Opinion: Bush's selections show a disregard for education

To the detriment of the governor's judgment, there is not one appointee to the new state Board of Education who holds an advanced degree in an academic discipline. Out of the seven, six hold professional degrees and one holds no advanced degree whatsoever, like the new education secretary himself. The advanced degrees are two J.D. degrees, one MBA, one master of social work and two education doctorates. These are all "professional" degrees, meaning the recipients were "trained" for specific jobs or professions instead of being "educated" through the arts and sciences.

"Education," as opposed to "training," develops the abilities to teach oneself and think for oneself instead of merely performing tasks in one field. These abilities are taught through the traditional disciplines of the arts and sciences. Most university courses are arts and sciences courses, and the professors teaching these courses perform advanced research in their fields. Not one member of the new board nor the new "education" secretary have ever taught or done research on this level. Therefore, none of these people is qualified to judge the university system, let alone determine policy.

With his appointments, the governor has demonstrated an ignorance of, or disrespect for, the university system that will have far-reaching effects, and by accepting their appointments as the leaders of university education, the board members have demonstrated an arrogance that tests credulity.

The most egregious appointment that sums up the attitude of the governor and the board members is the "Ph.D." in education from Nova University. The degree is not recognized by the major accreditation associations for colleges and universities in the United States because the requirements are hardly high-school level. With this degree the person could not hold a professorship at the University of South Florida, Florida State, the University of Florida or any other major university in the state even though the person claims to be a "doctor of philosophy." The degree is equivalent to "buying" a Ph.D. over the Internet.

With the exception of the Ph.D. in education from Florida State, not one of these people is qualified to sit on a hiring committee for a faculty position in the Florida university system, nor are they qualified to judge academic research.

The trend in Florida toward the politicization of the university boards of regents, the unqualified board of education, the subtle but real threat to tenure and academic freedom, and the continued cuts in the budgets of the university system create an atmosphere that will seriously harm the quality of Florida's universities. Good professors, excellent scholars and gifted teachers will not hire into this environment, and the good ones who are here will be looking elsewhere.

Jeb Bush was determined to take away job security for many university employees and did so. If he tries the strategy with the universities, he will destroy them.
-- Dr. Michael C. Milam, professor of humanities, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg

Board choices are skewed

Re: Bush names education leaders.

What is Gov. Bush thinking? Our school system is not a Fortune 500 company. Half of the new state Board of Education members are accountants/business people. There is not even one active teacher on this new board. (You can't count William Proctor since he has not taught in more than 30 years, and Linda Eads' biography doesn't state the last time she was in the classroom.)

I found it interesting that Jim Horne (education secretary) said that the new board could vote to raise his $119,000 salary down the road. I'm sure it will so that Horne's salary will be comparable to other top business accountants. Horne also said that we will be a model for other states. That's good since currently we are the laughingstock of other states.

Gov. Bush said that "the bureaucracy will be streamlined." If a bureaucracy is going to be streamlined, you don't add more bureaucrats to an already overly bureaucratic educational system.

Bush needs to take notes from his dad, who said that local school boards, parents and local communities should decide what goes on at their local school, not a group of accountants/business people.
-- Anthony Fuoco, Clearwater

Golf carts: all or none

Re: Casey Martin ruling.

In fairness you printed two letters on June 4 regarding the Casey Martin ruling, one pro and one con. I'm sure everyone has an opinion, however, my opinion is that of a disabled person.

I have had a disability all of my life, and as I age it becomes worse. I'm glad that accommodations have been made for disabled people over the years, such as more convenient parking and motorized carts in malls and stores.

I have to agree with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in this case, though. I have been limited in areas of physical activities all of my life, and I don't expect anyone to bend or change rules just for me. I'd like to have walkways that go right to the gulf so that I could enjoy swimming like everyone else, but there aren't any. Should I sue?

When my husband and I go to the mall, I am tired after a short amount of walking while he is still fresh and ready to go on. When we go to Home Depot and I ride in an electric cart, he gets tired while I'm ready to keep rolling up and down the isles. This is my point. Casey Martin is disadvantaged in a professional golf tournament without the benefit of a golf cart, but give him one and then he has an unfair advantage. He will still be fresh while all of the golfers who've walked the course are tired. How is this fair? If they want to level the playing field, then all golfers must ride or no golfer should ride.
-- Marilyn Timpanaro, Clearwater

It's a matter of self-defense

Re: Space warfare? June 3.

