Here's a question that has been on my mind. It was articulated recently by both Jon Huntsman and Paul Krugman, and is a frightening prospect.

Is the Republican party becoming the anti-science party?

As Huntsman said:

The minute that the Republican Party becomes the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012.... I can't remember a time in our history where we actually were willing to shun science and become a party that was antithetical to science. I'm not sure that's good for our future, and it's not a winning formula.

Thoughts?

Okay, full disclosure up front: I'm not broad-minded enough to understand a lot of what passes for original thought on modern college campuses. I eat at Chili's -- non-ironically.

So when I stumbled upon this piece in the University of New Mexico's Daily Lobo about a student delivering his senior thesis in the form of a dance performance addressing genocide, my reaction was a hybrid of bewilderment and  amusement. Then, however, hearing in my head the voice of every sweet-tempered, perpetually optimistic woman in my family tree, I thought, "Hey, it's unorthodox, but at least he wants to address a serious issue." That thought evaporated as I kept reading:

[Aaron] Hooper said he was inspired to do a show about different forms of genocide after a series of suicides by boys who were bullied over the past couple years. Since then, he said the concept grew to be based on “big business” and how the government breaks down individual and clan identities.

“When I look at genocide, it can be an emotional destruction of a people,” he said. “What I was thinking of in my paper and everything is how can we analyze these major genocides that happen that I’m showcasing here, and see the similarities to what is happening in our own country.”

Got that? Darfur is the moral equivalent of feeling bad because you can't afford the stuff in the Restoration Hardware catalog.

The seats in the audience are not bolted to the floor, so Hooper had every other seat removed, so attendees have nobody to sit next to. The choreography is set primarily to Pink Floyd tracks, and as soon as the audience enters, they become emotionally involved in the performance. He said he’s had a few test audiences, a few members of which left because it was uncomfortable.

The purpose of creating this in this intimate space is to make the people in the audience feel a sense of isolation and to feel almost as uncomfortable as the person that is being discriminated against, Hooper said.

Mission accomplished, sir. I'm two states away and I'm uncomfortable reading about it.

I attended a public panel discussion not too long ago on the subject of curriculum reform sponsored by the Society for the College, an organization for which I happen to serve on the board. A particular point of contention among faculty was whether or not there should be some sort of writing composition requirement, something that both the Society and panelist Michael Poliakoff of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni support.

Poliakoff's criticism was not welcomed by the faculty who were at this meeting. The faculty, as well as Teresa Longo, our Dean of Educational Policy, insisted that writing was taught by "embedding" it in the instruction of other courses. Instead of completing a Writing 101 type class as students used to some decades ago, today's students complete a Lower Division Writing Requirement- typically in the form of a freshman seminar- and an Upper Division Writing Requirement in the form of a senior colloquium. Students are apparently supposed to absorb this writing ability throughout their coursework without taking a specific writing class.

There is, of course, a tiny snag with this whole setup. It doesn't work. I have had maybe one professor actually take serious instruction time to teach us about quality writing, and his advice boiled down to "read Strunk & White." Sure, the quality of my writing has improved over the last three years, but only because I have figured out what works and what doesn't. If professors are teaching us how to write, they are so brilliantly subtle that no one has noticed. To be honest, I don't want history professors to teach me how to write; I would much rather that they teach history.

No matter how tedious it may be, a lot of students would probably benefit from some kind of composition requirement. If we assume that writing skill is important, it is far better for it to be taught on its own than for professors to awkwardly cram it in next to their research interests. Both my freshman seminar and my upper level seminar were quite writing intensive, and were taught by good professors, but apart from consulting on the content of our papers, we were never given advice on good writing. I suspect a large part of the problem is getting people to spend two and half hours per week teaching composition.

I'm not saying that he's my favorite of the bunch, but the more that I see of the former Speaker in the debates, the more I like what he could bring to the table as President. While other candidates appear catty and bicker back and forth in these debates, Newt separates himself as the "adult in the room" through his answers. If anything, he at least seems among the most authentic and genuine behind the podium. While other candidates' responses seem obviously rehearsed, he acts like a natural.

We all recall his seemingly fatal decisions back in May and essentially labeled him as a dead man walking (or running, in relation to his campaign), but he's managed to stay afloat and relevant in the four months following. I know the landscape completely changes once primary season kicks off and that the poll numbers aren't in his favor, but I beginning to wonder if we were too quick to discount Gingrich early on. Could we have written him off too early?

I was browsing around the feminist blogosphere the other day, and I noticed an interesting item over at Feministing objecting to the recent federal court case that overturned Washington state's law requiring pharmacists to provide emergency contraception.

This is [expletive]. The state had a very compelling reason for the requirement: As we all know, EC gets less effective over time and in rural areas there may not be another pharmacy for miles. And pharmacists who don’t believe in birth control or erroneously think that EC is an abortifacient were free to pass the prescription off to coworker who would fill it. As the Seattle Times wrote in an editorial calling on the state to appeal the ruling, this decision “sends a message that pharmacists’ personal views can take priority over patients’ rights...”

