Rational Radical

Ryerson University was in the news last week after a student faced expulsion for calling himself the admin of a Facebook “Study Group.” The news coverage was nearly comical in its portrayal of the incident–namely, it demonstrated how so many people can think in only Black and White terms. Yet, in the end, I think the university arrived at a proper decision.

Let’s look at the facts and see if some people can learn how not to let their emotions over-ride their logic:

1) The Facebook Group was created to work on an assignment that students were specifically and explicitly instructed to work on individually. Hence, the group’s activities were in violation of that rule. Therefore, anyone participating in that group could technically have been charged with Academic Misconduct.

2) Yes, this group is the same as so many “live” (i.e., in-person or face-to-face) study groups in every university. That has been the Facebook Group’s defence since day 1, and what so many students have complained about when questioning why the online group was being nailed. However, if such a “live” study group were caught working on a the same kind of assignment–again, it was to be done individually–they would be just as guilty of cheating as anyone on the Facebook Group and would thus face the same consequences.

3) Re-read the first two points again and realize that there is a huge difference between studying together and doing an assignment together that is supposed to be done INDIVIDUALLY. Whether you get busted in person or online is irrelevant. In this case, it is still cheating, just as if you were to look at someone’s test during an exam. The irony is that some students think professors are Luddites (technological idiots or technophobes) when it comes to the internet, yet it is the very same technology that got the current student in trouble. Simply put, he got busted for CHEATING; it doesn’t matter HOW/WHERE he got busted.

4) Even if one argues that students work together on assignments all the time–despite the fact that this particular assignment was supposed to be done individually–and even if one argues that students should work together to learn from each other to better understand concepts covered in the course (a statement with which I agree), the fact is that the Facebook site stated “POST YOUR SOLUTIONS HERE.” THAT is the smoking gun. There is no ambiguity there. Case closed.

5) Anyone who cannot understand the point of 4)–i.e., the Facebook group asked students to post solutions, which is CHEATING–is either a) mentally defective, b) irrational/illogical/emotionally unstable, and/or c) “entitled” and believes that they/students should have the right to cheat. Whether anyone posted answers or not is irrelevant. The intent was there. If a student comes to an exam with the answers written on their hand and doesn’t get a chance to use them because the professor catches them first, that is still cheating. Get over it. Case closed.

6) Getting caught for trying to cheat online is not the same as having one’s personal life scrutinized by a university that happens to see a Facebook posting. These are two separate issues. The first one is pretty clear: I repeat–cheating is cheating, no matter where/how you do it. The second one is a murkier issue but needs to be treated separately. Don’t combine the two issues and pretend they are the same. That is the tactic of the mentally deficient and/or irrational/illogical/emotionally unstable. See the next point for the RATIONAL way to look at the second issue.

7) Students are worried about being scrutinized for their online postings, photos, etc. This is a really tricky issue and because it’s still relatively new, rules, guidelines and laws are being formulated and modified all the time now. Let’s take an example: A student is of legal age and gets drunk and takes some embarrassing pictures. Should the university hold that against the student? No. If the same thing happens in the student’s dorm room–university property–and it involves breaking some law or university policy, however, then the student CAN be held accountable. Think that’s unfair? Grow up. That’s how things work in the real world. See the next point.

8 ) For instance, suppose you call in sick one day and don’t go to work. The next day the boss sees your picture in the newspaper attending the hockey game that was playing during the day. The boss has the right to nail you. You got busted. Own up. Take responsibility. Now, if the game was later that night, it’s a grayer area because it’s possible that you rested and recovered during the day and felt good enough to attend the game afterwards. It may seem like a cheap lie/excuse in this case, but the boss has to use judgment and a number of other factors in making a decision. But the two cases are technically not the same and only Black and White thinkers (or mentally deficient and/or irrational/illogical/emotionally unstable) fail to see that. 

A good analogy would be, e.g., a student asking to miss an exam due to “illness,” yet a photo shows up on Facebook the same day/night of the exam showing the student to be partying at a club (and it’s clear that the date is the same as the exam).  Only “entitled” or delusional students would fail to realize that the professor has just as much right to give the student a 0 on the exam as if the prof had bumped into the student at the same event–provided they can prove the date is the same.  Bottom line is that students, professors, and university administrators are going to be dealing with many similar issues and need to do so rationally.

9) Notwithstanding the facts presented above, it was ridiculous to charge the ONE student for ALL of the other students’ membership in that Facebook group (147 charges), just because he was identified as the “administrator” of the group. Thankfully, this idiocy was reversed and the student will get a 0% on the assignment (and possibly 0% on other assignments) but will pass the course and will not get expelled. To me, this is a rational, fair and warranted decision (although I think the 0% on assignments should apply to only those done while the site was up, which I think is the decision).

10) The student apparently will need to attend a workshop on academic integrity. I think the vast majority of students need to take the same kind of workshop because too many students do not appreciate cheating for what it is. Trust me on this one: I know of what I speak. For any student who DOES appreciate cheating for what it is and is disgusted at recent students’ attitudes toward academic misconduct, good on you. You were likely raised properly by your parents. Many students were not, hence they think cheating is no big deal; when they get busted, they calmly ask, “What can we do to move beyond this?”  What idiotic parent instilled that kind of attitude in their kid?!

11) This student is NOT a hero. He is NOT a martyr. He is NOT standing up for other students’ rights. Let’s keep the hype and hyperbole down, people. Hell, he’s not even a revolutionary–he didn’t even set up the Facebook site. He’s simply a student who most likely (I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt) ignorantly got involved in academic misconduct (see above!). I do believe he didn’t think he was cheating or breaking any rules, but the fact is that he did get caught for cheating (see above!). All he’s doing now is trying to save his own skin. He and other students or student groups can try to spin this any way they want, but the fact is he’s simply trying to save his own skin. It’s (academic) survival. Simple.

I’ve been watching these two clowns since their show, Kenny Vs Spenny, began nearly five years ago (and I’ve been a fan of theirs for over 10 years since I saw their first movie, Pitch).  Now they have their own website–which I have to check out–that has outtakes of their program. Enjoy their craziness before too many imitators dilute the premise and its hilarity.

Kenny may be “pure evil,” but he cracks me up…The only disappointment was when the pair appeared on Tom Green’s new show. Kenny was trying far too hard and was not funny at all. Of course, Tom Green is another Canadian who was the ORIGINAL JACKASS (before Johnny Knoxville ever came on the scene, although Jackass cracks me up too–more so the movies than the program).

To follow up on this previous post regarding “The most hated family in America,” here is how Michael Moore dealt with Phelps a number of years ago on his The Awful Truth program; the preceding link takes you to a number of clips from his former show, and here is his other show before that, TV Nation (which I thought was much better than The Awful Truth); you may dislike Moore and/or his tactics and/or his skewed perspective on certain things, but he has exposed and brought a number of important issues to the mainstream’s attention. 

Evil.  Pure evil.

This link will take you to the Phelps family, who are so despicable that they protest and mock the funerals of gay individuals who have been murdered by disgusting bigots.  But that’s not enough for them.  They also do the same at the funerals of US soldiers killed overseas.

There are several ways of dealing with such monsters.  Here is one way.

And here is another way.

And then there is Keith Allen, an Australian celebrity and pretty funny guy (you may have seen him in Shallow Grave, as the dead body in the beginning), who did a special on this ugly family.  In it, and in this clip specifically (near the end), he reveals that the son of the most vocal scum of this clan (the evil Rev. Phelps’ daughter) has an illegitimate son–i.e., born out of wedlock.  I have no problem with that, but for people who preach as they do, can you say hypocrite?

Here is yet another story about LEGAL medications involved in the death of a child (although in this case, the boy, who supposedly had ADHD, was 15).

Of all the trends in psychology over the years, one of the more disturbing ones is the claim by some so-called researchers that parents do not exert any significant influence over their children.  This stance received perhaps the most attention when conveyed by a writer, Judith Harris, who claimed (to hugely summarize her book, The Nurture Assumption: Why children turn out the way they do (Harris, J. R., 1998)) that parents’ only real effects on their kids’ personality and social development is their genes and where they decide to live; the latter part has to do with her claim that peers have the biggest influence on kids, thus parents should try to ensure that they live in a place with “desirable” peers.

In Harris’ own words, “The parents decide which society to live in, which culture their children will grow up in, where they will go to school …Parents do not, however, have the power to influence the personality development of their children via the status system.”

I don’t know how many people actually read the book, but she and the book were reviewed by Malcolm Gladwell (of The Tipping Point and Blink fame) about 10 years ago in The New Yorker, which likely granted her greater exposure, as did the American Psychological Association’s coverage of her.  This link takes you to two letters to the APA criticizing them and the book; the third letter is written by Ms. Harris herself.

