I guess we never heard the music stopped.
And:
We have allowed Islamists to infiltrate our blood system.
Activism is the only way to expel this cancerous blood.
+++
Dexter Van Zile: How the Nation of Islam Infiltrates the Mainstream – and How to Expel It
by Marilyn Stern - Middle East Forum Webinar
Dexter Van Zile, the managing editor of the Middle East Forum's Focus on Western Islamism (FWI), and the Violin Family Writing Fellow at the Forum, spoke to a March 15 MEF Podcast (video). The following summarizes his comments:
True-See Allah is an admirer of Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam "notorious for his anti-white racism in general, and his anti-Semitism in particular." Despite Allah's vocal support for Farrakhan, Allah was employed as director of a community engagement initiative by Kevin Hayden, the Suffolk County, Mass., district attorney (DA).
Van Zile's May 2023 American Spectator exposé documented the incongruous association between Allah and Hayden and initiated further scrutiny by Fox News and the Boston Globe. A follow-up FWI investigative article kept the issue in the public eye after Hayden's office placed Allah on leave in 2022 but retained him on the public payroll. FWI can report that as of February 2024, Allah is "no longer working" for the Suffolk County DA.
Why would a district attorney's office tasked with law enforcement on behalf of the commonwealth have employed Allah, an unabashed supporter of a black supremacist such as Farrakhan? A 1989 case involving a murder in Boston committed by Chuck Stuart sheds light on the chain of events leading to Allah's employment. Stuart murdered his wife while driving through Mission Hill, a Boston neighborhood with a large black population. He lied to the police that a black man murdered his wife in a carjacking. The police subsequently arrested and charged a black man who, as subsequent evidence proved, was innocent of the crime.
When the truth emerged, an "aura of shame" descended on Boston in what was seen as a "milestone event" damaging race relations between law enforcement and the black community. In 1998, Troy Christopher Watson finished his prison sentence for a gang-related shooting that eventually caused the victim's death. Watson was drawn to NOI from listening to sermons while incarcerated, and upon his release, he joined an NOI mosque, changed his name to True-See Shabbaz Allah, and became a member of NOI's security organization. In the late 1990s, Joe Fitzgerald, a Boston Herald columnist, authored articles praising NOI for its role in encouraging at-risk blacks to take responsibility for their actions.
Struggling to rehabilitate its non-discriminatory reputation after the 1989 Stuart debacle, the Boston police may have seen Allah as a vehicle to build bridges with the black community. The problem is that to do so, law enforcement had to ignore Allah's connection to NOI. There are parallels to the rationale used by U.S. officials vis-à-vis Islamists. Islamists "undermine the values of Western democracy," but also enable "young, angry Muslim men" to channel their hostility towards the West into some semblance of order, albeit flawed. The same can be said about NOI and its appeal to disaffected young black men.
Allah worked as a staffer at the Suffolk County Sheriff's Department in 2013 and was pardoned for his crime in 2015. He continued to climb the ranks through 2020. In 2022, DA Hayden hired Allah as director of community engagement, granting "entrée into the African American community to Boston politicians." The devil's bargain implied that government officials would gain legitimacy with a black constituency, which in turn would translate into votes. The same dynamic plays out in the U.S. concerning the Islamist movement. Politicians curry favor with Muslim voters by appeasing Islamists while ignoring the Islamists' anti-Western rhetoric and behavior.
However, there are signs of a challenge to the status quo in both circumstances. In True-See Allah's case, the post-George Floyd violence committed during the Black Lives Matter riots have made ignoring such deals untenable. In the case of Islamists, October 7 has made it impossible for the American public to avoid grappling with "legitimate concerns" about the presence of "lawful Islamism" in its midst. It should not take a jihadist attack to awaken the public to the danger.
"There are some lines that are still actually uncrossable," and Allah's support for a black supremacist did not sit well with the public. There are still sectors of the black community that tolerate Farrakhan's "hostility towards Jews and towards white people," and law enforcement may well have been relying on the benefits of improved relations with the black community to risk the chance that the public would not be "connecting the dots."
If politicians think that associating with Islamists or radicals is going to get them more votes than it's going to cost them, they'll continue to do it.
