Professor Thomas Thibeault of East Georgia College of Swainsboro, Georgia, was fired, or suspended, or something, we’re not sure yet.  The administration can’t seem to make up its mind.  First he was told he was fired, then they said he was suspended with a committee deciding if termination was warranted.

What did he do you ask?  He was fired/suspended/we’re-not-sure-what for sexual harassment.

What did he do?  We don’t know, they won’t say.  Who did he do it too?  We don’t know, they won’t say.

He was fired and escorted off the property under threat of police using force.

Image via Wikipedia

So he has been banned from the campus, unsure if he is fired or suspended.  No charges have been filed.  No evidence has been presented.  No hearings undertaken.  No accuser to face.

Because it’s all a lie.  Because Professor Thomas Thibeault dared to be politically incorrect.  He dared to be politically incorrect in a sexual harassment training session.  Did he make an off color joke, grab a student, leer at someones boobies?  No.

He asked what provision was there for someone who was innocent, someone who was being either mistakenly or maliciously accused.

Tsk, tsk, Professor, you know that absolutely no one would ever lie about being sexually harassed.

Two days after asking that question he was fired.

University of Oregon

A student named Dan Lawton who was studying journalism at the University of Oregon noticed that of all his classes, he only had one conservative professor.  He mentioned this to that particular professor and was “warned” that he was stirring up trouble.

So he decided to conduct a little study, in which he found that out of 111 professors, only 2 were republicans.  He felt that such one-sidedness hurt the university and hurt the students.  Diversity after all.

He also wrote an article about it in the campus newspaper.

There was outrage.  Demands for apology.  Mockery and ridicule.  And the suggestion that if he wanted conservatism he go to school in the South.  Wow, what a bigoted remark from an enlightened professor.

St. Louis University

Conservative David Horowitz, originally one of the fathers of the New Left back in the 60s, has spoken at over 400 colleges and universities.  He was coming to St. Louis University to speak about Islamo-Facism awareness and civil rights.

But the school uninvited him.  They felt there would be no balance to the thoughts and ideas, no one to contradict the facts he would present, no one to mock him and his ideas to make sure the students understood what would happen to them if they harbored ideas like his.

Apparently diversity is only a good thing if it’s a particular type of diversity.

Who is Teaching in our Schools

Columbia University has just granted tenure to Joseph A. Massad.  The polite introduction would be to call this Arab Studies professor anti-Israeli.  But why dilute things, the left doesn’t.  Columbia brings a bigot on board.  Not only do they bring him on board, but they give him the unheard of dream of lifetime tenure.  Which by the way is against Columbias own rules.

Have we Forgotten Duke?

Where before the dust was even settled, faculty, in a show of leftist civil rights posted there own Desiderata regarding how they felt about the students who raped that poor woman.  Except it turned out to be a lie.

Right now the war is being waged in the schools.  Our children’s minds the battlefield.  They have shown that they will lie, attempt to personally and publicly destroy a person, conspire to put them at odds with the law, or in prison over trumped up charges.

What next, murder?

Mr. David Horowitz starts out in his chronicle “In Defense of Intellectual Diversity” that the bills purpose is to codify the tradition of “the almost 100-year-old tradition of academic freedom that the American Association of University Professors has established” and to “emphasize the value of “Intellectual diversity” also “to enumerate the rights of students to not be indoctrinated or otherwise assaulted by political propagandists in the classroom or any educational setting”.  What Mr. Horowitz is saying is that he created the “Academic Bill of Rights” to insure the whole truth of education and not just the imbued half by a biased point of view.

Mr. Horowitz states that there are critics that have accused his bill of being “another right-wing plot” to stack faculties with political conservatives by imposing hiring quotas.  Horowitz then goes on in the next paragraph to say “Nothing could be further from the truth. The actual intent of the Academic Bill of Rights is to remove partisan politics from the classroom. The bill that I’m proposing explicitly forbids political hiring or firing: “No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs.” The bill thus protects all faculty members – left-leaning critics of the war in Iraq as well as right-leaning proponents of it, for example – from being penalized for their political beliefs”.  By this he means that no one will be fired or hired due to their political partisanship because his bill prohibits that (it is also known as discrimination).  My question for him on this topic is: How will “Intellectual Diversity” be achieved when these bias teachers remain in that place of teaching if they still think the same and have those bias opinions?  How will you force them to change their way of thinking?  You will have to fire them because that is an installment in their brain and way of think.  You can’t take that away without taking away individuality and that sounds not only immoral but somewhat undemocratic.   

Mr. Horowitz declares that “By adopting the Academic Bill of Rights, an institution would recognize scholarship rather than ideology as an appropriate academic enterprise. It would strengthen educational values that have been eroded by the unwarranted intrusion of faculty members’ political views into the classroom.” This means that the teachers will be paid to teach the truth and not their own dirty bias opinions.  “That corrosive trend has caused some academics to focus merely on their own partisan agendas and to abandon their responsibilities as professional educators with obligations to students of all political persuasions. Such professors have lost sight of the vital distinction between education and indoctrination”, claims Mr. Horowitz. What he is saying in that last quote is that the teachers and professors have lost sight of what proper education really is and instead they are teaching their own opinions on the matter which is basically having a negative effect upon the students.

Mr. Horowitz listed the AAUP as one of the sources that he submitted his bill to for their rebuttal on it.  They stated that “the following protection for students is contained in the AAUP’s 1940 statement: “Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.”” Mr. Horowitz replied “Is there a college or university in America – including the University of Colorado – where at least one professor has not introduced controversial matter on the war in Iraq or the Bush White House in a class whose subject matter is not the war in Iraq, or international relations, or presidential administrations? Yet intrusion of such subject matter, in which the professor has no academic expertise, is a breach of professional responsibility and a violation of a student’s academic rights.”   Mr. Horowitz is essentially saying that all of these colleges and universities in Americahave adopted this statement by AAUP and there are no professors that have followed by it. What says that they won’t treat his bill the same way?  Does he plan to invade the teacher’s privacy to enforce it?  Once again those microphones in a professor’s office are starting to sound just a tad unconstitutional.

In His article ““Intellectual Diversity” The Trojan Horse of a Dark Design” he says for it is now generally believed that our colleges and universities are hotbeds of radicalism and pedagogical irresponsibility where dollars are wasted, nonsense is propagated, students are indoctrinated, religion is disrespected, and patriotism is scorned.”  What Mr. Fish means by this is that that he finds it hard to believe that these professors can do all of this wrong (nonsense is propagated, students are indoctrinated, religion is disrespected, and patriotism is scorned) and still be paid for doing their jobs appropriately.

Mr. Fish says that  “they’re doing it again, this time by taking a phrase that seems positively benign and even progressive (in a fuzzy-left way) and employing it as the Trojan horse of a dark design. That phrase is “intellectual diversity,” and the vehicle that is bringing it to the streets and coffee shops of your hometown is David Horowitz’s Academic Bill of Rights, which has been the basis of legislation introduced in Congress, has stirred some interest in a number of states, and has been the subject of editorials (both pro and con) in leading newspapers.” Mr. Fish is saying that Mr. Horowitz is taking this innocent bill and using it to manipulate universities.

In response to the topic of ideological criteria in Mr. Horowitz’s article Mr. Fish stated “It’s hard to see how anyone who believes (as I do) that academic work is distinctive in its aims and goals and that its distinctiveness must be protected from political pressures (either external or internal) could find anything to disagree with here. Everything follows from the statement that the pursuit of truth is a – I would say the – central purpose of the university. For the serious embrace of that purpose precludes deciding what the truth is in advance, or ruling out certain accounts of the truth before they have been given a hearing, or making evaluations of those accounts turn on the known or suspected political affiliations of those who present them.” Which in turn means that he agrees with Mr. Horowitz to an extent that these “truths” have been predetermined so that the students are not deprived of their education.

