Showing posts with label university. Show all posts
Showing posts with label university. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

CCSU Students Talk About Guns: Naturally, Their Professor Called the Police

This is slightly off-topic, but the news item is too weird not to share.

Last October, at Central Connecticut State University, Professor Paula Anderson, told students to make oral presentations discussing a "relevant issue in the media."

Three students presented the view that the Virginia Tech massacre of April, 2007, would have had a lower death toll, if professors and students had been carrying guns.

Naturally, Professor Paula Anderson called the police.

I am Not Making This Up

It gets more interesting. John Wahlberg, one of the three students owns guns!!!!! Even though CCSU strictly prohibits guns on campus and in residence halls. Mr. Wahlberg apparently lives 20 miles off campus, and keeps his guns safely and legally locked up. Smart man.

College Professors, Hoplophobia, and National Policy

One ditsy college professor on the east coast isn't going to do all that much damage. Actually, the incident has it's funny side - although I feel a bit sorry for Ms. Professor Anderson and the three students who talked about guns.

I ran into the word "hoplophobia" about a year ago, in a blog which seems to have disappeared. A formal definition: "Hoplophobia (n) - mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons." It's not in most dictionaries, but yes: it's a 'real' word.

As I wrote back then, "The idea that fear of weapons is not normal seems to be one that hasn't gained traction among America's best and brightest."

Note: Hoplophobia is an irrational fear of weapons. Not the sensible reaction to seeing, say, a rifle being stroked by some giggling fellow whose eyes don't focus.

Hoplophobia, like other disorders, isn't a serious societal problem as long as a small percentage of the population is afflicted, and those who are do not hold responsible positions.

College professors are a small minority, but they are, as a group, one of the traditional information gatekeepers in American society. Until the Information Age, they were among the select few who decided what the rest of us were permitted to know, and how events and ideas were presented.

No 'conspiracy' involved: That's just the way things worked, before cell phones, blogs, and text messaging.

College professors are still influential. Some of their students may believe what they say. When significant numbers of professors are convinced that guns are to be feared, some students will learn to fear guns, too.

Aren't Guns Dangerous?

Weapons of any sort are, by definition, dangerous. Like knives. I work at home, next to the kitchen, so there's enough weaponry within 20 feet to start a small gang war.

And, I'm okay with that. I'm also okay with Mr. Wahlberg owning guns. I don't mind people owning dangerous technology, as long as they're not crazy. It's part of living in a free society.

That's why I'm relatively unconcerned about people owning guns, LP gas, ammonium nitrate, anhydrous ammonia, printing presses, fax machines, and computers.

All these give whoever possesses them, and knows how to use them, considerable individual power. I don't mind individuals having power: even if they're not Connecticut college professors.

Related posts: News and views: Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.
Posted by at 5 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

William Felkner vs. College Conformity: Traditional Information Gatekeepers Face Another Challenge

Generally, I'm not a big fan of students - or their parents - who sue their school. Too often, it's looked like a case of wanting higher grades than they earned. On the other hand, as a recovering English teacher, I know that educational institutions can have problems themselves.

Which is why I take William Felkner's lawsuit seriously.

Boston.com wrote: "PROVIDENCE - A former student has sued the Rhode Island College School of Social Work, saying he was punished for his conservative views.

"William Felkner said that after enrolling in 2004, he realized he would have to adopt a left-wing ideology to get a master's degree...."

Information Gatekeepers and the War on Terror

A lawsuit by a disgruntled student doesn't seem to have much to do with the War on Terror. But I see Mr. Felkner's case as part of the struggle to determine whether information and expressions of opinion continue to be controlled by the traditional gatekeepers.

When a small group of people are able to control what everyone else is allowed to know, the opinions and assumptions of that group will tend to influence what they think is important to pass along: and what isn't.

In America, a relatively small number of people in the northeast had enormous influence over what did and did not get into the news; the publishers of academic journals decided what ideas and whose work would get discussed; and a rather centralized public school system ensured that America's youth be exposed to a consistent set of values.

GIGO and the War on Terror

I learned an expression while studying computer science, a couple of decades back: GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. For programmers, it means that the best program will give incorrect results if inaccurate or just plain wrong data goes in.

