User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

   

By Walter E. Williams

Just within the past week or so, some shocking professorial behavior has come to light. In the wake of Barbara Bush's death, California State University, Fresno professor Randa Jarrar took to Twitter to call the former first lady an "amazing racist." Jarrar added, "PSA: either you are against these pieces of s--- and their genocidal ways or you're part of the problem. that's actually how simple this is. I'm happy the witch is dead. can't wait for the rest of her family to fall to their demise the way 1.5 million iraqis have. byyyeeeeeeee."
    In New Jersey, Brookdale Community College professor Howard Finkelstein, in a heated exchange, was captured on video telling a conservative student, "F--- your life!" At the City University of New York School of Law, students shouted down guest lecturer Josh Blackman for 10 minutes before he could continue his remarks. When Duke University President Vincent Price was trying to address alumni, students commandeered the stage, shouting demands and telling him to leave.
    None of this professorial and student behavior is new at the nation's colleges. It's part of the leftist agenda that dominates our colleges. A new study by Brooklyn College professor Mitchell Langbert -- "Homogeneous: The Political Affiliations of Elite Liberal Arts College Faculty" (http://tinyurl.com/ycfomjy6) -- demonstrates that domination. (By the way, Academic Questions is a publication of the National Association of Scholars, an organization fighting the leftist propaganda in academia.) Langbert examines the political affiliation of Ph.D.-holding faculty members at 51 of the 66 top-ranked liberal arts colleges according to U.S. News & World Report. He finds that 39 percent of the colleges in his sample are Republican-free -- with zero registered Republicans on their faculties. As for Republicans within academic departments, 78 percent of those departments have no Republican members or so few as to make no difference.
    Langbert breaks down the faculty Democrat-to-Republican ratio by academic department, and there are not many surprises. Engineering departments have 1.6 Democrats for every Republican. Chemistry and economics departments have about 5.5 Democrats for every Republican. The situation is especially bad in anthropology departments, where the Democrat-to-Republican faculty ratio is 133-to-1, and in communications departments, where the ratio is 108-to-zero. Langbert says, "I could not find a single Republican with an exclusive appointment to fields like gender studies, Africana studies, and peace studies."
    Later on in the study, Langbert turns his attention to Democrat-to-Republican faculty ratios at some of our most elite colleges. At Williams College, the Democrat-to-Republican ratio is 132-to-1. At Amherst College, it's 34-to-1. Wellesley's is 136-to-1. At Swarthmore, 120-to-1. Claremont McKenna, 4-to-1. Davidson, 10-to-1. Only two colleges of the top 66 on U.S. News & World Report's 2017 list have a modicum of equality in numbers between Democratic and Republican faculty members. They are the U.S. Military Academy, aka West Point, with a Democrat-to-Republican ratio of 1.3-to-1, and the U.S. Naval Academy, whose ratio is 2.3-to-1.
    Many professors spend class time indoctrinating students with their views. For faculty members who are Democrats, those views can be described as leftist, socialist or communist. It is a cowardly act for a professor to take advantage of student immaturity by indoctrinating pupils with his opinions before the students have developed the maturity and skill to examine other opinions. It is also dereliction of duty of college administrators and boards of trustees to permit the continuance of what some professors and students are doing in the name of higher education.
    Langbert's findings suggest biases in college research and academic policy, where leftist political homogeneity is embedded in the college culture. The leftist bias at most of the nation's colleges is in stark contrast to the political leanings of our nation. According to a number of Pew Research Center surveys, most Americans identify as conservative. These Americans are seeing their tax dollars and tuition dollars going to people who have contempt for their values and seek to indoctrinate their children with leftist ideas.
    Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

