GUEST:

SUBJECT:

#875 10/2/90

LYNNE CHENEY

"EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES GONE WRONG"

SOUTHERN EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION

The copyright laws of the United States (Title 17, U.S. Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. If a user makes a request for, or later uses a photocopy or reproduction (including handwritten copies) for purposes in excess of fair use, that user may be liable for copyright infringement. Users are advised to obtain permission from the copyright owner before any re-use of this material. Use of this material is for private, non-commercial, and educational purposes; additional reprints and further distribution is prohibited. Copies are not for resale. All other rights reserved. For further information, contact Director, Hoover Institution Library and Archives, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-6010 ©Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

The FIRING LINE television series is a production of the Southern Educational

Communications Association, PO Box 5966, Columbia, SC 29250 and is

transmitted through the facilities of the Public Broadcasting Service. FIRING

LINE can be seen and heard each week through public television and radio

stations throughout the country. Check your local newspapers for channel and

time in your area.

SECA PRESENTS @)

FIRlnGLlne

HOST: WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR.

MODERATOR: MICHAEL KINSLEY

GUEST: LYNNE CHENEY

SUBJECT: "EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES GONE WRONG"

FIR ING LINE is produced and dirertP.rl hv WARRJ:I\! STEIBEL This is a transcript of the Firing Line program taped October 2, 1990, at the University of North Carolina Center for Public Television in Chapel Hill and telecast later by PBS.

SOUTHERN EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION

© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

© 1990 SOUTHERN EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION

M~. KINSLEY:. From R~leigh, North Carolina, welcome to Firing Line. I'm Michael Kinsley of The New Republic magazine.

There is another national endowment besides the National Endowment for the Arts, the one that Jesse Helms is so angry at. That sister institution is the National Endowment for the Humanities als~ a government agency, which mainly funds scholarship. Whil~ chairm7n of the arts endowment spend much of their energy trying to avoid controversy, the chairmen of the humanities endowment often seek it out. The NEH is where William Bennett first climbed onto the bully pulpit.

The current chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities has used the job to fire salvos into the American educational establishment. Her name is Lynne Cheney. She holds a PhD in English, specializing in 19th century British literature. Before joining the endowment in 1986, she was a college teacher and journalist. Her husband, Richard, is the secretary of defense.

Mrs. Cheney's latest broadside is a report entitled Tyrannical Machines. The phrase comes from William James. It is intended to describe how the established ways of doing things take on a power of their own, even when they no longer serve their original purposes.

The "tyrannical machines" of the American educational establishment Mrs. Cheney treats in her report include: idiotic teacher training courses; vapid high school textbooks; the dreaded Scholastic Aptitude Test or SAT; and the emphasis on research over teaching in the promotion of college professors.

Mr. Buckley, I was especially glad to see Mrs. Cheney take on the SAT because, while it was originally intended as an egalitarian exercise, giving everyone the same shot at college admission, it's really become sort of unfair and ridiculous. Kids who can now afford them spend hundreds of dollars taking these SAT training courses, and high school curriculums are geared around teaching analogies instead of teaching Shakespeare. It occurred to me that you could do a lot of good in this regard if you used your influence with Yale to get Yale to stop using the SAT. That could be extremely influential.

MR. BUCKLEY: I used up my influence on Yale 35 years ago. [laughter) Why don't we get into that? These, I guess psychometric tests is what they call them generically, are simply designed to establish relative achievement, right? And is it in fact easy to outwit those tests by receiving some kind of a shot that gives you the information you are likely to be asked?

MS. CHENEY: Well, the problem with the SAT is exactly that it is not information dependent. It is not dependent upon what you learn in school. It's dependent upon your ability to take the examination and so the most successful coaching courses, the one by Jonathon Katz--it's called Princeton Review; it has nothing to do with Princeton--focus on how you take the SAT, on teaching you how to guess intelligently, on teaching you how to

1

© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

manipulate analogies and to identify antonym7. Thi7 k~nd of energy, it seems to me, is misspent. Other industrial~z7d nations, the Japanese, the Germans, the French, the British, have their national exams dependent upon information. It's expected that you might know something about who Stalin was or who Churchill was or what the Cold War was, just to mention some of the things American--

MR. BUCKLEY: Who was Stalin? [laughter]

MS. CHENEY: --students lately have showed themselves not to know.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, why couldn't we have both? I've been influenced for many years by Dorothy Sayers' Essay on the Tools of Learning. Of course her point there is that when one learns, for instance, a foreign language, it isn't in ord7r to learn French it's in order to learn the text of a foreign language and to lea~n how to learn and that the medieval Trivium, which walked you from grammar to logic to rhetoric taught you about the tools of learning. Now isn't it extremely important for a college, if it's trying to decide whether to acce~t your application or mine, to find out the extent to which you have conquered those tools of learning, as distinct from whether you know which century the Civil War was fought in?

