[Vision2020] Nick Gier; Response to Eric E.

[Eric Engerbretson]

--Apple-Mail-1--171687712
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	format=flowed

Hi, Nick,

Sorry for taking so long to respond, but the last week was one of the 
busiest ten days of my life.

You, of course, made some great points that may be irrefutable (at 
least by me). But I'd like to mention a couple
of things.

On May 19, 2004, at 12:36 PM, Nick Gier wrote:

> The board and faculty of NSA have a clear choice.  It can follow time 
> honored procedures of academic collegiality (read: don't diss the UI) 
> and academic standards (read: fewer Canon Press publications and more 
> PhDs).
Or not.  And the question is: are they free to choose "not", or not?  
And who has the right to insist that they do? Would that right not be 
reserved for those paying for the education?  What if those paying for 
the education are completely satisfied with the product they are 
receiving for their dollars, and they don't really care about the 
"accredidation" of that product?

> Eric, you are right when you say that by hiring "his own entire 
> family" brings "more power to him," but an academic institution is not 
> about personal power; rather, it's about learning in a open and free 
> atmosphere free of religious and political ideology.  I am stunned 
> that you think it is OK for Wilson to hire his own family.
Nick, I believe the question here is about freedom, in a country with 
the right of free speech--the right of a person to start a private 
business and run it however he wishes. Moscow Auto is a great auto 
repair facility. But there is definitely some nepotism going on there. 
A father has hired his sons.  Now it would be silly for someone to have 
a problem with that, because it is a private institution with a very 
specific purpose.

It would be silly to mock NSA because it doesn't have a forestry 
department. It would be silly to mock MIT because it focuses too 
heavily on certain things and doesn't offer a broad enough education.  
Your arguments about accredidation would be fine if NSA were receiving 
public funding.  But it is a privately funded organization, and 
therefore it is free to do whatever it wishes, outside of crime.  If 
NSA decides to make policy to hire only instructors from the Atwood 
family tree, then it is free to do so.  The question is: are the people 
paying for the education happy with what they are getting?  Now, if 
every year the graduates were raving about how they got duped and 
ripped off by unqualified instructors who didn't know what they were 
teaching-- then the Better Business Bureau ought to get involved and 
find applicable laws about false advertising, etc.  But if NSA is 
cranking out happy customers who seem to be better educated in the 
specialties that they signed up for than the average college student, 
then shouldn't we leave them alone, and be glad for the freedoms this 
country stands for?  Again, Mr. Wilson's quote seems applicable-- "We 
love diversity until we actually get some."  Shouldn't we be glad for 
diversity in education? Shouldn't we be glad there are specialty 
schools that meet people's needs? Isn't it silly to compare small 
specialty colleges to large universities?

Now, if there has been actual deception involved with accredidation, 
then, of course, that is wrong, and you should call them on the carpet 
for it.  But as for the nepotism charge-- you are "stunned that I think 
it is OK to hire family".  I'm stunned that you think it's not!  I 
thought this country was about freedom!  If some Joe wants to stand up 
on a cracker box and call it a college, isn't he free to do so? ...as 
long as he does it with his own money?  Under this system of freedom, 
isn't it supposed to be the cake that is judged and not the frosting?  
If you think NSA is a Joe on a cracker box, then mock away, but when 
NSA outputs students that score better on tests than kids from your own 
school, then you ought to think twice before mocking. That has been my 
main point all along.  And of course NSA isn't going to give students a 
completely comprehensive education. It never intended to. It is a 
specialty school. And a completely comprehensive education is 
impossible at any university.

>       Finally, Eric, your reference to Einstein is not very helpful to 
> your case, and ludicrous, if you are implying that Doug Wilson is 
> another Einstein.  All of Einstein's work was tested in the open and 
> free arena of science.  (Will NSA scientists be doing that soon with 
> regard to intelligent design?) What would you think of Einstein 
> starting an institute of theoretical physics hiring his own family 
> members and other unqualified faculty? He was hired at Princeton 
> because of the fact that his great achievements were verified at the 
> highest levels of coherent theory and empirical confirmation.  Those 
> who published for Canon Press have not passed any of these critical 
> academic tests.

Nick, in quoting Einstein I wasn't comparing Doug Wilson, or anyone 
else to Einstein.  I think it is "ludicrous" of you to read that into 
it.  I was simply utilizing the point of Einstein's words-- the quote 
could have been from Rosanne Barr, and I still would like the words.  
Einstein said "great minds" have always encountered opposition. Doug 
Wilson is no Einstein, but he is a great mind. I have heard thousands 
of preachers, and thousands of speakers, and regardless of whether one 
agrees with him or not, he is a great mind. You, Nick, are a great 
mind, and when you encounter opposition it is because you put things 
out there that are profound-- and you ought to be paid attention to. As 
should all great minds. That was my only point.

It seems to me, though, that in your criticisms of Canon Press, NSA, 
etc. that you are insisting that they jump through all sorts of 
officially sanctioned hoops before they can enjoy freedom of speech. It 
seems like you want to say that anyone who wants to start a publishing 
company should have to go cap-in-hand to some overseeing body that will 
make sure that what they are going to print, teach, propagate fits with 
its worldview-- and if their thoughts are okay with the thought police, 
then they can enjoy "freedom" of speech.

It looks to me like you are pushing your "religious" principles on 
others. Which further supports my belief that neutrality is a myth.

You stated that "an academic institution is... about learning in a open 
and free atmosphere free of religious and political ideology."  I don't 
believe there is such a place. I believe that people who believe in 
such a place are as duped as you think NSA students are.  If people 
want to pursue an education in a place that shares their worldview, 
isn't that what this country stands for?

Thanks for your time,

Eric E.


