As the Maryland General Assembly debates the state's budget crunch in special session, I have come to the conclusion that I must oppose the use of slots to close the budget gap. I have no problem with gambling and would actually like to see table games as well as slots. But right now, in this atmosphere, I must oppose slots.
There are a number of good reasons that people have to support or oppose slots, and everyone has good arguments. My issue with the way slots are being handled in the special session is two-fold.
First, as I have noted before, I think putting slots on a referendum is political cowardice to the extreme. Then making public the notion that failure to pass slots carries a lot of "catches" meaning that some "tax breaks" will not be enacted or money for schools, healthcare and other programs will be jeopardized is essentially blackmail of the voters by politicians who lack the spine and huevos to do what needs to be done, that is rein in our prolifigate spending.
Second, while the slots measures will no doubt generate a lot of revenue, that revenue is a crutch, no an addiction twice as bad as any gambling addiction. Legislators will get addicted to the revenue stream that slots and gaming generates and will not learn that the solution to a budget crisis is to tighten spending, cut back on non-essential services or find better and cheaper ways of providing vital services. So instead of fiscal responsibility, legislators, assuming the slots referendum passes, will get a rush of being able to "solve" our budget crunch without too much damage to their political fortunes. That is a rush this state can ill-afford.
The addiction wounds not only the current General Assembly but gets the state government, and local governments, hooked on a financial drug that permits them to spend prolifigately without consequence. This is the ultimate destruction of the slots addiction. If slots would be used to REPLACE income tax or sales tax or property tax streams, thereby giving a tax break to the average Marylander then I could support the use of slots to generate funds for the state. But right now slots are being used to AUGMENT revenue streams with no real cuts in spending. So instead of living within the means provided, Uncle Marty's Strategy is to expand the pockest of the state, rather than cut the spending.
Despite the rhetoric, slots will not put us on a path to fiscal health, but on a descent into addiction from which we may never recover.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
The Definition of Insanity
If one defines insanity, as I have done in the past, of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, then the House Democrats must be the most insane group of individual ever collected. Yesterday, the House passed, 218-203, a war funding bill that carries a mandate to withdraw troops from Iraq by the end of next year.
The problem for Democrats is not just a Bush veto, which is all but certain and impossible to override, but the fact that the move is nothing more than political posturing. While there may be a majority of Americans who want a different strategy in Iraq (although that supposition itself is now suspect), a vast majority of Americans don't want to abandon our troops while they are still on the field of battle. Cutting off their funds is the only thing Congress can do and they can't even do that effectively.
This move has been tried before and it failed before. The news coming out of Iraq is much more positive (even if not well covered) and America still has faith in its soldiers, if not in its president. In the end, the Democrats will have to cave and they will, one more time, show that they are incapable of leading on any issue.
The bill stands virtually no chance of being enacted. Amid recent reports of progress in Iraq, Bush, who is determined not to let Congress restrict how he conducts the war, has threatened a veto.After days of arm-twisting, the Democratic leadership could must only 218 votes, barely a majority of the entire House, a chamber controlled by Democrats. A pitiful showing at best.
Democrats know that but say that their efforts to limit the war since taking control of Congress in January are a political -- and, some say, moral -- necessity. "The American people voted for change," House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday. "We ought to extricate American men and women . . . from refereeing a civil war."
The measure angered the Bush administration. "This is for political posturing and to appease radical groups," chiefly MoveOn.org and Code Pink, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said yesterday.
The close vote reflected days of arm-twisting by Democratic leaders, who labored over language to satisfy the party's antiwar liberals and conservative Blue Dogs, and the White House, which dispatched Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to press its case. Early yesterday, Hoyer would say only that Democrats had a "winning" margin.
In a statement, the White House said the proposal "unwisely abandons the cause of freedom and stability in the Middle East."
Senate Republican leaders said they will allow a vote on the House bill, but only if they can offer their own version: a $70 billion package with no strings attached.
The problem for Democrats is not just a Bush veto, which is all but certain and impossible to override, but the fact that the move is nothing more than political posturing. While there may be a majority of Americans who want a different strategy in Iraq (although that supposition itself is now suspect), a vast majority of Americans don't want to abandon our troops while they are still on the field of battle. Cutting off their funds is the only thing Congress can do and they can't even do that effectively.
This move has been tried before and it failed before. The news coming out of Iraq is much more positive (even if not well covered) and America still has faith in its soldiers, if not in its president. In the end, the Democrats will have to cave and they will, one more time, show that they are incapable of leading on any issue.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Homework is Evil--NOT
At least many parents apparently think so. Charles J. Sykes comments on the strange crusade against homework at American Thinker.
Admittedly, there is homework that is a waste of students' time and energy. That particularly subspecies of homework can and should be eliminated. But homework, in general, is not a bad thing. The problem of course is that homework has come to be viewed,by students and their parents alike, as busy work. While the student perception is as common today as it may have always been, adults should know better and teachers should know better than parents. Homework, quite frankly, may not be utilized to its maximum potential. I am not arguing for more homework (or less homework), but for relevant homework.
Relevant homework serves two functions. First, it should reinforce current and revisit past lessons to reinforce knowledge or to keep skills sharp and refine those skills that may be getting rusty. This can be done, for example, by asking questions or presenting problems that draw on previous lessons. Second, homework should stretch the critical thinking skills of the students. This is done by presenting problems outside the norm, that call for applying what has been learned in other contexts to new situations. When employers and colleges decry the lack of critical thinking skills in the graduates they see, part of the problem is that critical thinking is not routinely asked of the students. If classtime is precious (and it most certainly is), then homework needs to be used to foster those critical thinking skills that, while clearly valuable, are apparently in short supply.
Don't get me wrong, there is nothing inherently wrong with some drill and kill exercises for younger students. But drills should last only as long as necessary. If 20 drill questions are enough, why give 50? Why not take the time to expand the ideas and apply them.
Make homework relevant and use it effectively. But the argument that homework is unnecessary or too time consuming is ridiculous, particularly when modern students spend so little time on homwork and so much time on other things.
This is a genuinely strange crusade.The problem with modern homework at least as it has been described to me by parents of older kids and my own decades ago experience, is relevance. Even my kindergarten daughter, who has about 30 minutes of homework a week, does not have homework that is designed to either expand or reinforce the skills and knowledge she is learning or needs to learn.
A generation of hyper-parents has larded their children's days with band practice, piano lessons, soccer practice, volleyball, martial arts, dance recitals, and swim classes. For their part, teens find time to spend something like 6 hours a day using various forms of media; Xbox 360 sales do not seem to be suffering because kids are too busy to play video games and the malls have not been emptied of teens.
And yet the cry goes up that it is Mrs. Grundy's history homework assignments that are destroying the innocence of childhood and wrecking the American family.
Of course, as any parent who has spent hours working on pointless dioramas and time-wasting cardboard volcanoes can testify, some of the complaints are not without some merit. But while some children undoubtedly do have too much homework, reports of a national homework crisis are highly exaggerated. In 2003, a study by the Brookings Institution found that the great majority of students at all grade levels now spend less than an hour a day studying, or about a quarter of the time they spend text messaging things like "NMHJC" (Not Much Here, Just Chilling) to one another.
Admittedly, there is homework that is a waste of students' time and energy. That particularly subspecies of homework can and should be eliminated. But homework, in general, is not a bad thing. The problem of course is that homework has come to be viewed,by students and their parents alike, as busy work. While the student perception is as common today as it may have always been, adults should know better and teachers should know better than parents. Homework, quite frankly, may not be utilized to its maximum potential. I am not arguing for more homework (or less homework), but for relevant homework.
Relevant homework serves two functions. First, it should reinforce current and revisit past lessons to reinforce knowledge or to keep skills sharp and refine those skills that may be getting rusty. This can be done, for example, by asking questions or presenting problems that draw on previous lessons. Second, homework should stretch the critical thinking skills of the students. This is done by presenting problems outside the norm, that call for applying what has been learned in other contexts to new situations. When employers and colleges decry the lack of critical thinking skills in the graduates they see, part of the problem is that critical thinking is not routinely asked of the students. If classtime is precious (and it most certainly is), then homework needs to be used to foster those critical thinking skills that, while clearly valuable, are apparently in short supply.
Don't get me wrong, there is nothing inherently wrong with some drill and kill exercises for younger students. But drills should last only as long as necessary. If 20 drill questions are enough, why give 50? Why not take the time to expand the ideas and apply them.
Make homework relevant and use it effectively. But the argument that homework is unnecessary or too time consuming is ridiculous, particularly when modern students spend so little time on homwork and so much time on other things.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Tocquevillian Federalism
What do Alexis De Tocqueville, immigration policy and federal education policy all have in common? If you answered federalism, you would be right, but not for the reasons you might think.
In the seminal observational document of American democracy, Tocqueville noted that American democracy is predicated upon the premise of national laws locally administered. In the 1830's this was not an option for the young republic. If Congress passed a law, the slow methods of communication, the small nature of the national government and the far flung nature of America at the time, all but demanded a certain reliance upon local government to not only promulgate federal law but to enforce it as well. In this respect the federal nature of the American democracy suited the rugged individualism of the American people. In short, those who administered the law had to look their neighbor in the eye when making decisions and that led to some different applications of the law to account for circumstances that Congress could not envision.
However, today, with rapid transit and even faster communications, we as a republic have lost some of that republican application. Congress can pass a law and a massive federal bureaucracy, backed up by a judiciary interested in even and consistent enforcement of the law, can execute a law without regard to sectional or local differences. Indeed, even the laws Congress passes are larger and more complex than ever before. To be sure, the world is more complex, but that complexity screams not for more complexity in the law, but for broader guidelines on the national level and local enforcement and administration.
Outside of health care, educaiton and immigration policy are likely to dominate the debate on domestic policy in the 2008 elections. On their face, there could be no two issues more different thatn these two. Education, a traditionally state and local govenrment responsibility, has become more and more federalized, even though the Framers, who thought education was vitally important, made no mention of education in the Constitution. In some respects that is not a bad thing, but in many other respects, education is a policy area screaming for Tocquevillian federalism. Immigration, on the other hand, a policy area expressly delegated to the Congress and federal government, is a policy area that Congress and the executive have nearly abdicated; paralyzed by interest group politics and our desire to not look mean-spirited on the international state. In the absence of federal leadership, more and more localities are stepping up to fill the void, only to be slapped down by judges who must read the law and see a federal pre-emption in this area.
A Tocquevillian federalism approach to both of these policy areas can provide immediate and lasting change. If Congress were to pass a set of broad federal goals in each of these areas of policy and empower the states and localities to enforce the law as their needs dictate, the goals of federal policy can be achieved and the proper functioning of our republic can be achieved.
As for immigration, the laws are already on the books that need to be enforced. Local law enforcement, typically tasked with enforcing state and local law, must still adhers to federal law. There is no reason to suspect that a local cop in incapable of enforcing federal law as well as state law. A local cop can check the immigration status of suspected illegal aliens and can begin the process of deportation just as easily as an ICE agent. Furthermore, a local cop in Thermopolis, WY has different immigration enforcement needs than a copy in El Paso, TX. If we empower the local police to help enforce federal immigration law, we can immediately and drastically increase the manpower to effectuate real immigration control.
On the education front, the more we read about states gaming the accountability system and the federal intereference in a traditionally state province, the more people are coming to realize that No Child Left Behind is better turned on its head. A national education standard, the goals and criteria that Congress believes indicates a well education child must serve as the goal of federal education policy. But that is where federal policy must end and state enforcment begins. This would be the ultimate in Tocquevillian Federalism, a broad national standard enforced by the states as best fits their conditions. States would be left to determine the remediation needed by schools that fail to meet the national standard. There would be no doubts as to what the standard is and the states woul be held accountable by their citizens, a more immediate accountabilty than a federal bureaucracy, for failure to prod schools to meet the standard.
Upon examining the Constitution and the specifically enumerated powers, there are some powers that must be undertaken by the national government alone. But in many other policy areas a Tocquevillian Federalism, of a national standard or law that is locally enforced can do wonders, but in terms of reducing the size of govnerment, but also in ensuring that national law does not become so large and complex so as to attempt to deal with every potentiality. As the U.S. Code has grown, the responsiveness and adaptiveness of federal law has declined. We need to embrace the idea that just because Congress can and actually does have the power to make legislation in a given area, does not necessarily mean that the states and local govenrments are incapable applying and enforcing that law.
