Although I feel Noam’s approach is rather radicalist –that politicians actually designed our educational system to preserve the forces already in power. But having been through the educational system here and in Europe, I fully agree that if students are not pursuing their own intellectual expansion, then they do risk falling into the “conformity” that Noam’s talking about. Think about this; at Penn State gen-ed classes are all graded through scantrons and standardized methods, preventing virtually any free thought from taking place.

Noam stats that “there are some teachers that do stimulate thought, and sometimes they get way with it”, and sadly although there are many faculty members at Penn State that will encourage free thought, I feel that except for in the College of Liberal Arts, tests and homework assignments fail to inspire creativity among students.

I love Penn State. It’s taught me how to work hard and how to manage my time. But if I didn’t regularly engage myself with extra curricular activities where I have to think (reading, attending lectures…etc), then I might quickly forget how to be creative.

The major difference between higher education in America and higher education in the UK is the way students are assessed. Most of the work over there is done on the student’s own time, outside of class between research and reading, and writing essays and reports. Here, rather than asking students to take the facts and the processes they’ve learned and employ them to new concepts, students are given study guides and syllabi that outline exactly what needs to be studied to get an A on the mid-term and final. Rarely are we given any substantial writing portion, and if we are, we’re very strictly evaluated on how many facts we can recall, rather than rewarded for having original thought.

But hey, maybe that’s meant to come later. But I’m not sure why it would have to. Nor does higher education around the developed world. I also think its telling (and kind of funny) that the 1st 3 initial reactions by students who posted here were “appalled”, “slightly mad”, “kind of pissed off”. Maybe we’ve also been programmed to believe that our system is better than the world’s without ever thinking about why it is or even how it’s different from education elsewhere.

It is interesting that Noam made the suggestion that more elite universities span even more conformity. I’ve always thought the most creative and innovative ideas to come out of more “elite” colleges and universities. So I think I’d have to disagree with Noam there.
So what should education look like? The Schreyer Gateway online application proposed a series of essay prompts, the most interesting, in my mind was the following:

"Politicians in Washington are gridlocked. Assume you have been appointed a benevolent dictator assigned to solve the problem of the United States current unemployment crisis. What in your view are the underlying causes of this crisis and what specific steps would you take to pull us out of the crisis?"

That’s the type of question that spawns creativity

Although I’m sure women struggle with social acceptance much more than men, as I guy I know that it’s still there. It manifests itself entirely differently, but essentially where women feel they need to improve themselves to fit in –exercise, clothing and makeup (and yes this is a huge generalization) –guys might (especially at Penn State) feel like they need to take creatine suppliments and bench 280 before they can compete on a level playing field with other guys.

Guys compete in a much more obvious way. It usually doesn’t look like the byproduct of insecurity, because that’s the way that guys have always been. In ancient Mesopotamia men prided themselves on how many men they killed in battle. I live in honors housing right now, and I’m sure that many of those guys find their worth in having a 4.0 GPA, or in the length of their resume. Back home, if it wasn’t sports, guys focused on who had more money and could afford to have more fun.

Over Spring Break I drove down to Panama City. 90% if not more of the guys down there all looked and acted the same: meat-heads who did nothing but beer bong and try to hook up with girls. If given the opportunity, they’d start a fight with another meat-head about whose XXL Rockstar t-shirt fit tighter. It’s interesting; athletes don’t train in the white building –so how come the guys there are stacking up 200 lbs on either side of the bar? It’s only about who can look more B.A.

To me, it’s kind of gross the way that guys have turned to taking out their self-confidence issues on women. Yeah; girls are hot and sex feels good. But how come it’s only recently that the number of different people that the average American (notice it’s American –not worldwide) sleeps with in their lifetime has skyrocketed. It’s become a thing of pride to know that you’re able score with tons and tons of women.
Last summer I went to cell block with a bunch of my friends. I danced a bit with a girl there, but left it at that. I’m still getting heat from one of my buddies who was there that night about “why didn’t you hook up with her?” He didn’t really get that I just don’t think it’s right to mess around with tons of girls. It probably makes commitment to future relationships harder too.

