriculum. That has prompted petitions from parents who want the schools to stay as they are.

“What is lost is the teachings of the Catholic faith,” said Joe McKenzie, a 41-year-old technology consultant who has two children at St. Gabriel School in Washington. “That voice will be silent.”

McDonald said she is concerned, too. Catholic schools were once considered vital to passing on the faith to the next generation and to exposing multitudes of non-Catholics to the church. With declining enrollment, the church will need to find new means.

Perhaps most distressing to McDonald and others is the loss of schools in the inner city.

“The church has always had a strong sense of mission, particularly to the poor,” she said. “As it becomes more and more difficult, not only on the poor but on middle-income people, we’re not really fulfilling the mission of the church to serve all if we only can afford to serve the people who can afford the big bucks.”

The issue has caught the attention of President Bush, who called faith-based schools “lifelines of learning” in his State of the Union address and said they were disappearing at an alarming rate. The White House will host a summit on the topic later this month.

Advocates for Catholic schools say it’s in the public’s interest to preserve them. McDonald said Catholic school students save the government $19.8 billion annually.

“They’ve left these urban inner-city schools when they close and they have to go somewhere,” said Virginia Gentles, who oversees the nonpublic education office of the U.S. Department of Education. “It could be tough for the districts financially and from other standpoints to absorb those children.”

For now, parents still line up in cars outside St. Monica each afternoon to pick their children up. Many say how sad they are to see it close.

==============================

Class for kids: How to be homosexual: ‘Social change’ organization says ‘masculinity’ too narrowly defined (WorldNetDaily, 080428)

A state-funded organization in Maine touted as “a stellar program for social change” is advertising a seminar that essentially provides information to impressionable school-age boys on how to be homosexual, according to a pro-family organization opposing the plans.

The seminar, “Queer, Questioning, Quiet: Developing Gender Identity & Male Sexual Orientation,” is promoted by the Boys to Men organization in Portland, Maine, during its coming 2008 conference. The session will feature a presentation by speakers from the homosexual Proud Rainbow Youth for Southern Maine, officials said.

“I think it’s outrageous,” Michael Heath, chief of the Christian Civic League of Maine, told WND. ‘“This is now starting to happen in public schools throughout our state. The public needs to wake up, become aware, and speak out against it.”

The Boys to Men website advertisement about its conference says the outreach is “targeted primarily to middle and high school boys and their adult male mentors.” The workshop on homosexuality, the website said, includes “speakers from the Maine SpeakOut Project and PRYSM (who) will discuss their own coming-out experiences and use these as a springboard for exploring LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered) issues and resources for youth in Southern Maine.”

The organization’s “core value” page states: “Traditional media and cultural representations of masculinity and femininity are too narrowly defined and contribute to destructive and damaging behavior towards individuals of all genders and ages. We are committed to eliminating the inequalities and institutional injustices that result from these traditional media and cultural representations of masculinity.”

It also lists as a goal to teach “young men and young women to work together to enhance school climate by standing up against ... gender stereotyping, homophobia and intolerance of difference.”

“This continues to happen to impressionable young boys,” Heath said. “The sad thing is the boys who are least able to endure this message, this confusion, are the ones they’re preying upon.”

He said the New England states are just about even with California in pursuit of a sexual liberation that makes the hippies’ free love atmosphere of the 1960s look staid.

“We have laws protecting transgenders. We have a 10-year-old boy [in the state] being raised as a girl. The elementary school is being forced to allow the boy to use the bathroom with the girls,” Heath said.

He said it’s so important that families, and especially parents of younger children, realize the “sexual orientation cabal” that is flooding his state and region.

“We writing about it [the seminar] right now,” he said. “We’re going to let folks know ... what’s going on.”

Heath said the “sexual revolution” is entrenched in the law, and its impacts are both widespread and serious.

“I don’t think insanity is too strong a word for it,” he said. “Here in New England .. urges and pleasures are what drive the culture, the law.”

Unless there is a rally for traditional and moral views, Heath said, “We will witness the disintegration of a civilization.” A best-case result would be that there is enough of a public reaction to the teachings that people start to pay attention and act on traditional moral values.”

Sally J. Laskey of the National Sexual Violence Resource Center said in a website statement, “Maine’s Boys To Men project is a stellar program for social change and the primary prevention of violence because it provides community support and specific skill development for building healthy individuals and healthy relationships.”

Officials setting up the conference also have scheduled a workshop on “Real Life. Real Talk. Sex in the Movies,” which will be led by two people from Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, a division of the nation’s biggest abortion provider.

Board members of the Boys to Men organization include Chuck Morrison, a sexuality educator in Portland, as well as retired United Church of Christ minister Bill Gregory.

The event is sponsored by local businesses and foundations as well as divisions of the state, officials said.

Heath’s organizational website, however, already includes a clear warning about the developments, quoting the late evangelical thinker Francis Shaeffer: “The Christian is the real radical of our generation, for he stands against the monolithic, modern concept of truth as relative. But too often, instead of being the radical, standing against the shifting sands of relativism, he subsides into merely maintaining the status quo. If it is true that evil is evil, that God hates it to the point of the cross, and that there is a moral law fixed in what God is in Himself, then Christians should be the first into the field against what is wrong – including man’s inhumanity to man.”

WND reported previously on homosexual indoctrination not by local tax-enhanced foundations but by public schools themselves.

This is the time of year when many schools across the country are promoting the “Day of Silence,” a campaign to make students “aware” of the “discrimination” suffered by homosexuals in society by having students and teachers remain silent for the day. Such events typically are organized by a school’s “Gay-Straight Alliance” group, but the “Day of Silence” has been promoted by a special-interest group, the massively funded Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network

WND also reported the concerted effort by dozens of organizations to alert parents to the indoctrination effects of such school observances and urge them to keep their children home from schools during the events.

“It’s outrageous that our neighborhood schools would allow homosexual activism to intrude into the classroom,” said Buddy Smith of the American Family Association, one group on the long list of organizations working to provide information to parents.

“‘Day of Silence’ is about coercing students to repudiate traditional morality. It’s time for Christian parents to draw the line – if your children will be exposed to this DOS propaganda in their school, then keep them home for the day,” he said.

==============================

Christian Legal Group Protests New Pro-Gay Curriculum (Christian Post, 080507)

Attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Christian legal group, are challenging a newly proposed lesson plan by schools in Minneapolis, Minn., to carry out what ADF claims amounts to the homosexual indoctrination of elementary school students.

As part of a new “Welcoming Schools” campaign, introduced by the pro-gay Human Rights Campaign (HRC), students will learn from an early age that same-sex attraction is normal and healthy, that “gender identity” is a fluid concept, and that all families are unique, even those with two “dads” or “moms.”

“It is clear that the goal of HRC is to implement an educational program to indoctrinate young children with social viewpoints that are extremely controversial, out of the mainstream, and rely on unproven scientific theory that runs counter to American cultural and scholastic interests,” ADF said in a letter to Minneapolis schools.

Although the HRC claims that the new lesson plan is meant to curb bullying and “create learning environments in which all learners are welcomed and respected,” ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks rejected the assertion.

“HRC says the program is designed to stop bullying, even though its true intent is to promote the homosexual agenda. If HRC merely cared about bullying, they would simply endorse the school district’s vigorous ‘Bullying and Hazing Policy.’ Parents and school officials need to be aware of what HRC is really trying to do,” Nimocks said in a statement.

“When school officials have to choose between protecting children in those families or furthering the homosexual agenda, the choice is obvious: protecting our children comes first,” he added.

In their memo to the school system, the ADF emphasized that the new curriculum would undoubtedly create a firestorm of disciplinary issues as the “gender identity” of students becomes impossible to determine.

“Schools, bathrooms, locker rooms, and other intimate places will no longer be protected from members of the opposite sex once ‘gender identity’ becomes standard behavior for students. From an enforcement standpoint, school officials would be unable to discern whether a boy who is using the girls’ restroom is a sexual predator, prankster, or one who sincerely believes that he is somehow a girl,” the memo points out.

Currently, the “Welcoming Schools” curriculum is being implemented in three school districts across the nation, with its gradual implementation in other districts soon to follow.

==============================

‘Academic Freedom’ Legislation Advances in Four States (Christian Post, 080511)

Opponents and those who challenge some or all of the tenets of Darwinism have been encouraged recently as the “Academic Freedom” legislation advanced for review in four states.

If passed, the bills would guarantee the freedom of both teachers and students throughout public schools to share views contradicting or challenging the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom without fears of reprisal.

Lawmakers in Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, and Michigan said that the efforts to pass the bills were a response to the concerns of teachers and students who reportedly felt marginalized, discriminated, or ostracized if they shared personal views that ran counter to Darwinism.

Darrell White, co-director of the Louisiana Family Forum summed up the intentions of the recent legislation drives as an opportunity that would “free up teachers and students [to] fully explore various scientific weaknesses of Darwinism as well as other areas of science.”

“In educational institutions that receive taxpayer support, it is entirely appropriate for the government to ensure that teachers and students have the right to discuss freely the evidence and scientific arguments for and against evolutionary theory,” explained biologist Jonathan Wells of the Discovery Institute, a pro-intelligent design think-tank, according to LifeSiteNews.com

The Academic Freedom legislation, however, has been faced with some opposition.

Efforts in Florida to pass a bill that would have given students the opportunity to “think critically” and “constantly raise questions” regarding evolution fell flat last week when opponents criticized the bill as an attempt to infuse religion in schools.

But supporters argue that such legislation efforts are about freedom and civil discussion.

“Charles Darwin himself said that fair results could only be obtained by fully balancing and stating the facts and arguments on both sides of each question,” noted Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Discovery Institute, in a statement.

