Cartoon by Ellen Weiss

Teachers are losing ground in the fight to control their classrooms in the wake of the announcement of Gov. Sam Brownback’s new school finance proposal, which handicaps teachers to an archaic “effective-ineffective” scale. Two years of an “ineffective” score warrants a teacher’s termination, according to the new proposal.

It echoes the nation-wide adoption of No Child Left Behind as a benchmark for juvenile achievement. The Bulletin staff believes this is a grave misunderstanding of what successful education looks like.

The work required to maintain a public education system is enormous. Adequate staffing and curriculum, proper facilities and accessibility are the most visible factors. The quality of our teachers is a function of these factors. No Child Left Behind’s test-centered approach cements teachers into a particular kind of education, even though other successful methods of teaching exist.

Surely if Gov. Brownback knew the implications of his new proposal, he would reverse it. Wouldn’t anybody who themselves benefited from public education?

There is little value in a test, especially if the student only retains information long enough to pass with at least an average score. What creates lifelong learning are teachers who imbed in their students a sense of responsibility and wonder about their own education, which is virtually impossible when the bottom line is a test rather than the student’s future.

Waiting for education to get better is a dangerous game. Statistics about America’s decline in science and mathematics have scared people into a reactionary stance, willing to try anything to meet the standard set by the rest of the world.

What we trade in the process is innovation – what once made this country thrive. It is time for the Brownback administration to put faith in Kansas educators instead of punishing them.

As a university with one of the most prestigious teacher’s colleges in the country, our graduates face not only a dwindling market, but now laws and regulations to make teaching increasingly more difficult. It is shameful to think that we are sending our graduates to the professional slaughter house.

Send article as PDF to

Weiss

They look radioactive, taste like ultra-sweet liquid plastic and inspire bad eating habits. The question of the week – why does everybody like energy drinks so much?

Let me answer my own question with a few common, terrible excuses.

“It’s convenient,” “It’s the only thing that gets me through school and work,” “It’s delicious,” “If it was harmful, it would be banned,” “I’m young enough to still eat tons of sugar and caffeine.”

At this point in the line of excuses, I start to get so frustrated I want to poison the person who is delivering them. Luckily, the energy drinks will get that job done for me.

Of course, I’m not serious – not entirely.

Now, let’s consider some sensible alternatives to chugging liquid death.

If you’re tired, sleep. Remember, if you can’t stay awake without drugs, something is wrong. Caffeine addiction is a real thing. No human being needs that much sugar in one sitting, unless they also need to get on the fast track to type 2 diabetes.

Walking around campus and seeing students with those large, fierce-looking black aluminum cans in their hands makes me think of a science fiction movie. Imagine if you will an entire generation of people addicted to human battery juice. The twist at the end – the drug which keeps them going is also slowly killing them. Hollywood, here I come!

On a more serious note, it takes maturity to understand that some things have consequences that we won’t experience until we’re older. That being said, we shouldn’t be overcrowding our schedules with work and school if we can’t handle it, and we definitely shouldn’t be consuming things that would be better suited for hummingbird feeders.

The sooner in life we can start making healthy decisions, the sooner we can change the direction our lives are heading. Save your energy drink money for next year’s tuition.

Ellen Weiss

Send article as PDF to

Potter

From disturbing our Internet browsing to interrupting our television shows, the words Phoenix Online University have been popping up more and more recently.

Magazines and newspapers have started presenting lists about the top 100 schools and programs offered online, but Internet and online schooling means nothing and will continue to mean nothing as long as traditional schooling exists.

Most online courses have students read select materials, from books to scientific journals, and then present information on message boards and engage in conversations with people that you will never meet face-to-face.  Some courses require you to meet in class once in a blue moon and take a test or engage with the professor.

Not only does this detract from the actual feel of a classroom, but the student is clearly missing out on more than just the sound of a teacher breathing. How often during a lesson on Blackboard will a timeline appear about the succession to the crown of England? Hardly ever.

These tangents lead to discussions that actually occupy your mind and will leave you salivating for more information that interests and educates you.

The amount of jobs that actually accept online education-based degrees is not rising, so those who find themselves depending on online education will be sorely disappointed when applying for work.

And who could blame the Human Resource Department for this reality? I certainly would not want to hire someone who rarely spent a day inside of a classroom and had actual interpersonal communication. Professors will barely even know who you are, not to mention, professors who know you and can actually put a face to a name will generally write a nice recommendation letter.