I thing the GIGO principle applies to what people believe, too. Feed people information that's one-sided or just plain wrong, and their beliefs won't be a good match with reality. When those people apply their alternatively-accurate beliefs to selecting political candidates or deciding issues, there can be trouble.

It's my impression that the old order of gatekeepers is giving way to a more open exchange of ideas: I'll get back to that.

Liberal Bias on Campus?

Many, if not most, academicians will probably tell you that their colleges and universities are the epitome of open-mindedness.

And, in a way, they're right. Apart from a few individual professors and students, there is no liberal bias on campus in America. America's Academic Institutions are, by and large, by academia's standards:
  • Open-Minded
  • Bias-Free
  • Unencumbered by the Shibboleths of an Authoritarian, Hierarchical, Male-Dominated Society
It's a matter of what you define as "liberal," of course. The typical American college campus is quite moderate, in the sense that they don't insist that students embrace ideas like:
  1. Redistribution of wealth
    • From each according to his ability
    • To each according to his need
  2. The urgent need for implementation of the Kyoto Protocol
    • Rejection or denial of Paul Ehrlich's object lesson
  3. Opposition to Israeli colonial oppression of the Palestinian people
  4. Recognition of trans-species domestic partnerships
Actually, I'm not so sure about #2: environmentalism, reality-based or not, is pretty important on campus. But the rest, I think, might be recognized as 'liberal' points of view which would not be required of students.

Less extreme views, though, may not be recognized as "liberal" by the academics. I've gotten the impression that, for example, a calm statement of disagreement with gay rights advocates is "hate speech." The effect is to silence unapproved views.

Traditional Information Gatekeepers and the Information Age

College professors and school teachers have, traditionally, had quite a bit to say about what gets taught to America's citizens, from about age five to 22. And, it looks like quite a few of the sixties campus activists liked the halls of ivy so much, they stayed: and became today's college professors.

That might, or might not, have something to do with Mr. Felkner's perception that he had to conform to liberal ideals, or drop out.

Academia isn't the only traditional gatekeeper.

News media, print and broadcast, had - and has - a great deal of influence over what Americans know about what's happening in the world.

For most of the 20th century, a relatively small group of northeastern newspapermen decided what went into their papers and wire services - and that determined what showed up in 'lesser' newspapers. The result was that a sort of club of Yankee gentlemen and like-minded men decided what news was 'worth printing.'

Broadcast journalism was just as centralized. Between the triumvirate of ABC, CBS, and NBC, and the more refined PBS, only a few editors and journalists decided what information would be delivered to American citizens - and how it would be presented.

Entertainment media was created and distributed from a very few centers, too: mostly Los Angeles/Hollywood and New York City.

That was then.

The Internet, and the explosion of information technology and media that came with it, is changing who gets to determine you what you should know. To an increasing extent, individuals are free to search for information on their own, without relying on traditional gatekeepers.

I've written before, about gatekeepers, free access to information, and related issues: In the news: Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.

Afterword: National Association of Scholars and Bias at Rhode Island College (RIC)

