Why own an AR-15?

Why Own an AR-15?


It is my contention that gun ownership is an irrational and toxic symptom of a decay in our society that has as its foundation the dwindling sense of control that many feel they have over their own lives.

There are many ways in which people react to a perceived loss of control. In many cases the reaction leads to the typical mid-life crisis: Dad buys a motorcycle and grows a pony-tail. As one who owns a motorcycle (but rarely rides it anymore) I can testify that the feeling I used to experience when entering a curve on the proper line; rolling on the throttle at the apex; tilting over to set up for the next curve; was an indescribable feeling of power and control. I used to really enjoy riding my bike – especially during the times when I felt LESS powerful at work or in other parts of my life. I can imagine, therefore, the strong feeling of power and control when hefting an AR-15 on a shooting range, and seeing the targets disappearing in a shower of bullets.

However, from any careful analysis it is not rational to buy a motorcycle and use it as a way to exert control over your life. The notion that I was in more control when I was on my bike was a total fiction. In truth I was in LESS control over my fate than when in my car. I was more likely to be blindsided and severely injured by another vehicle drifting over the centerline, or by the patch of sand at the apex of the corner.

The key fallacy, I think, is to try to obtain control by looking externally; looking at external objects to provide the validation that one is not merely a cog in the machine. The true sense of control comes from an internal place, and this can be true no matter what one's circumstances may be. In “Man’s Search for Meaning” Victor Frankl wrote that from his experience in Auschwitz, the prisoners in many cases, had more control than the guards: “Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way”. If one can truly feel a sense of control in those awful circumstances, surely the clerk stuck in a dead-end job, does not need an AR-15 to achieve a sense of control – and in doing this they are ignoring their own power to control their life by externalizing that power to an object that will ultimately let them down.

Overall, it is probably true that gun deaths are symptomatic of a mental health problem. But it is not only the metal health of those that go on the rampage. I would propose that many gun owners suffer the consequences of making bad choices in their search for validation and control; succumbing to the false feeling of power and safety that their gun provides. Guns are a toxic symptom of a search for meaning that will only be ended when we realize that true power is within ourselves, and is not provided by external and inanimate extensions of self. Our guns need to be forged into hooks and plowshares – the sooner the better.

Why I don't carry a gun - and never will

I live in a state where I would be able to walk into a store, put down some money, fill out a form, and in fairly short order obtain a gun. However, I have not done that; I will not do that.

The first thing I want to mention before I go into the reasons for my choice is that I am not a person who has no experience with guns. While my parents did not have guns in the home, from the second to the fifth grade I went to a summer camp that had a shooting range. From a fairly young age I was shooting at targets and cans, learning how to aim and shoot a rifle and a pistol. In sixth grade we moved overseas to an environment where hunting was an accepted and common activity. Our friends and neighbors maintained a collection of weapons, and had various trophies on their walls.

When I reached adulthood I lived in New York for over two decades. You may say: “aha – that’s why you don’t want a gun… you are one of those darn New York liberals”. Well actually, I lived in upstate New York for well over half of that two-decade period in an area where hunting and guns were an important part of the culture. In that region of the country for many people owning and using a gun often meant the difference between eating well or going hungry. After living upstate, I moved nearer to New York City. While the city is well known for its restrictions on gun ownership, that is not true for the counties immediately surrounding the five boroughs of New York. So, over all, I have not lived a life isolated from the realities of gun ownership and my decision to not carry a gun is not due to lack of experience.

My reasons for not carrying a gun are largely two-fold. The first reason is due to the fact that I am a scientist. I live a good part of my life analyzing facts and making decisions based upon those facts. Given my approach toward rational analysis, my first reason for not carrying a gun is that they are dangerous. Having a gun in your home increases the likelihood that you will be shot: either accidentally, or due to an intentional act by an intruder or a family member – guns in the home are NOT protective. Since ultimately I don’t want to be shot, the completely rational response (but counter-intuitive to some) is that I should reduce the chances of that happening by not owning or carrying a gun.