Of course, if you cannot access the online content, then none of this matters at all. I never have to worry about my teachers absconding into the Internet, disturbing my learning and advancement in life. And yet, with online teaching, look at what can happen to you. The entire network can go down and leave you nowhere.

Use the Internet for what everyone else does – random Wikipedia searches and images of fun cats. Stay in classes and learn about your future in a far more reasonable way.

Andrew Potter

Send article as PDF to

In the early 1990s, proponents of the Internet touted it as a potential revolution within democracies. The widespread dissemination of information was thought of as the key to an informed and active public. In the waning days since SOPA’s tabling in Congress, the Internet’s new impact on American politics is finally coming into view.

SOPA and PIPA are an affront to democracy. The limitations on speech and press implicit in the legislation affected businesses and citizens within and outside of the United States. The battle against censorship has just begun, as the discourse surrounding Intellectual Property Rights is still firmly controlled by pro-censorship advocates.

The merit of IPRs is irrelevant. The lesson learned from SOPA is that there is a political front that, if left in place, could rally the populace quicker than ever before. This is nothing new.            The Internet has long been a springboard for politicians and ideologies. The Bulletin hopes that it has now become a platform for the people.

SOPA proved, once and for all, how powerful the Internet can be. What had already been demonstrated in Arab Spring nations as a medium of resistance is now functioning similarly in America.

The Internet blackout that occurred as a result of SOPA catapulted the citizenry into action, signing petitions, writing congresspersons and facilitating an exchange of dialogue across cultures. The result was a quick reversal of many senator and representative’s initial stance in favor of SOPA.

Imagine a similar strategy to other questionable laws, not just legislation that threatens our ability to share media freely. If websites like Google and Wikipedia were to engage their audience on human rights, economic and social welfare issues, a swiftly galvanized public would hold their government accountable, whose actions would conceivably reflect the desire of the people.

The responses that companies take to legislation should be their own. Google and Wikipedia had a vested interest in opposing SOPA and PIPA. There may be no incentive for these companies to be as bold in the face of laws that do not affect their business. But what matters is our actions, not theirs.

Repugnant laws deserve loud retort. Online petitions, angry emails or widespread boycotts work regardless of who prompts them.

Use your computer to create change in the world. It is much more than another school supply or entertainment system. It is your direct line to those in power.

Send article as PDF to

Cook

Anyone who has searched for apartments in Emporia knows the town is littered with substandard dwellings. The incentive for landlords to take proper care of their residences – or in some case their incentive to demolish a condemnable building – resides in the renter’s willingness to hold them to the law.

The relationship of landlord and tenant is often one of the first professional and legal partnerships students undertake. It is not to be taken lightly. But as we step into adulthood, it is equally important for college students to enter into contracts with the confidence of a seasoned attorney even if woefully short of that title.

Within this relationship is an explicit understanding of both party’s responsibilities. The lease outlines the consequences if those responsibilities are not upheld. The impact of rough communication, legal ambiguity and ignorance of tenant-landlord law can land either party – but usually just the tenant – in steep legal and financial trouble.

Small claims court is a hassle for everyone and is functionally the same as “Judge Judy,” which comes as a surprise to many students. It lacks the formality and luster of the trial scenes we grew up watching and reading about. It is not the most prestigious appointment for judges. Often, only one of the parties in contest believes that court was necessary. In short, people’s desire to avoid court will usually prevent a legal hassle.

But there are times when the impasse is the only option and the scales of justice must be tested. This is when students should take it upon themselves to understand what options are within the law. I will spare our readership the details of Kansas tenant rights, but suffice it to say that there is free information at your disposal.

Our responsibility as renters is to take care of the property as best we can, to pay rent and to yield to any reasonable request. Similarly, it is the owner’s obligation to keep the dwelling up to code, provide necessary maintenance, and, at the very least, be true to the contract agreed upon.

The older we get, the more we realize that the goodness inherent in people does not always translate into matters of business. Do not forget that you, the renter, are a source of income for the landlord. And though business ethics suggests that transparency makes for the best kind of deal making, it is often the cutting-of-corners that can be the difference between a profit and loss. Don’t be a victim.

We owe it to ourselves and to our community to maintain knowledge about our rights. Before you step out of the dorms for the first time, take a moment to research what you’re getting yourself into. Some landlords bank on your ignorance and hope you’re a push over. Often enough, they’re correct. Be the exception. Do not leave your already scarce finances to chance.

