Friday, December 01, 2006

Laurie David Curbs Her Enthusiasm for Balance, and for Science

Hollywood spouse and apparent climate expert Laurie David has a piece in today's WaPo, expressing outrage that corporate America is helping to support science education in the schools. As outrages go, this one is truly a head-scratcher. Her latest rant was triggered by the National Science Teachers Association's refusal to accept 50,000 free copies of Al Gore's one-sided propaganda film, "An Inconvenient Truth," a political film with a political message made by a once and likely future Presidential candidate.

David smells a rat since NSTA is the recipient of corporate largess supporting science education in the schools, presumably an otherwise-laudable goal. Seems that the nation's premiere organization of science teachers demurred because they didn't want to offer a "political" endorsement of the film. What?!? The nation's science teachers are concerned about politics masked as science? Go figure. A portion of Corporate America's contributions, says David, supports a program that brings "standards-based teaching and learning" into the school. Oh, the horror. Imagine if standards-based teaching caught on -- where would it end?

David, of course, has been widely critiqued for her hypocrisy, Gulfstreaming around the country and fouling up the wetlands in Martha's Vineyard, site of one of her many homes -- all energy-efficient, no doubt. Every one of them. As for the "Gulfstreaming" of liberals, said Greg Easterbrook, quoting Eric Alterman, "Conservation is what other people should do."

But the piece doesn't fall for hypocrisy alone, although it's an eyesore. She also is just flat wrong on the facts, referring twice to "shortfalls in education funding" and "tight education budgets." This when education budgets are at all-time highs, far outpacing student performance. No matter. This alleged shortfall is the gap through which corporate America is rushing, filling it all with so much propaganda in David's view. Like programs that support standards-based teaching and learning.

We saw a piece last week that critiqued Al Gore's dismissal of peer review. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has hunted down those who disagree with him on climate change with unequaled zeal. This Star Chamber "off with their heads" approach to this debate by the left is a new low -- even for the left. This is a world where no dissent is entertained, where skeptics are harassed and intimidated. Whatever happened to open debate?

For our part, we applaud the move of the nation's science teachers, who teach the scientific method every day, who hopefully are instilling in young minds some degree of curiosity, inquisitiveness and yes, even skepticism. In the end, that's what science teachers are supposed to be teaching.

Source

(In case you didn't know, Ms David's expertise is primarily in comedy: Before working full time on environmental and political issues, Ms. David had a distinguished career in entertainment spanning two coasts. She began her career in New York City as a talent coordinator for the David Letterman show. Four years later she left to start her own management company, representing many of today's top comedians as well as comedy writers. She also produced several comedy specials for HBO, Showtime, MTV, and Fox Television. Upon moving to Los Angeles, Ms. David became vice president of comedy development for a division of Fox Broadcasting and developed sitcoms for Twentieth Century Television. In the summer of 1998, Ms. David produced her first feature film, Sour Grapes)

The NSTA also has a comment on the lady's rant here






OXFORD SURVIVES THE MEDDLERS

That an extraordinarily successful institution was in need of fundamental reform was always absurd

Oxford's reform plans were thrown into chaos last night when academics unexpectedly threw out proposals to hand strategic control of the university to outsiders. In what amounts to a crushing blow for John Hood, the Vice-Chancellor, the academics voted by a massive majority against his amended Governance White Paper.

The vote calls into question the future of Dr Hood, the first outsider Vice-Chancellor of the 900-year-old university, who had staked his name on pushing through the controversial reforms. Not since Congregation - the university's "parliament of dons" - voted overwhelmingly to reject a proposed honorary degree for Margaret Thatcher in 1985 has the university been so divided.

The 17th-century Sheldonian Theatre was again the scene of rancorous debate last night, as 28 academics sought to persuade colleagues that plans to switch to a modern corporate style of governance would change the university for better or worse. In the end, the opponents, led by Nicholas Bamforth, a law lecturer and Fellow of Queen's College, won the day when 730 dons voted against the proposals and 456 voted in favour.

At times it sounded like a boardroom meeting, with references repeatedly made to the institution's 1.2 billion pounds value, and the vital role played by effective management structures. But the grand theatre was a far cry from any city conference room and the regal attire of the key participants bore little resemblance to the average business suit. Sitting on his gilded throne, flanked by purple-robed proctors and the silver staff-wielding bedels, Dr Hood sat passively, as fellow after fellow took up the attack.

Mr Bamforth called on Congregation to reject the proposals as they would not bring more sovereignty, but would "reduce the number of directly elected members on key decision-making bodies". He said: "There are plenty of things that are wrong with the university's present administrative processes. But these are best resolved by administrative reform, not by the wholesale ripping up of our present constitution," he said.

Dr Hood had recommended ending 900 years of self-rule by creating a board of directors with a majority of externally appointed members to approve the budget and oversee the running of the university. He had argued that his reforms would improve accountability and transparency and were crucial to Oxford retaining its international dominance. His opponents, however, feared that, ultimately, financial interests could outweigh Oxford's academic priorities, to the detriment of students, staff and the university. Facing an 8 million pound deficit this year, they believe the move could mean the end of one-to-one tutorials and pressurise them to take more wealthy overseas students.

Professor Iain McLean, Politics Fellow at Nuffield College, pointed out that Oxford had few supporters outside the university and as a regulated charity, it must have accountable trustees. However, after three hours of debate, Dr Hood and his reformers were defeated. Putting a brave face on the result, Dr Hood said it was part of "a lengthy and complex democratic process which has clearly reached an important stage". However, he hinted that the vote may be put again to all 3,700 members of Congregation in a postal vote next month, which would be decided by a majority and would be final. "That process permits a postal vote and a decision about that will have to be taken in the next few days," he said. "It is for council or 50 members of Congregation to take that decision, which is entirely in keeping with the university's democratic process." Privately, his supporters judged it unlikely that council would opt for a postal vote and risk another humiliation. Dr Hood had been backed by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and by Lord Patten of Barnes, the Oxford Chancellor.

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

The NEA and similar unions worldwide believe that children should be thoroughly indoctrinated with Green/Left, feminist/homosexual ideology but the "3 R's" are something that kids should just be allowed to "discover"


Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here. My Home Pages are here or here or here.

***************************

No comments: