Grading LOL

So, I'm busy grading essays and sitting on a hiring committee, so posting has once again ground to a halt. But I had to take a moment to share one of the most hilariously true lines I've ever read in student writing at the moment. He is working on a paper that incorporates scholarly sources, newspaper sources, web sources, etc. And for students who aren't used to being discriminating about their material, this part is really hard. Especially if they're used to just hitting up Google to figure out what's going on. This student is most definitely one of those students. In his introduction as part of his frustration at both his subject matter and the research process he writes about how difficult it is to figure out the causes behind the problem he's researching. Then, he writes:

"There are a million points that can be brought up about the subject that would just raise more questions. The internet produces no answers and confuses us all."

Truthiness.

-- DV

All is Not Peachy in Georgia

Cheesy title, I know. From Oklahoma we move to Georgia (don't worry, WV, I'm coming back around to you), where legislators there have decided that the best way to shore up their state budget is to do what they always want to do and go pick on the university: GA legislators have too much time on their hands.

The grand gist of their scheme is to go through the listed research categories of professors at the school and see what they can get rid of that doesn't fit their own agenda, herein labeled "unnecessary." Unsurprisingly, the thing that doesn't fit happens to do with being gay. Here are some excerpts.

Facing a $2.2-billion budget shortfall, the lawmakers say they are working with conservative Christian organizations to pressure the state’s Board of Regents to fire instructors like a University of Georgia professor who teaches a graduate course on queer theory.

“Our job is to educate our people in sciences, business, math,” state Rep. Calvin Hill was quoted as saying by the news service. Professors aren’t going to meet those needs “by teaching a class in queer theory,” he added. The lawmakers took aim at some of the faculty members after reading about them in an annual guide to faculty experts issued by one of the universities for publicity purposes.

University officials responded by explaining that the instructors were not teaching “how-to” courses, but on the sociological issues surrounding topics such as oral sex and male prostitution.

The article then goes on to say that teaching a course in criminology does not prepare a person to be a criminal, and you can almost read the for Christsakes! after it. Because after all, why bother studying the culture around you and how it works? Maybe if you don't study about it, you'll think it's perfectly OK for politicians to come in and dictate what sort of learning needs to happen, and they can get away with it. How much money is being wasted by some moron in the state capital perusing the annual guide to faculty members and circling the ones that say "gay"? Have they nothing better to do? I noticed philosophy and ethics didn't make Hill's list of important subjects. Maybe that explains how all the business majors got the nation in this fucking mess in the first place? And as for championing the sciences, Mr. Republican Hill probably supports his party's stance on things like stem cell research and evolution. If you really support science, get out of it's way. The last member of the intellectual Trinity on Calvin Hill's list is math, and herein is the most beautiful part.

Hill recently launched this little tidbit on his website:
Did you realize that every month, 200 to 300 young girls are sexually exploited in the state of

Georgia? Yes, you heard correctly, 200-300 girls a month right here in
Georgia. With almost 100 of them engaged in street prostitution, another 100
exploited through escort services and more than that appearing in Craigslist or
servicing their johns in major hotels. This exploitation of our young girls has
really turned into an epidemic. This is why I recently co-chaired a committee
on the commercial sexual exploitation of children and we presented our findings
and legislative initiatives this morning at a Capitol press conference.

Why, Representative Hill, where do you suppose those numbers came from? The math department? NO. From people studying PROSTITUTION. Which obviously doesn't mean they're out picking up prostitutes, but rather they are studying the issue for its cultural implications to give you facts and figures you can use to make society better.

Funny how research in something other than math, the sciences and business can sometimes do that, isn't it? Got any better way to make your salary?

-- DV

Clearly We Do Not Have Enough To Do

It's not like there's an economic crisis or two wars going on or anything. State legislatures must be really trying to earn their paychecks this year--or maybe they're trying to distract themselves and their constituents from the misery of the rest of the world by coming up with new ways to fuck us over socially while reality does so fiscally and physically. I have several posts forthcoming on this, but let me start with good, old Oklahoma.