MS. CHENEY: Well, I would agree that it's important to know both. It's important to know how to learn and it's important to know a few facts as well, but the SAT doesn't test either of those things. Perhaps the nicest description I could give of it is that it is a reading test, and sure, it is important to test if students who come into college know how to read. But certainly achievement tests do that as well.

MR. BUCKLEY: Did you look, Mrs. Cheney, into the correlation between competent reading and general intelligence?

MS. CHENEY: No, the more important questions to ask about the SAT are to evaluate exactly whether it does what it says it's going to do, and that's: Does it predict success in college? If you add it onto grade point average, it makes an infinitesimal difference in predictability of how a person will do in college. The Educational Testing Service people have statistics to back this up. On the other hand, there are all sorts of flaws in this theory, and one that I'm concerned with to some degree is that women do less well on this test than men. The test is supposed to be about predicting how well you do in college. Women do better in college on the whole than men do, so there is some sort of disconnect in there somewhere.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, now why isn't there a marketplace correction? If you were the chairman of the board of admissions of Harvard, say, you would have the resources to poke around, maybe even assign somebody to look into it even more systematically than you have, and then junk it.

MS. CHENEY: Well, a number of colleges and universities have,

2

partly because they think it misdirects student energy. And I am concerned about the message that it sends to the educational system as a whole. We have at the center of our national system of education this exam that basically does not care whether you know when the Civil War was or what happened when the Magna Carta was signed. It says these things are not important. So we shouldn't be surprised when the National Endowment funds surveys and we find out youngsters don't know these things.

MR. BUCKLEY: I see. So it's not so much the test as the extent to which the public schools are orchestrated to make people flash in those tests, which are ultimately meaningless.

MS. CHENEY: Yes.

MR. BUCKLEY: So therefore you would endorse a revamping of the SAT system and in its place you would substitute a test that stressed general knowledge.

MS. CHENEY: Yes. A content-based examination such as every other industrialized nation puts at the center of its system of education.

MR. BUCKLEY: And you think that's coming.

MS. CHENEY: I see the signs. We do have in place now the National Assessment of Education Progress, which does a representative sample of fourth, eighth and twelfth graders, and it is content-based. There has been a recommendation by a Blue Ribbon commission that this be expanded. It's very difficult, you know, because now you're asking states to get into the business of really revealing to the public what it is kids have learned in schools in that state--

MR. BUCKLEY: And what they haven't learned, yes.

MS. CHENEY: --and there is some reluctance to do this. But I think it's corning.

MR. BUCKLEY: one always assumes that knowledge is wisdom, as Socrates taught us, but there is that strange p~enornenon of the wrong kind of reactionary bias in colleges and in schools. I had a guest here a few years ago called John Saxon~ who was convinced--a west Point graduate--who was convinced tha~ the teaching of algebra was simply misdirected. He wrote his own textbook.

MS. CHENEY: And it was successful. It worked, as I remember. Yes.

MR. BUCKLEY: Unbelievably successful. He d~d t wo or ~hree hundred percent better than everybody else, . in every si~gle test was vindicated but he can't get the educational establishment to adopt his textbook. He's willing to give it to them.

MS. CHENEY: it?

That is an example of a tyrannical machine, isn't

3

© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

MR. BUCKLEY: Exactly.

MS. CHENEY: These things happen. I mean, we institutionalize these things so widely that expectations, even careers, come to be built on them. So even when we see that it's wrong and it doesn't work very well, we find it very difficult to change. What the report that we've just issued advocates is setting alternatives into place. It doesn't work just to put your head down and keep ramming against the SAT or the way we train our teachers or the way we select textbooks. You just waste your energy doing that. The way we should approach these, the strategy we should take, is to set alternatives into place. Then you set competition going and then you give people motivation to improve.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, Mr. Saxon certainly set an alternative. He wrote a textbook.