In Tocqueville's time, such local administration was a necessity born of condition. Today, local administration is a necessity required by flexibility. Modern communications, instead of demanding centralized control, can actually effectuate local administration.
In the seminal observational document of American democracy, Tocqueville noted that American democracy is predicated upon the premise of national laws locally administered. In the 1830's this was not an option for the young republic. If Congress passed a law, the slow methods of communication, the small nature of the national government and the far flung nature of America at the time, all but demanded a certain reliance upon local government to not only promulgate federal law but to enforce it as well. In this respect the federal nature of the American democracy suited the rugged individualism of the American people. In short, those who administered the law had to look their neighbor in the eye when making decisions and that led to some different applications of the law to account for circumstances that Congress could not envision.
However, today, with rapid transit and even faster communications, we as a republic have lost some of that republican application. Congress can pass a law and a massive federal bureaucracy, backed up by a judiciary interested in even and consistent enforcement of the law, can execute a law without regard to sectional or local differences. Indeed, even the laws Congress passes are larger and more complex than ever before. To be sure, the world is more complex, but that complexity screams not for more complexity in the law, but for broader guidelines on the national level and local enforcement and administration.
Outside of health care, educaiton and immigration policy are likely to dominate the debate on domestic policy in the 2008 elections. On their face, there could be no two issues more different thatn these two. Education, a traditionally state and local govenrment responsibility, has become more and more federalized, even though the Framers, who thought education was vitally important, made no mention of education in the Constitution. In some respects that is not a bad thing, but in many other respects, education is a policy area screaming for Tocquevillian federalism. Immigration, on the other hand, a policy area expressly delegated to the Congress and federal government, is a policy area that Congress and the executive have nearly abdicated; paralyzed by interest group politics and our desire to not look mean-spirited on the international state. In the absence of federal leadership, more and more localities are stepping up to fill the void, only to be slapped down by judges who must read the law and see a federal pre-emption in this area.
A Tocquevillian federalism approach to both of these policy areas can provide immediate and lasting change. If Congress were to pass a set of broad federal goals in each of these areas of policy and empower the states and localities to enforce the law as their needs dictate, the goals of federal policy can be achieved and the proper functioning of our republic can be achieved.
As for immigration, the laws are already on the books that need to be enforced. Local law enforcement, typically tasked with enforcing state and local law, must still adhers to federal law. There is no reason to suspect that a local cop in incapable of enforcing federal law as well as state law. A local cop can check the immigration status of suspected illegal aliens and can begin the process of deportation just as easily as an ICE agent. Furthermore, a local cop in Thermopolis, WY has different immigration enforcement needs than a copy in El Paso, TX. If we empower the local police to help enforce federal immigration law, we can immediately and drastically increase the manpower to effectuate real immigration control.
On the education front, the more we read about states gaming the accountability system and the federal intereference in a traditionally state province, the more people are coming to realize that No Child Left Behind is better turned on its head. A national education standard, the goals and criteria that Congress believes indicates a well education child must serve as the goal of federal education policy. But that is where federal policy must end and state enforcment begins. This would be the ultimate in Tocquevillian Federalism, a broad national standard enforced by the states as best fits their conditions. States would be left to determine the remediation needed by schools that fail to meet the national standard. There would be no doubts as to what the standard is and the states woul be held accountable by their citizens, a more immediate accountabilty than a federal bureaucracy, for failure to prod schools to meet the standard.
Upon examining the Constitution and the specifically enumerated powers, there are some powers that must be undertaken by the national government alone. But in many other policy areas a Tocquevillian Federalism, of a national standard or law that is locally enforced can do wonders, but in terms of reducing the size of govnerment, but also in ensuring that national law does not become so large and complex so as to attempt to deal with every potentiality. As the U.S. Code has grown, the responsiveness and adaptiveness of federal law has declined. We need to embrace the idea that just because Congress can and actually does have the power to make legislation in a given area, does not necessarily mean that the states and local govenrments are incapable applying and enforcing that law.
In Tocqueville's time, such local administration was a necessity born of condition. Today, local administration is a necessity required by flexibility. Modern communications, instead of demanding centralized control, can actually effectuate local administration.
San Jose 2.0 to Play in MLS in 2008 and Seattle in 2009
Major League Soccer announced today that USL-1 team Seattle Sounders will be an expansion franchise for the 2009 season and San Jose Earthquakes will reopen in 2008 after moving to Houston a couple of years ago.
The Seattle team will be owned by Hollywood movie studio executive Joe Roth, Seattle Sounders managing partner Adrian Hanauer and Vulcan Sports and Entertainment, the owner of the NFL's Seattle Seahawks.Cool. With a possibility of 18 clubs in the MLS by 2012, can we get some talk going again about merger between MLS and USL?
Upward Mobility
The Wall Street Journal talks about a Treasury Department study showing that upward mobility in terms of economics is much more common than the doom and gloom naysayers who insist that a growing economic divide exists in our country. The Journal calls the income inequality "hokum" and it looks like the data supports that notion.
I would like to take a deeper look at the methodology, but the sample size is more than sufficient and the movements are dramatic. This time frame includes the boom years of the 1990's and the market skids of the past couple of years as they related to 9/11 and other international events. I wonder if 9/11 had not happened what the results would be. Surely the top 1% might not have taken the beating they did, but would the poor have gotten much richer?
The Treasury study examined a huge sample of 96,700 income tax returns from 1996 and 2005 for Americans over the age of 25. The study tracks what happened to these tax filers over this 10-year period. One of the notable, and reassuring, findings is that nearly 58% of filers who were in the poorest income group in 1996 had moved into a higher income category by 2005. Nearly 25% jumped into the middle or upper-middle income groups, and 5.3% made it all the way to the highest quintile.Oh some people's real income declined in the 10 year period--those dastargly to 1% of income earners:
Of those in the second lowest income quintile, nearly 50% moved into the middle quintile or higher, and only 17% moved down. This is a stunning show of upward mobility, meaning that more than half of all lower-income Americans in 1996 had moved up the income scale in only 10 years.
Also encouraging is the fact that the after-inflation median income of all tax filers increased by an impressive 24% over the same period. Two of every three workers had a real income gain--which contradicts the Huckabee-Edwards-Lou Dobbs spin about stagnant incomes. This is even more impressive when you consider that "median" income and wage numbers are often skewed downward because the U.S. has had a huge influx of young workers and immigrants in the last 20 years. They start their work years with low wages, dragging down the averages.
Only one income group experienced an absolute decline in real income--the richest 1% in 1996. Those households lost 25.8% of their income. Moreover, more than half (57.4%) of the richest 1% in 1996 had dropped to a lower income group by 2005. Some of these people might have been "rich" merely for one year, or perhaps for several, as they hit their peak earning years or had some capital gains windfall. Others may simply have not been able to keep up with new entrepreneurs and wealth creators.So for at least this study, the rich did not get richer--they got poorer and the poor didn't get poorer--they got richer.
I would like to take a deeper look at the methodology, but the sample size is more than sufficient and the movements are dramatic. This time frame includes the boom years of the 1990's and the market skids of the past couple of years as they related to 9/11 and other international events. I wonder if 9/11 had not happened what the results would be. Surely the top 1% might not have taken the beating they did, but would the poor have gotten much richer?
A 'FORGOTTEN' WAR
Makes you wonder?
LAST weekend's news coverage of our veterans was welcome, but deceptive. The "mainstream media" honored aging heroes and noted the debt we owe to today's wounded warriors - but deftly avoided in-depth coverage from Iraq. Why? Because things are going annoyingly well.
All those reporters, editors and producers who predicted - longed for - an American defeat have moved on to more pressing strategic issues, such as O.J.'s latest shenanigans.
Oh, if you turned to the inner pages of the "leading" newspapers, you found grudging mention of the fact that roadside-bomb attacks are down by half and indirect-fire attacks by three-quarters while the number of suicide bombings has plummeted.
Far fewer Iraqi civilians are dying at the hands of extremists. U.S. and Coalition casualty rates have fallen dramatically. The situation has changed so unmistakably and so swiftly that we should be reading proud headlines daily.
Where are they? Is it really so painful for all those war-porno journos to accept that our military - and the Iraqis - may have turned the situation around? Shouldn't we read and see and hear a bit of praise for today's soldiers and the progress they're making?
Teen Sex and Delinquency
Via Slate.com:
Methinks there may be some flaws in methodology or samples.
A study suggests the earlier you lose your virginity, the less likely you are to become a delinquent. Old finding: Kids who have early sex become delinquents. New findings: 1) When you eliminate genetic differences by comparing twins, those who have sex earlier don't become more delinquent. 2) Compared with fraternal twins, identical twins lose their virginity at relatively similar ages, which implies that the age at which you lose your virginity is genetically influenced. 3) In fact, 'adolescents who had sex at younger ages were less likely to end up delinquent than those who lost their virginity later.' Researchers' conclusions: 1) Early sex and delinquency share a genetic basis, probably in propensity to take risks. 2) For teens with risk-taking genes, 'sexual relationships may offer an alternative to trouble.' Old advice: Pet your dog, not your date. New advice: Pop a cherry, not a cap. Bonus report: Kids who smoke pot (but not cigarettes) are 'significantly more likely to practice sports and they have a better relationship with their peers' than kids who smoke neither. (Related: the case for lowering the age of sexual consent.)(links in original omitted)If teen sex prevents delinquency, then it not a genetic think, but a time thing, if you are too busy having sex, you can't be breaking other laws.
Methinks there may be some flaws in methodology or samples.
What of the Jena 6 funds?
Ther perils of raising money for legal defense funds and then allowing more or less unfettered access to the money are detailed here in a story on the Jena 6 legal defense fund.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Teachers Evaluating Teachers
Saw this in the Washington Post over the weekend. Early on, teachers could be fired if a parent complained or enough parents complained, or if a teacher didn't vote for the right politician.
Elena Silva has some comments as well.
Over time, to address these abuses, states passed tenure laws for teachers, and unions bargained for "due process" rights: the right to have charges laid out when dismissal was sought and the opportunity to defend oneself against the allegations. This right is at the heart of unionism, and in 1968 teachers in New York City, led by the late Albert Shanker, went on strike for 36 days after a school board in the ghetto of Ocean Hill-Brownsville summarily terminated the employment of several white teachers without due process.Tenure is okay, but it doesn't mean that tenure is a sheild against incompetence.
By the 1980s, however, Shanker and other leaders of teachers unions came to acknowledge that in some school districts the right to due process had been taken to an extreme, making it very difficult to fire incompetent teachers. Shanker was willing to admit that there were some lousy teachers, and he backed a compromise plan to weed out the incompetent while preserving the basic idea of tenure: "peer review." Under peer review, which is used in Toledo, Ohio, and other communities, master teachers try to help struggling teachers. But if that doesn't work, the master teachers can recommend dismissal.
In practice, in Toledo and elsewhere, it turns out that teachers are even harder on colleagues than principals are, because a fourth-grade teacher doesn't want to get stuck with kids who haven't learned anything in third grade.
Peer review would not be a cure-all in D.C. schools, where a large number of teachers are seen as lacking. For such a system to work well, only exemplary teachers should be placed on review committees, and peer review programs to rid the District of the very worst teachers must be supplemented by innovative programs to replace them with the very best. But Rhee and Washington Teachers' Union President George Parker should take a close look at the peer review model. Tenure should be mended, not ended.
Elena Silva has some comments as well.
In Montgomery County, MD, for example, to be "put on PAR"– the county's peer assistance and review (PAR) program– means you've been evaluated by master teachers (not at your own school) as needing some form of remediation. For new teachers, this means more targeted professional development, which is often welcome. For veterans, this sometimes works as a reality check and a decision point– it either lights a fire under them to teach in new and better ways (pride swallowed) or reminds them that they forgot to retire or find a second career. I know a teacher who left after 20 years of teaching b/c she was put on PAR- it was the first time, she said, that she really "heard" the problem– she was a good teacher for the honors kids and a horrible one for the on-level kids, which is where she'd been placed by a well-meaning principal who was trying to put the experienced teachers with the kids who needed the most help. She didn't want to go through the program after 20 years of teaching, so she left. This is too bad for the honors kids she might have taught but, in the end, she says she's happier and says she had been thinking about leaving for years. And it's definitely better for the on-level kids who she was failing. She counsels kids for elite college placement now– probably what she should be doing.
DC Schools Via a Case Study--Not the Intended Lesson.
