Articles Books

There are plenty of complaints about infringements of academic freedom, so before even looking at articles on the topic, I think it is worthwhile to be sure what we mean by this term.

Academic freedom is the right to pursue pretty much any topic one wants as a scholarly study. It means being able to, for example, ask if various human traits are genetic or acquired or both. It means being able to look at various "taboo" fields, such as religion, political beliefs, sexual preference, race, gender, human behavior, and so forth. It means being able to do research on such topics, write papers on such topics, and teach such material in the classroom.

There is one other thing that might be covered under the mantle of academic freedom, namely the right to have pretty much any political or religious views one wishes, and to express those views in public on one's own time (although not as a representative of one's university).

But there are limits to what academic freedom enables one to do. It does not allow one to break the law, running experiments that torture people or animals, or put them in great danger. It certainly does not allow one to commit felonies. And it certainly does not allow one to violate academic standards, plagiarizing material, fudging one's data, or making otherwise false claims. In no way is the substitution of crude political propaganda for scholarly work protected under the mantle of "academic freedom."

Now, given all this, what happened to Edward Alexander? He permitted Daniel Pipes to lecture at the University of Washington on "The War on Terrorism and Militant Islam." Certainly, this sort of topic is allowed under the mantle of academic freedom. Professors certainly can sponsor such talks. Anyway, some Muslims were offended by all this and sent Alexander some e-mails saying so. Jeff Saddiqui, from the University of Puget Sound, was one of them. Some very serious complaints were made about Daniel Pipes. He was called "a rabid Muslim/Arab hater" and one who "works for the Israeli Lobby."

Some of the e-mailers requested that Alexander cancel Pipes' lecture, or, failing to do that, apologize for permitting it and as a minimum allow designated people to "answer" Pipes. But Alexander refused, explaining that there is no requirement for a lecturer on religious fundamentalism to be "answered" by a "harangue" at the end of the talk from a religious fundamentalist. Alexander was willing to permit concise questions from audience members but not "speeches from the floor."

As Alexander reports, Pipes said that "the debate over this lecture is a textbook example of militant Islamic methods: an attempt to close down discussion of issues; intimidation; scurrilous attacks; fabrication." Is that true? It sure looks that way. Is this an attack on free speech? Absolutely. Is there a concurrent Islamic attack on academic freedom? I think there probably is. Recently, two people at Yale were able to come up with a draft report about the correspondence of anti-Semitic views and anti-Zionist views. They were not stopped from performing this research. However, I suspect that at many universities, people would have been strongly discouraged from doing this. And I wonder just how easy it would be to do a study on the etiology, nature, and significance of anti-Zionist lies at a top notch American university. Still, I doubt that the example Alexander gives here is a great example of an attack on academic freedom per se.

On the other hand, many of those who are busy substituting absurd political propaganda for scholarly work are trying to defend what they do under the mantle of academic freedom, and I think we all need to reject such arguments.

I recommend this article.

I just think folks should know that all the archives for Sojourners are free on their website sojo.net
its a good article, but don't pay amazon for it-

This article, published by the Indiana Academy of Science on January 1, 1999, is an excellent introduction into the methods of range expansion in medium-sized fossorial carnivores in open grasslands or other treeless habitats. In this case the mammal in question, the badger (Taxidea taxus,) has been expanding southward in Indiana due to a confluence of reasons. This southward range expansion has been seen many times before in similar mammals, perhaps most notably the thirteen-lined ground squirrel (Spermophilus tridecemlineatuls) and in other similarly agrarian areas, notably southern Illinois. The main issues allowing expansion involve trapping, protection, and available habitat.

Badgers were legal furbearers in Indiana until 1966; that combined with the dramatic decrease in the number of licensed fur trappers in the state has resulted in an apparent population increase in badgers. Legal protection for badgers came in 1969 when the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) declared them an endangered species. Finally, increasingly available nesting grounds for badgers, notably reclaimed strip mines, are extremely suitable for foraging and denning.

Although badgers have never been especially common in Indiana, the author surveyed 230 IDNR employees for badger sightings and compared the results with earlier studies dating back to the works of Evermann and Butler in 1894. Several other studies are cited, making this an excellent piece of longitudinal research in Indiana badger habitation. The first official badger census is dated in 1936, and documents the presence of badgers in 24 Indiana counties, mostly in the northern third of the state (although isolated populations appeared, interestingly, in Franklin and Vermillion counties.) A 1955 survey placed the badger in 33 counties, while a 1969 study documented them in 53 counties. By 1982, badgers existed in at least 63 Indiana counties, and this report cites badgers in 92 counties. A map was produced documenting the drift southward of badger populations, and was correlated with Indiana Natural Heritage Program badger sighting and road kill database records.

