Thomas Ross, while the head of the Z Smith Reynolds Foundation, steered over $280,000 to Planned Parenthood from 2001-2007 and an additional $50,000 to NARAL Pro-Choice America. Both groups provide abortions and inevitably had the most to gain from the UNC system’s new health care plan, which up until last week included coverage for elective abortions.

Ross gave directly to such groups in the almost seven years he served as Executive Director of the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, a leftist foundation which gives hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to liberal activist groups that support abortion, comprehensive sexual education, gay rights and radical, third-wave feminism.

As Executive Director, he approved money for the Equality NC Foundation in support of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community, and projects like the Women’s Economic Equity Project. He approved $70,000 for the international non-profit IPAS, whose mission is to empower women by exercising their sexual and reproductive rights. Financially giving to groups like NC Lambda Youth Network, a “youth-led statewide leadership development network for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and allied (LGBTA) young people, ages 13 to 24,” is most alarming as he will oversee 200,000 students in the UNC system beginning in January 2011.

Examining his resume, the new UNC president proves to be yet another love child of liberal groups seeking greater power and more influence – this time in education. Here are some more donation figures from the new president of the UNC system:

2007

• ACLU: “To support the salary of a reproductive health education coordinator.” $30K
• Center for Community Action, Inc.: “For the implementation phase of the Women’s Economic Equity Project.”  $70K
• Equality NC Foundation: “For general operating support to strengthen leadership for the LGBT community in North Carolina.” $35K
• IPAS: “To promote sexual and reproductive rights advocacy in North Carolina’s Latino communities.” $40K
• Planned Parenthood: “For the Strategic Advocacy Today, a Pro-Choice Tomorrow Program.” $175K

2005

• Equality, NC Foundation: “For general operating support.” $20K
• IPAS: “To promote sexual and reproductive rights advocacy in North Carolina’s Latino Communities.” $30K
• Planned Parenthood Health Systems, Inc.: $50K
• Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina: $30K

2004

• Planned Parenthood: $25K
• NC Lambda Youth Network: “Rainbow Youth Coalition (RYC).” $15K

2003

• NARAL Pro-Choice America: “General operating support.” $50K

Ross’ previous roles in North Carolina have been political appointments. Raleigh News and Observer reporter Rob Christenson said “In turning to Ross, the UNC Board of Governors found someone who is part of a relatively small group of men and women who run North Carolina’s politics, businesses, foundations, courts and law firms.” Ross’ appointment as head of the state’s largest institution will make sure that the “relatively small group” continues to control the direction of North Carolina, elections or no elections.

The amount of money contributed under Ross’ leadership to such radical left organizations portends what will likely be an unfortunate shift of the UNC system from the moderate, non-partisan and businesslike leadership of Erskine Bowles. We can instead expect to see a more openly liberal, partisan direction coming from the central administration in Chapel Hill, at least if history is an indicator.

The post New UNC System President Funded Abortions and Gay Rights in North Carolina appeared first on Civitas Institute.

Dozens of people rallied outside the state capital on August 10 to support a state constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman. The rally was one stop in a series of rallies taking place nationwide sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). The 20-stop tour is part of NOM’s "Summer for Marriage Tour 2010: One Man One Woman Rally" highlighting states without a marriage protection amendment.

NOM President Brian Brown was one of five speakers urging rally attendees to continue North Carolina’s fight for marriage. Participants also heard from Executive Director of the Christian Action League of North Carolina Rev. Mark Creech; NC4Marriage Executive Director Bill Brooks; Concerned Women for America of North Carolina Chapter Director Mary Frances Forrester; and Raleigh International Church Pastor Rev. Olden Thornton.

While each attendee varied in age and background, one thing was clear amongst participants: marriage is for one man and one woman. A sentiment echoed by each speaker.

Forrester emphasized that the fight for marriage is not about tolerance, but about protecting the next generation of children and the betterment of society. One rally attendee’s sign shared that opinion. Her neon pink sign read, "Marriage is for our children’s children."

