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

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

Andrew Potter

Test.

This word strikes fear into the heart of many college students, especially types like mid-terms and final exams.

But the fear these things produce is in no way comparable to the fear that is created inside students at the middle and high school level, as tests often determine the outcome of students’ futures. Test grades control which college they will attend and if they will be able to achieve their career goals.

This, of course, seems to fall into contradiction with the general theory that is happening in many teachers’ minds these days. Somehow, the idea of teaching towards a particular test has burrowed into the minds of teachers. They feel the need to follow that mindset, often times forgetting the true purpose of their jobs.

They operate under these false pretenses in order to bring in praise and additional funding for the school. For some reason, this is perceived to be a great thing.

This style of teaching is not the necessary requirement for being an instructor, beyond having a college degree and the desire to help students achieve their full potentials.

Our job as teachers is to make kids love the knowledge given to them and to create a sense of want in their souls to move forward, learn what they can and find something they can do with passion. It does no good to teach students how to read a passage and then answer five response questions. How does this help anyone?

Some college students are fresh out of high school, and I have to ask, did these tests actually help prepare you? Or did they smother out the desire to learn more?

The other question we really need to ask is whether this is the teacher’s fault or the misusage of valuable resources due to what the principal or superintendent believes to be correct.  I believe that most teachers follow the rules given to them by the principal and his cohorts, creating an environment that allows the preservation of the school, not the students’ learning ability.

Some schools even have teachers test their students three times a month in order to prepare them for college, which only transforms the pupils into test-taking robots who retain a small bit of information and then forget it soon after.

We need to show and tell them what kind of harm this is having on our future students.  We need to, as college students and future teachers, try to fix this broken machine. We need to accept that our schools may not gain money, but our students will learn to love learning.

Andrew Potter

Send article as PDF to

Ellen Weiss

Yesterday I went to the open forum Michael Shonrock, the first presidential candidate to come to Emporia State. I’ve already nicknamed him “Shamrock.” Perhaps he’s the right person to bring ESU a bit of luck.

Though I can be very skeptical of those political hot air bag types, my first impression was that he was a pretty cool guy.

The audience asked some softball questions and set him up to deliver a few classic lines about community and involvement, yadda yadda yadda.

But it wasn’t his general answers that really hooked me – it was the small things.

The first detail I noticed and appreciated about Shonrock’s presentation was the table set up at the head of the room with chairs and microphones, but I didn’t once see him sitting there. I don’t know if there was some sort of technical difficulty, but my feeling was that he felt more comfortable being close to the audience, speaking loud enough for the entire room to hear and being able to walk around and gesture. It was nice.

Second, he used the adjective “passionate” to describe himself several times throughout the interview. I definitely see the value of passionate people, so I was interested to hear more about what qualifies him to say this. A good sign was that he was involved in many student organizations, as well as a fraternity, when he was in school.

After the forum, when I approached him personally, I discovered that his undergrad degree was in geography, with a minor in chemistry. This delighted me. These little tidbits told me that when he is interested in something, he goes all the way to learn and immerse himself as much as possible. This was also nice.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, he had no hesitation in reciprocating when I went in for a high five. True, it would’ve been weird if he had flat-out refused to touch my hand, and true, it may have been weird for me to ask for one in the first place, but that was what I liked about him. I felt comfortable enough to go for it. He didn’t talk down to me, and unlike many people in power, he didn’t intimidate me. Again, nice.

Of course, I’m not going to be satisfied with this brief first encounter. Before fully endorsing him, I’ll probably do some research about his actual political history and policies.     It’s unfortunate that I have no way to compare this first candidate against the others. I can’t even gather some basic information on the other contenders – because it’s a secret.

All in all, Shamrock was well-spoken, witty and had a good sense of humor. His answers were reassuring and on-topic, and nothing seemed to scare him. This guy seems to genuinely like our school and believe in our potential.

