Of Football Teams, Fraternities, and Other Important Intellectual Concerns

 

                                   by Walter Brasch

 

            The $50 million Burton Family Football Complex at the University of Connecticut may be nameless soon. Robert G. Burton, who had donated about $3 million to help fund the stadium, wants his money back and his family's name erased from UConn football. He also informed UConn he will cancel his $50,000 a season suite in the stadium.

            What upset Burton, who had donated about $7 million to UConn, mostly for its football program, was that the selection committee for a new football coach didn't take his suggestion. Not long after Burton's tirade, the chairman of the Board of Trustees reached out to "mend fences" to keep money where it belongs—in the football program.

            While athletics drives many universities, a few consider sports as supplemental to the academic mission. I believe this is how a conversation went at one college located somewhere in America, where the accreditors were questioning the president.

            "How did your football team do this year?" asked the chairman of the accrediting team.

            "We were 3-and-6, and very proud of our team," said a beaming president.

            "This is serious. What steps have you taken to replace your coach?"

            "We hadn't thought about it," said the president, mystified by the inquiry. "Coach Samuels is one of the nation's most respected organic chemists, teaches a full load of courses, then works out the team an hour or two in the evenings."

            "An hour or two?" said the accreditor, mockingly. "No wonder your school has such a dismal record! Most colleges have twice-a-day drills for two or three hours at a time. The students don't even go to class in the Fall. Your coaching staff must be lazy."

            "We have only two assistant coaches. One teaches sociology, the other is a speech pathologist."

            "Most colleges have a dozen coaches," said the accreditor. "How can you not have assistant coaches for ends, backs, and nose guards?"

            "We have a good staff in our anatomy and physiology labs," said the president, adding that with additional assistant directors in Music and Theatre, the college  produces some professional-class musical comedies.

            "Who cares? How many of your athletes went on to professional NFL careers?"  The president diverted the question, and excitedly told the accreditor about alumni who went into the creative arts, others who are leaders in social work and environmental science, and of graduates who are among the nation's leaders in almost every field of scientific research.

            "Business!" roared the Chairman. "How many of your graduates are in high paying business jobs!"

            The president thought hard, but could think of only three of his recent graduates who went into corporate business, and then only because they couldn't get any other job. "Of course," said the president, "a few dozen of our graduates enter law and med school every year."

            The accreditor's face finally lit up. "Oh, so you do have wealthy alumni! Why didn't you say so!"

            The president shook his head. "Most of our alumni lawyers are into consumer law, and our med school graduates usually become family physicians or work with the poor."

            "Not a good sign. Not a good sign at all." Also not a good sign was the social atmosphere on campus. "I didn't see any fraternity or sorority houses on campus. In fact, hardly anyone even knows where the nightly parties are."

            "I guess that isn't helping our cause for reaccreditation, is it?" asked the president. He didn't have to ask since the accreditor was now writing furiously.

            "Your building fund? Any new recreation or student union buildings?"

            "We're planning a new building to house our community service programs." The accreditor hardly looked up he was so disgusted. "We had two Rhodes Scholars and one Danforth fellowship last year! One of our profs just won a Pulitzer. Ninety percent of our faculty hold the doctorate!"

            "Any of them all-Americans?"

            "Our Intercollegiate Debate Team was national champion last year! The Student Social Welfare Club led the fight against conversion of apartments into condos!"

            "Redeem yourself with committees," shouted the accreditor. "Do you have more committees than scholarships?"

            "We believe most committees are wastes of time that encourage their members to act in irrational and arrogant manners."

            The accreditor's aide calmed him down long enough so he could ask a final question. "How much of your budget is spent on sending your administrators and faculty to phony academic conferences to pat each other's behinds?"

            "None," wept the president, "most of our budget keeps students and faculty current in their fields."

            The accreditor slammed his notebook shut and walked away. The president called after him, "When will we know whether we have been reaccredited?"

            The accreditor stopped a moment, turned around, and shouted back, "When you become a real educational institution."

 

            [You may contact Walter Brasch, recently paroled from a long term confinement as a university professor, at walterbrasch@gmail.com]

 

 

 

Of Football Teams, Fraternities, and Other Important Intellectual Concerns

 

                                   by Walter Brasch

 

            The $50 million Burton Family Football Complex at the University of Connecticut may be nameless soon. Robert G. Burton, who had donated about $3 million to help fund the stadium, wants his money back and his family's name erased from UConn football. He also informed UConn he will cancel his $50,000 a season suite in the stadium.