This scenario applies to politicians' relations with Islamists who want to gain public status and legitimacy. In a yet-to-be-published interview, the Interfaith Network's (IFN) Muhammed al-Hussaini, an Islamic scholar and counter-Islamist in the U.K., noted that British Islamist organizations engage in "entryism" – tapping "civil society institutions" to gain credibility with and access to larger society. One example, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), is affiliated with South Asian jihadist organizations. Because the British public is largely ignorant of the group's hostility, MCB has become a prominent member organization of the IFN.
In the U.S., Abdullah Faaruuq, a radical Boston imam, uses a similar strategy of "entryism" to "maintain his status as an insider" in the city. He makes hateful comments about the U.S., Jews, Israel, and homosexuals. But because he runs a beneficial neighborhood food pantry, he succeeded in ensconcing himself in Boston's interfaith community and securing hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer-funded government grants dispersed by state officials. Politicians "will engage with anybody that they think ... will get them more votes. That's really all it is. And if they think that associating with Islamists or radicals is going to get them more votes than it's going to cost them, they'll continue to do it."
Countering "entryism" by Islamists who game the system involves producing exposés that rouse public concern about Islamist manipulation. Sufficient public pressure deprives Islamists of their status, as occurred with True-See Allah. When politicians fear their association with Islamists may cost them elections, "they will start to abandon their erstwhile friends."
We must "maintain our freedom to speak truthfully" about these issues to oppose Islamists who cry "Islamophobia" to silence critics.
Following the Holocaust, "it was quite clear that people understood that you could not talk about Jews" as people had done historically. Although "that taboo is going away," "if we can enforce that taboo again" so that people know that if the say hateful things they'll fail to "achieve the type of status and authority" that True-See Allah enjoyed, "they're going to keep their mouth shut."
We must "maintain our freedom to speak truthfully" about these issues to oppose Islamists who cry "Islamophobia" to silence critics. Black supremacists and Islamists who spread hateful dogma will know that "you're still going to be able to exercise your First Amendment rights ... but we're not going to trust you with any real authority because we are not confident that you're going to be able to wield that authority in a manner that respects the rights of other people."
"If you espouse supremacist ideas that may portray people as unfit and unworthy to exercise their rights onto the Constitution, we're going to have a fight," peacefully and lawfully. "That's what happened with True-See Allah and the Nation of Islam in Boston."
Marilyn Stern is communications coordinator at the Middle East Forum.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Northern Command commander: 'We are at war and it doesn't end with Hezbollah'
The Commanding Officer of the Northern Command, Major General Ori Gordin, discussed the situation on the northern border and said that Israel successfully thwarted a large number of terrorist operatives.
A training program on readiness for the northern arena was held this week at the Northern Command headquarters, led by the Commanding Officer of the Northern Command, Major General Ori Gordin, with the participation of division commanders, brigade commanders, and battalion commanders from both the mandatory and reserve units, who are involved in the defense battles on the northern border.
As part of the program, the commanders delved into professional content and the operational and strategic plans for the northern framework. The program, led by the 36th Division, included professional lectures and learning from the division's combat lessons in the Gaza Strip, with specific adjustments for the challenges of the northern arena. During the program, the Chief of the General Staff, LTG Herzi Halevi, presented the strategic challenges and assessments for the continuation of the war.
Additionally, the participants went through various stations where they deepened their knowledge in the fields of artillery, intelligence, engineering, information and communication technology, and administrative support. The stations simulated the variety of capabilities and the power of their integration available to the commanders on the battlefield.
"We are at war. We have been at war for almost half a year now, and it doesn't end with Hezbollah," Commanding Officer of the Northern Command, MG Ori Gordin stated.
He added that "tonight, we are operating against al-Jama’a al-Islamiyya, a successful thwarting of a large number of operatives, and this morning Hezbollah itself decided to respond against Kiryat Shmona. We are conducting very significant strikes against Hezbollah, and we will continue to be aggressive in order to strike and push Hezbollah back significantly."
The officer declared: "We are determined to change the security situation in the north so that the residents can return to the north safely and with a sense of security. On the other hand, we are striking Hezbollah very powerfully and strongly, the Hezbollah organization, and also causing a lot of damage in the area where it operates. If we understand that we need to act, we will act tonight as well, and the readiness is there."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
STOP THE PRESSES! THE MEDIA IS LYING TO US TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF TERRORISTS
https://www.jns.org/stop-the-presses/
By MARC ERLBAUM
On March 24, Al Jazeera posted a video on YouTube that accused the Israel Defense Forces of raping Palestinian women during their recent operation in Shifa Hospital. IDF Arabic spokesman Lt.-Col. Avichai Adraee immediately and categorically rejected the rape claims. The next day, the Al Jazeera video was removed without comment or retraction.
