Far be it for me to miss the news practically in my own back yard, but as I glanced over the news for the past few weeks I had not realized the connection. Recently Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, the same professor who caused an uproar at Iowa State University for promoting the theory of Intelligent Design, was denied tenure. Dr. Gonzalez, without making the issue himself, was mocked with a "petition" claiming that his ideas and theories that relate to intelligent design should not be taught at institutions of learning. Apparently academic freedom only goes so far - you know, until you study something the academic elite disagrees with.
I'm not saying that there is necessarily any connection between Dr. Gonzalez's ideas and his denial of tenure, but he sure thinks so.
Showing posts with label academia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label academia. Show all posts
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Friday, June 01, 2007
Is this even news?
Liberal speakers outnumber conservative speakers at U.S. university commencements 8 to 1.
Surprised? You shouldn't be.
Surprised? You shouldn't be.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Response to a Tragedy
There are a number of ways to respond to the shock of a national calamity. The shootings at Virginia Tech have awakened us in many ways to the lack of morality and Godlessness we see in our everyday lives. Some on the Left have chosen to use this as the calling card for gun control, or the outright repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Some on the Right have taken the opportunity to decry the foolishness in supposed "gun-free zones" and the lack of personal responsibility required of young adults in America.
Some, such as David Skorton, the president of Cornell and former president of the University of Iowa, and Betty Trachtenberg, the dean of students at Yale, have use the tragedy to advance their idiotic notions of morality and justice. Skorton has made calls for the country to honor the "33rd victim," the murderer of innocents as "a member of our family." The dean of students at Yale has used the shootings at Virginia tech to ban all weapons from campus - including fake ones used in dramatic productions. She then amended the ban so that students could use "obviously fake" weapons such as wooden swords in productions.
What really needs to be done? We need a culture of intellectual discourse and defense. Physical defense will follow intellectual defense, but in so many ways our institutions of higher learning do nothing to teach responsibility and logical discourse in the name of "diversity," "multiculturalism," or "sensitivity." We need college students to understand that the institutions will not and can not protect them - not from physical harm or unwanted intellectual stimulus. Students are adults and claiming colleges can protect them is both untrue and unwise. Finally, we must be "realistic about reality" and acknowledge that "gun-free zones" and attacks on our rights as Americans to bear arms does nothing to secure ourselves or our students safety. CNN anchors that accuse the gun store proprietor of murder never questioned the fertilizer store owner who sold ammonium nitrate in Oklahoma City or blamed the presidential administration for Columbine. Crime will not be stopped by preventing citizens from arming themselves, because the law-breakers won't stop buying guns when it becomes illegal.
What response is necessary? Remember that you are responsible for yourself, and that you have only one comfort in life and in death.
Some, such as David Skorton, the president of Cornell and former president of the University of Iowa, and Betty Trachtenberg, the dean of students at Yale, have use the tragedy to advance their idiotic notions of morality and justice. Skorton has made calls for the country to honor the "33rd victim," the murderer of innocents as "a member of our family." The dean of students at Yale has used the shootings at Virginia tech to ban all weapons from campus - including fake ones used in dramatic productions. She then amended the ban so that students could use "obviously fake" weapons such as wooden swords in productions.
What really needs to be done? We need a culture of intellectual discourse and defense. Physical defense will follow intellectual defense, but in so many ways our institutions of higher learning do nothing to teach responsibility and logical discourse in the name of "diversity," "multiculturalism," or "sensitivity." We need college students to understand that the institutions will not and can not protect them - not from physical harm or unwanted intellectual stimulus. Students are adults and claiming colleges can protect them is both untrue and unwise. Finally, we must be "realistic about reality" and acknowledge that "gun-free zones" and attacks on our rights as Americans to bear arms does nothing to secure ourselves or our students safety. CNN anchors that accuse the gun store proprietor of murder never questioned the fertilizer store owner who sold ammonium nitrate in Oklahoma City or blamed the presidential administration for Columbine. Crime will not be stopped by preventing citizens from arming themselves, because the law-breakers won't stop buying guns when it becomes illegal.
What response is necessary? Remember that you are responsible for yourself, and that you have only one comfort in life and in death.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Free speech strikes again
At the University of Rhode Island, the College Republicans decided to protest racially-based scholarships with their own sponsorship of a $100 scholarship available to "white, heterosexual, American males." Regardless of the president of the university's reminder to the student senate of the Republicans' constitutionally protected right of free speech, the student senate still derecognized the organization.
Like I said, free speech to all, except towards those with which we disagree.
Like I said, free speech to all, except towards those with which we disagree.
Is anyone listening?
There's no polite way or time to say it: American college and universities have become coddle industries. Big Nanny administrators oversee speech codes, segregated dorms, politically correct academic departments, and designated "safe spaces" to protect students selectively from hurtful (conservative) opinions—while allowing mob rule for approved leftist positions (textbook case: Columbia University's anti-Minuteman Project protesters).
Instead of teaching students to defend their beliefs, American educators shield them from vigorous intellectual debate. Instead of encouraging autonomy, our higher institutions of learning stoke passivity and conflict-avoidance.
And as the erosion of intellectual self-defense goes, so goes the erosion of physical self-defense.
...Late last summer, a shooting near campus prompted students to clamor again for loosening campus rules against armed self-defense. Virginia Tech officials turned up their noses. In response to student Bradford Wiles's campus newspaper op-ed piece in support of concealed carry on campus, Virginia Tech associate vice president Larry Hincker scoffed:
"[I]t is absolutely mind-boggling to see the opinions of Bradford Wiles…The editors of this page must have printed this commentary if for no other reason than malicious compliance. Surely, they scratched their heads saying, 'I can't believe he really wants to say that.' Wiles tells us that he didn't feel safe with the hundreds of highly trained officers armed with high powered rifles encircling the building and protecting him. He even implies that he needed his sidearm to protect himself."
