Colleges Out of Control : Walter E. Williams

And we are, if the democrats get elected, and as taxpayers have to shoulder the student debt of more then $1.4 trillion dollars, all the while these immoral and unethical progressive liberals run wild and free in our institutions of higher learning? Thank you Barack!

From a Course on Miley Cyrus to ‘Identity-Based Housing,’ Examples of Lunacy on College Campuses
Walter E. Williams / August 24, 2016    

As the fall semester begins, parents, students, taxpayers, and donors should be made aware of official college practices that should disgust us all. Hampshire College will offer some of its students what the school euphemistically calls “identity-based housing.” That’s segregated housing for students who—because of their race, culture, gender, or sexual orientation—have “historically experienced oppression.”

I’d bet the rent money that Hampshire College will not offer Jewish, Irish, Polish, Chinese, or Catholic students segregated housing. Because there is no group of people who have not faced oppression, Hampshire College is guilty of religious and ethnic discrimination in its housing segregation policy.  University of Connecticut administrators think more black men will graduate if they spend more time together. According to Campus Reform, they are building a new residence hall to facilitate just that.

Erik Hines, the faculty director for the program, said the learning community “is a space for African-American men to … come together and validate their experiences that they may have on campus. … It’s also a space where they can have conversation and also talk with individuals who come from the same background who share the same experience.”

By the way, Hampshire College and the University of Connecticut are not alone in promoting racially segregated student housing.

Then there’s an effort for racial segregation in classes. Moraine Valley Community College attempted it in a class titled “College: Changes, Challenges, Choices.” It mandated that some class sections be “limited to African-American students.” The college defended racially segregated classes by saying they make students “feel comfortable.” After facing massive national notoriety, the college just recently abandoned its racial segregation agenda.

For professors to use their classes to proselytize students—and for a college president to urge it—is gross academic dishonesty.

Suppose a student at Ripon College enrolls in a chemistry, math, or economics class. What do you think ought to be the subject matter? Zachariah Messitte, Ripon’s president, who is also a professor in the politics and government department, has encouraged fellow professors to disparage Donald Trump, arguing that it’s “fine” for professors to “acknowledge Trump’s narrow-minded rhetoric” in class, suggesting that Trump’s “bigotry” is a valid topic for most any course. For professors to use their classes to proselytize students—and for a college president to urge it—is gross academic dishonesty.

I’ve been a college professor for nearly a half-century. I challenge anyone to find a student who can say that anything other than microeconomic theory, with a bit of physics and biology thrown in now and then for good measure, was discussed in my class.

Adding to campus lunacy are classes such as “Lady Gaga and the Sociology of the Fame” at the University of South Carolina. Cornell University’s physical education department offers a class titled “Recreational Tree Climbing.” At Georgia State University, the English department offers a course called “Kayne vs. Everybody.”

At Tufts University’s Experimental College, one can take a class called “Demystifying the Hipster.” Skidmore College’s sociology department offers “The Sociology of Miley Cyrus: Race, Class, Gender and Media.” Frostburg State University’s physics department offers “The Science of Harry Potter,” where it examines some of the tale’s magic. Georgetown University offers “Philosophy and Star Trek,” arguing that “Star Trek is very philosophical,” and adding, “What better way, then, to learn philosophy, than to watch Star Trek, read philosophy, and hash it all out in class?”

That these and other nonsense classes exist may reflect several things. There is the notion of shared educational governance, wherein presidents and boards of trustees have little say-so about what passes for college education. The faculty runs the show. Students may be academic cripples and require such nonsense. Those are the most optimistic assessments. Or such academic nonsense may indeed reflect that presidents, academic administrators, faculty members, and students actually believe that such classes have academic merit.

College administrators like to keep campus barbarism under wraps. One of the best means to throttle their hideous agenda is for students to use their electronic devices to expose it to public scrutiny.