Ultimately though, I think that guys are the root cause of self-consciousness in women. Think of what would happen if all of a sudden every guy at Penn State actually told the girls here that –“hey, you don’t actually have to wear tights or next-to-nothing to be attractive”. But we wouldn’t. Basically because we’re too horny.

The All-American Basketball Alliance; because apparently black people aren’t American? That’s at least the impression that I got from Don “Moose” Lewis’ proposal for an all-Caucasian basketball league. "Only players that are natural born United States citizens with both parents of Caucasian race are eligible to play in the league,"-Here's a league for white players to play fundamental basketball, which they like."

The NBA though, is hardly the only professional basketball league in this country. Wikipedia lists 23 mens leagues, ranging from the National Basketball Association’s Development League (NBAD) to the Louisville Hoopfest Basketball League (LHBL) and the Iowa Basketball Exposure League (IBEL). What Moose is saying is that white people can’t, and do not desire to play pro level ball. Furthermore, he also infers that the actual quality of the game played in the NBA is not strategic –calling it “street ball”. Mr. Lewis of course claims no racist intent, citing "I don't hate anyone of color. But people of white, American-born citizens are in the minority now.”

In an interview on the Daily Show, Moose told viewers that he was “a child of forced integration by the government –You want to deal with racism? Friends of yours, whites on the basketball team are pushed off the team because now all of a sudden you’ve got very talented black athletes that are going to the same school, and the coach wants to win. I’ve lived racism.”
To me, that sounds more like bitterness rather than simply filling a “market niche”.

I think it is kind of absurd though –not just that Moose conceived this idea to begin with, but that he genuinely doesn’t believe that this move is basically segregation. He was also asked why he felt the need to make the league all white, instead of simply creating a “fundamentals basketball league”. He replied that “Blacks overall are better athletes when it comes to the game of basketball.”

The funny thing is that even though there may have been some pull for watching fundamental basketball –if played by the best fundamentally skilled players. But who’s going to watch average guys play basketball? For younger people, they can play it themselves, and older people can watch their kids’ high school games. Chances are; if this league gets viewership, it’s going to be from people who simply don’t want to support black athletes.

I wonder then; how many more Americans hold racist beliefs, but would not actually consider themselves racists? The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) voiced that Moose’s league "attempts to set back what we've been trying to do for 100 years,” and “If [they] can do anything to stop it, [they] will.” Hopefully they wont have to do much.

When I see pictures of protesters holding signs that read “Marxism is an Obama-Nation” or that feature “Undocumented Worker” as the caption to a photo of our president, I’m irritated because these people are obviously irrational, yet still receive enough attention by the media to grow their following. I say irrational because if you’ve received even the least extensive primary education our country can offer, you’d know that our President may not be born elsewhere than in the United States. So saying that he’s undocumented is ridiculous. And frankly, what good is a sign like that going to accomplish?

But I noticed it again on our campus last night. Outside of Eisenhower Auditorium, before the doors open for an event called Porn Nation, I noticed two people holding signs that read “Filth Not Faith”. Porn Nation is a presentation by recovering Porn addict Michael Leahy that’s been given at over 170 campuses nationwide about the way in which pornography (defined as “creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire” http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=porn... )has shaped our culture and our expectations of relationships today. For me, I’ve always understood that Pornography is harmful to relationships and individuals too, so naturally I was curious to learn why these two felt the need to protest Mr. Leahy’s talk. Among other points, they made the claim that sex is natural and that sexual freedom is good, and as quoted in the Daily Collegian this morning, that "nations which have greater access to porn have lower rates of rape and pedophilia.” (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2010/03/25/g...

Later, during the Q and A, about a dozen students lined up to voice their frustrations with Mr. Leahy relating his argument more to personal testimony rather than statistical evidence. So I wondered; those two kids sitting outside –what evidence is there to indicate that rape is less common in the west because we have access to porn? There isn’t any; those two subjects may be true, but more likely, we have less incidence of rape (or reported rape) here than in Somalia because as a developed nation, along with having widespread access to the internet (and pornography), we also have better law enforcement.

