Voters May Reject California's Proposition 32

It's the big payroll protection initiative, which I'd love to see passing in November. But it's a hard sell, since the measure is deceptive. It indeed appears to contain major loopholes for big business, and is hence seen as punitive and unfair.

At the Los Angeles Times, "California voters leaning against campaign finance initiative":

SACRAMENTO — California voters appear poised to reject a November ballot measure that would ban political contributions by payroll deduction, according to a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll.

Forty-four percent of those surveyed said they opposed Proposition 32, which would eliminate the main fundraising tool of unions. Just 36% said they supported the measure, which would also bar corporations and unions from contributing directly to candidates.

Proponents of the measure, having focused squarely on unions in two past attempts to end paycheck deductions for political purposes, adopted the language of the Occupy Wall Street movement this time around and rebranded their campaign as an effort to curb the power of special interests.

An ad touting the measure says it would "cut the money tie between special interests, lobbyists and career politicians" and "put people back in charge." The supporters' core argument is that the initiative would apply "evenhandedly, without exception," to corporations and unions.

Campaign finance experts disagree, saying the measure would disproportionately hobble organized labor by prohibiting payroll deductions to collect campaign cash. Corporations, they say, rarely use such a method to raise political money, instead tapping executive checkbooks and company treasuries.

The labor-backed opposition campaign has hit on that theme, airing radio and TV ads for more than a month that paint the measure as a deceptive corporate power grab, complete with exemptions for business. So far, unions have raised more than $43.4 million to defeat Proposition 32, which is being bankrolled by Republican donors, conservative activists and business executives.

As a result, proponents "aren't able to convince voters this is a clean-government, stop-special-interests initiative," said Dave Kanevsky of the Republican polling firm American Viewpoint, which conducted the survey in conjunction with the Democratic company Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.

Indeed, when respondents heard arguments for and against the measure — supporters saying it would end influence peddling and opponents calling it phony campaign finance reform — opposition grew, with 48% saying they would vote against the initiative. Only 36% said they would vote for it.

"People are ready to believe that … corporations are spending this money to rig the system more for them," said Stan Greenberg, the Democratic pollster.

PREVIOUSLY: "Support Dwindles for Proposition 30's Multi-Billion Dollar Tax Hike."

Support Dwindles for Proposition 30's Multi-Billion Dollar Tax Hike

A majority still favors the initiative, according to the Los Angeles Times poll out this week. But support has declined as folks take a look at the measure, with concerns especially about waste and abuse in spending. The buzz at my college is abject alarm, since a failure to pass the law will result in massive cuts to programs. The administration has an entire slate of vocational programs, and so forth, that are scheduled to get the ax next year. And that's going to entail full-time tenured layoffs, which is frightening to anyone who's employed at the community colleges. There's little danger to core general education programs, like political science, so rest assured dear readers, your humble blogger is quite safe (and I've got seniority as well, which is another layer of protection from layoffs). But there's no telling what could happen ultimately. It's not clear how the state's public education system can continue without massive reforms, from top to bottom, including revisiting historic guarantees to universal access to all education-ready Californians.

See LAT, "Support slips for Brown's tax hike":

SACRAMENTO — Support for Gov. Jerry Brown's plan for billions of dollars in tax hikes on the November ballot is slipping amid public anxiety about how politicians spend money, but voters still favor the proposal, according to a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll.

The findings suggest that voters are leery of sending more cash to Sacramento in the wake of a financial scandal at the parks department, spiraling costs for a multibillion-dollar high-speed rail project to connect Northern and Southern California and ill-timed legislative pay raises.

Brown's measure would temporarily raise income tax rates on high earners for seven years and boost the state sales tax by a quarter-cent for four years in a bid to avoid steep cuts in funds for schools and other programs.

Fifty-five percent of registered voters say that they back such an increase, a drop from May, when 59% of voters supported it. The new poll shows 36% of voters opposed, with the remainder undecided.

Views swing widely by political affiliation. Among Democrats, 72% favor the proposal. Only 27% of Republican voters support it. Sixty-three percent of independent voters approve.

An intense opposition campaign could derail the governor's initiative, Proposition 30. Support drops to 48% when voters are presented with arguments they might hear before the Nov. 6 election. Foes of the measure say, for example, that government wastes too much of the money it already has.