A subsequent post on X by Yasser Abu Hilalah, Al Jazeera’s former managing director, admitted that the rape accusations were fabricated and that the woman who made the claims, Jamila al-Hissi, admitted that she lied. She “justified her exaggeration and incorrect talk by saying that the goal was to arouse the nation’s fervor and brotherhood.”
Stop the presses! That expression is used to indicate that something consequential has suddenly taken place, demanding an immediate revision of the publication’s reporting. The presses are stopped so the breaking news can be included.
Sadly, the false report of IDF rape was treated as a stop-the-presses moment, but the admission that it was false was not. Al Jazeera eagerly broke the rape story without any credible evidence or responsible fact-checking. Scores of outlets around the globe picked it up and ran with it. Yet when the accusation was proven false, there was no official retraction or correction. The report was merely removed and Hilalah quietly admitted on X that the allegations were lies.
Tragically, fabricated reporting is not really news anymore. It has become so commonplace that the term “fake news” has permeated our cultural lexicon. We are hardly surprised when a major media outlet purveys blatant propaganda and/or patently false information. The consequences are minimal and the outlet is rarely held responsible.
Yet tremendous damage is done through this sort of fake journalism. The public should be outraged. “Stop the presses” should be the demand of those of us who refuse to be manipulated by irresponsible and malign media forces.
By the time the Al Jazeera video was removed, the fiction of IDF rape had been accepted as fact by countless people around the world who were all too anxious to believe it. The removal of the story will do nothing to undo the damage it has already caused. Hissi’s attempt to “arouse the nation’s fervor and brotherhood” was more successful than she could have hoped. Al Jazeera’s broadcast of her lie was not only irresponsible; it was criminal. It fanned the flames of the conflict and increased the likelihood of further violence not just in Israel, but against Jews around the world.
This is certainly not the first time lies about the war in Gaza have been promulgated by a major media outlet without proper vetting and Al Jazeera is certainly not the only guilty party.
On Oct. 17, 2023 at the beginning of Israel’s operation against Hamas, Gaza’s Al-Ahli hospital was hit by a deadly blast that was immediately blamed on the IDF by The New York Times, The Guardian, the BBC, Le Monde and other major outlets. Protests against Israel erupted in cities around the world. So did anti-Semitic attacks.
Yet within days, the evidence proved that the blast was caused by a Palestinian rocket launched towards Israel and most media sources were forced to issue retractions and/or corrections. The New York Times issued a publisher’s note on Oct. 23, writing that it had “relied too heavily on claims by Hamas and did not make clear that those claims could not immediately be verified.”
Why were the editors of the Times and so many of their colleagues willing to “rely too heavily on claims by Hamas” and why do they continue to do so?
In spite of repeated incidents of proven deception, the media continues to give credence to Hamas. Though Hamas is known to mangle the truth regularly—even denying the rape and torture they themselves filmed and posted to social media on Oct. 7—the casualty figures reported by media outlets worldwide are supplied by the Gaza Health Ministry, which is run by Hamas. Though it has been revealed that scores of UNRWA aid workers are Hamas operatives, the U.N. and its mouthpieces have continued to parrot narratives proven to be outright propaganda.
While the networks and journals that buy and distribute lies are culpable in fueling and perpetuating the conflict, the audience of media consumers that accept and regurgitate these mistruths are also complicit. It has been proven time and again that Hamas and its allies cannot be believed; that they will say or do whatever they deem necessary to achieve their goals of erasing all Jews from Israel; and that they have no regard for international law or basic human morality. We have even begun to see increasing numbers of courageous Palestinian civilians who have had the courage to speak out against Hamas and the draconian cruelty with which it controls and oppresses its own people.
What will it take for us to admit that we have been subject to a long and complicated campaign of deceit, an empire of lies? The facts are there for anyone who wants to analyze them objectively: Not only the history of treaties and agreements agreed to by Israel and violated by the Arabs who have continually refused coexistence; not only the documented Palestinian textbooks and children’s programming that brainwash the next generation to hate and murder their Jewish neighbors; not only the testimony of Muslims from around the world about the vicious lies they were told about Jews throughout their upbringing and the awakening they experienced when they actually interacted with Jews and Israelis as adults; but also the very clear examples of fabrications that are regularly supplied to the media only to be retracted when they are proven false.