The problems with case studies in reporting is that they demonstrate the problems one student faces as some sort of shorthand for larger problems. While larger problems are mentioned, what you reall get is a story about a young person, and in the case study of Jonathan Lewis, a kid who went to Calvin Coolidge High School in Washington, DC, the case study, in two parts, is not about DC schools failing, but about one student failing.
The Post's Lonnae O'Neal Parker's profile of young Mr. Lewis is more a case study of one young man's apathy than about the notoriously inept DC school system. The two part study began on Sunday, with a lengthy peice on Mr. Lewis. The series concluded today, with what was all but a foregone conclusion of Sunday's article. Jonathan Lewis was a B student up through about the 10th grade, by his own admission. But in his junior and two senior years, he all but quit.
But throughout the story, there is but one inescapable conclusion about Jonathan Lewis I keep coming to--he just doesn't care. A quote by his principal, L. Nelson Burton, himself a Coolidge graduate who nearly dropped out, says it all:
Still, I find it hard to feel sorry for Mr. Lewis, if that is what I am supposed to feel. A classmate of his says this:
While some of the fiasco's described in the stories are systemic and are being addressed by Chancellor Michelle Rhee, it is very hard to see how and why Jonathan should be viewed as a symbolic case of the poor condition of DC schools. In his story, he was not screwed by the system. The powers that be did not make mistakes that brought him to the brink of dropping out. The school system did not cause him to fail his senior year--twice. Calvin Coolidge, while it has a share of fights and problems, is not the worst school in the district. To be sure, there are real problems in the DC school system and it may be that those problems contribute to a poor education experience for many, if not most students. I have no doubt that Chancellor Michelle Rhee is working on the systemic problems, poor teachers, lack of proper facilities, lack of proper administrative tools and programs, textbooks and the like.
In the end, what Jonathan Lewis' long story did for me was to remind me how young men and women can be excused for their own behavior by society. That is exactly what this Post writer did, probably without even realizing it. But even if the DC school system was as good as say Montgomery County Maryland or Fairfax County Virginia, it is hard to see what could have been done to prevent Jonathan Lewis from screwing himself up and over. In teh end, the DC schools did not fail (though they may have tried), Jonathan Lewis did and in the end, that is all that matters.
The Post's Lonnae O'Neal Parker's profile of young Mr. Lewis is more a case study of one young man's apathy than about the notoriously inept DC school system. The two part study began on Sunday, with a lengthy peice on Mr. Lewis. The series concluded today, with what was all but a foregone conclusion of Sunday's article. Jonathan Lewis was a B student up through about the 10th grade, by his own admission. But in his junior and two senior years, he all but quit.
"I started having problems about 11th grade, started, like, skipping class and stuff," Jonathan says. "I didn't want to go to class, didn't want to write, didn't want to do work."While Jonathan doesn't live with his father, his father is nearby and involved in the boy's life. His mother is on his case and clearly involved in his education and has regular conversations with his teachers and the school principal.
"He got in with the wrong crowd," his mother chimes in.
That's part of it, Jonathan says, "being influenced by them sometimes, wanting to do what they did, walk the halls and stuff."
Maybe if more teachers had been like Ms. Cruz-Gonzalez, things could have been different, he ventures. "She takes time to, like, help you understand. Like if she went over something, she'd go over it again till you get it." Not like some teachers, he says, who just pass out work sheets. "You ask a question, they, like, brush you off. They just catch attitudes, like you wasn't paying attention or something." It makes you say, "Forget it. I don't even want to know."
It makes you "feel like nothing."
As to why he didn't graduate last year: "I just got lazy."
But throughout the story, there is but one inescapable conclusion about Jonathan Lewis I keep coming to--he just doesn't care. A quote by his principal, L. Nelson Burton, himself a Coolidge graduate who nearly dropped out, says it all:
"I don't think you're going to meet a student, or anyone, for that matter, who doesn't want to graduate from high school. They all want to. Everyone wants a diploma, but not everyone wants to do the work required for it."Burton, who is only 34, is the seventh principal at Coolidge in nine years. He has made some changes, but must, like all DC school administrators, fight with a number of issues, from fights and poor teachers to apathetic students to systemic failures--the scheduling and transctripts matter described in Part 2 is simply frightening in the age of modern computers.
Still, I find it hard to feel sorry for Mr. Lewis, if that is what I am supposed to feel. A classmate of his says this:
You have to be on top of your own stuff. . . . You have to look out for yourself, because there's really nothing you can do, for real. . . . It's not like someone tells you that. You have to figure it out yourself. Ibijoke Akinbowale, 17, 12th gradeThat is it in a nutshell. A young man at Lewis' age should have learned this lesson, if not for himself, at least for the effort his mother and father have gone through to see him complete high school. While Jonathan finally did graduate after summer school following his fifth year in high school, it is very hard to feel sorry for this young man. His teachers all but bent over backward to help him. His mother was apparently a fixture on the phone and in person at the school. His father incentivized him in legitimate ways. Yet he took advantage of none of these offers of help and assistance.
While some of the fiasco's described in the stories are systemic and are being addressed by Chancellor Michelle Rhee, it is very hard to see how and why Jonathan should be viewed as a symbolic case of the poor condition of DC schools. In his story, he was not screwed by the system. The powers that be did not make mistakes that brought him to the brink of dropping out. The school system did not cause him to fail his senior year--twice. Calvin Coolidge, while it has a share of fights and problems, is not the worst school in the district. To be sure, there are real problems in the DC school system and it may be that those problems contribute to a poor education experience for many, if not most students. I have no doubt that Chancellor Michelle Rhee is working on the systemic problems, poor teachers, lack of proper facilities, lack of proper administrative tools and programs, textbooks and the like.
In the end, what Jonathan Lewis' long story did for me was to remind me how young men and women can be excused for their own behavior by society. That is exactly what this Post writer did, probably without even realizing it. But even if the DC school system was as good as say Montgomery County Maryland or Fairfax County Virginia, it is hard to see what could have been done to prevent Jonathan Lewis from screwing himself up and over. In teh end, the DC schools did not fail (though they may have tried), Jonathan Lewis did and in the end, that is all that matters.
Washington Teachers Union Embezzlement Payback
In Jaunary of 2004, former Washington DC Education Association Presidetn Barbara Bullock was sentenced to nine years in prison for embezzlement. Bullock had embezzled some $4.5 million in funds from the teacher's union treasury and bought some extravagent, by any standard, items, including fur coats (lots of them--including some she had never worm) and silver serving sets complete with a berry spoon and ice cream forks. Well the teacher's union was getting pay back yesterday as an auction of Bullock's ill-gotten goods was held.
Union Controller Derrick Palmer smiled as the auction began, seeing dollar signs ringing up in the union's register. Not all the items were for sale at this auction, and it was unclear exactly how much money was made. Union officials are hoping to recoup up to $3 million of the $4.5 million that Bullock was convicted of stealing.To bad some 33 percent of the money can never be returned.
"I can't wait to deposit it all," Palmer said as he gazed at 19th-century Tiffany silver in an oak Tiffany box designed with a special compartment for each piece.
[snip]
There were 13 furs and 37 handbags up for auction from a variety of designers: Fendi, Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Escada, Dolce & Gabbana, Judith Leiber and Kieselstein-Cord. Bullock was a fan of Chanel purses: There were 11 in various colors and designs.
Friday, November 09, 2007
More DC School Corruption
While the history of DC schools generally includes a large chunk of incompetence, the place is not without more than it share of graft. Whether is the the theivery of the DC Teacher's Union president or the larceny of charter school officials, the graft and corruption was there. But latest story is just dispicable:
To a certain extent, such troubles are predictable, and not just because DC schools have a lot of corruption. Theft, or more accurately embezzlement, it made possible two things: Opportunity and lack of oversight. Those people whose job it is to maintain these funds often do so without any real regular oversight. The money is often brought to them in cash, by the kids. The kids, arguably, make a mistake in their tally and a few dollars here and there are skimmed off.
The mismanagement is rampant and the story details the sorry state of affairs and the pitiable consequences to students.
So what can be done. Just have some basic accounting practices put in place. Two people to count and verify all deposits. Two signatures on all checks. The person who writes checks doesn't manage the bank reconciliations. Annual audits and audits whenever the person with primary responsibility for the accounts change, etc. These are not rocket science accounting procedures but what all of these procedures do is make the opportunity for embezzlement much smaller.
After all this is not their money, it is money that belongs to the kids and is for their use and enjoyment.
The fundraising drive by the Moten Center chess club had an underdog appeal. Most of the elementary school children had been removed from other D.C. schools for behavioral problems. Through the discipline of chess, they were learning life lessons: patience, focus, strategic thinking.Keep in mind that this money is not taxpayer money, not directly anyway, and is usually the result of a great deal of effort by the students themselves. This is just another item on the list of things that Chancellor Michelle Rhee has to deal with, even though she shouldn't have to.
In the spring of 2003, they were selling hot dogs and candy to try to pay their way to a national tournament. After their efforts were publicized in a newspaper column, money poured in from businesses, school officials, the public and even the principal's mother -- more than $72,000 in all, according to records and interviews. Eleven students, from some of the District's poorest neighborhoods, flew to Nashville.
Days after they returned home, somebody began raiding their leftover money. Most of it was stolen. Last week -- four years after the theft and following inquiries from The Washington Post -- authorities filed criminal charges against a former employee at the school.
The theft from the chess club is among dozens of instances in which D.C. public school employees or others have stolen or misused student activity money, a Post investigation has found. Management of the funds is chaotic, oversight is ineffective and the people responsible for plundering or squandering the money are rarely held accountable, according to internal audits, court documents, interviews and school records.
The failure to safeguard student money is a symptom of a public school system that has defied reform for decades and of a culture in which rules are broken with impunity.
"It's a travesty," said Vaughn Bennett, a former firefighter who was the Moten chess club's volunteer coach. "This is the kind of thing that stops D.C. schools from having an atmosphere of success."
Almost all of the District's 146 public schools have student activity funds -- bank accounts in which they deposit proceeds from bake sales, vending machines and sporting events, as well as charitable donations and, sometimes, federal grants. The funds take in as much as $6 million annually citywide, records show. A small elementary school might have only a few hundred dollars. But the fund at Cardozo High School reached $400,000 this year after a graduate bequeathed more than $200,000, records show. The student account at Wilson High School has deposits totaling more than $700,000 annually.
To a certain extent, such troubles are predictable, and not just because DC schools have a lot of corruption. Theft, or more accurately embezzlement, it made possible two things: Opportunity and lack of oversight. Those people whose job it is to maintain these funds often do so without any real regular oversight. The money is often brought to them in cash, by the kids. The kids, arguably, make a mistake in their tally and a few dollars here and there are skimmed off.
The mismanagement is rampant and the story details the sorry state of affairs and the pitiable consequences to students.
So what can be done. Just have some basic accounting practices put in place. Two people to count and verify all deposits. Two signatures on all checks. The person who writes checks doesn't manage the bank reconciliations. Annual audits and audits whenever the person with primary responsibility for the accounts change, etc. These are not rocket science accounting procedures but what all of these procedures do is make the opportunity for embezzlement much smaller.
After all this is not their money, it is money that belongs to the kids and is for their use and enjoyment.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Teen Wins Fight for Antiabortion Club at School - washingtonpost.com
From the Washington Post, a Virginia teenager dropped a lawsuit after school officials reversed their initial decision to not allow an anti-abortion club.
We are a nation of associations and to deny an voluntary association of students seems a little ham handed. At least someone got a common sense knock on the head and allowed the group to go forward.
School administrators initially turned down Hoffmeier's request to start the club at Colonial Forge High School on the grounds that it was not tied to the school curriculum. She filed suit in federal court in Alexandria, contending that her proposal could not be denied when other clubs are allowed to form on campus. The suit put a spotlight on an often-misunderstood legal arena involving religion in public schools. Even some advocates of strict separation of church and state say religious speech by students at public school is protected under the Constitution and federal law.One probably doesn't have to look hard to find clubs that aren't tied to the cirriculum. For example, I don't recall seeing chess on my high school curriculum, but there was a chess club. The list could go on and on.
We are a nation of associations and to deny an voluntary association of students seems a little ham handed. At least someone got a common sense knock on the head and allowed the group to go forward.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Freedome of Speech Does Not Speech Free of Consequences.
I think one of the more interesting items to come out of my views on the Maryland funeral case was the realization that although people claim to believe in free speech, there are a number of people who don't really get it.
