114 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(03/05/08 4:32am)
From day one of our education, administrators and instructors have engraved into our eager little minds that we must strive to produce good work of which we can be proud. Of course, there’s one little catch that most of us in academia understand – we can claim responsibility for a work only if it is a result of our own labor. Madonna G. Constantine, a professor at Columbia University’s Teachers College, didn’t seem to get this memo. Or she simply chose to ignore it. College officials announced last week they had found Constantine guilty of plagiarizing several academic works during the past five years. But that’s not the most shocking part. She wasn’t fired. A release from the college said Constantine received a punishment, but the university declined to specify what it was. \nOf course, we’re not going to sit on our pedestal and claim to know what is the best punishment for said crime, although that is what you are probably used to – and we know you love it – from the IDS Editorial Board. We understand there are factors in Constantine’s situation that make it difficult to decide if firing her is really the just punishment. She claimed she might have been “targeted” because of her position as one of only two tenured black female professors on staff, and the fact that a noose was hung on her office door last fall adds to this suspicion.\nYes, an 18-month investigation found evidence of “numerous instances in which (Constantine) used others’ work without attribution in papers she published in academic journals.” But while we need to be sensitive to the external circumstances involved in these particular situations, we cannot fail to recognize the larger scope of this issue. \nPlagiarism – well, cheating in general – has become a bigger and bigger problem, especially because in today’s world, it’s easy to “borrow” information found on the Internet. And those in leadership positions need to be practicing what the academy is preaching. Not only that, but they must be held accountable when not doing so.\nA recent study by Rutgers’ Management Education Center in New Jersey found about two-thirds of high school students admit to “serious” cheating on school work. \nDonald McCabe, founding president of the Center for Academic Integrity at Clemson University, has seen a growing trend of admitted cheating in schools, and he is concerned by it. He said while it “has always gone on, it’s never been this high.” He also said that 200 years ago, “there was more shame associated with cheating.”\nIf IU students are caught plagiarizing, they could lose credit for that assignment, fail the course or even face expulsion. But when we see educators plagiarize and seemingly get nothing more than a slap on the wrist, it isn’t hard to see why young students are sometimes hesitant to take academic morality and ethics seriously.
(03/04/08 1:27am)
Does it sometimes seem like professors are going out of their way to confuse their students, rather than enlighten them? Have you sat, dumb-founded, while an instructor found a new way to “complicate” an economic model, a Dickens novel or a philosophical concept by introducing seemingly off-topic and unrelated material? \nWell, it turns out students aren’t the only ones having trouble cutting through the obscurity of their professors’ lectures. Russell Jacoby, a UCLA history professor has written an indictment against such unwarranted complication by academics, which has stirred up controversy in academic circles. Although he may go a little far in connecting academic fuzziness with the uptick in plagiarism and academic dishonesty, Jacoby still points out a clear trend in academia towards an ever-increasing complexity.\nThe IDS Editorial Board certainly understands the world is a complicated place, and oversimplification leads to dangerous extremes. Heck, without making minor quibbles with existing arguments, we would probably be out of jobs. Still, the whole academic parlor game of introducing more complications into systems of understanding has turned academics into a pit of trivial confusion rather than providing any sort of enlightenment.\nOn the opposite side of oversimplification is the ill of over-complication, where we gum up the works with irrelevant theories and crackerjack corollaries to create another unnecessary snag. We understand that professors need to come up with new ideas to advance both their careers and the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. \nStill, if all we do is point out that “it depends on circumstances,” doesn’t that absolve us of any need to pursue understanding at all? Why don’t we just throw up our hands in helplessness and slink back into the cave? But at some point, the breakdown of everything into a response of “it’s complicated” becomes a trivial activity, less concerned with making sense than with making non-sense.\nWe’re not endorsing a return to rote memorization of what’s “right” and “wrong,” but if all our problems just become endlessly knotted together, it doesn’t do students or professors any good. Our commitment as students and teachers should be the unraveling of our most complex problems rather than merely tying ever more complicated knots. \nSometimes, after all, it’s not complicated. A light is on or off, two plus two is four, and so forth. When we see “It’s Complicated” on someone’s relationship status on Facebook, we’re inclined to say, “No, it’s probably not.” Even in that Avril Lavigne song, things aren’t that complicated: A guy wears different clothes around different people. Is that so crazy? We have enough problems as it is; we don’t want any more complications than necessary.\nAnd that’s the whole point. Complication is fine. Our bodies are complex systems, along with the rest of our world and the ways in which we perceive it. Yet, when we add complications where none exist, we belittle and cover up the actual complexities that face us. Instead of simply pointing out complications, maybe we should try unpacking and solving some of them.