Creech spoke to the crowd stressing that state polling, residents and voters support a constitutional amendment protecting marriage, why not our Legislature? He continued to explain that when citizens are allowed to vote on the definition of marriage, by constitutional amendment, they support marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

In fact, December 2009 polling by the Civitas Institute found that 73 percent of North Carolina voters support a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is defined as one man and one woman. And marriage supporters continue to point out that North Carolina is the only state in the Southeast that has yet to vote on a state constitutional amendment defining marriage. Yet, despite voter and numerous states’ support, the North Carolina Legislature continues to sentence the Defense of Marriage Act to death by committee.

The rally, however, was not without its own counter-protest. Hundreds of gay activists gathered across the street chanting "Equality North Carolina" and "God is Love" to the sound of honking horns on busy Fayetteville Street.

While the NOM tour has a few stops left, including the final stop in Washington DC, Raleigh proved to be an exciting rally for supporters of a marriage protection amendment.

The post Marriage Rally Urges Legislators for Amendment appeared first on Civitas Institute.

The North Carolina Senate’s FY 2010-11 proposed budget for Transportation is $2.7 billion.

The most notable discrepancy between the Senate’s budget and Gov. Perdue’s recommended budget changes is the Senate does not allocate funds for Perdue’s NC Mobility Fund. According to Gov. Perdue’s Budget, the NC Mobility Fund would provide funds for projects of “statewide significance” with a budget of $94.6 million. There is no such allocation in the Senate budget.

Also of note, the Senate does not propose the increase in registration fees (from $28 to $35) for cars and light trucks.

Perdue’s budget recommended financing her NC Mobility Fund from these increased registration fees along with diverting part of the annual transfer from the Highway Trust Fund to the General Fund.

Both the Governor’s and Senate’s Budget provide more than $30 million in funding to reinstate the Driver Education Program.

Major expansions and reductions include:

Expansions

• $32 million to restore funding for the Driver Education Program. Last year’s biennial budget cut the Program pending a continuation review this year.
• $2 million in funds to the Rail Division to expand North Carolina’s short line rail
• $2 million spending expansion for Urban Loops
• $4.9 million in increases for the Intrastate System
• $4.7 million in matching funds, used along with a grant from US Department of Commerce, to fund the Highway Patrol for the Public Safety Interoperability Communications. The fund will help establish the Voice Interoperability Project for Emergency Responders (VIPER) in North Carolina.

Reductions

• $500,000 would be retained from the annual transfer to the General Fund for the Department of Commerce Executive Aircraft Division; this will reduce the amount appropriated to the General Fund.

The post N.C. Senate’s 2010-11 Budget Recommendations: Transportation appeared first on Civitas Institute.

• Gov. Perdue’s 2010-11 Budget Recommendations
• Overview
• Community Colleges
• Public Education
• General Government
• Health & Human Services
• Natural & Economic Resources
• UNC System
• Justice & Public Safety
• Transportation

Governor Perdue’s total proposed FY 2010-11 budget for Transportation is $2.8 billion. This includes a $7 increase (from $28 to $35) in annual registration fees for cars and light trucks.

Perdue’s new budget would establish the NC Mobility Fund within the Highway Trust Fund. The Mobility Fund will not be included in the Equity Formula, rather provide funds for projects of “statewide significance” including aviation, ports, transit, and rail. The Fund would be financed by increased Department of Motor Vehicle fees (most notably, the $7 increase in registration fees) along with the Highway Trust Fund retaining $22 million of the annual transfer from the Highway Trust Fund to the General Fund and diverting it to the new Mobility Fund.

Who will select the NC Mobility Fund’s projects and how will the funds be monitored in distribution? Perdue’s budget is unclear.

The transportation budget consists of two components: the Highway Fund and the Highway Trust Fund. The Funds are primarily financed through the state gas tax, a sales tax on vehicle sales and various licenses and fees levied by the Division of Motor Vehicles.