I believe that what the Westboro Church was doind was free speech, as dispicable and deplorable as it was. But the fact of the matter is, they have a right to their views and their speech. And, like it or not, this is a case that is likely to end up on the Supreme Court docket and there is a chance that a lot of people are not going to like the result, including the Snyder family. I got two comments on my original post and a couple of nasty emails and I thought it worth addressing a few points.
First, Darren, a blog friend who is also a former military officer noted that reasonable time, place and manner restrictions are permitted on speech and he is absolutely correct. But here is the thing that is missing from all this discussion. The protesters were some 1,000 feet from the funeral on public land. A number of states have laws on the books (Maryland does not from what I have found in an admittedly cursory search), that prohibit any protesting of any type within a certain distace of a funeral for a period of time before or after a funeral. Such laws will essentially be challenged by this case. And as Michael Dorf writes, the laws are likely to be upheld. But a court is going to have to decide how far is reasonable. Thus the crux of the matter.
The Ridger, FCD said that this is not a free speech issue, noting "Your right to free speech doesn't come with a right to go anywhere you want in order to talk." Again, this is like the matter Darren brings up. There are reasonable restrictions on time, place and manner. But the line is fuzzy and hard to discern, especially when it comes to political speech (and like it or not Westboro's speech is political in nature). But inherent in teh freedom of speech is the right to do it where you choose. While the government can impose certain restrictions on the time, place and manner of your speech, it cannot ban it. And if the time, place and manner restrictions are so onerous as to effectively silence your chosen speech or the restrictions so take away your intended audience, then those restrictions are likely to be unconstitutional. So, if a state said groups cannot protest a military funeral like the Snyder's funeral for two days before and two days after the event--that would be too onerous. Freedom of speech implies a certain freedom to be heard. That doesn't mean I have to listen, but I have to allow you to be heard and the government has the same duty.
One emailer clearly has not read this blog to get even a feeling for my views on freedom of speech. This right, above all others, I hold most dear. Sometimes, believing in an ideal makes it really hard to accept that some practitinoers of that right still deserve protection. This emailer, who shall remain anonymous, likened my protection of Westboro as an endorsement of their views. This could not be further from the truth. I don't like the KKK, but I will protect their right to speak. I don't protect their right to harm, threaten or intimidate people. Similarly with Westboro, I don't like their politics and I think their views on the Bible and American policy are narrow-minded and bigoted, but they have a right to their opinions and a right to express them.
But lost on this emailer was an important point and one that I think too many free speech advocates on both sides of the political spectrum forget. Free speech means that you have a right to say what you think, and it is a right that I will defend wtih every fiber in my being. However, free speech does not mean speech free of consequences. Speech can and often does carry consequences, which is why I think that the Snyder case on appeal will actually be a split decision. The Appeals Court will probably say that the damage award for intentional infliction of emotional distress will likely be affirmed, but that shall be the only basis for the award. Westboro will be vindicated in their right to speak their message, but they will not be allowed to speak without consquences.
This important point is lost on many Americans when it comes to our rights. Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. One cannot expect to exercise a right and then shuck the responsibility that comes with those words. Westboro has a bigoted message, a message that they can speak and have a right to speak, but with that right comes responsibilities and you cannot escape the consequences of your speech by wrapping yourself in the cloak of the First Amendment.
I believe that what the Westboro Church was doind was free speech, as dispicable and deplorable as it was. But the fact of the matter is, they have a right to their views and their speech. And, like it or not, this is a case that is likely to end up on the Supreme Court docket and there is a chance that a lot of people are not going to like the result, including the Snyder family. I got two comments on my original post and a couple of nasty emails and I thought it worth addressing a few points.
First, Darren, a blog friend who is also a former military officer noted that reasonable time, place and manner restrictions are permitted on speech and he is absolutely correct. But here is the thing that is missing from all this discussion. The protesters were some 1,000 feet from the funeral on public land. A number of states have laws on the books (Maryland does not from what I have found in an admittedly cursory search), that prohibit any protesting of any type within a certain distace of a funeral for a period of time before or after a funeral. Such laws will essentially be challenged by this case. And as Michael Dorf writes, the laws are likely to be upheld. But a court is going to have to decide how far is reasonable. Thus the crux of the matter.
The Ridger, FCD said that this is not a free speech issue, noting "Your right to free speech doesn't come with a right to go anywhere you want in order to talk." Again, this is like the matter Darren brings up. There are reasonable restrictions on time, place and manner. But the line is fuzzy and hard to discern, especially when it comes to political speech (and like it or not Westboro's speech is political in nature). But inherent in teh freedom of speech is the right to do it where you choose. While the government can impose certain restrictions on the time, place and manner of your speech, it cannot ban it. And if the time, place and manner restrictions are so onerous as to effectively silence your chosen speech or the restrictions so take away your intended audience, then those restrictions are likely to be unconstitutional. So, if a state said groups cannot protest a military funeral like the Snyder's funeral for two days before and two days after the event--that would be too onerous. Freedom of speech implies a certain freedom to be heard. That doesn't mean I have to listen, but I have to allow you to be heard and the government has the same duty.
One emailer clearly has not read this blog to get even a feeling for my views on freedom of speech. This right, above all others, I hold most dear. Sometimes, believing in an ideal makes it really hard to accept that some practitinoers of that right still deserve protection. This emailer, who shall remain anonymous, likened my protection of Westboro as an endorsement of their views. This could not be further from the truth. I don't like the KKK, but I will protect their right to speak. I don't protect their right to harm, threaten or intimidate people. Similarly with Westboro, I don't like their politics and I think their views on the Bible and American policy are narrow-minded and bigoted, but they have a right to their opinions and a right to express them.
But lost on this emailer was an important point and one that I think too many free speech advocates on both sides of the political spectrum forget. Free speech means that you have a right to say what you think, and it is a right that I will defend wtih every fiber in my being. However, free speech does not mean speech free of consequences. Speech can and often does carry consequences, which is why I think that the Snyder case on appeal will actually be a split decision. The Appeals Court will probably say that the damage award for intentional infliction of emotional distress will likely be affirmed, but that shall be the only basis for the award. Westboro will be vindicated in their right to speak their message, but they will not be allowed to speak without consquences.
This important point is lost on many Americans when it comes to our rights. Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. One cannot expect to exercise a right and then shuck the responsibility that comes with those words. Westboro has a bigoted message, a message that they can speak and have a right to speak, but with that right comes responsibilities and you cannot escape the consequences of your speech by wrapping yourself in the cloak of the First Amendment.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Closing the Achievement Gap
When I was in elementary and middle school, lo so many years ago, it was common practice to track students, that is put them in courses based upon their academic ability. This was fine, so far as it went, but it did mean that some students who were generally basic in some classes, like math or science, could get tracked in to classes beneath their skill level in say English or History or some other mix. Since my time in school, tracking fell out of favor. The funny thing is that tracking only took place for some courses, allowing for advanced education in some subjects. But in other subjects, say required courses, like government, students of all abilty levels were put in one class.
However, the idea of grouping students based on their ability makes a great deal of sense. The fears of tracking are real and relevant. But at least in one school in Montgomery County, it looks like performance based grouping is closing the achievment gap.
So the practice was reimplemented and test scores have soared to an all time high. The achievement gap still remains but for far fewer students than even last year.
So why isn't the practice being replicated all over the county or even the whole country? After all, performance based grouping occurs in high school, for example not every student takes calculus. Simple, it looks too much like tracking and it can be interpreted as labeling kids. However, when dealing with limited resourced, it makes the most sense. Students don't spend the entire day in grouped classes, but they do spend a great deal of time in grouped classes. By focusing on performance levels, the school leadership can use their teaching skills to the greatest effect as well. The results appear to bear out the theory.
What schools like Montgomery county or other counties serving mixed populations would be to study the Rock View example and replicate it on a larger scale, say a dozen elementary schools. If the results enjoyed by Rock View are seen on a wider scale, then we have a localized phenomenon. If the results are replicated, then maybe we might be on to something.
However, the idea of grouping students based on their ability makes a great deal of sense. The fears of tracking are real and relevant. But at least in one school in Montgomery County, it looks like performance based grouping is closing the achievment gap.
The technique, called performance-based grouping, is uncommon in the region. Some educators believe it too closely resembles tracking, the outmoded practice of assigning students to inflexible academic tracks by ability.What strikes me as odd is the basic logic of the system, logic that is often lacking when it comes to education.
Educators say Rock View, however, is using the same basic concept to opposite effect, and the results have been positive. While some other Montgomery County schools serving low-income populations have posted higher test scores, few have shown such improvement or consistency across socioeconomic and racial lines.
Roberson decided that regrouping students by performance level would make the most of her limited staff, which was struggling to deliver lessons to a student body with wide-ranging abilities.The school's principal implemented the program in 2001 and test scores throught the school improved significantly. Still school officials worried, so they ordered the school to stop performance based grouping in 2004 and 2005, what happened? Test scores declined.
"When you have all the students who are academically alike for 90 minutes and you don't have to split them up and give 30 minutes to each group, you get more bang for your buck," she said.
School system administrators were uncomfortable with the arrangement. Nothing resembling tracking was going on in the county. Few, if any, elementary schools grouped children into classrooms by ability to the extent that Roberson was proposing.
So the practice was reimplemented and test scores have soared to an all time high. The achievement gap still remains but for far fewer students than even last year.
So why isn't the practice being replicated all over the county or even the whole country? After all, performance based grouping occurs in high school, for example not every student takes calculus. Simple, it looks too much like tracking and it can be interpreted as labeling kids. However, when dealing with limited resourced, it makes the most sense. Students don't spend the entire day in grouped classes, but they do spend a great deal of time in grouped classes. By focusing on performance levels, the school leadership can use their teaching skills to the greatest effect as well. The results appear to bear out the theory.
What schools like Montgomery county or other counties serving mixed populations would be to study the Rock View example and replicate it on a larger scale, say a dozen elementary schools. If the results enjoyed by Rock View are seen on a wider scale, then we have a localized phenomenon. If the results are replicated, then maybe we might be on to something.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Playing with Poll Numbers
How the AP defines the 'vast majority of parents' is suspect.
I wonder what would have happened if the question was "Do support MIDDLE schools giving birth controls to students WITHOUT parental consent OR knowledge?"
I also liked the question, How many of you have school aged children and the response was that 2/3 of survey respondents didn't have school kids? Talk about a bad sampling for that question. Compare the numbers--there is an odd coincidence there, or is it an odd coincidence.
I wonder what would have happened if the question was "Do support MIDDLE schools giving birth controls to students WITHOUT parental consent OR knowledge?"
I also liked the question, How many of you have school aged children and the response was that 2/3 of survey respondents didn't have school kids? Talk about a bad sampling for that question. Compare the numbers--there is an odd coincidence there, or is it an odd coincidence.
$1 Million Dollar Fine in FEC Case
Wow! for funneling $78,000 in corporate contributions to federal candidates. That is a hefty price to pay.
This little tidbit may have gone unnoticed in the Press Release: The FEC has assessed $4.7 million in fines this year and $6.2 million last year.
This little tidbit may have gone unnoticed in the Press Release: The FEC has assessed $4.7 million in fines this year and $6.2 million last year.
Funeral Award Violates Free Speech
My first reaction to this news about a huge jury award against a church that had protested at the funeral of a fallen soldier, was "Good." But my second reaction was more measured.
Sure, what the Westboro Baptist Church did at the funeral of Matthew Snyder, a Marine killed in Iraq. Westboro believes that the deaths of soldiers are the direct consequence of America's tolerance of homosexuality and gays in the military. The churc is known for protesting a funerals of fallen soldiers carrying placards that read "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and other messages along the same lines.
The jury had found the Westboro Baptist Church liable for invading the expectation of privacy of the soldier's family and intentional infliction of emotional distress. I am not sure whether the full verdict will hold up on appeal because I am not sure that the family had an expectation of privacy in a public place, but they may still prevail on the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
This is why I am so torn about this case. The church and church members have a legitimate right to free speech and I will defend their right to be idiots, zealots and bigots despite my belief that they are wrong. However, while I don't think the family had a legitimate reasonable expectation of privacy at a funeral occuring in a public place, I tend to think that we can't just give people a free pass on free speech grounds for the consequences that their speech may cause. But by the same token, free speech isn't free if we hold people accountable for words that are not libelous or slanderous.
While as a military man, I don't think Westboro should be exonerated, as a ardent believer in the First Amendment, I think they are entitled to a reversal on appeal.