Matt Cook

Send article as PDF to

Weiss

As I am chugging along through my fourth year at Emporia State, I can’t help but feel the creeping chill of “the real world” looming outside campus. I ask myself why I chose my major. I question if it has actually prepared me to succeed in my goals. I worry about getting a job.

Maybe that’s why I decided to pick up another major.

Then people tell me that they, their wife, their niece, etc. got several college degrees, and have never landed a job that related to anything in their education. Great. Thanks. Everything I do is futile.

Then people inject their own agendas into my life. I don’t know about anyone else, but I feel like no matter what I do, I’m going to make some people in my life very happy, and others very disappointed.

Not wanting to let down parents, teachers, friends – it’s just more pressure. Of course, for people like me, the pressure we imagine is probably a thousand times greater than what is actually happening.

That being said, I have come to a realization. You reach a point where you just have to say, “fudge ‘em.” Until you feel happy with the path you have chosen, you will never feel at ease.

And if you’re not happy, make a change. I can tell you, first hand, that ESU’s career counselors, advisors in the SAC office and departmental advisors, are helpful, encouraging and knowledgeable. They know that if they can’t answer a question, they can send you to someone who can. Most importantly, they have made this stressful and frightening transition into a positive experience.

In uncertain times, there is nothing quite as refreshing as talking to someone whose sole purpose is to help you achieve what you want. Not what your parents want, not what your friends want, not what your teachers want. What feels right to you.

Ellen Weiss

Send article as PDF to

Cartoon by Ellen Weiss

The safety of Emporia State students, faculty and staff is of paramount concern. We assume that we can protect one another from malign influences and those who seek harm. The death of Mingxuan ‘Alex’ Yang and the cluster of deaths at Emporia State during the 2011-2012 school year sets before us the appalling possibility that we may not be safe from ourselves.

As a new year begins, each member of the Emporia State family takes inventory of their lives. There are challenges, opportunities, moral impasses and statistical uncertainties that each person must navigate with care and precision.

Not the least of these concerns is our ability to cope with the unforeseeable – those moments that, through a series of seemingly innocent decisions, implicate our lives in dramatic ways. The Bulletin staff hopes that you are fit for these battles.

We understand that nothing is certain in life. Each choice we make is merely a hope. We spend less money in the interim so that we will have more later. We study in preparation for tests. We date and socialize in anticipation of true love and connection.

But for all the planning we do, there resides in each of us a fear that the passion we put into our work and lives is for nothing.

We can only speak from our own location and experience. Such is the approach we must take in these kinds of tragedies. The Bulletin cannot provide an adequate answer to the questions that plague us in the week since Yang’s death. It is naïve to forward an amateur diagnosis or to speculate what “might have been.” We know only that his loss weighs deeply on our conscience.

And though our hearts are full, it is often what we fail to communicate that has the biggest impact. What kind of outreach does ESU provide to our international students, who are inserted into a society and culture unfamiliar to their needs, blind to their experience and often unwilling or unable to address their concerns adequately? The hope is that those we love may fill in the gaps that blanket our lives. But the unthinkable failure of love leaves us with few options.

There are people at this university trained to deal with such devastation. We suggest that anyone who feels incapable of dealing with their daily life to seek out help. These services are provided to help keep each student mentally, physically and emotionally healthy. In the failure of these services, there are private practitioners throughout the city that are also at your disposal.

Perhaps the most important decision is to be resolute that life itself is valuable, no matter the material and social reductions we weather. We ought to face punishing impossibility with a sense of fascination rather than horror, because when life cannot get any worse, it can only get better.

From the editors: Counseling services are provided at the Student Wellness Center located at 250 Southeast Morse Hall. Their hours are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday-Friday. Call 341-5222 or stop by to schedule an appointment. Students can also schedule an appointment online through Buzz-In.

Send article as PDF to

It’s been some time now since the National Defense Authorization Act has been passed. I remember there being much outrage about the legislation before Obama “reluctantly” signed it. Now, however, it seems like old news.

I remember people saying that they were going to move out of the country if the bill was passed. They boasted about how they refused to live in a country that passed hypocritical laws and disrespected its constituents.

But ever since it was signed, nothing seems to have changed. Has everyone forgotten that the government can imprison U.S. citizens without trial or jury?

