Monday, August 04, 2003

Robert LaFollette, Jr. On War In A Democracy

My Wisconsin chum — Tom Terrific (Robertson) — more widely read than I — sent along this excerpt from the recent biography of the eldest son of "Fightin' Bob." The elder LaFollette opposed U. S. entry in the Great War (1917-1918). Young Bob, also a Senator from Wisconsin, did not vote against the declaration of war in 1941, but he had serious misgivings about the impact of war on society. Ultimately, Young Bob committed suicide in 1953 and the interpretation provided in this recent biography is that LaFollette, Jr. was driven to this tragic end by the machinations of Joseph R. McCarthy. McCarthy had defeated LaFollette for that Senate seat in 1946. LaFollette was projected as a primary opponent of McCarthy in 1952. LaFollette admitted that young people with a brief Communist past had served on his Senate committee staff in the late 1930s. Rather than face the McCarthyite smear campaign, Young Bob committed suicide (according to Professor Maney).

Now, we have the rightwing, blonde, bimbo: Ann Coulter. Coulter — whose book, Treason — pollutes the NYTimes best seller list for non-fiction. Coulter is attempting a resuscitation of Joe McCarthy. Liberals are traitors in Coulter-world. And the sickest thing is that people are buying this garbage. I detect the fine hand of Karl Rove in all of this defamation. Paralyze W's opponents and W sweeps to a victory as a wartime president. In the meantime, young people who are infintely better than Coulter, Rove, and W are in harm's way in Iraq. Next, we will send fine young people into that piece of Hell on Earth known as Liberia. Bring 'em on! If this be treason, make the most of it.



I came across this paragraph in Patrick J. Maney's YOUNG BOB A Biography of Robert M. LaFollette, Jr. from a speech LaFollette made in 1941 (CR 77:1, 1941, vol.87, pt. 2, pp. 1302, 1307) which I think sheds light on all wars this country has been in at all times including today:

"La Follette spoke more passionately and more emotionally about the domestic repercussions of war than he did about any other subject. 'Modern war' he said, 'poisons democracy, often fatally. Men cannot speak, think, or write freely. No longer do they participate as citizens of a free state.' He predicted that if the United States ever again became involved in war, 'tolerance will die. Hate will be mobilized by the Government itself. Neighbor will be set to spy on neighbor; bigotry will stalk the land; labor, industry, agriculture, and finance will be regimented, if not taken over, by the Central Government.' In short, war would create a dictatorship and destroy democracy, perhaps permanently. La Follette sometimes sounded like a pacifist, but he was not. He believed that if a foreign power attacked the United States, its possessions, or other nations in the Western Hemisphere, the United States would have to fight. But he considered such an attack unlikely."
(Maney, Patrick; YOUNG BOB; pgs.229-230)

The more things change, the more they are the same! 1941 or 2003?

Only 65? Hell, We Can Top That In Amarillo

We went through a similar accreditation review at Amarillo College in 2001. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) found Amarillo College with a significant number of unqualified teachers, too. SACS allowed Amarillo College to weasel out by claiming life experience in lieu of academic work in a discipline. How and why? No self-respecting person would want to know. Sleazy? Yes! Hell, I had a colleague — now retired — who taught U. S. government nigh on to 30 years without the requisite graduate hours in political science. Hell, he was teaching part time for the College on the eve of the SACS visit. On top of that, this character was a flunk out from a doctoral program. And he received the award for distinguished teaching at Amarillo College. How does this happen? When you have an anti-intellectual Board of Regents, an anti-intellectual president, and an anti-intellectual chief academic officer. Hell, one course is the same as another. We are El Paso Community College without the Rio Grande.



[x CHE]

August 8, 2003


El Paso Community College Tells 65 Instructors They Lack the Credentials to Teach
By ELIZABETH CRAWFORD

El Paso Community College officials have notified an estimated 65 part-time faculty members that they will no longer be allowed to teach at the college until they meet requirements set by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, the college's accreditor.

The decision follows a site visit by an accrediting team from the association that is part of a once-a-decade reaffirmation of El Paso's accreditation. Colleges lacking accreditation cannot receive federal student-aid funds.

College officials had already completed an internal evaluation of their instructors' teaching credentials to prepare for the visit. Based on the college's findings, the accrediting team recommended to El Paso that faculty members who teach courses with credits that are transferable to other institutions should have at least a master's degree in the subject they teach. Alternatively, the instructors could have a master's degree in another field and 18 hours of course work in the subject.