MS. CHENEY: That's right.

MR. BUCKLEY: You can't be more direct than that. But now what about, for instance, teacher training? What would be the alternative you would suggest for those on the whole useless courses?

MS. CHENEY: Well, the most promising alternative in place right now is in fact named Alternative Certification, and New Jersey is the leader in this movement. It provides a way for people to get into the classroom, people who have already earned bachelors' degrees, by taking a minimum of courses in pedagogy, a minimum. of courses in how to teach, and by spending a maximum amount of time in the classroom working with master teachers. That's how you learn how to teach. It's an art; it's a craft; it's not something that you can learn sitting in a classroom and trying to read about in books. In fact, if you do, you end up studying ridiculous things.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I heard somebody say that Aristotle, if he were to rematerialize, would not qualify to teach philosophy in a public school in New York City. That's not an exaggeration, right?

MS. CHENEY: No, it's true. He wouldn't have been properly certified. He wouldn't have taken the right number and kind of courses in education.

MR. BUCKLEY: Now, how long has that situation been in place?

MS. CHENEY: It is really a phenomenon of the 20th century. It grew out of the fact that in the 19th century nobody trained teachers at all. You had people in your schools who were not even high school graduates teaching, and so normal schools were set up. We set up this separate method of training teachers. We institutionalized that whole idea of separateness and we continue it today, even though I think the consensus is widespread among practically everyone except maybe the National Education Association that this is a bad idea.

4

MR. BUCKLEY: Is it in the orthodox sense a vested interest now?

MS. CHENEY: Yes.

MR. BUCKLEY: And the people who have a stake in it, I take it, are the faculty of these--

MS. CHENEY: Well, there are lots of people who have a stake in it. Faculty at colleges of education certainly have a stake in it. Teachers credentialed under the old system have a stake in it. And it's important to remember when we talk about this phenomenon that some of these people are very good. Many, many good teachers in our schools, good people in colleges of education. But they have no choice about how to behave. There i s this large systemic problem that affects their lives. We need to provide alternatives. It gives them motivation to improve what they do, gives new people coming into the teaching profession an alternative, and I think better, way to get there.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, in your study, do you outline a program by which teachers could acquire this experience of exposing themselves to brilliant models, or do you just simply state it?

MS. CHENEY: Well, I talk about places where this has actually happened. I think it is important. What education reform in the '90s needs to do is to take those places and those activities that are models and hold them up. So New Jersey is certainly a model. Texas has a very good alternative certification system in place. So what my report does is talk about these models that are in place that I think should be widely imitated.

MR. BUCKLEY: Now in your study do you compare the situation in other Western countries, or say, in Japan, so that you can identify the strengths and weaknesses of competing systems?

MS. CHENEY: At times, in parts of the report. I have been very interested to move back to the whole idea of testing and what other countries do to test their students. The entrance exam to Tokyo University last year, for example--which is our equivalent of Harvard, Yale, the most elite and selective school--asked students to analyze the figurative language of The Tale of Gengi and asked students to comment on the foreign policy of Afghanistan from 1940 to 1960. Now that is really.astonishin~. The French bac a few years ago asked students to discuss American foreign policy from, I think, 1940 to the end of the Korean War period. This calls upon students to have a strong factual base. When students in Japan take extra coaching--Michael mentioned the extra coaching that students take for the SAT here--our students learn to manipulate analogies and second-guess the test makers. In Japan the students are learning The Tale of Gengi. They're learning what happened in Afghanistan. So--

MR. BUCKLEY: Are they told what happened on the seventh of December, 1941?

5

© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

MS. CHENEY: Well, I think Japan is wrestling with that and doing better than it did before.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well now, the last time you were on this program, we discussed the horrors of your preceding report that is, the ignorance that you actually isolated. Since then r saw that Senator Bradley conducted a similar report. I remember one of.his findings was that--I've got to get this right now--one­third of matriculating freshmen in Texas do not know the name of the foreign country south of the border. Now, that almost takes a terrific effort not to know that, doesn't it? (laughter)

MS. CHENEY: Yes. Well, some of the NAPE surveys have shown that a majority of students can't locate New Jersey on the map or say whether plants lean into or away from the light. It's not just the humanities, it's science, it's mathematics as well that are troubled.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, do those students know other things? For instance, if one were, say, to load a barrel with grains of sand, would that barrel be as full in America as in France, only with relevant stuff versus irrelevant stuff or is this an exercise in nescience, where they just don't learn anything? What goes on in the schools?