  

by John Stossel

  Why does American journalist Abby Martin do propaganda for socialist murderers?
    You've heard about Russian propaganda. Martin once worked for RT, Russia's state-run news network.
    Now she's got a similar gig at teleSUR, an anti-capitalist, pro-socialist news network funded by Latin American leftists.
    I'd never heard of teleSUR before researching this week's YouTube video. But teleSUR matters because its videos get millions of views. Latin America stays poor because people believe socialist propaganda.
    One teleSUR video lists countries where "capitalism failed": Canada, Mexico, England, Peru, Panama, Switzerland, the United States...
    Another says that "Trump is killing our brains with Nazi-era chemicals."
    Few viewers know that teleSUR is funded by the tyrants who control Cuba and Venezuela.
    Venezuela, once rich, has been bankrupted by its socialist rulers. More than a million Venezuelans have fled to neighboring Colombia and Brazil.
    Those who don't flee go hungry. One study found Venezuelans have lost, on average, more than 20 pounds. Hundreds of children have died of starvation. But when other countries and philanthropists offer help, Venezuela's rulers refuse it.
    Instead, they spend their dwindling funds on teleSUR propaganda videos.
    One shows a picture of Warren Buffet's son while telling viewers, "Philanthropy is a scam that allows the super rich to influence global affairs ... as if capitalism were the solution, not the cause of world problems."
    Excuse me? Capitalism (START ITAL) is (END ITAL) a solution. In the last few decades, capitalism has lifted billions of people out of miserable poverty.
    By contrast, in Venezuela, many store shelves are empty.
    How can teleSUR put a positive spin on that? They hire "useful idiots," as Communists once called naive leftists who spread tyrants' propaganda. Today, one person they pay is former Californian Abby Martin.
    Martin produced a teleSUR video that shows Venezuelan store shelves filled with goods. Martin narrates, "We just went to about five different supermarkets and the shelves were fully stocked ... (W)hile it is true there are shortages, it seems like you are very able to find things for everyday life, no problem."
    I wanted to interview Martin, but she didn't respond to my interview requests.
    Back when Martin worked for RT, at least she criticized Russia for invading Ukraine. But she also used her RT airtime to praise tyrants like Hugo Chavez.
    "It is undeniable that under his leadership the poorest in the country were empowered," Martin said on RT.
    Empowered? By starving? Shortages? Rampant inflation? Government troops suppressing protestors?
    I wish Martin were as principled as her former RT colleague Liz Wahl. On RT, Wahl said:
    "I face many ethical and moral challenges ... I cannot be a part of a network funded by the Russian government." Then she quit, on-air. She got a job with a legitimate news network.
    But Martin stayed at RT for another year, and now she does government-funded propaganda for teleSUR.
    Her videos describe "U.S. death squads" and claim that NATO and the U.S. lead "constant wars of aggression." In the U.S., racism is "entrenched ... political opposition quashed" while the U.S. "empire ... runs on death and destruction and kills thousands of our brothers and sisters every day."
    Fergus Hodgson, who reports on Latin America, says teleSUR is winning hearts and minds.
    "Even well-meaning people here in the United States, I see them sharing teleSUR material all the time," he told me.
    "They should know that this is a media outlet that is funded by ... dictatorial communist or tyrannical rulers. (If you) share the material, you're sharing the lies of these brutal people. You're also sharing a media outlet that is funded by taking from the very poorest of the poor."
    He's right.
    Governments, especially socialist governments, like to present themselves as thinking only of "the people," but they have agendas just like private-sector con artists trying to sell you goods.
    Government sales pitches are harder to detect because they don't sell products like cars or shampoos. But they still sell their bad ideas by showing only the worst aspects of the alternative, the private sector.
    I'd love to hear Abby Martin's explanation for why she chooses to help push that socialist propaganda. Ms. Martin, my invitation for a Stossel TV interview stands.
    John Stossel is author of "No They Can't! Why Government Fails -- But Individuals Succeed." For other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2018 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

Press Release

SpringsTaxpayers.com –an organization committed to holding local government accountable– announced today its support of legal action filed on behalf of Old North End Property Owners for the Enforcement of the Master Plan, Inc. (ONEMP) that would stop the narrowing of Old North End Neighborhood streets, including N. Cascade Ave.

The complaint, filed on April 2, 2018, names the City of Colorado Springs, and Kathleen Krager in her official capacity as Senior Traffic Engineer for the City. ONEMP is asking for a temporary injunction to halt the work on N. Cascade Ave. Although the Planning Commission has never approved the plan, outlining of the new lanes narrowing N. Cascade Ave. to one lane in each direction commenced last week. 