(02/28/08 3:41am)
We say “dorms.” Now, you say what imagery comes to mind.\nBad food. Worse beds. Showers you won’t touch barefoot for fear of athlete’s foot, dysentery or SARS.\nNow, we say “Arizona State University dorms.” And now?\nHeated pools. A theater. An 8,000 square-foot gym. Tanning beds. Cabanas.\nWait. Cabanas?\nWanting slightly higher living standards in one’s freshman year is understandable, but there comes a point when enough is enough. Vista Del Sol, a new dorm option on Arizona State University’s campus, has reached this point.\nFirst problem: Class division. If students want to enact stratified living situations off-campus in their subsequent years, fine; but there is something to be said for the “we’re-all-in-this-together” living arrangements of freshman year. This homogeneity of living standards is an extremely valuable (not to mention vaguely endearing) component of “the college experience.” \nAnd this benefit gained from on-campus life and all its less-than-glamorous glory can’t be quantified: There’s no way anyone can put a price tag on a more unified campus that isn’t divided by class. College is meant to broaden horizons, so why institute a pre-existing divide from the very second students step on campus for orientation? Having a “rich kid dorm” is definitely not the way to go about social integration when students already come from diverse backgrounds. \nThe obvious complaint to this is that of the free market – if the demand is there, we should privatize further and sell. That’s fine, but the argument applied to this case brushes off the importance of opportunity cost. In spending the money on some ostentatiously-gentrified living arena for rich 18-year-olds, Arizona State University has missed out on potential spending on facilities used by all the students, instead of only 1,866 of them. Colleges can always use better classroom facilities, technology upgrades, deeper scholarship endowments or higher campus security, to name a few things. Even from an economic perspective, this just doesn’t hold up.\nAnd besides, cabanas? In a dorm? We’re all for utility maximization, but let’s be reasonable here. It’s still public school, after all. \nDissent– Jacob Levin \nNo doubt these dorms are lavish, but if they’re what students want, Arizona State University should provide them. Some on the editorial board seem to think that by renting these dorms, ASU will leak the big secret to its students that some people have more money than others. But they don’t realize that if the university doesn’t provide what its students demand, the private market will simply do it for them. Maybe the majority of the editorial board doesn’t believe in creating class division, but the fact is, you can’t stop people from buying what they want and thereby dividing themselves. And if they can’t find dorms on campus that suit their needs, they’ll simply move off campus. Then, the big indication of wealth won’t be dorms, but region. To try to superficially manage a societal problem like this is simply exacerbating it.
(02/26/08 3:35am)
Max Karson is not funny. \nThat didn’t stop Karson, a staff editor of The Campus Press at the University of Colorado at Boulder, from penning a column titled,“If it’s war the Asians want ... ” in which he supposedly attempted to write satire. About what, we’re not entirely sure. Whatever it was, he went about it using hate speech rarely found in anyone’s mouth against an amorphous group of “Asians,” stirring up controversy on the Boulder campus.\nKarson claimed he just wanted to raise awareness of an issue.\n“Just from the interaction with the Asian students, I felt like they were grouping together because they felt ostracized from the rest of the CU community,” he said in an interview with Denver’s Rocky Mountain News. \nExactly how he raised this issue with phrases like “Captured Asians will be dragged to my apartment on the Hill and hog-tied,” is certainly beyond us.\nIn America, we have asserted the right to freedom of the press aggressively and firmly, and the IDS Editorial Board is no exception. We stand up for the members of the press (particularly our none-too-agreeable selves) who voice opinions that, while rude or unorthodox, have a right to be heard. But our right to free speech should not be abused. We applaud the University of Colorado at Boulder for not punishing Karson or The Campus Press.\nBeing a student journalist, however, is a responsibility – one Karson mightily abused. Yet the mistake was not only his, but also that of the paper’s management. His editors, who should have checked his work and ensured that its content was sound and its purpose worthwhile, instead seemed to shirk all responsibility in their response. \nInstead of apologizing for running such an unnecessarily inflammatory column, the editors apologized “for any ambiguity of the satire that may have been misconstrued.” \nWhat point was Karson making? Despite The Campus Press’ limp response, he had none. His column featured nothing but cheap humor based on racist stereotypes and blatant race-baiting.\nLet there be no mistake: The only ambiguity in Karson’s column existed between whether it was offensive or extremely offensive. Karson and his editors misunderstood that a college newspaper is not a comedy club, and without additional context, Karson’s column can be mistaken for nothing other than a reckless attack against Asians.\nIt’s often stated that we can dislike what people say but still defend to the death their right to say it. That shouldn’t stop us from noting how cheap, nauseating columns like Karson’s continue to give student journalists a bad name. When would-be clowns posing as student journalists abuse the privilege they have been given to print odious material, they invite the ire of establishment figures and university overlords to crack down on all student journalists.\nIn China, Pakistan, Russia and Mexico, journalists die for the freedom of the press. How can rags like The Campus Press treat it like this?
(02/21/08 2:46am)
Bad news. Bad news. And yet, more bad news. It seems this is all we’ve heard coming out of the Athletics Department lately, especially since the investigations into IU coach Kelvin Sampson’s alleged recruiting violations. It seems unlikely that Sampson will remain unpunished tomorrow, and that’s the way it should be. IU must hold its students, faculty and family to a higher standard. \nThis controversy is not just about our Athletics Department. It’s about the reputation of all of IU. Sampson’s scandal has not only put a mark on the University in the athletic realm. It also leaves a shadow on the professional and academic worlds. How attractive is our university if we are caught cheating our way to the top? \nIU must hold its faculty to stringent ethical standards. In the event that Sampson keeps his job, the IU family should be seriously concerned. This decision would reflect poorly on our university as a bastion for education. How does it look for an IU student to enter the professional world knowing that his or her university didn’t hold itself above reproach? Does this mean IU students don’t have to hold themselves above reproach? The editorial board has previously stated that Sampson must go if these allegations are true because the administration must retain its credibility.\nWe need to remember, however, that the Sampson scandal isn’t the only bad news we’ve heard from the Athletics Department recently. The football players arrested last week certainly weren’t good for public relations. Director of Athletics Rick Greenspan lectured IU students in the IDS for their poor decorum at the basketball games, yet no one stepped up to take command of the situation at the games. After missing the first nine games of the season because he was academically ineligible, A.J. Ratliff left the basketball team with little explanation. And now, one of the most storied programs in college basketball history is losing its story.\nDon’t be surprised if next year’s success is meager at best. The loss of at least one scholarship, the potential to lose recruits and the possible suspension from post-season play next year are all plausable events. The Athletics Department could be reaching in shallow pockets if there’s little motivation on behalf of students and faculty, community members and alumni to purchase season tickets next year, especially if postseason play is suspended.\nWe’ve experienced great, entertaining games under Sampson. But remember, while Bobby Knight ran a clean program, he was ultimately dismissed because of unexcusable actions. Sampson will be no exception. The program won’t be cleaned up by banning “Bring Back Bobby” shirts. We need our administrative officials to take as much pride in our university as we do as students.\nThe problem is bigger than Kelvin Sampson. We’re calling on IU to take decisive action to ensure the next time we make national news, it’s a story we’ll all be proud to read.
