How to Ruin a University

The economy is catching fire.  Wages are going up.  Americans are measurably more optimistic about what the future holds.  So what do the Georgia governor, the legislators and the Board of Regents do?  They decide to commit arson.  They agree to burn down a big chunk of the University System of Georgia.

While everyone else is getting raises, we at Kennesaw State University are receiving neither merit nor cost of living adjustments.  In the past, we were asked to do belt tightening when state revenues decreased.  Now we are told to do so as they are about to rise.

The cat is finally out of the bag.  It is plain that the authorities intend to dismantle state sponsored higher education.  Their goal is evidently to starve places like KSU into second-rate institutions.

Let me explain.  I have published sixteen books, edit a professional journal, write columns for the MDJ and Cherokee Tribune, direct a non-profit foundation and am a first rate teacher, but I earn less than some elementary school counselors and many police officers.

Meanwhile my wife, who also teachers at KSU and received the highest possible evaluation in terms of her teaching, scholarship, and service, will likewise earn not a single additional dime this year.

What makes this especially galling is that the lowest level of college administrators earn tens of thousands more.  Indeed, upper-level administrators are paid hundreds of thousands more.  In one case in my own college, a newly hired department chair obtained twice what I do, despite my achievements and quarter-century of service.

On top of this, there is the problem of compression.  Freshly hired professors must be paid more in order to entice them to come, whereas full professors receive crumbs.  The difference between a novice and a seasoned professional can therefore be as little as six thousand dollars.

Worse yet, recently revised salary policies exacerbate this problem.  The purported solutions only tighten the differences between the top and bottom.  So I ask you, where is the incentive to do a good job?  Why jump through hoops to be promoted when there is no reward for doing so?

Many readers may say this is no more than what professors deserve.  As left-wing hacks, they merit as little compensation as possible.  Nonetheless, if this policy continues, even less qualified folks will be attracted to academe.  Why expend the time and effort to become a competent Ph.D., if at the end of the road there is penury and disrespect?

The powers that be seem not to care.  Complete Georgia demonstrates that their chief concern is what looks good on paper.  If they can boast of more college graduates in less time, it matters not one whit if these alumnae have learned anything.

And so we get increased stress on online learning.  Once decent rubrics are in place, masters and bachelor level employees can administer them.  Who needs expensive professors to inspire intellectual growth or produce new knowledge?  Eliminating them drastically reduces costs, while ostensibly making higher education available to everyone.

In the end, what we will get is a two-tier system.  On the top will be a few elite private and public schools that are open only to the super rich and super bright.  Everyone else will be stuck with what amount to diploma mills.  Theoretically they will get college degrees, while in reality they will have received neither the knowledge nor the attitudes to obtain well paying jobs.

Here then is the supreme irony.  In an effort to give everyone a college education, many fewer will receive one.  Policies that are expected to promote social mobility do the reverse.  The votes of the poor will thus have been purchased with assurances of social success, whereas they will remain mired in the same old places.

This is a horror story.  Americans have grown so accustomed to empty political promises that they have difficulty distinguishing fact from fiction.  They are told about the astonishing improvements to expect from modernization, but seldom recognize the repugnant consequences.

Well, you may think, Dr. Fein is not a disinterested observer.  In this you would be correct; I am not.  Yet I am a person with first hand knowledge of a dire situation and a fervent interest promoting genuine learning.  That should count for something.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

As the Scandal Turns

The plan was simple.  Accuse Donald Trump of collusion with the Russians and he would not get elected.  Then when he was, accuse him of obstruction of justice and he would be thrown out of office.  The nation would be rescued from a conservative clown and progress toward the liberal millennium could resume.

But the scandal has turned.  Now it is the liberals who are on the defensive.  Evidence is accumulating that it is the Democrats who indirectly colluded with the Russians and these left-wingers who are seeking to prevent knowledge of this from becoming public.

Never before have we witnessed such concentrated levels of dishonesty.  Politicians are not known for their scrupulousness, but even at the height of the Watergate fiasco, we did not experience this density of lies.  Today these come at us in such tightly compacted barrages that we cannot keep track.

For months now, Democrats and their media acolytes have been telling us that investigations into FBI and Justice Department corruption are distractions.  These inquiries are supposedly meant to divert our attention from the wrongdoings of president Trump and his supporters.

We are also told that these efforts amount to an obstruction of justice.  If consrvatives succeed in discrediting the law enforcement agents, such as Mueller, who are hot on the trail of a felonious chief executive, we will not be able to find the truth or impose the appropriate punishments.

Besides, Devin Nunes, the leader of the pack of congressional jackals is a notorious partisan.  His goal is to distort the facts rather than reveal them.  The progressive response is thus to relieve him of his committee duties and consign him to well-earned obscurity.

