Liberal College Kid

If you are a current or former college student, try to think about all of the professors that you have taken over the years. On which side of the political spectrum do you believe most of them fall? If your experience was, or is, like that of most American students, you’ll find that the majority of them were either explicitly liberal, or at least gave you that general impression. Traditional logic says that the Ivory Towers are, in most cases, a Leftist stronghold, and empirical data is beginning to show that this may be the case, particularly within certain disciplines.

In the February 22, 2008 edition of The Chronicle of Higher Education, there is an article spotlighting the work of a married couple, Dr. Matthew Woessner and Dr. April Kelly-Woessner, both of whom are professors, looking into why there is a gap between the number of liberals and conservatives in academia. What is particularly interesting is that Matthew, an assistant professor of public policy at Pennsylvania State University, Harrisburg, is a conservative, while April, associate professor of political science at Elizbethtown College, is a liberal. Later this year, they will be publishing a piece titled “Left Pipeline: Why Conservatives Don’t Get Doctorates” in an American Enterprise Institute book. Seeing two people from opposite ends of the political spectrum come together professionally (not to mention the fact that they are married) is very refreshing in the increasingly polarized political environment in which we have found ourselves. Their work is integral to the discussion of politics within the academic world. Everyone should check out their forthcoming paper, “Left Pipeline,” which can be found here (pdf) (great thanks to the Woessners for linking permission). It may be of particular interest to those of you who consider yourself “far left” or “far right.”

As the Woessners’ paper explains, there is a wide array of possible explanations for why this phenomenon occurs. It could be personality differences between liberals and conservatives that lead them into different fields of study. Maybe conservatives are more achievement-oriented, and therefore predisposed to the professional majors, like accounting and computer science. Or, its possible that the liberal environment on many American campuses dissuades conservatives from pursuing a doctorate and the life of a professor. Conservatives may have a stronger desire to make more money and raise a family, desires that may not be compatible with a career in academics. The answer isn’t entirely clear, yet. What is clear, however, is that the reason there are more liberal professors does not relate to intelligence or performance in school. It’s not, as I am sure many of you are eager to conclude, because conservatives are stupid.

My intention in publishing this post is to ask some questions of our readers, and hopefully start a discussion on the role of politics in academia. I would like to see what your personal opinions on the issue are, and how, if at all, the political ideology of your professors influenced your experiences. Again, if your not entirely familiar with the issue, I would highly recommend the Woessner paper linked above. If you want a more fiery and partisan take on the topic, check out David Horowitz’s Students For Academic Freedom website (caveat: there are some pretty extreme ideas being promulgated on the SFAF site (i.e. “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week”), and personally, Horowitz turns my stomach, although his Academic Bill of Rights is worth reading into).

So, if you’ve got a few extra minutes and want to add to this conversation, here are a few questions to answer in the comments section below this post:

1. Have you, or did you, notice that your college professors were, in general, more liberal or conservative? If so, which one?

2. What do you think best explains the disparity between the number of liberals and conservatives who pursue doctorates and go on to be college professors? Is there one good answer, or is it a combination of many factors?

3. Do a professor’s ideological convictions have a serious influence on their job as academics and teachers? If a professor actively tries to keep his or her politics out of the classroom, is that enough to prevent bias from influencing the way material is presented or how they interact with their students?

4. For conservative readers: Did, or do you, feel isolated or discriminated against because of your ideological beliefs? Does it seem that special preferences are given to liberal students or that their opportunities for post-graduate studies are greater?

5. For liberal readers: Do explicitly liberal professors ever seem to appreciate your presence in their class more because you agree with them ideologically? Is all this talk of bias against conservatives just delusion?

6. For everyone: Do you feel that your political beliefs relate in away way to the major, and therefore the career that you chose?

Hopefully we’ll get some good comments, and maybe some vicious arguments going here. I look forward to it.

• Leave a comment... (7)

On Friday the Washington Post published its biweekly column by Michael Gerson, this time titled “Democrats in Denial.” Before we discuss the basis of the article and the claims made within it, a little about Michael Gerson himself.

