Book Virgins

Book Virgins

I recently learned something new when Peter Wood, President of the National Association of Scholars, visited Kennesaw State University.  It seems that battalions of “book virgins” have been besieging the country’s colleges.

What are book virgins?  Why, they are students who have never read a book prior to entering an institution of higher education.  Even though I was aware of the popularity of the Internet and the decline in book sales, this trend astonished me.

Although KSU and Ivy League students both read less than previous generations, I had assumed that K-12 schools still required some book reading.  But no, thanks in part to the common core, these longer works are no longer part of the curriculum.

As a consequence, colleges have begun to assign a single book that all freshmen are expected to read.  This volume tends to be slim and of recent vintage on the assumption that anything more demanding would not be perused.

Is this what we are coming to?  Are we so afraid to challenge the younger generation that we will allow them to wallow in ignorance—yet praise their brilliance.  If so, this is a prescription for disaster.  It guarantees that we will not be able to keep up with nations that turn out more literate graduates.

One of the theories that has been advanced to explain our negligence might be called the “Bill Gates effect.”  Gates is one of the movers and shakers behind the common core.  As a technocrat, he has supposedly encouraged a short answer mindset.  The objective is to get students to pass tests, rather than to think independently.

Books, on the other hand, promote thinking.  They take time to wade through and inspire readers to engage in a conversation with their authors.  They also enable readers to transfer what they encounter from their short to long-term memories.  This provides valuable mental capital. 

Meanwhile a steady diet of computer activities fosters a sound bite mentality.  Little bits of disconnected facts float around in brains that have not learned how to fit them together.  This is not thinking, but mental billiards.

Nowadays students are supposed to be entertained.  The goal is to capture their attention by making sure that they are amused.  Asking them to put in an effort would be off-putting and is therefore discouraged.

This past weekend I ran into a comparable attitude at the Georgia Sociological Association.  The presenter at a teaching workshop urged us to “go where our students live.”  We were advised to use Twitter, Tumbler, and Facebook for class assignments on the grounds that this is where students spend their time.

My response, however, was that I live in a better neighborhood; hence if my students hope to improve their condition they ought to consider moving into mine.  The presenter countered by arguing that this “insulted” our students.

My position is actually tougher than I stated.  I believe that I have a duty to insist my students learn something.  If I do not possess knowledge that is worth sharing, there is no reason they should be sitting in my classroom.

Learning is not easy.  Thinking is not easy.  For that matter, reading is often not easy.  Thus, where did we get the idea that these should be?  If we as a society are to achieve anything worth achieving, then we ought to be willing to put in the effort.  This goes for the young and old alike.

But more than this.  If we want to prepare our children for a better life than our own, we must demand that they learn.  We need to insist that they learn to read—and to write as well.

Books are key to acquiring these skills.  Because they convey complex ideas, they provide training in complex thinking.  Why then would we eliminate them from the curriculum?  How does this help our children to prosper?  Virginity may be a desirable characteristic—but not when it comes to books!

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Fair, Balanced, and Unafraid?

The day after the Oregon shooting, I saw a picture of the gunman on the Internet.  He seemed to be a light-skinned black.  The next day I saw his father on TV.  This man was obviously British and white.  Meanwhile his mother was talked about, but her picture never appeared on screen.

In any event, I concluded that the shooter must be of mixed race.  Did this, I wondered, have anything to do with his motivation?  Speculation about his motives was rampant in the media and so I expected someone to bring up the subject.  Yet no one did.  The emphasis was strictly on gun control and mental illness.

At this point I was beginning to question my judgment.  But then I spoke to a colleague from another institution.  He informed me that opinions about this matter were widespread in the Blogosphere.  So why weren’t they present on cable news?

The mainstream’s news biases are well known.  But Fox?  Didn’t it brag about being fair, balanced, and unafraid?  Megyn Kelly decided not to mention the killer’s name on the grounds that would provide the fame he, and his ilk, desire.  But why did she also block out his race?

Bill O’Reilly has often demonstrated courage in discussing racial matters.   What then made this issue uniquely explosive?  Clearly the race of the South Carolina mass murderer and that of the Ferguson cop were fair game.  Why was this different?