'Confident and Optimistic'

Many of the instructors fell just shy of meeting those requirements. The college had made exceptions in hiring them because administrators felt that the instructors' work experience qualified them for their posts, said Dennis E. Brown, El Paso's vice president for instruction. He noted that in order to teach at the college, the instructors had to guarantee that they were working to satisfy the course-work requirements.

College officials are not worried that their accreditation is in danger.

"I am very confident and optimistic that we will be fully accredited in October, when they come back to look at us again," Mr. Brown said. "We are complying fully with them, and we have every intention of meeting their requests. We would never jeopardize the institution or the students in that respect because our institution is too important to this community."

Jim Kimsey, El Paso's director of personnel services, said that college officials had made a "monumental effort" to hire new faculty members for the fall who meet the requirements. The hiring process, Mr. Kimsey said, is still under way.

At the same time, the college has told the instructors that they are welcome to return once they complete their degrees or the necessary course work.

"Everyone is concerned because these folks were good people," said Mr. Kimsey. "I would not be surprised if a lot of these people are back teaching with us very shortly, if not the fall then the spring, because a lot of them are just missing a small part. But if they return, they will meet the full requirements, guaranteed."

Jack Allen, an associate executive director of the accreditation agency, said that it was not uncommon for an institution to have to follow up on recommendations made during a 10-year reaffirmation. "Maybe one in 20 institutions won't have to adjust or do anything following the reaffirmation visit from our teams, but that is very rare."

He did not comment on whether the high number of unqualified instructors would threaten the college's accreditation, but did say that the institution was placed on probation from December 2000 to December 2001.

Copyright © 2003 by The Chronicle of Higher Education

Another Sign The Apocalypse Is Upon Us



August 8, 2003

Sssshhh. We're Taking Notes Here: Colleges look for new ways to discourage disruptive behavior in the classroom

By JEFFREY R. YOUNG

"Wanna see my new tattoo?" asks a female student during a class at the University of Arizona, turning to a male student sitting behind her. "Sure," he replies, as he and nearby students crane their necks to see the woman's freshly inked belly, oblivious to the lecture going on before them. A student walks in late and chomps on a hamburger and fries, while another answers her cellphone, even as the professor continues his lecture.

The scene is a dramatization -- part of a new public-service video shown to incoming freshmen at the university -- but officials and students say that such disruptive behavior has become all too common on the campus. Indeed, each scene is followed by interviews with students complaining about similar behavior in their own classrooms, and by playful comments from a panel of student judges -- modeled on the TV show American Idol -- who rate how annoying the behavior was.

Professors have long complained about disruptive students -- those who enter classrooms loudly and late, talk on cellphones, or read newspapers during lectures and discussions. To professors, such behavior is not only insulting, but also an obstacle to keeping their classes on track. Many students seem to share that attitude. Now, some colleges are trying to tap into that peer pressure to improve classroom civility.

On some campuses, students are the ones calling for strictures against boorish classmates. And student-affairs experts are telling professors that working with students, rather than treating them like the enemy, is the best strategy for managing classroom behavior.

As one of the student actors in the Arizona video, Rian Satterwhite, puts it: "There's a perception among the administration or people outside of the university that it's mainly just the professors who can't tolerate" annoying behavior in class. "But I think the reality is that it bothers students just as much as it bothers professors -- if not more so."

"Oftentimes," he adds, "it's the students turning around and shushing and that sort of thing."

Calls for Action

Arizona's video was inspired by feedback gathered in a survey conducted by the office of the dean of students, which asked about 750 students to describe the disruptive behavior they were seeing in their classrooms. The results revealed widespread frustration, which included complaints of "loud gum chewing and popping, pen and pencil tapping, packing up while professor is still speaking, body odor, skimpily clad individuals, and off-topic discussions," according to a report on the survey. Several students added that professors should set rules of behavior and enforce them. Every class session, some respondents suggested, should begin with a reminder to silence cellphones.

"We were kind of surprised by how stringent they want faculty members to be in dealing with disruptive behavior," says Terry Holthusen, a program coordinator in the dean's office.

But university officials decided to persuade rather than confront, working with a video-production company and some students in the drama department to communicate the survey's findings to students using humor rather than policy pronouncements.

