Critical Mass

Scholarships Around the US has just announced a $5,000 scholarship for bloggers.  Check out the requirements to see if you think you or someone else you know qualifies.

Scholarship Requirements:

• Your blog must contain unique and interesting information about you and/or things you are passionate about. No spam bloggers please!!!
• U.S. citizen;
• 3.0 GPA;
• Enrolled full-time in post-secondary education; and
• If you win, you must be willing to allow us to list your name and blog on this page. We want to be able to say we knew you before you became a well educated, rich, and famous blogging legend.

InsideHigherEd.com has an article today about how politicians in many states are using higher education as planks in their platforms for the election, each trying to balance the "I'm here to help the children" approach with the "I'm fiscally responsible" approach.

Williams College in Massachusetts is undergoing a change in the way it forces diversity upon its students, InsideHigherEd.com reports.  While since the 1980s, "Students had to take a course about a minority group or a non-Western group," administrators realized "[the program] grew from nice liberal white guilt," as one professor put it, and "It identified us. It said, ‘we’re white guys who are now taking courses to learn about people of other colors.’ At its core, that’s very racist if you think about it," as another said.  Now, instead of just taking a course about an "other" group, students can get the oh-so-necessary diversity requirement in any number of ways:

• Through comparative study of cultures and societies.

• Through curriculums that encourage “empathetic understanding” of diverse groups by “recreating the social, political, cultural, and historical context of a group to imagine why within that context, those beliefs, experiences, and actions of the group have emerged.”

• Through study of “power and privilege.”

• Through “critical theorization” in which students explore the ways scholars analyze cross-cultural interaction.

• Through “cultural immersion,” which could involve study abroad or through foreign language courses that “explicitly engage in the self-conscious awareness of cultural and societal differences, traditions, and customs.
  

 As long as it isn't racist.  The new program isn't based on any type of guilt at all.

About $23,000 a year, according to a new government study.

That is the average gap in earnings between adults with bachelor's degrees and those with high school diplomas, according to data from the Census Bureau.

College graduates made an average of $51,554 in 2004, the most recent figures available, compared with $28,645 for adults with a high school diploma. High school dropouts earned an average of $19,169 and those with advanced college degrees made an average of $78,093.

$23,000 a year - that's shockingly close to what I am actually paying in tuition per year.  Of course, I'm not making that extra twenty-three grand right at the moment, so I still need student loans, but someday this double-major in youth ministry and history will pay off...right?

A bomb threat closed Diablo Valley College yesterday "after two sets of bomb-sniffing dogs led police to identify [a student locker] as a 'possible threat location.'''  A faculty strike at Hartnell College by full- and part-time instructors picketing faculty contracts has administrators trying to keep classes going; no classes have been cancelled as of yet, though about 60% of the faculty is on strike.  Throw in the recent UCSC student protest "that had regents trapped indoors and demonstrators clashing with police," and California colleges have had a busy week.  Glad to see our students are learning the many virtues of free speech and democratic organization.

Released by the Minuteman Project:

President Bollinger remains missing from any meaningful discussion

Columbia University, NY - Leftist Columbia students destroyed civility and assaulted academic freedom when they disrupted the Republican Club sponsored event by storming the stage at Roone Arledge Auditorium on Oct 4, physically preventing Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist from speaking.

More than two weeks have passed since that outrageous attack on free speech, and to date, nothing of significance has been heard from Columbia's president, Lee Bollinger, who seems to prefer anonymity in dealing forthrightly with this important free-speech-on-campus issue.

Is Columbia a real university, where opposing views can be debated openly? Or has Columbia become simply a breeding ground where only leftist so-called "liberal" thought is tolerated?

Silence is acceptance, and in this case, Bollinger's silence speaks loudly that Columbia's policy is to accept racial epithets, hate speech, hate crime, censorship, and hooliganism - so long, of course, as it is directed only at conservative speakers. Leftist speakers come and go on campus, and nothing comparable ever happens to them.

A letter from attorney Jack H. Robbins, of Dana Point, makes demand that President Bollinger conduct "a full and complete investigation in a timely manner." Robbins' letter notes that the university police officers present "did absolutely nothing to prevent the attack, or to stop the violence once it began." And, according to Robbins' letter, no one from Columbia - least of all Bollinger - ever inquired if the speakers' had been injured.

The student bullies of Columbia were abundantly filmed. Their attack on free speech was immediately posted on University websites and in the national news. Yet to date, no arrests or suspensions have been made, and President Bollinger remains missing in action.