My second reason for not carrying a gun is more philosophical and has at its foundation my experiences as a child. When living outside Washington I was taken, like many children, on a tour of the FBI building. One of the stops on the tour was the indoor firing range where the Special Agent showed off his skills by placing a neat set of holes in the heart of the target. As he talked to us, he spoke of his training and of the respect he had for guns; and the respect we should have for guns. One of the things he said stays with me even now. He said that you never draw your weapon unless you intend to fire; you never fire your weapon unless you aim at your target; you never aim at your target unless you intend to kill. He stated emphatically that a “warning shot” or “shooting to wound” was nonsense. The reason he was issued a deadly weapon as part of his job was for that reason – it is a deadly weapon.

So the second reason I do not carry a gun is that I will not make the conscious decision, in advance, that I am going to kill someone. By carrying a gun, I would be making a choice that I am going to use it. By carrying a gun, I would be making a choice that I am a person that finds it acceptable to end someone else’s life. By carrying a gun, I would be no different than the “hit man” or the “gang banger” whose life decisions cheapen the value of the lives of others.

I choose to not live my life as a premeditated murderer.

I don’t carry a gun – and never will.

Science Standards

Some recent events in the news concerning discussion of South Carolina’s science standards have led me to reflect on the issues that still seem to surround our understanding of biological evolution and whether it, and biblical accounts of the organization of life, can coexist in an open and free academic environment.

In approaching this discussion, I am going to organize my thoughts around three themes: 1) the nature of debate; 2) the domains of Science and Faith; 3) the science of Intelligent Design.  I will approach the first two themes from a faith-based point of view and approach the third scientifically.

First, when engaged in a debate; as you seek to let students “debate the alternatives”, one of the critical things to establish is the framework within which the debate will occur.  In order for a debate to proceed, both parties must accept the validity of this framework.  In the case of individuals who are opposed to an evolutionary viewpoint, the world of science and faith are tightly linked and inseparable.  Thus, at the apex of this framework there is often a postulate concerning two mutually exclusive contentions: 1) God exists; 2) Biological Evolution occurs.  That is, the logical framework proposed by many creationists is, simply put, that either one believes in God, or one accepts Biological evolution, but not both – the two are mutually exclusive.  However, if one does not accept this framework, a debate cannot occur.

To investigate these two potentially mutually exclusive contentions further, consider this short passage:

“According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.  While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of Homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.”

Now you may say that you would expect me, as a Biologist, to feel comfortable with a seemingly secular framework such as this.  However, that passage is from a 2004 report by The International Theological Commission of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith of the Roman Catholic Church.  At the time that it was written, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger headed the Commission and Congregation.  He was, as you all probably know, Pope Benedict XVI.

So the problem with the framework proposed by creationists is that it presumes that an acceptance of Biological evolution cannot coexist with a belief in God.  However, the official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that there is no contradiction, and the statement above, accepting a scientific explanation of biological diversity and biological evolution, is completely consistent with a belief in God; a deep catholic faith; a faith shared by 1.1 billion people world-wide; a faith once led by Pope Benedict XVI – the author of the document quoted above.

In terms of the second theme, the domains of Science and Faith, I will present how these two ways of knowing: science and religion, relate to one another and engage in discussion.  In framing this discussion, when one contemplates the overarching issue of “life” there are generally three questions that can be addressed: First, WHAT (“what is life”, “what is meant by living”, and related to humans: “what does it mean to be Human”).  Second, HOW (how did life arise? how did humans arise?).  Third WHY (is there meaning in life? is there a purpose to all of this?). 

Each of these three questions has been asked by a range of individuals: theologians, scientists, etc.  In spite of each question being addressed by various groups, the different skill set of each make addressing these questions better approached by a different group.  For example the scientist is very good on the “how” but not so good on the “why”.   Conversely, theologians are good on the “why” but not so good on the “how”. 

Unfortunately, problems can arise when each group attempts to answer a question outside of its own framework.  While evolution is a very good model and explanation for the “how”, it is bad at answering the “why”.  Conversely, scriptural and biblical writings are quite good at exploring the “why” (and exploring man’s relationship with God), but are exceedingly bad at the “how”.