“What these bills seek to do is to restore Charles Darwin’s approach to teaching evolution — to teach it in a balanced, objective fashion,” he added.

Luskin credited Ben Stein’s new film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” with contributing to the proliferation of Academic Freedom legislation. The film, which released nationwide last month, features researchers, professors, and academics who claim to have been marginalized, silenced, or threatened with academic expulsion because of their challenges to some or all parts of Darwin’s theory of evolution.

==============================

Research finds U.S. boys and girls now do equally well in math (Paris, International Herald, 080725)

Three years after the president of Harvard, Lawrence Summers, got into trouble for questioning women’s “intrinsic aptitude” for science and engineering - and 16 years after the talking Barbie doll proclaimed that “math class is tough” - a study paid for by the National Science Foundation has found that girls perform as well as boys on standardized math tests in the United States.

Although boys in high school performed better than girls in math 20 years ago, the researchers found, that is no longer the case. The reason, they said, is simple: Girls used to take fewer advanced math courses than boys, but now they are taking just as many.

“Now that enrollment in advanced math courses is equalized, we don’t see gender differences in test performance,” said Marcia Linn of the University of California, Berkeley, a co-author of the study. “But people are surprised by these findings, which suggests to me that the stereotypes are still there.”

The findings, reported in the Friday issue of Science magazine, are based on math scores from seven million students in 10 states, tested in accordance with the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

The researchers looked at the average of the test scores of all students, the performance of the most gifted children and the ability to solve complex math problems. They found, in every category, that girls did as well as boys. (To their dismay, the researchers found that the tests in the 10 states did not include a single question requiring complex problem-solving, forcing them to use a national assessment test for that portion of their research.)

Janet Hyde, a professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who led the study, said the persistent stereotypes had taken a toll. “The stereotype that boys do better at math is still held widely by teachers and parents,” Hyde said. “And teachers and parents guide girls, giving them advice about what courses to take, what careers to pursue. I still hear anecdotes about guidance counselors steering girls away from engineering, telling them they won’t be able to do the math.”

Girls are still underrepresented in high school physics classes and, as noted by Summers, who resigned in 2006, in the highest levels of physics, chemistry and engineering, which require advanced math skills.

The study also analyzed the gender gap on the math section of the SAT. Rather than proving boys’ superior talent for math, the study found, the difference is probably attributable to a skewed pool of test takers. The SAT is taken primarily by seniors bound for college, and since more girls than boys go to college, about 100,000 more girls than boys take the test, including lower-achieving girls who bring down the girls’ average score.

==============================

Which Universities Have the Most Religious Students? (Christian Post, 080805)

A Mormon, a Catholic Christian, and a Protestant Christian college are the top three schools that have the most religious student body, according to an annual college rankings list by The Princeton Review.

The list, recently published in Best 368 Colleges: 2009 Edition, contains rankings for the nation’s colleges with the most religious and the least religious students. It is based 100% on student responses.

The college test-prep company asked 120,000 students at 368 colleges and universities to rate their schools on a scale of 1 to 5 in categories ranging from political views to financial aid.

Among the many questions, students were asked to rate how much they agreed with the statement: “Students are very religious at my college.”

Brigham Young University, a Mormon school in Utah, received the highest rankings from its students in the religious category followed by the Indiana-based University of Notre Dame, a Catholic institution. Wheaton College, an evangelical Christian liberal arts college in Illinois, ranked third as home to the most religious students.

The least religious students, according to the survey, was found in Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Ore.

Schools with the most religious students:

1.Brigham Young University (Provo, Utah)

2.University of Notre Dame (South Bend, Indiana)

3.Wheaton College (Wheaton, Illinois)

4.Grove City College (Grove City, Pennsylvania)

5.Hillsdale College (Hillsdale, Michigan)

Schools with the least religious students are:

1.Lewis and Clark College (Portland, Oregon)

2.Eugene Lang College: The New School for Liberal Arts ( New York)

3.Reed College (Portland, Oregon)

4.Bennington College (Bennington, Vermont)

5.Bard College (Annandale-on-Hudson, New York)

==============================

Calif. Court OKs Homeschooling (Christian Post, 080809)

Parents have the right to homeschool their children even without a teaching credential, a state appeals court ruled Friday to the applause of conservative groups.

The ruling, made by the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles, reverses a decision the court made in February that required parents to have a teaching credential if educating children at home, potentially threatening an estimated 166,000 homeschoolers in California.

“This is a great victory for homeschool freedom,” said Michael Farris, an attorney with the Home School Legal Defense Association.

HSLDA was one of many homeschool advocates and religious groups that protested the February ruling, which some called an “assault” on the family.

Dr. James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, had told thousands listening to his radio broadcast at the time to make their voices heard against what he considered an egregious decision.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger also denounced the ruling and had vowed to ensure the right to homeschool.

Praising Friday’s decision, the California governor said, “I hope the ruling settles this matter for parents and home-schooled children once and for all in California, but assure them that we, as elected officials, will continue to defend parents’ rights,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

Parents in California have traditionally been allowed to homeschool their children as long as they filed paperwork establishing themselves as private schools, hired credentialed tutors, or enrolled their children in independent study programs run by charter or private schools or public school districts.

But when Phillip and Mary Long, whose children were or had been enrolled at Sunland Christian School and taught at home, were accused of mistreating some of their eight children, lawyers representing the two youngest Long children asked the court to require them to attend a public or private school.

The court ruled that the family was violating state laws since Mary Long did not have a teaching credential and that Sunland officials’ occasional monitoring of the Longs’ teaching methods were insufficient to qualify as being enrolled in a private school.

The Long family, Sunland Christian School, and others appealed the decision and the ruling was revisited with arguments heard in June.

The court, in its new decision, concluded that homeschools may constitute private schools but it added that the right of homeschoolinng can be overridden if a child’s safety is at issue.

“Tens of thousands of California parents teaching over 166,000 homeschooled children are now breathing easier this afternoon,” said Farris.

==============================

College Classes for Conservatives to Avoid (townhall.com, 080811)

by Ashley Herzog

When school starts in the fall, many college students will be paying exorbitant tuition to universities that offer a silver platter of worthless courses: classes in Marxism, prostitution (Sociology of the Sex Industry is all the rage), “queer theory,” pornography, and rock and rap music. While some of these classes are easy to spot as non-educational, others masquerade under legitimate-sounding names in mainstream academic departments.

As an Ohio University senior who has sat through plenty of college junk courses—many of which were required for graduation—I’ve compiled a list classes for incoming freshmen to avoid.

1. Don’t register for English classes that revolve around the writings of some allegedly oppressed group, such as “Gay and Lesbian Literature” or “Women and Writing.” These classes typically have nothing to do with great, or even good, literature. I once signed up for a Women’s Writing class to fill a requirement. Did we study the classic works of history’s best female authors, such as the Bronte sisters and Jane Austen? Nah. Instead, the class mostly revolved around short pieces by untalented women who whined about America’s “sex/gender system.” The only assigned book was the biography of Assata Shakur, a female Black Panther who fled to Cuba after she was convicted of murdering a cop.

2. Avoid classes that teach American history not as it actually happened, but as the professor thinks it should have happened. Check out the required texts before registering. If the professor uses books like Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States (which claims that American leaders orchestrated the Civil War to halt the impending socialist revolution), don’t waste your money; you’re unlikely to learn much. In fact, according to a 2006 study by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, you might end up among the 40% of college students who can’t place the Civil War in the correct decade.

3. If possible, avoid the sociology department, especially introductory-level classes. These are often crash courses in politically correct thinking. You will be expected to view all social problems through the prism of race/class/gender oppression, and to display a negative attitude toward religion, law enforcement, morality, marriage, and families.

4. Be skeptical of classes with words like “Non-Western” and “Multicultural” in the title. Some are legitimate and valuable studies of societies outside the West. Others are taught by self-described “cultural relativists” who denigrate America while defending heinous cultural practices in the third world. For instance, I once took a class in which the relativist professor attempted to justify Female Genital Mutilation—a barbaric custom forced on little girls in Africa and the Middle East—by claiming it was no different from adult women in the West undergoing cosmetic surgery.

5. Don’t spend your money on what I refer to as “Trash Studies”: classes in pop culture, drugs, sex, and the entertainment industry. If your school offers something on the order of Berkeley’s “Journal Your Ass Off” or Johns Hopkins’ “Sex, Drugs, and Rock n’ Roll in Ancient Egypt,” avoid them. These classes are especially tempting because students can earn A’s without putting forth any intellectual effort. However, if you take your education seriously and want to maximize your tuition dollars, avoid Trash Studies, where you’ll inevitably learn a boatload of nothing.

Of course, many of these classes are difficult to avoid and might even be required for graduation. But I hope this list will prevent college freshmen from wasting their precious time and money on the politically correct, non-educational classes that have become so common on our campuses.

==============================

Embedded Christians (BreakPoint, 080731)

By Joshua Birk

Finding God at Michigan

I don’t completely remember the first day of that philosophy class. Nor do I clearly recall the second. It was a 9:00 a.m. class. But I clearly remember when, a couple of weeks into the course, my professor announced that we would be discussing Thomas Aquinas’s First Cause argument, a famous argument for the existence of God. I was excited. This is why I had chosen philosophy. I wanted to probe the deep thoughts of wizened, graying professors and hash out life’s big questions with other students who had a “love of wisdom.” My lofty visions of philosophical studies were quickly deflated as the professor took the first five minutes to outline the argument and the next forty-five to rip it to shreds.