--Apple-Mail-1--171687712
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=US-ASCII

Hi, Nick,


Sorry for taking so long to respond, but the last week was one of the
busiest ten days of my life.


You, of course, made some great points that may be irrefutable (at
least by me). But I'd like to mention a couple

of things.


On May 19, 2004, at 12:36 PM, Nick Gier wrote:


<excerpt>The board and faculty of NSA have a clear choice.  It can
follow time honored procedures of academic collegiality (read: don't
diss the UI) and academic standards (read: fewer Canon Press
publications and more PhDs).  

</excerpt>Or not.  And the question is: are they <italic>free</italic>
to choose "not", or not?  And <italic>who</italic> has the right to
insist that they do? Would that right not be reserved for those paying
for the education?  What if those paying for the education are
completely satisfied with the product they are receiving for their
dollars, and they don't really care about the "accredidation" of that
product?


<excerpt>Eric, you are right when you say that by hiring "his own
entire family" brings "more power to him," but an academic institution
is not about personal power; rather, it's about learning in a open and
free atmosphere free of religious and political ideology.  I am
stunned that you think it is OK for Wilson to hire his own family.

</excerpt>Nick, I believe the question here is about freedom, in a
country with the right of free speech--the right of a person to start
a private business and run it however he wishes. Moscow Auto is a
great auto repair facility. But there is definitely some nepotism
going on there. A father has hired his sons.  Now it would be silly
for someone to have a problem with that, <italic>because it is a
private institution with a very specific purpose.</italic>


It would be silly to mock NSA because it doesn't have a forestry
department. It would be silly to mock MIT because it focuses too
heavily on certain things and doesn't offer a broad enough education. 
Your arguments about accredidation would be fine if NSA were receiving
public funding.  But it is a privately funded organization, and
therefore it is free to do whatever it wishes, outside of crime.  If
NSA decides to make policy to hire <italic>only </italic>instructors
from the Atwood family tree, then it is free to do so.  The question
is: are the people paying for the education happy with what they are
getting?  Now, if every year the graduates were raving about how they
got duped and ripped off by unqualified instructors who didn't know
what they were teaching-- then the Better Business Bureau ought to get
involved and find applicable laws about false advertising, etc.  But
if NSA is cranking out happy customers who seem to be better educated
<italic>in the specialties that they signed up for</italic> than the
average college student, then shouldn't we leave them alone, and be
glad for the freedoms this country stands for?  Again, Mr. Wilson's
quote seems applicable-- "We love diversity until we actually get
some."  Shouldn't we be glad for diversity in education? Shouldn't we
be glad there are specialty schools that meet people's needs? Isn't it
silly to compare small specialty colleges to large universities?


Now, if there has been actual deception involved with accredidation,
then, of course, that is wrong, and you should call them on the carpet
for it.  But as for the nepotism charge-- you are "stunned that I
think it is OK to hire family".  <italic>I'm stunned</italic>
<italic>that you think it's not!</italic>  I thought this country was
about freedom!  If some Joe wants to stand up on a cracker box and
call it a college, isn't he free to do so? ...as long as he does it
with his own money?  Under this system of freedom, isn't it supposed
to be the cake that is judged and not the frosting?  If you think NSA
is a Joe on a cracker box, then mock away, but when NSA outputs
students that score better on tests than kids from your own school,
then you ought to think twice before mocking. That has been my main
point all along.  And <italic>of course</italic> NSA isn't going to
give students a <italic>completely</italic> comprehensive education.
It never intended to. It is a specialty school. And a
<italic>completely </italic>comprehensive education is impossible at
any university.


<excerpt>      Finally, Eric, your reference to Einstein is not very
helpful to your case, and ludicrous, if you are implying that Doug
Wilson is another Einstein.  All of Einstein's work was tested in the
open and free arena of science.  (Will NSA scientists be doing that
soon with regard to intelligent design?) What would you think of
Einstein starting an institute of theoretical physics hiring his own
family members and other unqualified faculty? He was hired at
Princeton because of the fact that his great achievements were
verified at the highest levels of coherent theory and empirical
confirmation.  Those who published for Canon Press have not passed any
of these critical academic tests.

</excerpt>

Nick, in quoting Einstein I wasn't comparing Doug Wilson, or anyone
else to Einstein.  I think it is "ludicrous" of you to read that into
it.  I was simply utilizing <italic>the point</italic> of Einstein's
words-- the quote could have been from Rosanne Barr, and I still would
like the words.  Einstein said "great minds" have always encountered
opposition. Doug Wilson is no Einstein, but he is a great mind. I have
heard thousands of preachers, and thousands of speakers, and
regardless of whether one agrees with him or not, he is a great mind.
You, Nick, are a great mind, and when you encounter opposition it is
because you put things out there that are profound-- and you ought to
be paid attention to. As should all great minds. That was my only
point.


It seems to me, though, that in your criticisms of Canon Press, NSA,
etc. that you are insisting that they jump through all sorts of
officially sanctioned hoops before they can enjoy freedom of speech.
It seems like you want to say that anyone who wants to start a
publishing company should have to go cap-in-hand to some overseeing
body that will make sure that what they are going to print, teach,
propagate fits with its worldview-- and if their thoughts are okay
with the thought police, then they can enjoy "freedom" of speech. 


It looks to me like you are pushing your "religious" principles on
others. Which further supports my belief that neutrality is a myth.   


You stated that "an academic institution is... about learning in a
open and free atmosphere <italic>free of religious and political
ideology</italic>."  I don't believe there is such a place. I believe
that people who believe in such a place are as duped as you think NSA
students are.  If people want to pursue an education in a place that
shares their worldview, isn't that what this country stands for?


Thanks for your time,


Eric E.



--Apple-Mail-1--171687712--