Sometimes free speech hurts, but as I have said before, freedom of speech is not about the speech we all like, it is about the speech that makes our blood boil and you can't abandon the ideal when it suits your world view.
Crossposted at Red Maryland.
Sure, what the Westboro Baptist Church did at the funeral of Matthew Snyder, a Marine killed in Iraq. Westboro believes that the deaths of soldiers are the direct consequence of America's tolerance of homosexuality and gays in the military. The churc is known for protesting a funerals of fallen soldiers carrying placards that read "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and other messages along the same lines.
The jury had found the Westboro Baptist Church liable for invading the expectation of privacy of the soldier's family and intentional infliction of emotional distress. I am not sure whether the full verdict will hold up on appeal because I am not sure that the family had an expectation of privacy in a public place, but they may still prevail on the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
This is why I am so torn about this case. The church and church members have a legitimate right to free speech and I will defend their right to be idiots, zealots and bigots despite my belief that they are wrong. However, while I don't think the family had a legitimate reasonable expectation of privacy at a funeral occuring in a public place, I tend to think that we can't just give people a free pass on free speech grounds for the consequences that their speech may cause. But by the same token, free speech isn't free if we hold people accountable for words that are not libelous or slanderous.
While as a military man, I don't think Westboro should be exonerated, as a ardent believer in the First Amendment, I think they are entitled to a reversal on appeal.
Sometimes free speech hurts, but as I have said before, freedom of speech is not about the speech we all like, it is about the speech that makes our blood boil and you can't abandon the ideal when it suits your world view.
Crossposted at Red Maryland.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Milestones: 50,000th Visitor
Last night, the 50,000th visitor stopped by this blog. The visitor came via Long Beach, CA at around 6:00pm yesterday. They visited this page.
It took just under 3 months to get to 50,000 from 40,000 so it is nice to think that I am getting little more traffic. (yes I am vain enough to think about that).
For all who visit, keep coming back and tell your friends.
It took just under 3 months to get to 50,000 from 40,000 so it is nice to think that I am getting little more traffic. (yes I am vain enough to think about that).
For all who visit, keep coming back and tell your friends.
More on U. of Delaware
Mike Adams of Townhall discusses the U. of Delaware concentration camps masquerading as residence halls.
Those who read this blog can see that my alma mater, the University of Maryland has a red light speech warning from FIRE, but the policies that got U.Md. their red light, while egregious enough, certainly don't rise, or rather, sink, to the level of of its neighbor, the U. of Delaware.
While Adams doesn't particularly add anything new to the mix, Adams is a professor in North Carolina and it does make me sad that he didn't add anything from his personal viewpoint on the matter. Certainly, any publicity on this front is good--if for no other reason than to keep the pressure on Delaware's president Patrick Harker to completely dismantle the program.
Diveristy, while it may be a noble goal, is hardly a foundation for indoctrination. During my time at Maryland, "diversity" was shoved down our throats rather frequently. However, the context was far different in that diversity was founded in having to take courses in non-western culture, which I suppose was harmless enough. And while professors were often decidedly liberal in many cases, the student life bureaucracies did not shove liberal drivel down our throats. Of course, my experience may have been different than those of my classmates since I lived off campus (as a former Navy enlisted man I couldn't stomach living in a dorm with 18 year olds living away from home for the first time).
Of course, the oppression that Delaware seeks to make its residents aware of doesn't apply to U. of Delaware itself. Ironic.
Those who read this blog can see that my alma mater, the University of Maryland has a red light speech warning from FIRE, but the policies that got U.Md. their red light, while egregious enough, certainly don't rise, or rather, sink, to the level of of its neighbor, the U. of Delaware.
While Adams doesn't particularly add anything new to the mix, Adams is a professor in North Carolina and it does make me sad that he didn't add anything from his personal viewpoint on the matter. Certainly, any publicity on this front is good--if for no other reason than to keep the pressure on Delaware's president Patrick Harker to completely dismantle the program.
Diveristy, while it may be a noble goal, is hardly a foundation for indoctrination. During my time at Maryland, "diversity" was shoved down our throats rather frequently. However, the context was far different in that diversity was founded in having to take courses in non-western culture, which I suppose was harmless enough. And while professors were often decidedly liberal in many cases, the student life bureaucracies did not shove liberal drivel down our throats. Of course, my experience may have been different than those of my classmates since I lived off campus (as a former Navy enlisted man I couldn't stomach living in a dorm with 18 year olds living away from home for the first time).
Of course, the oppression that Delaware seeks to make its residents aware of doesn't apply to U. of Delaware itself. Ironic.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
More on U of Delaware Thought Police
Should have finished reading, but got to sick to my stomach FIRE - University of Delaware Requires Students to Undergo Ideological Reeducation:
"According to the program’s materials, the goal of the residence life education program is for students in the university’s residence halls to achieve certain “competencies” that the university has decreed its students must develop in order to achieve the overall educational goal of “citizenship.” These competencies include: “Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society,” “Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression,” and “Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.”"But apparently University of Delaware cannot spell IRONY. Their system of oppresion does not apply.
University of Delaware's Thought Police
As usual, FIRE is on the case:
Um, free speech on campuses is becoming more and more an oxymoron of staggering proportions.
The University of Delaware subjects students in its residence halls to a shocking program of ideological reeducation that is referred to in the university’s own materials as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs. The Orwellian program requires the approximately 7,000 students in Delaware’s residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students’ rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech.FIRE has more links and more of the story.
“The University of Delaware’s residence life education program is a grave intrusion into students’ private beliefs,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “The university has decided that it is not enough to expose its students to the values it considers important; instead, it must coerce its students into accepting those values as their own. At a public university like Delaware, this is both unconscionable and unconstitutional.”
The university’s views are forced on students through a comprehensive manipulation of the residence hall environment, from mandatory training sessions to “sustainability” door decorations. Students living in the university’s eight housing complexes are required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and one-on-one meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The RAs who facilitate these meetings have received their own intensive training from the university, including a “diversity facilitation training” session at which RAs were taught, among other things, that “[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”
Um, free speech on campuses is becoming more and more an oxymoron of staggering proportions.
Over Testing? An exaggeration?
Read this op-ed for its larger message, which I think is important, but this paragraph just jumped out at me:
He cites studies, reports, hard data, from the appalling effects of television on child brain development (i.e.; any TV exposure before 6 years old and your kid's basic cognitive wiring and spatial perceptions are pretty much scrambled for life), to the fact that, because of all the insidious mandatory testing teachers are now forced to incorporate into the curriculum, of the 182 school days in a year, there are 110 when such testing is going on somewhere at Oakland High. As one of his colleagues put it, "It's like weighing a calf twice a day, but never feeding it."How can that be? Fully 60% of a school year is given over to testing? The hyperbolic exaggeration notwithstanding, how can any journalist (even an op-ed writer) not verify that fact.
'Dropout Factories'--Not Really News
While it is important to have some hard data to talk about, this AP report and study on high schools with less than 60% graduation rates doesn't seem like big news to me. Anyone who has even looked with any depth at the problems of American education know that there are a percentage of schools where the graduation rate is abysmally low. While I didn't know the number of 12 percent of American high schools have a less than 60% graduation rate, the hard number is not far from my informed guess.
This is all well and good. Having hard data to back up hunches of people like me is helpful--so far as it goes. Data doesn't solve problems, though.
The AP report notes that for many of the dropout factories (a pejorative term if there ever was one) they struggle with conditions that most people would say do not lend themselves to successful high school careers. But what can be done?
Here is where NCLB may actually be helping matters, but the law is so new that we haven't seen the echo effects yet. For students who have spent their entire school careers operating under NCLB the emphasis on basic reading and math skills will no doubt improve their academic skills, by osmosis if nothing else, making a high school career more likely to find success. Only students who were in 7th or 8th grade when NCLB's regime started have had made it through to high school, and we don't know what their graduation rates are, nor will we for the NCLB generate for another seven (7) years!
The AP study looked at data for 2004-2006, when no NCLB kids were in high school. Simply put, we don't know what the impact, if any, of NCLB will have on graduation rates for 2007 and beyond, the earliest cohort of kids to be exposed to NCLB's testing regime.
Next, we need to look a little deeper in to the numbers. Who is dropping out is just as important as a raw number of how many. Equally important is why. The AP story talks to a couple of GED students from DC, but you can't extrapolate much from a couple of anecdotes. Is it economics, is it crime and punishment, is it environmental, is it familial or what? The simple thing is that we don't know and that would be a great study to read if we could get a systematic method of contacting and asking high school dropouts such questions.
Finally, we need to look at the people who do graduate from these dropout factories. The school may have less than a 60% graduation rate, but it is greater than zero. So why do some kids graduate and others don't. That too would be a much more interesting study.
So dropout factories exist, this much we know. But frankly, it is not news and it doesn't really mean anything. The real meaning is the stories and the data behind those who do drop out and those who don't. The AP story is easy news, but not earthshattering.
There are about 1,700 regular or vocational high schools nationwide that fit that description, according to an analysis of Education Department data conducted by Johns Hopkins for The Associated Press. That's 12 percent of all such schools, no more than a decade ago but no less, either...As part of the re-authorization of NCLB, Congress is considering requireing high schools to report data on graduation rates by race and other subgroups as well as develop data systems and consitent processes to track graduation rates.
The highest concentration of dropout factories is in large cities or high-poverty rural areas in the South and Southwest. Most have high proportions of minority students. These schools are tougher to turn around, because their students face challenges well beyond the academic ones the need to work as well as go to school, for example, or a need for social services.
This is all well and good. Having hard data to back up hunches of people like me is helpful--so far as it goes. Data doesn't solve problems, though.
The AP report notes that for many of the dropout factories (a pejorative term if there ever was one) they struggle with conditions that most people would say do not lend themselves to successful high school careers. But what can be done?
Here is where NCLB may actually be helping matters, but the law is so new that we haven't seen the echo effects yet. For students who have spent their entire school careers operating under NCLB the emphasis on basic reading and math skills will no doubt improve their academic skills, by osmosis if nothing else, making a high school career more likely to find success. Only students who were in 7th or 8th grade when NCLB's regime started have had made it through to high school, and we don't know what their graduation rates are, nor will we for the NCLB generate for another seven (7) years!
The AP study looked at data for 2004-2006, when no NCLB kids were in high school. Simply put, we don't know what the impact, if any, of NCLB will have on graduation rates for 2007 and beyond, the earliest cohort of kids to be exposed to NCLB's testing regime.
Next, we need to look a little deeper in to the numbers. Who is dropping out is just as important as a raw number of how many. Equally important is why. The AP story talks to a couple of GED students from DC, but you can't extrapolate much from a couple of anecdotes. Is it economics, is it crime and punishment, is it environmental, is it familial or what? The simple thing is that we don't know and that would be a great study to read if we could get a systematic method of contacting and asking high school dropouts such questions.
Finally, we need to look at the people who do graduate from these dropout factories. The school may have less than a 60% graduation rate, but it is greater than zero. So why do some kids graduate and others don't. That too would be a much more interesting study.
So dropout factories exist, this much we know. But frankly, it is not news and it doesn't really mean anything. The real meaning is the stories and the data behind those who do drop out and those who don't. The AP story is easy news, but not earthshattering.
Megan McCardle Dismantles Voucher Opponents
I don't much to add to this argument except that it does seem silly for middle class folks to be arguing against vouchers that give poor urban students the choice that middle class folks have made by living in a more affluent neighborhood.
The issues are not about the actual schools or the kids or even the parents. What vouchers do is give people a choice. And Choice is what America is fundamentally all about.
There is no law that says there has to be a public school system, all the state constitutions say that the state shall provide for (as in fund) a system of public education, it does not say that the state shall operate a system of public education.
"Public schools" are a consequence of legislatures wanting a little more control over how education dollars are spent, but there is nothing magical or required in a "public school." Indeed, arguable private schools generally do a much better job because they are far closer to the cusumers of educaiton (namely the children and parents).
Oh, wait, that is too "market place" for liberals. My bad.
The issues are not about the actual schools or the kids or even the parents. What vouchers do is give people a choice. And Choice is what America is fundamentally all about.
There is no law that says there has to be a public school system, all the state constitutions say that the state shall provide for (as in fund) a system of public education, it does not say that the state shall operate a system of public education.
"Public schools" are a consequence of legislatures wanting a little more control over how education dollars are spent, but there is nothing magical or required in a "public school." Indeed, arguable private schools generally do a much better job because they are far closer to the cusumers of educaiton (namely the children and parents).
Oh, wait, that is too "market place" for liberals. My bad.