Major expansions and reductions include:

Expansions

• $94.6 million to establish the NC Mobility Fund. Revenue for the fund will come from $72.6 million in increased motor vehicle fees and diverting $22 million from the annual transfer from the Highway Trust Fund to the General Fund
• $4.3 million spending expansion to the Rail Division for construction of the Pembroke Northeast Bypass project to ensure improved multi-modal access to southeast North Carolina
• $33 million to restore funding for the Driver Education Program. The funding had been cut in last year’s biennial budget pending a continuation review of the program

Reductions

• The $22 million being retained from the annual transfer to the General Fund to help establish the Mobility Fund counts as a spending reduction as it reduces the amount appropriated to the General Fund

The post Gov. Perdue’s 2010-11 Budget Recommendations: Transportation appeared first on Civitas Institute.

• Gov. Perdue’s 2010-11 Budget Recommendations
• Overview
• Community Colleges
• Public Education
• General Government
• Health & Human Services
• Natural & Economic Resources
• UNC System
• Justice & Public Safety
• Transportation

Community College student enrollment in North Carolina is projected to increase by 16%, totaling 34,000 additional students, for fiscal year 2010-11.

Governor Perdue’s Community College Budget includes an $85 million expansion million to fully fund this rapidly growing enrollment. The Budget is 6% of the total operating budget.  

On net, the Governor recommends expanding the Community College budget by $32 million, or 3.2 percent, over the spending plan approved in last year’s budget bill.

Major expansions and reductions include:

Expansions

• $85 million in additional funding to finance anticipated enrollment growth of 16 percent
• $6.5 million in additional expenditures for the need-based financial aid program, totaling a 46% increase
• $2.5 million recurring spending expansion to address equipment, technology and training needs at the colleges

Reductions

• An $8 per credit hour tuition increase will lessen the state’s support by $32 million. Twenty percent of the funds generated, however, would be set aside to fund need-based aid and Federal Pell grant program
• Mandates a $33 million (or 3.5 percent) community college flexibility reduction, used to make reductions on a case by case basis, specific to the college’s need
• $10 million reduction in state support due to an unanticipated $10 million extra in tuition and fee collections, due to sharp enrollment increase

The post Gov. Perdue’s 2010-11 Budget Recommendations: Community Colleges appeared first on Civitas Institute.

Katie: “U bored?”
John: “Ya”
Katie: “Check out Lauren’s Facebook pics from last night”
John: “Looking now”

The professor at the front of the classroom drones on about projectile motion. Katie and John aren’t worried about what they’re missing. They can watch the podcast lecture whenever they get around to it.

Today, students are using technology more than ever to communicate, learn, listen and interact. Text messaging sends them to the internet where they sign into the world of Facebook, Twitter and an online social life. Students enroll in online classrooms (including Blackboard and ISIS); lectures are available on iTunes U and YouTube. Students trip from link to link through cyberspace hoping to connect information with knowledge.

Academia is closely following the development of technology in the classroom and is trying to understand today’s “plugged in” student. Some research argues that online learning has considerable advantages over traditional education because students learn better online than face-to-face. Others point to the excess of online availability as a slippery slope of academic dishonesty with little authentic learning. So does the use of technology in the classroom advance or hinder the academic pursuit of truth? Scholars want to know.

Here, with observations by students and recent graduates, are six problems to consider in weighing the value or detriment of technology in the classroom.

1. Online searching may provide an immediate answer but students are missing out on a key part of the classroom—teacher-student interaction.

“When I have no idea what my professor is talking about, I Google it or head over to Wikipedia for
background information” said a University of North Florida sophomore. When reminded she can raise her hand and ask, she simply replied, “Online is quicker.”

While students may be able to search the internet for quick answers, what they find is black and white information with a limited scope. Students can search for a fact and get just that: a fact. When students turn to the internet and not their professor, they limit their education to words on a page instead of actual knowledge gained from information and interaction.

In many ways, students cannot learn effectively from online, at-your-fingertips answers.

2. Does access to Google in the classroom really help students learn?

Last fall, UCLA released new research which concluded that students learn better when engaged in a “trial and error” effort to find information. In a series of experiments, the study found that if students fail to retrieve information on their first attempt, they remember the information better. Students’ retention rates were compared to student learning in a control environment in which they simply studied the information without interaction. Trying and failing to retrieve information is actually helpful to learning—and is less likely to happen when answers are accessible at a single click.