I’m so confused. Everyone was mad about it, and all of a sudden, people have moved on.

The last time I remember people getting really upset and speaking out was with the Occupy Wall Street Movement, and I’m very proud of these people for speaking up for themselves. That’s excellent!

Now where are all the people in the streets? The government had handed fodder for protest on a silver platter, and still, everyone is just taking it.

How are politically inactive – see also, politically inept – people like myself supposed to feel when there is a wildfire of outrage, and then a sudden hush? Should I still be upset? Should I move on to more important things, like the Stop Online Piracy Act?

After all, who cares about the National Defense Act, which threw the sixth amendment out the window, when SOPA is attacking the first amendment? After all, it comes first in our Constitution.

What will happen if SOPA is passed? Will everyone grumble and accept it? Will people move on to the next hot topic as they did with the Defense Act? I certainly hope not.

Instead of realizing that we’ll just live with whatever the government decides, we must do everything in our power to prevent such legislation. Earlier in the week, I saw an online petition on Google that only required an email address and a zip code.

We need to stop letting the government walk all over us. Sign a petition, register online and prevent another legislative travesty.

Ellen Weiss

Send article as PDF to

Throughout our lives we are taught that one must progress to a point where they can walk out of a booth with a sticker that strongly affirms the fact that they voted to display their democratic prowess.

We anticipate that time when we step up to the voting platform for the first time, present our voting registration card and either pull a lever or push a button that indicates our voting for either the Republican, Democrat or perhaps Independent candidates.

But why do we do this? Because we are told to or because we are simply following in the footsteps of our parents?

But is democracy truly reflected by forcing individuals to vote for a lesser of two, possibly three, evils? Frankly, no.

I still receive text messages ranging from parents to “concerned” friends and teachers reminding me to vote. And yet, after looking over the list of candidates vying for the seat of power of one of the strongest countries in the world, I must say that I am wholly dissatisfied.

And that leads me again to contemplate what it means to exist in a democracy. Most people tell me to “suck it up” and just vote for the one who offends me least in order to protect the seat from the evil ones.

That, however, is not the democracy I want. I do not want to offend my dignity and destroy my integrity by throwing my vote away to a party that I do not believe in. I want to show my distaste in the current affairs of my country by abstaining from voting for a president.

Am I to be looked down upon for my absence from a voting booth? I vote when I want to put my weight behind a candidate or an issue, not simply because that is what has been expected of me since inception.

It hurts me more to find my parents and friends voting for someone based on their political affiliation as opposed to what they stand for. That is what causes democracies to self-destruct, as opposed to a person’s reluctance to vote based off of research and personal opinion.

I will be abstaining from the voting process of the November election, just like past elections where I did not agree with the candidates, and I want everyone to know that I will not judge your decisions just as I hope you will not judge mine. If you feel the same way then stand by me, or if you feel a need to argue my point then I shall listen.

But please, do not invoke the “Vote or Die” campaign again, as I do not have the patience to hear such an insult.

Andrew Potter

Send article as PDF to

Cartoon by Ellen Weiss

The last Emporia State presidency brought with it an antagonism that inflamed the relationship between the administration and the student body. The Lincoln MKT Luxury SUV given to former President Lane, Flentje and – if trends continues – our new president represents an extension of past mistakes and is a symbol of recklessness rather than reason.

Something as insignificant as a single automobile appears at first unworthy of press and attention, but it is. The belief that we should coax our presidents with gifts presupposes that our gifts are responsible. But it is not a responsible act to provide a vehicle that gets 17 miles per gallon.

The reasonable, ecologically friendly alternatives to this vehicle more than make up for any deficiency in luxury or value. The Bulletin believes the act of offering a reasonable alternative would be welcomed by the new president – if not welcomed, we could not fathom a better indicator of undesirable character.

Our university endows its presidents with a hefty salary, a place to live and a free, gas-guzzling car. Americans are appalled by the recent onslaught of CEO’s using company money for personal indulgence. Our anger is not born out of a desire for humility in them, but deference to those that suffer, financially or otherwise, from those indulgences.

The Bulletin rejects the notion that the perks of presidential appointment absolve perks of being fiscally, socially and environmentally responsible.

But remember, the car is a gift. If the vehicle were a purchase made by the president on his or her own accord, then there would be little room for argument. In this instance, however, it is crucial that we temper our gift giving with the same scrutiny that we apply to the president himself.

