August 1, 2008

Bush Names Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education

Washington — President Bush has named Cheryl A. Oldham to be the Education Department’s acting assistant secretary for postsecondary education.

Ms. Oldham, who is now chief of staff to Sara Martinez Tucker, the under secretary in charge of higher education, will serve out the final months of the administration in the office that had been occupied by Diane Auer Jones. Ms. Jones resigned in May, then told The Chronicle that she had left in large part because she could not soften the department’s treatment of colleges through the accreditation process.

Ms. Oldham served previously as executive director of the education secretary’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education. That commission recommended the tougher approach on accreditation matters that Ms. Jones resisted.

Before her appointment to the commission, Ms. Oldham served as director of the Office of White House Liaison, serving as the White House’s contact to the department on matters of personnel and political affairs.

A native of Texas, Ms. Oldham earned a bachelor’s degree from Texas Christian University and a law degree from the St. Mary’s University School of Law. She began her career working for Mr. Bush when he was governor of Texas in the state’s office of state-federal relations here. She later served on his presidential transition team, in January 2001.

The post is ordinarily subject to confirmation by the U.S. Senate, but no Senate action is needed because Ms. Oldham will be holding the position in an acting capacity. —Paul Basken

Comments

1. Does anyone here know anything else about Ms. Oldham? Does she have any real-world experience with education and education-related issues? From the above, it seems as if she has worked for W, for W, and mainly for W…she’s from Texas, which in itself qualifies her for a cabinet position, but does she possess any other qualifications? Any thoughts?

   — Darren Aversa    Aug 1, 03:43 PM    #

2. just another marginally qualified texas crony. only a few more months to go, only a few more months.

   — gkd    Aug 1, 04:02 PM    #

3. 3. The assumption appears to be that cronies from states other than Texas will be OK in the new administration.

   — Baldy    Aug 1, 04:40 PM    #

4. Another marginally qualified Texas loyalist. What we have here is a paranoid power hungry administration behaving as it has all along.

   No, compentence should take precedence over political connectedness, but this administration clearly does not believe in merit-based appointments

   Let’s try to get someone in office who is sufficiently bright and secure to hire and appoint highly qualified people.

   This is another disgraceful appointment.

   — Joe Erwin    Aug 1, 05:04 PM    #

5. It is clear that this administration does not respect higher education. Imagine, an attorney as an assistant secretary responsible for higher education. I honestly feel that this administration, and Republicans in general, have such low regard for intellectuals that anyone who really understood higher education would never be considered for this kind of appointment.

   — Keith Roberts    Aug 1, 05:49 PM    #

6. I am always struck by how often appointees at the Assistant Secretary or special/senior counsel levels went to religious institutions (before you shout, I have a degree from a Catholic institution). The prevalance of appointees with this particular pedigree makes it appear as if earning degrees from a religion-affiliated institution is actually a requirement for appointment.

   — NYCEdPhD    Aug 1, 06:09 PM    #

7. Uhm…no. Sorry, Bush-haters. The appointment is appropriate. She has already served in a similar capacity (in case you didn’t bother to read the article but simply started with the knee-jerking). Disgraceful? Please. Could some of you folks please get a life? Or, better yet, will you be as reactionary regarding such news when a Democratic administration makes similar appointments?

   And the comment regarding “religious institutions” doesn’t even deserve comment. I have no idea what the point of the post was supposed to be. TCU? Hardly a bastion of fundamentalism, if that’s your concern.

   Don’t worry, folks. Just a few more months and all of your misplaced angst will be relieved.

   — winstoncat    Aug 1, 07:46 PM    #

8. My “angst”, as it were, is not misplaced: the US Dept of Justice has found that another similarly qualified Bush appointee violated Federal nondiscrimination laws by seeking to bar a woman she believed (but did not know) to be lesbian from not one but two appointments within the Federal government.

   Again: the official had no evidence the applicant was, in fact, a lesbian. She just felt that way. So she didn’t hire her, and then she went to great lengths to keep her from being hired from at least one other government agency.

   The individual under investigation is Monica Goodling. We might remember her from that scuttlebutt about the attorneys who were fired for political reasons.

   Ms. Goodling attended Regent University, which claims to be “America’s Preeminent Christian University”.

   The point of my observation is not to criticize religion or religious institutions, but rather to observe the frequency of appointments like Ms. Oldham’s in light of other controversies.

   And to be clear, I’m not the only person, winstoncat, to wonder if a degree from a religion-affiliated institution is a pre-requisite for middle management appointments in the Bush administration.