Some people say that that the line between the political and the academic is at times difficult to discern.  Mr. Fish says to keep these separate “the trick is to keep analysis from sliding into advocacy… it is nevertheless a line that can and must be drawn” and to draw this line, he “would go so far as to agree with Horowitz when he criticizes professors who put posters of partisan identification on their office doors and thus announce to the students who come for advice and consultation that they have entered a political space… But it is precisely because the pursuit of truth is the cardinal value of the academy that the value (if it is one) of intellectual diversity should be rejected.”  So Mr. Fish would criticize these partisan professors that cross over this “line that can and must be drawn” but, he would protect them by rejecting this “value of intellectual diversity”?

Horowitz lists among the purposes of a university “the teaching and general development of students to help them become creative individuals and productive citizens of a pluralistic society.” Mr. Fish replies with “Teaching, yes – it is my job to introduce students to new materials and equip them with new skills; but I haven’t the slightest idea of how to help students become creative individuals… it is decidedly not my job to produce citizens for a pluralistic society or for any other.”  Mr. Fish is saying that it is not his responsibility to be a mother and teach his students right and wrong. I agree with Mr. Fish because a university is an academic facility and “Citizen building is a legitimate democratic activity, but it is not an academic activity”.

In conclusion these two men do not agree on much other than the truth. Why not just let the truth stand? Why not leave it alone and let it work its self out? There are many truths to an argument but no middle truth therefore, these two men will never completely agree because they side with opposing truths.

When Aristotle begins to talk about “The Kinds Of Friendship” in Book VIII, his first claim is that “Friendship is a necessity.” (Page 200) This is an expansive assertion that requires a large amount of support, so he begins by dissecting his assertion and defining what friendship is precisely. In the process of defining friendship, it becomes clear that a more accurate approach might be to divide the term “friendship” into three classifications of relationships: those based on utility, those based on pleasure, and those based on goodness. By defining friendship in more specific terms, Aristotle is able to prove that in each case or definition of friendship the relationship is a necessity. (Aristotle, 2004)

In the case of a relationship based on utility, Aristotle comments that “sometimes they do not even like one another.” While this is characteristic of relationships based on utility, it is, perhaps, not characteristic of relationships based on pleasure. The fact that the members of the utility-based “friendship” do not like each other does not discount the fact that they may live in a symbiotic fashion that proves favorable to both parties involved. While the E. Coli living in the intestines of the human being may not enjoy reading a heartfelt poem from its host, it does reap the benefits of the ingested food. Oddly enough, Aristotle would classify this type of relationship as friendship, given his definition relating to utility.

Friendship based on pleasure is different, although not necessarily better, than friendship based on utility. In this type of relationship, the members typically like each other and are often “in love,” but they do not act in the personal interest of their partner unless it provides self-satisfaction in some way. This might be considered closer to a “perfect friendship” than a relationship based on utility in that the members do make each other happy in a pseudo-selfless manner. Aristotle also notes that this relationship is most common among the young, the same group that defines the meaning of sin, the same group that is destined to make errors and learn how to perfect their ways or else fail in the Darwinist world of adulthood.

Following his expository remarks on friendships based on utility and pleasure, Aristotle proceeds to assert that “Perfect friendship is based on goodness.” While the other two classifications of relationships are temporary and only last while the two members find some measure of happiness in the friendship, Aristotle says that “Friendship of this kind (based on goodness) is permanent.” While his statements are certainly true, it does not mean that there ever has been or ever will be a perfect friendship. In fact, given the axioms “nothing lasts forever” and “nothing is perfect,” from which a great deal of modern intuition stems, it seems impossible that any friendship is perfect or based entirely on goodness. However, by connecting friendship to utility, pleasure, and goodness, all of which are necessities in life, Aristotle shows that friendship is, indeed, a necessity.