"An ongoing debate can make this very close," said Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, one of two firms that conducted the bipartisan poll. The other company, American Viewpoint, is a Republican concern.

The USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences/Los Angeles Times poll surveyed 1,504 registered voters by telephone from Sept. 17 to Sept. 23. The margin of error is 2.9 percentage points.

Brown, whose approval rating has dipped 3 points since May to 46%, has said the state needs new taxes because budget cuts alone won't solve its financial problems. He's counting on voters like Gerardine Gauch to turn out on election day.

The 60-year-old prison psychologist from Monterey County said California is facing the hard reality that it's no longer a sun-splashed land "where everything goes fine forever."

"When you're growing up, you have to choose what's valuable and what's not," said Gauch, a Democrat. "And you have to pay for what's valuable."

Others are skeptical of Brown's vow to cut almost $6 billion from the budget if taxes don't pass, with public schools taking most of the hit. The threat hasn't budged voters like Anna Carson, a 60-year-old Republican from San Diego.

"They use education as the emotional hook," she said. "It's just baloney."

Tiffany Axene, a 32-year-old Republican from Riverside County, won't support the tax hikes either, even though she has four small children who could be bound for public schools. "I'm just tired of seeing people who make money get taxed and taxed," she said.

Younger Californians are some of Proposition 30's most consistent supporters, with 77% of registered voters ages 18 through 29 in favor. Support slides to 47% among respondents older than 64. Voters with children of school age or younger fall in between, supporting the measure 59% to 35%.

The outcome in November could be influenced by the 8% of respondents who are unsure how to vote — and by whether opponents of the proposal can muster the resources to sway them.

"The biggest question now is whether the opposition will have the money to get their argument heard," said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC and a former GOP political consultant.

I'll be voting against the initiative, since I've long held that the state's blue model of governance is unsustainable. If Prop. 30 fails it will force a round of major restructuring that could save the state billions in the long run, and that should be just the start of rethinking the out-of-control California big government boondoggle.

Chicago Teachers' Union's Occupy Che Protest

Via My Pet Jawa:

The editors at the New York Times, shilling for the White House, aren't pleased: "Chicago Teachers' Folly."

Chicago Teachers Union Will Strike for First Time in 25 Years

The New York Times reports, "With No Contract Deal by Deadline in Chicago, Teachers Will Strike."

It turns out the communists and Occupy protesters are turning the strike into a class-warfare campaign for worker's solidarity. Here's the World Workers Party on Twitter:

Victory to the #CTU! Their strike will have implications for public education and teachers' unions across the U.S. #ctustrike
— Socialist Worker (@SocialistViews) September 10, 2012

A collection of articles from the Socialist Worker is here. And a commentary here, "The meaning of our struggle in Chicago."

Plus Marathon Pundit reports, "Strike out: Chicago public school teachers walk out; non-union charter schools still in session."

There should be marches and picketing tomorrow --- and thus plenty of photos and video of commies gone wild. I'll be updating. This ought to be something else.

Added: From Anne Sorock, at Legal Insurrection, "Chicago Teachers Union strikes, publishes Gloria Steinem endorsement."

Teachers Unions' Alliance With Democratic Party Frays

So says the Los Angeles Times:

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Teachers unions have been the Democratic Party's foot soldiers for more than half a century, providing not only generous financial backing but an army of volunteers in return for support of their entrenched power in the nation's public schools.

But this relationship is fraying, and the deterioration was evident Monday as Democrats gathered here for their national convention.

A handful of teachers and parents, carrying large inflated pencils, picketed a screening of "Won't Back Down," a movie to be released this month starring Maggie Gyllenhaal and Viola Davis as mothers, one a teacher, who try to take over a failing inner-city school.

The plot is ripped from the headlines: California has the first "parent trigger" law in the nation, which allows parents to petition for sweeping changes to improve low-performing schools. The first parent trigger attempts have occurred in Compton and Adelanto; the former failed, and the latter faces numerous obstacles.

Parent triggers, along with other emerging efforts, have some Democrats questioning their party's longtime support of guarantees that public school districts have made to teachers for decades. Those efforts also include merit pay, charter schools, weakening the tenure system and evaluating teachers partly based on their students' performance on standardized tests.

"There is no longer sort of this assumed alliance between the Democratic Party and the teachers unions," Michelle Rhee, a leader in the movement, said in an interview. Rhee, a Democrat who is a target of the unions' ire, discussed the issues on a panel after the film screening here and one at the Republican National Convention last week.