When students browse the internet for information supplemental to their classroom experience, they merely skim keywords without actually intercepting the information. But not all internet searching corrodes student education. In his 2008 Atlantic article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Nicholas Carr wrote, “Thanks to the ubiquity of text on the Internet, we may well be reading more today than we did in the 1970s or 1980s, when television was our medium of choice.”

However, just because students are reading more does not necessarily mean they are learning more. One college freshman at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill remarked that he has trouble remembering what he read in a given day. “I spend hours reading on the internet about history and current events, but can barely tell you what I actually read, let alone if I learned something new.”

3. Does technology-based education teach anything beyond how to use the technology itself?

Students have unlimited access to technology throughout their college experience: laptops, smart phones, smart applications and e-readers (including the distribution of the new iPad) are all available 24/7. Colleges and universities often use technology as a learning supplement with online activities, homework help and testing. If a classroom is at capacity at the University of Florida, students can watch in the comfort of their dorm room via an online lecture feed or catch it later on iTunes U.

A recent graduate of North Carolina State University, Christine DiPietro observed, “Students don’t know how to take notes anymore because lectures are online and can be re-winded.”

Considering the interconnectivity of education and technology, is education still valuable without access to the technology from which the student originally “learned” the material? For instance, my freshman year I enrolled in a course called Age of the Dinosaurs where 90 percent of the curriculum was online and 10 percent in person. As a result, I learned the technology, not the material. If you asked me to recite a simple fact from the class, I could not give you an answer. But ask me how to find it on the CD Rom and I will point you to the search function.

4. Is banning laptops in class a good solution?

In an effort to limit technology distraction in the classroom, some professors are banning laptops. A recent Washington Post article featured David Cole at Georgetown Law as one of the many professors who is urging students to take notes and engage in class the old fashioned way—on  paper and in person.

Is regulating behavior the solution? Student distraction is not new to this generation; my parents put magazines on the inside of their textbooks and passed notes on folded paper to one another (I know, shocking). How far should professors go to ensure that their students are not distracted but instead are engaged, listening and comprehending the material?

A student at Duke University (which gave iPods to all freshman students from 2004-06) says banning laptops is not the solution to limiting classroom distraction. “When professors threaten to not allow laptops during lectures, they only encourage me to seek out other forms of entertainment, like my new smart phone applications.”

In many ways, laptop use should be considered on a case by case basis. For courses that have an online or eBook component, laptops are essential. But for others, banning laptops is the exact form of discipline needed for wandering students. In my undergraduate experience, having a laptop open on my desk was the exact distraction I could not overcome. My laptop was open to take “notes” and update my Facebook status, check email, shop online and look up Gator scores while “listening” to a lecture on Existentialism. A laptop ban or internet freeze could be the saving grace for students like me who find the diversion too tempting. 

5. All technology is not created equal.

Teachers and students use certain forms of technology in the classroom based on the particular objectives of their courses. In that sense, the classroom shapes our use of technology. On the flip side, technology has also come to shape the classroom. A first-year medical student at the University of Kentucky says that access to medical journals online kindles far greater participation in the class discussions than reading the journals at home only.

In some courses, technology is vital to the classroom. Computer programming, select engineering and advanced mathematics classes all need computers to build models and connect text with application. In such classes, technology is the very content of education. And yet, in some of these classes professors may still ask you to turn off your smart phone.

6. In this hyperlinked world, how do we know what’s true and what’s false?

A compelling example of the inability to ensure credibility on the web and in private text messages comes from the now infamous Professor Peter W. Tague. The Georgetown University Professor began his criminal-law course by announcing that United States Supreme Court Chief Justice, John G. Roberts would soon announce his retirement from the bench. Radar Online, a gossip site sister to the National Enquirer, reported in just 20 minutes the mind-boggling news which was then picked up by mainstream media including Drudge Report. Tague’s point? You can’t trust even the most reliable source; your law-abiding law school professor may not be telling the truth.

