114 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/22/08 1:29am)
Last week, Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels announced a proposal to make higher education more accessible to lower-income Hoosier families. Meeting with officials from Indiana colleges and universities, Daniels said he wants the state to provide $6,000 to students pursuing higher education from families that make less than $54,000 annually.\nThat figure is the median income in Indiana, meaning that the funding could potentially provide many middle- and lower-income students with access to valuable education and skills training.\nSome might wonder about Daniels’ motives for pioneering this plan (the cost of which and number of potential participants he admits he does not know). We suspect that it has something to \ndo with his reelection campaign this year. \nRaising taxes, a move likely necessary to sustain such a program, and increasing state aid to the disadvantaged are normally tough sells to Republicans. However, both Democrats hoping to oust him in the fall have made education reform central to \ntheir campaigns.\nIt seems Daniels, then, has made a timely unveiling of his plan to show himself as the true hero of vocational education. By besting Democrats at their own game, Mitch knows he’ll be unlikely to get ditched.\nWhether his motivation is the goodness of his heart or simply \npolitical competition, our state really can’t afford to protest improvements to its deficient education system.\nNationally, Indiana ranks 44th for number of residents older than 25 with bachelor’s degrees and 41st for associate’s degrees. Both of those figures fall inexcusably in the bottom 20 percent. We need all the help we can get.\nSome critics of the proposal have pointed out that most students from families with annual incomes below $40,000 can already attend Ivy Tech for free, as if this indicates the plan’s uselessness. Their argument is deficient for \ntwo reasons. \nFirst, it presumes that everyone making less than $40,000 only wants to attend Ivy Tech. In contrast, the governor’s plan provides that the $6,000 dollars be applicable to tuition at any in-state university. Thankfully, the governor’s plan addresses the value of making this funding available to students from lower-income families who need assistance pursuing a four-year degree.\nSecond, the argument ignores the fact that families living on incomes between $40,000 and $54,000 annually are not living the high life. When your income falls in the bottom half of our state’s wages, a significant portion of your income goes toward purchasing the basics. These families simply might not have any extra money to help their children through school.\nEven if one doesn’t personally stand to receive money from this program, everyone in the state should support this effort. By developing our state’s best resource, the potential of its workers, we can improve the environment in which we all live.\nIn the end, we should applaud Daniels for making this a priority but realize that $6,000 per student will not be the last reform needed to bring our state out of the bottom 20 percent in education.
(04/21/08 1:59am)
When former President Bill Clinton spoke here endorsing Sen. Hillary Clinton, the IU logo appeared behind him in newspaper photos. Because of this, some members of the IU administration expressed concern that people would mistake this as an endorsement for Hillary Clinton. \nIU Chancellor Ken Gros Louis said the IU trident should not appear at any political events because “it’s just confusing to the public for a political candidate making a speech with an IU logo behind him or her, because it gives the impression that the University is supporting the candidate,” \nBut we say this is simply not the case. The IU logo appeared in photos of Bill Clinton because he was at IU. It was visible when Sen. Barack Obama visited campus during the women’s Little 500. And it was on stage with Dave Matthews as he performed in support of Obama. No one is going to confuse these as political endorsements. If anything, having an IU flag behind a political candidate is only good publicity for the University, as it shows the country our political activism (or at least our love of free concerts, as in the case of Matthews).\nIU spokesman Larry MacIntyre seemed to put this worry to rest, saying the logo’s appearance behind Bill Clinton, as well as at the Obama-sponsored Dave Matthews concert, were simply “understandable coincidences.”\nAs this example shows, the University can be quite protective of its logo, which we appreciate. This past November, the IU administration prevented the University’s image from being misrepresented – it threatened to sue makers of a documentary titled “Indoctrinate U” when it saw that a portion of the film’s logo looked strikingly similar to IU’s. (After a glance at it, we saw it as dang-near identical).\nWhen a film has a logo so similar to the University’s that it could be assumed the University endorses the movie, it is expected that the administration would take action, especially considering the content of this film – it carried the underlining message (according to what the film’s director Evan Coyne Maloney told Cyber News Service) that institutions of higher education are “defrauding students, parents and taxpayers.”\nAfter receiving the threat from IU and not wanting to enter a lawsuit with the University, Maloney had the design changed and shut down the film’s Web site in the meantime. By December, the site was back up and running with a new logo. Maloney, and certainly others, questioned the University’s reaction. \nIn that case, we commend IU officials for maintaining the integrity of this school and preventing anyone from confusing our logo with one advertising a film attacking the higher education industry. After all, one of the reasons copyright laws exist is to protect the “creator” of a certain work from misrepresentation. \nWhile the Editorial Board applauds the University for handling the situation the way it did with “Indoctrinate U,” we see no reason to get huffy about our logo appearing behind political candidates on our campus. It’s just not worth getting upset about.
