Quote of the Day

Friday, April 2, 2010

Shanon Brooks bio

This is funny.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Seriously TRGW, what does this bio link have to do with George Wythe?

Hasn't it been more than a year since Dr. Brooks was affiliated with George Wythe? This is just further proof that this blog is really just exaggerated mockery and the slander of a handful of decent American patriots. Hey, here's a funny idea, let's laugh one more time about Dr. Brooks' military service. Seriously TRGW, what branch of the military did you serve in again? Oh yeah, you didn't. What PhD's do you hold? Oh wait, did you even graduate high school?

Are you starting to see the problem with your anonymity? Can you see how everything you say isn’t credible? How do we know you’re not just some pedophile passing time from behind bars while you finish your 20 year sentence? Perhaps if people knew who you really were it would immediately destroy all credibility you think you have. Come to think of it, did you have credibility to begin with? Just out of curiosity, what would YOUR bio look like?

Have you ever met Dr. Brooks? Have you ever heard him speak? If so, what is it about his pro-american message that so offends you?

TRGW, end your misguided witch hunt and get a productive hobby. Contribute to society. Dr. Brooks does more in a week for this nation than you've done in your lifetime.


While Dr. Brooks co-authors books and tours the nation sharing the principles of liberty, you sit around poking fun of a bio that he didn’t even write.

Your blog is THE joke.

I still can’t believe you had the gall to criticize the American Heritage Academy in Arizona based on the illegal actions of one of their past employees. You seem to just find pleasure in bad mouthing any random GW alumni. Is it any wonder that we supporters either ignore your silliness altogether or have to stay anonymous? Why would we want to give some fanatic criti-blogger the opportunity to psychoanalyze and slander our own patriotic efforts.

You’ll probably delete this comment anyway. You can dish it out but you can’t take it. Am I wrong? Prove it. Post your true bio and let others criticize you for a change. Until you do, stop the hypocrisy.

In the meantime, I’ll be sure to tell all my fellow Wythe Alumni not to run for office for fear of what you might think.

Anonymous said...

O my goodness! I thought the Brooks bio was funny. In fact, the author meant it to be lighthearted. I see no slander of anybody in sharing what a friend of his posted for all to see.

I don't think its Brooks "pro-american" stance that's at issue. I have met the man and heard him speak. He gives off the feeling of being shady to the core. That's just my opinion.

BTW, who's to say this blog isn't productive. All of the information on GWU and those linked to it, which is referenced in this blog, comes from verifiable outside sources. Name me one item on this blog which is false. I'm glad TRGW chose to do this. Others can now get both sides of the story, not just the whitewashed version.

As far as that alumi who's running for office is concerned, there's nothing wrong with asking questions about his qualifications. We're not sheep who will just take his word about who he is and what his motives are.If the GW alumni can't handle the criticisms in this blog maybe they're not cut out for the rough and tumble of politics. We need leaders who aren't that sensitive.

One more thing, I think you are already criticizing or bashing TRGW. I have no need to know his bio. I just want the true info.

Keep up the good work TRGW.

Mistrusts GWU

Lucy 4 Dewey said...

Thank you so much Mistrusts GWU. We aren’t sheep. I really liked your former comment where you echo TRGW’s sentiment that DeMille is a false prophet. Why do people find his words so convincing? Why are they so venomously bent on his defense? What will those poor sheep do when they learn that DeMille and Brooks are really wolves in sheep’s clothing.

I often wonder what their real motives are. What are they really trying to accomplish? Why do they work so hard to deceive so many? How can so many people testify that they are "good Christian men"? They probably believe they are helping. They probably believe they are “inspired.” They might even believe they’ve been called by God to this work. You said it… “we need leaders who aren’t that” way.

Oh, and to the “Anonymous” commenter above, do you even know the definition of the word witch-hunt? Look it up - http://www.yourdictionary.com/witch-hunt

If you want my opinion, this blog has incalculable value.

The Real George Wythe said...

Dear Lucy,

"Why do they work so hard to deceive so many?"

Look up the term "self deception." I don't disagree that the leaders of TJEd believe what they are saying.

I don't think they are (necessarily) consciously deceiving people. Instead, I believe they are severely misguided and trapped in their own self deception.

By the way, you are a prime example of the eighth key: you are acting like a critic, setting up a strawman, then attacking with gusto. I see your kind of passive aggression a lot with TJEd'ers.

