<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
   <title>Forum</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/" />
   <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/atom.xml" />
   <id>tag:www.mindingthecampus.com,2010:/forum//1</id>
   <updated>2010-02-08T20:51:06Z</updated>
   
   <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 3.34</generator>

<entry>
   <title>The AAUP Strikes Out . . . Again</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2010/02/the_aaup_strikes_out_again.html" />
   <id>tag:www.mindingthecampus.com,2010:/forum//1.3394</id>
   
   <published>2010-02-08T20:34:40Z</published>
   <updated>2010-02-08T20:51:06Z</updated>
   
   <summary>The AAUP recently produced a new journal devoted to exploring the state of academic freedom on today&apos;s college campuses. As customary with anything from the AAUP in recent years, the publication was as notable for what it didn&apos;t contain as...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>KC Johnson</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/">
      <![CDATA[The AAUP recently produced a new journal devoted to <a href="http://www.academicfreedomjournal.org/index.html">exploring the state of academic freedom </a>on today's college campuses. As customary with anything from the AAUP in recent years, the publication was as notable for what it didn't contain as what it did, in that it offered no mention of the internal threat to academic freedom coming from the ideological and pedagogical majority on most college campuses.

That said, the essays did provide an occasional surprise. As Erica Goldberg at The Torch <a href="http://www.thefire.org/article/11528.html">pointed out</a>, the article by Delaware professor Jan Blits (who opposed the university's infamous residence hall indoctrination program) provided an example of an area in which all friends of academic freedom should agree---that increasing the power of administrators, especially residential life administrators, over curricular and other academic matters poses a grave threat to academic freedom.

The other essays in the journal, alas, didn't rise to Blits' level. Robert Engvall produced a <a href="http://www.academicfreedomjournal.org/VolumeOne/Engvall.pdf">screed against merit pay</a>---even as he conceded that "some people oppose merit pay because they aren't that good at what they do." Nonetheless, he illogically maintained, "opposing merit pay in the university setting is absolutely vital to protecting the essence and quality of that setting." We should go to the barricades, apparently, for the tenured radical who, upon receiving tenure, stops producing any scholarship.]]>
      <![CDATA[Dan Colson, an English graduate student at University of Illinois, entitled his <a href="http://www.academicfreedomjournal.org/VolumeOne/Colson.pdf">essay</a>, "Paranoia and Professionalization," and the essay certainly revealed a paranoid view of academic affairs. Colson suggested that university efforts to encourage students to vote constituted political indoctrination, since they didn't take into account the view of anarchist students. He demanded academic freedom for graduate students to bring their political views into the classroom---since "academics are among those most qualified to define politics and who have distinctive reasons why their politics should not be restricted"---all while seeming dismissive of the rights of undergraduates who might disagree with his political perspective. He lambasted restrictions on political discussions in class, claiming such policies would be unfair to "a university professor in Gender and Women's Studies, Political Science, English, History, or any other discipline regularly teaches lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues from a progressive political stance." He contended, without offering any evidence, that "blind logic will say that teaching capitalism is apolitical, while teaching Marxism is political, which is what some conservative activists already claim." In Colson's world, academic freedom means not just professors but also graduate students should be free to orient their teaching to advance their political agendas, and then to cite the concept as a shield when people criticize their actions.

In another essay, <a href="http://www.academicfreedomjournal.org/VolumeOne/Gappa-Austin.pdf">Judith Gappa and Ann Austin</a> invoke the shibboleth of "diversity" to simultaneously demand more money for professors and a less burdensome workload---including extending the tenure from seven to anywhere between nine and twelve(!) years.

The highlight of the journal, however, comes from AAUP stalwart Ellen Schrecker. In the world according to <a href="http://www.academicfreedomjournal.org/VolumeOne/Schrecker.pdf">Schrecker</a>, far-left ideologues are not wildly overrepresented in the academy but instead are besieged, scarcely able to hold off the widespread conservative demands for their universities to fire them.

Schrecker spent 40 pages articulating this thesis, beginning with the case of Ward Churchill. People of good faith can disagree on whether Colorado handled the Churchill affair properly (I consistently opposed the attempt to dismiss Churchill, largely because it seemed to me that the University knew or should have known it was hiring an unqualified charlatan when it brought Churchill on staff---so it couldn't credibly release him only when it became politically inconvenient for the university to keep him as a professor). Schrecker's essay, on the other hand, reads more like a defense brief, portraying Churchill as an extraordinary scholar and wonderful teacher, driven out of the academy on trumped-up charges.

Schrecker passed along without skepticism a claim that Churchill "has helped to shape the discourse of the modern Indian rights movement" (which, if true, suggests that the scholarship of the "modern Indian rights movement" is worthless). She offered repeated glowing quotes from Evelyn Hu-DeHart, the chair who oversaw Churchill's hiring, and who <a href="http://www.ephblog.com/2006/01/25/kc-johnson-how-not-to-diversify/">subsequently has urged </a>quality undergraduate institutions to focus on hiring Ph.D.s from third-tier graduate programs like UTEP as a way of increasing faculty "diversity." In Orwellian language, Schrecker described Churchill's ethnic studies department as "a collective attempt on the part of anti-racist activists of all stripes to transform an exclusionary and essentially racist---as well as sexist and homophobic---educational system." She glossed over Churchill's meager qualifications (his highest degree was an M.A. from an institution called Sangamon State), noting that "other scholars like Arthur Schlesinger" didn't have Ph.D. degrees, either. (The last I looked, Churchill didn't have a Pulitzer Prize.) And she minimized the fact that in applying for a "diversity"-oriented position, Churchill falsely claimed to have been a Native American: "Apparently, one of his ancestors had married a Native American woman and, though Churchill was not actually her descendant, he seemed to have felt a cultural connection."

