THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN OPINION
WWW.KANSAN.COM
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2005
PAGE 11A
GOOD INTENTIONS
RYAN GOOD
rgood@kansan.com
Partisan hate doesn't help discussion
I hate labels. Labels force diverse people into large groups that don't accurately describe their memberships. That said, on the American political spectrum I would consider myself quite liberal.
According to many loud-mouthed pundits in this country, these beliefs make me a whiny, bitter Communist filled with apathy for sinners. When did caring about my fellow humans make me any of those things?
These ideas stem from an alarming trend I've noticed lately. This problem is not limited to Washington or cable news — it has recently extended its reach to our campus. This trend is simple — it involves hating everyone. Well, maybe not anyone but certainly those different from ourselves. I'm not audacious enough to believe that this trend is limited to one side of the political spectrum.
The most recent example of this hate and degradation on campus has revolved around the soon-to-come appearance of Ann Coulter, best-selling author and conservative political commentator. Following the announcement, campus was secularized into those who couldn't wait to see her and those who couldn't believe she was coming.
The conflict between these sides climaxed recently when I opened *The University Daily* Kansan to the opinion page and read one of the more libelous pieces of propaganda I've ever seen.
I'm referring to Andrew Fray's column on Monday, "Liberals fear Coulter's appearance on campus." A better headline for this article would have been, "I hate liberals, and I'm proud of it." Fray states that he has become "increasingly numb to the incessant whining" from campus liberals who dare to question Coulter and are "acutely unaware of how their actions and words" affect the United States.
The last time I checked, our Constitution encouraged political dissent. Fray's comments fit into the current political attitudes of many Americans right now. Pundits on both sides of the line have used outrageous ways to discredit the other side instead of civilly questioning the actions or statements of those with whom they disagree. Ann Coulter, Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh, among others, are guilty of this.
Other Americans, like Fray, are starting to throw in their two cents as well. I recently stumbled upon a group on Thefacebook.com called Liberals Suck. Not a good start. The group claims, and I am quoting directly, "While the liberals were out getting PHD's in English and sociology, protesting stipid [sic] things, etc, the Alpha Males (conservatives) were out banging chicks, marrying into money, buying real estate, and starting business' [sic], basically doing what real men do."
In what way does hateful rhetoric help the United States? The answer is simple — it doesn't. Perhaps writing things like this boasts these individuals' egos, or maybe Americans really are just filled with hate.
I think that the answer is not nearly so simple.
I think that the answer is not nearly so simple. The United States is a bipartite society. Citizens believe that you are right or wrong, left or right, and there is no in between. Our president has reinforced this mindset by telling the world that you are with us or against us.
When did life become so simple? I've never faced a problem in my life that had two easily discernable solutions. Why do we let finite dualities serve as our only model for political discourse?
The average person is smart enough to not fall into this trap. But those who buy into this philosophy tend to have the loudest voice. Don't think that's the right direction for our country to head in? Don't agree with me that the hateful voices will continue to be loudest? Please, prove me wrong.
- Good is an Overland Park junior in English, American studies and chemistry.
▼ SACK'S PERSPECTIVE
Steve Sack/STAR TRIBUNE
EDITORIAL BOARD
Children left behind; program needs change
The No Child Left Behind Act has sparked debate about its effectiveness ever since President George W. Bush signed it on Jan. 8, 2002.
The plan is a noble effort by the U.S. government to make sure that every child receives an equal and valuable public education and to hold states accountable for the quality of their schools. But, in practice, the plan is neither a step forward nor a step back, but a sidestep at best.
The plan uses standardized testing to gather information on the equality and progress of each school. The problem with standardized testing is that schools are sometimes unnecessarily penalized for unavoidable factors that obscure their results.
For instance, mentally handicapped children are unable to perform at their grade level as determined by their age, but they are required to take the
Three years after Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law, the program has proven to be less effective as originally intended. Though it has potential, addressing problems in the system will be the only way to improve the public schools.
decrease programs to keep kids off the streets after school, the quality of facilities at the school and the teachers' salaries.
