My A.T. Still University Experience : liberty

Blogging Is Not A Crime

SteveFoerster — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:10:00 GMT

“I am down to earth Law student; I look forward to help humanity against all form of discriminations… I am looking forward to open up my own human rights activists Law firm, which will include other lawyers who share the same views. Our main goal is to defend the rights of Muslim and Arabic women against all form of discrimination and to stop violent crimes committed on a daily basis in these countries.” — Kareem Amer

Today's image is of me, although you're spared yet another shot of my ugly mug in favor of the message I was conveying. As a blogger, I'm glad that I can write about just about any topic without much fear of recrimination from the government where I live. Now, it so happens that I usually write about educational topics, which aren't likely to be that controversial, but the principle is the same.

So when I heard about Kareem Amer, I felt like I ought to do something. This photo is of me at a protest in front of the Egyptian embassy in Washington, D.C. earlier today, organized by groups that support the immediate release of Kareem Amer from his prison cell in Egypt.

So, who is this guy anyway and why is he in jail? Abdul Kareem Nabeel Suleiman, better known by his blogging name of Kareem Amer, is a blogger from Alexandria, Egypt, where he was a law student who expressed his opinion as many people do, through a blog. What he said riled those in power in Egypt, however, as he wrote things critical of both Islam and of Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak. Eventually Mubarak's people figured out who he was and he was rounded up and sent to jail, so far for 1,096 days.

Now, I actually read a bit of what Kareem wrote, albeit in translation, and no, it's not exactly flattering to Islam. If that were my faith, then I probably wouldn't like him very much either. But there are a number of passages in the Qur'an that seem clear to me about whether being an unbeliever should be a crime, such as:

Allah says: “If it had been your Lord’s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?” — Sûrah Yûnus: 99

So while I'll be the first to admit that this is not my area of expertise, to me jailing Kareem for writing unflattering things about Islam seems not to defend the faith, but rather entirely un-Islamic. Besides, it looks to me like the real reason Kareem's behind bars is not anything he said about Islam, although that was used as an excuse. Let's be real here: The reason Kareem is in prison is that he stood up to the heavy-handed state of Hosni Mubarak.

I don't know whether I would be that brave, were I in Egypt. But I can at least say that as a fellow blogger I support Kareem's freedom of speech and hope that he's released.

Next up, high hopes in the Middle Kingdom.

Add to:

Happy Belated Birthday, Mahatma Gandhi

SteveFoerster — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:23:00 GMT

“I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and Non-violence are as old as the hills. All I have done is to try experiments in both on as vast a scale as I could.” — Mohandas K. Gandhi

The second of October was the 140th birthday of Mahatma Gandhi, best known for leading India in its nonviolent campaign of resistance to British rule and to the independence of modern India, and for promoting the principles of ahimsa, or nonviolence, and satyagraha, or nonviolent resistance to oppression. He is revered as a national hero in India, and has had profound influence internationally as well, for example, his writings and tactics inspired Martin Luther King, Jr. during the American civil rights movement. His birthday is observed in India as Gandhi Jayanti, and is recognized worldwide as International Day of Non-Violence. And while he never received the Nobel peace prize, it is widely understood that the reason the prize was not awarded in 1948 was that it is not awarded posthumously and Gandhi had been assassinated before his selection could be announced.

Gandhi resonates with me because he understood that one cannot be truly committed to nonviolence without also being a stict vegetarian. It's not that animals should have the right to vote, or are the equal of people, and I don't see any reason why well-treated animals shouldn't be used for things like plowing, horseback riding, etc. (although there are some animal rights activists who disagree). But all of the research I've done for my dissertation has reaffirmed that there's no nutritional need for animal products, even for kids, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and others with more delicate nutritional needs. Given the lack of need, meat is nothing more than a lifestyle choice — and it's a choice of violence.

I also appreciate Gandhi for being a philosophical anarchist. He thought that the less government there was the better, hoping that people could become sufficiently enlightened to resolve conflicts nonviolently on their own, making government unnecessary. While he was famously opposed to the partition of India into Hindu and Muslim countries, he preferred largely autonomous communities to gigantic bureacracies. He had experienced firsthand the power of government to oppress, and did not wish that India would followin that tradition. I find that this too is an inspiring political philosophy, and while realization of it may seem far away, one cannot progress toward a destination, even a distant one, without knowing what it is.

To tie all of this back to my A.T. Still experience, ultimately these beliefs tipped tha balance on why I chose that institution. I was pretty firm when it came to my ethical motivation, but I wanted to be a bit stronger when it came to the health aspect of things. ATSU gave me the leeway I needed to incorporate that unusual interest within their program.

I only wish it weren't so unusual. Anyway, happy belated birthday, Bapu!

Tomorrow I'll explain what took me so long to get this particular entry online, but to give you a hint, I have come to dislike my local phone company, but the real enemy are the squirrels.

Add to:

If It Isn't Broken, Don't Fix It

SteveFoerster — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:45:00 GMT

“Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!” — Dr. Peter Venkman, Ghostbusters

About two years ago, a funny thing happened in California. I know, crazy things happen there all the time, but this one was a very unusual occurrence in the recent history of higher education. What happened was that the authorization and funding stopped for the state agency that oversees higher education, and as a result it ceased to exist.