The blogosphere lit up after the media frenzy, bringing to light numerous questions about the credibility of online sources when reading opinion as fact. For students, this presents an enormous obstacle. With online search capabilities nearly limitless, students can find quotes, facts and answers instantly. They do not need evidence when they can just hyperlink to the source and let the professor figure out whether the information is credible. Using footnotes and submitting a paper as a hard copy are clearly antiquated.

Our Turn: How to Use Technology for Good

As scholars weigh the effects of more technology in the classroom, each consideration is not without concern and trepidation for the future. Traditional teacher-student interaction may be decreasing as online searches, podcasts and e-classrooms continue in popularity. Education is rapidly transforming with little sign of return to the “olden days.” The rise of technology cannot be ignored.

On one hand it is easy to view technology exclusively as a hindrance to academic learning. But each problem offers a solution—a solution possible when professors and students adapt and alter their teaching and learning styles to the new era of wired education.

In confronting the problems raised by technology, we may be one step close to academic truth. How? Use technologies for good; in fact, demand it. Technology connects students to the world beyond the classroom—connecting theory with application. With access to technology, students see the text of the page come to life with model simulations, relevant current events and interactive examples. Students can learn on their own, searching for information at the click of a mouse.

Professors can now use technology as another medium to engage a student’s mind. Technology connects the professor, curriculum and the student with one another in an instant. The success of student education is not in creating a new medium to teach, but instead reaching students where they already are; on the web, on their phones and on their laptops. The possibilities for professor-student interaction are infinite and no longer limited to just face-to-face. Online chat rooms for office hours, media blitzes and life lessons about the importance of credibility of source are just the beginning.

While these considerations are not exhaustive, they are a start. In considering the problems technology in the classroom presents one point remains clear: technology is here to stay and we can use it for good. In the end, we may find technology the key to the future of education, logged in and wired up.

This article originally appeared on April 6, 2010 on the National Association of Scholars’ website.

The post All Wired Up: Six Questions Technology in the Classroom Raises appeared first on Civitas Institute.

Articles in This Series:

The 14th recommendation in the Civitas Institute Agenda “20 Changes for 2010: A Primer for State Reform” focuses on providing legal protection for unborn victims of violence.

The Problem: When a crime is committed against a pregnant woman, North Carolina does not legally recognize the unborn child’s death or injury as a separate crime.

In 2009, 15 states, including New York, Oregon and neighboring Tennessee introduced measures to protect unborn victims of violence. North Carolina was not one of those states.¹

Solution:

14.) Protect unborn victims of violence by law.

82% of North Carolinians support a fetal homicide law according to an April 2008 poll of likely voters conducted by the Civitas Institute.

North Carolina law should extend specific legal protection to the unborn child of pregnant mothers who choose to carry their child to term. Both the lives of the pregnant woman and the unborn should be explicitly protected by North Carolina law. 

Recommendation:

• Pass a law to establish separate criminal offenses for the death or injury of an unborn child resulting from a violent crime against the pregnant mother.

The post 20 Changes For 2010: Protecting Unborn Victims of Violence appeared first on Civitas Institute.

Articles in This Series:

The ninth recommendation in the Civitas Institute Agenda “20 Changes for 2010: A Primer for State Reform” focuses on strengthening state marriage laws in North Carolina.

The problem: North Carolina is the only southern state that does not have a marriage defense amendment in its state constitution.  

In 2009, North Carolina state legislators had the opportunity to enact a constitutional amendment declaring marriage as the union between one man and one woman. However, the Defense of Marriage Act, introduced this session in the House as HB 361 (Crawford, D-Granville; Lewis, R-Harnett; Burris-Floyd, R-Gaston; Hill, D-Columbus) and in the Senate as SB 272 (Forrester, R-Gaston), was blocked for a fifth straight session by opponents in committee.¹

Without a constitutional amendment, current marriage laws could come under attack in the courtroom from same-sex couples who seek a marriage license or same-sex couples who move to North Carolina from another state that previously recognized their union as marriage.

Current state marriage laws declare:  “A valid and sufficient marriage is created by the consent of a male and female person who may lawfully marry to take each other as husband and wife, freely.”

On the flip side, North Carolina law invalidates marriage – whether created by common law, contracted or performed outside the state – between individuals of the same gender.