When I talked to them I asked them if they would be coming inside to listen to talk themselves. They didn’t think it was necessary; they were informed enough.

The reason I’m frustrated is because Penn State students (we’re rational, right?) chose to attend Mr. Leahy’s talk with the sole intention to undermine it, not to be informed. For them, they already know what’s right and what’s natural. But the reality is that we’re 20 year old kids; how much experience do any of us really have? I’d argue not more than our professors or our parents.

Is it really that hard to think that maybe she did need “to remember where she was?” Constance is a lesbian in Mississippi; maybe it is her right to bring her girlfriend to the prom, but the truth is that in addition to already standing out as a same sex couple, by wearing a tuxedo, Constance would draw unnecessary and potentially harmful attention to her sexual orientation.

The consequences of that are huge. Although many of us living in PA choose to believe that no one would do anything rash in reaction to seeing a lesbian couple (don’t forget the tuxedo), I’m willing to bet that in Mississippi there are. Who’s to say what the potential for high school kids to edge each other on toward acts of violence is.

Additionally, our society is willing to overlook homosexuality when it stays behind closed doors (“I’m ok with gay people as long as they don’t try anything on me”), but Constance would have (and now has) made herself a social outcast among the majority of her local population. If she wins this case, then maybe she’ll be looked at as a hero, but if she doesn’t, her town will probably want nothing to do with her. And even if she wins, it’ll be because of the ACLU, not because her own community has a change of heart.

I sympathize with her –though maybe I don’t come off like I do. It has got to suck living in that community and having to be cautious of your own emotions. I think it’s moving to see how supportive her father is. But how much of her appeal was for attention? If she really did just want to go to the prom with her girlfriend, then why did she ask for the permission to wear a tuxedo? I think it would be interesting to see the school board’s reaction if it had been a male couple with one partner wanting to wear a dress. Prom probably wouldn’t have been cancelled, maybe because society is much more prone to sympathize with an 18 year old girl.

Although it was pretty reckless on her part, I do hope that Constance’s move will broaden her (and our) society’s acceptance of the gay community. Actions like hers are necessary for social change to occur. I think that the press has scrutinized the school board pretty harshly, and that although prejudices probably influence their conduct to a degree, I think that their intention was to qualm any uproar among the students. Ideally, she should be allowed to take her date, but right now, in the south, her peers probably wouldn’t tolerate it in any respectful or sympathetic way. And they’re probably a lot more mad now that prom’s out of the picture.

The reason why most themed parties at Penn State are held by white people is because most parties at Penn State are held by white people.

I made a quick Google search –“college theme parties” – and if you look through the following websites (the top 2) you see that about 10% at most could be classified as “black”:

http://www.pointsincase.com/articles/college_part...

http://www.campusgrotto.com/party-themes.html

The first link, “Top Ten College Party Themes” includes only one that would fall under this category –“40s and Blunts” at number 5. The rest of them pertain to either excessive consumption of alcohol, excuses to be promiscuous, or good old fashioned celebration of biker culture. The second site is largely the same.

So really; is a St. Patrick’s Day party (not State Patty’s Day) an excuse to make fun of the Irish? No –I’ll bet that if you did a survey of 1000 people that day who are dressed in green and out for a party, they’d probably love to tell you how Irish they claim to be. They’re probably not, but they still want a part of it even if all they’ll use it for is an excuse to drink. The event itself reflects poorly on Irish culture and heritage, but the intent is celebration, not mockery.

Secondly; to suggest that in hosting a themed party (ex. Gangster or Pimps/Hoes) is an attempt to make fun of black culture, you’re really suggesting that gangster/hip-hop/rap culture is exclusive to black people, and that white people have no place there. The reality though, is that since Vanilla Ice and Marky Mark hit the scene in the 80s, it’s become our culture too. I’m guessing that the majority of MTV’s viewership is white (and again, this is an assumption made given the fact that the majority of our population is white), and the majority of the culture portrayed on the network is arguably “black”. So I’d like to ask the question, why do black people want to keep white people out of rap culture?

