It’s funny how people can get all up in arms when an official simply asks that a law be enforced. Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Bennett announced last week that starting next year schools could no longer count half-days towards the 180 full days each year required by state law. He also ordered they make up days cancelled because of bad weather, as is also the law.

One would think Mr. Bennett’s announced would be greeted by nary a bad word from anyone, save high schoolers with acute senioritis, but it turns out that government officials are getting just as riled up. House Democrats proposed a bill adding language to the state law which would allow schools to count half-days used for teacher training and parent teacher conferencing towards the 180 full days.

As a liberal, I find the Democrats' position to be a bit embarrassing. For a party which claims to be an advocate of education to the bitter end, working to keep kids out of school is a base move. Of course, it isn’t that the Democrats' sole aim is to keep kids out of school. They argue that teacher training and parent-teacher conferencing are vital to the overall performance of schools.

Teaching is a challenging job, and frequent training can help keep teachers in top form. Similarly, parent-teacher communication is crucial to students’ success. Whatever progress or struggles a student is experiencing in the classroom, involvement at home is one of the best ways to overcome problems or ensure advancement.

But while these things are important, so is making sure students receive adequate instruction each year. With the school year making up just half of the calendar year, kids aren’t really in school all that much as it is. Many countries around the world have closer to 200 instructional days a year, which still leaves plenty of time for breaks.

My guess is the position of the Democrats is being largely influenced by the teacher’s union. Superintendent Bennett’s plan would in fact result in more working days for teachers. And of course, the problem is they will probably not be paid accordingly. So it seems the root of the problem is—as ever—valuing our teachers.

American schools have many problems, and Indiana is no exception. In Indianapolis fewer than 50% of middle schoolers are meeting the state standards in reading and math. Will more instructional days solve this problem? Not on its own surely, but having fewer days will only aggravate the issue.

Of course the length of the school year has been a hot-button topic for awhile now. I remember being in high school and being struck with fear by the thought of “year-round school”. The long summer break is a holdover from our agrarian roots, and many feel it is passé in the 21^st century.

Summers can be wonderful. For me summers involved dance training in New York City and choir tours to Europe and family vacations to Yellowstone and Yosemite. But for some children summers mean long days without lunch, since they are normally provided with a free one at school. Some kids attend science camp and horse camp and music camp, padding their college applications with the requisite diversity of experience. But many kids can’t afford these opportunities, so while the kids that can get farther and farther ahead, the kids that can’t get farther and farther behind.

That being said, I’m not sure year-round school is the answer. Certainly not the solution is the ludicrous idea of “multi-tracking” wherein the school building is in use year round with different “tracks” of students attending school at different times. To get an idea of the logistical hell on Earth that is this plan, look at the academic calendar of the Wake County Public school system here. Pity the parent who has children in different tracks!

But even without multi-tracking it seems year-round schooling would be a very hard sell. Another main argument for the idea is that students lose much of what they’ve learned over the summer, and teachers have to spend too much time reviewing. But arguments against it claim that students start to forget what they’ve learned as soon as two weeks into a break, so having more frequent two- to three-week breaks will actually make progress slower.

As a university student, I still operate on the school calendar system. The main school year is just two semesters, and the summer is long. But as an adult, I have a wide range of opportunities at my disposal during the summer months. Some summers I’ve taken classes, others I worked full time to save money for the regular year, and others I supplemented my degree program with study abroad and intensive training. To me the current calendar system at the collegiate level works just fine.

But the public school system is a different story. Kids don’t have as much control over how they spend their summers as college students do, and some kids have no control at all. Teachers are not usually PhDs with research grants and fellowships to supplement their income, and as a result have to live 12 months on a 9 month salary.

If all my dreams came true, the school system would stay as it is, but all students would have ample summer enrichment opportunities. Furthermore, teachers would have more work days in the form of training and parent conferencing, but they would be paid accordingly.

Governor Mitch Daniels has promised to veto the measure in Indiana, so it seems for now schools are stuck with following the law. I do sympathize with teachers who may take a hit from this, but I think the Democrats would have served them better by introducing legislation to ensure teachers’ salaries are appropriate for their work load.