Walter Williams is a syndicated columnist, and his opinions do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Signal or The Heritage Foundation.
Distributed by Creators Syndicate

Government Mandates Waste : Can Legislators Find A Solution?

This is amazing - what seems such a simple solution to provide a level playing field, letting the free market work, I know it will become a point of contention for our legislators, which means nothing will get done. It's easier to do nothing then having to stand and deliver for common sense.

I remember, back in the day in Kansas, huge piles of grain that were left to rot.

But then why even think common sense should play a role in decision making. Little wonder then why our government is dysfunctional. A corruption of will and integrity.

How the Government Is Mandating Food Waste
Elayne Allen / Daren Bakst / @darenbakst / August 19, 2016    

The federal government forces certain fruit and vegetable (and nut) growers to limit the sale of their goods. Just ask tart cherry growers.

In July, a Michigan tart cherry farmer posted a photo on Facebook showing piles of his wasted cherries that will rot on the ground. He says 14 percent of his cherries are going to be wasted due to the Department of Agriculture’s tart cherry marketing order that limits the supply of tart cherries.
This summer isn’t the first time marketing orders have resulted in swaths of wasted tart cherries.

In 2009, 30 million pounds of cherries rotted on the ground, which is allegedly “enough to serve a cherry pie to every resident of Michigan, with 5 million pies left over.” The 30 million pounds of tart cherries restricted from that year constituted 65 percent of the market. Fruit and vegetable marketing orders are a relic of the New Deal, authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937.  These orders are supposed to stabilize prices for commodities.

Each individual order is initiated by industry and must be approved by a two-thirds vote of growers. Each order is enforced by the USDA and is binding upon the entire industry in the covered geographic area, regardless of whether an individual agricultural producer has supported it. Among other things, these orders authorize research and promotion of commodities, establish minimum quality standards, and sometimes limit supply through volume controls.

In practical terms, an industry uses the power and force of the government to compel everyone affected by the specific order to abide by the order’s legally enforceable regulations. In short, by using government to impose an order, industry members opt for government compulsion rather than private cooperation.

Some order provisions, such as attempts to manipulate the market through volume controls, would likely violate federal antitrust law absent government intervention. In those cases, the federal government has effectively created fruit and vegetable cartels and is blessing a form of price fixing.
Tart cherries are not the only recent example of the egregious nature of marketing orders, and, specifically, volume controls.

In 2015, the Supreme Court’s “raisin case” (Horne v. Department of Agriculture) involved marketing orders. In an 8-1 opinion, the court held that supply restrictions under the raisin marketing order, which forced raisin growers to turn over some of their raisins to the federal government, was a taking of private property requiring just compensation. Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who held that the government had not actually taken the raisins, explained in her dissent: “The Order may well be an outdated, and by some lights downright silly, regulation. It is also no doubt intrusive.”

Congress should repeal all fruit and vegetable marketing orders. At a minimum, it should eliminate these absurd volume controls that deprive individual growers of the freedom to sell their goods as they deem fit. Tart cherry growers shouldn’t have to limit the sale of their cherries. They shouldn’t be put in a position, due to government meddling, where they conclude their best option is simply to waste perfectly good cherries.

Getting rid of these volume controls should be noncontroversial; they are already becoming a thing of the past. There are currently 28 marketing orders. Ten marketing orders have authorized volume controls, but only two of them are active: tart cherries and spearmint oil.

Just because the number of volume controls is small doesn’t mean new ones won’t be added. Those marketing orders with authorized volume controls could quickly have active controls again. For example, supply restrictions under the raisin marketing order are still authorized, but they are not active, as of now. The USDA seems to suggest that these volume controls will be active again once they are amended.

These outdated volume controls need to be dumped, unlike tart cherries. Congress has a chance in the upcoming appropriations process to withhold funds from the USDA for the implementation and enforcement of any volume controls. Ultimately, Congress needs to amend the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. The time is ripe for congressional action.

The Ogbjma Legacy

Here is the legacy that Barack Ogbjma is leaving for the next president to fix.