More, please

Shorter Assrocket:

My president has assured me that the sandwich he gave me and which I am currently enjoying is not -- contrary to rumor -- a mound of shit stuffed into a hoagie roll. Rather, if my senses do not somehow deceive me, it appears to be a tasty turkey reuben on rye. Unlike some of my co-religionists, I believe my president and would prefer to continue nibbling at my lunch, for I am not yet full.

So when can I submit my Fulbright application?

Thankfully, the rumors of professors and teachers being killed in Iraq have been exposed as crazy stories that bear no relation to the truth:

Iraqi society is dissolving because of the breakdown of law and order. Sami Mudhafar, Higher Education and Scientific Research Minister, said recently that he wanted to lay to rest exaggerated accounts of the number of university professors murdered in the last three years. He said the true figure was only 89 professors killed over three years. Mr Mudhafar's other piece of comforting news was that there was no murder campaign directed against the Iraqi intelligentsia and they were simply being killed because they lived in Iraq. In addition to the professors 311 teachers have been killed in the last four months. He added that the government was too weak to defend anybody: "I myself was target of an assassination attempt recently and the government has failed to obtain any lead on the party behind it."

Many students no longer go to universities that are riven by struggles between parties. "The students and their professors are in a very bad psychological situation," Abdulamir Hayder of Baghdad University was quoted as saying. "The only aim is how to flee to a foreign country to escape assassination or threats."

If only the Today Show would broadcast from Tal Afar, we wouldn't have to wait so long for good news like this. I'm so tired of listening to the defeatists.

Street corner ravings

Shorter Scalia:

;od iufhv;anogjklchb aliv7eyf ;lkvi:ODfiua;ioeubvyiynlksdfgahlbuieh.

Because grading only becomes fun when I blog about it (Part III)

The question posed to the class:

In The Things They Carry, Tim O’Brien reflects on the experiences of ordinary American soldiers in Vietnam and — in a broader sense — explores the irresolvable ambiguities of that war. Drawing on O’Brien’s book as well as your wider understanding of the American war in Vietnam, write an essay that evaluates these ambiguities as they played out in that precise historical moment. How does O’Brien’s novel (if we can even call it that) help us to understand the actual history of that war? How did the Vietnam War undermine the certainty with which Americans spoke about the cold war?

That being said, you really don't want to see the essay that lured me into this ungenerous outburst:

[Student X]: I just can't figure out your overall argument here. The introduction has very little to do with the rest of the paper; the subsequent paragraphs are profoundly ungrammatical and are consequently vague and confusing; you pay almost no attention to the historical details of the Vietnam War; and in a paper that barely creeps past four full pages, you squander nearly two on a pointless and uncritical recitation of the central claims offered up in Unfit for Command, a book that has minimal relevance to Tim O’Brien’s novel [The Things They Carried] and which is virtually useless to historians (or students) who want to learn something about the Vietnam era.

I'm pleased to report that the rest of the essays in the stack were quite strong.

And speaking of plagiarism . . .

How obtuse must a student think I am to submit the following paragraph in a 3-page essay . . .

In the early twentieth century, child labor was a pervasive phenomenon. Studies estimate that between one-fifth and one-sixth of all children were employed on a full-time basis, and child labor was an important economic factor. Instead of attending school, proletariat children worked as much as sixty hours per week in unsafe factories and coalmines. Few child labor laws protected the children from the hazards of their workplace, or from the exploitation of the factory owners. The situation was especially appalling in the textile mills, where children worked near powerful machinery that left many of them severely injured and maimed.

. . . and not think that I might do a quick Google search?

I just sent him an e-mail to let him know he'd failed the class. I did apologize to him, though, for not catching the plagiarism before yesterday's test; I could have spared him the agony of actually taking it.

Not a martyr

I don't ordinarily extend any sincere credit whatsoever in my brother's direction -- if you met him, perhaps, you'd understand why -- but when Box Turtle Ben Domenech choked out his resignation manifesto this afternoon, I felt proud to be related to one of the intrepid bloggers who (in the words of one of his commenters) handed Ben an anvil on his quick descent into the sea.