...It’s an upside-down world where pharmacists’ refusal rights supersede patients’ rights to timely care and the conscience of religious institutions trumps the rights of the individuals–religious or not–to access the health care coverage they need.

I personally don't think that such a right, assuming that one exists, necessarily ought to impose obligations on other private entities. The weird thing is that this doesn't seem to bother a lot of people. I have all this time been under the mistaken impression that rights came in the form of government restraint, but now they come in the form of government creating such legally enforceable obligations between citizens. Eventually, everyone will be entitled to everything, and we all be held accountable by the nanny state. For once, thank god for the federal court system.

Saw this on someone's Twitter profile, under their shared media (where you can see someone's pictures they've posted over the years).

Forget how fallacious this comparison is- I'm shocked at how not-funny it is! I watch shows like 30 Rock all the time that are clearly written by Democrat-voters. But the difference is that 30 Rock is funny!

As I'm writing this I'm watching an episode of The Simpsons where Krusty is running as a Republican for Congress- and there's this one part where Fox News is showing a conversation between Krusty and his opponent- the Democrat is shown with devil horns and a Soviet Union flag, while Krusty is shown with a halo and an American flag. Come on, it's funny!

If we're going to be compared to Nazis, the joke's always going to be void of substance. So at least make it clever.

This is one of the most depressing things I have seen in a while. My friend Paul Wilson from Media Research Center reports on this is as a growing trend in news coverage on this issue. CBS had a panel earlier tell their audience that marriage is basically obsolete. My favorite part is when Matt Titus says this:

''Think about it. Men are supposed to run around the forest and propagate the species and do it multiple times a day. Do you think that we're supposed to be with one person for the rest of our lives? It's unnatural, and if it was the case we probably would not be sitting here right now.''

Somebody please pull the irony alarm and evacuate the building before you laugh yourself to death. Whenever someone suggests that homosexuality is "unnatural"- a view which I don't necessarily endorse- the left cries foul at the intolerance of the right. Lots of other things are probably appropriate to the term "unnatural," a term these esteemed scholars don't seem to need to define. We could include television news in the unnatural category, but somehow I don't think the folks at CBS would care that much.

More disturbing is the use of the word "supposed" I've highlighted above. Don't you see? We don't need marriage because it's supposed to restrain us from doing something we're "supposed" to be doing. Obviously since we feel very strongly motivated to do something, presumably by our genetics, then that is what we're "supposed" to be doing. This would then mean that other "natural" behaviors- they must be natural because people are apparently strongly motivated to do them- should be condoned. This would include such niceties as child abuse, rape, and murder. All they have to do is read the Wikipedia article titled "appeal to nature" to see why this doesn't make sense.

As someone who hopes one day to be lucky enough to perpetuate this ancient institution, socially constructed or not, this whole segment makes me angry in ways I can't describe fully. This is one of those things that leads me to think my invitation to western civilization's funeral got lost in the mail.

In this week's Informer, my colleague Pete Terenzio gives a well-deserved thrashing to our nation's third president. The reason? A relatively obscure episode from Jefferson's later life that is quite revealing of his character. The short version of the story is that Jefferson borrowed an absurd amount of money from William & Mary and never paid it back, so yes, this is personal. Terenzio writes:

First, he took almost a fifth of the College’s endowment (around $20,000) by securing a corrupt loan in the late 1810’s. This loan, which allowed Jefferson to live comfortably in his old age and then was passed on to his grandson, was never collected upon by the College.

So yes, Jefferson borrowed a large sum from the institution, and used the money to fuel his own personal profligacy. He was so indebted that his heirs were forced to sell Monticello. It gets worse.

Jefferson, who owed his continued financial survival to the College, criticized the institution, saying that it had been “much reduced by ill management of its funds.” Of course, Jefferson neglected to point out that he had gained much from this “ill management.” Meanwhile, the College was virtually in ruins by 1824, and there were only eight students enrolled.

I bring up this episode because Jefferson could use being knocked down a notch or two. The Declaration was a brilliant document to be sure, but the man was no saint. Ricochetistes are well aware of his slave-holding for which he is today still criticized endlessly, and for which I think conservatives too easily forgive him. He was a vocal opponent of slavery who nonetheless perpetuated the practice, and an advocate of limited government and fiscal restraint who couldn't be bothered to keep his own house in order. In an age in which the Tea Party returns us to the founding documents and rediscovers the wisdom of the Founders, it is healthy to remember that even a man as exceptional as Jefferson was human, and thus capable of indecency and hypocrisy.

If you're curious about this bizarre drama, check Ludwell H. Johnson III's Sharper than a Serpent's Tooth: Thomas Jefferson and His Alma Mater, published in the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, and available on JSTOR.

Just caught wind of this story breaking out of York University in Canada. 22-year-old senior Sarah Grunfeld is campaigning for Professor Cameron Johnston to be fired. Why? In brief, he uttered the sentence "All Jews should be sterilized" as explicit example of an unacceptable opinion.

