Merit Pay For Teachers?

School is starting back up across the country. So now is a good time to consider the quality of America’s teachers. Reformers have been touting merit pay for teachers for some time now. Would it help?

To read the rest of this post, go here.

What's in a Name?

"That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." So says Shakespeare. And perhaps it would. Perhaps a person, by any other name, would feel as happy. Perhaps the person named "lower" or "second-class" would have just as much self-esteem as one titled "beautiful" or "upper-class." But- I doubt it...

The idea that different names don't change the true essence of an object may be valid. But different names do change the way we view that object, or that person, or that institution... And the way others view us can change our lives. This is because we humans are fragile. We wish to belong, to be accepted, to be loved for who we are. If we are separated from the crowd, we feel hurt. Degraded. Lost.

This is why the word "marriage" is so important.

Some say that a civil union is equal to a marriage. Economically, perhaps this could be so, assuming people entering into civil unions were granted the same rights as married couples. But socially? Truly? Separate but equal is never equal.

Dignity. Pride. Happiness. This is what's in a name. Why is there any reason for us to deny gay and lesbian couples the use of the world "marriage"? The only difference it would make is their happiness... and why deny them that? According to, yes, Thomas Jefferson himself, the pursuit of happiness is their right.

That is something you can't change, no matter how many words you say...

Huckabee in Israel

With all the recent coverage of healthcare, most of us missed Mike Huckabee’s comments last week in Israel.

He said “should the Palestinians have a place to call their own? Yes. I have no problem with that. Should it be in the middle of the Jewish homeland? That's what I think has to be assessed as virtually unrealistic.”

Why would Huckabee say such a thing?

To read the rest of this post, go here.

A Rebuttal for the (Gay and Lesbian) People

I would like to take a moment and respond to the comment made on last night's post, which I will copy and paste at the end of this post for the sake of clarity.

Dear commentator,

I don't think you read my post quite carefully enough... I am not stating that the Founding Fathers supported gay marriage, but that the principles they endorsed in the Declaration and Bill of Rights do and should include the rights to liberty, the pursuit of happiness and freedom of religion, all three of which are denied to gay couples who are not allowed to marry.

The First Amendment does indeed concern marriage. Marriage has long been held as a religious construct. The ceremonies are usually conducted by a priest or other religious official. Marriage is actually one of the most religious ceremonies held in this country... And freedom of religion, thus, does include freedom of marriage and marriage ceremonies.

And of course the framers did not think about gay marriage. Again, my point is NOT that the framers supported gay marriage (because, at that time, such a belief would be incredibly anachronistic- as you say, they also supported slavery; would you support that, too, if it was the will of the people?) but that the principles they set down in our Constitution DO support and indeed make necessary the legalization of gay marriage.

To continue my rebuttal: Common sense may vary to a certain extent between people but there IS a line that all of us can agree not to cross. How about murder? Torture? (Though I'll grant that for some reason George Bush and Dick Cheney don't seem to agree with me on that one, much to my shame.) Rape? Child abuse? Religious or discriminatory indoctrination (remember Hitler)? All of these things are beyond the "line to cross." Therefore, contrary to your assertion, the line of common sense does exist… and denying two people in love the right to marry is most definitely beyond it.

And as for your point that the people do not will the legalization of gay marriage: First of all, please list specific statistics to confirm your points, if only for the sake of clarity. If you are not correct, than this point has no merit whatsoever. And, assuming that you are correct: Excuse me, but if this is a society governed by the people, shouldn't gay and lesbian couples- who, by the way, count as people, in case you didn't know- have some rights, too? And for your information, “the people” who you champion so highly (and for whom many of the Founding Fathers had a distinct disdain- see Hamilton’s politics) have in the past opposed a lot of things that they should have affirmed- take interracial marriage as an example. Do you believe that that should be illegal, too?

Deigning to give gay and lesbians citizens the same economic advantages as heterosexual citizens would not solve the problem. Please, take a look at twentieth-century U.S. history. "Separate but equal" is discriminatory. We, the people, figured that out a long time ago. By allowing only "civil unions," this country has in no way fulfilled its obligation to the rights of the minority... it has stolen from citizens their “unalienable” rights and ground the principles of the Constitution into the dust.