The nerve!
Hincker continued: "The writer would have us believe that a university campus, with tens of thousands of young people, is safer with everyone packing heat. Imagine the continual fear of students in that scenario. We've seen that fear here, and we don't want to see it again…Guns don't belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same."
Who's scratching his head now, Mr. Hincker?
Title answer: no.Update: I hope so, from the Instapundit (a professor of law at the University of Tennessee):
"Gun-free zones" are premised on a fantasy: That murderers will follow rules, and that people like my student, or Bradford Wiles, are a greater danger to those around them than crazed killers like Cho Seung-hui. That's an insult. Sometimes, it's a deadly one.
Monday, April 16, 2007
"Our nation is shocked and saddened"
May God comfort the loved ones of the victims of one of the worst tragedies in American history.
Update: Heroes emerge - people who barricaded the door or used their body to save students' lives. Powerline links to the Jerusalem Post in their description of such a professor. Also, the paper reminds us of other deadly university shootings, the worst until yesterday taking place at the University of Texas in 1966 when a gunman climbed the clock tower and began shooting at students. The paper claims that police killed the shooter in Texas. We should remember, though, that a citizen entered the tower with police, as citizens from all across the area provided cover for police with their personal firearms.
And let's also not forget the fact that University law enforcement officers can't carry guns in Iowa...
Update: Heroes emerge - people who barricaded the door or used their body to save students' lives. Powerline links to the Jerusalem Post in their description of such a professor. Also, the paper reminds us of other deadly university shootings, the worst until yesterday taking place at the University of Texas in 1966 when a gunman climbed the clock tower and began shooting at students. The paper claims that police killed the shooter in Texas. We should remember, though, that a citizen entered the tower with police, as citizens from all across the area provided cover for police with their personal firearms.
And let's also not forget the fact that University law enforcement officers can't carry guns in Iowa...
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Jeb Bush College of Education?
In an amazing case of university snobbery, the faculty of the University of Florida denied a motion to award Jeb Bush with an honorary degree. This virtually never happens, and the Florida legislature is fighting back.
This week their House evidently passed a bill to rename the U of Florida's College of Education after Jeb. Poetic justice?
This week their House evidently passed a bill to rename the U of Florida's College of Education after Jeb. Poetic justice?
Separation of Mosque and State?
Why is it that in the Minnesota public university system you can't play Christmas music at Christmas, but a college will use public funds to install non-needed Muslim foot-washing basins?
Saturday, April 07, 2007
News Roundup 4/7/07
The Social work academic program at Missouri State University got the worst evaluation its president has ever seen of a program. What alerted the administration that there was a problem? When a Christian student refused to complete an "assignment" to send a letter to the Missouri legislature requesting that gay couples be allowed to foster children.
The lovely and peaceful Iranians seemed to not have treated their British captives very humanely after all. In an attempt to violate as many provisions of the Geneva Convention as possible, they lined up the captives (bound and blindfolded), placed them against a wall, and faked their executions. How nice.
Finally, a lesson in media bias via Powerline blog. In one "news" story, the world's foremost expert on hurricanes becomes a mindless old coot "railing" and "out of the mainstream" when it comes to his criticism of Al Gore and global warming. Simply amazing.
The lovely and peaceful Iranians seemed to not have treated their British captives very humanely after all. In an attempt to violate as many provisions of the Geneva Convention as possible, they lined up the captives (bound and blindfolded), placed them against a wall, and faked their executions. How nice.
Finally, a lesson in media bias via Powerline blog. In one "news" story, the world's foremost expert on hurricanes becomes a mindless old coot "railing" and "out of the mainstream" when it comes to his criticism of Al Gore and global warming. Simply amazing.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
I have heard, yet I do not believe
I recently returned from the student affairs event of the decade - the 2007 Joint Meeting of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) and the American College Personnel Association (ACPA). This conference of higher education student affairs professionals is held every year by each organization, and jointly every decade. Nearly 10,000 college administrators and graduate students attended, and guess who they got as their keynote opening speaker? Al Gore. (The picture is about 10 years old, in case you were wondering).
Although I think I've had my fun debunking the myth of man-made "global warming" and have already tossed a few mockeries out about the Goracle himself, I always intended to watch An Inconvenient Truth myself and debunk it. With Al's speech at the Joint Conference, I've already seen and heard all I need to.
He essentially gave his Inconvenient Truth speech, which was about as silly as it was factually a joke. A few highlights:
Hurricanes: Amazingly, Al Gore has retained the hurricane section of his speech, even though linking hurricanes to global warming is something only he still believes in. Recently, the world's #1 expert on hurricanes was not asked to write the hurricane section of the U.N.'s climate change report, because for years he has seen no evidence linking the two. Gore claimed that while some scientists state that global warming has no effect on hurricane numbers, scientists do state that global warming affects hurricane strength. The problem with this is that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Hurricane Center knows and has stated on a number of occasions that hurricanes are controlled by a natural cycle - not global warming (if global warming even exists.)
Gore went on to claim that a hurricane last year was the strongest ever recorded. He's right if he meant by atmospheric pressure - wrong if by size or wind speeds. The hurricane winners in those categories were back in the 1960's and '70's. He also claimed that Wilma in 2005 made scientists question the need for a "Category 6" hurricane on the previously 5-point scale. I can find no record of such an inquiry in NOAA or the NHC's websites - only in the media.
