And the Award for Greatest Rationalization Employed to Save Your New Job While Creating Even More Troubling Questions goes to (the envelope, please) — new Pittsburgh Public Schools Superintendent Anthony Hamlet.
Mr. Hamlet was called out for, among other things, stating an educational philosophy on his resume that, it turned out, was darn near a direct filch from a Washington Post editorial.
According to the reporting of the Trib's Elizabeth Behrman, Hamlet now says that the line in question was lifted from a speech that someone had written for him more than a year ago; he had no idea of its source.
But since when do two plagiarisms make a right? And how comfortable should teachers and parents feel with a new superintendent who appears unable to artic‑ulate “his” educational philosophy in his own words?
Just as bad, other, new discrepancies surfaced in an independent review of Hamlet's resume. Some timelines don't match up. He either misidentified or misrepresented his position as an assistant principal. And the specifics of his doctoral studies have come into question.
Still, supporters believe Hamlet to be the “transformational leader” that he claims to be and that Pittsburgh Public Schools so sorely need. Never mind that definition came from Wikipedia.
An ancient Greek proverbist observed that the tiger can't change its stripes. And if past behaviors are indicative of those future, Pittsburghers could be in for a bad case of superintendent remorse. ...
Here's another way to look at the union-manufacturedcontroversy of Community College of Allegheny County students being turned in to collection agencies for enrolling in classes but never showing up for those classes:
Grow up.
CCAC's practice should be a wake-up call for those who think they can contract for a service, renege on the contract (without notification, no less), then express shock — shock, we say! — and outrage — outrage, we say! — that they are responsible for the financial terms of that contract and that their actions might affect them for years to come.
Coddling those who walk away from their obligations would be a lousy object lesson. And that's not how it works in real life.
Meanwhile, back at the gun wars, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson says that “sensible gun control consistent with the Second Amendment” is “a matter of homeland security.”
That response came to a lobbed question from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., during a Senate Judiciary hearing on how to prevent terrorists from purchasing firearms.
Perhaps — and, yes, facetiously — the feds will add this line to the gun application paperwork: “Are you now, or have you ever been a terrorist, and, if you are, have you ever committed, or do you plan to commit, a terrorist act?”
Mr. Johnson would have better served the Second Amendment and Homeland Security had he instead addressed the folly of “no-gun zones” that create soft targets that terrorists have exploited and will continue to exploit — and no matter our guns laws — in America's zeal to create shooting galleries for them.
Colin McNickle is the Trib's director of editorial pages (412-320-7836 or cmcnickle@tribweb.com).
