Hate mail

Below is a right-wing nut job’s tirade about Jeff Lockwood’s very fine op-ed piece on exploiting one’s entomophobia as a kind of torture. Jeff’s original piece appeared in the Sunday New York Times on 19 April 2009 (I mention Jeff’s piece in previous post, here).

At the end, the writer mentions that she’ll “expand and broaden” her arguments in the future. I missed the arguments in this piece. Is it that she argues that torture is a moral good? Is it that the United States government should ignore the fact that people are endowed with certain inalienable human rights? If anyone has any clue what they are, let me know. (Also, please note that this is quoted directly; I’m not sure why the piece is missing “N”s or why it’s in all capital letters.)

RE YOURS AND THE REST OF THE NEW YORKS TIMES TERRORISTS  CHEERLEADERS SUCH AS BILL KELLIER AND JEFFREY A LOCKWOOD JUST TO LIST A FEW  WRITINGS IN THE WEEK IN REVIEW  OF THE SUNDAY NEW YORK TIMES  APRIL 19.2009 WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS NOTHING LESS THAT TREASONS AND SEDITIONS  THAT  THE NEW YORK TIMES   HAVE COMMITTED UPO THIS NATION DURING THE PAST SEVE YEARS  .THE NEW YORK TIMES HAVE MALICIOUSLY INTENTIONALLY DELIBERATELY AN PURPOSEFULLY DONE SO  WITH THE SOLE INTENT OF CAUSING IMMENSE DAMAGE HARM  AND  UNWARRANTED PUNISHMET TO THE HONOURABLE PRESIDENT BUSH  AND OTHER MEMBERS  OF HIS ADMINISTRATIO I AM FULLY AWARE THAT THE NEW YORK TIMES  WITH  ALL OF THE FINANCIAL  AND ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AND DETERIORATIONS  THAT  THE  NEW YORKS TIMES ARE  CURRENTL FACING AND OR EXPERIENCING  THE CORPORATE  ELITES DO NOT CARE ONE BIT  AS LONG AS THEYB WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL  WITH  THEIR GOAL AND INTENT  JUST AS HOW  THEY  THE NEW YORK TIMES WERE ABLE TO GET THE FRAUDULET CORRUPT  AND DANGEROUS MAN  BARACK OBAMA  TO GET THE SEVE HUNDRED FORTY NINE MILLION  DOLLARS OF THE BLOOD CRIMINAL TAINTED FRAUDULENT MONEY  FROM THE RICH WEALTHY LIE-BERAL ROBBER BARONS ON WALL STREET AND ELSEWHERE  SO THAT HE BARACK OBAMA AND HIS GOONS WERE ABLE TO BUY THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDECY OF THE UNITED  STATES OF AMERICA WITH THE ADDITIONAL CAVEAT THAT BARACK OBAMA ALSO  SUBMITTED  A FALSE AND FRAUDULENT PASSPORT  REFLECTING THAT HE WAS BORNED IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  WHEN THE FACT IS THAT HE WAS NOT . THERE ARE NUMEROUS LAW SUITS ON  THE PASSPORT ISSUE WHEREIN  THE NEW YORK TIMES  AND  THE OTHER NOW DEFUNCT MAIN STREAM MEDIA  DELIBERATELY CHOSE NOT TO  COVER AS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT  NEWS AND ISSUE   BARACK OBAMA  AND HIS  GOONS HAVE COMMITTED SO MUCH  EVILS  HISTORY WILL SHOW  AND CONFIRM IN DUE COURSE , I WILL REMIND YOU THAT KNOWLEDGE IS POWER AND THE SHARING OF KNOWLEDGE TRUTHFULLY IS EMPOWERMENT TO QUOTE .UNQUOTE  . MORE COMES FROM KNOWING MORE . TO QUOTE .UNQUOTE .  I DO NOT EMPLOY AND OR ASSERT OPINION AS OPINION IS USELESS AND MEANINGLESS .  RATHER I INDULGE IN  KNOWLEDGE THAT IS TRUTHFUL . I MAKE SURE TO READ THE NEW YORK TIMES ONN A DAILY BASIS BOTH THE HARD PRINT COPY  AND THE ONLINE FORMAT SO AS TO BE ABREAST OF WHAT  THE NEW YORK TIMES  HAVE WRITTE THEREOFF  . SO MUCH  FALSEHOODS  AND MISINFORMATION   IN FUTURE DRAFTS I WILL EXPAND AND BROADEN MY ARGUEMENTS  AND LANGUAGES PERSUANT  TO THE  NEW YORK TIMES  AND OTHERS LIKE WISE .