Incidentally, you forgot to mention (or could not think of a decent response to) one of my arguments: Preventing gay marriage is none of your business if you're not gay. And you, clearly, are not.

Please take time to consider these points; and please, think about what you’re taking away from gay and lesbian citizens the next time you set fingers to keyboard to object to freedoms they should naturally enjoy.

rideabicycle said...

Although I agree that gay marriage needs to happen, I am fairly certain that such a policy is not at all consistent with either the documents upon which this nation was founded or the people who did the founding.

But more to the point, I'd like to take a look at your three arguments:

a) The First Amendment does not concern marriage. People have a tendency to reach for it in justifying whatever they feel the need to justify, and frankly it's a absurd to associate the statute with an institution over which the Federal Government has no jurisdiction. Even at a state level, you'd be hard pressed to convince a judge that the freedoms of speech, assembly, redress, and religion have anything to do with marriage.

b) As to your second point concerning the Preamble, I'm compelled to renew my argument that the framers did not have gay marriage in mind when they penned the Constitution. While this should have no bearing on how we as a nation decide the issue (society does change over time), you can't really invoke Thomas Jefferson here. He wasn't exactly a moral role model, especially concerning marriage; he cheated on his wife with a slave. It doesn't really get any more immoral than that.

c) Common Sense varies between people. The relative location of the "line to cross"`is going to be different for every person on earth, and you have no right to tell them that they're wrong.

I do support the homosexual's right to marriage, but we inhabit what is, ultimately, a society governed by the people. And the people, ultimately, do not wish to permit gays to marry. If we can come up with a way to give them the same economic advantages as marriage, then we have fulfilled our obligations to protect the rights of the minority.
rideabicycle said...
Although I agree that gay marriage needs to happen, I am fairly certain that such a policy is not at all consistent with either the documents upon which this nation was founded or the people who did the founding.

But more to the point, I'd like to take a look at your three arguments:

a) The First Amendment does not concern marriage. People have a tendency to reach for it in justifying whatever they feel the need to justify, and frankly it's a absurd to associate the statute with an institution over which the Federal Government has no jurisdiction. Even at a state level, you'd be hard pressed to convince a judge that the freedoms of speech, assembly, redress, and religion have anything to do with marriage.

b) As to your second point concerning the Preamble, I'm compelled to renew my argument that the framers did not have gay marriage in mind when they penned the Constitution. While this should have no bearing on how we as a nation decide the issue (society does change over time), you can't really invoke Thomas Jefferson here. He wasn't exactly a moral role model, especially concerning marriage; he cheated on his wife with a slave. It doesn't really get any more immoral than that.

c) Common Sense varies between people. The relative location of the "line to cross"`is going to be different for every person on earth, and you have no right to tell them that they're wrong.

I do support the homosexual's right to marriage, but we inhabit what is, ultimately, a society governed by the people. And the people, ultimately, do not wish to permit gays to marry. If we can come up with a way to give them the same economic advantages as marriage, then we have fulfilled our obligations to protect the rights of the minority.

Gay Marriage, and Why It's One of Those Unalienable Rights

The traditional social hierarchy frowns on anything that threatens its established power. As such, the hierarchy (or, rather, those indoctrinated into believing in it) feels a bit queasy when thinking of horrible awful oh-so-terrifying things like, say, two people of the same sex daring to go on a date.

Because that might just wobble the heavy stone blocks that this grand old hierarchy's built on. What if- imagine!- things actually changed for the better? What if people could actually enjoy freedom of sexual orientation without worrying about what everyone else would think? What if, in the spirit of the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence and even common sense, we let people decide what to do with their own lives?

And yes, I'll explain myself, because I realize that a lot of people are probably really mad about what I just said. Fine. They're allowed to be mad. This is a free country, remember?

So, first. The Bill of Rights. Obviously it doesn't say anything about hetero- or homosexuality. But thinking about the First Amendment, shouldn't gay marriage be considered as a kind of freedom of religion? After all, the main objections to gay marriage seem to be based around religion. Marriage, or so the anti-gay argument goes, is sacred, right? Well... Last time I checked we had freedom of religion in this country, so let homosexual believers or nonbelievers decide what's sacred to them.

