While We're at It, Let's Do Away with Spring Break, Too

Wow, it's been awhile.  My apologies to my loyal readers out there--all both of them--but things have been busy at Solipsist Central.  Nevertheless, I felt compelled to throw in my two cents on yesterday's major court ruling in California.

In case you missed it, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu declared the state's law granting public school teachers tenure after eighteen months of service unconstitutional, based on the idea that tenure protections deprive students--in particular lower-income and minority students--of the state-guaranteed right to a quality education:

“'All sides to this litigation agree that competent teachers are a critical, if not the most important, component of success of a child’s in-school educational experience,' Judge Treu wrote in his ruling. 'There is also no dispute that there are a significant number of grossly ineffective teachers currently active in California classrooms.'”

I, too, basically agree with that entire statement (although words and phrases like "significant number" and "ineffective" are so vague as to be meaningless).  Still, however, I reject the conclusion that, somehow, eliminating tenure protections will lead to a vast improvement in overall educational quality.

When the general public hears the word "tenure," they probably picture college professors: tweed-bedecked academics sipping brandy and pontificating on intellectual ephemera with little concern for or interest in the real world needs of the students they teach.  Those who brought this particular case see tenure as little more than a job-protection program for incompetent teachers.  And I will acknowledge that tenure laws do make it difficult to get rid of unsatisfactory teachers.  But people need to remember that the original idea behind tenure was not to protect the incompetent from some deserved termination, but rather to protect highly-qualified professionals from arbitrary punishment when they expressed unpopular ideas.  Is this, in fact, still a problem?  Consider that there are school boards in Kansas that discourage the teaching of evolution.  If you were a Kansas science teacher, would you be willing to discuss Darwin in a classroom--even as an alternative to creationist nonsense--unless you had some kind of tenure?

More to the point, though, What, exactly, do opponents of tenure expect will happen if they achieve their goals.  Let's say we could all agree on some objective definition of "incompetence," and that schools subsequently rid themselves of all their tenured-but-incompetent instructors.  What then?  Do you suppose there will be some sudden influx of brilliant, dedicated instructors rushing to fill these classes?  Do you think there is a vast pool of people dying to teach--if only this already poorly compensated profession would do away with one of the few perqs it offers?  Or would the remaining instructors--by definition those who are competent-to-excellent--simply be asked to do even more, take on more classes, teach more students--knowing that if they are unable to keep up with the ever-increasing demands, they, too, will be found incompetent and summarily replaced?

Sure, it should be easier to get rid of grossly incompetent teachers.  But in an underfunded, undervalued, overcrowded, and overburdened school system, teacher tenure is one of the least important "problems" to be tackling.

Who IS Gertrude Stein, Anyway?

Gertrude Stein once remarked that "to write is to live is to be."

Or not.  Actually, Gertrude Stein never said any such thing.  Or perhaps she did.  When I say Gertrude Stein never said any such thing I really mean that I myself have no evidence that Gertrude Stein ever said any such thing.  She certainly could have said such a thing.  I know only a small fraction of the things Gertrude Stein ever said--a very small fraction: I've never actually read anything by Gertrude Stein; the extent of my knowledge of her writings extends scarcely further than "A rose is a rose is a rose."  Which, when you think about it, makes only slightly more sense than my hypothetical remark above.

Gertrude Stein also wrote The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas, and for all I know that book might contain a sentence espousing the equivalence of writing and living and being.  I doubt it, but it's certainly possible. After all, Gertrude Stein presumably possessed a vocabulary that included all the words in my "quote," along with the linguistic ability to arrange those words in that same syntactical order. Maybe I'm wrong about her vocabulary.  She does not seem to have known, for example, what the word "autobiography" means.

The question, then, is this: If Gertrude Stein did, in fact, write a sentence that I assumed she did not write--that I presented merely as a way to add (fraudulent) gravitas to this post--then would what I did nevertheless be considered quotation?  And had I made the statement without stating that Gertrude Stein made the statement that I assumed she had not made, would my statement then be exhibit A in a case of plagiarism that would no doubt have amused Gertrude Stein immensely.  If she were into that sort of thing.  I don't know.  As I say, I've never read anything by Gertrude Stein.  I have no idea what would have amused her.

It's All about the Fundamentals

Tonight, the final game of the 2014 NCAA Women's Basketball Championship features an unprecedented matchup: The two teams, the University of Connecticut Lady Huskies and the Notre Dame Fighting Irish. . .Women. . . . The Harridans?  I don't know.  Where was I?

Oh, yeah.  The two teams both come into the final game undefeated!  They boast a combined record of something like 1,645-0.  This has never happened in the history of college basketball--men's or women's.  Incredibly impressive. . . . And yet.