There I was, foolishly thinking that my professor was going to prove the logic of Christianity and put the rest of my unenlightened class in their place. As the weeks progressed, I began to feel more on my own. I had Christian support outside the classroom, but in the classroom, Christians were an endangered species.

IN THE MINORITY

Naturally, Kelly Monroe Kullberg’s book Finding God beyond Harvard hits close to home. I attend the University of Michigan, which, like Harvard, loves to tout its diversity. And, indeed, one of the things I have grown to appreciate is the kaleidoscope of race and ethnicity on campus. But the diversity on campus often seems only skin deep. When it comes to the worldviews present on campus, the word diverse does not even belong in the same sentence. As a Christian amidst a largely agnostic or atheistic faculty and student body, it feels like sitting on a teeter-totter with William Taft on the other end—it is difficult, to say the least, to make the conversation budge favorably in your direction.

It is easy to wallow in self-pity in that situation, and I did. Each bristling comment from my professors seemed increasingly directed at me. I would think up intelligent and witty retorts, only to realize that the by the time I had thought of them, the professor had moved on to new subject matter. I knew the situation had deteriorated when, like a moth to a front-porch light, I was drawn to articles or books about liberal bias in academia.

Thankfully, I quit wallowing and decided to face the challenges. And that is when my perspective completely changed. I came to realize that, as Kullberg writes, “Perhaps we’re not overtly persecuted so much as we assume constraints.”

She could not be more correct. Animus directed at Christians on campus today is not even worthy of the word persecution in light of two millennia of real hardship faced by believers around the world. But whether at college or in the coliseum, where hostility to the Gospel increases, God’s grace “abounds all the more.” Kullberg found that out firsthand.

UNEXPECTED ALLIES

Planning the first Veritas Forum, not only did Kullberg have to face the tangled web of the university bureaucracy, the people she faced were often either unsympathetic or downright hostile. Yet sifting her way through the system while planning the initial Veritas Forum and the events that followed, she recounts tale after tale of discovering little gems, or “embedded” Christians. Kullberg writes, “I walked home in a daze, realizing that in the halls of power, though constrained by pressures, there are people of integrity—quiet Daniels who still care for justice and truth.” I understood the joy she experienced with each new “discovery,” for I had experienced it.

During class, I have tried to make a habit of raising my hand and vocalizing my frequent disagreements with what I heard coming from the lectern. My dissenting comments have been typically met with a few dagger-like glares, one or two sympathetic nods, and a multitude of glazed-over eyes staring in a semi-hypnotic state. But every once in a while, someone will stand up and voice agreement, not-so-subtly revealing that he or she is also a Christian. It’s not exactly staring the lion in the mouth, but it takes a bit of courage. And when it happens, you can’t help but feel an instant spirit of unity. You realize just how deep the spiritual bond is. It goes far beyond simply agreeing about gender roles or the limits of government. The spiritual bond is a person, the man Jesus Christ. He is the reason why Kullberg and the “quiet Daniels” persevere. He is the reason why I raise my hand in class. And He is the reason why other Christians come to my defense.

One of the most powerful aspects of that spiritual bond is that it is visible. During her travels watching the best and brightest Christian apologists argue academically for Christianity, Kullberg details her experience of another, often more powerful argument—rich Christian community. Weaving in her personal stories of friendship with the story of Veritas, Kullberg exemplifies the fact that loving Christian community speaks louder than a ranting, die-hard naturalist and with more profundity than a dyed-in-the-wool agnostic philosopher.

I have seen this firsthand with the group of which I am a part: University Christian Outreach. A few times each term, we host free (the most important word on campus) steak nights for guys. We pray before dinner and then proceed to consume mass quantities of baked potatoes and marinated flank steak—a man’s meal. There is a short “talk” during dinner, but by no means a lengthy lecture on the strength of Plantinga’s ontological argument for God’s existence. It is simply a time for Christian guys to help their friends taste, hear, feel, and see the argument for Christ. It reinforces the fact that the biblical worldview is not merely theoretical, but also intensely practical. Yet it is not boring in its practicality. Kullberg’s story shows that the true Christian life is full of vitality. It is characterized by joy, hope, and love, all things for which college students desperately long.

The Veritas Forums, then, feed off the Christian unity they create on campus. Students studying everything from art history to zoology come together and witness the hand of God moving in every academic discipline. Christian truth is pulled back out from under the rug and shown in all its beautiful intricacy and vast depth. The results are astounding. Students pack auditoriums across the country. From Berkeley to Harvard, Duke to Stanford, and many places in between, students genuinely searching for veritas, truth, encounter the Christian faith. Christian faculty and students have opportunities to act as ministers of God’s grace, both intellectually and personally.

THE WEIGHT OF TRUTH

Reading the book, I came to realize that the hostility I often feel in the classroom is not an aggressive attack, but a desperate plea for help. Students and faculty alike are being swallowed alive by a destructive college culture of hyper-sexuality, rotting away from radical individualism, and drowning in a sea of unbridled tolerance. And veritas alone can rescue them.

I look back on that philosophy class and realize that I don’t need a wizened, graying professor to give me the answers to life when the greatest Philosopher ever to live has already spoken. Not only that, but He has given me a textbook with all the answers. So why should I be stuck in the air on that teeter-totter when I have the weight of truth to help me down?

==============================

The Golden Key (BreakPoint, 080731)

By Carolyn Bolls

Finding God Beyond Grove City

As I took my seat, ready to start a new year and relieved that I was finally an upperclassman, the professor walked into the room. He set his briefcase on the desk and looked around the room. The first words out of his mouth were, “Let’s pray.”

Did some students look around, wondering to whom we were “praying”? Did some students make a statement and walk out of the classroom? Did others complain to the administration, saying their rights had been violated? Not one.

Prayer is standard operating procedure at Grove City College. Professors pray before class begins. They pray to calm students before they administer exams. They pray with students and for students. Students rely heavily not just on scholarly guidance, but also spiritual guidance from professors. Students do not face criticism for their Christian faith. Instead, they receive encouragement and spiritual counsel. Belief in absolute truth directs how faculty and students both think and act.

LOOKING OUTSIDE THE BOX

In her book Finding God beyond Harvard, Kelly Monroe Kullberg deconstructs the postmodern world to its basic core of relativism. She explains how postmodern ideology asserts that there is no definite right and wrong and diminishes the fight between good and evil—hindering the quest for real truth. As the founder of the Veritas Forum, she has brought together the world’s best scholars to discuss Jesus Christ’s relevance to all of life. She describes some of the students she encounters at secular colleges as people with a façade of anger but with hearts desperately in need of truth that answers life’s hardest questions.

I can’t relate to that atmosphere or to those students. At Grove City College, where Christianity and academic studies intersect at every point, almost everyone understands that absolute truth, in the essence of Jesus Christ, exists. Christian worldview is accepted and promoted as a given. The stereotype at Grove City is that students enter college thinking, looking, and believing the same thing. Many of the differences among incoming freshmen are merely denominational. It is Grove City’s educational system that molds the students into a Christian mindset, training them how to apply their worldview. But what happens to these students once the four years of Christian worldview boot camp is over? Can they still find God beyond Grove City?

In her book, Kullberg notes that when she visited Princeton, the “timeless values of character, ethics, and truth had morphed into modern values of image, competition, and success.” Comparably, graduates from Grove City College face this change as they move from a school where vocation, or “God’s calling,” is emphasized and prized to a world focused on material success.

Although I have two more years before I graduate, past summers spent in internships outside of a Christian environment have opened my eyes a little more to the way the secular world works. It is an intimidating environment. I constantly run the risk of being labeled “intolerant.” To promote a set standard of truth is considered “arrogant.” With words like these on the tip of the world’s tongue, why bother sticking to a set of beliefs that seems outdated and irrelevant to the world’s standard of success and “enlightenment”?

DUSTING OFF TRUTH

It’s a struggle dealing with life outside the biblical bubble. As students in a Christian college, we normally argue about predestination or transubstantiation. But outside, we encounter dissenters who call us “extremists.” Unlike most college students in America, I am surprised when I hear that some people believe the theories taught in my required philosophy class to be indisputable truth. Darwin, Nietzsche, and Marx are no longer names in a textbook; they are taken seriously and applied to everyday life. Some may laugh at my naïveté, but my classically rooted Grove City education is what universities used to teach their students before the intellectual elitists took over the education system and saturated impressionable minds with faulty theories.

In Finding God beyond Harvard, Kullberg describes herself and her fellow veritas-seekers as “post-postmodern,” a new kind of movement that seeks to uncover the truth that has been lost in a bevy of postmodern twentieth-century secular thought. She describes this truth as ancient and timeless, a “golden key to the present and future.” As a college student educated specifically in Christian worldview, I have the distinct advantage of having a built-in curriculum that allows me to possess this “golden key.” But this key is useless if I do not use it to unlock any kind of knowledge that can benefit the world around me as well as my own walk in the wider culture.

Kullberg makes a great point when she observes, “I was again reminded that we aren’t persecuted so much as we assume constraints . . . “ The fear of being accused of intolerance is what holds many Christians back from standing up for truth.

Kullberg reminds us that “the truth claims of Jesus were not marginal but central to human history.” Nancy Pearcey, one of the Veritas Forum’s speakers, says that Christianity is the worldview “that supports the highest aspirations of the human heart.” With Christianity comes freedom, not restraints; contentment, not despair; and ultimately truth, not deception. That’s why the Veritas Forums are successful: They are shining the light of truth in the dark crevices of the nation’s top schools and, more importantly, in the dark crevices of the students’ hearts.

