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

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

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

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

Illustration by Ellen Weiss

Apparently, Gov. Sam Brownback sucks, at least in the opinion of Emma Sullivan, a  high school senior at Shawnee Mission East, who posted to Twitter her views on Brownback after hearing him speak at the capitol last week.

Though the members of The Bulletin have our own individual opinions of the governor, we were united in outrage at the response his office had to her words.

Instead of taking the more mature “sticks and stones” route, his office decided on the “tattle-tale” option, which entailed contacting her principal and angrily informing them of the student’s words. Sullivan was then ordered by her principal to write an apology to the governor, which she refused to do.

This stirred up an enormous controversy. Sullivan was reprimanded for exercising her first amendment rights, and this should never be so. No one should ever be intimidated by the government or scared away from taking advantage of our rights as American citizens. It goes against everything for which our country stands.

Beyond the civil rights issue, it is further disturbing that the high school principal did not stand up for the student. Instead, the principal was either too afraid not to punish Sullivan, or was just as irrational as Brownback’s staff in their overreaction to the situation.

Though Sullivan’s words may have hurt Brownback’s feelings, it was her opinion. She wasn’t disrupting class or spray-painting “Brownback Suckz” on the side of the building. She has a legitimate first-amendment to her opinion. Just because she’s a student doesn’t mean she should have to hang up her constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door.

But Brownback has since apologized to Sullivan, recognizing that the first amendment is among the most “treasured freedoms” of Americans. Kudos to him.

Unfortunately, this incident has shown that Brownback was not keeping a close eye on the actions of his office – actions that have embarrassed him and our state.

And though we respect his apology, we would also like to hear an expression of regret from the communications manager who found the Twitter post and reacted so severely, or even from the principal, who should have seen the situation for what it truly was.

Send article as PDF to

Matt Cook

If there is one place where the discussion of politics is taboo, it is at a bar. But this doesn’t prevent anyone with a clue to pipe up when C-Span flashes the latest GOP polls. One might remark about how studious, frugal Mitt Romney seems and make light of his Mormon faith. Or one might spout a few lines on Herman Cain’s jolly demeanor and his ability to split the black American vote with Obama when the time comes.

No matter the time and place, people feel that GOP debates are the best indication of a person’s prospective political prowess. It means very little. These debates, as well as the Democratic debates in previous election years, are a series of anecdotes on the state of America – where it is going and what each candidate plans to do to make it better. It invests the hopes and dreams of American citizens into a televised and semi-choreographed dance with inflated commercial breaks. Its entertainment – flash without substance. Perfect for bar room banter.

Who these candidates are is impossible to determine from a debate as politicians lie often, and they lie well. Some will suggest that, despite their apparent shortcomings, debates are the best way to gauge a candidate, and perhaps they’re right. If one’s election criterion is based solely on a candidate’s ability to navigate questions or their skill at turn-of-phrase, then sure, it is probably the best way to determine viability.

But what debates cannot accurately depict is the ability for a candidate to write, propose and pass legislation. Debates do not invent policy makers. They only catch them in contradiction.

The chronic obsession with federal policy making has galvanized the populace around the election of a president. Granted, the president holds more power than any other elected official. They have the capability of ending the world with a swift nuclear first-strike and can veto legislation, subsequently stalling its progress. We tend to forget the government that exists in our very own town.

Lyon County, the City of Emporia and Emporia State University are each governing bodies, the policies of which most directly and dramatically affect us every day. These are the level of government that we can see with our own eyes.

I believe that the Republican presidential debates are another game show in which our highest personal values – strength, courage, compassion, honesty – are thrust onto a handful of men and women. And though we might invest a similar faith in local government figures, it is to us directly that they must answer on the weekends, between classes or around town.

The immediacy and power of our potential backlash against local misconduct is the understanding that keeps us relevant as voters and students. All the while, we are in awe of the ongoing contest for a new national king-figure.

By all means, watch the debates and vote if you feel like it, but watch them as an Emporia State student and as an individual with particular needs – not as a spectator. Evaluate their qualifications in a similar manner that you would anyone interviewing for a job. See beyond the fluff and pomp, the misdirection and the character attacks. Investigate their political past.

This information is at your disposal. And, in a time when Emporia State is also seeking a president, apply the same skepticism and curiosity to anyone who could affect your future.

We are the ones who must keep our leaders accountable, and it starts by owning our politics.

Matt Cook

Send article as PDF to

Ellen Weiss

I attended the third and penultimate forum for our latest presidential candidate, Karla Hughes of Morehead State University, and I have to say, I’m noticing some definite patterns in these forums.

For example, all of the candidates thus far have talked about their Kansas or small town roots, and they have talked about their experiences. The candidates give the best responses they can with their limited knowledge of the nuts and bolts of Emporia. And the candidates have talked about community – a lot.

Hughes was no exception. In fact, she suggested that many of our problems could be fixed by a more cooperative relationship with the Emporia community. This idea came up while discussing how to recruit minority students, how to increase enrollment and increase student retention, and what she would do during the first 30 days on the job.

And while I agree that the relationship between the school and the rest of the town could be greatly improved, I found that her ideas were rather generic.

When she did get specific, her answers were almost strange. For example, she discussed care packages for students that could be made from products from local stores.

Care packages? I appreciate the idea, but it definitely underwhelmed me.

The rest of Hughes’ responses were vague. Besides talking about community, I recall her saying repeatedly that she had experience. She gave examples of her experience, but I wanted to know more about her than that. I wanted to get a rounder impression of her expertise, but I feel like I got a list with only two words – community and experience.

There’s no way I’m the only one left unsatisfied. When a Bulletin reporter asked a reasonable question about why she would be a good candidate for our school, Hughes gave a quick and dismissive, “I can’t answer that,” type of response. I don’t know if it’s because he looked like a student or what, but I was slightly taken aback by the sudden disappearance of her sweet-as-sugar demeanor.

When asked about the poor enrollment and what she would do to fix the problem, she finally got my attention with her response. Ironically enough, she used the same phrase that Diacon used, one that I had a problem with last week. “We can’t be all things to all people,” she said.

I can’t help but feel let down when candidates deliver these statements that are a hybrid of realism and pessimism.

Please don’t get me wrong – she didn’t put me off. She knew what she was talking about and was confident in her responses. She was happy and relatable, and I also liked the references to professional literature and other books she has read. It let me know that she had an interest in her work that went beyond the 9 to 5.

I just left feeling uninspired.

As per usual, I encourage all students to read her CV, research her and watch the video of the forum online at Esubulletin.com, and form your own opinion.

Ellen Weiss

Send article as PDF to

Illustration by Ellen Weiss

On Tuesday, the Faculty Senate unanimously passed a resolution that challenges the recent decision by the Kansas Board of Regents to approve pay raises for the presidents of the six regents universities. They are even considering sending the resolution to the other regents universities to see if they would like to follow suit.

The Bulletin is thoroughly pleased with the senate’s actions, not because they are “complaining,” but because they are organizing and officiating a well thought out response. This is exactly what Faculty Senate is for – to voice the concerns of people who might not ordinarily be heard.

It took chutzpah for the Faculty Senate to stand up to KBOR. The Board of Regents is relatively powerful in its decision-making abilities, and probably doesn’t need everyone’s approval to move forward with its choices. This makes the senate’s initiative all the more impressive – they are speaking up against an injustice to the educational system.

In addition to having the courage to oppose such an influential institution, The Bulletin would also like commend Faculty Senate on the way in which their argument was worded. In addition to being impressively eloquent and professional, it was brief and to the point. This lends to their argument. They don’t need a laundry list of explanations for their disapproval because the reasons are implicit.

They even bring up a couple points that we had not thought of. For example, it states that the increases are unreasonable “whether it is supported by private or public monies.” While we, as students, have been outraged by the idea that the money may have come from tuition, we agree with the senate that these raises are wrong, despite their funding sources.

The senate also composed this response in a timely fashion. They have given KBOR a generous buffer to cancel or alter the raises before they are enacted next January. The Bulletin certainly hopes that the powers that be will realize the upset they have caused amongst the people of Kansas, and repeal the action before it is too late.

For many members of The Bulletin, this is the first instance we have heard of people standing up to KBOR. The majority of us have instead heard most people mumbling under their breath about the injustice of it all.

This should not be so.

The Bulletin has done all it can by writing staff editorials disapproving of these actions, and the Faculty Senate is doing all it can by passing the resolution.

If you, too, disagree with what the Board of Regents has done, we beg that you do all in your power to join us in voicing your opinion and convince KBOR to repeal this ridiculous action.

Send article as PDF to

Matt Cook

You cannot mistake whooping cough for anything else. It is the deep, throaty wail of a brave and often foolish student. It bounces off the walls of a classroom and brings pause to a teacher’s lecture. Sometimes a ring of empty desks surround the student stricken with the affliction. We, as lay persons, know two things about whooping cough – it is contagious and it is miserable.

The health of students during the fall and winter seasons is of particular concern. Some may remember ESU’s campaign to inform and quell the spread of H1N1 a few years ago.

Sickness is both an epidemic of fear and prevention, and with precious little time until the end of the semester, each class is valuable. Students need to be mindful of their health.

For those without health insurance, going to an emergency room is less acceptable than missing class. Just showing up will often cost you $100 and there is no guarantee that anything a doctor can provide will help you. Indeed, the cost of health care for students seems a luxury that no part-time job could possibly manage.

There are alternatives. The newly established Student Health Center in South Morris Hall provides a cheap substitute for traditional doctor visits and commonsense preventative care are both methods of defense against illness.

But 21st century America, with its expanding life expectancy and waist lines, and its impatience and inconsiderate nature have bread a generation of students unwilling to take even the most basic steps at personal wellbeing. I care not to speculate why. I, myself, would not be a candidate for “Emporia State’s Healthiest Student.” Sometimes even our best efforts are not good enough.

