Wednesday, March 18, 2009

The Fairness Doctrine: Coming to a Campus Near You

by Mike S. Adams

I am pleased to finally be able to write a column praising a decision by the administrators at my university. Recently, the Women's Resource Center (WRC) decided to put up an "art" display featuring pictures of naked females with captions below them telling stories about their lives. The problem was that some of the females were minors. Recognizing that posting a picture of a naked 12 year-old girl is not protected by academic freedom, the university administration removed the illegal pictures.

There is something very wrong with a Women's Resource Center that posts pictures of nude women with fake breasts in our library with captions arguing that they are grotesque and perverted. But there is something even more disturbing about their subsequent decision to post pictures of naked children arguing that they are not in any way grotesque or perverted.

I think the UNC-Wilmington administration has finally realized that the Interim Director of the WRC is simply a complete embarrassment to the university and must be monitored in order to protect the university from potential legal liability. Indeed, this is what happens when leftist extremists start to implement their own religion of moral relativism on our nation's campuses. Pretty soon, they're at a loss to find an objective basis for judging anything. And they become so arrogant that the argument "it's illegal" is irrelevant.

Given that leftist relativist groupthink is producing such poor decisions at my university I believe it is time to consider implementing a version of the Fairness Doctrine. Given my university's recent experiment with common sense and sanity, I think we would be a great place to start what could be a nationwide trend. Plus, we are a public university which, like the public airwaves, should not be dominated by speech from one side of the political spectrum.

We could begin implementing the Fairness Doctrine at my school by having Dr. Frank Turek speak to the Sociology of Religion class that is being offered next fall. Students in that class are being asked to read texts by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. In these books, the authors explain why they hate a God that doesn't exist. Dr. Turek could give a lecture explaining why he loves a God that does exist.

We could also invite Dr. Miriam Grossman to speak to the Sociology of Gender classes. Currently, we employ feminists who argue that all male/female differences are "socially constructed." Dr. Grossman could explain, in medical terms, why the feminists' Ms-guided decision to encourage promiscuity hurts women more than men.

We could also invite Dr. Larry Schweikart to speak in American History classes where students are taught that Ronald Reagan ran up higher deficits than Franklin Roosevelt. Larry could present them with charts they've never seen, which introduce them to the complex statistical idea of controlling for inflation.

In Microeconomics, we could have Dr. Richard Vedder explain how FDR's New Deal policies exacerbated the Great Depression. We could invite the president to attend the lecture. I mean the President of the United States, not the President of UNCW.

In Linguistics, we could have John McWhorter talk about the deleterious effects the ebonics movement is having on black progress.

In our graduate course in Social Justice, I could make a guest appearance to talk about how most people on death row are white despite the fact that most homicides are committed by blacks.

The Campus Fairness Doctrine would cut both ways, of course. In my "Trials of the Century" class I teach about the O.J. Simpson case and the Charles Manson case. I argue that both are guilty. So, naturally, I would allow the feminist in my department who thinks O.J. is innocent (read: sides with O.J. over Nicole) to come make her case. I would also ask the sociologist who once told me that Manson was a "poor guy who got railroaded by the system" to come argue his innocence. Then I'll remind everyone that insanity can negate mens rea but it can't negate tenure.

Finally, I'll have my friend Travis Barham of the Alliance Defense Fund give a speech to the Women's Resource Center. In it, he'll explain that the Fourth Circuit has ruled that the display of child pornography is not protected by the First Amendment. Someone has to tell the empress that she isn't wearing clothes.


Cambridge university no longer happy to accept rubbish High School marks

The general dumbing down and grade inflation of British High school education meant this had to happen if Cambridge's high academic standards were to be maintained

Fears of a new educational elitism emerged yesterday after the University of Cambridge changed its admissions policy in a way that critics said would favour independent schools. The university announced that 3 As at A-level would no longer be enough for entry. From 2010 at least one grade should be at the new A* being introduced that academic year. Others, including Oxford, are expected to follow. The decision was taken even though the Government's advisory body said the new grade should not be used as a benchmark until it had been tested.

Independent schools welcomed the move, but Labour MPs, teaching unions and education experts said that the measure would be used to "fillet out" state school pupils. In 2007, 59 per cent of Cambridge's intake were from the state sector. Barry Sheerman, chairman of the Commons' Children, Schools and Families Committee, said: "I'm very concerned that some of our greatest universities are becoming no-go zones for children from normal backgrounds."

The Sutton Trust, which campaigns to reduce inequality in education, said that using the A* would benefit only students at the best schools. Its director, Lee Elliot Major, described it as "another sign of the ever-growing arms race that defines the issue of social mobility - just as the playing field begins to level out for the less affluent up pops a new way for the privileged to assert their advantage".

Universities argue that it is increasingly difficult to distinguish between the thousands of applicants predicted to achieve 3 A grades. Last year Cambridge rejected 5,500 teenagers who went on to achieve 3 As. The A* would require a mark of 90 per cent. The university said that its admission criterion would probably rise to two A*s and an A "in the fullness of time".

Exam boards have been wary of the A*, saying it would take "time to bed down". The National Council for Educational Excellence has recommended that universities delay using the grade until it has been reviewed. Sussex, Worcester, Dundee and East Anglia universities have said that they will not use the A* grade in 2010 because of concerns that it would result in more independent school pupils being be awarded places, jeopardising their government funding.

Geoff Lucas, secretary of the Head-masters' and Headmistresses' Conference, which represents independent schools, said: "We are delighted that Cambridge has shown leadership in coming out in support of the A*."


No comments: