| |
|
Teaching
Enronomics (07/02/02)
By Stephen Balch in The New York Post
“In the wake of the recent scandals, the National Association of
Scholars, an association of academics dedicated to raising standards on
campus, asked Zogby International to poll American college seniors about
what they’re being taught. College students imbibe from their academic
mentors a low opinion of prevailing business ethics. When asked to name
a profession in which, according to their teachers, an ‘anything
goes’ attitude is most likely to yield success, business leads the
pack - chosen by 28 percent - among eight choices provided. (Twenty percent
named journalism; 16 percent, law. Teaching, science/medicine, the civil
service, religion and the military each drew 5 percent or less.)”
NAS/Zogby
Poll Reveals American Colleges Are Teaching Dubious Ethical Lessons
(07/02/02)
A Press Release from National Association of Scholars
“‘These results have disturbing implications both for America’s
economy and its institutions of higher education,’ said National
Association of Scholars President Stephen H. Balch. ‘They suggest
that our colleges and universities, however unwittingly, are contributing
to, and perpetuating, the ethical laxness behind the recent scandals at
Enron, Worldcom, and other major American firms.’ ‘To be sure,
the foundations of ethical education are laid in the home and school.
At best, universities can only confirm the lessons taught there. But they
can also undermine these lessons by providing sophisticated excuses for
succumbing to the temptations of greed and power. The relativization and
politicization of ethical standards, plus cynicism about business in general,
opens the way for such excuse making.’”
College
Seniors Taught Right and Wrong Is Relative (07/08/02)
At Cybercast News Service by Lawrence Morahan
“A large majority of students also report that they’ve been
taught that corporate policies furthering ‘progressive’ social
and political goals are more important than those ensuring that stockholders
and creditors receive accurate accounts of a firm’s finances, the
study said. When respondents were given a list of business practices and
asked, based on what they’ve been taught at college, which of the
practices rank as the most important, 38 percent chose ‘recruiting
a diverse workforce in which women and minorities are advanced and promoted.’
Eighteen percent chose ‘minimizing environmental pollution,’
and another 18 percent chose ‘avoiding layoffs by not exporting jobs
or moving plants from one area to another.’ Only 23 percent said
‘providing clear and accurate business statements to stockholders
and creditors’ is the most important business practice.”
Professors
who see no evil (07/22/02)
By John Leo in U.S. News & World Report
“A Zogby International poll of college seniors came up with a fascinating
finding. Almost all of the 401 randomly selected students around the country–97
percent–said their college studies had prepared them to behave ethically
in their future work lives. So far, so good. But 73 percent of the students
said that when their professors taught about ethical issues, the usual
message was that uniform standards of right and wrong don’t exist
(‘what is right and wrong depends on differences in individual values
and cultural diversity’). It’s not news that today’s campuses
are drenched in moral relativism. But we are allowed to be surprised that
college students report they are being well prepared ethically by teachers
who tell them, in effect, that there are no real ethical standards, so
anything goes.”
Point.
Click. Think? As Students Rely on the Internet for Research, Teachers
Try to Warn of the Web’s Snares (07/16/02)
In The Washington Post by Laura Sessions Stepp
“Welcome to the world of Net thinking, a form of reasoning that characterizes
many students who are growing up with the Internet as their primary, and
in some cases, sole source of research. Ask teachers and they’ll
tell you: Among all the influences that shape young thinking skills, computer
technology is the biggest one. ‘Students’ first recourse for
any kind of information is the Web. It’s absolutely automatic,’
says Kenneth Kotovsky, a psychology professor at Carnegie-Mellon University
who has examined the study habits of young people.”
Assignment
America: Tales from the newsroom (07/08/02)
By John Bloom at United Press International
“This new book Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity
Has Corrupted American Journalism... will break your heart. I’ve
worked in journalism all my life, and I had no idea any of this was going
on. All through the 1990s, every time Rush Limbaugh would accuse the media
of a liberal bias, I would just chuckle it away as the usual sort of right-wing
paranoia we’ve been dealing with since the Nixon administration.
But William McGowan has written a carefully researched analysis of news
coverage in the ’90s, showing that ... it’s true. It’s
even worse than liberal bias.”
Break
cycle of eternal poverty (07/16/02)
By Jim Wooten in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
“America’s first public housing projects for the poor were in
Atlanta. The idea born here should die here. The nation should never build
another stick of public housing. Assembling the poor in concentrations
where their life models are broken families and welfare dependency is
an idea whose time is gone. It’s a mistake to teach self-destructive
behavior — and that is the legacy of public housing.”