Churchill, according to Schrecker, was a "convenient target for an already wide-ranging attack on American higher education." Other victims? Professors who criticize Israel, such as "mainstream scholars . . . Chicago's John Mearsheimer and Harvard's Steven Walt ." (if the fate of Walt and Mearsheimer  is what usually happens to professors who produce poorly sourced and even more poorly argued books, I'd say academic freedom is in pretty good shape.) Schrecker also criticized "the CUNY administration [for] forc[ing] Mohammed Yousry from his position as an adjunct lecturer at York College in April 2002 after he was indicted in connection with the case of attorney Lynne Stewart, for whom he had served as a translator." (Yousry was indicted and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/11/nyregion/11stewart.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=stewart%20preston%20tavernise%202005&st=cse">subsequently convicted</a> on charges of providing material aid to terrorism and defrauding the U.S. government; Schrecker couldn't find space in her 40 pages to mention the specific charges.) She also didn't mention that at CUNY, adjuncts have no right to reappointment. So the only way Yousry's non-reappointment could have constituted an "academic freedom" violation would be if "academic freedom" requires automatic reappointment for any adjuncts indicted for assisting terrorism, even as their non-indicted adjunct colleagues have no such right.

A final word: these essays were all solicited by AAUP president Cary Nelson. No wonder the AAUP too frequently has lost its way on academic freedom matters.
]]>
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Identity Politics Beyond Reason</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2010/02/identity_politics_beyond_reaso.html" />
   <id>tag:www.mindingthecampus.com,2010:/forum//1.3384</id>
   
   <published>2010-02-04T19:49:42Z</published>
   <updated>2010-02-04T19:58:23Z</updated>
   
   <summary>The headline in the East Bay Express a few weeks back probably didn&apos;t surprise people in California, bracing as they have been for funding shortfalls in government services, including education: &quot;Berkeley High May Cut Out Science Labs&quot;. The first few...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Mark Bauerlein</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/">
      <![CDATA[The headline in the <em>East Bay Express</em> a few weeks back probably didn't surprise people in California, bracing as they have been for funding shortfalls in government services, including education: <a href="http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/berkeley-high-may-cut-out-science-labs/Content?oid=1536705">"Berkeley High May Cut Out Science Labs"</a>. The first few words of the story delivered the distressing news that the School Governance Council had decided "to eliminate science labs and the five science teachers who teach them."

The science labs under review take place before and after school, allowing science teachers in regular periods to devote more time to academic instruction.  All students in science classes have to take one of the labs, while AP students take two of them.  The results have been impressive.  According to this <em><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-berkeley-schools24-2010jan24,0,4747506.story">Los Angeles Times</a> </em>story, "In the last school year, 82% of Berkeley's AP chemistry students passed the rigorous exam, which gives college credit for high school work.  The national passing rate is 55.2%. The school's AP biology and physics students are even more successful." 

Another Golden State fiscal casualty?  Not this time.  If people read on, they learned the actual reason for the decision, for the Council didn't plan to kill science labs because of budget problems.  They did so because not enough black and Latino students were enrolled in them.  Because of a wide achievement gap, a parent representative on the Council explained, "the science labs were largely classes for white students."  As a result, the members of the Council, a body made up of parents, teachers, and students charged with redesigning the very "structure" of the school, voted nearly unanimously to shut down the labs and redirect resources to "struggling students."  The labs are, indeed, open to those low-performing students, but according to this article from the <em><a href="http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-06/bay-area/17470276_1_science-labs-parents-protest-regular-class/2">San Francisco Chronicle</a></em>, they "don't always attend the extra labs---and ultimately fail the class."  (Curiously, the <em>Chronicle</em> story doesn' mention a word about the racial achievement gap, while the <em>LA Times</em> highlights the racial side of the story.)]]>
      <![CDATA[In fact, the Express reports, the "classes-for-whites" allegation is overstated.  Mardi Sicular-Mertens, a science teacher with 24 years experience at Berkeley High counts 12 black males in AP classes, and her environmental sciences classes are 17.5 percent African-American and 13.9 percent Latino.

Apparently, that's not enough.  A teacher in the Communication Arts and Sciences program at the school stated explicitly in the <em>Times</em>, "A significantly lower percentage of students of color are enrolled in science classes with labs.  A public school like Berkeley High has an equal obligation to students who have struggled.  We shouldn't be continuing to allocate resources to students who have had them all along."  The Council has sent the proposal to the Berkeley School Board.  If the plan goes through, then the $400,000 that the 65 lab sections cost will be shifted to basic skills such as "note-taking," explains Berkeley superintendent William Huyett in the <em>Times</em> piece.  

Without those college-prep labs, will Berkeley High graduates be fairly-equipped to compete with others at the college level in organic chemistry?  Likely not, but Berkeley High students can make up for the science deficits with other offerings at the school such as:

- Introduction to Community Service Professions 
- Eco-Literacy and Social Justice Seminar 
- Politics and Power (first sentence: "Students largely run this course") 
- Popular Culture in 20th-Century America ("This course examines 'texts' as diverse as mural paintings, street theater, rap music, women's art, immigrant stories, and MTV to analyze their role in shaping American society") 
- African American Economics 
- The Literature of Diversity

In the Freshman Seminar in the Communication Arts and Sciences program, "The class reads literature that proposes alternate points of view towards the question of our society and what is fair."  In the program's freshman history course, "Students begin the year by examining their own personal identity and heritage."  The African-American Studies program declares, "We are proud of our program outcome.  Our students have a greater sense of self-confidence and awareness of history."  In the School for Social Justice and Ecology, students can travel "to countries like Cuba, Mexico, and Vietnam."