I get that maybe black people want something specific and exclusive to identify with (I do doubt that it would be Pimps and Hoes though), but it seems kind of unfair when white people don’t actively cling to country music in any exclusive way. It just so happens that the majority of black people don’t listen to country and have no desire to do so (most of this is presumed from interactions with my roommate last semester who was black and couldn’t stand country music).

Isn’t it something to be excited about; that black culture has spawned a social movement that white people want to be a part of? I think it is. But, hey –I’m white

I agree. Many of my friends back home are German and they’d probably be dumbfounded with the idea that they should assume the position of being responsible for the holocaust (not to mention make amends for it).
Sam was pretty clear that what he’s looking for is that we as a country acknowledge our history of genocide. But seriously, how many Americans with a high school diploma would still not know about it.
Funny thing; Canadians (myself being one of them) are way less aware about the genocide that happened there, but yet life for aboriginals there is way less bleak than it is down here. It’s still not great, but it’s better. And they still have their culture (as portrayed during the opening ceremony for the Olympics two weeks ago). But despite that no one pays attention to the genocide, Native Canadians are way more a part of modern Canadian society and enjoy a deep pride too.

So what real good would simply “acknowledging” the genocide going to accomplish? Native Americans are still going to be poor (except, as mentioned in class, those who run Casinos), and they’ll still be alcoholic and they’ll still struggle with violence. Canada –as good as it is –also still struggles with those same problems.

What if, instead of giving full rides to college kids with 1/16th Native blood, we used those resources (and notable a few more) to build schools (good ones) and provide other necessary social services and infrastructure (maybe even encouraging/incentivizing businesses to relocate or set up camp at towns with large native populations, thus providing employment) to help the Natives get back on their feet and become part of functional American society. Retaining culture doesn’t have to mean separating a people group from everyone else and leaving them alone on their reserves.
Getting back to the question of scholarships; how much does a person really care about the history of one sixteenth of their genetic heritage? Most people who do don’t even know that they hold that genetic make up, and they’d probably be thrilled to find out that they could go to college for free. But that doesn’t do anything for the current state of Native American society. All that’s going to do is help out a few kids who probably don’t need it all that badly. I say that because it’s the people who can’t actually get into college (or out of high school, for that matter) that need the most help.

So why waste time making an apology or an acknowledgement for what colonists hundreds of years ago did, when we could treat this problem in the manner that we have already begun to approach the poor urban and black communities? It’s not perfect but it’s a start, and it would probably be easier to co-ordinate since there are far fewer Natives.

It always amazes me when I think about how stubborn current generations are when dealing with matters of faith and the Bible. The Bible doesn't exist to promote "family values", it's purpose is to enlighten us on creation, the fall of man, and to lay a path for a savior, and ultimately to fulfill those prophecies through the life of Jesus Christ (if you follow the New Testament).

Did the author of that article ("Adam's Family Jewels") ever think that the reason those stories of incest, rape, masturbation and fertility are much of the reason Old Testament scriptures are still relevant to our lives today? I'd argue that our world -and the one that we record daily through reality T.V., adult magazines (and non-adult ones too) and especially in pop music -has a much more dangerous reverence for morality and acceptable conduct than the Bible portrays. Chances are, there's a lot more rape and violent crime and incest and masturbation today than in the days of Elijah -and the proportion of references to them in the Bible is probably way less than if you watched HBO for an hour.

This is what happens when people try to blanket the real purpose of the Bible in an attempt not to appear socially extreme, maintaining that it is merely a good set of standards to live by. Jesus didn't die for telling the Jews that God wanted them to live their lives in a more God-pleasing way. The author of “Adam’s Family Jewels” suggested that kids who read the Bible are going to be warped, but the reality is that: a) kids don’t read the Bible, and if they do b) it’s probably going to be a whole lot more beneficial for them than watching Family Guy (as much as I love it) or listening to Miley Cyrus.

