A Conservative Explains the Virtue of America
The confrontation with Islam should lead to similar soul-searching. What makes the West superior? What distinguishing principle underlies our successes – particularly in the Anglosphere where we find a long uninterrupted tradition of civility? What makes life flourish in abundance for ourselves and our families while Islamic societies wallow in poverty, irrational hatred, and cynicism? The old Cold War conservative paradigm – religion vs. secular materialist atheism – fails miserably in the current context. Indeed, the revival of Islam, like the revival of Christianity in America, is also a reaction to the failures of socialism. Conservatives, having adopted an easy but incorrect analysis of what they called Godless-communism, were caught unprepared as God-filled Islam reared its ugly head. How will traditionalist conservatives handle this challenge? Let’s consider one of the more reasonable conservative writers.
Dinesh D’Souza is a moderate sounding conservative who has written many respectable commentaries on politics and culture. They tend to be level-headed, calm, and comforting. Overall, he favors individualism and the liberal economy. His conservatism is selective but he generally favors the more libertarian parts of our country’s history. While he isn’t strict about the restoration of rights he can be friendly towards attempts to preserve and revive the core of our tradition. You can get a sense of his worldview from his book, “Letters to a Young Conservative.” Recently D’Souza has written a letter giving advice to young Muslims. Its importance lies in what it says about traditionalist conservatives and their view of America.
D’Souza begins by considering the complaints of devout Muslims starting with bin Laden’s spiritual father, Sayyid Qutb. Among the charges against America are “materialism,” “sexual promiscuity,” “rejection of divine authority,” man-made laws, a lack of prohibitions against vice, etc. Summing up Qutb’s critique, D’Souza says, “In his view, this is because Western society is based on freedom whereas Islamic society is based on virtue.” If all this sounds familiar, it is because these complaints are also standard on the religious right. Not too surprisingly, D’Souza addresses the Muslim critic as a kindred spirit. “Given the warped timber of humanity, freedom becomes the forum for the expression of human flaws and weaknesses. On this point Qutb and his fundamentalist followers are quite correct.”
What, then, does D’Souza have to offer the young devout Muslim? “Even amid the temptations that a rich and free society offers, they [most Americans] have remained on the straight path. Their virtue has special luster because it is freely chosen.” Of course, we all want our virtue to have that extra special shine. However, let’s pause for a moment and think how often conservatives talk about temptations in just this manner.
How often do conservatives respond to something of an objectionable sexual nature with “that’s great, resistance to temptation enhances my virtue?” It wasn’t conservatives who championed the repeal of laws against homosexuality, welcomed the legalization of abortion, or readily accepted the freedom to publish sexually explicit material. And when such changes did occur, I don’t remember their response being “great, now my choice is more meaningful because it isn’t the only allowed.” Look at the special luster heterosexual marriages will acquire when gay marriages are possible! That’s not exactly an argument we hear very often.
Fortunately, as D’Souza continues, he provides a more compelling argument well worth our attention. “Compulsion cannot produce virtue; it can only produce the outward semblance of virtue.” It’s unusual today to come across this Classical argument – that the cultivation of a virtuous disposition and a virtuous character requires freedom. He continues, “the theocratic and authoritarian society that Islamic fundamentalists advocate undermines the possibility of virtue. … [O]nce the reins of coercion are released … the worst impulses of human nature break loose.”
To appreciate D’Souza’s point consider the weaker argument, common among conservative commentators, that moral acts must be chosen for the individual to receive credit. While valid, this argument has never been a force for the advancement of liberty; avoiding immortal sin and eternal damnation were often seen as too important to allow failure. Thus, earthly freedom seemed so besides the point in the history of religion. George H. Nash summarizes the viewpoint of L. Brent Bozell, Jr., a prominent conservative writer for National Reivew, as follows: “What, after all, was virtue? If as Bozell argued, it meant conformity with human nature and the divine pattern of order, then Freedom was not necessary to virtue per se. An act could be virtuous even if it were instinctive or coerced. The quest was less important than the achievement.” Of course, the left feels that way about altruism.
Can D’Souza convince fundamentalist Muslims to seek their religious virtue in a free society? It’s doubtful that he can even convince his fellow conservatives. When he turns Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell into crusaders to abolish laws against victimless crimes, we might, at that point, consider sending D’Souza to Al Azhar University in Cairo, the oldest and most authoritative school in the Islamic world, and let his powerful critique reform Islam.