Particularly considering the sanctions that people with deviant, unapproved, views may face on campus, I was a bit surprised to find these postings on the National Association of Scholars (NAS) website:
  • "The Scandal of Social Work Education"
    Update on Bill Felkner: Rhode Island College Bias-Revelers Evacuate
    May 16, 2008 By Ashley Thorne
    Excerpts:
    • "Bill Felkner was a graduate social work student at Rhode Island College who never received his diploma – not for flunking out or committing any criminal or inappropriate act, but for holding views contrary to those of RIC’s School of Social Work."
    • "Ryczek ]Felkner’s first policy professor] told Felkner that social work is a 'value-based profession that clearly articulates a socio-political ideology about how the world works and how the world should be.' Ryczek was also the professor who declared in an email to Felkner, 'I revel in my biases.' "
    • The Rhode Island College president's "promise to conduct an investigation of Felkner’s claims was never fulfilled."
    • "Felkner said that if Rhode Island College were ever to give him a sufficient extension for his project, he would still like to do work on welfare reform, the banned topic that had originally cost him his degree.
      "Perhaps soon, there will be no one left at RIC who was involved with Bill Felkner’s case. But if this school of social work institutionally revels in its biases—and we believe it does—then the revelry will go on, regardless of which individuals are present."
  • "Initiatives"
    The "I-Revel-in-My-Biases" School of Social Work -- And What It Does to a Student Who Declines to Join the Revelry
    February 21, 2008 By Ashley Thorne
    Excerpts:
    • "Allan Bloom wrote in The Closing of the American Mind, 'Every educational system has a moral goal that it tries to attain and that informs its curriculum. It wants to produce a certain kind of human being.'
      " 'At the School of Social Work at Rhode Island College, that human being is politically liberal -- or perhaps more precisely, a committed political progressive who views American society as inherently oppressive and who upholds a vision of education as a means to advance "social justice.' "
    • "Also during his first semester, Felkner objected to the School of Social Work's promoting the film Fahrenheit 9/11, including showings in social work classes. In Felkner's view, the film was politically biased and should not have been treated as part of the curriculum. He argued that the War on Terror was outside the School of Social Work's expertise. Having failed to persuade the School about this, he then wrote an email to Professor Ryczek, asking if the SSW would be willing to sponsor a subsequent viewing of FahenHYPE 9/11, a film rebuttal to Fahrenheit 9/11. Ryczek's reply was that 'as a profession we do take sides,' and that social work is a 'value-based profession that clearly articulates a socio-political ideology about how the world works and how the world should be.' Ryczek closed his email saying:
      " 'I revel in my biases. So, I think that anyone who consistently holds antithetical views to those that are espoused by the profession might ask themselves whether social work is the profession for them…or similarly, if one finds the views in the curriculum at RIC SSW antithetical to those they hold closely, then this particular school might not be a good fit for them.'
      "Felkner also met with the Chair of the Bachelor Social Work program, Professor Mildred Bates, who refused to countenance his request for SSW to show FahrenHYPE 9/11. 'It's not going to happen,' she said. 'We hope that all social workers are liberal.'
    • "What should a student in Rhode Island who seeks a master's degree in social work do if he or she holds political opinions at variance with those of the Poverty Institute or the School of Social Work? The only options that Rhode Island appears to provide is that the student abandon his or her views and conform with the School of Social Work party line; abandon the field of social work; or attend a more expensive out-of-state program."
      [emphasis mine]
I should explain that the National Association of Scholars doesn't seem to be an official American academic organization. Their "Who We Are" page reveals:

"NAS is an independent membership association of academics working to foster intellectual freedom and to sustain the tradition of reasoned scholarship and civil debate in America’s colleges and universities.

"Background

"NAS was founded in 1987, soon after Allan Bloom’s surprise best-seller, The Closing of the American Mind, alerted Americans to the ravages wrought by illiberal ideologies on campus. The founders of NAS summoned faculty members from across the political spectrum to help defend the core values of liberal education...."

And, apparently, NAS thinks that the "core values of liberal education" don't include the ham-handed application of politically correct views, and strict indoctrination that I experienced.

1As defined by organizations like the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. In light of recent events, NAMBLA may not be regarded as centrist by many academicians.
Arguably another example of traditional information gatekeepers being challenged:
  • "Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'"
    FOXNews (December 16, 2008)
    • " Scientists skeptical of the assertion that climate change is the result of man's activites[!] are criticizing a recent Associated Press report on global warming, calling it 'irrational hysteria,' 'horrifically bad' and 'incredibly biased.'
    • "They say the report, which was published on Monday, contained sweeping scientific errors and was a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue.
    • " 'If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it,' said David Deming, a geology professor at the University of Oklahoma who has been critical of media reporting on the climate change issue...."
Those scientists are taking a real risk. There's evidence that there's a price to pay for denying the doctrine of global warming.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, March 6, 2008

Recruiting Center Blast, Evacuation after Bomb Threat, Bomb Factory on Campus: Deja Vu All Over Again

Today may be more like the sixties than I thought. There's been an arrest at UC Davis, police are still looking for a bomb in Denver City, the FBI is now investigating the Times Square blast, and the New York mayor is asking anyone else who saw what happened to come forward. One witness saw a guy on a bicycle in Times Square before the blast: helpful, but not very.