Now this idea on the separate realms within which science and theology view the world is not just my own view.  The late (and great) evolutionary Biologist, Stephen Jay Gould, was once asked: “can a person believe both in God and evolution?" His response was to reassure the questioner that evolution was both true and entirely compatible with Christian belief – in his words each is a “Nonoverlapping Magisteria”.  Again, as I mentioned earlier, you might expect an evolutionary biologist, like Stephen Jay Gould, to say such secular things.  However we can also go back to the faith statements of the Roman Catholic Church.

In 1950, Pope Puis XII wrote about the issue of evolution and Christian Faith.  His writings are mentioned by Pope John Paul II in his own writings:

“In his encyclical Humani Generis, my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation.”

John Paul II then goes further than this and writes:

“With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation.”

Thus, Theology and Science are different ways of knowing, that use different frameworks to study the nature of man.  As Pope John Paul II stated, we cannot use the tools of science to examine our faith.  Equally true, we cannot use the tools of faith to examine science.  Further, I would stress that each way of knowing is valid in its own right, but each uses different tools and illuminates different aspects of the human condition.

The take-home message from these first two, faith-based, themes is that even with a strong religious outlook it is possible and reasonable, to study, understand and accept the reality of biological evolution.

For the third and final theme I want to touch on the concept of Intelligent Design.  At its heart the Intelligent Design argument is based upon missing knowledge and the importance of missing knowledge in creating evidence for or against a particular hypothesis.  That is, our understanding of a system is lacking to such an extent that we are forced to say: “the system is too complex; therefore it must have been designed by a creator.”  However, in examining this contention it is important to remember the old phrase: “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.  That is, just because there is no evidence that supports a particular prediction of the evolutionary framework, does not mean the framework is wrong… ie: you cannot argue against a theory by using the LACK of evidence – you need explicit evidence that refutes the theory.  As an example (and this is not original to me) the presence of a fossil rabbit in Pre-Cambrian strata would refute evolution.  But the LACK of a particular fossil (the whole “transitional forms” argument used by creationists) does not say anything for or against a particular viewpoint.

This issue, of the lack of evidence not being particularly useful, comes up explicitly in the “irreducible complexity” argument of those who argue for Intelligent Design.  For some time, examples were provided about how some cellular structure was composed of too many interdependent parts to have evolved – one example that was used was the bacterial flagellum.  However, as the structure was studied it became clear that the structure was not a single unitary complex structure – “designed’ for one purpose.  Instead, it was built, “re-engineered” as it were, from a range of component parts that were doing other things in cells.  Again, initially we did not know this – and there was an absence of evidence of the potential evolutionary path – and this absence was used by the adherents of intelligent design to argue for the actual absence of an evolutionary pathway.  Again, what was being argued was not that an explicit prediction of evolutionary theory was not true – it was simply that we did not have the data – and as we obtained the data the evolutionary framework was supported. 

The intelligent design argument also falls away when you consider the work of Dr. Stuart Kaufman on the properties of complex systems.  His modeling studies have suggested that in highly interconnected random networks, novel properties may emerge not predicted from an understanding of the individual elements.  Furthermore, and important in this discussion, the network can be trained to a task, then parsed – and upon this parsing what remains is an apparently “irreducibly complex” linear pathway that mediates the specific task.  Critically, the process to get to this “irreducibly complex” path is explainable by the training and parsing of the former, larger random network.  This process of training random networks has potential real-world evolutionary applications.  One example might be seen in the biochemical pathways that synthesize catecholamine neurotransmitters in nerve cells.  Specifically, the pathways that distinguish many vertebrates and invertebrate neurotransmitter systems (octopamine vs. noradrenaline, etc) can be viewed under Kauffman’s modeling as the result of broader biochemical network where different “nodes” were lost during the evolution of the pathway.  Again, until Kauffman’s explanatory modeling we would see these neurotransmitter synthetic pathways as “non-evolvable” and “irreducibly complex”.