Grunfeld, who through some unimaginable idiocy is standing by her case, has acknowledged that she may have misunderstood the professor, but nonetheless maintains that "The words, 'Jews should be sterilized' still came out of his mouth, so regardless of the context I still think that's pretty serious."

By the way, Professor Johnston is Jewish and has been teaching at the University for over 30 years.

Columnist Richard Rys of Philadelphia Magazine recently wrote a piece arguing that unpaid internships are the new entry-level job.

Rys stated that:

It’s not enough to simply have a college degree. Companies know that students need internships for resume building. Why pay them when the demand is already so high?

As a student who has taken two unpaid internships in the past, I am partial to agree with Rys. In today's job market, internships can be more valuable than even a college education, and companies recognize this. In fact, they are so cognizant of this that they realize, in many cases, they don't even have to pay their interns anything.

Me, I'm fine with the idea of unpaid internships because I view internships as an extension of my education, and thankfully worked hard enough during high school to afford income-less summers.

 However, for many this is not the case. Some can't afford to take an unpaid internship. And for students who don't view internships as an extension of their education, their argument against unpaid internships are vaild -it's free work.

What do you all think? For the older crowd, I understand that internships are a newer development and weren't as important when you all were in college. Today, however, if I was a soon-to-be college graduate without any internship experience, I would be very concerned about entering the job market.

If you are a male college student and attend an American university that receives federal funding, which you probably do, your due process rights took a significant hit this summer.

Why?

Because a recent "Dear Colleague" letter from the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education has mandated that all universities adopt the "preponderance of evidence" standard when adjudicating sexual assault cases on campus -the lowest standard of proof.

If a university decides not to use this standard, it risks losing all its federal funding.

The dangers of lowering the evidentiary standard are obvious: lowering the evidentiary standard will result in more false convictions. As I point out in a recent op-ed for my school newspaper: 

By forgoing the “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard that most top colleges usually applied to allegations of sexual assault, the OCR has also forgone fundamental fairness and committed its own acts of metaphorical violence against student rights, against due process and against the founding principles of our nation.

Feminist groups and the government contend that the new standard is fine because university judicial bodies are not criminal courts, and nobody is being threatened with jail. However, as we have seen already, many have had their lives and educational careers ruined or put on hold as a result of false convictions stemming from this new standard. Not to mention that universities are ill equipped to prosecute such sensitive cases in the first place.

Philadelphia Magazine published a great article last month about the new evidentiary standard. It highlighted many of the individuals responsible for pushing for the new standard. According to these individuals, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the organization leading the fight against the new standard, is merely "sticking up for penises everywhere.”

I happen to agree with that assessment, but in addition might add that FIRE is also sticking up for due process, the law, and fundamental fairness.

As I again stated in my op-ed, "Trading one set of victims for another does service to no one, especially when one of those victims is the Constitution of the United States."

UPDATE:

If you haven't seen it already, Peter Berkowitz with the WSJ took on the new OCR standard in an Aug. 20 opinion piece for the paper. He asks: 

Where are the professors of history, political science and law who will insist clearly and in public that due process is a fundamental component of American political institutions and culture, a cornerstone of our legal system, and indispensable in a free society to the fair administration of justice?

I love my Thin Mints as much as the next guy, but I never considered that "the next guy" might actually be the one selling them to me.

After initially making the decision that he couldn't join the Girl Scouts of Colorado, the group has since decided that it will allow 7-year-old Bobby Montoya to join because he is "living life like a girl."

In one fell swoop, in both a seemingly politically correct and incorrect line of reasoning, the Girl Scouts of Colorado has both said that there is and isn't a difference between boys and girls. They've essentially looked the other way on gender to admit Bobby into the group, but then used a standard for determining between a boy and a girl to deliberate the difference.  

Here's the important snippets of the official statement:

"Girl Scouts is an inclusive organization and we accept all girls in Kindergarten through 12th grade as members. If a child identifies as a girl and the child's family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout... In this case, an associate delivering our program was not aware of our approach... We are accelerating our support systems and training so that we're better able to serve all girls, families and volunteers."

This, of course, chooses to ignore how they will "better [be] able to serve all girls, families and volunteers" who are involved because it is "the world's preeminent organization dedicated solely to girls." That last quotation is how the Girl Scouts of the USA describes itself. It's compromised not just a core value, but its entire definition.

It's fitting that Dennis Prager touched on this sort of issue when he said that liberalism is compromising principle for feeling. The organization felt for Bobby and his mother (who, in the video, asks "What's the big deal" if he's a boy and wants to join) and has therefore abandoned what it was that made the Girl Scouts an important institution for young girls everywhere.

The Girl Scouts will celebrate its 100th anniversary next year and, coincidently, the state of Colorado is seeking to create a special license plate to honor the occasion. What's the point? The message doesn't reflect the reality of commemorating a century of empowering girls, particularly in the state now. But, as we saw, it's no longer about actually "being" what you are, but just "living like" it.  