Second, the Declaration of Independence. Try "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That's what Thomas Jefferson and his eminent colleagues told us we have a right to. I think that "liberty" definitely includes the freedom to choose who to spend the rest of one's life with... as does "the pursuit of happiness." And come on, if you're upset about the use of the word "marriage" as opposed to "civil union" then please, just stop being so annoyingly stuck-up and busybodyish... Let them have their pride and their economic rights. What does it matter to you if a few law-abiding married citizens get a tax break?

And as for common sense- look. I realize that not everyone thinks the same way. We all have different opinions about how everyone else should live their lives. But, basically, what I mean by calling on common sense is this: There is a point where we have to stop telling other people what to do. Otherwise, we'd get mixed up in a giant world war, because no one likes being told what to do, right? And I think telling people if they can get married or not is quite a line to cross. Therefore.... can we just not cross it?

Basically, if you're not gay it's none of your business. What in the world does it have to do with you? If it offends you to see two gay people get married, well, it offends me that you're offended. What are you going to do about it? Try this: Be a good citizen and let other citizens enjoy their unalienable rights.

Please, feel free to express your opinion... but there's a certain point at which you stop enjoying your own rights and start infringing on someone else's.

Death Panel Nonsense

I saw an interesting article today from Froma Harrop that was worth sharing.

So I wonder if Sarah Palin really thought her death panel talk through. Does she know how often that private insurers do this sort of thing? Does she even know that it happens in the first place?

To read the rest of this post, go here.

The Theory of Universality

It's all relative.

This is something we hear a lot, usually when we're depressed about that grade we got on our last Bio final or when we realize that that cute kid from our writing class is really never going to text us... Or that Johnny Depp is never going to fall in love a college student. It's usually something we hear from our best friends, roommates, or random people who just can't stand hearing us moan on and on and on about our stupid little problems any longer.

On these occasions, when perspective is so offensively forced into our brains- in the grand scheme of things, your biology grades don't matter, you little egocentrist- we sometimes just ignore it and push thoughts of our insignificance aside to concentrate on important things, like what we're going to have for dinner. (Eggo waffles... or a frozen burrito? Ah, life as a responsible young adult.)

But sometimes, just sometimes, we're obligated to contemplate our place in the world. And that's a scary train of thought. Sometimes it takes us where we don't want to go... Sometimes we realize just how little we are, compared to President Obama or Madeline Albright or even your successful third cousin who's a lawyer in Boston (-shudder- you know you're in the throes of self-hatred when you start to envy that third cousin).

And this is when relativity begins to become a negative thing. The bottom of the ladder's never fun.

But then there are times, too, when we've felt like we're on top of the world. Like the moment we graduated from high school, or the moment that one special person looked us in the eyes, or the moment we scored the last goal in a soccer game or wrote the last note of a song or held that last pose as the curtain fell. Relativity's not always horrible.

Because of all of this or in spite of it, I'd like to propose a new theory of relativity, one in which we can all hopefully take a bit of comfort. And that is that at any given moment, whatever sadness or annoyance or horror or happiness that we feel is in the same category of emotion that pretty much every other human has felt or will feel or is feeling. In other words, it's all universal.

Think about it. If you're having a bad day, well, President Obama had a bad day just like that three years ago. If you feel like breaking down and crying, well, Sarah Palin did that last week. Probably every day last week, if she's being realistic about her chances of being elected President. And, look, I'm not going to tell you that you're equal in happiness to these people, because you're not (you're probably happier than Sarah, or let's hope). But I will tell you that instead of focussing just on your own insignificance, it's perfectly all right to focus on everyone else's, too...

Long story short, if someone starts to tell you that it's all relative right after you've gone through something horrible (...I never understood how impressing upon me my own unimportance was meant to be comforting), you can say, No. It's not all relative. It's all universal.

Because it is all universal. That's something you can count on.

The Greatest Thing in the World

Money.

It's something a lot of us have very little of, and something a few of us have a lot of. It's something most people work very hard (or swindle very hard) for, and it's something people go to jail for. It's something we'd basically all like to have more of... right? (Can I end any more sentences in this paragraph with prepositions...?)