MS. CHENEY: That's an interesting question. I am of the impression that most of these young people that fail to know basic facts of human knowledge certainly are more competent than I am at programming a VCR. So it may be that the barrel is at least partially full of other things.

MR. BUCKLEY: Yes. Because Mortimer Adler, who in his Paideia Proposal is very emphatic in believing that all students should be taught the same thing, and to the extent that they are not equally competent, then the barrel simply fills up more, but whatever is in that barrel is stuff worth learning and stuff of sort of eternal and enduring significance.

MS. CHENEY: That seems very sensible.

MR. BUCKLEY: And you agree with him on that, yes. So now to what extent are you satisfied that corrective action-- What year in Texas do they learn about the existence of Mexico? As sophomores or as juniors or--

MS. CHENEY: I'm sorry, I really-- Typically eighth grade would give you Southwestern history, so it may be that. I'm ~n alternative days optimistic and pessimistic. You do keep coming across evidences of failure of our schools and our coll7ges an~ universities. We need to, I think, spread our eyes a little wider when we're taking the faults of American education.

MR. BUCKLEY: But aren't you discouraged, though--

MS. CHENEY: But I also see good things happening and I hope we can build on those.

6

MR. BUCKLEY: But aren't you discouraged that here you are talking about terrible malformations in the educated class presided over by the educated class, administered by the educated class? Now, it's been surely an operative axiom of education that people who learn don't make certain mistakes. Are you--

MS. CHENEY: Is this true? I'm not sure. [laughter)

MR. BUCKLEY: --ready to say that's superstition?

MS. CHENEY: No, but there is something that I would call judgement that is fostered, that is nurtured, by reading history, for example, and judgement may be important in helping to avoid mistakes. It's always very dangerous, though, to equate learning with wisdom.

MR. BUCKLEY: Oh, well, I think so too. case, what is it that eventually happens young men and women to have conventional with Europeans?

But that being the that qualifies American cosmopolitan intercourse

MS. CHENEY: You begin to wonder if it will be possible. There is a strange dichotomy. We're talking about the bad news here, what's happened in our schools. If you look at other aspects of education--

MR. BUCKLEY: Like Nobel prize winners and so forth.

MS. CHENEY: Well, or if you look at informal aspects of education. The amazing audiences for the series on the Civil War--and I'm only being a little self-serving, because we helped fund that series. Amazing audiences. People responded to history, to wanting to know more about this amazing event. If you look at museums and how they've grown--

MR. BUCKLEY: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Did they do that because they were inquisitive about the Civil War or because they expected to find good drama?

MS. CHENEY: History well-told is good drama, and maybe that was the lesson we should take away from this series.

MR. BUCKLEY: I remember when the senator who gave the lead speech, the keynote speech to the Democratic convention was being carried simultaneously on CBS, ABC and NBC, and one station in New York City was showing Casablanca for the fortieth time. And it got a higher rating than all the other three combined.

MS. CHENEY: Well, as I remember--

MR. BUCKLEY: Senator Glenn, yes.

MS. CHENEY: Oh, I thought you were talking about Governor Clinton's speech, which was regarded by many people as not terribly interesting, so maybe--

MR. BUCKLEY: Oh, yes. That's right . He had won the

7

© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

oratorical contest of the American Legion when he was 18. remember Morrie Ryskind said, "Thank God we didn't have to to the runner-up." [laughter) But I mean if people are interested in the Civil War, aren't they interested in what keynoter for the Democratic convention is going to say?

I listen

the

MS. CHENEY: You know, I am glad that the comparison is that: Were you listening to the Democratic convention or were you watching Casablanca, because Casablanca is not a bad movie to watch. It's not as though they were watching a talk show or a game show.

MR. BUCKLEY: That's true. No, it's true. perhaps--

I'm saying that

MS. CHENEY: You won't let me off this, will you?

MR. BUCKLEY: Not too easily. [laughter) Tell me when you want me to stop, but it seems to me that people tuned onto the Civil War thing because there was a lot of hype.

MS. CHENEY: Yes, but they stayed with it through eleven hours. Can you imagine? The audiences held over the full course.

MR. BUCKLEY: But that is a tiny investment in television for the average American family. It's about one third of what they watch per week.

