(Sometimes faculty have learned that *they* have not been clear in their expectations -- at Vassar, we are trying to emphasize collaborative work, but sometimes it is not clear to the students when they are plagarizing [if the assignment is to work together]. Or faculty have not been clear in their statements on their syllabus about plagarism ...)

I have very mixed feelings here. At Vassar, for academic offenses (such as plagarism) we have a student-faculty committee (plus the Dean of Students) who hear evidence, ask questions, do not allow lawyers, and pass judgment. I think it works pretty well, and it works well partly because there are no lawyers and no written records. (To me, the greatest difficulty may be in getting faculty members to press charges, rather than deal with it themselves.) So I think inserting lawyers into college proceedings is almost sure to mess things up -- everyone will play at Law and Order, the college will have to pay for a college lawyer to be present, and the whole quality of the hearing will change -- no chance it will be a learning experience.

If life begins at conception, why does God allow so many miscarriages?

Again, evidence please. (Do you think that gays engage in sex with animals more than straight men? It would be difficult to get data on that, but it would be fascinating ....

Do you have any evidence for that? even a url or an article? (Among other things, it seems unlikely that any white racists at Hopkins would have links to the KKK or any of those groups -- the differences in class, status, income, and style are so great that, on the surface, it just seems unlikely.)

As the questions to Rand Paul at Howard U demonstrated, many blacks do know the history of political parties. That blacks supported the Republican Party of Lincoln is no reason for them to support the Republican Party of Reagan, who demonized the 'welfare queens,' or of Rand Paul, who would repeal parts of the Civil Rights Act. That conservative or segregationist whites were Democrats until -- in LBJ's interpretation -- the Voting Rights Act only means that they are now Republicans. Elder's history is a caricature because it stops around 1960 ....

You know that the analogy of immigration to robbery and murder is just plain silly (and irrelevant). Laws against robbery and murder are constant (even if the penalties change); but US immigration laws have changed drastically over time, in all sorts of different ways, favoring some and disfavoring others. So there is no problem in changing laws against immigration.

why do you think that 'illegals' will be government-dependent: don't you think it takes a lot of energy, courage, and nerve to cross illegally into the US and live here? And doesn't it take a lot of caring to send money home, not spend it on yourself? They sound like caring, rugged individualists to me. (Republicans can turn them into Democratic voters, of course, by the attitudes of loadstar.)

The Bush administration made it partly a party line issue, and most Republicans happily fell in line. cchuba seems to think that conservatives should not have gone along with Bush. Why did they, if the war does not showcase or represent any legitimate aspect of Conservatism?

To me, this column and Goldberg's fit together. Bush (and Burke and Disraeli) were trying to be compassionate, to be concerned about the quality of our social and civic life. (Free marketers should, of course, recognize that if parents buy sexualizing stuff for girls, that is their choice, it is fine.)

Historically, of course, Bush and Goldberg fit into an Edmund Burke / Disraeli / Matthew Arnold conservatism. Why that Burke/Disraeli lineage has been abandoned in favor of a rigid free market individualism is to me very unclear.