"Students like to hear from their peer group," says Veda Kowalski, associate dean of students for judicial affairs. "The message that we're trying to get out is that students themselves define these behaviors as disruptive."

Some of the $7,000 to produce the video was provided by the Pepsi-Cola Company, in exchange for product placement -- the student judges drink Pepsi products on-screen. It remains to be seen whether the strategy pays off, but the eight-minute video, called Arizona Idol, is at least generating a positive buzz; several other universities have cited Arizona officials about using it.

Officials at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry say they had success with a similar campaign. Last year, the college hung fliers on kiosks around the campus specifying classroom-behavior guidelines endorsed by the undergraduate and graduate student governments: "Take care to minimize noisy distractions with backpacks, books, laptops," for example. Officials went over the guidelines during freshman-orientation sessions.

It was student-government leaders who called for the admonitions, says James M. Heffernan, vice president for student affairs and educational services. Though such disruptions at the Syracuse college have been "relatively mild" compared with what he's heard about elsewhere, he says, some students have "acted as if they were the only one in the room," propping their feet up on desks or chatting with friends during class. "It was sort of the New York City subway mentality -- you know, nobody would notice."

Getting Results

Since the guidelines were publicized, however, he hears fewer complaints. "I think it has turned around," he says. "You set the community's expectations at the outset, and people [are] fine."

Many colleges have established official policies for classroom behavior in the past few years, in part to give professors guidelines for ejecting problem students.

Cellphones and beepers top the list of classroom distractions -- 79 percent of students at Arizona identified them as the biggest distraction. In an opinion piece this May in The Oklahoma Daily, the campus newspaper at the University of Oklahoma, Matthew Thomas told disruptive fellow students: "You aren't significant enough to disturb an entire class to hear what time the party starts. Your social life should not interfere with the educational process."

Faculty members say disrespectful classroom behavior has increased in recent years, reports Kevin Kruger, associate executive director of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Others say the real problem is a growing culture clash between professors and students, whose attitudes and expectations about college differ from those of students in previous generations.

Professors complain that students increasingly see themselves as customers, viewing their professors as employees rather than instructors. So some students show up for class whenever they feel like it, or send e-mail messages to professors flatly stating that they missed class because they were hung over -- and that they expect the professors to fill them in on what they missed.

"Students are not coming to class on time, and they really have expectations of faculty to accommodate student issues," says Brent Patterson, associate vice president for student affairs at Illinois State University.

Students today also seem less likely than those of previous generations to view their professors as enemies who need to be challenged, says Gary Pavela, director of judicial programs and student ethical development at the University of Maryland at College Park.

In fact, today's students "tend to be a bit more polite," he says. "There is not any ideological edge committing them to defy authority." They may not realize that their actions are disrupting others and angering professors, he suggests. When they are reminded to turn off their phones or otherwise avoid disturbing other students, they usually comply.

'Marketplace of Ideas'

One of the most common suggestions to faculty members is to include in their syllabuses basic guidelines for acceptable behavior in their classrooms. That was one of the recommendations made by a committee at Pennsylvania State University that tackled the issue in the spring.

Student representatives on the committee said they wanted professors to be clear about what constituted disruptive action because they suspected that some professors were using arbitrary judgments about disruptive behavior to throw students out of class.

At a March meeting of the Faculty Senate, a student representative, D. Joshua Troxell, gave an example: "We had a student come in just this week saying that they had been asked not to return to a classroom because they were wearing a peace symbol on their shirt. They did not stand up and say anything. They did not create any sort of disruption for the class, but they were told that, if they came in this attire again, they would not be permitted to stay in class."

Maryland's Mr. Pavela says ejecting students from class on the basis of political expression alone is "questionable legally and raises First Amendment issues at public universities." Indeed, U.S. Supreme Court decisions have upheld students' right to express themselves in class as long as they do not keep others from learning.

One professor, he says, asked him if a student could be asked to leave for wearing a studded bracelet to class. The professor said he had felt threatened, even though the student had not been disruptive or said anything threatening. Mr. Pavela says he does not think that all faculty members understand "that the classroom is not a kingdom in which there is freedom of expression for one side only. It's a marketplace of ideas."

But faculty members at Penn State voted against endorsing the committee's report, because they perceived it as mandating how professors should run their classes. "I think it would be hard to specify in the syllabus every form of behavior that is either encouraged or discouraged," says Caroline D. Eckhardt, a professor of comparative literature and English there. "If you start to make a long list, I would think that isn't the best approach."

