For those of you just now joining us...
Today, April 12, 2006, Erskine Bowles will be inaugurated as president of the UNC system. Most UNCG students couldn't care less, except for the fact that all of our main roads will be blocked off. Some of us are skeptical, however. How did this failed politician become an expert on education overnight? Is he really the most qualified candidate for the job? And why is Mike Easley such a fan of the spoils system?We may not get any answers to our questions, but until we do, check out the first thing you see when you walk into UNCG's Elliott University Center:
A student who witnessed Bowles' reaction to the sign said he did an obvious double-take by actually walking back under the banner and re-reading it. The witness said he then "chuckled". You know, he looks like the kind of guy that would "chuckle".
Erskine Bowles will be inaugurated today at 11am in the Aycock Auditorium, following what I'm sure will be a thrilling parade at 10am. And you best believe I'm gonna be there. Check for updates later.
(Many thanks to Laura Poole, Laura-Kathryn Fuqua, Ryan Radford, Daryn Iwicki, Natasha Sell, and Philip Blattenberger for helping the dream of a banner become a reality)
posted by Melissa @ 4:23 AM
18 Comments:
Just think - if he fails at this and a few other ventures, sinks a business or two and finds Jesus one day he could be President of the United States.
This is being discussed a bit on the CR blog, but what is the actual reason for opposing Bowles?
He worked for Clinton, he's a Democrat, he wasn't elected as a Senator twice, all true. But I haven't heard one actual reason to oppose him as president of the UNC system. Is there an issue that the CRs oppose him on, do you guys disagree with some of his plans, or is it just that he's a Democrat?
Ostensibly it seems to be that he "isn't qualified."
Of course, if you look to the presidents of many of the country's other state university systems you'll see that having spent a lifetime (or even a month) in public education is hardly a prerequisite.
None of this griping about president Bush appointing horribly underqualified people to posts for which they're ill suited because of their years of service as poltiical cronies, you'll notice.
But I don't kid myself that if a prominent Republican had been chosen the College Dems wouldn't be doing much the same thing...
True...but you know what the difference is? Our people are actually pro-public education. So we might be slightly more justified in opposing a conservative.
All the NC teachers I know are doing their best but none of them seem to think it's working very well and, more often than not, feel as though they're not really "teaching" anymore.
Interesting sign. No wonder most CRs are perceived as spoiled pricks. When I was in college, most of the ones I knew couldn't do much more than parrot their parents' or Sunday School teacher's talking points. Apparently, it still holds true today.
I don't agree with that at all.
Whatever else you could say about them I think the Republicans of a generation or two ago were much more composed. They were, you know...CONSERVATIVE.
I hate to steer the conversation, but still no one has actually offered any criticism of Bowles (other than he's an evil liberal).
I think that's about the size of it, Luke.
The "spoils system" thing didn't pan out. Phil is being very intellectually honest about his reasons for opposing him - and while I don't agree with his reasoning I think it's better than making a nonsensical patronage argument.
I want to know why Bowles could willfully block streets and disrupt class and that's ok while students are preemptively forbidden to exercise their rights of free speech and peaceful assembly on the mere suspicion that they might cause a disruption, which would be a major problem.
"You know, he looks like the kind of guy that would 'chuckle.'"
Very observant of you. You're precisely correct. That's hilarious.
Paul:
Even under the old system students who'd given as much notice as the Bowles event would have been free to cause as large a disturbance for whatever reason they liked.
There have been marches five times as large on North Carolina campuses operating under the same speech policies - or ones that were more strict - in the last five years.
Under the new policy, which Ryan Radford could explain to you as he was in on its design, it would be relatively easy for students to organize and execute something much larger.
So long as the demonstration didn't create a lot of noise or disrupt class and university operations, like the Bowles inauguration did. I hope all 400 members of the procession had ID and a written invitation.
And I doubt very seriously that the university would make the same exceptions and allowances for students as they do for themselves. They shut down a WUAG concert on campus last year because it was too loud (loud? a concert? really?), but would they have shut down the A&T band if I called in to complain that it woke me up or that it was bothering me? How loud was it for the people in Graham and McIver? Then again, construction starts around 6am next to South Spencer, so I don't suppose they would have cared too much.
It's not something to make a big deal over. It's just slightly annoying that they're blatantly hypocritical and inconsiderate to their students like that.
In any case, Bowles actually wanted a small ceremony, if one was entirely necessary.
Joe,
Luke pretty much address your counterpoint, but allow me to elaborate.
You say that the administration would allow a disruptive event if given notice well in advance. I agree...if the administration happens to like the content of the event.
If the libertarians were to notify the administration three months in advance that they intend to hold an "abolish public education" assembly using megaphones, the administration would roundly forbid it, and should the libertarians carry through with it anyway, they would be punished.
The new policy has changed nothing, and it exists in order to allow the administration to discriminate between those with whom they agree and disagree.
Well I guess I'll be the one to pop up here and defend my republican views. Bottom line is, I have concerns about Bowles being the new president because of the lack of educational experience on his resume, not because he happens to be a democrat. It makes me upset that people would say 'so what' to this fact. Let me ask this: do you think it's ok for a lateral entry teacher to teach math or physics or science? Of course not! These topics are too vital to a child's education. So if we do not want lateral entry teachers teaching important subjects because of their lack of educational experience, why would we want someone who has no educational experience leading the UNC system? Now, if it turns out that he can handle the job and bring about postive change, good for him, I'll change my mind about him. But in my mine, he has a lot to prove.
Now, just because we are opposing Bowles does not mean that we turn around and are hypocrites and try to defend people like Mr. Brown, the ex-head of FEMA. He did not have the credentials, and should not have had the job, he had lack of experience and look how that turned out-therefore, I do not apologize for having concerns with people who are political cronies and lack experience.
Natasha:
I don't think you should apologize for being worried Bowles isn't qualified - though I'd argue that for the job he's doing he's more qualified than some of the presidents of our country's largest public university systems, many of whom don't have degrees or experience in public education.
The only thing I took issue with was the idea - promoted through blog comments, loose talk and hand-held signs - that this was in some way a political appointment. It's an elected position. The people who elected him are elected. And the people who put them in place are voters.
Having a political axe to grind is fine. Saying things that aren't true - and making other people believe those things - in order to grind that axe isn't.
Well hopefully he can prove himself qualified for the job. I really do have a bleeding heart when it comes to the educational system, so things like this do upset me. And your point about other presidents not being qualified concerns me as well. People wonder why a bachelor's degree in America is the equivalent to a high school diploma in Britain. All they have to do is look at the state of our educational system and it's leader- ship to see why. I'll admit, I made it political wednesday(mainly because I would hope Easley would see one of our signs,but he's another story) but believe me when I say that I only view this as 1% through a political lens(I do admit it seems suspicious to me) and 99% through a concern for my education and the education of future college students after me. But as I said, if he proves he can do the job, then I'll change my mind.
I have to ask, when you say "a bachelor's degree in America is the equivalent to a high school diploma in Britain," where exactly are you getting this information from?
Are you referring specifically to England, where there is no "high school" and education is not compulsory after 16?
Or the United Kingdom as a whole? It's worth noting because Scotland has a completely different system of education that the rest of the UK.
Post a Comment
<< Home