It all appears in the School's <a href="http://www.bhs.berkeleypta.org/catalog/2009-10coursecatalog.pdf">catalog</a>. 

]]>
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Self-Parody At Emerson</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2010/02/unexamined_bias_in_hiring.html" />
   <id>tag:www.mindingthecampus.com,2010:/forum//1.3374</id>
   
   <published>2010-02-02T23:53:59Z</published>
   <updated>2010-02-02T23:31:32Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Last December, I wrote in these pages about allegations of racial discrimination in tenure denial at Emerson College, which had prompted the school to set up a three-person commission charged with reviewing those allegations. The panel&apos;s report has just been...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Roger Clegg</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/">
      <![CDATA[Last December, I wrote in these pages about <a href="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2009/12/allegations_of_tenure_discrimi.html">allegations of racial discrimination in tenure denial at Emerson College</a>, which had prompted the school to set up a three-person commission charged with reviewing those allegations.  The panel's report has just been released, and the good news is that the panelists "noticed no overtly racist or prejudiced attitudes toward African Americans."  But, alas, there is also bad news: "There are to be found at Emerson unexamined and powerful <em>assumptions and biases</em> about the superiority, preferability, and normativeness of European-American culture, intellectual pursuits, academic discourse, leadership, and so on."  (Emphasis in original.)   Left unexamined, these biases result in the "disproportionate undervaluing of African Americans and the disproportionate overvaluing of European Americans."  You can read the entire report <a href="http://www.emerson.edu/tenure_committee_report/Emerson-College-Final-Diversity-Report.pdf">here</a>, and I urge you to do so, if you like self-parody.]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Prop 8 and the Academy on Trial</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2010/02/prop_8_the_academy_on_trial.html" />
   <id>tag:www.mindingthecampus.com,2010:/forum//1.3375</id>
   
   <published>2010-02-02T16:15:19Z</published>
   <updated>2010-02-03T14:45:15Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Barack Obama might be the most academia-friendly President since the development of modern higher education in the early 20th century. But anyone wondering why so few professors (and virtually none outside of law or economics) have been appointed to his...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>KC Johnson</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/">
      <![CDATA[Barack Obama might be the most academia-friendly President since the development of modern higher education in the early 20th century. But anyone wondering why so few professors (and virtually none outside of law or economics) have been appointed to his administration should consider the case of Chai Feldblum. Nominated for a post at EEOC, Feldblum came under attack for signing an only-in-academia petition <a href="http://beyondmarriage.org/">endorsing recognition</a> for "households in which there is more than one conjugal partner." Faced with a choice between continuing to favor polygamy or pleading incompetence, the professor used her Senate confirmation hearing to <a href="http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=4667">claim</a> that she had made a "mistake" in signing the petition, suggesting that she had done so at the urging of an unnamed academic associate.
 
Feldblum's nomination cleared committee and is currently pending in the full Senate. But her experience reveals how academic groupthink---quite beyond its effects on higher education---also reduces any impact that professors might hope to have in the public policy arena. As Mark Bauerlein's seminal essay on the topic observed, one element of campus groupthink is the law of group polarization, or "when like-minded people deliberate as an organized group, the general opinion shifts toward extreme versions of their common beliefs . . . Group Polarization happens so smoothly on campuses that those involved lose all sense of the range of legitimate opinion." Once outside of the academy, however, adherents of such positions are easily, and correctly, labeled as extremists.  
 	
The recently concluded testimony in the federal trial challenging California's Proposition 8 provided another example of how the pedagogical and ideological imbalance in most humanities and social sciences departments helps diminish the impact professors can have on public policy. Attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies approached the trial with the model of the <em>Brown v. Board of Education </em>cases in mind---using academics to demonstrate the pernicious effects of discrimination.]]>
      <![CDATA[But the academy of 2010 is very different than the academy of the 1950s, as became clear with the first academic witness, Harvard history professor Nancy Cott, who testified as an expert on the history of marriage. Cott's basic narrative: that what opponents of marriage equality describe as "traditional marriage" (the current marriage law in 45 states) isn't very "traditional," in that it has actually existed in U.S. civil law only since <em>Loving</em>. It's hard to rebut the point, given that at various stages before 1967, blacks couldn't marry at all, blacks couldn't marry whites, Asians couldn't marry whites, and married women had few independent legal rights.

Attorneys representing the Prop 8 proponents <a href="http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filings/hearing-transcripts/perry-trial-day-3-transcript/">attacked Cott's credibility</a>. Cott was asked if she considered herself an impartial scholar on the question. (She hedged, until it was pointed out that in her deposition, she had described herself as something "between" a scholar and an advocate.) Prop 8 attorney David Thompson cast Cott as a figure well outside the mainstream by pointing out that she---like Feldblum---had signed the pro-polygamy "Beyond Marriage" petition. Cott claimed that she didn't intend to support polygamy or polyamory by signing the petition (even though the petition called for benefits to go to polygamous or polamorous units). Much like Feldblum, Cott suggested that she had signed the petition after being asked to do so by friends, and that even though she makes her living by reading and interpreting texts, she hadn't paid attention to the public petition to which she was attaching her signature. In the groupthink academy, it seems, being asked to sign something by an associate implies that the requested signatory will agree with the petition's contents.

