Tag Archives: ethics

Doublespeak

Posted on by
Reply

MIT’s President Sally Kornbluth, the school’s Provost, Chancellor, and all six academic deans say they’re doing away with the DEI commitment the school had been requiring of prospective employees as a hiring criterion. Through a university “spokesperson,” they told the New York Post,

Requests for a statement on diversity will no longer be part of applications for any faculty positions at MIT[.]

Kornbluth expanded on that.

…compelled statements impinge on freedom of expression…they don’t work.

And more of her expansion:

We can build an inclusive environment in many ways….

There’s the doublespeak with which we’re so used to coming from the mouths of the Left. Kornbluth and her MIT management team will continue their DEI hiring criteria; they just won’t be up front about them regarding loyalty pledges.

Adult-Run Universities

Posted on by
Reply

Ben Sasse, President of the University of Florida, had an opinion piece in Friday’s Wall Street Journal that is, in the main, spot on. The thrust of his article was that, with adults in charge of our colleges and universities, and with those adults holding misbehaving students responsible for their behavior, actual idea-centric debate and education can occur.

The thrust of Sasse’s complete remarks are spot on, but I do have a couple of disagreements.

Pro-Hamas agitators have fought police, barricaded themselves in university buildings, shut down classes, forced commencement cancellations, and physically impeded Jewish students from attending lectures.

Pro-Hamas terrorist-supporting agitators have…. The seeming redundancy is necessary to clarify who and what these…persons…are.

Second, these terrorist supporters and the student populations who have consciously decided to go along with the agitation have not shut down any classes or forced any commencement cancelations. The cowardice of college and university management teams and of far too many “professors” has done that with their craven decisions.

It’s also the cowardice of those teams and “professors” that has facilitated those terrorist-supporting agitators’ and their student accomplices’ clashes with police, building occupations, and obstruction of Jewish and all other students’ attempts to attend the classes and lectures for which they’re paying more than a few pretty pennies.

A Coward’s Copout

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal article centered on the Los Angeles police response to the disruptions and outright riot on the UCLA campus, there was this bit of attempted deflection:

Some universities and officials have blamed outsiders for coming to schools to escalate the protests.

This is a coward’s copout. It’s true enough that some outsiders are involved and fomenting some of the agitation. However, the students are voluntarily choosing to be agitated and choosing, on their own initiative, to participate in the pro-terrorist support, the antisemitic bigotry, the vandalism, the explicit threats of violence that are at the core of the disruptions.

The presence of outsiders in no way absolves these students of their participation in these…disruptions…and in no way mitigates their responsibility for their choices and actions.

A Statement of Responsibility…and of Consequences

Posted on by
Reply

‘Way back in 1969, the University of Notre Dame’s then-President Father Ted Hesburgh had this to say about the consequences of student disruptions [emphasis in the original]:

Now comes my duty of stating, clearly and unequivocally, what happens if…. Anyone or any group that substitutes force for rational persuasion, be it violent or non-violent, will be given fifteen minutes of meditation to cease and desist…. If they do not within that time period cease and desist, they will be asked for their identity cards. Those who produce these will be suspended from this community as not understanding what this community is. Those who do not have or will not produce identity cards will be assumed not to be members of the community and will be charged with trespassing and disturbing the peace on private property and treated accordingly by the law.
After notification of suspension, or trespass in the case of non-community members, if there is not within five minutes a movement to cease and desist, students will be notified of expulsion from this community and the law will deal with them as non-students.
There seems to be a current myth that university members are not responsible to the law, and that somehow the law is the enemy, particularly those whom society has constituted to uphold and enforce the law. I would like to insist here that all of us are responsible to the duly constituted laws of this University community and to all of the laws of the land. There is no other guarantee of civilization versus the jungle or mob rule, here or elsewhere.

It must be noted that Hesburgh’s consequences are just as applicable to today’s crop of school professors who participate in such disruptions.

It’s too bad that today’s school administrators lack Father Hesburgh’s clarity and moral courage in executing the duties attached to school administration.

The Draft

Posted on by
Reply

A correspondent to The Wall Street Journal‘s Tuesday’s Letters wrote of the consequences of ending the military draft and of the need for reinstating it.

He’s spot on, including his call for keeping exemptions to a bare minimum.

If we are to reinstate the draft, exemptions must be few and confined to medical reasons. American youth deserve fairness if they are to respond to the call of freedom.

I agree with reinstating the draft, but I would add two opportunities for delay by one drafted.

College/trade school students who are drafted should be allowed an opportunity to finish their degrees/certifications before heading to boot camp. That opportunity, though, should come with its own limit. College degrees take four, or at most five years, and trade school programs take two, or at most three years. A drafted student’s delay clock should start from the first year of his time in school, and the delay should expire at the end of those four/five years or two/three years, whether he’s finished his program or not.

Graduate students would have no such delay; they should be required to report on the specified date.

The other delay—which could convert to an exemption—should apply to those enrolled in ROTC programs. When I went through USAF ROTC some while ago, the program proceeded in two phases. The first was a General Military Course, which lasted for two years, and at the conclusion conferred no obligation to enlist. Any student could enroll in the GMC. The second phase, the Professional Officer Course, was open only to those who had completed the GMC (the requirement could be waived, but that was only rarely done), and enrolling in the POC involved formally enlisting in the Air Force as an NCO. Cadets could resign from the POC at any time, but they were then expected to report for duty at their NCO rank (a requirement that, in the realization, wasn’t always enforced.)

A draft/delay exemption would apply to ROTC enrollees in this way. Their draft delays would date from their enrollment in the GMC. Resigning from the GMC, or declining to subsequently enroll in the POC would require the draft-delayed student to report to boot camp on the next available date. Students who resign from the POC would be required—with no exceptions—to report for duty at their NCO rank. A cadet who completes the ROTC program and is commissioned would see his draft status OBE.