MS. CHENEY: Well, I think it's probably an enormous investment in public television. I'm sure that when all of the viewing statistics are in, we're going to find that records were broken.

MR. BUCKLEY: But that could have been broadcast on commercial television, as Brideshead Revisited could have been. That is to say, the number of viewers would have justified a commercial backing, had they elected to go in that direction.

MS. CHENEY: Yes, well, had you been able to convince the commercial networks that there would be this amazing interest in the film.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, let's just conclude this by saying, did they tune in because they wanted to learn about the civil War or did they tune in because they heard there was a very exciting pro~ram coming on?

MS. CHENEY: Probably both. But they stayed to watch, and I think that's significant. The point I was making is, if you look at museums and how they have expanded their audiences-- If you look at book sales, book sales are up by 55 percent--

MR. BUCKLEY: Yes, that's a point that you often make, yes.

MS. CHENEY: --over the last four or five years. There is some good news out there about humanities and people wanting to know more about it. I worry, though, that those audiences will

8

'

diminish as the current crop of people in our schools moves through our schools and becomes the adult population of tomorrow.

MR. BUCKLEY: And what concrete incentives would you endorse, other than simply by demonstrating what alternatives appeal to you?

MS. CHENEY: Let's talk about higher education--

MR. BUCKLEY: Yes.

MS. CHENEY: --because that gives us a chance to--

MR. BUCKLEY: Sure, sure.

MS. CHENEY: --point out some different kinds of alternatives. There has been, I think, a real flight from teaching. "A flight from concern with undergraduates" is a phrase that Page Smith, the historian, used in a book recently. We've got college and university students and their parents paying incredible sums to go to college, where there is often not as much focus on undergraduate education as there should be. This comes about because of a tyrannical machine that rewards faculty members--no matter how interested they might be in ·~eaching, they are rewarded almost exclusively on the basis of research and publication. We need to have alternative paths for reward in place. We've tried with some of your taxpayers' money at the Endowment to establish chairs for distinguished teaching professors as a way to help put this other path in place, as a way to provide alternative methods of reward.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, in your experience are colleges too snobbish to appoint such people?

MS. CHENEY: We had an a mazing a mount of interest in just one year in this program, more than 100 applications, and we were able to fund far less than a third of that, so I think colleges are aware of this problem. And you're beginning to hear people talk about it: Donald Kennedy at Stanford, William Chase at Wesleyan, Sheldon Hackney at the University of Pennsylvania. These people have all begun to say the emphasis has been for far too long on keeping good people out of the classroom. We need to put them back in. If you look at some of the deformations of college curricula, you see that what has happened is that research interests have even come to dominate what is taught. The Harvard core, for example, instead of b e ing full of courses that are broadly conceived, that might giv e you some wide knowledge of Western civilization, non-Western civilization, are very narrow. One course that you can fulfill your core requirements with studies tuberculosis from, I think it's 1842 to 1952.

MR. BUCKLEY: Critical years.

MS. CHENEY: And another studies pictorial representations of Berlin and New York from 1880 to 1940. Now, these might be very interesting research topics, but they aren't broad undergraduate courses.

9

© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

MR. BUCKLEY: But what concretely could you do to make, say, Harvard or Berkeley's philosophy faculty grant tenure to somebody who simply declines to publish, but is a brilliant teacher?

MS. CHENEY: Well, I could do nothing. I mean, if I were to suggest it, I am sure it would have the opposite effe~t, being a government official as I am. What I do see as something useful I can accomplish is educate parents, educate students, teach them to ask of college catalogs, of college faculty members, administrators, crucial questions that reveal how much emphasis an institution puts on teaching undergraduates.

MR. KINSLEY: Excuse me, Ms. Cheney. We're out of time. It's my turn to ask a question, and I hope it's cruc~al. Mr. Bu~kley, you know the conservative attack on the educational establishment has, in ~y opinion, hit a lot of very deserving targets. But it's hobbled, ironically, by the conservative hang~up ~bout . federalism. Now, everyone agrees that education is a terrible national problem. Along comes Mrs. Cheney with a lo~ of very good ideas about what to do about it, but she basically can't do anything except put out a report because textbooks are in the hands of state textbook committees, teaching requirements are in the hands of state teachers' colleges. Isn't one of your hang-ups tripping up others of your hang-ups?