Plaintiffs' attorney Theodore Boutrous tried to rehabilitate Cott by noting that she had come to support marriage equality in part because of the findings of her general research into marriage. And, Boutrous asked, "If your historical research during that period had led you to conclude that history and tradition in the United States and the changes in our history did not support the elimination of barriers to individuals of the same sex marrying, would you be here today testifying in support of the plaintiffs?" Boutrous, obviously, was expecting a yes answer. Instead, Cott <a href="http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/23644">laughed</a> and responded, "I don't think so." As a commenter at even the left-leaning Firedoglake site pointed out, "in legal terms, that’s a humdinger---so not where he wanted her to go." So much for Cott's commitment to impartial research.

A few days later, Prop 8 attorneys employed a similar strategy of criticizing academic norms when dealing with Cambridge professor Michael Lamb. Lamb's testimony showed that nearly all peer-reviewed research indicated that children of same-sex families are well-adjusted and would benefit from their parents being able to marry. (The defense expert on this issue, David Blankenhorn, conceded the point.) So Prop 8 attorneys <a href="http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filings/hearing-transcripts/perry-trial-day-5-transcript/">suggested</a> that in an academic environment where virtually everyone comes from one side on ideological matters, the peer-review process is open to politicization. In words common from defenders of the academic status quo, Lamb replied, "Well, I have to say, based on my experience doing it, that that's not seen to be a factor."

(I should note that, on the other side, the academic experts called by the defense didn't much help Prop 8's cause: two McGill professors were withdrawn as witnesses, allegedly from their fear of being videotaped, after giving answers in their deposition that supported the plaintiffs' case; a third academic expert, Professor Kenneth Miller, spent time in cross-examination repeatedly repudiating his own scholarship, including arguments from his 2009 book about the vulnerability of minority rights to the initiative process. Blankenhorn, described as Prop 8's star witness, isn't a professor; his most advanced degree is an M.A. in labor studies.)

The treatment of Cott and Lamb (as well as Feldblum's embarrassment) reminded us that groupthink harms even those who have exploited its characteristics to dominate most humanities and social sciences departments. Faddish positions---like endorsing a pro-polygamy petition---that don't even raise an eyebrow among the professorial establishment discredit adherents once they move outside of the protective bubble of academic groupthink.
]]>
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>10 Reasons Not To Wait 25 Years to Revisit Grutter</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2010/01/top_ten_reasons_not_to_wait_25.html" />
   <id>tag:www.mindingthecampus.com,2010:/forum//1.3355</id>
   
   <published>2010-01-28T22:20:56Z</published>
   <updated>2010-01-28T14:53:15Z</updated>
   
   <summary>10. Justice O&apos;Connor now suggests that the social-science evidence on which it was based is shaky. 9. The social-science evidence on which it was based is getting shakier, as more and more disinterested research is done. 8. There should not...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Roger Clegg</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/">
      <![CDATA[10.    Justice O'Connor now suggests that the social-science evidence on which it was based is shaky.

9.      The social-science evidence on which it was based is getting shakier, as more and more disinterested research is done.

8.      There should not be a social-science exception to the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause anyhow.

7.      In a variety of ways, using racial and ethnic preferences actually aggravates the achievement disparities that prompted Justice O'Connor to allow preferences in the first place.

6.      America is becoming increasingly multiethnic and multiracial, and in such a nation it is untenable to have a legal regime that sorts people on the basis of their skin color and what country their ancestors came from.

5.      Individual Americans are becoming increasingly multiethnic and multiracial, too, which makes racial and ethnic preferences even more unwieldy and untenable.

4.      Justice Alito is more likely to get it right than Justice O'Connor was.

3.      Who knows when one of the dissenters in Grutter will be replaced by an Obama appointee?

2.      Twenty-five years is too long to leave on the books a bad decision that affects thousands of students every year.

1.      The Equal Protection Clause makes it illegal to "deny to any person... the equal protection of the laws."

-------------------------------------------------

<em>In yesterday's Commentary section, we <a href="http://www.popecenter.org/clarion_call/article.html?id=2296">listed a discussion</a> by George Leef of Justice O'Connor's second thoughts on  Grutter v. Bollinger--her 2003 opinion that upheld racial and ethnic admission preferences at the University of Michigan law school. O'Connor also said she "expected" that in 25 years preferences would no longer be needed.</em>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Sail with Condi And Gorby For $40,000 Or So</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2010/01/sail_with_condi_3_days_and_gor.html" />
   <id>tag:www.mindingthecampus.com,2010:/forum//1.3359</id>
   
   <published>2010-01-28T14:42:40Z</published>
   <updated>2010-01-28T15:59:22Z</updated>
   
   <summary>At several universities this summer, hope will float and perestroika will pay. At the end of August, Princeton, Harvard, Smith, Stanford, and Yale are taking the currying of favor with wealthier alumni seabound. For the fifth straight year, Princeton and...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Judith Miller</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/">
      At several universities this summer, hope will float and perestroika will pay. At the end of August, Princeton, Harvard, Smith, Stanford, and Yale are taking the currying of favor with wealthier alumni seabound. For the fifth straight year, Princeton and other sponsoring universities are joining forces with a for-profit, West-coast speakers and travel bureau, this time offering a new five-star &quot;post-perestroika&quot; cruise along the Black Sea.