Here is another link criticizing Harris’ work and here is one more, which you might have to try to load several times, and yet another one, which actually refers to something else that I am very sympathetic about, given my own philosophy and experiences; but you can still read criticisms of Harris’ work in this site, which you may have to try to load a few times.

You can also read Ms. Harris’ responses to 10 questions about her theories (not just about the book) in this link.

Unlike most people engaged in such debates, I want both sides to be seen/heard so that people can formulate their own opinions.  And unlike most people engaged in such debates, I will not make apologies for people whose opinions I agree with.

I will tell you that my work and observations lead me personally to no other conclusion than parents have a huge influence on how their children interact with their environment, process things mentally and emotionally, and eventually develop into older children and then adults.  The process is not a “perfect science” and thus it is impossible to predict how parenting style ABC will make a particular child turn out; there are too many factors involved and humans are too complex for such a simple, reductionist approach.  And there is far too much evidence to ignore the impact of heredity as well.  But I have worked with too many people to ignore–as Harris does–the obvious influences parents do exert on their children’s development, both directly and indirectly.

Something that will become apparent on this site is that I cannot stress enough the fact that so many problems–big and small–that we see in society can be traced back to people’s early environments, usually their family background. Yes, sociocultural factors come into play. Yes, media can have an effect on people’s thoughts, norms, etc. Yes, our peers are a huge influence on what we do, especially in our teen years and for some people even into their 20’s and sometimes beyond.

But all of these and other factors get filtered through our self-concept, thoughts, feelings, schemas, beliefs, and physiological reactions that begin to develop from the day we’re born (and even before we leave our mother’s uterus in the case of physiological reactions). And most of these factors are greatly influenced by our direct and indirect interactions with our parents–and/or other early significant others–and our observations of how they interact with “the world.”

The only people who seem to ignore this reality are a) rabid Anti-Freudians (since he placed so much emphasis on the role of parents); b) parents who messed up their own kids–perhaps the most famous one being Judith Harris (check out this link to a related blog on my site); c) parents who are unable to take responsibility for their actions and would rather blame TV, schools, etc; and d) children of parents who messed them up but whose early harmful environments prevent them from being able to truly recognize what their parents did to them, for a variety of reasons.

To be clear, there are some cases in which the child/adult either starts out “bad” for whatever reasons (e.g., psychopaths who are born that way), or turns out “bad” due to reasons unrelated to their caregivers. Also, people have to appreciate that virtually ALL parents/caregivers “mess up” their kids because NOBODY IS PERFECT, thus THERE ARE NO PERFECT PARENTS. The question is how much the caregivers “mess up” their kids.

More on this issue can be found in the aforementioned blog on Judith Harris.

It just keeps on…(too many examples to print…here’s just one random sampling):

Psychiatrist testifies he prescribed three drugs at first session*
By James Clark (Southern Standard, McMinnville, Tennessee Feb 27, 2008)

Regardless of what killed Cheyenne Delp on June 26, 2004, she was a child under the influence of heavy medication the day she died. The medicine Cheyenne was prescribed was so powerful, she had to undergo an EKG to determine if her heart was healthy enough for her to take Imipramine, a heavy duty anti-depressant.

Dr. Saran Mudumbi, who said his specialty is child psychiatry, testified Monday that he prescribed the assortment of drugs for Cheyenne because her behavior was out of control, according to her guardian, Sherri Mathis. “She was aggressive to other children and was kicked out of school because of it,” said Dr. Mudumbi, who went on to contend Cheyenne suffered from paranoia, depression and anxiety. “She was thinking other people were against her, trying to get her.”

However, Dr. Mudumbi later admitted all the information he gathered about Cheyenne was provided by Mathis, or Cheyenne herself. Dr. Mudumbi indicated he tried to get other people involved in Cheyenne’s life to attend the appointments, but that never occurred. He said Mathis was the only person who accompanied Cheyenne to his office.

“I wanted to construct a total picture of how she’s doing,” said Dr. Mudumbi, who indicated school teachers and other family members would have been appropriate to bring. Dr. Mudumbi said Cheyenne had 13 visits to his office, the first on April 3, 2003, and the last on May 21, 2004, roughly one month before she died.

