A collection of University related antics.
- The heroes at FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education)
the existence of racially-restricted classes at Arizona State.
These are called the (I am not making this up) "Rainbow Sections" of
their English Comp classes for freshmen, and are open to Native
What sort of self-respecting student of any hue would want to be in a course taught by such clowns? (Via Joanne Jacobs)
Or for that matter, who would want to subject themselves
to the education program at Washington State University?
The travails of one Ed Swan are described
A national civil liberties group is defending a Washington State University undergraduate because the College of Education threatened to terminate him from the education program this fall after he expressed conservative religious and political views in class last school year.
The group in question is FIRE again; their article is here.
I'm not exactly prompt with this one, but Evan Coyne Maloney
has been all over the furor at Bucknell caused by an e-mail
ad for an event sponsored by the university's conservative
Where were you during the months following September 11? Major John Krenson was hunting terrorists.
Administration (apparently) hit the roof over the "hunting terrorists" bit and called the responsible parties in on the carpet. Worse, they then tried to obfuscate their role in this bit of free-speech chillin'. Read all about it here.
- Fellow denizens of the bottom rungs of university employment are often puzzled by the bizarre behavior and gross incompetence of higher-ups. It's kind of like watching Animal Planet with the sound off, so you can't hear the helpful British narrator explain what's going on. It will perhaps help to read an essay at the "Inside Higher Ed" website entitled "The Peter Principle in Academe" by Margaret Gutman Klosko, explaining where these people come from, why they act the way they do, and their inevitable destiny.
- But, if you're interested in that,
you should also read Arnold Kling's recent article
at Tech Central Station on "'Economic Man' vs. 'Status Man'". Thesis:
deep-thinking people like to look down their noses at folks with economic
motives. What deep thinkers leave unexamined are the non-economic
motives to behavior: they can be, and often are, worse, as in
status-seeking. The effects are magnified in Academia.
Professors are fond of speaking of the higher motives of academic life, such as the pursuit of knowledge and truth. Accordingly, they would reject economic approaches such as tuition vouchers or giving credit on the basis of test results rather than institutional status. In reality, academic resistance to such ideas is driven by the basest of motives -- the drive for status. The status-serving myth is that colleges and universities are more "pure" to the extent that they operate on a basis other than economic motivation. However, I believe that the opposite is the case: economic motivation would represent a step up from status-seeking.