Good luck to you.

TRGW

Lucy 4 Dewey said...

TRGW,

I am honored that you would identify me up in the same class as yourself: a humble critic, having set up a whimsical identity derived from a play on words, in order to attack TJED’ers with gusto. As two peas in a pod, I’m overjoyed to have not only your passive approval, but also your aggressive well wishing.

Now on to the purpose of this blog: the exposure of the self deception of DeMille and Brooks. I’m afraid, dear brother, that you haven’t gone far enough in your explanation of how specifically these men are severely misguided. Though I have no doubts that you speak the truth, would you care to expound on that further? And, so as to remain constructive, what would guide them from the trap you speak of?

Your eager advocate,
Lucy

The Real George Wythe said...

Lucy,

You are trolling.

This blog is a place for debate of the issues, not for personal attacks, and certainly not a place to act like a critic making personal attacks on DeMille, Brooks, or anyone else involved with TJEd / GWC. See the blog rules.

Any further comments of this nature will be deleted.

Thanks,

TRGW

Anonymous said...

Wow TRGW, for someone who can write a whole post with only the words, “This is Funny,” you seem to lack a sense of humor. Fair enough. You do however also seem to lack your stated desire for “debate of the issues.” I’ve noticed over the past week or so that you’ve been asked many blog pertinent questions and so far as I can tell, you’ve only attempted to answer one of them. You have a lot of catching up to do my friend.

Or, you can continue to sweep these very blog related questions under the carpet. I hardly see how the chorus, “Oliver is not a prophet,” is a thorough or sufficient reply to some of the recent developments on your blog. It certainly lacks your usual academic prowess.

Lucy 4 Dewey said...

TRGW you are absolutely right. I was out of line and I apologize. I should avoid personal attacks and just stick to poking fun at their bios. Your counsel and your example have been duly noted. As is always the case, I couldn’t agree with you more.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

I just wanted to point out, TRGW, that it was you not Lucy who pointed out that Brooks and DeMille were self deceived and severely misguided. What did you mean by that?

Felidae said...

I'm going to have to agree with what I suspect TRGW is illustrating by posting a link to this bio of Brooks. It demonstrates in classic fashion the undiscerning and naive mentality of his followers in the TJED community, and represents one of the worst things that ever befell GW.

Good riddance.

Lucy 4 Dewey said...

Felidae, you seem to imply that by disassociating from Brooks and DeMille, the current GWU is somehow a different if not better institution. If that is truly the case, then perhaps we should rename this blog: The Former George Wythe.

What do you think TRGW (or should I say TFGW)?

Lucy 4 Dewey said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

"academically inbred professors" (previous blog entry - Wednesday, May 27, 2009)

Many would agree that GWU lacks legitimacy as a result of the practice of academically inbred professors, administration, and board members. I do not understand why a legacy of higher standards for accredited advanced degrees and broader educational backgrounds was not set for GWU from day one. I think they would be in an better place today despite the challenges of the economy. Sound decisions may have been made rather than poor ones, proper contracts would have been engineered rather than embarrassing ones, respectable resumes would have been posted rather than embellished ones, GWU history would have been constant and real rather than enhanced, and marketing would have been intriguing rather than deceptive. More honesty would have been nice. But it is never too late to start! I speculate that a new president of GWU (if he is of the caliber referenced in the most recent GW newsletter) will correct this fault in their soggy foundation. Only then will GW have a chance of rebuilding.

Felidae said...

Very insightful, in so many ways!

And as you said, Anon, rebuilding will definitely require completing their ongoing replacement of the old guard, and without inbreeding.

Meanwhile, it's pretty clear Brooks and DeMille know they have lost their influence at GW, which is why they now spend all of their time on their newest incarnation of themselves -- a refuge for exiled groupies called the Center for Social Leadership. With grandiose dreams, they link to the Heritage Foundation, Acton Institute, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Hoover Institution -- but nobody links back, not even George Wythe.

Anonymous said...

Felidae, whether you care to acknowledge it or not, as a current student at GWU, you are as influenced by DeMille as Aristotle was by Socrates. He might not be your teacher (you’re clearly not at that level yet), but he has directly indoctrinated every teacher you have there. You scorn the Center for Social Leadership, but you would be hard pressed to find a single article there that you completely disagree with.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and everyone has to move the cause of liberty in their own way. Since I have no idea how (or if) you are moving it, I would never presume to judge how effective you are being. Don’t show your ignorance by guessing at what you know nothing about. Personally, I pray every day that my study of the classical philosophers never diminishes my reliance on the teachings of the prophets and founders one iota. Where given the choice, I will pick the inspirations of god over the philosophies of men (including my own) every time.

