History, econ may soon become optional

Want to know why intelligent people laugh at the Bulleton's coverage? In a recent editorial ( http://www.esubulletin.com/articles/opinion/2008/04/14/groups-should-not-eliminate-history-economics ) a Bulletin staff member tries to continue spreading the lie that the new proposal will "eliminate" history and economics. In fact, the first part of this present article tries to perpetuate the same lie, in an effort to confuse the issue and thereby excuse previous articles.

Only in a later paragraph is the writer forced to concede the truth: there was NEVER a suggestion that these courses be eliminated. They will still remain available as options to those students preferring to take them.

So the remaining question becomes one of why the Bulletin continued to lie about the proposal? Was it intentional, to try and stir up trouble, hoping to gain readers? Or was it unintentional, the result of simple ignorance? There are no other options. And I'm afraid one answer is as bad as the other.

So now the Bulletin will try to shift the emphasis to an alleged violation of KOMA, and away from the relevant issue; honesty and integrity is apparently in short supply among Bulletin staff members.

It was an opinion column, not news coverage. Understand the difference. And learn how to spell "Bulletin."

From reading the story about KOMA, where is the honesty and integrity from the faculty members and administration? Foyle and Lane both look like idiots and are not addressing a major issue which could carry legal issues for the university.

“I have had very good advice from the president during my term of office and he has been very helpful in terms of overseeing, not overseeing, seeing over everything that’s going on. He has a much broader view of all kinds of things... He says, here at Emporia State University, we want to keep everything open and clear and visible and whatever that transparency word that he used means. And I agree with him.”

Hahaha. YOU TELL 'EM, HARVEY!

Oh, I comprehend the difference in an editorial and a news article. I'm just surprised that you'd want to imply that lies are acceptable in an editorial.

But since that seems to be your view (are you really sure you want to adopt that position?), let me at least provide another quote from a recent edition:

"The Senate will then take a public vote on dropping history and economics for most students."

Note that the statement doesn't indicate that the proposal makes the courses optional. It clearly states that they are to be dropped. This quote is from what you would consider a 'news' article.

I do understand that this recent and slight request for accountability within the Bulletin has bruised the feelings of some of its apologists. But you really need to devote more time to correcting your incredible number of errors rather than trying to deflect attention. Frankly, you're embarrassing yourselves. The entire series of articles regarding the general education proposal should serve as a clear lesson to future student journalists; when you aren’t sufficiently concerned to report facts accurately, when you’re more interested in stirring controversy, you’re likely to come out looking pretty stupid. That certainly has happened to the Bulletin staff in this situation.

Now all the emphasis will shift to some alleged violation of an open meetings act, to try and shift attention from the terrible job done by the Bulletin staff. Tragic, but predictable.

Diogenes, certainly you don't think that the staff of The Bulletin is unconcerned with facts. Of course we are.

The quote you mention is not a lie. It is a grammatical mistake. The word "requirements" is simply missing.

Replace, "The Senate will then take a public vote on dropping history and economics for most students," with, "The Senate will then take a public vote on dropping history and economics requirements for most students."

Depending on how you read it, it might not even be a mistake--it's simply ambiguous in wording.

Don't you think that it's a little much to make this much fuss over a missing word?

I'm just the online editor, but I think I speak for us all when I say that the staff of The Bulletin strives to create a useful and accurate publication. We are going through a bit of a transition period now, and we have a limited number of editors, but we do the best we can. If you do become aware of inaccuracies, please be sure to call or write us so that we can print a correction.

(This is not an official response. Just my own feelings on the subject.)

Absolutely, you would be 100% correct if the issue involved only a single missing word in a single article.

Look back through the past few issues. The misinformation with regard to the general education proposal is astounding. Without exception, the thrust of the articles has been that the proposal is an effort to damage the educational standards of the university by eliminating traditional courses.

I do understand that a number of students, including Bulletin reporters were probably misled by individuals with personal agendas. But standards of accuracy for any news publication require a higher level of critical analysis than we have seen with regard to this issue. That this misinformation is then compounded by a righteous indignation among those so concerned with a possible KOMA violation makes the mistakes all the more unacceptable.

So we'll all be watching carefully through the next few issues for the printed corrections you mention. For my own part, I'm not holding my breath.

Before we print a correction, you have to point out a mistake. So far, beyond the ambiguous wording of a single sentence, you haven't done that.