My brother and I are both academics, and we believe that plagiarism is serious shit. Whether it happens in a college classroom or a college newspaper, we presume that our students are adults and that (as principled conservatives once liked to remind us) their ideas and actions have consequences they should be prepared to accept. Over the past decade of teaching university courses, I've discovered more than a dozen instances of plagiarism, all of which have been addressed swiftly and with an almost inhuman lack of sympathy. And this has been in spite of the fact that I've taught at schools with quite generous academic misconduct policies (unlike William and Mary, where lying to a resident adviser can serve as grounds for academic suspension or probation). Sometimes the students confess; sometimes they make a bad situation worse.

Whatever else we might think of him -- his ahistorical and loathesome derision of Coretta Scott King, his theologically-inspired ravings about Antonin Scalia, his spectacularly undeserved appearance in the Post's blogroll -- the simple truth is than Ben Domenech does not take critical thought seriously. He not only committed a series of loathsome ethical violations in college and beyond, but today, confronted with massive evidence of his own pilferage, he could not even bring himself to utter the words "I fucked up. I stole someone else's ideas without attribution for my own personal aggrandizement. And I did so as a student who was privileged enough to attend a 300-year old university where intellectual virtue was a cardinal priority."

He comes closest to an admission of guilt when he writes that "While I am not a journalist, I have, myself, written more than one thing that has been plagiarized in the past" -- a grammatically-ambiguous, passive-voice sentence that only underscores Ben's venality and immaturity. Instead, he offers a stream of implausible, defensive accusations, blaming everyone but the garden gnomes in his parents' front yard for sabotaging his published record:

Virtually every other alleged instance of plagiarism that I’ve seen comes from a single semester’s worth of pieces that were printed under my name at my college paper, The Flat Hat, when I was 17.

In one instance, I have been accused me of passing off P.J. O'Rourke's writing as my own in a column for the paper. But the truth is that I had met P.J. at a Republican event and asked his permission to do a college-specific version of his classic piece on partying. He granted permission, the piece was cleared with my editors at the paper, and it ran as inspired by O’Rourke’s original.

My critics have also accused me of plagiarism in multiple movie reviews for the college paper. I once caught an editor at the paper inserting a line from The New Yorker (which I read) into my copy and protested. When that editor was promoted, I resigned. Before that, insertions had been routinely made in my copy, which I did not question. I did not even at that time read the publications from which I am now alleged to have lifted material. When these insertions were made, I assumed, like most disgruntled writers would, that they were unnecessary but legitimate editorial additions.

I suppose if Ben ever gets stopped at the border with five condoms of heroin packed into his ass, we can look forward to a similar line of defense. Meantime, he will assuredly find the company and comfort he deserves in the arms of his fellow Red Staters.

Malkin

She's all for the internment of "enemy aliens" -- so much so that she's willing to poach from other historians' footnotes and claim their research as her own -- but when it comes to plagiarism, well, Michelle Malkin has just reached her ethical limits:

But now the determined moonbat hordes have exposed multiple instances of what clearly appear to me to be blatant lifting of entire, unique passages by Ben from other writers. It is one thing to paraphrase basic facts from a wire story. But to filch the original thoughts and distinctly crafted phrases of a writer without crediting him/her--and doing so repeatedly--is unacceptable in our business. Some of the cases occurred while Ben was in college; he is blaming an editor for these transgressions. But at least one other incident involved a piece he wrote for NRO after he graduated. The side-by-side comparisons of these extensive passages is damning.

I certainly understand the impulse on the Right to rally around Domenech. But I can't ignore the plain evidence. And the charges can't be dismissed as "lies" or jealousy attributed to Ben's age.

As someone who has worked in daily journalism for 14 years, I have a lot of experience related to this horrible situation: I've had my work plagiarized by shameless word and idea thiefs many times over the years. I've also been baselessly accused of plagiarism by some of the same leftists now attacking Ben.

The bottom line is: I know it when I see it. And, painfully, Domenech's detractors, are right. He should own up to it and step down. Then, the Left should cease its sick gloating and leave him and his family alone.

I suppose it would be in poor taste to wonder if Malkin herself or Malkin's husband wrote that post.

Honor code

For the past 48 hours, the world has been piling on the new conservative blogger for the Washington Post, a 24-year old wingnut named Ben Domenech, a young man who -- as my brother discovered on his way to his 15 minutes of blogospheric fame -- has authored some of the most encyclopedically stupid pronouncements over his several years' experience with the internets.