(04/17/08 2:11am)
Freedom of speech. Where is the line drawn? At what point does controversial content become dangerous? This debate has raged for years, and two college students in Colorado have entered the ring.\nAfter seeing a feminist and gender studies newsletter called “The Monthly Rag” lying around campus, Colorado College student Chris Robinson and a fellow student decided to make a newsletter of their own. “The Monthly Bag,” as they named it, was created as what the Denver Post called a “satirical response to a feminist publication.” Surely they were expecting the newsletter to cause a stir, but Robinson and his colleague got more heat than they were probably looking for. \nCollege staff members removed “The Monthly Bag” from its various locations on campus after getting complaints that the newsletter was “threatening.” The students behind the publication were also found guilty in March of violating the campus conduct code and were forced to host a public forum about the issues the publication raised. Mike Edmonds, vice president for student life at Colorado College, wrote Robinson a letter on March 25, explaining that, although Robinson violated the code of conduct, he would not be facing serious sanctions or punishments. But Robinson said this “ideological witch hunt” was a punishment in itself. \nSo what made this satirical newsletter so threatening? What incited Edmonds to write in his letter to Robinson that the problem with the publication was its “juxtaposition of weaponry and sexuality”? \nWell, “The Monthly Bag” did include some content that many could deem inappropriate – and apparently many people did see it as such, given the degree of outrage in response. The flier included tips on chain saw etiquette and an in-depth description of a sexual position from Men’s Health magazine. It even gave readers trivia about sniper rifles. All this, Robinson told the Denver Post, was helpful information for macho men.\nNow, we haven’t read the publication ourselves, and it’s likely that it included content that we wouldn’t find appealing. But it seems hypocritical that this newsletter was killed quickly after its first issue when the publication it parodied, which includes controversial content of its own, has been published for about three years now. The feminist newsletter included an announcement for a lecture on feminist pornography, information about gender-bending practices and a piece about a myth involving male castration.\nIf the makers of “The Monthly Rag” have a right to include information about gender-bending practices, a newsletter targeting “macho men” – whether it’s a parody or not – should be able to include tips on chain saw etiquette. After all, a description of a sexual position seems to be no more “dangerous” than a public lecture about feminist pornography, or any pornography, for that matter. If the feminist and gender studies program can print material that is probably offensive to some, Robinson has every right to make a newsletter of his own.
(04/15/08 12:38am)
"Thank God for Dead Soldiers.”\nThat’s a picket sign created by Westboro Baptist Church, an extremist group led by Fred Phelps that is notorious for its Web site godhatesfags.com and for the unspeakable cruelty its members demonstrate at protests across America, particularly at the funerals of fallen military personnel. Other commonly used snippets of doctrine displayed on its signs include “Thank God for AIDS” and “God is America’s terrorist.” For funeral demonstrations, church members frequently make signs declaring the deceased is in hell and that God hates the tears of the mourners.\nIt’s rare that something as black-and-white as the ideological clash that happened recently on the University of Wisconsin-Stout campus last Thursday comes around, and we’re happy to report that hate did not triumph that day. Scenes from the event caught on tape and distributed on YouTube and other video sources were moving enough that we saw it fit to recognize the campus unity.\nThree UW-Stout students had been killed in a house fire earlier in the week, and according to four protesters from the Westboro Baptist Chuch, the deaths of these young people were because America has “brought the wrath of God down on their heads.” \n“God is killing the children of America because they have been raised for the devil,” said Shirley Phelps-Roper, daughter of the Westboro Baptist Church founder.\n Of course, controversy is no stranger to university campuses, and emotions frequently run high when confronting issues that people view passionately from opposing viewpoints. But the level of insensitivity and intolerance demonstrated by this church goes way beyond the limits of decency. We were thrilled to see that more than 1,000 UW-Stout students showed up to the demonstration with the sole objective of getting this group off their campus immediately.\nUW-Stout spokesperson Doug Mell said they were rallying in support of diversity and to honor the deceased students. The students “totally reject the abhorrent and hateful message that the members of this church were trying to send,” he said at the protest. “(The students) wanted them to leave so we can all mourn in peace,” he said.\nAnd within 15 minutes of the Westboro protesters showing up, the student rally had jeered them off the campus, 25 minutes before the demonstration was scheduled to end.\nIf you haven’t seen the video, you can check it out on the Sample Gates blog, where we’ve got it posted. It was a pretty spectacular scene to see so many students rallying around the hatemongers yelling “Go home!” and to see the shaken Westboro protesters try to worm their way through the crowd in retreat. It was refreshing to see such a large group of young people standing up to these people without resorting to violence.\nSigns the students wielded at the counterprotest read “God Hates No One” and “Hate is Sin in God’s Eyes.”\n“I believe that can go down in the books as one for the good guys,” UW-Stout student Ryan Marsel said after the protesters were shooed off campus. \nWe agree. Way to go, UW-Stout.
