Ethics Dunce: Brown Professor Robert Serrano

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Prof. Robert Serrano, who has been teaching in Brown University’s Economics Department for 34 years, is sounding off in horror about the scourge of artificial intelligence being used by students to cheat. He apparently missed the last two years.

Serrano had allowed the class in Econ 1170, an advanced course he has been teaching for many years, to take the mid-term exam at home. He was shocked—shocked!—that a large number of his students apparently cheated and used ChatGPT to do it. The grades for a midterm exam were not only significantly higher than in previous years, but a review of the answers submitted found that many responses were identical to those the bot came up with. Not only that, but when Serrano told the class that they could keep the midterm grade they received but that the final would be taken in an exam room with a monitor, nearly a third of the class , 27 out of 86, dropped out. Coincidentally, most the drop-outs had scored 100 on the mid-term.

This was sufficient evidence for the professor to conclude that his students had cheated on the test. No shit, Sherlock.

“This is a very challenging course that attracts typically very strong students, and in the past, the average grade for the midterm ranged from 65 to 80,” says Serrano. “The average this time was 96.” He also saw a huge increase in enrollments in his class this year. “In past editions of the course, the enrollments were at most 30, as low as 8 one semester,” he says. “This semester it jumped to 86. Perhaps many of them saw that this exam would be take-home.”

Ya think?

Pages: 1 2

Another “Is We Getting Dummer?” Alert…

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Once again I must evoke the 1978 novel “IQ 83,” by science fiction author Arthur Herzog. A man-made virus escapes a lab and begins reducing the intelligence of Americans to idiot levels. “Is We Getting Dummer?” shouts a typo-filled New York Times headline (not that Times headlines over the last several years have been a lot better). The suspense of the plot involves the desperate scientist responsible for the disaster rushing to find a cure before his own IQ dips so far that he starts watching “Three’s Company” reruns and laughing at them. Two hints that the nightmare may be coming true imposed on my consciousness yesterday.

The first is the headline above from Science News. We’re constantly told to “follow the science,” despite constant reminders that our scientists are politicized, careless, sloppy and dishonest. To make things worse, the support staff and journalists who write about scientists’ work and want us to trust their conclusions aren’t too bright. How many people read that headline and didn’t think, “Wait, WHAT?” How could that get into print?

Then there was this: “A new national survey from the Cato Institute, conducted in collaboration with Morning Consult of 2,253 Americans ahead of July 4th and America’s 250th anniversary, finds nearly half (46%) of Americans don’t know what America’s 250th anniversary commemorates.”

Wow. Do we have a great educational; system or what? In truth, we shouldn’t need our schools to teach our children about the founding of our nation. That information is ubiquitous: all anyone needs is to pay attention. Possess intellectual curiosity. Be raised in a family that thinks, reads and discusses current events.

An IQ of 83 doesn’t have to come from a virus.

No, Thomas Jefferson Did Not Plagiarize The Declaration of Independence

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

The Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence, or “Meck Deck, as its friends call it, was a document allegedly signed on May 20, 1775, in Charlotte, North Carolina by a committee of citizens of Mecklenburg County. The document declared local residents “free and independent” from British rule in response to news of the battle of Concord. Some North Carolina historians argue that Thomas Jefferson cribbed from the Meck Deck to draft his Declaration of Independence, and that’s because they are North Carolina historians.

The evidence that Jefferson plagiarized the earlier document is weak to say the least. To begin with, there is no authentic copy of the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence in existence For me, that should end the controversy.

The story is that twenty-seven of Mecklenburg County’s civic leaders led by Col. Thomas Polk, who was the great-uncle of President James K. Polk, received news the colonial battles against the British in Massachusetts culminating in the British defeat an Concord a month earlier. They signed of the document “in a rustic backwoods courthouse which stood nearby in the center of the intersection of Trade and Tryon Streets,” according to a plaque that now stands in Charlotte’s Independence Square. The declaration was read to a large crowd that had gathered at the courthouse steps, according to eyewitness accounts. Tavern owner James Jack volunteered to deliver the document to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, but the North Carolina delegation never brought it before the full Congress.