But don’t just take my word for it – the interview is posted on The Bulletin website at Esubulletin.com. Form your own opinion and be sure to keep up with future forums with candidates.

Ellen Weiss

Send article as PDF to

Illustration by Ellen Weiss

The Kansas Board of Regents recently approved a “cost of living” increase as well general pay raises to the salaries for regent university presidents. But these were no ordinary raises – some received as much as 14 percent increases. Whether you ask “How?” or “Why?” the answers are ludicrous.

So how will these raises be funded?  The answer – students’ pockets.

That’s right. Even though we are already suffering in this time of economic crisis, our tuition will be used to make sure our presidents are getting their “due.” Which means our tuition is probably going to increase yet again.

It is as if those in power are taking advantage of the fact that higher education is essential in this day and age. We are being treated like some sort of cash cow – tuition ripe and ready to be raised whenever they need some extra cash.

But the students are not the only ones getting the short end of the stick. Professors’ salaries have gone unchanged for at least a few years. The Bulletin understands that KBOR has no control over their pay, but this does not change the fact that deserving instructors must sit back and watch as the position of president is rewarded and doted on, while they are left struggling to make ends meet.

Why approve such a controversial action? The answers The Bulletin has received were not satisfactory.

First, we were told that the position must be more appealing to attract higher quality candidates. But shouldn’t we expect a president to be passionate about their position despite the pay? After all, teachers across the country do their damnedest to educate their students, and they do it for next to nothing.

Second, the regents presidents’ salaries were increased in order to match those of neighboring universities. This is also ridiculous. If we are able to hire qualified persons for the pay they were receiving, why would it have to be increased? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

We are not saying that these university officials are not hard-working individuals that deserve to be justly paid, but this is not the right time, economically or ethically.

These presidents may have wished for better compensation, but the economy is based on the idea that there are unlimited wants and limited resources. In the immortal words of the Rolling Stones, you can’t always get what you want.

During this time of protest, it is our duty to criticize and question those in power. Where will it end? How much more will students have to sacrifice so that those in charge can afford to purchase that new car?

The Board of Regents has shown that the interests of the few are dominating the interests of the many, and they are rubbing it in our faces. This lack of consideration and foresight is insulting to both the Kansas community and to democracy.

One thing is clear, the Board of Regents must learn to choose more carefully and with more discrimination where our resources are being used.

Send article as PDF to

Andrew Potter

It’s hard to miss what is happening on our streets and near our congressional buildings these days. Scruffy current and former students hold signs that decry the government for possible corruption, denounce the “1 percent” and their capitalistic ways, and more importantly, the problems that come up with trying to pay off student loans and debt.

They call it the Occupy Wall Street movement, and sometimes they call it a protest. It has spread not only throughout the United States, but also overseas to countries that have apparently tired of their governments.

But this “movement” seems to be nothing more than students who are sick and tired of not being able to pay off their student debts, or find jobs that pay well.

Do these jobs exist? Yes, of course they do. Are there people standing outside with a placard with your last name on it, waiting to whisk you away to a fabulous office in a town full of amazing bars and restaurants?

No. That will not happen. Nor has it ever happened, as this is not how our society works.

The truth is that we need to actively seek these jobs, and of course, to actually start at the bottom. I hear of teaching jobs in western Kansas that were once offering to help pay off student loans, but no one took them.

Why? Because they were in western Kansas, not Portland or Seattle or any of those other hip towns.

As about-to-be graduates and soon-to-be job hunters, we need to understand the fact that the world out there is not all puppy dogs and happy rainbows, but rather, something far more different. There will not be people out there willing to hire you at the industry middle level, ready to help you pay back your student loans in as little as a year.

We cannot leave here thinking that simply because we have accounting degrees, we are going to get a job with a fancy high-level corporation. We need to come to terms with the idea that we may be doing bookkeeping for a small, second-hand clothing shop.

The entitlement theory, that we are entitled to things after graduation, is a dead theory. It leads us nowhere, and I hope for it to die in its tracks soon.