To explain what this means, I should explain that colleges and universities in the U.S. are typically approved to operate by the state or territory where they exist, and then, on top of that, most are also accredited by a private accrediting organization. When we talk about regional accreditors, or national accreditors, or accrediting bodies recognized by CHEA and/or the U.S. Department of Education, we're talking about private organizations that schools don't usually legally have to go to for approval just to operate. It's the first step, that state license, that's the legal basis for operating and for awarding degrees.

Anyway, so two years ago there stopped being any state oversight of most kinds of higher education in California. This makes it the only place in the U.S. where it's perfectly okay for anyone to just open a school, just like that. No permission, no paperwork, no red tape, just a willingness to put together a curriculum and make it available to students. This has horrified a number of observers who cannot imagine a world in which schools for grownups can operate without state oversight. They have been waiting to see whether California would create a new oversight agency, and while there was a bill to that effect in the state legislature, it seems to have been placed on indefinite hold.

The objections raised here mostly center on how easy it is to set up a degree mill when there's no state agency stopping you. No one likes degree mills, and I'm no exception. But stopping them through state oversight is a tiresome game of whack-a-mole that can't ever truly be won, and with fifty states with varying requirements it's difficult to say what state approval really means anyway. It makes more sense for students, employers, and other interested parties to be responsible, and check on their own to see whether a school has the academic reputation that meets their needs. If one is looking for accredited schools, for example, it's trivially easy to check with CHEA to see whether a school is regionally or nationally accredited: click here if you want to see for yourself. Or, even better, one can consult with services like eLearners where all the listed schools are accredited.

One of the things that gets me are the dire predictions that California is becoming the go-to place for degree mills to set up shop, and that this will damage the state's reputation. But there's been no oversight for two years now, and no one is saying, "There's no way I'd go to Stanford — it's in California, where they have all those fake schools!" In fact, despite how much time has passed I haven't heard of a tsunami of degree mills arriving there yet.

Some might ask, if every other state requires licensing of higher education, and California used to do it, then what's the harm if they start it back up? There are two things to consider. One is that a state agency is never free. Californians, already notoriously overtaxed, would have to spend money on this either through general taxation or through fees. The other is that by letting people act freely California now has an environment where small scale educational entrepreneurs can safely set up small niche schools that meet the needs of only a few students.

There's a saying that if something isn't broken, don't fix it. Right now the system in California is not to have a system, and it doesn't seem broken. Hopefully they won't fix it any time soon.

Next up, my family starts moving to using free software.

Add to:

The New Enemies List

SteveFoerster — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:55:00 GMT

“Don't suspect a friend: Report him!” — Terry Gilliam's Brazil

I don't belong to a political party, and don't normally want to blog about politics. While I'm doing so today I don't plan to make a habit of it, after all, with all the studying I have to do usually I don't have time! But something's happened that calls for a rare exception. On the blog at whitehouse.gov, the web site of a president who claimed in his victory speech on Election Night less than a year ago that he would represent all Americans including those who had not supported his candidacy, it says the following:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

There is something incredibly unsettling to me about an administration that calls for people to forward them material that opposes one of their initiatives. I mean, since when is it the job of the White House to track anyone and everyone who opposes its policies? The questions this raises are many. Does no one in the White House remember that many people who supported Obama did so because he claimed to represent change from *** "So?" Cheney's approach to dissent? Is it really appropriate for the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives to refer to those who disagree with her plan to further nationalize healthcare as un-American? Is that the change we were supposed to believe in?

Ultimately, as different as Bush and Obama may seem as individuals, the fundamental problem has remained the same. Under Bush, those in Washington had far too much political power and control over resources. The Obama Administration has demonstrated that it is no different in its will to hold the power over others. Power attracts those with the will to use it, meaning the problem is not who wields power, the problem is that there is so much power for them to wield. Until the power of Washington is diminished, starting with dramatic decentralization, we can sadly expect nothing but more of the same no matter who sits in the Oval Office, no matter what their intentions. This can't happen so long as people look to Washington for solutions rather than to themselves as individuals. Simply put, we must stop believing in change, and start believing in ourselves.

Next up, another job change.

Add to:

Shout out to the librarians

SteveFoerster — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:45:00 GMT

“Mary Kay is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian. They control information. Don't ever piss one off.” — Spider Robinson, The Callahan Touch

Tomorrow, April 14th, is National Library Workers Day, part of National Library Week. As I've posted before, I've made very good use of the library in the university where I work, since I can find my textbooks through our local consortium and I can check them out and renew them throughout the term rather than buy them. In fact, the library where I work is so useful that I have yet to even try to use the one at A.T. Still University. And they've been as helpful for finding books as they have for finding things online.

I suppose I may as well also offer sort of a confession here, that I'm not always great at getting books back up to the circulation desk when I am supposed to. I appreciate that they're so forgiving about it, although there's not much to be done about the fines from other schools when I've borrowed one of their volumes through the consortium. I suppose I'm part of the problem that Anatole France meant when he wrote, "Never lend books, for no one ever returns them; the only books I have in my library are books that other folks have lent me." But I'm trying, and at least the librarians tell me I'm in good company!

That out of the way, I'd also like to express my appreciation for librarians as defenders of civil liberties and access to information. When the PATRIOT Act was enacted and contained a provision saying that Uncle Sam might want to review what library patrons had checked out, many librarians were quick to say they would not comply. And Banned Books Week, a time to celebrate everyone's access to knowledge, is the sort of holiday that could only be devised by people with my kind of attitude towards censorship. So thanks librarians, and keep up the good work!

Next up, we meet Dr. Mac.

Add to: