Arts &
  Arts Culture Analysis  
Vol. 11, No. 3, 2012
  Current Issue  
  Back Issues  
Robert J. Lewis
  Senior Editor
Bernard Dubé
  Contributing Editors
David Solway
Nancy Snipper
Farzana Hassan
Louis René Beres
Andrée Lafontaine
Samuel Burd
Sylvain Richard
Marissa Consiglieri de Chackal
  Music Editors
Diane Gordon
Serge Gamache
  Arts Editor
Lydia Schrufer
Mady Bourdage
Chantal Levesque Denis Beaumont Marcel Dubois
Emanuel Pordes
  Past Contributors
  Noam Chomsky
Mark Kingwell
Naomi Klein
Arundhati Roy
Evelyn Lau
Stephen Lewis
Robert Fisk
Margaret Somerville
Mona Eltahawy
Michael Moore
Julius Grey
Irshad Manji
Richard Rodriguez
Ernesto Zedillo
Pico Iyer
Edward Said
Jean Baudrillard
Bill Moyers
Barbara Ehrenreich
Leon Wieseltier
Nayan Chanda
Charles Lewis
John Lavery
Tariq Ali
Michael Albert
Rochelle Gurstein
Alex Waterhouse-Hayward

a crisis of competence

Janice Fiamengo


Janice Fiamengo is a professor of English at the University of Ottawa, and author of The Woman’s Page: Journalism and Rhetoric in Early Canada (2008).

When I finally landed a tenure-track position at a Canadian university, I was ecstatic and full of hope — exhilarated by the opportunity to teach students about literature and ideas and to have conversations with colleagues equally in love with literature and ideas. I didn’t realize that my experience as a university teacher of English would have much less to do with these passions than with the distortion of the university’s core mission in the name of pedagogical and political orthodoxy.

To begin with, the student writing that came across my desk left me aghast. I had taught before, but I was unprepared for the level of illiteracy, the stunted vocabularies, near-complete absence of historical knowledge, and above all the extraordinary apathy of many English majors. The most basic of expression rules — the difference between it’s and its, the incorrectness of “would of” for “would have,” the role of the apostrophe or semi-colon, the fact that “a lot” was two words — were beyond the grasp of the majority, no matter how often I reviewed grammar or devised mnemonic devices. And the sheer sloppiness and muddled thinking in the essays, where the titles of poems and authors’ names were frequently misspelled and dates were wildly inaccurate, suggested a fundamental indifference to the subject matter.

Not only was my students’ writing appalling, but I soon encountered their resentment at being told about it. “Who are you to tell me I can’t write?” was the attitude — once expressed in those very words. More than one student insisted that her other teachers had always rewarded her with high marks for her “creativity.” Most believed themselves more than competent. After sitting with one young woman explaining the cause of her failing grade, I was befuddled when her only response was a sullen: “This doesn’t exactly make me feel good.” When I responded that my job was not to make her feel good, she stood haughtily, picked up her paper with an air of injury, and left my office without another word. In her mind, I later realized, I had been unforgivably cruel.

I was up against it: the attitude of entitlement rampant amongst university students and nurtured by the utopian ideology that permeates modern pedagogy, in which the imposition of rules and identification of errors are thought to limit student creativity and the fostering of a hollow self-esteem takes precedence over the building of skills on which genuine self-respect might be established. In the Humanities subjects in particular — and in English especially, the discipline I know best — such a philosophy has led to a perilous watering down of course content, with self-validation seen as more important than the mastery of specific knowledge.

With this philosophy has come a steady grade inflation. The majority of students in English courses today can expect a B grade or higher merely for warming a seat and handing in assignments on time. The result, as I soon discovered, was a generation of students so accustomed to being praised for their work that when I told them it was inadequate, they simply could not or would not believe me. They seemed very nearly unteachable: lacking not only the essential skills but also the personal gumption to respond adequately to criticism.