            What upset Burton, who had donated about $7 million to UConn, mostly for its football program, was that the selection committee for a new football coach didn't take his suggestion. Not long after Burton's tirade, the chairman of the Board of Trustees reached out to "mend fences" to keep money where it belongs—in the football program.

            While athletics drives many universities, a few consider sports as supplemental to the academic mission. I believe this is how a conversation went at one college located somewhere in America, where the accreditors were questioning the president.

            "How did your football team do this year?" asked the chairman of the accrediting team.

            "We were 3-and-6, and very proud of our team," said a beaming president.

            "This is serious. What steps have you taken to replace your coach?"

            "We hadn't thought about it," said the president, mystified by the inquiry. "Coach Samuels is one of the nation's most respected organic chemists, teaches a full load of courses, then works out the team an hour or two in the evenings."

            "An hour or two?" said the accreditor, mockingly. "No wonder your school has such a dismal record! Most colleges have twice-a-day drills for two or three hours at a time. The students don't even go to class in the Fall. Your coaching staff must be lazy."

            "We have only two assistant coaches. One teaches sociology, the other is a speech pathologist."

            "Most colleges have a dozen coaches," said the accreditor. "How can you not have assistant coaches for ends, backs, and nose guards?"

            "We have a good staff in our anatomy and physiology labs," said the president, adding that with additional assistant directors in Music and Theatre, the college  produces some professional-class musical comedies.

            "Who cares? How many of your athletes went on to professional NFL careers?"  The president diverted the question, and excitedly told the accreditor about alumni who went into the creative arts, others who are leaders in social work and environmental science, and of graduates who are among the nation's leaders in almost every field of scientific research.

            "Business!" roared the Chairman. "How many of your graduates are in high paying business jobs!"

            The president thought hard, but could think of only three of his recent graduates who went into corporate business, and then only because they couldn't get any other job. "Of course," said the president, "a few dozen of our graduates enter law and med school every year."

            The accreditor's face finally lit up. "Oh, so you do have wealthy alumni! Why didn't you say so!"

            The president shook his head. "Most of our alumni lawyers are into consumer law, and our med school graduates usually become family physicians or work with the poor."

            "Not a good sign. Not a good sign at all." Also not a good sign was the social atmosphere on campus. "I didn't see any fraternity or sorority houses on campus. In fact, hardly anyone even knows where the nightly parties are."

            "I guess that isn't helping our cause for reaccreditation, is it?" asked the president. He didn't have to ask since the accreditor was now writing furiously.

            "Your building fund? Any new recreation or student union buildings?"

            "We're planning a new building to house our community service programs." The accreditor hardly looked up he was so disgusted. "We had two Rhodes Scholars and one Danforth fellowship last year! One of our profs just won a Pulitzer. Ninety percent of our faculty hold the doctorate!"

            "Any of them all-Americans?"

            "Our Intercollegiate Debate Team was national champion last year! The Student Social Welfare Club led the fight against conversion of apartments into condos!"

            "Redeem yourself with committees," shouted the accreditor. "Do you have more committees than scholarships?"

            "We believe most committees are wastes of time that encourage their members to act in irrational and arrogant manners."

            The accreditor's aide calmed him down long enough so he could ask a final question. "How much of your budget is spent on sending your administrators and faculty to phony academic conferences to pat each other's behinds?"

            "None," wept the president, "most of our budget keeps students and faculty current in their fields."

            The accreditor slammed his notebook shut and walked away. The president called after him, "When will we know whether we have been reaccredited?"

            The accreditor stopped a moment, turned around, and shouted back, "When you become a real educational institution."

 

            [You may contact Walter Brasch, recently paroled from a long term confinement as a university professor, at walterbrasch@gmail.com]

 

 

 

Comments on Breakthrough’s I AM THIS LAND give great insight and hope for the future

From the Restore Fairness blog-

Thank you for all your amazing submissions to the I AM THIS LAND contest. The contest is now officially closed for entries but stay tuned as winners will be announced on Feb 1!