Because this is the 200th anniversary of Darwin's death, many universities are celebrating "Darwinfest." My university, like others, plans to hold a series of lectures by leading thinkers in the field to show how Darwin's ideas have been dealt with in the past two hundred years. The University of Oklahoma was lucky enough to get Richard Dawkins to come and speak--for FREE--at their university. This did not sit well with the Oklahoma state legislature, who drafted up a response to it. Here is the link to both proposals in the legislation: OK has freakout about Richard Dawkins. And here are some snippets from those proposals:

A Resolution expressing disapproval of the actions of the University of
Oklahoma to indoctrinate students in the theory of evolution; opposing the
invitation to Richard Dawkins to speak on campus; and directing
distribution

WHEREAS, not only has the Department of Zoology at the University of
Oklahoma been engaged in one-sided indoctrination of an unproven and unpopular theory but has made an effort to brand all thinking in dissent of this theory as anti-intellectual and backward rather than nurturing such free thinking and allowing a free discussion of all ideas which is the primary purpose of a university

WHEREAS, the invitation for Richard Dawkins to speak on the campus of the
University of Oklahoma on Friday, March 6, 2009, will only serve to further the indoctrination engaged in by the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma by presenting a biased philosophy on the theory of evolution to the exclusion of all other divergent considerations rather than teaching a scientific concept.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE: THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives hereby expresses its disapproval of the current indoctrination of the Darwinian theory of evolution at the University of Oklahoma and further requests that an open, dignified, and fair discussion of this idea and all other ideas be engaged in on campus which is the approach that a public institution should be engaged in and which represents the desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma.

So many problems, so little time. What happened in addition to the legislative act is that OK Representative Rebecca Hamilton then demanded that U of O submit to her and the OK legislature copies of everything showing how much Dawkins was paid and all receipts showing compensation he may have gotten from this event, including where the money came from, costs to the University for hosting him, including things like "security" and "faculty time", as well as all correspondence between Dawkins and the University--emails, letters, etc. Here is the "smoking gun" PDF about it: Hamilton wastes OK taxpayer's salary money.

The resolution is disturbing for a number of reasons, most notably it's stupidity and hypocrisy, and the request is equally disturbing for its intimidation tactics. Here's a thought: free exchange of ideas is NOT best determined by people sitting in governmental power. The OK legislature is an exercise in why that is very true. By trying to pass a resolution, which is really just a way of saying "We really don't like what you did, Nyah!", the State is trying to frighten the university into selecting speakers that won't conflict with the ethics of the legislators; it's at least an attempt at intimidation by irritation and mindless paperwork. By requesting things like emails and correspondence as well as the names of people (private citizens included) who may have donated to help bring Dawkins, one of the most famous scientists in the world) to Oklahoma, Rep. Hamilton is trying to scare the university into only choosing those speakers which fit the legislator's agenda. Free and open exchange of ideas indeed! Asking for email is usually only done when you assume that you are going to find something damning in the correspondence. I suppose Hamilton thinks that she is going to see an exchange saying "Please, Richard, come and indoctrinate our gullible students with your atheistic biology." RD replies, "Certainly, I'd be glad to." Asking for proof of where the money came from insinuates that the money has been spent improperly and it intimidates private citizens from donating to intellectual causes that may happen to cross the government.

I'm not sure where the OK state legislature got their degrees, but if they set foot anywhere near a biology classroom in the past century they would have discovered that evolution is far from an "unproven and unpopular theory." It's not some newfangled political and social conspiracy foisted upon the sciences. There are NO other valid theories to replace evolution, the debate has long since shifted to how the details work. I assume they're thinking about Intelligent Design, although you'll note the chickens chose not to call it out by name. The free exchange of ideas includes those which the legislature may not personally want to hear about--it cuts both ways. The primary goal of a university is NOT to let everyone have a say, no matter how ridiculous. It's to teach a person knowledge--we are all still waiting for someone to prove ID. This concept of "indoctrinating" students assumes they are so infantile as to not be able to tell the difference.

Honestly, Oklahoma, don't you have better things to waste taxpayer money on? I think Oklahomans should demand proof of how much time and money was spent investigating this silliness by the legislature. In triplicate. Seriously, if the "desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma" is to remain in the Stone Age, they have their state legislature to thank for it.

Go, Dawkins.


-- DV

link to Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education

The Real Test Behind the New Piss Test

Yay, let's pick on the poor! A WV delegate has introduced a bill that is causing quite a bit of controversy in this state.  It reveals, in my opinion, the fundamental divide in how people tend to look at those who receive public money.  Heres' the link to the article cited below:

Forbes article

The bill calls for random drug tests to be undertaken by the Division of Human Services. If a person fails, they'll be given a second test in 30 to 60 days. If they fail again, they'll lose their public assistance.

It's intended for anyone receiving benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, unemployment compensation or "welfare," which could refer to the Temporary Aid to Needy Families program, the Women, Infants and Children program, or both.