	The 15-day voyage from August 30 to September 15th along the shores of Russia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, and Turkey features three Perestroika superstars -- President Bush&apos;s former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Defense Secretary William Perry and Russia&apos;s own Mikhail Gorbachev as guest speakers. Only one of the &quot;distinguished world leaders,&quot; as the Princeton brochure advertizing the cruise calls them, will keep company with the alumni aboard ship for the entire cruise, mind you. The brochure notes, and a spokesman for Princeton&apos;s alumni relations office confirms, that Ms. Rice will be aboard ship for only three days, and Mr. Gorbachev for only one. Indeed, Ms. Rice and Mr. Gorbachev will not even overlap. But when the three foreign policy celebrities are not on board, passengers will be hearing from other expert speakers - among them, James H. Billington, a former history professor at Princeton and the Librarian of Congress since 1987, Marvin Kalb, the former chief diplomatic reporter for NBC and professor emeritus at Harvard&apos;s Joan Shorenstein Center, and Vinton G. Cerf, vice president and chief Internet promoter for Google, widely regarded as one of the &quot;fathers of the Internet.&quot; 

	The brochure says that this floating faculty at sea, including the Perestroika superstars, will lead fellow passengers in discussions of such topics as &quot;Russia&apos;s relations with Ukraine, Georgia, and Azerbaijan&quot; and &quot;how the West can best engage Russia and the former Soviet republics in facing global challenges such as nuclear proliferation, increasingly scare energy resources, and economic decline.&quot;

	Alumni in personal economic decline, however, might hesitate signing up for the voyage. Education aboard the Silver Wind, a small luxury cruise liner owned by an Italian company that the travel company charters, is pricey. The ship&apos;s least expensive of its 149 cabins, the &quot;Vista Suite,&quot; which features a 240-square foot bedroom and a picture window, goes for $23,990 per person in a two-person cabin, or $39,990 for a single passenger. Its luxury bookend, the Grand Suite, 1,019 square feet of space with a teak veranda and floor-to-ceiling doors, costs $39,990.  That is not counting the airfare to Moscow, where the program originates - a round-trip $1,558 per person (economy) ticket, or $3,658 per person for business class seats.
      Despite the large price tag, interest in the voyage is strong, a representative of Princeton&apos;s alumni office told me. Since the brochure was mailed out in late September, almost all of Princeton&apos;s allotment of the cabins have been sold. But the cruise is not a fund-raising effort, the spokeswoman stressed. The alumni association does not raise funds. Fund-raising is done exclusively by the development office, which also offers cruises designed to raise money, though not with this particular travel company. The alumni association cruise, by contrast, is offered as an educational experience for the university&apos;s  better-heeled graduates and devotees.

	Princeton is not in the cruise business, of course. One of seven educational &quot;hosts&quot; of the Perestroika voyage - the others include Harvard, Smith, Smithsonian Journeys, Stanford, Yale, and the American Museum of National History - Princeton is working with World Leaders Travel, a San Francisco-based educational travel company known for its high-end cruises and other more exotic trips by land, rail and road that feature high-profile speakers. Formerly known as High Country Passage, the company changed its name this past year. 

	While Princeton says its goal is to engender alumni good will thru cruise ship networking, World Leaders Travel wants to make money. And this is an expensive undertaking. While the Washington Speaker&apos;s Bureau declined to state how much Condi Rice is being paid for her three-day appearance aboard the Silver Wind, news reports say that she commands up to $150,000 per speech, the same as her former boss, former President  George W. Bush.

	For those in search of even greater enlightenment, Princeton is advertizing pre-and post-cruise trip extensions surrounding the main event -- &quot;Global Challenges in a Post-Perestroika World.&quot; True travel &amp; leisure gluttons can sign up for an extra week in Kiev, Chernobyl and Moscow, escorted by William Miller, a former U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine, or a week-long excursion after the cruise to Istanbul and the ruins of Ephesus. 

	John Daigre, World Leaders Travel&apos;s marketing director, has great hopes for the Perestroika cruise, which he says is not sold out but is still in an early stage of marketing. Last year, another joint venture with Princeton&apos;s alumni affairs office, &quot;The Middle East in the 21st Century,&quot; did sell out. That cruise featured James Baker as its keynote speaker.  
	
 
	
  

   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Are You an &apos;&apos;Exclusive Scholar&apos;&apos;? Just Sign Here</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2010/01/the_new_york_times_reports.html" />
   <id>tag:www.mindingthecampus.com,2010:/forum//1.3348</id>
   
   <published>2010-01-26T21:41:18Z</published>
   <updated>2010-01-26T21:49:04Z</updated>
   
   <summary>The New York Times reports today on a new marketing gimmick for colleges seeking to boost applications during this recession-plagued time when every tuition-paying body in a classroom counts: the fast-track application form that allows some high school seniors seeking...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Charlotte Allen</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/">
      <![CDATA[The <em><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/education/26admit.html?ref=todayspaper">New York Times</a></em> reports today on a new marketing gimmick for colleges seeking to boost applications during this recession-plagued time when every tuition-paying body in a classroom counts: the fast-track application form that allows some high school seniors seeking admission to bypass the usual fees of $50 or so, the tedious filling out of information, and perhaps most significantly, the dreaded college essay.