See now the student crouched low in their seat, bags – nay, luggage – under their eyes from a restless night of cold and hot sweats, their notes a jumble of words inspired by night-time decongestants. But they show up. Their cleanliness and healthy habits have done nothing to prevent the inevitable flu. But there is a quiz today, and the only thing more powerful than their headache is their determination to keep their grade afloat.

See now another student, sick and unaware, their general apathy has spilled over into their personal health and has threatened those around them.

We all know these students. I ask them to be reasonable. I ask the students to regulate one another and to encourage friends to take care of themselves. Professors are often far more understanding than they appear. Some require documentation of a doctor visit, but most are willing to listen and all are sympathetic to a genuinely sick student.

I ask you be considerate of the students around you, who, like you, want to weather the rest of this semester in relative health. Stay at home and rest, if not for yourself, then for the greater good of the Emporia State community.

Matt Cook

Send article as PDF to

Ellen Weiss

Todd Diacon, the second finalist for ESU’s presidency, paid us a visit this week, and I attended the open forum.

Similar to Michael “Shamrock” Shonrock, the first finalist to visit, he had an appealing level of experience and similar generic, encouraging responses to the same questions that had been asked last week.

Unlike Shonrock, he was not as bubbly, humorous or personable. And, more importantly, there were a couple red flags that went off when he answered questions.

First, when asked what he would do to market ESU as more than a teacher’s college, Diacon responded that ESU should know what its strengths are, and focus on and advertise those strengths. He summed it up with, “We can’t be all things to all people.”

This rubbed me the wrong way. He made it sound like he would simply give up on the programs that weren’t already spectacular. He was right, though – we can’t be all things to all people. But it doesn’t mean we should forget about our lesser-known degree programs. If we don’t advertise and encourage growth in other fields, how will they ever fulfill their potential of excellence?

Second, he repeatedly referred to his love of history. How could he resist? He is thoroughly educated in the field, has years of experience and is a Fulbright Scholar. And while that is all very wonderful and impressive, it seemed to dominate his interests and play a large role in his strategizing.

For example, he stated that that the first 30 days of his presidency would be spent away from Emporia, researching the history of Kansas. While I agree that it’s good to be thoroughly educated about the place in which you’re going to be working, it worried me that he seems more concerned with the past than the present.

Not only that, but why couldn’t he acquaint himself with Emporia by actually being in Emporia?

Then he said that when he was done researching, he would be sure to meet up with “legislators, alumni, etc.,” who would have an influence on the school’s income and public relations. Unfortunately, he never mentioned meeting with faculty and students. This was also very worrisome.

Don’t get me wrong, Diacon made it very clear that he is a good listener and understands that the administration works for the students. He just didn’t seem very excited to be around us.

To me, it seems like he likes students, he likes being an administrator, and he likes Kansas. But it’s obvious that he loves history.

Though he knew his stuff and seemed to have only practiced a little bit for the questions, I generally preferred Shonrock’s sharp wit and passion.

But don’t just take my word for it – make sure to check out the full video of the forum at Esubulletin.com. Make your own informed opinion.

Ellen Weiss

Send article as PDF to

Illustration by Ellen Weiss

This month, ESU has and will be featuring several movies about food. It seems like a fun-themed and progressive way to promote health consciousness.

The first movie shown was the documentary “Super Size Me.” If you haven’t seen or heard of it, filmmaker Morgan Spurlock volunteered to experiment with his body and find out what would happen if he ate McDonald’s for breakfast, lunch and dinner for 30 days.

Although one-sided, this movie was based on current-at-the-time statistics and reliable information. He attempted to show the impact that fast food chains have on our lives – sociologically, physically, economically, etc.

Having seen the movie, a few members of The Bulletin staff have noticed one particular company that Spurlock criticized as being a cheap and low-quality food caterer – Sodexo.

Sound familiar? It should.

Sodexo provides all of the slop that fills ESU’s troughs.

Though we appreciate the fact that Sodexo is probably keeping our tuition lower than it could be, isn’t it a little scary that we are being fed by a company that, in addition to being a primary caterer to prisons, has been publicly criticized for its poor quality?

The Bulletin is keeping in mind that “Super Size Me” is seven years old, and that Sodexo, as well as the fast food industry, have no doubt made a move toward healthier menus. But this doesn’t change the fact that America is still one of the unhealthiest nations in the world.

We, as college students, are at a crucial point in our lives where we are finally able to make up our own minds about what goes into our mouths. But until we are released from the clutches of a meal plan, our free will is limited by the food options the cafeteria provides. Which, honestly, aren’t the healthiest in the world.

Case in point – pizza. All the time.

Even beyond the cafeteria, college students feel constrained by time, which “limits” us to the fast foods.

Thanks to Sesame Street, we know that cookies are a “sometimes snack.” But who will stand by to remind us that “McGangbangs” should also be eaten in moderation – no sober person should consume one.

We’d like to take a moment to beg you, fellow students, to think about what you are putting into your body.

If we can’t eat healthily, we should exercise. If we can’t exercise, we should at least resist fast food. Get a physical. Just do something.

And remember that we aren’t always going to be young, spry and indestructible. Develop healthy habits that will carry beyond college and prosper.

Send article as PDF to