Not only is this absurd, but Mr. D’Souza is addressing the wrong Muslims. The promise for change in the Islamic world is not with the devout, but with the everyday Muslim who only pays lip-service to Islam; he looks to the West for the hope of living well and enjoying life. One does not win them over by holding out the prospect of a voluntary life of self-denial, suffering, and devout submission. Nor does one ask them to return to their religion – essentially an imperialist warrior religion that is collectivist in nature. One wished conservatives would actually read about this religion and not assume it is similar to Christianity.
Now for the main problem with the conservative approach! Virtue, for D’Souza, is not tied to a vital function of human life. One continuously gets the impression that virtue is an extracurricular activity of living – unrelated to the central focus of survival. Why does one cultivate virtue? What is virtue for? One wonders if these questions are even intelligible to D’Souza. His sympathy with the devout life-hating materialist-bashing paradise-seeking Muslims doesn’t give one hope that conservatives understand what is at stake.
What does D’Souza fail to understand about the virtuous life? The most important part: acquiring virtue is attaining the capacity and power to live, prosper, and be justifiably proud. It’s not about getting Brownie points or approaching the Pearly Gates with a high score card. It’s about living this life to the fullest. The central virtue, rationality, is man’s essential power to know and conquer nature. Cultivating virtue creates a character appropriate to the challenges of a flourishing life – to be lived among civilized people in a just and prosperous society. The moral is practical – it is powerful!
Muslims see the power of the freedom in the West. What they don’t hear is the moral case for our success. Conservatives give short shrift to the virtues of rationality, productiveness, sexual fulfillment, and the rest that attracts immigrants to our shores from around the world. You can avoid practicing vices of promiscuity, gluttonous indulgence, lying, and blasphemy in any hellhole on earth. What you can’t do is be free to actualize your potential and live well.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why conservatism is floundering today. They just don’t understand that America is a moral achievement – one that goes to the core of the needs and rights of a rational being – i.e. individual liberty. This is a prerequisite to the cultivation of the character and skills that enable one to tackle the challenges of life. And the result of a dedication to this ethos has been the development of industry, commerce, medicine, and knowledge on a vast scale unparalleled in history.
Our best conservative writers have so little to offer as an explanation of our greatness. Our achievement is trivialized as materialistic in the face of intellectual attacks from savage tribal mystics. They concede the moral aspirations of the most backwards, violent, and unreformed religion with superficial slogans that amount to “things go better with freedom.”
We need new intellectual leadership. We are treading water, neither going down that old road to serfdom nor reviving the culture of liberty our founders desired. It is often in times of war that one often takes stock of one’s assets. This can be an opportunity to address the important question: what makes us great?
Originally published hereDuring the 20th century, as we faced the ravages of totalitarianism – wars, concentration camps, enslavement and death on a vast scale – we re-examined the principles and practices that kept our country from a similar fate. For many, this led to a reaffirmation of the tradition of individual rights. The concept of individual liberty, born in the soil of Hellenic rationalism and Roman law, reached its maturation in the rigorous and clear exposition of the Anglo-American Enlightenment – and climaxed with the founding of the United States of America. We, or at least many of our fellow citizens, came to appreciate these principles at work in stable civilized countries, primarily English speaking, where reason and rhetoric were the main tools of social discourse; and we saw the diametrically opposite principles leading vast parts of the world down “the road to serfdom” where coercion led to an impoverished existence on every level.
The confrontation with Islam should lead to similar soul-searching. What makes the West superior? What distinguishing principle underlies our successes – particularly in the Anglosphere where we find a long uninterrupted tradition of civility? What makes life flourish in abundance for ourselves and our families while Islamic societies wallow in poverty, irrational hatred, and cynicism? The old Cold War conservative paradigm – religion vs. secular materialist atheism – fails miserably in the current context. Indeed, the revival of Islam, like the revival of Christianity in America, is also a reaction to the failures of socialism. Conservatives, having adopted an easy but incorrect analysis of what they called Godless-communism, were caught unprepared as God-filled Islam reared its ugly head. How will traditionalist conservatives handle this challenge? Let’s consider one of the more reasonable conservative writers.