Finally, Gore tossed up a graph of yearly hurricane damage dollar amounts showing a wild increase from year to year. He reminded the audience that although inflation and population growth fuels this upward trend, hurricane intensity is the main factor. This is a foolish assessment at best. Considering the exponential population growth the coast of the U.S. has seen in the past century, it is no wonder the damage numbers are now much higher. I'm sorry Al, but comparing the cost of the damage to Galveston, Texas in 1900 to Central Florida in 1992 isn't really indicative of anything other than inflation and population growth.
Antarctic Ice: Al tried to scare us with a variety of ice-melting pictures and disaster scenarios. Unfortunately his data on Antarctica was amazingly wrong. While he focused on one relatively small ice sheet that broke up a number of years ago, he failed to mention that ice and snow on the continent has grown exponentially in the past few years. Antarctic ice is not melting - it's growing!
CO2: My education in post-modernism has increased my attention to the regular failure and suspect nature of cause and affect relationships. Unfortunately for the Goracle, his "science" relies on the same false connections as does all "global warming" "science": the idea that carbon dioxide is the sole reason for global warming. The simplistic nature of this notion is hard to immediately dismiss alongside graphs showing corresponding temperature and CO2 increases (over 60 years? How old is the Earth again?) but in essence is a silly reductionist approach to science. Gore claimed as evidence for his theory that Venus is warmer than Mercury because of carbon dioxide. He, of course, forgot to mention that Mars is also warming on a planet-wide scale - without more CO2, humans, or $1100 monthly energy bills. Maybe solar radiation is involved?
Kyoto: The second most lie-infested part of the presentation was when Al mentioned Kyoto. He claimed, in the final moments of his speech, that "deniers" claim that the Earth is too far gone for us to save from the perils of global warming. He rejected that statement, and astonishingly claimed Kyoto as evidence of the ability to reverse course. The only problem with this, of course, is that Kyoto acknowledges global warming as unstoppable, and its mandated restrictions on CO2 are only 1/10th of what the treaty itself says is necessary (not to mention that 13 out of 15 European nations are ignoring their signatures). Saying Kyoto is the solution to global warming is shamelessly playing on our collective ignorance of the agreement, assuming that Al is not also ignorant of these facts.
Religion: The final and possibly most frightening part of Al's presentation was the literal religiosity of the entire affair. Pictures of melting glaciers were met with gasps, insulting phrases toward global warming "deniers" were met with laughs and snickers, and the final parts of his presentation - a call to "save the Earth" as he named states and cities combating global warming - were feverishly presented to ever-increasing roars from the crowd. Al doesn't want people to think, or he would have presented factually accurate information. Al wants you to believe. He wants you to believe in global warming. It is truly a religion - a religion with a prophet (Gore), a god (Earth), and a penance ("carbon neutrality").
Also sprinkled throughout his commentary were jokes concerning the 2000 election, and he was listed in the program as "winning the popular vote," which is kind of like matching 3 out of the 5 lottery numbers. It's been 7 years Al - get over it already.
Finally, I have great concerns over what this session means for higher education in general. Al made a number of requests that "global warming" not be a political issue. However, global warming is of course political, regardless of whether or not the prophet Goracle declares it to be. Hearing that Al was coming made a number of even my liberal colleagues wonder what on earth he would speak about that connected to higher education. However, Gore went ahead and gave his global warming speech anyway. Is this what the organizers intended? I have a feeling yes, and I'm sure Gore was happy to come. What more friendly of an audience can he get for his pseudo-science than a group of liberal academics?
In short, Al Gore, like global warming, is a joke.
Although I think I've had my fun debunking the myth of man-made "global warming" and have already tossed a few mockeries out about the Goracle himself, I always intended to watch An Inconvenient Truth myself and debunk it. With Al's speech at the Joint Conference, I've already seen and heard all I need to.
He essentially gave his Inconvenient Truth speech, which was about as silly as it was factually a joke. A few highlights:
Hurricanes: Amazingly, Al Gore has retained the hurricane section of his speech, even though linking hurricanes to global warming is something only he still believes in. Recently, the world's #1 expert on hurricanes was not asked to write the hurricane section of the U.N.'s climate change report, because for years he has seen no evidence linking the two. Gore claimed that while some scientists state that global warming has no effect on hurricane numbers, scientists do state that global warming affects hurricane strength. The problem with this is that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Hurricane Center knows and has stated on a number of occasions that hurricanes are controlled by a natural cycle - not global warming (if global warming even exists.)
Gore went on to claim that a hurricane last year was the strongest ever recorded. He's right if he meant by atmospheric pressure - wrong if by size or wind speeds. The hurricane winners in those categories were back in the 1960's and '70's. He also claimed that Wilma in 2005 made scientists question the need for a "Category 6" hurricane on the previously 5-point scale. I can find no record of such an inquiry in NOAA or the NHC's websites - only in the media.
Finally, Gore tossed up a graph of yearly hurricane damage dollar amounts showing a wild increase from year to year. He reminded the audience that although inflation and population growth fuels this upward trend, hurricane intensity is the main factor. This is a foolish assessment at best. Considering the exponential population growth the coast of the U.S. has seen in the past century, it is no wonder the damage numbers are now much higher. I'm sorry Al, but comparing the cost of the damage to Galveston, Texas in 1900 to Central Florida in 1992 isn't really indicative of anything other than inflation and population growth.
Antarctic Ice: Al tried to scare us with a variety of ice-melting pictures and disaster scenarios. Unfortunately his data on Antarctica was amazingly wrong. While he focused on one relatively small ice sheet that broke up a number of years ago, he failed to mention that ice and snow on the continent has grown exponentially in the past few years. Antarctic ice is not melting - it's growing!