NOT WITHOUT CHALLENGES

Grasping a strong understanding of the origins and orthodoxy of Christianity is one matter, but if belief is purely intellectual, then it ignores the head’s essential counterpart in faith: the heart. The heart is an influential factor of man’s decisions and must be in line with God’s truth. Biblical knowledge and personal application are both essential to developing a Christian worldview. Kullberg is a living example of how Christians can spread the Gospel in a way that speaks to both components of the Christian faith. But Kullberg’s faith—while it offered coherent explanations of reality—was not without its obstacles in her personal life.

She faced her hardest trial when she realized her longtime friend, a person whom she thought would be her future husband, married a mutual friend of theirs. At the same time, she was battling Lyme disease and trying to organize the Harvard Veritas Forum. She admitted that, “To live in a fallen world is to die a thousand deaths.” She wondered “for the first time if the spiritual life was an uphill battle worth fighting.”

In a world that covets instant gratification through technology, sometimes we have to reconnect with nature in order to understand God’s overarching control in our lives. God’s majesty is evident in His natural creation if we allow it to reveal itself, and so Kullberg took to the woods to rejuvenate. It was in her Walden-type setting that she learned forgiveness and restored her connection to the One she calls the Conductor and Author.

The question is: Are we courageous enough to trust in Him when we are outside of that Christian comfort zone? Kelly Monroe Kullberg brought together the secular and the sacred in the Veritas Forums, and still she struggled with her faith and her calling. She was surrounded by a strong group of Christian friends and worked in a Christian ministry, but just like Grove City, that environment does not safeguard against an atmosphere of heartache, loss, deceit, or sin. A Christian environment can be a refuge from life’s pains, but it never numbs the Christian’s experience.

If used properly, a Christian education can be used as a golden key to unlock God’s truth if it is not left to tarnish in the back pocket. The key should always be in hand—ready to unlock that truth for others. Truth can guide us through our wants and worldly desires to see God’s plan for a life outside the prayer-filled classroom. The dull, secular world will brighten if we constantly remind ourselves of God’s presence among us. Our search for veritas does not end when the diploma is in our hand. Instead, the golden key should be carried with us—a reminder of the foundation for a lifelong pursuit to find God and His truth beyond the confines of the ivy-covered brick walls.

==============================

“Where Did You Learn That?” (Christian Post, 080904)

Creating a Culture in Your Home Stronger Than the Culture of the World

By Ron Luce

As a new school year descends upon us, with all the obligatory “back-to-school” sales and hype, we have to ask ourselves, “What are my kids going to learn this year besides the three ‘r’s’—reading, writing, and arithmetic?” What I mean is, many of us have seen our kids pick up things at school that we don’t particularly like. Maybe it is a disrespectful attitude, the shocking new music lyrics of Katy Perry, a pastor’s daughter, in her new hit “I kissed a girl,” or even a pornographic ad that pops up while our children are doing their homework. Get ready, because these things will happen.

We, as parents have to be prepared for them. We have to build a Godly culture in our homes our kids are drawn to that is stronger than the culture bombarding them. How can we build a Godly culture in our homes that goes “back to school” with our kids, rather than them bringing an unwanted culture back home?

Understanding the Culture

Our kids are falling into the trap of culture. You can’t fall into a trap without being deceived, and today’s culture is a Zen master of deception. It offers all the shine but shows none of the grime. Deception doesn’t happen quickly, and this culture has a lot of time to repeat its message over and over again. The result is that our kids start transferring the ownership of their hearts from us to something else.

One culture mogul is quoted as saying, “We don’t advertise to this generation; we own this generation.” In many ways, it’s really true. What they say goes. What they put on their TV network sells. We can tell our kids, “As long as you live in my house, you’re not going to watch this or wear that.” Our authority has already been handed over to the culture that is stealing their time and affection though.

There Is Hope

Somewhere in the process, our kids become unresponsive to us. They tune out what we have to say and especially don’t want to talk to us about things. It seems like they don’t want our influence, which is part of the deception. If they do listen, they do it begrudgingly and with an insincere spirit instead of embracing the values we’re trying to instill.

This situation does not form suddenly. While it seems like a surprise to us, many of our children have gradually transferred the ownership of their hearts from you, their parents, to their friends or the culture. Kids grow into a frame of mind where they care more about pleasing their friends than they care about pleasing you. The inclination to this thought pattern begins in very small ways, but each minute tendency you notice is a sign of their hearts being lured away from you.

It seems hopeless. Yet, there is something we can do! We, as their parents, need to intervene! We’ve got to get their hearts back. This will not happen by commanding them, but by wooing them. As parents, it’s our job to continue to woo the hearts of our kids so they want to listen to us. If we allow the culture or their friends to overpower them, it becomes incredibly hard to regain the respect they once had for us.

The Recipe for Their Hearts Is TIME

This may not be easy to hear. The saying “quality time is better than quantity” is wrong. Parenting means sacrifice. We need to do things with our kids to build bonds and memories together through shared experiences. This is what will begin to draw their hearts toward us.

After you have spent “quantity” time with your son or daughter, they will begin to see that you care and that you desire to listen to them. Eventually they’re going to share their heart with you. Depending on how hardened the hearts of your kids are or how much they have been manipulated by the culture and their friends, it might take a significant investment of time to win their hearts back. But it’s not impossible. Start this pattern of “quantity” time while they’re young!

Let’s Become Parents Who Re-Create the Culture in Our Homes! This is our job as parents: to woo their hearts, to influence their hearts and then to keep their hearts. Be encouraged. You can do it!

==============================

The Book Banners Hollywood Ignores (townhall.com, 080917)

by Michelle Malkin

Have you ever heard Hollywood liberals talk about suspected Islamic jihadists the way they talk about suspected Republican “book-banners”? The September 11 terrorist attacks didn’t turn celebrity leftists into hawks. But the minute they started reading false rumors about Sarah Palin restricting unfettered access to “Daddy’s Roommate” and “Heather Has Two Mommies” in her hometown library, Tinseltown’s docile doves became militant warmongers.

Actor Matt Damon, parroting left-wing Internet lies about Sarah Palin censoring novels while mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, took a defiant stand against the “terrifying possibility” of a McCain-Palin victory. “We can’t have” book-banning, he inveighed.

And now we know what keeps feminist playwrights like Eve Ensler (“The Vagina Monologues”) awake at night. Not Iranian nuclear ambitions or al Qaeda beheading videos. She is haunted by nightmares of Bible-thumping, book-burning Sarah Palin. A McCain/Palin ticket “is one of the most dangerous choices” of her lifetime, Ensler seethed in her viral call-to-arms e-mail, because “Sarah Palin does not much believe in thinking,” The evidence: “From what I gather she has tried to ban books from the library, has a tendency to dispense with people who think independently. She cannot tolerate an environment of ambiguity and difference.”

Classic projection. Damon, Ensler and the anti-censorship crusaders are the unthinking ones who can’t tolerate independence, ambiguity and difference. The rumormongers continue to spread a bogus banned book list attributed to Palin that includes books not even published at the time she served as mayor. No city records corroborate Internet reports that she tried to keep anti-homosexual books, as gay lobbying organizations have claimed, or any other books off government-funded library shelves available to children.

And even if she did inquire about the process, so what? Regulating age-appropriate content is only alarming to the same kind of civil liberties extremists who oppose reasonable filtering of sexually explicit material in public spaces Who is scarier: hockey moms who want to put tax-subsidized books about lesbian couples out of reach of kindergarteners or Hollyweird ideologues who want to ensure that homeless people can surf porn websites in your neighborhood library?

If book banning is such a life-and-death issue to these celebrity foot soldiers for free speech, where were they four years ago when John Kerry and his rabid minions were pressuring Regnery Publishing to withdraw “Unfit for Command” from bookstores? Where were they when members of the Borders Books Employee Union were openly advocating sabotaging book sales? A message on the union’s members-only website urged:

“You guys don’t actually HAVE to sell the thing!

“Just ‘carelessly’ hide the boxes, ‘accidentally’ drop them off pallets, ‘forget’ to stock the ones you have, and then suggest a nice Al Franken or Michael Moore book as a substitute.

“I don’t care if these Neandertals (sic) in fancy suits get mad at me, they aren’t regular customers anyway. Other than ‘Left Behind’ books, they don’t read. Anything you can do to make them feel unwelcome is only fair. They are the people pushing retailers to cut costs, don’t forget. And they would censor your speech, your books, your music in a heartbeat, so give them a taste of it!”

Where were they when left-wing hitman David Brock of Media Matters for America sent a demand letter to Wal-Mart, Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble urging them to pull “Unfit for Command” from their shelves?

Where were they two years ago when two Democrat lawmakers, New Jersey Assemblywomen Joan Quigley and Linda Stender, called on merchants to ban the sale of Ann Coulter’s book, “Godless,” because of her remarks about anti-Bush 9/11 widows. “No one in New Jersey should buy this book and allow Ann Coulter to profit from her hate-mongering,” the politicians lashed out. “We are asking New Jersey retailers statewide to stand with us and express their outrage by refusing to carry or sell copies of Coulter’s book. Her hate-filled attacks on our 9-11 widows has no place on New Jersey bookshelves.”

Where were they in 2005, when a University of North Carolina law professor, Eric Muller, called on his blog readers to get one of my books banned from a national parks bookstore? Where were they when J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins’s “Alms for Jihad” was banned in Britain; Robert Spencer’s “The Truth about Muhammad” was banned in Pakistan; and “The Jewel of Madina” was banned, well, everywhere?

And where are they now? Stewing in their salons and screenwriting rooms. Concocting horror stories about terrifying Christian conservative bogeymen who threaten peace, tolerance, independent thought, ambiguity and difference. Patting themselves and each other on the backs as the valiant protectors of dissent.

(But only the kind with which they agree, of course. Shhhhh.)