Gerson is a former senior policy adviser to the Heritage Foundation, an important and influential conservative think tank. He left that position in 1999 at the bidding of Karl Rove who thought that Gerson would be a nice addition to the presidential campaign for George W. Bush. After Bush was elected, Gerson became one of his speech writers and eventually became the head of the White House speech writing group. If anyone were to doubt the effect that his work has had on the rhetoric and political language of the current time, they would only need reminded that, according to Gerson himself, he was the originator of the “smoking gun - mushroom cloud” image, the term “axis of evil” and that he was one of the most prolific speech writers for Bush (it should be mentioned that other White House speech writers have accused Gerson of exaggerating his contributions, although the point is that even if he did not come up with all of the memorable lines of this administration, he desires to have people believe that he did - which may be even more revealing). In 2006 Gerson left the White House, wrote for a time at Newsweek, and ultimately was given a column at the Washington Post.

Now that we are familiar with Gerson’s past and his obvious interests in defending the actions of the administration, policies that he himself helped persuade the American public to accept, let’s look at some of the claims made in his latest piece.

The mood of this article strongly suggests that it is a reaction to the events in Iowa last night; specifically, that such an overwhelming amount of independents and even Republicans came out to participate in the Democratic caucuses. Gerson seems angry about this, and would like to convince us that most of the platforms of the Democratic candidates are no better - in fact, much worse - than those of the Bush administration. First he takes on the Iraq war. Again, let’s keep in mind the “smoking gun - mushroom cloud” metaphor that convinced the world that the war was justified in the first place, a metaphor that proved to be meaningless.

Gerson says:

“In Iraq, coalition casualties are down significantly, along with Iraqi civilian casualties, roadside bombings and suicide attacks. Large sections of Baghdad have been pacified, and the military rolls toward Mosul. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is in reeling retreat. And, most impressive, we have seen the first example of a large-scale Sunni Arab uprising against Islamic extremism. By one estimate, 30,000 former insurgents and tribal leaders are now fighting the enemy in Iraq, adding their surge to our own.

This progress is reversible, especially while Moqtada al-Sadr’s militias maintain the capability to mount their own mini-Tet Offensive. But Gen. David Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy has succeeded with disorienting speed. Its combination of vision and competence will fill chapters in military textbooks.”

If the statistics Gerson is referring to are assumed to be accurate (this administration has been less than competent in compiling accurate numbers, especially in respect to the war where they have bet so much of their credibility. A key phrase here is “by one estimate” - almost certainly the highest estimate), then they do reflect that the surge may be working. And this is, at the risk of stepping out of the holy party line, a very good thing. We can debate the merits of the war as a whole, whether or not it should have happened in the first place, but if the surge is working, and therefore fewer Americans and innocent Iraqi’s are losing their lives, it should be congratulated. In this case, partisanship is not only irrelevant, it’s irresponsible. However, Gerson’s characterization of the surge as having worked with “disorienting speed” is an obvious exaggeration meant to insinuate that Petraeus completely blew everyone’s expectations out of the water. I also highly doubt that it will appear in future military textbooks. He wants us to believe that this has been one of the most impressive military undertakings in history, a claim that is almost laughable.

Next, Gerson says:

“In spite of these gains, Democratic presidential candidates still insist on reckless timetables for withdrawal — the surest way to rescue defeat from the jaws of victory.”

One wonders how closely Gerson has actually listened to the Democratic Candidates. Now that the race has effectively been reduced to Obama and Clinton, with moderate hopes left for Edwards, only one of the candidates has pledged to pull out all combat forces by 2013 (Edwards). Surely, both Obama and Clinton would like the war to be over, and they would definitely take whatever measures necessary to achieve these goals. But no matter how politically advantageous it is for any of them to claim they will end the war immediately (which they really have not anyway), they all know that a complete, and in Gerson’s words, reckless immediate withdrawal would indeed probably be a bad idea, and none of them would actually do it.

So far, the column is nothing too spectacular, embodying what most people on the right and definitely everyone inside the White House already thinks. But then he turns his attention to education and the Orwellian No Child Left Behind.

“Democratic rhetoric on education is also an assault on reality. Attacking No Child Left Behind is a reliable campaign applause line — Hillary Clinton promises to “end” the law, because it is “just not working.” Actually, the imposition of educational standards and testing has improved math and reading scores and begun narrowing the gap between disadvantaged and affluent students.”