(02/19/08 1:38am)
Much controversy has emerged recently over the presence of superdelegates in the Democratic presidential nomination process. This is simply because they have become a real factor in deciding who the nominee will be, because it appears likely that neither Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) nor Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) will win enough “regular” delegates to decisively secure the party’s nomination.\nA report released by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics last week states that Clinton and Obama have contributed nearly $1 million in the last three years to the campaigns of the elected party officials that now hold positions as superdelegates. The report found that, for the most part, superdelegates have thrown their support behind the candidate that donated the most money to them.\nThis only highlights the need for reform in our primary system in both parties. Of course, political parties are not included in the U.S. Constitution, and they can choose their candidates as they please. But there is so much effort made to convince the public that selecting the candidates is a democratic process, when in reality, so many barriers prevent its votes from really counting.\nWe’re frustrated by the “winner-take-all” rule on the Republican side. We’re frustrated by the disproportionate power of the superdelegates on the Democratic side. We’re frustrated by the order of the contests, which makes Iowa and New Hampshire so important, and Indiana almost worthless – year after year – on both sides. \nAgain, there’s not much we can do to change this, because parties make their own rules in selecting candidates. As idealistic young college students, we’d like to see the breakup of the two-party system in favor of an arrangement that is open to a wider variety of opinion. But also as cynical young college students, we know that’s not going to happen any time soon. And we admit that not many of us will be voting for the Libertarian, Green or Constitution parties in the near future. But we hope that at least people will begin pressuring the major parties to make changes that will ensure the candidates who run in November are truly the ones chosen by the will of the people nationwide.\nDissent – Rachel Fullmer\nPolitical parties exist to allow voters the luxury of a life outside the political spectrum. Not everyone is going to be a career politician. Likewise, the average voter does not necessarily spend hours of their own time researching candidates for public office. Parties simplify democracy for citizens who wish to make an informed choice about candidates. Superdelegates are an extension of this concept. When the Democratic Party reformed, it became too democratic. Party activists come out to vote in higher numbers during the primaries and caucuses and can produce candidates that are unsuccessful in a general election. The superdelegates know the candidates. They also know what’s best for the party. And if primary voters can’t make a decision, superdelegates should.
(02/14/08 5:00am)
It doesn't take long on We Got It For Cheap Volume 3 to figure out what separates Clipse's coke-rap comrades AB Liva and Sandman -- collectively known as the Re-Up Gang -- from its peers. On the foursome's re-work of Jay-Z's celebration track "Roc Boys," it takes about 10 seconds. "First of all, wanna thank my connect," Clipse's Malice raps, mimicking Hova's original lyrics before reminding us who we're dealing with. "Hold up," he interrupts as the horns halt. "I can't do that yet." \nA little more than a year after the critically acclaimed (but commercially disastrous) Hell Hath No Fury, Clipse is anything but ready to kick its feet up, pop the champagne and thank all the people who helped the group along the way. It's not ready to put its drug-peddling past behind it, either. \nMalice continues, returning to the cocaine fixation he and younger brother Pusha T have spit about since Clipse's 2002 debut Lord Willin': "Mount Rushmore with the powder / My face etched in a brick." The themes might be the same on Volume 3. And the beats are about what you'd expect for a mixtape -- a smattering of borrowed tracks, including Kanye's "Good Morning" and some hit-or-miss originals. For a hit, see the airy boom-clapper "Dey Know Yayo." But the rappers' work ethic and tireless attention to detail keep the rhymes as dope as ever. \nTry this one from Mal: "Rotate them chickens like a weather vane / The wind blow, it come and go / It hurricane / Listen again / I hurry 'caine." From Push: "I pull from the ghosts of the dead greats / Ouija board flow, all you niggas is dead weight." AB Liva even summons Melville, claiming he's "like Ishmael with fishscale." \nClipse's latest label move -- a deal with Columbia that means the Neptunes won't be exclusively producing their albums anymore -- raises some unease about the beats backing the duo up on its upcoming full-scale album, due out in October. But lyrically, if Volume 3 is any indication, nothing's changed. "Cum laude with the coke, we're overachievers," Pusha boasts. For the hardest-working rappers in blow business, that sounds about right.
(02/14/08 3:27am)
If you know anything about IU basketball, you know who coach Kelvin Sampson is. You’ve seen his face on the display above the court and on T-shirts that people wear to games. You’re familiar with his trademark blue shirt and red tie, which fans have taken to imitating. At IU, we expect a lot from our coaches, and we usually get what we want. But lately, what we’ve seen from Sampson isn’t anything to be proud of.\nOn Feb. 13, the IU Athletics Department formally announced that it had received allegations of major recruiting violations from the NCAA and that the NCAA was waiting until a meeting in June to decide what action to take. However, Sampson’s contract with IU makes him subject to any additional punitive measures that the University wants to take. Considering the charges, which include illegal three-way phone calls, we believe the only thing to do is let Sampson go.\nWhen he came to the IU basketball program, many thought the sanctions that followed him from his career at Oklahoma were a non-issue. He had broken rules but was dealing with the consequences, and the basketball community gave him the benefit of the doubt. But when new allegations were brought to light, Sampson’s margin for error was already gone. In the face of sanctions for recruiting violations, he continued anyway.\nIt turns out the man who has been acting as the figurehead for our basketball program, IU’s most cherished sport, has become the weak link in its reputation. All the victories we have tallied this season will be tainted by the public knowledge that our coach acted without regard for the rules repeatedly. Our victories will ring hollow and will be marked by an asterisk in the minds of our opponents and even our fans. Basketball might be all about setting records and overcoming expectations, but these things mean nothing if they aren’t done fairly.\nIU prides itself on its commitment to integrity and high expectations from the community. The way people see the Patriots after their coaching scandal, or the lame note of all those who broke Major League Baseball records but are accused of steroid abuse, make remarkable things feel empty. The result for the Hoosiers’ season will be no exception. If IU basketball is to continue to be great, it has to be honest. \nWe realize many people will certainly not agree with this stance. They might claim the expectations IU put on Sampson forced his hand and somehow “made” him break these rules. No doubt, he was in a difficult position. But just because he had strong motivation to act dishonestly does not make it any less dishonest. We put pressure on Sampson because we wanted him to help us achieve greatness, not simply the image of it. IU has lost great coaches before – Bobby Knight, anyone? – but it is better to lose one man than to taint the legacy of an esteemed program.
(02/12/08 4:36am)
If you’ve been watching the IU men’s basketball team on the road this season, you’ve probably noticed a few things. We’re winning, and senior guard A.J. Ratliff hasn’t been on the bench recently. No, he’s not out on the court. He’s not on the bench because he just hasn’t been traveling with the team. “Personal issues” have prevented him from traveling with the Hoosiers on road trips.\nAll this after spending the first nine games of the season on the bench – but still traveling – because of academic ineligibility, and then being forced to sit out the 10th, 11th and 12th games because of an ankle injury? Since then, he has averaged 1.7 points and 11.3 minutes per game, a far cry from his average playing time of 20 minutes and 6.3 points per game the previous three seasons. The question many students asked at the beginning of the season was “How the crap does someone majoring in general studies fall into academic probation?” Then, we looked forward to Ratliff’s return, wondering “How the crap are other teams gonna deal with us when we’ve got Ratliff, Jordan Crawford, Armon Bassett and Eric Gordon?” A few games into the season, many of us asked, “What the crap is going on?” \nNow that’s a question IU should deal with. Perhaps Ratliff’s story sheds light on a bigger issue. Athletes deserve all the tutoring IU can offer, but there must be repercussions for their academic performance. Academic ineligibility should span the entire athletic season, not just a semester. Let us be clear, this is not an attack on student athletes. There are few people who are more disciplined or work harder than our Hoosier athletes. But there is a reason why they are called student athletes and not athlete students. \nOf course, we’re not ignorant. Gordon did not come to IU for the primary purpose of getting an education, and James Hardy is spending more time training for the NFL than he is sprucing up his resume for an interview with Eli Lilly. And let’s face it, Big Ten sports add as much to the IU atmosphere as anything else in Bloomington. But our athletes should be held to a higher standard than they are now.\nBeing declared academically ineligible for an athletic team should not just mean for that semester. If you’re off the team, you’re off for the season. It’s not fair to the team to have a player who is forced to sit out a number of games, matches or meets (and was once a major contributor, as in Ratliff’s case) to be put back on the team. Nor is it a good example to young fans in the audience. Classy programs are fueled by stringent policies. It’s time for us to buckle down.
(02/10/08 11:53pm)
After 42 years of abrasive, aggressive and straight up successful Division I coaching, Bob Knight quietly stepped down and out of college basketball for good last Monday, Feb. 4. The Red Raiders of Texas Tech will no doubt miss the General, but IU is where Knight made the most history, leading the Hoosiers to three national titles, 11 Big Ten championships and an undefeated 1976-77 season. And let’s not forget that 23 players became All-Americans under Knight and nine were named Big Ten Most Valuable Players. \nSure, these are all reasons to love the General, but what about those great PR moments? How about the 1985 IU-Purdue game when Knight suddenly flung a folding chair across Assembly Hall? Or the infamous choking incident of 1997? Nah, he didn’t choke Neil Reed. He was just, eh, grabbing his neck to get his attention. OK, so our Bobby was a bit hot-tempered ... a ticking time bomb, perhaps. But everyone must admit the man ran one of the cleanest programs in NCAA history. His IU players boasted a 98 percent graduation rate, and Knight was known for calling professors to make sure his players were not only attending classes, but also doing well in them. A.J. Ratliff would not have made the cut.\nNow, we love Sampson and are willing to ignore his “innocent” phone calls because he got in-state talent that Mike Davis simply couldn’t, but it must be noted here that Knight never violated any recruiting rules (that we know of, anyway). He even made a comment once about his unwillingness to cross any ethical lines in recruiting. \n“I can probably (win) as well as anybody can. I would just cheat, get some money from a lot of people around Indianapolis who want to run the operation that way, and just go out and get the best basketball players I can. Then we’d beat everybody.”\nBut he didn’t need to do these things. His Hoosiers won 73 percent of their games fairly and with class.\nUnfortunately, what a lot of people remember about Knight was when IU fired him in 2000 for violating the “zero tolerance” policy, which included “no ‘inappropriate’ physical contact with students.” It all started after an IU freshman claimed Knight “blew up” at him for calling him simply “Knight” on campus. IU President Myles Brand said this was just the tip of the iceberg, and the University eventually let Knight go.\nAndy Katz, a senior writer for ESPN, called Knight “an embarrassment” to the program. But this shouldn’t be how we remember Coach Knight. He brought a charisma to IU basketball that we are still thriving off of today. And really, it doesn’t matter to him what we think, anyway. As Knight once said, “When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want them to bury me upside down, and my critics can kiss my ass.” Well said, Coach. We’ll miss seeing you on the sidelines.