You seem to be very upset about the content of some of our staff's opinion articles. If it is the opinion of a particular columnist or of The Bulletin in general that the proposal will "damage the educational standards of the university," then The Bulletin will certainly publish the article. If you disagree, that doesn't mean that The Bulletin is lying to the general public. It simply means that you disagree. Remember, it is opinion, not coverage.

It doesn't make sense for you to say that The Bulletin has low "standards of accuracy" simply because you disagree with a columnist's opinion.

And to tell the truth, I DO believe (and so do others at The Bulletin that I've talked to) that the removal of history and economics requirements from the General Education curriculum is a poor idea, especially considering the current political and economic atmosphere in the United States.

Finally, whether or not the Faculty Senate is subject to KOMA is absolutely important to the students of ESU, and is one of the most important things that The Bulletin has reported on in my memory. So for you to claim, as you do, that The Bulletin is somehow using that series of articles to distract from our "mistakes" (read: opinions you disagree with) is ridiculous.

It's useless to point out all the errors in the Bulletin -- you'll only adopt the position you've taken above: they're just tiny little 'abiguities'.

Here's another 'ambiguity': the original print copy of Kelsey Ryan's article of April 10 included the following:

"During the General Education Council yesterday, Gerritt Bleeker, dean of liberal arts and sciences,
said President Michael Lane is looking into many options..."

Apparently, someone called the error to your attention. The electronic copy was changed -- after the fact -- to read as follows:

"During the General Education Council meeting yesterday, Gerritt Bleeker, associate dean of liberal arts and sciences, said President Michael Lane is looking into many options ..."

Now, I understand that this is simply another 'ambiguity'. But legitimate news outlets would have made a correction in a later edition. Instead, our paragons of the fourth estate decided to try and cover their tracks by changing the electronic copy and hoping no one would notice.

I'm certain that it serves your purpose to try and suggest that people are concerned only with 'opinion articles'. Nothing could be more false. As pointed out several times, there are substantial and numerous errors in news articles, but these will be dismissed as inconsequential. I am also not nearly as willing as you appear to permit editorial writers to spread false information simply becacuse it falls under the guise of 'opinion'.

Under any circumstances, it is clear that you will do anything to refocus the discussion on the people pointing out your errors rather than on the errors themselves. A fairly deft way of avoiding culpability, but far less than honest.

But, then, honesty never did much to build circulation, did it?

Any idea how the electronic copy got changed after the fact?? Or why the error was not ever acknowledged. No, I imagine not.

Obviously this is a perfect example of why you should never argue with anyone on the Internet.

I'm not saying that The Bulletin doesn't sometimes contain errors. I am simply saying that we try our best.

You keep insinuating that The Bulletin is some kind of sinister organization that is out to deceive everyone. We do our best to be an ethical and legitimate news organization.

As for the rest of your comment...you are arguing with some kind of elaborate strawman. I'm going to do the right thing here and simply let your accusations stand, as ridiculous as they are, since it is obvious you are not open for discussion.

As for the particular incongruity you mentioned: I personally upload and/or edit every article that is on this website, and I did not add the word "associate" to that article. Therefore, it was either removed from the print edition, or else some kind of freak accident occurred. I will look into which version is correct, and make sure that a correction is printed if the print version is incorrect. Thanks for pointing it out.

I would just like to point out one thing: It is ridiculous to contend that the Bulletin is simply attempting to attract attention to themselves in the first place-it's news, get over it. But it's even worse to turn around and say that the Bulletin is simply trying to "deflect attention." Make up your mind, Bleeker. Or perhaps you're one of his cronies. Either way, pass that along, won't you?

As for the remainder of your childish and dramatic accusations, I'm not going to waste my breath arguing with you.

I just want to know what the purpose behind the change is -- who proposed it, why did they propose it, and of all the classes to make optional in our fairly extensive general education requirements (which I don't mind taking, by the way; it is a liberal arts college), why is history the one chosen?

Why not, say, Marriage and Family? Personal Finance? Or one of the art/music/theater appreciation requirements? History is pretty fundamental -- and I'm not even a liberal arts major!

Kevin, thanks for the attempt, but let's just let it drop. I'm not being conciliatory, I just came to a realization.

I looked and looked at the print edition for the correction you said you'd have printed. Of course, it wasn't there, and I really didn't expect it.