When I mentioned my dismay to fellow teachers, a number were sympathetic, sharing stories of student resistance and unwarranted smugness. One told me of her humiliation at being hauled before the department head by a posse of disgruntled students who alleged that the grades she had awarded were at least 5% lower than their average, and must therefore be raised to correspond with their accustomed level. Rather than laughing them out of his office, the department chair undertook to investigate the matter, informing the instructor that if the allegation was found to be correct, her marks would have to be revised. In the end, the case was not as straightforward as the students had claimed and my colleague’s marks were allowed to stand, but the damage to her sense of authority — and the outrageous notion that a professor’s marking could be determined by precedent and forcibly harmonized with previous grades, regardless of quality — had already taken effect.

Other professors with whom I spoke were not so sympathetic. They stressed the personal challenges students faced at university, the need to consider so-called alternative pedagogies to pique student interest. In other words, the problem was mine if students did not “feel good.”

One colleague suggested — when I complained that not a single student had read the assigned novel on the day we were to begin discussing it — that I should show a film on a related subject for a change of pace. At a professional teaching workshop designed to re-ignite one’s teaching passion, I was told that group discussion need not be stymied by the fact that students came to class unprepared; a student who had done the assigned reading could explain the reading to the others in the group so that all could participate and benefit. The message was clear enough: being hip and cheerful and expecting little and demanding nothing were the keys to happy classroom encounters. And student happiness — not commitment to the subject — was unquestionably the goal. As Mark Steyn analyzed in his recent book, After America: Get Ready for Armageddon, on the decline of America, the emphasis on a vacuous therapeutic empowerment of the student body has led to a drastic lowering of expectations in North American post-secondary institutions. Students now read less than ever before for their courses, and professors are under increasing pressure to evaluate students in non-traditional ways (i.e., outside of tests and essays). The burgeoning number of students who register with a disability complicates evaluation: teachers are expected to accommodate invisible learning problems — their nature undisclosed due to privacy considerations — which mandate that they provide extra time on in-class tests, refrain from imposing late penalties, provide their lecture notes to students, or allow them to write exams on a word processor. The emphasis in hiring decisions on student evaluations of teachers — see, for example, the public website “Rate My Professor,” in which students’ often crass assessments are posted for all to see (“She’s hot!” “His voice puts you to sleep”) — makes it increasingly attractive to instructors to earn popularity, or at least to avoid attack, by giving high grades and making their courses fun rather than demanding.

As traditional content is removed from courses, it is often replaced by non-academic material, specifically a devotion to “social justice” that masquerades as critical analysis despite the fact that the impartial weighing of evidence so necessary to such analysis is largely absent from its championing of victims. In books such as The Professors, David Horowitz has shown the dominance of Leftist activists at American colleges and “the extent to which radicalism at the very edges of the American political spectrum [has] established a central place in the curriculum of American universities.” A recent report by the California Association of Scholars laments the widespread politicization of teaching, pointing out the extraordinary imbalance of liberal to conservative scholars at California universities (29:1 in the Berkeley English Department, for example), a situation that certainly applies across North America. Many professors in the Humanities and Social Sciences devote themselves less to teaching their particular disciplines than to decrying the presumed crimes of the United States, sympathizing with Islamic terrorists and other violent dissidents, calling for the overthrow of the capitalist world order, and condoning plans for the destruction of Israel.

As Horowitz explains, the radicalization of the Humanities and the decline of academic standards are closely related, with political commitment often necessitating the abandonment of scholarly integrity. Many teachers of English no longer care much about prosody or literary history or correct grammar because such subjects seem trivial beside the grand social struggles that claim their allegiance. It may well seem more urgent to combat racism than to combat the comma splice, to analyze patriarchal privilege rather than Jane Austen’s irony; and when right thinking is more important than rigorous thinking, details can be overlooked in the cause of student enlightenment. Combine this with an administrative emphasis on filling seats and a state commitment to student access, and one has the perfect academic storm, one that sweeps away scholastics and whirls in crude social engineering.

That many of my colleagues seemed sincere in their commitment to history’s underdogs cannot excuse the damage caused by their policies and by their skewed teaching practices — for their ideological convictions were often imported into the classroom, where a balanced overview of course material was sacrificed to the politics of “race, class, and gender.” Students learn quickly enough in such courses that success requires them to adopt approved positions: to be skeptical of Western nations’ claims to equality and justice, to understand their country’s history as a record of oppression, and to look with ready admiration at non-Western cultures, which they are taught to see as superior. Young white men learn early on that history’s villains are usually white men. Lesbian identities, Aboriginal culture, and Sharia law are protected from critical appraisal by charges of homophobia, genocidal racism, or cultural imperialism. Instructors often choose the texts on their syllabus not to represent the traditional scholarly consensus on the important and best literature of the period but rather to represent a range of victim groups presented in noble conflict with the forces of social prejudice. Literature is taught not because it is valuable in itself but because it teaches students to denounce inequality and to empathize with victims, and to feel appropriately empowered in grievance or guilty by association.

