I don’t want to change our culture.

I like the fact that in our nation all citizens have the right to participate in the selection of their leaders unless they, themselves, have lost that right by some action of their own, such as violating the law and being in prison. There was a time when many did not have this power through the vote. At one time, only property owners could vote. At another time, Blacks and American Indians could not vote.  Now all citizens have the right.  I don’t want to change our current system of voting, even though I know it is abused by some political machines, its basis is sound.

I like the fact that the laws are to apply to all people. If I get caught speeding, I get a ticket. If my friend, Mr. Murphy, who owns the grocery store is caught speeding, he gets a ticket. Even professional football players get tickets! I know there are some whose wealth and privilege permit them to avoid tickets, the Kennedys come to mind, but such abuse does not make the system wrong, its basis is sound.

I like the fact that all people are given the same rights before the law, to equal treatment in the courts. All can request a trial by a jury of their peers and the poor receive free legal advice.  While any person who follows the news knows that being wealthy, or having wealth and fame (certain football players come to mind) often results in special treatment, this special treatment is against the law of the land. The basic law is sound.

I like the fact that all children receive a free education and that it is possible for a child of the poorest background to attend and receive the highest education that his or her talent, interest and willingness to work permits. It is obvious that some schools are better than others at preparing children for life in our society, but that doesn’t change the basic premise, which is sound.

I like the fact that all citizens have the right to choose what vocation they wish to enter, the only true restrictions being their talent and energy, there being no way, anywhere, of ensuring opportunity. There have been nations in the past, and probably still are, in which the vocation and status of the father determines the vocation and status of his children. Sorry, but I like our current system, which is sound.

I like the fact that our Constitution specifically forbids enacting ex post facto laws and laws designed to punish specific individuals. This is under current attack in Congress as they seek to punish officials of AIG for accepting the bonuses that Congress itself authorized. I hope this fails. I don’t want my local County Council or State Government to decide that I should have paid more taxes than the legal ones I have already paid and confiscate my home in reprisal. Sorry, I like our current, constitutional, laws, which are sound. 

I like the fact that I can attend, or not attend, any church without punishment, the only coercion being that employed by family members and friends.  I am a Christian and approve of Christianity, which has given us the current culture and laws under which we live, but this same culture permits people to worship in other systems if they so desire. I may not approve of those, or of segments of those such as the subordination of women to men under Muslim law, but if there are men who need religious justification for this and women who are willing to accept it, why not. It is simply that I have no wish to change the culture which gives me, and them, the power to worship as we please.

Why would I wish to change our culture? What culture on earth is better? The implementation of laws written in accord with our culture have their flaws, as illustrated by the sorry arrogance of some members of Congress, but to the extent they reflect our culture, they are good. Why change them? Why change our culture?

Our Amazing Academics

By

William D. Dannenmaier

As a retired professor, of over twenty years at the university level, I find two things amazing about our current academics: both administrators and teachers. First, is their interpretation of academic freedom. Second is their blind trust in students.

As a professor, I had the silly notion that when I taught a class in educational psychology or statistics, I was supposed to teach educational psychology or statistics. It is true that before class or after class, often in the coffee shop, I would joke, or talk politics, or car repair or, with older students (graduates of Vietnam) reminisce about combat situations, but not in class. From the time class started until the bell rang ending the class, I taught the subject assigned. I did believe in academic freedom, but I thought this meant I could teach in the way I wished, provided I was on subject. Thus, in statistics, I frequently put students at the board to solve problems and then reviewed their solutions for the class, just as I had in mathematics classes before starting college instruction. In educational psychology, I would use real life examples to illustrate principles. This latter confused some students, but they learned to apply academic ideas to life situations. Now, stories I hear from students tell of professors who spend class time discussing subjects completely irrelevant to the subject they are paid to teach.

A student I know signed to take English Composition II during summer school at AustinPeayStateUniversity. The first day the person attended class, the professor spent the entire class time expounding on why students should not vote for John McCain and why he should not be president. 

Let us assume that the student was not alone, that others signed up to study English. Summer classes at Austin Peay last five weeks and meet for an hour and a half each day for a total of 25 meetings.

Each student paid approximately $600 dollars for the class, plus other fees. Assuming that there were 25 students enrolled, a reasonable assumption, the teacher, or school, was receiving $600 dollars a day, for instructing students in English. Preaching a political stance instead of English took that one class away from the students. In effect, that professor stole from them the $600 dollars of instruction that they had paid for. 

If the school administrators know the professor is doing this, they are taking money under false pretences which should be fraud, if it isn’t.

I assume that teacher would defend her actions on a basis of academic freedom, but does academic freedom mean that the teacher is entitled to talk about any subject, whether an expert in that subject or not, without regard to the subject that he or she is being paid to teach? 

This is not academic freedom, it is academic theft!

The second amazing element in today’s colleges is the blind faith in students. Many schools now use the Internet to assign problems and conduct tests. Each student has an identity number to permit them access to the computer program, be it an assignment or a test. Has it ever occurred to anyone in higher education that it would be very easy for a student, interested only in a degree not learning, to log on to the computer and then have a competent friend, or paid helper, do the assignment or take the test for them? 

Approximately forty years ago, Dr. Don Black at the University of Alberta decided to test the honesty of a class of some sixty graduate students, all working teachers. Following a test, he graded them without making marks on the papers and recorded those grades. He told me that when he returned the tests he apologized to them, saying he had not had time to grade them. He then had them grade the papers themselves and report the grades to him. Approximately 80% of the class cheated in their scoring and grading. It may amaze the reader to know that all of the students’ grading “mistakes” were in their favor. 

I must confess that this tendency of students to help themselves is not new. If I go back to my days in college, now some sixty years past, that tendency of students to help themselves existed then. In fact, I would not have passed Zoology, had it not been for some illicit assistance on the final examination from my friend Joe Gore, later Dean of Education at a major university. 

The Internet may make life easier for professors, but it is not as if they were overworked. Few lecture more than 12 hours a week and for many it is 9 hours a week, often in classes they have taught frequently and for which they need little or no preparation. Using the Internet for assignments and examinations only makes cheating easier and more attractive.