            Taking a lead from credit-card marketers, the express forms, typically packaged in a brightly colored envelope marked "Exclusive Scholar Applications," "Distinctive Candidate Application" or something similar, come already filled in with the student's name and other information (bought from College Board lists) so that all the applicant need do is affix a signature and head for a mailbox. Most of the application packets are produced and designed by the same firm, Royall & Company of Richmond, whose founder, Bill Royall, led direct-mail campaigns to potential donors to President Clinton. High-school counselors tend to hate the short-cut forms, which they say take advantage of "teenagers who don't know what they want" from a college, as a counselor told <em>New York Times</em> reporter Jacques Steinberg, and cynics complain that the mass mailings to tens of thousands of young people when the college actually has only a few hundred freshman slots to fill, is an effort to game the <em>U.S. News and World Report</em> college rankings, which are in part based on "selectivity" (the ratio of admissions to applications) and the relative SAT scores of applicants. And although some well-known universities, such as Marquette and the University of Minnesota, have used the express application forms to claimed success, it's clear that the nation's most elite schools---the Harvards, Stanfords, and so forth---don't need to bother with them in order to generate hundreds of applications per freshman slot, and that fast-track forms are yet another sign of the growing gap between the top tier of universities that have the luxury of being genuinely selective and the great mass of lesser-ranked institutions that don't have that luxury and must scramble for students these days.]]>
      <![CDATA[There is something else at stake here. Exactly how important is the college application essay, supposedly the most demanding part of the application and Ground Zero of anxiety for high school seniors? Current wisdom deems the essay so crucial to acceptance that the <em>Princeton Review</em> devotes several web pages to dispensing advice on how high school seniors can craft a piece of writing that "sets you apart from the other talented candidates" for admission. The <em>Review </em>also sells a book, <a href="http://www.randomhouse.com/princetonreview/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375765681"><em>College Essays That Made a Difference</em></a> upon which applicants can model their own efforts as they cope with what the Review calls "scariest part of the college application." Time was when the purpose of the essay requirement was to assess applicants' ability to reason logically and write grammatically. Now, the essays are expected to be highly polished examples of the memoir genre of creative writing, in which young people explore their inner selves in artful language worthy of Jonathan Safran Foer (see Connecticut College's <a href="http://www.conncoll.edu/admission/essays.htm">posting of the essays that recently impressed its admissions committee</a>). The <em>Princeton Review</em> <a href="http://www.princetonreview.com/college/essay.aspx">advises</a>: "Have at least one other person edit your essay---a teacher or college counselor is best." Many applicants go a step further and employ expensive college-essay specialists and other professional coaches to sand away the rough spots in their prose (or perhaps go the whole hog and write the essay themselves on behalf of their youthful clients).

            The fact that the institutions that have turned to fast-track application forms (about 100 of them to date) are willing to jettison the essay requirement altogether suggests that their admissions committees have finally caught onto the fact that an "edited" college essay isn't worth much in assessing an applicant's ability to express himself or herself in Standard English. The <em><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2008/02/12/college_applications_can_be_too_good/">Boston Globe</a></em> reported in 2008 on wised-up admissions officers' acronym for overly shimmering prose submitted by high school seniors with so-so grades in English: "DDI," for "Daddy Did It." Since the SAT itself now includes a writing section that must be completed by test-takers on the spot as they sit in the examination room, a separate essay attached to the application form may be superfluous.

            Fast-track college application forms may or may not be a good idea (although many high school students seem to prefer them, according to the <em>New York Times</em>), and they may or may not be a harbinger of death throes for beleaguered small colleges desperate for tuition payers. Yet the fact that they imply that it's not worth admission officers' time in most cases to bother reading college essays suggests a healthy trend that allows potential college freshmen to be evaluated on the basis of their solid academic achievements---grades and test scores---rather than slick expository packaging largely put together by the adults in their lives.  
]]>
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Why Free Speech Advocates Are Angry</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2010/01/sometimes_people_who_dont_work.html" />
   <id>tag:www.mindingthecampus.com,2010:/forum//1.3347</id>
   
   <published>2010-01-26T15:38:29Z</published>
   <updated>2010-01-26T15:41:58Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Sometimes people who don&apos;t work in academia wonder why colleges are often the object of debates over free speech. Sure, some observers know that campuses are liberal enclaves, and they regard professors and administrators as easily intimidated by identity politics....</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Mark Bauerlein</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/">
      <![CDATA[Sometimes people who don't work in academia wonder why colleges are often the object of debates over free speech.  Sure, some observers know that campuses are liberal enclaves, and they regard professors and administrators as easily intimidated by identity politics.  But most people remember their college days as pretty much apolitical, and they continue to put the ideological elements in a small box.
 
That's why it's important to go back to the sources and hold them up to public scrutiny.  Take campus speech codes.  They have a bad name in public life, but they stand firm in student handbooks and campus policies in black and white.  Here is a list of some of them, all taken from the list assembled by Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (<a href="http://www.thefire.org">www.thefire.org</a>).  (Some of them may have been altered by now, but the fact that they ever existed is sufficient cause for response.)
 
At Ohio University we have this definition of harassment: "Nonsexual verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility toward another because of the person's gender can be the basis for a hostile, offensive, or intimidating environment claim. Gender based conduct can take the form of abusive written or graphic material; epithets; sexist slurs; negative stereotyping; jokes; or threatening, intimidating, or hostile acts." ]]>
      And here is this message from Boston College: &quot;Boston College recognizes the essential contribution a diverse community of students, faculty and staff makes to the advancement of its goals and ideals in an atmosphere of respect for one another and for the University&apos;s mission and heritage.  Accordingly, Boston College commits itself to maintaining a welcoming environment for all people and extends its welcome in particular to those who may be vulnerable to discrimination, on the basis of their race, ethnic or national origin, religion, color, age, gender, marital or parental status, veteran status, disabilities or sexual orientation.  Boston College rejects and condemns all forms of harassment, wrongful discrimination and disrespect.&quot; 

Southern Illinois University Carbondale tells campus dwellers: &quot;Discriminatory harassment includes, but is not limited to, conduct (oral, written, graphics or physical) directed against any person or group of persons because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or veteran&apos;s status that has the purpose of or reasonably foreseeable effect of creating an offensive, demeaning, intimidating or hostile environment for that person or group of persons. Such conduct includes but is not limited to objectionable epithets demeaning depictions or treatment and threatened or actual abuse or harm.&quot;

University of Illinois-Urbana-Champagne: &quot;Residents may not engage in conduct that threatens or endangers the health, safety, or physical or psychological well-being of any person. This includes, but is not limited to, actions related to a person&apos;s race, color, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, or veteran status. Such conduct includes, but is not limited to, objectionable epithets, demeaning depictions or treatment, outrageous acts or communications that are intended to harass, intimidate, or humiliate, and threatened or actual abuse or harm.&quot;

