The Des Moines Register ran an editorial today about Steve Bitterman’s firing (see also here) from Southwestern Community College in Red Oak. Bitterman says he was fired because he told students that the biblical “garden of Eden” story shouldn’t be interpreted literally (read: as accurate historical reporting); students say it was because he was hostile and derogatory toward them. The unsigned editorial takes Southwestern to task for their secrecy in this matter. Bitterman is talking, students are talking, but the administration is keeping quiet except for some bureaucratic doublespeak. The silence is deafening. The editorial reaches this conclusion:

For faculty and students, institutions of higher education should be havens for free inquiry into the most controversial topics. It’s outrageous if Bitterman’s expression of his interpretation of a biblical passage figured in his dismissal.

Yet, neither should anyone in America - in a classroom or elsewhere - be belittled for their religious beliefs. Giving free rein to discussion doesn’t mean condoning a lack of civility, or worse, harassment.

One thing, though, is crystal clear: This story sends a message to all college students in Iowa that if your instructor says something offensive, you can complain and maybe get the instructor fired.

That is a very dangerous message to send when it comes to higher education - a place where students should be exposed to new ideas and have their thoughts challenged.

In my estimation, those last two paragraphs are key. With all due respect to my students, whom I love, it’s galling to think that 18-year-olds would have that much power over a 60-year-old professor’s (even an adjunct professor’s) livelihood (if $1,700 per course—Bitterman’s wages—is a “livelihood”). (A related DMR editorial, signed by Andie Dominick, takes aim at the “helicopter parents” who took their complaints to the administration.) And it’s even more galling to think that a college would shield students from exposure to ideas contrary to those they already hold. That’s sort of the whole point. Education doesn’t happen when all that happens in reinforcement of your current ideas.

Yesterday, in connection with the opening of Apple Expo in Paris, Microsoft has announced that Office 2008 for Mac will start shipping on January 15, 2008. However, on Mac Mojo, the blog for Microsoft’s Macintosh Business Unit, Microsoft’s Eric Paquin confirmed the following:

BiDi languages and Unicode support has not change since 2004.

Yes, you heard right: Office 2008 for Mac cannot handle right-to-left Unicode (for Hebrew, Arabic, etc.) any better than Office 2004 for Mac—which is to say, not at all. This is a serious setback for Microsoft, and an absolute impediment to my use of their software. A couple of years ago, a fellow brought a PowerPoint (Windows) presentation to a WECSOR conference, but he didn’t bring a laptop. The AV support staff at the host college was, well, not supporting very well—as in, the computers were all locked up or password-protected, with nobody around to provide the passwords. So I pulled out my macBook, hooked it up to the computer, fired up PowerPoint, and away we went … with all of the presenter’s Hebrew terribly garbled. Individual unpointed words still went the correct direction, but the order of words in the sentence was reversed.

Apple’s iWork ‘08 suite (which shipped in August ‘07) handles Unicode Hebrew reasonably well, and offers word processing (Pages), spreadsheet (Numbers), and presentations (Keynote—which is far and away better than PowerPoint in other respects as well) for $79, a much lower price than any level of Office 2008. Apple’s Mail application handles Unicode Hebrew reasonably well, too, and it’s bundled with the OS. (Safari is fine for unpointed Hebrew, but it doesn’t properly line up the niqqudim, so I use Camino instead.) Nisus Writer Pro ($79) is a little better than Pages on language support, a little worse in other respects (such as precise sizing and placing of graphic elements and tables). Mellel ($29) is horrible if you want any kind of real page layout capabilities other than simple inline graphics, but it runs rings around everything else in terms of its language support, and has become the word processor I use most often for anything involving Hebrew text.

I was really hoping that Office ‘08 for Mac would bring Microsoft’s Unicode RTL support up to the level of at least the Mac OS, if not Mellel—but now we know that there has been no advance over Office ‘04.

Some of you may be thinking, “Hey, Chris, just quit your whining. You have Pages and Mellel and Nisus. Just use [my favorite] one of those!” Well, that is what I do. For example, I produce all my quizzes and tests for Hebrew 330–331 in Mellel. Unfortunately, Mellel’s XML file format is not a standard medium of cross-platform exchange. Many book and journal editors these days ask for digital manuscripts in .doc format (it will be interesting to see whether they switch to .docx). Some of my programs can read/write .doc or .docx, but I don’t have a convenient way to preview any of those files that they create to check them for problems.

