Category: Guest Columns

John Richard Schrock is a Professor of Biology and Director of Biology Education at ESU


Advising has been central to this university’s “changing lives since 1863.”

Each year my department gets letters from retiring alumni who are looking back over their lives. They remember coming to college as uncertain freshmen and being taken under the arm of specific professors who are now gone. They were not certain of their field of study. We worked with them as they made career decisions because we were experienced in those fields. When some were uncertain they could succeed, we steered them through the best path of courses for them to build their intellectual skills and confidence. We pressed them into student societies. We cajoled them into attending and presenting at conferences.

Oftentimes their letters come with a check inside, targeted to continuing the scholarships and supporting the departmental activities that changed their lives.

Such care-of-students is more common in small liberal arts colleges—rare in big public universities. But it is what has made Emporia State unique. And just as we benefit today from the good will that was generated by caring professors a generation ago, it is critical for today’s professors to be able to continue to mentor students for success in a rigorous program of which they can be proud. And someday, long after we are gone, they will retire and look back and be proud to support an institution that carries on this tradition.

Professors teach, research and serve the academic community. Advising is part-and-parcel of teaching, written into the faculty handbook as an academic faculty responsibility, and therefore not to be changed without faculty consultation.

It is therefore distressing to see proposals to reduce advising to a task placed in the hands of computers and non-academic advisors.

I have had many undergraduate students transfer from a large university such as KU and be surprised but pleased that at ESU they actually had an advisor who knew something about their field. They were accustomed to secretaries with a catalog or computer who clicked out the next set of available required classes. And in the last few years, they were merely handed their PIN and told to “go enroll yourself.” In both cases, this often cost them lost semesters because the computer system did not tell them that a required next class was not being offered some semester. Nor did they get scheduling advice tailored to their performance in prior classes.

Our recent consultant was clueless about ESU advising when he mentioned academic advising could be shunted to computer self-enrollment, leaving faculty social “advising” to just focus on a Friday afternoon tea with their advisee. Advising in most fields is intimately centered around helping unique students who are willing to study hard to achieve their degree. That is an academic task; it is no tea party.

Some departments have a single degree program and few prerequisites. If they do not feed to a professional program, a hired advisor does minimal harm.

But my department has 23 career paths and 13 faculty, each with specialty knowledge. Faculty involve their advisees in unique experiences. Many of my colleagues travel to schools we feed (so our pre-Vet program continues to align with veterinary school at KSU, etc.). And our graduates often keep in contact with us long after they have left. Their feeling that they are “our” students after they leave is based on many years of working together here, not on Friday chit-chat.

If you wanted to sabotage ESU’s ability to change students’ lives, there is no better way than cutting out the heart of faculty-student advising and making it a mechanical process with generic advisors.

 

Franklin

I was sorry to read about Ellen Weiss’ experience with a Peeping Tom in ‘Guns ‘n Woes’ in the Oct. 25 issue of The Bulletin. I’m glad she was not injured or forced to defend herself in this situation, but I wish there had been another way for her to change her opinion regarding firearms. Unfortunately, this seems to be one of the most common reasons people change their mind about them.

I agree with her statement, “There is no point in banning guns in most places because those who break the law are going to have their weapon despite its illegality,” but I must say that she is mistaken when she states that guns “are given out like candy.”

First, guns are expensive. They are not usually given away, but there is the occasional raffle or sweepstakes. Winners must have the firearm transferred through a Federal Firearms License holder. Second, every time someone tries to purchase a firearm or pick up one they have won in a drawing from a FFL dealer, the FFL holder must run a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. According to Fbi.gov, there have been more than 150 million NICS checks since the system began in 1998, and 958,278 NICS checks have been denied. That’s nearly a million guns that have been kept out of the hands of people that should not have them.

Next, it’s true there is no requirement in Kansas for licensing, training or testing to purchase a firearm. However, it is required for most common, legal uses of firearms. If you want to hunt, you must attend hunter education classes and pass a test before you can get a hunting license. If you want to carry a firearm for self-defense, you must take concealed carry classes, pass a test and then pass an extensive background check with the local sheriff and the state attorney general’s office.

It is illegal to openly carry a loaded firearm in Emporia and many other towns, unless you are on your own property, a police officer on duty or a few other exceptions listed in the city code. Discharging a firearm is also against the law in Emporia, except in cases of self-defense. Responsible, law abiding citizens already follow these laws.

The only thing left is target shooting. Unless you have access to land where it is legal to shoot, you must go to a shooting range. Many states have public shooting ranges, but most are private businesses and clubs. Target shooting is prohibited on federal land. Shooting ranges have safety rules that are strictly enforced, and many ranges offer training if you don’t know how to operate your firearm.

Finally, here in Kansas and throughout the United States, shooting and hunting are a tradition that is passed down from generation to generation. Many people in our country are taught from an early age to respect firearms and use them safely.

I’m glad to live in a state where our Second Amendment right is not more heavily infringed upon, and I don’t believe any additional infringement is necessary. There are already plenty of laws restricting the ownership and use of firearms.