Regarding Sam's lecture yesterday; he kinda forgot to remember that the word Christian implies a follower of the Christ (Jesus) -who made us good in God's eyes again, which he didn't mention when he went through the list of actions that make us unworthy of heaven.

People today have become so concerned with their rights to live our own lives in whatever manner we see fit, that we’ve closed ourselves off from the idea that maybe the reason why the divorce rate is so high or why there are so many broken families has to do with our reluctance to accept that God actually knows what’s best for us and what will reveal true happiness to us.

And as far as the covenant shake goes ("[putting] his hand under the thigh" Genesis 24:9); at least we know that Abraham wasn't a homophobe, and a lot of us would learn a ton about loving each other if we considered that for a second.

Although I’m pretty embarrassed that a man of this social perspective is one of our high ranking elected officials, I must admit that although writing off the welfare population as presumed animals and scroungers is elitist and shows the disconnect between elected officials and their constituents, he does bring up that valid argument that it is sometimes far too easy to abuse the welfare system in this country.

When someone gives up on finding a job after being laid off, he's labeled as a "discouraged worker" –which usually happens after a couple years of trying (and failing) to find a job. It’s usually because the person refuses to take a job below his skill level, and is still living well above the poverty level. I'm pretty sure that the majority of our subsidized low income population would rather have a job (even if low-paying) than be dependent on food stamps; probably for both the freedom that a stable income entitles a worker to, and the embarrassment associated with welfare dependence. That being said though, it’s not fair to let some people ride the golden ticket while that money could be put to better use.
For much of my life I lived in a country where social benefits are much more luxurious than those in our country. A friend of my brother’s, after graduating high school and getting a job, decided that it was more profitable for him to live on welfare subsidies for the year than it was for him to hold his job. So he quit.

The welfare system probably needs to give more incentive to people to find work. Sam explained to us yesterday that every American is able to choose his own destiny (and income). Sure; but some people simply don’t want to work. The welfare system needs to be revamped, and there needs to be a better system of accountability and a better system for the unemployed to re-enter the work force. People probably shouldn’t be receiving much assistance after 8 months of being unemployed. If they have children, it gets tricky, but they need to realize that being a parent is a heavy responsibility and that they need to work. I’m not entirely sure how effective social norming campaigns are, but something to that effect might help to motivate the recipients of benefits.

I don’t think draconian measures such as those taken by the Chinese government (and the one-child policy) are morally excusable or that they should in any way be adopted in the US, but maybe policy needs to be changed so that it is more desire able to have 2 or 3 kids rather than 6 or 7. Maybe requiring more activity by the parents similar to the suggested attendance of PTA meetings at schools are in order. It wouldn’t be right to deny money to children that need it, but having kids shouldn’t be a means to an income.

In Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness –which insights the colonial complex, the Dutch seek to harness the Congo (and it’s people) through the white man’s technological advantage and intuition. One of the forms that this takes is the use of Africans to enslave (or keep in slavery) other Africans.

In World War 2, concentration camps would employ (or coerce) Jews to man different functions of the camp in positions of authority over other Jews. It’s an effective way of bridging the gap between freedom and occupation, and usually will decrease the probability of revolt.
James Cameron’s employment of the messiah complex in Avatar does make me wonder, as Brooks phrased it: “[do] nonwhites need the White Messiah to lead their crusades?”

History shows us that although there is no absolute answer to this question, if a group’s own people can be used against them in the way Jews were in Nazi Germany or Africans were in Dutch Congo, then wouldn’t it make sense that the same use could be performed in a more heroic way (such as with the Marine in Avatar)?

Maybe the Hutu-Rwandan rebel government might eventually have put an end to the 1994 Genocide itself, but it’s probably safe to say that General Dallaire (who is alas, white) and the thousand or so UN troops did actually prevent the total massacre of the Tutsi race.

Maybe illiteracy is the path to grace (though I am writing figuratively). I’ve met many people from different regions of the world, and the wealthier ones do tend to always feel as though they need more then they have (especially if they already have a lot); the more we are in need, the less satisfied (and happy) we are.