"There are now lots of Democrats who are saying, 'You know what, we're for teachers and teachers unions, we support the concept of collective bargaining, but there are clearly some things that need to change, and we are willing to stand up and talk about those challenges,'" she said.

More at the link.

Two reactions: One, I continue to be astounded at the supreme selfishness of America's teachers' unions. It's never about putting the children first, absolutely never. Two, I don't believe for a second that the unions' relationship with the Democrat Party is frayed in the least. Randi Weingarten and her ilk have nowhere else to go, in any case. They can grumble all they want about movies and school reform, but so far their bureaucratic death grip on the schools seems very secure.

See the related report at the New York Times from the other day, "School Choice Is No Cure-All, Harlem Finds." Black parents are searching frantically for a good education for the children. And big plans for school choice, like Mayor Bloomberg's, often come up short, with devastating effect for families.

Chicago Teachers Union Attacks 'Hating Breitbart' Filmmaker Andrew Marcus

This is amazing, at Legal Insurrection, "Teachers Union releases hit piece video against director of Hating Breitbart":

The Teachers Union may ... have been upset about Marcus’s coverage of some of their protest marches, particularly the documentation of their collaboration with Occupy and Anarchist organizer Lisa Fithian...

More at "Hating Breitbart" on Twitter.

According to Discover the Networks, Fithian "Served as a human shield in actions conducted by the International Solidarity Movement in the Palestinian cities of Jenin and Nablus," and "Has accused Israel of “slaughter[ing] Palestinians every single day in Gaza and the Occupied territories”." Plus, Fithian "Is the top street-level organizer of the Occupy Wall Street movement..."

Boy, that's a huge surprise.

See also, FrontPage Magazine, "Occupy Wall Street: The Communist Movement Reborn."

California Teachers Association is State's Top Political Bully

I posted on CTA recently, "California Progressives Fight Desperately Against 'Paycheck Protection' Initiative, Proposition 32."

And here they are again, at the Los Angeles Times, "California Teachers Assn. a powerful force in Sacramento":

SACRAMENTO — Last year, as Gov. Jerry Brown hammered out final details of the state budget, he huddled around a conference table with three of the most powerful people in state government: the Assembly speaker, the Senate leader — and Joe Nuñez, chief lobbyist for the California Teachers Assn.

California was on the edge of fiscal crisis. Negotiations had come down to one sticking point: Brown and the legislators would balance the books by assuming that billions of dollars in extra revenue would materialize, then cut deeply from schools if it didn't.

Nuñez said no.

Opposition from the powerful union, which had just staged a week of public protests against budget cuts, could mean a costly legal challenge. So the group took a break, and the officials retired to another room to hash out something acceptable to CTA while Nuñez awaited their return.

It may seem unorthodox for an unelected citizen to sit with Sacramento's elite as they pick winners and losers in the annual spending sweepstakes. But few major financial decisions in California are made without Nuñez, who represents what is arguably the most potent force in state politics.

The union views itself as "the co-equal fourth branch of government," said Oakland Democrat Don Perata, a former teacher who crossed swords with the group when he was state Senate leader.

Backed by an army of 325,000 teachers and a war chest as sizable as those of the major political parties, CTA can make or break all sorts of deals. It holds sway over Democrats, labor's traditional ally, and Republicans alike.

Jim Brulte, a former leader of the state Senate's GOP caucus, recalled once attending a CTA reception with a Republican colleague who told the union's leaders that he had come to "check with the owners."

CTA is one of the biggest political spenders in California. It outpaced all other special interests, including corporate players such as telecommunications giant AT&T and the Chevron oil company, from 2000 through 2009, according to a state study. In that decade, the labor group shelled out more than $211 million in political contributions and lobbying expenses — roughly twice that of the next largest spender, the Service Employees International Union.

Since then it has spent nearly $40 million more, including $4.7 million to help Brown become governor, according to the union's filings with the secretary of state.

And CTA's influence, unlike that of other interests, is written directly into California's Constitution. More than two decades ago, the group drafted an initiative to guarantee public schools at least 40% of the general fund and waged a successful multimillion-dollar campaign for it. As author and defender of that law, the union established a firm grip on the largest chunk of the budget.

Continue reading.