Indeed, some students become so immersed in Leftist ideology — a kind of secret society whose code language they have learned in fear and trembling and now exercise with pride — that they believe it the only possible view of the world and have never seriously considered alternatives except as the deplorable prejudices of the hateful unwashed. Their conviction of rightness has revealed itself in a multitude of anti-intellectual and repressive behavior on university campuses across the country.

What is to be done? De-radicalizing the Humanities will be no easy task, for the ranks of the professoriate are filled with instructors who see their primary responsibility to be that of advancing ideological goals. True believers as they are, they will not be easily dissuaded from their cause, and dissenters from Left orthodoxy often feel overwhelmed, beleaguered, and under threat. Yet saving the Humanities for genuine scholarship has never been more urgent, and it is heartening to know that articulate champions of reform such as Horowitz and others, including Richard Cravatts, Stanley Fish, and David Solway, continue to raise their voices in dismay and stalwart hope. Some day, perhaps, if the decline is not irreversible and if more courageous professors will stand against the corruption of the academic enterprise, departments of English might once again become places where professors and students pursue a love of literature.


Email Address
(not required)

Prof. Fiamengo should use her critical skills to reevaluate her devotion to orthodox orthography. Standard English spelling is arbitrary, wildly irrational and wastefully difficult to learn. Drilling students on 'it's' vs. 'its' will not teach them to love literature, but merely to despise irrational authority.
Prof. Fiamengo should use her critical skills to reevaluate her devotion to orthodox orthography. Standard English spelling is arbitrary, wildly irrational and wastefully difficult to learn. Drilling students on 'it's' vs. 'its' will not teach them to love literature, but merely to despise irrational authority.
I'm afraid, dear lady, you're whistling in the wind. The imbecile approach taken in humanities departments across North America that you (and I) so deplore is so deeply embedded in academia today it would require a virtual armed revolution to excise.Sad.

Up until you brought in Horowitz and smearing the Left, I supported your thesis. "Horrorwitz" is a monster. He seeks to have academic witch hunts against anyone who does not follow his ideology.

Up until you brought in Horowitz and smearing the Left, I supported your thesis. Horrorwitz is a monster. He seeks to have academic witch hunts against anyone who does not follow his ideology.
"As traditional content is removed from courses, it is often replaced by non-academic material, specifically a devotion to “social justice” that masquerades as critical analysis despite the fact that the impartial weighing of evidence so necessary to such analysis is largely absent from its championing of victims. In books such as The Professors, David Horowitz has shown . . . ."

And here is where we go off the rails. There is no linkage between so-called "radical" politics and grade inflation. Ever hear of the "Gentleman's C"?
I was right with Prof. Fiamengo until she turned the piece into a political argument lamenting the influence of "Leftist" professors.

David Horowitz is a right wing idealogue and is ill suited to analyze problems with our system of education, but he seems to be her sole source of information regarding the cause of the problem she describes.

I agree the job of educators is to teach their students, not worry about whether their students feel good about themselves. But this is not dependent on one's political convictions. Tying politics into this discussion without stronger supporting evidence completely undermines Prof. Fiamengo's point.
Standard English spelling is based on the root languages of its words and not only almost always logical, but also a fascinating glimpse into the modern language's habit of cheerfully rampant acquisition over centuries.

Janice, I am largely in agreement with you. I left academia when I couldn't stand marking any more stacks of papers filled with buzzwords, but devoid of original thought and sometimes also of meaning.

Foolishly, I moved into editing. What many young writers lack in argument, they also lack in narrative. At least there is an explanation for why films are so often awful these days.