MR. BUCKLEY: No, because education in the Soviet Union was in the hands of Moscow, and look how they're doing, although of course, they have certain resources that we don't have. Much as we might deplore what individual states are doing with their freedom, I don't think you're suggesting, and certainly I wouldn't, that the federalist system is indicted by the fact that there is this variety. In fact, I should think that the very fact that you are willing to point to, say, Texas and one other state you pointed to as making great progress suggests that the idea of federalism is being vindicated little by little, isn't it? I mean, if--

MS. CHENEY: California is--

MR. BUCKLEY: --if we are going to make progress, it is going to be by an individual state outshining the others, isn't it?

MS. CHENEY: California is really the premier example right now of people working on curriculum, working on testing, and I think holding up a model for all of us. I have to say, though, the idea of a national test that is content-based does not appall me in the way that it appalls many of my conservative friends. I think maybe we're coming to the time when--

MR. BUCKLEY: I'm all for it, but we wouldn't have to repeal federalism to have it. I think we have to quit. Thank you so much, Mrs. Cheney--

MS. CHENEY: It's been a pleasure.

MR. BUCKLEY: --head of the NEH; and ladies and gentlemen; Mr. Kinsley.

10

PGM.#

853.

854.

855.

FLS# 108

856.

857.

858.

859.

860.

861.

862.

863.

864.

RECENT FIRING LINE PROGRAMS

TITLE

IS ENGLAND STILL INFLUENCING AMERICA?

A KING SPEAKS OUT: KING CONSTANTINE OF GREECE

WHAT IS INTELLECT?

A UNITED GERMANY: ANYTHING TO WORRY ABOUT?

WHO BELONGS IN THE LOONEY BIN?

ACTOR ROGER MOORE:DOES A POLITICIAN HAVE TO BE A GOOD ACTOR?

THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION

THE BATTLE OVER FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

THE OPPOSITION TO CUOMO

SHOULD LAWYERS HAVE TO WORK FOR NOTHING?

THE CAMBODIAN DILEMMA

ECONOMICS IS NOT A A DISMAL SCIENCE

SPYS: HEROES OR THUGS?

GUEST(S) AIR DATE

Christopher 6/1/90 Hitchens John O'Sullivan Mod.Michael Kinsley

King Constantine 6/8/90 Mod:Michael Kinsley

Mortimer Adler 6/15/90 Mod:Michael Kindley William Simon 6/25/90 Vernon Walters Henry Kissinger John Vincur Friedbert Pfluger Mod:Michael Kinsley

Kate Millett 6/29/ 90 Seth Farber Mod:Michael Kinsley

Roger Moore 7/6/90

Laurence Tribe 7/ 13/ 90 Mod:Michael Kinsley

Tom Mathews 7/20/ 90 Schuyler Chapin Mod:Michael Kinsley

Pierre Rinfret 7/27/90 Herbert London Mod:Michael Kinsley

Floyd Abrams 8/ 3/ 90 Harriet Pilpel Mod:Michael Kinsley

Rep. Stephen Solarz 8/ 10/ 90 Mod:Michael Kinsley

Todd Buchholtz 8/ 17/ 90 Schuyler Chapin Mod:Michael Kinsley

Dan Raviv 8/ 24 / 90 Yossi Melman Mod:Michael· Kinsley

© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

865.

866.

109

867.

868.

869.

870.

871.

849R

872.

873.

874.

AN EXTRAORDINARY SUPREME COURT DECISION

WHY ALL THE FUSS OVER SUCCESSOR?

RESOLVED:GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOLUTION, IT IS THE PROBLEM.

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR. ON THE FIRING LINE

OIL GOUGING AND JAPANESE SKULDUGGERY

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

ARE VOUCHERS AND/OR CHOICE THE WAY TO GO IN SCHOOLS?

A FAMILY QUARREL IN THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY"

IS THERE A THEME TO THE BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES?

