Conclusion of a Scandal

You may have read about the University of Delaware's brainwashing scandal: in short, RAs were effectively forced to brainwash their residents into conformity with the social justice/whites-as-racists/liberal dogma that they themselves were subject to by their superiors. You can read considerably more about it by scrolling down here. At any rate, once this became public (mostly through the efforts of the good folks at NRO and elsewhere publicizing it after FIRE raised a stink about it), the University caved, halting the program in its entirety.

Now, I should be happy about this, and at one level, I am -- when brought to light, this wretched plan collapsed under the weight of its own absurdity, and gives hope for the destruction of other, similar misdeeds at other universities. But another part of me is left wanting, on account of how quickly the university caved.

Why is that? Well, as soon as the program's nature was made widely known to the public, the university didn't even hesitate -- it yanked it without review or even, it would seem, a moment's thought. This implies to me the following: that a) they already knew what they were doing was inherently wrong, and b) they were only proceeding for as long as they weren't caught. I can't help but think that, without a long (or at least, longer-than-instantaneous), dragged-out fight, no lessons were learned on the part of the university establishment. Not one of the leftist loonies who allowed this program to proceed apace had it pointed out to them not only that it was wrong, but why it was so contrary to the very core American values that allow universities in America to flourish.

By way of analogy, it conjures up an image in my mind of of shining a flashlight in a darkened room: shadows cannot survive even the faintest light source, but whenever the light is moved to another dark spot, they gather together just as before. Only tearing off the roof can bring in the sunlight to banish the shadows permanently.

Profiles in Leadership!

Recently, the President of Eastern Michigan University was forced to step down after it was revealed that EMU's administration covered up the rape and murder of a student in one of the dorms, declaring initially that there were "no signs of foul play", despite the fact that, several months later, a man was arrested and charged with the aforementioned crime.

Of course, now that he's out of office, former president John Fallon now proclaims, to anyone who actually cares, that it was not his fault, and that his former VP for Student Affairs did all the covering up.

What ever happened to "The Buck Stops Here"? Is this no longer a desired quality in leadership roles? And how does someone with that ethos make it to the top of the academic ladder? And are all these questions actually rhetorical?

Update: Let's take this a little further: Mr. Fallon defends his hand-washing by saying that he merely wants to "clear his name". This is, presumably, so people would then in the future consider him for further leadership roles at their own institutions. But the mere act of trying to wash his hands of an egregious mismanagement of his immediate underlings only adds further besmirchment (which the blogspot editor tells me isn't a word, but I'll use it anyways) to his "good name". Is this, then, truly a "Catch-22", wherein hand-washing digs his hole deeper, yet tacit acceptance of his punishment (dismissal from the university presidency) results in his own professional obscurity? Of course not; that's a false dichotomy. Imagine for a moment his future prospects had he, upon discovering a cover-up orchestrated by one of his own subordinates without his knowing, announced his own resignation, explaining at that time that, because it happened on his own watch, he bore full responsibility for the transgression, and that those directly involved had likewise been sacked by him prior to his resignation. Now that would be a true profile in courageous leadership. Too bad Mr. Fallon didn't think of that. Maybe somebody should make me a University President: I can screw up with the best of them, but at least I'd own up to it.

And We're Letting These People Vote?

This video made me feel to sad about the state of college education in the United States to watch in its entirety. Given today's discussion over at Mazurland about requiring a minimum level of competence in order to vote, this is particularly poignant. For those without video capability: the gist of the clip is that Mr. "Dudeman" went around the UVM campus and asked various, mostly female, students about their opinion of "the suffrage of women", which had "increased dramatically in this country since 1920". Very, very sadly, the vast majority seemed to respond along the lines of "Wow, um, like, obviously, I think it should be ended, um, you know..."

A few of the dumb ones at least have the decency to just say "I don't know". I can accept that level of ignorance (although not at a college campus -- that would be shocking in a just world). It's the "weasel words" that a lot of them use that really bother me -- "obviously it's a bad thing", "something should be done about it", etc. It's the ignoramus that is unaware of his or her ignorance that is the scariest prospect.

Hat Tip: Phi Beta Cons @ NRO