Right to Opine

The formerly* all-women’s Mount Holyoke College has cancelled its annual performance of ”The Vagina Monologues.” While at first glance that may sound like a return to sanity, it’s anything but.

Mount Holyoke student Erin Murphy explained on behalf of the student-run theater board in an email to students on Wednesday that the play is problematic because it is not inclusive of trans women

You read that correctly. It was cancelled not because it’s inane, insipid, or insulting to the intelligence of normal, rational humans. Nope. Because it’s not inclusive of “women” who lack vaginas, i.e., cross-dressing men. We can’t offend their tender sensibilities now, can we?

Such is the state of higher education today. You just can’t make this stuff up, folks.

*I say “formerly” because last year they began admitting males who can’t tell the difference between the reproductive organs of the two—count them—biologically defined genders of our species.

Jonah Goldberg@Newsday –Analyzing the Republican brain

If you really want to know why conservatives want to quit throwing money down the rabbit hole that is public and “higher” education, look no further. We aren’t anti-science. We’re against the nonsense masquerading as intellectual thought that inundates modern academia.

In a recent poll, young people aged 16-25 picked Thomas Edison as the greatest innovator of all time. Considering his innumerable contributions to technological advancement, that’s not at all an unreasonable choice. But take a gander at the top 7, as highlighted in the article:

1. Thomas Edison (52%)
2. Steve Jobs (24%)
3. Alexander Bell (10%)
4. Marie Curie (5%)
5. Mark Zuckerberg (3%)
6. Amelia Earhart (3%)
7. Temple Grandin (2%)

Are you serious? I’m often accused of being an Apple fan-boi, but Steve Jobs? A quarter of our youth think he was the greatest innovator of all time? I suppose if you were born after the Mac was invented you might be excused for believing Jobs was the greatest innovator of your lifetime, but in history? History is apparently limited to your generation.

The bottom four are equally revealing. Zuckerberg? If you don’t know how life could possibly exist without Facebook, …

The other three point out the success of the feminist movement within our educational system. Yes, Curie and Earhart were pioneering women in their field, but if you’re considering aviation, wouldn’t the Wright brothers have been a better choice? Inventing flight, and all that. Oh, but they’re men. Madame Curie was certainly a brilliant scientist, but, well…not so much as an innovator. But she was a she. Did I mention her work killed her? And Grandin? You watch one made-for-TV movie about an autistic woman and suddenly she’s a great innovator?

The ignorance of this generation regarding real innovators throughout history would be stunning if it weren’t so terribly predictable. Do they even know who da Vinci was? (Or that he didn’t actually have a code?) What about our own Founding Fathers, such as Franklin and Jefferson? Oops. Old, dead, white guys.

Sadly, most of this age bracket is old enough to vote. That should be enough to scare anyone into fighting for real educational reform.

Interesting that a web site dedicated to science shows so much animosity to one of the basic tenets of science—examining all sides of an issue and exposing both the strengths and weaknesses of any theory.

A subcommittee of the state’s Board of Elementary and Secondary Education voted 6-to-1 Tuesday to approve an industry-standard biology text, which conservative critics had attacked for failing to teach the “controversy” about evolution.

While the article focuses on criticism of creationism and intelligent design, conspicuously absent is any mention that there are, in fact, gaping holes in every flavor of evolutionary theory—a fact which they fear having taught in public schools lest any thinking student have doubts about the validity of Darwinist thought.

The left—which for decades has dominated education in our country—has an obsession with race that never fails to fascinate (and disturb) me. While accusing the right of being racist, it is they who focus so consistently and intently on race. Consider a new study based on the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) math and reading tests.

[A] new report focusing on black males suggests that the picture is even bleaker than generally known.

Race, race, race. The report compares blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians. You can read it in its entirety here.

Just once I’d like to see an analysis of this data which investigates things that really matter rather than race.

• How do kids from intact families compare to those from divorced and single-parent homes?
• What about kids whose parents take them to church or synagogue regularly versus those who watch TV all weekend?
• Do kids who are involved in scouting and organized sports perform better than those who aren’t?

I mention these because in my experience they have a much greater effect on academic performance than do race and economics. For example, I have black friends who have been married for twenty years and go to church regularly. Their kids are doing really well in school. Meanwhile a white family I know has divorced and stopped attending church—their kids are struggling. Race is a non-factor while family cohesion is paramount. Yes, I know these are “merely anecdotes”, but I am quite willing to bet your personal observations are generally similar. (And at some point when you’ve collected enough anecdotes you have “data”.) Sadly, our society has come to substitute statistics for common sense and wisdom.

But I do suspect that these factors have a statistically significant impact on test scores. Unfortunately I can only surmise. Because I’m just an independent mathematician with a very good understanding of statistics—and not a “qualified researcher”—I can’t get access to the raw data. The real reason I suspect that these, and similar, factors other than race have a real effect on scores is the very fact that those factors are never reported. If they had a significant effect and that impact or a lack thereof agreed with the agenda of the researchers the results would be published in a heartbeat. (If you think educational researchers don’t have an agenda, with a list of acceptable pre-determined outcomes, you’re not awake.) That there is such eerie silence makes me suspicious.

There are a lot of factors that can greatly affect academic performance. Race isn’t one of them—unless you are a racist! That the left is obsessively focused on race speaks volumes.