The Another big problem with Office ‘08 for Macintosh is the lack of Entourage support for e-mail accounts on Exchange servers. You don’t get any support for Exchange servers in the Home or Student/Teacher editions. You must buy the top-of-the-line Pro edition to get any Exchange support at all. As Brian wrote in a comment thread on the Mac BU blog:

So what if I’m a student and our campus uses exchange server, I’m stuck with paying the full $399 retail price? Wow, that’s harsh.

BobR followed up with:

What exactly does “Exchange Support” mean? I’m glad you’ve got your pricing done before you are willing to explain your features: Exactly how I would have done it.

And “eponymous” gets the final say, with a response to Brian:

But that $399 will buy you the top of the line, cutting edge state of the art Exchange support we’ve come to expect from …. oh, never mind.

Judge Ann Aiken of the US District Court for the District of Oregon issued a ruling on Sept. 25 that “struck down two provisions of the Patriot Act dealing with searches and intelligence gathering, saying they violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures with regard to criminal prosecutions,” according to CNN. These provisions were set up to allow the US government to bypass the need for probable cause in conducting warrantless wiretaps, searches, and so on. In her decision, Aiken wrote (quoting from the CNN article):

“It is critical that we, as a democratic nation, pay close attention to traditional Fourth Amendment principles,” wrote Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in her 44-page decision. “The Fourth Amendment has served this nation well for 220 years, through many other perils.”

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, set up to review wiretap applications in intelligence cases under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, “holds that the Constitution need not control the conduct of criminal surveillance in the United States,” Aiken wrote.

“In place of the Fourth Amendment, the people are expected to defer to the executive branch and its representation that it will authorize such surveillance only when appropriate.”

The government “is asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. The court declines to do so,” Aiken said.

Good for her. I won’t be surprised if the Justice Department appeals.

I don’t agree with Christopher Hitchens that “religion poisons everything,” but oh, my, Eric Sawyer gives Hitchens’ claim more ammunition.

The Des Moines Register has a new story today following up on the firing of Steve Bitterman from Southwestern Community College in Red Oak, Iowa. Bitterman claims that he was fired for teaching a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1–2 in his Western civlization course, but students say they complained about his brash teaching style. According to the Register:

But students in the class, which was transmitted to a classroom in Osceola over the state fiber-optic network, say Bitterman also told them to question their religious beliefs and at one point in the heated debate told one of the Osceola students, Kristen Fry, to “pop a Prozac.”

Now there are two completely separate issues here. Being outright rude to students isn’t a wise choice for a college professor to make, though I have to admit I’ve given in to the temptation on a few occasions when I was extremely frustated. A professor really shouldn’t be insulting students—or persons suffering from clinical depression—with remarks like the “Prozac” one. According to the Register, “Bitterman said the Prozac comment was a joke meant to disarm a student who ‘was screeching at me,’” but clearly it misfired (and how could it not?). Just the other day I read a post or article on this very topic—using “Prozac” (mutatis mutandis) jokes as insults—but I cannot now remember where. Whether Bitterman’s abrasiveness should be a firing offense, I don’t know, and really can’t assess at such great remove from the situation.

On the other matter, though—the complaint that Bitterman challenged students to question their prior beliefs—perhaps the best response comes from Stephen Colbert, responding to the complaints of Roger Williams University student Barry Lucier, who objected to watching An Inconvenient Truth as a class assignment:

Stephen: This savage attack on young minds brings us to tonight’s Word: Heated Debate. Folks, you know it, I know it, the left has a stranglehold on our universities. Professors are forcing our kids to submit to their pro-glacier agenda. But heroes like Barry aren’t taking it lying down.

[Video: Barry Lucier: This was forced upon me to watch something that I didn’t believe it.]

Stephen: Folks, at a “college” Barry was forced to think about something he didn’t already think. When you confront young people with information that doesn’t jibe with what they already believe they can get confused, or even worse, bitter.

{Video: Neil Cavuto: Are you bitter?
Barry Lucier: Uh, a little.]