Now we discover that Mr. "Red America" is in fact a plagiarist as well, having deliberately pilfered PJ O'Rourke's Modern Manners (1989) for a college newspaper column he wrote as a student at my brother's alma mater, William and Mary. As the chair of my university's academic misconduct committee, I must say I was eager to see what the W&M honor code -- one of the strictest in the nation -- has to say about the character of a student who would so openly lift the words of another published author. And lo, I was satisfied:

2. Cheating is the act of wrongfully using or taking the ideas or work of another in order to gain an unfair advantage. It includes, but is not limited to:
(1) the act of plagiarism;
(2) the acts of giving unauthorized aid to another student or receiving unauthorized aid from another person on tests, quizzes,assignments or examinations;
(3) the acts of using or consulting unauthorized materials or using unauthorized equipment or devices on tests, quizzes, assignments or examinations;
(4) the acts of using any material portion of a paper or project to fulfill the requirements of more than one course unless the student has received prior permission to do so;
(5) the acts of intentionally commencing work or failing to terminate work on any examination, test, quiz or assignment according to the time constraints imposed.

The term "assignment" includes any work, required or volunteered, and submitted to a faculty member for review and/or academic credit, or any work, required or volunteered, submitted for publication in a College-sponsored or other publication, or any work, required or volunteered, submitted for use in conjunction with a College-sponsored event or activity. All academic work undertaken by a student must be completed independently unless the faculty member or other responsible authority expressly authorizes collaboration with another.

Plagiarism occurs when a student, with intent to deceive or with reckless disregard for proper scholarly procedures, presents any information, ideas or phrasing of another as if they were his or her own and does not give appropriate credit to the original source.

Now that Domenech has apologized for describing Coretta Scott King as a "communist" on the day of her funeral, I suppose he might want to resolve this little problem as well. Too bad the W&M honor code doesn't appear to be retroactive. As I recall, a number of students from the University of Virginia had their degrees rescinded a few years back when a multi-year cheating scandal was discovered to have taken place among students in an introductory physics class.

Update: RedState offers its melodramatic, incoherent defense of plagiarism:

And now those opposed to Ben have googled prior writings that on the surface appear suspicious, but only because permissions obtained and judgments made offline were not reflected online by an out dated and out of business campus newspaper. But that's all the opponents want - just enough to sabotage a career, though in the process they will sabotage themselves. Facts have no meaning. Only impressions have any bearing on this. The charges of plagarism are false, meant to bring down a good and honest man. The presented facts to prove plagarism are specious -- products of shoddy work. One could easily think the producers of 60 Minutes II were behind them.

I'm sure the editors of The Flat Hat would be suprised to hear that their 95-year old publication has suddenly closed up shop, or that they had once secured permission to run copyrighted material -- without attribution -- under a student byline.

Agony of defeat

Allow me to be the first person to note that George Bush's press conference yesterday occurred on the 36th anniversary of Slovenian ski jumper Vinko Bogataj's infamous crash, forever immortalized by ABC's "Wide World of Sports."

Onanism on a $157 million budget

The Post reports today on the $157 million cascade of federally-funded virtue flowing into the gaping orifices of socially conservative organizations who promote, among other non-viable and oxymoronic agendas, "abstinence education." As part of a wider, $2 billion program of federal grants directed toward religious organizations, the Bush administration has extended hope to tiny community organizations last seen hocking their goods at county fairs:

Hundreds of struggling antiabortion and pregnancy crisis centers have received federal grants that often doubled or tripled their annual budgets, allowing them to branch out and hire staff, especially for abstinence education.

The Door of Hope Pregnancy Care Center in Madisonville, Ky., a small outfit of four part-time employees committed "to the belief in the sanctity of human life, primarily as it relates to the protection of the unborn," operated on an annual budget of $75,000 to $79,000, most of it raised from an annual banquet and a "walk for life." Last year, Door of Hope got an abstinence education grant of $317,017, allowing it to hire staff and expand.

In Dyersburg, Tenn., the Life Choices Pregnancy Support Center, where the staff believes "without reservation or qualification that the Scriptures teach that human life begins at conception," had revenue of $81,621 and could pay Executive Director Natalie Wilson $12,247 in 2001. Two years later, the center got a $534,339 grant for abstinence education. By 2004, annual revenue totaled $617,355.

Altogether, local antiabortion and crisis pregnancy centers have received well over $60 million in grants for abstinence education and other programs, according to a Post review of federal records.