If conservative bullies had similarly stormed a leftist event, such as by the Chicano caucus or the socialist coalition, can anyone doubt that enforcement would have been severe, and investigation and punishment immediate? Had anyone shouted racial slurs at leftists, or made false allegations, can there be any doubt that investigation and prosecution would have been called for by Columbia's president?

The Minuteman Project is neither racist, nor violent, despite the hysterical claims of the individuals and groups involved in the disruption at Columbia. Yet the Project and its representatives have been both slandered and libeled by the arrogant, violent, irresponsible allegations of the hooligan disrupters, whose uncivilized acts have been effectively condoned by the silence of the administration.

It's time for President Lee Bollinger to stop being silent and step up to denounce and investigate - then to arrest, suspend, and sanction, without regard to political correctness. He should follow that with a personal invitation to the Minuteman Project to return to Columbia. Only then can Columbia again be considered a real university. Until that happens, supporters, donors, alumni, and entering students are well advised to "steer clear" of this intolerant school.

Phil Lovegren writes in the Daily Texan of the intensity of collegiate political movements, noting that in our fervor we often overstep boundaries respected by those more experienced in the political realm than we.  Lovegren argues that in the passionate protests and the like, we can often present a distasteful view of politics that can have a long-term effect on those peers of our who are not so politically minded right now:

A banana cream pie is thrown in the face of a well-paid speaker. A banner unfurled, others stick duct tape on their mouths or chain themselves to a pole. A speaker whose audience has turned their backs away from him; a student body that feels sympathetic to the cause but embarrassed by the tactics. All of this sounds worn out or trivial.

Less trivial is a need for collective action in spite of hesitance, a need for people to realize that democracy is, or at least should be, merely a collection of active voices talking. The output of the conversation produces representative democracy, and its quality determined by the original chattering.

On the left, that is. You know, the ones who weren't afraid to gunsling toward the avowed enemy. Now, I am by no means a Vietnam scholar or authority, but in reading about the war in this book I did take notice of the attitude that Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson had towards fighting the 1960s version of the war on terror--Communism:

“Losing the Great Society was a terrible thought, but not so terrible as the thought of being responsible for America’s losing a war to the Communists. Nothing would be worse than that.”

Or this:

“If you let a bully come into your front yard one day, the next day he’ll be up on your porch, and the day after that he’ll rape your wife in her own bed.”

That last one is admittedly crass, but can you imagine a typical 2006 Democrat speaking about the terrorist threat with even half that amount of grit and passion?

No, this has nothing to do with Mark Foley. Fantasy Congress is the political equivalent of Fantasy Football, and it is growing fast. Reports Yahoo News:

"If people cared about politics as much as they care about sports, we'd have a better democracy," said CMC [Claremont McKenna College] Senior Andrew Lee, one of the masterminds behind Fantasy Congress. "Fantasy Congress hopes to create a more accountable government and a better educated electorate. Congress needs to know that young people are watching them, just as they watch sports teams and athletes."

Roughly, the site works like this: You join or create a team of legislators (choosing from multiple tiers of seniority and influence) who earn you points in the fantasy world based on their real world actions in Congress.

Should be interesting. Perhaps CM will start its own team/league... We'll keep you posted.

Your Gay Point Average, that is.  From Rhode Island's Providence Journal online:

Forget the traditional “grade point average.” The creators of a guide geared toward gay students have a new ranking system for universities: the Gay Point Average. It’s based on 20 factors, including whether the school has a coming-out week or if it extends domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples.

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln is considering a new policy of "diversity." If hearing just that much made you suspicious, then you'd be right; it's fishy from the get-go, and two professors at UNL editorialize on it in the Daily Nebraskan. According to them, "Here is what should frighten you":

1. From now on, your annual evaluations will include being graded on the extent to which you have contributed (or not) to a climate of "inclusiveness" and the extent to which you have participated in "campus programs to improve climate ..."

"Inclusiveness" is not defined in the document, nor is the nature of these programs specified. Thus, these words can mean whatever your department chairperson or others in the administration want them to mean - and can't we all guess?

Read the rest of the editorial at the link above. Read the policy for yourself. I emailed the authors of the diversity plan and asked them a few relevant questions: In seeking a diversity-embracing faculty, does the school risk becoming intellectually homogenous? Would not that defeat the purpose of diversity? How far will this call for diversity take the school? Will it hire a professor with views considered "intolerant"? After all, that professor's viewpoint would most definitely contribute to the school's diversity!