Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (1571)	5/28/2003 2:35:18 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793838

The Right Papers - If it can happen in Santa Barbara, it can happen anywhere. By Sheri Annis - National Review Back in the '80s, when I was at the University of California at Santa Barbara, my African-studies professor openly copped to being a Marxist and calmly informed me that the United States was oppressing the world. I tried to laugh off the left-wing indoctrination that surrounded daily campus life. After all, a full-moon beach party was always just around the corner. At the time, those of a more conservative political ilk found little comfort in the campus paper, the Daily Nexus, checking it mainly to see if the temperature was going to be 65 degrees and sunny or 75 degrees and sunny. But now, a conservative media revolution, or at least the glimmer of one, has reached my alma mater. Two enterprising students, Nick Romero and Gretchen Pfaff, have begun publishing the Gaucho Free Press. This is one of a number of conservative newspapers that have sprouted on college campuses, according to the Los Angeles Times, with help from the Collegiate Network, which is training right-leaning journalists. Romero got the idea after the Nexus refused to publish his op-ed piece about the experience of being solicited to live in a Latino-only dorm hall. The paper eventually relented when he threatened to go public, but he says, "I didn't want to go through that process again." Pfaff found that her international-relations instructor spent a good portion of class time talking about "how women were oppressed." And the Daily Nexus was saying "a lot of the same stuff as the professors." Thus was born the Gaucho Free Press, which Pfaff designs on a laptop in her Isla Vista apartment. "This is a channel for me to say 'Look, there is another voice out there.'" The two mavericks have received some key advice from the conservative paper at UC Berkeley, the California Patriot. Such as: If you leave the papers out, they will be stolen. At UC Berkeley, both the campus paper, the Daily Californian and the conservative California Patriot have learned the local definition of free speech the hard way. Not only do students steal stacks of newspapers to suppress speech, but the Berkeley mayor admitted he did it as a candidate, too. So the Santa Barbara students use the old-fashioned distribution method ? passing out the paper in front of the student center. Luckily, the local surf shop and sandwich joints have agreed to display the paper. A funny thing about competition: The mere existence of the Gaucho Free Press seems to have prompted the Daily Nexus to carry more diverse voices in its op-ed section, which means the fledgling paper has already justified its existence. The Free Press's second issue disclosed one professor's e-mail detailing "options" for faculty and staff on how to handle the looming Iraqi war. Among the options: <http://www.nationalreview.com/images/bullet_10x16.gif> Go on strike <http://www.nationalreview.com/images/bullet_10x16.gif> Take part in civil disobedience <http://www.nationalreview.com/images/bullet_10x16.gif> Excuse students from class to attend an antiwar event or teach-in <http://www.nationalreview.com/images/bullet_10x16.gif> Provide extra credit for students attending and writing a report on such an event <http://www.nationalreview.com/images/bullet_10x16.gif> Cancel class for an event There were no options in support of the war, only a line marked "other." This new wave of conservative campus papers cross the country has the potential to change the face of mainstream journalism down the road. Left-leaning campus newspapers have probably deterred generations of students from considering journalism while churning out fresh troops for the media elite. A student who doesn't buy into liberal orthodoxy was less likely to get involved with a campus paper if he felt the news coverage were slanted or incomplete. Such people would simply focus their energies elsewhere. We should be grateful, then, that today's new breed of alternative papers are grooming young writers and whetting their appetites for careers in journalism. If only a small percentage of these young writers join the mainstream press, it could look very different a decade from now. We can expect a broader range of questions and more balanced news coverage. The day may come when the question of whether to tune into Fox won't seem as crucial. Conservative newspapers are just that, open and straightforward about their approach. The full impact of this nascent campus movement may not be fully realized for some time, but it is coming. Take it from a once frustrated former Left Coast student: If it can happen in Santa Barbara, it can happen anywhere. ? Sheri Annis is a media consultant based in Washington D.C. and a UCSB graduate.

To: JohnM who wrote (1571)	5/29/2003 6:59:57 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

res- Actually, that's not what you did, Michael. You stated your point of view without making an argument for it. I can responsd by either letting it just sit there, in effect ignoring it, or I can engage you. I started a conversation. Actually John, stating I made no argument doesn't mean its true. In my original post there were points made, you simply didn't acknowledge them and petulantly dismissed them. After completely dismissing my points, you did attempt to have a conversation about the value of John Dewey. It's a pretty common response, those on the left who are against structural reform of the system engage in. First, dismiss the points made by supporters of structural reform, attack their method of making the argument, then talk about Dewey and things associated with maintaining the status-quo. Let's review my original post and see whether there might be some truth in what I've just said. I'll bold-type some additional comments. My first post... John, here's a good article describing the kind of men who won the war in Iraq. Have you ever considered what their pay is? Clearly, in asking this question I am making a point regarding pay. I'm contrasting the performance of military personnel with teachers. If one is to argue that pay is the fundamental problem with education and teacher performance, why do we have the best military personnel in the world, while simultaneously paying them so little? Aren't teachers, for the most part, motivated by the same need to serve as military personnel? A point you elected to dismiss. For the most part teachers are decent hard working people. I don't believe they're slacking off because they haven't gotten high enough pay. This statement (which granted is my opinion), reminded me of what Ford went through in the late 70's. Deming asked the question then, if we doubled the pay everyone received at Ford, would the quality improve? The answer of course was no. The same kind of structural reforms needed at Ford to improve quality in the late 70's, needs to be undertaking in inner city school districts to improve the quality of education today. (I was actually thinking of Washington D.C. and Seattle when I referred to the inner city). Another point you chose to ignore. Certainly, we would get better qualified people in the profession if the pay was higher, but, for the most part, there are hardworking dedicated people doing the job all across the country now, including the inner cities. Basically, I made the same point here. The main problem in education is systemic and structural in nature. Teachers go into teaching knowing they will receive moderate pay. They quit (for the most part), because they are given less autonomy than a McDonalds cashier, less recognition than a mechanic, and less ability to change the system and be creative then a social security administrative bureaucrat. This statement made a point regarding why teachers quit the profession. Why they go into teaching to begin with, and links into why we need structural reform. You may dismiss it if you like, but it's a common problem in large organizations, which have built layers of bureaucracy, rules and regulations. People in an organizational system "do what you reward them for doing". Where the funding source comes from plays a large part in where the rewards come from. Today, politicians hold the purse strings and are therefore the funding source for the system. The system responds to that reward mechanism. In this statement I made an argument regarding the linkage between rewards and performance. Another point you chose to ignore. Putting the linkage of rewards back in the hands of parents by using vouchers or charters schools will create an "urgency to change", where the need to change is great. Therefore, it makes sense to attempt reform in the inner cities first, where the problems are greatest. Doing nothing but asking for more money won't change the underlying nature of the problem. As Bill said, the problem is structural in nature. Reform should start there. In this statement I described the need to create an urgency to change. A common problem where there is no competition. Once again, you chose to ignore it. Teachers unions are status-quo anti-change agents. Rising to the top of the teaching profession means playing ball their way. In this statement, I described a common problem reported across the country by teachers. Rocking the boat and taking on the union and their desire to protect the structure of the system, is a guarantee you will be ostracized. Another point you chose to ignore. Union leaders have closed their mind to creative changes, which are structural in nature. A self-evident point, based on years of witnessing the response by unions officials to structural reform of the system. A point you also chose to ignore.