The article is extremely well researched, and will be of keen interests to mammologists and environmental researchers. The discussion section is well developed, and the author, Kim A. Berkley, questions whether the badger still meets the legal requirements as an endangered species. It is far easier to designate a species as endangered than to remove it from the list, but given the steady habitat expansion of badgers in Indiana, this article strongly suggests that badgers are no longer legally endangered.

I read these works for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.
Definition of Rhetoric- capacity of persuasion. Plato is critical of the Rhetoric and the tragic poetry. Rhetoric is approach to political public speeches in the forum. Plato thought that they clouded the mind and thus created a part of his critique of democracy in general. Plato thinks Socrates was killed by rhetoric used by the Athenian democracy. Plato feared the danger of democracy. Poetry appeals to the base human emotions rhetoric, and poetry block rational truth according to Plato. Rhetoric is psychological force of language vs. logical force of language. Psychology leads people to believe things based on emotions. Speech must appeal to the masses in a democracy. Psychology is persuasion, logic is truth. Deduction and induction is arguing logically. Plato says rhetoric is not a technç, (craft) nor is poetry, because they are undisciplined and not uniform in design. Thus, appeal to psychology and emotion can never be done away with in a democracy, thus Plato abhors them and democracy. Plato calls it sophistry this psychological appeal and democracy requires this to exist, so the problem persists. Plato is clear and consistent in his abhorrence of sophistry and democracy.

Aristotle's Rhetoric and Poetics are an alternative to Plato. Aristotle's rhetoric tries to strike a middle position. Aristotle says rhetoric and poetry are a technç, the Rhetoric is a handbook. Aristotle says speaker needs to appeal to appropriate information for the particular setting. Much like a lawyer's argument, not just relying on facts, need to appeal to people's emotions. Aristotle does understand that rhetoric can be used in a harmful way.

Aristotle lays out three features in rhetoric:
1. Ethos= character of the speaker, also charisma, speaker earns the audience's trust, use of body language.
2. Pathos= condition of the hearer.
3. Logos= essential bearing on political persuasion, truth.

Thus, Plato's concern by definition excludes speech because it deals with emotion. These three conditions must be in play for a speech to be successful. The rhetoric contains a detailed analysis of the different human emotions and how to elicit them in a speech. Aristotle knows the speaker must be a good student of human nature to tap into human emotions.

Epistçmç is scientific knowledge. Phronçsis is the capacity of the soul for using education, experience and habit all this is in the ethics. This is the same in political world so politics is not an episteme no scientific reasoning. The things that come up in politics are not deduced scientifically. In politics, humans use deliberation between several possible outcomes unlike math where there is only one correct answer. Political speech is contentious because the nature of politics is contentious.

There are two circumstances in rhetoric.
1. Judicial rhetoric has to do with the past like in a court case.
2. Deliberative rhetoric has to do with the future, what decision should we make in political policies.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

This book offers the reader an evaluation of the early years of football and the press' role in popularizing football for the American consumer. A must-read for anyone who loves football.

Fascinating stuff. Even more so when you actually own a Keraflux filter. I do. And anyone thinking of acquiring one should contact me first. tonybowker@gooseisland.com

The federal workplace is full of people in key positions that ought to be leaders, but they're not. Rank and paygrade do not make leaders. Instead, leadership has to be grown. John points to -- and comments on leadership -- traits. More importantly, he points out that managers, bosses, and leaders are not necessarily the same. There are major differences. Great work! Easy to read! A must for leaders and those that aspire to be leaders.

Having taught Language Arts for 15 years, it is clear to me that Dr. Schuster is absolutely correct in his arguments against traditional grammar instruction. I hope he will continue to write about alternative instructional models, giving teachers support, encouragement, and appropriate materials for more effective instruction in reading and writing. His sentence combining workbook series, Sentence Mastery, is a wonderful basic text for intermediate level students wrestling with sentence development. It's hard to find, but worth it! I hope Amazon will pick it back up.

New Testament Greek grammars refer to the Granville Sharpe rule, with a short definition of the first of his six rules. For the Greek exegete's library, this volume is as important as BAGD, Kittle, Thayer's, or the TDNT. Every seminary library, and each serious student of the Greek language, should have a well-worn copy of this volume on their shelf. The minimal price of the volume does not reflect it's true value.

Bette Hochberg was a major force in the revival of handspinning in the 80's and this is a collection of a number of her articles. To wit:
Spinning with a bead whorl spindle
Spinning Fine Yarn
500th anniversary of the flyer wheel
In Search of Brown Cotton
Does it pay to Spin Your Own Yarn?
When Moths Fly out of the Closet.
Controlling Size and Texture of Yarn.
Making a Fleece Rug
Cotton, the Thread of History
Hand-held Distaffs
Carders:Hand or Drum?
Forum: In Defense of Functional Weaving
The High Whorl Spindle
Add a New Twist to Your Spinning
Events in Textile History
Charts of Fibre Lengths and Diameters.