Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Spanky]

Letting the PC slip show
By Mona Charen


You've probably never heard of Teachers College, but it has profoundly affected your life and is now affecting your children's lives. TC is the graduate school of education at Columbia University and laboratory of most of the "reforms" that have corroded K-12 education over the past 50 years. New math, whole language, open classrooms, outcome-based education -- you name the fad and it probably originated in Morningside Heights in New York.

Teachers College is the most influential graduate education program in the country, and like so many leading schools, it is probably irredeemably PC. Still, Columbia University professes to uphold free inquiry and open-mindedness, so it was heartening to see a watchdog group zing the school for its ideological rigidity.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) got hold of TC's new "Conceptual Framework" for its students. You might ask: Why does a graduate school need a "conceptual framework"? Isn't the point to train teachers to teach? (Actually, some skeptics think teachers colleges themselves are unnecessary, but let that pass.) Well, perhaps someone in the publicity department is being paid by the word at TC, because the Conceptual Framework is the length of a novella. Most of it is the usual boilerplate and reads like this:

"We are an inquiry-based and practice-oriented community. We and our students and graduates challenge assumptions and complacency and embrace a stance of inquiry toward the interrelated roles of learner, teacher, and leader in P-12 schools."

Okay, but then there is this: "We see teaching as an ethical and political act. We see teachers . . . as participants in a larger struggle for social justice. . . . Schools and society are interconnected. Social inequalities are often produced and perpetuated through systematic discrimination and justified by societal ideology of merit, social mobility, and individual responsibility . . . "

And it gets worse: "Traditionally organized schools help to reproduce social inequalities while giving the illusion that such inequalities are natural and fair. Schools purport to offer unlimited possibilities for social advancement but they simultaneously maintain structures that severely limit the probability of advancement for those at the bottom of the social scale. Research has shown that the majority of teachers in the United States are European American and middle class and that many of these teachers do not see the invisible yet profound social forces at work that bring about inequality among different cultural groups in society and in schools."

You know, I actually agree that some of our school systems limit social mobility by failing to provide a quality education to poor and minority students. But I think the teachers unions and resistance to school choice are a big part of the problem. Somehow, I don't think that point of view is considered legitimate at TC. Isn't it shameful to heap scorn on teachers because they are "European American" and "middle class"? What if someone pointed out that most inner city teachers are African American and Hispanic? Is that legitimate criticism according to Teachers College?

Further, Columbia now maintains that "merit, social mobility, and individual responsibility" are mere "ideologies" used to justify discrimination. On the contrary, these are the steps on the ladder for those at the bottom. A kid who excels in school, no matter what his background, can expect to thrive in America. All too often it is the PC crowd who eschew high standards for kids from poor neighborhoods. It is they, not "the system," who constrict the life prospects for those kids.

Students at TC, according to the Conceptual Framework, are required to endorse the view that "To change the system and make schools and societies more equitable, educators must recognize ways in which taken-for-granted notions regarding the legitimacy of the social order are flawed, see change agency as a moral imperative, and have skills to act as agents of change."

The president of Teachers College penned a platitudinous response to FIRE, arguing that they really, truly are committed to academic freedom, and that quotes had been taken out of context. I've read the context -- they weren't.

Elsewhere on the Columbia campus last week, a screaming mob of students rushed the stage and shouted down a speaker invited by the College Republicans (a representative of the Minutemen). Video of the melee is available on the Columbia Spectator website. Columbia's President Lee Bollinger has sent letters to some of the students involved suggesting they might have violated the university's rules and might have to meet with the senior vice provost.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Funny how you can't find it anywhere on the internet. You would think if it was exculpatory it would be posted everywhere.

Spanky, try to understand this. I haven't looked for it anywhere on the internet, because I don't really give a shit. (I'm pretty sure that John Kerry wasn't dumping on people who join the Army, even though I think he's a lousy politician who should not be set loose near a microphone, because the man went to Yale and then enlisted in the military and went to Vietnam.) I saw that item about Chris Mathews and Dick Armey on Brad DeLong's blog, so I posted it.

