Vernon C. Polite's Provincialism

In June 2006 there was a debate about dispositional assessment in which I participated on the website of Inside Higher Education. About eight months later, in March 2007, Vernon C. Polite, dean of Eastern Michigan University's School of Education, added a lengthy comment, which Steven Head has brought to my attention.

Dean Polite begins by arguing:

"If law, social work, nursing, psychology, etc can speak the words, 'social justice,' professional educators certainly need to have an understanding of what social justice means in the preparation of professional educators."

But, of course, an understanding of "justice" is part of the undergraduate philosophy curriculum and can be gleaned in reading authors as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine and Kant, who are covered in any competently run undergraduate program. A graduate school, including one in the education field, need not cover undergraduate-level material. The question of "what is justice?" belongs in undergraduate philosophy classes. That is, unless the graduate school has a program of indoctrination in mind.

Dean Polite launches into a discussion of "minorities" which is not particularly relevant to the question of "social justice" dispositions. While there have been many injustices brought to bear on minorities, the issue of the existence of "social justice dispositions" is a deeper question. To take one example, in Malaysia the majority ethnic group has instituted an affirmative action program that amounts to apartheid-like discrimination against the minority Chinese. The minority Chinese are more economically successful than the majority Malay population, but is discrimination against this suppressed minority group just?

St. Augustine argued that a person's relationship with God is the basis of justice. Are we to accept St. Augustine's definition of justice? Plato argued that justice is rooted in society. But Karl Popper argued that Plato's definition is totalitarian. Are we to believe Plato's definition of justice, or Popper's? Hitler believed that murdering Jews is just. The Ku Klux Klan believed that lynching blacks is just. Whose definition are we to believe? Dean Vernon C. Polite's and NCATE's? Dean Polite writes:

"NCATE, however, could be most helpful to its member institutions by “defining” social justice rather than simply removing it as if it is no longer relevant or suggest that “it” is sufficiently “covered” under diversity. Some would argue that anything found in the NCATE standards should be measurable and observable in the candidates’ performance."

Yet, Dean Polite's cries for enforcing a rigid, authoritarian definition of social justice will lead not to justice, but to harassment of those who disagree with NCATE and with Dean Polite. It will lead to an authoritarian political correctness. Dean Polite further claims that:

"Social justice tends to equalize disparities in educational attainment, educational achievement and socio-economic status, and the impact of prejudice and discrimination on educational attainment."

But this may not be the case. The rigid definition of social justice as equality of outcomes is anything but just in terms of the thinking of Kant, Plato, Augustine, Aristotle and all other important philosophers outside of a few provincial leftists. Indeed, the moral depravity of the New Left is illustrated in its now-aged sociopathic leaders' ongoing defense of the Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung and Castro regimes, which butchered 1.5 million, 25 million people and 100,000 people respectively.

Dean Polite goes on with a discussion that is remarkable for its provincialism:

"In essence, social justice is the one true ideal that ensures that “no child is left behind.”

Yet, there are many ways to attain the goal of improved social outcomes. In particular, the laissez faire economy of the late 19th century increased wealth dramatically because deregulation stimulated innovation. The invention of the telephone, AC electricity and the mass production of the automobile were improvements that have not been matched since the ideas of the suppressives/progressives, to include government regulation, have inhibited economic creativity. Justice is necessary for the fulfillment of human purpose, which means that government programs, regulation, whimsical legal requirements and pronvicial definitions of social justice ought to be eliminated. Justice means that each person should be permitted to keep what they produce and be free of the violence of political extremists and criminals.

Rules that suppress speech, that attack those who disagree, that expel students like Steven Head who disagreed with his professor are inherently unjust. Universities have been at the forefront of attacking individual freedom in the interest of a rigid, unjust ideology that argues for a logically impossible equality of outcomes. The concept of equality of outcomes that has no claim to "justice". It is a suppressive Procrustean bed that leads to murder. Far from being just, its advocates are killers.

If NCATE is to advocate justice, then it must advocate laissez faire capitalism. The only justice is equality under the law; freedom of expression; and the right to retain one's earnings. The only meaning of justice is:

"Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même!"

Are the New Caucus and Barbara Bowen Taking a Page from Lee Kuan Yew's Playbook?

I have blogged about "Sue" O'Malley's and the New Caucus's attempt to silence Sharad Karkhanis via "Sue" O'Malley's lawsuit (also see here, here, and here). Have the "progressives" of the New Caucus merely taken a page from the playbook of the suppressive retired Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew?

The following is how Wikipedia describes Mr. Lee's abuse of law suits to suppress and bankrupt political opponents:

>"Singaporeans and foreigners have criticized Lee as elitist and even an autocrat, and that the economic prosperity under Lee was achieved at the expense of much political and social freedom. Lee was once quoted as saying he preferred to be feared than loved...

"Lee has been criticized for implementing some harsh measures to suppress political opposition and freedom of speech, such as outlawing public demonstrations without an explicit police permit, the restriction of the press freedom, and the use of defamation lawsuits to bankrupt political opponents, such as Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, Tang Liang Hong and Chee Soon Juan. On political matters, public opinion was rarely solicited.