==============================

Decision to teach kids to be ‘gay’ allowed to stand: ‘This despicable ruling not of the people, nor for the people, but against the people’ (WorldNetDaily, 081009)

The U.S. Supreme Court without comment has refused to intervene in a case prompted by the actions of officials at Estabrook Elementary school in Lexington, Mass., who not only were teaching homosexuality to young children, but specifically refused to allow Christian parents to opt their children out of the indoctrination.

The case on which WND has reported previously involves Massachusetts father David Parker, who with his wife now have withdrawn their children from public schools, for which they continue to pay taxes, and are homeschooling.

The decision by the Supreme Court leaves standing the ruling from the appeals court for Massachusetts, where Judge Sandra Lynch said those who are concerned over such civil rights violations “may seek recourse to the normal political processes for change in the town and state.”

Earlier District Judge Mark Wolf had ordered that school officials’ work to undermine Christian beliefs and teach homosexuality is needed to prepare children for citizenship, and if parents don’t like it they can elect a different school committee or homeschool their children.

According to a new report from MassResistance, a pro-family organization following the case, the dispute was over the “Lexington Schools’ aggressive policy of normalizing homosexual behavior to elementary school children and not allowing parents to be notified before or after, or being able to opt-out their kids from it.”

The dispute grabbed headlines when Parker, on April 27, 2005, “was arrested and thrown in jail by school officials over his insistence on being notified regarding his son in kindergarten being taught about homosexual relationships by adults,” Mass Resistance reported.

Another family was alarmed by a similar situation a short time later as the school not only continued its indoctrination, but “became more hostile to the Parkers, and local liberals and homosexual activists did their best to harass the family,” Mass Resistance reported.

In fact, the school, led by Supt. Paul Ash, then stated in school publications they would not “compromise” on any points regarding the homosexual agenda.

“The [Supreme] court did not even bother to notify the Parkers or their attorneys,” said Mass Resistance, which said what now will be enforced in the judicial district will be the lower bench rulings that the state has not only the right but “even the obligation … to promote homosexual relationships to young children.”

“The unrelenting action of the Lexington schools to push homosexuality in the lower grades, as well as the ugly hostility of local liberals toward the Parkers and their children over this incident has taken its toll,” Mass Resistance said. “This year the Parkers removed both of their children from the Estabrook Elementary School and have been homeschooling.”

Parker gave no indication, however, he was quitting the overall battle against rampant normalization of homosexuality.

“The federal Supreme Court of the United States has tragically decided to deny our case from moving forward,” Parker said in a statement. “We have exhausted all our legal options in the federal system for the protection of young children in the public schools. The Supreme Court has cowardly turned their backs on a parental rights issue that clearly has national significance with profound consequences.

“We believe that parents have the right and sacred responsibility to defend the psyches of their young impressionable children against such child predation. This includes more forceful measures to defend against, the inculcation and penetration, of perversion into their minds, behind the parent’s back and against their will,” Parker said.

“This despicable ruling is not of the people, nor for the people, and nor by the people – but against them. We, the people, must take back our government for the sake of our children and the sake of this nation,” he said.

When Parker asked the Supreme Court for a review he noted the questions raised in the case have not been answered in previous cases. Those include: “Whether objecting parents have a constitutional right to opt their public school children out of, or even to receive notice of, undisputed government efforts to indoctrinate kindergarten, first and second grade school children into the propriety, indeed desirability, of same gender marriage.”

Also at issue is whether those schools’ “open and specific intention to indoctrinate … children into disbelieving core tenets of their families’ deeply held religious faith constitutes a burden on the families’ free exercise of religion.”

The high court previously found, the request argued, the “primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition. Aspects of child rearing protected from unnecessary intrusion by the government include the inculcation of moral standards, religious beliefs, and elements of good citizenship.”

In an earlier interview with WND, Parker warned allowing the appeals ruling to stand would “allow teachers in elementary schools to influence children into any views they wanted to, behind the backs of parents, to a captive audience, and against the will of the parents if need be.

“Teachers are being postured to have a constitutional right to coercively indoctrinate little children [into whatever they choose to teach,]” he noted.

==============================

Free speech under siege on Canada’s campuses (National Post, 081128)

At the University of Guelph, a student council decides an anti-abortion group is unfair to women so they are banned. Queen’s University hires “dialogue facilitators” because they are unsure that the right kinds of conversation are taking place among students. At Carleton University, some students decide that cystic fibrosis is too white a disease so it is unworthy of charitable funding.

Critics charge that all these recent incidents are just the latest signs of the erosion of free speech at Canadian universities.

“I think that on many university campuses they think that if they have to decide between free speech and equality they will choose equality in the end,” said Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, a lawyer with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. “And the problem is that dichotomy is a false one to start with because freedom of expression and equality go hand in hand. Disadvantaged groups have used their freedom of expression to get their voice heard. They’ve used freedom of speech to show injustice when it’s out there to persuade public opinion. And that’s how we’ve made the advances that we have.”

Ms. Aviv was at the University of Guelph Wednesday night to lend support to Life Choice, the anti-abortion students who are trying to receive official club status.

The group was told by the University of Guelph’s Central Student Association (CSA) in October that it would not be accredited because its anti-choice message was an affront to women. Accreditation gives groups the right to office space, free room rental, telephone and faxes as well as funding. The CSA is funded to a great extent by fees collected from all students.

“It’s not the responsibility of the CSA to support them because we are a pro-choice organization. And as a private organization we can choose who to associate with,” said Joel Harnest, an executive member of the CSA.

“My argument is that women are a minority in this country in terms of the power and stake that they have. We are defending the rights of women.”

Cara Benninger, the president of Life Choice, said women do not need to be defended by the CSA.

“We have 90 members and half our membership is women. Our executive is five women and one man,” she said. “If we’re paying student fees for them to represent us, they should allow us to exist. They don’t have to agree with us.”

The incident that put Life Choice in hot water with the CSA was over material distributed at a “Life Fair” in March. Mr. Harnest, one of five executives on the CSA, said material handed out by the group violated the rights of female students on campus because the material questioned “the fundamental right of women to control their bodies.”

He said the group’s material called for the criminalization of abortion and compared abortion to murder.

“Because of those reasons we felt the material was anti-choice. There is a difference between pro-life and anti-choice.”

Ms. Benninger said none of the materials called for criminalization “because we don’t believe that’s the right way.”

She said the slogan that most bothered the CSA was one that said “make abortion extinct.” That means finding ways to get rid of abortion without making it illegal, she said.

“They seem to be giving us power we don’t have. We don’t have the power to prevent women from having abortion. We just want people to think about their decision.”

On Wednesday night, the CSA agreed to give Life Choice temporary accreditation but the pro-life group will have to face a special tribunal to have its ultimate fate decided. Mr. Harnest said that as far as he knows this is the first time a special tribunal has been struck. The tribunal will make sure that Life Choice has had the fairest hearing possible, he said.

But it seems unclear that if the group ultimately receives accreditation it would be able to express its views. The CSA’s policy manual forbids any material that promotes discrimination against women, and that includes materials the would deem abortion “immoral.”

“[The Canadian Civil Liberties Association] believes very strongly that women should have the right to choose what happens to their bodies,” said Ms. Aviv. “But it’s very hard for me to understand how anybody, including the strongest of pro-choice activists, has difficulty with a group whose sole purpose is to educate and persuade women not to have abortions. How that is not an exercise of choice is rather beyond me. I also see this as an exercise of discrimination on the basis of political ideology.”

She said it is not hard to conceive of a time in the past, or the future, in which a pro-life majority could ban pro-choice groups on the logic that abortion is a form of murder.

“I’m flabbergasted how a student union concerned with basic human rights could fail to see what the situation could look like if the tables were turned.”

But Mr. Harnest dismissed that because it is only dealing with hypothetical situations..

“It’s just speculation. Whether that was the case 30 years ago ... I can’t comment on that because I can’t imagine it.”

Last summer, the student government at York University also banned a pro-life group, saying that the issue was also one of women’s rights over free speech.

The Students for Bioethical Awareness launched a complaint against the decision but so far nothing has changed.

There have been a number of cases on university campuses of late in which it appears that political correctness is trumping free expression - and even common sense.

The Carleton University Students’ Association voted to drop giving money to a cystic fibrosis charity because the disease “has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men.” Under a barrage of criticism, the student council reinstated the charity as a beneficiary.

At Queen’s University, in Kingston, Ont., the school administration hired six students whose jobs as “dialogue facilitators” involves intervening in conversations among students encourage discussion of such social justice issues as race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation. (The program is now being subject to early review.)

Calgary lawyer John Carpay, executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation in Calgary, said what happened at Queen’s University is a prime example of a university abandoning the ideal of frank exchange and honest debate.

Mr. Carpay is now working with a group of pro-life students at the University of Calgary who have been threatened with fines and expulsion for setting up a graphic display on campus, which shows a bloodied fetus alongside a picture of Holocaust victims. The school wants the pictured turned inward so no one will be forced to see them.

But Mr. Carpay said far from being a reasonable demand, this is another infringement on free expression.

“Images are one important way of expressing an opinion or truth. For example, a feminist group may want to use a photograph of a battered woman to drive home the point of how serious this problem is. An international human rights group might want to use photographs of what is happening in Darfur or religious persecution in China. It’s not right for the university to censor images and implicitly say people need to rely only on words because words are less shocking.”

==============================

Judge orders homeschoolers into public district classrooms (WorldNetToday, 090311)

Decides children need more ‘focus’ despite testing above grade levels

A North Carolina judge has ordered three children to attend public schools this fall because the homeschooling their mother has provided over the last four years needs to be “challenged.”