While Gerson is very correct that attacking the law is a great platform for a campaign, he reveals in this statement more than he means to. Why is it, I would like to ask him, that so many people feel so passionately against No Child Left Behind? Gerson condescends to the nearly the entire American public in his assertion that he knows more about what is or is not working in their own school districts than they do. People are angry about NCLB because they see what it is really doing. It is taking the focus off of real education, the kind that molds students into free thinkers and better members of society and instead concentrating solely on arbitrary test results. If a school fails to meet up to these pointless standards, then they do not get sufficient funding. There is a GLARING logical problem here. Shouldn’t those schools that are not meeting the cut actually receive more funding so that they have a chance of improving their programs? Instead, in the twisted mind of Bush administration members like Gerson, schools that are already disadvantaged and poor (a subject that requires an entire look of its own) are punished and their students are, well, there’s no other term for it other than “left behind,” hence the Orwellian, call it exactly what it is not, sense of the program. In addition, it would be nice if Gerson would provide us with some of the data that he interprets as showing that the gap between rich and poor (sorry, “disadvantaged and affluent”) students is closing. Surely, these incredible findings should be on the front page of every major newspaper, since they directly contradict what any respectable social scientist has found lately.

“There is an angry backlash against NCLB among some Democratic interest groups. Suburban districts resent being labeled as failures just because some minority and disabled children aren’t making progress. But that is the whole purpose of the law — to prevent districts from hiding the poor performance of minorities behind the success of other students. Such districts should feel less resentment and more shame.”

I kid you not, I gasped when I read these sentences. This, above anything else Gerson posits in this piece, is shocking. He doesn’t even make an attempt to conceal his racism. Disabled children?! School districts should be ASHAMED that their disabled students are not meeting up to George Bush’s standards?! No, Mr. Gerson, YOU are the one who should feel shame.

Whether it is intentional or not (and I would bet that at some level, it is), the real result of education policies like No Child Left Behind is to form students into the kind of intellectually numb, power yielding adults that fit so well into the corporate world, where idiotic targets and goals are now the norm as well. And those schools who do not mold enough of their students into this picture will simply have to fend for themselves. It has resulted in many schools being forced to abandon many of their usual and time tested curricula and only teach “to the test” in order to ensure that they don’t fall short. A shocking number of students entering college are entirely unprepared for the sort of real challenges that await them, because they will be required to actually think once in a while.

Gerson accuses the Democratic presidential candidates of being out of touch with reality. But obviously it is he who has become so indoctrinated with the Bush-world view, having spent many years shoving it down the American public’s throat, that he can no longer see reality. The policies that he helped articulate for the president are, in his mind, beyond scrutiny, even as their blatant failures are becoming obvious throughout the country and the world. Now that there is good evidence that the Democratic party is stronger than it has been in a very long time, Gerson and others like him will scramble to find reasons why they are not to be trusted and are incompetent liars. But the public is sick of the nonsense that is constantly spewed by the administration, and many of them can feel at a visceral level and see at a intellectual one that there is in fact substance to what the Democrats are saying. They are finding a vision that has been completely absent in the current administration. And when one of them is elected as president, Gerson is going to have to finally pull himself out of his own denial and myopia and see that it was partly his own fault, with his glaring lies and misconceptions, that the Democrats are back in power.

• Leave a comment... (1)

The article from yesterday produced such a pronounced response I thought rather than post in the comments section I would just make another post to address some of the questions posed and positions taken. I must say, however, I am continually surprised how many conservative readers we have on a site called liberalcollegekid.com. Go figure.

There were several great points made and I thank everyone who contributed. I want to first address:

What would you do if there was no federal government programs to invest in social issues ? Would you take the responsibility for your less fortunate neighbors, and family members ? Would we do a better job of working together, care for one another more, think about our communities more ? . Do you believe people are basically good, with some flaws, or are basically evil and need to be coerced into doing what is right ?

The first thing that comes to my mind when I ponder this question is Locke’s social contract theory. The idea that in order to have a functioning society we must give up some of our “natural” rights. I think this is the best way to understand why we pay taxes, it all stems back to Hobbes’ theories about how we form a society. So, no, I don’t think we would do a better job of taking care of one another if we were not compelled to; its not natural. If there were no government we would not have society, we would all exist in our own private reality devoid of meaning and community with no reason to even attempt to take care of one another since we have connection to each other.

As for human nature being good or evil, I don’t think that’s even something worth pondering. Human “nature” deals with things like eating, pro-creating, shelter, etc. I realize this is a very post-modern position but I just don’t see any point in deciding if we are innately good or bad, we’re not innately anything.

