[Guest post by DRJ]

Back in my college days, the biggest problems we had were hazing, hippies, protests, and pot. Greek life was especially tame, although it certainly had its share of hazing and alcohol. At today’s colleges, however, a few students have chosen more lucrative enterprises:

“The undercover officers started to appear at San Diego State fraternity parties about six months ago. They dressed like students, complained about their parents and professors, and talked freely and knowingly of things of great interest on campus: music, sex and drugs.

Soon they were accepted, with no questions asked. They were spotted at student hangouts on and off campus. They swapped cellphone numbers with other partygoers. They text-messaged their newfound friends.

The real students appeared to accept the pretend ones — most but not all of whom were men. On a campus of 34,000 students, blending into the crowd was not difficult. Neither was collecting evidence of drug dealing and drug use.

On Tuesday, authorities announced that 96 young men — including 75 students — had been arrested on a variety of drug charges as a result of Operation Sudden Fall, which infiltrated seven fraternities on Fraternity Row and Fraternity Circle. Officials said the name of the operation referred to the prospect of sudden death from drug usage.

The investigation involved marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine and Ecstasy.”

One student asked officers if his arrest would hurt his chances to become a law enforcement officer some day.

The operation was planned following the drug overdose deaths of two students. Drug legalization groups objected to the use of DEA and police officers to target college students instead of large-scale drug traffickers, but the University’s President expressed no regret for letting undercover agents on campus.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

InsideHigherEd discusses a new way to tax the rich that has caused a rift among Massachusetts’ Democrats:

“With college endowments a favorite target for politicians in Washington, and many states struggling to find enough tax revenue to make ends meet, it’s almost a surprise that it took state legislators this long to start casting their eyes on colleges’ funds. But it’s perhaps not a shock that if the issue were to emerge anywhere, it would be in Massachusetts, home to the university (Harvard) whose nearly $34.6 billion endowment has become the poster child for higher education wealth.”

The sponsor of the proposal, Democratic Rep. Paul Kujawski, is concerned that private colleges accumulate wealth and contribute little to the local economy because of their tax-exempt status. Defenders point out that Massachusetts does not have to spend as much money on higher education as other states because of the presence of so many private colleges. They also object to treating entities differently based on their wealth.

[Note to Self: Remember this when liberals argue that the rich should pay more taxes.]

The measure failed but it would have affected 9 Massachusetts colleges: Harvard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Williams, Boston, Amherst and Wellesley Colleges, Tufts University, Smith College and Boston University. During the debate, Democratic lawmakers asked some revealing questions:

“Why do we want to tax the poor all the time, but we let off the hook the richest of the rich?” said State Rep. Angelo Scaccia, a Democrat, said during the course of Monday’s debate, according to the Metrowest Daily News. “We’re not going to break them,” he added of colleges’ endowment funds. “We just want a little.”

The next time Democrats talk about taxing the rich, they should start with these 9 colleges in Massachusetts.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Yale Art major Aliza Shvarts will do anything for her art:

“Art major Aliza Shvarts ‘08 wants to make a statement.

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself “as often as possible” while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. But her project has already provoked more than just debate, inciting, for instance, outcry at a forum for fellow senior art majors held last week. And when told about Shvarts’ project, students on both ends of the abortion debate have expressed shock . saying the project does everything from violate moral code to trivialize abortion.

But Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for “shock value.”

“I hope it inspires some sort of discourse,” Shvarts said. “Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it’s not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone.”

The “fabricators,” or donors, of the sperm were not paid for their services, but Shvarts required them to periodically take tests for sexually transmitted diseases. She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages.

Shvarts declined to specify the number of sperm donors she used, as well as the number of times she inseminated herself.”

Reaction to her project has been mixed.

UPDATE - The Yale Office of Public Affairs has posted this statement at its website:

“Statement by Helaine S. Klasky — Yale University, Spokesperson
New Haven, Conn. — April 17, 2008

Ms. Shvarts is engaged in performance art. Her art project includes visual representations, a press release and other narrative materials. She stated to three senior Yale University officials today, including two deans, that she did not impregnate herself and that she did not induce any miscarriages. The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body.

She is an artist and has the right to express herself through performance art.

Had these acts been real, they would have violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns.”

I may be wrong, but I picture Aliza as the poster child for precocious, creative, free-spirited children of parents who never said “No.”

H/T Anonymous Yale Student.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

From Fox News:

“A student and his family have filed a federal lawsuit demanding that a popular European history teacher at California’s Capistrano Valley High School be fired for what they say were anti-Christian remarks he made in the classroom.

Chad Farnan, a 16-year-old sophomore, says the teacher, James Corbett, told his students that “Jesus glasses” obscure the truth and suggested that Christians are more likely than other people to commit rape and murder.