The only reason that this little exchange holds interest for me at this point is that you and Hank both posted the same moronic response to what I said. In response to the suggestion that the full context of John Kerry's remarks suggests that his target was the President, both of you somehow thought it would be intellectually worthwhile to post a clip to ten seconds of his speech.

I've read that Kerry aides circulated an advance copy of the speech with the joke he was trying to make about Bush. If you care about this, go check out those stories.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky, try to understand this. I haven't looked for it anywhere on the internet, because I don't really give a shit. (I'm pretty sure that John Kerry wasn't dumping on people who join the Army, even though I think he's a lousy politician who should not be set loose near a microphone, because the man went to Yale and then enlisted in the military and went to Vietnam.) I saw that item about Chris Mathews and Dick Armey on Brad DeLong's blog, so I posted it.

I have looked and I can't find it. If what you claim were true don't you think it would be everywhere?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The only reason that this little exchange holds interest for me at this point is that you and Hank both posted the same moronic response to what I said.

What can I say. Great minds think alike.

We posted video clips from two different websites. Mine was from You Tube (is that a bastion of conservative bias) and his was from somewhere else. How was our response moronic? Because we posted a primary source to refute your allegation? I am sorry I forgot you rules. If the facts averred support the Democrats or a liberal view, you must take them as true. If the fact averred support the Republicans or a conservative position you must post a primary source.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop In response to the suggestion that the full context of John Kerry's remarks suggests that his target was the President, both of you somehow thought it would be intellectually worthwhile to post a clip to the ten-seconds that got him in trouble.

That is because those are the only clips on the net. I can't find any others. And Kerry has admitted he left the part of the joke off where he referred to George Bush. His statements seem to contradict your claim that part of the clip is left off. He is not saying his quote was taken out of context, he is saying he screwed up the quote.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop When Hank responded in that way, I didn't bother to say anything, both because his response was stupid and because -- as noted above -- I don't care. I only bothered when you posted the same thing, down to the (clever) image you found on Drudge. The response is still stupid, but now there's a certain grace in your parallel stupidity.

As I have always said, that is nothing more annoying than someone who is arrogant and ignorant.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
No worries. He was just trying to goad you into a FERPA violation. Way to avoid the trap!

As long as he keeps his Beaker avatar he can really do no wrong. :dance2:

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
I volunteer. I am sure if they paid, someone would do my job without any job security.

I don't understand, Spanky. I thought the only motivation for a teacher, and the performance of a teacher, was renumeration.

You are going to love this: I am not allowed to test them. In order to not break the rule, I give them tests but they don't turn them in. We just discuss the tests after they take them.

Interesting. They don't have to take any standardized tests? How does one assess whether they are being left behind?

As an aside, I find it surprising that after dealing with your students you can not imagine the scenario of a class of students collectively agreeing to throw a test to get a teacher fired. Sure, it would be against their self interest, but we're talking about an age group that regularly creates mySpace pages extolling how they love to get high and screw.

[Spanky]

1) The economy. More than 6.6 million new jobs have been created since August 2003. Our 4.1 annual growth rate is superior to all other major industrialized nations. The Dow has set record highs multiple times in the past several weeks. Productivity is up, and the deficit is down. Real, after-tax income has grown by 15 percent since 2001. Inflation has remained low. As Vice President Cheney summed it up at a recent meeting with journalists, "What more do you want?" The tax cuts proposed by President Bush and passed by a Republican Congress can take a bow.

2) The Patriot Act. Democrats and liberals mourn this law as a gross infringement upon civil liberties. Yet the much-discussed abuses simply haven't materialized. The law has, on the other hand, permitted the CIA and FBI to cooperate and share information about terrorist threats -- at least so long as The New York Times isn't publishing the details of our counterterrorism efforts on the front page.

3) The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, to which liberals clung with passionate intensity, has been cancelled, permitting us to work on missile defense. In the age of Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is anyone (except Nancy Pelosi) sorry?

4) Immigration. Republicans in Congress insisted upon and got the first serious immigration restriction in decades. On Oct. 26, the president signed a law that will build a 700-mile fence along our southern border and, what is more important, does not offer amnesty.

5) There has not been another terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Who would have predicted that on 9/12?

6) Libya has surrendered its nuclear program.