"On the above issue, Devan Nair, the third president of Singapore and who was living in exile in Canada, remarked in a 1999 interview with the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail that Lee's technique of suing his opponents into bankruptcy or oblivion was an abrogation of political rights. He also remarked that Lee is 'an increasingly self-righteous know-all', surrounded by 'department store dummies'. In response to these remarks, Lee sued Devan Nair in a Canadian court and Nair countersued.[6] Lee then brought a motion to have Nair's counterclaim thrown out of court. Lee argued that Nair's counterclaim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and constituted an inflammatory attack on the integrity of the government of Singapore. However, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused to throw out Nair's counterclaim, holding that Lee had abused the litigating process and therefore Nair has a reasonable cause of action. [[5]]. After his death, The Economist published an obituary of Nair which was critical of Lee Kuan Yew. The following issue, The Economist published a letter from a Singaporean official which claimed Nair's drunkenness was a source of his mental disturbance in his latter years. The Economist did not publish other letters that were supportive of Nair due to the reason that the publication would be forced into another lengthy libel trial."

Rather than defend academic freedom, the insiders of the New Caucus and the Professional Staff Congress rely on role models like the suppressive Mr. Kew to silence Karkhanis with a law suit, taking a page out of Lee's playbook. Perhaps the PSC thinks that New York has become sufficiently "suppressive" that

Karkhanis Defends Against Professional Staff Congress's Attack on Academic Freedom

The latest issue of Sharad Karkhanis's Patriot Returns features a letter from Fred Brodzinski and Stephen Peter Russell alleging that the City University of New York's incompetent union, the Professional Staff Congress, may have violated union election procedures:

"It seems that the merry krew at Bowen's Broadway Bunker may have been tampering with pending elections for HEO alternate representatives to the Delegate Assembly. Rather than putting forward the names of candidates who took the trouble to attend a nominating meeting, the New Caucus seems simply to have made up their own slate. Another example of democracy, "Dear Leader" style, perhaps?"

Karkhanis writes an assuring letter to union President Bowen:

"Let me say that I am deeply, deeply sorry if there was any misunderstanding between us regarding my absolute and undying loyalty to the New Caucus Party and the Professional Staff Congress (not that I would ever imply of course that there should be ANY difference between the two)....And how can I NOT give monumental thanks to First Vice President Steve London, the modern day Prometheus of the American Labor movement, for his great gift of unwavering loyalty and dedication to the Party."

In response to Karkhanis's anti-Professional Staff Congress newsletter, the PSC leadership, via PSC lackey "Sue" O'Malley, has filed a law suit, O'Malley v. Karkhanis. Karkhanis notes that:

"The sum of $2,000,000 is being sought in monetary damages, as is a permanent injunction prohibiting Professor Karkhanis from "making, printing, publishing and distributing wrongful statements" regarding Professor O'Malley in the future."

"Karkhanis's supporters have set up a website, freespeechcuny,. According to the site,

"On Friday, November 9th, attorneys representing Sharad Karkhanis filed, on his behalf, a formal notice of appearance in the case, along with a demand for a complaint, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. This filing compels Susan O'Malley and her attorney to file her formal complaint, setting out in detail the factual basis for her claims, within 20 days."

The Free Speech CUNY website also defends Karkhanis's allegation that "Sue" O'Malley has supported terrorists:

"Lest anyone assume that Emeritus Professor Sharad Karkhanis has pulled his comments from thin air, the records of CUNY’s University Faculty Senate provide ample evidence to the contrary. At the April 5, 2005 plenary session of the UFS, chaired by Professor “Sue” O’Malley, the following resolution was passed:

"...We deplore the denial of due process for adjuncts in two recent cases, which in effect denies them academic freedom:

"We deplore the decision by the Central Administration of CUNY to remove Mohammed Yousry* in April 2002 from his post as an adjunct in Political Science at York College. Our disagreement with the Central Administration's decision in no way trivializes the federal charges against him, but addresses the Chancellery's refusal to initiate formal proceedings and to accord Mr. Yousry due process and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and all legal processes are exhausted.

"We deplore the exclusion of Susan Rosenberg from any further teaching at John Jay College of Criminal Justice as a result of a decision in December 2004 by President Jeremy Travis in response to complaints by a police fraternal organization and without appropriate faculty consultation. President Travis offered no academic grounds for the exclusion, and his decision compromises the long-held academic tradition of faculty self-governance in selecting who shall teach and what shall be taught....

*On February 10, 2005 Yousry was indicted in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, along with attorney Lynne Stewart and Ahmed Abdel Sattar, of conspiring to provide, and providing, material support to terrorism and conspiring to defraud the U.S. government, and was convicted. According to an article in The Nation, Yousry was originally scheduled to be sentenced in September 2006, but he was actually sentenced on Monday, October 16, 2006 to one year and eight months, as reported by CNN in an article that has disappeared from their archives, but which can still be read in the version cached by Google.

Savings Accounts in Foreign Currency

Jim Rogers was on Bloomberg radio on Sunday morning at 6:25 am and he was talking about the dollar declines, Helicopter Ben's humming propellers and the Chinese stock market. Two of Rogers's ideas that caught my attention were investments in agricultural commodities and in the renminbi, the Chinese currency. Unfortunately, it is inconvenient for small investors to purchase Chinese currency because of the Chinese government's low-valuation strategy. However, where you can invest easily is in various currencies through Everbank. The minimum deposits range from $10,000 to $20,000 (for the indexes). Unfortunately, Everbank does not offer renminbi cds, but they do have 15 other cds including Hong Kong.

Powershares has commodity index products including a DB agriculture fund.

It is unfortunate that I cannot trust the dollar now, but given the irresponsible history of the Fed, I would rather keep my savings in another currency and/or secure it through commodities tracking investments.