California Progressives Fight Desperately Against 'Paycheck Protection' Initiative, Proposition 32

I was forwarded an email from Mike Myslinski, who is the public relations director at the California Teachers Association:

From: "Myslinski, Mike"
Date: July 14, 2012 10:57:47 AM PDT
To: CTA XXX XXXX XXXXX

Comrades:

I posted this blog on the CTA Facebook page this morning. Steve Smith of California Labor Federation and Brian Brokaw of the No on 32 campaign are quoted...

http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/07/12/the-war-on-workers-comes-to-california-in-disguise/

Mike Myslinski

CTA Communications

You gotta love the "comrades" salutation, for one thing, which is how Communist Party members greet each other. And then note how the state's far-left teachers union goes to radical left-wing blogs for talking points. The link goes to David Dayen at Firedoglake, "The War On Workers Comes to California, in Disguise." It's actually a good discussion of the initiative, with all the left-wing spin naturally, but this part is key:

Unions can ask their members to voluntarily donate to political causes, say the backers of Prop 32. But the initiative contains an additional measure that requires an annual written authorization from each union member on even voluntary contributions. Unions typically have an automatic process to collect dues and use them in part for political ends. Now they would have to go through a time- and resource-consuming process of collecting all dues individually, getting written authorization for how the dues can be used, in such a way that would be logistically impossible.

The fact is, my union doesn't notify employees about opting out of union political activities. You can do that, if you learn your rights, but you have to go to the union reps to fill out special paperwork, and even then, just 20 percent or so is prohibited from political activities, when in fact much more of what unions do, as a ratio of their activities, is interest group political lobbying and campaigns. In fact, CTA is THE BIGGEST political contributor in California politics, although it ends up funding Democrat political issues and candidates exclusively, which then misrepresents the political interests of the members who are conservative or Republican. You're basically screwed as a CTA member. So that's why the paycheck provisions of Prop. 32 are especially attractive. See Labor Pains for a discussion of this issue nationally, "UNIONS DISREGARD MEMBERS’ POLITICAL PREFERENCES."

The Dayen piece above cribs a bunch of those quotes right from the left's anti-Prop. 32 talking points. The CTA has not one but two websites to oppose the measure, the CTA's page, "No on 32: Stop Special Exemptions," and "Stop the Special Exemptions Act." And here's their marquee ad:

Unions are the "schoolhouses of socialism."

The conservative public sector reforms are crucially necessary to break these f-kers and drive 'em six-feet under.

See Ballotpedia for more, "California Proposition 32."

Nine San Diego 7th-Graders Caught Masturbating In Class While Watching Porn

The joys of technology in the classroom.

Pat Dollard reports, "Middle Schoolers Suspended For Masturbating While Watching Porn on Cellphones in Class."

But wait!

It turns out there's more to the story, at Huffington Post, "San Diego Students Suspended After 'Gay Test' Involving Watching Porn Videos On Cell Phones":

Nine seventh grade students at a San Diego-based middle school were suspended last month after watching pornographic videos as part of a so-called "gay test," according to reports.

According to U-T San Diego News, students in all-boys English class at Bell Middle School in Paradise Hills allegedly wore gym shorts as they watched videos on their cell phones. Whoever became sexually aroused while watching the videos was labeled gay, and several adolescents masturbated openly during the class.

In addition, peers complained of inaction by teacher Ed Johnson, who is now reportedly under fire because he did not respond to students who told him about the behavior while it was allegedly happening, according to NBC San Diego.

Among those to condemn the news was Patiti Boman of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, who called the incident "terrible," even though Bell Middle School officials have yet to confirm many details.

"I was thinking we were getting better and that’s why we go out and speak in schools. This is news to me and this gives me chills,” Boman, part of the team which helped craft the district’s anti-harassment policy, told U-T San Diego news. "They use that to attack and intimidate."

Oh brother.

They're 7th graders and obviously their teacher doesn't know how to manage a classroom. So instead of a discipline problem (and the appropriate consequences for the boys), this case will likely metastasize into a "hate crimes" investigation against these kids.

It's not getting any easier to be a kid these days, that's for sure.

Students May Not Take Pictures of Sleeping Teachers

Well, I can't imagine when a teacher would have time to sleep, although one semester when I had a night class, after I held my office hours in the afternoon, I'd lie down on the floor to rest before going back out to teach.