While the videos themselves were overwhelming and impressive, we were also amazed at all the viewers who posted engaging and insightful comments. From looking at the production value of entries to discussions on diversity and the editorial content of the submissions, I AM THIS LAND’s comments section is informative, inspiring and encouraging. They are as important as the videos submitted! As one mentioned:

“If we believe the aphorism that “two heads are better than one,” then a multitude of traditions, values, and ideas can only be a tremendous resource as we face the challenges and opportunities of this century.”

Viewers suggested looking beyond the physical appearance of a person, beyond their clothes, the color of their skin and their accents. Many discussed how perceptions are formed, the way we quickly form an idea based on preconceived notions.

“If each one of us were to trade places with another race, culture for a period of time, this world would be more understanding to each other.”

Many left personal anecdotes and stories, and had a platform to express their own emotions. The attempt by some of the filmmakers to break away from the stereotypical portrayal of certain communities and issues of sexuality was applauded by others.

"At first I had tears in my eyes – “Gay, straight, crooked” – but then it was hard not to laugh “Eyes like Bobby” etc. I’m stunned – such a simple, loving, hysterical coming out should be had by any and all who want one. This message will help to make it so. I’m sure of it. Bravo!"

We are proud to have hosted I AM THIS LAND hope these conversations can continue. Check out all entries and feel free to continue write to us with comments and feedback.

Learn. Share. Act. Go to restorefairness.org

 

 

 

One Factor Behind America’s Poor K-12 Education System

During my high school years, I had the acquaintance of a fellow student – a person who still holds a strong presence in my memory. This person was one of the most ambitious, most determined individuals in the school; today she goes to one of America’s top universities. She may very well be the next president of the United States – and this is a serious statement.

One day this student asked me an interesting question: “What do you see me doing when I’m fifty years old?”

I teased, “I see you as a high school English teacher.”

She laughed, “I would kill myself if that happened.”

This simple sequence provides a powerful illustration on why America’s K-12 education system is so bad. The best and the brightest view teaching K-12 as a demeaning profession. Go to a class in Harvard, for instance, and ask what the students there want to do after they graduate. There will be lots of future investment bankers, lawyers, and politicians. There will probably very few K-12 teachers, if any at all.

In the countries with the world’s best education systems, places like Finland and Singapore, the conversation above makes no sense. Ambitious, talented people – like the classmate mentioned above – actually want to be teachers in Finland and Singapore. In America this isn’t the case.

This is a big reason why America’s public education system is so weak. A strong education system has good teachers. Logically, a country in which talented people want to be teachers will have good teachers. A country in which talented people belittle the K-12 teaching profession – say, a country like the United States – will probably not have good teachers.

The college system provides another example of this. In America being a professor is quite a desireable job; a lot of very intelligent people dream of teaching college students. Not coincidentially, America’s university system is the best in the world.

The great conundrum, then, is making the K-12 teaching profession desireable to people like the classmate mentioned above. In other words, one needs to change the culture. That is a very hard thing to do. Short of boosting teacher salaries to lawyer-like levels – something which will cost at least several hundred billion dollars, and which nobody is thinking about even in their wildest dreams – there is no easy solution in sight.

There is, of course, more to the problem of American public education than this. Education involves not just teachers, but students as well (indeed, students are actually more important than teachers). Even the best teachers cannot make gold out of students who just do not care for school. And, if one is honest, there probably is also something to the claim that American students are generally less motivated than students in, say, South Korea.

--Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

 

 

How is 2011 faring so far? Ethnic studies and the 14th amendment

From the Restore Fairness blog-

At this moment it is very hard to focus on anything but the tragic incident that marked the beginning of this year when a man in Tucson, Arizona opened fire on a public meeting killing 6 people and gravely injuring 14 others last Saturday. While this tragedy cannot be undone, there are a number of issues around which we can hope for some positive developments in 2011.