Facebook recently changed the layout of its home page. To no one’s surprise, everyone hates it. Every change in Facebook’s design, organization, or configuration has come as a major upheaval to users whose “status updates” convey their confusion, exasperation, and outrage at the nerve of the administrators. It’s just a slight change in how the content on your home page is displayed—what’s the big deal?

But the fact is, Facebook is a big deal. Facebook is a big deal whether you are a junkie or choose to ignore it. Facebook and its ilk—MySpace, Twitter, and so many others—are changing the rules of social interaction. I remember the very moment I was introduced to Facebook. I was in college, living with 5 friends and in the midst of becoming myself when one of my roommates introduced me to it. I wasn’t in the very first batch of users, but I was initiated fairly early on.

I loved it. As I said, I was in the middle of becoming myself, and excited about it. And now I could share it with the whole wide world! Dating became a snap. Have your eye on someone and need to know their sexual orientation, relationship status, and political and religious bent before proceeding? Just look it up on Facebook—there’s no need to waste time on a date or three. I reconnected with childhood friends and high school buddies, and became “friends” with fellow participants in summer programs before I met them.

I carried on in a happy relationship with Facebook for a couple of years before it exploded. Now it is bigger than ever, with more and more users and more and more features, and of course there is only one sensible reaction. Panic. Reading the sensationalist headlines about how Facebook will turn your kid’s brain kumquat or some such I got pretty tired. Again—what is the big deal?

But then, when I joined Facebook I was 20. How would I have dealt with it at 12? The horrifically awful braces-and-glasses pictures, the agonizing “relationships”, the fleeting friendships, all displayed online for the world to see? I had some pretty nasty fights with friends in junior high school, how might they have played out in cyber space? What about the “break-ups” I found so devastating? A secret “de-friending” from a boy who just crushed me probably would have seemed like the end of the world to me.

As I read more about it, the issue that seems the most pressing is bullying. Whether you were the perpetrator (which I sometimes was) or the victim (which I also sometimes was) we all dealt with bullying at some point. What happens when it goes global? I read an article recently about some junior high school kids getting in trouble at school for creating a group “Eric is a Hairy Beast.” Complete with cell phone pictures and anecdotes, the group’s sole purpose was to torment a boy at school. Of course in any generation kids will make fun of other kids, but I think the public humiliation of cyber bullying is worse.

And bullying isn’t the only problem. High schoolers (and indeed, many of my peers) often show remarkable lack of judgment in what they post online. Drunk pictures, obscene quotes, photos in various stages of undress, and far, far, Too Much Information may seem tame when you think you’re just sharing it with your friends. But what goes online stays online, and even after you change your mind about something you posted it’s pretty much impossible to make it go away forever. One thing is for sure: I do not envy the presidential candidates of 2044.

As everyone who has been through it knows, adolescence is a time of huge change. And not just in fashion sense and music tastes, research shows that adolescence includes a rate of brain development on par with toddlers’. In fact, researchers now believe that the brain doesn’t reach complete maturity until the mid-twenties. As someone currently living her mid-twenties, I’d have to say my personal experience leads me to believe that is true. After a decade of thinking I was all grown up, I think it’s only been in the past year or so that I really have gotten close.

After giving it some thought, I can understand parents’ concerns for young peoples’ use of Facebook. But I still don’t think panic is quite the right reaction. Because what the alarmist viewpoints don’t take into consideration is that the times are changing. Online social networking is changing how we interact and it will never be the same as it was before. Of course it looks scary, when you look at today’s situation with yesterday’s rules. But if every politician in 50 years has drunk pictures from spring break in Cancun, what will happen then? Maybe, just maybe, no one will care.

Of course I still think it’s a good idea to be prudent about what one posts online. It is also definitely a good idea for parents to be involved in their child’s online life and make sure it doesn’t cross into legitimately harmful behavior. But beyond that, I think we can all calm down. The times are changing, and the wise change along with them. There may be growing pains, reminiscence for the good old days, or worry about the unknown future, but that’s how change is. We’ll be just fine.

A few weeks ago, my beautiful friends Mark and Miranda got engaged. They are extraordinary people and a wonderful match, and I am excited for them as they embark on this adventure of a lifetime together. And while I’m more interested the wedding itself and their plans for the future, yes, I did notice the jaw-droppingly gorgeous ring on Miranda’s finger.