<- Future Posters for 08?->

I thought it was funny that people brought up the idea of a Kucinich/Paul ticket. I think its easy to tell from my article that I like a lot of what Dr. Paul has to say, but perhaps there can be a better comparison drawn here.  As a Democrat, I’m constantly talking to my fellow leftists about Kucinich because he is the only person in the race with a peace-loving, truly progressive platform.  I think in many ways the only real Republican in the 08 race is Ron Paul.  The Republicans have moved so far away from their base that they almost seem like a third party.  Here’s what I mean:

The whole idea of being “conservative” is being resistant to change, wanting to keep things the same or return to the way they were.  So less government spending, programs, involvement abroad, participation in international organizations, interfering with people’s health and life decisions, taking rights from the states etc. would all then not be conservative  The whole concept of a “hands-off” or laissez-fare government is exactly what the Republicans once preached.  Let’s look at the Bush administration though: We’ve got troops all over the world, trying to build nations, we’re involved in all kinds of international trade organizations, he wants to restrict what a woman can do with her body, he’s imposed education legislation that has given the federal government a choke hold on what state’s can do with their own money in their schools…  All of this while spending more than any President ever has in history, combined.  What’s conservative about spending us into the ground so that we need a hostile Chinese government to bail us out?

Ron Paul is different, the real conservative stance should be anti-war and anti-government influence in people’s lives.  The real split in the parties can be best understood by examining the two best representatives: Kucinich and Paul.  Kucinich wants to use the federal government to make life better for every American, Paul wants the government to stay out of the lives of every American.  That’s really the only difference, so why aren’t we seeing news story after news story discussing the Kucinich vs. Paul debates?

I have an answer to this question, and its an uncomfortable one:  Americans no longer care about real issues.  We have a political system in which a person’s opinion on homosexuals is enough to make them register with a particular party.  And if that issue doesn’t get someone into a camp, ask them about abortion.  These are not political questions, they’re personal quetions that should have nothing to do with even local government, let alone the federal government.  Kucinich and Paul talk about real change and real issues.  I just wish the rest of the candidates, on both sides of the aisle, would start doing the same.

• Leave a comment... (7)

We’ve all seen the signs at this point… At least in the western half of this country. “Ron Paul Revolution!” The signs look more like some kind of underground punk band and not an advertisement for a Texan in a suit. Then again, the Ron Paul campaign is not involved in the “revolution” movement. Here is the sign, if you’ve not seen one yet:

Some on the left have applauded Ron Paul for some of his positions. I would like to echo these statements and add that the Democrats should be brave enough to stand up and say some of the things Dr. Paul has said. Here are some examples of what I’m talking about.

Ron Paul wants to get the US military out of Iraq, but he also wants to get the US military out of every foreign nation. I couldn’t agree with him more. We are wasting money keeping troops in Korea for 50 years, keeping troops in Europe for 60. Troops in those countries are not protecting our national security. And we do not have a mandate that says we must police the world. If anything the radical groups of the Middle East’s message has been clear: get out of the Middle East and Palestine. Rather than accept this we go on with the rhetoric of “they hate us for our freedom.” (Giuliani et al) What nonsense! It’s refreshing to hear anyone, let alone a Republican stand up and say we need our troops out of these countries.

Dr. Paul is also right when he says that the over-spending must stop. The idea that we are relying on China to finance a failed war that the majority of Americans do not support is frightening. How can that even be happening? The truth of the matter, as Paul would agree, is that this Republican administration has over spent in record amounts and have run the national deficit into the trillions. These are the people that are “financially conservative?” Please, Paul’s suggestion for spending is to return to the Clinton era.  Ironic no?

Paul loses me on a critical issue, however, and that is his idea of abolishing income tax and with it 1/3 of the government’s budget. While I detest the way this government spends money abroad, both Democrats and Republicans are guilty here, I can’t let the government’s funding wane. Rather, I want a government that is investing in the lives of the people it represents, rather than monetary interests from big party donors abroad. Rather than abolishing taxes we should be reinvesting. We are already paying enough money to pay for everyone in this country to have universal health care, free college educations, free pre-K programs, social security that provides for people to live above the poverty line, the list could go on.  We’re simply spending the money on failed efforts at Americanizing the world.