   — NYCEdPhD    Aug 1, 09:28 PM    #

9. When one considers the reasons for the Departure of Assistant Secretary, Diane Auer Jones, in light of the issues she raised concerning the department’s support for the vocationalization of Liberal Arts programs, one must be very concerned that Oldham, who appears to be a rubber stamp for Sara Martinez Tucker could further push the policies that could make a total farce out of the conept of Liberal Arts degrees.

   The bureaucrats within the department under Martinez-Tucker not only revoked one of the organizations which accredits such programs particularly small religious based colleges. They also believe that part of a liberal arts program should consist of outcomes based examinations which would create a pititul lowest intellectual common denominator.

   Concepts in the study of literature, philosophy, fine arts, ethics, and history cannot be reduced to standardized tests presumably a multiple choice format.

   Besides that, as a former Philsophy and English major, how could an exam be created for 20th century philosophy where one school teaches logical positivism and another phenomenology. Couldn’t outcomes based testing have the effect of favoring on philosophical school of thought over anohter? The notion that phenomenology, existentialism or ethics could be reduced to a silly “pick one” exam format.

   This might be unfair to acting assistant secretary Oldham, but why does the story of Scott McClellan come to mind? What a pitiful rube he was

   Here’s to Secretary Auer Jones for her outspoken stance on this issue. The administration lost one of its most brilliant, thoughtful leaders who’d ask the tough questions and showed a sense of professionalism far above the partisan hit men whose anti-intellectual notion that everything that a college education provides automatically has to have conspicuous vocational value. That the abilities to think creatively, work outside of the box, and and develop sound critical thinking skills eludes them.

   All concerned educators and citizens must monitor where Martinez-Tucker and Oldham try to take the department.

   In losing Auer-Jones, the administration lost a true rising star who will now take her energy to the Washington Campus.

   Diane Auer Jones will be heard from. Bet on it.

   — Rob    Aug 2, 05:07 AM    #

10. Pay no attention to the part above about logical positivism and phenomenology. That’s 50 years out of date, and even 50 years ago you could fairly test students taught with either emphasis. Philosophy is not dependent upon particular methodologies.

    — David A. McCullough    Aug 2, 10:09 AM    #

11. I would prefer to see appointees who have degrees, credentials and experience in educational/academic settings.

    — Mike    Aug 2, 05:49 PM    #

12. Oh, I remember Monica Goodling…another Bible-thumping Bush appointee who invoked the 5th Amendment during the Gonzalez debacle…perhaps I have answered my own question when I notice that Ms. Goodling is a graduate of Messiah College in PA. You’ve got to be kidding me, right? “Christ Preeminent” is their motto…that says it all, really.

    — Darren Aversa    Aug 2, 07:19 PM    #

13. Is it 2009 yet? Please!

    — DDVA    Aug 2, 08:08 PM    #

14. Winstoncat,

    This is not just a diatribe against Bush, it is also an anti-Christian polemic I do hope all of the juveniles have their chance for emotional venting.

    I will admit that things haven’t been great under Bush, but they weren’t great under Clinton either. As for looking forward to 2009, we will stuck with either McCain or Obama and neither is what I would consider a future to look forward. That is the real angst.

    — Ole Professer    Aug 2, 11:24 PM    #

15. Wrong, sure philosophy students require a certain knowledge base, but the ability to apply such knowledge is not an “a,b,c,d” domain. Should a philosophy program teach students how to philosophize or just know a lot of “who said what?”

    This is true of so many disciplines in the humanities. It’s not like being an accounting major where the outcome of passing the CPA exam would be essential.

    Further, the last thing we need are programs moving toward teaching to what’s on standardized tests and how they could be used to mandate a particular cirriculum or bias toward the material.

    — Rob    Aug 3, 03:33 AM    #

16. “Diatribes” and “polemics” Ole Professer? Really? The only “knee jerk” reactions I’m reading here are from respondents who immediately jump to Bush’s defense without considering the facts.

    So how about some facts?

    Fact: Bush appointed Dr. David Hager to the the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Hager blocked the FDA from making emergency contraception available over the counter.

    As a physician, Hager heartily admits to refusing to prescribe contraception to his patients. Rather than provide his patients medicine for their health conditions, Hager recommended religious exercises (no joke: he told women experiencing hot flashes and headaches to read The Bible).

    I could go on about Hager, but it’s a particularly nasty and disgusting story. What’s most telling though is that he bragged to his alma mater, an Evangelical school, that he was indeed using his position of authority in the government to impose his strident faith-based views on public policy.

