I have a counterproposal, Charlie. Show us precise quotes where you take a pro-higher ed position on what is done right in that environment and by those instructors and administrators who are doing their work in good faith and very well so, and by the many student groups and movements that focus on doing good work for others and both giv…
I have a counterproposal, Charlie. Show us precise quotes where you take a pro-higher ed position on what is done right in that environment and by those instructors and administrators who are doing their work in good faith and very well so, and by the many student groups and movements that focus on doing good work for others and both giving back and paying forward, often quietly and without seeking to attract attention. The loudest voices aren't the only ones that should be reported, especially when they often are the smallest in size.
Since the roads leading to Rome on all this are your original posts, we're looking to you for balance in this area and to paint an accurate portrayal of the environment, not merely a subtle, becoming daily notice that there are some bad actors at a few specifics campuses, with the inference that if it is happening there, it is happening elsewhere too. Better still, bring the goods and show us evidence of widespread abuse of authority and a clear majority of students who are anti-democratic agitators and revolutionaries. I'm not seeing it, thus I call BS on the bigger picture point. It's not hard to read the anti-higher ed bias into your wording when it's been cultivated for so many years, in your books (Fail U.: The False Promise of Higher Education), WTMJ radio commentaries over time, and in these many pages. You've given us a body of work there to draw upon. So we do. It's fine to call out those bad actors where they exist. And, yes, they do, in some places and to some degree. No such environment is 100 percent pure. But let's not lose sight of the rule in calling attention to the exception. That's all I ask. The comments here clearly indicate that there are good points on both sides of the equation. So let's have that discussion instead. We could use your support when there is a positive message to share.
Nor is he responding to mine. Perhaps if I had enough time to comb through every column he has written, the transcripts (if they exist) of every radio broadcast in which he opined on the topic and made snarky overtures with sympathetic listeners, and all the passages in the cited book, among others. I don't. That doesn't negate the impressions received over time and a multitude of statements that take a broadly negative view of the topic. I'm not the only one here who is pointing that out. He might want to consider that input, from everyday readers. I suspect our time would be better spent actually addressing the topic than playing Gotcha games.
I have a counterproposal, Charlie. Show us precise quotes where you take a pro-higher ed position on what is done right in that environment and by those instructors and administrators who are doing their work in good faith and very well so, and by the many student groups and movements that focus on doing good work for others and both giving back and paying forward, often quietly and without seeking to attract attention. The loudest voices aren't the only ones that should be reported, especially when they often are the smallest in size.
Since the roads leading to Rome on all this are your original posts, we're looking to you for balance in this area and to paint an accurate portrayal of the environment, not merely a subtle, becoming daily notice that there are some bad actors at a few specifics campuses, with the inference that if it is happening there, it is happening elsewhere too. Better still, bring the goods and show us evidence of widespread abuse of authority and a clear majority of students who are anti-democratic agitators and revolutionaries. I'm not seeing it, thus I call BS on the bigger picture point. It's not hard to read the anti-higher ed bias into your wording when it's been cultivated for so many years, in your books (Fail U.: The False Promise of Higher Education), WTMJ radio commentaries over time, and in these many pages. You've given us a body of work there to draw upon. So we do. It's fine to call out those bad actors where they exist. And, yes, they do, in some places and to some degree. No such environment is 100 percent pure. But let's not lose sight of the rule in calling attention to the exception. That's all I ask. The comments here clearly indicate that there are good points on both sides of the equation. So let's have that discussion instead. We could use your support when there is a positive message to share.
In all due respect, you didn’t answer his question.
Nor is he responding to mine. Perhaps if I had enough time to comb through every column he has written, the transcripts (if they exist) of every radio broadcast in which he opined on the topic and made snarky overtures with sympathetic listeners, and all the passages in the cited book, among others. I don't. That doesn't negate the impressions received over time and a multitude of statements that take a broadly negative view of the topic. I'm not the only one here who is pointing that out. He might want to consider that input, from everyday readers. I suspect our time would be better spent actually addressing the topic than playing Gotcha games.