This is easily one of my favorite Thatcher moments, and it is every bit as important now as it was then. It is the fundamental problem with the leftist complaint about income inequality: if they truly are worried about income inequality, then they are not worried about the actual welfare of real people. They are just mad that some people have more than others. If they take this seriously, it means that fixing poverty is no less an acceptable policy goal as making everyone poor. After all, if the gap is what is important, it shouldn't matter how much anyone has so long as nobody has more than anybody else.

This goes right back to George Will's point on the difference between the right and the left; the right wants equality of opportunity, the left wants equality of outcome. The whole Occupy movement, in fact, smacks of an irritating "it's not fairism." It's not fair that there are winners and losers, so let's make everyone a loser. This doesn't apply just to the left's views on wealth inequality. Check this beauty from Ezra Klein:

Markets and outcomes be darned. It's not fair!

In light of Princeton professor Robert George helping moderate the GOP debate yesterday, I've been playing around with the idea that we could have several serious conservatives, from academia and the think tank world, grill potential GOP presidential candidates.

My first instinct would be go for the heavy hitters on all policy fronts, people like Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Victor Davis Hanson, and Michael Barone, and then move to more specialized persons, like Charles Murray, Yuval Levin, Richard Epstein, John  Bolton etc. But that is just a rough idea. I'm curious to hear what others think about this, whether the GOP would benefit from hearing from our intellectual heavyweights scrutinize our candidates, or whether this would just be an excessive in futility.

Who do you think would excel in this type of format and produce probing questions for our presidential hopefuls?

Last night, the Phillies v. Marlins game erupted into controversy. In the sixth inning, Hunter Pence, with Ryan Howard on first, hit a ball into deep right field. The Marlins' Right Fielder, Bryan Petersen, jumped up to catch the ball, but his glove got hit by a fan reaching outward. Umpire Joe West gave Pence a ground rule double due to interference.

After Marlins Manager Jack McKeon came storming on the field, the umpires decided to review the call. Once having looked over a replay, West ruled that the ball would have been caught otherwise, and called Pence out. 

This all would seem run of the mill - baseball introduced the instant replay, right? Well, instant replay, by MLB rules, is only permitted when reviewing a home run call. West, on his own accord, expanded this power to the ground-rule double.

Joe West was probably following the intent of the replay rule - to insure a more accurate, better called game. But, the letter is clear. It's for home runs only. The game is currently under review after Phillies Manager Charlie Manuel filed a protest. Let's see if Bud Seelig is a Scalia or a Ginsberg... 

I was thinking the other day of a conversation I had some months ago with my younger brother, who is just starting his senior year at the same public high school from which I graduated. He made an interesting observation regarding the junior class awards ceremony, which, as he describes it, seems as if it was basically the same tedious and dull self-esteem-a-thon it was when I had to go. What he noticed was the sheer number of awards given by various institutions recognizing Young Women Who Excel in X, Young Women Who Excel in Y, and so forth. He made the exact same observation that I made when I attended the same ceremony just over four years ago: there are no awards for Young Men Who Excel in X or Y.

What could possibly be the explanation for this? Do we no longer expect young men to accomplish anything, or is it just that we're no longer supposed to care when they do? Another way to look at it is to ask if there is anything specific about the achievements of women that merits specific recognition. I happen to think that the intent is to encourage young women aspire to great things in specific fields, which I don't think in itself is a bad thing. I am highly skeptical, however, that creating specific commendations to recognize women would accomplish this. After all, if the objective is to demonstrate that young men and young women are capable of the same accomplishments, it would make sense to have them compete for the same commendation, but god forbid that any of the boys do better than the any of the girls, because then we couldn't give the award to a girl. I wouldn't care as much if there were equivalent awards given for boys, but I think the fact that girls have been singled out in this way is quite telling. I have no problem commending girls when they have done well, but I am tired of recognition being linked to gender.

Now that my pampered first world lifestyle is no longer dependent on the backup generators next door, I find myself thinking about one of my (many) favorite subjects: Southern politics. I seem to remember a meme taking hold in the fallout from the 2008 election to the effect that the GOP would forever be relegated to the status of the regional party of the South. This is of course demonstrably false, but I have to wonder what will happen to this stronghold of Republican support in the near future. It would be interesting to speculate on what the South's place within the Republican coalition as the political climate shifts.

As I look across today's political landscape, I can't help but notice that of the major figures within the party today, fewer than one might expect come from the South. When I look at Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Scott Walker and Sarah Palin, it occurs to me that the axis of Republican politics may be shifting away from the South. I will leave it to you to figure whether Ron Paul and Rick Perry should be included in the South; I have known Texans to be somewhat touchy on the question as to whether they are Southern or Western. Even as a Virginian, I have difficulty including my Governor, who, despite policy successes, has not attained the "name - rec" status of some Northern Republicans.

