Musing's musings

Forward, together forward

It was two years ago today that a troubled young man (and an alumnus of NIU) named Steven Kazmierczak walked into a lecture hall on the campus of Northern Illinois University and opened fire on those gathered there, killing five students and wounding sixteen others, before turning the gun on himself and taking his own life. Before I go on, let's pause for a moment to remember those whose lives were cut short untimely on that sad, cold day:

• Daniel Parmenter, age 20
• Catalina Garcia, age 20
• Ryanne Mace, age 19
• Sgt. Julianna Gehant, age 32
• Gayle Dubowski, age 20

Why our children isn't learning good

(Apologies for the atrocious grammar in the post title: It was deliberately done to make the point.)

It is a regrettable truism in textbook publishing that as Texas goes, so goes the nation. With so many schools needing books, the biggest states like Texas and California have a disproportionate influence on what is, and is not, available from textbook publishers. No publisher wants to come out with a book that school districts in mega-states won't buy, so they tend to tailor their materials to what they know they'll be able to market in the biggest markets they have available to them.

This should be a textbook illustration of why unfettered capitalism is not always a good thing. But of course, such an opinion would be highly unlikely to pass muster with the Texas Education Agency, which recently released a draft of its new standards (PDF link) for the teaching of U.S. history since the Reconstruction. The standards were revised with the advice of what the TEA terms expert reviewers, though I would argue that their definition of that term is considerably looser than most historians would probably be comfortable with. Of the six individuals listed, two are professors of history, two are tied to evangelical ministries and have absolutely no academic background in history whatsoever, one is a lawyer whose academic background is not clear, and one is a professor of education with no discernible training in history.

I don't recognize the name of either of the two historians on the panel, but that is not in and of itself significant, since I'm a Europeanist by trade. According to his bio page at Texas State University, Jesus Francisco de la Teja holds a Ph.D. in Latin American history from the University of Texas at Austin. How this qualifies him to address U.S. history is not precisely clear to me. Lybeth Hodges' biography page at Texas Woman's University does not explicitly address either her academic background or her research interests, which is somewhat unusual in academic history. It does seem to me that both of the historians on the panel were chosen primarily for having done all of their academic work in Texas, rather than having the academic background to be able to address questions of American history.

Don't even get me started on having two evangelical Christians empaneled as "expert reviewers." Both David Barton and Peter Marshall appear to have an interest in history, but "having an interest" in a subject is not the same thing as having the necessary background and training to be able to evaluate how it is taught--not to mention the fact that the majority of both men's interest in history appears to involve removing from the teaching of history anything of which they personally disapprove (and they disapprove of quite a bit). If it were not such a serious issue, it would be hugely ironic to see, in Mr. Barton's review of the current standards (PDF link), his disgust that so few American high school graduates can, among other things, find Iraq on a map, name even one Cabinet-level agency in the federal government, or state the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. I agree with Mr. Barton that this lack of what I would consider elementary knowledge is appalling--but I would also argue that it is precisely the inclusion of people like Mr. Barton on review committees that explains why so few of our students come out of high school in possession of such elementary knowledge. They are too busy being force-fed blind patriotism and religious dogma in the guise of education to have the time needed to learn and remember things that are truly important.

It is also ironic to see that the draft standards include (p. 13) an expectation that students will be able to "use standard grammar, spelling, sentence structure, and punctuation" (an expectation which Mr. Barton derided as belonging more to language arts than to social studies or history), when, in one of the comments (A47, on page 5), the reviewers or the staffer who put together their recommendations into final form described Chester Nimitz as the "navel [sic] commander in the Pacific theater." (I should also note that, while the note in question says that Nimitz was added to the list of significant military leaders in World War II, his name does not in fact appear on the list of such leaders that students are expected to know about.) And while I agree that Nimitz played a significant role in WWII as CinCPac (and would argue that he was far more significant a military leader than Douglas MacArthur was), I suspect that his being a Texan might also have an impact on why the TEA wants students to learn about him.