That said, the reality is somewhat different.  Liberals are masters of projection.  Time and again, they accuse others of the misdeeds in which they specialize.  It is therefore they who are attempting to distract the public.  It is they who kick up dust with spurious accusations so as to divert attention from their own transgressions.

The same applies to obstruction of justice.  If the Democrats and their allies are guilty of lying to the FBI or rigging political investigations, they don’t want anyone to know.  And so, they resist sending congressional subpoenas to potential witnesses and defend FBI agents who may be culpable of crimes.

Hillary Clinton famously accused a vast right wing conspiracy of attempting to smear her husband.  It now seems there is a much vaster left-wing conspiracy threatening the rule of law.  Democratic party operatives, liberal office-holders, affiliates of the Deep State bureaucracy, and unethical journalists are conspiring to gin up a scandal where there is none.

Paradoxically, they are apparently about to be blown up by their own petard.  So confident were they that they had the resources to control events, they are terrified by the recent turn of affairs.  Currently in a panic, their overheated rhetoric and obstinate contradictions betray a sense of guilt.

During the Watergate era it was said that the cover-up was worse than the crime.  Yet the contemporary liberal cover-up dwarfs anything attempted by yesteryear’s Republicans.  Nixon and his collaborators were largely confined to the White House and Justice Department.

Today’s cover-up also includes the FBI, many congresspersons, Democratic officials, the State Department, intelligence agencies, private spin factories, and the mainstream media.  Whether directly or indirectly, these provide one another with ammunition and camouflage.

This should be terrifying.  It represents an assault on our democratic traditions.  Never before have so many powerful—and reputedly honorable—individuals worked so strenuously to corrupt the governmental institutions upon which we depend.

Barack Obama had almost total disrespect for the law.  He did what he thought he could get away with.  Members of the party he headed learned these lessons extremely well.  They too are primarily concerned with retaining power and promoting socialist ideals.

Richard Nixon was brought low because he thought it was more important that he win an election than follow the law.  Contemporary Democrats evidently feel the same way.  It is consequently imperative that the rest of us not follow their lead.

If the Washington scandal is indeed turning, we must have the courage to clean up depravity wherever it is found.  Our collective future and the preservation of our republic depend upon it.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Bring Back the Filibuster

“Bring back the filibuster.”  That may sound crazy.  Don’t we already have this ability in the senate and hasn’t it caused untold trouble?   Didn’t allowing senators to talk a bill to death once prevent much needed legislation?  The classic example, of course, was the civil rights bill that was stalled by segregationists for decades.

In order to avoid a repetition of that sad history, cloture was invented.  This mechanism enabled a supermajority of senators—today sixty—to vote to terminate perpetual debate.  Once they decided that further deliberations were futile, they could agree to shut them down.

Unfortunately, this reform backfired.  Instead of facilitating the legislative process, it has helped grind it to a halt.  Nowadays, bills go to the senate to die.  This past year, the House of Representatives passed hundreds of them only to see them languish in the other body.

The reason is that filibusters have become phony.  Few of them are of the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington variety.  Rather than stand for days until their strength wanes, minority members merely have to declare an intent to filibuster.  There are no more cots lining the hallways; no more raspy voices on the senate floor.

This has made it so convenient to filibuster that the Democrats have employed this devise to resist President Trump’s entire agenda.  Whenever they decide they don’t like a measure, they force the Republicans to muster more than a fifty-one-vote majority.  As a consequence, this has devolved into obstructionism on steroids.

Trump has therefore suggested the nuclear option as a remedy.  This would enable a bare majority to override a stubborn minority.  Mitch McConnell, the senate majority leader, has nevertheless been reluctant to heed this advice.  He fears that when the Democrats are again in the majority, they will use it to ram through any items they desire.

The senate has been described as the congressional “cooling saucer.”  Its function is supposedly to impede legislative intemperance.  Rather than hastily enact extreme measures that are temporarily popular, dispassionate heads are asked to scrutinize their implications.  This way, minorities are protected from oppression.

Although this is undoubtedly a worthy objective, it has morphed into a recipe for unrestricted stalemate.  Nothing gets done if a large enough minority decides to be intransigent.

So how can resurrecting the traditional filibuster help?  Wouldn’t this merely restore the bad old times?

Way back when, filibusters were actually rare.  They were reserved for important decisions—such as civil rights.  Because they were uncomfortable, they were used when the participants felt genuinely aggrieved.  Today they are so easy they are invoked for practically anything.

I, therefore, propose to make them more difficult.  Let us require dissenting senators to be physically present when they filibuster.  Keep the chamber open day and night and bring cots back to the hallways.  Don’t let the speakers go out for lunch or dinner.   Force them to eat sandwiches at their desks.