(04/10/08 11:53pm)
It was supposed to be a great arrangement. China, the country with arguably the darkest human rights history in the world, won its bid to host the Olympics and thereby a chance to prove how far it has come in recent years. The rest of the world hoped that with this chance to play host to the games, China would soften its tyrannical ways. Unfortunately, as it turns out, people aren’t getting everything they want. \nWhile the Olympics draws closer, China’s situation only seems to get worse. The country’s pollution, human rights and treatment of Taiwanese and Tibetan rioters all have foreign governments, politicians and concerned citizens wondering if sending athletes to represent their respective countries in the Beijing Olympics might send a message of false support. Perhaps, they wonder, a boycott is in order. Some share Australian Sen. Andrew Bartlett’s view that participating in an event representing global unity in China should make us more critically analyze our efforts and force us to ask ourselves whether this inaction makes us complicit. \nThe Editorial Board acknowledges that political leaders should consider taking steps to improve conditions in China, but we say an Olympic boycott would have a minimal effect at best. It would be seen as more of a show than a political message, a grand gesture that would ring hollow upon Chinese ears. Surely it would ruffle feathers, but the Chinese would simply chalk it up as Western political scheming, and they would press on with their tyranny despite our actions. They would probably lose face, but there would be no long-term effect.\nBy boycotting, our government would express how displeasing the situation is. But if it will lead to little change in Chinese governmental operation, why should we take this action and punish athletes who have spent years or even their whole lives training for this summer’s Games? It would be a shame to shatter these athletes’ dreams to make a political statement that would most likely leave a dent at best in China’s tyrannical structure.
(04/10/08 12:02am)
The click-clack of texting seems inescapable these days, even in the classroom. As our phones have become prosthetic extensions growing out of our hands and ears, we have grown inseparable from them. Even many of us on the Editorial Board confess to sending these grammatically-deficient missives to our friends, and the problem of texting in class has grown with the increased prevalence of the technology. \nOne professor, however, thinks he has found the solution. Every time he catches someone texting in his class, Syracuse University philosophy professor Laurence Thomas simply leaves the classroom. Citing a lack of respect toward his position as professor, Thomas walks out to reciprocate this lack of respect to the texters.\nAlthough his intentions may appear noble and fair, it’s unfortunate that Thomas chose to go about his crusade in a way which disrespected not only the offending students, but was also the rest of the class who was attempting to listen and learn. Rather than trying to help other students learn or even punishing the distracting clickers, Thomas punished all his students with his melodramatic display.\nSome have raised the argument that since they pay so much to go to school, they are entitled to do whatever they want during class. What business is it of the professor if the student chooses not to pay attention? The professor is paid to teach, not to babysit. This is true, but only up to a point. Once behavior becomes disruptive to the learning environment, it hinders others’ ability to get the education they want. This is fundamental.\nThe difficulty, of course, is in negotiating which activities are disruptive and which aren’t. Professors have a certain amount of leeway in deciding what is and isn’t acceptable in their classrooms. Certainly talking on the phone screws up the classroom dynamic, but texting can be silent and nearly undetectable, especially in a giant lecture class, like the one Thomas teaches. If someone can send texts without distracting others, where’s the disruption? \nWe hardly condone texting, or any other distracting activity (including reading this editorial), in class. Respect must flow both ways in the classroom, from the professor to the student and vice versa. We cannot expect professors to treat us with respect if we treat their classrooms as opportunities to send the latest gossip to our friends. Texting in class shows that we don’t care about what we’re learning or not learning. \nWhen dealing with a situation in which students repeatedly disrespected him, Thomas was certainly in a frustrating situation. Nevertheless, Thomas responded inappropriately to this unfortunate situation. Instead of remaining on the higher ground of respect and dignity, he stooped to the childish tactics of the tic-tac-toe scribblers who needed a lesson. If students see that a professor can stomp out in a huff, they will see that he is no more deserving of respect than they are.\nThere is, of course, a simple way to deal with this if a texting-intolerant professor such as Thomas wants to make a disciplinarian statement. Instead of removing the professor from the classroom, remove the offending student. What’s more disruptive, after all: texting? Or having your professor walk out the door?
(04/08/08 12:49am)
Last Wednesday, it seems more or less everyone got the same message from a friend: There was a free Dave Matthews concert and a huge line to claim tickets to the event. No one really knew more than that, nor seemed to care. And even though it would eventually become clear to the general public that this concert was a generous gift from the Barack Obama campaign, it’s safe to say that the good senator was far away from most of the crowd’s thoughts as the show began. \nIt’s precisely at this time of year that undecided voters become everyone’s new best friends. Lured with flashy ads, lucrative promises and now a parade of celebrities, we all seem eager to indulge in the guilty pleasure of reveling in the excitement of campaign gimmicks, even though we know those things really shouldn’t matter in choosing a president. Even at IU, we’ve seen Chelsea Clinton, Bill Clinton, Jeremy Piven, Kal Penn and now Dave Matthews just in this past month. Their messages are political, yes, but in regard to candidates with platforms that are already well established. Piven could have been selling aluminum siding – it was his presence that filled the seats. And anyone with a dial–up modem could have dissected Obama’s stance on healthcare, but from a famous mouth, it just sounds better. \nThat might be the problem – sounding better isn’t the same as being better. Fortunately, in the case of celebrity endorsements and alluring giveaways, it isn’t going to matter. \nThat’s the problem with democracy: everyone has a voice, even the people who don’t make informed choices. For all the educated voters who have weighed the pros and cons of the candidates’ positions, there are others basing their decision off more frivolous criteria. Sure, there are those who wouldn’t vote for Obama based on his middle name, but there are also those who would vote for him based on his ability to cultivate an image that appeals to young people but has nothing to do with leading the world’s most powerful country. We think it’s unethical to treat voters as the means to an end, trying to gain their nominal support without earning their faith in policies. But can it really be that a free concert or celebrity endorsement will turn into more votes? \nSure, the fans showed up at the concert. They were probably treated to a host of campaign flyers and rousing promises for “change” throughout the night. And they probably couldn’t have cared less. People whose support can be won this easily tend to be the types who give extremely weak support. Students would have pledged allegiance to Joseph Stalin if he’d been the one to give the concert, but that doesn’t mean anyone would necessarily vote for him. If your support comes from gifts or celebrity endorsement, it means that support ends when those things dry out, and there’s no free concert at the polls. So if Obama really wants to buy support, he could save a lot of money by buying a loaf of bread and feeding some ducks at a pond. At least the ducks wouldn’t mask their apathy about the sponsor of the feast.