Ultimately, our new president accepts or declines the position based on the job, not the fringe benefits.

ESU is at a crossroads. Our history and prestige have plateaued, shaken by low enrollment numbers. We are part of, not separate from, the growing inability to provide affordable education. Our contribution to the world – our students – is scarred by an economy that has no room for them, cannot support them or rejects them outright.

It is obvious that change at a fundamental level is imperative, and we must take it upon ourselves to envision and enact those changes, just like our new president undoubtedly must do.

The Bulletin

Send article as PDF to

TEMPLETON

Personally, I was rooting for Michael Shonrock. But as a journalist and a student I am disturbed by the way in which he was chosen as Emporia State president by the Kansas Board of Regents.

For those who missed it, there was a lack of transparency – even secrecy – surrounding the recent presidential search. But of course, what’s new?

My suspicions began last spring, shortly after former President Lane resigned from ESU and Chair Gary Sherrer – an ESU alumnus – resigned from KBOR. One of his reasons Sherrer cited for resigning was the board’s refusal to put him on the presidential search committee for ESU.

In September, several on campus were concerned with the search’s progress when an update by Deryl Wynn, chair of the search committee, essentially revealed that there were many applicants “outside the realm of higher education,” a.k.a. the 1 percent. Steve Brown, former dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences, in particular encouraged faculty and staff to “keep an eye on” the search.

In one instance, I tried to contact members of the search committee for an update, but I was told instead to contact Vanessa Lamoreaux, spokesperson for KBOR. Those on the committee were wary of speaking with me, apparently because they weren’t the “official channel” for media to go through.

For a while, things sort of just moseyed along until the search committee announced that the candidates would begin on-campus interviews in November. Lamoreaux told The Bulletin the names of the candidates would only be released one day prior to their visit to “protect confidentiality for as long as possible.”

It’s one thing to want to protect confidentiality, but it’s another to create this unnecessary veil of secrecy simply for show or other, more underhanded reasons.

On top of this, there was the whole controversy over the online surveys for students and faculty to provide feedback on each candidate. Originally those surveys on ESU’s homepage were only supposed to be available for 24 hours following each candidate’s campus visit. But I suspect that in the wake of the Faculty Senate’s disdain over the lack of time there was to provide feedback, some head honcho decided it would be a good idea to give everyone more than just a day to complete the surveys.

Finally, the actual voting process seemed suspicious. Under Kansas law, a public body may reach a consensus in a closed “executive” session but may not take binding action. But doesn’t telling a candidate to come and be introduced to the public as the new ESU president before the “official” vote has actually taken place sound like binding action?

Lamoreaux said no. She cited the 1990 O’Hair case, in which USD 300 in Comanche County met in executive session, reached a consensus, and then immediately convened in open session to take binding action. No communication was made with the prospective employee before binding action was taken.

In President Shonrock’s case, KBOR contacted Shonrock and offered him the job with only a consensus, according to Lamoreaux.

If offering a candidate a job doesn’t represent binding action, then what does? The open vote was merely a rubber stamp of action already taken.

Assuming it was okay for KBOR to reach a consensus, when was the executive session held? An executive session, although closed to the public, still constitutes a meeting and requires notification.

Ideally, that would mean public notification.  Wouldn’t KBOR want the public to know when they’re meeting on important issues?

The Bulletin had heard a couple of weeks ago the new president would be announced on Dec. 9, and asked KBOR to confirm. KBOR refused, and Lamoreaux asked us where we got such notions. In fact, The Bulletin didn’t get official notice of the announcement—despite repeated requests of KBOR and university officials—until last Wednesday.

Such treatment was typical.

Lamoreaux told The Bulletin on Friday the executive session was held “the other night” when KBOR concluded candidate interviews. But last meeting listed on KBOR’s website was held on Nov. 16-17, before the final candidate came to campus. Was the website simply not updated? Was, perhaps, an executive session held without proper notification? Or did KBOR merely notify those who had submitted specific requests to be notified, and fail to notify the public at large?

It seems hard to believe that the Kansas Open Meetings Act, in one way or another, was not violated here, and it’s sad to think our new president was most likely appointed under false pretenses.

I hope that President Shonrock will break this cycle of mistrust and secrecy that has plagued ESU for too long. And like I said, I was rooting for the guy, so I have a feeling he’ll do the right thing.

Kenzie Templeton
editor@esubulletin.com

Send article as PDF to