Regardless, that's a substantial slice of the state's population, with roughly 288,000 West Virginians receiving food stamps alone, according to the latest federal figures. With estimates cited by Blair that drug tests cost from $50 to $150 a pop, the bill could be pricey, depending how many random tests are administered each month.

Blair is following up one of the typical beliefs about people who take public assistance--that they're all lazy and drug addicted.  His bill represents the idea that if we could just "catch them in the act", we'd move all those lazy people off the dole and force them into employment.  There are a number of problems with this line of thinking, but I don't have to tell Blair that.  His own party isn't too happy about it and has publicly said so.

There's also the fact that the stiffest criticism of the idea so far has come from one of Blair's fellow Republicans: Randolph County Sen. Clark Barnes.

Barnes once collected unemployment compensation and food stamps after losing a job in the 1970s, and said, "I can't imagine having to suffer the insult of taking a drug test in addition to that."

He says Blair's proposal is contrary to the party's stance on Constitutional rights and civil liberties.

"As Republicans, we always complain about regulation, regulation, regulation," Barnes said. "But some of our leading Republicans, when it's politically profitable, want to create more regulations and more government."

Blair, who got the idea for the bill after hearing that five children were recently born in an Eastern Panhandle hospital with drug addictions, disagrees. He's confident his bill won't meet the same fate as a similar Michigan law, which was struck down by a court in 2003.

"We're not trying to hurt people, we're trying to help them get off drugs and get back to work," Blair said. "There are people who go out and sell their blood for money, do all kinds of things for money. Who out there wouldn't be happy to pee in a cup for a $300-a-week check?"

Who, indeed?  One of the arguments for this bill is that regular employees are often drug tested randomly as well, as a condition of employment.  Why shouldn't this apply to people getting benefits from the state?  On the face of it, that softens the punch somewhat.  But you first have to overlook the problems with drug testing at work in order to apply it to this new set of people.  Some employers have a legitimate reason to drug test; some jobs require you to maintain a certain level of awareness, or lives could be endangered.  Some employers drug test just to be shits about it.  Even pretending for a minute that people smoke pot, for example, before they go into work (which doesn't tend to be the case for regular pot users), coming to work fully buzzed and running Microsoft Excel hurts no one.  Someone who smokes pot once every six weeks or so, the amount of time THC usually stays in your pee, and then goes on to answer the switchboards is probably not a danger to his job or the rest of the people working there or calling in.  Most people are recreational users of pot.  You don't normally bust a heroin addict with a piss cup test.  They usually self-defeat their employment in other ways before they even make it to the piss cup test.  Most drug testing is a major infringement of personal privacy, with no proven economic and employment benefits, and that is because they are usually only looking for pot.  Turning up other harder drugs is very rare.  They would do better to test people for being alcoholics--that has a far greater impact on the job than pot does.  but I digress.  

But part of the outrage of this bill besides the invasion of privacy, the sketchiness of the advantages and the costs is the inherent unfairness that lies at the heart of it.  When we think about who gets public money, we tend to falsely think of only one group of people.  I think Delegate Susman cut to the chase in a recent interview on the bill:

article link

Susman called the Blair proposal “not only an outrage” but impractical to boot.

“Why not demand the same thing for white-collar criminals — corporate executives who have profited from recent congressional largess, movie stars who make obscene amounts of money for marginal work, those who enjoy a large tax refund each year or members of the Legislature?” she asked.

Wouldn't we stand to gain more by making sure the biggest consumers of public money were also not coke heads and thus undeserving of the public dole?  How about we start with AIG execs (or their equivalent in West Virginia), and see how happy they are to take the piss cup test.  We should certainly apply that here in West Virginia to the construction companies that benefit from state money--every single one of their workers should pass the piss cup test or have the funds revoked.  Then we'll move on to retirees and public school teachers (including the new President of WVU, who I'm sure, would agree that there is nothing undignified about being asked to take a piss test) and see how they feel about it.  I'm sure they'd all be grateful, too.  

Blair has, of course, provided no projected numbers for his proposal that would demonstrate success.  He has also not explained how once we find drug addicted people and kick them off welfare how this would help people get off drugs and get back to work.  Logically, doesn't that mean they need to use their medical card to go to rehab and that they need to use gov't programs to get their education and job skills up to par?  If this is truly about helping people kick the habit and get back to work, and not just about picking on the poor because they're an easy target and it's politically palatable with some voters, the bill does not provide any explanation of what is to happen to help people do that after they are caught.  Blair is merely working off the suspicion that there will be a substantial enough amount of people who will be caught in the act to justify the cost of the testing.  Or, he doesn't care and just wants the political points.