It is not too much to ask, I believe--and particularly in an era when we are trying to get back to the idea that before someone can be certified to teach a particular subject, s/he should have to have received some academic training in it--that anyone asked to review educational standards should have to have the relevant academic background to be able to address whatever standards s/he is being asked to evaluate. If we're talking about the standards for teaching history, then we should be asking historians. If we're talking about mathematics, then it should be mathematicians on the panel--and not megachurch ministers, even if they're very good at counting to large numbers. Parents would rightly be outraged to learn that their children were being taught by people who had no real training in the material they were trying to teach. Why should they be satisfied to have "experts" reviewing the curricular standards that their children's teachers will be forced to follow (and which will likely have a disproportionate impact on the kind of textbooks get published for the next five to ten years) who lack such training?

Damn, damn, damn, damn, damn!

There are multiple (and as-yet unconfirmed) reports of gunmen or people with weapons on the south campus of Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Ky. The campus is currently locked down. According to information sent out to the campus community circa 15 minutes ago:

The South Campus building on Nashville Road was evacuated earlier following reports that one or more persons were observed in the building with weapons. WKU Police, Bowling Green Police and State Police have conducted an extensive search of the building and the premises. At this time, the police have been unable to find any witnesses or evidence to support earlier reports that weapons were present.

Following this, WKU PD received an unconfirmed report of shots fired in the vicinity of Pearce Ford Tower on the WKU main campus.

Police have confirmed that there was a physical altercation not involving weapons between individuals that occurred in or near PFT, but the police are interviewing witnesses on the scene to determine if weapons were or are present, or if shots were fired.

At this time, the campus emergency warning system has been activated. Students and employees have been advised to remain indoors, in secure areas, until an "all clear" is issued.

After living through the February 14 shootings at NIU earlier this year, I had earnestly hoped I would never, ever have to see the word "shoot" (or any permutation thereof) in the same sentence with the word "campus" for the remainder of my life. My thoughts and prayers go out to the students, faculty, and staff members at WKU.

Update: As of 14:55 Central, the all-clear has been given. Police have reported that they found no evidence of gunmen or any shots being fired, though apparently the altercation(s) in question resulted in a broken arm. Thank God for large favors!

What's wrong with this picture?

I was just cleaning out some of the approximately 6.022 x 10²³ spam e-mails that arrive daily in my various spam-catchers when I noticed a couple of, well, let's call them "interesting" subject lines. The first allegedly comes from a concern called "Psychology Training" and is titled "Become a Psychologist Online."

Suspending for a moment anything remotely like critical thinking, I'm going to say that's an example of some pretty good spam. Nothing egregiously out of line in terms of the return address, uses proper grammar, capitalization, etc., and isn't obviously one of the myriad scams or schemes using the intertoobz to separate fools from their money. (Turning critical thinking back on, however, I'd say that someone wasn't thinking too clearly when they put that one together--who on earth would consider seeing a psychologist with a degree from an online diploma mill? I'd rank that one right up there with the one that actually landed a couple of slots below it, on how to become a CSI by getting a "forensics" degree.)

Another one, from a different spamcatcher, was less well-crafted (and has already been deleted, so I'm working from memory here: I make no claim that everything I'm about to say is in fact 100% accurate). The alleged return address was a random mix of letters and numbers, and the subject line was something along the lines of "You want good job? Buy online degree bacheloor/master...."

Again, someone was not thinking all too clearly when this one was assembled. I s'pose it could be deliberate misspelling to avoid filters, but wouldn't you suppose that if you were trying to make money by helping people to acquire fraudulent credentials, it would be in your best interests to appear at least competent in the spelling-and-grammar department? Leaving aside the fact that almost no one puts any stock in almost any online degree program you'd care to name, and even making allowances for the less-than-stellar reading, comprehension, and proofreading skills of the average employee in the American workforce, I would certainly hope that someone would catch something as obvious as "Bacheloor of Arts" if it appeared on someone's diploma or an academic transcript.

As long as we're burying locutions...

A couple of weeks ago, the NAACP held a symbolic funeral for the "N-word". A lot of people laughed it off as yet another example of political correctness gone wild. A lot more people, and I include myself in that number, thought it was a reasonably good idea--but one whose time has not yet demonstrably arrived.

It is a regrettable fact of modern life that while living conditions have generally improved for minorities of all sorts in comparison to what they were 50 or even 25 years ago, there is still a very long way to go before we get to something that looks even remotely like equality or equitable treatment. We are, in my estimation, just about as far from that great day when the only thing that will matter to anyone about anyone else is "the content of their character" as we were on that day in 1963 when Martin Luther King, Jr. made his famous speech.

Let me make an important point before I go any further with this train of thought. What I'm saying here has exactly nothing to do with "political correctness." Indeed, the very concept of "political correctness" is largely a red herring construct employed by people who simply can't abide the thought of not being able to slang certain other people because of their race, their gender, their genitalia, their ethnicity, their national origin, their marital status, their creed, their religion (or lack thereof), their sexual orientation, or any other factor they feel is important (and lacking in the person they want to denigrate). What I'm talking about, what Dr. King was talking about, what the NAACP was talking about earlier this month, is about treating other people as nothing less than what they are: other human beings, endowed with exactly the same innate rights as you are or I am.

So while we're burying locutions, here are a few more I'd love to see get daggered* in the OED and everywhere else:

• The use of "gay" to mean "stupid," "lame," "weak," "dumb," or any other derogatory or disrespectful thing.
• The use of terms referring to genitalia in any situation not actually involving the genitalia. (I.e., saying that someone needs to "grow a pair" when we mean they need to behave more forcefully, or calling someone a "pussy" when they're timid or shy or scared.)
• While we're at it, let's get rid of locutions that imply that men are inherently better than women (or vice-versa), or that there are particular roles or jobs that are naturally either masculine or feminine.
• "Bitch," "slut," and other derogatory and demeaning terms for women.

One of the great things about the English language is its tremendous variety. If you've got something to say to someone else, or a bone to pick with them, there are literally dozens or even hundreds of ways of getting that point across, without stooping to demeaning or discriminatory terminology. Yet those are the words we routinely, regularly, and unthinkingly gravitate toward whenever our blood pressure starts to rise a little or we feel ourselves getting caught on the wrong side of an argument. If you think someone is being a coward, then say so! There's no need to resort to "pussy." Likewise, if you think something is lame or stupid, then say that--and leave "gay" out of it. Most people who think nothing of using "gay" as a pejorative term would never let anyone hear them say something like "That's so Jew" or "That's so Spic." Why is "gay" any better in that phrase than those other terms they won't use?

On the question of college sports

This post started out in my head last week as a reflection on Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which hit 35 a couple of days ago. But the more I've thought about it, the less I've been able to stick to that one topic. So I'm going to hit the points I wanted to make on the specific case before moving on to broader implications.

It seems there are at least a few people in the United States who think Title IX was a Very Bad Idea. Further, these people argue, Title IX is responsible for ruining the world as we know it, by which they appear to mean the world where only men played sports, and women dressed up in quaint costumes and cheered them on from the sidelines, when not gazing adoringly (and vapidly) at their chosen hero, whether on or off the field of play.

In short, some people are pissed that the 1950s are dead and gone. As you have probably guessed by now, I am not one of those people.