Hissi’s deceit was remarkable not because it was uncommon, but because it has been admitted so publicly. As it turns out, the reason for the admission was not any compunction or contrition. It was that Hamas decided her lie was working against it. Evidently, the threat of IDF soldiers raping civilians resulted in many Palestinians fleeing the area towards the south, thus depriving the terrorists of the human shields they rely on. A Hamas spokesperson assured the populace that the rape allegations were untrue so they would stay put and continue to provide cover.
Had Hamas not denied the story, it is difficult to believe Al Jazeera would have removed the video and retracted the story. Clearly, the media is complicit. Unfortunately, this is not breaking news. It’s standard procedure. It is up to us to stop the presses from manipulating us and fomenting further conflict.
Marc Erlbaum - Nationlight Productions
merl@nationlightproductions.com
A Little Light Can Dispel a World of Darkness
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Biden is conciliating, rather than confronting, pro-Hamas Democrats
Netanyahu is blamed for worsening U.S.-Israel relations, but the problem is that the president thinks anti-Israel hecklers “have a point” and that their cause is “really important.”
By JONATHAN S. TOBIN
Democrats don’t have “Sister Souljah moments” anymore. That political metaphor refers to a moment in the 1992 presidential campaign when Bill Clinton established himself as a credible centrist candidate by blasting a radical who advocated for the murder of police officers. President Joe Biden won the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination primarily because he was embraced as a centrist alternative to Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). But he has governed as if avoiding the wrath of the political left is his priority.
That’s the context for Biden’s decision to blow up the U.S.-Israel alliance with a series of statements about the war against Hamas and then an abstention on a vote on Monday in the U.N. Security Council that confirmed a pivot away from support for the terrorists’ elimination to a more equivocal stand. It also demonstrates that the assumption that his support for Israel is in his “kishkes” or instinctive, and therefore worthy of trust, is equally shaky.
That Biden has governed as if he is in thrall to the left has been obvious throughout his presidency as his executive orders implementing the woke diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) catechism in government; open-border policies on illegal immigration; and out-of-control spending that fueled inflation have shown. But it’s been particularly evident in recent months. His willingness to kowtow to pro-Hamas Arab-American politicians in Michigan might have made some political sense before the primary in that state, in which he wanted to undermine an effort to elect an “uncommitted” slate of convention delegates rather than one that supported Biden’s re-election, even though his place on the ballot in November was not in any real doubt. But now that Biden has locked up the 2024 nomination, this would traditionally be a moment for a candidate to pivot to the center. Yet he is still acting as if locking up the support of the most extreme voters in his coalition is the key to victory.
Sympathy for Israel-haters
That’s the only way to explain why Biden seems so intent on not having his own “Sister Souljah moment” with those who are calling him “genocide Joe” and who are hounding him on the campaign trail. As The New York Times reported this week, despite the attempts of his staff to insulate the 81-year-old president from critical voices and potentially embarrassing situations, he simply can’t seem to avoid anti-Israel activists.
At one stop in Raleigh, N.C., Biden’s attempt to speak about his support for Obamacare was interrupted by a dozen protesters who began shouting about the lack of health care in the Gaza Strip, and that hospitals were being “bombed” by Israel and he was complicit in those crimes. Biden could have ignored them or pointed out that the problems there are the responsibility of the Hamas terrorists who governed Gaza as an independent Palestinian state in all but name for the past 16 years. He could have pointed out that it was Hamas that launched a genocidal war against Israel on Oct. 7 and that caused all the casualties suffered in the current conflict. It was also a moment to remind the world that not only were the accusations of Israel bombing hospitals a big lie, but that health-care facilities in Gaza have been—and are still being, as the recent Shifa Hospital military operation proved—used as Hamas command centers, as well as places where Israeli hostages were held captive.
Biden didn’t say anything like that. Instead, he told the crowd in Raleigh that those chanting against Israel and calling for a ceasefire that would crown Hamas as the victors of the war deserved to be treated with deference. “They have a point. We need to get a lot more care into Gaza,” said the president, doubling down on his administration’s stand that Palestinian civilian needs were more important than ensuring that the terrorists who started the war—and are still holding Israeli men, women and children captive—were eliminated.