My surrender to the allure of diamonds annoys me. While jewelry of all kinds is a favorite status symbol in the Western world, in America especially diamonds are in a class of their own. Diamond stud earrings are considered a fashion staple, a diamond necklace is marketed as the “go-to” anniversary gift, and the diamond engagement ring is all but obligatory. Touted as the symbol of eternal love and described with phrases like “fiery brilliance” and “as everlasting as your love”, diamonds are the most ubiquitous rare gem in the American marketplace. And the most fascinating thing about diamonds is that they really aren’t all that rare. They are, however, one of the most brilliant examples of marketing of all time.

As minerals go, diamond is in fact pretty interesting. Diamond is compressed carbon, the fundamental element of life. That alone is a pretty romantic notion. Furthermore, diamond is the hardest substance known. In geological terms, hardness defines a substance’s resistance to being scratched, and the true nature of diamond’s hardness is undefined, because it can only be tested against itself. It is amazingly dense, repels water, and has the highest rate of reflectance of any transparent substance.

So it isn’t that diamond isn’t interesting. It’s fair to say it is unique geologically, and it’s also fair to say that it’s pretty. But its unparalleled status in the minds and hearts of Americans is not a result of its chemistry or its beauty, but of pure marketing genius.

The giving of engagement rings is a centuries old tradition. Emperor Maximilian I gave his wife Mary a diamond ring upon their betrothal in the 15^th century, and the rest, as they say, is history. Traditions die hard, especially where love is concerned, so it’s unsurprising that diamond engagement rings are as highly prized in the 21^st century. But what if diamonds weren’t very expensive? Is it actually the somewhat romantic chemical properties of diamond that so draws in consumers? Is it actually their beauty, when cubic zirconium looks pretty dang similar? Or is it their extravagance, their apparent rarity?

The De Beers Diamond Trading Company certainly wants to keep diamonds expensive. They have monopolized the market for over 100 years, artificially controlling supply to keep diamonds rare. Their scheme of stockpiling gems and orchestrating a massive advertising campaign has kept the industry running like a well-oiled machine for decades.

While the artificiality of the rarity of diamonds is a bit annoying, it is actually the aspect of the industry which bothers me the least. For a symbol of eternal love, diamonds carry a lot of negative baggage.

The most pressing problem is of course, conflict diamonds. Thrust into the public eye with the 2006 film Blood Diamond, conflict diamonds have been used to fund devastating wars in Sierra Leone and Angola. While De Beers and other industry leaders claim to have abolished any illegal doings in their mining processes, it is hard to tell what is truth and what is carefully crafted propaganda.

The current focal point of diamond conflict is Zimbabwe. Diamond smuggling is becoming an increasing aid to Robert Mugabe’s stronghold on the presidency, as more diamond mines are coming under military control and stones are smuggled out of the country by the bucket load. The Kimberly Process, the diamond industry’s regulatory body, has thus far done nothing effective towards reversing situation which is ever spinning out of control. In a place where less than 6% of the population is employed, six million people are dependent on emergency food supplies, and infant mortality has tripled since the 1990s, a corrupt diamond industry is the worst thing imaginable.

Clearly diamonds are still shrouded in misery, but they’ve never been more popular. To no one’s surprise, the diamond industry is currently suffering like everyone else due to the financial crisis, but if the ring fingers of my colleagues are any indication, traditional engagement rings are as popular as ever.

While the mining end of the industry is troubling, the American end isn’t exactly nothing but sunshine. Perhaps nowhere else are our expectations of women lower. My jaw dropped at a recent visit to www.diamonds.com. Under the pages “For Women Only” and “For Men Only” disgusting stereotypes about men, women, and relationships were paraded one after the other. The women’s page was all about how to get a man to propose, or more specifically, how to get a man to propose with a big, fat, diamond ring.

It shocks me that we are still here. That still, in the 21^st century, it is expected that the man will propose, and it’s the woman’s job to manipulate him into doing so, for heaven forbid she propose herself. The tips in this section range are laughably absurd (“respond to everything with ‘that has a nice ring to it’”) but the sad truth is many women buy into this kind of thinking. I asked a coworker recently how long she and her boyfriend had been together, and her response was a smirk and “Too long to not be engaged.” I asked why she didn’t just propose herself and she looked at me as though I had six heads.