Some of the more bizarre arguments I've heard bandied about for why Title IX is bad include that it's unfair to force women to participate in sports when they obviously don't want to, and that it's unfair to expect colleges to foot the bill for women's sports that never carry their own weight, financially speaking, and which women don't seem to want to participate in anyway. Those arguments simply will not hold up to the actual facts. In 1971, the year before Title IX became law, fewer than 300,000 girls participated in interscholastic sports in high school. Within 25 years of Title IX's passage, that number had risen by almost an order of magnitude, to nearly 3 million. I don't have exactly comparable statistics at the collegiate level, but a recent NCAA study (PDF link) of participation in college sports from 1982 to 2006 showed a total of 74,239 women participated in intercollegiate athletics in 1981-82, as compared to 169,800 men. By 2005-2006, those figures had risen in both cases, to 170,526 women and to 228,106 men. For women, that represents a nearly 230% increase in 25 years: also an order of magnitude higher than the earlier figure, albeit not quite as impressive a jump as happened at the high school level.

The second claim, that women just don't seem to be as interested in participating in sports as men do, appears to have originated with one of the original anti-feminists, Phyllis Schlafly, in a 2003 column. In that column, according to a quasi-Point-Counterpoint site on Title IX sponsored by the ACLU, Schlafly argued that "At least 56 percent of college students are women, yet only a fraction seek to compete in intercollegiate sports." At least for NCAA Division I schools, her numbers are a little bit off: according to the NCAA's 2003-04 gender equity report (PDF link), in Division I as a whole, schools averaged approximately 5,025 male undergraduates (46.6%) and 5,766 female undergraduates (53.4%). But even if we give Ms. Schlafly the extra 3 percent she claims, her larger claim still falls flat on its face. Again sticking to Division I schools and quoting the 2003-04 gender equity report, the average number of participants in intercollegiate athletics per Division I institution was 261 males and 212 females: or approximately 5.2% of male undergraduates as opposed to 3.7% of female undergraduates. And yes, let's state the obvious first: the proportion of female participants is smaller than the proportion of male participants--but not by much. And there is simply no evidence to support Schlafly's apparent conclusion that the difference is due all and only to a greater disinterest in sports among women.

Again confining ourselves to Division I schools, if we look at the 13-year comparison table from that 2003-04 NCAA report, we find that in 1991-92 the average number of male participants in sports was 250 (69%), where the average number of female participants was 112 (31%). In 2002-03, those numbers had risen to 266 (56%) and 210 (44%), respectively, and in 2003-04, the numbers remained virtually the same: 266 (56%) males and 213 (44%) females. In other words, the average number of female participants in intercollegiate athletics nearly doubled in just over a decade, while the average number of male participants held more or less steady. I find it difficult to believe that these data prove any kind of a lack of--or a decline in--interest in sports among women.

Help homeless kids go to college

I was in a meeting this afternoon at work when I heard something that I figured my band of faithful readers can help out with. There's a bill sitting in Congress that would make it easier for homeless kids to apply for financial aid so they can get a college education and get off the streets.

Obviously, this is not a particularly "sexy" issue, so it hasn't been getting a lot of attention. But a couple of people from the university where I work have been going around interviewing homeless kids all across the country, and they're heading to Washington this week or next to see if they can't light a fire under Congress to do something about the problem.

And that's where I figure y'all come in. Follow me below the fold for some details.

Duh

This just in from the Department of Redundancy Department: "abstinence-only" sex education programs don't work. Any idiot with even a basic understanding of human sexuality, developmental psychology, or who had been exposed to two or more normal, healthy teen-agers for more than 20 minutes could have told them that.

Instead, the tighty righties and their complacent collaborationists in Congress mandated in 1997 that all recipients of federal education funding must include in their curricula courses teaching "...that abstinence 'is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems' and that 'a mutually faithful, monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity.'" A decade, and more than a billion taxpayer dollars later, we now have scientific proof that relying on abstinence-only education is tantamount to teaching our students absolutely nothing about sex and sexuality and its place in their lives.