Dinesh D’Souza is a moderate sounding conservative who has written many respectable commentaries on politics and culture. They tend to be level-headed, calm, and comforting. Overall, he favors individualism and the liberal economy. His conservatism is selective but he generally favors the more libertarian parts of our country’s history. While he isn’t strict about the restoration of rights he can be friendly towards attempts to preserve and revive the core of our tradition. You can get a sense of his worldview from his book, “Letters to a Young Conservative.” Recently D’Souza has written a letter giving advice to young Muslims. Its importance lies in what it says about traditionalist conservatives and their view of America.
D’Souza begins by considering the complaints of devout Muslims starting with bin Laden’s spiritual father, Sayyid Qutb. Among the charges against America are “materialism,” “sexual promiscuity,” “rejection of divine authority,” man-made laws, a lack of prohibitions against vice, etc. Summing up Qutb’s critique, D’Souza says, “In his view, this is because Western society is based on freedom whereas Islamic society is based on virtue.” If all this sounds familiar, it is because these complaints are also standard on the religious right. Not too surprisingly, D’Souza addresses the Muslim critic as a kindred spirit. “Given the warped timber of humanity, freedom becomes the forum for the expression of human flaws and weaknesses. On this point Qutb and his fundamentalist followers are quite correct.”
What, then, does D’Souza have to offer the young devout Muslim? “Even amid the temptations that a rich and free society offers, they [most Americans] have remained on the straight path. Their virtue has special luster because it is freely chosen.” Of course, we all want our virtue to have that extra special shine. However, let’s pause for a moment and think how often conservatives talk about temptations in just this manner.
How often do conservatives respond to something of an objectionable sexual nature with “that’s great, resistance to temptation enhances my virtue?” It wasn’t conservatives who championed the repeal of laws against homosexuality, welcomed the legalization of abortion, or readily accepted the freedom to publish sexually explicit material. And when such changes did occur, I don’t remember their response being “great, now my choice is more meaningful because it isn’t the only allowed.” Look at the special luster heterosexual marriages will acquire when gay marriages are possible! That’s not exactly an argument we hear very often.
Fortunately, as D’Souza continues, he provides a more compelling argument well worth our attention. “Compulsion cannot produce virtue; it can only produce the outward semblance of virtue.” It’s unusual today to come across this Classical argument – that the cultivation of a virtuous disposition and a virtuous character requires freedom. He continues, “the theocratic and authoritarian society that Islamic fundamentalists advocate undermines the possibility of virtue. … [O]nce the reins of coercion are released … the worst impulses of human nature break loose.”
To appreciate D’Souza’s point consider the weaker argument, common among conservative commentators, that moral acts must be chosen for the individual to receive credit. While valid, this argument has never been a force for the advancement of liberty; avoiding immortal sin and eternal damnation were often seen as too important to allow failure. Thus, earthly freedom seemed so besides the point in the history of religion. George H. Nash summarizes the viewpoint of L. Brent Bozell, Jr., a prominent conservative writer for National Reivew, as follows: “What, after all, was virtue? If as Bozell argued, it meant conformity with human nature and the divine pattern of order, then Freedom was not necessary to virtue per se. An act could be virtuous even if it were instinctive or coerced. The quest was less important than the achievement.” Of course, the left feels that way about altruism.
Can D’Souza convince fundamentalist Muslims to seek their religious virtue in a free society? It’s doubtful that he can even convince his fellow conservatives. When he turns Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell into crusaders to abolish laws against victimless crimes, we might, at that point, consider sending D’Souza to Al Azhar University in Cairo, the oldest and most authoritative school in the Islamic world, and let his powerful critique reform Islam.
Not only is this absurd, but Mr. D’Souza is addressing the wrong Muslims. The promise for change in the Islamic world is not with the devout, but with the everyday Muslim who only pays lip-service to Islam; he looks to the West for the hope of living well and enjoying life. One does not win them over by holding out the prospect of a voluntary life of self-denial, suffering, and devout submission. Nor does one ask them to return to their religion – essentially an imperialist warrior religion that is collectivist in nature. One wished conservatives would actually read about this religion and not assume it is similar to Christianity.
Now for the main problem with the conservative approach! Virtue, for D’Souza, is not tied to a vital function of human life. One continuously gets the impression that virtue is an extracurricular activity of living – unrelated to the central focus of survival. Why does one cultivate virtue? What is virtue for? One wonders if these questions are even intelligible to D’Souza. His sympathy with the devout life-hating materialist-bashing paradise-seeking Muslims doesn’t give one hope that conservatives understand what is at stake.