Let's say for a minute that he is right to be suspicious.  I am, after all, not suggesting that there are NO people who are on welfare who take drugs, just that the number of people he's after is a small pool.  Let's say that there are people taking drugs who are on unemployment.  I hate to break it to Delegate Blair, but there are plenty of people who take drugs and maintain employment just fine.  Drugs are not a barrier to employment, unless you're looking for crack fiends.  Testing for drugs will turn up marijuana, at best, and then for only a few people, maybe, and then you won't be catching the serial abusers, who have long since learned how to manipulate the "pee in the cup" test.  And how much will he have spent at this point to catch them?  And how much more is he planning on spending to rehab them and retrain them?  

What Blair needs to understand is that the barrier to employment in West Virginia is not drugs.  It's illiteracy.  We have one of the most uneducated workforces in the country.  We also have very few jobs here for people to go into--the town I live in is booming, but that's not true for the rest of the state; we're a university town and a satellite town of Pittsburgh.  We're an anomaly.  I'm not sure where he thinks the rest of the people who live here are going to go to work once they're caught.  Blair would do better to focus on providing educational rehabilitation and to make WV attractive to businesses who want to come to our many small towns and offer jobs.  

Start working on making West Virginia less available to people who want to rape its natural resources at the expense of the people who live here.  Quit picking on the poor.  This "test" is nothing more than a test about people's preconceived notions.

-- DV

Publish or Perish!

In the world of academia, there is a slogan any faculty members with a research component to their jobs fear and dread:  Publish or Perish.  To us, it means that in order to stay in academia, make tenure, have a decent life, not be relegated to community college, you have to publish stuff--studies, articles books--or you're doomed.  But right now I'm thinking of the other thing Publish or Perish means to me--and that is the reams of fundamentalist literature I used to peddle myself as a former JW and that I get now from other even smaller fringe movements.

I'm not sure why I'm always the target of fringe fundamentalist pamphlets, but I am.  Batmite and JP can attest to the number of Optical Illusion Jesus posters I got while in grad school, complete with testimony of how the Lord gave Besty $5,537.03.  Which I found interestingly specific.  I will occasionally get the flyer for an upcoming seminar; I actually meant to go to the one where all the end times stuff was going to be revealed by a guy who looked like he was my neighbor in a trailer a few doors down.  I got my wires crossed and missed that one.

A few days ago, I got another one from Marvelous Light Ministries in Smalltown, PA.  It's a booklet called Breaking One Means Breaking Ten, and it has a fantastic picture of somebody's brown Doc Martin cracking some stone tablets labeled "GOD'S LAW."  It's supposed to be the typical story about how a calm, level headed religious person bests a foolish doubter.  But it was sort of hard for me to get past the first paragraph.  I think I'll keep a collection of these for when I need a good giggle:

In the neighborhood where I once lived, there was an infidel whose chief delight it was to invite ministers to his home and then confuse them with his infidel arguments.  He boasted that he always silenced them and sent them away defeated.  He had tainted nearly all the young men of the community with his infidelity, and was dreaded by the church people.

LOL.  The infidel then invites this minister to dinner and proceeds to call the ten commandments childish and poorly written, the minister demonstrates their "logic," and the infidel is bested.  

Without realizing what he had done, the infidel had stood, moved his chair nervously, and had seated himself again where the light from the window, falling on his face, revealed evidence of deep conviction.

Gotta love that foreshadowing. The group also offers other pamphlets to strengthen your faith in the logic of God's words.  They include the following titles:

"Are You Breaking 'The Law'?"  Who thought they had the right to change God's Law?  Have you been tricked into breaking it?  The future of your life depends on the answer!  (Oh no!  Have I been tricked?!)

"The Coming One World Government"  (hard to tell if they think that's a good thing or a bad thing)

"Our Liberties Threatened"  There is a movement rapidly gaining ground in the United States, which is absolutely antagonistic to the laws and principles which are the foundation stones of the Constitution of the United States.  Read this booklet and discover what that movement is, and what you can do about it!  (Seems to have nothing to do with Jesus, but probably has everything to do with Teh Gheys.)

And my personal favorite:  

"Rome's Challenge -- Why Do Protestants Keep Sunday?"  Rome's challenge to Protestants -- your belief in Sunday sacredness is groundless, self-contradictory, and SUICIDAL!  (AAAHHHHH!!!)