Next there was another incident.  A professor at the University of Pennsylvania nominated Ben Carson for “coon of the year.”  People initially objected to this slur, but once it became clear that the writer was a black woman, the school’s administration rushed to her defense.  Didn’t she have a right to freedom of speech?

Clearly there is a double standard at work.  What would arouse outrage if perpetrated by a white is generally passed over in silence if committed by a black. 

The Black Lives Matter movement proves the point.  To protest a few instances of police brutality and ignore the carnage in the ghetto is worse than wrong-headed.  It is utterly racist and would be passionately denounced were it led by whites.

The fact is that Americans—including those at Fox—are so terrified at the prospect of being labeled racist that they will not treat whites and blacks the same.  Nonetheless this practice is itself racist!  In making distinctions that are supposed to help a beleaguered minority, it perpetuates their pariah status.

If we had really gotten beyond racism, we would judge whites and blacks by the identical standards.  If we meant it when we said that we were all equally human despite our physiological differences, we would use the same measuring sticks for everyone.

So why don’t we?  Ironically it is because blacks are still not believed to be equal to others.  Liberals, in particular, make excuses for African-Americans on the assumption that they have been so damaged by prejudice and discrimination that they cannot perform at the same level as others.

This is nonsense!  Blacks have just as much potential as anyone else.  Hence when we hold them to a lower level of achievement, we do them no favor.  People perform best when we demand that they perform.  Providing exceptions merely allows them to get by without trying their hardest.

We understand this in sports.  People do not become superstars in football or basketball by dogging it on the playing field.  If they are not superior performers, they may not even make the team.  The same goes for parenting.  Excessive permissiveness does not build character or promote good school grades.

So why is this wisdom ignored when it comes to black crime or academic performance?  The answer is simple.  Many people still believe that blacks are not smart or moral enough to live by the rules applied to others.

Yet this is a lie!  It is a damnable lie!  However long we perpetuate it—and for whatever reasons—it damages us all.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

The Manchurian Candidate

Is Barack Obama the Manchurian Candidate?  As per the 1962 movie, is he an assassin specifically groomed by the communists to undermine American interests?  The evidence suggests that he might be.

If the Russians, Chinese, and Iranians got together to select the perfect person to promote their agendas, they could scarcely have chosen a better nominee.  After all, in area after area, he has done what they would have had a stooge do.

Consider our enemies’ wish list:

·      Damage the American economy.  See to it that it fails to recover from the last recession.

·      Abandon Israel.  Make it more vulnerable to its foes.

·      Do not impede Russian aggression.  Allow it free reign in the Ukraine and Syria.

·      Do nothing to obstruct Chinese ambitions.  Allow them to spy on American companies and to build airstrips in international waters.

·      Permit the North Koreans and Iranians to become nuclear powers.  Fund Iranian political expansion as well.

·      Hollow out the American military so that it is no longer respected.  Make sure our allies understand that we will not protect them.

·      Set Americans against each other.  Stir the pot so that blacks and whites, men and women, rich and poor are distrustful of one another.

·      Ignore the constitution.  Destabilize American political institutions to make them weaker.

·      Drive the nation broke.  And, by the way, wreck its medical system into the bargain.

Check, check, check, check, check, check, check, and check!

The Bible says: You will know them by their fruits.  If we apply this bit of wisdom to Barack Obama, there can be little doubt that he abhors our country and has done his best to harm it.  Although he frequently tells us how much he loves us, his actions speak louder than his words.

The most charitable explanation of our president’s failures is that he is incompetent.  He did not, for instance, see Putin’s Syrian gambit coming because he is politically naïve.

The problem with this defense is that Obama is not stupid.  There can be no question that he foresaw what lesser intellects clearly perceived.  Besides, he was repeatedly warned of these impending moves by his intelligence services.  No.  He simply did not care.

How then can so many Americans believe their chief executive?  Anyone with half a brain knows he lied about the IRS, Benghazi, the VA, Obamacare, and most recently the Iranian deal and gun control.

His partisans, of course, have their blinders on.  Their need to believe is so great that Barack could shoot someone on the front lawn of the White House and they would devise a plausible excuse.  Witness the many liberal Jews who refuse to acknowledge that Obama has betrayed Israel.