But that's not what this is about, at Blazing Cat Fur and Jawa Report:

'I Just Wanted to Tell You How Much I Enjoyed Your Class Last Semester'

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Patricia McAllister Fired by LAUSD: Anti-Semitic Teacher Caught on Tape at 'Occupy L.A.' Protest

McAllister, in a local TV interview, discusses her termination at the video. She's holding a sign that reads, "Congress Should Print the Money, NOT the Zionist Jews":

McAllister was fired by LAUSD after her anti-Semitic statements went viral over the weekend on YouTube. Reason's Tim Cavanaugh, who interviewed her, has responded with his own commentary --- and it's not very compelling, frankly, considering Reason's reputation as the premiere libertarian magazine: "Reason Guilty of Anti-ANTI-Semitism: Sub Teacher Fired." Go read it all. Cavanaugh attempts to split the difference between being a parent and being a journalist, and he fails badly.

And more failure from the editors at Los Angeles Times, who applaud the district's decision: "Free speech — Within Limits." It's a horrible editorial. The woman's entitled to her opinions, no matter how sick, and the Times offers the slipperiest of slopes to defend her termination:

As a teacher, McAllister works with a captive audience of vulnerable children. Her comments certainly raise questions about her ability to treat them all equally and fairly. What's more, even if she's been the soul of discretion on the job, as well as kind and evenhanded with all her students, by making herself a public symbol of intolerance, McAllister no longer can serve effectively as a teacher.

For one thing, Jewish students likely would feel intimidated in her classes, no matter how nicely she treated them; their parents and many others might storm the principals' offices demanding her removal. Other students and parents might rally to her cause, or, alternately, they too might feel threatened by her bigoted positions. She would be a disruptive element on campus, and her future effectiveness as a teacher would almost certainly be compromised. (After she was fired, McAllister expanded on her views in an interview with Fox TV: "The word Jew is similar to communism today … Jews have been run out of 109 countries through history and we need to run them out of this one.")

As execrable as her comments were, it might be a different matter if McAllister were, say, a Department of Motor Vehicles clerk. There, she would be dealing with adults who could hold their own, and would have little direct authority over them. It also might be different if she had expressed a controversial opinion that was not an inflammatory attack on a particular ethnic or religious group.

We're reluctant to restrict anyone's ability to express even the most loathsome views openly and publicly. But when a teacher trumpets hateful opinions that could intimidate the impressionable young people she's supposed to be serving, that's not just free speech — it's a performance issue. In speaking out so intemperately, McAllister's ability to do her job was fatally compromised.

I find McAllister's comments reprehensible. But as one who's been the subject of a three-year campaign attempting to get me fired, I have serious issues with concern trolling bullshit like this. Watch the video above. Toward the end the news clip, the district's statement flashes on screen:

As Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), I want to emphasize that we condemn the remarks made recently by Patricia McAllister.

Her comments, made during non-work time at a recent protest rally, were her private opinions and were not made in the context of District services. At LAUSD, we recognize that the law is very protective of the freedom of speech rights of public employees when they are speaking as private citizens during non-working time.

I further emphasize to our students, who watch us and look to us for guidance, to be role models and to represent the ideals by which LAUSD lives, that we will never stand for behavior that is disrespectful, intolerant or discriminatory.

As a day-to-day substitute teacher, Ms. McAllister was an at-will employee. As of today, she is no longer an employee of the LAUSD.

Notice that? The district states a principle, yet abandons it because the teacher is untenured. Thus, being tenured creates rights that are denied to individuals not similarly situated. Ugly or not, the woman was stating her opinion, a political opinion, at a political rally while acting in private capacity. The district's decision reaches into the realm of personal space. And it should not. This is tyranny. They fired her because they could, not because it was right. And there's so much more going on there: McAllister taught small children, so perhaps parents would have been upset, as the Times suggests. Fine. Let the parents pull their kids out of class. Or better yet, let them pull their students out of the school altogether. McAllister's comments are not an aberration. That kind of progressive anti-Semitism is inherent to radical left-wing ideology. And people just like McAllister are like grotesque malignancies growing all through public education in the United States. LAUSD burned off a cancerous growth but they didn't cure the disease. The solution to offensive speech is more speech. Let more McAllisters bloom and Americans will soon be taking a closer look at the public schools, and they won't like what they see. Note how McAllister is not misspeaking when she spouts her hatred. It would have come out on the job, sooner or later. And if the kids in her charge are young and vulnerable, transfer her into the higher grades. If students are offended they'll know without having to be force-fed outrage. They can complain fair and square and the school would have been on solid ground in terminating her for racist, discriminatory speech in the classroom, prohibited by statutory regulation.