Teachers who have tolerated the frustration of "teaching the test" may quit because they cannot afford to live on their salaries, forcing them to leave their noble profession. Public schools are a good investment in the future of our country, and why not pay our educators what they deserve for having one of the most
same test as every other child their age. Because of this, test scores come in lower than expected for the No Child Left Behind standard, and these schools are threatened. The schools are required to improve an adequate amount each year, according to the No Child Left Behind Web site, www.ed.gov. If they do not, funding will be revoked.
Allowing teachers to have their own flare is important in the personal relationship that develops between them and their students. This relationship makes it easier to teach and to learn.
This plan seems unfair because if students are doing poorly on standardized tests, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are not learning. Some teachers refuse to "teach for the test" and opt to teach children other equally, if not more, valuable information.
The other factor to consider is that taking away funding will never improve the situation for children. Taking away funding will
influential jobs in the United States?
Funding is necessary to keep schools up, and if they are doing poorly, they should receive more funding, but in a controlled manor. That way schools are not tempted to perform worse to get funding, in order to help improve their programs.
ment they know. They would have to be bused to schools farther away from home in a new and unfamiliar environment. This will make it harder to learn, and schools will be overcrowded, thus increasing the problem.
Closing a bad school will only create more problems. Students will be forced to leave the comfortable environ-
Instead of, or in addition to standardized testing, perhaps the No Child Left Behind plan should consider school visits, where representatives from each state can understand the dynamics of each school to better understand test performance and quality of education.
Another solution would be to attract better educators with a higher salary along with stricter education policies, such as requiring higher standards for receiving teaching certificates.
With a few changes to No Child Left Behind, the program could have promise to create a truly great public schools system in the United States.
Anne Weltner writing for the editorial board.
A RIGHT TURN
VINCE MYERS
vmyers@kansan.com
Watch out for liberal extremism
As the saying goes: If you can't beat 'em, try to make 'em look bad.
A liberal research institute, Center for American Progress and its college-oriented spin-off, Campus Progress, debuted a monstrous advertisement last week in 30 college newspapers, including The University Daily Kansan, aimed at showing students "the radical views of leading conservative icons." The ad featured extreme statements taken out of context from conservative talking heads and implied that these views represented "conservatives in Washington," though none of the people featured were politicians and none are based in Washington.
The ad's point seems to be to paint the conservative movement as one characterized by extremism. I suppose that's an effective strategy, but it certainly isn't honest. Just as easily, one could take extreme statements from liberals and publicize them in an attempt to make liberals look extreme and hateful.
For instance, Howard Dean has said made some interesting comments. In the wake of the Democratic whipping of '04, the Democratic National Committee named him the new chairman of the Democratic Party. For a man defined by an emotional outburst and a complete political collapse during the primary season, that's a big role.
To send the message that he is a divider, not a uniter, Dean said on Jan. 29 in Manhattan, N.Y., "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for." Those are strong words from a chairman who's party desperately needs some Republican voters to switch sides. CNN's exit polls reported 37 percent of all voters in 2004 identified with the Republican Party, so Dean hates just over a third of all Americans. Not only that, but unlike Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly or James Dobson, Dean actually is a politician. I'm glad my party isn't lead by a hateful screamer.
Michael Moore is another great source for anger and hatefulness from the left. In 2002, Moore told a reporter for the Arcata Eye in Arcata, Calif., "F— all these small businesses — f— 'em all! Bring in the chains. The small businesspeople are the rednecks that run the town and suppress the people. F— 'em all. That's how I feel." So much for being a champion of the blue-collar worker.
Then, in 2003, Moore sent a letter to a German newspaper and told everyone what he really thought of America: "Should such an ignorant people lead the world? How did it come to this in the first place? Eighty-two percent of us don't even have a passport! Just a handful can speak a language other than English." Presumably, if you don't have a passport, you're ignorant too. Maybe more of us would have passports if we had the kind of money Moore wields.