Global Warming Causes Hurricanes
Um, scratch that.
But does Al Gore cause hurricanes? Well, he blows a lot of hot air, but that is not a hurricane.
But does Al Gore cause hurricanes? Well, he blows a lot of hot air, but that is not a hurricane.
Inconvenient Truths
Pete DuPont takes on the mtyhs behind the Democratic tax agenda.
Tax rate decreases actually lead to tax payment increases. Lower tax rates spur economic development, which in turn leads to more tax payments on greater economic activity. Want proof--here is DuPont:
But introspection is not the Democrat's strong point--class warfare is about par for the course.
Tax rate decreases actually lead to tax payment increases. Lower tax rates spur economic development, which in turn leads to more tax payments on greater economic activity. Want proof--here is DuPont:
Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.Considering the the very rich foot the lion's share of our federal tax bill, increasing the tax rate on wealthy individuals is going to spur them to look for ways to protect their income from taxes, leading to lower tax payments.
But introspection is not the Democrat's strong point--class warfare is about par for the course.
C-SPAN's Brian Lamb to Get Medal of Freedom
Betsy Newmark points to the story.
If there was ever a man in Modern America who has done more to shed light upon the workings of Congress, Brian Lamb is the man.
C-SPAN may be a political junkies haven, but when you think about all the other goverment programming on cable, i.e. local government coverage on cable, think about 20 years ago and the impact of putting Congress on TV.
The one drawback to C-SPAN has been the grandstanding nature of Congress. There used to be two types of Congressmen, the show horse and the work horse. Now all we have are show horses. Not much work is actually being done.
If there was ever a man in Modern America who has done more to shed light upon the workings of Congress, Brian Lamb is the man.
C-SPAN may be a political junkies haven, but when you think about all the other goverment programming on cable, i.e. local government coverage on cable, think about 20 years ago and the impact of putting Congress on TV.
The one drawback to C-SPAN has been the grandstanding nature of Congress. There used to be two types of Congressmen, the show horse and the work horse. Now all we have are show horses. Not much work is actually being done.
Kentucky AG Missed FEC Filing Deadline
Kentucky Attorney General Greg Stumbo a Democrat thinking about challenging Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell next year, apparently goofed and failed to file a quarterly FEC report earlier this month. Captain Ed has the story.
This oversight, if true, is easily fixed by filing a report. The problem is that Stumbo, under teh law, is not required to file his quarterly reports with the FEC. As a Senate candidate he has to file them with the Secretary of the Senate who then forwards them to the FEC. It is an arcane rule, a left over of the original FEC law not McCain-Feingold.
So in reality, Stumbo may have complied with the law, we just don't know yet.
The problem is that for most of the general public, they wouldn't know about Stumbo's or any other Senate canddiate's spending for some time unless they voluntarily file with the FEC concurrently with their filing with the Secretary of the Senate. That is the problem with the law--it is inconsistent with reporting procedures. That inconsistency undermines the stated purpose behind the law, to provide open access to the manner in which federal campaigns are financed.
This oversight, if true, is easily fixed by filing a report. The problem is that Stumbo, under teh law, is not required to file his quarterly reports with the FEC. As a Senate candidate he has to file them with the Secretary of the Senate who then forwards them to the FEC. It is an arcane rule, a left over of the original FEC law not McCain-Feingold.
So in reality, Stumbo may have complied with the law, we just don't know yet.
The problem is that for most of the general public, they wouldn't know about Stumbo's or any other Senate canddiate's spending for some time unless they voluntarily file with the FEC concurrently with their filing with the Secretary of the Senate. That is the problem with the law--it is inconsistent with reporting procedures. That inconsistency undermines the stated purpose behind the law, to provide open access to the manner in which federal campaigns are financed.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Valdosta State Expulsion
FIRE has the story and of all the stories of censorship and violations of freedom of speech on college campuses, this one is by far the worst I have ever read. A student who was protesting the construction to two parking garages using student fees. T. Hayden Barnes had his mental health questioned, was followed around campus by plain clothes policemen and uniformed police.
Barnes was expelled all for peaceful protests. Raise you head and open your mouth and get slapped down.
Hopefully heads are going to roll at Valdosta State, starting with President Ronald Zaccari.
Barnes was expelled all for peaceful protests. Raise you head and open your mouth and get slapped down.
Hopefully heads are going to roll at Valdosta State, starting with President Ronald Zaccari.
Stupid Politicians
Look, I have never liked Joe Biden's politics and the man has made some massive gaffs in the past. This one is probably not the worst, but it makes you wonder why this guy thinks he is qualified to be President of the United States.
Biden has spent most of his adult life in Washington DC and you would think that he wold have learned a few lessons by now.
Biden has spent most of his adult life in Washington DC and you would think that he wold have learned a few lessons by now.
Education Spending and Oil Prices
Carpe Diem has a graph that demonstrates that we are spending more on education than on oil, lots more.
Check out the graph.
Check out the graph.
School's Double Standard on Sexual Harassment
Last week, there was a great deal of buzz in the education community on the Associated Press' expose of sexual misconduct among our nations teachers. Follow up stories discussed how the various rules, or lack thereof, contributes to the inability to police our teacher ranks for pedophiles and sexual abusers. One of the more galling issues raised by the AP's efforts is that it is not only difficult to stop these predators from getting jobs in our schools, but it is also hard to permanently rid our schools of such "teachers" once they are discovered, with the AP citing the plethora of practical and legal protections to safeguard the rights of teachers. Shockingly, though not unsurprisingly, those same protections are not available if the students are the ones doing the harassing or assaulting.
Back in July of htis year, a story came out of McMinnville, Oregon of two 13 year old boys who were hauled off to jail for five (5) days for swatting the behinds of their female classmates, in a prank the boys claimed was inspired by the movie "Jackass." There is no doubt in my mind that these boys needed to be punished (just like I needed to be punished for similar behavior when I was a young lad--but was at least smart enough (or lucky enough) not to get caught. However, for their behavior, which happened a number of times but in relatively short period of time, the boys had several violations of their civil rights occur and because a prosecutor was looking to make some bones, were charged with felony sexual assault. if they had been convicted, the boys faced ten (10) years in prison and a lifetime on the sex offender registration list. Fortunately, the public outcry and a sensible judge, led to the dismissal of the more serious charges.
But the dichotomy between how these boys were treated and how teachers accused of much worse are treated is utterly mindboggling. Teachers accused of sexual misconduct can and often do resign from one school and simply go to another state or in some cases a neighboring school district and get another job teaching.
The AP found 2,500 reported incidents over the course of five years, an average of 500 incidents a year. Given that there are some 3 million teachers in the United States, the overwhelming majority as disgusted by the behavior of their "colleagues" as the rest of us should be, the number of teachers involved in accusations of sexual misconduct are tiny, we are talking about less than 1/10th of one percent, but it is a number far higher than it ever should be.
Part of the problem is the teachers' unions. According to the AP report:
There are protections for the rights of teachers and that is fine, but the problem is that teacher apparently have more rights than their students when it comes to sexual harassment and misconduct. Students of misconduct are treated like common criminals (which they may be), but a teacher is afforded more protection. Students are suspended from school, often at the whim of a single administrator. Meanwhile a teacher might be removed from the classroom (thankfully) but they are often put in a desk job or even worse, paid administrative leave while their case is pending.
From the AP Story:
The Catholic priest scandal enraged a nation, but the potential here is much worse. Priests come in contact with a small proportion of the populace of children. Conversely, nearly every child in America is entrusted to the care and supervision of a whole series of teachers every year. Surely, there must be some manner to protect our children. Too often the matter is swept underneath the rug.
Congress is reviewing No Child Left Behind (formerly known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) and now is the perfect time to force some action on the states. As part of the re-authorization, more can be done to prevent the "passing of the trash." Not only must teaching credentials be revoked in a state when misconduct leads to resignation or punishment, that information must be shared between states. In addition, a little self-policing by the unions and licensing boards will go a long way to ending this kind of abuse.
Sex abuse by teachers, no matter how tame it may appear to the outsider, cannot be tolerated nor should it. But to end it, we must be better at policing it. To end it, we have to treat all harassers, regardless of position in the same manner. We can't have kids subjected to one standard of justice and adults to another.
Back in July of htis year, a story came out of McMinnville, Oregon of two 13 year old boys who were hauled off to jail for five (5) days for swatting the behinds of their female classmates, in a prank the boys claimed was inspired by the movie "Jackass." There is no doubt in my mind that these boys needed to be punished (just like I needed to be punished for similar behavior when I was a young lad--but was at least smart enough (or lucky enough) not to get caught. However, for their behavior, which happened a number of times but in relatively short period of time, the boys had several violations of their civil rights occur and because a prosecutor was looking to make some bones, were charged with felony sexual assault. if they had been convicted, the boys faced ten (10) years in prison and a lifetime on the sex offender registration list. Fortunately, the public outcry and a sensible judge, led to the dismissal of the more serious charges.
But the dichotomy between how these boys were treated and how teachers accused of much worse are treated is utterly mindboggling. Teachers accused of sexual misconduct can and often do resign from one school and simply go to another state or in some cases a neighboring school district and get another job teaching.
The AP found 2,500 reported incidents over the course of five years, an average of 500 incidents a year. Given that there are some 3 million teachers in the United States, the overwhelming majority as disgusted by the behavior of their "colleagues" as the rest of us should be, the number of teachers involved in accusations of sexual misconduct are tiny, we are talking about less than 1/10th of one percent, but it is a number far higher than it ever should be.
Part of the problem is the teachers' unions. According to the AP report:
Two of the nation’s major teachers unions, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, each denounced sex abuse while emphasizing that educators’ rights also must be taken into account.II have a fairly long-running beef with the teachers unions on a number of issues, but I would have thought this would be one where we might agree. f there was ever a subject which the teachers' unions should be getting out in front of it should be the one. Their expressed sentiments might be right, but their actions are another thing.
“Students must be protected from sexual predators and abuse, and teachers must be protected from false accusations,” said NEA President Reg Weaver, who refused to be interviewed and instead released a two-paragraph statement.
Kathy Buzad of the AFT said that “if there’s one incident of sexual misconduct between a teacher and a student that’s one too many.”
There are protections for the rights of teachers and that is fine, but the problem is that teacher apparently have more rights than their students when it comes to sexual harassment and misconduct. Students of misconduct are treated like common criminals (which they may be), but a teacher is afforded more protection. Students are suspended from school, often at the whim of a single administrator. Meanwhile a teacher might be removed from the classroom (thankfully) but they are often put in a desk job or even worse, paid administrative leave while their case is pending.
From the AP Story:
The AP investigation found efforts to stop individual offenders but, overall, a deeply entrenched resistance toward recognizing and fighting abuse. It starts in school hallways, where fellow teachers look away or feel powerless to help. School administrators make behind-the-scenes deals to avoid lawsuits and other trouble. And in state capitals and Congress, lawmakers shy from tough state punishments or any cohesive national policy for fear of disparaging a vital profession.One class of offenders has their rights to an education stripped away with little in the way of due process. The second gets so much "due process" as to stagger the mind.
That only enables rogue teachers, and puts kids who aren’t likely to be believed in a tough spot.
In case after case the AP examined, accusations of inappropriate behavior were dismissed. One girl in Mansfield, Ohio, complained about a sexual assault by teacher Donald Coots and got expelled. It was only when a second girl, years later, brought a similar complaint against the same teacher that he was punished.
The Catholic priest scandal enraged a nation, but the potential here is much worse. Priests come in contact with a small proportion of the populace of children. Conversely, nearly every child in America is entrusted to the care and supervision of a whole series of teachers every year. Surely, there must be some manner to protect our children. Too often the matter is swept underneath the rug.
Too often, problem teachers are allowed to leave quietly. That can mean future abuse for another student and another school district.But maybe there is opportunity to impose a solution, and as much as it pains me to say, this one has to come from Congress.
“They might deal with it internally, suspending the person or having the person move on. So their license is never investigated,” says Charol Shakeshaft, a leading expert in teacher sex abuse who heads the educational leadership department at Virginia Commonwealth University.
It’s a dynamic so common it has its own nicknames—“passing the trash” or the “mobile molester.”
Congress is reviewing No Child Left Behind (formerly known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) and now is the perfect time to force some action on the states. As part of the re-authorization, more can be done to prevent the "passing of the trash." Not only must teaching credentials be revoked in a state when misconduct leads to resignation or punishment, that information must be shared between states. In addition, a little self-policing by the unions and licensing boards will go a long way to ending this kind of abuse.