What does D’Souza fail to understand about the virtuous life? The most important part: acquiring virtue is attaining the capacity and power to live, prosper, and be justifiably proud. It’s not about getting Brownie points or approaching the Pearly Gates with a high score card. It’s about living this life to the fullest. The central virtue, rationality, is man’s essential power to know and conquer nature. Cultivating virtue creates a character appropriate to the challenges of a flourishing life – to be lived among civilized people in a just and prosperous society. The moral is practical – it is powerful!
Muslims see the power of the freedom in the West. What they don’t hear is the moral case for our success. Conservatives give short shrift to the virtues of rationality, productiveness, sexual fulfillment, and the rest that attracts immigrants to our shores from around the world. You can avoid practicing vices of promiscuity, gluttonous indulgence, lying, and blasphemy in any hellhole on earth. What you can’t do is be free to actualize your potential and live well.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why conservatism is floundering today. They just don’t understand that America is a moral achievement – one that goes to the core of the needs and rights of a rational being – i.e. individual liberty. This is a prerequisite to the cultivation of the character and skills that enable one to tackle the challenges of life. And the result of a dedication to this ethos has been the development of industry, commerce, medicine, and knowledge on a vast scale unparalleled in history.
Our best conservative writers have so little to offer as an explanation of our greatness. Our achievement is trivialized as materialistic in the face of intellectual attacks from savage tribal mystics. They concede the moral aspirations of the most backwards, violent, and unreformed religion with superficial slogans that amount to “things go better with freedom.”
We need new intellectual leadership. We are treading water, neither going down that old road to serfdom nor reviving the culture of liberty our founders desired. It is often in times of war that one often takes stock of one’s assets. This can be an opportunity to address the important question: what makes us great?
Originally published here
Make in India
Élection présidentielle 2017
This blog largely tries to steer clear of political issues and focuses on the economic ones. So, although this blogger has strong views on the candidates and knows who he would vote for if he had a vote, he will avoid discussing that here. Instead, the focus is strictly on economic policies, which is of course, only one dimension of evaluating any candidate.
Who\’s the most dangerous of them all economically ? If the pat answer is Marine Le Pen, a more polished version of Trump, think again. Introducing Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the far left candidate who is currently surging in the polls . Nearly 20% of France want him as President .
Here are his economic policies, without comment
- 90% tax rate for those earning more than Euro 400,000 a year
- 273 billion Euros higher spending over 5 years
- 16% rise in minimum wage to Euros 1326 a month (Rs 90,000 a month)
- 35 hour work week.
- Exit the Euro
- Abolish the treaties prescribing a target of deficit to GDP . In other words, simply print money
- Exit EU, a la Britain, if necessary
- Join Alba the economic pact between Cuba and Venezuela. Honourable observers of this pact are Iran and Syria
- Right to housing to become a constitutional right
- Nationalise utility companies
When you fast
“And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, that your fasting may not be seen by others but by your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you” (Matthew 6:16-18).
People who fast give up something voluntarily for a time. Generally, when we think of fasting, we think of giving up food, or at least some kind of food. Fasting can also meaning giving up an activity, such as video games or surfing the Internet. Some fasts are performed for religious reasons; others are done for medical reasons. Fasting often has a goal for this lifetime: a healthy body, or a clearer mind, or a better way of life.
Jesus assumes that we will fast for religious reasons. He assumes that fasting is part of our relationship with God. Jesus warns us not to fast to impress other people. He tells us to keep our fasting a secret that is known only to us and to God. Jesus could easily have added that fasting for other reasons, such as our own health, should not be confused with fasting for God.
Perhaps some of us would benefit from fasting. We might lose weight and improve our health. Such a fast is not rewarded by God, except in the way that his creation functions to reward our fasting with health benefits. If we fast to break a bad habit and gain control over our lives, that fast is also not rewarded by God aside from the rewards we receive through his creation. When we fast for worldly reasons, we are not fasting for God. Our goals may be good, and we may achieve them; but when we achieve those goals, we have received the only reward we will get for fasting.
We fast for God to show him that we love him. We fast for God to show him that nothing is more important to us than he is. When we choose to fast for God—whether we choose to go without food for a day or television for a week or chocolate for a month or alcohol for the rest of our lives—we learn self-control. By saying no to a desire, we learn to say no to temptations. We do this for God, as part of our relationship with him. We are not trying to improve ourselves or impress other people.