Our mission here is to accept and change our future, not to blame others.

My name is Andrew Potter, and I really don’t give a shit about the 1 percent in this country, because every second I spend thinking about them is one second I don’t spend on myself, and one second further away from my own goals.

Maybe you’ll do the same.

Andrew Potter

Send article as PDF to

Matt Cook

The politics of Emporia State are more diverse than they pretend to be. Yet somehow there is a pervasive belief that white, conservative America dominates the discourse surrounding politics at ESU and has glossed over the liberal and non-white elements that exist. Even absent the artificial distinction of “liberal” or “conservative,” we miss the boat on affecting change.

The absent element is activism. In particular, the student body seems silent when obvious affronts to our wellbeing arise. Some small factions may spark conversations around campus, but demonstration and protest are barely a whisper on the breath of our students.

Students often don’t see the possibility for change that exists in their everyday lives. Activism takes many shapes. It is not merely sign waving and chorus chanting. Writing letters to the powers that be, running for office, flyer distribution and even an informal discussion group all constitute a political act.

But, let’s assume that students are already aware of the power they possess. When was the last time a noticeable body of students aggressively expressed their political ideas? Even hot button issues like smoking bans and tuition hikes have conjured only looks of disdain and frustration, but have never moved us to organize and demand.

Perhaps it is because we are happy.

It is possible that our school is far more accommodating than we are willing to admit. We do, after all, pay far less than most state sponsored schools in Kansas, let alone nationwide. We do provide a safe atmosphere for our students and facilitate an easier transition to the professional world for certain degrees.

But contentment is not a virtue. The status quo may very well be a place of comfort, but every great historical example of positive change has been born out of a desire for something even better. If you find yourself happy, imagine more.

It is true that not everything needs to be overturned, detached and disassembled. What we should consider is how important it is to simply exercise our voices, and since not every student is afforded a deciding vote at every Associated Student Government meeting, it is up to us to enforce change the only way we can – a demand on the administration.

Maybe it only appears that we should be vocal but not about any particular thing. And though the democratic way is something to fight for in itself, I do believe there is plenty to fight for on campus.

Matt Cook

Send article as PDF to

Sisi Huang

It is not often that our university faces a tragedy as terrible as the recent fire that took the lives of two international students. While many may have taken a moment to feel sad and have since moved on, one student in particular, a member of The Bulletin staff, has taken this tragedy and turned it into an opportunity for hope and support.

Sisi Huang, president of the Chinese Student Association and business manager for The Bulletin, has orchestrated the creation of a memorial fund – the Phoenix Charity Foundation. The PCF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that exists to supports the families of international students in emergency situations.

Sisi’s response was quick, having organized the foundation and acquired its IRS certification within one week of the accident. Putting aside her own grief over the loss of two friends, she had no hesitation whatsoever in her reaction.

Her work, which was accomplished in such a short time, is an outstanding addition to the many programs and organizations for international students that ESU has taken years to accumulate.

Her actions are amazing, not only in their immediacy and incredible selflessness, but in the context in which they are occurring.

During this time of economic crisis, when people are protesting the legal theft of their income and clinging onto every dollar they earn, it is not common for someone, especially a college student, to be fighting for the financial wellbeing of others. She used every resource she had, including her knowledge of business, to accomplish something that not every student could or would do in a similar situation.

Sisi has set an example for us all. Though this is a difficult time in our lives, we cannot forget the importance of altruism. Though we may be strapped for time, we cannot forget to volunteer. Though we may be swimming in debt, we cannot forget to donate.

The Bulletin is honored to have someone of such a high caliber work at our humble paper. Sisi is the kind of person who will take an emotional trauma and, instead of wallowing in sadness, funnel it into productivity and strength.

Her cheerful personality brightens our lives every week, and her airtight organization has been essential to the smooth running of our publication. Now, people around the world will feel the benefits of her love.

Sisi knew what had to be done, and she did it. We are so proud of her.

Send article as PDF to