At the University of Iowa, sexual harassment &quot;occurs when somebody says or does something sexually related that you don&apos;t want them to say or do, regardless of who it is.&quot;

And the Bucknell student handbook says, &quot;Upon entry to Bucknell, students promise to observe the following points which are contained in the Pledge of Student Responsibility.  As a member of the social community, I will respect individual differences and the rights of all others. I understand that bias on the basis of gender, handicapped status, national origin, race, religious belief, or sexual orientation, whether expressed in word or action, is repugnant, and that Bucknell will not tolerate harassment, discrimination, or violence against any person for any reason.&quot;

And Harvard explains, &quot;The determination of what constitutes sexual harassment will vary with the particular circumstances, but it may be described generally as unwanted sexual behavior, such as physical contact or verbal comments or suggestions, which adversely affects the working or learning environment of an individual.&quot;  Also, &quot;Behavior evidently intended to dishonor such characteristics as race, gender, ethnic group, religious belief, or sexual orientation is contrary to the pursuit of inquiry and education. Such grave disrespect for the dignity of others can be punished under existing procedures because it violates a balance of rights on which the University is based.&quot;

At Georgetown, harassment includes &quot;Any intentional or persistent act(s) deemed intimidating, hostile, coercive, or offensive.&quot;
 
The problem with these policies is that they lower the bar of disturbance to &quot;offense&quot; or &quot;disrespect&quot; or &quot;objectionable&quot; actions.  They don&apos;t recognize that Federal definitions of harassment require a level of severity far higher than these definitions assume.  They open the door for administrators and bureaucrats who push an identity-politics agenda, or who harbor certain resentments, or who are just plain controlling personalities, and they also encourage individuals to lower their own tolerance and raise their sensitivities.  It&apos;s a recipe for thin-skinned reflexes, and poor training for adulthood.

   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>In High School? We Have A Med School Spot Reserved For You</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2010/01/we_have_a_med_school_spot_rese.html" />
   <id>tag:www.mindingthecampus.com,2010:/forum//1.3345</id>
   
   <published>2010-01-25T21:38:35Z</published>
   <updated>2010-01-25T21:42:56Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Roger Clegg writes on a shocking new University of Massachusetts set-aside program over at Phi Beta Cons: The Boston Globe reports that the University of Massachusetts is setting up a med-school set-aside program: &quot;Under an initiative set to be finalized...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Anthony Paletta</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/">
      <![CDATA[Roger Clegg writes on a shocking new University of Massachusetts set-aside program over at <a href="http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDU3ODllZTM3NmI5NDc4ODlmYTc4ZWUzMGJmZGQ2ZDI=">Phi Beta Cons</a>: 

<blockquote>The <em>Boston Globe</em> reports that the University of Massachusetts is setting up a med-school set-aside program: "Under an initiative set to be finalized today, the state's only public medical school [i.e., at UMass] will partner with UMass campuses in Boston, Amherst, Lowell, and Dartmouth to create a joint baccalaureate-MD program that would ensure admission for aspiring doctors from underrepresented ethnic and socioeconomic groups. . . . The medical school will set aside 12 slots in its 125-student, first-year class for qualified students from groups underrepresented among Massachusetts doctors. Those groups include African-Americans, Hispanics, certain Southeast Asians, and Cape Verdeans, Brazilians, and other Portuguese speakers. Students of any ethnic background from low-income families or those among the first in their families to attend college would also qualify."

I won't make the usual and obvious points about why discrimination on the basis of skin color and national orgin is unfair, divisive, and stupid. All that aside, this seems to me to be almost certainly illegal. To be sure, this isn't exactly like the race/ethnicity set-aside program that was struck down in Bakke, since here the slots are also (in theory at least) going to be open to applications from members of disfavored racial and ethnic groups, so long as they are low-income or the first in their families to attend college. But this is still a very mechanical use of race, like the point system struck down in Gratz v. Bollinger. And the justification given for the racially discriminatory program by UMass president Jack Wilson is the need for "role models" --- which has also been rejected by the Supreme Court (in Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, in 1986).  </blockquote>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Some Financial Aid Help</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2010/01/some_financial_aid_help.html" />
   <id>tag:www.mindingthecampus.com,2010:/forum//1.3336</id>
   
   <published>2010-01-21T17:29:17Z</published>
   <updated>2010-01-21T17:31:06Z</updated>
   
   <summary>The New York Times&apos; &quot;The Choice&quot; blog is running a helpful question and answer series on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Take a look if you&apos;re puzzling through the process of filling the thing out....</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Anthony Paletta</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/">
      <![CDATA[The <em>New York Times' </em>"The Choice" blog is running a helpful <a href="http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/fafsaq-and-a/">question and answer series on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid</a>. Take a look if you're puzzling through the process of filling the thing out. ]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>That &apos;&apos;Hate America&apos;&apos; Test</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2010/01/that_hate_america_test.html" />
   <id>tag:www.mindingthecampus.com,2010:/forum//1.3317</id>
   
   <published>2010-01-14T16:54:42Z</published>
   <updated>2010-01-14T17:02:36Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Candace de Russy&apos;s January 7 post here, &quot;Hate-America Sociology,&quot; understandably attracted a lot of attention. It cited a 10-question Soc 101 quiz at an unnamed eastern college, complete with accusatory leftish questions and some simple-minded answers by a student who...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>John Leo</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/">
      <![CDATA[Candace de Russy's January 7 post here, <a href="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2010/01/hateamerica_sociology.html">"Hate-America Sociology,"</a> understandably attracted a lot of attention. It cited a 10-question Soc 101 quiz at an unnamed eastern college, complete with accusatory leftish questions and some simple-minded answers by a student who drew a mark of 100 for agreeing with the politics of his professor.