The books have comments like "Incredible!" or "A Powerful Book!"  Kind of like when the NY Times reviews books--only these remarks are not attributed to anyone.  It would be the same as if I put them in the banner of my blog.  "Best Blog on the Web."  Um, per who, exactly?  The other titles are only about fifty cents a pop.  The Rome one is .75, so there must be 50% more good stuff in it.  But...I can't order them without giving my name.  I don't want to be super inundated by fundies.  

But then, maybe it's my "chief delight" to call them up and confuse them all with my "infidel arguments."  

-- DV

Barbie Goes to Washington

Our dear state delegate Jeff Eldridge has introduced a bill to ban Barbie from being sold in WV on the grounds that she causes little girls to develop self esteem problems.

Sigh.

This is hardly a new argument. In fact, one of the best places to read about it is a book called The Barbie Chronicles (back when she turned 40 instead of this year's 50). It has various personal essays on whether Barbie did or did not cause a change to the self esteem of little girls. Bottom line? Too inconclusive to legislate against. Some people do seem disturbed by Barbie. Some people are disturbed at her proportions, which are truly out of whack. I can't find the original source, but I've seen displays that suggest if she were a "real" person, she'd be 7 ft 2 inches and have a neck twice the size of a normal human; her measurements would be: 39-23-33. If a real woman were to have Barbie's proportions (in ratio to human measurements) she would likely have to walk on all fours in order to move. Some women who wrote essays in that book were disturbed by her lack of actual body parts, like, say, nipples. They found her creepy. Some women were disturbed by her grotesque feet, permanently carved into high heel shape (four inch heels, of course).

I will tell you my own Barbie story.

I discovered Barbie when I was about eight or nine years old in the mid to late 80s. I got my first Barbies because they were my cousin's castoffs. I thought they were friggin awesome. For me, they were stand ins for "real life", a way of working out fantasies of adulthood. I was the primary audience for the Barbie slogan I remember: We girls can do anything, right Barbie? To me, Barbie was the first feminist I remember. She was liberated--only later did she conform to having a family, and then she did whatever she wanted to, and the kids were accepted into her jobsite and vacation plans (at least when we were playing with them). She had a variety of jobs, and even if you only had one Barbie, you could get her business suits, doctor's clothes and accessories, pretty much whatever you wanted. Sister and I collected Barbies, and eventually we had a Barbie village on the top floor of our playhouse our dad built for us. It was the size of a very small apartment.

It was Barbie Universe.

I made Barbie condominiums to go with the few Barbie houses we had inherited from this same cousin. And you know what? They all had jobs. Because we had lots of Barbies, and they could do anything--all at once. When we Played Barbie, which was a very serious event that took most of the weekend, they all went to work. The Barbie kids went to school where there was a teacher for them. There was a Barbie DJ who ran the radio station (she sat on top of the radio we had out there). I put out a Barbie magazine that fit in all their little Barbie plastic stiff hands. All Barbies got a copy, and it was illustrated. Barbies provided beauty services, and all Barbies could expect to get a haircut at least once. I made a movie theater out of a shoebox, turned on its side with slits cut in either end; I stapled panels of paper together and drew pictures on each panel, and then wrote a script and fed the paper in one end of the shoebox and pulled it out the other while reading the script. Sister absolutely loved it, but it took me all day to make a "movie." We were also racially integrated in Barbie Universe. We realized early on that our town was too "white." So, we purposely went out and bought black Barbies and a Barbie we thought was more or less Latina (although I think she was supposed to be Hawaian Barbie or "Midge" or something). We had Barbie politicians. Barbie "business women". One Barbie was a landlord. Some Barbies were stay at home moms.

Kens, however, weren't very well represented in Barbie Universe. They dated the other Barbies, but the Barbies regularly tossed them out of the condominiums or fired them because they were lazy. If I recall correctly, Ken dominated the servant industry, usually chauferring Tycoon Barbie (one was really rich and did something with "stock" although we weren't really sure what that even meant) around in the pink Corvette. We had one Stay at Home Dad Ken--I believe he was the husband of Tycoon Barbie, so she could go get some real work done. Sometimes Barbies fought over a Ken (banging said dolls together until one's head popped off--that meant Victory), but they soon realized that Ken wasn't worth it, and then both Barbies kicked him out of both apartments, and he was left to fend for himself. He was usually very apologetic, but he had to move on and find a different Barbie, because the last two weren't interested anymore. Our Kens were also racially diverse, and all Barbies and Kens dated based on personality (which they all had clearly defined personalities) rather than race. A year ago I found a legal document we had written up (it fits into plastic Barbie hands, too) and put in a "safe place". It was a divorce paper, signed "Barbie." Fuck you, Ken.