Then there's Ward Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado. Churchill's anti-American fervor makes Moore look like the Statue of Liberty. In his essay "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens" Churchill said that the United States deserved 9/11 and that the perpetrators were right to kill thousands of Americans. He even went so far as to say, "In sum one can discern a certain optimism — it might even be call humanitarianism — embedded in the thinking of those who presided over the... actions conducted on Sept. 11."
I could say that Churchill's statements and the statements of Dean and Moore, represent American liberalism or "liberals in Washington." But that would be cheap and dishonest. Those statements represent extremism and hatefulness. Center for American Progress' attempt to recruit voters by exploiting extremism and playing with the "politics of fear" is nothing more than a desperate attempt to scare students into becoming librarians. I hope we're not so gullible.
♦ Myers is an Olathe freshman in political science.
Free for All
Call 864-0500
Free for all callers have 20 seconds to speak about any topic they wish. Kansan editors reserve the right to omit comments. Standard and obscene statements will not be printed. Phone numbers of all incoming calls are recorded.
For more comments, go to www.kansan.com.
I'm filling out a resume and I just spelled "intelligent" wrong.
Remember when the basketball team used to make shots, make passes, play defense, get rebounds?
After the first half of the KU-OU game, I've made up my mind. I'm transferring to a good basketball school.
Professional bowling on ESPN2 or the KU game? I think I'll watch bowling.
Fairweather fans need not apply.
If Aaron Miles would shave his chin and bring back the sweetband, we
Dude, it's not Bill Self's fault!
may be able to win again.
Start the campaign: bring back Roy!
There's a new drinking game at KU: Every time Giddens misses, you take a shot.
Go ahead and talk crap, but yes, I am going to wearOU colors on campus tomorrow.
▼ TALK TO US
Andrew Vupel, editor
864-4514 or avaupel@kansan.org
Donovan Attkinson, Misty Huber, Amanda Kim Stairtreel and Marissa Stephenson managing editors
864-4810 or editor@kanan.com
Steve Vockrodt
Rockroft
Laura Francoviglia
opinion editors
864-4924 or opinion@kansan.com
Ashleigh Dyok, business manager 864-4358 or advertising@kansan.com
Danielle Bose, retail sales manager
864-4358 or advertising@kansan.com
Malcolm Gibson, general manager and news adviser
844-7667 or mgibson@kansan.com
Jennifer Weaver, sales and marketing adviser
864-7686 or jweaver@kansan.com
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
David Archer, Viva Bolova,
John Byler, Chase Edgerton
Wheaton Ellins, Ryan Good
Paige Higgins, John Jordan, Kyle Koch,
Doug Lang, Kevin McKernan,
Mike Mostafa, Erica Prather
SUBMISSIONS
The Kanans welcomes letters to the editors and guest columns submitted by students, faculty and alumni.
The Kanans reserves the right to edit, cut to length, or reject all submissions.
For any questions, call Steve Vockrodt or Laurea Francoviglia at 864-4924 or e-mail opinion@kanans.com.
General questions should be directed to the editor at editor@kanans.com.
Erick Schmidt, Devin Sikes, Gaby Souza,
Sarah Stacy and Anne Weltmer.
SUBMISSIONS
LETTER GUIDELINES
Maximum Length: 200 word limit
Include: Author's name and telephone number; class, hometown (student); position (faculty member); phone number (will not be published)
GUEST COLUMN GUIDELINES
Maximum Length: 650 word limit
Include: Author's name, class, home-town (student); position (faculty mem-
ber) number (will not be published)
Also: The Kansan will not print guest columns that attack another columnist.
SUBMIT TO
Kansas newroom
111 Stuart-Flint Hall
143 Jayhawk Blvd.
Lawrence, KS 68045
(785) 864-481
opinion@kansas.edu
---