In conclusion, in presenting these three themes, it is my hope that you are left with two conclusions.  First there is no conflict between science and faith when considering the reality of biological evolution.  Second, intelligent design fails as an alternative to evolution, is fundamentally unscientific, and the overall increase in knowledge that derives from a scientific approach toward understanding the world results in the support of biological evolution as the single best explanation of life’s diversity.

Jobs, Careers, and the Foolish Liberal Arts

As you all may be aware, Coastal Carolina University is embarking on the process of changing how it delivers the curriculum, in order to make it more flexible and engaging for students.  As we do this, we are part of the broader curricular conversations that are moving through higher education.  In many of the discussions taking place – often about the overall value of higher education – it seems that there is an underlying anti-intellectual theme.  The theme is apparent in a recent “Yahoo” headline that states: “Four Foolish Majors to Avoid” and lists Liberal Arts and Philosophy as the top two “foolish majors”.  This theme is also implicit in the comments flowing around state houses and legislatures suggesting that listing the employment rates for History majors would help parents and students make “better” choices in college.

Leaving aside the notion that there is no such major as “Liberal Arts” – the Liberal Arts are a collection of disciplines that serve to free one’s mind to think, reflect, and draw conclusions about a complex, changing world – what is the deeper implication of this attack on an educational focus that has served us well for hundreds, if not a thousand years?

In providing a bit of personal background, I work in a STEM field (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math).  My career has been as a scientist, researcher, educator, and administrator.  My professional role has been in turning out successful STEM graduates who move on to valued STEM careers.  As a consequence, you might expect to find me untroubled by this attempted trivialization of the Liberal Arts. 

However, you would be wrong.

In fact, a good part of my success in my own life is not based upon the technical skills I obtained as an undergraduate science major, or as a doctoral student, post-doctoral trainee, or a grant-funded and published research scientist.  Instead, my ability to handle nuance, ambiguity, and complexity, necessary for any successful career, is more a consequence of the intellectual foundation that I gained from my experiences at my college prep-school, my experiences growing up abroad, and my General Education curriculum.  This exposure to a variety of disciplines and points of view, and discussion and debate on those disciplines and points of view – all hallmarks of the Liberal Arts approach toward education – played a more important role in my success than any detail I learned about cell structure in college.  In truth, many of the “facts” I learned in college are no longer “facts”, and many of the technical skills I learned are no longer relevant.

This inevitable, and incipient, irrelevance with what I learned during my fairly high-level STEM education is a general problem with the current push to make sure our educational system focuses on only the skills one needs for a job, as opposed to the abilities one needs for a life.  The thing that separates us from most other living organisms is not simply a specific technical ability.  What separates us is the cognitive ability of our brains; our capacity to read, think, reflect, discuss, debate and learn.  Furthermore, these abilities are not likely to be easily replaced as new technologies are developed.

The problem with an exclusive focus on technical training – aside from the fact that it may not nurture what makes us fully human – is that these technical jobs are those most likely to be replaced as we continue to push back the STEM frontiers.  As an example from my own field of Biology, when I was in graduate school, one could receive a Ph.D. for cloning a gene.  This task is now performed by a machine.  I hope we are not embarking down a path where we train students to be the next cadre of workers rendered unemployed by a robot. 

When one looks at where we should focus our educational efforts, I would argue that it would be on those things that celebrate our humanity; we should educate not to create solely a population of well-trained technically proficient workers; but educate to create a population of thinking, feeling, creative humans.  Only in this way will we have the insights to handle change, understand our world, expand knowledge; determine which “facts” are no longer true; which techniques are no longer relevant.  In truth I would contend that an appreciation and understanding of the Liberal Arts is the best way to ensure our successful future, and the least foolish choice to make for a successful life.  While one example cannot be considered “data”, I would mention that one of the more successful members of my immediate family, my sister, has enjoyed a lucrative, nearly 25-year, corporate career as a senior executive, valued speaker, and published author – all after graduating with a “foolish” degree in Philosophy.