As I looked, I found, in large print on the front page the following: "Student Organizations to sponser Green Week".

Sponser??? Just another ambiguity or freak accident, I suppose.

That's when it occurred to me: you guys have your plates full just with rudimentary stuff. I'll forget about ever seeing corrections to your factual errors. And if I were you guys, I'd worry less about KOMA, Student Law Center, and other things that give your egos a boost; it may be a good idea to worry a little more about some of the more esoteric things, like spelling.

Bleeker(or one of his cronies), I mean Diogenes, it seems you are just mad because The Bulletin is looking into your crew's activities. Why don't you respond to Bereman's letter? Because you can't! While I don't agree with Larry on many things, or the Bulletin for that matter, I think your group is on the brink of disaster. I would like to see someone push the issue.

Did you know that the people who write the paper are human? Did you know that humans sometimes make mistakes- like "sponser"?

Also, did you know that the full-time students who are in charge of layout and design are sometimes at The Bulletin office until almost 2 in the morning on weeknights, working on submitting the paper?

If you want to read something as "prestigious" as the NY Times, go read it. Perhaps you can proofread for THEM.

I would just like to say, even with all this controversy surrounding the gen ed requirements and the reporting done by The Bulletin, that we finally have students involved in an issue and concerned for the university.

I only hope it can continue.

And way to go Bulletin for their job of bringing such an important topic into the open for discussion.

Does anyone else think that the guy Coulson looks like Santa with a comeover. Think he is going to bring presents to the members of the Senate that voted his way?

He may be Santa's evil twin, though.

You mean Satan?

Santa-"What do you want for Comeover Coulson?"
Coulson-"No history and economics so the future generation will have more options and know less about our past and how to get out of the current economic crisis. Also, I am just doing this to further my department and myself."

C-O-M-B-O-V-E-R.

Just so you know.

As a faculty member involved with the general education rethink, I must say I have this discussion very interesting and more than a little amusing.

Madeup Name1

I actually believe that when a person needs to personally attack someone's physical appearance they have run out of intelligent things to say.

You are coming along nicely!

As soon as you complete the distraction of talking about red herring non-issues and losing focus of the real story, our job will be much easier... Just imagine, within one generation from the ending of the Cold War you are already attacking each other over the spelling of a words, etc. rather than understanding that we are close to eliminating the requirement to learn about history and economics (which when understood correctly leads to the collapse of communism, socialism, fascism and the utter refusal to live under any form the the three). We should have ended the Cold War much earlier since it looks like our idealogy is gaining more ground when we don't have thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at you like we did a mere 25 years ago!
Basic economics introduces people to the concept of supply and demand and market forces which form the foundation of a free economy which in turn allows more freedom to its citizens than any other form of social order. It allows them the freedom to succeed, or the freedom to fail, and realize the consequences of both.

History helps to educate and realize the tremendous successes of the USA and other free market economies (several of which were oppressive in the past until liberated by our freedom loving forefathers in countries such as Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea).
Fundamental knowledge in either of these subjects CANNOT be allowed to continue if we are to successfully implement universal health care, and hamstring your county's ability to harvest its natural resources, and eliminate private ownership of firearms, etc. Your Constitution is so Passe... (I hope I spelled that correctly so I am perceived as "intelligent"...)

Comrades, continue with your petty bickering and just leave the control of society to more capable beaurocrats, and soon we will be living in a Brave New World!

I might refer you to something I wrote a few years ago in a little booklet called "The Communist Manifesto". In Item number 10 I called for "Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc." I was no dummy...control the education of the children and you control their minds and the future of the country...train them to not think critically and they will be putty in the party's hands for the rest of their life...just make sure you provide them with plenty of vodka!

Anyway, keep up the good work and do not study the history of the USSR or the economics of a free market, or we will fail...

Yours truly,
Karl

I only hope what the bulletin is saying is true. I am an English Edu. major and have 0 interest in history of any kind. I hope the university does away with that as well as other pointless requirements.

Yea, well I think English is a worthless subject. Why should I have to learn my own language. Who cares where commas are supposed to go? History is cool. Did you know that William Allen White is the most overrated man in American history?

And yes, Mr. Coulson does look like a combover Santa. Why does he seem to think he's number 1?

I really think it would be funny if he had a big, foam finger on in this picture.