7) A.Q. Khan's nuclear smuggling network has been rolled up.

8) John Roberts and Samuel Alito sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have looked and I can't find it. If what you claim were true don't you think it would be everywhere?

Not necessarily. I think you make the mistake of thinking that everyone cares about this as much as you do.

We posted video clips from two different websites. Mine was from You Tube (is that a bastion of conservative bias) and his was from somewhere else.

Having actually watched both, I can assure you that they were the same clip (for all intensive purposes).

How was our response moronic? Because we posted a primary source to refute your allegation?

No. Because my "allegation" was about the full context, posting a ten-second clip not only did not "refute" it, it didn't even respond to it.

Please tell me you get this now.

[SlaveNoMore]

The non-apology, apology finally surfaces:

As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.

[b]I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted [b]to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don't want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops.

Translation:

I'm sorry that you people are too stupid to realize I wasn't calling our troops stupid, but I was really calling our President stupid, and its really annoying that you pointed this out and even people in my own party are making me stand up here and say this, when I'd rather be making fun of the stupid President, not the stupid troops.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop When Hank responded in that way, I didn't bother to say anything, both because his response was stupid and because -- as noted above -- I don't care. I only bothered when you posted the same thing, down to the (clever) image you found on Drudge. The response is still stupid, but now there's a certain grace in your parallel stupidity.

Originally posted by Spanky
As I have always said, that is nothing more annoying than someone who is arrogant and ignorant.

I posted the clip I found because several peple said they had not seen it, even though they knew exactly what Kerry meant. The place I got my link did not have optional longer versions. As to there being "pre-speech" texts circulated, I'm with Spank in thinking those would be posted on the same page where Ty got his "full transcript" apologists remarks, IF they existed.

given the above, I want everyone to think about how Ty could call my post "stupid." Who is the troll? who is harming this board?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by nononono
What is so wrong, so off-putting about people who have some level of formal education below what you tend to value?

Are you willfully misreading what I say? There is nothing wrong with such people at all. Nothing off-putting about them.

But they do have fewer choices than people with higher levels of education. And I don't see a lot of people encouraging their children to enlist in the military rather than go to Yale.

People with less education or even no aptitude or interest for it can still be smart.

Thank you, oh champion of the proletariat. I had no idea.

You probably don't need your car mechanic to have Harvard Class of '74 hanging on the wall to the garage, but you sure as hell want him to be smart about what that strange noise in your engine is.

Again, thank you for this invaluable information. It's a pity that your reading comprehension isn't matching your mastery of the obvious.

And I'm not sure why it's a horrible thing that that guy is doing that vs. drafting briefs, or why that would lead to an assessment that mechanics are deplorably stupid.

Okay, at this point I can no longer restrain myself.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Where the fuck did I say that a "mechanics are deplorably stupid"? Stop being such an idiot and read what I am saying.

I didn't enlist in the military, but I'm quite familiar with the existence and experience of it. And fwiw, I know some highly educated folks sitting in Iraq at this very moment.

So do I. The number of PhDs in the officer ranks, for example, truly boggles the mind.

But so what? I am talking about whether the corps of enlisted troops is, or is not, a cross-section of society. Despite your non-sensical bitching and your moronic "I am a warrior of the people" attacks, you have yet to say that they are -- and it's because you know that is not the case. People who have the option to get ahead in this society without putting their lives on the line tend to take that option. (And yes, I know -- you will interpret that as "Sidd thinks all soldiers are morons." Go right ahead.)

But just a comment on your argument - you want to argue that the lowest-level recruits are relatively uneducated. How do they compare to the lowest-level recruits at McDonald's or Walmart?

They are probably smarter and better educated, younger, and in better physical shape. Who cares? The privileged classes of our society don't take entry level jobs in Wal-Mart or McDonald's, either.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not necessarily. I think you make the mistake of thinking that everyone cares about this as much as you do.

Ummmm, your senate candidates are taking time out today to say Kerry was wrong- you think the "transcript" or "pre speech text" wouldn't be circulating also? Really? Wow!