(04/04/08 12:35am)
Today we honor the life and memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a compassionate leader whose life was tragically cut short 40 years ago today.\nOn April 4, 1968, King was assassinated in Memphis, Tenn. Though he was only 39 years old, he had already dramatically changed the landscape of life in America.\nKing is most famously remembered for his leadership in the civil rights movement, particularly his role in the Montgomery bus boycott, non-violent protests and sit-ins in Birmingham, Ala., and the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom where he delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.\nBut King was also a vocal critic of poverty, unjust working conditions and violations of workers’ rights. At the time of his death, he was fighting for the sanitation workers in Memphis and calling for strikes and boycotts until their hazardous and unfair working conditions improved. His attitude toward economic exploitation is evident in his quote: “True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.” \nNear the end of his life, King combined his work for civil rights, economic equality and nonviolence with his opposition to the war in Vietnam. He believed “America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube.” He viewed the war as “an enemy of the poor” and argued that any “nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”\nWhile we might not all agree with each of King’s views on economics and foreign policy, we certainly respect that this remarkable leader worked tirelessly for human rights and strived to make this country stronger.\nEach of us can also find ways to continue his compassionate work and “stand with a greater determination” in order to seize upon every “opportunity to make America a better nation,” as King exhorted in his “I See the Promised Land” speech. \nDespite our various political views and commitments, King’s work reminds us of our shared responsibility to one another, our “inescapable network of mutuality” where “whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” Therefore, King calls us “to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation, for those it calls ‘enemy’” because nothing should “make these humans any less our brothers (and sisters).” \nForty years after King’s voice was abruptly silenced, we can carry on his drive to strengthen our country and world. Following his moral philosophy, we must avoid the selfish question, “What will happen to us if we help those in need?” but instead ask ourselves, “What will happen to them if we do not stop to help?” \nWith such compassion, we are all capable of improving our world together. What better gift for a King?
(04/03/08 4:16am)
In the days following the Virginia Tech shootings, the media began to piece together the horrific details of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history. We learned that the gunman, Cho Seung-hui, suffered from psychological issues and had been admitted to a mental health unit in 2005. One question loomed, though. If college authorities had disclosed information about his mental condition to state officials, could the tragedy have \nbeen prevented? \nSince the release of a federal report in June 2007 that detailed confusion over privacy laws, government agencies have begun taking a stab at this contentious issue. Last week, the Federal Education Department proposed loosening restrictions on the release of confidential student information. Specifically, the department is seeking to ease certain privacy rules, which were created as a function of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. This move attempts to make it easier for college administrators to disclose confidential information about students without the fear of legal liability. \nGovernment officials claim that college administrators have usually tended to err on the side of caution in order to protect sensitive information about students. However, with the recent spate of school shootings, officials support easing restrictions in order to facilitate the exchange of student records. \nThere is no denying that the laws concerning privacy of mentally ill students contain gaps and discrepancies, and it’s understandable that administrators concerned about safety are also worried about liability when it comes to notifying authorities about suspicious behavior or persons. However, an adequate solution to this should not amount to easing laws that were crafted to protect students. Indeed, several regulations attempt to deal with the complex ethical issues surrounding such cases. For example, under a “health and safety” exception, colleges can disclose information about a student in order to protect the student or others from imminent injury, provided the student does not consent to interventions. It would seem logical to conclude, then, that the focus should be less on easing regulations and more on merely clarifying existing laws. Furthermore, the confusion over specific portions of Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act should compel the federal government to educate campus administrators, state officials and counselors on the finer points of the act. \nOne must also consider the effect that all this has on mentally ill individuals. In our society, mental illness already carries a great stigma, and this prevents individuals from seeking the treatment they need. For example, a 2007 University of Michigan study found that while the incidence of mental illness on college campuses was steadily rising, more than half of students with significant symptoms of anxiety or depression did not seek help. Elaborate privacy laws, by design, encourage students to seek out professional help. Proposals that aim to weaken these laws can make some individuals wary of seeking help in the first place.\nLaws must strike a healthy balance between public safety and students’ privacy. While we support the disclosure of confidential information in the face of imminent danger, we must also protect the rights of students. Easing privacy laws wouldn’t do much to make us physically safer, but it would open us up to a new type of danger.