Barbie was everything at once, like a Hindu god with multiple faces. She did everything, because we believed we could do anything. Not because Barbie told us we could, but because our Daddy did (who was nothing like Ken, but feared we might end up with the version of Ken we tossed around the playhouse). So we played with Barbie based on our own previously established self esteem. Barbie play was a manifestation of our own self worth, not the maker of it.

I didn't have a problem with Barbie not having nipples. Why? Because she was a fucking toy. Toys aren't supposed to be exactly like real life. If anything, Ken's genitals were the more confusing thing. Have you ever seen a Ken doll undressed? It makes Barbie's lack of holes highly forgiveable.

So, leave Barbie the hell alone. If you want to go after something, go after those Bratz dolls. They're the stripper whores of the Barbie Universe.

-- DV

TTFN

On Monday, I have the conference day from hell, and then I fly to San Francisco to be part of a composition conference on Tuesday.  I won't be back until Sunday.  Sister and Director/Buddy (should she just be Buddy now??) are going with me, so I plan on working and playing.  

I have some posts scheduled to hit while I'm gone.  Enjoy them, for they bring the finest West Virginia has to offer recently with my own personal background and opinions.  lol.  But I won't be able to comment on them or what you think until I get back.  

See ya!

-- DV

Well, Shut My Mouth

Our own current university scandal is still brewing, this time stirred up by the very person who probably should've just let well enough alone.

See, the short and dirty version is that this state has a governor with a daughter, right? And that daughter works in a very important position in a very important factory type place in this town. She also was awarded a degree when she failed to complete the last 12 hours of it, which is somewhere around 3-4 classes, depending. A newspaper in a state outside of this one was doing a routine fact checking mission after she was promoted to a very important position in this factory type place, when lo and behold they couldn't find the record that said she actually graduated with this degree. So they asked questions. No one wanted to give any answers. So more people started asking questions. Then a shit storm happened. The end result of this shit storm is that the president of this university resigned (as did a few other people) and an investigation happened. That investigation revealed that there were 280-odd other degrees that were awarded in error. But the difference was, those degrees had legitimate malfunctions like transferred classes accidentally being awarded when they should've have or a person being one class short of graduation but actually being cleared for graduation.

They weren't missing, oh, a semester or more of work, let's say.

So now, the woman has decided that in light of this investigation, she should be allowed to keep her degree and that those other people should be punished. So she writes an open letter to the Board of Governors, demanding it be read aloud (it wasn't). Here are some links with the letter:

I want something I'm not entitled to, plus comments
more info about being self-entitled

She should just leave well enough alone.

This particular controversy has been raging all over this state for months now, and it seems to always be drawn along the lines of people who have been to college and understand what academic integrity means and people who haven't and who believe that somehow poor little Heather has been picked on. What they don't seem to understand is that this scandal rocked our university. Donors withheld money. Parents threatened to transfer their kids. People chose not to enroll. The scandal casts a shadow over all the other degrees awarded.

She should've stepped up and just offered to make up the credit hours or give back the degree. Instead, she wants to have her situation of missing significant hours compared to a person lacking one class who was accidentally cleared for a degree. Uh, no. Her claims that she "doesn't remember" whether she took the classes or not and then later that she was told she could substitute work experience for class credit ring especially hollow.

Whoever has been to graduate school can tell you they remember every last painful detail of it. You don't accidentally forget three or four classes--one whole semester or more. Bottom line? Shut up, Heather. Quit being Queen of the Student Snowflakes and demanding your entitlement to something many other people never get a chance to do because they can't afford it and their daddy can't influence the situation for them. She still has her job. Just shut the fuck up about it already.

And to the Heather-Brigade that seems to stalk the blogosphere defending her clearly unearned degree? Just save it. This country needs less apologists and more people willing to do the right thing.

-- DV

Midterm Mania

Urgh.

It's midterm again, and I've been grading portfolios for what feels like an eternity. They've completely taken over my life. They follow me where ever I go.

Tuesday at Dante's practice, I graded three of them. I did four more while supper was cooking and after I ate it. Yesterday I graded one in the waiting room of the beauty school, two while Dante was getting his braids done inside, and five more at home while fixing supper and watching America's Next Top Model.

I still have six more to go.....

I will never escape them. The D's and F's are due in 3 1/2 more hours. My doom is nigh!

-- DV