Anyhow, none of us can see far ahead into the future, so it would be grandiose to proclaim the coming geographic realignment of the Republican Party base. I just think it should be pointed out that, save Eric Cantor and Jim DeMint--important figures to be sure--there aren't as many Southern leaders in the GOP coalition as there once were. Granted, there have been important non-Southerners in the GOP since Southern realignment--Bob Dole, Dennis Hastert, and Henry Hyde--but the GOP's association with the South has become almost unshakeable. Can anyone think of any other dynamic Southerners in the GOP? Let me know of any obvious omissions. And, more importantly, has populist conservatism become such a fixture of the national political landscape, for the moment at least, that Southern identity is less important? (I would also like to point out that for the sake of a common frame of reference, I am using the so-called "11 state South" definition)

Like many college students at some point over the past month, I spent a few days moving into a new place for this upcoming school year. Scaling several flights of stairs while hauling hand-me-down furniture in which the original ownership is no longer known (perhaps for better, because you might not have accepted that sofa if you knew its past) is almost rite of passage for students as they get settled into their new apartment, dormitory, or house. It represents a certain independence from your parents and the pre-college years, where you learn to live, cook, budget, time-manage, clean, and other responsibilities that you may have once taken for granted when Mom and Pop were just down the hallway. You develop in a way that is intended to better you for once you’ve nabbed your diploma and hit “the real world.”

Yet, for those that have read Mark Steyn’s After America, we see that this formerly formative period in one’s life – the whole “baby bird leaving the nest and spreading its wings” episode – may actually only last through your undergraduate career, if it all. Steyn describes an Italian court ruling in which a sixty year old father must continue to pay Marina, his thirty-two year old daughter who is still working on her thesis eight years after her last class, a monthly allowance:

Marina is what they call a “a bambocciona,” which translates roughly, as “big baby” – a term that the ever-growing number of Italian adults still living at home, in the same bedroom they’ve slept in since they were in diapers.

Marina is the norm, not the exception: seven out of ten adults aged 18 to 39 live with their folks in Italy. Steyn also sheds light on the “bambocciona” equivalents in Germany (Nesthockers) and Britain (KIPPERS). “Today, most developed nations have managed to defer adulthood,” Steyn remarks. Here in the U.S., close to 40% of those between the ages of 25 and 34 are living in their parents’ home, which has doubled since. We’re far enough behind the trend to correct ourselves before it gets too late, but close enough to see it’s not unthinkable that we’d reach that point.

It seems counter-productive: work hard to go somewhere, only to end up where you started after a lot of time and money. It’s like an old Jerry Seinfeld bit about horse-racing. Panting after the race, the horse wonders why he just ran so fast to finish exactly where he just was a minute ago.

I understand there are many reasons to all this, ranging from economic to political, but it just seems more cultural to me than anything else, which is ultimately influencing the other areas. To a certain degree, there's an approach towards college that it’s a multi-year summer camp: you go somewhere new, have some fun, entertain your hobbies, meet some cool people, and (maybe) learn something along the way. What happens when this metaphorical summer comes to an end though? Well, I guess as we’re seeing, Mom and Dad come pick you and your stuff up and its back to their place.

Yesterday at my alma mater, Vita Clamantis, Dartmouth's pro-life student group put up an exhibit of 546 small American flags on the lawn outside of one of the dormitory buildings.  Each flag represented 100,000 lives that have been aborted in the 39 years since Roe v. Wade.   Vita Clamantis explained on their blog that the purpose of the display, called the "Cemetery of the Innocents,"

is not to condemn but to ask for forgiveness and to promise hope, to promise ourselves and each other that we will do better, we will care better, we will be better. We put these flags out to ask every Dartmouth student a simple question: when your friend, your sister, your cousin, your neighbor, finds herself in this crisis, afraid and uncertain, feeling like the decision of her life weighs upon her, what will you do?

On every secular college campus, abortion is no doubt a hot button issue.  But the way the display was received by fellow students is truly disappointing.  The Dartmouth Review's Editor-in-Chief Emeritus, Sterling Creighton Beard, reports on the stunning intolerance put on display at the College yesterday.

The display has been under assault ever since it went up. The signs put up around the edge of the event explaining its purpose were defaced, though Vita quickly replaced them. Some flags were stolen. Someone planted a sign (viewable in the slideshow at the top) that reads "May the child you save be GAY." (emphasis in the original)

Nothing, however, quite prepared the Cemetery of the Innocents for the assault that was to come at approximately 1:40, when a Toyota Camry...allegedly drove through the flags before continuing down the street.

Images courtesy of Sterling Creighton Beard

Sexual assault policy in universities was originally designed to create campuses safe for women, but now has devolved into a biased and unfair campus-based justice system that is stacked against the accused. At Stanford, which is a typical example, a recent sexual assault accusation highlighted the lopsidedness of the Judicial Affairs Board's treatment of such cases: the accused cannot cross-examine witnesses or offer exculpatory evidence on his own behalf other than a request that the campus "Investigator" contact certain witnesses. He is denied appeal, while any acquittal can be appealed.