A few readers, and many more at other sites that linked to us, asked if the test and answers are authentic. I am satisfied that they are. The material came with assurances from Dr. de Russy, a former professor and trustee at the State University of New York. I know the college involved and have a copy of the test with answers filled in. I talked with the source for the story, who cannot be identified because of privacy concerns and fear of retaliation.

The blog <a href="http://progressivescholar.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/sociology-a-hate-america-curriculum/#more-169">Progressive Scholar</a> saw nothing wrong with the test ("I don't understand, what is the problem with this exam?") Dr. de Russy <a href="http://nasblog.org/2010/01/12/response-to-progressive-scholar/">replied</a>, stressing what she saw as the "unremitting bias" of the test.  Its point of view, she wrote, is "<em>entirely</em> anti-capitalist, anti-white, anti-male. <em>No</em> other perspective is included, even as a hypothetical."

    Readers who come across other politically loaded exams should send them to us at <a href="mailto:editor@campusmind.org">editor@campusmind.org</a> or Minding the Campus, the Manhattan Institute, 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017.
]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Sorry Wrong ID</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2010/01/correction.html" />
   <id>tag:www.mindingthecampus.com,2010:/forum//1.3316</id>
   
   <published>2010-01-14T16:49:01Z</published>
   <updated>2010-01-14T16:54:30Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Apologies to Time education correspondent Gilbert Cruz, who is not the author of the quote, &quot;I&apos;m, pretty sure you&apos;d have to shoot somebody not to graduate from Harvard.&quot; That line came from Kevin Carey, policy director of the think tank...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>John Leo</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/">
      <![CDATA[Apologies to <em><a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1948175,00.html">Time</a></em> education correspondent Gilbert Cruz, who is not the author of the quote, "I'm, pretty sure you'd have to shoot somebody not to graduate from Harvard." That line came from Kevin Carey, policy director of the think tank Education Sector, in an interview with Cruz.]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Surprising News In The Daily Princetonian</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2010/01/surprising_news_in_the_daily_p.html" />
   <id>tag:www.mindingthecampus.com,2010:/forum//1.3315</id>
   
   <published>2010-01-14T15:41:11Z</published>
   <updated>2010-01-14T15:41:49Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Take a look for yourself....</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Anthony Paletta</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/">
      <![CDATA[<a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/">Take a look for yourself</a>. ]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Remarkable Fact Of The Day</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2010/01/remarkable_fact_of_the_day.html" />
   <id>tag:www.mindingthecampus.com,2010:/forum//1.3313</id>
   
   <published>2010-01-14T01:00:43Z</published>
   <updated>2010-01-14T01:02:54Z</updated>
   
   <summary>At the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, students can minor in social and economic justice without taking a single economics course.---Reported by E. Frank Stephenson on the Division of Labor blog....</summary>
   <author>
      <name>John Leo</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/">
      <![CDATA[At the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, students can minor in social and economic justice without taking <a href="http://www.unc.edu/ugradbulletin/depts/soci.html    ">a single economics course</a>.---Reported by E. Frank Stephenson on the <a href="http://divisionoflabour.com/">Division of Labor</a> blog.
]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title> Affirmative Action---All  This Turmoil For So Little?</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2010/01/affirmative_actionall_this_tur.html" />
   <id>tag:www.mindingthecampus.com,2010:/forum//1.3309</id>
   
   <published>2010-01-12T22:00:53Z</published>
   <updated>2010-01-13T15:04:20Z</updated>
   
   <summary>A Chicago study on &quot;Assessing the Impact of Eliminating Affirmative Action in Higher Education&quot; comes to this conclusion: black and Hispanic representation at all 4-year colleges is predicted to decline modestly---by 2%---if race-neutral college admissions policies are mandated nationwide. However,...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Roger Clegg</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/">
      <![CDATA[A Chicago study on <a href="http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/648415">"Assessing the Impact of Eliminating Affirmative Action in Higher Education"</a> comes to this conclusion: black and Hispanic representation at all 4-year colleges is predicted to decline modestly---by 2%---if race-neutral college admissions policies are mandated nationwide. However, race-neutral admissions are predicted to decrease minority representation at the most selective 4-year institutions by 10%.
 
Now, my question is this:  Is it worth it?  

That is, the systematic discrimination on the basis of skin color and national origin might have the benefit of increasing the political correctness of universities' racial and ethnic mix by this, let's face, trivial amount.  And, we are then told, this trivial amount might (since the social scientists are not in agreement) have some marginal improvement in some areas of what students learn.  

On the other hand, here are some of the costs of this discrimination:  It is personally unfair, passes over better qualified students, and sets a disturbing legal, political, and moral precedent in allowing racial discrimination; it creates resentment; it stigmatizes the so-called beneficiaries in the eyes of their classmates, teachers, and themselves, as well as future employers, clients, and patients; it fosters a victim mindset, removes the incentive for academic excellence, and encourages separatism; it compromises the academic mission of the university and lowers the overall academic quality of the student body; it creates pressure to discriminate in grading and graduation; it breeds hypocrisy within the school; it encourages a scofflaw attitude among college officials; it mismatches students and institutions, guaranteeing failure for many of the former; it papers over the real social problem of why so many African Americans and Latinos are academically uncompetitive; and it gets states and schools involved in unsavory activities like deciding which racial and ethnic minorities will be favored and which ones not, and how much blood is needed to establish group membership.

Pencils down.  The correct answer is, no, it is not worth it.
]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

</feed>