Cohabiting
can make marriage an iffy proposition; Even married, men may still feel
less committed (07/08/02)
In USA Today by Karen S. Peterson
“An expert addressing a ‘Smart Marriages’ conference this
week will drop research on his colleagues that may indeed make some Americans
smart. Researcher Scott Stanley’s case is this: Women living unmarried
with guys and expecting a lasting, committed marriage down the line had
better review their options. His research finds that men who cohabit with
the women they eventually marry are less committed to the union than men
who never lived with their spouses ahead of time.”
Perfidious
Belgium (07/13/02)
By Paul Belien in The Spectator
“According to a recent inquiry ordered by a Belgian parliamentary
commission, Brussels has become a major recruiting base for al-Qa’eda
and a launch-pad for terrorist attacks on neighbouring countries. The
commission investigated the failure of the Sûreté de l’Etat, the Belgian
secret service, to screen Islamic terrorists. On 5 June, Mrs Godelieve
Timmermans, the head of the Sûreté, resigned after the report concluded
that the Sûreté had remained passive because it had found no indications
that the terrorists would attack Belgian targets, and also because the
Sûreté did not want to discredit certain corrupt Belgian authorities or
politicians for fear that these might attribute to the secret service
‘a racist or xenophobic attitude towards immigrants or Muslims’.”
Gays
race supporters of marriage amendment (07/15/02)
In The Washington Times by Larry Witham
“To neutralize state court rulings on same-sex ‘marriage’
rights, Mr. Daniels and other family-values groups are backing the Federal
Marriage Amendment, which last month was introduced in the House with
bipartisan backing. It would amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage
as between a man and woman and allow state legislatures to decide on marriage
benefits.”
The
Gay Inquisition (07/19/02)
By Camille Paglia at FrontPage Magazine
“There was a time when gay men were known for their scathingly independent
minds and their encyclopedic knowledge of culture. The welcome relaxation
of legal and social sanctions against homosexuality over the past 30 years
has paradoxically weakened the unsentimental powers of observation for
which gays, as outsiders, were once renowned. Gay men used to be ferocious
exemplars of free thought and free speech. But within 15 years of the
1969 Stonewall rebellion, an insidious totalitarianism infected gay activism,
parallel to what was occurring in feminism in the Catharine MacKinnon/Andrea
Dworkin era. Intolerance and witch hunts became the norm.”
Moral
Relativity Is a Hot Topic? True. Absolutely. (07/13/02)
By Edward Rothstein in The New York Times
“The war now taking shape may even be related to the principles that
gave birth to postmodernism. Avatars of absolutism — terrorist Islamic
fundamentalists — are challenging the liberal democratic societies of
the West, objecting to their power, their values, their differing creeds,
their modern (and postmodern) perspectives. This is something Mr. Fish
recognizes. But postmodernism tends to retain its old critical habits.
So when postmodernist arguments are applied to the war, they often seem
directed at the West, relativizing its claims and qualifying condemnations
of the opposition.”
America
should celebrate its independence (07/04/02)
By Mark Steyn in The National Post
“The anything most of the Western world’s non-believers believe
in is government: the age of church-and-state has been superseded by the
era of state-as-church. In Europe, they’re happy to have cast off
the supposed stultifying oppressiveness of religion for a world in which
the EU regulates every aspect of life from ‘xenophobia’ to the
curvature of bananas. The fact that the most religious nation in the West
is also the most powerful militarily, economically and culturally may
be sheerest coincidence, so let’s just say that separating church
from state wound up strengthening the vitality of religion in America.”
Why
we should all love America (07/04/02)
By Michael Gove in The London Times
“Britain may be more stable, earthed and charming. Australia may
have much of America’s openness with a healthier population, freer
of conceit. Europe’s smaller nations such as The Netherlands and
Denmark may have succeeded in building greater social solidarity while
still preserving personal freedom. But no nation has the sheer innovative
energy, the democratic vitality, the openness to personal growth and the
willingness to shoulder burdens bigger than itself that America has.”
The
business of America is America — and we’d better get used to
it (07/06/02)
By Matthew Paris in The Spectator
“Why should the Americans join the ICC if they do not want to? Are
they not a sovereign nation with some reason to distrust progressive internationalists?
America is not preventing other countries setting up whatever international
courts we choose; she is simply declining to take part. Any claims we
make to jurisdiction over non-participants are preposterous, and if we
cannot assure Washington that US peacekeeping troops are safe from being
dragged before this court, then — obviously again — her troops
will come home.”
Fatah
calls for attacks on US, Zionist targets (07/02/02)
By Margot Dudkevitch and Lamia Lahoud in The Jerusalem
Post
“Groups affiliated with Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat’s
Fatah movement yesterday called upon all Palestinian organizations, including
the Islamic movements, to attack Zionist and American targets everywhere
in response to US efforts ‘to remove the legitimate leadership of
the Palestinian people.’”