(02/07/08 2:23am)
At the risk of stating the obvious, it is apparent that Indiana is facing a severe cash crunch. Projections from government agencies predict that the state will experience a $231 million shortfall this year alone. So, when the legislature looked to bulk up revenues, it left the usual suspects untouched. Instead, the legislature hit upon an incongruous idea, one that is at odds with the professed values of legislators. Thanks to House Bill 1153, currently under consideration in the Senate, more than 7,000 bars, taverns and restaurants in the state will likely soon be able to offer pull tabs and other forms of low-stakes gambling. Independent agencies have estimated that as a result of this legislation, the state can raise anywhere from $5 million to $25 million. \nThe bill is creating a great deal of controversy, since it attempts to expand gambling, a problem that many Indiana residents are battling. Brian Bosma, a Republican from Indianapolis, equated gaming to the “crack cocaine of public policy” and called for an end to the addiction. While the rhetoric may be overblown, Bosma raises a legitimate point. If we really want to eliminate a social vice like gambling, should we quietly sanction it in order to raise revenues? Moreover, allowing gambling in places where people are not in a state to make informed decisions strikes us as particularly exploitative. \nThis bill comes at the heels of a law that cracked down on illegal electronic gambling machines in bars. Ultimately, there is no way to reconcile the double message being sent by state lawmakers. \nGambling can be quite addictive for some individuals, a large number of whom belong to low-income neighborhoods. This bill just takes advantage of these people’s vulnerability and looks to make a quick buck out of it. It would also be fair to state that the bill just smacks of hypocrisy. After feigning concern over supposedly moral issues like same-sex marriage and contraception use, lawmakers are more than willing to expand gambling, a genuine vice. While the short-term benefits of introducing such legislation are evident, the long-term consequences of sanctioning gambling are too grave. \nDISSENT: Most people will tell you that they support personal liberty, that is, until they see people making choices they find unwise. Then, somehow, they seek to control everything. In the case of gambling, let’s ignore for a minute our personal viewpoints, whatever they may be. Gambling happens all the time in bars, and for a state whose laws are so often characterized by intrusive moralizing, this is one small step towards a rectification. Many of the problems that result from gambling, such as spending too much or fighting about the outcome, would be ameliorated by putting responsible people in charge of its administration. To do anything less would be to simply turn a blind eye to the fact that gambling will happen regardless, and ignore a good source of revenue for our state. In this, we can either effectively govern the world we have or pretend to govern the world we want.\n– Jacob Levin
(02/05/08 2:03am)
Last month, an Afghan journalism student was sentenced to death for distributing a paper printed from the Internet that violated the laws of Islam. Sayed Parwiz Kambakhsh “insulted the prophet Mohammed,” calling him “a murderer and a womanizer,” according to the Afghan court’s chief judge.\nThe penalty is legal under the Afghan Constitution, which is loosely based on Islamic sharia law.\nThis is a complicated issue. The United Nations has called the decision a “possible misuse of the judicial process,” and human rights organizations are in an uproar. However, the move is legal, according to the Afghan Constitution, which provides for a democratic system in Afghanistan.\nThe problem is that even when an undemocratic solution for a problem is reached via a democratic process, it’s still an undemocratic solution. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are two of the most important building blocks of a truly free nation. If religious commentary is off-limits to journalists, that represents a fairly large hole in those freedoms. No nation that takes actions like these can be truly democratic.\nBut is it the place of the United Nations, or the U.S., or anybody else to step in here and influence the Afghan government? Both entities – and the rest of the world – have a vested interest in this specific situation and in others like it. The job of the United Nations is essentially to do things just like this – to promote peace, justice and general well-being throughout the world. Kambakhsh’s trial is alleged to have been closed and secret, with his brother saying that the family didn’t know it had been scheduled. If that’s not a violation of justice, then nothing is.\nAdditionally, the U.S. still has a great stake and influence in Afghanistan. Since the U.S. military essentially overthrew the former Afghan Taliban government, the current rulers are essentially in power because of the U.S. This gives the U.S. a unique diplomatic position. A request to give the journalist a fair trial, or even to respect his right to free speech and free him, may be heeded.\nAnd this is a job that the U.S. undertook when President Bush said many times that he wanted the country to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world, and especially in the Middle East. This would be a perfect time for him to make good on that promise and to score a diplomatic victory in the region. One might rightly wonder what it is we are trying to defend, if the countries we are supporting militarily are clinging to such oppressive laws.\nThe U.S. doesn’t necessarily need to act as the world’s police in every situation, swooping around like a great militaristic superhero to free the world’s people by force. But there are situations where diplomacy can spread freedom and situations where there’s a responsibility to take action. This is one of those cases.