On a more positive note, the young writers who are engaged with the language in a deeper and more rigorous sense are putting out wonderful work and the future of the novel seems secure. Interestingly, several of the very best (in my opinion) are women writing in the fantasy and science fiction genres, who attract little in the way of critical reviews (Frances Hardinge being a prime example). It will be interesting to see if they have an easier path to the canon than Jane Austen did, or if things really have changed very little in two centuries.
"Standard English spelling is arbitrary, wildly irrational and wastefully difficult to learn."

Try reading English literature in its original forms written before Standardized English and you will understand why there are rules and why they need to be learned. In no other discipline is it okay to say "it's too hard to use standard notation, I'll just use shortcuts." In math, physics, chemistry, you have to learn the standardization because otherwise you're not speaking the same language and in some cases you're speaking nonsense.

In short, "waa it's too hard" is not an acceptable response. The solution is not to change the rules but to change the attitude of the students not trying hard enough to learn.
I don't know if Canada is different, but in my experience at American universities it was precisely the Leftist scholars whose scholarship was the most analytical and robust.

The classes that most improved my writing were classes on gender studies, radical government, economics as historic narrative, history as a roleplaying game and deconstruction of racialized stereotypes in American cinema. In those classes I was held to a higher standard, both linguistically and analytically. The point of what I was doing was clear. Critical thinking was expected. For the first time in my life I found people who provided concrete, actionable feedback on both my ideas and how well I communicated them, with explanations provided for why those changes would improve my product. I was both allowed to hold opinions and required to defend any opinion I formed.

It was instead my conservative Economics classes where I didn't even have to show up to class to get an A, since all I was expected to say was what was in the book. In my English classes I read a narrow selection of books I'd already read in high school and was expected to regurgitate what the professor wanted me to say about them. Research was unnecessary, and usually got me in trouble. In advanced classes what the teacher wanted me to say was to be determined through telepathy, as far as I could tell, but otherwise the classes remained about the same. Despite the fact that we were looking at a repetitive historical cannon through a soda straw I was supposed to be excited by being judged on my handwriting and spelling. I wrote pointless essay after pointless essay with little guidance and even less useful feedback. My English classes did finally lead to an official diagnosis of dislexia. It was not an excuse, though it did explain my performance. All the accommodations you decry let me do was possibly engage with the subject. In my English classes the professors cared more about nitpicking "it's" versus "its" than what I actually had to say; since it is physically impossible for me to spell correctly while writing by hand without the diagnosis I wouldn't have been able to take the classes at all. In retrospect I should have taken that as a sign, but at the time I was still enamoured with English from my high school classes. It would take another year and a half for me to accept that the English department was not the place to wrestle with difficult, culturally-embedded texts as I had done in my high school years.

I have since become a programmer. In the real world I have never been expected to write anything by hand. My use of a notebook for personal scribblings is considered quaint. Spellcheck is ever at the ready. The major challenges for my modern writing are tiny comment boxes that make flow and organization difficult. My dyslexia has never again been a major hurdle.

Additionally, of course, in the real world the villains are usually in positions of unearned power, while only some of the heroes are. Being able to identify and deconstruct the social dynamics I'm immersed in has kept me sane in my male-dominated, racially-homologous industry. Walt Whitman, while beautiful, certainly does not come up on a daily basis. Ernest Hemingway may have admirable style, but reading his writings had always made me want to go take a shower and it was not English that gave me the tools to articulate why.

Questioning perspectives was welcome in my radical classes, and in fact required if one wished to get above the C available for doing the work adequately. It sounds like you do not so much oppose the debate of such positions as that they are entertained in an academic setting. This seems to me hypocritical. It used to be that the college population resembled the authors traditional English scholarship focused on and the history employed to examine it. As the student population has changed and the exclusive focus on self-analysis has faded so too has that narrow lens. It is disappointing that you would resist making your field relevant to your students.

Though I am only guessing at your preferred alternative, since you have failed to define "genuine scholarship" and have not offered any substantive critique of the positions you oppose. Why do you believe it better scholarship to be unquestioning of a nation's claims? Jane Austin's work, for example, can not be understood without such a framework. Why do you believe it superior to remain in ignorance of a nation's record of oppression? The Heart of Darkness is only shallowly engaged without confronting the benevolent racism Conrad deploys in protest of malevolent racism.