The children, however, have tested above their grade levels - by as much as two years.

The decision is raising eyebrows among homeschooling families, and one friend of the mother has launched a website to publicize the issue.

The ruling was made by Judge Ned Mangum of Wake County, who was handling a divorce proceeding for Thomas and Venessa Mills.

A statement released by a publicist working for the mother, whose children now are 10, 11 and 12, said Mangum stripped her of her right to decide what is best for her children’s education.

The judge, when contacted by WND, explained his goal in ordering the children to register and attend a public school was to make sure they have a “more well-rounded education.”

“I thought Ms. Mills had done a good job [in homeschooling],” he said. “It was great for them to have that access, and [I had] no problems with homeschooling. I said public schooling would be a good complement.”

The judge said the husband has not been supportive of his wife’s homeschooling, and “it accomplished its purposes. It now was appropriate to have them back in public school.”

Mangum said he made the determination on his guiding principle, “What’s in the best interest of the minor children,” and conceded it was putting his judgment in place of the mother’s.

And he said that while he expressed his opinion from the bench in the court hearing, the final written order had not yet been signed.

However, the practice of a judge replacing a parent’s judgment with his own regarding homeschooling was argued recently when a court panel in California ruled that a family would no longer be allowed to homeschool their own children.

WND reported extensively when the ruling was released in February 2008, alarming homeschool advocates nationwide because of its potential ramifications.

Ultimately, the 2nd Appellate District Court in Los Angeles reversed its own order, affirming the rights of California parents to homeschool their children if they choose.

The court, which earlier had opined that only credentialed teachers could properly educate children, was faced with a flood of friend-of-the-court briefs representing individuals and groups, including Congress members.

The conclusion ultimately was that parents, not the state, would decide where children are educated.

The California opinion said state law permits homeschooling “as a species of private school education” but that statutory permission for parents to teach their own children could be “overridden in order to protect the safety of a child who has been declared dependent.”

In the North Carolina case, Adam Cothes, a spokesman for the mother, said the children routinely had been testing at up to two years above their grade level, were involved in swim team and other activities and events outside their home and had taken leadership roles in history club events.

On her website, family friend Robyn Williams said Mangum stated his decision was not ideologically or religiously motivated but that ordering the children into public schools would “challenge the ideas you’ve taught them.”

Williams, a homeschool mother of four herself, said, “I have never seen such injustice and such a direct attack against homeschool.”

“This judge clearly took personal issue with Venessa’s stance on education and faith, even though her children are doing great. If her right to homeschool can be taken away so easily, what will this mean for homeschoolers state wide, or even nationally?” Williams asked.

Williams said she’s trying to rally homeschoolers across the nation to defend their rights as Americans and parents to educate their own children.

Williams told WND the public school order was the worst possible outcome for Ms. Mills, who had made it clear she felt it was important to her children that she continue homeschooling.

According to Williams’ website, the judge also ordered a mental health evaluation for the mother - but not the father - as part of the divorce proceedings, in what Williams described as an attack on the “mother’s conservative Christian beliefs.”

According to a proposed but as-yet unsigned order submitted by the father’s lawyer to Mangum, “The children have thrived in homeschool for the past four years, but need the broader focus and socialization available to them in public school. The Court finds that it is in the children’s best interest to continue their homeschooling through the end of the current school year, but to begin attending public school at the beginning of the 2009-2010 instructional year.”

The order proposed by the father’s lawyer also conceded the reason for the divorce was the father’s “adultery,” but it specifically said the father would not pay for homeschooling expenses for his children.

The order also stated, “Defendant believes that plaintiff is a nurturing mother who loves the children. Defendant believes that plaintiff has done a good job with the homeschooling of the children, although he does not believe that continued homeschooling is in the best interest of the children.”

The website said the judge also said public school would “prepare these kids for the real world and college” and allow them “socialization.”

Williams said the mother originally moved into a homeschool schedule because the children were not doing as well as she hoped at the local public schools.

In last year’s dispute in California, the ruling that eventually was released was praised by pro-family organizations.

“We’re pleased the appeals court recognized the rights of parents to provide education for their children,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice. “This decision reaffirms the constitutional right that’s afforded to parents in directing the education of their children. It’s an important victory for families who cherish the freedom to ensure that their children receive a high quality education that is inherent in homeschooling.”

“Parents have a constitutional right to make educational choices for their children,” said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb. “Thousands of California families have educated their children successfully through homeschooling. We’re pleased with the court’s decision, which protects the rights of families and protects an avenue of education that has proven to benefit children time and time again.

The North Carolina ruling also resembles a number of rulings handed down against homeschool parents in Germany, where such instruction has been banned since the years of Adolf Hitler’s rule.

As WND reported, Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, has commented previously on the issue, contending the government “has a legitimate interest in countering the rise of parallel societies that are based on religion.”

“The minister of education does not share your attitudes toward so-called homeschooling,” said a government letter in response. “... You complain about the forced school escort of primary school children by the responsible local police officers. ... In order to avoid this in future, the education authority is in conversation with the affected family in order to look for possibilities to bring the religious convictions of the family into line with the unalterable school attendance requirement.”

WND also reported recently when a German appeals court tossed out three-month jail terms issued to a mother and father who homeschool their children. But the court also ordered new trials that could leave the parents with similar penalties, according to the Home School Legal Defense Association.

The case involves Juergen and Rosemarie Dudek of Archfeldt, Germany, who last summer received formal notices of their three-month sentences.

The 90-day sentences came about when Hesse State Prosecutor Herwig Muller appealed a lower court’s determination of fines for the family. The ruling had imposed fines of about 900 euros, or $1,200, for not sending their children to school

Muller, however, told the parents they shouldn’t worry about any fines, since he would “send them to jail,” the HSLDA reported.

HSLDA spokesman Michael Donnelly warned the homeschooling battle is far from over in Germany.

“There continue to be signs that the German government is cracking down on homeschooling families,” he reported. “A recent letter from one family in southern Germany contained threats from local school authorities that unless the family enrolled their children in school, they would seek fines in excess of 50,000 euros (nearly $70,000), jail time and the removal of custody of the children.”

HSLDA officials estimate there are some 400 homeschool families in Germany, virtually all of them either forced into hiding or facing court actions.

==============================

Evangelical German Family Seeks U.S. Asylum to Homeschool Kids (Christian Post, 090402)

The case of a homeschooling family seeking for political asylum in the United States after fleeing Germany is expected to go before an immigration judge in Memphis, Tenn., Thursday.

Uwe and Hannelore Romeike, formerly of Bissingen, Germany, along with their five children, made it to the United States last August and say they were persecuted for their evangelical Christian beliefs and for homeschooling their children in a country where school attendance is mandatory.

“The persecution of homeschoolers in Germany has dramatically intensified,” said Michael P. Donnelly, an attorney with the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) representing the family. “They are regularly fined thousands of dollars, sent to prison, or have the custody of their children taken away simply because they choose to home educate.”

According to HSLDA, it is illegal to homeschool in Germany, where attendance is compulsory for children ages six to 18. Still, the organization claims there are about 400 homeschool families in Germany, almost all operating underground or are in court for the right to control the education of their children on religious grounds.

Like many conservative parents in the United States, the Romeikes say they wanted to teach their own children because their school textbooks contained language and ideas that conflicted with his family’s values.

“We left family members, our home, and a wonderful community in Germany, but the well-being of our children made it necessary,” said Mr. Romeike, a music teacher.

Since arriving in the United States, the family has settled in Eastern Tennessee, where they have been warmly welcomed by local homeschool supporters and are being assisted by HSLDA. According to estimates released earlier this year by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center of Education Statistics (NCES), 1.5 million students were homeschooled in the United States in the spring of 2007, making up 2.9% of the school-age population in America. Over the last 8 years (1999-2007) since the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES) was first conducted by the NCES, homeschooling has witnessed a 77% growth.

“The freedom we have to homeschool our children in Tennessee is wonderful,” said Mrs. Romeike through HSLDA. “We don’t have to worry about looking over our shoulder anymore wondering when the youth welfare officials will come or how much money we have to pay in fines.”

According to HSLDA attorney Donnelly, a victory in the Romeikes’ groundbreaking case will provide a path to safety for German homeschool families escaping persecution.

“By supporting a political asylum application, we will be able to shine the light of truth on this real and ongoing problem,” he reported after the Romeike’s case was filed last November.

HSLDA, with support from the Alliance Defense Fund, has hired immigration attorney Will Humble of Houston to handle the Romeikes’ case.

According to ADF, Germany is the only European country that has outright criminal bans on homeschooling.

==============================

Kids Told to Shout Obscenities in ‘Swearing Lesson’ (Foxnews, 090404)

England—A SCHOOL was blasted yesterday after kids as young as 11 were told to shout obscenities during a lesson in SWEARING.

Expletives like the f-word and c-word were written on a blackboard before a teacher explained their meaning to 30 Year 7 pupils.

St Laurence School in Bradford on Avon, Wilts, claim it was part of a sex and relationship education programme to “dispel” the myths of swear words.

But parents say they were not consulted by head James Colquhoun about the class and say kids were left “deeply upset”.

One parent said: “This is a total disgrace. Our children go to school to gain an education, not qualifications in swear words. Most kids had no idea what the words meant and were forced to grow up faster than their parents want. Heads should roll for this.”

Some pupils claim the teacher told them NOT to tell parents about the lesson.

Deputy head Richard Clutterbuck said last night: “This lesson should not have focused on the slang terms. I must apologise for any distress caused.”

Wilts County Council said it is the governors’ responsibility to decide specifics of sex education lessons.