As we deal with the challenges facing higher education, and universities across our nation embark upon curricular conversations to revise how we provide an education for our students, I hope we remain focused – across the entire academy – on the deeper meaning our university’s motto: Ex Libertate Veritas.

Gov. Nikki Haley and the Affordable Care Act

Our Governor, Nikki Haley, posted this statement today on her Facebook page (my response follows):

“South Carolina will NOT expand Medicaid, or participate in any health exchanges. We will not support Pres. Obama's tax increase or job killing agenda.  I WILL do everything I can to get Mitt Romney elected and work to strengthen our Senate so that we can repeal this unAmerican policy aimed at moving our country in the wrong direction.”

Gov. Haley, it is one thing to say you don't like a specific policy.  It is quite another to say that a policy (that passed both houses of Congress, was signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court) is "un-American".  By doing so you imply that anyone who disagrees with your views (and supports the Affordable Care Act) is less of an American than you.

Well, I am a proud patriotic American and will not let you, or anyone with whom I have policy disagreements, call my love of this country into question.  If you want to work to get the act repealed that is your right - have at it.  I will do what I can to keep it in place.  But in doing so, and in working to implement our different agendas, neither of us is any less of an American.

Mr. Jefferson’s University and Disruptive Technology in Higher Education.

As many of you may know I received my graduate degrees (M.S. and Ph.D.) from The University of Virginia.  However, more than just providing me a credential and a couple of pieces of paper to hang on my wall, my six years at “The University” had a greater effect on my development as a person than probably any other period in my life.  As a consequence of my experiences there, Mary Jo and I often take a break on our trips north and spend the night in Charlottesville.  While it is a convenient half-way point to and from central New York, it also provides me the opportunity to tread the brick walkways upon which Jefferson once passed, admire the Serpentine Walls he designed, and reflect upon the intellectual growth I experienced in that place.

Due to my strong feelings for UVa I have paid a great deal of attention to the recent events at the institution that have led to the ouster of its recently appointed President, Teresa Sullivan.  While I am not privy to the discussions that took place among the Board of Visitors (Trustees) and their Rector (Chair), a great deal of information has been published about the discussions that led to her resignation.  At its simplest level there seems to have been a disagreement between the Board and the President about the pace of change at The University, particularly as it pertained to the adoption of on-line education.  In particular, email correspondence seemed to indicate that the board was concerned that some “bricks and mortar” institutions were moving decisively in the direction of on-line learning (Stanford was mentioned specifically) while UVa was not.  If we leave aside the notion of whether two years is a long enough period for a President to assert a particular academic vision, the issue of whether web-based and internet technologies are in fact a disruptive technology that will permanently alter higher education, as the Board of Visitors apparently felt, is an issue worth some discussion.

One article that was mentioned in the emails between the two Board members, was an op-ed piece by David Brooks that appeared in the New York Times some months ago.  In this article, Mr. Brooks asserts that just as web-based and internet technologies have completely disrupted the business of gathering and providing information (creating a serious challenge to traditional print media), these same technologies are going to disrupt higher education, permanently altering how learning is accomplished.  Further, any institution of higher education that ignores on-line learning does so at its own peril.

The question I would ask, and ask us all to reflect upon, is: Is this true?  Does the advent of web-based and internet technologies mean the end is near for the traditional notions of university and campus?

I admit I come at this from a particular point of view that holds the traditional university in extremely high regard, and as a consequence I may be blind to the current realities.  However, one reality I am not blind to is that those of us that work within the structures of the traditional university are the defenders of a thousand-year tradition; a tradition that forms a foundation of our civilization,  This is a human tradition that should not be lightly discarded.

If one looks at aspects of our humanity that tie us together within a university community, one of the things that I am struck by is that people seem predisposed to make connections, to view patterns in the world.  Evidence for this can be clearly seen when you look at the night sky.  While each individual star may be separated by thousands of light years, our perception, and our desire to make connections between these randomly scattered dots, creates the constellations and the stories and myths on how they were placed in the sky.  On a more worldly scale, our ability to connect facts and historical occurrences into conspiracy theories also speaks to a human desire to connect the unconnectable into a coherent framework.  While my discipline is Neuroscience, I am not a Cognitive Scientist but suspect that this ability to make connections is a consequence of how our brain works and is a key aspect of our human nature.