Among the recipients, evidently, is a South Carolina group called Heritage Community Services, whose website promotes something rather nebulously described as 'The Heritage Method." Sadly, we won't be able to experience the throbbing satisfactions of the "The Heritage Method" without purchasing the 450-minute abstinence curriculum, but we do learn that it consists of "a logic model that addresses the risky behavior of adolescents from the perspective of changing the behavior that is causing the problem rather than dealing with the consequences of the risky actions." In other words, the $3 million Heritage budget -- up from $50,000 a few years back -- helps scatter the fertile seeds of wisdom:

State your boundaries. Share your boundaries with your parents, friends, and anyone whom you are dating. You must be committed to maintaining your boundaries.

Avoid dangerous situations that could make it harder to abstain. This could mean not attending parties that serve alcohol, avoiding a person that is tempting you to be sexually active, and avoiding places such as bedrooms or places with a lack of proper adult supervision.

Firmly say, "No!" The word no is clear and to the point. You do not have to be rude, but you must be clear vocally and with your body language.

If all else fails you can exit a situation. No matter how close you come to crossing your boundaries you can always stop and exit.

I can't imagine how the other 449 minutes and 30 seconds of the group's abstinence curriculum is spent -- perhaps it includes a brutal regimen of aversion therapy and thigh spreaders -- but the Heritage folks might want to pause and reconsider their use of the "stop and exit" metaphor...

Commander in Chief

I ordinarily don't read Bob Woodward's books. Whatever relevant virtues he may possess, I've always found him to be a rather shitty, unimaginative writer whose publishers seem content to staple together his interview notes and call it a day. Regardless, I recently found a copy of Plan of Attack for 25 cents at a local used book store. It being spring break, and with the third anniversary of the Iraq invasion coming up, I thought a little trashy, relevant reading might be in order as I squandered another potentially gainful week of my life. It was a quick skim, and I realized about halfway through that reading Plan of Attack is kind of like listening to an old Backstreet Boys album -- I don't particularly appreciate the music, and I never went out of my way to familiarize myself with the oeuvre, but when someone pops in the CD, fuck if I haven't heard every track somewhere.

So sure enough, as I plowed through Woodward's endless stream of five-word sentences, there was Tommy Franks calling Douglas Feith the "fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth"; there was Colin Powell stewing over the pre-war intelligence before his UN presentation; there was Rumsfeld, discarding the entire "Future of Iraq" project that might have spared the US a good bit of post-occupation agony -- the book is larded with this sort of familiar stuff. But every now and then Woodward disclosed something I hadn't already heard elsewhere, like this pre-9-11 anecdote:

President-elect Bush asked some practical questions about how things worked, but he did not offer or hint at his desires.

The JCS staff had placed a peppermint at each place. Bush unwrapped his an popped it into his mouth. Later he eyed [William] Cohen's mint and flashed a pantomime query, Do you want that? Cohen signaled no, so Bush reached over and took it. Near the end of the hour-and-a-quarter briefing, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Army General Henry 'Hugh' Shelton, noticed Bush eying his mint, so he passed it over.

Tournament Challenge

The men's NCAA tournament is underway, and I'm currently watching Boston College beat Pacific in a double-overtime slugfest. I never follow college basketball during the regular season, but for some reason I always find the tournament really exciting, most likely because it tends to coincide with my spring break, which is typically an all-sweatpants-all-the-time affair in which I'm under-motivated and easily distracted. I've racked up a pretty good record with the men's tournament, winning three of the five pools I've entered over the past thirteen years, raking in about $100 and a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles figurine that currently sits proudly -- and to my wife's unending dismay -- over my workspace in the living room of our house. My family has a long history of pointless competition; I'd probably enter a 4th division Romanian football pool if someone else went to the trouble of organizing it.

Within a the next five to six weeks, my wife and I will be welcoming a daughter into the world, and I can only hope these asinine traditions take root in a new generation. We already have four females in the house -- two dogs, a cat, and a human -- but none of these four will ever be able to hit a running bank shot, drain a long three from the corner, or throw a crushing elbow across the bridge of an opponent's nose to stop an open layup. My daughter may well never do any of these things, either, but I have the greatest hope that a year from now she and I will use a small bowl of goldfish crackers to make her March Madness selections.