CO2: My education in post-modernism has increased my attention to the regular failure and suspect nature of cause and affect relationships. Unfortunately for the Goracle, his "science" relies on the same false connections as does all "global warming" "science": the idea that carbon dioxide is the sole reason for global warming. The simplistic nature of this notion is hard to immediately dismiss alongside graphs showing corresponding temperature and CO2 increases (over 60 years? How old is the Earth again?) but in essence is a silly reductionist approach to science. Gore claimed as evidence for his theory that Venus is warmer than Mercury because of carbon dioxide. He, of course, forgot to mention that Mars is also warming on a planet-wide scale - without more CO2, humans, or $1100 monthly energy bills. Maybe solar radiation is involved?
Kyoto: The second most lie-infested part of the presentation was when Al mentioned Kyoto. He claimed, in the final moments of his speech, that "deniers" claim that the Earth is too far gone for us to save from the perils of global warming. He rejected that statement, and astonishingly claimed Kyoto as evidence of the ability to reverse course. The only problem with this, of course, is that Kyoto acknowledges global warming as unstoppable, and its mandated restrictions on CO2 are only 1/10th of what the treaty itself says is necessary (not to mention that 13 out of 15 European nations are ignoring their signatures). Saying Kyoto is the solution to global warming is shamelessly playing on our collective ignorance of the agreement, assuming that Al is not also ignorant of these facts.
Religion: The final and possibly most frightening part of Al's presentation was the literal religiosity of the entire affair. Pictures of melting glaciers were met with gasps, insulting phrases toward global warming "deniers" were met with laughs and snickers, and the final parts of his presentation - a call to "save the Earth" as he named states and cities combating global warming - were feverishly presented to ever-increasing roars from the crowd. Al doesn't want people to think, or he would have presented factually accurate information. Al wants you to believe. He wants you to believe in global warming. It is truly a religion - a religion with a prophet (Gore), a god (Earth), and a penance ("carbon neutrality").
Also sprinkled throughout his commentary were jokes concerning the 2000 election, and he was listed in the program as "winning the popular vote," which is kind of like matching 3 out of the 5 lottery numbers. It's been 7 years Al - get over it already.
Finally, I have great concerns over what this session means for higher education in general. Al made a number of requests that "global warming" not be a political issue. However, global warming is of course political, regardless of whether or not the prophet Goracle declares it to be. Hearing that Al was coming made a number of even my liberal colleagues wonder what on earth he would speak about that connected to higher education. However, Gore went ahead and gave his global warming speech anyway. Is this what the organizers intended? I have a feeling yes, and I'm sure Gore was happy to come. What more friendly of an audience can he get for his pseudo-science than a group of liberal academics?
In short, Al Gore, like global warming, is a joke.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Indoctrinate U
What is the current state of education in the U.S.?
My favorite line as right at the end...
If you like what you see check out their website and request a screening. It seems that Hollywood isn't interested in distributing the documentary. I wonder why?
My favorite line as right at the end...
If you like what you see check out their website and request a screening. It seems that Hollywood isn't interested in distributing the documentary. I wonder why?
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
White people are bad
Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs is confused. He is concerned with what was written about Barak Obama in a past biography:
After graduating from college, Obama eventually went to Chicago to interview for a job as a community organizer. His racial attitudes came into play as he sized up the man who would become his boss. “There was something about him that made me wary,” Obama wrote. “A little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.”
Barak Obama has a problem. Ok - a number of problems. His first is that he has absolutely no governance experience whatsoever. His second is that he has some decidedly average liberal values that he plasters all over his autobiography and other books. His only hope to garner the votes of liberal elites that believe race still can and should transcend our modern experience is to hold these kind of racist views.
When I saw Obama on TV giving a speech at the dedication of the new Martin Luther King Jr. memorial on the National Mall, I heard him tell a story about what he told his daughters MLK Jr. should mean to them.
"I told them that because of Martin Luther King, they have unbounded potential in this country."
I'm not sure of the exact quote, but "unbounded potential" was a specific phrase he used.
This is not a liberal value.
The individual that wrote the biography above would claim, as do many liberal elites and many of my colleagues in my graduate program, that black people in America do not have and will never have equal opportunity because of their skin color. Racism and oppression are not and never will be gone, and only by acknowledging our fundamental subconscious bias and correcting for it will we correct past wrongs. Barak Obama will have to soon choose one of the racial mentalities - and the one he mentioned at the MLK monument dedication won't be the one that gets liberals to vote for him in 2008.
After graduating from college, Obama eventually went to Chicago to interview for a job as a community organizer. His racial attitudes came into play as he sized up the man who would become his boss. “There was something about him that made me wary,” Obama wrote. “A little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.”
Harris-Lacewell said such expressions of distrust toward whites will not hurt Obama in the Democratic presidential primaries, which are dominated by liberal voters.
“To win the Democratic nomination, he’s got to get a part of the progressive, anti-war, white folks,” she said. “And those white folks tend to be suspicious of any black person who wouldn’t be suspicious of white people.”
Charles tosses in a "Wow." after this paragraph. He shouldn't - this kind of a worldview is exactly what I have been taught over two years of graduate school.Barak Obama has a problem. Ok - a number of problems. His first is that he has absolutely no governance experience whatsoever. His second is that he has some decidedly average liberal values that he plasters all over his autobiography and other books. His only hope to garner the votes of liberal elites that believe race still can and should transcend our modern experience is to hold these kind of racist views.
When I saw Obama on TV giving a speech at the dedication of the new Martin Luther King Jr. memorial on the National Mall, I heard him tell a story about what he told his daughters MLK Jr. should mean to them.