(04/03/08 4:09am)
I just wanted to comment on the editorial “State money for prisoner education?” (March 28) in the IDS about IU’s Distance Learning Program, as it pertains to prisoner education. These programs are in fact not free for people incarcerated in the prison system. They go through the same process as other students when applying for the program, which includes applying for financial aid. The prisoners and their loved ones are responsible for paying the full costs of their courses through continuing studies. While there are “free” educational programs in Indiana state prisons, prisoners are responsible for repaying these and any other fees associated with their incarceration upon their release. I just wanted to clarify this, as I felt the authors of the editorial were misinformed and also misleading.
(04/03/08 4:08am)
This is in response to “State money for prisoner education?” (March 28). If “the net effect is dollars saved,” how does this end up costing money? In that case, it’s not “education funding that isn’t going towards students at its campuses.” It’s actually prison funding that’s going toward something that actually reduces recidivism. Novel idea, indeed! The fact is this: Things aren’t fair, and we can’t make them fair. After all, is it fair that, because I, through no fault of my own, was born to a well-educated, supportive, middle-class family, I’ve had many fewer obstacles in the way of getting an education than many people who were born in different situations, and that I’ve had an almost absurdly easy life? No, it’s not, and that kind of unfairness can never be done away with. Everyone has different influences on them, and they take different life paths, due at least in part to those different influences. What will work for society is not taking the hard line that just because it’s education and some people pay for it, even if it reduces recidivism, we shouldn’t provide it to (presumably “undeserving”) inmates. What will work for society is taking the path that reduces recidivism and hopefully ends up saving money and reducing the money allocated to the penal system. It’s money that could be better spent on other things – like perhaps more funding for education.
(04/03/08 4:07am)
I am saddened by the lack of integrity in the recent IUSA election. Kirkwood ticket’s actions exhibit character weaknesses that Indiana University should not tolerate in its leadership. (See: Kelvin Sampson) Mr. Weis and his crew should have run on the “Pontius Pilate” ticket, as they did such a nice job of washing their hands of Mr. Pozza’s actions. For an encore, they chose arrogance over integrity by not attending the infractions hearing. Perhaps they were too busy forcing students to vote by standing over their laptops. The IUSA election committee showed no leadership or courage in response not only to the infractions, but also to the obvious slap in the face delivered by Kirkwood’s defiance. I’m an alumus and a donor. You don’t operate in a vacuum down there, folks.
(04/01/08 1:38am)
It is always frustrating when we stay up all night working on a paper to meet the due date only to chew our nails for two months because our professors are taking their time grading. This can be a mild frustration, but professors’ lateness becomes a lot more than an annoyance when entire semester grades are turned in late. A late semester grade can affect students’ abilities to get their transcripts, which are often needed for job, internship, school transfer and scholarship applications. It can also hinder their ability to receive financial aid and even receive diplomas. As a result, some universities are taking serious measures to combat late grades. \nAccording to an article from Inside Higher Ed, the University of Iowa’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences has threatened to delay the paychecks of faculty members who are late in turning in final grades. And Florida State University currently fines the individual colleges in which professors teach with late grades a fee of $10 per late grade. Ten dollars per grade might not sound like much, but when you account for professors with large lectures – some as high as 1,000 students – the tab can get pretty large. “You better get ‘em in or you’re writing me a check for $17,000” Kimberly Barber, the interim registrar at Florida State, reportedly said to the dean of an FSU college with regards to late grades.\nMany professors believe the practice to be unfair because grades are often due as little as three days after the final exam of a term. That doesn’t leave them much time for grading. And we’ve all heard professors note that grading is “no fun!” \nNow please don’t take this the wrong way, professors – we appreciate our education and everything you have done for us – but do your freaking job. Students are so often scolded about the way things are in the “real world” and the importance of meeting deadlines. What kind of example are professors setting when they don’t meet their own deadlines? \nLisa Scully, senior assistant registrar at IU, said a small percentage of grades are submitted late each semester, but it isn’t a huge problem. Scully noted that the number of late grades has declined since professors have had the opportunity to submit their grades online. However, she pointed out that there are no repercussions in place for professors who submit late grades, “besides the inconvenience to students, which we try to emphasize when we call them.”\nWe don’t know exactly what the penalty should be, but we would be in favor of following the examples of FSU and the University of Iowa in setting some type of incentive for professors to be timely. After all, professors are not just here to do conduct research and lecture to 500-student classes. They are also here to help us get internships, scholarships and jobs. And a delayed transcript can literally inhibit us from getting those things.