And here's this from Gary, at the comments at Libertarian Republican:

Big Brother keeps marching.

Your employer will not allow freedom of speech on your own time and away from your place of employment.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

You got it.

'Don't Hold Us Back'

At LA Weekly, "Los Angeles Charities and Minority Groups Tell United Teachers Los Angeles and LAUSD: 'Don't Hold Us Back'" (via Instapundit).

Ten years ago, most of these people would have been extremely reluctant to call out UTLA.

That would have been seen as anti-union.

But with Los Angeles kids circling the drain (and remember the frightening fact that LAUSD educates one in every eight or nine kids in all of California) and with the union fighting most attempts at change, those days seem over.

At my college, my head hurts sometimes when the union pushes positions that harm students, but you can't get a word in edgewise. After a while, you don't even try. Hopefully the "Don't Hold Us Back" coalition will have an impact.

The Myth of the Digital Native

An interesting piece from Josh Sternberg, at The Atlantic, "Social Media's Slow Slog Into the Ivory Towers of Academia." The "myth" of the digital native holds that students don't actually know as much about digital technology as some professors claim, and the myth holds because professors are afraid of being shown up by savvy students. At community college there's something of a digital divide ---- so there really is a myth of the digital native --- but there's still a core of students on the cutting edge of technology. So, we can learn from our students, but it takes professors to give up some control over learning so that it's a conversation in the classroom rather than a disquisition. That doesn't work all the time, since I believe students need frequent chalk and talk lectures to impart the important stuff that they simply don't know. But soliciting feedback on an area of learning where students have a homefield advantage creates win-win situations. Besides, it's a lot more fun to talk about the cool stuff.

Hugs and Thanks to Maggie Thornton

Maggie picked my piece on teaching the Gettysburg Address: "Donald Douglas: A Professor Teaching Real Political History."

And from the comments there:

In today’s American world, this professor is a gem!

Well, thank you!!

More at Maggie's Notebook.

Also, a warm appreciation goes to Gator Doug: "The DaleyGator supports our friend, Donald Douglas."

I get by with a little help from my friends.

'I Admire Your Passion'

My classes went really well last week. And recall on Tuesday I mentioned that I'd be covering Abraham Lincoln and the Gettysburg Address during lectures. Well, I stress how President Lincoln appealed to Thomas Jefferson in the first paragraph of the Address, where he wrote:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

The Civil War was not initially fought for the emancipation of the slaves, but for the preservation of Union. After Gettysburg the correlation of forces was shifting, and when Lincoln was asked to present at the dedication for the Soldiers' National Cemetery, he put great effort into composing a dedication that would transcend divisions and unify the continued campaigns around an elevated set of war aims focusing on human freedom and the American experience. Should the country be forever divided, it was very well possible that the spark of liberty would forever "perish from the earth."

While presenting the discussion to my students, I pull up my photo of President Lincoln's statue at the Lincoln Memorial, and I ask if students have visited Washington, D.C. A lot of students have not been to the nation's capital, so I share how I felt when I've visited, and I stress how deeply affected I have been, and how especially moving is the Lincoln Memorial. My textbook features a photograph of the left-hand wall of the Memorial, where the Address is engraved, and I mention how there are always people sitting down beneath it, reading quietly in appreciation. And then I remind students that Martin Luther King, Jr., gave his "I Have a Dream" speech from the steps of the Memorial. And if you visit, make sure to look for the inscription at the top of the steps, where it says that MLK delivered his speech from that very spot, August 28th, 1963. And I recite for my students how Dr. King challenged the country to "live out the true meaning of its creed, that all men are created equal." And I draw the line of liberty back from Dr. King to Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Jefferson, and I remind folks that while this nation was indeed founded in crisis --- the crisis of slavery --- our greatness lies in our charter documents, pieces of parchment holding the political philosophy that pushes Americans to a higher moral standard, a template of universal goodness, one that still shines bright in the world. And we as citizens can't just stand on the sidelines hoping that the American democracy will continue, but that we have an obligation to ourselves and our fellow citizens to continue the work of our forefathers, to continue to ensure that democracy "shall not perish from the earth."