 The President of ONEMP, Gerald Weiss, also sent a letter to the Mayor and City Council members asking them to direct, “Ms. Krager to stop the unapproved process until the Court has had a chance to review whether Ms. Krager has the unilateral power to install this new alignment without the promised review by the Planning Commission.” The Planning Commission has previously heard and voted down some of the changes that Krager is moving forward with.

  “Is the City so committed to its agenda of narrowing our roads against our will that they are willing to start the process before approval and before our court date,” area resident Ed Snyder asked. “These are our roads, we live here, and it is the height of arrogance for the City to press forward without our consent.”

 “Trying to implement these lane reductions against the wishes of area residents and without the approval of the Planning Commission is not acceptable,” said Laura Carno, founder of SpringsTaxpayers.com. “When lane changes were implemented on Research Parkway in 2016 against the wishes of the area residents, the removal cost the City over $10,000 of taxpayer money.”

 SpringsTaxpayers.com suggests that concerned citizens who oppose this road narrowing, whether because they live in the area, commute through the area, or work or attend school in the area, share their opinions with City Council at its normal bi-weekly meeting on Tuesday, April 24that 1:00 at City Hall. Although this topic is not on the agenda, anyone can make comments to City Council in the public comment portion of the meeting. Those speaking will each have 3-minutes to address City Council. Those not able to attend can email the City Council at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

 

 

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

  

by John Stossel

  What should be done about school shootings?
    After the horrible shooting in Parkland, Florida, President Trump suggested that some teachers carry guns. "We need to let people know, you come in to our schools -- you're gonna be dead."
    Anti-gun activists were horrified.
    But they probably didn't know that many teachers have brought guns to work with them for years.
    Some teachers at the Keene Independent School District in Texas carry concealed weapons at school.
    "We know our staff and our teachers are gonna go" defend students, Texas' Keene Independent School District superintendent Ricky Stephens told me for this week's online video. "Do we want them to go with a pencil or go with a pistol?"
    Stephens acknowledges that an attacker might have heavier weaponry than his teachers' handguns. "It's not much, but it's better than nothing," he argues. "If you go there with nothing, you have no chance of stopping anything."
    His teachers saw how in Florida the "school resource officer" simply waited outside during February's school shooting.
    "It made me mad," a teacher in Stephens' district told us. She's glad she carries her gun. "We have to have a fighting chance if something should happen." For my video, superintendent Stephens asked us to obscure her identity. He doesn't want potential attackers to know which teachers are armed.
    Opponents of armed teachers fear that guns will create new dangers. But even though teachers carry at hundreds of schools, I could find only one instance where one of those guns hurt a student. A California teacher accidentally discharged his weapon at the ceiling. A student was cut by falling debris. That's it. One minor injury.
    By contrast, armed school staffers have stopped school shootings. In Pearl, Mississippi, an assistant principal held a boy who killed two classmates at gunpoint until police arrived.
    No one knows how often armed teachers deter shootings. The media can't cover crimes that are never attempted.
    Of course, the media distort proposals to allow teachers to carry.
    One commentator shouted, "Teachers should not be required to protect!"
    But no teacher is required to carry. It's voluntary. Those who want to can bring their guns to school.
    On MSNBC, pundits criticized President Trump for advocating "arming" teachers, as if he'd proposed a federal program.
    He didn't. He just talked about "armed educators." Since lots of teachers already carry guns, all a school has to do is allow some to bring their weapons to work.
    The Keene district, however, does go further. "The school purchases the gun, and we register them to (some of) our teachers," says Stephens. Those teachers get 80 hours of firearms training and are paid an extra $50/month.
    I gave Stephens grief about creating a "new government program." Why not just let teachers bring their own guns to school? Stephens explained that he wants teachers trained on the same gun "so if a gun is dropped, another teacher will know how to use it."
    I pushed back again. "Why create a program at all?" There's no epidemic of school shootings. In fact, non-gang, non-suicide shootings have declined over the past 25 years. It's media hysteria that makes it seem like there's an increase.
    I said to Stephens, "School shootings are much less of a threat to students than driving, suicide, drowning, even suffocating!"
    "Exactly right," he replied. "But we do train our kids in school how to not suffocate and how not to drown. ... One shooting is more than we would want."
    Certainly Stephens' armed teacher program is cheaper than what my town does.
    New York City spends millions of dollars stationing police officers in schools. Here, and in most blue states, suggesting that teachers be allowed to bring weapons to school horrifies people.
    "They don't understand," says Stephens, "a responsible trained teacher with a firearm is better than having a teacher with nothing."
    It's good that America has 50 states and many school districts. That allows for different experiments. Politicians in New York City hire extra police officers, but in Texas, the staff at the Keene school district can serve and protect.
    John Stossel is author of "No They Can't! Why Government Fails -- But Individuals Succeed." For other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2018 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
by Walter E. Williams