"I also like to treat students like adults," she continues. "They do need clear signals from an instructor on what's expected in a course, but not down to a level of detail or fussiness about that that can demean the academic endeavor."

Nonetheless, many other professors want to be more proactive in heading off rude behavior in their classrooms. Bill Ellis, an associate professor of English and American studies on Penn State's Hazleton campus who served on the committee, hopes that the debate has raised awareness of the issue. "We can't allow a minority of students to hijack classes," he says, "and degrade the quality of education for everyone."

Copyright © 2003 by The Chronicle of Higher Education


Culture Wars, Continued

In message 121 on Monday, August 4, 2003, A Student writes:

I didn't mean to sound rude. I apologize. I like American History and I would not like to drop.

-A Student

I read your Mail message on the heels of reading about a witch hunt at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. For the second straight year, there have been attacks on the book chosen as required summer reading for the incoming freshman class. Last year, the book was an explanation of the holy book of Islam, the Koran (Q'ran). Fundamentalist Protestants sued professors at UNC-Chapel Hill for choosing that book. We are waging a WAR against terrorism. For the terrorists, it is a holy war. All of us should have a better grasp of Islam - from the President of the United States to you and me.



This year, the hoopla is over a book about the working poor in the United States: Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By In America. The criticism of this year's book comes from the business community in North Carolina and elsewhere. A best seller on the NYTimes Top 10 list is Treason by Ann Coulter. Coulter proclaims that non-Republicans (mostly Democrats) are traitors. Then, I read your Mail with its reference to my politics. My hackles rose. These are frightening times.

-Dr. Sapper

Frightening times, indeed. Ann Coulter has revived McCarthyism. How could Wisconsin produce the LaFollettes and a McCarthy? The same way Texas could produce a Lyndon Johnson and W. Like it or not, W is more Texan than Lyndon was. Like Lyndon, though, he is leading us into the Big Muddy. Soon, we will be waist deep. Today was the first day without a U.S. casualty in Iraq. John Poindexter wanted to put U.S. casualties up on the Big Board. That is another version of the ol' body count that LBJ received from Robert S. McNamara. Instead of Ford Pintos rolling off the assembly line, it was body bags in 'Nam. Now, on Rummy's watch, we will have body counts as futures contracts. Hell with soybeans and pork bellies. Wag The Dog got it right. Karl Rove might have someone taken out. If he reads this Blog, it might be me.

Culture Wars

This AM, I opened a WebCT Mail message from one of my students in HIST 1302-004. Over the weekend, I came across an item from an Australian newspaper asking what was the most costly event in U. S. history? It wasn't the Civil War or WWII or anything before 1865 or after 1945, until November 2001. The most costly event is the stock market loss of $5.6 TRILLION since 2001 and still in danger of dropping further. WWII cost $3.4 Trillion to come in second. I received more than a dozen guesses over the weekend. One student came up with the correct answer last night. I posted a notice to that effect on the WebCT Bulletin Board. Then, I opened this message:

A Student wrote on Sunday, August 3, 2003 9:54pm, in a
message with the subject - Bogus Question:

That bonus question was very misleading. You made it
sound like it was one single, black and white event like
a war or something. Not 4 or 5 different things
"contributing" to an "event." Not to mention that I
actually guessed the Enron thing and got no credit. Oh,
and just out of curiosity, are you a democrat?

-A Student

Sapper replied:

Your message subject and the message itself are
insulting. First, this was a BONUS POINT opportunity. If
you don't like the game, don't play. Enron was only part
of the $5.6 TRILLION loss (and still losing) of value in
the U. S. Stock Market since November 2001. Finally, my
political affiliation is none of your affair. I don't
ask you to identify your politics, even though the snide
tone of your rude question suggests that you are not a
Democrat. For your information, I have voted since 1964
and I have voted for Republicans, Democrats,
Independents, and various other minor party candidates.
How I vote is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Now, I hope that I
have made myself perfectly clear. If you don't like HIST
1302-004, you have an option: drop the course.

-Dr. Sapper

Sigh. The culture wars. I am glad that I don't teach freshmen at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.




[x Raleigh News & Observer]

Sunday, July 20, 2003

Clueless and calculating

By J. PEDER ZANE, Staff Writer

According to officials at UNC-Chapel Hill, they're just a bunch of clueless naifs, mystified by the controversy surrounding the book they've asked incoming freshmen to read, Barbara Ehrenreich's best seller , "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America."