Just as telling was his response to being heckled in Virginia in January when he was trying to talk about his efforts to defend legal abortions. As the Times noted, after that episode, he met privately with a small group of supporters and urged them not to view the protesters as political enemies, saying that they deserved sympathy and that their cause was “really important.”
This doesn’t just explain the decision of the administration to escalate tensions with Israel. It goes beyond Biden’s efforts to stop Israel from finishing off Hamas by attacking its remaining stronghold in Rafah. He is openly planning not just to open up more daylight between the two countries over the war against Hamas but to abandon Israel diplomatically, slow down the flow of arms and even sanction Israeli politicians as part of a campaign to force Jerusalem to bow to his will.
Using aid as leverage
Democrats may have impeached former President Donald Trump because of what they claimed was his desire to use aid as leverage to gain some domestic political points. But they are now threatening aid hold-ups and sanctions in order to force Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop the war in order to shore up Biden’s ties with his left-wing critics. The administration’s decision this week to let the U.N. Security Council pass a ceasefire resolution that mandated that the war against Hamas stop without linking it to the release of the hostages the terrorist group still holds captive is part of this effort.
That was a clear betrayal as well as a demonstration of how Biden’s skewed political priorities have led him to betray the alliance with Israel. It also shows that the effort to spin the breach in that alliance as being caused by Netanyahu’s overreaction to the U.N. vote is pure bunk motivated by partisan motives.
Netanyahu is getting blasted not just by Democrats but by some left-wing Israelis for having the temerity to denounce Biden’s betrayal. They say that he should be swallowing this shift in American policy instead of calling it out.
This discussion isn’t new. The same things were said about Netanyahu’s stands that earned him the opprobrium of President Barack Obama and his media “echo chamber.” They labeled the Israeli responses to Obama’s efforts to force Israel back to the 1967 armistice lines, surrender part of Jerusalem and then acquiesce to Washington’s appeasement of Iran’s nuclear ambitions as evidence that Netanyahu was needlessly confrontational. His refusal to play the part of a loyal vassal to Israel’s superpower ally was considered arrogant.
That was unfair to Netanyahu. He had done his best to defer to Obama but couldn’t be silent when his country’s vital interests were being sold down the river by a president eager for the applause of those in the Muslim world who hated America and its Israeli ally.
It could be argued that his decision to challenge Obama on the Iran nuclear deal in his address to a joint meeting of Congress in 2015 made it easier for Democrats to go along with his tilt toward Tehran by interpreting his defiance as an insult to the president. But by speaking up in this manner, Netanyahu didn’t just rally Americans to oppose the pact. He was also sending a signal to Arab states that feared Iran more than Israel that they should look upon the Jewish state as a potential ally and not merely a meek client state for the Americans. That not only helped persuade Trump to withdraw from Obama’s dangerously weak agreement but led directly to the 2020 Abraham Accords.
Don’t blame it on Bibi
But today, the stakes in the argument with Biden are even higher than those with Obama. Israel is currently locked in an existential struggle with Hamas and its Iranian allies. Israel must win the war against Hamas to ensure that no more Oct. 7 atrocities ever occur, and also to allow the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who were forced to flee their homes in the south and the north because of the fighting to go home in safety. If Biden gets his way and Hamas is able to emerge from the war as its victors, then Israeli deterrence and security are finished. And the fallout from the U.N. vote will only fuel efforts to isolate Israel and harm its economy through lawfare.
The claim that Netanyahu is speaking up only to shore up his right-wing/religious party coalition is a misunderstanding of the reality of post-Oct. 7 Israel. Netanyahu may remain controversial, but the war he is leading is supported by a broad consensus of Israelis who will not accept anything less than a complete victory over Hamas and who are equally unwilling to reward Palestinian terrorism with the offer of statehood.
The only leader playing politics in the war against Hamas is Biden. It is his craven response to antisemitic supporters of a Hamas victory that has caused the current impasse between Israel and the United States. He could have carved out a space in the center of American politics where support for Israel is widespread; instead, he is obsessed with not angering left-wing intersectional activists who hate Israel and falsely think it is a settler/colonial state of “white” oppressors. Blaming the gap that this shift has opened up between Washington’s stand and Israeli positions that would be maintained no matter who was in power in Jerusalem on Netanyahu, is just political spin.