Sex abuse by teachers, no matter how tame it may appear to the outsider, cannot be tolerated nor should it. But to end it, we must be better at policing it. To end it, we have to treat all harassers, regardless of position in the same manner. We can't have kids subjected to one standard of justice and adults to another.
Comments on William & Mary's Speech Code
From Eugene Volokh.
On reflection, I think I should have faulted William & Mary more for what sounds like an unconstitutional speech code (quite independently of whether it is to be enforced using confidential complaints). ...The irony of the William & Mary speech code is just rich. If one visits Williamsburg, VA and the old colonial section, you will see dozens of William & Mary students running down the main street toward the Old Statehouse, the birth place of many of the ideas and ideals behind the founding of our nation.
Thus, for instance, condemning a particular student's or professor's religious or political views in any way that is "hostile" — even if it isn't threatening or "fighting words" — would seemingly be punishable, if it's "aimed at" or "directed at" the person. This might be limited to statements said to a particular person; but it might also be read as covering statements said to the public at large in a newspaper or a Web post about a particular person (depending on how "directed at" and "aimed at" is read). The Statement of Rights and Responsibilities seems considerably more speech-protective, and the "Bias Reporting" page restricts its statement about unprotected speech to speech that violates the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. But the Statement is not crystal clear about what is protected, and the "Bias Reporting" page may be seen as an elaboration on the Statement that makes certain speech punishable.
So William & Mary should, I think, be faulted for seemingly instituting a speech code that potentially forbids a wide range of protected and important speech — or, at best, leaving students unclear about what speech is allowed. I continue to think that the William & Mary initiative's solicitation of confidential complaints is sound, and I'll try to elaborate a little more on this shortly; investigating properly punishable conduct (such as physical attacks, vandalism, and threats) often requires considering confidential complaints. But constitutionally protected speech ought not be punished whether based on confidential complaints or otherwise.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Donors in Diapers
As much as I don't like campaign contribution limits, they are the law of the land and must be obeyed. But as the campaign cycle wears on, there are practical limits on the number of $2,300 contributors out there and the campaigns might be hitting that limit. While that is merely the nature of the beast, circumventing the law is done at one's peril. But there does seem to be a large number of youngsters giving lots of money to campaigns.
As a law clerk at the FEC a few years ago, I was tasked with researching bank policies on checking accounts for minors. I contacted the top 20 national banks seeking their policies on checking accounts for minors. Without exception, each of these large banks required that an adult, usually a parent, be present to open the account and to be responsible for the account. It makes sense from a bank's point of view if you think of a check as a contract for the bank to pay money to a person of the check writer's choice. Under contract law, usually minors have the ability to disavow contracts made as a minor. So you can see the bank's position that they don't want to be put in the middle of a dispute over a dishonored check.
While we at the FEC debated what to do about older kids, say around teh age of 16 or so and whether they could contribute. The consensus, as I remember it, was that kids under say 13 or so simply lacked the ability to make the decision to give voluntarily.
That is not to say that it is not possible to prove that a youngster could give, but that there would need to be proof of individual intent. That could be hard to prove.
So here are the problems. Most campaign lack the resources to check the ages of its donors and thus would only find out after the fact that a donor is in diapers. While refunding the money is the proper response, there is no way in advance to make sure the donation is appropriate and legal.
Additionally, the violation, while it looks bad for Obama and other canddiates, is on the contributor who has made a contribution in the name of another, which is the likely scenario for kids giving. The donor, without a doubt must be punished. However, we are left with the question of what to do about the campaigns. Should they face any scrutiny for taking the funds in the face of evidence that it might be in violation of the rules (i.e. addresses of contributors, checks signed by the same person or agent?)
Elrick Williams's toddler niece Carlyn may be one of the youngest contributors to this year's presidential campaign. The 2-year-old gave $2,300 to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).My two year old can't even decide what she wants for dinner or snack, let alone whether to give money (assuming she understands the concept of money). Obama has the right response and a sensible policy, but there are some wrinkles in the cloth.
So did her sister and brother, Imara, 13, and Ishmael, 9, and her cousins Chan and Alexis, both 13. Altogether, according to newly released campaign finance reports, the extended family of Williams, a wealthy Chicago financier, handed over nearly a dozen checks in March for the maximum allowed under federal law to Obama.
Such campaign donations from young children would almost certainly run afoul of campaign finance regulations, several campaign lawyers said. But as bundlers seek to raise higher and higher sums for presidential contenders this year, the number who are turning to checks from underage givers appears to be on the rise.
"It's not difficult for a banker or a trial lawyer or a hedge fund manager to come up with $2,300, and they're often left wanting to do more," said Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics. "That's when they look across the dinner table at their children and see an opportunity."
Asked about the Williams family giving, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, "As a policy, we don't take donations from anyone under the age of 15." After being asked by The Post about the matter, he said the children's donations will be returned.
As a law clerk at the FEC a few years ago, I was tasked with researching bank policies on checking accounts for minors. I contacted the top 20 national banks seeking their policies on checking accounts for minors. Without exception, each of these large banks required that an adult, usually a parent, be present to open the account and to be responsible for the account. It makes sense from a bank's point of view if you think of a check as a contract for the bank to pay money to a person of the check writer's choice. Under contract law, usually minors have the ability to disavow contracts made as a minor. So you can see the bank's position that they don't want to be put in the middle of a dispute over a dishonored check.
While we at the FEC debated what to do about older kids, say around teh age of 16 or so and whether they could contribute. The consensus, as I remember it, was that kids under say 13 or so simply lacked the ability to make the decision to give voluntarily.
That is not to say that it is not possible to prove that a youngster could give, but that there would need to be proof of individual intent. That could be hard to prove.
So here are the problems. Most campaign lack the resources to check the ages of its donors and thus would only find out after the fact that a donor is in diapers. While refunding the money is the proper response, there is no way in advance to make sure the donation is appropriate and legal.
Additionally, the violation, while it looks bad for Obama and other canddiates, is on the contributor who has made a contribution in the name of another, which is the likely scenario for kids giving. The donor, without a doubt must be punished. However, we are left with the question of what to do about the campaigns. Should they face any scrutiny for taking the funds in the face of evidence that it might be in violation of the rules (i.e. addresses of contributors, checks signed by the same person or agent?)
Minnesota School Looks and Operates Like an Office
Hmm!. Math is a problem with the school and it is admitted as a problem. But with a 90% rate of going to college and above average standardized test scores, it is hard to argue with the problem.
This struck me though:
In my current work as an attorney, I have spent 8 or 9 hours a day for weeks working on one project. For a school that seems to mimic the real world, it seems odd that this one requirement fazes students so much.
This struck me though:
New Country struggles to keep its seniors from leaving. The school's senior project is demanding — 300 hours of work. Many students choose to do their senior year at a traditional school, rather than invest the time and energy required for the senior project.For a single project, 300 hours is a lot of time, but in a 180 day school year, that is less than 2 hours a day. Assuming a student works three hours a day on their project, they can be done in 100 days or just over half the school year. That doesnt' seem all that stressful to me.
In my current work as an attorney, I have spent 8 or 9 hours a day for weeks working on one project. For a school that seems to mimic the real world, it seems odd that this one requirement fazes students so much.
Obstacles to Teacher Merit Pay
To be honest, I had not thought about this obstacle to teacher merit pay proposals, but Fordham Fellow Maya Wallace did:
Of course, that could be a problem, but the reverse is also true. Suppose a school had a solid corps of good teachers but one or two were of such poor quality that their negative impact on student achievement creates a drag on student achievement. So if single teacher merit pay might produce an incentive to avoid collaboration in order to maximize personal gain, collaborative or group bonuses would create a free rider problem, where the efforts of a small corps of excellent teachers can boost the performance of a larger group of mediocre or poor teachers, or conversely the poor performance of one or two truly poor teachers can reduce the chances of a group bonuses, how do we manage the avoidance of a free-rider problem?
In the end, I think we are likely to see an amalgamation of merit pay, with individual teacher bonuses, group bonuses within a school and school based bonuses.
If the most effective teachers work in properly structured schools with leadership support for professional learning communities (which can entail interdisciplinary as well as subject-based teams of teachers working together to help each other and students improve), then it stands to reason that individual performance pay would have two obstacles to overcome in its implementation, especially in the upper grades.The second obstacle Wallace suggests, I had thought about, but I have not given much thought to the first. While it may be possible in some subjects, say math or science, to divorce one teacher's effort from anothers, in others, such as reading or writing, it may be impossible to separate one teacher's effect from the collective effect.
First, it would be very difficult to divorce each teacher’s effect from the collective effect. It could be done, I suppose, but overall I think that having that many teachers in the equation would dilute the concentrated effect I see operating as an underlying assumption of how merit pay would work. Second, I can’t help but worry that as significant, individual bonuses become the incentive, some teachers would be compelled to avoid collaboration. (emphasis added)
Of course, that could be a problem, but the reverse is also true. Suppose a school had a solid corps of good teachers but one or two were of such poor quality that their negative impact on student achievement creates a drag on student achievement. So if single teacher merit pay might produce an incentive to avoid collaboration in order to maximize personal gain, collaborative or group bonuses would create a free rider problem, where the efforts of a small corps of excellent teachers can boost the performance of a larger group of mediocre or poor teachers, or conversely the poor performance of one or two truly poor teachers can reduce the chances of a group bonuses, how do we manage the avoidance of a free-rider problem?
In the end, I think we are likely to see an amalgamation of merit pay, with individual teacher bonuses, group bonuses within a school and school based bonuses.
Not Your Typical Reaction to the Middle School Birth Control Mess
From Fordham Fellow Cait Farrell:
It's completely fascinating to me the differences in state culture and politics. In Maine, the discussion focused on providing birth control prescriptions to middle-schoolers while other states are fighting to keep their socially conservative abstinence-only-until- marriage sexual education programs. For example, as reported by the ACLU, materials from an abstinence-only-until-marriage program used recently in Alabama state, “[S]ame sex ‘unions' cannot provide an adequate means of achieving a genuine physical relationship with another human being because this type of ‘union' is contrary to the laws of nature.”Ouch.
3. Then there are the interesting federal politics at play, as states are choosing to accept (or avoid) federal funds for the Community-Based Abstinence Education Program.
My favorite part of the CBAE requirements:
D. Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity.
So we can have a federal standard for human sexual activity but not for math or science?
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Michelle Rhee's Next Big Challenge
DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee has tackled textbook distribution, and is taking on the personnel system. But perhaps Rhee's biggest challenge will be overcoming the public perception of DC Schools--among the city's own residents. In an op-ed over the weekend, David Nicholson, a former DC resident, explains why he moved.
That leaves Rhee and her patron, DC Mayor Adrian Fenty (D) between a rock and a hard place. To retain the very quality students, parents and families the DC schools need to get back on track, they need to make radical changes now. But such changes now are impossible to make without the input and dedication of those same people. It is a vicious chicken-egg scenario that could doom the DC schools recovery to a slow start.
But my advice to Rhee and Fenty is to ignore the "student age flight" that has been occurring and focus on your plan. The demand for a quick fix inthe classroom is what has doomed previous superintendants. While the public will not and should not wait for ever for results, Rhee and Fenty should focus on making small strides and keep moving forward. Take risks, to be sure, but steady progress on all fronts will be a vast improvement.
Nicholson details his efforts to stay in the District by searching for charter schools. However, like many start up charter schools, the lack of ability to navigate the notoriously difficult DC bureaucracy doomed Nicholson's efforts.
When a high school friend told me several years ago that he and his wife were leaving Washington's Mount Pleasant neighborhood for Montgomery County, I snickered and murmured something about white flight. Progressives who traveled regularly to Cuba and Brazil, they wanted better schools for their children. I saw their decision as one more example of liberal hypocrisy.While the city does have roughly 55,000 students in the system, the fact of the matter is that many parents, people who may have lived in DC for years or even all their lives, still leave the city when their kids hit school, often when they realize, like Nicholson, that the DC schools cannot really help their exceptional child.
I was childless then, but I have a 6-year-old now. And I know better. So to all the friends -- most but not all of them white -- whom I've chastised over the years for abandoning the District once their children reached school age:
I'm sorry. You were right. I was wrong.
After nearly 20 years in the city's Takoma neighborhood, the last six in a century-old house that my wife and I thought we'd grow old in, we have forsaken the city for the suburbs.
