Protests In Texas Against Private School Scholarships

An example of just how heated and bizarre attitudes about vouchers are was evident at a recent protest in Austin, Texas, decrying scholarships for private schools. What made the protest bizarre is that the scholarships that were being protested are financed completely by private funds.

Dr. James Leininger of San Antonio used $45 million of his own money to finance the CEO Horizon Scholarship Program in San Antonio. The program gives money to students who live in the low-income Edgewood School District.

According to the Associated Press about 800 to 1,100 students have participated in the program, though not all of those students have been accepted by private schools.

This is a horrifying development to some in Edgewood, especially teachers unions. Diana Herrera, president of the Edgewood Classroom Teachers Association, summed up the anti-voucher argument quite well saying, “I don’t care if the words are going to be tax credit, opportunity scholarship, parental choice. Vouchers by any name will not be accepted.” Parents will simply accept the state school of their choice and learn to like it — even if their kids don’t learn much else.

Edgewood Superintendent Noe Sauceda complained that the students who took the CEO Foundation scholarships took $2 to $4 million annually away from the district since state funding is predicated on student enrollment.

But as Mary Havel of the CEO Foundation pointed out, if there are fewer students then presumably the school district’s expenses should also be lower (which is why funding is linked to student enrollment in the first place).

Leininger and The CEO Foundation should be saluted for doing their best to help poor students route around the damaged stated educational system in Texas.

Source:

Voucher foes rally at Capitol. The Associated Press, February 22, 2001.

Police Make Arrests in UK Letter Bomb Campaign

Police in the United Kingdom recently made several arrests as part of their investigation into a series of letter bombs mailed to animal-related enterprises. A police spokesman said they had arrested a 26-year-old man, a 36-year-old man, and a 31-year-old woman as part of their investigation.

Police also managed to recover three bombs that had been prepared and were about to be sent to animal enterprises in the UK. The bombs were recovered and rendered inoperable by bomb disposal experts.

In all 11 business were targeted by the bombs which were packed with explosives and nails designed to cause injury to anyone opening the letters. Only five of the devices actually detonated, but three of those explosions resulted in serious injuries.

A six-year-old girl suffered leg wounds on New Year’s Eve from a bomb sent to her father. He was apparently targeted because he owns a pest control service. A farmer suffered facial injuries after he opened one of the bombs as well. The most serious injury, however, was to a female employee of an estate agency who suffered facial injuries that caused serious damage to one of her eyes.

Hopefully police have discovered all those responsible and a dangerous terrorist cell has been taken out of circulation.

Sources:

Police arrest three after letter-bomb campaign. Andrew Walker, The Scotsman, February 22, 2001.

Suspects arrested in letter-bomb case. Maria Breslin, The Independent (London), February 22, 2001.

Three held by letter bomb police. Mary O’Hara, The Guardian (London), February 22, 2001

Judith Kleinfeld On the MIT Gender Discrimination Study

Judith Kleinfeld recently wrote a column for The Christian Science Monitor summarizing her views and the recent Independent Women’s Forum study of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s sexual discrimination study.

MIT’s study claimed that the university had discriminated against female scientists, but on closer analysis the study was a political document devoid of any statistics or solid facts that would allow anyone to examine whether or not there had indeed been sex discrimination at MIT. As Kleinfeld writes,

Did MIT actually discriminate against its female faculty? Check out the study yourself at MIT’s web site (http://web.mit.edu/). You will notice an astonishing fact: MIT’s study is innocent of evidence of gender discrimination. Not an iota of data is offered to show that MIT treated its female faculty any differently from its male faculty.

Irrational self-flagellation — it’s not just for medieval monks anymore.

Source:

False solution on gender. Judith Kleinfeld, The Christian Science Monitor, February 27, 2001.