The “For Men Only” section was just as bad. From the picture of a dazed, confused, and slightly terrified fellow (because all men are thus struck at the idea of marriage and diamond buying) to the tip that “a diamond gets you out of the doghouse” the page would make me laugh if it wasn’t serious. Of course, this is a diamond website, so it can be expected to proudly perpetuate the lowest common denominator. Still, I am convinced this kind of thinking is well ingrained in many an American brain.

I think jewelry is lovely. I have spent many a daydream on thoughts of a white-dress, sparkly-ring, one-knee nature. And actually, let me just say here and now that I actually like tradition when it comes to cultural ritual. But even traditions need to evolve and change with the times, and I think the American culture of the diamond ring is falling far behind. If a man wants to propose with an African-mined, De Beers diamond, that’s fine by me (so long as it was truly conflict and child-labor free). But the societal insistence that this be the only way to embark on an engagement is ridiculous. Every person is unique, every relationship is certainly unique, and we should have engagement traditions enough to go around.

I was going to write a post today about feminism. Several things made me think of this: the appearance of one of my feminist heroes (Jessica Valenti) at my university, my article in the student paper about gendered language. I was going to talk about the use of the generic masculine in English grammar is damaging to women (and especially to girls learning the language as children). I was going to talk about the many double standards which face women in our society, especially when it comes to sexuality. I also planned to discuss how women of my generation often avoid the term “feminism”, thinking it synonymous with man-hating and bra-burning.

I had the post pretty well figured out (because I, um, always have my posts carefully planned out before beginning to write…) and was ready to go when I opened my email inbox this morning. I had an email from the National Organization for Women, announcing that today is International Women’s Day.

International Women’s Day has been observed since the early 1900s. In some incarnations it has been similar to Mother’s Day and is treated as an opportunity to give gifts to mothers and grandmothers. It is an official holiday in 15 countries and is still often celebrated with flowers and gifts, but in the 21^st century it has taken on a more ambitious bent.

For decades (centuries, really) people around the world have been fighting for women’s equality. Today International Women’s Day serves as a catalyst for social change to benefit women. Thousands of events take place around the world celebrating women’s achievements and bringing attention to causes which require further work.

Globally, the inequality between men and women is fairly obvious (some may argue that it is obvious in the United States as well, but I think that if so many young women are so averse to the word “feminism” then it isn’t). Women are dwarfed in numbers by men in business, politics, and the sciences. 25% more girls than boys are out of primary school. More than half a million women die every year from complications from pregnancy and childbirth. Violence towards women and girls is prevalent, and some of it is even proscribed by society, as in the case of honor killings and female genital mutilation.

From a global perspective, the feminist issues I normally write about seem paltry. But I don’t think we should dismiss them. Any efforts, subconscious or deliberate, to undermine women need to be reversed. And the more empowered women from this country are, the more able they will be to help women around the world. So from that standpoint, I think International Women’s Day needs to serve as a reminder to Americans that yes, while we have work to do in our own country, we cannot forget the women of other nations who struggle so much more.

The theme of this year’s International Women’s Day is “Women and men united to end violence against women and girls.” Violence against women is unfortunately a problem that is just as familiar in this country as it is in others. On average, every day in the United States 600 women are raped or sexually assaulted. One-third of female murder victims are killed by an intimate partner, and domestic violence affects millions of women every year. And this is in the United States alone. In the world as a whole, the statistics are truly horrifying.

One in five women will be a victim of rape or attempted rape. Homicide is a disturbingly high cause of death among women of reproductive age. In some countries as many as 50% of women have been abused by an intimate partner. Violence is often underreported, and the victim is frequently held responsible for the violence against her. In many cases the patterns of abuse are so engrained, and the public support structure so faulty (or absent) that the task of reversing these statistics is unbelievably daunting. But I think that the global community, and Americans in particular, cannot forget or ignore the issues of women. I also think many of the problems women are facing are interrelated. Education, health care, legislative rights, all these things will help improve the lives of women. They may not alone end violence against women, but if we look at all the issues together we have an excellent chance of succeeding.