Farnan recorded his teacher telling students in class: “What country has the highest murder rate? The South! What part of the country has the highest rape rate? The South! What part of the country has the highest rate of church attendance? The South!” Farnan said he took the tape recorder to class to supplement his class notes.

“It was very hard for me because it’s like basically telling me all this stuff that I’ve believed my whole entire life — it’s just basically trying to throw it out the window,” Farnan told FOX News.

Farnan’s family has filed a federal lawsuit against the Capistrano Unified School District, claiming Corbett’s remarks violated the First Amendment, which prohibits laws “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” They are demanding that Corbett be fired.”

It sounds a little anti-Southern, too, but the teacher asserts he was only challenging his students to think:

“Corbett’s attorney, Dan Spradlin, says his client has been teaching at Capistrano Valley High for 15 years and is in no way anti-Christian. According to Spradlin, Corbett was not trying to offend anyone but to inspire his students to think.

“The purpose is not to indoctrinate, but simply to provide a basic starting point to provoke discussion,” Spradlin said.”

I wonder if this teacher also starts discussions by commenting on the connection between Islam and terrorists?

UPDATE 4/2/2008: Too bad these students couldn’t have a teacher like Kenton Stufflebeam’s Mr. Chapman, who would never give students bad information.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Recent Supreme Court opinions have made it clear that public schools shouldn’t consider race and yet, in an ironic twist, many school districts still struggle under decades-old federal desegregation orders that require just that:

“Officials in Shelby County, Tenn., complain they’ll have to spend millions to satisfy a federal judge’s “arbitrary” desegregation order. It’ll mean busing minority students up to an hour away and replacing hundreds of white teachers with black ones, they say.

In Huntsville, Ala., under a similar court order, students can transfer from a school where they’re in the racial majority, but not the other way around.

And in the Tucson, Ariz., Unified School District, students could move from one school to another only if the change improved “the ethnic balance of the receiving school and (did) not further imbalance the ethnic makeup of the home school.”

But wait: Hasn’t the U.S. Supreme Court consistently moved away from using race as a factor in deciding where kids should go to school? Didn’t the high court recently put an exclamation point on that trend, ruling that two districts’ heavy reliance on race in student assignment policies violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection?

Yes, and yes. But there are still hundreds of districts across the country, from the Northeast to the Southwest, that operate under federal court desegregation orders—some more than four decades old.”

Not only does Ruth Bader Ginsburg realize there are inconsistencies in the Supreme Court’s recent opinions on race and its prior desegregation rulings, but (perhaps for the first and only time) I agree with her conclusion:

“The question of these districts came up this past year as the Supreme Court heard arguments involving voluntary diversity plans in Seattle and Louisville, Ky. In June, the court ruled that student assignment policies in those two districts relied too heavily on individual students’ races and, so, were unconstitutional. But in those two districts there were no orders to remedy past state-sponsored segregation.

On the other hand, districts operating under integration orders may set policies that explicitly consider race. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledged the “anomaly” of demanding that such districts work diligently toward racial integration, but once it’s achieved mandating that race be ignored.

“What’s constitutionally required one day gets constitutionally prohibited the next day,” she said. “That’s very odd.”

My town’s schools were put under a desegregation plan over 40 years ago and it was just released from that order in recent years. We successfully desegregated in one generation and that’s a good thing, but courts shouldn’t be in the business of running school districts for decades.

At this point, if desegregation hasn’t worked in some communities then it’s time to try something else.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

The Superintendent of Galveston (Texas) ISD released a statement late Friday recommending that the district cease legal action against the blogging Mom:

“It appeared late Friday that the district was backing down from its threat to sue a parent for defamation. In a statement issued late Friday afternoon, Superintendent Lynne Cleveland recommended that the district drop all legal action against a Web site it has accused of defamation.

Cleveland said she’s recommending backing off the legal action because she did not want to pull the focus away from the education of children any longer.

“I think I’ve made it very, very clear the reason I’m here is for the students,” she said. “The students have already suffered enough because of other issues out there that don’t pertain to their education, and I’m not going to let that happen to them anymore.”
***
Cleveland said Buzbee’s letter did not bring about her decision to drop legal action. She said she drafted her statement on Wednesday but waited two days to release it.”

Apparently the Superintendent’s statement was issued independent of the School board:

“Board President David O’Neal said he was not aware of Cleveland’s recommendation late Friday. He said the board would make the final decision.”

An earlier post on this topic is here.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

The Instapundit recently linked to this Galveston County (Texas) Daily News article that reported Galveston ISD’s effort to silence a mother whose blog has been critical of the school district and its leaders:

“The public school district has officially demanded that parent Sandra Tetley remove what it says is libelous material from her Web site or face a lawsuit for defamation.

Tetley received a letter Monday from the district’s law firm demanding she remove what it termed libelous statements and other “legally offensive” statements posted by her or anonymous users, and refrain from allowing such postings in the future. If she refuses, the district plans to sue her, the demand letter states.”

