by Elizabeth W. Payne

Re: “Va. Tech adopts fees for 2013-14” (April 29 news story):

The Virginia Tech Board of Visitors faced some hard decisions in dealing with the increasing cost of an education at Tech. I am not debating any of the issues, but do wish to express an opinion on differential pricing for high-demand degrees.

Considering the outcry from many sources of the need to educate more students in math, science, engineering and high-technology fields, I question the prudence of Rector George Noland’s suggestion to increase the costs of that type of degree in coming years.

Read more.

Payne, a professor emerita from Virginia Western Community College, lives in Roanoke.

Time is a circus always packing up and moving away.

What’s on your mind today?

By George Will

Thirty-one months ago Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell affronted the media and other custodians of propriety by saying something common-sensical. On Oct. 23, 2010, he said: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” He meant that America needed conservative change from the statist course of Obama’s presidency (the stimulus, Obamacare, etc.), therefore America needed a president who would not veto such change.

By similar reasoning, Obama today could sensibly say, and probably to himself has said, that the single most important thing he wants to achieve now is for Democrats to win control of the House in 2014. That redoubt of conservatism is an insuperable obstacle to the change he favors — ever-larger government as an instrument of wealth redistribution.

How will his objective shape policy debates this year? And what are the chances of Democrats taking the House? The answers are: Considerably and minimal.

Regarding policy, Obama has devoted much of the most crucial months of his second term — those closest to his re-election and furthest from the next election — to gun control and immigration. He may think he can win by losing with both in 2013, thereby gaining two issues for 2014.

Before the 2014 elections, the gun proposals that recently failed in the Senate might, slightly revised, pass there and be voted on in the House. If they pass there, Obama has an achievement, albeit of minimal importance for public safety. If they fail, he has an issue.

He may be wrong about the politics: Most people whose votes are determined by gun issues oppose more restrictions. Or he may be right that associating the GOP with resistance to gun control will weaken the party among swing voters he thinks can deliver the House to Democrats. But gun policy probably is less important to him than the politics of 2014.

If comprehensive immigration reform passes in essentially the form proposed by the Senate Gang of Eight, it would not much improve Democrats’ current strength with Hispanic voters, as measured by Obama’s 71 percent in 2012. And a decade or more would pass before significant numbers of immigrants currently here illegally would become voters. If, however, comprehensive reform fails — and because it is comprehensive, it will be replete with small measures offensive to a cumulatively large group of legislators — this might energize Hispanic voters whose turnout otherwise would be down in a non-presidential election.

Actually, however, Democrats are more apt to lose control of the Senate than gain control of the House. Republicans need to gain six Senate seats; Democrats are defending seven seats in states where Obama averaged just 40.5 percent of the vote in 2012. Democrats need to gain only 17 House seats, but just 17 Republicans hold seats from districts Obama carried last year, when he won 209 districts and lost 226. Analyst Charlie Cook says the House, having reached “partisan equilibrium,” has little “elasticity.” Now that 96 percent of House Democrats represent Obama districts and 93 percent of Republicans represent districts that voted for Mitt Romney, “The House is now more sorted along partisan lines than ever.”

Democrats won the cumulative House vote by 1.4 million votes but the off-year electorate is apt to be smaller, whiter and older — Romney won a majority of voters over 30, and a majority of white voters under 30. In the last 150 years, since the emergence of today’s two-party system, no party holding the presidency has gained even 10 House seats — or captured control of the House — in an off-year election.

Nevertheless, rather than try to make incremental progress on large problems such as sluggish job creation and stalled social mobility, Obama concentrates on other issues for tactical reasons related to 2014. He is sacrificing the possibility of usefulness for the chimera of greatness.

Given the vast sprawl and myriad tentacles of the regulatory state, which is the executive branch operating with minimal supervision by the legislative branch, Obama even without Democratic control of the House will not be a nullity. Still, he may cling to the delusion that some purposeful failures before the 2014 elections can make possible a triumphant second term.

This is a weak reed on which to rest hopes for a revival of those fanciful comparisons of Obama to Franklin Roosevelt. Obama may, however, understand that unless Democrats gain the House and retain the Senate in 2014, history might not place him even in the front rank of the second rank of presidents.

 Will is a columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group.

By Kathleen Parker

CHARLESTON, S.C. — As the reporter said to the novelist: Why bother to make stuff up?

For stories and characters, one needs only a pair of walking shoes in this city, where recent attentions have turned to two salacious stories. One concerns a murder-for-hire plot involving a banker, his wife, his lover’s ex-husband and his ex-lover’s husband’s cellmate. Not to be confused with his soul mate.

