Insider Higher Ed has an interesting piece on a post by an anthropology professor at Kansas State.
See the article here.
See the video here.
Worth your time.
The Chronicle has a column by Naomi Schaeffer Riley, a conservative writer whose credits include the WSJ and National Review, advising students that colleges do have rules. Whether you are from the right or left — your freedoms end where the campus rules begin. More to the point:
But by now, students, or at least their parents, should know better. Students on the right should realize that politically correct speech has been a campus requirement for a long time, regardless of whether administrations are willing to acknowledge it. And that many secular universities are unwelcoming, if not
downright hostile, toward strongly religious and politically conservative students. Meanwhile, the aspiring student activists on the left might do themselves a favor by finally noticing that universities are corporations
run by grown-ups, who have to think about budgets and alumni giving and public relations.
So students should follow the advice of consumer advocates and relationship counselors when it comes to picking a college. Read about the product before you (or your parents) hand over money for it. And don’t enter a relationship thinking you’re going to change it.
If you have perused my posts, especially those dealing with policy and/or legislation, you will note that I make judgements on the intent of those promoting their policies. Many times, I find that my initial judgements were ill informed. Those times are the result of talking to the initiator, listening, then making an assessment of the policy intent.
I keep telling myself I will learn not to jump to conclusions, or at least, to wait until the advocate of a policy matter either clearly annunicates his or her position or proves to be without credibility. Discourse is good. Debate is honorable. Losing is not bad. Poor judgement, however, is devastating.
Actually, the way society respects each is diametrically opposed. Dead poets, at least the good ones, rise in respect. Dead politicians (dead in the political realm, not corporeal), well, as a friend once said:
No one wastes goodbyes on dead politicians
Found the blog of a good high school friend…
She seems to have regressed to old english … but otherwise, she is dabbling with lots of Web 2.0 tools for her teaching.
Time, or the measurement thereof, has been an important tool for the military and governments for centuries. Congress in its infinite wisdom has decided to change the date for daylight savings time switching to March 11 — 4 weeks earlier than usual (this was done in 2005 — so don’t blame the new majority for this one). Now business, and individuals, will bear the cost.
Call this Y2k v 2.0
An editorial by the Augusta Chronicle is concerned about the costs to human freedom that may be incurred as a result of proposed abatement of global warming.
Why don’t they have the same concern when it comes to the proposed infringment on liberties created by our responses to terrorism?
If you were to calculate probabilities of being effected by either warming or terrorism — multiply that probability by the cost (or damage) incurred should such an event affect you — would there be any appreciable difference in the result? Now, calculate the diminishing value of liberty as a result of the “solution” proposed for either event. Which side of the balance sheet wins?