(02/04/08 1:27am)
The Indiana Senate’s Tuesday vote in favor of amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage and deny equal benefits to same-sex couples is both a disgrace to the people of Indiana and an attention-seeking, senseless measure out of focus with the true issues our state faces.\nOf course, the affirmative vote on Senate Joint Resolution 7 will affect gay couples seeking equal legal recognition very strongly and negatively if the measure is ever successfully added to the Indiana Constitution. However, the greater injustice is done to all Indiana residents because (whether or not you’re in favor of it) a state law prohibiting same-sex marriage is already in effect in Indiana, making the effort simply a ridiculous waste of time.\nUnfortunately, our Senate has found passing further legislation on the matter to be a more satisfactory use of Hoosier tax dollars than examining any number of the following unresolved issues.\nEducation: Lack of education is a primary contributor to a number of factors that depress standard of living over the course of a lifetime. Those with high school diplomas earn on average 170 percent more than those who fail to graduate. And when that translates to $14,000 in addition to the $19,851 earned yearly by dropouts, it’s the difference between poverty and a small, but stable, income.\nIndiana needs an educated workforce if it is to remain competitive with other states in the international market. For both reasons, those responsible for administering education in the state should be concerned when only 76.5 percent of the state’s high school students manage to graduate within 4 years and only 19.4 percent of the state’s adult residents hold a bachelor’s degree.\nIncome: As one might conjecture from Indiana’s low graduation rate and the high correlation between education and earnings, Indiana per capita income is approximately 12 percent lower than the figure for the U.S. at large. Aside from reducing the individual’s standard of living, low income levels and an underdeveloped economy make our state less welcoming to further economic expansion. \nProperty taxes: Residents of Indiana have seen their property taxes increase greatly over the course of the past few years, generating much debate about how education and other local organizations should be funded. According to State Rep. Scott Pelath, chairman of the House Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee, this was to be the focus of the legislature’s session in the first place, which he has cited as grounds for refusing to give the marriage amendment bill a hearing. \nIn a cruel twist of irony, Senate Joint Resolution 7 not only fails to concern itself with the true issues at hand, but the resolution also translates into real losses for our state’s economy. Such legislation is unlikely to attract a number of talented professionals seeking benefits for their partners who could further Indiana on a path to economic success. \nThis is our call to reform that system by holding legislators accountable to be competent in defining and addressing the real issues at hand rather than dealing in publicity stunts and discriminatory measures.
(01/31/08 3:58am)
Most people would agree that tolerance and respect for others are valuable virtues. This is especially true in a pluralistic society like ours, where diverse viewpoints call for open-mindedness and patience. The point of contention, then, seems to arise over how best to foster these desirable qualities among individuals. \nWhile we might not always agree on ways to encourage tolerance, we can surely point to measures that are just plain wrong. Take the example of Bergen Community College, which is attempting to introduce a “civility” code with the expressed intention of encouraging diversity of thought on campus. \nThe code requires students to “embrace and celebrate differing perspectives intellectually” and to assist “individuals who are less fortunate.” Failure to comply with the code will lead to school judicial hearings. \nWhile the notion of a civility code may seem innocuous, its potential effects on free speech are very troubling. For one, students who are offended by certain ideologies may be required to “embrace” views quite different from theirs. Some professors likened it to a situation wherein a conservative student could be forced to “celebrate” the ideas of Michael Moore, or a liberal student the views of Ann Coulter. We also see possibilities for overly sensitive religious types who might be tempted to report violations every time their faith is challenged. As it stands, there is a thin line between tolerating someone’s views and reluctantly accepting them, and this code teeters close to the edge.\nFurthermore, threatening students with judicial consequences for refusing to accept the code seems futile. This brings up the larger issue of how exactly college officials expect to enforce such an arbitrary code of conduct. There is no doubt that in a country where people are habitually offended, devising a universal standard of civility will be easier said than done. \nUnderstanding the college’s egregious attempts at fostering civility and respect for others requires us to contextualize the code. The college, located in New Jersey, is reeling from several racial incidents including attempts by neo-Nazis to distribute brochures and other hate material during a public forum. College officials have stated that they view a “civility” code as a means of countering hate and promoting a “positive learning environment.” Unfortunately, this knee-jerk reaction to bigoted actions does little to foster diversity and tolerance. Indeed, one should question the merits of believing that signing a piece of paper will make people more respectful of others. It seems that requiring all students to accept a civility code may actually exacerbate racial tensions by emphasizing differences rather than similarities among students. \nA student code that encourages tolerance should be the goal of every college campus. However, a code of conduct should remain just that – a voluntary measure. Forcing all students to embrace and celebrate differing ideologies is an insult to the intellect of students. Additionally, such artificial attempts at cultivating open-mindedness only help to further the divide between students, thereby pitting them against each other. It should be evident that the only antidote to bigotry and hatred is an educational process that encourages freedom of expression and speech, not one that stifles it.
(01/30/08 12:31am)
Besides being a former vice president, Al Gore is recognized as one of this country’s most outspoken environmentalists. His movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” highlighted the need for citizens and governments to take measures toward reducing energy use and the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. \nWhether you agree with the findings advocated by Gore, or with the larger and issues surrounding global warming, there’s no denying the fact that being more environmentally friendly, or “green,” has become the norm lately, not the exception. One small way Gore suggests we can all make a difference is by switching from incandescent light bulbs to compact florescent light bulbs that use about a third of the energy.\nYale University is taking Gore’s challenge very seriously. Since 2005, the same year it established its Office of Sustainability, Yale has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent, partially through the installation of more efficient heating and cooling systems in 90 buildings. Furthermore, electricity consumption has been cut by 10 percent because of small measures taken by dorm residents to unplug unused appliances and turn off lights when not in use.\nThese efforts, along the lines of using more environmentally friendly light bulbs to make incremental changes, are certainly commendable. What’s not as commendable, however, is when such efforts undermine students’ experiences at college or lessen the value of the services for which their tuition dollars pay. At Stanford University, for example, an effort to install low-pressure shower heads resulted in a backlash from students in one dorm. \nWe sympathize with these students, because we know the value of a hot, high-pressure shower in order to function for an early morning class. With the cost of tuition and on-campus housing so high, it’s reasonable to expect a quality experience.\nBut at what point do showers become expendable if the result of low-pressure shower heads is helping to reduce our impact on the environment? \nIn reality, the issue isn’t about showers at all, but with the popular trend to market businesses, institutions and even entire states as environmentally friendly. \nSimilar to Yale, IU is coming into the sustainability trend. Although IU has yet to establish an official office of sustainability, the campus sustainability task force has taken great strides in recommending one, as well as energy and carbon-reducing measures similar to those at Yale. \nThe question is not whether IU should take measures to cut its energy use or make less of an environmental impact. This, we’re aware, is a trend that is already underway. The real question is of intent. Does IU really want to make a concerted effort on behalf of the environment or merely because of the political and social pressure to do so? And when such measures are put into place, will students feel like the quality of their experience at IU has been lessened?\nWe hope not.