Like so many disputed documents, the Meck Deck was destroyed in a fire in1800 fire at the home of Meck Dec secretary John Alexander. In 1819, however, Alexander’s son, William, delivered what he claimed to be an accurate copy that had been reconstructed from memory by his father.

From memory. That makes the thing hearsay and ineligible to serve as admissible evidence in any court or even a credible investigation. Nevertheless, The Raleigh Register published it, and the text bore sufficient resemblance to THE Declaration that it set the day’s conspiracy theorist’s tongues a wagging. John Adams, then corresponding routinely with his old friend and rival, mentioned the Meck Deck in a letter to Jefferson dated June 22, 1819. Jefferson wrote that he had never heard of it, much less read it, and in a letter responding to Adams on July 9, 1819, said the document was probably a hoax. That letter was published after Jefferson’s death (on the 50th anniversary of THE Declaration’s signing in 1826, when Adams died as well) in 1829. Jefferson’s hoax accusation prompted the North Carolina legislature to establish a committee to investigate the matter.

Pages: 1 2

The Star Spangled Naked Teacher!

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

It’s been a long time since Ethics Alarms had one of its trademark Naked Teacher Principle tales or even one of it’s many variations, like the Nearly Naked Teacher’s Volunteer Principle, the Drag Queen School Principal Principle, the Naked Porn-Performing Political Candidate Principle, and the Too Sexy Firefighter Principle, to name just a few. This one, from Alexander, Georgia, has nothing to do with July Fourth, except that I discovered the story this morning. It is certainly past time for one of these posts: the last one under the tag was here, and it was only about the related Naked Mayor Principle, involving the moronic mayor of Minot, North Dakota who accidentally sent an explicit nude video of himself to the city’s attorney.

Above is Maris Nichols, 25, a married Georgia high school teacher, who really likes having sex with students: she’s been indicted for showing at least six students the sweet mysteries of life in her classroom, at a golf course, and in a closet). Two of the teenagers were younger than 16. What puts Maris into the Naked Teacher Principle category is that she is a very provocative OnlyFans performer, and was being blackmailed by some of her students—it is unclear if they were among the one she was boinking—for better grades. They had discovered the OnlyFans channel she owns, operates, and uses to display her excellent Linda Lovelace impression, among other things.

Pages: 1 2

A Brief Observation On A Slow Day At Ethics Alarms…

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Ann Althouse, the retired Madison Wisconsin law professor/bloggress whose posts often interest me, today wrote that “My Dinner With Andre” is her favorite movie, and that this is her favorite passage from it:

“I mean, you see, I think if you could become fully aware of what existed in the cigar store next door to this restaurant, I think it would just blow your brains out! I mean… I mean, isn’t there just as much ‘reality’ to be perceived in the cigar store as there is on Mount Everest? I mean, what do you think? You see, I think that not only is there nothing more real about Mount Everest, I think there’s nothing that different, in a certain way. I mean, because reality is uniform, in a way. So that if you’re–if your perceptions–I mean, if your own mechanism is operating correctly, it would become irrelevant to go to Mount Everest, and sort of absurd! Because, I mean, it’s just–I mean, of course, on some level, I mean, obviously it’s very different from a cigar store on Seventh Avenue, but I mean…”

Well, that explains a lot.

As readers here know, I am a creature of popular culture, especially movies and plays. I have long thought that Althouse’s cultural literacy was undernourished, and that it explains her quirky and often flat-out weird perspectives. Now I know that she really doesn’t “get” movies, which is just…sad. Yeah, there are some interesting observations made in this filmed and the scripted encounter between two professional intellectuals kind-of sort-of playing themselves, but it isn’t drama, it isn’t visually interesting, and if that’s a movie, I’m a catfish. Ann is one of those remote and superior people my parents would occasionally have over to play bridge, who boasted about not having a television.