Under pressure from pushy radical feminists and interest groups, the Obama Administration has sided with this type of bizarre, unjust system. Dr. Russlyn Ali, head of the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education, essentially rewrote the standard for “due process protection” when determining the fate of the accused in a sexual misconduct case. She “suggests” that universities dismiss the notion that a conviction will result only from a determination of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt" and expel students who are found guilty according to a “preponderance of the evidence” (50.1 percent) standard. So, all a college Judicial Affairs Board has to do is round up enough “jurors”(students and campus community members who are almost never trained in the practice of law) that will hand down a guilty verdict. And as shown before, in this type of system, the accused really has no rights of his own. 

To understand the radical, anti-male nuttiness of this approach, look no further than the materials used to train BJA jurors at Stanford, obtained by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education(FIRE). One such item is Why Does He Do That: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men.  The book’s author, Lundy Bancroft, is a fraud who makes money off "low-cost workshops" for battered women. He publishes no educational or academic credentials on his website, refuses to answer calls that do not deal directly with setting up speaking engagements, and is a self-described "author, workshop leader, and consultant on domestic abuse"   He has no formal training in psychology or psychiatry and disdains evidence-based methods, simultaneously claiming that his methods for rehabilitating abusers are better than existing ones and that they do not work on most abusers because most men cannot stop being abusers. He has frequently made extravagant claims with no proof,such as his admonition that jurors should be “very, very cautious in accepting a man’s claim that he has been wrongly accused of abuse or violence. The great majority of allegations of abuse—though not all—are substantially accurate.”

 I am no lawyer, but I am fairly certain that telling people the accused is probably guilty counts as “prejudicing the jury.”  No evidence is given for the second assertion, and the first is an hodgepodge amalgamation of other statistics with no accurate citation.
&nbsp

Universities like Stanford and the Obama Administration are allowing the pursuit of justice to devolve into a witch hunt. Do you agree?

Or at least something like it. I am just as disdainful of the postmodern babble that comes out of a lot of Women's Studies programs as the next guy, but I think it is worth making some disciplinary distinctions. I actually do think it is perfectly legitimate to have an academic interest in women's roles in societies. I would only quibble with how the academy defines such a study.

It is perfectly legitimate, for example, for a historian to want to study the role of women in a particular place and time. I don't see how this should be any more or less legitimate than someone wanting to study the role of German or Irish immigrants. Although I myself am not particularly interested in the field of women's history, I have read some interesting material on, for example, the contributions of women to transatlantic trade networks in the 18th century.

Women's Studies is now an interdisciplinary field reaching into history, English, and other areas of study. Even this I don't find terribly objectionable. The real problem is not that this field exists at all, but what it actually stands for. Women's Studies is really just one more outlet, in addition to so many of the social sciences, for Social Constructivist and Relativist Theories of Everything.

In fairness, I have never been masochistic enough to subject myself to a Women's Studies class, but I have enough exposure to it through the news media and social science literature to have some general ideas about it. When I make snide and sarcastic generalizations about Women's Studies and other social sciences, I am complaining not about their existence, but what appears to be their role as little more than left wing social theory wrapped up in academic language. I would actually be able to take Women's Studies more seriously if their work were more closely modeled after that of historians in their field rather than that of social scientists, who will never abandon their penchant for making verbs out of nouns, and stating ideas in ways that people with brains can't understand.

Conservatives tend to think of themselves as big supporters of the military. They also tend to support a hawkish foreign policy.

If that is the case, how is it that Ron Paul leads all other Republican primary candidates and Barack Obama in military donations? This was also the case during the 2008 primary.

Ron Paul is a non-interventionist who has been critical of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

Are conservatives out of step with those serving in the military or the military out of step with American interests? What do you guys think?

More on this from The New American, Politifact, and Digital Journal.

(The image comes from a weekly military newspaper published at Joint Base Lewis McChord in Wash.. The front page story, "You Want Him," is about how Ron Paul leads all other candidates in military donations.)

Are we finally coming to that oft predicted outcome of the digital age? That physical books will be no more?

I think so. 

My school recently launched a program that will move course materials for specific classes online to be made readable in eText format.

But this is nothing new, schools and publishers have been putting textbooks online for years now. What is new and revolutionary is that the school has negotiated a deal with a number of eText publishers that will reduce the cost of the different texts by 60 to 70 percent.

With the cost of textbooks being as high as they are these days, this might finally be  the spark the eText industry has been looking for to get people away from their hard-copy books.

The cost for these eTexts will be levied within the tuition bill, and the texts automatically uploaded to my school's online course management system, Oncourse.

My school has also partnered with a company that has built a software program that will be used to read and engage the texts. According to CampusTechnology.com, the software will:

... allow students to tag the digital content, perform searches, collaborate as a study group, and view multimedia on any computer or mobile device. Additionally, faculty who opt to use the software will have the ability to integrate notes, links, and annotations on students' e-texts.

Here are my thoughts about the new program:

I believe programs such as these are the wave of the future. Including electronic texts within the cost of tuition seems like a move more universities are going to make for both financial and academic reasons.

Plus, these relationships are mutually beneficial because universities will be able to ensure that their students have the texts on the first day of class and receive them for a great price, and publishers will generate more sales through the resulting decline in demand for used books. Perhaps this will even mean less "new editions."