Well, yeah. As college students I think that pretty much all of us are strangers to the concept of "extra money" (which I still refuse to believe exists, despite the fact that my next-door neighbors own at least three Mercedeses). But of course then there are degrees of need, and degrees of economic class, and degrees of just how many relatives of yours are willing to slip you some money when you need it. And then there are degrees of poverty.

There are kids (ahem, responsible young men and women) of all economic backgrounds coming to Dartmouth this year. More than few fall into the generally very affluent category to which my next-door neighbors belong. More than a few fall into the middle class. And quite a few fall below the poverty line, or at least the oh.-college?-you-think-you're-going?-we-can't-pay-for-that,-kid,-get-a-job line.

But my point- and a rather important one at that!- is that, somehow, we all ended up in the same place. And I'd like to give a shoutout to the Dartmouth Financial Aid Office for that one; full need need-blind colleges are still a source of beautiful surprise to my cynical America's-so-capitalist mind. And there are other factors, too, that have let us come together into this one, amazing, Big Green community.... Thank you, scholarship committees and trust funds and very, very good friends...

However we got here, though, the fact remains that we ARE here, or on our way. We are all students of Dartmouth in the true sense of the words, and we can feel the green creeping into our veins- the green of our school and not just the green of those dollar bills. And no matter how cynical I am, I find it truly and absolutely beautiful that we can come together and forget about how much money we have, just for a minute (before we run off to get those workstudy jobs).

Long story short, money is not the one and only magic wand that, once waved, will pave the way to a great education. It sure helps- heck, it would be great to just be able to pay off those bills- but it's not the greatest thing in the world, the highest thing to which we should all aspire.

...That title belongs to Dartmouth, remember?

You Should Be Very Afraid Of Our Healthcare System

I’ve been watching these town halls. Many of the people going have all kinds of fears, ranging from death panels to rationing. But I think it’s important to remember some fears that people should have, but haven’t expressed much in the past weeks. Here are some fears you should have...

To read the rest of this post, go here.

Deep Thought

Conservatives having it both ways: Government funded health care will be completely ineffective, except at killing old people and giving care to illegal immigrants.

If government is too ineffective, why do they fear it so much? It's not like the people directly elect the officials that comprise the government, giving them a direct check on what goes on or anything.

Self-Help: For the 'Shmen from a 'Shman

"College is a great equalizer. Nobody knows about your past." These are the wise words of Professor David Blanchflower, as quoted from the Freshman Edition of the Dartmouth (I love that paper already). And these are the words on every freshman's mind.

Imagine! A whole new group of people who don't actually know what happened that embarrassing day in fourth grade! A whole new group of people who couldn't care less what color dress you wore to your junior high dance! A whole new group of people...

...And that's when the doubt starts to set in.

What if I'm not good enough? What if I don't make any friends? What if nobody likes me? What if everybody hates me? What if I have to go eat worms? (Old-fashioned joke there... It comes from having parents to whom you actually speak once in a while.)

These are the thoughts that suddenly swarm the poor, unsuspecting freshman's mind. Upperclassmen reading this, feel free to roll your oh-so-sophisticated eyes; but you know how it was. Don't you? Walking onto the campus for the first or second time, cringing back from enthusiastic older students as they give you the once-over, reassuring your parents that you really won't be contracting any sexually transmitted diseases in the next few months... and doing a double take as they honestly don't believe you.

But, listen, my fellow freshmen: I'm here to tell you that it's all going to be okay. Everyone has their moments of doubt. But, really, it's all going to be okay.

Sure, you'll stutter when you meet (-cough- just meet) that cute '11. And you'll probably end up screaming your deepest secrets from the center of the Green at four a.m.... But that's what college is about, right? (That, and writing essays for your 10A at four-thirty a.m., right after you're done spilling those secrets.)

And sure, I'm just a freshman too, and what do I know? But I do know a lot about people, and the self-doubt I see coming from my classmates is something I recognize from its natural place in every human being. So here is what I say to you: Have confidence in yourself. You are an amazing person. You will have an awesome time during this first fall term. I repeat: Everything is going to be okay.

Savvy?