After arriving at the conclusion that friendship is a necessity, it is important to expand to the larger implications that take hold in literature. For instance, in classifying the friendship between Dorian and Lord Henry in The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde, many issues begin to arise. To begin with, both characters do in fact utilize each other in many ways, but they do not both undergo changes. Only Dorian is affected by the friendship; Lord Henry remains a rather static character throughout the novel. On the other hand, they would certainly not fall into the same category as youths “falling in love” and using each other for pleasure. Given that their friendship is by no means perfect, or based on goodness, Aristotle’s classification system begins to falter a bit. However, it may have been the intention of the philosopher to create three broad categories that every friendship could step, but not stand, in. The relationship between Lord Henry and Dorian has elements of all three types and thus cannot be definitively assigned to one category. (Wilde, 2000)

Dorian’s relationship with Basil differs from his relationship with Lord Henry in several notable ways. First and foremost, Dorian fills, on many levels, the role of deity for Basil. On many occasions, Basil begged, almost in the fashion of a prayer, for Dorian to sit as a model. Aristotle dignifies the claim that friendship can exist between a superior and his inferior, but the relationship between Dorian and Basil cannot reasonably be called a ruler-to-subject or father-to-son relationship. Upon further inspection of their interactions, which primarily gravitate towards Basil’s praise of Dorian’s youth, it seems clear that Basil with Lord Henry for Dorian’s attention. Much in the same way that young boys vie for the affection of the Popular Daughter (P.D.) at dances, according to Amory Blaine from This Side of Paradise by F. Scott Fitzgerald, Basil feels the need to show his muscles to Dorian by producing a painting that Lord Henry would never be able to rival. However, despite the strongest efforts on Basil’s part, on the P.D.-chaser’s part, passion leads to demise and the flexing of Basil’s muscles of skill leads to his death. The fact that their relationship ends in this manner might seem to signify that it was based on pleasure or utility. It is an interesting point that sometimes it is not actually the pleasure or the utility that drives the relationship, but rather the pursuit of pleasure and/or utility. Basil, in pursuing one or both of these goals in his relationship with Dorian, shows the reader that his “friendship” is highly imperfect and Aristotle’s classifications are accurate. (Fitzgerald, 1995)

Later in Book VIII, Aristotle asserts that “In friendship loving is more important than being loved.” This acts, in many ways, as a corollary to his conclusion that perfect friendships are based on goodness. It makes sense that giving more than you take will result in a surplus in the supply of your material, which is affection in this case. One might ask if Basil is simply trying to give more than he takes in his relationship with Dorian, but then the border between passion and obsession begins to come into question. Is “love” in its purest form closer to passion or obsession? Is there a difference between the two? Perhaps not; perhaps they simply manifest the emotions of an ambiguously motivated man blindly chasing his dreams through an unknown field in a strange land.

On the topic of passion and obsession with regard to friendship, Rosalind in Shakespeare’s As You Like It introduces an interesting point. By disguising herself as Ganymede, her character asks the audience if her actions should be seen as ones of passion or ones of obsession. It is important to realize that while her aesthetic of love and friendship may not be in accordance with that of Aristotle, she carries out her actions with a sense of cautiousness rather than one of self-serving obsession. In the same way that questioning one’s faith in a deity might be considered a means of strengthening one’s faith, questioning the feelings of one’s friend does not necessarily imply distrust. (Shakespeare, 2000)

On a related note, Aristotle makes an important point about breaking contracts or promises in a friendship. While this might have a relatively small range of effects in a relationship based on goodness, the ramifications would be much more serious in a relationship based on pleasure or utility. For instance, in Amory’s relationship with Myra St. Claire, they both use each other to explore their own curious fantasies. As a result, when Amory backs out after the first kiss, Myra is hurt and the relationship quickly crumbles. While it is arguable that no contract or promise was involved in this situation, it is true that many people assume certain things without verbally discussing them. Myra may have assumed that they would continue down the path they were headed, and when Amory disrupted the situation, she felt that he had violated their unspoken contract. The main point of this example is that strong relationships, or those based primarily on goodness, can survive a certain degree of contractual violation, while relationships based on pleasure or utility cannot.