In Arizona, the first week of 2011 saw all classes in the Tucson Unified School District’s Mexican-American ethnic studies program being declared illegal by the State of Arizona, in accordance with a state law came into effect on January 1st. Tom Horne, Arizona’s newly elected Attorney General, declared the program illegal on account of it allegedly teaching Latino students that are being mistreated, and encouraging the students to become activists for their race. In the capacity of State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Horne had written the law challenging the ethnic studies program last year. The bill, HB 2291, was passed by the State Legislature in April and signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer in May of 2010. Defending his latest action deeming that the Tucson district’s Mexican-American program was not in compliance with state standards, (while allowing similar programs for black, Asian and Native America students to continue) Horne said that “They teach kids that they are oppressed, that the United States is dominated by a white, racist, imperialist power structure that wants to oppress them.” Under the law, Tucson would stand to lose 10 percent of its state education funds if the classes are not discontinued, amounts to nearly $15 million.

According to Augustine F. Romero, director of student equity in Tucson schools, the debate over the ethnic studies program demonstrates the strong anti-Latino sentiment in the state, and highlights the pressing need for such programs to continue to exist, giving the students a chance to be proud of their heritage. Mr. Romero posed the question in an interview with the New York Times-

Who are the true Americans here — those embracing our inalienable rights or those trying to diminish them?

In an even deeper affront to inalienable American values, on January 5th, a coalition of legislators from over 14 states announced a plan to join together in a state compact and deny citizenship rights to the children of undocumented immigrants. The compact, clearly motivated by anti-immigrant feeling, is designed to challenge the 14th amendment to the U.S. constitution which states that those born in the United States will be considered U.S. citizens, irrespective of race, class or creed. This was closely matched by Rep. Steve King’s introduction of legislation H.R. 140 before the new session of Congress, aimed to take away the citizenship of children born in the U.S. to parents who were undocumented.

The state compact is being led by Senator Russell Pearce of Arizona, the state Senator best known for introducing the controversial and harsh anti-immigrant law, SB1070 in 2010. The legislators that introduced the plan unveiled a plan that seeks to take birthright citizenship, which is a Federal issue, into state hands by establishing state citizenship laws that deny citizenship rights to those born to parents who are undocumented, and then developing a compact between the various states by which the laws are upheld in all those states. The group claims that their model state legislation aims to halt the “misapplication of the 14th amendment,” which they say is sapping taxpayers funds and attracting further immigration to the U.S. Ultimately, the goal of the coordinated state-level strategy is to force the Supreme Court to take up the issue.

The plan is a joint effort of anti-immigration legislators like Russell Pearce and Kansas Secretary of State-elect Kris Kobach, and State Legislators for Legal Immigration, an anti-immigration group of lawmakers which had representatives from Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah. Senator Pearce told the Washington Times-

I’m not stopping until the problem is solved, and clearly the problem is not solved. The cost is destroying this country, and it can no longer be ignored…The 14th Amendment was never intended to be applied to illegal aliens. They [the sponsors] specifically said it didn’t apply to foreigners or aliens. That amendment belongs to the African-Americans of this country. It’s their amendment.

Critics are suggesting that in fact, the proposal is completely unconstitutional and deliberately misunderstands the 14th amendment. By suggesting a two-tiered system of citizenship by which those who are born to parents who are undocumented receive different birth certificates than those who are born in the U.S. to parents who are legal residents, the compact goes against the fundamental values of the constitution. Elizabeth Wydra, writing for Politico, sums it up clearly-

The 14th Amendment, which was drafted and ratified against a backdrop of prejudice against newly freed slaves and various immigrant communities, was added to the Constitution to place the question of who should be a citizen beyond the politics and prejudices of the day. The big idea behind the 14th Amendment is that all people are born equal, and, if born in the United States, are born equal citizens — regardless of color, creed or social status. It is no exaggeration to say that the 14th Amendment is the constitutional embodiment of the Declaration of Independence and lays the foundation for the American Dream. Because of the 14th Amendment, all American citizens are equal and equally American. Whether one’s parents were rich or poor, saint or sinner, an American child will be judged by his or her own deeds.

As long as the Federal government avoids enacting a comprehensive reform of the existing immigration system and dealing with an issue that is in their jurisdiction, restrictionists will continue to introduce laws that threaten the fabric of the United States. At the start of this year, as we hope that Rep. Giffords recovers her health, we must recall the values of equality, dignity and respect that are intrinsic to the strength of this country and remember that when we deny human rights to some, we jeopardize the rights of all.

Photo courtesy of colorlines.com

Learn. Share. Act. Go to restorefairness.org

 

 

 

Diaries

Advertise Blogads