How long do you think filibusters would last under these conditions?  As importantly, how many would be held?  Wouldn’t this oblige legislators to be more thoughtful and perhaps more collegial?

As a bonus, genuine filibusters are circuses.  In this era of modern communications, they can be downright entertaining.  If they are frivolous, they might also be extremely embarrassing.  Legislators merely seeking to gum up the works would probably look ridiculous?

Naturally, cloture could still be invoked.  A super-majority could still be allowed to limit debate.  Moreover, those involved would be more inclined to return to regular order when their personal comfort was on the line.  In their desire to go home, wouldn’t they encourage one another to be more responsible?

I am serious about this idea.  Senate rules have been changed before.  When procedures were found unworkable, they have been modified.  Doesn’t the current legislative gridlock count as an emergency?  How often has the government been so paralyzed by partisan bickering?

Unless something is done, our democracy may fall apart.  It might cease being a practical form of governance.  A return of the traditional filibuster is a fairly simple fix.  While it has its limitations, these appear to be preferable to the never-ending soap opera into which Washington has descended.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Lessons from "The Darkest Hour"

My wife and I don’t go to many movies.  Nonetheless, we went out of our way to see The Darkest Hour.  We were not disappointed.  Not only was it well-crafted and riveting entertainment, but it highlighted lessons the current generation ought to learn.

The film is about the beginning of World War II.  The Nazis had already invaded Poland, which triggered England into declaring war.  Yet for months, very little happened.  In the west, the allies faced off against the Germans at the Maginot Line, with few shots fired.  This was the so-called “phony war.”

In the east, Germany and the Soviet Union carved up Poland.  Their non-aggression pact then foreclosed further hostilities.  One of the few acts of war was a British expeditionary force to Norway, which had also been invaded by Hitler.

The following May, the logjam broke.  In a Blitzkrieg strike, the Nazis sliced through Belgium and threatened to flank the French defenses.  Their tanks and planes could not be stopped.  Much to the surprise of the British, their own forces were no match for these furious assaults. 

In this emergency, the English Parliament turned to Winston Churchill.  He had been one of the few voices to sound the alarm as Hitler rose to power.  While First Lord of the Admiralty, his Norway initiative was likewise one of the few acts of UK aggressiveness.

As a result, the Labor Party demanded that Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain resign.  His administration had been so inept that he was not trusted to run the war.  Churchill’s belligerence seemed better suited to this task.

Despite the hesitation of most Conservatives, there seemed little choice.  And so, in the face of imminent defeat, Churchill took over.  He was immediately confronted with a crisis.  Nearly the entire British army was in danger of being surrounded and wiped out.

The question was what to do?  Chamberlain and his ally Lord Halifax wanted to sue for peace.  They were prepared to accept nearly any Hitlerian condition that might prevent a bloody trouncing.  Indeed, they insisted that Churchill comply with their desires.

Chamberlain had learned nothing from Munich.  When he allowed the Germans to march unopposed into the Czech Sudetenland, he assumed he had brokered “peace in our times.”  When Hitler soon gobbled up the rest of Czechoslovakia and then Poland, his position remained essentially unchanged.

Chamberlain believed in appeasement.  He believed in placating aggression at Munich.  He believed in doing so as British forces fell back in Belgium.  Only allowing the assailants to get what they wanted could presumably prevent further tragedies.

Although Churchill was inclined to fight, he too had doubts.  What if England lost?  What if the casualties became catastrophic?  Might it not be better to accept defeat and struggle on under the Nazi yoke?  In the end, of course, he decided that standing up to tyranny was the only honorable recourse.

So what about us?  We too are threatened by hostile powers.  Even puny North Korea warns that it will reduce us to ashes.  Many Americans therefore insist that we not adopt a military option.  Violence, they claim, is more dangerous than accepting nuclear blackmail.

In fact, Barack Obama had a penchant for appeasement.  Not only did he do nothing to stop the North Koreans, he was passive in his response to Russian aggression in Syria and the Ukraine.  Nor did he interfere with the Chinese asserting their primacy in the South China Sea.

Even more distressingly, he capitulated to Iranian truculence.  He eagerly sought an agreement that would enable the mullahs to become a nuclear power in little more than a decade.  This was to be his “legacy.”

Furthermore, not only did Obama circle the globe to apologize for American power, he crippled our military.  He would make sure we could not begin any wars by leveling our capacity to that of our enemies.  If we were weak, we could not arrogantly assert our might.

Now Trump is challenging this appeasement mentality.  Will Churchill’s example do anything to aid him in this quest?  When my wife and I were in the theater, it was packed.  And yet almost all of those in attendance were older folks.  Do the up-coming generations, I wonder, have any idea about the perils of excessive international conciliation?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University