printable versionIn Print and On the Air
PETER SCHWEIZER, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, suggested in a USA Today op-ed on March 23 that ridicule should be employed as a weapon in the war on terrorism. "By continuing to demonize our enemies, we elevate their political status in the eyes of those disaffected souls in the developing world who dislike the United States," he wrote. "I'm not suggesting that Bush start cracking Osama bin Laden jokes. And we should not mock Islam. Reagan joked about communist leaders but never about the Russian people. What the Bush administration can do is mock the terrorists." Schweizer wrote that these self-professed warriors hide while they pay poor young men and women to become human bombs. "We should play up Osama's privileged background," he wrote. "We should highlight the terrorists' ridiculous failures. The reality is that much like Soviet officials, terrorists are full of grand illusions about themselves and their mission. The terrorists are not 10 feet tall. We should engage in a psychological war that brings these thugs down to size."
DEBORAH STIPEK, dean of the School of Education, argued at a March 25 public forum in Palo Alto that the federal government's 2002 No Child Left Behind Act needs "a complete overhaul," the San Jose Mercury News reported the following day. The law requires schools to give standardized tests and show they have achieved benchmarks in reading proficiency by 2014. Students in failing schools have a right to be reassigned. Stipek said the law fails to offer ways to fix or replace failing schools, or improve teacher performance. "You can shut down a school that isn't doing well, but then where are these kids going to go?" she said. "You can get rid of all the teachers but it's not like you have a lot of great teachers lining up to take their place." She said a more apt name for the act might be "No Child Left Untested." TERRY MOE, chair of the Political Science Department, defended the act, saying it takes an important first step by focusing attention on failing schools. In the past, he argued, teachers and districts were able to operate in obscurity and allow academic failures to slide. "It's important for districts to feel the pressure that kids will leave their schools if they don't succeed," he said. "Districts don't like to feel that pressure so they are resisting this law." But Stipek said the law puts too much emphasis on testing while doing little to reform education. "The law requires having qualified teachers but requiring it doesn't mean they're out there," she said. "Just telling kids they can go someplace else to school doesn't mean there is another place to go."