Elementary schools are limiting the activities boys can use to productively channel their innate aggression and competitive drives, for example eliminating such useful games as dodgeball. Youth sports associations hand out trophies to every kid for the sheer act of breathing and their parents’ ability to pony up the $100 registration fee instead of reserving accolades for those who actually accomplish something on the field of play. Schools hand out awards for good behavior and “citizenship” (i.e., being nice to classmates) instead of mandating them and rewarding academic performace. After all, we don’t want to hurt anyone’s self-esteem by leaving them out as we hold up exemplary achievement as a mark to be emulated. Now we’re being told that modern superheroes are bad role models.

“There is a big difference in the movie superhero of today and the comic book superhero of yesterday,” said Professor Lamb.

“Today’s superhero is too much like an action hero who participates in non-stop violence; he’s aggressive, sarcastic and rarely speaks to the virtue of doing good for humanity.

“When not in superhero costume, these men exploit women, flaunt bling and convey their manhood with high-powered guns.”

Now I’m not sure what movies and TV shows she’s watching, but today the only “superheroes” that wear costumes are either parodies or remakes of classic comic book mainstays. We just don’t do the whole tights-and-capes thing anymore. Further, I’m a big fan of action movies and TV shows—even the cheesiest—and I guess we’re simply seeing completely different images. Virtually every successful action hero of late follows the same model that has sold well on screen for nearly 100 years: chivalrous, confident but modest (except when it’s necessary to fling a good one-liner at the bad guys), and motivated to fight for the helpless and powerless.

In a second presentation, Dr Carlos Santos, from Arizona State University, examined 426 middle school boys’ ability to resist being emotionally stoic, autonomous and physically tough – stereotyped images of masculinity.

When, exactly, did these qualities become viewed as harmful to boys’ development? Our nation was made possible by the stoicism, autonomy, and physical toughness of generations of men (yes, and women) who lived hard, often brutally short, lives in an effort to tame a wild and dangerous continent. While most of the specific dangers they faced are gone, they have been replaced by others which can only be met by men of equal character.

Unfortunately, academics would have us believe there are no significant differences between the genders, and consequently have us raise the next generation of boys to be women. Such nonsense can only be perpetuated to the detriment of society.

In a townhall meeting with NJ Governor Christie, a teacher whined that, “You’re not compensating me for my education, and you’re not compensating me for my experience.” His response was simply sublime: “You know what? Then you don’t have to do it.”

Ma’am, step away from the left and join us in the real world.

You see, out here in the real world, we don’t get automatic pay increases based on the number of years we’ve worked, how many degrees we hold, or the number of initials and acronyms that follow our names. We get paid based on two things: perceived value and scarcity of skill. Until there are more teacher openings than applicants, the law of supply-and-demand is going to hold your salary down. And until the taxpayers believe you are providing something of increased value, they aren’t going to pony up more of their hard-earned cash.

Like those of us in the real world, you—along with the rest of us who haven’t had pay raises in years—have two basic options: find a higher-paying career, or quit whining and be thankful that in an economy running 10% unemployment you still have a job. Me? I live here in the real world. I choose the latter.

A common misconception on the left is its arrogant and elitist notion that if only conservatives were better educated they’d be more liberal.

• Marx studied law in Bonn and Berlin.
• Lenin had a degree in law (his father was an official in the Russian education system).
• Stalin attended Tiflis Theological Seminary and was later a private tutor/instructor.
• Mao Zedong went to Beijing University.
• Ho Chi Minh was educated in France and was, at one time, a teacher.
• Pol Pot was a graduate of the École Française d’Électronique et d’Informatique (French School of Electronics and Computer Science) in Paris.

On the other hand:

• George W Bush and Clarence Thomas graduated from Yale.
• Thomas Sowell is an economics fellow at Stanford.
• Bill O’Reilly holds degrees from Boston University and Harvard.
• Charles Krauthammer holds degrees from both Harvard and Oxford.
• Michelle Malkin went to Oberlin (a rather left-wing college).
• Bobby Jindal went to Brown University and Oxford (Rhodes Scholar).
• Newt Gingrich got his PhD in history from Tulane and was a college history prof for almost a decade before entering politics.

The difference isn’t education. It’s values.

Many of us tend to encapsulate the Christmas story by having it end tidily with three wise men bringing gifts to a cuddly little baby. Some of us know better…

An eight-year-old boy was given an assignment in class to draw something that reminded him of Christmas. His picture got him sent home and ordered to undergo a psych evaluation because of its violent imagery. What did he draw? Machine gun-toting Santa? No (though I think that’d be pretty cool). Vampire Rudolph feasting on elves? No. Headless Frosty with a chainsaw? No.

He drew a picture of Jesus crucified on the cross.

Read that again. The blatant and pernicious anti-Christian bias in our educational system could not be more clear.

Here’s a news flash for the uninformed: the Christmas story has a really violent, bloody episode just before the plot’s climax. If you don’t include the death and resurrection of Christ then Christmas has no meaning whatsoever. This young boy demonstrated what very few adults do—a complete understanding of the meaning of the holiday. Rather than punish we should emulate.

For a supposed Constitutional scholar, lawyer, and professor, our President doesn’t appear to know the document at all. To wit:

U.S. Constitution, Article 1. Section 9. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Ergo without the express consent of the Congress, Obama’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize is strictly unconstitutional, as it is awarded by a committee of five persons elected by the Norwegian Parliament (see <http://nobelprize.org/nobelfoundation/org_structure.html>).

Of course devoted Obama supporters will say this doesn’t matter. It should be noted they also have no respect for our Constitution.