But to their well financed right-wing critics, they're calculating bomb throwers, bent on indoctrinating unformed minds with their leftist politics.

Clueless or calculating? Two views, worlds apart. Both may be right -- better make that correct (but not politically). The reason helps explain why the brouhaha at Chapel Hill is much larger than one book and one campus. The flap is a flash point in the increasingly noxious and partisan political battle that has been crackling since the Supreme Court made George Bush president in December 2000.

To begin, "Nickel and Dimed" is not simply an account of the struggles of low-wage workers. It is a polemic against American capitalism. Built around three one-month stints Ehrenreich spent working as a maid, waitress and Wal-Mart clerk, "Nickel and Dimed" compellingly illuminates the challenges faced by her fellow employees. It does not even attempt to give an employer's point of view or provide a larger context for understanding the forces driving our economy.

Instead, Ehrenreich uses her reporting, and her sharp wit, as literary devices to liven up a call for a higher minimum wage and more powerful labor unions. "Nickel and Dimed" does not force readers to think, but tells them what to think.

Given the right-wing's anger over last year's summer reading assignment, "Approaching the Qur'an" by Michael Sells, UNC's surprise at the controversy over Ehrenreich's avowedly leftist work seems unfathomable. According to UNC-CH Provost Robert Shelton, "Nobody I talked to thought this would be a controversial book."

I don't doubt that. And therein lies the problem. His comment suggests a staggering lack of intellectual diversity on campus. What critics cast as a "Marxist rant," campus officials see as an honest and important work that tells the truth about an under-addressed social problem. Who's right is a matter of opinion. What seems more certain is that UNC officials -- like their critics at the conservative John Locke Foundation in Raleigh -- are so like-minded that they never came across a single voice expressing a common complaint about the book.

However, the "Nickel and Dimed" debate is far more than a tired rerun of the ongoing drama "Ivory Tower Liberals and the Right-Wing Fanatics Who Despise Them." The two radically divergent views of the book reflect the increasing compartmentalization of American intellectual life. As our politics become more partisan and our news sources more varied and ideological, it is becoming easier to pass one's life without ever hearing many opinions that challenge one's perspective. Broadly speaking, liberals get their version of reality from CNN, NPR, the Nation magazine and progressive books and Web sites, while the right feeds on a steady diet of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the Weekly Standard, Ann Coulter and conservative blogs.

Where you tune in increasingly defines who you are. And never the twain shall meet.

Is "Nickel and Dimed" fair and balanced? You decide.

While I accept UNC's claims of cluelessness, I also suspect that, subconsciously at least, their actions were quite calculated. Their choice of Ehrenreich's book has an in-your-face quality that reflects a cancerous dynamic that has metastasized since the presidential election (selection?) of 2000: a process I call "the rightification of the left."

Liberals are mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore. After years of mostly silent suffering at the mouths of conservative firebrands, the left has decided that turnabout is fair play. While Al Gore has called for a liberal talk-radio alternative as strident as the one the right has ridden so hard for so long, left-leaning writers have been sharpening their knives. The nation's most prestigious newspaper, The New York Times, boasts three liberal columnists -- Bob Herbert, Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman -- who describe the Bush administration in Michael Savage-esque terms. Ehrenreich and her fellow provocateurs such as Noam Chomsky ("9-11") and Michael Moore ("Stupid White Men") have turned their fury into best sellers.

And this fall, publishers will release dozens of books inveighing against Bush and the right including "The I Hate Republicans Reader" edited by Clint Willis, "They've Stolen Our Country and It's Time to Take It Back" by Jim Hightower and "Lies, And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them ... A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" by Al Franken.

We may lament the left's efforts to ape the worst habits of the right, but their logic is undeniable -- what's good for the goose is good for the gander. In this context, UNC's selection of "Nickel and Dimed" can be seen as a salvo in the culture wars. Given the current political environment, defined by warring camps who live in their own worlds, it is reasonable to conclude that the school's administrators were both clueless and calculating. A part of them couldn't imagine that anyone would find "Nickel and Dimed" inflammatory; part of them, it seems, wanted to send this message: If you thought last year's book was bad, try this one on for size.

© Copyright 2003, The News & Observer Publishing Company