It is so easy to quote or criticize the words and works of another. It is infinitely more difficult to stick your neck out and say or do something of original worth. It is very kind of the commenters on this blog, to continually compare the education model of GWU with the likes of Hillsdale, St. Johns, etc. I know they are not quite there yet, but I’m confident they grow closer with each passing year. What GWU has that the other schools lack is an awareness of and reverence for the teachings of the restored gospel. If they ever lose sight of that, then I will have to wonder just what it is they are trying to be effective at.

As for me… I think I’ve said my bit here and I feel that my time can now be better spent on more effective things elsewhere. I hope anyone reading this blog will not take the words of TRGW, Felidae or myself as any indication of what awaits them at GWU. It is after all a very individual experience, clearly better for some than for others. Good luck to all of you on your quest for effective statesmanship. Heaven knows we need more statesmen. They are the dying breed.

Lucy 4 Dewey said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Felidae said...

Just a few points for the anonymous man of zeal.

1. Plenty of GW faculty have major issues with DeMille. You may want to listen more closely.

2. Why the endless straw man of whether I (or anyone else) "completely" disagree with anything? The Center for Social Leadership? I generally disagree with their myopic approach, MLM-styled pretension, direction, and pseudo-scholarship. It's no surprise that GW has shown no interest in linking back to them or even having anything to do with them. The major think tanks they pretend to emulate will surely continue ignoring them as well.

3. At GW, I have seen no particular "awareness of and reverence for LDS teachings" any more than for basic Christian thought and philosophy. In fact, readings of C.S. Lewis by themselves dwarf anything even remotely LDS in the curriculum, and when students try to frame their arguments in LDS concepts they are generally rebuffed and required to try again from a broader perspective, even beyond Christianity per se. Whatever you imagine the school has lost sight of in doing so, it is far better off.

As you move on, it well may benefit you to wonder about this (as you said). I realize that contemplating being a relic of a bygone era may be disconcerting, but I can't change that. Best wishes.

Anonymous said...

TRGW: Please keep that page before SB purges it.

R.C. said...

Felidae, denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

Shanon Brooks is still on the board of entrepreneurs, he still goes around proclaiming himself a PhD in constitutional law from GWU. He is very much associated with GWU.

DeMille is still a mentor there

The real question is: why are so many faculty members bailing out. I recall Michael Platt, Brad Bolon, a woman with a masters from Harvard, and others until recently.

It seems to me that GWU is falling apart.

Felidae said...

Actually, R.C., nothing has changed with Michael Platt (he just taught on campus a few months ago) and the faculty you mentioned from Harvard is presently at Columbia getting her PhD. There's been no exodus of faculty, and the Bolons simply moved to Colorado.

Also, if an entry for Brooks was accidentally left on "board of entrepreneurs" page (whatever that's really worth) it's hardly a governing body. Updates to institutional websites tend to lag a bit anyway. Now that you've pointed it out, I imagine someone will fix it. Rest assured that Brooks is quite estranged, notwithstanding his need to flaunt his paper degree -- the only thing he has left.

R.C. said...

Felidae,

Thanks for the clarification.

Please clarify this: If the Bolons "simply moved to Colorado" can't they still mentor online? Does Michael Platt actually live in Southern Utah?

In regards to "Dr." Brooks, what happened to him? Why is he 'estranged' and considered by some to be a 'pariah' (as you previously stated)?

R.C. said...

Dear Anonymous who wrote about the academic inbreeds:

While it is not too late to hire an outsider, I don't see how it will be possible to hire a high caliber outsider.

Because GW claims to be very unique, it is difficult to find faculty who can meet their unique needs. While GW has successfuly hired Shane Schulthies [sic?], he was a lower ranking BYU professor in a totally unrelated field.

I am skeptical that GW will be able to hire a highly qualified outsider for the following reasons:

1) A limited number of people would take a job at a unaccredited institution.

2) High quality demands a high price. University presidents make well over $100,000.

3) Who would choose to leave a job that prepared a university president (i.e., professor, a dean, provost, etc) for a job in Cedar City at a small school with a strange history.