I believe it would behoove you to stop blaming your students' failures on the radicalization of humanities. Grammar and clear writing should be taught from grade school on. Fundamental failures of education can not be legitimately blamed on Leftist ideologies at a college level. Perhaps the students who perform to your standards are going into those other fields because they are better scholarship, rather than because the students have been brainwashed. While you may define your field however you wish, students are then welcome to study elsewhere. It is unfair to claim the right to define your own field's scholarship while denying that right to others; I would assert that those fields are simply scholarship you do not wish to have to do.

Mostly, you sound like a sore loser.
While she is right to lament the lack of critical scholarship and academic integrity in American and Canadian post-secondary educational institutions generally, her resort to nostalgia for "traditional" course content confounds her analysis that a lack of historical knowledge and illiteracy plague students. The implications of her earlier argument are, in fact, a call to a more critical educational system and curriculum, yet by displacing this lack of genuine scholarship and decline of academic integrity onto the rise of critical area programs is itself an exercise in a "near-complete absence of historical knowledge". The arts and social sciences (in this case, literature and politics), are not mutually exclusive areas - aesthetics and literary theory have always been informed by the same logic and debates in political theory. Perhaps because she is an English professor and that is her particular area of expertise, her own lack of knowledge of other disciplines has allowed her to romanticize and react against the rise of the third-wave (and post- postmodern) area studies, which echoes a Burke-ian lament for a nonexistent Golden Age of academic perfection. It would behoove more departments and institutions to try to incorporate and synthesize an approach that has the two in dialogue (arts, humanities and social sciences) rather than trying to pretend they don't have coterminous boundaries.

Moreover, it is irresponsible, ignorant, and disingenuous to claim that these "other" fields - which may or may not be devoted to social justice - are non-academic, for they offer the very resolution her analysis calls for - a more involved, knowledgeable, and historically accurate approach to education and academic subjects. By looking at history and nuance and our global social context, our institutions allow their students to become more aware and educated on topics they had no idea existed or were part of the "social fabric" of our nations' histories. More to the point, there is no necessary conflict between "social justice" (which includes empathy and political notions of 'ethics') and the arts/humanities proper. It is hardly a novel idea to advocate for a critical academic methodology that also implicitly precipitates a nuanced understanding of ethics and history. Again, these are not in conflict; there is a difference between morality and ethics. She largely confuses and conflates the two by decrying morality-driven ideologies under an umbrella of everything from Leftist radicals to anti-Western ideologies and "social justice" itself-- when perhaps she just means to say: demagoguery has no place in academia. Agreed, yet, what is this opinion piece?

Her grievance with radicalization is fair, though in this article she entirely oversimplifies and generalizes the debate, resorting to the very uncritical, unacademic literary devices her paper explicitly denounces. I think she raises a good point about the capitalization of education - and society generally - but is too busy displacing her frustration of this phenomenon with the rise of marginalized fields, which are actually critically and scholarly congruous with the philosophy she advocates -- no not de-radicalization of the "academic enterprise", but de-capitalization and de-institutionalization of education, and genuine love and appreciation of literature and learning.
Massively overstated critique. Sounds like little more than a whiny and frustrated teacher lamenting her lack of success in the classroom.
Isn't this essay a marker of a basic shift away from the "learning of basic information"? Students may benefit from stern pedagogy, but it is they who will occupy the future.
". . . dissenters from Left orthodoxy often feel overwhelmed, beleaguered, and under threat."
Notice in her home page a mention of Christian, and all the butthurt falls into place. "Leftist oppression" of blind Christian faith has a very likely place in the narrative here, and while the esteemed professor doesn't cop to it, I'd be surprised if her faith hasn't been beleaguered by colleagues' rationalist analysis.
Never have I seen such a jostling of swords as each of you seek to defend your position. It is what I would expect of academia today and you have not failed me. As a father, and grandfather, I have seen the devolving of education at every level. I have done homework, helped with projects and spent a great deal of time with all of my children. In doing this I have seen the shift away from education into the guilt of the prevailing social tripe. The phrase, "it is not fair," raises the hackles on back of my neck. Never is life fair. It is what you make of it by your effort. Never is there equality in business. As an employer of your students I am apalled by the depth of lack of general information, history and basic education. This professor has correctly recognized the problem and has cast down the gauntlet. Now, I suggest you pick it up.
David Horowitz is a right wing ideologue. Like so many ultra-conservatives, his view is nostalgic. But do we want to go back to the good old days when a college education was for a tiny minority? The problem is to teach in such a way that students will understand that mastery of proper English lays the basis for real creativity and self-expression. This can be a subversive undertaking, ultimately an attack on the corporatized university which, save for a few elite institutions, turns out semi-literates who are good at taking orders and filling middle management positions, but are incapable of using writing to analyze or develop a deeper understanding of themselves and their situation.
I am an American teacher, not at a university level, but one who works with those at a considerably lower level of academic skill.