(03/27/08 12:17am)
"I talk about No Child Left Behind like Ivory soap: It’s 99.9 percent pure or something.”\nThat’s Education Secretary Margaret Spellings on the efficacy of the federal law passed in 2002. She continues: “There’s not much needed in the way of change.”\nExperts say otherwise. The latest move away from No Child Left Behind, which is considered by the National Education Association to have “produced many unintended and unfavorable consequences for students, parents and educators across the country,” is a recent bill passed by the New York Assembly, preemptively barring New York City and other districts from linking teacher tenure to students’ test scores.\nAn enormous debate revolves around standardized testing and how test results should be interpreted with respect to the teacher: Do high test scores necessarily mean a great instructor, and vice versa? Or is this a gross oversimplification?\nThe Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind act favors the former view – that test scores are, essentially, just a function of the teacher. In application, this proves to be catastrophic, as the outcry from the National Education Association and numerous education experts has evidenced in the last five years. Such a policy makes it extremely difficult for disadvantaged and low-income children to meet the catch-all, single-tier criteria set out by the policy. As a result, the evaluation rubric has labeled thousands of schools as “failing” – including even 827 out of 1,262 schools to which Bush’s brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, gave the coveted “A” rating in his state of Florida – a condemnation that jeopardizes jobs of all the teachers at a “failing” school, regardless of their true effectiveness. In this plan, “bad test scores” reads as “bad teachers.”\nThe implications, then, are clear: These new testing standards tend to favor schools in more affluent areas, where children come from homes that nurture learning from a young age, and are generally conducive to a high-aptitude K-12 career. The fact is that even if a teacher is very capable, other factors (the child’s family situation, parents’ educational background, the presence of learning disabilities, etc.) play a large enough role that guaranteeing one’s kids can pass the new testing standards is far from certain. \nThis is why we support New York’s countermove: The Assembly members obviously recognize the administration as being consistently out of sync with education experts like the National Education Association, which former Secretary of Education Rod Paige called a “terrorist organization” for its protest against No Child Left Behind. New York wants to take the scare tactics out of the classroom, allowing teachers to once again do their jobs effectively, rather than using frightened “teach to the test” curricula year after year. \n“Any real educator can know within five minutes of walking into a classroom if a teacher is effective,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the United Federation of Teachers. “These tests were never intended and have never been validated for the use of evaluating teachers.” \nNew York is right on target with revamping its educational accountability system, which will allow for more correctly distinguishing schools with only a few problems from those that need serious assistance – and not threatening good teachers’ jobs in the meantime.
(03/25/08 3:30am)
Congressman John Dingell, D-Mich., has proposed enacting a 50 cents-per-gallon tax hike on gasoline in an effort to force Americans to reduce their consumption. The federal government already collects 18.4 cents of tax per gallon of gasoline in addition to whatever state or local taxes may apply. We strongly resist the idea of the federal government implementing such a large tax on gas, especially now in difficult economic times.\nCheap transportation has been one of the catalysts allowing the U.S. to become such an economic force. In a time when the economy is already suffering, to talk about punishing production in this country by significantly raising fuel costs is unthinkable. \nFurther, such a tax would hurt low-income families and individuals. Because fuel is such an inelastic product (that is, people need it so much, they will purchase it at similar quantities regardless of a price increase), people who still need to travel the same distance every day will be forced to cut back in other areas to cover the new tax.\nMany of us care about environmental issues and alternative fuel investment, and we might be willing to consider a gas tax hike if it were offset in other ways, such as tax cuts on private and corporate income. This would make gas more expensive relative to other goods but would not punish producers or consumers.\nBut the bottom line is the market has always been the engine of innovation. Inefficiency always results when the government steps in to control market forces through subsidies or taxes. We all look forward to alternative sources of energy. Some of us want to protect the environment, some want to reduce the power of oil producers and some are just looking for cheaper, more efficient fuel sources. But alternative forms of energy will come about the same way that other inventions are created – when demand is great enough for someone to make money off a better product, it will be produced.
(03/20/08 2:31am)
There are names that strike terror into the heart of every red-blooded American: Osama bin Laden. Kim Jong Il. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Carson Kressley.\nDoes that last name seem a little out of place to you? Well, if you believe the words of Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern, the greatest threat to America’s long term survival is no mere terrorist or evil dictator, but rather Kressley, one of the flamboyant stars of “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,” the show that is making over the world, “one man at a time.”\nSince last week, an audio clip of a less-than-enlightened speech from Kern has been making its way around the Internet. \n“The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation,” she told her audience. And just in case there was any doubt of the statement’s validity, she quickly added, “OK, that’s just a fact,” to really drive the point home.\nKern continued, “Studies show no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted, you know, more than a few decades. So it’s the death knell in this country.” You can’t argue with that, folks. She has “studies” to back her up, proving that homosexuality leads to the downfall of civilization. Give us a break.\nBut the crowning jewel of her remarks was this: “I honestly think it’s the biggest threat that our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat.” Most of us recognize terrorism is a threat to our security, but we also have enough intelligence to know that “terrorism” and “Islam” are far from synonymous. But to see how she further draws a connection between national security and people who are merely attracted to the same sex – and who, as in the case of “Queer Eye’s” Fab Five, usually have a little better fashion sense than the rest of us – is beyond all logic. \nKern was elected to represent all the people in her district, including gays, Muslims and even gay Muslims. It is unthinkable that she would say such demeaning things about law-abiding citizens in our country, let alone her own constituents. And if gays are such a menacing threat to the U.S., dare we wonder what her solution to solving this threat might be?\nWe’ve been involved in military action against terrorists around the world for many years now. If you think President Bush is bad, imagine what might happen if someone like Kern was the commander-in-chief. Sure, we’d bring our troops home from Iraq, but only so we could declare war on the gays. (We sincerely hope that Kern never reads this editorial; we’d hate to give her any ideas.)\nIt’s true that Kern is a mere state representative, and from a small state at that. She’s not a player on the national level. But her words were so outlandish that they’ve caused a lot of harm. Perhaps the most damage has been done to her own Republican party, which has many elements within it working to rid the party of embarrassments like Kern. We take strong opposition to Kern’s foolish words, and we hope that all Oklahomans, Republicans and Americans will join us.