Some people treat their fasting as a way of bargaining with God, doing something for him that will force God to do something for us. Such an attitude reveals an unhealthy relationship with God. Some people try to force others to fast along with them, delivering a group message to God by their fasting. Such fasting is also not done in the spirit of what Jesus teaches regarding the privacy of fasting.
Fasting teaches us about Jesus—that is its greatest reward. When we give up something for Jesus, we remind ourselves of all that Jesus surrendered to rescue us. All glory belongs to him, and he is in charge of the universe. Yet he left his exalted position to live among us as one of us. Then, as one of us, he sacrificed his comfort, his freedom, his health, and even his life to pay for our sins and to claim us for his kingdom.
If our fast reminds us of what we want, we receive—at best—only worldly rewards for our fasting. When our fast reminds us of Jesus and his saving work on our behalf, then we receive an eternal reward. We have faith in Jesus. We have fellowship with him. Those gifts are worth far more than any other reward we might gain from fasting. J.
The REAL Reasons Why Change Is So Difficult In Education
In many ways, such strategies are used in the larger community and society as well, to ensure that that those who have been put in their place, remain in that place. As I was recently reminded by a Facebook comment, ‘If everyone gets educated who will till the fields and who will pick up your trash?’ As anyone above the age of 20 will recall, when mobile phones became cheap, many of the then chatterati were dismayed that ‘even plumbers, vegetable sellers and maids now have mobile phones’. And as can be seen in the middle class response to the admission of children from economically weaker sections in private schools under the RTE (‘they will spoil our children’s education’) – the word ‘system’ should perhaps include the larger society and its network of exploitative relationships in which everyone is complicit.
I should have the right to vote out Trump
Nowhere is the US effect more on other country citizens than in the area of finance. If it starts a war, as it did in Iraq, at least I am not affected too much and its unlikely that the US will start a war with India. But Trump, by the act of trying to roll back Dodd Frank, is directly affecting me and is therefore fair game in being virulently criticised.
Dodd Frank what ? Yes that’s a fair question as unless you are a student of economics you may not have come across the Dodd Frank Act. Here’s the context in layman terms
– Remember the financial crisis of a decade ago. It was caused by global financial behemoths (mainly US based) going crazy
– Post the crisis, the Obama administration enacted the Dodd Frank Act to govern the conduct of financial institutions. Massive compliance requirements were brought in and severe restrictions and policing was introduced on what they could and could not do.
– At the time, the Republican Party was in the phase of “Hell No”. Therefore the law was not passed on a bipartisan basis. It was mostly a Democratic Party legislation.
– Republicans hated it, largely because they hated anything Obama did. The big finance companies and banks absolutely loathed it.
– The law is complex, fiddly, adds huge costs of compliance and is an absolute nuisance for those in the finance business. All true. But we have seen what havoc they can wreck on the world if they are let loose. So their complaints should simply be met with a stonewall.
– This is one perfect example of a bad law being infinitely better than no law.
– The consequence of another financial meltdown is that I, an Indian citizen, will have to pay for it even though Indian financial institutions played absolutely no part in creating the mayhem. Like it or not there’s no “Buy American” in finance. Finance is global.
Trump is now trying to loosen the provisions of the Dodd Frank Act. Thankfully he cannot repeal it as he needs 60 votes in the US Senate and he does not have them as the Democrats are now the party of “Hell No”. But he can dilute it considerably and that’s what he is starting to do. An Executive Order came out on Friday. Thankfully for now, the Order is just asking somebody to do something , as most Executive Orders thus far have been. Nothing really has happened.
But it will happen. Trump’s cabinet and advisers are full of Wall Street types. They have a vested interest in undoing the Act . They must be resisted with every force. And I’ll loudly call for Trump to be resisted on this one. As should you, whatever nationality you are. It affects you and me.
Dodd Frank has lots of faults. It’s 2300 pages long. That alone is enough to tell you that Ramamritham has run amok. BUT, before anybody tries to do anything with it, he has to prove that it will improve controls and not dilute it.