How seriously can one take a sport where the head coach of one of the teams in the championship game is named Muffet McGraw?

Seriously.

Absurdity Du Jour

This is the world in which we live: Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, President Obama's nominee for surgeon general, faces major opposition in his quest for senate confirmation.  Not because he is unqualified, not because he is a bad doctor--not even because he has a funny name.  No, Dr. Murthy faces opposition because he holds radical views on gun control.  Or, at any rate, because he holds...views on gun control: You know, he has espoused those crazy, "fringe" ideas like limiting ammunition purchases or mandating safety training for gun owners.

This has the National Rifle Association up in arms (sorry), and promising to punish any senator (read: vulnerable Democratic senator) who has the temerity to support Dr. Murthy's nomination.  In response, the Obama administration is considering delaying the confirmation vote until after the midterm elections, or even withdrawing the nomination altogether.

Now, forget for the moment the fact that the surgeon general, whatever his personal opinions, has effectively zero authority over enacting or enforcing gun laws.  Focus instead on the apparent fact that, for the NRA, the only acceptable nominee for surgeon general would be one who believes that gun owners should not be required to know how to use their guns safely.

This is the world we're living in.

Senior Moments

As the NCAA basketball season winds down, and March marches inexorably toward madness, many colleges are hosting "Senior Nights" at ball games.  These games, typically the final home game of the regular season, offer fans the chance to honor and bid farewell to those players who will soon be graduating.  But these days, virtually all of the best players--those destined for NBA superstardom--leave college as underclassmen; many are "one and done" players, serving their obligatory (since an NBA rule change) freshman-year sentence in relatively luxurious serfdom at a major university, before declaring for the draft and reaping millions come June.  So, if you think about it--and I do--those seniors everyone is bidding adieu are almost inevitably not stars, not frontline players, not likely to grace the cover of Sports Illustrated or the back pages of your local tabloids any time soon.  They are talented, to be sure, but not quite talented enough to rise to the top tier of their field.  One cannot help but wonder--and perhaps worry a little--about how these young men and women will fare once they depart the cozy confines of their university gymnasia, as highly educated (we can only hope!) members of the common herd.

On the radio this morning, I heard a commercial for a well-known gecko-ridden auto insurance company, in which a prospective customer's "conscience" exhorted him to switch to this particular insurance company, on the grounds that doing so would save the consumer significant amounts of cash.  This is wrong!, I thought: The job of the conscience is to help us discern right from wrong, to provide us with moral and ethical guidance, not to serve as some sort of mental financial consultant.  The conscience is the Jiminy Cricket to our Pinocchio, the Watson to our Sherlock--or Wilson to our House, if you prefer.  Let our left brains sort through the minutiae of dollars and sense, but leave us our consciences to help us navigate the rocky shoals of soul-endangering temptation!  Do not cheapen this precious characteristic which may, it is no exaggeration to say, be the very thing that separates humanity from the baser inhabitants of our fallen world!  And then, in a flash, it hit me:  I am probably thinking much too hard about this.

The Solipsist Picks the Oscars (Yes, I Know!)

Sorry, sorry, sorry.  I know I'm a little late, but I didn't want to leave Solipsist Nation without its annual Oscar picks.  As usual, I have seen none of the nominate movies.  Nevertheless, through a combination of careful review of critical responses to the nominations, a statistical analysis of domestic and international box office results, and a cursory reading of this morning's paper, I am confident in my ability to predict winners.  To wit:

BEST PICTURE: Despite the overwhelmingly critical response to "American Hustle" and the popularity of "Gravity," I have to go with "Twelve Years a Slave," Steve McQueen's (no relation) epic tale of, I'm guessing, a guy who was a slave for twelve years.

BEST ACTOR: Matthew McConaughey (or, as John Travolta would say, Michael Mozaleen) deserves to win this award, as he is currently the best actor on television in what is currently the best show on television, "True Detective."  So I'm picking him.

BEST ACTRESS: Based on the fact that Cate Blanchett (Clark Brazent) has clearly garnered more votes than any of the other nominees, I suspect that she will beat out contenders like Amy Adams (Ahmed Ajams) and Meryl Streep (Marcel Speerce)--the latter of whom was not even IN a movie this year, but, you know, she's Meryl Streep, and, by law, she must be nominated.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Despite winning the award last night, Lupita Nyong'o (Louisa Reynzo--and you know you're in trouble when your Travoltafied name sounds MORE normal than your real one) will, I think, ultimately lose to June Squibb (Jude Smoith). This is my "upset special."

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Finally, Jared Leto (Jed Lopeez), having been named "Best Supporting Actor" last night, will win the award.  Next year, Leto will win "Best Actress"--have you seen that guy?  He's beautiful!