01 July 2005

I didn't get in to public broadcasting to be watched!


we noticed this quote from a New York Times story on an effort to monitor political bias on public radio and television:

“Is it being done to somehow force public broadcasting into some kind of retreat?” asked Ms. Rehm, who has been host of “The Diane Rehm Show,” a news and interview program, on public radio for 25 years. “Is it done to frighten people to somehow alert them to the fact that they are being watched?”

Diane, it’s even worse than you imagine. We’ve appeared on PBS a few times, and you can imagine our horror when we realized we were literally being watched.

So not only is it wrong to criticize liberals, but conservatives shouldn’t even be watching them.

Posted by orbital at 6:47 PM | View 0 TrackBacks | Trackback URL

Study, don't ask


Too much competition? File a lawsuit. Five or more Massachusetts school districts plan to sue to stop the Advanced Math and Science Academy from enrolling students outside its immediate area. The new charter school has attracted applicants from 49 towns.

“Our biggest question is what is the deficit in Shrewsbury that requires a charter school in Marlborough to educate our children?” (Superintendent Anthony) Bent said.

Why not ask the parents who are willing to deal with a long commute to get their children in the academy?

Those are just parents! What would they know about their kids and education? Surely they’re just enrolling because of right-wing propaganda on Free Republic.

Posted by orbital at 2:46 PM | View 1 Comments | View 0 TrackBacks | Trackback URL

We find that information just gets in the way of winning the debate


Some University of Oregon professors are thinking of leaving if a controversial “diversity” plan goes into effect. Mathematics Associate Professor Alexander Kleshchev, a Russian immigrant, told the Daily Emerald the plan reminds him of the Soviet Union.

“Look, I am personally not going to be interrogated about my thoughts, and I am not going to go to reeducation camps either,” said Kleshchev, alluding to the Five Year Diversity Plan’s requirement that faculty participate in a summer diversity seminar.

“I’ve had enough of that in my previous life in the Soviet Union, and I just will not have this again. I tried freedom now; I liked it, and I am not about to give it up,” Kleshchev said.

A Five Year Plan! Are these people that ignorant of history, or do they actually like the allusion that’s so obvious to Prof. Kleschchev? I suspect the latter, as indicated by this:

The plan, now being massaged, calls for making “cultural competence” a factor in hiring and promotion, but doesn’t define the term. […]

John Shuford, the interim associate director for the Center on Diversity and Community (CoDaC) said that cultural competency was not defined for two reasons: It would not be appropriate for the drafters of the blueprint to impose a definition because that might have led to adverse responses by some. Secondly, the working definition would have become the focal point of debate, preventing a deeper discussion of the ideas presented.

I.e., the implementation of this policy shouldn’t be derailed by discussing its desireability or utility or even meaning because some people might not like the policy if they knew what it was. I also note that Shuford thinks it quite possible to have a “deeper discussion of the ideas presented” without actually, you know, presenting them. Could you encapsulate the intellectual failure of modern academia any better?

Posted by orbital at 12:17 PM | View 1 Comments | View 0 TrackBacks | Trackback URL