For, you see, if you want to be really scared, do not think of nuclear war with North Korea. Or Arctic melt down. Or an asteroid hitting the earth. Get mortally terrified with just this one statistic. The total value of financial derivatives in the world at this moment is some $1.5 quadrillion. By comparison the world’s GDP is $80 trillion
I like collaborative writing: Meghna Gulzar
Filmmaker Meghna Gulzar, screenwriters Juhi Chaturvedi, Pooja Ladha Surti, Cinematographer, Modhura Palit and columnist Sumedha Verma Ojha spoke on Nuances and Process of Filmmaking at the In-conversation session in the ongoing International Film Festival of India (IFFI) Goa, today.
The session was moderated by Indian film journalist and critic Madhureeta Mukherjee.

Writer Juhi Chaturvedi, who has written for films like Vicky Donor, Piku and October among others said, “For me the draft of the film has to be mine, it can’t be someone else’s. I work with Shoojit Sircar but he doesn’t know what I am going to write though he always has an idea about what I am writing. Though it is important to listen to someone’s opinion but the world around the characters should come from within me.”
Known for making blockbuster thrillers like Talvar and Raazi, Filmmaker-writer Meghna Gulzar shared, “I go through the cycle of detachment and attachment. Filmmaking is an extremely fulfilling process but when the film comes to the edit table, I look at the footage very objectively. I totally assess things at the edit but again sound and music get me attached.”
“I love collaborative writing since I am a very lazy writer. The verbal jamming with my co-writers is fun. More than a conflict, it would be a different point of view if ever I have creative differences at the script level,” she added.
The highlights of this year’s festival is the tremendous change in the last 50 editions from participation of 23 countries in 1952, to almost 76 countries in 2019.
The 50th International Film Festival of India, 2019 is screening 26 feature films and 15 non feature films in Indian panorama section, around 10,000 people and film lovers are expected to attend and participate in the golden jubilee celebrations.
***
D for Discipline, D for Democracy!
Perhaps this is more the case in Asian societies. Apart from most Indian states, I\’ve found myself caught in this discussion in Bangladesh, Afghanistan, China, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Laos… and there\’s an amazing unity of thought across these varying geographies and cultures! Children need to be guided and taught — if their errors are not corrected as soon as the occur, it will be too late to correct them later on! (All this is said in a deep, sonorous tone to emphasize its seriousness.)
Interestingly, these are also cultures that teach you to respect your elders (whether they have any quality other than age or not!). In short, in societies where control has a role to play, \’discipline\’ comes to mean doing the will of the powerful (because they are adult, or older or richer or occupy a \’position\’). These are also the same places where the guru or the master or the preceptor is venerated (i.e. given a status next to God herself).
This sits a little uneasily with the clamor for greater democracy in the classroom. Active / joyful learning is now advocated in most of the countries mentioned. In India, the recently enacted Right to Education actually mandates activity-based classrooms where children will construct their own knowledge. The National Curriculum Framework 2005 makes an eloquent plea for \’democracy in the classroom\’, where collaboration and partnership with children (rather than their \’sincerity and obedience\’) will be the hallmark of quality.
As you can guess, change is a long way coming. Despite the fact that democratic classrooms are \’Official Policy\’ backed by law, and nearly a decade and a half of yearly rounds of in-service teacher training emphasizing the virtue of active learning, classroom teaching tends to remain teacher-directed, instruction-based, with asking questions and offering one\’s opinions being considered almost a sin on the part of children.
When reports last came in, thus, D for Discipline was clearly winning over D for Democracy!
Has Anyone Asked Teachers This Yet?
- Teachers don\’t practice Quality Teaching
- Are not able to \’go according to the level of children\’
- Don\’t make use of psychology (I assume this means something called \’child psychology\’)
- Application is missing – teachers are not linking concepts to practical life.
- They show a lack of Social Awareness
- Don\’t go for innovative activities
- Don\’t do voluntary service
- Don’t give examples while teaching
- Don\’t pin accountability for the task given (i.e. don\’t take responsibility themselves)
- Fail to develop or revive the interest to teach
- Are not flexible to change their mentality
- Don\’t give individual attention to children
- Are not patient
- Don’t make use of case study
- Don\’t take a friendly approach
- Are poor listeners
- Have no tolerance
- Are partial
- Reluctant
- Lazy
- Lack in adaptation, and don\’t update their knowledge
- Are in a hurry to get the product rather than being bothered about the process
- Expect more with little effort!
- Covers syllabus in time
- Preparing children for getting marks.