I agree with Prof. Fiamengo but 'don't' find that she has "thrown down the gauntlet." She merely expresses her view of the sorry state of things and then stands safely back for others to take up the cause. I find that only marginally less depressing than the cynically weary apologist-for-the-status-quo comments which follow her commentary.

Two things of which I'm confidant: my own country is falling farther and farther behind in practically every endeavor. Prof. Fiamengo and others have identified a growing preoccupation with self-esteem and "happy feelings" at the expense of mental disciple. Regardless of what you think about 'it's' vs. 'its', I can see a correlation there, can't you?

Secondly, I know this to be nothing new. My father fought against complacency and the cynical "why bother" attitude back in the '50s. Where he differed from Prof. Fiamengo is that he focused his time and skills on doing what he could 'immediately' in the classroom to give his students a taste of the extraordinary right then and there. He gained the reputation of getting more from his students than almost any other faculty member.

It can be done. But it needs to happen in the classroom and not by writing online commentaries.
" . . . dissenters from Left orthodoxy often feel overwhelmed, beleaguered, and under threat." YES.
I'm sorry but your thesis that the failings of today's students can be laid at the feet of the liberal left lacked supporting materials, or indeed a coherent argument. I am therefore giving you a failing grade on this assignment.

From TomW
A very interesting - and courageous - blog statement. I am sure it will make you no friends in academia.

I haven't read Horowitz's book, but based on the horrified comments from other readers, I imagine it promulgates a "FOX vs. MSNBC" style viewpoint. Sad that this mentality - regardless of which viewpoint one might have - has spread to books now.

Having studied in a number of various countries besides the U.S. and in a field that combines humanities with business, I can't really say I've experienced the extremes during my student days that you describe.

Let me say that I worked my derriere off to get good grades and gain useful knowledge while obtaining two masters degrees. I generally didn't feel that professors pandered to the students, and I got some comments along the way that left me feeling a bit depressed. But it was generally fair, constructive criticism, and I used those comments to improve my following assignments.

In some classes, my papers sometimes came back with grammatical/stylistic corrections, though there were fortunately very few of those. I feel quite comfortable with English even though it is my 3rd language, and one I didn't start learning until I was 8. A few times I had to bring in literary samples to prove that the red circle was unwarranted based on traditional and accepted English usage, even if somewhat antiquated or obscure. Again, if the corrections were warranted, I took note and did not repeat the same mistake.

I think I only experienced one professor where I picked up the need for a correct PC phraseology to follow in class. Had I bothered to break the rules, I doubt it would have detracted greatly from my grade, as anything less than B was never given. But at that time, I didn't feel like causing a ruckus. This was about 20 years ago at a top US university.

Where I sense that your blog makes a lot of sense is mainly in the public and political discourse of the U.S. I don't purport to know what has happened with the collective American intelligence over the last 20 years, but the level at which journalism and political debate in the U.S. is currently conducted, I am left feeling appalled. And afraid...very afraid.

Pundits and politicians are incapable of having an intelligent debate; they merely repeat tried and approved party lines. Journalists are no better, the only exception being that they get to repeat both political parties' standard lines.

This is a truly frightening development in any democracy, but especially one with the military and economic power of the U.S. Having studied my history, I am reminded of the demagoguery of the late Roman republic period, which resulted in Julius Caesar coming to power. And the East Block countries during communism, too, though there people were forced to repeat the party lines and generally didn't believe a word of them - even many of the communists. That American educational institutions, news outlets and individuals repeat party lines ad nauseam VOLUNTARILY - while seemingly believing them too - is mind-boggling.