"I told them that because of Martin Luther King, they have unbounded potential in this country."
I'm not sure of the exact quote, but "unbounded potential" was a specific phrase he used.
This is not a liberal value.
The individual that wrote the biography above would claim, as do many liberal elites and many of my colleagues in my graduate program, that black people in America do not have and will never have equal opportunity because of their skin color. Racism and oppression are not and never will be gone, and only by acknowledging our fundamental subconscious bias and correcting for it will we correct past wrongs. Barak Obama will have to soon choose one of the racial mentalities - and the one he mentioned at the MLK monument dedication won't be the one that gets liberals to vote for him in 2008.
Monday, January 22, 2007
The melting of "global warming"
Since the first days that I started this blog I have been talking about the "science" of man-made "global warming." In my opinion not only is the science flawed, but the idea that a "wide scientific consensus" is any reason to believe a scientific theory is very foolish.
The idea that man alone and our production of CO2 is what has raised the average worldwide temperature 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 150 years is not going to disappear in a day or even a year. "Global warming" and "global cooling" scares have floated through the academic community a half-dozen times in the past 100 years. Although these things seem to come and go, they don't do it in a heartbeat.
However, articles like this seem to move "global warming" alarmism down the path away from undebatable scientific fact and place it again within the realm of reason. Scientists believe that global warming is caused by man - but many opinions vary between worldwide effects of temperature change and whether or not a portion of this temperature increase is natural. Debate such as this, as well as acknowledging the control of publishing by older members of academia, is the first step in undermining a great deal of this alarmist consensus science. I may be wrong, but I have the feeling that global warming alarmism is a passing fad.
The idea that man alone and our production of CO2 is what has raised the average worldwide temperature 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 150 years is not going to disappear in a day or even a year. "Global warming" and "global cooling" scares have floated through the academic community a half-dozen times in the past 100 years. Although these things seem to come and go, they don't do it in a heartbeat.
However, articles like this seem to move "global warming" alarmism down the path away from undebatable scientific fact and place it again within the realm of reason. Scientists believe that global warming is caused by man - but many opinions vary between worldwide effects of temperature change and whether or not a portion of this temperature increase is natural. Debate such as this, as well as acknowledging the control of publishing by older members of academia, is the first step in undermining a great deal of this alarmist consensus science. I may be wrong, but I have the feeling that global warming alarmism is a passing fad.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Trouble for Domestic Partner Benefits in Ohio
On November 22, Ohio state legislator Thomas Brinkman sued Miami University for its Domestic Partner benefits policy, stating that it is in violation of Ohio's fairly recently amended constitution.
Brinkman has become the proverbial scum on the lake at Miami, for the students that actually show up to hear him speak attack him on the basis of their perceptions of him, not on the merits of his case.
Today the Miami Student newspaper reported that Brinkman's lawsuit against Miami has been thrown out of court because the Ohio taxpayer, legislator, and parent of a Miami student forgot to mention that he pays tuition to Miami University in the hearing. The Alliance Defense Fund, who is supporting Brinkman against Miami, have said they will appeal. You can read the judge's decision here, in which the lawyer for Miami foolishly claims that the judge made no judgments about the merit of the case:
Plaintiff, Thomas Brinkman, a taxpayer and citizen, disagrees sharply with Defendant, Miami University, an instrumentality of the state, regarding its provision of medical insurance benefits to those it classifies as same-sex domestic partners of its employees. Brinkman maintains that Miami’s policy violates the Ohio Constitution. Arguably Brinkman is correct, but he lacks the requisite, adverse legal interest in the dispute.
...
Arguably the State of Ohio, through its instrumentality or arm, Miami University, has done that which is constitutionally proscribed. It has seemingly created a category of persons, same-sex domestic partners of its employees, to whom the state extends the same kind of medical insurance benefits, and perhaps other benefits, which the state has traditionally reserved for spouses of employees. It is obvious that in order for the same-sex domestic partners of employees to qualify for benefits, the relationship between the cohabiting persons must be virtually the same as that of spouses.
The judge then goes on to question whether Brinkman has any legal recourse, and contemplates ways that the Ohio state legislature or the governor could act to bring Miami University in line with the Ohio Constitution.
Miami and its lawyers claim this is a victory, but this is a resounding defeat for Domestic Partner benefits in Ohio. It's clear that the judge realizes that Miami's policy violates the Ohio constitution, and he makes a specific rejection of the argument that if the benefits are not funded through taxpayer moneys the violation does not occur (and also makes the comment that Miami's attempt to make this accounting change recognizes the University's understanding of its policy's violation of the constitution. Whoops).
So there you have it. I'm sure the appeal is on the way, and we'll have to wait and see how long it takes for the will of the people of Ohio to be done.
Brinkman has become the proverbial scum on the lake at Miami, for the students that actually show up to hear him speak attack him on the basis of their perceptions of him, not on the merits of his case.
Today the Miami Student newspaper reported that Brinkman's lawsuit against Miami has been thrown out of court because the Ohio taxpayer, legislator, and parent of a Miami student forgot to mention that he pays tuition to Miami University in the hearing. The Alliance Defense Fund, who is supporting Brinkman against Miami, have said they will appeal. You can read the judge's decision here, in which the lawyer for Miami foolishly claims that the judge made no judgments about the merit of the case:
Plaintiff, Thomas Brinkman, a taxpayer and citizen, disagrees sharply with Defendant, Miami University, an instrumentality of the state, regarding its provision of medical insurance benefits to those it classifies as same-sex domestic partners of its employees. Brinkman maintains that Miami’s policy violates the Ohio Constitution. Arguably Brinkman is correct, but he lacks the requisite, adverse legal interest in the dispute.
