Indoctrinate U (On the Fence Films, 2007)
Indoctrinate U has been on my "watch list" for a while, but I hadn't been able to make myself take the time. It's not available from Netflix, but I found it on YouTube, in nine parts of about 10 minutes each. Today it came up on my "get this done today" list, so I thought I'd watch one or two of the segments. But they don't end in good places, and anyway I got hooked, so I watched the whole thing.
This documentary on discrimination, intolerance, and anti-diversity in American higher education is obviously not a high-budget film, though I'm sure it's better in the original format. I agree with Janet's comment that "it only pointed out the problems and didn't discuss any causes or better yet, idea for fixing the problems," and fear she may be right that it might be more divisive than helpful. Nonetheless, it's an important film to watch for anyone attending, planning to attend, or sending money to a college or university. I am not advocating staying away from college; but do be aware of the larger picture.
Although the film looks with some nostalgia on university life in the 1960's, there was plenty of intolerance for diversity of thought even then, though it was not, as now, enshrined in the bureaucracy, and the hard sciences (where I was) were mostly free of that, at least as far as the students were concerned. Our professors had a hard enough time teaching us math and physics, and didn't feel that taking time for political discussion would help us understand differential equations any better. I'm told by math professor friends that that has now changed. One, who has taught both in the United States and in Africa, expressed frustration that her American university required her to teach her not only calculus, but also the importance of African mathematics. I'm not sure what "African mathematics" might be that is important for a university math major to learn (I missed it in my classes), but I wouldn't be surprised if in the future the important mathematicians are African—because her African students are eager to learn the content, not the politics, of math.
The investigator for Indoctrinate U has been criticized for his confrontational approach, but while I do think one cannot expect to see a university president without an appointment, as journalists go, he was about as mild and polite as you can get.
Yes, the film is one-sided, and not only because they couldn't get anyone from the university side to talk seriously with them. It presents, however, a side that is not usually heard—indeed, is often censored, mocked, threatened, and attacked—and can be forgiven for being a little strident.
Here is the first segment; from there YouTube will provide links to the remaining eight. Be patient with the first couple, as at least I found the emphasis on affirmative action less interesting than the general topic of free speech on campus, which is more clearly presented in later parts. (There is a small number of profanities—quoting from a threat to a student and from the title of a play—that are bleeped out if you get the "clean" version, but the download versions are unaltered.)
I wish they had made more of a distinction between public and private colleges. To me, there's a huge difference between what a private school chooses to allow or forbid, and what a taxpayer-funded school does. But in either case, if the school is presenting itself as a bastion of diversity, tolerance, and academic freedom, evidence to the contrary needs to be heard. Caveat emptor.Is there a solution? Confronting the universities with their own stated diversity policies is a start: Janet had some success at her school that way. In the long run, I think the biggest difference will be made by India and the Internet. American universities have long enjoyed near-monopolistic dominance in their field. However, as it did for their manufacturing and information technology counterparts, that privilege is coming to an end. When people have choices, change happens.
Article 1, Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution lays the groundwork for conducting a periodic census in order to provide proportional representation in the House of Representatives.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.... Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons....
This was modified somewhat by the 14th Amendment, to wit (More)
Three Cups of Tea: One Man's Mission to Promote Peace...One School at a Time, by Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin (Penguin Books, New York, 2007)
Greg Mortenson, the son of missionary parents, had a happy childhood in Africa, but his return to the United States as a teenager was rough, and it took him a long time to find his way. As he tells it, it took a dramatic failure to lead him to his calling—but I disagree that someone has failed who has not succeeded in climbing the infamous K2 because he expended too much time and energy rescuing a climber in distress. Whatever you call it, from that point in 1993 on, Mortenson's energies would be spent on a different form of rescue: building schools and promoting education, especially for girls, in the remote, impoverished villages of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Mortenson was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009; even President Obama's most enthusiastic supporters cannot read Three Cups of Tea without entertaining a doubt or two as to the wisdom of the Nobel Committee's final choice. (The Nobel Committee overlooked Gandhi, too, so their peculiar judgement is not without precedent.) (More)
The Occasional CEO is one of my favorite non-family blogs, not only because Eric Schultz is a good writer, but also because he is a good compiler: He's great at weaving into a coherent essay the common threads from varied sources I'd never find on my own. His most recent post, with the unassuming title of Odds and Ends, led me to Paul Campos's excellent Wall Street Journal article, "Undressing the Terror Threat."
Both essays are well worth reading in their entirety. The first quote box below is from Mr. Schultz; the rest are Mr. Campos's words.
[W]e are buried by data, and are constantly searching for ways to separate signal from noise....Someone wants to take flying lessons: that’s noise. Someone wants to take flying lessons but doesn’t want to know how to land the plane: that’s signal. Similarly, someone gets on an international flight, pays cash, and checks no bags—that might be signal. Someone sews explosive into his underwear: Signal. Panic.
The question is, how much do we pay to find out? What’s the real risk of dying at the hands of a terrorist in America? And if 1,900 Americans [under age 65] die today from a variety of preventable causes, how much are we willing to invest to save those lives?