- Good in lecturing (encouraging rote learning)
- Conducting special coaching for those falling behind
- In trying to address the average student, I\’m unable to take care of those who are falling behind
- I find it difficult to make the subject interesting for some students
- If parents can\’t help children with their homework, I find it difficult to help the child in class
- There\’s a need to listen to teachers before coming to the kind of conclusions we have come to
- In order to go beyond impressions, systematic observation and research are required
- How about finding out the strengths teachers have and how to build on them
- Finally, what is the system doing to make some of its own dire predictions about teachers become true?
The REAL Reasons Why Change Is So Difficult In Education
In many ways, such strategies are used in the larger community and society as well, to ensure that that those who have been put in their place, remain in that place. As I was recently reminded by a Facebook comment, ‘If everyone gets educated who will till the fields and who will pick up your trash?’ As anyone above the age of 20 will recall, when mobile phones became cheap, many of the then chatterati were dismayed that ‘even plumbers, vegetable sellers and maids now have mobile phones’. And as can be seen in the middle class response to the admission of children from economically weaker sections in private schools under the RTE (‘they will spoil our children’s education’) – the word ‘system’ should perhaps include the larger society and its network of exploitative relationships in which everyone is complicit.
ROLE OF NAAC IN PROMOTING QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Its Job is to assess and accredit the institutions of higher education in India. It came into existence as a result of the recommendations by the National policy on Education (1986) and the Programme of Action (POA-1992) that had stressed on enhancing and improving the quality of higher education in the country. In spite of the built-in regulatory mechanisms that aim to ensure satisfactory levels of quality in the functioning of Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs), there had been no specific modalities to assess and ensure the quality of education imparted by them. To address this issue, the NAAC has been instilling a momentum of quality consciousness amongst Higher Educational Institutions, through a process of assessing their strengths and weaknesses and motivating them for continuous quality improvement. The NAAC after considering the Institutional Assessment and Accreditation application of the intent institution declares the Institutional Eligibility for Quality Assessment (IEQA) status for the institution.
|
Range of Institutional Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA)
|
Letter Grade
|
Performance Descriptor
|
|
3.01 – 4.00
|
A
|
Very Good (Accredited)
|
|
2.01 – 3.00
|
B
|
Good (Accredited)
|
|
1.51 – 2.00
|
C
|
Satisfactory (Accredited)
|
|
≤ 1.50
|
D
|
Unsatisfactory (Not accredited)
|
Islam and its Denial – Part VI
In passing, however, I was surprised to read that he believes the conservatives of faith understand the threat of fundamentalist Islam. He notes: “Both groups were passionately anti-communist, even if there were some disagreements on strategy and tactics. Today, both groups are just as hostile to Islamist terrorism and fundamentalism.”
I’ve pointed out that two big name conservatives are anything but hostile to Islamic fundamentalism: Dinesh D’Souza and Andrew Apostolou. Daniel Pipes points out that the current administration hopes Hezbollah becomes part of the next Lebanese election and government. Recent election results in Saudi Arabia shows the fundamentalists have won. My bet is that this will not worry conservatives close to the administration. Indeed, I argue they’ll praise the election. In that post I express my concern:
Apparently, some people believe that parliamentary institutions will change the way people think. This, of course, reverses cause and effect. History shows that a liberal democracy with constitutional protections for individual rights was a result of powerful ideas and cultural changes over a period of centuries. Now, we are told, the reverse is true. There is a “parliamentary dialectic” that holds that these institutions will create the acceptance of the ideas liberty and tolerance. The classic counter example is the Weimar Republic – which voted Hitler into power.
But why do conservatives believe this “parliamentary dialectic”? Marxists used to believe in “dialectical materialism” that holds that your relationship relative to the means of production determines your consciousness. Workers would have a revolutionary consciousness resulting in the overthrow the capitalist parasites, or something ridiculous as that. Closer to home, moderate leftists used to believe in the “housing dialectic” which holds that poor housing … causes poverty and crime. They built housing projects. Need I explain the morale of the story?
Conservatives have entered the fray with the latest version: hold elections and people will become humane and tolerant! If this policy was in place a decade ago, we’d have an Islamist government in Algeria …. We’d have criticized the military in Turkey for its role in that country’s “guided democracy” with the result of an Islamist regime years sooner. We’d have criticized Mubarack for cracking down on the Muslim Brotherhood who, we’d say, should be running for office if not running the country.
Why are our conservative friends acting like utopian leftists of years past?







You must be logged in to post a comment.