...
Arguably the State of Ohio, through its instrumentality or arm, Miami University, has done that which is constitutionally proscribed. It has seemingly created a category of persons, same-sex domestic partners of its employees, to whom the state extends the same kind of medical insurance benefits, and perhaps other benefits, which the state has traditionally reserved for spouses of employees. It is obvious that in order for the same-sex domestic partners of employees to qualify for benefits, the relationship between the cohabiting persons must be virtually the same as that of spouses.
The judge then goes on to question whether Brinkman has any legal recourse, and contemplates ways that the Ohio state legislature or the governor could act to bring Miami University in line with the Ohio Constitution.
Miami and its lawyers claim this is a victory, but this is a resounding defeat for Domestic Partner benefits in Ohio. It's clear that the judge realizes that Miami's policy violates the Ohio constitution, and he makes a specific rejection of the argument that if the benefits are not funded through taxpayer moneys the violation does not occur (and also makes the comment that Miami's attempt to make this accounting change recognizes the University's understanding of its policy's violation of the constitution. Whoops).
So there you have it. I'm sure the appeal is on the way, and we'll have to wait and see how long it takes for the will of the people of Ohio to be done.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Academia vs. the Real World
The President of the University of Pennsylvania hosts a costume party every year for Halloween. This year, she had a student come dressed up as a terrorist, complete with suicide belt and AK-47, taking hostages and executing infidels. The obvious question is whether the President of this Ivy League school would allow a Hitler or KKK costume at her party - I wonder...
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Thoughts on Imperialism
Rarely a day goes by in my life of academia that I don't hear a particularly venomous attack on George W. Bush, conservatives, Republicans, or on America itself.
The other day was no exception when a professor (a very well-respected professor) made a comment to the effect of "I wonder how the common Iraqi feels about an imperial nation invading their country."
What boggles me is this notion of imperialism. The ever-so-handy dictionary.com tells me that imperialism is "The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations."
This definition lends credit to America as an imperial nation only though the economic and political hegemony. The idea that the US is in a war in Iraq to gain new territory is absurd. The next time I hear about an American heading over to Iraq to stake their claim I'll let you know.
Further, how do you define political or economic hegemony? Economic hegemony leads me to think of a nation that has economic supremacy and control over another. In this way, the entire world is an "imperial territory" of the United States, the world's larges economic power. However, it could be just as easily said that the United States is a territory of the "imperial world" who hold the keys to America's enormous economic debt.
Political hegemony is the final term that lends a bit of credibility. Is the US controlling Iraq's government? Maybe so - indeed, the stalling Prime Minister Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari may by on his way out under just such pressure. However, even if there is some short-term control of Iraq's government now, the US is clearly and plainly setting the Iraqis up to govern themselves for the long term (for reference, see Germany, Italy, and Japan).
Persons who claim the US is an imperial nation loose out by all three understandings of imperialism. One has to look only as far back as World War II, when the US was the only nation in world history poised on conquering the globe - to see we returned the conquered lands back to those we liberated (and/or defeated). Is there a permanent military presence in France and Germany? Yes - and it kept the Soviet Union from rolling their tanks over from the east. Will there be a permanent military presence in Iraq? Most likely - to keep Iran at bay. Do any of these instance qualify for US "imperialism?" Clearly not. In any case, if the US still had imperial aspirations to gain more territory we would surely do so by other means.
American imperialism -another washed-up liberal term invoked to insult our great nation and disillusion us from our goals in Iraq - freedom and democracy.
The other day was no exception when a professor (a very well-respected professor) made a comment to the effect of "I wonder how the common Iraqi feels about an imperial nation invading their country."
What boggles me is this notion of imperialism. The ever-so-handy dictionary.com tells me that imperialism is "The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations."
This definition lends credit to America as an imperial nation only though the economic and political hegemony. The idea that the US is in a war in Iraq to gain new territory is absurd. The next time I hear about an American heading over to Iraq to stake their claim I'll let you know.
Further, how do you define political or economic hegemony? Economic hegemony leads me to think of a nation that has economic supremacy and control over another. In this way, the entire world is an "imperial territory" of the United States, the world's larges economic power. However, it could be just as easily said that the United States is a territory of the "imperial world" who hold the keys to America's enormous economic debt.
Political hegemony is the final term that lends a bit of credibility. Is the US controlling Iraq's government? Maybe so - indeed, the stalling Prime Minister Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari may by on his way out under just such pressure. However, even if there is some short-term control of Iraq's government now, the US is clearly and plainly setting the Iraqis up to govern themselves for the long term (for reference, see Germany, Italy, and Japan).
Persons who claim the US is an imperial nation loose out by all three understandings of imperialism. One has to look only as far back as World War II, when the US was the only nation in world history poised on conquering the globe - to see we returned the conquered lands back to those we liberated (and/or defeated). Is there a permanent military presence in France and Germany? Yes - and it kept the Soviet Union from rolling their tanks over from the east. Will there be a permanent military presence in Iraq? Most likely - to keep Iran at bay. Do any of these instance qualify for US "imperialism?" Clearly not. In any case, if the US still had imperial aspirations to gain more territory we would surely do so by other means.
American imperialism -another washed-up liberal term invoked to insult our great nation and disillusion us from our goals in Iraq - freedom and democracy.
Monday, April 03, 2006
Hooray for College Republicans!
From those stubborn college conservatives that brought you the phrase, "People that think they are always right annoy those of us who actually are" on a t-shirt bring you Conservative Week 2006!