In Forgetting the Unforgettable, I remarked on how ordinary were my diary entries when the Berlin Wall was breached. In a subsequent comment, Stephan mentioned that he barely remembers the event, despite living so close to Germany.
Soon thereafter, while taking my customary walk and listening to a history lecture on my trusty mp3 player, I was reminded that the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred when I was the age Stephan was when the Wall fell. I have no memory of the event whatsoever, nor of any particular anxiety because of the imminent threat of nuclear war. We had "air raid drills" in our elementary school, but that was nothing new; they were a normal part of school, like the equally-frequent fire drills. If the adults in my life worried about the situation, none of that filtered down to me. My life comprised surviving fifth grade, playing with my friends, and enjoying my new baby brother.Curious, I delved into the journals that my father had kept, hoping there would be entries for October 1962, and there were. I looked forward to hearing how he and my mother had dealt with the fears that, I'm told, caused families eating breakfast to wonder if they'd still be alive at dinnertime. (More)
Where were you 20 years ago today?My own journal entry is remarkably filled with the mundane details of life with two young children. There is one exclamatory sentence, "Would that every day could be like this!" but it was referring to Heather's having awakened with her alarm clock, showered, dressed, made her bed, cleaned her room and finished all her chores before school. Not as momentous as events on the other side of the world, but a personal triumph. (More)
More from the backblog . . .The Strange Double Standards of Abortion John Stackhouse muses on the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller, vigilantism, and hypocrisy. (More)
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, physician Scott Gottlieb blames governmental overcaution for the shortage of H1N1 flu vaccine. Unlike Europe, the U.S. (1) does not allow additives to the vaccine that stimulate the immune system and make a smaller dosage effective; (2) requires single-dose syringes, which require less of the mercury-containing preservative thimerosol than do multi-dose vials; and (3) continues to use the slower, egg-based manufacturing system rather than a new procedure using mammalian cells.
President Obama, the doctor believes, should be pushing us forward, dropping the precautions put in place to protect us. Perhaps the doctor has forgotten 1976, when President Ford's swine flu vaccination program resulted in an unacceptable level of fatal or debilitating side effects. Perhaps he has also forgotten the thalidomide tragedy, in which our cautious Food and Drug Administration's refusal to approve the new drug largely spared our children the horrible birth defects that afflicted the Europeans.My hat's off the the president on this one. Or it would be, if I were wearing one, which I hardly ever am.
On the Nobel Prize system, that is.
I mean, it's bad enough they don't have anything for mathematicians.
When I was in college, my roommate's father was a chemist. Whether he ever had a chance at a Nobel prize I never knew, but we always watched the Nobel news carefully because he certainly knew many fellow chemists who did. In the process, I learned that there was often a signficant time lag involved, the work for which the prize was given having been done many years earlier. When I thought about it, that made sense: one never knows the true impact of a discovery or an action until one can look back on it from a more distant perspective.
But now we have the Nobel Peace Prize given, not for actions proved peace-promoting from the perspective of history, but to encourage actions that might, maybe, possibly, we hope will do so?
For once, words fail me. To his credit, I hear President Obama was surprised. It would be greater credit if he refused the honor on the grounds that he doesn't deserve it, even if he hopes to someday. But that may be too much to expect of any human being, let alone a politician.
President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to encourage his nascent initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and replace unilateral American action with international diplomacy and cooperation.
I'm sure there must be a legitimate reason behind the new Federal Trade Commission rules for bloggers, but it looks pretty nonsensical from my perspective, another example of one-size-fits-all rules that inconvenience millions in an attempt to collar a few offenders. It invites comparisons with the TSA's airport screening, except that I'm a lot more worried about terrorists than about those "I lost 300 pounds on this simple diet" ads.
The Federal Trade Commission on Monday took steps to make product information and online reviews more accurate for consumers, regulating blogging for the first time and mandating that testimonials reflect typical results. Under the new rules, which take effect Dec. 1, writers on the Web must clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products. Testimonials will have to spell out what consumers should expect to experience with their products. [From the Hartford Courant, October 6, 2009]
So here goes. I suppose I'll have to put it in my About link, too.
I don't mean to pick on the FTC; they have a tough job. But I'm much more interested in disclosures, say, of gifts given by textbook publishers to school boards, or from pharmaceutical companies to doctors. When Internet bloggers attain the respect, authority, and power of doctors and school boards, when it takes more than common sense to realize their reviews might not have universal applicability, then I may be convinced of the need for regulation. I won't be in that category anyway.
I have no idea what others should expect from anything I review or comment on. I'm one person, not a research laboratory. You may love a book I find objectionable; you may dislike the recipe I say is fabulous. Such is life. Sometimes I get books for free, from publishers, which I'll acknowledge in the review, but no small tip is going to make me say I liked a book when I didn't. (So far, I've received all of one book this way, and I haven't read it yet, which is why you haven't seen any such acknowledgement.) I also get incalculable return from Lime Daley, but I like to think that's because of my familial relationship with the owners, not because of any endorsements I make on this blog.