Ron Paul has some great ideas, and his forthrightness is refreshing. Perhaps the best compliment I can give him, though, is that I can actually fathom how a Republican could support Ron Paul. His thinking makes sense, he’s consistent, he actually has a plan to do something in this country domestically unlike the rest of his field who either want to make abortion illegal or continuing a failing war for the rest of our lives. So, my Republican friends, I applaud your support for Dr. Paul, and if you really like his ideas I recommend you take a look at http://www.dennis4president.com/. Kucinich has all the same stances on foreign policy issues and yet also wants to make life better for every American at home rather than asking Americans to put out their own fires, build their own roads and bridges, and home school their children.  Yes I know this isn’t part of Paul’s campaign speeches but these are the things that taxes fund.

Does this make me part of the Revolution?  I hope not, I think.

• Leave a comment... (23)

Many people didn’t watch it, we didn’t even write about it yesterday, but it turns out there was a Democratic debate yesterday hosted by the AFL-CIO in Chicago. The one candidate not present was Mike Gravel, but honestly I don’t think that mattered very much to people.

< The Contenders…

Sure there were a few big moments. Obama continued to threaten a sovereign nation who is on our side in the war on terror, Hillary told us if we want a winner she’s our girl, and Kucinich got the second biggest round of applause when he called for the end of NAFTA and WTO (love that guy!!). But the truly great part of the debate happened off the stage.

A man named Steve Skvara had the line of the night. He said:

“After 34 years with LTV Steel, I was forced to retire because of a disability. Two years later, LTV filed bankruptcy. I lost a third of my pension, and my family lost their health care. Every day of my life, I sit at the kitchen table across from the woman who devoted 36 years of her life to my family, and I can’t afford to pay for her health care. What’s wrong with America and what will you do to change it?”

As he said it his voice cracked with emotion and the entire event paused and gave the man a standing ovation. Skvara’s story was proof that this election touches people. This is not simply a contest, nor is politics something that only effects those directly involved in the government. Our democracy effects each and everyone of us and there is more that we can do as a country to take care of one another.

Ask yourself several questions: What is more important, the war in Iraq or education? The war in Iraq or healthcare? The war in Iraq or stem cell research? The list can go on… What happened to our priorities? Perhaps the best question to be asking right now: is the infrastructure in Iraq more important than infrastructure here in America? The answer, I hope, is no. When did it become more important to rebuild another country instead of taking care of those of us at home?

This presidential election in 2008 has the potential to forever change our country. We could see the full funding of healthcare for all Americans, real funding for education, campaign finance reform, real funding for stem-cell research, and the end of the greatest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam. America is a progressive nation, one that since it’s creation has set the standard for countries all over the world.  We had the first democracy in modern time, wrote a constitution that has become the standard to which other constitutional governments are measured against, and provided freedoms never before seen in the world.  What happened to our world leading spirit and initiative? We can reclaim our position as the nation that sets the standard that other countries strive to recreate. There is no reason we don’t have the best schools, brightest students, healthiest citizens, most fair elections, and most accomplished scientists.  If we truly are the leaders of the free world it’s time we start acting like it.

• Leave a comment... (6)

Greetings all, and first and foremost: SORRY!!

I spent the last two weeks plus traveling in Greece, Ukraine, and Turkey. I returned with many post ideas, so please know that our huge decrease in posts is not a permanent phenomenon.

That said, the night before I left I made a comment on a small blog written by a man named Gary Foust on a post he had written about liberal college campuses. Of course, I left the country and wasn’t able to participate in the dialog that took place there after, but you can read the comments here.

Following that a woman named Susan Baldwin picked up on the post from Gary’s site and responded with her own responses which she has titled the Liberal College Kid trilogy where she thinks being liberal is naive. You can read that post here. I’m actually really bummed I wasn’t around to mix it up with some of our conservative readers, but I’m sure the chance will spring up again.

Here is my response to Gary’s initial post:

First, it is not un-American to protest the government. In fact, that’s how a democracy is supposed to work. For centuries universities and colleges have served as places where democracy can be truly seen as people from all sides of every issue are able to participate in the market place of ideas. The fact that there are groups who are anti-American is in and of itself what is so great about living in a society that protects freedom of speech.

Next, as far as liberal professors go; you should know being on a college campus that there is a direct correlation between education and tolerance as well as education and liberal leanings. It seems, the more people know the more they care about other people, thus making them more liberal. That being said, the idea that we should question professors is a fine and noble idea. However, these people have the academic background that qualifies them to instruct in a collegiate setting, thus they should in fact be trusted and their opinions do carry an added amount of validity. It is very possible to learn from people who are from a different political party. Otherwise, someone like me could never have taken economics.