Stephen: Of course he’s bitter! He’s enrolled in a class where the professor thinks he knows more about the subject than the students! (Boss Tweed) Last time I checked that is the definition of elitism. (Stephen has never checked) Hey, I’m no scientist but I thought there were supposed to be two sides to every story. (Mine & wrong) Sure there’s a vast consensus on global warming science, but doesn’t the opposing five percent deserve 50% of the time. (Fair & balanced) In this core science class he probably got a syllabus full of “convention wisdom.” For instance they probably also told him the Earth revolves around the sun. (Actually revolves around Stephen) This is a relatively new and untested theory that’s only been around for 500 years. (Barely longer than Law & Order) But of course the Copernicus crowd doesn’t even mention Ptolemy’s view that the Earth is the center of the universe even though that theory has been around for 1900 years. (Ptake that!) It is 1400 years truer! But these days college is all about silencing the dissenters, it’s no longer a place to raise your hand, offer your minority viewpoint and have healthy and informed debate. (That’s Hannity and Colmes) The Barry Luciers of the world are entering a minefield of knowledge. Who knows what destructive information they’ll be confronted with next. (Student loan bill) That’s why all colleges should be forced to advertise every element of their curriculum so students are guaranteed that when the leave college they’ll be exactly the same as when they went in. (Give or take $160,000) That folks, is what I believe college is for. You take these unformed lumps of clay, leave them unformed lumps, then fire them in the kiln of unchallenged thought so they become rigid and never move again. That’s how you get well educated like Barry.

[Video: Neil Cavuto: What was your grade?
Barry Lucier: My grade was well.]

Stephen: See? His grade was well. Now he make double plus think despite unwell school. Let’s just hope our future generations can do the same.

And that’s the Word. (reposted from College Freedom, warts and all)

The next part is kind of surreal. The “Prozac-targeted” student, Kristen Fry, told the Register:

“I talked to a lawyer and was told that what he was doing was illegal,” she said. “He was not allowed to be derogatory toward me for being a Christian. I told my adviser I would sue if I had to.”

Wait … did I read that right? A lawyer told her it was illegal for someone to insult her because of her religious beliefs, and moreover that it was actionable? When did that happen? It’s almost as if this were scripted to prove Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris right about the silliness of religious people thinking that religious views somehow get a “pass,” that one’s religious views are exempt from critical scrutiny or from the ridicule of others. No such legal protection exists. U.S. law protects its citizens from the imposition of a governmentally-chosen, governmentally-sponsored religion, and it protects its citizens from governmental restraint on the free exercise of religion. It does not grant religious citizens some sort of shield against criticism, even harshly insulting criticism. There are many things wrong with a professor insulting a student, but as far as I know, it isn’t a criminal offense.

Bitterman himself has tried to defend his style:

“Sometimes you say something outrageous just to see if you can provoke some discussion. … I can be a little acerbic at times, I don’t deny that,” he said. “I certainly take students’ viewpoints seriously in the sense that I encourage them to express it, and then I will challenge that viewpoint, regardless of what it is, to see how well they can back it up with reason and critical thought.

“Often, these students are essentially right out of high school and they take things so personally,” Bitterman said. “They really can’t distinguish between a critical assessment of their argument and an attack upon them personally.”

When I say outrageous things to provoke discussion, I usually preface it by saying, “I’m about to say something outrageous to provoke discussion.” When I’m trying to find out how well a student can back up a position with reason and critical thought, I will say something like “I’m really not trying to pick on you, Andrew, but I really want you to connect the dots for me” (loosely paraphrased from today’s “Faith & Reason” seminar). Maybe Bitterman would feel that this kind of self-referential voiceover would defeat the pedagogical purpose (if that’s the right phrase to use) of his abrasiveness, but then, maybe he would still have a job had he found less combative teaching techniques.

(P.S. Anybody else notice the synchronicitous linguistic irony in the students’ complaints against Steve Bitterman?)

From RealFootball365.com’s weekly “power rankings”:

15. San Diego Chargers (LW: 6; 1-2) - Where have you gone, Marty Schottenheimer? Bolts Nation turns its lonely eyes to you …

At least my other teams come in better:

6. Tennessee Titans (LW: 12; 2-1) - You can bet that those mocking Vince Young in April 2006 for his low pre-draft Wonderlic scores are the ones feeling stupid right now. Watching Young is like seeing a combination of John Elway, Fran Tarkenton and Joe Montana. He’s clutch, he’s mobile and he does nothing but win.

3. Dallas Cowboys (LW: 4; 3-0) - Although the Cowboys play in football’s weaker conference, there is no question that they could give any of the AFC’s elite a run for their money. There simply aren’t many — if any — poor areas on the roster, and if there are, they’re covered up by a tremendous offense and outstanding coaching staff.

Oh, how I’d love to see a Cowboys-Titans Super Bowl. But the Steelers and Patriots are going to make that really difficult.

I’ve previously blogged about the outrageous treatment of Richard Colling by the Olivet Nazarene administration, and of Steve Bitterman by the administration of Southwestern Community College in Red Oak, Iowa. Today’s Inside Higher Education reports a story that may be the mirror image of these.