In conducting the study, researchers followed more than 2,000 students in four communities (two urban, two rural) who were participating in abstinence-only programs, along with peers in those same communities who were not. Of those participating in the programs, they attended for anywhere from one to three years. Yet the researchers found absolutely no difference between the test population (those participating in abstinence-only education) and the control group (those that were not participating). The median age of first intercourse in both groups was identical: 14 years, 9 months. Members of both the test and control groups who were or became sexually active reported having the same number of partners (around 16% in each group had one, around 11% in each group had two, around 8% in each group had three, and around 16% in each group had four or more partners), and neither group had fewer instances of pregnancies, STDs, or other consequences of having sex. (The study's findings are available in PDF format for a more in-depth look at the data.)

Naturally, proponents of abstinence-only education (including the Shrubbery) are grasping for anything they can find to put a positive spin on these data. It will not be easy, if indeed it is possible at all, to put lipstick on this pig. One quote I've seen (I forget where) said that the fact that abstinence-only education has been scientifically proven to be a useless waste of time doesn't matter, because it nevertheless sends the right moral message. You'll pardon me for stating the obvious, but moral messages are properly the concern of a child's parents and/or spiritual leaders: they have no place in the public schools, and they certainly have no business being paid for out of my tax dollars.

Besides which, isn't one of the components of being a morally upstanding person telling the truth? We've got, you should excuse the expression, hard data that prove telling kids "Just say no" when it comes to sex doesn't work. We owe it to them (if for no other reason than so that we do not lose any more of their trust or confidence in our willingness to tell them the truth) to admit that we've been leading them down the primrose path for the last ten years.

The Shrubbery is trumpeting the fact that the data show that abstinence-only education had absolutely no effect on the rate of contraceptive usage (when opponents had theorized it would decrease it) as a positive. I'm calling bullshit. Less than half of both the test and the control groups used a condom at first intercourse, and less than a quarter of both groups used a condom every time they'd had sex in the past year. Less than a third of both groups used some form of birth control every time they had sex in the past year, even if those contraceptives only protected against pregnancy and not the transmission of STDs.

Those figures are simply appalling in this day and age. The fact that children exposed to government-approved abstinence-only sex education did not use contraception any less frequently than their peers who were not brainwashed by bureaucratic fiat hardly constitutes a success story of any kind, particularly when we know that "abstinence-plus" education programs, also known as comprehensive sexuality education, are demonstrably effective at both reducing sexual activity and at the same time increasing the likelihood that individuals who choose to become sexually active are at least using protection when they do so.

I hope Congress will step up to the plate on this issue. I know we haven't a prayer of getting the Shrubbery to acknowledge the need for change, but perhaps if it can be presented with a united opposition to continuing this boondoggle that only puts more of our children at risk, the White House might take a pragmatic approach and allow the resulting bill to become law without the pretzelnit's signature. (Or else do what President Clinton did when he signed the odious "Defense of Marriage Act" into law, and sign it privately, late at night, with no fanfare, in the hopes that nobody inclined to criticize would notice.)

"Bong hits 4 Jesus"

Unfurling a 14-foot banner with those words on it five years ago in Juneau, Alaska, got Joseph Frederick suspended from school for 10 days, and lands him and his former high school principal in front of the Supreme Court today.

The court's ruling should be a no-brainer, and Ken Starr, who is appearing on behalf of the school district and the Shrubbery, should have advised his clients they were wasting their time and money filing the appeal. The principal's actions in tearing down Frederick's banner and suspending him for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech on a public sidewalk are clearly inconsistent with the Court's holding in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (393 U.S. 503 [1969]). As the Court ruled in that case:

In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved (at 511).

But that actually isn't the issue I want to talk about. In her report on the background of the case on NPR this morning, Nina Totenberg mentioned (beginning at 00:34 in the linked audio file) that Frederick had tangled with school authorities before the Olympic torch parade at which he unfurled his controversial banner. School officials, Totenberg said, had earlier threatened to suspend him for refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Does no one bother to teach prospective principals and school administrators at least the basics of constitutional law as it applies to public education anymore? If not, why not?