After her initial visit, Cheyenne was given three types of medication: Strattera (to control attention deficit disorder), Risperdal (to treat schizophrenia or severe depression), and Imipramine (to treat severe depression). After two weeks, on April 17, 2003, Dr. Mudumbi said he took Cheyenne off Strattera at the request of Mathis. He testified Mathis wasn’t satisfied with its effectiveness. So Dr. Mudumbi replaced Strattera with Tenex, the brand name for Guanfacine. He also doubled Cheyenne’s dose of Imipramine to 50 mg daily.

About three weeks later, on May 8, 2003, Dr. Mudumbi said Mathis still wasn’t satisfied with the medication. That’s when he added Seroquel to the mix. Along with Benadryl, which had already been prescribed to help with side effects of the other medicines, Cheyenne was taking five prescriptions daily in May 2003. At that time, she was 5 years old.

Special prosecutor Brian Holmgren questioned Dr. Mudumbi about all the medication. Dr. Mudumbi said he wouldn’t have prescribed so much without the input from Mathis. “I still would have prescribed the Tenex, but nothing else,” Dr. Mudumbi said.
Prescriptions drugs Cheyenne was taking
Here’s a list of the prescription medication Cheyenne Delp was taking at the time of her death, according to her psychiatrist Dr. Saran Mudumbi:
Imipramine
Risperdal
Guanfacine
Benadryl
Seroquel

If you think my previous post on medications was shocking, you might lose your lunch when you read that children as young as THREE years old are receiving seriously heavy psychiatric/psychotropic medication for BIPOLAR DISORDER (formerly called MANIC DEPRESSION)! (If you want to read more about mental disorders, please go to www.mentalhealth.com.)

I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised, since the most common treatment for Attention Deficit (HYPERACTIVITY) Disorder is to pump young kids full of SPEED/STIMULANTS (yes, that’s what Ritalin is).

If you follow links such as this one, you might interpret the title of this thread differently from how you may have first assumed its meaning. If you don’t want to read the entire story or watch the entire clip, here are some of the key quotes to keep you awake at night:

- “Rebecca [a three year-old] was eventually prescribed three medications to stabilize her mood: Seroquel, an anti-psychotic; Depakote, an anti-seizure drug; and Clonidine, a blood pressure medication…”

- “Dr. Kayoko Kifuji [the girl’s psychiatrist who also doped up her sister and brother]….diagnosed Rebecca after [her mother] said her daughter was - quote - “driving me crazy” and her mood switches within a minute. She would eventually prescribe the preschooler more than ten pills a day.”

- “Kifuji’s hospital [claimed]: “The care we provided was appropriate and within responsible professional standards,” and her lawyer has said she was just practicing mainstream psychiatry.”

- “It’s now estimated that nearly one million children like Rebecca Riley have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, or manic depression.”

It’s a sad, scary, disgusting world in which we live.

I would have used “testicles” rather than gall (bladder), as in “I can’t believe he had the balls to say that.” But testicles imply courage, and these cowards have none.

Namely, how dare the Federal Finance Minister of Canada, Jim Flaherty, say that Ontario is the last place in Canada to start a business because we aren’t cutting our business taxes aggressively enough? First, Ontario has some of the worst child poverty rates, despite two decades of the federal government’s promises to eradicate this problem. Yes, the Liberals have been repeating that blatant lie longer than the Conservatives, but the fact is that child poverty has reached unprecedented levels under both parties’ watch, during some of the greatest periods of prosperity.

Second, Flaherty was one of the architects of the destruction of both Ontario and Toronto, when he was a top dog in the most reviled provincial government of all time, Mike (the Blind Axe) Harris’ gang of no-goodniks. Ontario and Toronto still have not recovered from the incompetence, malfeasance, mean-spiritedness, divisiveness, poor planning, hypocrisy, and just plain evil of Harris’ “Common Sense Revolution.”

In a previous blog I alluded to George Orwell’s novel, Nineteen Eighty Four. Harris, Flaherty, et al. seemed more determined than most politicians to embrace the tenets of Orwell’s masterpiece. For instance, they named a piece of legislation that stripped tenants of most of their rights and removed rent controls under their “Tenant Protection Act.” They bastardized the term “Smart Growth” to describe their legislation that resulted in the devastation of the environment, including ecologically fragile areas that had previously been protected, as they whored themselves out to developers who engaged in wanton raping of nature with their reckless, poorly (if at all) planned expansion.

I could go on, but just thinking about all this crap makes the bile in me boil…