(01/29/08 4:53am)
President Bush delivered his final State of the Union address Monday night in the chamber of the United States House of Representatives. In the speech, Bush outlined his typical domestic and foreign policy agenda: tax incentives to stimulate the economy, defense against the threat of terrorism and the importance of maintaining stability in the Middle East.\nAt a primal level, this represented no derivation from his previous speeches, save that of January 2001 – before the world could have anticipated the events of Sept. 11, 2001. Perhaps it is fitting in this regard that Bush, according to our clock, took the podium at approximately 9:11 p.m. His presidency, therefore, has started, and ended, on the idea of 9/11.\nIndeed, the bulk of Bush’s presidency has been defined by Sept. 11 and the broader topic of terrorism. This we know is not the kind of administration Bush anticipated, but it’s the one he has endured.\nIt might seem too early to write the history book on Bush considering he has another year in office, but the last State of the Union address of any sitting president is traditionally the beginning of the end.\nBut it seems that this year, rather than recognizing the fact that he is a lame duck with rapidly vanishing political capital, Bush used his speech to advance the same rhetoric that he has espoused over the last six years.\nLong story short, Bush is still relaying the same message we’ve been hearing for years: Our country is continually and perpetually threatened. He believes that the rallying cry to which the country will respond is one of xenophobia and fear of the amorphous terrorist. \nIt would be irresponsible of us, however, to paint a picture of Bush as willfully ignorant of the many challenges that face our country. To his credit, he used his speech to address a number of public policy issues, including:\n• The economy – making tax cuts permanent for businesses and families.\n• Reauthorizing and strengthening No Child Left Behind.\n• Pell Grants for youth disadvantaged by failing public schools.\n• Authorizing trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and South Korea.\n• Reducing the dependence on oil and investing in clean coal technology.\n• Slowing, stopping and reversing the effects of greenhouse gases.\n• Reform of the immigration system while continuing to protect and strengthen our borders.\nWhile these ideas certainly do represent positive movements for our country, we are mindful of the fact that the topics to which Bush devoted the largest amount of time – terrorism and Iraq – represent the preoccupation with war that has defined his presidency.\nIt is, of course, important to support our troops, as both Democrats and Republicans recognized in several well-deserved standing ovations during the speech. \nHowever, it is a disservice to the men and women who serve this country – as well as all citizens – to continually stymie progress through obsession with a mediocre war strategy.\nThis, most of all, was the omnipresent tone in Bush’s speech, and the reason we take his words with extreme caution.
(01/24/08 1:52pm)
The Student Alliance for National Security invited former Deputy National Security Advisor Meghan O’Sullivan to speak Tuesday night at the Indiana Memorial Union. The event was advertised as free and open to the public, with one stipulation. Toward the middle of the press release, and at the end of the description on the associated Facebook event, the group stated that the speech would be “off-the-record for the press.”\nThe IDS notified the event’s organizers that we did not accept the “off-the-record” terms Tuesday night shortly before the event. The Student Alliance for National Security and the speaker offered to allow the reporters “five to 10 minutes” with O’Sullivan at the event’s conclusion, when O’Sullivan would have the discretion to determine what was and was not fit for print. We found this unacceptable.\nIt would have been one thing if O’Sullivan had agreed to come speak privately to group members. They could have rented a room and had a meeting closed to the press, and anyone else they wished to not be present. However, this event was advertised as open to anyone and was paid for with $3,000 in student funds. It would have been irresponsible, negligent and professionally unethical not to report just because we were asked not to.\nIn news reporting, if a source requests that information be off-the-record, the reporter can accept or deny the request. If he accepts it, he has an ethical obligation to keep his promise. In this case, no such acceptance was made. Remarks that are open to the public cannot be expected to be kept private. Why was the speech “off-the-record” to the press only? Were they going to enforce that no one in the audience was taking notes?\nWhat’s more, anyone in the world could have walked into that room with a recording device, posted the speech on the Internet, and sat back as it travelled around the world at lightning speed. The IDS could have sent reporters to the event to take notes or record the event discreetly. But in a desire to maintain high ethical standards we notified the organizers that we did not accept their request, and the speaker chose not to give her lecture. It was her choice to make.\nNot that the IDS handled everything perfectly. The press release for the event was sent out a week beforehand. Ideally, we would have noticed the stipulation earlier and notified the group of our intentions sooner, so that all sides could come to an acceptable solution.\nThis is a complicated issue, and it’s easy to rush to assumptions and knee-jerk reactions. A balanced assessment of the situation avoids sweeping generalizations and accusations. The IDS was not looking to make a political point or pull a stunt, and the speaker was not trying to engage in censorship. Come on, how many earth-shattering secrets is a former administration official going to reveal in a public lecture to students? In short, the IDS should have prepared better for the situation by communicating with the group earlier, but we had every right to be there, on the record. \nIn the future, speakers and the groups hosting them need to understand that the IDS intends to exercise our Constitutional right and our duty to our readers to report meetings and lectures that are open to the public.