REVIEW: In the Loop

Most aptly described as The Office takes on West Wing, In the Loop is an intensely vulgar, funny, and, for interns in the District, close-to-home comedy about a fictional war being orchestrated by the British and American governments. Perhaps the greatest charm of the film comes from the fact that it exclusively deals with the lower-level officials who lack the title or competence of the big-wigs, yet still wield bogglingly tremendous amounts of power. Be prepared for a dialogue driven plot so full of awesome one-line insults that I wish I brought a notepad. My particular favorites came from the two rival State Department assistants, and between the PM's Scottish enforcer and... well, anyone. This is absolutely essential to anyone who has ever worked in D.C.

See it
Rent it
Skip it

Michael Vick Back in the NFL

Michael Vick is going to be a Philadelphia Eagle. His ambitions were given a boost when Tony Dungy backed his reentry to the league over a week ago.

Nonetheless, many remain fiercely opposed, particularly animal rights groups. Why should a vicious dog killer get to make millions of dollars, and be a role model for kids again?

To read the rest of this post, go here.

Paying Attention

...Do we know them?

They are the people who will be in charge of our lives for the remainder of our college careers, 

the people who have become the latest and most fashionable authority figures...

They are the people who will make the big decisions about where the money goes, and about where our educational lives go.

I'm not talking about the Obama administration, or about the current members of Congress, or even about the tax collectors (who are going to start knocking down our doors soon, if they haven't already).

No, I am referring instead to the Dartmouth administration-- the President, Provost, Dean, and other assorted leaders who have an immense amount of power over the running of the college, and thus over our lives.

We all know President Kim, of course, to a certain degree. We the freshmen at least have read "Mountains Beyond Mountains" and become distinctly enamored of our new president's endeavors to make the world a better place. But do we really know anything about his life beyond what Tracy Kidder so graciously related to us in those pages? Do we know his politics? Do we know that much about the man who is about to assume control of everything Dartmouth?

And even if we do, do we know Provost Barry Scherr? The new (and very suddenly new, I might add) Dean Spears? Anyone on the Board of Trustrees? According to one of the Dartmouth websites, "The Board of Trustees has ultimate responsibility for the financial, administrative and academic affairs of the college." That sounds rather important, don't you think?

We as Americans are ignorant enough of the federal government. Can any of us name all of the members of Congress? Of course not... Can we even name all of the members of Congress in our own states? Or even (I shudder to think that the answer is no) the Congressperson from our own districts?

I wouldn't mention it but for the fact that, well, one of the reasons society has been going down the tubes is because we just don't pay enough attention. So let's start paying attention. Know who's in charge and know what's going on-- yes, even and especially you, my fellow freshmen. As tempting as I know it is to go all googly-eyed and blindly fall in love with everything Dartmouth, we should know a bit about our own administration.

So, I leave you with this challenge: read up a bit on the new Dean and the Provost (seen to the right) and the President, maybe even the Trustees. Think a bit about just how much power these people have over our lives. Hey, maybe even look up the name of your Congressperson (though I hope you already know it). Think about taking an interest in the people who have authority over you...

Either way, it'll have a positive effect. If our authority figures are doing wrong, we'll shame them into doing right-- and if they're doing right already, then they'll appreciate our taking notice.

So follow your common sense. Follow these links:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~trustees/

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~provost/

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~deancoll/

Well that's strange...

Why wasn't Dean Crady in his office today, the day his "abrupt" resignation was announced? The Dartmouth reports:

Crady was out of the office and unavailable for comment on Tuesday.

Also, it looks like Spears will serve as Acting Dean of the College for at least two years. Seems like a long interim, right? Click here and look how many departments report to our poor Dean of the College. My bet is that the administration is going to use this time to cut up the job into smaller ones to deal with the tremendous number of responsibilities.

Implications of the Crady Resignation

David Nachman '09 of the erstwhile blog Super Dartmouth did some top-notch reporting in 2007 on Tom Crady's Ph.D dissertation and what it meant in light of his appointment to be Dean of the College. The work is titled "Written and unwritten rules: the use of alcohol by fraternities: a study of one college" and shows a refreshingly level-headed towards the Co-ed/Fraternity/Sorority system and campus alcohol policies.