Threatening to suspend a student who refuses to stand for the Pledge is also an impermissible exercise of government authority inconsistent with constitutional law. Just over 60 years ago in 1943, the Supreme Court ruled, in West Virginia v. Barnette (319 U.S. 624), that schools could not compel students to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance as a condition of enrollment, or discipline them for refusing to do so. As Justice Robert H. Jackson observed in that case (at 637):

The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures -- Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.

Justice Jackson absolutely nailed the issue in his final sentence. Anyone who thinks that we can instill patriotism or respect for government by compelling students to recite words by rote, or by carefully limiting their exposure to ideas or opinions deemed controversial (and limiting their rights to have or to express such ideas) is arguably deluded. But before the wingnuts start quoting me on that, let me make it perfectly clear that I do believe schools can--as the courts have ruled time and time again--place time and manner restrictions on students' right to express their beliefs, particularly when those beliefs have as their sole or primary objective to dismiss, belittle, or injure other students and/or their beliefs, or to disrupt the educational mission of the school.

Our Constitution guarantees us the right--and, I would argue, imposes upon us the duty, when we believe our government is acting wrongly--to speak up and criticize. No public official is immune from that criticism, and no public policy has an automatic right to be respected. Surely that is something just as important for our students to learn as the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Anyone who believes otherwise really ought not to be in public education.

Bend over, here it comes again

So I heard on the news yesterday afternoon as I was heading home from work that Governor Blagojevich and his administration have told Illinois public higher education to be prepared to give back a part of their operating budgets unless the state's fiscal position improves. This should surprise no one, but should upset everyone.

I quite agree with Judy Erwin, executive director of the Illinois Board of Higher Education, that our leaders need to be careful stewards of the public's money. I could not possibly disagree more with her (and with her boss) that asking the state's public universities to be prepared to hand back to the state two percent of their operating budgets this year counts as such careful stewardship. And I'll tell you why.

The current fiscal year (FY 2007) was the first time in the last five years that state support for higher education was not either flat or lower than it had been in the previous fiscal year. And this year's increase was, to put it mildly, paltry: $14.4 million or 1.1 percent. The Consumer Price Index, by contrast, has risen by nearly 12 percent from January 2002 to January 2006. In other words, even with the "increase" we received from the state this fiscal year, we're still getting effectively less money than we did last year, because everything costs more to buy.

Truth-in-advertising time. I work for a state university, so I am directly affected by decisions of this kind. But to give you an idea of just how unwise this rescission is, I'm going to toss out a few stats from my own department. We have around twice as many undergraduate majors as we did five years ago--and about the same number of faculty members and graduate students to teach them. Ten years ago, the state completed a new building which effectively doubled our available instructional and research space (offices, laboratories, and support services)--but failed to allocate any more money for the upkeep of that additional space. Everyone is doing more at my university, but making about the same as they were five years ago. I was recently given an adjustment to my annual salary in recognition of the fact that my performance has been consistently above average over the last several years--but was told that budget restrictions limited the amount of the increase to $60 a month. I'm sorry, that's not an equity adjustment, that's an insult. We do more, with less overhead money, than any other public university in the state of Illinois. To ask us to hand back two percent of our operating budget is nothing less than a crime. That's not only every penny of the parsimonious increase we received this year after five years of flat or shrinking budgets, but nearly an additional one percent cut from our already inadequate budget from last fiscal year. One percent may not seem like an awful lot of money, but when your operating budget is in excess of $100 million, it adds up.

And this insult comes on the heels of the governor's ill-advised, fiscally irresponsible theft of $1.2 billion from state employee pension funds--with the heaviest burden falling on, you guessed it, the State Universities Retirement System. With all due respect to Ms. Erwin and the governor, I am beginning to wonder whether either one of them would recognize fiscal responsibility if it came up to them on the street and kicked them in the ass--something I think the voters of Illinois should seriously consider doing this fall.