Update: As an aside, I saw another publication today on the door of a dorm that also advertised Conservative Week. It said (approximately):
CHUCK NORRIS IS A REPUBLICAN!
Conservative Week 2006
**Disclaimer: For every one of these signs you rip down we will just replace it with another, thereby killing the tree that you hugged last night.
Inflammatory yet hilarious.
Monday, March 06, 2006
The Modern Leftist Teacher
How often does this happen? A Geography teacher "teaching" his class about the evils of America, capitalism, the Israelis, etc. His hysterical rants border on causing his voice to crack at times.
Highlights include comparing Bush to Hitler, calling the White House and the World Trade Center legitimate military targets, and explaining that capitalism fundamentally ignores human rights.
The student who recorded this tidbit tries to get a few words in edgewise. At one point he makes the statement that Al Qaeda attacked the US first on 9/11 and that we were at that time not attacking anyone. You can hear one of his classmates in the background say, "That's only what they tell you."
Listen to the clip here. It's amazing.
(You may want to save it to your computer - it takes a bit to load.)
Update: Another good roundup and transcript here.
Highlights include comparing Bush to Hitler, calling the White House and the World Trade Center legitimate military targets, and explaining that capitalism fundamentally ignores human rights.
The student who recorded this tidbit tries to get a few words in edgewise. At one point he makes the statement that Al Qaeda attacked the US first on 9/11 and that we were at that time not attacking anyone. You can hear one of his classmates in the background say, "That's only what they tell you."
Listen to the clip here. It's amazing.
(You may want to save it to your computer - it takes a bit to load.)
Update: Another good roundup and transcript here.
Friday, February 24, 2006
The Young (Collegiate) Left
Michelle Malkin has an excellent website, and a great deal of contacts and information on a variety of subjects.
I was interested to read her post about students that questioned Supreme Court Justice Scalia the other day. It seems that these students had no outside understanding of anything at all - they were just repeating non-question liberal talking points at Scalia. Such things as "I hear Dick Cheney's not such a great shot." "You want to impose your view of natural law on me." "Quail err quail..." "Illegal war in Iraq." None of these things had anything to do with Scalia's speech - it just appeared that these students "knew" all of the "right" things to say but had no idea what they were talking about.
This idea that young liberals, especially in US colleges and universities, are completely clueless about the issues they are supposedly passionate about is becoming more and more prevalent. As I saw at my own campus, liberal-minded students sometimes have a difficult time separating themselves from talking points they watch on CNN and how to address an opportunity for an intelligent conversation with someone with opposing views.
In the past two weeks I had someone at school tell me that "hunting is always stupid" and that the "crazy pro-lifers" were at it again in South Dakota. This first comment I let slide, however the second I directly addressed and found that the individual had no idea 1)what the South Dakota legislature had decided, 2)how a lawsuit attacking the new law would work, 3)how the country's abortion laws stood before Roe vs. Wade, and 4)what it meant if Roe vs. Wade would be overturned. Upon explaining to her that if Roe was overturned all power to regulate and legislate abortion would fall again to the states the person replied, "Oh - I would be against that!" I decided there was little point in me asking why.
Some people are annoyed when others make comments like "Bush lied" and "we're in Iraq for oil" and "Bill Clinton was the greatest American President ever." I feel bad for these individuals - they obviously have a fairly weak grasp on reality and when confronted about their regurgitated declarations they are usually quick to fumble, counter-attack, or simply walk away.
I was interested to read her post about students that questioned Supreme Court Justice Scalia the other day. It seems that these students had no outside understanding of anything at all - they were just repeating non-question liberal talking points at Scalia. Such things as "I hear Dick Cheney's not such a great shot." "You want to impose your view of natural law on me." "Quail err quail..." "Illegal war in Iraq." None of these things had anything to do with Scalia's speech - it just appeared that these students "knew" all of the "right" things to say but had no idea what they were talking about.
This idea that young liberals, especially in US colleges and universities, are completely clueless about the issues they are supposedly passionate about is becoming more and more prevalent. As I saw at my own campus, liberal-minded students sometimes have a difficult time separating themselves from talking points they watch on CNN and how to address an opportunity for an intelligent conversation with someone with opposing views.
In the past two weeks I had someone at school tell me that "hunting is always stupid" and that the "crazy pro-lifers" were at it again in South Dakota. This first comment I let slide, however the second I directly addressed and found that the individual had no idea 1)what the South Dakota legislature had decided, 2)how a lawsuit attacking the new law would work, 3)how the country's abortion laws stood before Roe vs. Wade, and 4)what it meant if Roe vs. Wade would be overturned. Upon explaining to her that if Roe was overturned all power to regulate and legislate abortion would fall again to the states the person replied, "Oh - I would be against that!" I decided there was little point in me asking why.
Some people are annoyed when others make comments like "Bush lied" and "we're in Iraq for oil" and "Bill Clinton was the greatest American President ever." I feel bad for these individuals - they obviously have a fairly weak grasp on reality and when confronted about their regurgitated declarations they are usually quick to fumble, counter-attack, or simply walk away.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Brinkman vs. Miami University: The Main Event
If you want me to sum up the whole event it was simply a lesson in futility.
The first round goes to the angry liberal Miami students and staff. Brinkman's lawyer started off the discussion by referring to Miami as the "University of Miami," which is a fatal sin to Miami students. Miami University in Ohio is "Miami University" not the "University of Miami" Hurricanes. The students (who after Brinkman's introduction hissed instead of clapped) went wild after that, and the angry undercurrents got even worse when Brinkman referred to Miami President Dr. Garland as "Dr. Garlish" or "Garbund" or something a person who sues a University should not be mispronouncing in front of angry liberal college students. Brinkman went on to insult a variety of Ohio Republicans (including Governor Taft) which didn't look particularly good, either.
