Well, it's done. The first paper of the semester. Whew! However, I would be more relieved if I thought it was any good. As usual, my argument is clear and the paper organized. But is the argument good? Well, it's in the hands of the gods now. Or more specifically, Charles Sherry. Speaking of Sherry, I think I may be including him in a lot of my future posts, as I find him to be quite intriguing. And as he doesn't have the same charm and electricity of Scruggs (whom I love and adore), I like him. Which brings me to my story: Yesterday while waiting in line for my coffee, Sherry comes up behind me and we begin a conversation. He tells me that he belongs to some sort of list serve (some of the facts may be muddled as he is so soft spoken, he is hard to understand sometimes) of a group of administrators (?) who want to put professional student evaluators into the classrooms who will report to the professor what students are really thinking. I said, "That's ridiculous. If you really wanted to know what they're thinking, you could just ask them." He agreed, but said the people who came up with this idea think that students will not be as honest with the professor as they would with their peers. I didn't agree with this and neither did he. Still, what bothers Sherry most (which doesn't really bother me) is that he feels this would be some sort of violation of students' privacy. And I'm sure a lot of students would agree. It seems they will take issue with and protest anything just to feel they are being heard. Which brings up an interesting contradiction. If students are so eager to be heard, then they should embrace the idea of someone to represent a universal voice on their behalf. The fact is that young people, and the young at heart like Charles Sherry, feel the need to revolt against "the man", Big Brother, and the like. And although our world calls for order and systemization, it's nice to know there are some crusaders out there to stir things up a little.