Three more factors have provided this, perhaps, unwitting accomplish of our enemies with camouflage.  The first is that he is extremely glib.  When he flashes that winning smile and unleashes a torrent of honeyed words, people get lost in what seems to be compassion.  They are seduced into trusting that he cares about them.

Second, Obama has been lucky.  Hence just before the last election hurricane Sandy distracted the electorate.  Mitt Romney could not be heard through the media blitz.   More recently, the Oregon shooting tragedy diverted attention from the Middle Eastern fiasco.

Next comes our president’s race.  Despite lingering racism—or maybe because of it—there has been a tendency to accord Barack the benefit of the doubt.  Most Americans want to overcome our bigoted past.  For this reason alone it is impossible to impeach him for transgressions that would have brought another president to the dock.

All in all, we Americans will have endured eight years of poverty, weakness, and polarization before this long national nightmare ends.  Sadly, by then, the damage will be greater.  To repeat: our president does not care!  He does not love us!

Let us therefore hope we love ourselves enough not to duplicate this tragedy the next time we go to the polls.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Pope Francis

Pope Francis is a remarkable person.  Sincere, compassionate, and—I dare say—eloquent, it is difficult not to be impressed.  One does not have to agree with his theology in order to realize that he deserves a sympathetic hearing.

During the Pope’s recent visit to the United States, he obviously attracted a great deal of attention.   Given the wall-to-wall media coverage, it might be assumed that our nation is in the midst of a religious revival.  This, however, would be wrong.  The truth is that we are increasingly secular.

When I arrived in Georgia nearly a quarter of a century ago, I assumed that I was entering the Bible Belt.  Clones of Jimmy Carter would undoubtedly be lurking around every corner intent on lecturing me about the importance of becoming born again.  This, of course, is not what I found.

As it happens, in several of my classes at Kennesaw State University, I discuss the sociology of morality.  These sessions routinely begin with questions about the Ten Commandments.  Thus I start by asking students to identify the first commandment.  Hands almost never go up.

Then, after a little coaching, someone usually gets the correct answer.  Next I ask about the tenth commandment.  This is generally more difficult.  In fact, few ever get it completely right.

So here I am in the deeply religious South and most of my students know less about the Bible than me.  Even more amazingly, although I was born and raised a Jew, I know more about Christian doctrine than the vast majority of them.  Most are more interested in Facebook and computer games.

The implications of this disconnect are profound.  Indeed, the Pope brought many of these to our attention.  One of the primary reasons he came was to highlight the importance of the family.  He not only asked us to love one another; he pleaded for us to cherish our children.

Once upon a time, marriage was the preserve of the church.  People got married at the altar and stayed married because doing otherwise was regarded as sinful.  Moreover, those who failed to heed church teachings about these matters often found themselves excluded from the congregation and its sacraments.

Back then this was frightening.  Ordinary people worried that they might not go to heaven if they did not observe sacred traditions.  Today most don’t care.  They assume that they are going to heaven anyway.

For much of human history, religious institutions maintained family discipline.  These forcefully instructed men and women on the need to remain faithful to each other.  They likewise admonished parents on their duty to love and protect their children.  While these cautions were often ignored, they were nevertheless respected.

Today the situation is different.  Divorce is rampant, while nearly half of all American children are born to unwed parents.  Astoundingly, we are told we must take this in stride.  Everybody supposedly deserves unconditional positive regard—notwithstanding what they do.

And so we abandon our spouses and children, safe in the knowledge that we will not be judged harshly.  What is more, we will probably not be judged at all.  With the opinions of the Church no longer feared, people simply do as they please.

My guess is that ecclesiastical authority is not coming back.  Too many of us no longer believe.  Despite reminders from leaders as persuasive as Francis, we simply move on once they leave the room.  Even though we agree with their messages, we do not obey.

Morality is clearly boring.  It is the province of scolds who ought to mind their own business.  Let us be the judge of what is best for us and let them do the same for themselves.

Yet without social discipline we are lost.  If we, in our secular sanctimony, will not enforce the rules that keep families together, these unions must inevitably fragment.  And with them will go the love and interpersonal support that make life worth living.  Too bad!

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University