If GW hires an outsider, it will probably be a retired professor with nothing to lose. Or, it will just be somebody on the inside like Shane Schulties.

Felidae said...

As the online program grows, I suppose the Bolons could teach remotely from Colorado, but I don't think it's large enough for that yet.

Michael Platt lives in Texas. When he teaches on campus he travels to Utah. Last time I believe he spent six weeks.

As for Brooks, you really need look no further than the obvious (browse this blog and elsewhere) to imagine the myriad reasons to be rid of him. I'm only aware of a handful of people who didn't see it coming. Still, my understanding is that his departure allowed him the customary "gracious exit" both when leaving administration and a few months later, the board. But in classic fashion he has managed to gaff even that. In January a friend showed me Brooks' personal Christmas newsletter in which he decided to offer his spin on it, citing "irreconcilable differences" with the GW board in an awkwardly self-serving attempt to paint himself as both instigator and victim.

As for hiring a high caliber outsider as president, I think your critique is pretty accurate overall, R.C., and it reflects the talk I hear among people at GW with only a few minor differences.

Groft's newsletter probably summed it up best by (a) acknowledging that resources and improvements should focus on the requirements of the accrediting agency they have been working with (rather than ill-conceived grandiose illusions like Monticello) and (b) high caliber leadership can only happen after a gradual succession of better leadership beforehand. I don't think anybody imagines it happening in one step.

R.C. said...

Felidae,

It sounds like the current faculty are more realistic about what it takes to start from the bottom and build.

I wonder if the simple laws of economics (such as supply and demand) will work against GWU's chances at achieving accreditation. In a tough economy, few people are willing to roll the dice and attend an unaccredited school.

They should completely turn their back on their quirky founding, move forward, and try and hire and retain a few faculty members with real PhDs.

There is no substitute for real academics. For instance, my advisors are known around the country in their field. Their ability to mentor is enhanced by their fame.

I think that the homeschool movement is potentially poison for GW. It seems like the strategy was to get families doing TJED, reach high school age, and pass them onto GW. However, as more and more people have bad experiences with the TJED approach to homeschooling, GW's supply of students will decrease and the school will become discredited. While I like some of the ideas behind reading classics, I don't think that it is realistic for very many children.

Every homeschool program seems to have its day. It is starting to look like TJED has had some time in the sun, and has withered.

Felidae said...

Again, R.C., I think your observations are astute and they reflect much of what I'm seeing and hearing on campus. Aside from the occasional leftover, nobody romanticizes the quirky founding anymore, and the attitude toward accreditation seems pretty no-nonsense. Time will tell whether they can get through the economy, but the online classes probably help buffer against that.

In any case, I think leadership agrees that the most important thing is infusing new blood into faculty, and not from homeschooling circles. Whatever the model was with TJED, I don't hear that kind of talk anymore either. A few students may continue trickling in from that path for a time (low-hanging leftover fruit?) but the direction of the effort I'm noticing tends to be focused elsewhere.

What will happen to TJED? I have no idea. It may continue to wither like you said, but I imagine Brooks and DeMille milking their Center for Social Leadership as they perpetuate it over there instead.

R.C. said...

Felidae,

You keep talking about the Center for Social Leadership as something totally seperate.

Do you think it is possible that they will begin offering degrees?

Do you think that DeMille will leave GWU?

Felidae said...

If the school had a stake or even an interest in CSL, I would expect to see at least some kind of promotion of it. Since that never happens -- not on campus or anywhere else -- the disconnection seems pretty clear. Widening the distance is Brooks' estrangement from GW, being that he's also CSL's primary founder. I think he originally had hopes of a union, but the feeling was never quite mutual. Most likely, that's one of the "irreconcilable differences" he spoke of.

Will CSL ever offer degrees? As metastasis typically goes, I can only guess that they eventually might -- heaven forbid. I think they've already begun holding classes of some kind.

Do I think DeMille will leave GW? I've met him a few times and he's more conscientious than I expected. I suspect it would be hard for him, but for the good of the school I can actually see him doing it. He obviously recognizes the harm his baggage brings to the school's reputation or he wouldn't have attempted the apology piece. I can only imagine that somewhere in the back of his mind he realizes that resigning would be the best thing he could do for the school's future. He has to know that a true statesman would -- even Skousen would if in his shoes -- but since nobody is entirely immune from pride, he probably vacillates. That would be my guess.