Clearly there is work to be done. But International Women’s Day also serves as an opportunity to celebrate all the progress that has been made. We have women prime ministers, Olympians, astronauts, Nobel Prize winners, and CEOs. The world is full of women role models, women who work or raise families or do both. Women are accepted into universities around the world, and in the United States graduate at greater rates than their male classmates. We have far to go, but we have come so far already. At the dawn of the 21^st century, the future is very bright.

Liberty University scares me for many reasons. Any university which has a dress code (“ponytails for men are unacceptable”), dorm room checks to make sure beds are made, and rules forbidding any media displaying an “anti-Christian” message seriously disturbs me. And let’s not forget the code of conduct which disallows any physical contact between members of the opposite sex besides hand-holding (though I have to wonder how they’d feel about hand holding from members of the same sex).

But of course, no one is required to go to Liberty University. If someone really wants to attend a school which has the good graces to allow its students to attend the movie theater but not if the movie is rated R, then I guess that’s their prerogative. It’s the student’s education, their life, and their business. However, there is one aspect of Liberty University that I do consider my business: the teaching of intelligent design in biology classes.

“But wait,” you say. “Liberty is a private university; they can teach whatever they want.” True, but the problem is the graduates of this biology program, many of whom will go on to teach science in public schools. Liberty University is licensed by the State Council of Higher Education for the State of Virginia to award degrees. Those degrees are recognized as a primary qualification for a teaching job, including jobs teaching science.

Looking at the syllabus for an introductory biology course, it seems ludicrous that it can pass for a science course. There may be discussions of photosynthesis and DNA, but it is all meant “to reach the conclusion that life is derived from and dependent on a Creator.” The scientific community by no means uses biology to reach that conclusion. While I don’t think the purpose of a university is to churn out students brainwashed to regurgitate concepts without thinking critically on their own, I do think it’s a bad sign if one school or course dramatically differs from the consensus of an academic body.

Biology 101 at Liberty University also asks its students to “explain how truth in Scripture distinguishes the species Homo sapiens theologically and spiritually from all other species created by God.” They may feel they’ve tipped their hat to science by using human’s biological name, but the statement drips with such absurdity that it cannot be called science.

First of all, there is the God part. As I previously mentioned, the scientific community does not endorse the creation of life by a god of any kind. I’m sure many scientists haven’t ruled it out as a possibility, at least in their own spiritual life, but it is simply not a question which is being considered by science at this time. Will science someday be able to answer the question of God’s existence? Maybe. But to assume the existence of a god when there is no scientific evidence to support the claim makes the statement, well, not science.

Secondly, the differentiation of humans theologically and spiritually is not really a scientific matter. At least it seems the professor is aware of humans’ biological similarity to animals—after all, it is fairly obvious. And whether other animals have what seem to be uniquely human experiences (dreaming, killing of one’s own species, homosexuality, etc) is being researched by scientists in a variety of fields. But theological concerns are primarily (if not exclusively) being investigated by theologians. Again, not science.

But what is most intensely disturbing about this statement is the “truth of Scripture.” Again the assumption here is that the Bible is true, and the professor has built an entire course upon that assumption. Jerry Falwell founded an entire university based on it. Never has it been proved that the entire Bible is true. While there are some historically supported events and people, the vast majority of it is either proven false by science or history, or is unknown.

To fancy that the Bible is 100% factual is to dismiss not only biology but also geology and other areas of science. It has not stood up to the scrutiny that every single scientific theory has withstood. Teaching it alongside heavily researched and monumentally provable science would be funny if it wasn’t so scary.

Of course everyone should be able to believe whatever they like. I’ll respect your view that God created the Earth in seven days if you’ll respect mine that we’re actually situated on a ping pong ball that is careening out of control in a table tennis set in some alien's garage. Religion certainly has secured its place in society and culture, and I don’t have a problem with religion being taught at institutions of higher education (especially the private ones). But to award science degrees to students who base their thinking on legend rather than science is reprehensible. The scientific method is a discrete and resolute process for acquiring human knowledge. It cannot be matched by any amount of superstition, questionable religious “evidence,” or faith.

If Liberty University wants to teach its biology students that life was created by an all-knowing God, fine. But if they do not want to abide by the knowledge of the scientific community they should not be awarding science degrees. Period.