ULaLa’s Philosophy Program eliminated

The Louisiana Board of Regents Academic and Student Affairs Committee voted to eliminate the B.A. major in philosophy at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette today. In an article appearing in yesterday’s Lafayette, Louisiana local newspaper, The Advertiser, Tina Marie Macias reported that the Board of Regents were recommending the elimination of the Philosophy major because of its status as a “low-completer” (news story here).

According to the story, programs are issued “low-completer” status if a major has less than 8 students graduating per year, or 40 graduates in a 5-year span. The philosophy program has been designated a “low-completer” program at least 4 times since 1986.

Keith Korcz, a professor of philosophy at ULaLa, makes a fine point in the article. His point is that the school will no longer be viewed as a university if it rids itself of core liberal arts programs, such as philosophy, literature, history, sociology, etc. The only rebuttal noted in the article comes from the Regents’ spokeswoman, Meg Casper, who’s clearly an enlightened scholar of immense proportion. Her rebuttal: “have they looked at the budget?”

It’s unclear what to make of the “low-completer” designation and how that designation is bad for a program. First, philosophy programs aren’t producing graduates in massive numbers because completing a degree in philosophy is much harder than completing a degree in business, sociology, or engineering. Majoring in philosophy is harder because, at least in some cases, the subject matter is abstract. Contending with abstracta is more difficult to grasp than learning some rules of supply and demand and how they apply in macro- or micro-economic conditions. Students tend to dislike classes challenging them to grasp concepts they had never considered important. Fewer students are attracted to major in philosophy. So, the philosophy programs at a number of universities probably don’t produce more than 10 or 11 at a time.

Second, low-completer status may be indicative of a major’s degree of difficulty. Students cower at a major where they may end up with a grade lower than a B+. Since it’s possible a student might receive a C in a philosophy course, they’re probably not going to become a major in that field.

Third, and related to the second point, students aren’t seeking out challenging courses of study. There’s no reason to enroll in  challenging university courses if a student can take another course where they can do just enough work and get an A. Just enough work these days qualifies for receiving an A in a course. This probably isn’t so in the low-completer degree programs at ULaLa. (Of course this attitude has become a problem for businesses too recently. Graduates now argue that they have earned a raise just for doing what it is in their job description to do. They haven’t considered that a pay raise is only for those who do work above-and-beyond what’s stated in their job description. Look out business world here comes the entitlement generation!)

Finally – well at least for now anyway – where are all the administrators on this? In the places I’ve worked the last few years administrators, i.e., Deans, Vice Presidents, Chancellors, etc., have emphasized the importance of tightening academic standards. The primary complaint is that students’ grades are inflated, and too many students are graduating with an unearthly 4.0 GPA. In one analysis I reviewed, programs that were “high-completers” (on LA standards those with many many more graduates per year and per 5-year period than those nasty “low-completer” programs) had nearly 80% of graduates with a GPA of 4.0 and another 15% of graduates with a GPA of 3.5 or higher. This suggests that students gravitate toward programs in which they’ll receive higher grades. Eliminating the “low-completer” programs may only add to the “tighter academic standards” headaches the administrators already suffer. Perhaps the administration should have thought about this and lobbied the Regents to reconsider dissolving the philosophy program.

I’m just speculating about the difficulty of ULaLa’s philosophy program. But it’s not hard to imagine that the philosophy instructors at ULaLa held students to stricter academic standards than their counterparts in some other disciplines.

Ninth Centenary of Anselm’s death

Brandon reminded me of the ninth centenary of St. Anselm’s death (here) earlier this week, and he’s provided some really interesting links. I’ve copied some here for those interested in Anselmiana.