As the examples of the constellations and the conspiracy theories might suggest our ability to connect random features of our experience may not be predictable.  That is, the story of the pattern in the sky was developed as a consequence of viewing the supposed pattern.  The story emerged as we viewed the complex features; the myth is an emergent property of our civilization as we attempt to create order in the world.  In addition to the stories about the constellations, we make more rational, yet still serendipitous, connections as we develop our intellectual abilities over our lifetimes.  In my view, traditional universities are created to foster these connections in a way that is not predictable.  If these connections are lost, we will lose something as a civilization, just as the expansion of web-based internet technologies has destroyed some valuable aspects of traditional print media.  As an example, in my personal experience I owe a great deal of my scientific career to random connections between disparate facts that would not have occurred within the current, largely electronic, system of disseminating scientific information.

Back in 1988 I was looking in the journal “Science” for the registration form to apply to attend a Gordon Research Conference in Chronobiology (at the time I studied circadian rhythms in marine snails).  As I looked for the page where the form was located I landed one page too soon.  On that page was an article concerning the mathematical modeling of the cell division cycle.  In the abstract of that article the authors described the nature of their model which reminded me of something I had learned back in graduate school about how circadian clocks were analyzed.  As a consequence, I began a series of studies that attempted to tie some of the biochemical processes that controlled cell division to similar processes controlling circadian rhythms. Ten years, two NSF grants, six papers, 11 presentations, 2 graduate students, and 16 undergraduates later I moved fully into academic administration after an enjoyable and productive research career.  The important point is that I never would have embarked on this journey today.  Today I would have gone on-line and down-loaded the form.  I never would have skipped the page with the registration form; I never would have seen the article on cell division; I never would have been reminded of an obscure fact from six years earlier in graduate school.  Also, no search engine would have been able to make that connection.  No matter how much Facebook or Google knew about me, they never would have tossed a cell-division article into the column of “sponsored ads” or “featured links” on my computer screen.

This superposition of randomness leading to a transforming experience happens every day in a traditional university.  Just yesterday, at the first-year orientation event in the Edwards courtyard, I was speaking to a group of Marine Science students when Dr. Renee Smith came by with a flyer outlining the various courses and programs available in the Philosophy Department.  Being somewhat of a “philosophy groupie” I listened and agreed with her as she explained how many of their course offerings were relevant to students pursuing degree programs in the College of Science.  As the students listened and looked over the brochure one then asked: “what is Metaphysics?”  To this Dr. Smith began a detailed discourse on the nature of reality, existence of God, the value of perception, and the meaning of perception.  The students stood in rapt attention, and clearly had their minds opened to the intellectual possibilities that come about when interested minds meet interesting people.  The most important thing about this interaction is that it never would have occurred if the students were sitting at home in front of a computer screen looking at an orientation web-based tutorial on how to access their grades on the Blackboard course management system.

Now it is clear that web-based and internet technologies will play a prominent role in our ability to access information; particularly as we require the incorporation of new knowledge into our own particular intellectual framework over our lifetimes.  However, if we replace all aspects of education by a packaged and predictable system of access, that throws away the random connections that occur in physical spaces as we interact face-to-face, we will lose something extremely important.  We will lose the ability to make connections from seemingly random facts, and as a consequence never see pathways worth exploring, or beautiful patterns in the sky, as we grow as intellectual beings. 

It is not that we ignore web-based and internet technologies at our peril as David Brooks wrote.  In truth, we ignore the traditional university at our peril.  Without the delightful randomness of the interactions at the university we will ultimately fail as a civilization.  This is the tragedy taking place at the University of Virginia; that the leadership of the Board of Visitors failed to understand that you cannot necessarily predict, plan, market and sell, those things that make the University of Virginia, and all universities, a great and enduring foundation of our civilization.

MHRoberts UVa ’81, ‘84