Learning the lesson of Napoleon and Hitler. Never underestimate Russia. C. S. Lewis observed that mankind tends to alternate between taking the Devil too seriously and not taking him seroiusly enough. Without making any implications on the order of "the Great Satan" or "the Evil Empire," it's a good analogy for the way we look at other countries, whether friend or enemy. During the Cold War, for example, our fears of Russia—especially in the 1950s—were probably exaggerated, and it's likely that now we're not sufficiently worried about how far the influence such a large country with so many resources might reach. Here's a New York Times article on the activities of Moscow's mayor, not to provoke fear, but to make us think. The article is a bit dated, but the ideas are not.
And it doesn't even mention health care. This analysis of then president-elect Obama's upcoming challenges was written nearly a year ago. It is left as an exercise to the reader to decide how well he is meeting them.
U.S. President George W. Bush demonstrated that the inability to understand the uses and limits of power can crush a presidency very quickly. The enormous enthusiasm of Obama's followers could conceal how he—like Bush—is governing a deeply, and nearly evenly, divided country. Obama's first test will be simple: Can he maintain the devotion of his followers while increasing his political base? Or will he believe, as Bush and Cheney did, that he can govern without concern for the other half of the country because he controls the presidency and Congress, as Bush and Cheney did in 2001? Presidents are elected by electoral votes, but they govern through public support.
And now for something completely different. A long and ususual but fascinating look at changes in Austria (and the world) since the days of Kaiser Franz Josef.
Until recently, Cairo had a refuse-collection system unlike any you'll find in the United States, but it worked—and might even be commended for its efficiency and environmental responsibility. Cairo's households enjoyed free or inexpensive garbage collection, right from the door, by the zabaleen ("garbage people"), an impoverished community of Egyptian Christians living in an area of Cairo known as "Garbage City." The collectors and their families then sorted the trash, reusing, repairing, and recycling what they could, and feeding the organic waste to their livestock, primarily pigs.
Sanitation workers do not generally enjoy high status anywhere, and the zabaleen are despised not only for their jobs, but also for their poverty, their religion, and their willingness to keep pigs as livestock. However, as even American cities discover during a protracted sanitation strike, we do not do well to devalue other human beings, least of all those responsible for keeping us from suffocating in trash.
In a misguided effort to stave off a swine flu epidemic, Egypt ordered that all the pigs be killed, even though the disease is not, in fact, spread by pigs. By the law of unintended consequences, Cairo's citizens are now more vulnerable to disease than before. The zabaleen no longer collect the trash, and the government's effort to replace them with multinational corporations has largely failed. The poorest of the poor have lost their only livelihood as well as their source of food, and Cairo's streets overflow with filth.
I don't write this to belittle Egypt or the Egyptian government, but as a warning. Our country has a problem: Our healthcare system, once arguably the best in the world, is falling apart. (We can disagree over the causes, or even the definition, of "falling apart," but that's not the point here.) There's no shortage of wrangling over what the intended consequences of a federally-imposed health plan might be, but whatever shakes out of that debate, I fervently hope that we will consider the possible unintended consequences before killing off the pigs.(Sources used for this post included The New York Times and Wikipedia.)
Today marks our Constitution's 222nd birthday, in honor of which I present another depressing civics quiz. The questions are drawn from the test prospective U.S. citizens must pass, and if these standards applied to all, apparently 97% of Oklahoma's public high school students would be in danger of losing their citizenship. I'm sure no one is under any illusions that the problem is limited to Oklahoma. Here are the questions; for the answers, and what percentage of the students surveyed answered each question correctly, see the original article.
- What is the supreme law of the land?
- What do we call the first ten amendments to the Constitution?
- What are the two parts of the U.S. Congress?
- How many justices are there on the Supreme Court?
- Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?
- What ocean is on the east coast of the United States?
- What are the two major political parties in the United States?
- We elect a U.S. senator for how many years?
- Who was the first President of the United States?
- Who is in charge of the executive branch?
My Swiss family doesn't let me forget that "universal health care" does not necessarily mean a system like that in the United Kingdom. For this I am grateful, because of the horror stories that keep emerging from that system, such as the cases of Charlotte Wyatt, Leslie Burke, Linda O'Boyle, Jayden Capewell, and too many others to write about. It's worth looking at alternatives, and T. R. Reid's The Healing of America does just that.I haven't read the book; my opinion is based on the New York Times review. There's much I don't agree with in the review, and I'm sure in the book also, but I like the gimmick: Reid had shoulder problems that were interfering with his golf game, and he decided to present the case to 10 different doctors around the world. The results? (More)
I've been avoiding this topic for some time, hoping people would come to their senses and get on with real political debate, but it just won't go away. President Carter now chimes in:
What is so intriguing, and frustrating, about these remarks is that they are held by so many otherwise intelligent, educated, and reasonable people. What is it in the mental make-up of what I'm loosely calling the American Left that blinds them to two stunningly obvious facts: (More)
"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man....[The] racism inclination still exists, and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people...that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country....[Responses like comparing Obama to a Nazi] are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care...."