(03/17/08 11:26pm)
Toronto’s Ryerson University demands our attention for charging freshman Chris Avenir two weeks ago with cheating after he helped popularize a Facebook study group called “Dungeons/Mastering Chemistry Solutions” for a chemistry course last term. In this online study group, 146 classmates posted and discussed their solutions to problems that covered 10 percent of their final grade.\nAvenir had earned a ‘B’ in the course, but after his professor found the Facebook group over the semester break, he changed the mark to an ‘F’ and recommended Avenir be expelled.\n“If this kind of help is cheating,” Avenir said, “then so is tutoring and all the mentoring programs the university runs and the discussions we do in tutorials.” \nWe agree. Apparently some students did engage in academic misconduct by posting answers to problems, but Avenir was not among them. Avenir’s only “crime” was to use an already popular medium to help students understand their homework and prepare for quizzes.\nAvenir received 147 counts of academic misconduct, one for administering the group and the rest for each member, a fact which seems ludicrously unfair. Normally Ryerson simply gives a zero in any assignment or exam in which a student is caught cheating, and includes a notation on the student’s transcript. But in this case the university took the extra step of expelling Avenir. It’s hard to imagine the reasoning behind this.\nConsidering the rigorous pace and atmosphere common in college science classes, Avenir hardly crossed the line of appropriateness by helping carve this cyber-niche of help and trust. A scholarly yet friendly community for dealing with a class’s daunting intricacies can be seen not only as legitimate, but also as a natural and student-friendly way to help each other.\nAs Kim Neale, Avenir’s representative at his hearing said, the administrators’ rashness is “creating this culture of fear, where if I post a question about physics homework on my friend’s wall ... and ask if anyone has any ideas how to approach this – and my prof. sees this, am I cheating?” John Adair, Avenir’s lawyer, questioned the university’s bleary definition of academic dishonesty: “They don’t define that until they decide what you have done is wrong.”\nWe believe Avenir was absolutely right in his desire to accelerate the learning process in the downtime between lectures and examinations, soften the intensity of competition and even enjoy the stimulation and bonding of group study. The force of the administration’s response to the possibility of cheating could not have been anticipated. A recent survey by the Center for Academic Integrity found that almost 80 percent of college students have admitted to cheating during their college careers. And of course we agree that cheating should not go unpunished. But comparing notes and going over problems outside of class is definitely not cheating. Neale said it best, asserting this Facebook group is “no different than any study group working together on homework in a library.” Avenir opened a forum where classmates could discuss difficult material and thus strengthen their grasp of that material. He deserves a pat on the back, not to be kicked out of school.
(03/16/08 11:56pm)
After centuries of experimenting with the most effective means of education and arguing over the “ideal” education policies in the United States, there is one thing we can all agree on – students cannot perform at their best if they cannot hear the instructor. Some students may have a hearing disability. Others may have attention deficit disorder. And for the rest – well, they’re simply tired of straining to hear the faint, weak sound waves floating from their teacher’s vocal cords, losing almost all strength by the time they reach students’ ears. Whatever the specific reasons, several school districts nationwide, a large number in Florida, Michigan and New Jersey, are investing thousands of dollars in new amplification systems to ensure all students can hear clearly what their teachers are saying.\nMicrophones for teachers? It sounds absurd, especially for smaller classrooms of, say, 30 students. But even the gentle hum of generators, air conditioners and various other pieces of electronic equipment is sometimes enough to impede the hearing of a student sitting far from the teacher. This becomes an even worse problem with elementary-age students, children who have a difficult time as it is with paying attention. \nThis is not to say we think every school should be equipped with amplification systems in all classrooms. They range from $1,000 to $1,500 per classroom. This hefty price tag may be a worthy investment for some schools, but obviously not for all. In smaller classrooms, giving the teacher an amplified voice may cause an even worse problem – an irritating loud noise sometimes makes it harder to focus than a softer, less decipherable one. Michal Linker, a kindergarten teacher in Millburn, N.J, even turned off her microphone because she found herself actually talking louder with the microphone than without it. She said another reason why she stopped using the mic was because she “would rather (students) stop and pay attention than make it easier for them to hear (her) so they don’t pay as much attention.”\nThis comment seems to support the belief that by amplifying teachers’ voices, schools are only catering to rather than challenging students in an age where they seem as easily distracted as ever before. The Acoustical Society of America even issued a statement in 2006 urging schools to combat noise issues by designing more acoustically sound rooms rather than install amplification systems. \nThis is a valid suggestion. And yes, we all have reason to be hesitant to allow our school districts to spend thousands of dollars – or in the case of a Seattle district, $1.5 million – on high-dollar microphone and speaker systems. But it seems unfair to shun this idea without considering how it may be an opportunity for teachers to better instruct students. Of course, this is not a good idea for every classroom, but if administrators think this would help, it’s worth a try. If our goal is to increase the academic achievement of America’s young pupils, maybe a loud, amplified voice is a good start.