Given recent optimistic news about the city's schools, this may seem the equivalent of buying high and selling low. And though I don't know new D.C. schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, what I know of Mayor Adrian Fenty and Deputy Mayor for Education Victor Reinoso (a former neighbor) tells me that real change will come, sooner or later, to D.C. public schools.
The thing is, with a second-grader who has already read the first two Harry Potter books, I can't wait the four or five years it will take to begin to undo decades of neglect and mismanagement of District schools, much less the additional time needed to create programs for the gifted and talented.
That leaves Rhee and her patron, DC Mayor Adrian Fenty (D) between a rock and a hard place. To retain the very quality students, parents and families the DC schools need to get back on track, they need to make radical changes now. But such changes now are impossible to make without the input and dedication of those same people. It is a vicious chicken-egg scenario that could doom the DC schools recovery to a slow start.
But my advice to Rhee and Fenty is to ignore the "student age flight" that has been occurring and focus on your plan. The demand for a quick fix inthe classroom is what has doomed previous superintendants. While the public will not and should not wait for ever for results, Rhee and Fenty should focus on making small strides and keep moving forward. Take risks, to be sure, but steady progress on all fronts will be a vast improvement.
Nicholson details his efforts to stay in the District by searching for charter schools. However, like many start up charter schools, the lack of ability to navigate the notoriously difficult DC bureaucracy doomed Nicholson's efforts.
In the end, though, I couldn't sacrifice my son to an education system that seems at best inefficient and at worst willfully corrupt. As much as I admire Mayor Fenty, I can't help noting that his children go to a private school.A very good question indeed and one that Rhee and Fenty have to answer.
And if he doesn't send his kids to D.C. schools, why should I?
Sexual Harassment Gone Too Far
Between 1990 and 1994, I served in the U.S. Navy. For the most part, my experiences were fantastic and I wouldn't trade them for anything, save for one incident--Tailhook 91. That a bunch of liquored up aviators (don't call them pilots) can sully an overall wonderful experience speaks volumes, particularly since I was an enlisted man in Washington, DC, almost a full continent geographically and whole world away mentally from the shenanigans of those idiots in Las Vegas. The fallout of Tailhook was dramatic and involved service-wide stand-downs for sexual harassment training that bordered on the comical for a young man whose parents raised him to be polite to everyone, regardless of their gender.
But Tailhook had an impact outside the Navy as well. As one of the most high profile sexual harassment episodes, coupled with a growing acknowledgment that sexual harassment in the workplace was a common, if not exactly commonplace, occurrence, Tailhook ripped the blinders off a society loaded with hypocrisy. But 16 years later, instead of getting better at dealing with sexual harassment, we have taken the matter to extremes that border on the insanely comical if it were so serious. Over the weekend, Yvonne Bynoe wrote in the Washington Post about sexual harassment in nursery school. Yes, you read that right, nursery school.
In the law of torts, most children under the age of 6-8 depending on the state, are generally considered incapable of forming the necessary intent to commit an intentional tort, not because they can't intend their actions, but they have no concept of the consequences of their action. In Maryland, a child could be suspended for the FIRST act of harassment, regardless of whether they know what they are doing is "wrong." As Mowen noted above, it doesn't matter if they know what they did is wrong, the mere act in itself is wrong--regardless of the age.
For those of us who were fans of "Legally Blond," the whole incident reminds of the "malum in se" and "malum prohibitum" discussion. Malum in se are crimes that are by their very nature, evil. These are the traditional, murder, robbery, rape, assault type crimes. Malum prohibitum crimes are those that society has deemed should be wrong, like speeding or public drunkeness. The funny thing is that sexual harassment is not a crime prosecuted by the state, but a civil charge, brought by an individual against another individual or individuals. But now our society looks upon sexual harassment not as a civil charge, or even a "malum prohibitum" but as a "malum in se," something that is evil by its very nature.
But sexual harrassment doesn't end with the suspension of 4 year olds from nursery school. We have now taken sexual harassment to the point of labeling it a sex offense on par with rape or sexual abuse--requiring sex offender registration. Few may forget the episode in McMinnville, Oregon, where two 13 year old boys were facing sexual assault charges and possible sex offender registration for slapping the bottoms of female classmates. Fortunately a judge finally exercises some common sense and dropped the charges against the boys.
These boys are old enough to know better, but to charge them (and treat them as they were treated, which involves some possible civil rights violations) as sex offenders simply crossed the line. Yes, the boys deserved punishment, and in this case a school suspension would have been enough for the first offense, particularly since their "victims" did not seem inclined to press charges, testify against and indeed may have been coerced into making their statements. The McMinnville boys may have crossed the line (I remember being their age and pinching and slapping the bottoms of my female classmates and getting pinched and slapped in return--in our adolescent view that was flirting) but can we really say they did? The McMinnville boys say they got the idea from the movie "Jackass" but just as likely they thought it was flirting like I thought at their age.
Is the problem with our kids or with us?
The problem with sexual harassment as it is prosecuted now, is that we have become so overly sensitive that we can't know where the line it and when we have crossed it. Our media is saturated with sexual images, so that while we "empower" our children to think of themselves as sexual beings at a younger and younger age, despite their readiness for such a view, we are at the same time acting in prudish ways when it comes to inter-gender relations. The problem of course with sexual harassment law is that it usually requires some notice be given that a behavior is unwelcome--at least that is what I was taught in the aftermath of Tailhook.
Some behaviors would clearly be unwelcome, such as the grabbing of the breasts or pelvis of a female shipmate. But is the touching of the small of the back sexual harassment or not? What about inadvertent contact done once in tight quarters, such as on a bus? What about foul language (a staple in the Navy)? Where does an off-color joke cross the line? These were difficult questions for a large institution and for a service where everyone was, at least legally, adults. How can we expect our young teenagers and pre-teens to make the same fine line distinctions? How can we expect a three year old to do the same?
Humans crave interaction. It makes us happy to love and be loved, to touch and be touched. But can a three year old really be faulted for hugging a teacher? More importantly, should a three year old be faulted for hugging a teacher?
But Tailhook had an impact outside the Navy as well. As one of the most high profile sexual harassment episodes, coupled with a growing acknowledgment that sexual harassment in the workplace was a common, if not exactly commonplace, occurrence, Tailhook ripped the blinders off a society loaded with hypocrisy. But 16 years later, instead of getting better at dealing with sexual harassment, we have taken the matter to extremes that border on the insanely comical if it were so serious. Over the weekend, Yvonne Bynoe wrote in the Washington Post about sexual harassment in nursery school. Yes, you read that right, nursery school.
Could my son be accused of sexual harassment? He's a good boy. He likes watching "Thomas the Tank Engine" on television and playing "Simon Says." Like many 3-year-olds, he's very affectionate. Unfortunately, hugging his teacher may get him suspended from nursery school.What does it say about our society that the simple act of a mere hug from a three year old, who has been no doubt brought up with love and affection symbolized by hugs and kisses, can now be considered sexual harassment. Bynoe has more that should chill to the bone:
I doubt that it will happen to my son. But the frightening fact is that it could. I recently learned that children nationwide, some of preschool age, have been suspended from school or taken to jail after being accused of sexual harassment. In their zeal to avoid lawsuits, educators seem to be ignoring important information, such as whether the accused child intended to commit a crime or even knows how to pronounce the word "harassment."
In my home state of Maryland, state data show that during the 2005-06 school year, 28 kindergartners were suspended for sex offenses, including 15 for sexual harassment.Fifteen 5 and 6 year olds suspended for sexual harassment? The fact that the policy of the Maryland Department of Education is so broad, what surprises me more is that more kids haven't been caught in the dragnet.
Last December, a kindergartner was accused of sexual harassment after he pinched a classmate's bottom at Lincolnshire Elementary School in Hagerstown, according to the local paper, the Herald-Mail. The charge will remain on his record until he enters middle school. "It's important to understand a child may not realize that what he or she is doing may be considered sexual harassment, but if it fits under the definition, then it is, under the state's guidelines," school spokeswoman Carol Mowen told the Herald-Mail. "If someone has been told this person does not want this type of touching, it doesn't matter if it's at work or at school, that's sexual harassment."
In fact, the Maryland Department of Education defines sexual harassment as "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and/or other inappropriate verbal, written or physical conduct of a sexual nature directed toward others." I am alarmed that Mowen's statement appears to imply that schools will find a child guilty of sexual misconduct even if the child doesn't understand the implications of his or her actions.
In the law of torts, most children under the age of 6-8 depending on the state, are generally considered incapable of forming the necessary intent to commit an intentional tort, not because they can't intend their actions, but they have no concept of the consequences of their action. In Maryland, a child could be suspended for the FIRST act of harassment, regardless of whether they know what they are doing is "wrong." As Mowen noted above, it doesn't matter if they know what they did is wrong, the mere act in itself is wrong--regardless of the age.
For those of us who were fans of "Legally Blond," the whole incident reminds of the "malum in se" and "malum prohibitum" discussion. Malum in se are crimes that are by their very nature, evil. These are the traditional, murder, robbery, rape, assault type crimes. Malum prohibitum crimes are those that society has deemed should be wrong, like speeding or public drunkeness. The funny thing is that sexual harassment is not a crime prosecuted by the state, but a civil charge, brought by an individual against another individual or individuals. But now our society looks upon sexual harassment not as a civil charge, or even a "malum prohibitum" but as a "malum in se," something that is evil by its very nature.
But sexual harrassment doesn't end with the suspension of 4 year olds from nursery school. We have now taken sexual harassment to the point of labeling it a sex offense on par with rape or sexual abuse--requiring sex offender registration. Few may forget the episode in McMinnville, Oregon, where two 13 year old boys were facing sexual assault charges and possible sex offender registration for slapping the bottoms of female classmates. Fortunately a judge finally exercises some common sense and dropped the charges against the boys.
These boys are old enough to know better, but to charge them (and treat them as they were treated, which involves some possible civil rights violations) as sex offenders simply crossed the line. Yes, the boys deserved punishment, and in this case a school suspension would have been enough for the first offense, particularly since their "victims" did not seem inclined to press charges, testify against and indeed may have been coerced into making their statements. The McMinnville boys may have crossed the line (I remember being their age and pinching and slapping the bottoms of my female classmates and getting pinched and slapped in return--in our adolescent view that was flirting) but can we really say they did? The McMinnville boys say they got the idea from the movie "Jackass" but just as likely they thought it was flirting like I thought at their age.
Is the problem with our kids or with us?
The problem with sexual harassment as it is prosecuted now, is that we have become so overly sensitive that we can't know where the line it and when we have crossed it. Our media is saturated with sexual images, so that while we "empower" our children to think of themselves as sexual beings at a younger and younger age, despite their readiness for such a view, we are at the same time acting in prudish ways when it comes to inter-gender relations. The problem of course with sexual harassment law is that it usually requires some notice be given that a behavior is unwelcome--at least that is what I was taught in the aftermath of Tailhook.
Some behaviors would clearly be unwelcome, such as the grabbing of the breasts or pelvis of a female shipmate. But is the touching of the small of the back sexual harassment or not? What about inadvertent contact done once in tight quarters, such as on a bus? What about foul language (a staple in the Navy)? Where does an off-color joke cross the line? These were difficult questions for a large institution and for a service where everyone was, at least legally, adults. How can we expect our young teenagers and pre-teens to make the same fine line distinctions? How can we expect a three year old to do the same?
Humans crave interaction. It makes us happy to love and be loved, to touch and be touched. But can a three year old really be faulted for hugging a teacher? More importantly, should a three year old be faulted for hugging a teacher?
Monday, October 22, 2007
Medal of Honor Awarded To Navy SEAL
John B. Dwyer has the details:
President Bush will award a posthumous Medal of Honor to the family of Navy LT Michael P. Murphy. For Operation Red Wing he led a 3-man SEAL recon team that was taken under fire by several dozen Taliban in June 2005. When his commo man was wounded, Murphy had to expose himself to enemy fire to radio for a rescue chopper (shot down upon arrival; all aboard killed).Dwyer has links as well.
Though shot in the back while doing so, he completed that call and, multiply wounded, returned to the team, now engaged in a desperate battle. Some 2 hours later, only one, Luttrell, remained alive.
Michael Yon Deserves a Pulitzer Prize
So says Rick Moran and he is right.
Check out Yon's latest Dispatch and read others. No one that I have seen or read is reporting like Yon.
Check out Yon's latest Dispatch and read others. No one that I have seen or read is reporting like Yon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)