That said, both laws do not substitute as a state marriage amendment, nor negate the right of North Carolinians to vote on the definition of marriage in a referendum.

Solution:

9.)  Strengthen existing marriage laws

According to December, 2009 polling by the Civitas Institute, 73% of North Carolina voters support a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is defined as one man and one woman, .

Recommendation:

• Pass a Marriage Defense Act. The legislation would allow North Carolina voters to amend the state constitution to include the definition of marriage as solely between a man and a woman. If approved by voters, a constitutional amendment would strengthen already existing state marriage laws and not allow activist courts and legislatures to alter the definition of marriage.

The post 20 Changes For 2010: Defense of Marriage Act appeared first on Civitas Institute.

The post Mary Katharine Ham Lecture at Network of enlighted Women Meeting appeared first on Civitas Institute.

UNCC board members recently agreed to bring a Division 1 football program to the state school by 2013. No one, however, seems to be talking about the additional Title IX compliance costs that will add to the already high costs to fund a football program.

Starting a major college football program is costly—in a number of ways. The future $45 million football stadium and training complex will increase the annual student activity fees by $50, starting fall 2011. In addition, UNCC will shell out at least $6 million every year to support a 100-110 player football team. The $6 million budget includes scholarships, salaries, travel expenses, equipment, video capabilities, trainers and all operational costs. That’s just the direct financial support.

According to Darren Spease, Senior Associate Athletic Director at UNCC, the team will include 63 scholarship recipients, which leads to the compliance costs.
Federal Title IX regulations require gender equity for men and women in every education program or activity that receives federal funding, including athletics. Thus, UNCC adding 63 male scholarships could require an additional 63 female athletic scholarships.

Passed in 1972 as an education amendment, Title IX is a straightforward, one sentence amendment written to ban sex discrimination in educational institutions. However, Title IX no longer just fights discrimination against women; in practice it enforces quotas against men.

Current Title IX enforcement is based on a 1979 Policy Interpretation intended to clarify the application of Title IX. Administered by the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, the interpretation created what is known as a three-prong test. According to this policy, an education institution offering athletics can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by the following:

1. Showing that intercollegiate participation for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or
2. Showing a history and continuing practice of program expansion in response to the interest and abilities of the “underrepresented” sex; or
3. Demonstrating that the interests and abilities of members of the “underrepresented” sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the school’s program.

Congress has never debated any part of the three-prong test; it is a complete misinterpretation of the original language of Title IX. Regulating “substantial proportionality” between the two sexes does not safeguard against “discrimination of the basis of sex,” as written in the original amendment. Instead, the test creates both a quota system and a statutory punishment against men.

This is clearly exemplified at UNCC which is 49 percent male and 51 percent female. In athletics, however, the student athlete population is 42 percent male and 58 percent female. Therefore, the “underrepresented” sex is actually male.

Despite these numbers, the UNCC athletic department is considering a woman’s lacrosse, field hockey and swimming team to protect themselves against Title IX lawsuits. Conforming to Title IX regulations will present an additional expense for the expanding athletic department.

“It is hard to match the 63 male scholarships added by the new football team, but UNCC athletics is committed to following Title IX regulations,” Spease stated when asked how the program will address Title IX regulations.

Misinterpretations of Title IX not only lead to additional expenses for universities who are trying to meet limited budget demands but also place unnecessary burdens on schools to match male/female ratios. By advocating gender quotas, Title IX only serves to stifle interest-driven athletic programs.

Title IX consistently ignores gender differences between men and woman by blindly advocating for equality that actually limits opportunities for student athletes in the long run. Male wrestling teams and male gymnastics have been nearly eliminated to “equal” the playing field for women’s sports teams. In 1969, there were 230 collegiate male gymnastics programs; today there are 20. North Carolina does not offer a single collegiate male gymnastics program.

While sex discrimination has no place in athletics, current enforcement of Title IX has replaced one form of discrimination with another. In the end, in order to meet gender quotas, schools like UNCC must come up with additional money to support marginal athletic teams.

The post Title IX: The Blind Quota System or How to Kneecap College Sports appeared first on Civitas Institute.