Later in Book IX, Aristotle talks about the “Grounds for dissolving friendship.” He says that the primary reason for ending a friendship should be deception, for there is little that is harsher than discovering that one is not truly loved. This is an interesting point because all relationships based on pleasure or utility are essentially manifestations of self-serving deception. An important conclusion to draw from this line of reasoning is that acting in a fashion that discourages deception brings one closer to a “perfect” relationship. Is it safe, then, to say that because Rosalind deceives Orlando their relationship is not based on goodness? In analyzing this particular relationship, it is important to take into account the fact that no relationship is perfect, and deception occurs, on some level, in every friendship. Following this train of logic, it seems fair to give Rosalind and Orlando the benefit of the doubt with regards to the “goodness” endowed in their relationship.

Another one of Aristotle’s intriguing assertions is that one’s feelings towards one’s friends reflect one’s feelings towards oneself. This is interesting in considering the relationship between Prometheus, from Aeschylus’s Prometheus Bound, and the human race. Because Prometheus sees much of himself in the human race, and because he sees himself as perfect, it is clear that his feelings towards his human friends are artificially heightened by his own ego. Going back to Fitzgerald’s This Side of Paradise, the relationship between Amory and Clara follows a similar pattern. Clara sees Amory as young and “clever,” which allows for a strong friendship, but she realizes that the cautiousness and youth she perceives in Amory’s passion are responsible for her feelings against marriage. Clara has already abandoned the idea of marriage by the time that Amory’s inquisitiveness shows through his emotional curtain and he asks simply “Do you like me?” (Page 134) She sees much of Amory’s longing in herself, but her experience has led her to see past the superficial deception of what she once called love. Aristotle’s concept of inflective perceptions is strongly rooted in a great deal of literature, almost in a monomythic fashion. The application of Aristotelian ideas to literary characters often reveals deep truths about life, particularly on the topic of friendship. (Aeschylus, 1999)

Later in Book IX, Aristotle talks about the difference between good will and friendship. One of his key statements is “Thus goodwill seems to be the beginning of friendship, just as the pleasure of seeing a person in the beginning of love; for nobody falls in love without first feeling pleasure at the person’s appearance, although enjoying the sight of a person does not make one in love; it is love when one longs for somebody who is absent, and desires that person’s presence.” (Page 238) Lord Henry, from The Picture of Dorian Gray, expresses a related idea when he talks about how caprices last longer than long-term relationships. Just as the parallel between a caprice and an act of good will is found in the instantaneous passion that inspires such actions, the parallel between love and long-term relationships is found in the deeply rooted devotion to another person.

Although Aristotle’s comments regarding self-love are relevant to many works of literature, they are particularly applicable to The Picture of Dorian Gray. After seeing his own marvelous beauty in Basil’s portrait, Dorian is led to a state of self-loving that is only encouraged by Lord Henry’s influence. However, following the provisions of Lord Henry’s aesthetic on pleasure, Dorian changes into someone that he cannot even bare to look at. Aristotle says that self-love is acceptable, although “not in the sense in which most people are self-loving.” (Page 246) The latter clause would be Aristotle’s grounds for dismissing the righteousness of Dorian’s self-love. Aristotle says that self-love is generally only acceptable when a man is setting a good example, which Dorian is clearly not. In fact, many people with whom Dorian was previously associated turned into immoral wrecks. In summary, self-love in friendship must be weighed against the promotion of one’s own self-interests.

At the end of Book IX, Aristotle comments that “everyone wishes to share with his friends the occupation (whatever it is) that constitutes his existence, or makes life worth living.” (Page 253) While this is, as Aristotle points out, applicable to scenes at bars and casinos, it is also applicable to the situation of the monster in Frankenstein. The monster does not have a day job, but his occupation with his own thoughts and emotions leads him to want a companion. This desire drives the plot and serves as motivation for actions that lead up to the climax of the novel. The monster’s actions stand in accordance with Aristotle’s aesthetic on friendship and are a prime example of the manner in which the philosopher’s theories take effect in literature. (Shelley, 2004)

Aristotle’s treatise on friendship has become an axiomatic driving force in the philosophical world and has ramifications that are clear in literature from many periods of time. His arguments are expansive and applicable to controversial questions in many fields. In works such as The Picture of Dorian Gray, by Oscar Wile, Prometheus Bound, by Aeschylus, Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, and This Side of Paradise, by F. Scott Fitzgerald, and As You Like It, by William Shakespeare, the philosopher’s ideas come into play both in terms of plot and exposition. The classifications and descriptions of the different types of friendship are remarkable in terms of their depth and application. By writing his revolutionary treatise on friendship, Aristotle left a lasting impression on the way that people would see relationships for centuries to come.