    Now, I could go on. I could remind you of Jerry Thacker, whom Bush recommended to serve on the Presidential Advisory Commission on HIV and AIDS. Thacker, a Bob Jones University graduate, proudly declared “homosexuality” a “death-style” and who opposed safe-sex education, including science-supported education about condom use. Thacker withdrew from consideration.

    I could remind you of the controversy surrounding Priscilla Owen (Alberto Gonzales said she was extreme, and went beyond the scope of the court… Alberto Gonzales!). Or broaden the discussion to other controversial nominees – not just those from religion-affiliated institutions – and give us even more to discuss. Want to talk about Leon Holmes and William Pryor, for starters?

    Along with Goodling, these are just a few examples of why we should be aware – if not critical – of the individuals appointed by an administration seeking to advance a very narrow religious agenda through public policy.

    My comments are not a “knee jerk” reaction, not a “diatribe” or “polemic.” My comments are statements of concern from someone who has seen his civil rights eroded.

    — NYCEdPhD    Aug 3, 11:27 AM    #

17. An appropriate appointee indeed from a Jesus-jumping “president” who wouldn’t know what a true secular education was if it bit him on the !@#. And, I might add, a “president” whose favorite political philosopher is Jesus and whose favorite book is “The Very Hungry Caterpillar.”

    — Savage Detective    Aug 3, 11:34 AM    #

18. In response to Ole Professer, I don’t believe that you ever answered any of my assertions on the last post where you came in after my responses and took an apologetics approach. Could I ask you to provide me with the evidence for your assertions and defense please? If not, then I understand. This is not meant to be an anti-christian venting by any means, rather now it has been converted to a blog about the lowest common denominator of Bush appointees (at the mid-level) being degrees from conservative christian “colleges” and being from Texas.
    As for your idea of “things haven’t been great under Bush,” are you understating the obvious on purpose? That Bush is the worst president of all time is going to go down in the books. Please remember that during the aftermath of 9/11, he went for a long walk by himself to pray…he could have listening to solid advice from his cabinet members (does Colin Powell’s advice not register as good enough?) apparently, divine guidance has us at over 4,100 combat deaths and 30,000 wounded, estimated tolls of nearly one million Iraqi deaths (apparently, Allah can’t shelter the poor Iraqis fast enough), and a debt of over $691 billion…ummmm, not even Clinton could mess things up this badly. McCain is so stuck in the 80s that I agree with your idea on him. However, Obama is the more reasonable approach, but this is neither here nor there. Trust me: if Obama starts placing the reality-blind into mid-level positions and then they execute ridiculous policy, then there will be scorn enough for him. Lastly, it is not juvenile in the least to criticize an institution that makes it a point to indoctrinate children with utter falsity and guilt. And again, I ask you to provide evidence for your apologetics…I’m just one college professor among many who demands factual relationships to underpin my views, not stories that can’t even get their stories straight.

    — Darren Aversa    Aug 3, 11:38 AM    #

19. NYCEdPhd, Would you cite your sources about Hager and Thacker? I would like to research this further.

    Also, Progressivism also has a very narrow “religious” agenda (“religious” being used in the sense of “guiding worldview.”) I always have to laugh when I see progressives complain that only religious conservatives do all the dastardly things they claim (as if progressives are as pure as the wind-driven snow.)

    Darren Aversa, you’re suffering from the “history-started-when-I-was-born” syndrome. Bush’ administration doesn’t hold a candle to past failed (and frightening) administrations. Wilson and FDR used the Constitution as toilet paper during their adminstrations, and McKinley went to war with Spain with much more errant information (the Maine was not destroyed by sabotage) than Bush had about Iraq. Remember! Bush didn’t say anything that wasn’t first declared as fact by Bill Clinton and other prominent Democrats during Clinton’s administration.

    — Red State University    Aug 3, 07:49 PM    #

20. To Red State U, I must defend myself (and my generation I suppose) by saying that no matter which bad presidency you bring up—Grant, Wilson, Polk—none are going to be as bad as Bush’s. I was alive and kicking during Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and the rest…it is my opinion that at the very least his administration will rank in the bottom five of all time…if not at the very bottom. There is no rescuing its inanity!

    — Darren Aversa    Aug 4, 12:07 AM    #

21. I’m not sure how to take your request RedStateUniversity, as I presume you can research the information on your own.

    Your implication that “Progressive” religious agenda also do dastardly things is disappointing considering you offer no examples. On this very thread as in many other spaces, the assumed “progressives” are demeaned and derided by those I can only presume to be Conservative. The comments here attempt to dismiss reasoned argument and informed opinion out of hand, as if calling critics “crazy” will successfully cloud the truth.