Michael Krepton, the author of this article, is credited with being co-editor of Global Confidence Building: New Tools for Troubled Regions.

Whose confidence is he trying to build? Certainly not mine. I'm a more than a little perplexed by the idea that any nation would be surprised or upset by the fact that the United States would be defending what is its own. This includes shooting down incoming missiles, as well as protecting our satellites, having a ready, capable military and whatever else it takes to keep belligerents off our doorstep -- even if our doorstep extends into space.

Where is the big question here? The only nations or individuals that should be concerned with this type of defense are the ones that have a mission with which this type of defense system might interfere. And who would that be? Krepton mentions Russia and China repeatedly. Is that who he thinks it would be? He also says that the Kremlin would like to avoid an arms race. Fine. Unless the Russians have plans to kill a satellite or two, there would never be an arms race. We'd just merrily spend our own resources for our own protection.

Should we do that? Do we as individuals buy insurance? Why would we do that? If we had reason to believe that there was never going to be a fire in our house or dented fenders, it would be a ridiculous waste of money. But we don't have adequate reasons to believe that these things could never happen. I just don't happen to believe that there isn't a single group in the world that wouldn't like to give the United States some grief.

Okay, Michael Krepton, build my confidence. Tell me why there's nothing to worry about when it comes to not only Russia and China, but also North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and who knows how many other factions that would just love to harass or embarrass the United States.

This isn't just about cell phone outages, it's about defending what is ours.
-- Bill Brower, Seminole

A story that's too common

Re: Man once on death row acquitted of 2 murders, June 7.

The sad thing about this story -- despite the fact that the case was tried on circumstantial evidence with no fingerprints or DNA; despite the fact that the detective on the case improperly told the original jury that he "thought" the defendant was guilty; despite the fact that one of the prosecution's key witnesses reversed her testimony; despite the fact that contrary to any preponderance of evidence against the defendant, the state continued with a second trial -- is that there are literally hundreds of others just like Joaquin Martinez across this country.

Unfortunately for many of them, their story will not have such a happy ending.
-- Pete Hines, Tampa

Fathers still often shut out

Re: The emergence of the single dad, June 4.

With Father's Day soon approaching, once again we have an article written to elicit a warm, fuzzy feeling toward fathers. While I have nothing but the deepest respect and admiration for single (custodial) fathers, the sad truth still remains that when it comes to divorce, fathers usually come out being non-custodial parents.

Just about all the single fathers that I have had the opportunity to speak with retained custody of their children because the mother either walked out of their lives or just had no desire to raise children. Even with these circumstances, there is no guarantee that several years down the line, when Mom suddenly decides she wants the children back, Dad won't find himself once again in court with a very good chance of losing custody of the children.

While state law says that custody should be awarded to the fittest parent with the best interests of the children in mind, regardless of the parent's gender, all too often this issue is totally disregarded. In matters of custodial decisions, fathers are usually treated as nothing more than second-class citizens. More often than not, fathers are routinely served with domestic violence injunctions/restraining orders as a normal part of the divorce proceedings and end up being delegated to just being a visitor in their children's lives.

I strongly urge all our family-law judges, attorneys, legislators, moms and dads (both custodial and non-custodial) to stop and truly think of our children. Regardless of marital status, our children deserve the love, nurturing and support of both parents!
-- Bruce Charkas, Pinellas Park

Take responsibility for debt

Re. No sympathy for credit card companies, letter, June 5.

It never ceases to amaze me how people refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions and instead blame others for their behavior. The letter writer admits that he became overloaded with debt and then complains that the credit card companies wouldn't bail him/her out. Calling the credit card companies "bloodsuckers" is not appropriate at all.

People need to learn to accept responsibility for their behavior. The time for the letter writer to solve his/her problem was when the debt started to accumulate, not when it was so great that there was no way to pay it off.
-- Arthur M. Richard, St. Petersburg

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731.

They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page