Nachman quotes passages where Crady states...

I do not believe that colleges and universities should ban alcohol from their campuses, and alcohol education programming should focus on responsible drinking rather than abstinence.

and suggests that college administrators...

• Assist Greek Letter organizations in emphasizing the positive aspects of Greek life. Many Greek letter organizations are developing and implementing impressive social justice and/or community service programs. These should be highlighted and reinforced on campus. Standards should exist for Greek letter organizations outlining activities they are expected to offer to the campus.
• Provide Greek letter organizations with the resources and tools to accomplish their goals both on and off campus. Greek letter organizations should be fully supported by campus officials to ensure that resources are available to assist these organizations.
• Develop positive and constructive interpersonal relationships with the leaders of Greek letter organizations on campus. Campus administrators should establish positive working relationships with Greek leaders before problems occur.
• Resist the temptation to view Greek letter organizations as negative elements of student life and the campus culture. Resolve problems that arise quickly and efficiently while maintaining positive interpersonal relationships with students in Greek letter organizations.

Certainly Crady was a breath of fresh air for the oft-maligned CFS system as evidenced by his willingness to increase the number of sororities and work to reconcile with banned fraternities.

The questions now are how will Sylvia Spears approach Greek life in the short term and how will her permanent successor act in the long run? The Office of Pluralism and Leadership is known for its institutional disdain for all things Greek and for its perception that Greek houses directly threaten their social agenda. Hopefully we'll see Dean Spears build off the progress of Dean Crady instead of reverting to more antagonistic and dichotomous paradigms.

Dean Crady Resigns from the College

The recently appointed Dean of the College, Tom Crady, has suddenly resigned from his post "effective this week," after just 18 months on the job, to "return to Iowa to pursue other opportunities." Sylvia Spears, from the Office of Pluralism and Leadership will take over in the interim. (Both pictured at right)

Due to the sudden nature of this move, something here seems a little off. It seems hard to believe that Hanover's climate drove him away. His previous home of Grinnell, Iowa is similarly rural, has a comparable population (9,000+, compared to Hanover's 10k+), and appears to have similar weather (rainy summers and cold winters). Crady also appears to be doing the exact same thing at Dartmouth as he was at Grinnel. So then why the sudden move? Disagreements with the college? Hard time breaking into the Dartmouth social bubble? Kids don't like Hanover High?

It seems like there is more at work here and LGB appreciates any tips our loyal readers can give us. More updates to follow.

Below is the full campus blitz sent by Provost Barry Scherr:

From: "Barry P. Scherr"
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:20:27 EDT
Subject: Announcement
To: All:;
Dear Colleagues,

I am writing to inform you that Tom Crady has resigned as Dean of the College, effective this week. Sylvia Spears, who has been a significant contributor in providing student support in the Dean of the College area, will serve as Acting Dean for a period of two years.

I know that the decision to leave Dartmouth has been a difficult one for Tom and his family. Tom started at Dartmouth in January 2008, after serving 10 years as Vice President of Student Services at Grinnell College in Iowa, where he had worked for more than 25 years. Tom has decided to return to Iowa to pursue other opportunities.

I want to thank Tom for his service, for his commitment to improving the student experience, and for the many innovations he has introduced in his 18 months on campus, including the reform of the COS system, his reorganization of the student deans, and his decision as the Dean of the College to be more accessible by holding regular office hours in Collis for undergraduates. He brought to the job a great deal of energy, a willingness to embrace change, and a true enthusiasm for his work with students.

In the coming months we intend to examine the scope of responsibilities in this critical area; only after completing that process will we launch a national search for the new Dean.

Sylvia joined Dartmouth as Director of the Office of Pluralism and Leadership/Associate of Student Life in July 2007. This past year, she also served as Acting Senior Associate Dean of the College with responsibility for guiding academic support programs and outreach to faculty. Sylvia's expertise is student development, with particular emphasis on factors that contribute to the success of students. Sylvia holds a Ph.D. in Education, an M.S. in Human Development and Family Studies, and a B.A. in Speech Communications. Before coming to Dartmouth, Sylvia held a faculty position in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at the University of Rhode Island, where she taught courses in counseling, research methods, higher education law and cultural competence.