Time
for Muslim Show-and-Tell (07/02/02)
By Tammy Bruce at FrontPage Magazine
“Somehow the pathetic proving would rest with the victims as we swim
in false guilt and political correctness inflicted on us by the Left Elite
for decades. The same mentality that compelled the American establishment
to beg Muslims to like us in the aftermath of slaughter brought to us
by their ‘brothers’ is also responsible for our inability to stop it as
the conspiracy grew. Can you imagine an effort by law enforcement before
September 11 to question Arabs or Muslims in this country? It was impossible.
And it remains impossible even after the attack. Our hands were tied then
as they are now, by a Left Elite rhetoric that has reduced our critical
minds to mush, and twisted our legal right to defend ourselves into the
bizarre effort at group therapy to make sure those who hate us know that
we don’t hate them.”
The
Enemy Among Us (07/02/02)
By Editors of The New York Post
“Ten months after 9/11, too many officials remain reluctant to address
head-on the question of how much support for terrorism exists within the
U.S. Muslim community. Efforts at the worthy goal of reassuring Muslim-Americans
that their community isn’t being stigmatized have left many government
officials suddenly sharing a platform with known supporters of Islamic
terrorism.”
Test
of revered wisdom (07/07/02)
By Linda Chavez in The Washington Times
“The Founders understood that religious belief was not incidental
to the American experiment in liberty but was the foundation on which
it was built. The whole idea that individuals were entitled to liberty
rests on the Judeo-Christian conception of man. When the colonists rebelled
against their king — an action that risked their very lives — they did
so with the belief that they were answering to a higher law than the king’s.
They were emboldened by ‘the laws of nature and nature’s God,’
in Thomas Jefferson’s memorable phrase, to declare their independence.”
Death
of a Thousand Cuts: Killing the death penalty softly. (07/02/02)
By William Saletan at Slate
“The Times isn’t really angry that the death penalty
is administered too secretly in Japan or too openly in the United States.
It’s angry that the death penalty is administered at all. But most
Americans don’t share that view, so the Times and other critics
seize on any related issue — the killer’s youth or mental capacity,
the execution’s secrecy or publicity — that might buy extra sympathy
for the condemned. Over time, these related issues add up. If you can’t
kill murderers when they’re too young or too old, too dumb or too
smart, killed secretly or killed openly, then you can’t kill them
at all. That’s the objective all these arguments are meant to disguise.”
The
Political Intolerance of Academic Feminism (06/21/02)
By Mary Zeiss Stange in The Chronicle Review
“Feminist scholars have struggled to be inclusive when it comes to
every conceivable form of "otherness" (race, ethnicity, sexual orientation,
class, age, appearance, education, ability). Every form of otherness,
that is, except one: politics. How ironic, given that our movement began
with the assertion that the personal is political.”
Letting
Parents Decide (06/28/02)
By Editors of The Washington Post
“In affirming yesterday the constitutionality of Ohio’s use
of vouchers in Cleveland — one of the country’s most dramatically
failed school systems — the Supreme Court’s conservative majority
rightly created wiggle room for states, localities and potentially even
Congress to try carefully designed voucher programs. The case split the
court along ideological lines, with the court’s more liberal justices
all but declaring this voucher program to signify the end of church-state
separation. We don’t belittle the dangers. But the dangers of vouchers
are hypothetical ones at this stage. The crisis in education is real.
And the court should not be insisting that the only lawful policies are
the ones that have already failed.”
A
Win for America’s Children (06/28/02)
By Rod Paige in The Washington Post
“The No Child Left Behind Act, when fully implemented, will make
it easier to determine what works and what doesn’t in America’s
schools, and it will carry consequences for failure. Among the consequences
are public school choice and access to supplemental educational services,
both underwritten by federal dollars. Now the Supreme Court has opened
the door to even broader school choices, not only ushering in a new era
in American education policy but also potentially starting a reformation
in American public education. What must emerge through this education
reformation should be a focus on students and achievement, rather than
on the ‘system.’”
Federal
Appeals Court Rules Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional (06/26/02)
In The Washington Post by David Kravets of Associated
Press
“Harvard scholar Laurence Tribe predicted the U.S. Supreme Court
will certainly reverse the decision unless the 9th Circuit reverses itself.
‘I would bet an awful lot on that,’ Tribe said. The 9th Circuit
is the nation’s most overturned appellate court – partly because
it is the largest, but also because it tends to make liberal, activist
opinions, and because the cases it hears – on a range of issues from environmental
laws to property rights to civil rights – tend to challenge the status
quo.”