Phil Mitchell, a longtime instructor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, claims that hostility toward his conservative religious and political views led to his contract not being renewed this year. Actually, Mitchell’s contract was terminated in 2005, but a storm of protests seems to have embarrassed CU into reversing that decision; Mitchell claims the 2007 non-renewal of his contract comes in retaliation for his protest against the 2005 non-renewal, and he attributes that non-renewal to religious and political bias against him. According to a report attributed to the American Association of University Professors (a group that is by no means composed of reactionary conservatives, but is dedicated to academic freedom), Mitchell had a significant history of receiving glowing teaching evaluations both from his students and from his peers. Here’s a clip from that report that illustrates just how odd this situation may be:

9. February 1, 2005. William Wei, the director of Sewall RAP, recommends Mitchell for a three-year reappointment. (There is no personnel committee in the Sewall RAP. All hiring and reappointment decisions are made by the director, pending the approval of the appropriate disciplinary unit and the Dean of Arts and Sciences.) Wei concludes his recommendation to Associate Dean Joyce Nielson by stating, “If an academic unit is lucky, it will have at least one Phil Mitchell on its faculty” (Attachment 4).

10. February 2005. Sewall Director William Wei calls Mitchell to express his regret that Mitchell has been terminated from the Sewall RAP because the History Department would no long longer “sign off” on his classes.

Wei tells Mitchell that he would be allowed to teach classes for one more year “and then no more.” According to the Colorado Daily, Dean Todd Gleeson told Wei that Mitchell was terminated for not teaching up to History Department standards and for preaching to students.

According to Mitchell, when he asks Wei what the History Department standards are that he has failed to meet, Wei tells Mitchell, “We don’t have any.”

The full report continues in this vein for quite a long stretch. If the AAUP’s report gives a fairly accurate view of the sequence of events, then the CU case seems to be one of targeting a colleague for firing because of ideological disagreements. CU faculty and officials seem to have gone to a lot of trouble to get rid of Phil Mitchell. It seems to be the opposite trajectory of what happened to Steve Bitterman, but (if the report is accurate) it’s just as outrageous.

Sci Fi Wire reports that Christian Bale and Brandon Routh, who played Batman and Superman (respectively) in Batman Begins and Superman Returns, and who are on deck to reprise those roles in The Dark Knight and The Man of Steel, will not play Batman and Superman in Warner Brothers’ planned Justice League live-action film, which the studio would like to release in 2009.

An e-circular advertising one of Christian Book Distributors‘ perennial “closeout sales” just landed in my inbox. This one is billed as a “closeout on academic resources.” I clicked through just because sometimes you can get good deals from CBD, though a lot of the stuff they sell doesn’t interest me at all, and in fact turns me off.

There’s some decent academic stuff in the closeout list, although many of the closeout items are the same items that were being “closed out” in the previous “closeout” sale. (How long do you have to keep stock on hand before it’s no longer a “closeout”?) For example, you can get Perrin’s Parable and Gospel for only $2.99 (or $2.84 if you buy 68 or more—I kid you not), or Alice Laffey’s The Pentateuch: A Liberation-Critical Reading for only $3.99, down from $21.00.

But … for some reason, CBD seems to think that books by Leith Anderson and T.D. Jakes are academic resources. Not even close. Whatever other redeeming qualities such books may or may not have, they’re not academic resources.

I suppose I shouldn’t complain too loudly. In the early days of iTankah, I included a bunch of links that were relevant but not really academic, just to get the site up and going. Lately I’ve been trying to expunge some of those “grandfathered” links, but I’m far from finished with that process. Still … if I didn’t know better, I’d expect better from a bookseller.

The Middle-Earth blog reports a rumor from the MTV Movie Blog that Cate Blanchett—who appeared as Galadriel in New Line Cinema’s three-part adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy—has expressed an interest in appearing in the studios planned feature film adaptation of The Hobbit. Orlando Bloom and Viggo Mortenson have also expressed similar interests.

Personally, I think it would be terribly distracting to see familiar faces in new roles. Galadriel, Legolas, and Aragorn don’t appear in The Hobbit, and seeing Orlando Bloom as the Elf-king or Viggo Mortenson as Bard would just feel really strange to me. Of course, I would love to see Ian McKellen as Gandalf and Hugo Weaving as Elrond again, and it wouldn’t be unthinkable for John Rhys-Davies to play Gimli’s father, Gloin. The rest of the bunch need to move on and get new gigs.