As we get ready to begin a new academic year on September 24, we will continue to look to the Dean of the College area to complete the process of putting in place the new student dean system, to carry out an ongoing assessment of existing programs and services, and to work on strategies for ensuring student success.

I want to take this opportunity to wish Tom well and to express my appreciation for what he accomplished in his time at Dartmouth.

At this time, I would also like to thank each and every member of the staff of the Dean of the College area, for their professionalism and support during this transition. I have every confidence in that office, and in Sylvia, as together we seek to provide an extraordinary educational experience for the students of Dartmouth.

Sincerely,

Barry Scherr
Provost

UPDATE: from The Dartmouth (4:10PM)

1. Crady may be leaving to pursue the Presidency of Grinnell College which becomes vacant in July 2010.
2. This was a "difficult" "family decision".
3. Provost Scher will be staying on until June 2011, instead of leaving in the summer of 2010 as originally expected.

Obama Backing Away from the Public Option

President Obama is signaling that the public option is not a necessary component of his health reform proposals. This begs a couple of questions, which I’ll try to address here...

To read the rest of this post, go here.

Hero of the Day.

On MSNBC's Morning Joe today, Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) did god's work by stumping Joe Scarborough (R-Scarborough Country) speechless with a single question (reproduced as best I can from memory)

Given that 40% of Americans get their health care paid by a single-payer government-run program (Medicare, Medicaid, Dept. of Veterans Affairs, Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Indian Affairs) that runs with 4% overhead compared to 30% for private insurers-- What essential function do private insurance companies serve?

Essentially, Weiner argues that instead of asking why the government should take over the payment of health care (not its operation as some insinuate), we should be asking why insurance companies are a necessary element of the current system. The usually verbose Scarborough was stunned by the question and completely unable to even properly react to it until they returned from commercial break.

I'll post the video when I can find it. In the meantime, youtube Anthony Weiner's speeches. He's one of the most articulate democrats I've heard, especially on the issue of health care.

UPDATE: 2:20PM
Here's the video edited to the segment I'm talking about:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The "Stat Effect"

Diversity.

That's the word quite a few colleges champion as one of their assets, another addition to their crown jewels, if you will. In one way, that makes sense-- most students attending college expect to enjoy new and varied experiences and learn about the rest of the world. Students from smaller towns, especially, look forward to being educated about different cultures. Meeting other students from different walks of life and religions and civilizations helps them achieve that goal.

But there's another side to this coin...

And it's that sometimes it becomes about the numbers. We're all familiar with this debate: Some people think that Affirmative Action programs are taking over, that a strange kind of opposite racism is creeping in, etcetera. And I don't think that that's a cause anyone needs to champion; I think we have enough trouble fighting the old-fashioned kind of racism without christening another. But I do think that in this "enlightened" day and age it's very sad the lengths to which a college will go to make those numbers look good.

The "stat effect" has been around for thousands and thousands of years. Make everything look good for the numbers and your audience will bow down and accept your word. Street sellers in ancient Egypt used that trick; don't be surprised that the oh-so-sophisticated colleges of today do the same. If a college has so many international students attending and so many "minorities" and so many white kids, ah, that's a good balance. That's a good school.

And trust me, I wouldn't be going to a school if it wasn't diverse. That's one of the reasons I picked Dartmouth. I'm looking to expand my horizons and meet new people who can lend me a different perspective on life. I'm a writer and that's what I do- learn more about people so that I can speak to them, speak to our common humanity. So it stands to reason that diversity, the truth and not the numbers, is something I love. Incidentally, Dartmouth's stats are awesomely diverse, of course...

But my point is that we need to keep our eyes open about just how nice the numbers are. Diversity is a beautiful and amazing thing, but we don't want it to become about the stats. For one thing, those numbers make us think about what color we are, and that separates us. I'd almost think about advocating the absence of stats in this case- after all, our college class is one hundred percent human, not just fifteen point nine percent Asian American, eight point two percent Latino, eight point seven percent African American, five point five percent Native American, eight percent international students, and fifty-three point seven white/Caucasian (a.k.a. a mix of every other nationality on Earth).

...One hundred percent human. Let's remember that.