I have not met a single person who has entered a classroom a conservative and left a liberal or vice versa. That’s not where political ideologies are formed, its where they are discussed and the sooner the radical right realizes this we can move on from this war on progressive professors and start talking about things that matter: like healthcare and Iraq.

Thanks for your continued reading and I promise to not have another dry spell like this again. Later today I’ll post my first reaction piece: What the Ukraine Really Thinks about the Soviet Union.

• Leave a comment... (2)

This political cartoon is a great representation of the ridiculous effort in America’s public schools to Un-separate church and state…to move hundreds of years backwards in our efforts to create a free democracy. This country was founded on the idea of religious freedom, but lately it seems that “the powers that be” are trying to make us forget that.

The teaching of the Theory of Evolution in public schools is a debate that should not even be a debate. There is no scientific debate that Evolution by Natural Selection and that changes in allele frequencies over generations of a population are the causes of speciation, including the divergence of our own species. Let me reiterate, because this concept can apparently be misleading…THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC DEBATE. Research done in fields of science is guided by evolution…Genetics, Conservation Biology, Ecology, Pharmaceuticals, etc, etc. There seems to be confusion about the fact that a Scientific Theory is not just someone’s WILD GUESS. . .

This is a great explanation of the true definition, which is NOT what most high schoolers are taught when they learn about Evolution in their schools (if they do at all)…

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity’s effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.
Here’s a video excerpt that, ridiculous as it is, did not shock me that much, knowing the statistics of how many citizens of this country do not “believe” in evolution, even though it’s not a belief system to begin with, but rather a testable, working Scientific Theory.

Humans’ impact on environment is reaching its tipping point, and if the same politicians that claim to want to work for alternative fuel and new scientific innovation that will allow us to continue our society through major environmental change simultaneously say that they don’t “believe” in evolution then there’s no hope for our future….If they don’t recognize one of the most applicable scientific ideas of all time, how can they even think that they will be able to have an impact on the future of science? Or a better question, how can the citizens that are voting for these guys think that they aren’t utterly and completely full of …it?

WHO doesn’t Believe in Evolution? - GOP Debate show of hands….

Tancredo, Huckabee, Brownback…..Link to Tonight’s debate picture:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/03/who-doesnt-believe-in-evolution/

Because: That’s why they don’t believe in evolution - their leadership becomes less fit over time…..

ev_cartoon2.gif

• Leave a comment... (13)

The New York Times ran a story today spotlighting the slow march away from abstinence only education. The article reported that birthrates in American teenagers has been steadily falling since 1991 but that the state of Texas has seen the smallest decline despite receiving the most money for abstinence only education. This, in a nutshell, explains the absolute absurdity of abstinence only education.

If a teenager wants to wait to have sex before they get married, great. Good for them, it’s nice to see the youth of America having principles and sticking to their guns when these principles are called into question. Why on earth, though, would we want our federal government to have a policy stipulating that kids can’t have a real sex education class (I would challenge anyone to show me how abstinence only education can actually be considered educational) in school? Let’s face it most kids don’t want to go to their parents to talk about sex and most parents feel equally as awkward having the birds and the bees talk with junior.

Kids aren’t going to decide to have sex simply because they know how to do it safely. That’s the biggest flaw in the AO argument. It’s as if AO proponents fear that by telling kids how STD’s are contracted and how to use a condom correctly or what other means of birth control are available the students will run out and start shacking-up as soon as class gets out. Have a little more faith in your kids America. If a child is staying abstinent for moral reasons then telling he or she how to put on a condom shouldn’t change that. However by not teaching a child who has no intent on saving it until marriage how to have safe sex you’re not only doing huge disservice to the child but you’re also burdening your community with undue healthcare and social service costs which will come from the unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. A condom is a lot cheaper than maternity care for an uninsured woman.

I have no problem with including an abstinence portion included in a more rounded sex education. After all, the only 100% surefire way not to contract a sexually transmitted disease or to get pregnant is by not having sex in the first place and teens should know that condoms don’t work every single time. This mentality that if we only talk about abstinence with our children then they won’t have sex before marriage (or before they’re ready) is ridiculous. We need to stop being a nation of ostriches in give teenagers the information they need in order to be healthy.

After all this is NOT a moral issue, it’s a health issue and the government needs to realize this.