No, that designation refers to the other story making rounds on the cocktail circuit. Yes, he’s back but maybe not for long. Mark Sanford, the former governor who disappeared for five days, allegedly to hike the Appalachian Trail only to find himself in the arms of his lover (now his fiancee), is discovering that not every kid gets a comeback.

What is it about the shamed male politician that he seems unable to accept when it’s over? This is strictly rhetorical, obviously. Part of the answer is hubris. Another part is history: Voters generally are forgiving once a person confesses and repents. But key to general forgiveness is the forgiveness of the wronged spouse. If Mrs. forgives, Joe and Jane Public usually do too.

The list of those who have sinned and recovered is too long for this space, though a couple serve the point — and at least one deserves special mention: Bill Clinton

Despite his well-known peccadilloes, the former president has become a respected global figure in the wake of his impeachment by the House of Representatives (the Senate failed to convict) on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. His personal sins mostly forgiven, he has emerged with his popularity largely intact.

Perhaps the explanation lies in his overall likability as well as his good works through his foundation, not to mention a larger sense that he was unnecessarily persecuted for behaviors that were more or less familiar to (and ignored by) a majority of voters. At some point in the investigation, he became more sympathetic than his pursuers.

Clinton did not, moreover, seek public office again. And, significantly, Hillary, her early protestations notwithstanding, stood by her man.

Switch now to former New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, who left Congress after accidentally tweeting a photo of his assets to his Twitter followers. Despite unfathomable embarrassment, Weiner now is considering a run for mayor of New York City. A recent poll shows him in second place in a hypothetical Democratic mayoral primary at 15 percent, behind City Council Speaker Christine Quinn at 26 percent.

Again, Weiner’s wife, who was pregnant at the time of his topple, stayed with him.

Lest Democrats feel unfairly singled out, we further note that Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana has held his seat despite his intersection with prostitution. His longevity no doubt is attributable to his sincere repentance, constituent satisfaction and, importantly, his wife’s forgiveness.

Which brings us back to Sanford. Not only did he abandon his state for five days during his walkabout, but he committed the unthinkable. He wept. No taking it like a man, this one. Without consideration for his wife and young sons, he referred to his paramour as his soul mate.

Sanford didn’t even have the decency to resign from office, but finished his term and vanished for a couple of years only to re-emerge in pursuit of a fresh legacy. He recently won the Republican primary for an open congressional seat and faces Elizabeth Colbert-Busch (sister of Stephen Colbert) in a special election May 7.

To many South Carolinians, especially women, Sanford’s candidacy is an embarrassment of Weineresque proportions. But if history is any guide, his candidacy is on life support. Not only did his former wife, Jenny Sanford, not stand by her man, she wrote a book, went on TV and recently took him to court for trespassing. This in the wake of his fiancee showing up at his primary victory party and appearing on stage with him and two of his sons, one of whom had not previously met their future stepmother.

Sanford’s lack of empathy for his family, not to mention his impeachable judgment, should disqualify him from further public service, an opinion apparently shared by the Republican National Committee, which recently withdrew support for his candidacy.

Where the wife goes, so go the people.

Parker is a columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group.

By Wanda Smith

My son, Andrew, had just delivered a persuasive speech to his public speaking class at Virginia Western Community College encouraging his classmates to become runners. Hours later, the news media reported the explosions at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. Andrew was outraged.

Anyone who knows Andrew will agree that he is a unique combination of Forrest Gump and Rain Man. Andrew suffers from Asperger syndrome, a high-functioning form of autism. That he is even able to prepare and deliver a speech to his classmates is an achievement in itself.

Andrew began running in middle school. He ran cross country, indoor and outdoor track all of his middle school and high school years. Running allowed him to be involved in a competitive sport, but it also gave him a group of friends that his disability would have otherwise prohibited.

Continue reading

Smith and her husband live in Roanoke County with their three children, all runners.

Courtesy of Wade Gilley
Wade Gilley’s great grandparents pictured in 1927 (or so) with their children in Hilltown, Carroll County.

By Wade Gilley

Being a native Virginian with strong roots in Southwest Virginia, I read Jim Glanville’s Roanoke Times article a few months ago with great interest (“Western Virginia shaped America,” Sept. 13, 2012 commentary). He is right in saying that the western wedge of Virginia was a place that people traveled through to settle the nation, but many stopped and planted roots.

Looking back over the decades, I find Southwest Virginia to be a very dynamic place. For example, I grew up near Fries, which was founded at the turn of the 19th century by Col. Francis Fries, an American innovator who also founded Wachovia Bank and another planned city — Mayodan, N.C. He also built a railroad to connect Mayodan with Roanoke, the Roanoke and Southern Railway, which became the Norfolk and Western rail system in 1892.