In February we told how ten-year-olds at a church PRIMARY school near Cambridge were told to write the crudest words they knew to “analyse bullying insults”.

==============================

High School Hazing Rife, Growing ‘More Brutal’ (Foxnews, 090416)

PORTLAND, Maine — Authors of an ambitious survey of hazing in colleges and universities have turned their attention to high schools and discovered that many freshmen arrive on campus with experience — with 47% reporting getting hazed in high school.

As in college, high school hazing pervaded groups from sports teams to the yearbook staff and performing arts, according to professors Elizabeth Allan and Mary Madden of the University of Maine’s College of Education and Human Development.

The hazing included activities from silly stunts to drinking games, with 8% of the students drinking to the point of getting sick or passing out, they said.

Just like college students, high schoolers are susceptible to getting swept up in group activities and doing things they might not otherwise do, the authors said.

“That group dynamic can lead to the escalation where you have the hazing that’s been reported in the news, some horrendous incidents,” Madden said.

Among them: a “powder puff” event in which several seniors at a suburban Chicago high school were suspended or charged with roughing up junior girls, and junior varsity football players being sodomized by teammates at their New York high school.

The professors’ findings, to be presented Thursday during the American Educational Research Association’s annual meeting in San Diego, suggest that little has changed since the last major survey of hazing in American high schools in 2000.

That survey, led by Norm Pollard at Alfred University, indicated that 48% of high schoolers belonging to school groups were hazed.

While lack of any significant improvement is bad enough, the nature of hazing has become more dangerous and destructive, some educators say.

“We’re still having hazing incidents in this country in high schools. They’re getting more brutal. They’re getting more sexual. And they’re being pushed down into middle schools,” said Elliot Hopkins of the National Federation of State High School Associations.

Allan and Madden previously reported on college hazing using a survey of 11,480 students at 53 colleges and universities. The result was the biggest study of hazing in higher education to date, said Pollard, who served as an adviser.

This time, the professors tapped the same pool of participants to explore what happened to them prior to their arrival on college campuses.

Allan and Madden found the highest rates of hazing among members of sports teams (47%), ROTC (46%), and bands and performing arts organizations (34%). The average for other school organizations was 20%, the researchers reported.

Hazing-related activities included being required to associate only with the peer group (28%), singing or chanting in public (21%), verbal abuse (19%), sleep deprivation (12%), and getting a tattoo or piercing (12%), they said.

12% of the survey’s respondents participated in a drinking game, and 8% drank until getting sick or losing consciousness, they said.

Hopkins said he is particularly worried that activities are becoming more sexually charged in cases of cheerleaders being forced to undress and shave in front of their peers, or boys and girls being forced to simulate sex acts to join a group.

At its worst, hazing can lead to sexual assault, as happened with a highly publicized incident involving a football team from Long Island, N.Y., he said.

In that case, several junior varsity players were sodomized with sticks, pine cones and golf balls at preseason training camp in Pennsylvania. Four students were charged, five football coaches fired and the team’s football season canceled.

The psychological harm from hazing can follow into students’ relationships, marriages, parenting and workplace, Pollard said.

“It’s not just ‘boys being boys.’ It teaches impressionable young adults about power, control, humiliation and how you treat other individuals,” he said.

Allan and Madden, who are based at the University of Maine campus in Orono, say they were disturbed to learn that hazing is taking a back seat as high school administrators focus on bullying.

“We’ve had educators say, ‘Isn’t that the same as bullying?”‘ Madden said. “It just indicates the amount of education that’s needed all around.”

Bullies do not want the victim to be part of their group, and their goal is to humiliate, ostracize and degrade to make themselves feel bigger and better, Madden said. Hazing is different because it involves a group dynamic and coercion.

“The coercion can be subtle, but it’s powerful,” Allan said. “You have these really nice people who are generally reasonable kids making sound decisions for the most part. And then all of a sudden they’re swept up in his group dynamic — it contributes to impairing judgment.”

==============================

U.K. Christians Oppose New Sex Ed Proposals (Christian Post, 090428)

LONDON - Christians have spoken out against government plans to introduce new rules that would require schools to teach 11-year-old students about homosexuality and civil partnerships during compulsory sex education classes.

Until now, school headteachers have had the option of not teaching about homosexuality and civil partnerships, but if adopted, the rules will apply to all secondary schools, with no opt-out for religious schools.

A formal consultation needs to be completed before the rules can come into effect, but once they do, the new will apply in primary and secondary schools starting from the 2011-12 academic year. Along with sex education, classes on the dangers of alcohol, drugs and on financial education will be compulsory.

Under the proposals, 4- and 5-year-olds will be taught about different body parts and lessons on sex will be taught at the age of nine.

Between the ages of 11 and 14, students will be taught about contraception, pregnancy, sexual activity and sexually transmitted diseases.

The guidelines also state that “students should address the role and benefits of marriage and civil partnerships in stable relationships and family life.”

Students will also be required to learn about “different types of relationships,” including homosexual ones.

Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute said promoting homosexuality could cause harm to children who may experiment with what they are taught.

“What we don’t want to see is vulnerable young people being exploited by outside groups which want to normalize homosexuality,” he said, as reported by the Daily Mail.

“If this guidance purports to force faith schools to teach things which go against their faith then it is profoundly illiberal and must be resisted at all costs,” he added. “A lot of people who are fully signed up to the gay rights agenda are beginning to think ‘I didn’t vote for this’. They don’t support forcing religious bodies to espouse views of sexual ethics that conflict with their religion.”

The proposed rules also state that while religious schools will be required to teach lessons that may be against their beliefs, they will also be allowed to teach their faith position on the issue.

==============================

Gay Curriculum Proposal Riles Elementary School Parents (Foxnews, 090522)

“And Tango Makes Three,” about two gay penguins who raise a baby peguin, is the basis for grade school teachings on gay and lesbian lifestyles.

A group of parents in a California school district say they are being bullied by school administrators into accepting a new curriculum that addresses bullying, respect and acceptance — and that includes compulsory lessons about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community that will be taught to children as young as 5 years old.

The parents from the Unified School District in Alameda, a suburb of San Francisco and Oakland, say these issues are best learned at home and most definitely are not age-appropriate for elementary school children.

The parents are also angry that they will not be allowed to keep their children out of the classes.

“I believe these children are far too young to be learning about what these issues mean,” said Alaina Stewart, who has three children who attend elementary school in Alameda. “These are adult issues and they are being thrust upon the children.”

But the school board says otherwise, and its attorneys say that if the curriculum is adopted, the parents will have no legal right to remove their children from class when the lessons are being taught.

“By not allowing kids to opt out,” says David Kirwin, who has two children in the system, “the school district is violating a First Amendment right for those who have a religion that doesn’t support homosexuality.”

The proposed curriculum will include a 45-minute LGBT lesson, once a year from kindergarten through fifth grade. The kindergartners will focus on the harms of teasing, while the fifth graders will study sexual orientation stereotypes.

The move toward the new curriculum began two years ago, when teachers noticed that even kindergarten students were using derogatory words about sexuality, such as “fag.”

“Students reported feeling bullied,” said Kirsten Vital, superintendent of the Alameda Unified School District. “This work is in response to teachers asking for tools to combat name-calling and bullying at school.”

Among the course materials that could be added to the curriculum is “And Tango Makes Three,” a children’s book about gay penguins struggling to create a family. The book has been banned in some areas of the country.

In response to the controversy surrounding the proposed curriculum, the school board has held two public debates this month.

One parent told FOXNews.com an “overwhelming” majority of parents spoke out against LGBT instruction at one of the meetings, but that public opinion had little impact.

“The chairman of the school board repeatedly claimed to the audience that the curriculum is evenly supported and opposed,” said a parent named David, who asked that his last name be withheld.

“I am beginning to lose confidence of the board, as it seems to have a preconceived political agenda and not truly represent their constituent’s opposition to the curriculum,” he said.

But other parents say they are in full support of the proposed curriculum.

“Our schools are a reflection of our community and world,” said Marianne Bartholomew-Couts. “From a very early age, children should see what exists in the world.”

Michael Williams, another parent, thinks LGBT issues will come up anyway, and that teachers should be prepared. “The teachers would have the tools under the new curriculum to help kids respond appropriately,” he said.

California is no stranger to the controversy surrounding gay issues. Last November, voters passed Proposal 8, which overturned a Supreme Court ruling and banned gay marriage in the state.

The situation in Alameda is no different from the statewide ballot initiative: it has caught the attention of several organizations on both sides of the issue.

Ryan Schwartz, National Outreach Manager for GroundSpark-a non-profit organization that seeks justice in education-told FOXNews.com that teachers are responsible for creating an environment where students can feel comfortable and learn. Teaching the golden rule won’t cut it, he said.

“Instead of having to police the schoolyard for bullying,” said Schwartz, “this curriculum is designed to prevent it from the beginning.”

But other groups think the new curriculum is not balanced in whom it protects.

“Under law, there are five categories of protected classes when it comes to discrimination,” explained Karen England, a spokeswoman for the Capitol Resource Institute, an organization that advocates conservative policy on social issues.

“The curriculum focuses on only one subgroup protected under anti-discrimination laws: sexual orientation.”

England said she believes Alameda’s curriculum committee has purposely excluded religion, even though it is one of the protected classes. “This indicates an agenda is being pushed, as opposed to an altruistic attempt to teach tolerance,” she said.

Members of the school board will vote on Tuesday whether to adopt the new curriculum. Vital, the superintendent, would not comment on the expected outcome.

“No matter what the outcome is, we need to do some work as a community to come together around issues of diversity, acceptance and understanding of one another,” she said.

