2008 Woodie Awards
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (2)
Issue date: 3/9/06 Section: Opinion/Editorial
- Page 1 of 1
Students tape-recording professors perform service
for taxpayers
I am writing in defense of the University of California students allegedly taping the lectures of their professors to expose attempted indoctrination in the classroom. My goal is not to make universities more conservative - only more accountable.
Too often, universities and professors think their intellectual freedom immunizes them from public criticism (this is what we call "academic elitism"), and their arrogance has led to flagrant violations of the rights of students to freely express themselves.
At schools across the country, speech codes rife with political correctness attempt to stamp out dissident views - often labeling them "sexist," "racist" or "homophobic" - while restricting expression to a few "free speech zones."
The University of California system has been one of the most prolific abusers but, until recently, many of these attempts at thought-control were hidden from the public. Even as more is learned about restrictive actions on campus, many people still have no idea what occurs inside the classroom.
These same people spend enormous amounts of money on education - next year alone, the University of California system will receive more than $3 billion in taxpayer money. The people have a right to know who and what their tax dollars fund.
Students with tape recorders are not "right-wing bull[ies]" attempting to create a "culture of fear," they are ensuring accountability and providing a service to taxpayers.
Professors who are truly doing their jobs - questioning
students and encouraging them to look at issues in new ways - have nothing to fear. Taxpayer-funded indoctrination and shameless America-bashing are the problem, and teachers who
engage in this should be exposed to the public.
If professors want to exercise their First Amendment rights, they should be willing to do so in a public forum instead of hiding behind their "freedom of speech."
Jon Prouty
Senior, Political Science
'Pledge' represents student beliefs
In the Feb. 9 issue of The Journal, there was a guest commentary by Jon Prouty concerning the optional graduation pledge of social and environmental responsibility. Mr. Prouty attacks the message of the pledge and claims that by allowing students to wear pledge ribbons at graduation, we are separating the "good" students from the "bad" or, in his words, liberal and conservative.
I find Mr. Prouty's statements to be over-the-top and they make me wonder, what kind of person wouldn't sign a pledge saying that they would try to make the world a more respectful and healthy place to live?
Prouty claims that conservative students wouldn't sign the pledge, but this pledge has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with being socially and environmentally conscious. In other words, raising consciousness, treating people with respect and not polluting the earth is the goal of the pledge. Students who agree with Prouty should reconsider what the pledge actually means and question their reasons for not signing it.
Prouty says that allowing students to wear pledge ribbons for one issue, will lead to ribbons for every issue, including "saving the whales." I have to ask, what's the big deal? Why would it be wrong for students to wear ribbons supporting their causes and expressing their beliefs?
Prouty's main point was that the ribbons would divide students on their last day together. Students are already divided by major and have their graduation ceremonies at separate times. What is the big concern about unity on a day when students are finally becoming independent?
Kristen Dattoli
Junior, Social Sciences
for taxpayers
I am writing in defense of the University of California students allegedly taping the lectures of their professors to expose attempted indoctrination in the classroom. My goal is not to make universities more conservative - only more accountable.
Too often, universities and professors think their intellectual freedom immunizes them from public criticism (this is what we call "academic elitism"), and their arrogance has led to flagrant violations of the rights of students to freely express themselves.
At schools across the country, speech codes rife with political correctness attempt to stamp out dissident views - often labeling them "sexist," "racist" or "homophobic" - while restricting expression to a few "free speech zones."
The University of California system has been one of the most prolific abusers but, until recently, many of these attempts at thought-control were hidden from the public. Even as more is learned about restrictive actions on campus, many people still have no idea what occurs inside the classroom.
These same people spend enormous amounts of money on education - next year alone, the University of California system will receive more than $3 billion in taxpayer money. The people have a right to know who and what their tax dollars fund.
Students with tape recorders are not "right-wing bull[ies]" attempting to create a "culture of fear," they are ensuring accountability and providing a service to taxpayers.
Professors who are truly doing their jobs - questioning
students and encouraging them to look at issues in new ways - have nothing to fear. Taxpayer-funded indoctrination and shameless America-bashing are the problem, and teachers who
engage in this should be exposed to the public.
If professors want to exercise their First Amendment rights, they should be willing to do so in a public forum instead of hiding behind their "freedom of speech."
Jon Prouty
Senior, Political Science
'Pledge' represents student beliefs
In the Feb. 9 issue of The Journal, there was a guest commentary by Jon Prouty concerning the optional graduation pledge of social and environmental responsibility. Mr. Prouty attacks the message of the pledge and claims that by allowing students to wear pledge ribbons at graduation, we are separating the "good" students from the "bad" or, in his words, liberal and conservative.
I find Mr. Prouty's statements to be over-the-top and they make me wonder, what kind of person wouldn't sign a pledge saying that they would try to make the world a more respectful and healthy place to live?
Prouty claims that conservative students wouldn't sign the pledge, but this pledge has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with being socially and environmentally conscious. In other words, raising consciousness, treating people with respect and not polluting the earth is the goal of the pledge. Students who agree with Prouty should reconsider what the pledge actually means and question their reasons for not signing it.
Prouty says that allowing students to wear pledge ribbons for one issue, will lead to ribbons for every issue, including "saving the whales." I have to ask, what's the big deal? Why would it be wrong for students to wear ribbons supporting their causes and expressing their beliefs?
Prouty's main point was that the ribbons would divide students on their last day together. Students are already divided by major and have their graduation ceremonies at separate times. What is the big concern about unity on a day when students are finally becoming independent?
Kristen Dattoli
Junior, Social Sciences