The school district claimed Tetley’s blog contained at least 16 libelous postings, half of which were posted by anonymous users:

“Feldman cited 16 examples of what he says are libelous postings. Half were posted by Tetley; the other half were posted by anonymous users. The postings accuse Superintendent Lynne Cleveland, trustees and administrators of lying, manipulation, falsifying budget numbers, using their positions for “personal gain,” violating the Open Meetings Act and spying on employees, among other things.

Tetley said the postings were opinions only.”

Now Tetley has retained a high-profile area attorney and is fighting back:

“Attorney Tony Buzbee warned the Galveston school board and its attorneys that they would face a tenacious and public fight if they move forward with threats of a “frivolous” defamation lawsuit.

David Feldman of the district’s law firm, Feldman and Rogers, said: “We’re not going to try this matter in the newspaper.” He declined further comment.

Buzbee — who has won millions in judgments for his clients and owns the 100-foot $4.5 million El Grande, one of the largest yachts in Galveston Bay — is representing Sandra Tetley, an angry parent whose Web site, gisdwatch.org, is the target of the legal action.”

Since retaining Buzbee, Tetley says she will not remove any postings. It sounds like Buzbee believes the best defense is a good offense:

“In his letter to Feldman, Buzbee said Tetley, the president of Oppe’s Parent Teacher Organization, is “desperately fighting to shed light on the myriad of problems at GISD” in hopes that exposing them will lead to resolution.

She has a vested interest in the workings of the district since her children attend Oppe Elementary School, Buzbee wrote. She believes in the absolute truth of every statement she’s made on her site, he said. As for the anonymous statements, Tetley cannot be legally responsible for what others post on her site, Buzbee wrote.

A lawsuit would open the district up to scrutiny and examination of every controversial issue raised on Tetley’s Web site through testimony and extensive document research, Buzbee warned. He discouraged the district’s firm from moving forward with a lawsuit. “Mrs. Tetley is not looking for a fight, but she will not be bullied,” he wrote.

Galveston is losing its middle-class student population to neighboring districts and private schools, partly because islanders believe the district is failing the children, Buzbee wrote. “Now is not the time to sue parents; it is the time to fix the system,” Buzbee wrote.

He chastised the board for its “colossal” waste of taxpayer money on a “baseless course of action” and “meritless case.” Board members are public officials and should expect to be criticized, he wrote. “The proper response by a public official to criticism is leadership, debate, discussion and compromise — not frivolous litigation,” Buzbee wrote.”

It’s fun to cheer for the underdog, even if her lawyer does own one of the biggest yachts in Galveston Bay.

H/T Instapundit.

Update here.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Utah voters cast ballots today on Referendum 1 to decide if Utah HB 148 and HB 174 will be implemented as planned. HB 148, as amended by HB 174, was passed last Spring and it authorizes universal vouchers - in the form of state-wide scholarships ranging from $500 to $3000 each - to all Utah public school students.

A lengthy analysis of the legislation by the Utah Senate staff is posted here.

The Utah ACLU and teacher/public interest groups oppose the voucher program as a poor use of public funds that would be better spent on public schools. Conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation hailed Utah’s voucher program as revolutionary. Clayne L. Pope, a BYU economics professor, also endorsed Referendum 1 and the voucher program in last week’s Utah Daily Herald that concluded with this paragraph:

“Referendum 1 is the most important vote of recent memory. Our decision should be based on rational, fair arguments. If you doubt the ability of parents to act in the best interest of their children, you may want to vote against vouchers. If you believe the increase in private schools will further fragment Utah society, you may consider a negative vote. But if you do vote against Referendum 1, you should be aware that you are voting for the status quo in Utah education as well as a somewhat higher future tax burden. But please ignore the bogus arguments that educational resources will decline with vouchers or that increased competition will harm Utah education. Even in a political campaign, educators have a moral duty to educate rather than brainwash.”

Pre-election polls indicated the referendum would not pass and the very early returns bear that out.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Dave Warwak, a 44-year-old Illinois middle school art teacher, became a vegan in January 2007. Apparently it was a life-altering experience for Warwak in more ways than diet.

(more…)

[Guest post by DRJ]

Duke University President Richard Brodhead tries to walk the line between satisfying the lacrosse players and their backers, while not antagonizing the Gang of 88 and their supporters.

(more…)

[Guest post by DRJ]

In the wake of the controversial “Taser This … F*Bush” editorial published last week in the Colorado State University Collegian (discussed here), the student editor, J. David McSwane, faced the CSU governing board that will decide whether to fire him for his approval of an editorial that used profanity.

(more…)

[Guest post by DRJ]

The recent Delaware State University shooting might (or might not) be gang-related:

(more…)