It’s the great conceit of modern liberalism that if good things are to happen, they have to be arranged by authorities.
Move over, Ward Churchill — there is a professor who might be even more, er, controversial than you.
According to some recently published data, educators at many of the nation’s top colleges and universities are heavy donors to Democratic candidates.
In the great majority of courses at UNC-Chapel Hill, the average gradepoint is above 3.0 and in a few, it is 4.0, meaning that every student received an A. The question is whether that is a problem.
In a recent column that I did on affirmative action, I committed a grievous error. In this one I elaborate upon that correction and try to raise some other questions about an ongoing controversy.
The next time you hear a journalism student, when asked why he or she wants to get into the profession, say they “want to make a difference,” cringe.
By practicing the craft of tracing history that they themselves reject, we can see how we get the revisionist historians who, for better or worse, mostly the latter, now dominate academia
A couple of years ago when Yassir Arafat was still alive and kicking, I gave Ibrahim Hooper at least a half a dozen opportunities to denounce Arafat and the PLO in a five-minute telephone conversation: The CAIR spokesman ignored them all.
The latest pronouncement from academia correctly identifies the failings of public education but misdiagnoses the cause and, hence, offers a prescription that promises more of the same malady.
The infallibly off-base pedagogue can write his own ticket as prophet-in-residence.