In any case, I do enjoy the discussions with students, and after my very last class on Tuesday, a young woman named Rebekah came up after I dismissed the class, and she said to me, "You know, Dr. Douglas, I admire your passion." I thanked her and I returned the compliment, because she's been very engaged in class, asking questions and volunteering to lead the discussions. Moments like that are what really make teaching meaningful. I hope I have a lot more of these over the course of the semester.

Also, related, I blogged Steven Givler's recent essay on the New York Times, where he mentioned we might benefit from the example of community college professors, and after I commented at the post, Steven wrote:

Hi Donald, I was actually thinking of you when I mentioned the community college.

As I always say, conservatives are good people. And I'm strengthened by the periodic feedback I receive that I am indeed doing something that is good and decent, and those efforts are not entirely overlooked by both my students and those who have followed my writing. Those of us of good moral standing know that decency and right always prevail, but we can never let our efforts wane, for Satan's toilers stalk along the sidelines, looking for a chance to weaken us and pave the way for darkness to spread across the land. We have faced the danger in history and we have come near to it again of late. Thankfully, the Obama interregnum is now half past, and we can soon push to victory in 2012 and reclaim some of the liberty that the dark side has vanquished.

Be strong dear friends and readers. I'm still in the fight.

The Myth of the Extraordinary Teacher

From Ellie Herman, at Los Angeles Times:

The kid in the back wants me to define "logic." The girl next to him looks bewildered. The boy in front of me dutifully takes notes even though he has severe auditory processing issues and doesn't understand a word I'm saying. Eight kids forgot their essays, but one has a good excuse because she had another epileptic seizure last night. The shy, quiet girl next to me hasn't done homework for weeks, ever since she was jumped by a knife-wielding gangbanger as she walked to school. The boy next to her is asleep with his head on the desk because he works nights at a factory to support his family. Across the room, a girl weeps quietly for reasons I'll never know. I'm trying to explain to a student what I meant when I wrote "clarify your thinking" on his essay, but he's still confused.

It's 8:15 a.m. and already I'm behind my scheduled lesson. A kid with dyslexia, ADD and anger-management problems walks in late, throws his books on the desk and swears at me when I tell him to take off his hood.

The class, one of five I teach each day, has 31 students, including two with learning disabilities, one who just moved here from Mexico, one with serious behavior problems, 10 who flunked this class last year and are repeating, seven who test below grade level, three who show up halfway through class every day, one who almost never comes. I need to reach all 31 of them, including the brainiac who's so bored she's reading "Lolita" under her desk.

I just can't do it.

Keep reading to get to the myth of extraordinary teachers, although I'll add this part:

I understand that we need to get rid of bad teachers, who will be just as bad in small classes, but we can't demand that teachers be excellent in conditions that preclude excellence.

Actually, I'm not even sold on the idea of "really bad" teachers. Some aren't that great and probably shouldn't be teaching. I can think of a couple of professors at my college who have absolutely no social skills, and hence have a hard time reaching a comfortable or appropriate level of interaction with their students. But I also often hear reports about how such-and-such teacher changed some student's life. It's that level of interaction that gives meaning. The students I'm able to help most are generally those who take the time to break from the routine of just showing up. I'll be there to help students, inside the class and out. I'm especially thankful when students make an effort to attend office hours and share with me their own challenges or difficulties. That's when I can assess what needs to be done, and I can design some kind of extra program of help or attention, from either myself or other resources on campus. But all those stories Ms. Herman shares about her students, well, I have some as well. It's the inside of education that's not always known or understood. A lot of this is economic disadvantage, but a lot is just the way things are, that not every student who comes to us turns out as a Ph.D. candidate to Harvard. You make a difference where you can, helping students to learn and move forward. And hopefully you get a little recognition in return, even if it's just a well-needed thank you for your efforts.

Save Our Schools March and National Call to Action

I've forgotten now, but I'm sure I got a few NEA e-mails on this. Here's the website.