(01/22/08 12:25am)
On Jan. 9 the IU Athletic Department announced that it would immediately begin charging $500 per week for the eight club sports teams that use the John Mellencamp Pavilion for their practices. The teams have shared use of the facility between 10 p.m. and 1 a.m. Monday through Thursday since Spring 2006, and until this month they had been able to do so free of charge.\nLuckily for the club sports teams, the Club Sports Federation has offered to provide the approximately $4,000 it will take to pay for the eight teams to keep practicing indoors until March 6, by dipping into their emergency fund. Hopefully an actual emergency doesn’t come up for club sports — one that involves more than carelessness on the Athletic Department’s part, that is.\nWe can safely assume that the IU Athletic Department actually needs the money and isn’t just trying to weasel more profits out of the students. It’s not entirely illegitimate to ask for some payment, as the facilities do belong to the university after all. We know that the university incurs costs in maintaining these facilities, and there would have undoubtedly been an enormous outcry if the department had raised student fees to pay for these needs. However, does it really need cash so desperately that it couldn’t give club sports more than a week’s notice to come up with the money? Kathy Bayless, director of campus recreational sports, said there was talk of possibly implementing a fee as early as October, but it was assumed that it wouldn’t begin until next year, if at all. $500 a week is a lot of money for club sports teams, who have to fund raise and charge dues to afford jerseys, tournament fees and travel expenses. To spring it on them out of the blue shows a genuine lack of respect on the Athletic Department’s part. A reasonable amount of warning for a change like this would have been a year, or at the very least a semester. \nFurthermore, if the Athletic Department wanted to demonstrate that it values its club sports teams, a change like this would involve discussion panels, payment options, advance notice and certainly a contract citing actual facts and figures. The Club Sports Federation was only notified through a vague phone call from the Athletic Department. Frankly, that’s laughably unprofessional. It’s uncalled for. This is a university that chooses to advertise the existence and abundance of its club sports programs to potential freshmen. Because of that, it should treat them with the respect they deserve. These teams travel all across the country, boasting that they are from IU and wearing the cream and crimson. Perhaps the university should try giving them a little bit of the same credit when making plans that will affect the teams. If they have time to look up from the varsity men’s basketball game, that is.
(01/17/08 2:55am)
Recently, the mayor of the small town of Sikeston, Mo. decided he wants the local police department to throw litter bugs into jail for their offenses. That seems pretty harsh. Who hasn’t from time to time left a wrapper on the floor or failed to pick up a paper blown away by the wind? How would you feel about being hauled to the slammer for such a thing?\nWe here at the Editorial Board recognize that anyone who litters is pretty uncool, but by placing people in jails, it seems like Mayor Mike Marshall is going a bit overboard. The mayor has no real evidence that littering is more prevalent or destructive in Sikeston than it is in any other town in the United States. Instead, his reasoning hinges solely on frustration. “It drives me crazy,” Mayor Marshall said. “It just aggravates me.” \nNow, considering the ongoing obsession with improving the environment, we do applaud the mayor’s eagerness to do something. However, jail time for those who drop a gum wrapper or throw an empty cup on the ground – actions that should definitely be frowned upon – is a major waste of time and resources.\nThere’s a very good chance that by the time the “criminals” have been processed, placed in a cell and fed throughout their incarceration, the energy used on everything from powering the computer during processing to heating the inmate’s cell will surpass whatever damage a Styrofoam cup would do to the environment.\nIt seems like we’re always hearing about the lack of space in many prisons across the country, so it doesn’t make much sense that law enforcement and the government would only further this problem by incarcerating those who litter. Moreover, the financial cost of keeping someone in prison definitely isn’t cheap; imagine the price of incarcerating a serial litter bug.\nFinally, the more stringent policies on littering would most likely require that law enforcement officials devote more time to tracking and policing people that may or may not litter. It’s fairly difficult to know when a person is going to suddenly throw something out their car window or miss the trash can at the park, so the police would either have to incessantly follow people or simply be in the right place at the right time. Again, this just isn’t a worthwhile use of the time and resources of the police department.\nInstead, the Editorial Board suggests to Mayor Marshall and anyone else who might be inclined to employ these tactics to look into greater enforcement of fines. Instead of shelling out money to hold litter bugs in jails, hefty fines and maybe even community service for the perpetrators seems much more economical. And practical. After all, nothing will teach people not to litter more than making them write a several-hundred-dollar check or pick up pounds of trash with a stick.
(01/15/08 12:30am)
A Greenwich, Conn., elementary school has banned cookies, ice cream and other sweets from the lunch menu. This might sound harsh, but we say the school couldn’t have made a better choice. With high rates of childhood obesity and diabetes, good nutrition should not just be emphasized, but rather enforced. We need to curb unhealthy eating at an early age. \nA healthy diet is expensive. Fruits and vegetables are costly. Children should be able to get good nutrition in school because many times their parents can’t afford it at home. That way, even underprivileged children can be exposed to a healthy diet.\nAnd let’s face it, kiddies are often unable to make sound decisions. They will usually eat nothing but sweets if you let them. That’s why, legally, tots have no decision-making power; they have parents and guardians to do the decision making for them. When the children are in school, the school serves in loco parentis — in place of the parent. \nReducing the sugar content in school lunches will not only reduce the frequency of obesity in children but it will also reduce giddiness and antsiness in the classroom. This will make many a teacher happy; addicts tripping on their sugar high just aren’t effective learners. \nSchools are educational institutions and education is not limited to readin’, writin’ and ‘rithmetic. Schools should teach good nutrition not only from books, but in real life. Nothing is more real than the practical application of good nutrition in a school cafeteria.\nKids might not like a strict no-cookie diet now; they’ll throw tantrums like any addict in the withdrawal stage. But they’ll be thankful later. When the youngsters come of age, they’ll have their chance to decide whether to stuff their faces with donuts and ice cream or to nourish their bodies with vegetables and proteins. For now, schools should try to hook the tots on a healthy diet. Hopefully the children grow up to follow a healthy diet for the rest of their lives. It’s easier to build good habits from the start than to break bad habits later.