Continue reading

Gilley, a graduate of Virginia Tech, served as Virginia’s secretary of education under Gov. John Dalton and is the author of more than 20 books.

by Halford Ryan

The No Child Left Behind legislation has been a smashing success, especially so with the implementation of tests like the Standards of Learning (SOLs) in the nation’s school systems.

I modestly propose that this kind of governmental oversight be extended to protect citizens from predatory professionalism in other callings. These proposals are termed Standards of Professionalism (SOPs).

Read more.

Ryan, a retired professor, lives in Lexington.

Should college groups be allowed to restrict membership if they receive public funds?

Free now to associate with like-minded people

By Matt Simmons

Simmons is a student in Virginia Tech’s class of 2015.

I grew up in the church and regularly attended a weekly Bible study for years with my youth group before coming to Virginia Tech and getting involved with Campus Crusade for Christ. Campus Crusade for Christ is focused on spreading the word and building the Christian community here at Virginia Tech.

Last year, as a freshman, I looked to Cru to help me continue to grow in my faith and to allow me to work alongside like-minded people by continuing in small-group Bible studies. Cru invites and welcomes any student at Tech to join us at our meetings. I’ve never seen anyone turned away.

Participating in groups and organizations with missions that match our religious or political beliefs is a long-standing tradition for college students. But the introduction of all-comers policies, which eliminate the ability of these groups to set criteria for members and leaders, undermines the value, purpose and attractiveness of these organizations. Supporters of all-comers policies admit African-American organizations could be forced to admit white supremacists. The policies could have opened the door to Orthodox Jewish and Muslim groups being banned from campuses if their beliefs were deemed discriminatory. Most student organizations want to advance their mission and expect their leaders to set that example.

Legislation passed by the General Assembly will ensure that the current policy of the majority of Virginia’s universities will continue and that these important groups can continue to meet.

Opponents claim the legislation allows student groups to discriminate using taxpayer funding. Such a position implies that simply choosing to freely associate with people of similar ideas and beliefs is inherently discriminatory — a position most reasonable people find ridiculous.

The bill’s primary opposition, the American Civil Liberties Union, has argued the legislation would override a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of all-comers policies. The truth is that, while the court upheld the policies, it did not require the policies on college campuses. At the same time, the opposition is ignoring two other Supreme Court cases, one out of the University of Virginia in which the justices deemed discrimination against a religiously affiliated student organization’s group speech to be “viewpoint discrimination.” The court said a school can’t defund an organization simply because it doesn’t like its beliefs. To circumvent the Supreme Court, colleges began instating all-comers policies, which made it so that student groups could exist as long as they had no viewpoint at all.

College students like me who participate in campus groups are simply looking for a place where we can hang out with like-minded students and advance a cause in which we believe. I’m glad the General Assembly agrees that freedom needs to be protected.

Those affected by the bill were kept in the dark

By Dustin Dorph

Dorph is president of the Student Government Association at Virginia Tech.

I would be lying if I said I did not have qualms about Sen. Mark Oben­shain’s recent Campus Clubs Bill. First of all, what specific issues or recent historical examples pre-empted the creation of this law? In my entire collegiate experience, I have never heard of something like this being an issue. Over the last few weeks, I have been researching statewide and national instances of internal or external organizational conflicts regarding membership, with little evidence for this law’s justification. Obenshain also described his bill as “equal opportunity.” By definition, equal opportunity is the act of nondiscrimination, quite the opposite of the law’s intent.

The justification that “a vegan organization can restrict membership from meat-eaters” is illogical. First, it is not often that someone seeks membership in an organization whose mission he fundamentally disagrees with. Those students who are looking to associate have every right to create their own organization, and probably would, rather than attempting to infiltrate another. How often does a member of the Democratic Party switch lines to be a Republican just to run against a Republican in a primary election, or to make the party itself suffer? Also, under this law, the Virginia Tech Student Government could theoretically pass a bylaw restricting membership of African-Americans because it believes in white supremacy. Based on the language of the Campus Clubs Bill that would technically be legal — and sickening.

Most troublesome is the fact that less than two weeks before this legislation was brought forward, more than 100 representatives from Virginia Tech met with members of Virginia’s legislature, including with Obenshain himself. I had the privilege of introducing myself to him with a firm handshake and kind words, but to my knowledge, no representative from Virginia Tech heard anything about this bill.

As a constituency directly affected by this new law, it surprises me that something so important was not discussed with the students, faculty and administration of one of the largest universities in Virginia. Within two weeks, a bill that was not presented publicly until it came up for discussion, kept away from members of the Virginia Tech community and controversial in nature seemed to slip through the legislative process without any attention at all. It appears the argument that this law is freedom of association, protected under the First Amendment, is more of a clever political association to mask an anti-inclusionary agenda.