“One
Nation Under God” (06/27/02)
By Editors of The New York Times
“This is a well-meaning ruling, but it lacks common sense. A generic
two-word reference to God tucked inside a rote civic exercise is not a
prayer. Mr. Newdow’s daughter is not required to say either the words
‘under God’ or even the pledge itself, as the Supreme Court
made clear in a 1943 case involving Jehovah’s Witnesses. In the pantheon
of real First Amendment concerns, this one is off the radar screen. The
practical impact of the ruling is inviting a political backlash for a
matter that does not rise to a constitutional violation.”
One
Nation Under Blank (06/27/02)
By Editors of The Washington Post
“If the court were writing a parody, rather than deciding an actual
case, it could hardly have produced a more provocative holding than striking
down the Pledge of Allegiance while this country is at war. We believe
in strict separation between church and state, but the pledge is hardly
a particular danger spot crying out for judicial policing. And having
a court strike it down can only serve to generate unnecessary political
battles and create a fundraising bonanza for the many groups who will
rush to its defense. Oh, yes, it can also invite a reversal, and that
could mean establishing a precedent that sanctions a broader range of
official religious expression than the pledge itself.”
The
risks in the Rome Statute (07/02/02)
By Editors of Ha’aretz
“The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court goes into force
today, establishing for the first time a permanent institution for investigating
and judging people accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The court, which will begin operating from The Hague next year, will have
the authority to judge individuals, based on complaints made to it by
governments or the UN Security Council.”
Lone
stand for justice (07/01/02)
By Editors of The London Telegraph
“Hitherto, legal systems have been rooted in democratic assemblies.
Laws are passed by national legislatures, which are responsible to their
peoples, and treaties signed by accountable governments. But, from today,
the ICC will cast off the guy-ropes that attach it to its constituent
states. From now on, it will function as an international body answerable
to no one. The idea that laws ought to be made by the people’s representatives
will be replaced by the pre-modern concept that law-makers are answerable
to no one but themselves.”
President
Bush Calls for New Palestinian Leadership (06/24/02)
George W. Bush in The Rose Garden at The White House
“I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not
compromised by terror. I call upon them to build a practicing democracy,
based on tolerance and liberty. If the Palestinian people actively pursue
these goals, America and the world will actively support their efforts.
If the Palestinian people meet these goals, they will be able to reach
agreement with Israel and Egypt and Jordan on security and other arrangements
for independence.”
Democracy
for Palestinians: Bush’s bold plan for Mideast peace.
(06/25/02)
By Editors of The Wall Street Journal
“It’s important to understand how radical this idea of democracy
is for Palestine. For years the U.S. and Israel both winked at the brutality
of Arab leaders, in the Faustian hope that they would provide ‘stability’
and ‘peace.’ This was the flaw at the heart of the Oslo peace
process, in which the U.S. sub-contracted with Yasser Arafat to stop attacks
against Israel. But this was impossible as long as Mr. Arafat and other
Palestinian leaders derived all of their political legitimacy from the
struggle against Israel. Yesterday Mr. Bush said this day is over.”
What
it Means: Politically, Arafat is a dead man walking (06/25/02)
By David Landau in The Ha’aretz
“Yasser Arafat, the seemingly immortal leader of the Palestinian
national movement, was politically assassinated Monday by President George
W. Bush. His role as Israel’s prospective partner in any future diplomatic
process was effectively snuffed out by a stern-sounding American president,
delivering his verdict on two years of violent intifada and his recipe
for a turnabout towards peace in this war-torn region. Bush’s verdict:
Arafat is the guilty party.”
An
End to Pretending (06/26/02)
By Michael Kelly in The Washington Post
“There is some limited truth in seeing what Bush is trying to do
in the Middle East in traditional terms — hard-liners vs. State Department
softies, etc. — but this is missing the elephant on the settee. For
better or worse — a great deal better, I think — Bush has set
the Palestinian issue within the context of a larger approach that is
fundamentally, historically radical: a rejection of decades of policy,
indeed a rejection of the entire philosophy of Middle East diplomacy.
This philosophy has rested on a willingness to accept a U.S. role as a
player in a running fraud.”
Admit
terrorism’s Islamic link (06/24/02)
By Michael Medved in USA Today
“Ideas — including religious ones — have consequences,
and examining those consequences is the best way to judge them. Americans
are mature enough to handle the inescapable truth that our daily dangers
come not, as Hollywood would have it, from freelance misfits and nostalgic
Nazis, but from a serious and frightening Islamic mass movement implacably
devoted to our destruction.”
|
|
|