    And to that point, an article in The Nation quotes Dr. Hager’s own words:
    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050530/mcgarvey

    The Nation article was based in part on a videotape of the speech (some say sermon) Hager delivered at his alma mater.

    Additional info on Hager:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hager

    http://rcrc.org/pdf/MedicalRight_fullreport.pdf

    Concerned Women for America defended Jerry Thacker:
    http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=3266&department=CFI&categoryid=papers

    CNN covered Thacker’s withdrawal from consideration, explaining that some of what he had written had been removed from the public domain:
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/23/aids.thacker/index.html

    If you review his website today, you’ll see a pretty strong abstinence-only approach that goes so far to imply that pre-marital sex, even with a condom, is a “death defying act.” Link here: http://www.scepter.org/hivaidsfacts.asp

    If a Church or minister or faith leader wants to tell youth and young adults hands off til marriage, fine. I’m OK with that and I’m not trying to be a smarty-pants.

    As a matter of public policy, however, we need to turn to research and science, and abstinence should – and is! – taught alongside other safe and safer-sex strategies, which often emphasis consent, sobriety, and harm reduction practices (limiting number of partners, having your own protection, etc.)

    — NYCEdPhD    Aug 4, 01:09 AM    #

22. Oh, I can hardly wait until his holiness, the Lord God Obama, fixes everything for us little waifs. You Bush-haters are exactly what you are telling all of us we are – intolerant of any view that is not your own.

    — skeptic    Aug 4, 08:38 AM    #

23. Darren,

    They said the same thing about Harry Truman toward the end of his second term. Truman is now considered by many to be one of the best presidents we’ve ever had.

    Bottom line is, no one yet knows how history will judge President Bush. Emotions cloud judgement. I think it is quite possible (even probable) that if we live another 50 years we will be quite surprised at what the folks in 2058 will think of the Bush legacy.

    — FB    Aug 4, 09:12 AM    #

24. Lets not lose sight of the fact that Oldham surely can be expected to continue the demented policies of Tucker, which were so aptly criticized by Jones. Its just more of the same old same old.

    The appointment was an easy pick because no reasonable academic would want the job under the circumstances. The great irony is that Oldham, in her previous White House position, may actually have had a role in hiring Jones. Poetic justice?

    — Mervyn Emrys    Aug 4, 09:59 AM    #

25. You’re doin’ a heck of job Oldie!

    — Wunderkind    Aug 4, 11:26 AM    #

26. #22.

    You are right, I am interolerant of the right-wing view. It is misinformed, hypocritical, hate-filled, and a complete failure. So, I think my intolerance is justified.

    — etg    Aug 4, 11:51 AM    #

27. And wouldn’t it have been interesting to have heard her initial interview process? I’m confident it included questions like “Why do you want to serve George Bush?” I frankly have no faith WHATEVER in the competence or qualifications of any Bush appointee. They are all tainted by the behavior of this administration.

    — Al    Aug 4, 11:58 AM    #

28. #26

    You are quite hypocritical, to say the least.

    — FB    Aug 4, 12:31 PM    #

29. #28.

    Yes, I am aware of that. One needs to admit their own hypocracy and intolerance before they can call others out. I am a left-wing partisan that cannot stand conservative viewpoints, arguments, or agendas.

    — etg    Aug 4, 12:41 PM    #

30. You are right, I am interolerant of the left-wing view. It is misinformed, hypocritical, hate-filled, and a complete failure. So, I think my intolerance is justified.

    Now I’m just as enlightened as etg! Hurray!

    — Red State University    Aug 4, 12:45 PM    #

31. BTW, etg, your attitude wholly disqualifies you from any faculty or administrative position at a university. Therefore I will expect you to resign and ask for reassignment to an area of the campus where you intolerance will have less potential impact on the student body – say housekeeping or groundskeeping.

    — Red State University    Aug 4, 02:22 PM    #

32. “I can’t stand intolerant people”—now, the test is whether you can say that with a straight face. If you can, you get an F but you may be eligible for a government post. I think that the bloggers should be screening all these comments and letting only a few be posted, namely those which are on the issues raised by the blog. The comments on many of these blogs turn into left wing nuts vs. right wing nuts and those who do have insights are, I expect, less likely to share.

    — jwp    Aug 4, 05:12 PM    #

Previous: Study Finds Continuing Shortage of Community-College Leaders
Next: Stanford Researcher, Accused of Conflicts, Steps Down as NIH Principal Investigator