The current crisis in the U.S.-Israel alliance isn’t Netanyahu’s fault. It’s the product of the belief among Democrats that Israel is always in the wrong. And the more that Biden validates those smears, the more evident it is that the claim that support for Israel is in his “kishkes”—and thus to be trusted—is a dangerous supposition.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That Drew would publish this essay of mine truly surprised me
| Drew Belsky | |||
.
By Dick Berkowitz
It is a fairly universal agreement, until Biden, President Jimmy Carter was the worst president in our nation's long history. One of his administrative "failings" was revealed when he was Georgia's Governor. He was a control freak. He just could not let go because he had to have his hand in everything.
Carter appointed one of my dearest Atlanta friends to a high post and he left after less than six months. I asked him why and he said Carter was the lousiest administrator he ever knew.
Carter also established America's Department of Education.
Obviously, Jimmy thought, if the Government controlled education, it would improve matters. Once again, he mistakenly did not believe the saying; "what government touches it ruins and often destroys. Johnson had his War on Poverty, Obama allowed Iran to inch toward becoming a nuclear nation, Biden made America and the entire world worse in everything he has touched. George W went to war without understanding Islamic tribal differences and hatreds and the Middle East is akin to a "Tar Baby.".
Now that higher education is financially out of reach for more aspirants and fewer believe a college education no longer has historical merit, how does one go about selecting even if they want to go to college?
As a parent of five, all of whom went to college, ( three of the five went beyond getting more education) I told them I would let them choose schools they thought were suitable and upon graduation they would not owe anything beyond their debt to society.
Even though my personal wealth is larger now I could not make such a commitment today because education costs are off the charts. Furthermore, the cost of prep schools is more than college back when they went and the purchasing power of the dollar has shrunken because of inflation and mindless spending.
Once the Federal Government created the Pell Grant loan program etc. colleges and universities raised tuition and became less concerned about student admission losses. Furthermore, due to their growing dependency on student federal loans and research grants while the government introduced more social legislation, administrative hires exploded, raising educational costs even higher.
Hillsdale College did something unique. They did not like the government telling them what courses they should or could not teach because many of their students were attending on federal borrowings so they ran a campaign which substantially increased their endowment.
Hillsdale now will pay the tuition of any student they accept where there is an unmet financial need. Hillsdale is a conservative small liberal arts school in Michigan.
The College on whose Board of Advisors I served (St John's College, otherwise known as The Great Books College) recently reduced their tuition to an acceptable level which has allowed their student body to expand and their financial operation no longer runs at a killing loss all due toa generous challenge gift by a former "JOHNIIE."
So, in view of the above, what unsolicited advice would I give parents and their progeny in selecting a college?
At a very minimum, I would advise the following.
As a parent you are making a large investment and should, as Reagan said, trust but verify.
I would allow your child, perhaps with the advice of a counselor, to make their school selection unless their choice was cost prohibitive.
Second, I would also explore certain parameters such as:
a) The ratio of administrators would have to be within reason.
b) There would be no history of student's taking over administrative offices.
C) The school president's role must go beyond simply raising funds and there was no history similar to recent incidents at so many IVIES.
d) As for the faculty, I would want to assure they were sprinkled with some youth and not all radical liberal types. Inquire what educational backgrounds the faculty actually had.
e) I would like to know about the school's endowment and how they have managed it, their historical returns and whether there was exceptional funding from the Middle East.
f) I would also want to know the racial and or ethnic mix of the student body and how they handled any anti-Semitic incidents, if any. This would be true regardless of the student applicant's religious affiliation. Lack of faculty backbone is disruptive for all students and overall campus tranquility.
If you seek a war zone Join The Marines.
g) Obviously visit the campus if possible, walk around and ask students questions. They are your best information sources.
h) There are other inquiries relating to housing, food, medical facilities. Today, parents have a bit of leverage because schools have begun to seek and place emphasis on the serious minded productive type kids and want to avoid, if possible, obvious troublemakers. Schools are not above searching for applicant social postings etc..
I once interviewed potential students for The University of Pennsylvania, my own Alma Mater. Times were different in the 50's. Far less sophisticated and penetrative. The focus was more on records, grades, essays, board results than the student.
The 50's was a more tranquil period and then all hell broke loose in the 60's.
Hope my own travail's and experiences as a father of educated children has been of some benefit.
+++
No comments:
Post a Comment