These people are angry and stupid, and dangerous combination. Video c/o Glenn Reynolds:

Lessons in Handling Plagiarism From Professor Panagiotis Ipeirotis

I had a nightmare class at UCSB in 1999, the second lecture class I taught as in independent instructor. It was a Black Politics class. I had a running battle with radical students throughout the quarter. I even had one dude pull me aside to say, "Hey, man, this is how you teach the class." I wasn't down hard enough on the Man, apparently. This dude, and some of his allies, wanted a course in victimology and racial recrimination. And I was doing straight civil rights developments and the political science of voting rights and redistricting. It started to be a nightmare. Students complained to the department that I graded their midterms "too hard." It was a big learning experience. And the final exam was the kicker. I caught a couple of black women cheating. They were passing their exam sheets back and forth with notes they'd written while writing their essays. They had arrows and diagrams tracing arguments. It was involved. When one of them turned in the exam I asked for the question sheet and she wasn't about to give it to me. I was like hello? This is what you do. So she reluctantly gave to me and later I turned the students over to the vice chair of the department. Within a couple of days I was called into the chair's office, Professor Lorraine McDonnell, who no one liked, and who had a reputation, basically, of piggy-backing off her husband, Professor M. Stephen Weatherford, a nice guy and sought-after research "quant" (a numbers and methods guy who sharpened research knives, which is hip in political science, a field that remains envious of the economics discipline for its much more formal and recognized academic rigor). Professor McDonnell threw me under the bus. (I ended up assigning grades to all students and being done with that class, and I moved on after that semester to teach at Fresno State.)

Anyway, check this piece at Inside Higher Ed, "Who Is Punished for Plagiarism?" (via Glenn Reynolds):

Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis has taken down the controversial blog post, but the debate is raging on without the original material.

Ipeirotis, a computer scientist who teaches at New York University's Stern School of Business, wrote a post on his blog last week called "Why I will never pursue cheating again." In it, he told the story of how he found that about 20 percent of a 100-person class had plagiarized -- and described the fallout from his accusations. While Turnitin led to his initial suspicions, and gave clear evidence for some of the students, it only cast doubts on other students. Many of them confessed only when Ipeirotis told the class that if he didn't hear from those who had cheated, he would report the incident immediately -- whereas in the end he included in his report the information that students had admitted what they had done.

So why does Ipeirotis consider the experience a failure? His students became antagonistic, he wrote on the blog post, and gave him lower teaching evaluations than he had ever received before. And those poor teaching evaluations were cited in a review that resulted in the smallest raise he had ever received.

Keep reading.

Ipeirotis' post is taken down temporarily. But Ruan YiFeng's Blog has excerpts. I like this:

“The process of discussing all the detected cases was not only painful, it was extremely time consuming as well.

Students would come to my office and deny everything. Then I would present them the evidence. They would soften but continue to deny it. Only when I was saying “enough, I will just give the case to the honorary council who will decide” most students were admitting wrongdoing. But every case was at least 2 hours of wasted time.

With 22 cases, that was a lot of time devoted to cheating: More than 45 hours in completely unproductive discussions, when the total lecture time for the course was just 32 hours. This is simply too much time.”

Students, in general, are inveterate liars when it comes to grades and classroom performance. I'd need more information, but this sounds like Ipeirotis' crucible from the trenches. You can't be an excellent teacher without failing a few times. And in this case there was something wrong, very wrong, with the course design. Exams and paper assignments have to be designed to prevent cheating. If he's doing research papers, there's got to be a way to create a project that students can't easily off load from the web. I still catch about one student plagiarizing a paper every year in World Politics, and usually a couple in American Government. And technically, you can't just fail them without due process. And to provide due process requires a formal administrative review and possibly hearing, and most professors don't even grasp the legal significance of the process. Since I've been a "traditional" professor on the issues, I had some experience dealing with problems at my college and soon I ended up leading a couple of workshops on academic discipline. It's the same stories over and over again. A lot of things you hear are just like what Professor Ipeirotis recounts. And that's why each professor has to develop an assignment regime that makes cheating hard, but they've also got to be ready to uphold standards. For the most part, my college today backs professors. Maybe students at community college aren't as powerful --- or their parents have less resources --- as students at competitive universities, but it pays to lay the administrative groundwork for upholding policies inside the classroom. Without that backing, teaching, inevitably, will be no fun.

New York Minority Parents Protest National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT)

Hopefully we'll be seeing more protests like this.

At Big Government, "Inner City Parents Protest Teachers’ Union, NAACP Over Charter School Lawsuit" (via News Alert):