Works Cited

Aeschylus. Prometheus Bound. Trans. William Matthews. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999.

Aristotle.  Nichomachean Ethics.  Trans. J.A.K. Thompson.  London: Penguin Books, 2004.

Fitzgerald, F. Scott. This Side of Paradise. New York: Scribner, 1995.

Shakespeare, William. As You Like It. New York: Penguin Putnam Inc., 2000.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. New York: Kaplan, 2004.

Wilde, Oscar. The Picture of Dorian Gray. London: Penguin Group, 2000.

In a radical departure from the British system of government, the writers of the Articles of Confederation adopted a unicameral legislature. The national problems such as settlement and diplomacy soon alerted the government that amendments needed to be instated. Following the failure at Annapolis in 1786, it was becoming clear that perhaps an entirely new system of government would be necessary in order to fix the existing crises. The idea of returning to a bicameral legislature became connected to the new reform movements, along with the ideas of a balance of power and checks and balances. The shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation led the struggle for a new document that would allow more flexibility in the government.

Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had very limited power. Coming from a government that was seen as tyrannical, the Americans were more than hesitant to give Congress any taxing powers. Congress was not able to tax or borrow money, which caused many economic problems when imports became cheap and hurt domestic products. These problems, along with Shays’ Rebellion, led Madison and others to realize that more economic weight must be given to the national government, which was one of the reasons for convening the Constitutional Congress in 1787. In Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, Congress was given the power to collect taxes and duties, which was a manifestation of these economic grievances. Although the Articles of Confederation did not give Congress the authority to take necessary economic actions, they did serve as a launching pad for beneficial reassessments. (Brinkley, 2007)

Another key problem under the Articles of Confederation was the lack of an executive branch. With no powerhouse to enforce the laws, there was little regulation of laws that were passed. Having deserted the English model of government, the writers of the Articles of Confederation believed that a weak central government was best. However, with no power to adhere to the terms of the Treaty of Paris of 1783, Congress suffered under the Articles of Confederation. The failures that resulted from this structure of government drove reformists such as Madison and Hamilton to convene the Annapolis Convention in 1786 and later the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

In the Articles of Confederation, the power of the states was elevated over the power of the national government. The smaller states were given equal representation in Congress, irrespective of their populations. The fact that laws must be unanimously agreed to in order to pass made it difficult to change the status quo. While this solidity left Madison and Hamilton hopeless at the Annapolis Convention in 1786, it had another function the next year. By forcing the attendants of the Constitutional Convention to either commit extralegal actions to change the system or disperse in failure, the terms of interstate unanimity in the Articles of Confederation indirectly aided the progress and creation of the Constitution.

While many aspects of the Articles of Confederation were strongly despised by the 55 men who met in 1787 in the Philadelphia State House, there were some strong points that carried over to the Constitution. For instance, the interstate relationships that were enforced with the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution had a direct precursor in Article IV of the Articles of Confederation. Additionally, the ability of Congress to declare war originated in Article IX of the Articles of Confederation. Many such facets were carried over to the Constitution, and thus the Articles of Confederation served as a necessary model for basic structure of government. (Mount, 2006)

From 1781 to 1787, problems were beginning to arise in many areas of national concern, including the economy and westward expansion. These issues stemmed primarily from the fact that the creators of the Articles of Confederation were strongly driven by a desire to depart from the confines of centralized government, and thus adopted a system that empowered the states. While it would appear that this was a step backwards, it was actually a learning process that drove national leaders to later convene in Philadelphia and ultimately write the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation were a necessary step in the progression from colonialism to democracy as it is known today.