The second round went soundly to Brinkman and company. Angry liberal student after angry liberal student stood up and gave long orations about discrimination and civil rights and the 14th amendment. No matter how long the applause went or how loudly the crowd howled, every attack on Brinkman was soundly refuted.
The best example of this is when one of the students repeated the most-often cited attack on the Brinkman vs. Miami lawsuit. If one of the points of the suit is to save Miami money by not offering benefits to domestic partners then why waste student money defending a lawsuit?! One particular student went on and on about how his tuition is going to go up and how the state of Ohio doesn't give Miami enough money and on and on and on. After his speech the crowd gleefully leapt to their feet and clapped for longer than the original speech! However, Brinkman's lawyer smartly responded with what liberal college students fear - the truth. He replied that since Miami is a state agency its defense money comes from state coffers and would not influence the university budget at all. Being that this was a major talking point against Brinkman and it was so quickly and masterfully destroyed with one sentence it was no wonder that the students sat back in quiet confusion.
Finally, the decision rests soundly with Brinkman. As I had stated earlier I felt that it would be difficult and nearly impossible for him to prove that Miami's domestic partner benefits program attempted to "imitate" the institution of marriage. Brinkman wrapped up the discussion (a.k.a. liberal attack fest) by soundly restating that the benefits offered by Miami have nothing to do with the lawsuit. The violation of Ohio's constitution rests solely in the fact that Miami put together a concise and specific affidavit with the purpose of establishing the existence of a "domestic partnership" that brings with it specific benefits. This argument is very sound and through the extended clapping and whining of 3/4 of the audience no one was able to refute this idea.
Brinkman landed the knockout punch by reminding the students in the crowd that if they didn't like the Ohio Constitution's amendment against institutions imitating marriage that they should get together, gather 300,000 signatures, and put on the Ohio ballot a measure to appeal the amendment. After all, citizens of Ohio went through this same procedure to put this measure in the constitution originally - a measure which passed with 62% of Ohioans supporting it.
Quite a damning final statement. I wonder how many "activist" college student will do anything more to oppose Brinkman's lawsuit besides hissing at him and yelling "bullshit" in the shadowed background of a meeting room.
Also: There was also a contest of wills between random signage and clothing. The anti-Brinkman crowd wore stickers with an "equals" sign on them. However, the Miami College Republicans all had the same shirt with this paragraph on the back:
People that think they are always right annoy those of us who actually are.
Fantastic.
The first round goes to the angry liberal Miami students and staff. Brinkman's lawyer started off the discussion by referring to Miami as the "University of Miami," which is a fatal sin to Miami students. Miami University in Ohio is "Miami University" not the "University of Miami" Hurricanes. The students (who after Brinkman's introduction hissed instead of clapped) went wild after that, and the angry undercurrents got even worse when Brinkman referred to Miami President Dr. Garland as "Dr. Garlish" or "Garbund" or something a person who sues a University should not be mispronouncing in front of angry liberal college students. Brinkman went on to insult a variety of Ohio Republicans (including Governor Taft) which didn't look particularly good, either.
The second round went soundly to Brinkman and company. Angry liberal student after angry liberal student stood up and gave long orations about discrimination and civil rights and the 14th amendment. No matter how long the applause went or how loudly the crowd howled, every attack on Brinkman was soundly refuted.
The best example of this is when one of the students repeated the most-often cited attack on the Brinkman vs. Miami lawsuit. If one of the points of the suit is to save Miami money by not offering benefits to domestic partners then why waste student money defending a lawsuit?! One particular student went on and on about how his tuition is going to go up and how the state of Ohio doesn't give Miami enough money and on and on and on. After his speech the crowd gleefully leapt to their feet and clapped for longer than the original speech! However, Brinkman's lawyer smartly responded with what liberal college students fear - the truth. He replied that since Miami is a state agency its defense money comes from state coffers and would not influence the university budget at all. Being that this was a major talking point against Brinkman and it was so quickly and masterfully destroyed with one sentence it was no wonder that the students sat back in quiet confusion.
Finally, the decision rests soundly with Brinkman. As I had stated earlier I felt that it would be difficult and nearly impossible for him to prove that Miami's domestic partner benefits program attempted to "imitate" the institution of marriage. Brinkman wrapped up the discussion (a.k.a. liberal attack fest) by soundly restating that the benefits offered by Miami have nothing to do with the lawsuit. The violation of Ohio's constitution rests solely in the fact that Miami put together a concise and specific affidavit with the purpose of establishing the existence of a "domestic partnership" that brings with it specific benefits. This argument is very sound and through the extended clapping and whining of 3/4 of the audience no one was able to refute this idea.
Brinkman landed the knockout punch by reminding the students in the crowd that if they didn't like the Ohio Constitution's amendment against institutions imitating marriage that they should get together, gather 300,000 signatures, and put on the Ohio ballot a measure to appeal the amendment. After all, citizens of Ohio went through this same procedure to put this measure in the constitution originally - a measure which passed with 62% of Ohioans supporting it.
Quite a damning final statement. I wonder how many "activist" college student will do anything more to oppose Brinkman's lawsuit besides hissing at him and yelling "bullshit" in the shadowed background of a meeting room.
Also: There was also a contest of wills between random signage and clothing. The anti-Brinkman crowd wore stickers with an "equals" sign on them. However, the Miami College Republicans all had the same shirt with this paragraph on the back:
People that think they are always right annoy those of us who actually are.
Fantastic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