In celebration of my soon-to-be-born daughter -- and in celebration of the principle of useless, uninformed diversion -- I've set up a group for the ESPN Women's Tournament Challenge. Click the link, set up an account, make your picks, and join the group. The group name is "Title IX: F*ing Alright." It's easy and only takes a few minutes. Make your picks by Sunday morning before the contest locks.

The winner will be harrassed remorselessly for contributions to my daughter's college scholarship fund.

Working Blue

As I sometimes tell my students -- as I did today after sputtering a few choice words about the American war in Vietnam -- "we're all adults at a public, secular, liberal arts university. When we encounter bullshit, we're obliged to name it."

Or maybe not:

When the semester started, Stephen E. Williams was teaching history at the Lancaster branch of Harrisburg Area Community College. But early in the semester, he stopped showing up, and his students received calls confirming the reason why: He had used the word “fuck” in class.

Officially, administrators at the college will not say why Williams was suspended or why the institution recently reached an agreement under which the tenure-track (but non-tenured) professor ceased to be an employee. But students in his classes started getting calls from officials soon after he left, asking if they had heard him swear in class. . . .

Patrick M. Early, executive director of public relations at the college, said he couldn’t comment on Williams, except to say that he was no longer an employee and that there had been a “mutual resolution of the situation.” Early also said that Williams had the opportunity for a hearing involving peers, but opted for a settlement. (Williams did not respond to a message, and told local reporters he had been advised by his lawyer not to comment.)

This all seems a bit excessive. I don't swear nearly as much in class as I do on this blog, but every now and then I'll "go blue" in a fit of exasperation (e.g., "Richard Nixon was out of his fucking mind when he ordered the invasion of Cambodia"); or while fleshing out certain brash or tasteless historical acronyms (e.g., FTA="Fuck the Army" or LSMFT="Lets Shoot a Motherfucker Tonight," a popular slogan within the Los Angeles Police Department in the early 1960s); or in a moment of irony (e.g., "Lyndon Johnson had a filthy fucking mouth"); or while setting up audiovisual equipment (e.g., "Someone once said that watching me fumble with a data projector was like watching a cartoon character who fucks things up a lot.")

This latter remark still holds the record for the earliest appearance of the word "fuck" in one of my courses -- it was the first thing that came out of my mouth on the first day of my US survey in September 2004, literally 30 seconds after I entered the room and began untangling about a half dozen assorted cords and wires. Abiding by some sort of internal MPAA-type ratings system, I ordinarily don't drop the f-bomb in my lower-division surveys, though I will occasionally deploy terms of art like "shitty" (e.g., "indentured servants led shitty lives in colonial Virginia"), "prick" (e.g., "Robert Welch seemed to think Joe McCarthy was somewhat of prick"), and "dumbass" (e.g., "I equate flying the confederate flag with being a dumbass.") And while I carry no water for anyone with strong religious beliefs, I acknowledge the historical significance of religion and devote a lot of time in my classes to its social and political dimensions over the past few centuries. For that reason -- and because we have a lot of students (mostly Christian) who haven't yet been demoralized by the random, cavernous void that comprises human existence -- I avoid statements that will be interpreted as overly blasphemous (e.g., "Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick, World War I was a depraved waste of life"), or insulting to anyone's strange metaphysical beliefs (e.g., "[insert religious denomination here] are fucking crazy.") I also would not invoke words and phrases that refer to genitalia or sexual functions in any sexist, graphic, or non-metaphorical way unless I happened to be quoting Lyndon Johnson (e.g., "I never trust a man until I have his pecker in my pocket") or Richard Nixon (e.g., "[It's] time to get down to nut-cutting") or commenting more speculatively on the bizarre castration anxiety that seemed to afflict American presidents during the Vietnam War.

I should probably save this post and include it in next year's tenure file.

Because if there's ever a moment in a woman's life marked by superhuman strength and cat-like mobility, it's during labor

The NY Times reports today on the routine shackling of imprisoned women during labor, a truly appalling practice allowed in 23 states and explicitly prohibited in a mere five. The article is drawn in part from a new Amnesty USA report on the abuse of women in custody. Some gems from the study:

º Alabama stated that restraints depend on the security class of the woman, but that “often two extremities are restrained.”