==============================

Study: Religiosity of Humanities Students Most Likely to Wane (Christian Post, 090803)

Results from a recent study on the impact of a college student’s major on their religiosity have led researchers to conclude that postmodernism, rather than science, is the greatest antagonist of religiosity.

Researchers at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor drew the conclusion after finding that majoring in Humanities or Social Sciences has a significant negative effect on religious attendance and self-assessed importance of religion in one’s life.

“Because we consider both the Humanities and many of the Social Sciences particularly strongly imbued with Postmodernism, we take this as evidence for a negative effect of Postmodernism on religiosity,” they state in their report, which was released last month.

Meanwhile, majoring in the Biological Sciences and the Physical Sciences has a much smaller negative or no effects on religiosity.

“My coauthors Colter Mitchell, Arland Thornton, Linda Young-DeMarco and I speculate that Postmodernism (Relativism) has a much bigger negative effect on religiosity than Science because the key ideas of Postmodernism are newer than the key scientific ideas that challenge religion. Religions have had 150 years to develop resistance or tolerance for the ideas of evolution, for example,” said economist Miles Kimball, who co-authored the study.

In the study, postmodernism is defined as a commitment to relativism and to the idea that truth and morality are not absolute but are determined by those who are powerful. It is associated with “epistemological doubt” or the idea that knowledge and certainty are extremely difficult to attain. This conflicts with religious beliefs suggesting the existence of absolute knowledge, truth, and authority rooted in God’s revelation and teachings to human beings.

“Most religions have not gotten as far at developing resistance or tolerance for the ideas of Postmodernism, though one can see it happening, as some religions warn their member about Relativism, while others argue that Postmodernism means that religious belief cannot be disproved,” Kimball noted.

The new study, “Empirics on the Origins of Preferences: The Case of College Major and Religiosity,” is based on data that has been collected by researchers at the University of Michigan since 1975. Each year about 16,000 students in approximately 133 public and private high schools nationwide are interviewed during their senior year of high school and a randomly-selected sample from each senior class is followed up bi-annually after high school.

Researchers set out to examine how exposure to specific contents of a curriculum affects students’ values, on the basis that college majors exhibit important correlations with values and worldviews.

Findings show that students who entered the Humanities were highly religious but they came out of the major less religious than they started.

Those who switched into the Social Sciences were on average less religious and maintained or strengthened their already low religiosity.

Majoring in the Biological Sciences and the Physical Sciences did not affect students’ religious attendance but the Physical Sciences negatively affected the level importance of religion in their lives.

Surprisingly, majoring in education was found to increase religiosity both in terms of religious attendance and importance. Researchers also found a rise in religiosity for students in business.

Other findings show that students in the Sciences and Engineering experience large decreases in their trust in God compared to business majors. Those who are more ready to leave things to God are more likely to stay in the No College (never having attending college) and the Other/Undecided categories.

==============================

Study: Homeschoolers Scoring ‘Well Above’ Public School Peers (Christian Post, 090811)

The most comprehensive survey of homeschoolers in America in more than a decade found a large gap between students educated at home and those educated in public institutions.

In the nationwide study conducted by Dr. Brian D. Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute, homeschoolers were found to have scored 34-39 percentile points higher than the norm on standardized achievement tests. The homeschool national average ranged from the 84th percentile for language, math, and social studies to the 89th percentile for reading, reported the Home School Legal Defense Association, which commissioned Ray to conduct the survey in 2007.

According to HSLDA, anecdotal evidence of homeschooling’s success has been backed by multiple research studies. However, it has been at least 10 years since any major nationwide study of homeschooling was done.

During that time, the number of homeschooled children has grown from about 850,000 to approximately 1.5 million, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

“Homeschooling is a rapidly growing, thriving education movement that is challenging the conventional wisdom about the best way to raise and educate the next generation,” commented HSLDA president Michael Smith in his group’s announcement of the study Monday.

For the new study, touted as “the most comprehensive study of homeschool academic achievement ever completed,” Ray surveyed 11,739 homeschooled students from all 50 states, Guam, and Puerto Rico, and drew from 15 independent testing services.

Aside from the academic results, the study found that the achievement gaps common to public schools were not found in the homeschool community.

Homeschooled boys (87th percentile) and girls (88th percentile) scored equally well; the income level of parents did not appreciably affect the results (household income under $35,000: 85th percentile – household income over $70,000: 89th percentile); and while parent education level did have some impact, even children whose parents did not have college degrees scored in the 83rd percentile, which is well above the national average for public school students.

Homeschooled children whose parents both had college degrees scored in the 90th percentile.

“These results validate the dedication of hundreds of thousands of homeschool parents who are giving their children the best education possible,” commented Smith.

“Because of the one-on-one instruction homeschoolers receive, we are prepared academically to be productive and contributing members of today’s society,” he added.

According to the study, 82.4% of homeschooling parents identified themselves as Protestant Christian, 12.4 Roman Catholic, 1.1% atheist/agnostic, 0.8% Mormon, 0.4% Jewish, 0.2% Eastern Orthodox Christian, and 0.1% Muslim.

The vast majority (97.9%) of parents in the study was also married and had an average of 3.5 children compared to the general population’s average of 2.0 children.

The title of the study is “Progress Report 2009: Homeschool Academic Achievement and Demographics.”

==============================

Martial arts instructors condemn bully bashing (National Post, 090825)

Defence Training; OK to fight back against alleged harassers: mother

WINNIPEG — Martial arts instructors are condemning a Winnipeg mother’s decision to enrol her bullied son in kick-boxing classes and give him permission to retaliate against his tormentors.

The mother, who asked not to be named, gave her son the green light to “kick the snot out of “ his alleged tormentor when school starts next month.

But that vision of what selfdefence actually entails has self-defence experts cringing.

“Martial arts is not about kicking and punching,” said Sonny Pabuaya, instructor at Iron Fist Tae Kwon Do in Winnipeg. “That’s a misconception people have because that’s what they see in the movies.”

“Violence only invokes more violence,” said Diego Beltran, who runs Guardian Dojo-Kyokushin Karate Canada Inc. in Winnipeg. “I’m in total disagreement with the lady.”

The mother said a bully has been tormenting her son for years. Both boys are in their early teens, and have attended the same school in Louis Riel School Division.

“It’s about time he took a stand and stood up for himself,” she said in a recent interview with the Free Press. “He has my full permission to kick the snot out of [the other boy] if he comes up to him.”

Mr. Beltran and Mr. Pabuaya both stressed that selfdefence preaches mental discipline before physical training. Both emphasize verbal interaction to avoid heated confrontations.

“I teach my kids respect, discipline and courtesy and work on those three,” Mr. Beltran said. “Kicking and punching your way out is not necessarily the way to go. Foundations on respect of discipline and courtesy will teach you that.”

Mr. Pabuaya said he teaches his students through a variety of scenarios.

“I always teach, first of all, how to talk their way out of it,” he said. “They learn to have confidence in themselves because most of the time bullies start to bully kids who have a lack of confidence.”

A criminologist who specializes in bullying said the confidence the boy might draw from his martial arts training might help him—but not if it draws him into a cycle of retribution.

“If it builds his self-esteem, it can be a good thing,” said Brenda Morrison, professor of criminology at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. “[But] it’s better to walk away. Aggression usually breeds further violence. You can’t get to a good place in a bad way.”

She said she feels a lot of sympathy for the boy’s mother, who likely hasn’t made much headway trying to protect her son through appeals to school officials.

“Parents don’t necessarily get a lot of support [in cases of bullying],” she said. “I understand why parents would think that way, because they often just don’t want their children to be hurt anymore.

“[But] ... it’s typically going to escalate the problem.”

==============================

Angry Parents Suing California Schools Over Mandatory Gay-Friendly Classes (Foxnews, 090903)

Dion Evans addresses a meeting in California where parents spoke out about a mandatory class on gay families that will be taught to all elementary school students in the Alameda school district.

A lawsuit in California that was filed last month by angry parents who object to a gay-friendly curriculum they say is being foisted on kindergartners could well become a test case for schools around the country.

Parents in the Alameda Unified School District were refused the right to excuse their kids from classes that would teach all kids in the district’s elementary schools about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender alternative families.

The parents say they are concerned about “indoctrination” in the schools, but administrators say the course is needed to protect against sexual discrimination — and that the lessons are protected by laws in California and 10 other states.

Those states, which stretch from Washington to Maine, will now be eyeing the court results in California in a case that warring sides say pits parents’ rights against a schools’ responsibilities.

The contested California curriculum includes an annual 45-minute LGBT lesson taught to kids from kindergarten through the fifth grade. The kindergartners will focus on the harms of teasing, while the fifth graders will study sexual orientation stereotypes.

The move toward the new classes began two years ago, when teachers noticed that even kindergarten students were using derogatory words about sexuality, such as “fag.”

The FOX News Reporting unit was present at a debate in the school district in May when angry parents pushed back against the controversial lessons, capturing over 10 hours of heated dispute, which saw parents shouting back and forth across the aisle.

Some parents like Carrie Brash said the curriculum is necessary to combat bigotry that was already rearing its head among even young children, who were bullying her daughter in school.

Brash said her daughter had to endure taunting chants of “Lesbian, lesbian, your mom’s a lesbian,” from kids in school.

But other parents said the new curriculum ignores other kids who have been targeted for abuse.

“My child has been the product of bullying because she’s black,” said Dion Evans, who noted that students have “never viewed a single video in the classroom” that deals with racism.

But Evans said he wasn’t expecting the district to take care of what he called a parent’s duties in educating his daughter, as the school is “already (too) strapped for cash to incorporate these changes.”

“I know how to successfully parent, educate, and instill value and self-worth in my child,” he said.