How not to get folks to believe your kooky conspiracy theory
For Christensen, Jones, and their ilk, it seems, you’re either with them or against them. Either you believe without question that there’s a grand conspiracy of global domination as manifested by the massive, U.S.- and Israel-orchestrated hoax called 9/11 — or you’re part of it.
My exchange with a student of Jane Christensen’s
Following is my e-mail conversation with someone who identified himself as one of Jane Christensen’s students at N.C. Wesleyan College (some background for those who need it). I provide it because I think the student’s progression in the exchange rewarded my optimism for him.
What UNC needs in a president
The University of North Carolina system is hunting for a new president. Molly C. Broad, the current president, has announced her resignation and a committee of 13 distinguished individuals has been given the task of selecting her successor.
Perhaps it’s just public relations, but the committee has scheduled “town hall” meetings around the state this month to hear from people who have ideas on this matter. I have some definite ideas about the characteristics of the person the search committee should choose.
First, the individual must have an overriding commitment to academic integrity. Of course, every candidate is going to pay lip service to academics. The tough job will be to get through the rhetorical smokescreen to find out if it’s just talk.
Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus
Independent Institute and Cambridge University Press, 2005, 279 pp., $28.99 American colleges and universities are hothouses of hypocrisy and the principal exhibit is the fact that while their spokesmen talk…
Town Hall meeting hears thoughts on search for UNC president
CHAPEL HILL – A town hall meeting Thursday afternoon at UNC-Chapel Hill provided a short glimpse into the mindset of a search committee commissioned to find a new president for the UNC system. The current president, Molly C. Broad, announced her retirement last month, effective at the end of the 2005-06 academic year.
During the one hour meeting, several people spoke about their desires for a new president – a strong leader who knows North Carolina was the most prominent of the wishes – and what they would like to see the committee do. At the end of the meeting, the only thing guaranteed was that the committee would be very deliberate in the coming weeks and months in selecting Molly Broad’s successor.
Crying wolf on higher education
In a May 1 column in The Oklahoman, University of Oklahoma president David Boren sent up a loud cry of “Wolf!” over the prospect that Oklahoma may do what quite a few other states are doing – shifting some of the burden of paying for the state university system from the taxpayers to students and other parties who are willing to donate money. Mr. Boren finds this “alarming” because it “threatens to close the door of opportunity.”
Budget includes several wasteful programs
RALEIGH – Most the discussion regarding the state Senate’s budget proposal for higher education has focused on plans to allow UNC-Chapel Hill and N.C. State University more autonomy to set tuition. Other proposals are worthy of controversy, too, however, because they are simply a waste of taxpayer money.
In all, the Senate budget proposed a budget of $2.07 billion in 2006 and $2.1 billion in 2007 for the UNC system. Of that N.C. State would receive $298 million for academic affairs in 2006, while UNC-Chapel Hill would receive $212 million. Only the Department of Public Instruction ($6.69 billion) and the Department of Health and Human Services ($3.96 billion) have a larger proposed appropriation than the UNC system.
One last tango before the cruel summer
Seriously, professor, did you really say that the Holocaust was “the greatest hoax of all?”
The following is my e-mail exchange with NC Wesleyan Prof. Jane Christensen, teacher of Political Science 495: “911 The Road to Tyranny.”
Paul Krugman’s Fallacious Academic Question
Paul Krugman is a columnist who never passes up an opportunity to throw jabs at those Americans whom he dislikes, a set that comprises anyone who doesn’t accept his big-government philosophy. All the jabbing would be fine if Krugman limited himself to serious arguments, but serious arguments might be too boring for his New York Times editors, so he often resorts to cheap shots and fallacious reasoning. His April 5, 2005 column “An Academic Question” is a case in point. (Site requires registration.)