My only gripe with the program is that the eTexts cannot be read on readers such as the Kindle and Nook, which are more convenient to use than computers and iPads. But the reason why is obvious: the software program, Courseload, and its features are not compatible with such products.

What do you guys think? Do you think this type of model is the way of the future for colleges and universities? Colleges and universities have developed similar models with companies like Adobe and Microsoft and have found great success. Why not with book publishers as well?

One more post on the precipitously declining moral standards of Western civilization, and I'll start writing about something else. A Canada woman who in 2005 strangled her newborn son has, after two overturned murder convictions, been given a suspended sentence (read: no time in jail) of three years and a downgraded conviction for "infanticide." The story I just linked to highlights the judge's rationale for her leniency, in which she implies that a relaxed attitude toward the murder of breathing infants is the logical next step after legal abortion.

For my part, I was astounded to find out that murder and infanticide are actually different crimes in Canada. Perhaps this is old news to some of you, but infanticide is defined thusly in Canadian law (source):

233. A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed. R.S., c. C-34, s. 216.

In the eyes of Canadians, "the effects of giving birth" (or, more bizarrely, of breastfeeding) are so disorienting as to constitute in themselves an extenuating circumstance. And not just a little extenuating, either. The maximum sentence for infanticide is "imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years."

Abominable.

I am fortunate enough to be a part of the focus group and will be able to have some minor participation in the upcoming debate tonight.  I will have the chance to interact with the candidates and chat it up for a little bit. 

Anybody have any questions they are dying to ask a candidate?  I want to have some good questions in the vault. 

I will be sitting on stage next to the discussion table, so if you are watching keep an eye out for yours truly.  Tune in tonight at 8:00pm Eastern. 

This is the Bachmann bus pulling up today at 'The Hop'.

I recently sent out my first column of the year for one of the campus papers here. This particular iteration is one that I wrote mostly because I get irritated by the way religion gets thrown around in presidential campaigns, and more significantly, that many get upset when candidates such as Perry and Bachmann demonstrate more than superficial religious faith.

We want to know that the President goes to the 11:00 service on Sunday, drops a couple of bucks into the collection plate, sings Great is Thy Faithfulness, and knows a few choice verses about how “the greatest of these is love,” and “blessed are the meek.” Voters expect what amounts to a watered-down Victorian Anglicanism in which our religion is public, but our faith is private.

Am I alone in thinking that a substantial body of the voting public really doesn't want candidates to have firm religious beliefs? Certainly the Religious Right cares, but the discomfort people have with the fact that some GOP candidates actually take their faith seriously bothers me. If you want your president to got to church, then fine. Don't be surprised when you find out he believes in things. You can't be a Christian on Sunday, but a secularist when you show up for work in the Oval Office, as so many seem to think. What? You mean Michele Bachmann's faith has guided her in making key life decisions? All I can say is that I wish I could say the same.

Here is a fairly absurd lawsuit that gives rise to a much more legitimate question.

PETA is bringing SeaWorld to court for purported violations of the 13th Amendment--the constitutional ban on slavery. From the AP:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is accusing the SeaWorld parks of keeping five star-performer whales in conditions that violate the 13th Amendment ban on slavery. SeaWorld depicted the suit as baseless.

The chances of the suit succeeding are slim, according to legal experts not involved in the case; any judge who hews to the original intent of the authors of the amendment is unlikely to find that they wanted to protect animals. But PETA relishes engaging in the court of public opinion, as evidenced by its provocative anti-fur and pro-vegan campaigns.

The suit, which PETA says it will file Wednesday in U.S. District Court in San Diego, hinges on the fact that the 13th Amendment, while prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude, does not specify that only humans can be victims.

Jeff Kerr, PETA's general counsel, says his five-member legal team — which spent 18 months preparing the case — believes it's the first federal court suit seeking constitutional rights for members of an animal species.

The notable debate here is not whether SeaWorld treats its animals like slaves. After all, the marine park is already regulated by the Marine Mammals Protection Act. In fact, the interesting question is whether animals should be treated as more than legal property. The article continues:

However, the field of animal law has evolved steadily, with courses taught at scores of law schools. Many prominent lawyers and academics have joined in serious discussion about expanding animal rights.

Rutgers University law professor Gary Francione, for example, contends that animals deserve the fundamental right to not be treated as property. Law professor David Favre of Michigan State University has proposed a new legal category called "living property" as a step toward providing rights for some animals.

It seems to me that categorizing the whales at SeaWorld as slaves is ridiculous. However, I think the notion of animals as more than simple property does bear consideration.

On college campuses student government affects the lives of students more directly than municipal, state, or federal government. At the University of Wisconsin the student government is controlled by students with strong, progressive, liberal ideology. As good conservatives we always preach about local control and local governing, but why does it always seem the most simple forms of governments, e.g., school boards, city councils, planning commissions, etc. are controlled by the left? Do conservative candidates frequently lose at these lower level positions, are liberals better at governing local, or are we just missing the boat altogether? Your thoughts are appreciated.