I do not believe one can comprehend the United States of America without knowing our rich film and entertainment history; if we ignore it, we are stumbling around in the dark. I would name the movies I believe are crucial parts of that heritage, but it would take too much space, and would be infuriating incomplete. I will say this, however: “My Dinner With Andre” isn’t on the list.

Gen. Custer, Pickett’s Charge, and the Seven Enabling Virtues

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

Today, July 3, in 1863 was the date of Pickett’s Charge, when Confederate General Robert E. Lee ordered a desperate Napoleonic advance against the Union line at Gettysburg in what has come to be a cautionary tale in human bravery and military hubris. The same day marked the zenith of the career of George Armstrong Custer, the head-strong, dashing cavalry officer who would later achieve both martyrdom and infamy as the unwitting architect of the massacre known as Custer’s Last Stand.

I have vowed to do all I can, which admittedly isn’t much, to get the story of what I like to call Custer’s First Stand into our nation’s cultural memory. I wrote much of what you are reading now way back in 2011, and have not adequately fulfilled my pledge since, although I have mentioned “Yellow Hair” (as his Native American conquerors called him) periodically over the years. Many historians have opined that Custer may have saved the Union army from defeat at Gettysburg with his bold actions this day, and therefore may have saved the Union itself. That accomplishment is far more important than the blunder at Little Big Horn that defines Custer’s image and reputation.

Custer’s heroics on the decisive final day of the Battle of Gettysburg teach their own lessons, historical and ethical. Since the East Calvary Field battle has been thoroughly overshadowed by the tragedy of Pickett’s Charge, it is little known and seldom mentioned. That is wrong.

Tell your friends and families the story, which has never been portrayed on screen. It is a really good story.

Continue reading →

Chris Cuomo Generously Reminds Everyone That It Is Possible To Be Even Less Coherent and Legally Astute Than Justice Jackson

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Every time I think about the fact that Chris Cuomo, once the golden boy of CNN, is a lawyer I want to burn my law school diploma. Every time I think of all the money “Fredo” was paid to make Americans dumber and more ignorant (as when he announced that “hate speech” was not protected by the First Amendment), I begin questioning the choices I have made in life that brought me to my current lowly position in life. And every time he opens his mouth on his podcast, I want to hold his empty head up to my ear so I can hear the ocean.

Here, in full, is Chis’s most recent foray into Dunning-Kruger chaos:

“In the eyes of the law, Dobbs was the right decision. Why? Roe created a legal rationale that did not exist! And if you do not create it constitutionally or legislatively, it should not exist. And legislation is where you fill in the hole between implicit and explicit, and that wasn’t done with Roe. The Congress should have codified Roe v. Wade. But they were never going to. Why? Because it’s such a useful device to divide us, so helpful to the parties. Dobbs was therefore the right decision. Well, then why didn’t the liberal justices [vote with the Dobbs majority]—because it’s political. Because they feel it’s political. They don’t want to say it, but they’re all female. I mean, now they’re all female on the left. And it’s political. Now, do I like their political position? Yes, I do. I believe that reproductive rights are a thing. And I think that they are obviously invested in women, and they should be. And that taking it from them was taking a right from women. And that’s the first time I’ve seen that done, except for prohibition. And I think it was wrong. But legally, I think it was the right decision.”

Well thank-you, Chris, for that anala…wait, WHAT?

That dog’s breakfast of Authentic Frontier Gibberish makes one of Jackson’s dissents seem like Oliver Wendell Holmes at his best. Reproductive rights “are a thing”? What the hell is that supposed to mean? The reason Roe made no sense is that there is no such thing as a foggy “reproductive right” that includes killing unborn children. Prohibition took away a real right as embodied in the Declaration of Independence, as getting drunk is clearly, for some, “the pursuit of happiness.”