• The St. Anselm Journal (here)
• Brandon’s entry on Anselm Day 2006 with valuable links to interesting papers (here)
• Jasper Hopkins on St. Anselm’s work (here)

Why am I interested in all-things-Anselmiana? Two reasons: (1) I’ve been fascinated by the ontological argument for God’s existence since I read it for the first time in an introductory philosophy class in 1994 and (2) one of my current research projects concerns Anselm’s ontological argument. The ontological argument struck me when I first read it as odd but true; it was one of the first arguments I encountered in the history of philosophy that I found difficult to defeat.

Entomophobia, an instrument of psychological torture

Jeff Lockwood, a colleague at UWYO, wrote an op-ed piece for the Sunday NY Times on the history and use of insects as a means of torture (here).

Apparently the CIA wanted to use insects during an interrogation as a means of striking fear into “terror” suspects. Since harming prisoners physically is against the Geneva Convention and international law, the CIA sought other permissible instruments of torture. Psychological torture isn’t covered under international law, so the CIA asked the Justice department whether it would be permissible to play on suspects fears. The rationale has to be that it doesn’t harm the suspect so it has to be acceptable. Unfortunately for the CIA, psychological harm is just as deeply problematic as physical harm. No matter how it’s sliced psychological torture is torture.

New hire angers philosophy faculty @ FIU

Story is here. Laurie Shrage, a notable feminist philosopher and political activist, and some of her colleagues will hand deliver FIU’s “sexual harrassment” policy directly to new basketball coach Isiah Thomas. Thomas was found guilty of sexually harrassing and creating a hostile work environment for a former Knicks executive. She was awarded $11mil. It’d be wise for Thomas to read and to comply with the policy during his tenure at FIU.

On another note (why my blogging activity has been relatively inconsistent), I’m in Memphis attending the MidSouth Philosophy Conference where I had the opportunity to attend many great sessions. (MidSouth is my favorite conference to attend for lots of reasons. Ask me why if interested.) Last week I attended the APA-Pacific in Vancouver where there were equally many good papers. So, all this “conferencing” has left my blog a little bare.

Alaska Airlines and other air carriers go ahead with in-flight WiFi

I read a story a few months ago about Alaska Airlines’s installation of WiFi services in one of its aircraft. Apparently the response to the onboard WiFi has been overwhelmingly positive. So, Alaska Airlines has decided to extend its service to other aircraft in its fleet. (story here)

Other major airlines in the last few months have chosen to expand their WiFi services too. Domestic flights within the continental United States, especially, have benefited from the expansion of the airlines SkyFi service. The sorry part of the whole thing is that airlines charge passengers a fee to use it.

89th Philosophers Carnival

is here.

Why formal theories are better

I’ve just begun reading Sven Hansson’s The Structure of Values and Norms (Cambridge UP 2001). He has some interesting comments about the importance of formality in philosophy. The comments are preceded by a pithy argument against the employment of “prephilosophical” language in theories. Let me comment on two things he mentions.

Well said

here.

CO jury finds that Churchill was wrongfully terminated

A Colorado jury found that Churchill was wrongfully terminated by CU-Boulder, and he was offered $1.00 for damages. Generally, this is an important victory for academic freedom.

Leiter has found the jury’s rewarding $1.00 “puzzling” (here and here). I had to agree with this puzzlement, until I saw an interview with a Churchill jury member on 9News – Denver. According to the jury member, Churchill and his lawyer David Lane made it clear they weren’t in it for the money but in it for the sake of academic freedom. 9News transcript here.

Do I think that the jury member’s comments clarify very well the reasons for the $1.00 award? No, not necessarily.

Addendum (3 Apr 2009): According to this news story, the same jury member that spoke with 9News yesterday has admitted to a local Denver radio station, KHOW, that 5 of the 6 jurors wanted to award Churchill a “significant” sum of money. Only 1 juror held out. They negotiated down to $1. This essentially adds to the confusion and puzzlement I mentioned yesterday. What was it that the one juror said to persuade five others Churchill shouldn’t have been awarded more money? Was it the fact that Churchill and his lawyer were emphatic that they weren’t seeking monetary compensation?

Inside Higher Ed also has a piece on the Churchill victory (here). I haven’t yet read this one.