• Leave a comment... (32)

The Alabama state legislature passed a bill recently which apologizes for the role the state played in slavery. Fantastic. The bill was passed in the House by an unrecorded voice vote. Okay, no worries there. The bill passed in the Senate by a margin of 22-7 with five abstentions… and along party lines. All Republicans in the Senate either abstained from voting or flat out voted against a bill which apologizes for slavery. Are you kidding me? How does anyone not vote in favor or a bill which apologizes for enslaving people?? Are the Republicans in Alabama not sorry that there state was a fervent defender of the right to “own” another human being? I simply can’t fathom how anyone in good conscious could vote against a bill like this one.

This is just another indication that, “as far as we’ve come”, we still have a lot of work to do if we want to live in a truly equal society. Remember when Clinton wanted to mend race relation in this country and had a town hall meeting to that end? It didn’t do a whole lot when everything was said and done but it was still a start. While I don’t believe that the government can simply tell its citizens to treat everyone with respect and equality and assume it will happen I do think they should be expected to play some role in at least initiating a dialogue or by actively promoting the idea of racial equality.

We want to believe that, as a whole, we do treat everyone equally, after all it’s in our Constitution isn’t it? Because of this anything that works to promote racial equality immediately comes under fire the second it inconveniences someone not being helped (i.e. Affirmative Action). We want to believe that if you’re a poor black kid that grew up in Cabrini-Green you have the same shot at getting into an Ivy League school as a rich white kid from Palm Beach. We still have this fantasy that all it takes to succeed in America is determination and the ability to pull yourself up by your boot straps (a colloquialism I’ve never fully understood) but the reality is that this isn’t the case. We do need Affirmative Action and other government programs that are designed to enrich our culture by making it more heterogeneous. It’s great that race relations are much better than they were 50 years ago and it’s true that things have improved by leaps and bound from where they were before the civil rights movement but when there are still seven elected officials who feel compelled to vote against a bill that apologizes for slavery there is still a lot work to be done and the government should feel obliged to take the lead in starting that work.

• Leave a comment... (0)

I have been hesitant to comment on the events at Virginia Tech on this forum because I simply do not think it is a political issue. On the other hand, I cannot think about much else, least of all American politics.

I have no direct connection to any of the individuals directly affected by the incident, yet I am filled with tremendous grief and emotion. I cannot even begin to fathom how this has and will continue to impact those who are directly affected and I want to show them the utmost respect in this time of great sorrow.

With that said I want to pick up on an issue that my colleagues briefly mentioned in their comments regarding Monday’s events. An issue that I believe is a cultural issue that impacts our legal system and our institutions of higher education, and while I am not naïve enough to think these institutions are free from politics that is not the perspective from which I am sharing this information with you.

This morning I picked up the current edition of The Chronicle of Higher Education (April 20, 2007). While it’s dated after Monday, I believe this issue had gone to press prior to the events at VT and covers last weeks stories. To my surprise, their opinion section “Point of View,” has two lawyers giving their opinion on new legislation recently passed in Virginia. The article states that: “Virginia recently became the first state to pass legislation that bars public colleges and universities from punishing or expelling students ‘solely for attempting to commit suicide, or seeking mental-health treatment for suicidal thoughts or behaviors.’ ”

Wow. The timing of this is nothing short of eerie.

The lawyers outline several legal cases that demonstrate the difficult task institutions of higher education face in dealing with mental health issues. In the most basic terms colleges are caught between “developing supportive mental-health policies, they risk costly and reputation-damaging litigation. If they don’t, they risk students’ lives.” The authors suggest that the Virginia law is one that risks students lives. Needless to say, it will be interesting to see how this law plays out in the state of Virginia.

This is such an interesting and complicated issue and I by no means have a solution, but I would argue that it is a cultural one that must be dealt with. It seems to me that the cultural stigma of mental health has more to do with reputation and less to do with ensuring the health of our citizens.

When treating mental health, institutions of higher education are caught in an even more confounding problem. Despite the lack of respect, support, even less funding, and confining policies, society has the most unrealistic expectations of these institutions. They must keep students safe at all cost, but not without violating rights of confidentiality for fear of being sued or blamed for a mass massacre.

When we combine our country’s stigma of treating mental health and the unrealistic expectations on higher education we set ourselves up for a dangerous and terrifying situation at the risk of individual lives.

• Leave a comment... (0)