In 1976, I was a student at Duke Law School. One of the campus speakers that year was Milton Friedman, who had recently received the Nobel Prize in economics. Prior to his talk, leftist student groups posted signs around the campus protesting Friedman’s appearance on the grounds that since he had once given some economic advice to Pinochet’s government in Chile, he was therefore complicit in that regime’s repression.
What is so wrong with the SAT that it needs an overhaul? The SAT is, quite frankly, too objective — and one of the things it measures objectively is the vast difference in educational preparation between black and white students.
UNC-Chapel Hill needs a great deal more courses in “Sexuality Studies,” special theme housing for gay students, domestic-partner benefits for gay faculty and a revision of dependent benefits to include unadopted children in a domestic-partner arrangement, and the creation of a new campus office, complete with directors, staff, and an advisory committee, to consolidate academic and support resources for gay students, faculty, and staff. Those are just a few of the recommendations contained within a recently released report to the provost on “growing acceptance amid lingering and pernicious discrimination” at UNC-Chapel Hill.
The Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C., released in June a very damning evaluation of the Foreign Student Program. Conducted by George Borjas, Pforzheimer Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, the evaluation finds the program rife with corruption and failing abysmally at achieving its advertised benefits.
The recent ruling (now on hold) by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to declare the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional and therefore not fit for public schools is just one of the bewildering changes taking place in our public schools. At this moment, maybe it’s time to take stock of what is — and what isn’t — allowed nowadays.
When a new Women’s Resource Center was established at my university (UNC-Wilmington), I was concerned that it would serve as more of a resource for feminist professors than for female students. I also suspected that the center would try to advance a “pro-choice” agenda with little tolerance for the views of pro-life advocates.
A freshman newly arrived on campus and inundated with the many college-orientation sessions that mark his first experience in a new situation might wonder, why all the fuss?
UNC-Chapel Hill needs a great deal more courses in “Sexuality Studies,” special theme housing for gay students, domestic-partner benefits for gay faculty and a revision of dependent benefits to include unadopted children in a domestic-partner arrangement, and the creation of a new campus office, complete with directors, staff, and an advisory committee, to consolidate academic and support resources for gay students, faculty, and staff.
The stage is set for the Supreme Court to tackle that thorniest of issues, the legality of racial preferences in college admissions. All that remains is for the Court to decide to review the case.
Just from reading the preamble to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, one would not suspect it was the preamble to 30 years’ of controversy, fights over interpretation, compliance tests, and the noxious slew of bureaucratic miasma that followed: “No person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal aid.”
