There are a few mistaken beliefs that persist for decades if not generations. Some are trivial, others consequential. Here is my modest effort to put some to rest.

“The exception proves the rule.” This is simply silly and of no great moment, merely annoying. I can’t imagine a logical system in which an exception proves a generalization. This would occur only if the definition of “proves” is transformed to mean “tests.”

Exceptions don’t prove but rather “probe” a rule. Here’s a fictive example. “The New York Times editorial position never supports a conservative or libertarian policy position.”

Should it do so, I’d be motivated to probe the causes. The Times taking such a position, would clearly be an aberration, one suggesting fundamental cultural changes among the MSM elite. It surely wouldn’t confirm the rule.

“No one is ever fired for obeying the rules.” This may seem correct, but it is far too rigid to hold in special circumstances. Here is a real life example.

For several decades, FREE hosted many conferences at a small, historic railroad inn. It was built to accommodate visitors to Yellowstone National Park. With the railroad long gone, the inn had a fragile economic base. FREE was by far its largest regular customer, often having summer billings in excess of $100,000. The inn wasn’t open for breakfasts for the general public. Rather, continental breakfasts were available to its overnight guests.

Once, immediately after a conference, I called the manager telling her that an officer from the Ford Foundation was considering a grant for a program to be hosted at this facility. Before confirming the grant, he deemed it essential to stop by and inspect the facility. He was on the way to Seattle and wanted to meet with me for breakfast at this inn. I called and told her we would be coming by for breakfast. Easy call, no?

“No!” She said. “Only overnight guests can have breakfast.” We, of course, did have breakfast, received the grant, and she was soon gone. As Paul Pezoldt, founder of the National Outdoor Leadership School, said, when rigidly applied, “Rules are for fools.”

“Academic fights are so fierce because the stakes are so small.” This is an arrogant statement from someone who doesn’t understand the stakes involved in conflicts over positions in higher education. If someone’s next best opportunity is a job as a Wal-Mart greeter or one in which the normal question is “Do you want fries with that?”, the stakes are huge. And they will become higher.

The higher education world may be on the edge of a bubble. With the costs of higher education rising as fast as those for health care, or even more rapidly, and the corresponding benefits declining for many students, staffing adjustments are surely coming. My model of the world suggests that fierce fights will follow. For the currently well placed but insecure faculty, those with few options, the stakes are indeed high.

None of the above “truths” are true. Only the last has serious consequences. I counsel alertness.