Roanoke City Council should take the time to comb the city in selecting a replacement for David Carson on the city’s school board.

No doubt the qualities that allow David Carson to be an outstanding chairman of the Roanoke School Board will transfer well to his new public service role. Though the 23rd Circuit Court surely will benefit from Carson’s presence on the bench, his tireless, relentless advocacy for every one of the city’s public school children will not be easy to replace.

Members of Roanoke City Council need to scour the city to find the next best advocate for the students — someone who believes that no matter what boulders life has strewn in children’s path, the public has a duty to help level the hurdles. And council members should look for someone with the courage to stand by this conviction even when it means standing up to them and state lawmakers.

Continue reading this editorial.

Chris Collins of the Margaret Thatcher Foundation | Wikimedia Commons

By George F. Will

She had the eyes of Caligula and the lips of Marilyn Monroe. So said Francois Mitterrand, the last serious socialist to lead a major European nation, speaking of Margaret Thatcher, who helped bury socialism as a doctrine of governance.

She had the smooth, cold surface of a porcelain figurine, but her decisiveness made her the most formidable woman in 20th-century politics, and England’s most formidable woman since its greatest sovereign, Elizabeth I. The Argentine junta learned of her decisiveness when it seized the Falklands. The British, too, learned. A Tory MP said, “She cannot see an institution without hitting it with her handbag.”

She aimed to be the moral equivalent of military trauma, shaking her nation into vigor through rigor. As stable societies mature, they resemble long-simmering stews — viscous and lumpy with organizations resistant to change and hence inimical to dynamism. Her program was sound money, laissez faire, social fluidity and upward mobility through self-reliance and other “vigorous virtues.” She is the only prime minister whose name came to denote a doctrine — Thatcherism. (“Churchillian” denotes not a political philosophy but a leadership style.) When she left office in 1990, the trade unions had been tamed by democratizing them, the political argument was about how to achieve economic growth rather than redistribute wealth, and individualism and nationalism were revitalized.

And the Labour Party, shellacked three times, was ready for a post-socialist leader. Tony Blair was part of Thatcher’s legacy.

Time was, Labour considered itself the party of ideas and Tories preferred balancing interests to implementing political philosophy. But by the 1970s, Labour was a creature of a single interest group, the unions, and the Tories, who made Thatcher their leader in 1975, were becoming, as America’s Republicans were becoming, a party of ideas.

Britain has periodically been a laboratory for economic ideas — those of Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes, the socialism of postwar Labour. Before the ascendancy of Thatcher — a disciple of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek — Tories tried to immunize Britain against socialism by administering prophylactic doses of the disease. But by 1979, Britain’s fundamental political arrangements were at issue: Such was the extortionate power of the unions to paralyze the nation, the writ of Parliament often seemed not to run beyond a few acres along the Thames.

In 1979, she won the most lopsided election since 1945, when there had not been an election for 10 years. In 1983, she became the first Tory since 1924 to win two consecutive elections. In 1987, she won a third. Her 12 consecutive years were an achievement without precedent since the 1832 Reform Act moved Britain, gingerly, toward mass democracy. The most consequential peacetime prime minister since Disraeli, by 1990 she had become the first prime minister to govern through an entire decade since the Earl of Liverpool from 1812 to 1827.

In Britain and America in the 1960s and 1970s, government’s hubris expanded as its competence shrank. Like her soul mate, Ronald Reagan, Thatcher practiced the politics of psychotherapy, giving her nation a pride transplant. Reagan was responding to 17 lacerating years — Dallas, Vietnam, Watergate, stagflation, the Iranian hostage crisis. She was sick and tired of three decades of Britain being described as the Ottoman Empire once was, as “the sick man of Europe.” She set about disrupting settled attitudes and arrangements by enlarging and energizing the middle class, the great engine of social change in every modern society.

Before Thatcher, Britain’s economic problems often were ascribed to national character, and hence were thought immune to remediation. Thatcher thought national character was part of the problem, but that national character is malleable, given bracing economic medicine. Marx’s ghost, hovering over his grave in London’s Highgate Cemetery, must have marveled at this Tory variant of economic determinism.

When Nature was serving up charm and convictions, Thatcher took a double serving of the latter, leaving little room on her plate for the former. But by what has been called her “matriarchal machismo” she usefully demonstrated that a soothing personality is not always necessary in democracy.

Like de Gaulle, she was a charismatic conservative nationalist who was properly resistant to what she called the European federalists’ attempts to “suppress nationhood and concentrate power at the center of a European conglomerate.” She left the British this ongoing challenge: “We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them reimposed at a European level.” As long as her brave heart beat, she knew there are no final victories.

Will is a columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group.