It's early days: it's possible that the bombing of the USMC recruiting center in Times Square, a bomb threat in Colorado, and college kids making a pipe bomb in a dorm room have nothing to do with the War on Terror.

Possible, but not likely.

This reminds me of the sixties, when
  • Relevance ruled
  • The moon was in the Seventh House
  • Love would steer the stars, and
  • Terribly earnest, peace-loving students were setting fires and planting bombs
As Yogi Berra said, about something entirely different, "it's deja vu all over again."

I shouldn't be surprised: quite a few of those campus activists probably
  • Got their degrees
  • Got a job at a college
  • Stayed in one place long enough to get tenure
  • Are now dedicated to spreading the gospel according to Steinem, and teaching that there is no problem, real or imagined, that can't be blamed on (white, male, Christian) America
An over-simplification? You bet! Wanting to 'do your own thing,' while having others treat you according to the rules you won't follow - and blaming the government, your parents, or society when things go wrong - isn't an academic monopoly.

An important difference now is that I don't see the virulent hatred of the American military which I remember as a mark of the sixties. There's the occasional individual who makes cracks like 'Marines: the few, thankfully,' and a city council here and there that doesn't like big, rough soldiers on their turf: but that's the exception. In fact, that "the few" post isn't on the Web, now.

Why the difference? Here are some possibilities. Today:
  • Americans get information from The New York Times, the alphabet soup networks1 - and thousands of independent online sources
  • Everyone under thirty, who was born in America
    • Has lived with fallout from the Woodstock generation - and kids aren't stupid
    • Wasn't raised by parents who, with the best of intentions, were raising their kids with "expert" advice while keeping up with the Joneses
  • Authority isn't respected as much as it was in the early sixties: People are less likely to accept some crazy pronouncement, just because the person making it has a title, or is a college professor (Ironic, isn't it?)
All things considered, I'd rather be living now, than in the 'good old days' of either the fifties or the sixties.
1"Alphabet soup networks" - my name for the venerable triumvirate of ABC, CBS, and NBC, together the people's network, PBS.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, September 23, 2007

President Ahmadinejad Arrives Quietly in New York

The Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reports that "President Ahmadinejad arrives in New York."

The article also says President Ahmadinejad is scheduled to address the United Nations on Tuesday, an talk with the UN secretary general, and leaders of several countries "on the sidelines of the UN meeting."

The Iranian president arrival in New York City was done quite inconspicuously, according to FoxNews.com, and with very, very tight security.

Good idea, considering how upset some people are over his arrival.

Between that, and the Iranian president's visit to Columbia University, it should be an interesting couple of days.

More about Ahmadinejad's visit, and Columbia University's notion of academic freedom and free speech, at

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Flushed Koran Angers Quran Defenders

And they've brought on hate-crime charges against the the Quran-flusher.

You've heard about it by now. A student at Pace University in New York threw a Quran in a toilet. Twice.

I'm not clear on how many Qurans were involved. The news article I read implied that the same book was used on both occasions ("he threw a Quran in a toilet at Pace University on two separate occasions"). That seems unlikely, so it looks like the student desecrated two copies of the Muslim holy book.

Tacky? Boorish? Really stupid? Yes to all three.

Hate crime? Good question. I'll leave that to the courts.

I don't blame Muslims with being upset. What that student did was unconscionable in any group claiming to be a civilized society.

As a Catholic, I'd be upset if some artist put a crucifix in urine, put the thing on display, and got taken seriously as an artist. Or decorated a picture of the Virgin Mary with dung.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has come to the defense of the Quran in the Pace University Quran desecration. They're the same bunch that came to the defense of the Minnesota Imams who just happened to re-enact the 9/11 martyr's pre-hijacking behavior.

My guess is that the Quran-flusher is in for a lot of trouble.

And that we'll be hearing a great deal about how put-upon Muslims in the states are.

That student's exercise in self-expression was not helpful.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.