Having actually watched both, I can assure you that they were the same clip (for all intensive purposes).

mine was youtube from lgf- same tape

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I posted the clip I found because several peple said they had not seen it, even though they knew exactly what Kerry meant. The place I got my link did not have optional longer versions. As to there being "pre-speech" texts circulated, I'm with Spank in thinking those would be posted on the same page where Ty got his "full transcript" apologists remarks, IF they existed.

given the above, I want everyone to think about how Ty could call my post "stupid." Who is the troll? who is harming this board?

Sorry to think that your response to my post was a response to my post.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I don't understand, Spanky. I thought the only motivation for a teacher, and the performance of a teacher, was renumeration.

When did I say that? But you can't tell me that offering bonuses to teachers who are able to get the worst classes to learn something wouldn't help. There are some teachers that can handel those classes and others that can't. And of course handling those classes is not as fun as handling a class where everyone is motivated to learn. So shouldn't people that have the talent for those type of classes, and who are willing to take the less enjoyable job be paid more? You also can't tell me that because of the tenure system there are not a lot of bad eggs out there.

Originally posted by baltassoc
Interesting. They don't have to take any standardized tests? How does one assess whether they are being left behind?

Well - maybe because they are in prison. However, we don't know where they gained the little knowledge they do have. We also don't know how some of them have made it through junior highschool and can't read or write. We don't know what teachers helped them and which teachers didn't. We have no idea how to help them because we don't know what has worked and what hasn't. Saying we shouldn't test students is about as smart as saying you shouldn't check the breaks on your car.

Originally posted by baltassoc
As an aside, I find it surprising that after dealing with your students you can not imagine the scenario of a class of students collectively agreeing to throw a test to get a teacher fired. Sure, it would be against their self interest, but we're talking about an age group that regularly creates mySpace pages extolling how they love to get high and screw.

I never said I couldn't imagine that scenario. But such a scenario should have no bearing on whether we institute testing. Absolutely none. That is like saying we shouldn't fire teachers for abusing their students because some of the students might lie about being abused. Yes if we fire teachers for abusing students, some teachers will be unfairly accused and fired, but that doesn't mean you cancel the whole program. If testing helps us improve the system we should use it. If some students abuse the program that may happen but we do what we can to minimize the abuse. If the program doesn't help the school system then we don't use it. But to not implement a program that will help because some students might abuse the system is insane. Following that logic we would never implement any reform.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

But so what? I am talking about whether the corps of enlisted troops is, or is not, a cross-section of society. Despite your non-sensical bitching and your moronic "I am a warrior of the people" attacks, you have yet to say that they are -- and it's because you know that is not the case. People who have the option to get ahead in this society without putting their lives on the line tend to take that option. (And yes, I know -- you will interpret that as "Sidd thinks all soldiers are morons." Go right ahead.)

Maybe Sidd has me on ignore and he won't realize what an idiot he has made of himself. I hope so for his sake.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
1) The economy. More than 6.6 million new jobs have been created since August 2003.

What an odd date to choose to measure from.

2) The Patriot Act. Democrats and liberals mourn this law as a gross infringement upon civil liberties. Yet the much-discussed abuses simply haven't materialized.

Yeah. No abuses at all.

3) The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, to which liberals clung with passionate intensity, has been cancelled, permitting us to work on missile defense. In the age of Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is anyone (except Nancy Pelosi) sorry?

Good point. I actually think that missle defense makes more sense today than it did in the first 20 years the research was funded.

4) Immigration. Republicans in Congress insisted upon and got the first serious immigration restriction in decades. On Oct. 26, the president signed a law that will build a 700-mile fence along our southern border and, what is more important, does not offer amnesty.

When the barbarian hordes sweep down from Canada, we're going to be awefully pissed off that fence is there to cut off our escape.

5) There has not been another terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Who would have predicted that on 9/12?

Um. Yeah.
Not exactly correct.

6) Libya has surrendered its nuclear program.

Okay. Show me how that's the doing of the Bush administration (not saying it was the doing of a Democrat)

7) A.Q. Khan's nuclear smuggling network has been rolled up.

Ditto. (I'm actually uncertain about this, but didn't Pakistan blow this apart themselves.

8) John Roberts and Samuel Alito sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I don't get it.