(03/06/08 1:55am)
Imagine this scenario: You’re sitting in a foreign policy discussion section trying to keep your eyes open. Suddenly something happens that wakes you up really fast. A gunman bursts through the door and begins lining you, your classmates and your instructor against the wall.\nAre these the actions of some deranged, bloodthirsty killer? Well, in this case, it’s the work of your friendly university administration. They’re trying to help you feel safer.\nJust eight days after five people were shot to death at Northern Illinois University, the administration of Elizabeth City State University thought it would be a good idea to test university preparedness for an attack by sending a campus police officer with a fake gun to storm into a classroom posing as a random shooter. Neither the students nor the assistant professor instructing the class had any idea that the scenario was only a test. At one point, the “gunman” threatened to kill the student with the lowest G.P.A. Students said that they were ready to start jumping out of the windows. People in a nearby classroom reportedly barricaded the door with tables and chairs, and sent text messages to their parents. After ten minutes of horror, campus police arrived to take the man away. Jingbin Wang, the assistant professor of the class, reported that even then they were not told that the event was only a drill. Regardless of whatever benign intentions the administration may have had, this whole episode was just cruel.\nOf course there was also the very real possibility that the undercover officer himself could have been attacked. Who could have blamed the students afterwards for harming or even killing the man? And if attacked, the officer would have had to defend himself as well. What if one of the students had been hurt in what was supposed to be a mock attack? This was just a bad idea all around, and the ones responsible for it should lose their jobs. Who would want to attend a university whose leadership was capable of making such bone-headed decisions? \nIt’s understandable that universities are scrambling to make sure they’re not the next Virginia Tech or NIU. Theories abound on the best way to foster a safe learning environment, and ultimately it’s the University’s administration that has to make the decisions on how to best accomplish that. Anthony Brown , Elizabeth City State’s vice chancellor for student affairs, explained, “The intent was not to frighten them but to test our system and also to test the response of the security that was on campus and the people that were notified.” Well, Mr. Brown, you did frighten them. There has to be a better way to evaluate the readiness of your procedures than to convince your students and staff that they are about\nto die.\nSo we respectfully say to President McRobbie and the rest of the IU administration: We know you love us. We know you want us to be safe and well-prepared for emergencies on campus. But you don’t have to stage armed intrusions into our classrooms to prove your dedication to campus safety.
(03/06/08 1:35am)
I am an associate instructor about to receive my third degree from IU, a (master’s degree in African American and African Diaspora Studies). I frequently tell undergraduate students that the easiest thing to lose and hardest thing to recover is personal credibility. With the credibility of IU on the line recently I was glad to see the IDS take a strong stand on the Kelvin Sampson issue. By doing so, and by calling for (Director of Athletics) Rick Greenspan to go, it demonstrated leadership at a critical moment, as we begin the tedious effort to restore our tarnished image. \nIU, moving forward, must secure a coach who meets all the high standards for ethics we should have demanded previously, as well as excellence on the court. Dick Vitale has touted former Stanford coach Michael Montgomery as just such a person and encouraged IU to consider him.\nAccording to the official Web site of the Cardinal and other sources, Montgomery has a nearly 70 percent winning record over 26 years of coaching. In 18 years at Stanford he was named PAC 10 coach of the year four times while leading the Cardinal to 10 straight NCAA appearances (12 overall and one final four appearance). His teams won four PAC 10 regular season crowns and a PAC 10 tournament and he has always run a clean program. Like respected coaching icons Dean Smith and Mike Krzyzewski, Montgomery has been given an award, the John Wooden “Legends of Coaching” award, that the official site of the Cardinal tells us emphasizes personal “character, coaching philosophy (and) graduation rate” as well as “success on the court.”\nWe should understand and acknowledge how difficult it will be for us to remove the tarnish on our formerly good reputation. But the place and time to start is here and now. IU should contact Montgomery while he is still available. Even without discounting other potential candidates it would be foolish not to seriously consider him. We may find no better individual, no one who offers the same rare combination of high ethical standards and extraordinary coaching talent we need to expeditiously restore respect for our program and for Indiana University.