Neither Roe v. Wade nor Dobbs were designed to “divide us,” and the reason Congress didn’t codify it under Carter, or Clinton, or Obama, Chris, you moron, is because they didn’t think it was necessary. They thought (as did I) that the issue was settled by Roe, at least legally. Abortion was still always going to be divisive; no law was going to change that. Remember the Defense of Marriage Act? Abortion is squarely in the category of an ethics conflict, and ethics conflicts are always divisive by nature. Roe was shoehorned into the law by the Supreme Court to settle the issue and end division, just as Chief Justice Taney foolishly thought the Dred Scott ruling would end the controversy over slavery.

Oh, and would someone point out to Chris that there weren’t three women dissenting in Dobbs, because Justice Breyer hadn’t retired yet?

Independence Day Weekend Open Forum! [And A Rueful Movie You Might Want To Watch After You’ve Finished “1776”…]

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

That’s “The Egg” above, from the excellent movie adaptation of “1776.” I’ve performed that number many times as part of the regular repertoire of my now defunct D.C. musical revue group, “The Music Lobby.” (Of course I played John Adams.)

“1776” is one of several movies I always watch this time of year, along with “Gettysburg” and “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Last night ,however, I took the advice of a friend and occasional EA participant and watched “Eddington,” a controversial 2025 movie that you probably haven’t seen, as very few people have.

Wikipedia describes “Eddington” as a “satirical neo-Western thriller,” which should tip you off that it defies easy labeling. The movie was a box office disaster: I would attribute that to terrible marketing and the fact that “Eddington” has something in it to offend just about everyone. Begin with the title, which reveals nothing about the movie: it sounds like an episode of “Downton Abbey.” In 1965, a satire about the funeral industry based on Evelyn Waugh’s “The Loved One” succeeded with the catch line, “The motion picture with something to offend everyone!” People went to see it on a dare. That might have worked with “Eddington.”

The film is the artistic expression of Ari Aster, the writer/director who is best known for his horror movies. “Eddington” is kind of a horror movie as well: it focuses on a small New Mexico town going especially nuts in 2020 when the rest of the country was going nuts too. It does not have a happy ending (neither did 2020); its protagonist (another fascinating performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is confused, inarticulate, and not very bright. I believe it is the first and probably the best possible embodiment of a “Great Stupid” movie—the term Ethics Alarms uses to describe the cultural, intellectual and political blight that spread its dark wings over the land in 2020.

You may have noticed that that blight is getting more ridiculous than ever in 2026.

The critics were divided over “Eddington,” usually complaining about Aster’s “lack of focus,” meaning that he mocked and denigrated all sides of the political spectrum and did not clearly take sides. That’s a virtue, in my view, as it takes on the Wuhan Virus lock-down and mask mania, social media and screen addiction, “influencers,” Black Lives Matter, the “white privilege” cant, anti-police rhetoric, the gun culture, the homeless, the Bidens, and much more. (I’m going to watch it again.)

Since much of themovie’s benefits lie in its unpredictability, I will not supply any more details except revealing the line that made me laugh out loud. A white teenager is seen lecturing his gobsmacked father at the dinner table about his generation’s determination to “eliminate whiteness,” parroting the now familiar gibberish of Ibram X. Kendri, the Black Lives Matter grifters, and Harvard professors. After listening to the rant, the father pauses a beat to gather his composure, and says, “Are you fucking retarded?“

I’ll publish the best reviews of the movie as guest columns.