º Arkansas reportedly has a policy stipulating that women with “lesser disciplinary records” will at times have one arm and one leg restrained by flexible nylon “soft restraints.” Arkansas did not provide information on how women with other disciplinary records are restrained.

º Louisiana allows restraints including leg irons to be utilized.

º Nevada reported that “normally only wrist restraints” are used.

º New Hampshire stated that one foot may be shackled to the bed during labor depending on security class of the woman in labor.

º Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and Wisconsin allow restraints until the inmate is in “active labor” or arrives at the delivery room.

One of the broader consequences of this study should be to puncture the stupid myth that corrections policies for women have somehow become more uniformly "humane" over the past decade. While working on my PhD in Minnesota, I participated in a two-quarter sequence in which graduate students were sent out in pairs to conduct extended institutional analyses of health clinics, shopping malls, museums and prisons. One group reported back from the new women's facility at Shakopee, where the architecture and prison programming owed little to the "classical" stigmata of American corrections; the director of the facility was young and enlightened and spoke with great beneficence about the role of the prison in helping to expand the self-esteem and nurture the minds and souls of its charges.

We learn today from the Amnesty USA report that women at Shakopee -- as in dozens of other states -- may be restrained during labor if they are judged to pose an "escape" or "public safety" risk, or if they are believed capable of "physical abuse" of the corrections or medical staff, or if they present a threat to prison "property." I suppose the incarcerated women of Minnesota are meant be grateful that their state has rejected the antebellum nostalgia of states like Louisiana, where the disciplinary regime of the sugar plantations appears to be alive and well.

World War II, Script Kiddie Version

(Via Another Damned Medievalist.) This will be profoundly funny, I suppose, to those who live in the Venn diagram where World War II geeks and computer fanatics meet. I belong to neither of those circles, but it still cracks me up:

Hitler[AoE] has joined the game.*
*Eisenhower has joined the game.*
*paTTon has joined the game.*
*Churchill has joined the game.*
*benny-tow has joined the game.*
*T0J0 has joined the game.*
*Roosevelt has joined the game.*
*Stalin has joined the game.*
*deGaulle has joined the game.*
Roosevelt: hey sup
T0J0: y0
Stalin: hi
Churchill: hi
Hitler[AoE]: cool, i start with panzer tanks!
paTTon: lol more like panzy tanks
T0JO: lol
Roosevelt: o this fockin sucks i got a depression!
benny-tow: haha america sux
Stalin: hey hitler you dont fight me i dont fight u, cool?
Hitler[AoE]; sure whatever
Stalin: cool
deGaulle: **** Hitler rushed some1 help
Hitler[AoE]: lol byebye frenchy

Read the whole thing -- up to and beyond June 1940 -- here.

Job Search

Somehow I can't imagine I'd be a good applicant for this position:

The University of Charleston
The Herchiel and Elizabeth Sims "In God We Trust" Chair in Ethics

The University of Charleston invites applications for The Herchiel and Elizabeth Sims "In God We Trust" Chair in Ethics. The successful candidate will carry a 3/4 load of ethics-related course work per year plus:
* Work with faculty members to develop strategies and pedagogical approaches to facilitate incorporation of moral and ethical decision-making throughout the University curriculum;
* Work with communities on and outside the campus to enhance the University's reputation as a center for ethical and moral thought, and to encourage the use of ethical practices among members of the communities.

As an endowed position, the Sims Chair carries the following special requirements:

* Candidates must have earned a doctorate in a related field, and have demonstrated, through professional activities, expertise in applied ethics.
* Experience in faculty development activities is desired.
* Candidates must embrace a belief in God and present moral and ethical values from a God-centered perspective.

The search will begin immediately and continue until the position is filled. To apply, send a letter of introduction, vita, transcripts, evidence of successful teaching, and three letters of recommendation to: J. Wayne Jones; Associate Professor and Chair; Morris Harvey Division of Arts and Sciences; 2300 MacCorkle Ave., SE; University of Charleston; Charleston, WV 25304.

Coming soon:
* The Michael Behe "Irreducible Complexity" Chair in Intelligent Design
* The James Dobson "I'm certain that most couples expect to find intimacy in marriage, but it somehow eludes them" Chair in Marriage and Family Studies
* The George Bush "If I Keep Saying 'Victory,' People Will Believe That We Are Winning" Chair in Strategic and International Studies
* That Fabio Lanzoni "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" Chair in Dairy Science