Nowhere is your description of the degradation of language standards and applied intelligence in North America more apparent than in the comment sections of newspaper articles and blogs.

I realize that commentators represent a broad cross-section of the general population, and that they therefore have differing levels of education. Nonetheless, the sheer amount of atrocious spelling, incorrect usage of words and lack of ability to argue a point of view with logic rather than four letter words is staggering.

I read and write comments in newspapers and blogs in several languages, and I can honestly say that the level of correct usage of grammar and language, as well as ability to reason (the latter showing a declining trend there too, alas) is infinitely higher - when taken as an average of what I see - than in the U.S.

America needs to get a grip on its standards, from top down and bottom up, otherwise I foresee a stark future for what I constantly hear trumpeted as "the greatest country on earth," "the world's greatest democracy" and "the land of freedom" on TV.

By the way - I am an independent with leanings towards the right. Though these days civil discourse and politics have become so debased and focused on special interests that I don't really feel an individual's political views matter unless they can afford a $40,000 dinner with the president or presidential candidate.

I have an European nationality as well, but I can't relax and think that I'll just move back there if things get too bad in the U.S., because they're on their way over the cliff there too.

Maybe a deserted island in the Pacific is the best future option for getting away from the insanity.

Thank you for an interesting read.
Grade inflation became most apparent when the no child left behind program was instituted. Studies show that 48% of the population has an IQ of 100 or less. They also show that to succeed in college necssitates an IQ of 115 plus. If everyone can go to college, albeit many for only one year, then the standards must be lowered for them to get in. Since much of this was funded by government money, and the schools needed money, it became important for these 100 or less students, to succeed. At about the same time the classes offered began to change into a form of neo-political/enviromental/feel good/politically correct mental basket making. I grant you this was just a continuation of the same thing offered in the lower grades. It is about self-esteem. It is about feelings. it is about no competition. Remember everyone gets a trophy? What has happened to academic excellence? What happens when the student does not know to push the walls? It destroys analytical reasoning. We have seen what happens when people have been told if making a decision makes you "uncomfortable" then walk the middle ground. This allows a small determined group to make the choice for you. It is not all academia's problem because it has occured over years but it needs to stop, or as the poster above me says, I am very concerned for my country and my family.
Anyone who uses phrases like 'actionable feedback' is a quasi-literate ideologue in love with the buzzwords of the feminist left, and no doubt looking for government employment.
But hey, as long as it sounds good.
I first heard of Professor Janice Fiamengo on a SunNewsMedia program about suppression of free speech on a Canadian University campus in Ontario. How refreshing it was to hear the truth spoken on TV. May other Canadian professors please speak up to save our Canadian values for freedom of speech.


BENEFIT CONCERT FOR HAITI, SALLE GESU, JAN. 20TH (Papa Groove, Ariane Moffatt, Bïa, Kodiak, Echo Kalypso, Doriane Fabrig (ex-Dobacaracol), Claude Lamothe, Ian Kelly, Pépé: Box-office 514.861.4036 = shared webhosting, dedicated servers, development/consulting, no down time/top security, exceptional prices
Montreal Jazz Festival
Montreal Guitar Show July 2-4th (Sylvain Luc etc.). border= = shared webhosting, dedicated servers, development/consulting, no down time/top security, exceptional prices
Film Ratings Page of Sylvain Richard, film critic at Arts & Opinion - Montreal
CINEMANIA(Montreal) - festival de films francophone 1-11 novembre, Cinema Imperial info@514-878-0082: featuring Bernard Tavernier
2011 Festival Nouveau Cinema de Montreal, Oct. 12-23st, (514) 844-2172
Montreal World Film Festival
CD Dignity by John Lavery available by e-mail: - 10$ + 3$ shipping.
© Roberto Romei Rotondo
The Centre de répit Philou is a private not-for-profit, charitable organization that welcomes physically disabled children
Listing + Ratings of films from festivals, art houses, indie
Photo by David Lieber:
Canadian Tire Repair Scam [2211 boul Roland-Therrien, Longueuil] = documents-proofs
Available Ad Space
Valid HTML 4.01!
Privacy Statement Contact Info
Copyright 2002 Robert J. Lewis