I would encourage everyone to learn more about firearms and firearm safety, even if you never intend to own one. A good way to start learning the basics of firearm safety is by taking a hunter education class or a concealed carry class. More information can be found at the following links:

http://www.kdwpt.state.ks.us/Other-Services/Education/Hunter

http://ag.ks.gov/public-safety/concealedcarry

 

Chris Franklin

*Franklin is a former Bulletin staffer

cfrankli@g.emporia.edu

 

Sam Maurer
Director of Debate at ESU

When you ask a debate coach about the presidential debates, I suppose the question is obvious – who won? We love winning in this country, not just doing it, but also the concept. It simplifies things. We love it in our sports, our reality shows, our videogames, our work. Troublingly, we have started to love it in our politics as well.

Think about the media’s treatment of campaign fundraising. It’s not uncommon to see news media report on what each candidate made in donations last month. Why? As a voter, should I pick the candidate that can get the most money donated to them or the one that represents my interests? Why should I mediate my politics through which candidate can more likely win Florida?

The combination of the 24-hour news cycle, widespread access to the Internet, social networks where political “news” is proliferated and increasingly sophisticated polling systems have left us inundated with information about the election. Every day there is a new poll of a key demographic. Reporters measure controversy and interest in statements made during presidential debates by the Tweet-per-minute metric.

It is a terrific thing that we have access to so much information. However, I do not think that we have quite figured-out what our role in this sea of data should be.

I worry that a large portion of the American voting population has become fans of political campaigns instead of interested participants. In other words, we care too much about predicting a winner and not enough about who we want to be president.

Presidential debates, then, are a big deal to us. If we learn to interpret presidential politics through the lens of the fan, the debates are the games. Only during the debates is that a true competition between the two platforms – a three-game series to determine a winner!

But for all of the assumptive expectations that we have about presidential debates, they seem to disappoint. Candidates use vagaries and heart-felt meaningless statements like, “I support freedom,” to side-step important policy questions. Talking heads droll on and on about who won and lost the debate, but randomly select criteria for determining who won.

Perhaps the gulf between the fantasy of presidential debates (as the zenith of political deliberation) and the reality (messy, Twitter-driven, randomly judged sound-byte Olympics with no discernible form of engagement) there is an important reminder for the American political (fan) base of each party: this is not a game. Despite the up-to-the-minute polling, Nate Silver and real-time Twitter monitors, this is not a presidential points contest where the electoral scoreboard dictates the winner. This is the future of our country.

We cannot afford to continue to approach our own engagement in politics as fans and our parties as fashion statements. We cannot because it’s not working – debates pivot on simplistic turns-of-phrase like, “The 1980s called and they want their foreign policy back,” and, “Binders full of women,” instead of concrete, political proposals that are far less sexy. That we want so desperately to simplify politics to the red and blue teams does not pave-over its complexity.

Until we learn to expect more from politicians and ourselves in the electoral process, we will not get any more than what the campaign and their debates have become – America’s oldest reality television show.

 

Michelle Wilk

I have recommendations concerning Kenzie Templeton’s sex column “Perfectly Normal, Natural Things.” I feel that she needs to refrain from passing judgment upon any form of sexual act. Her use of “skanky” in her most recent article was especially rude and slut-shaming. She may have just alienated some, if not a majority, of her readers.

In addition, her vocabulary is unprofessional, such as “bumping uglies,” “wee bit of fabric,” and “boinking.” If she is to write a sex column and be taken seriously, she should employ the appropriate language, instead of skirting around the topic by using poorly thought-out euphemisms.

However, not only is her language inappropriate, the content is also perpetuating rape culture. The heteronormative undertones are barely excusable, but her encouragement of “a friendly ass grab” is definitely not excusable. It condones sexual harassment.

She should also research before writing an article. For example, she claims if “you can’t wait until you’re back at your apartment or dorm…you’re more than likely about to experience some of the most erotic sex of your life.”

While it is understood in the article that the ensuing sex is consensual, this may not always be the case. The sex could be coercive or completely non-consensual. In addition, research has actually been done to counter her point, as measured by orgasm (for the reference, just ask). Therefore, the assumption that erotic sex is equivalent to impulsive sex is rather unfounded.

Her journalistic, professional integrity is undermined by this article, especially when she states, “Like any good photojournalist, I tried to snap a picture, but I was too unskilled and it was too dark. Plus I felt like a total pervert.” With the advent of cell phone cameras, “civilian journalism,” and the internet especially, ethics has seemed to become secondary to the urge of capturing a moment. However, with her training as a photojournalist, she should be educated in the appropriate ethical ramifications of taking a photograph, such as the requirement of consent of those photographed.

Because of her education, she should understand the implications of taking a photograph of such a sensitive situation. Her addition of, “Plus I felt like a total pervert,” does not excuse the possible unethical nature of her intentions. This is commentary that should be kept private, not divulged in an article.

My recommendations regarding “Perfectly Normal, Natural Things” are for her to alter the intention of the column to be more sex positive with an educational objective. For example, she could have a column regarding communication with friends about how to handle sexual situations so instances of “friends having sex while (she) was in the room, car, hot tub, etc” do not happen.

She should present a more professional attitude while writing this column if she wishes it to be taken as a serious piece of journalism (e.g. not using phrases such as “crotchal region”).

Third, she should reduce her heteronormative undertones and take into consideration that her audience is extremely diverse. My final recommendation is that she diminish, if not completely eliminate, anecdotes from her column instead of providing them as evidence or justification for her articles.

*Column is also endorsed by Bethany Bailey, Katie Penny, and Czarli Rex