Pastor Richard 8/31/90 Neuhaus Charles Fried Mod:Michael Kinsle

James Kilpatrick 9/7/90 Mod:Michael Kinsley

William Buckley 9/10/90 Rep. Dick Armey Jeane Kirkpatrick Charleton Heston

-vs-George McGovern Gary Hart Rep. Pat Schroeder Dennis Weaver Mod:Michael Kinsley

Michael Kinsley Michael Kramer Michael Pakenham

9/14/90

T. Boone Pickens 9/28/90 Mod:Michael Kinsley

Michael Tigar 10/5/90 Henry Schwarzchild Mod:Michael Kinsley

Kate O'Beirne 10/12/90 Sy Fliegel Mod:Michael Kinsley

Giles Lambertson 10/19/90 Joe Sobran Mod:Michael Kinsley

Tom Wolfe 10/26/90

ARE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS Roger Simon 11/02/90 MOSTLY THEATER? Michael Kinsley

TWO FRIENDS TALK: RONALD REAGAN AND WM. F. BUCKLEY JR. - PART 1

TWO FRIENDS TALK: RONALD REAGAN AND WM. F. BUCKLEY JR. - PART 2

Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan

11/09/90

11/09/90

TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM

Transcripts of most programs form the current season and the immediate past season are available at the standard price of $3.00 each or $5.00 each for two-part or special programs. Copies of archive transcripts of older out of print programs are available for $10.00 each.

If you would like to order a back issue of a FIRING LINE transcript, please complete the order form and mail it to the address below with you check or money order made payable to FIRING LINE.

A complete list of all FIRING LINE programs since 1971 is available upon request.

Information on ordering audio cassettes of FIRING LINE programs and subscribing to FIRING LINE Transcripts can be found on the following page.

Please send me a copies of the following FIRING LINE Transcripts (list the program number, title, or guest):

~~~-Send me a complete list of all past FIRING LINE programs.

My check or money order for $~~~~~~~~is enclosed.

Mail to: FIRING LINE P.O. Box 5966 Columbia, South Carolina 29250

© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

Subscriptions to FIRING LINE Transcripts are $80.00 per year, and include all programs in the current season which runs from July through June. Late subscribers will receive all current seasons back issues as well as the remaining new programs. All subscriptions expire on June 30.

All FIRING LINE programs recorded since May, 1971, are available on audio cassette. Please indicate the title or number of the program you wish to order. Please allow three weeks for cassette delivery. -----------------------------------------------------------------

I am enclosing: $~~~~~~For audio cassettes at $10.00 each, $18.00 for special or two-part programs.

$~~~~~~Subscription to transcripts at $80.00 each.

Total enclosed: $~~~~~-(Make checks payable to FIRING

~~~~Please enclose a complete programs since May, 1971.

LINE.) list of all FIRING LINE

Please address all orders and inquiries to:

FIRING LINE P.O. Box 5966 Columbia, South Carolina 29250

FIRING LINE NATIONAL UNDERWRITERS

John M. Olin Foundation

Mobil Oil Corporation

Farley Industries

May Foundation

Monarch Financial Services, Inc.

Paine Webber

Dow Chemical

Estee Lauder Foundation

Irby Construction

© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

Special to FIRING LINE Viewers

FIRING LINE AT ITS BEST

WILLIAMF. BUCKLEY, JR. r~ONTHE i~­flRING LINE The Public Lives of Our Public Figures \a r-et-.. ~ ' ~ ~· '-~

" ... On The Firing Line remains both a stimulating intellectual entertainment and a useful compendium of a masterly debater's skills."

Christopher Lehmann-Haupt The New York Times

"If you can put down William F. Buckley Jr.'s new book, On The Firing Line, you are better than I, my friend.''

Larry King (Larry King's people-USA TODAY)

"A work not to be missed by anyone fascinated with the world and those who play leading roles in it" Sherm Strickhouser

Providence (RI.) Journal

'Vintage Buckley, sure to preach to the converted and outrage the skeptical, executed with maximum charm."

The Kirkus Reviews

"If you enjoy literary karate chops, delivered with elegance, this book is for you. Dullness is the one sin for which there is no expiation."

Jack Valenti Los Angeles Times

·-------------------------~-----------· Please send copies of William F. Buckley Jr. 's On The Firing Line: The Public Lives of Our Public Figures. Enclosed is a check or money order in the amount of ($19.95 each-special price for FIRlNG LINE viewers}:

Send to:

(name)

(address)

(city) (state) (zip)

To place an order by credit card, please call, toll free, 1-800-872-8642. Canadians, please pay current exchange rate for $19.95 U.S.

Please make checks or money orders payable to FIRING LINE and mail to:

FIRING LINE 2700 Cypress St. Columbia, SC 29205

© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

Printed by the South Carolina ETV Network

© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.