But I digress! This is the place for you to choose the ethics topic. Please do so with wisdom, taste, passion and dispatch…

An Idiot Test For Conservatives: Tucker Carlson Says He’s Starting A New Political Party

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

I’m giving my inner Fredo a workout lately, because so, SO many positions that I have emphasized early and often on Ethics Alarms have been proving blazingly accurate. To be fair, it didn’t take an IQ much higher than Fredo’s to figure out that Tucker Carlson was a huckster, a fraud, a hypocrite, a shameless self-promoter, a liar and a weasel, but for some strange reason—maybe it was the hair?—an amazing number of usually smart people couldn’t see it. Glib demagogues and sociopaths are like that, though: they hypnotize people with their verbal facility and shameless audacity

Tucker’s latest grift is that he says he wants to start a new political party, presumably of dim-witted, gullible, anti-Semitic, isolationist Republicans. He even appeared on MSNow right after renouncing the GOP, knowing well what the network is and the America it wants to create, but never mind, Tucker Carlson literally has no integrity. He’s smarter than Marjorie Taylor Greene (who isn’t?), not as obviously bat-house crazy as Candace Owen, not as pathetic as Bill Kristol, but still: the man is not a serious person. He makes Bill Maher seem like Victor Davis Hanson. Carlson is a trust fund rich kid who never had to do a hard day’s work in his life, and is the kind of pseudo-intellectual not very bright people think is brilliant.

I’ve written way too much about this creep, but I’m proud to say that I declared that Fox News needed to fire him in 2013, a full decade before they did. Since then I’ve caught him in conflicts of interest, rigging his debates, promoting anti-vaxxers, leaking to the New York Times, found him to be a race-baiter and a legal ignoramus, a destructive agent of distrust and division like Father Coughlin, Joe McCarthy, General Edwin Walker, Alex Jones, and Robert Welch, openly racist, a hypocrite, a conspiracy theorist and a liar, a toadying suck-up, a publicity whore, and a anti-Semitic Holocaust denier, and more. Other than that, however, he seems to be a great guy.

That’s going to be some party he starts.

Based On THIS Story, I Am Tempted To Take Back Everything Nice That I Wrote Earlier Today About Minnesota…

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

A three-person Minnesota panel including Gov. Tim Walz granted a pardon to prevent an immigrant convicted of sexually abusing a child from being deported.

Or, as PJ Media’s Matt Margolis more colorfully put it, “Imagine being so consumed by hatred for Donald Trump and his immigration agenda that you would hand a full pardon to a man who sexually assaulted a 10-year-old girl for four years, just to keep him from being deported. You do not have to imagine it. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) actually did it.”

This isn’t one of the “good illegal immigrants” the New York Times is always blubbering about. The pardonee, Tou Lue Vang, is a 42-year-old Laotian-born immigrant convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct after a guilty plea. The details of his crime are especially disgusting. Vang pleaded guilty in 2006 to repeatedly sexually abusing a young girl beginning when she was only 10-years-old and continuing for four years, starting in 2002. When police arrested him in 2005, Vang didn’t even deny his crimes, explaining that it was a “cultural thing” to “marry and have sex with girls as young as 12.” Vang also tried to pay his victim to keep her from telling anyone about the abuse.

A cultural thing, is it? Add one more reason to the long, long list of why the the U.S. should not permit immigration from countries that have values and traditions antithetical to American culture. You know, like child rape…

Vang’s plea deal kept him out of prison because woke states like Minnesota don’t believe in criminal penalties, or something. Nice. It cost Tou his legal immigration status, and he received a final order of removal in October 2006—yes, that’s during the Bush Administration. Never mind: Vang stuck around for nearly two decades until Trump’s Minnesota operation focusing on the “worst of the worst” illegals caught up with him last year. Vang applied for a pardon in July 2025, hoping that the crazies in Minnesota would give it to him and, with Walz’s help, they did.

The pardon came from a three-person panel that consisting of Walz, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), and Minnesota Chief Justice Natalie Hudson. Ellison defended his pardon of the pedophile by citing his opposition to President Trump. I think it is fair to diagnose Trump Derangement when public officials loose child rapists on the public to show their disrespect for the President of the United States.

Or am I being too judgmental?

Pages: 1 2