People of my generation- apparently we are "millenials," but no one asked me- are constantly being scolded for not voting in sufficient numbers. Last week , I tackled the issue of voting, and how I don't think it necessarily makes a republican society better off.

As citizens, we all have a stake in the outcomes of political and policy questions, and it is assumed that in order to affect these, we should take part in the political process. It is precisely because this process is so important, however, that the country would be far better off if a great many people simply did not vote.

To the likes of Rock the Vote, the William & Mary Student Assembly, and perhaps some on Ricochet, the above is heresy of the worst kind. It makes me an elitist, Hamiltonian scumbag of the worst kind. The problem with the "more people should vote because they have a stake in the system" crowd is that they assume that more voters equals more democracy, which is simply not the case.

The problem with the view that society will be freer if everyone votes is that it puts everything important about voting- the motivations behind how to vote- into a black box. It ascribes all political significance to the output, i.e. the vote, and erroneously ignores the contents of its fabricated box. It subscribes to this weird notion that voters necessarily care about pesky things like policy positions and personal character.

The problem is that many people vote based on irrelevancies: speaking ability, hopeychanginess, and that the candidate took time out of his busy schedule to visit your church, which is full of registered voters. They aren't really voting based on any coherent set of interests. I don't think anyone would disagree that society would be better off if many would stay home on Election Day. People who don't really care about politics shouldn't feel any pressure to join in.

In the abstract, I agree that given certain assumptions, everyone should care about politics, and that everyone should vote. The trouble is that these assumptions- that people know the issues and have some reason for thinking a particular candidate's victory serves their interests- so seldom apply. Winston Churchill is often quoted as saying that the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. I much prefer his caution that democracy is the worst form of government except for every other form of government. I for one will take an imperfect electorate over big government authoritarianism any day. Voters, at least can be educated.

With my 55th written page completed during finals week (being an English major at Santa Clara University has its downsides), I hopped on a plane home to spend the holidays with my parents in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. My parents are both employees of Saudi Aramco—the largest oil producing company in the world—and have been since their early twenties. Although I was born on U.S. soil, I spent the majority of my life growing up on a company-owned compound in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. Dhahran’s compound hosts a variety of people from more than 25 different countries all with varying languages, religions, and beliefs. It’s quite the melting pot—weather included.

Rather than spending this holiday season in Saudi Arabia sleeping away my immense jet lag, I’ve decided to dedicate much of my time to writing about life in such a misunderstood and feared location. After taking classes from Professor Mike Malone—who boasts an incredible background in professional writing and who also occasionally writes for Ricochet—I have been inspired to make better use of my time and to use Ricochet as an outlet for sharing my observations and experiences.

On Tuesday, I attended an event at the U.S. Consulate here in Dhahran where a speaker, who I’d rather leave unnamed since it was a privately held event with no press coverage, gave an effective speech on the incredible opportunities available for American businesses in Saudi Arabia. With a current GDP of roughly $600 billion, a number expected to continue growing, Saudi Arabia is flourishing in wealth and already spending. More and more American businesses are encouraged to consult with U.S. owned companies already present in Saudi Arabia in order to learn how to acquire a presence as well. In 2011, 102 American companies exported to Saudi Arabia—a number hoped to grow even more in 2012.

The speaker proceeded to highlight two areas in need of work in order to strengthen the U.S.-Saudi tie. One area consists of the difficulty many businessmen and women face in attempting to travel between the two countries. Increasing business between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia would require both countries to allow a greater free flow of business partners. Another area consists of making Saudi Arabia an acceptable place for American families to live. The need for proper education and expatriate communities are essential in convincing Americans to bring their businesses and families to Saudi Arabia. Already demonstrated possible through the present Saudi Aramco compounds, such as Dhahran, which can house up to 11,500 expatriates in its all-inclusive gated community, this task shouldn’t prove a restricting factor in U.S.-Saudi business relationships. All 50 attendees intently listened as the speaker successfully increased awareness of the great opportunities available for American businesses in Saudi Arabia from the beginning of his speech to the end.

I personally believe the cultural differences between Saudi Arabia and the United States should not be looked upon as insurmountable barriers restricting the two countries from enhancing international business. Rather, American businesses should take advantage of the opportunities to expand across borders. It is understandable that with 9/11 came a wave of fear and hatred aimed at Saudi Arabia; however, as a westerner in Saudi Arabia at the time the Twin Towers were hit, I can readily say that the Saudis here were in as much shock as the westerners and greatly embarrassed for being associated with such an atrocity.

American oil companies first discovered oil in Saudi Arabia in the early 1930’s and with such a long history between the two countries why get left behind now? American businesses should take advantage of including themselves in Saudi Arabia’s bright future noted by Saudi Aramco’s vision on its official website:

“Our commitment to remain the world leader in the production of petroleum-based energy is complemented by our commitment to help solve a host of pressing issues. We believe we can make a difference wherever we do business by investing in innovation and entrepreneurship, creating educational opportunities, powering economic progress, increasing environmental awareness, and working in partnership for energy sustainability.”