    Earlier this month, the 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress, aka The Nation's Report Card, was released. It's not a pretty story. Only 37 percent of 12th-graders tested proficient or better in reading, and only 25 percent did so in math. Among black students, only 17 percent tested proficient or better in reading, and just 7 percent reached at least a proficient level in math.
    The atrocious NAEP performance is only a fraction of the bad news. Nationally, our high school graduation rate is over 80 percent. That means high school diplomas, which attest that these students can read and compute at a 12th-grade level, are conferred when 63 percent are not proficient in reading and 75 percent are not proficient in math. For blacks, the news is worse. Roughly 75 percent of black students received high school diplomas attesting that they could read and compute at the 12th-grade level. However, 83 percent could not read at that level, and 93 percent could not do math at that level. It's grossly dishonest for the education establishment and politicians to boast about unprecedented graduation rates when the high school diplomas, for the most part, do not represent academic achievement. At best, they certify attendance.
    Fraudulent high school diplomas aren't the worst part of the fraud. Some of the greatest fraud occurs at the higher education levels -- colleges and universities. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 70 percent of white high school graduates in 2016 enrolled in college, and 58 percent of black high school graduates enrolled in college. Here are my questions to you: If only 37 percent of white high school graduates test as college-ready, how come colleges are admitting 70 percent of them? And if roughly 17 percent of black high school graduates test as college-ready, how come colleges are admitting 58 percent of them?
    It's inconceivable that college administrators are unaware that they are admitting students who are ill-prepared and cannot perform at the college level. Colleges cope with ill-prepared students in several ways. They provide remedial courses. One study suggests that more than two-thirds of community college students take at least one remedial course, as do 40 percent of four-year college students. College professors dumb down their courses so that ill-prepared students can get passing grades. Colleges also set up majors with little analytical demands so as to accommodate students with analytical deficits. Such majors often include the term "studies," such as ethnic studies, cultural studies, gender studies and American studies. The major for the most ill-prepared students, sadly enough, is education. When students' SAT scores are ranked by intended major, education majors place 26th on a list of 38 (https://tinyurl.com/pjmga9y).
    The bottom line is that colleges are admitting youngsters who have not mastered what used to be considered a ninth-grade level of proficiency in reading, writing and arithmetic. Very often, when they graduate from college, they still can't master even a 12th-grade level of academic proficiency. The problem is worse in college sports. During a recent University of North Carolina scandal, a learning specialist hired to help athletes found that during the period from 2004 to 2012, 60 percent of the 183 members of the football and basketball teams read between fourth- and eighth-grade levels. About 10 percent read below a third-grade level. Keep in mind that all of these athletes both graduated from high school and were admitted to college.
    How necessary is college anyway? One estimate is that 1 in 3 college graduates have a job historically performed by those with a high school diploma. According to Richard Vedder, distinguished emeritus professor of economics at Ohio University and the director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, in 2012 there were 115,000 janitors, 16,000 parking lot attendants, 83,000 bartenders and about 35,000 taxi drivers with a bachelor's degree.
    I'm not sure about what can be done about education. But the first step toward any solution is for the American people to be aware of academic fraud at every level of education.
    Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM